BCC Minutes 05/22-23/2007 R
May 22-23, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida,
May 22-23, 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 8:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Torn Henning
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle
Donna Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the Board
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
\..1:11.")\ I II <1'
..
f"":r ,"." ."""""
Jr,,\
AGENDA
May 22, 2007
8:00 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 PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 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."
Page 1
May 22, 2007
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
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
CERT AIN 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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. April 24, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. May 1,2007 - BCC/City of Naples Joint Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by John Torre, Director, Communications and Customer
Relations, of the 2007 Citizen Survey.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Page 2
May 22, 2007
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. An Ordinance
requesting authorization for Artesia Naples Community Development
District Board of Supervisors to exercise certain additional powers for
persons and property residing in the Artesia Naples Community
Development District (CDD).
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-A-
2005-AR-7422 (KD) Larry Abbo, as vice president of Prime Homes at
Porto fino Falls, Ltd., represented by David R. Underhill, Jr. of Banks
Engineering and Robert D. Pritt of Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A.; and William
L. Hoover, as president of Catalina Land Group Inc., who is represented by
David R. Underhill, Jr., of Banks Engineering and Richard D. Yovanovich
of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A., are requesting a rezone from the
Rural Agricultural (A) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
districts to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning
district, to add 20.26 acres and 80 dwelling units to the Wolf Creek RPUD
for a total of 167.96 acres and 671 dwelling units, which may be single- or
multi-family dwellings, and amend the PUD document and associated
Master Plan. The applicant also proposes to reduce the maximum height of
multi-family structures from 42 feet and 3 stories to 38 feet and 2 stories;
and eliminate nursing homes, private schools, adult living facilities and
churches as allowable conditional uses. The subject property is located on
the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one half mile west
of Collier Boulevard in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Companion Item to the Falls of Porto fino
Community Development District (CDD))
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
consider adoption of an Ordinance establishing the Falls of Portofino
Community Development District (CDD) pursuant to Section 190.005,
Page 3
May 22, 2007
Florida Statutes. This item is a companion to item RZ-2005-AR-7422 Wolf
Creek PUD.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Beautification Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
C. Appointment of member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory
Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners indicate intent to
renegotiate the County Attorney Employment Agreement with David C.
Weigel and approve an Addendum to the Agreement. (Commissioner
Coletta)
F. Commissioner Henning requesting the Board of County Commissioners to
approve and authorize reimbursement of reasonable legal fees and costs.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners accept the findings of the report entitled Collier
County Impact Fee Indexing Study prepared by Tindale-Oliver and
Associates, Incorporated, in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., as
directed by the Board of County Commissioners, and direct the County
Manager or his designee, to finalize the study, prepare the necessary
amendments to Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, to incorporate the changes to the indexing methodologies and
corresponding changes to the impact fee rate schedules for consideration by
the Board of County Commissioners at a future meeting(s).(Joseph K.
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development and Environmental
Services Division)
Page 4
May 22, 2007
B. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommendation that the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a budget
amendment totaling $250,000 from FY07 Fund 186 reserves to assist with
the establishment of a Florida State University School of Medicine rural
health training center in Immokalee. (Companion item to Community
Redevelopment Agency approval of expenditure under l4A to be considered
following action on l4A) (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development and Environmental Services Division)
C. The County Managers Zoning Department staff would like discuss with the
Board of County Commissioners, the impacts of the current requirements of
the Land Development Code as they relate to the Mixed Use Project (MUP)
approval process permissible in the Bayshore and Bayshore Triangle
Overlay Zoning Districts, specifically as they relate to the Arboretum
Village project which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners
on September 12,2006. They also request affirmation that a 3 or more year
time frame for physical construction of this project, as now proposed by the
developer and as evidenced by the initial SDP submittal for administrative
review, does not conflict with the intent of the Board when they approved
this project in terms of the awarding of density bonus units, and furthermore
that it does not conflict with the Boards potential plans to build a parking
garage in the Bayshore redevelopment area as discussed at the public
hearing approving this project. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development & Environmental Services Division)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept an interim
report from the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee and provide
the Committee direction for future efforts. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development & Environmental Services
Division)
E. Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase with
George P. Langford, as Trustee of the R. R. Land Trust dated the 1 st day of
December, 1998 for 55.35 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $10,687,700. (Len Price,
Administrator, Administrative Services)
F. Recommendation to approve the Winchester Head Multi-parcel project as a
Category A project on the current Conservation Collier Active Acquisition
List and direction for the County Manager or his designee to actively pursue
Page 5
May 22, 2007
properties within this project, considering conditions provided by the Board
of County Commissioners and a risk reduction approach developed by staff.
(Len Price, Administrator, Administrative Services)
G. Recommendation to conduct the Conservation Collier Annual Public
Meeting to provide an update on the Programs past activities, to solicit
proposals and applications, and to approve the Fifth Cycle Target Protection
Areas (TP A) mailing strategy. (Len Price, Administrator, Administrative
Services)
H. Recommendation to enter into a supplemental agreement with the South
Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) related to a September 23,
2003 agreement that conveys or causes to be conveyed at no cost to Collier
County fee simple interest to 640 contiguous acres, more or less, for Off
Highway Vehicle (OHV) Use and approve any and all budget amendments
deemed necessary in association with this action. (Marla Ramsey,
Administrator, Public Services)
I. This item to be heard at 9:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve the
Interlocal Agreements between Collier County and the City of Naples, City
of Marco, East Naples, and North Naples Fire Departments for an Advanced
Life Support Engine Partnership Program.
J. Recommendation to approve an agreement with the District School Board of
Collier County for transporting school-age recreation program participants at
an estimated cost of $90,000. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public
Services) [Item ofInterest-Commissioner Henning]
K. To seek Board direction on the acquisition of a parcel of property owned by
the City of Marco Island as a result of a follow-up discussion with the City
of Marco Island. (Project No. 60001)
L. Recommendation to accept and approve a 2005 Disaster Recovery Sub grant
Agreement between the Department of Community Affairs and Collier
County for $2,339,882 and an associated budget amendment to implement
the Disaster Recovery Initiative programs, and to adopt a Resolution
approving and authorizing the Chairman to sign the Agreement, and to
delegate to the County Manager or his designee the authority to submit
required reports or other documents which are solely ministerial in nature.
(Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
Page 6
May 22, 2007
M. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Adopt a
Resolution Declaring a Valid Public Purpose for Accepting Voluntary
Donations Made Directly to the County for Affordable-Workforce Housing,
Establishing an Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust Fund and Providing
General Guidelines for Use of Monies in the Affordable-Workforce Housing
Trust Fund. (Marla Ramsey, Administrator, Public Services)
N. Recommendation to sign the formal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) application for $1,639,225 in HMGP funds to be used towards the
construction of the new Collier County Emergency Operations Center
(EOC)
O. Recommendation to approve budget amendments recognizing the Fiscal
Year 2007-08 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
entitlement funding, and State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program
(SHIP) allocations. ($7,173,560)
P. Providing requested information about potential for contributing $500,000
from Conservation Collier funds to assist the City of Naples in building trail
and bridge on City-owned land as part of the Gordon River Greenway.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. That the Board of County Commissioners consider the results of the survey
of Goodland residents and determine whether or not to proceed with
proposed amendments to the Goodland Zoning Overlay as well as the
creation of a Goodland Advisory Board.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. This item to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the expenditure of $250,000 from
FY07 Fund 186 reserves to assist with the establishment of a Florida State
University School of Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee.
Page 7
May 22, 2007
(Companion item to the Board of County Commissioners budget
amendment approval under lOB to be considered before lOB)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Arezzo at Tuscany Reserve.
2) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Silver Lakes Phase Two-G
3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water facility for
Forest Glen, Parcel 7.
4) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water facility for
Forest Glen, Parcel 4
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to grant
final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements
for the final plat of Mediterra Unit One, the roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to grant
Page 8
May 22, 2007
final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements
for the final plat of Summit Place in Naples, Phase I, the roadway and
drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
7) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water facility for
Foxfire Club Expansion.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility for Milano, Phase lA.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Milano, Phase 2A.
10) Recommendation to accept a Proposed Settlement Agreement
providing for Compromise and Release of Lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Collier County v. James Keiser and
Southern Exposure of Naples, Inc., Case No. CEB 98-005.
11) Recommendation to approve a Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Lien for payment received.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the Collier Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPO) Operating Budget for FY 2007/08, including
$10,221 County match for Federal Highway Administration Planning
and Federal Transit Administration Section 5303 grants.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to execute a Local Agency Program Agreement
(LAP) with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in
which Collier County would be reimbursed up to $306,205 of the total
estimated cost of $420,000 for the design, construction, engineering
and inspection of intersection improvements at the intersection of
111 th (Bluebill) and 8th Street.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) authorizing the submission of
the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Trip/Equipment Grant
Page 9
May 22, 2007
Application with the Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (CTD). ($608,398)
4) Recommendation to approve the purchase of two fixed-route buses as
scheduled replacements to be operated by Collier Area Transit.
($648,652)
5) Recommendation to approve the submission of the attached Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) Public Transit Service
Development Grant project proposal request for 100% grant funding
in the amount of $816,512.
6) Approve a Budget Amendment recognizing an additional $993,198 in
Federal Transit Administration Grant Section 5307 funds for Fiscal
Year 06/07.
7) Recommendation to approve the purchase of2.90 acres of improved
property required for road right of way for the Vanderbilt Beach Road
extension project. Project No. 60168 (fiscal impact: $723,148.50).
8) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to direct
the Road and Bridge Department of the Transportation Division to
spray herbicide on vegetation in the bottom of a swale/canal/ditch that
drains approximately 1000 acre basin that includes The Boyne South
PUD, a portion of US 41, and some agricultural property north and
south of US 41. ($2,500)
9) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.1 to Professional
Service Agreement No. 05-3865 in the amount of$503,793 with
CH2MHILL, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard Road
Improvements from Golden Gate Boulevard to Golden Gate Main
Canal, Project No. 68056.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve two Budget Amendments in the total
amount of $107,101 to reallocate budgeted FY07 personnel costs from
the Public Utilities Engineering Cost Center and transfer budgeted
FY07 personnel costs from the Solid Waste Disposal Scale House
Page 10
May 22, 2007
Operations Cost Center to reflect the two FTE transfers in this fiscal
year to the Financial Operations Cost Center.
2) Recommendation to approve the Satisfaction for a certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreement. Fiscal impact is $18.50
to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
3) 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 1991
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $30.00 to record the Satisfactions 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 1992
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $50.00 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 1993
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $60.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
6) 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 1994
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $50.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
7) 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.
Fiscal impact is $80.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
8) 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
Page 11
May 22, 2007
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments.
Fiscal impact is $90.00 to record the Satisfactions of Lien.
9) Recommendation to reaffirm the use of Ashbritt Environmental Inc.
(Contract 05-3661) and Solid Resource Inc. (Contract 05-3831) as the
County's 2007 Hurricane Season debris removal and monitoring
contractors for operational readiness.
10) Recommendation to accept Rights of Entry required for the
replacement and rehabilitation of the water distribution system serving
the Dalton and Cypress Mobile Home Parks on Auto Ranch Road at a
recording cost not to exceed $1,000, Project 710101.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the County Manager to sign, a lien agreement with
Ethel D. Warren (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 100 Independence Phase II, Immokalee.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the County Manager to sign, a lien agreement with
Marie Dume (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 7
Trail Ridge.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jeannine
Mathurin (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 97
Independence Phase II, Immokalee.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Amy
Cantu (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for
an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 79
Independence Phase II, Immokalee.
Page 12
May 22, 2007
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the County Manager to sign, a lien agreement with
Marie Mathurin (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 147 Trail Ridge.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Cirilo
Sanchez and Benigna Trejo (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 89 Independence Phase II, Immokalee.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Madai
Avalos (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 196
Trail Ridge.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Raudel
Salazar and Maria Salazar (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 129 Independence Phase II, Immokalee.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Mireya
Escobedo (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 98 Trail
Ridge.
10) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with the School
District of Collier County for the continued use of property adjacent
to East Naples Community Park with no annual cost.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Silvia
Aguilar (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 81
Independence Phase II, Immokalee.
Page 13
May 22, 2007
12) Recommendation to approve submission of the 2007 Continuum of
Care (CoC) Homeless Assistance Consolidated Grant Application to
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and authorize the Chairman to sign the application on behalf
of Collier County and the Board of County Commissioners.
($443,645)
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with George
Pierre and Remercile Giles (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Pearce Subdivision Block 2 Lot 18, Immokalee.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #No. 07-4110 On-Call Roofing
Contractor Services to Crowther Roofing and Sheet Metal of Florida,
Inc. as primary, Advanced Roofing, Inc. as secondary Gulf Western
Roofing and Sheet Metal, Inc. as the third vendor for Roofing
Services. (annual cost estimate $600,000)
2) Recommendation to award RFP #07-4101 Annual Contract for ADA
Surveying and ADA Specific Architectural Design to CH2MHILL to
provide accessibility surveys, create a County ADA Master
Plan/Transition Plan, providing programming, program verification,
conceptual and schematic designs and overall ADA design and
planning consultation services. ($100,000)
3) Recommendation to accept the after-the-fact approval by the County
Manager of a Capability Survey requested by the District School
Board of Collier County that supports the School Districts Grant
Application for the Toyota Family Literacy Program (TFLP).
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with William C. Scherer and Irene K. Scherer for 80.00 acres under
the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $548,000.
5) To approve a price adjustment under contract 05-3796 - "Traffic Sign
Materials and Related Items".
Page 14
May 22, 2007
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with James L. Price, Jr. for 20.00 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $141,200.
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Thomas J. Connolly, Successor Trustee under the Edward L.
Connolly, Jr. Revocable Trust Agreement, dated June 16, 1993 for
70.00 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program, at a cost not to exceed $480,200.
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Ralph A. Calo and Barbara Calo for 40.00 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $276,700.
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Robert Reed Rivers, Jr. and Karl Lewis Predmore for 19.54 acres
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed $139,500.
10) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Collier County
Driver Education Grant Program.
11) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 02 to the Agreement
with Collier County District School Board for the Driver Education
Grant Program.
12) Recommendation to award RFP #No. 07-4100 Air Filtration Services
to Kleen Air Research, Inc. in an estimated annual amount of
$153,000.00.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for
County emergencies between Collier County and Emmanuel Lutheran
Church of Collier County.
Page 15
May 22, 2007
2) Recommendation to approve an amendment to the Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity for NCH Healthcare System for
non-emergency ambulance service.
3) Recommendation to approve the after-the-fact submittal of the
attached Assistance to Firefighters Grant application to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for the installation of powered
computer mounting systems, including docking stations, to provide
Mobile Data Terminal capability in Emergency Medical Services
ambulances and command vehicles for a total of$6l,200.
4) Recommendation to approve the outsourcing of Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) billing functions to Automated Data Processing, Inc.
(AD PI) by piggybacking on the Seminole County Agreement #RFP-
0780-05/TRJ for an estimated additional cost of$273,019 in FY 08,
resulting in a projected increase in gross revenues of $1 ,296,270 in
FY08 (the first full year of implementation).
5) Recommendation to approve Memorandum of Understanding for
County emergencies between Collier County and Moorings
Presbyterian Church of Collier County.
6) Authorize a budget amendment of $231 ,000.00 from reserves to the
Department of Emergency Management to support the purchase of
seven (7) portable generators from Godwin Pumps of America under
bid number (063953) to improve the disaster response capability for
Collier County.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment area. ($8,000)
2) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a vacant residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill proj ect;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
Page 16
May 22, 2007
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of $11 0,250.00 plus cost and expenses to
complete the sale of subj ect property; and approve any and all
necessary budget amendments. Site address: 4005 Harvest Court,
Naples, Fl 34112.
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a vacant residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of $110,250.00 plus cost and expenses to
complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all
necessary budget amendments. Site address: 3991 Harvest Court,
Naples, FL 34112.
4) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a vacant residential (mobile home) lot in the
Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential infill project;
to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to make a
draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia Bank Line
of Credit in the amount of$114,500 plus cost and expenses to
complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all
necessary budget amendments. Site address: 3979 Harvest Court,
Naples, FL 34112.
5) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a residential (mobile home) lot and trailer in
the Bayshore area of the CRA as part of a CRA residential in fill
project; to approve payment from and authorize the CRA Chairman to
make a draw from the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Wachovia
Bank Line of Credit in the amount of $90,000 plus cost and expenses
to complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all
necessary budget amendments. Site address: 3032 Van Buren Avenue.
6) Recommendation for the CRA Board to approve an agreement letter
assigning the current lease for additional office space for Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA operations to a new location within the same
commercial building at no additional cost and authorize the CRA
Chairman to sign.
Page 17
May 22, 2007
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Fifth Annual Tourism Week Celebration
Luncheon on May 16, 2007 and is requesting reimbursement in the
amount of $30.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Ave Maria Univeristy's Commencement
Ceremonies and luncheon and is requesting reimbursement in the
amount of $12.00, to be paid from his travel budget.
3) Proclamation to designate May 25,2007 as National Missing
Children's Day to encourage all community members to teach a child
important, possibly life-saving, safety tips as part of the continuing
efforts in Collier County to prevent abduction and sexual exploitation
of children. To be mailed to Ms. Kathleen Curatolo, Executive
Director, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Collier
County.
4) Proclamation designating May 20 - May 26, 2007 as Collier County
Emergency Medical Services Week. To be sent to Jeff Page, Chief,
Collier County EMS.
5) Proclamation to designate May 2007 as Mental Health Awareness
Month. To be sent to Ms. Petra Jones, Executive Director, The Mental
Health Association of Southwest Florida.
6) Proclamation designating May 21, 2007 to May 25, 2007 as
Immokalee Foundation Week. To be mailed to the Immokalee
Foundation.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Page 18
May 22, 2007
1) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of April 28,
2007 through May 04, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of May 05,
2007 through May 11, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
3) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the
Local Coordinating Unit of Government in the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2008 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant (JAG) Program and designate the Sheriff as the
Official Applicant, Sheriffs office staff as Grant Financial and
Program Managers, approve the Grant Application when completed,
and authorize acceptance of awards and associated budget
amendments.
4) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the Official Fiscal Year 2007 applicant and program point-
of-contact for the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Program, accept the Grant when awarded, and approve
applicable budget amendments.
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution between the Board of
County Commissioners and Embarq Telephone Company of Florida.
6) Report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
disposition of assets no longer deemed to serve a useful function or to
have a commercial value.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve the Offer of Judgment in the amount of
$32,100 as to Parcel 163 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Thomas F. Salzmann, et aI., Case No. 03-2550-CA (Golden Gate
Parkway Project No. 60027). (Fiscal Impact $7,446.00)
2) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
Page 19
May 22, 2007
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
of $165,000.00 for the acquisition of Parcels 112 and 712 in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Raymond A. McCauley, et aI., Case
No. 05-0633-CA (County Road 951 Project No. 65061). (Fiscal
Impact: $104,600.00)
3) Recommendation to Approve an Amended Stipulated Final Judgment
as to Parcel 101 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v. Roberto
Bollt, Successor Trustee, Under Land Trust Agreement dated 1/27/86,
et aI., Case No. 00-2433-CA (Randall BoulevardlImmokalee Road
Intersection) Project #60171. (Fiscal Impact: None)
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. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
approve Petition A VPLAT-2007-AR-11489, disclaiming, renouncing, and
vacating the Countys and the Publics interest in a portion of a combined
Lake Maintenance Easement, Drainage Easement, and Irrigation Easement
lying over Tract B, Prestwick Place, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book
46, Pages 9 through 14 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
situated in Section 28, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit A.
B. This item has been requested by the Petitioner to be continued to the
June 12, 2007 BCC Meetinl!. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition: CU-2006-AR-9458, Silver Strand III Partnership, represented by
Page 20
May 22, 2007
George L. Varnadoe, Esquire, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson & Johnson,
LLP and Fred Reischl, AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.,
requesting a conditional use for Rinker Concrete Plant at Silver Strand in the
Rural Agricultural with an Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District.
The subject property, consisting of 14.74 acres, is located approximately
1,300 feet south of Stockade Road on the east side of Immokalee Road (CR
846), in Section 15, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier
County, Florida.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-05-AR-8900,
Richard D. Yovanovich representing Paul and Ruth Williams requesting
approval of a Conditional Use (CU) for an existing stabling facility in the
Agricultural (A) zoning district, as specified in Section 2.04.03 of the Collier
County Land Development Code (LDC).
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2006-AR-ll034
(NG) Naples Bridge Center, Inc., represented by Joss Nageon de Lestang,
P.E., ofOulfshore Engineering, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use of Estates
(E) zoning district pursuant to Table 2, Section 2.04.03 of the Land
Development Code (LDC). The 2.5 acre Estate zoned site was originally
approved under Conditional Use Resolution 94-424 on June 14, 1994, for a
social organization consisting of a 3,500 square foot building and a parking
lot of 83 parking spaces. The proposal is for an expansion to permit an
additional 3,500 square feet of floor area and an additional 50 parking
spaces. The subject property is located at 5865 Golden Gate Parkway, in
Golden Gate Estates Unit 30, Section 29, Township 49 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 21
May 22, 2007
May 22-23, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to
the Board of Collier County Commissioners' meeting of May 22nd.
And with that, we're going to open this meeting like we open all
meetings. Mr. Mudd's going to lead us in an invocation. 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, and grant them the wisdom and vision to meet
the trials of this day and the days to corne.
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.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED ~ APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm trying to remember. I think this is
the first time maybe we've had an eight o'clock meeting start. But
whatever, it's fine by me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Certainly the first one I've ever had
when I was awake.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we're off to a running start.
Let's start off with the -- it's a little different. I don't know -- the
Page 2
May 22-23,2007
agenda as I'm looking at it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. County Manager, let's start
with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Changes.
MR. MUDD: Good morning. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, May 22, 2007.
Continue item 10M to June 12,2007, BCC meeting. This is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
resolution declaring a valid public purpose for accepting voluntary
donations made directly to the county for affordable/workforce
housing, establishing an affordable/workforce housing trust fund, and
providing general guidelines for use of monies in the affordable
housing trust fund. Item is being continued at the county attorney's
request.
Next item is item lOP. The legal consideration section was
omitted from the executive summary of this copy. Copies of the
corrected executive summary have been distributed and made
available for review, and all the commissioners received a copy of that
particular change.
Next item is to add item 12B. This item to be heard at 12 noon.
The notice of closed attorney/client session, settlement negotiations
and strategy relating to the litigation expenditures in the pending
litigation case of William Litsinger versus Collier County, Florida,
and Fred Coyle, individually, case number 06-432-CA now pending in
the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County. That's at the staff's
request.
The next item is to add item 12C. The Board of County
Commissioners to provide action/direction to the Office of the County
Attorney as to any settlement negotiations and strategy relating to
litigation expenditures in William Litsinger versus Collier County,
Florida, and Fred Coyle, individually, case number 06-432-CA now
Page 3
May 22-23, 2007
pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit and -- in and for Collier County,
Florida. Again, at staff's request.
The next item is to move item 16All to 10Q. It's a
recommendation to approve a release and satisfaction of code
enforcement lien for payment received. Item is being asked to be
moved at Commissioner Coletta's request.
There are -- there's a couple of notes. Item 10E, page 8 of 18 of
the executive summary under program qualifications, third paragraph,
sentence should read, this parcel is owned by CSX, a national railway
line, and leased to a local railroad company. The company's name
was originally entered as CVx.
Next item is 10H. The last sentence of paragraph 5 of the
supplemental agreement will be amended to read, if no objection is
made, district, at no cost to the county, shall convey title to county to
the Lake Trafford site by quitclaim deed.
Next item under 10H is paragraph three of this lease to be
attached as Exhibit B to the supplemental agreement, has recently
been modified by Alico to read, lessee shall provide or cause to be
provided on-site management during all times that the premises is
open for public A TV use, including a gatekeeper station at the gate to
be constructed at the public entrance to the premises and another
gatekeeper station at the exiting gate along the boundary line between
the premises and lessor's adjacent property.
The county's on-site manager shall be equipped with a fire
extinguisher and a shovel for use as a first line of defense in the event
fire threatens the premises while they are on site.
The emergency telephone numbers for the local fire department
and emergency medical response unit, the Collier County Sheriff's
Department, and the Alico Fire Management offices -- officers shall
be posted at gatekeeper's station. In addition, use. No fuel shall be
brought, sold, or stored on the premises.
A copy of the lease will be available at presentation of this item
Page 4
May 22-23, 2007
today.
You have a number of time certain items today, Commissioners.
The first item is lor to be heard at nine a.m. This is a
recommendation to approve the interlocal agreements between Collier
County, City of Naples, City of Marco Island, East Naples and the
North Naples fire departments for an advanced life support engine
partnership program. That item will be presented by Dr. Tober.
Next item is item lOA, to be heard at four p.m. This is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
findings of the report entitled Collier County Impact Fee Indexing
Study prepared by Tindale Oliver & Associates, Inc., in association--
in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., as directed by the
Board of County Commissioners, and direct the county manager or his
designee to finalize the study, prepare the necessary amendments to
chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the
same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, to
incorporate the changes to the indexing methodologies and
corresponding changes to the impact fee rate schedules for
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at a future
meeting or meetings.
The next item is item 10 -- excuse me -- 14A, to be heard at 4:30
a.m., and this is a companion item to item lOB. 14A will be done as
CRA, and item lOB, its companion, you'll be back to the Board of
County Commissioners.
It's a recommendation that the Community Redevelopment
Agency and/or the Board of County Commissioners approved the
expenditure of $250,000 from FY -'07 Fund 186 reserves, to assist with
the establishment of the Florida State University School of Medicine,
Rural Health Training Center in Immokalee.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Okay. Let's go to the commissioners for the ex parte disclosures.
Page 5
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. County attorney and then
the commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
Good morning.
Just one thing, and that is, pursuant to the government in the
sunshine law, particularly section 286.011(8) it's, for the record, to
indicate, as Mr. Mudd indicated, the county attorney has requested the
closed session to be heard at 12 noon today in the case of William
Litsinger versus Collier County and Fred Coyle. And thank you, and
that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
Okay. For the ex parte disclosures provided by the commissioners on
the consent and summary agenda and any changes to the agenda, we'll
start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda. I have no ex parte disclosures for the consent
agenda, but for the summary agenda, 17B, I did receive
correspondence on that particular item. I have had no meetings or
discussions otherwise. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you very much.
On the consent agenda, 16A1, I have no disclosures; 16A2, I've had
meetings in the past and also some emails; 16A5, I've had emails in
the past on that item; and 16A6, no disclosures. And on the summary
agenda, A, B, C, and D items I have nothing to disclose on those.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I, myself, I have nothing
to disclose on the consent agenda, the summary agenda, and no further
changes to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to disclose on
Page 6
May 22-23,2007
consent or summary and nothing to change on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures on today's
consent or summary. I want to move to the regular agenda 16 George
1 and all of the impact deferral agreements for the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you give us the run of
numbers, please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16B 1.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. You can say -- are they
consistent, I mean, from all the way through --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or are they broken up? Okay. Go
ahead and name them, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16D2, 16D3, 16D4, 16D5,
16D6, 1607, 16D8, 16D9, 16DlO.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You need 11.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I guess we don't have a
16D 11 ?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, there is -- 10 is the school
district, but 11 is another lien agreement, and then 16D12 is
consolidated grant, but 16D13 is another lien agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then that would also include
16Dll then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It does include BlO (sic) though,
right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It does include B 10?
MR. MUDD: BI0?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: B 1 O?
MR. MUDD: DI0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: David.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was the first one 16G as in golf?
Page 7
May 22-23,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Golf 1 is the CRA item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So 10D, you want to pull, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. DlO is a lease agreement
with the school.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So it's Dll and then DB?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And DB.
MR. MUDD: Okay. l6Gl is lOR, l6Dl is lOS, l6D2 is 10D
(sic), l6D3 is IOU as in uniform, l6D4 is 10Y as in yankee, l6D5 is
lOW, l6D6 goes to lOX, l6D7 goes to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Four should have been Victor.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, 4 is Victor, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven is --
MR. MUDD: D5 is lOW, l6D6 is lOX, l6D7 is lOY, l6D8 is
10Z, l6D9 is 10AA, l6D 11 is 10BB, and l6D 13 is lOCC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Since we've got an extra hour,
we might as well talk about things.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this all related to one particular
item all together?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, and the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we can discuss it now and
get it over with?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to. It's up to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we stick with the agenda
and stay with it so we can stay on schedule and we can catch it at that
point in time because --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or we can continue them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know if that's necessary. Let's
wait till we corne to the agenda item so we're -- staff can be prepared
to discuss it, too. We'll give them a little bit of time to prepare, okay,
anything.
Okay. What -- anything else, Commissioner Henning?
Page 8
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, thank you.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Mav 22. 2007
Continue Item 10M to June 12. 2007 BCC Meetinq: Recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt a resolution declaring a valid public purpose for accepting voluntary
donations made directly to the County for Affordable-Workforce Housing, establishing an
Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust Fund and providing general guidelines for use of monies in
the Affordable-Workforce Housing Trust Fund. (County Attorney's request)
Item 10P: The "Legal Consideration" section was omitted from the Executive Summary of this
item. Copies of the corrected Executive Summary have been distributed and made available for
review. (Staff's request.)
Add Item 12B: This item to be heard at 12:00 Noon. Notice of Closed Attorney-Client Session.
Settlement negotiations and strategy relating to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation
case of 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. (Staff's request.)
Add item 12C: Board of County Commissioners to provide actionldirection 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 and in and for Collier County, Florida.
(Staff's request.)
Move 16A11 to 10Q: Recommendation to approve a Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Lien for payment received. (Commissioner Coletta's request)
Note:
Item 10E: Page 4 of 18 of the Executive Summary. Under Program Qualifications, third
paragraph, sentence should read: This parcel is owned by CSX, a national railway line and leased
to a local railroad company. (The company name was originally entered as CVX).
Item 10H: The last sentence of Paragraph 5 of the Supplemental Agreement will be amended
to read: "If no objection is made, District, at no cost to the COUNTY. shall convey title to
COUNTY to the Lake Trafford site by Quitclaim Deed."
Paragraph 3 of the lease to be attached as Exhibit B to the Supplemental Agreement has recently
been modified by Alico to read:"LESSEE shall provide, or cause to be provided, on sit
management during all times that the Premises is open for public ATV use, includinQ a
Qatekeeper stationed at the Qate to be constructed at the public entrance to the premises and
another Qatekeeper stationed at the existinQ Qate alonQ the boundary line between the Premises
and LESSOR's adiacent property. The County's on site manaQers shall be equipped with a fire
extinQuisher and a shovel for use as a first line of defense in the event fire threatens the Premises
while they are on the site. The emerQencv telephone numbers for the local fire department and
emerQencv medical response unit. the Collier County Sheriffs Department and the Alico Fire
ManaQement officers shall be posted at the Qatekeepers' stations. In addition. . . Use. No fuel
shall be bOUQht. sold or stored on the Premises." A copy of the lease will be available at the
presentation of this item.
Time Certain Items:
Item 101 to be heard at 9:00 a.m.: Recommendation to approve the Interlocal Agreements
between Collier County and the City of Naples, City of Marco, East Naples and North Naples Fire
Departments for an Advanced Life Support Engine Partnership Program.
Item 10A to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
accept the findings of the report entitled "Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study" prepared by
Tindale-Oliver and Associates, Incorporated, in association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., as
directed by the Board of County Commissioners, and direct the County Manager or his designee,
to finalize the study, prepare the necessary amendments to Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances, the same being the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance,
to incorporate the changes to the indexing methodologies and corresponding changes to the
impact fee rate schedules for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at a future
meeting(s).
Item 14A to be heard at 4:30 p.m. prior to companion Item 10B: Recommendation that the
Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve the expenditure of $250,000 from FY07 Fund
186 reserves to assist with the establishment of a Florida State University School of Medicine
rural health training center in Immokalee.
Item 10B to be heard at 4:30 p.m.. followinq companion item 14A: Recommendation that the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve a budget amendment totaling
$250,000 from FY07 Fund 186 reserves to assist with the establishment of a Florida State
University School of Medicine rural health training center in Immokalee.
May 22-23, 2007
Item #2B and #2C
MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2007 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING AND
MAY 1,2007 BCC/CITY OF NAPLES JOINT WORKSHOP-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda for today, the
April-- and also the April 24, 2007, regular BCC meeting agenda and
the May 1,2007, BCC/City of Naples joint workshop?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle to approve 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 unanimously.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY JOHN TORRE, DIRECTOR,
COMMUNICATIONS AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS, OF THE
2007 CITIZEN SURVEY - PRESENTED
Page 10
May 22-23, 2007
Okay. There's no service awards, no proclamations.
Presentations?
Mr. Torre?
MR. MUDD: Presentation by John Torre, project director of
communications and customer relations of the 2007 Citizen Survey.
John?
MR. TORRE: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm pleased to
present to you at this early hour the 2007 Citizen Survey which was
conducted this year for us again by Above Water Public Relations and
Marketing.
The survey was taken between March 19th and April 5th of this
year. Joining me today is Cynthia Dobbins, president of Above
Water, and she and I will be sharing the presentation duties.
The survey this year, a telephone survey, again, of710 residents
equally divided among the five commissioners' districts. The
qualification was 18 years of age and older and either full-time or
part-time residents. The margin of error for the poll this year is 4
percent.
As you can see here, we did capture many more seasonal
residents this time around. In 2005 we conducted the survey in -- I
believe it was late May and early June, so this year 14 percent of the
respondents were part-time or seasonal residents.
How long have you lived here? The largest group of people have
moved to Collier County within the last five years.
The age of the respondents. The largest group is 65 or older, and
there has been a question raised in one of the newspaper columns
about this survey skewing older. But one of the explanations for that
is that we are including seasonal residents, part-time residents in this
survey who wouldn't be counted in the census survey here. It would
be counted in census surveys elsewhere, and so the presumption is that
most of the seasonal residents are likely 65 or older, and that would
Page 11
May 22-23, 2007
increase the total number.
Household size and dwellings by far the largest, single-family
home or condominium, and the two-person household is the largest in
Collier County, according to the survey, 50 percent.
Employment status, 51 percent retired, 32 percent working full time,
and 3 percent unemployed.
This is a question we asked last time and asked again this time,
sort of an overall feeling of how people believe things are going in
Collier County. Generally speaking, are things moving in the right
direction or wrong direction? This is a question often asked on
national surveys as well.
And as you can see, the number dip slightly from last time
around, but still by more than a 2-1 margin, people believe things are
moving in the right direction in the county.
Generally speaking, county officials do a good job running
county government. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
And the numbers pretty much track with where they were two years
ago, 52.5 percent agree things -- that county officials are doing a good
job running the county, and 28.5 percent disagree.
The property taxes you pay are generally fair in relation to the
value of the benefits you receive. The numbers, as you can see, dip
slightly from last time around, but 57 percent of the respondents agree
with that statement that the property taxes they pay are generally fair;
33 percent disagree with that.
And would respondents pay more in property taxes for any
particular services, and the only item that received more than 50
percent in this survey was construction of roads, bridges and
sidewalks.
And I'll have Cynthia Dobbins take you through the rest of the
survey.
MS. DOBBINS: Good morning, Chairman Coletta, good
morning, Commissioners. Thank you very much for this opportunity
Page 12
May 22-23, 2007
to present today's survey.
We also asked some statements to ask people if they agreed or
disagreed with the following: Overall appearance of neighborhoods
and shopping areas, roads and highways, traffic signals, stormwater.
I wanted to just point out in this particular question about stormwater
drainage that the City of Naples residents do not pay for this service,
so we pulled out those individuals who lived in District 4 just to make
sure that this would be an accurate survey for you.
So in 2007, 75 percent said that it works well in their
neighborhood. Same thing for sewage system, 76 percent; garbage
collection, recycling of trash, also 94 percent. We just wanted to
make sure that this would be accurate since residents in Naples, in
particular, just did not have to pay for that.
Parks and recreational facilities, 82 percent very satisfied.
Library services. Many of these, as you can see, echo the survey that
we did two years. Same thing with Collier Area Transit, 51.8 percent
had no opinion. We need to get people riding on that transit.
Beaches, beach access. Beaches are clean and well maintained,
83 percent; 56 percent said beaches provide adequate rest rooms,
picnic areas, and food and beverage concessions.
Regarding beach access, 36 percent disagreed but 46 percent
agreed this year that we do have adequate amount of beach access
now.
Policies and programs about attracting tourists. Generally
speaking, spending money to attract tourists to our area during
off-season summer months is a good idea; 56 percent of the
respondents agreed with that.
Access to healthcare services in Collier County is a problem for
the average person; 42 percent, again, agree with that.
Hurricane preparedness; 85 percent thought that it was timely and
reliable hurricane information provided by the county.
Impact fees. County has 12 different impact fees intended to
Page 13
May 22-23,2007
help pay for the cost in providing government services; 42 percent
agree that (sic) adding these prices to the price of anew ly constructed
home or business. So this is something to take a look at and,
obviously, you'll be speaking about that later.
Regarding growth. County commission is doing a better job of
managing growth today than it was five years ago; 46 disagree, 27
percent agree, and 27 percent had no opinion. Kind of high numbers
there on no opinion. Again, just trying to get the information out there
and educating people as to what we're doing, but nobody likes growth.
As a place to live, Collier County is better now than it was five years
ago; 36 percent agree.
Overall job performance; 61 percent job approval rating.
Congratulations.
Source of information for Collier government. Local newspapers
is still predominantly -- it's 53 percent. Behind that is local television,
28 percent, and then the radio station's 5. Other sources now are
county Internet site, homeowners associations, friends, co-workers,
town hall meetings and Collier government TV channel.
During the past 12 months, have you contacted a Collier County
government department for any reason: Thirty-three percent said yes,
and of those 33 percent, 74 percent had their question or problem
resolved satisfactorily.
Have you visited the county web site in the past three months?
Twenty-six percent have used it, and of those, 88 percent found it
informative and easy to use.
Sun-N-Fun Lagoon Water Park. Have you had an opportunity to
visit the park? Twenty percent have, and it received a 46 percent
excellent rating, 47 percent good. Very good numbers.
Customer service. Have you ever requested a building permit
from the county? Thirty-three percent, yes, and of those, 13 percent
had an excellent experience, 38 percent good, 26 percent fair.
Affordable housing in Collier County; 57 percent responded it is
Page 14
May 22-23,2007
a major crisis, 24 percent a minor crisis, and 10 percent said it was not
a crisis at all.
The county should do more to promote and require more
workforce/affordable housing in Collier County; 73 percent agree.
State issues. Now, at the time of this survey this was the only tax
issue that was out there, but what's your opinion of a proposed tax
plan that would eliminate property taxes on homesteaded properties in
exchange for an increase in the states sales tax from 6 percent to 8.5
percent; 46 percent oppose, 28 percent support, and 26 percent were
not sure.
Also on state issues, do you currently have a homestead
exemption? Seventy-seven percent said yes. And in the question
about whether or not you think homestead exemptions should be given
to part-time residents in Collier County, 72 percent said no.
Interstate 75. Would you support or oppose adding tolls to the
new lanes that will be constructed on Interstate 75 in Collier County
and Lee County this year in order to speed up construction of
additional traffic lanes on the interstate in the future? Forty-nine
percent oppose, 39 percent support, and 12 percent were not sure.
Finally, we did some comparisons, since this is now the third
survey that we've taken, 2002, 2005 and 2007. Again, questions like
garbage collection and recycling of trash, we asked this question again
as it related to recycling, and 94 percent agree it's working well; 93
percent feel the overall appearance of their neighborhoods and
shopping areas is very good.
Generally speaking, the sewage system works well in your
neighborhood. Again, we took out the Naples residents for that
question.
Stormwater drainage system, 75 percent were pleased. Roads
and highways are well maintained in the county; 69 percent agree.
When you drive through the county, traffic signals keep the cars
moving fairly well, 41 percent agree.
Page 15
May 22-23,2007
Generally speaking county officials do a good job running county
government; 52.5 percent.
Then on the last question we asked people to name a project or--
that they felt needed improvement in Collier County. So based on the
predominant number of responses, starting from the most important to
them were roads, infrastructure, and building, that was 37.9 percent.
Below that, at 14 percent, was housing; 10 percent for traffic,
transportation. Fees, taxes, government, 7.2 percent; 6 percent parks
and recreation, all the way down to environment, seemed to be the
least important to people at 2.7 percent, and 26 percent said they didn't
know and had no opinion.
That's it. If you have any questions, happy to answer those for
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. On your affordable housing,
when was this survey taken; what date?
MR. TORRE: Commissioner, March 26 through AprilS.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Yeah, because as I look
through -- each weekend I look at the classifieds in regards to rent and
also the availability of affordable housing, and I notice that there's
been a marked decrease in the price of housing and also rent.
MR. TORRE: Could be more of a perception issue too when you
ask the question,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Could be, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I'm sorry, ma'am,
are you affiliated with the county?
MS. DOBBINS: No. We're a vendor, an approved vendor for
Collier County. Above Water Public Relations and Marketing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So you actually
Page 16
May 22-23, 2007
conducted the study?
MS. DOBBINS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who developed the questions in
the study?
MS. DOBBINS: We worked together on that.
MR. TORRE: Many of the questions, Commissioner, are
carryover questions from surveys going as far back as 2002.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Who developed the
questions?
MR. TORRE: We did in conjunction with the County Manager's
Office.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TORRE: But again, going back to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The two of you did, and with
the permission of the county manager.
MR. TORRE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what you're saying?
Okay, great. Thanks -- thanks for answering that question.
Now, the next question is, true or false. It's my understanding that
the county survey historically was to get a feel on what our -- what
we're delivering to the customers; true or false?
MR. TORRE: I believe that's a true statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now what I see is a
diverse survey of things that are happening in the community or things
that are happening in the state legislator (sic), things that are
happening in regional areas. So we -- have we changed what we're
asking our citizens?
MR. TORRE: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there are some questions
that deal with --
MR. TORRE: Specific questions about current events, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Current events, okay. Why
Page 17
May 22-23,2007
wasn't there a question about immigration in there and what Nancy
Pinellas is not doing in Washington, D.C.?
MR. TORRE: I can't answer that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe it's because that's
a political question and you wouldn't answer that -- ask that?
MR. TORRE: I don't think so, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's not a political
question?
MR. TORRE: Could be construed that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Y eah. Well, the question that
concerns me is the Republicans -- the Republicans in the House, the
Florida House of Representatives, to me that's a political question.
Who drummed up that one?
MR. TORRE: Well I -- I'll take credit or blame for it,
Commissioner. I mean, I threw the idea on the table as part of the
discussion as to whether or not we should ask the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be objectionable in the
future if the Board of Commissioners review the questions before
they're sent out?
MR. TORRE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Since it is that the board
is supposed to serve and responsible (sic) through elections, it would
be a fair thing to do?
MR. TORRE: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way for you to
determine how the results of the survey would change if you dealt
only with full-time residents?
MR. TORRE: Well, I think the last survey was 95 percent
full-time residents, and I thought the one thing that struck me about
Page 18
May 22-23, 2007
this survey was how very little variation there were in the answers
from questions that carried over from survey to survey. So you can
pull out -- we could pull out the part-time residents out of this survey
and give you just a snapshot of what the full-time residents' responses
were to this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How difficult is that for you to do?
MR. TORRE: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see my point is this: I'm trying
to find out why people don't know certain things. Like, there's a fairly
low percentage of people who think Collier County has done a good
job preserving environmentally sensitive land. I think it's only about,
what, 30 percent feel that way. And that puzzles me.
Is it because they don't know that there is a Conservation Collier
program that is buying land throughout the year and that we have
preserved hundreds of thousands of acres through our rural land
stewardship area plan? Is it that they don't know or do they really feel
that preserving hundreds of thousands of acres is not important?
And if people are here for just a short period of time, it's likely
they don't know about many of the things that are being done. So I'm
trying to sort out the difference between what people might not be
aware of because they're not here for a long period of time during the
year from what people really do not approve of, that they are aware of.
You understand what I'm trying to do?
MR. TORRE: Absolutely. The number who agree that the
county's doing a good job was closer to 59 percent. But there still was
a high number who disagreed, 31.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, if you could give me
the names of those people, I'd like to talk with them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're going to be busy,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Is this a difficult thing for you
to do, just to determine if full-time residents have a substantially
Page 19
May 22-23, 2007
different opinion than part-time residents?
MS. DOBBINS: We can certainly just add that at the beginning
of the survey as one of our qualifying questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, no. I'm talking about the
results of this particular survey. Is it easy for you to separate that data
MR. TORRE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in that way? If it's easy, could
you give me a summary report on the results of that particular analysis
and let's see if it yields anything substantial.
MR. TORRE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. TORRE: I think the -- you know, the universe you apply
the survey to can vary. You can do registered voters, which is what I
think CBIA does. You know, I think we chose residents, either part
time or full time, because they are taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But a property owner could be a
resident a month a year --
MR. TORRE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or two months a year, and they
could be here during that time that the survey is taken, and they will
not normally be aware of all of the things that are being done in the
county, so they really cannot give an informed opinion about some of
these issues, and I'm just trying to sort that out.
MR. TORRE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you copy all of us on that.
MR. TORRE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just wanted to say, I know
Commissioner Coyle suggested that he'd like to talk to all the people
out there that -- to be able to enlighten them, but I think that might be
an invasion on their privacy.
So what I would suggest is that we publish his cell phone number
Page 20
May 22-23,2007
and home phone number so they can contact him.
I just want to compliment you on the excellent job you did with
this survey. I've been working with surveys as a -- what do you want
to call it -- a nonprofessional for oh, 20-some- five years, I've studied
the methodology behind it and been involved in a number of surveys.
Most surveys are really done to try to influence public opinion
rather than to gauge public opinion. I can tell that you this
government survey that you put out does not do that, and I'm kind of
scared that if we corne to the point where the county commission
starts to look at the questions and starts to break them down, we're
going to corne up with surveys that are just like the rest of the world
puts out. They're not real surveys. They're trying to influence public
opinion to something different than what it is. I just wanted to leave
that note with you. I think you did an excellent job with it.
MR. TORRE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thank you very much. But we're
going to go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Kudos on that also. I think that the
study that you carne up with, the questions that were asked, I think
that they were favorably -- favorable to all aspects of the county, the
residents here, whether they're full-time residents or part time.
I think the biggest thing is, if people want to get involved in
what's going on in the government, when you have a lot of answers
where they have no opinion, that tells me that they really don't take a
daily interest in what's going on, and it surprises me.
And maybe because of the fact that one of the biggest avenues
for people as far as obtaining your information is the newspaper,
maybe the newspaper needs to be challenged and make sure that they
get some additional information out there about what's taking place in
government so that people maybe would be more -- more excited
about getting involved in what's happening, and maybe that would
also get them involved in issues that pertain to their neighborhoods
Page 21
May 22-23,2007
and homeowner associations.
I think that once you start to educate people and they have an
understanding of the importance of getting involved in government, I
believe what it does is enhances not only our ability to serve, but it
also makes sure that the citizens understand the true relationship of
what's going on in the community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very well put, Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Being that Commissioner
Coyle brought up this -- the one about the environment, that's such a
good idea. And I notice that right now we're running a little TV
special about, you know, some things. I've gotten so many comments
back from people, and I'm amazed at how people watch that channel.
Maybe that would be a good tool for us to educate the public with
what we are doing with the environment, how much we've already
preserved, show maps about, you know -- what is it, 81 percent now
of our entire county surface is already in preservation, and we should
show our public that, I think that would be a great avenue.
MR. TORRE: We can do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very much
for your presentation.
MR. TORRE: Thank you.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2007-139: APPOINTING ANDREA HALMAN TO
THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9A, which is
appointment of a member to the Immokalee Beautification Advisory
Committee.
Page 22
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Adrienne
( sic) Halman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
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: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-140: APPOINTING FRANKLIN D. SECREST
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B, appointment
of a member to the Collier County Airport Authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Franklin
Secrest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Henning
to -- for -- to approve the -- Franklin Secrest, a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 23
May 22-23,2007
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.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-141: APPOINTING ELIZABETH A. WENDT
TO THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD-HOC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C, appointment
of a member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad Hoc Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Elizabeth Wendt.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala for
approval 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.
Page 24
May 22-23,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-142: APPOINTING MAURICE JAMES
BURKE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9D, appointment
of a member --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Jim Burke.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: James Burke.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: James Burke?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
appointing James Burke and a second by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fiala, excuse me. The other way
around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala (sic) for the
motion and the second by Commissioner Halas (sic).
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 25
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show the vote
was 4-1 with Commissioner Henning being the opposing voted.
Item #9E
INTENT TO RENEGOTIATE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT WITH DAVID C. WEIGEL AND
APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT - MOTION
TO APPROVE ITEM - DENIED;
MOTION TO START A SEARCH FOR A NEW COUNTY
ATTORNEY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9E. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners indicate
intent to renegotiate the Collier -- excuse me -- Collier County
Attorney Employment Agreement with David C. Weigel and approve
an addendum to the agreement. And this is the chairman's item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we direct the chairman to authorize the chairman to sign the
addendum of the county attorney agreement -- employee agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that just for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning to go forward with this and a second by
Commissioner Fiala, and now for discussion. We'll start with
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe that the county
Page 26
May 22-23, 2007
attorney has served this county very, very well. Myself, I would like
to see us move forward on in this county, and maybe I think what we
need to do is let the county attorney know -- this is my opinion -- that
we appreciate his services, and that we'd like to maybe start a search
on the outside to see what we can do as far as obtaining a new county
attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we do that, it's going to take
some time. Is there some way we can work with the county -- existing
county attorney to provide for appropriate extensions during such a
search?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe he's got 180 days. But
does that start -- can we start it today or can -- is the 180 days already
on the clock?
Can the county attorney tell us that.
MR. WEIGEL: The employment agreement provides for 180
days notice of the Board of County Commissioners to indicate
whether they wish to renegotiate or allow the agreement or allow it to
lapse.
I would suggest that by virtue of the fact that we're within the
180 days at this point in time, that if the board were to take a direction
to allow the agreement to lapse, it would start from the time that the
board makes such decision.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: The board certainly can make any -- attempt to
make any other decision it wishes as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course, now the motion on the
floor is to negotiate the contract. The contract would have to corne
back for a final approval. Just a point I wanted to bring up.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, I don't
Page 27
May 22-23,2007
understand; maybe you can clarify. You stated that the county
manager -- county attorney has done a -- served us well, done a good
job, but you want to replace him by doing a search for a replacement.
Can you please elaborate on that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think I made it fairly clear
that I felt that Mr. Weigel, in his duties as the county attorney, has
done a good job for the county. But I think as the county grows, I
think we need to maybe look to the future and make sure that we're --
have the latest and greatest and that we can find out if there's -- we
might find out that when we do a search, that he has all the attributes
that we really need.
But I think that at this point in time when the contract is up for
negotiation, that we make sure that we search and make sure that the
citizens of the county here are being represented as best as possible.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So what you're -- what you're
basically saying, if I understand, Commissioner Halas, is that if the
search was done, that you would -- this county attorney could also
apply for that; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, he could apply for that, or as
I said, I think we just need to move on and see what's available as this
county gets larger.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I don't
agree with that. I don't agree with that analogy. You can't say that
somebody's doing a good job and then say, well, we're going to try to
find somebody to replace you. I just don't think that makes sense. I
think it should be based upon performance. So my motion standards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala. Is there any
other discussion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we ever discuss this at
Page 28
May 22-23, 2007
noontime in our closed session and then come back and finish it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'd have to ask the county
attorney. I don't believe so.
MR. WEIGEL: No, Ms. Fiala. The limitations on closed
sessions relate to litigation and expenditures related to the litigation, as
well as strategy. So no, that's an entirely separate option.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so this -- the motion then is that
we will renegotiate, not that we have to follow the four years or
anything; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. When the contract comes
back, this commission could put whatever conditions on it that they
wish before they voted for approval. Or they can even direct it to go
back into negotiations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought the motion at this point in
time was to go forward, have you sign an agreement for a four-year
extension. That was my interpretation of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what the motion was?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the recommendations?
The recommendations is for the chairman to renegotiate the agreement
and fully (sic) intent approval of the attached addendum. So it's
renegotiate. It's going to have to come back to the Board of
Commissioners for reconsideration.
MR. WEIGEL: No. Actually that's not correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not correct?
MR. WEIGEL: No, this was -- this executive summary provides,
pursuant to the term of the agreement, that the board indicated its
attempt -- its desire to renegotiate and take care of the renegotiation by
a mere extension rather than a negotiation of terms and things that
goes into there, a mere extension of the agreement for four years. This
was similarly done for the county manager two years ago.
Page 29
May 22-23, 2007
Additionally, however, I'm on the contract -- the 2003 contract
provides for universal leave. Inasmuch as I've been an employee of the
county over 20 years bringing to the county, of course, at this point
institutional knowledge and ability to work with legislature,
legislators, and maintain and hire highly qualified staff through my
supervision, it merely provides additionally one small change, and that
is that I be treated as other employees, abandon the universal leave
which provides for 30 days a year, and go to the normal vacation, a
normal sick leave, and normal personal days.
If I don't use my sick days, the county is ahead. I had over 12
years where I used no sick days whatsoever. If I -- if I -- the vacation
days I would get, being an employee over 20 years, is 25. So that is
the only change.
There may -- will there be more cost to the county in that regard?
Only if I utilize all the sick days in the sense that they would be paid
sick days. But my record has been never an abuse of sick days, and I
think the record is very clear to that extent. Again, I merely want to
be treated like other employees.
And after all this service and continued desire to serve and
working with commissioners and the public, I do not think that that is
an unreasonable minor change to an agreement to continue to work
with this board and with the county and the staff and the employees of
the County Attorney Office.
The recommendation, therefore, would not require this matter to
come back to the board again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate your candor in regards
to not using sick time, but sick time is only to be used if you really
need it, and thank God that your health is good, that you didn't have to
use it, so that means that each day that you weren't ill that you were
here serving the citizens.
So when somebody comes to me and says, well, I've got sick
Page 30
May 22-23,2007
time that I -- that I haven't used and I think that I'm entitled to it,
you're only entitled to it unless (sic) you really have to -- if you have a
problem or you're sick. So I hope that you understand where I feel or
where I stand in regards to sick time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just want to make sure I
heard what you just said. So when -- if we approve this, that means
we approve you going forward for another four years?
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I wonder -- is there a
possibility that we could give input as to maybe some philosophies
that we would like to see changed a little bit in the attorney's office?
Or does that also mean that this is, you know, a blanket yes?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the answer to your first question in
regard to philosophies of the Board of County Commissioners --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I mean --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Philosophies in the attorney's office.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. The county attorney, of course, serves the
primary client, the Board of County Commissioners and, of course, is
always open, not merely at a time of negotiation of contract, to hear
from the board in regard to direction and how the service of the client
can best be afforded.
And if there are any kinds of issues relating to the operation of
the office, there are multiple opportunities, of course, to have that
contact with me. And additionally, of course, the county attorney is
not under the -- we'll call it the limitations that the board finds under
the county manager ordinance, for instance. And individual --
individual commissioners can talk with individual attorneys in my
office.
But also I, of course, have my annual review which comes up at
Page 31
May 22-23, 2007
the end of September, early October every year, which is an
opportunity, and an excellent opportunity, for a very comprehensive
review of the office.
As you know, we have a rather comprehensive evaluation format
for the board to look at that covers legal, fiscal, personnel,
supervisory, many different areas there. So -- but those things can be
revisited at any time one on one from commissioners or if the
commissioners so desire at any other point in regard to an operational
change in the office or direction, philosophy change, things of that
nature.
So I would tend to think the flexibility's always there for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So if we don't approve this, then we
just continue to go one year at a time; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Well, the agreement provides that within
six months of its termination, the board by its -- the term of this
agreement is supposed to indicate whether it wishes the agreement to
lapse or to renegotiate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. WEIGEL: Now, if the board determines that it wishes to
continue an arrangement with me and renegotiate something different
than the recommendation before you today, then you can go into that
mode by a majority vote of the board today certainly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I help you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see there's a little bit of un comfort.
I think it's the span of time that we're looking at, the four years. Mr.
Weigel has served us very well. Obviously there's some opinions here
how well that's been and may be questionable of how it may be in the
future.
Possibly you might want to reconsider your motion and direct me
to go into negotiations and maybe come up with a contract that would
go year by year and then we could evaluate it, because there are
Page 32
May 22-23, 2007
certain things -- obviously I'm hearing three commissioners say they'd
like to see change and done differently.
Now, if we're not accomplishing that through our annual review,
maybe it would be through an annual contract review that we might be
able to have that power to do it. Just purely a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We still have a motion on the
floor by Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala,
and that motion is to sign this agreement as it stands, it would not
come back before the Board of Collier County Commissioners, and
Mr. Weigel's contract would be extended for another four years. Does
that sum it up without going through a lot of legal jumble?
MR. WEIGEL: You're correct on that. And of course, the board
always has the option of terminating my agreement if -- at some point
in time. If it does that, then I get six months severance, things of that
nature. There is a provision in there, however, if that comes up, that I
would have an opportunity to address the board before they summarily
would take such action.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none. All those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to do this again.
This time I'm going to ask for a hand count. I think we're all very
Page 33
May 22-23, 2007
uncomfortable with this situation, and we all have a very special place
in our heart for Mr. Weigel.
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by raising their hands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Raised hand.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Left or right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right will work for me. Left for you.
Okay, two for.
All opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Raised hand.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion fails by a vote of
3-2.
Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion then. The motion
I'll make is that starting today, if it passes, that we give the county
attorney 180 days and that we start a search. That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before we second it. Will we --
well, I would recommend that we permit the county attorney to be
considered in that process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can tell that you finding a good
county attorney is a very, very difficult thing to do, and it's entirely
possibly we will -- if we do a search -- and I think that's an appropriate
process. But if we do a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I said earlier that he would
be involved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I would second the
Page 34
May 22-23, 2007
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Halas and second by Commissioner Coyle to start the search.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And our -- our present county
attorney is in -- is in the hunt in regards to this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're starting the 180
days as of today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hundred and eighty days being the
time that we're going to be doing the search?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What else does that 180 days
mean? Would that mean at the end of 180 days whether the search is
done or not that we no longer have a county attorney or -- I'd hate to
think we're going to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, at 180 days, I would think
that we'd have a decision by that point in time. So we're just -- I'm
just putting that into the motion, but I would think that what we're
doing is put -- you know, have a search, that starts 180 days, along
with the county attorney being involved in that, to see if there's people
of his caliber that -- out there or somebody that could possibly lead us
into the future, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any advice from staff on this?
I want to make sure that we've got a doable thing before we make this
motion and we find out that it was totally unworkable in the time
frame or something. Could somebody advise us?
Can you remember the last time we did a search? I think it was
for a county manager, and we gave up on it and hired Mr. Mudd.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We never did a search for
the county manager. We just took Tom Olliffs recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back to the question.
Page 35
May 22-23, 2007
Does anyone know that the 180 days is workable?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would hope so. I think it should
be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Or do you want this -- you don't think
we need to bring this back? You feel comfortable enough with your
motion as is?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I'm -- I feel comfortable. I
look for guidance here from my fellow commissioners if they feel that
there's something that needs to be added.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'd like to
say one additional comment, and that is, based on what it appears
you're poised to do right now, at the end of 180 days, and only -- or
toward the end of the 180 days, only at that point I'll know whether I
have a little bit of time left or not.
At the same time, of course, I've always indicated my desire to
work with the commissioners and staff and the public in this -- in this
job. I think I've done a good job for all of us.
But in any event, the way this will work out as proposed is that I
either have to start looking for employment right now hoping that I
don't have to find a job, and how can I commit to somewhere else if
there's a possibility that I continue to work here, which I wish to
continue to do or -- and additionally you have an ordinance in place
that prevents me from even coming and working in county
government work before this Board of County Commissioners for two
years. You know, it's an implication that may force me to have to
move to continue to stay in the same kind of work that I have to --
potentially, not absolutely.
So there's a lot to what you're about to do right now that will
affect me and affect my ability to go forward if I -- if at the end of 180
days, as Mr. Halas suggests, or prior to the end, you select another
attorney and then I kind of wither on the vine and go off, how will I
have looked after myself, my family, things of that nature, because I
Page 36
May 22-23, 2007
have either had to have tried to make a commitment somewhere else
or not. Who would take me thinking that, well, he really doesn't want
to come and work here ifhe can continue to work with the county.
So it does create some difficulties. I hope it's not lost on you, but
at the same time what you're saying is, at the end of 180 days, you are,
in effect, determining here to let the agreement lapse but allow me to
solicit for an opening that is going to occur. And at the end of 180
days, we'll see how that works out. And it has ramifications I just, you
know, let you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But Mr. Weigel, it also gives you
an opportunity maybe to move on to bigger and brighter things also in
the world. You never know where it could lead.
So I wouldn't take this as strictly being that you're left out in the
cold. I think with your background and stuff that you have a lot to
offer other -- other law firms. So I don't think you have a problem.
And as we said, you could still be in the running. That's up -- that's a
choice that you have to make whether you want to stay here within the
county and take your chances on 180 days or whether you want to go
out in the private sector and see what's available, okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Y eah. Well, let's just call it for
what it is. You know, you want to can the county attorney. There's
no question about it. And by going out for seeking other applicants, I
mean, that's -- that's just it.
So I'm not going to support the motion. I see what this is all
about. The county attorney serves the Board of Commissioners, not
the citizens of Collier County. He serves the county commissioners
collectively and advises us individually.
And I think Mr. Weigel has done that for a very long time. Has a
lot of institutional knowledge of Collier County, one of the most
Page 37
May 22-23, 2007
senior employees of the county, and has done a very good job, and I'm
not going to vote for the motion.
Now, certain commissioners, because they did not vote for the
motion to extend his contract for a four-year term, then if this motion
fails, I'm going to make a subsequent motion so we can move on.
This is very uncomfortable for the county attorney, David Weigel, and
we need to move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right on just about everything
you said. It's a very uncomfortable thing not only for the county
attorney; it's a very uncomfortable thing for the commissioners that
are sitting up here, and we're trying to handle it with all the decorum
that we possibly can muster.
I would like to agree with you on the motion. I'm just trying to --
I'd like to know what you substitute (sic) motion would be before I
commit one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, what I hear from some of
my colleagues, they had a problem with a four-year contract, so to
split the baby of a two-year extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I offered that as a suggestion earlier,
but I understand what you're trying to do. And I think very highly of
Mr. Weigel also. But be that as it may, I don't -- I was hoping you
might have some other idea for a motion. But in any case, unless the
motion makers want to go change the motion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Shakes head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We still-- we have a motion
on the floor, we have a second. We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, a second by Commissioner Halas; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, the other way around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas made the
motion. Commissioner Coyle seconded it.
No further discussion?
(No response.)
Page 38
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
So the motion passed 3-2.
Item #lOI
THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES, CITY OF MARCO,
EAST NAPLES, AND NORTH NAPLES FIRE DEPARTMENTS
FOR AN ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT ENGINE PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a time certain item at
nine a.m. this morning. It's item lOr. It's a recommendation to
approve the interlocal agreements between Collier County and the
City of Naples, City of Marco Island, East Naples and North Naples
Fire Departments for an advanced life support engine partnership
program.
And I believe Jeff Page and Dr. Robert Tober will present.
MR. PAGE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services.
This agreement that we -- or this set of agreements that we've
brought before you have been reviewed by the medical director, the
EMS Advisory Council, and the chiefs have tentatively agreed to it. It
has not been before their respective fire boards. The request was that
it come before you. And at the point that you sign off, it will then go
Page 39
May 22-23, 2007
to the fire districts. Any questions on --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. Questions,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I want to follow up on a
question I've already asked you. As you know, I am still very
concerned about maintaining the acceptable level of proficiency for
advanced life support for those people predominantly in the fire
districts who do not get the opportunity to treat the wide range and/or
frequency of situations that are necessary to maintain the top level of
proficiency.
I know that we are going to exchange people, and fire district
people are going to work with our EMS personnel and vice versa.
How do you rotate the fire district personnel through that process
sufficiently that they get the necessary concurrent training to be at the
top of their game all the time?
MR. PAGE: I would -- there are a few districts that do a very
good job for seeing that all of their paramedics rotate onto that swap
engine so they do have time in the back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, tell me which ones those are
so if I have a heart attack, I can stay out of that area. The ones that are
not doing it.
MR. PAGE: The ones that are --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just kidding with you, okay.
Well, you understand the problem.
MR. PAGE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are some outstanding people
in the fire districts. The point is, even pilots must go through
concurrency training every single year to make sure they maintain
their proficiency, even if they're flying regularly.
So this is a very, very technical skill, as everybody knows, and I
am concerned that we make sure that Dr. Tober has the authority and
Page 40
May 22-23, 2007
the right to determine if people are, in fact, maintaining the necessary
skill levels so that people will get the best possible care.
MR. PAGE: I'm going to take this opportunity to phone a friend.
DR. TOBER: Good morning, everybody.
Commissioner Coyle, your questions are well taken, and we have
struggled and continue to struggle with this issue.
I actually made two copies. I didn't want to kill too many trees,
but you might pass those up. This is the current issue of the New
England Journal of Medicine further confounding the issues of ALS
and BLS and issuing what the definitions really mean and where
practice meets reality.
This came from an incentive study done in Ontario where no
one's ever really known for sure the enormous expense that we put out
for ALS, what impact it has on lives saved. And the crux of this
article is that ALS had a finite statically significant impact on lives
saved.
The people providing that ALS were highly trained Ontario
paramedics with a 12-week preceptorship, not unlike our internship
that we do for our own Collier County EMS paramedics, but -- and
those copies are for you to keep if you want to make additional copies
for all the members.
But the final summary paragraph there scratched their head and
said, well, we're really not sure if it was the advanced basic life
support that really made the difference or the very occasional
intervention on the part of a paramedic in further stabilization of the
airway or intravenous drugs.
In our own system, if we look at our phenomenal success rate in
cardiac arrests, with this last quarter 55 percent of our ventricular
fibrillations left the hospital alive and in good shape. There are no
statistics like that reported anywhere on earth.
All of that came from heroic BLS efforts of police, fire, and ALS.
Almost none of those required engagement of ALS skills in order to
Page 41
May 22-23,2007
save those people's lives. I say almost none because on a couple of
cases you're never really sure where the transition occurred between
near death and coming back to life in some of these cases, but the vast
majority of them were basic life support.
And ifthere's anything I'm chagrinned about, it's the fact that
basic life support has the word basic and advanced life support has the
word advanced, because really it's a continuum of anywhere from one
to 20 critical interventions, and starting at intervention 10 does no
good unless you've done interventions one through nine first.
So first and foremost, the provision of expert BLS care is
paramount. Secondly, our own experience with our ALS engine
paramedics that we loaned the fire departments has been that if we
leave them on an ALS engine too long, and in some cases we had to
do this when we were in positions of personnel shortage, we had to
reel them back and put them on a transport ambulance for quite a
while to reacquaint them.
And in our current system, we have a minimum number of ALS
engine paramedics who are also experienced paramedics from Collier
County EMS going over to the fire departments. He is still spending a
minimum of 40 24-hour shifts a year on a transport ambulance. That's
the minimum that we are allowing at this time.
In the past I have asked for the fire department who wished to
participant in the ALS engine program to put their paramedics at a
minimum on an ambulance for one 24-hour shift every three months.
That's only four shifts a year or one -- or one-tenth what I ask of our
most experienced paramedics who we loan to the engine companies.
And although at one point in time I insisted upon that as a
prerequisite, I got battered pretty hard that that was just not feasible
and that it had too much negative impact on the fire departments.
And I could tell you -- and I've shared this with some of you
personally -- this has been a day-to-day wrestling match as to how
much rope I extend in terms of clinical liberties to a group of people
Page 42
May 22-23, 2007
who only occasionally use them.
In a -- in a review of some 3,600 calls done at North Naples since
October, we found, perhaps one percent of those calls -- perhaps one
percent of those calls -- had an on-scene time of a fire engine long
enough to play some meaningful role in that patient's outcome.
And you, yourself, have expressed the concern to me that you
don't want to leave one life uncovered out there if it could possibly be
helped by an engine company waiting for EMS to get there.
And since there is about a 1 percent incidence of the possibility
that they could be on scene for 10 minutes or more before we get
there, and given the realities that they don't get to practice what we are
about to extend to them to any great length of time, I still think it's
reasonable, if it was logistically possible, to put them on an intensively
busy transport ambulance once every quarter or four shifts a year to
get a fairly intensive preceptorship pounding with one of our own
transport paramedics simply because I think that ensures some clinical
currency that they may not get otherwise.
Again, this is not an issue of calling one person better or less than
somebody else. This is an issue of how often you are the safety net,
not waiting for the safety net to arrive, but the safety net of clinical
practice and who is overseeing that practice and what is being done.
So I think in these interlocal agreements, the board needs to give
careful consideration at least to two issues. I think there should be not
a suggestion or a desire but a mandate that we have a certain amount
of clinical exposure rotated through these medics who are on the --
that belong to the fire departments.
Number two, we need to be careful as we march onto this
about-to-be-printed new protocol that would encompass these ALS
agreements and interlocal agreements, that we understand that as we
move forward, any additional equipment or medical pertinent
purchases by fire departments would have to be approved by the
current medical director of Collier County EMS in conjunction with
Page 43
May 22-23,2007
my own training department and thinking through these things.
It's very, very difficult. I've -- at three in the morning I've had
nights where I thought that we should just convert the system outside
of EMS to a highly advanced, highly capable BLS system, and there
are times -- because I can't guarantee it -- that perhaps, perhaps, an
intervention over and above the first nine or 10 critical interventions
might make a difference.
And so what I propose to do is to do 100 percent chart review of
every single ALS intervention by the fire departments. And certainly
at the places that we have ALS engine agreements functioning now, I
have highly capable EMS training people, many of whom came from
Collier County EMS.
So I think with 100 percent review and remediation, that we can
cautiously move forward. But I would like to ask the board to consider
some sort of clinical mandate on a rotating basis for our fire
department medics.
And additionally, the mandate that any equipment purchases or
things of that nature come before the acting medical director and the
EMS training departments so that we can think through the
ramifications of any additional piece of equipment.
Because it's a -- it's not just a handful of people that are going to
be exposed to that, but the rotation of our own medics through
different departments could lead to anybody being exposed to a piece
of equipment that they're not familiar with. So if anything else is
purchased, I really have to in-service everyone to a level of
competency.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dr. Tober, just one final question.
This rotation protocol and the equipment review, can that be done
separately from the agreements that we're currently being asked to
approve, or do you feel that those protocols must be embedded in that
-- in these particular agreements?
In other words, can we approve these agreements and then
Page 44
May 22-23, 2007
endorse a protocol, which you would provide to us at a later date,
concerning concurrency of treatment and approval of drugs and/or
equipment?
DR. TOBER: You're probably better able to answer that than me
given the politics and head scratching that's gone into these existing
protocols. I would say that if I had my druthers, I'd build them into
the interlocal agreements as they are, but perhaps you have an
additional comment.
MS. BELPEDIO: Good morning. Jennifer Belpedio, Assistant
County Attorney.
Certainly the medical director, under chapter 401, has very broad
authority to supervise and assume direct responsibility for the medical
performance of the EMTs. And with that authority certainly comes
the ability to do what Dr. Tober had just been speaking about.
But what that said, it certainly does not hurt to include a
provision into the agreement and certainly our office would be happy
to do so in each of the four that are being considered by the BCC this
mornmg.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there -- let's be fair. There is
another side to this argument, and we haven't heard from the fire
districts on this. So I'm very reluctant to change this on the fly.
At the very least, I mean, from my standpoint, what I would be
willing to do is to say, go back and talk with the fire districts and see
what kinds of problems or ramifications it might create if we do it that
way and how long it might delay the interlocal agreements, and then
you could bring them back, and then we could get all approved
hopefully. That would be the proper way to do it.
But if -- I don't know how the board's going to vote on that issue.
I suspect most people want to move ahead with this thing as quickly as
possible, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speaking of moving ahead, let's go to
Commissioner Henning.
Page 45
May 22-23,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Dr. Tober, thank you for
working on these agreements. Do you feel these agreements that work
through with your corporation is an enhanced service to the people
within that service area?
DR. TOBER: I hope that it's going to be an enhanced service.
We're doing a lot of things for the first time. We're starting to get a
large inflow of run reports now from fire department, ALS and BLS
engagements, and we only have just begun to look at these.
Of course, this has our own budgetary impact because I'm going
to start getting so many more charts to review on a weekly basis that I
am going to need a minimum of two more people in my training
department to oversee this, because reading the charts is an
exhausting, very time-consuming job.
And the only way to do 100 percent review, which we feel we
need to do right now, is to read each and every chart. And some of
them are fast and some of them are long.
Yes, I generally think the agreement is going in the right
direction. It's such uncharted water that only from the vantage point
of hindsight will I have the comfort level that I think you want me to
express to you today that things are exactly as they should be.
It was only in the last week or two -- and certainly after reading
this article about the ALS experiences in Ontario where each and
every one of those ALS engine -- I'm sorry, ALS paramedics did go
through an intensive 12-week preceptorship which has on and offbeen
alleged to be something unnecessary to do here.
But in our own system for almost 30 years, those preceptorships
went anywhere from six months to 12 months. So I think 12 weeks is
a minimum. Only a few of the medics in the fire departments have
gone through those preceptorships. Almost all of them are transplants
from Collier County EMS.
So given the -- given the realities of the unknown, I'm as
comfortable as I can be with the agreements, but I do think some
Page 46
May 22-23, 2007
additional consideration should be given to clinical currency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And I agree with that, but
the only problem with that -- see, it's not our budget. It's their budget,
and I think they -- we should not dictate what they do with their
budget. And -- but I have faith that you'll-- you and Jeff Page will
continue to work with the independent fire districts. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a question. Don't we
pay for this equipment? Doesn't Collier County?
DR. TOBER: We -- that's another issue that has been on the
table. Sometimes the fire departments pay for it, but we pay for the
reloads of the expendables that go with that equipment. Then the
expendables can, over a period of time, exceed the cost of the
equipment by many multiples.
MR. PAGE: Commissioner, what we do initially is we provide
the initial equipment to put on the engines. They are responsible for
the expendables after that point. The engine that has our paramedic
onboard, we cover those expendables because we can kind of control
our paramedic. So that's in this agreement that they'll be responsible
for their own expendables, excluding ours.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Dr. Tober, with these new
criteria that you're presenting today, was this something that you have
introduced or something that's been worked out amongst others?
DR. TOBER: No, no. We have discussed this for some time
with the fire departments, and we actually started some time ago with
a mandate that this had to be done, and then because of a host of
scheduling issues and manpower issues and the like, some of the fire
departments took serious issue with this and said they just couldn't do
it.
Again, it's a complicated problem. There are -- there are
Page 47
May 22-23,2007
instances where people come over to EMS for the day and really don't
want to be there. One of the spinoff benefits of having people spend a
full 24-hour shift with a transport ambulance every three months is
anybody that's going to do that is serious about providing medical care
and not either doing it because it helps their pay structure or it helps
the politics of what you're confounding this whole issue, in addition to
medical care. This is not a simple, clean issue of just medical care.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me go back and say, was it
-- was it you that introduced this idea --
DR. TOBER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- of the expanded so that you need
two extra people on to read these charts? And would those two extra
people reading charts besides yourself also have to be doctors?
DR. TOBER: Oh, no, no. Those are -- the people who do our
chart reading now are trained paramedics. But we have training
paramedics who review either random samplings or 100 percent
review of anyone particular person.
We do 100 percent review of new medic charts to make sure that
they're moving in the right direction. And we don't do this from a
punitive standpoint. We do this from a remediation standpoint so that
we can get people back on track if they're veering off from where we
want them to be providing care.
No, it's -- I have said for some time that as we accept a broader
and broader responsibility of the fire departments and the oversight,
that we need a bigger overseeing department. It's just -- we're talking
about thousands and thousands of additional medical records being
created by fire departments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a speaker?
MS. FILSON: Actually I have two speakers, Mr. Chairman.
James Cunningham. He'll be followed by Andrea Schultz.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, James Cunningham, President of North Naples Professional
Page 48
May 22-23,2007
Firefighters.
On behalf of the firefighters, we -- we're willing to meet almost
any challenge to provide obviously the highest possible level of ALS
services and medical services to our residents, which is why I would
ask that each you commissioners support the interlocal agreement
that's before you.
However, it's important to reiterate what I have mentioned to
many of you commissioners in the past, that there is a point that the
interlocal agreement is only a Band-Aid to the true underlying
problem, as many of which have come forward to you today.
It reinforces the power struggle and turf guarding that does not
benefit patient care. Taking highly trained paramedics off of
ambulances to place them in fire engines, they may already have a
paramedic assigned to them, and then replacing with a swap with an
EMT or potentially a paramedic reduces the level of service being
provided on your transport units. Not only does this sound
irresponsible, but the fiscal impacts to the county taxpayers are
significant.
In closing, I'd ask that you support the agreement recommended
before you so that the residents continue to have ALS engines provide
essential medical services, but also, furthermore, commit to exploring
other options to enhance the delivery of medical services so we can
simultaneously reduce expenditures by eliminating duplication.
And, Commissioner Coyle, you bring a very valid concern which
is why, completely separate from this issue, I would hope that in the
future we address the office of the medical director concept so that the
provisions within all of the interlocal agreements or within all the
independent fire districts can have one common medical ground that
alleviates the politicalness and puts patient care on the forefront,
which is what I believe Dr. Tober supports.
So if we look at the office of the medical director, I think you'll
find that the fire districts will be much easier to work with the
Page 49
May 22-23, 2007
confines of what is out there, because we want to commit to Dr. Tober
and his requests. The problem is, there's so many political agendas
that get thrown in the mix, which is why we'll ask at a later date to
accept -- or to look at that as another option. But thank you for your
time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Andrea Schultz.
MS. SCHULTZ: Good morning. Andrea Schultz, East Naples
Fire Department. I wasn't planning on speaking. I just had two points
of interest that came up during Dr. Tober's conversations this morning.
The first one being in the interlocal agreements, specifically in
the operational plan on section 5A, if you refer to that under quality
assurance, it does specifically outline the fact that the fire department
personnel or the fire departments have taken on the responsibility to
assist with the medical director and Collier County EMS with the
quality assurance process. And we, internally as well, will help with
that 100 percent quality assurance review.
Secondly, the concept of mandating this internship where our
firefighter/paramedics or firefighter/EMTs go and ride on the transport
vehicle is fantastic in theory. The only concern that our department
specifically would have would be that we ensure that there is a quality
learning environment should this be mandated. In the sense that we
want to make sure that the paramedic that is on the transport vehicle
from Collier County EMS is an experienced provider, is comfortable
and capable with their own para medicine, that they've been around
the block, so to speak, for a duration of time so that they can take on
the added responsibility of training our own paramedics and EMTs.
Unfortunately, we haven't necessarily had that instance with our
swap program right now with Medic 22. We typically have newly
certified or Tober certified paramedics working on that unit and,
therefore, the learning environment may not be as ideal as it could be
if we have, for instance, a field training officer that was a designated
Page 50
May 22-23,2007
field training officer from the medical director. Those are our only
concerns. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. You got another one?
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion to approve the agreements, and also my motion is give
direction to our staff to explore other options to reduce the cost to the
taxpayers and also explore the opportunities that Dr. Tober his brought
forward, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
DR. TOBER: I wanted to comment particularly on Andrea
Schultz's comments. I totally endorse the concept that these swap
experiences be highly meaningful and that the medic from the fire
departments spending a day or 24-hour shift with us is exposed to the
highest level of medical paramedics that we have.
Unfortunately, for a time, we have been in a scramble trying to
reassemble our own ranks because we lost a lot of medics out of our
system prior to this new contract. Some of them were dispersed to
other fire departments in this community, others left the community,
and as such, I lost some of my FTOs and some of my FTOs lost the --
FTO stands for field training officer. I lost some of my FTOs just to
exhaustion and burnout.
I have said for years that the most important people in my
organization are my FTOs, which take a new paramedic and move
them into an experience level. And I'm saying this publicly, once
again, that my field training officers and my training staff are the crux
and core of medical competency within our system, and those
positions need to be sufficiently rewarding or people will not stay in
Page 51
May 22-23,2007
them.
Being an FTO out in the field with a new paramedic is a
particularly exhausting and challenging issue, and most of the FTOs,
if not all of them that we currently have, have had to be diverted to
training new, very new, and very green rooky paramedics. And until
we build those ranks of experience back up, it's been hard to share
them with these training swap experiences, which is my sincere
intention to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we add to the motion
guidance to the medical director to provide us with the appropriate
protocols to assure concurrency for all fire department personnel? All
qualified fire department personnel and approval of the purchase of
certain equipment and/or drugs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Are you talking about
response time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Here's the situation. The fire
department's not qualified to transport. They can provide advanced life
support, but they're not qualified to transport.
They have no exposure then to the treatment which is necessary
during those transports, the advanced life support. The other times
they do not get as many cases of the various episodes that you're likely
to run into as our EMS people do.
So in order to expose them to the full range of treatment that is
necessary on a concurrent basis to make sure that they are fully
proficient at all times, we have to find a way to rotate them into our
EMS operations so they get that full range of experience.
Am I being accurate so far, Dr. Tober?
DR. TOBER: Dead on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So I'm just suggesting that,
Page 52
May 22-23, 2007
look, if you've got a -- and this is a terrible analogy, but if you've got a
pitch hitter, you want to make sure he does batting practice every day,
because when you need him, you're going to need him really badly.
So although he doesn't maybe get into the game except in certain
circumstances, he's got to be at the top of his game whenever he goes
m.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I understand now.
But I do want to say that we hold their certificate of needs for
transport, so they have the ability. Remember a lot of these EMTs--
they are paramedics providing ALS service --was trained by Dr.
Tober.
DR. TOBER: Some of them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Some of them, right, exactly.
But I would include in my motion for the -- for our staff, our staff, to
talk to the independent fire districts to include those swaps. Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that will be in my second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
Mr. Mudd, we have our legislative delegation. They're going to
start the meeting at 10 o'clock. I'd like to be able to plan a break at
9:45. So we have a few minutes. Do you think we might be able to
Page 53
May 22-23, 2007
take on one more item before we go on break?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, maybe two.
Item #9F
TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT OF REASONABLE
LEGAL FEES AND COSTS FOR COMMISSIONER HENNING -
APPROVED (COMMISSIONER HENNING ABSTAINED)
Next item is 9F. Commissioner Henning requesting the Board of
County Commissioners to approve and authorize reimbursement of
reasonable legal fees and costs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve. Okay. Motion to
approve by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. Go ahead, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I do want to point out one thing.
Mr. Pettit contacted the ethics commission, and they have a ruling in
this situation where I can participate in the vote, so I don't want to
think there would be another ethics commission complaint for me to
participate in this.
The second thing I want to point out, a correspondence to the
Board of Commissioners. And basically, it says from this now former
employee who filed the ethics complaint to supervisor of code
enforcement, David Scribner, this note is to serve you a formal notice
that the intent of the county employee to communicate with the State
Attorney's Office in their recent pertinent case of code enforcement
case blah-blah-blah, Tuffs versus the county.
As you know, I have full support and consent from the county
manager's agents -- agency in my immediate chain of command for a
Page 54
May 22-23,2007
formal meeting to be held in the future with the State's Attorney's
Office.
At this time I have not contacted FDLE, the state's ethic's
commission, but it remains a viable option.
I just want to say that I was collecting information which the
Board of Commissioners approved through an ordinance called the
affirmative defense to where the public may, on old-prude violations,
can provide that residency through certification as a safe residence.
And I will continue to serve the residents of Collier County,
including District 3, and I will not stand for any employee to get in my
way again, okay? Fair and simple.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, a second by Commissioner Coletta for approval.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor -- Mr.
Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I just wanted to indicate the
executive summary provides for the county attorney to review and
approve as appropriate the legal fees and expenses, and I have had the
opportunity to review those legal fees and expenses, and they are, in
fact, reasonable and appropriate. They are under the $7,000.
And with your approval, I will also process these in the sense of
providing my signature of approval to send them to the appropriate
offices for reimbursement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that included in your motion,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And my second also.
Any other comment?
(No response.)
Page 55
May 22-23,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMANCOLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously.
You got something extremely short, Mr. Mudd, or should we give
these people a few more minutes to recuperate?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll go on break now and
reconvene here at 10 o'clock for the legislative session.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Commissioner, if! may, I know we start with our advertised
public hearings at one o'clock normally on our budget -- or on our
agenda; however, we had two items added. One was a shade session
at 12 noon, and there was an item -- another item, 12C, and if it's the
board's wish, we can finish that particular matter while it's still on the
board's mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go ahead and do it.
Item #12B
NOTICE OF CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATING
TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING
LITIGATION CASE OF WILLIAM LIT SINGER V. COLLIER
Page 56
May 22-23,2007
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND FRED COYLE, INDIVIDUALLY,
CASE NO. 06-432-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY - CLOSED
SESSION
Item #12C
TO PROVIDE ACTION/DIRECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY AS TO ANY SETTLEMENT
NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATING TO
LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN WILLIAM LIT SINGER V.
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND FRED COYLE,
INDIVIDUALLY, CASE NO. 06-432-CA, NOW PENDING IN
THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AND IN AND OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - APPROVED
W/STIPULATIONS OF A SETTLEMENT OFFER OF $290,000
MR. MUDD: 12C is the Board of County Commissioners to
provide action/direction to the Office of the County Attorney as to any
settlement negotiations and strategy relating to litigation expenditures
in William Litsinger versus Collier County, Florida, and Fred Coyle,
individually, case number 06-432-CA now pending the 20th Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Who's taking the lead on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- after we hear from our
attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.
As indicated, this is item 12C added to the agenda subsequent--
and to be heard subsequent to the closed session that we just had. The
case of William Litsinger versus Collier County and Fred Coyle,
Page 57
May 22-23, 2007
individually.
And we have before you a proposed settlement agreement in this
lawsuit, and the settlement agreement, very briefly, provides for, in
fact, a payment of $290,000 to the plaintiff. This is for the
termination of the lawsuit but it also includes not merely the lawsuit
and counts against the county and Mr. Coyle, it would also -- would
eliminate an external complaint that was filed by Mr. Litsinger with
the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, on an
unrelated matter but it is related to his employment.
We have indicated to you, and tell you now, that the settlement
agreement provides for the absolute waiver and termination of all
claims and issues related to the employment of Mr. Litsinger, and
approval of the board of the settlement agreement would, today,
would also result in the resignation ofMr. Litsinger effective today.
We also know that there is an insurance component that will
assist, to some degree, relative to partial reimbursement of the county
for the payment that it would make under the settlement if approved.
Mr. Pettit will also indicate to you some language that may be
required relative to a budget amendment and he will also discuss a
clarification in regard to the attorney fees and costs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You need a second on that motion?
MR. WEIGEL: No, we're not ready for a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nice try.
MR. PETTIT: For the record, Mike Pettit, chief assistant county
attorney.
Commissioners, if there is a motion to go forward on the
settlement and the settlement is approved, my understanding is we will
need a budget amendment as part of that motion to reimburse our
property and casualty fund -- or reimburse property and casualty fund
from the general fund in an amount of up to $275,000, but we
anticipate it will be substantially less because of insurance proceeds
that will also contribute to this settlement.
Page 58
May 22-23, 2007
And in addition, we would clarify for the record that an approval
of this settlement will also be an approval by the board of all
attorney's fees expended on behalf of both the county -- attorney's fees
and costs, I should say -- and Commissioner Coyle, individually in his
defense of this lawsuit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, make a motion that we approve the settlement as
outlined by our legal staff, and which I will capture in my motion, but
also that we agree with Mr. Litsinger that there was no maliceness in
Commissioner Coyle's action as a public servant, that -- in my motion,
that we -- the Board of Commissioners accept the settlement
agreement of290,000 and all actions will go away as part of this
settlement.
Also direct the County Attorney's Office to do a budget
amendment up to $275,000 and pay all legal defenses in the case
against the county and Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Did we omit anything
from that motion that was needed to complete the objective we're
trying to obtain?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're -- the budget amendment will relate
to the general fund reserves. And Mr. Coyle may make a statement on
the record in regard to his participation or non-participation in the vote
that's coming at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's included--
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coyle?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- in your motion
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to be abstaining.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can barely hear you, Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm going to be abstaining.
Page 59
May 22-23, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're all set. Any other
comments, questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, 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.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4-0 with
Commissioner Coyle abstaining.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to agenda item--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just hate to bother you, but just for
one brief moment. We were giving our ex parte this morning, and
about the same time we were giving our ex parte I received something
on one of the -- I think it was on the summary agenda. I can't even tell
you the number, but I've got it sitting in front of me. It's for Silver
Lakes. So I just wanted to make mention that I received something
from Jim Bach regarding Silver Lakes. I just wanted to make sure that
we're all legal here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Is that Silver Strand, ma'am, about a concrete
plant?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. This is Silver Lakes. Oh,
there is no Silver Lakes. We must have our silvers mixed up, okay.
Thank you.
Page 60
May 22-23, 2007
MR. MUDD: There's a Silver Strand and that's 17B, and that
item is continued until June 12th. It had to do with a concrete plant or
the workings thereof, and that's that particular item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Wrong silver. Sorry. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Thank you.
What's the next item, Mr. Mudd?
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2007-45: AN ORDINANCE REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION FOR ARTESIA NAPLES COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
EXERCISE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL POWERS FOR PERSONS
AND PROPERTY RESIDING IN THE ARTESIA NAPLES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item's 8A, sir. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
It's an ordinance requesting authorization for Artesia Naples
Community Development District, board of supervise -- board of
supervisors, to exercise certain additional powers for persons and
property residing in the Artesia Naples Community Development
District.
MS. KENDALL: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, County
Commissioners. For the record, Marcia Kendall, Comprehensive
Planning Department.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to swear them in.
MS. KENDALL: The Artesia Naples Community Development
District was approved --
MR. MUDD: Wait a minute. We've got to do ex parte.
Page 61
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have to swear everyone in first.
Everyone wishing to participate on this agenda item, please stand at
this time to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Now, ex parte --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if Ms. Kendall's
going to participate in this, I would imagine she's going to have to be
sworn m.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you please swear in the
person at the podium.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay. For ex parte
disclosure, we'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Was asked for a
meeting by Mr. Y ovanovich and declined. Actually I think these are
really, really old. CDD, a memo from Jim Mudd to the Board of
Commissioners, and that's it. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I met with -- I met with the
petitioner and his representatives. Let's see. Greg Urbancic and
David Caldwell, and I've spoken to staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I myself, I've had
meetings, met with Garret Subanic (sic), David Caldwell and Paul
Erik -- Ehrhardt and received emails and phone calls.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Thank you very much. I've
had meetings both with the petitioner at one time, and I've also met
with staff on this, and I've had a number of emails.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with Mr. Y ovanovich,
Mr. Urbancic and David Caldwell, and those are the only meetings I
have had concerning this item.
Page 62
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MS. KENDALL: Okay, thank you. Again, for the record,
Marcia Kendall, Comprehensive Planning Department.
The Artesia Naples Community Development District was
approved by ordinance 2006-33 on June 20th of 2006. Under section
six of the ordinance it notes the consent to exercise additional powers.
The Artesia Naples CDD's board of supervisors have requested the
right to seek consent from the Collier Board of County Commissioners
for a grant of authority to exercise those additional powers in
accordance with section 190.012.2.D, Florida Statutes, and per their
resolution, 20074, are seeking approval to exercise those powers
relating to the public improvements and community facilities.
And unless you have questions for myself or the county attorney,
we will be happy to address them; otherwise, I would turn the floor
over to Greg Urbancic to answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't see any lights. Whoa, I take it
back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to wait?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Please go on with the
presentation.
MR. URBANCIC: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Greg Urbancic from Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson. I'm the District
Counsel for the Artesia Naples Community Development District. I'm
also joined by David Caldwell from WCI Communities, the developer
of Artesia Naples.
As Ms. Kendall just pointed out, this CDD was approved by you
last June. We're coming back to you for a request for special powers.
The reason we're making that request is just to -- the prevailing
interpretation of the statute says that you can't do it all at once. You
actually have to come back in once you have the board constituted,
Page 63
May 22-23,2007
and then make the request for special powers.
It's been changed under a bill that's pending signature by the
governor. But be that as it may, for this district, this is how we had to
operate.
Just one comment with respect to district. As you might recall
when you passed the ordinance, we are required under the ordinance
to elect one resident of the district to the five-member board at the
time residents begin occupying the district, so that's already in our
charter that you gave us back in June of '06.
Just started closings last week so, you know, shortly there will be
some people starting to move in Artesia. And if you've ever been
back there, they're starting to turn dirt and structures are going up.
So our request is for special powers, just the security power
which would allow us to establish, permit, or fence and a guardhouse
and give future residents the right to, you know, contract for future
special services from the sheriff if they so desired that level of service
for the community.
But at this time, I'm open to any questions. That's the scope of
our request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner
Henning, then go to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is to build public
infrastructure?
MR. URBANCIC: This will-- yeah, yeah, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How does the wall serve
the public?
MR. URBANCIC: Well, it provides a security function at least
for the residents within that community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How does the gate serve the
public?
MR. URBANCIC: The gate itself?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same thing?
Page 64
May 22-23,2007
MR. URBANCIC: Yeah, generally. I mean, it's sort of the same
concept as if you had a homeowners association. They put a
perimeter buffer around their community. This would allow the
district to actually operate those facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, what's going to be
the financial impact that's going to be placed upon the future residents
if we give you additional powers?
MR. URBANCIC: The financial impact will be, as in any
traditional CDD, if we build the infrastructure, we would finance that
infrastructure through the issuance of bonds and there would be, you
know, a certain portion of debt service that would be applied to the
property .
We're required to make all sorts of disclosures, not only in our
contracts, but also in notices that are filed of record, and those notices
have been filed in accordance with an ordinance that you passed last
year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The ordinance that we
passed last year, you're coming back for additional powers.
MR. URBANCIC: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's going to be the financial
increase over what you've -- what we've allotted you at this point in
time to what is going to be impacted with those residents if we decide
to give you this additional power?
MR. URBANCIC: There's not going to be any additional
impact. We already, when we provided our statement, statement of
estimated regulatory costs at the time we formed the district, all these
components were put in there. We just didn't know if we were going
to get those powers at a later date --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. URBANCIC: -- since we would have to come in to petition.
Page 65
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One -- I'm -- forgive me. Let's open
the public comments by registered speakers at this time.
MS. FILSON: The speaker's Henry Nardone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's a different one.
MR. NARDONE: Next one.
MS. FILSON: Oh, it says 8A. Okay, sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No problem. That person, if
you're in the audience, they want to change the number on the speaker
slip, please do it.
MS. FILSON: Actually it says 8A, Band C, so--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's close the public comments. We
have a motion and a second.
Any other 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.
Page 66
May 22-23,2007
MR. URBANCIC: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Next item.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2007-46: PETITION: PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7422 (KD)
LARRY ABBO, AS VICE PRESIDENT OF PRIME HOMES AT
PORTOFINO FALLS, LTD., REPRESENTED BY DAVID R.
UNDERHILL, JR. OF BANKS ENGINEERING AND ROBERT D.
PRITT OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, L.P.A.; AND WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, AS PRESIDENT OF CATALINA LAND GROUP INC.,
WHO IS REPRESENTED BY DAVID R. UNDERHILL, JR., OF
BANKS ENGINEERING AND RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A., ARE
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL (A) AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT, TO ADD
20.26 ACRES AND 80 DWELLING UNITS TO THE WOLF
CREEK RPUD FOR A TOTAL OF 167.96 ACRES AND 671
DWELLING UNITS, WHICH MAY BE SINGLE- OR MUL TI-
F AMIL Y DWELLINGS, AND AMEND THE PUD DOCUMENT
AND ASSOCIATED MASTER PLAN. THE APPLICANT ALSO
PROPOSES TO REDUCE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MUL TI-
F AMIL Y STRUCTURES FROM 42 FEET AND 3 STORIES TO 38
FEET AND 2 STORIES; AND ELIMINATE NURSING HOMES,
PRIV A TE SCHOOLS, ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND
CHURCHES AS ALLOWABLE CONDITIONAL USES. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD, APPROXIMA TEL Y ONE HALF
MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 34,
Page 67
May 22-23,2007
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. (COMPANION ITEM TO THE FALLS OF
PORTOFINO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD))
- ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next item is 8B. This item
requires, again, that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-A-2005-AR-7422, in parens, KD, Larry Abbo,
as Vice-President of Prime Homes of Porto fino Falls, Limited,
represented by David R. Underhill, Jr., of Banks Engineering, and
Robert D. Pritt of Roetzel & Andress, LPA; and William L. Hoover,
as president of the Catalina Land Group, Inc., who is represented by
David R. Underhill, Jr., of Banks Engineering, and Richard D.
Yovanovich, Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, P.A., are requesting a
rezone from the rural agricultural (A) and planned unit development
PUD zoning districts to the residential planned unit development
(RPUD) zoning district to add 20.26 acres and 80 dwelling units to the
Wolf Creek (RPUD) for a total of 167.96 acres and 671 dwelling
units, which may be single or multifamily dwellings, and amend the
PUD document and associated master plan.
The applicant also proposes to reduce the maximum height of
multifamily structures from 42 feet and three stories to 38 feet and two
stories; and eliminate nursing homes, private schools, adult living
facilities, and churches as allowable conditional uses.
The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach
Road approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard in
Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
This is a companion item to the Falls of Portofino Community
Development District, which is 8C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those wishing to
Page 68
May 22-23, 2007
participate in this agenda item please stand at this time to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And now for disclosure
on the part of the commissioners. Let's start with Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've received some
correspondence from the Roetzel Anderson (sic), the petitioner. I
spoke to -- well, I received a phone call from Mr. Dempsey. I spoke
to Mr. Hoover. And it looks like we have some correspondence from
the EAC and the staff report. And Rick Mercer from Ellis -- Elias
Brothers, and their attorney. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have received phone calls.
I've had a meeting with Bob Pritt at my Marco office. I've received a
number of emails and correspondence from Will Dempsey, Rick
Mercer, Roetzel Andress. That's about it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I have had
meetings, I met with Rich Yovanovich, Larry Abbo, Linda Scarlo (sic)
of Prime Builders, homebuilders, David Underhill, vice-president,
Banks Engineering and Robert Pritt. I also had emails and phone calls
and correspondence.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. I've had
meetings before when this came before us, and correspondence,
emails and phone calls, and I've had meetings with our staff and
recently have had a phone call by the attorney, Mr. Robert Pritt, and
I've had other correspondences that are in my brochure here, and I
think that's it at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have had meetings
with petitioner and petitioner's agents. I've also received email from
Page 69
May 22-23, 2007
Will Dempsey and Rick Mercer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Pritt?
MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm here on behalf of Prime
Homes, LLC -- Prime Homes at Porto fino Falls. It's owner of parcel
number five, which we would like to add to the existing Wolf Creek
PUD.
I have with me -- I think you've named all the names, but Dave
Underhill is also with us in case you need to have anybody testify as
to planning, zoning, engineering matters, and we also have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Abbo, who's the founder of the
company here today, as well as Larry Abbo, Linda Socolow and also
Steve Greenfield?
As has been said, Rich Y ovanovich is also here. I believe that
Mr. Hoover is here also on behalf of the Catalina Land Group, owner
of the balance of the Wolf Creek PUD.
The background here is that we're requesting a rezone from rural
agricultural and planned development, planned unit development, to
residential planned unit development zoning district. And as was said,
we're just going to add 20.26 acres and are requesting 80 dwelling
units to be added to the existing Wolf Creek PUD.
This would make for a total of 167.96 acres and a total of 671
dwelling units, which may be single or multifamily dwellings, and we
also are going to amend the PUD document and the associated master
plan.
As also has been said in the introduction, the proposal is to
reduce the maximum height of multifamily structures from 42 feet and
three stories to 38 feet and two stories and to eliminate some uses.
The location of the property is on the north side of Vanderbilt
Beach Road approximately one half mile west of Collier Boulevard,
and we can show you that on the map. This map here, it's kind of hard
Page 70
May 22-23, 2007
to read, but what I wanted to point out here is that the -- let's see.
We've got Vanderbilt road -- Beach Road here and 951 there. Thank
you.
And I heavily marked -- right there in the middle is parcel
number five marked in red so that you can see what the situation is.
The heavy black line that goes all the way around the existing PUD
goes clear around -- clear around to the other side and back, carved
out this -- either carved out or left out this parcel which is right smack
dab in the middle.
And to everybody's credit, they are trying to put this together
with the existing PUD rather than create some other type of PUD or
new PUD and -- so that we can have a real unified project and project
area.
A couple things to keep in mind. And this is all in the staff
report. I know that you all have read the staff report and all the
documents, but the -- in this subdistrict there's a base density of four
dwelling units per acre. There's a limit of a maximum of 16 units per
acre under the density rating system.
And we're not asking for any density bonuses and there are no
density reductions that are applicable. So the site would be eligible
for four dwelling units per acre, and the requested density is actually
3.99. I'm not sure how it worked out that way. But we're asking for
the four units per acre essentially.
The transportation element. It's been found consistent with the
transportation element. There are contingencies concerning
concurrency and -- that are in the PUD document that has -- that was
discussed and handled at the Planning Commission hearing and -- so
that is in the PUD document that you have in front of you.
One thing that is a little bit different, and that's the affordable
housing impacts. The request had contained no provisions to address
affordable or workforce housing demands that may be created. We
went through the Planning Commission hearing process. It was
Page 71
May 22-23, 2007
approved 8-1.
We're more aware now, but just generally aware that there was
an issue as to -- at least a question as to whether or not voluntary
donations can be given to the county or can be -- or where they should
be given.
And I noticed that on your agenda today is item 10M. And I'm
not sure, did I hear that that was continued? We kind of expected that
to be handled today but -- and it seemed to make sense to be the first
ones in to offer to make that contribution to the voluntary donation
contribution and have it go into the trust fund, and we still would
propose to do that. We presume that this matter will be taken care of
fairly quickly.
So there is a letter that you all should have. Ms. Deselem has
indicated to me that there may be a slight glitch if your resolution is
adopted, the resolution that you propose to adopt. I believe it calls for
a payment immediately rather than seven days after CO, and we have
no problem with making it consistent with whatever that resolution
might say.
So there will be a contribution, voluntary donation, to the
housing trust fund into the affordable/workforce housing program. So
you should having that letter in your files.
The environmental services staff. The Environmental Advisory
Council recommendations were positive. As I said, the Planning
Commission recommended approval 8-1, and we feel that in this case
we're simply adding 20 acres to the existing PUD. It's located right in
the middle of the PUD, as I said. We're using the same base density as
the rest of the PUDs.
And the surrounding areas -- and if I may, let me just show you
the surrounding areas. And that's all in your summary packet. I
believe it's on page 10. To the north is -- to the north is Palermo
Cove. Does that show on here? Let me substitute this one here. This
is actually in the commission's packet.
Page 72
May 22-23, 2007
Palermo Cove is there on the north, and I'm going to have to read
that map. 131 acres, four units of density. Sonoma Oaks, 37 and a
half. Thank you. I knew that was there somewhere. Sonoma Oaks, 37
and a half acres, mixed-use proj ect, and the density of four units per
acre.
Carolina Village, 15.88 acres and a density of 4.03 units per acre.
And Island Walk PUD DRI, it's built out, it's a
705-plus-or-minus-acre mixed-use project, and the residential portion
was approved at a density of3.04. But again, that's a mixed-use
project, and it's not just residential density. There's other use also.
So we believe that this is consistent, and it has been found
consistent with all of your requirements both in the Growth
Management Plan and in your codes, and it's our request that the
project be considered, be approved today, and we'll be glad to answer
any questions that you may have.
I am -- just before I do that. I am aware that, from your
disclosures and I was otherwise aware, that you received a letter or
some type of inquiry concerning the easement situation for what is
going to be called Pristine Drive, and that is right here, runs north and
south.
And I simply wanted to indicated to you a couple of things about
that. I don't think you'll find any opposition. Mr. Abbo can speak to
that if you have any questions or comments about that. The -- and it's
my understanding that the indication to you was that the writer was
not opposed to the approval of the development but had expressed
some concerns concerning negotiations that had been ongoing,
actually these, I believe, had been subject to cost-sharing agreement in
the past, et cetera.
However, there already is a provision in the proposed PUD for
the granting of all easements necessary for any of the -- to effectuate
any of the approvals that are here, so I think that those concerns are
adequately addressed already in the easement section of the PUD.
Page 73
May 22-23, 2007
And for that, I'll refer to 5.3B, all necessary easements, dedications or
other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation
and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the
project.
And there is a recorded cost-sharing agreement among the parties
that the parties are just -- are dealing with, but that's already been
recorded. It's a couple years old already. And this is already required
for the SDP anyhow. So it's our belief that this is -- this is not an issue
and should not get in the way of granting the approval today.
I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pritt, I'm going to go first
because it's District 5 that this is located in, and I do have small
concerns that I wanted to get out of the way.
Two things. One, Nick, would you come up here, please. I have
to be sure about the interconnectivity and the fact that the document
does what it needs to do as far as assuring that we're not going to have
some boxed-in community that's going to be trespassing upon other
communities to be able to get in and out. Nick, what's your evaluation
of this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida with Transportation.
There are two issues, and I want to follow up with Mr. Pritt's
comments that he made regarding the right-of-way. Whenever you
have interpersonal agreements between developers that are not public
and then you've got petitions that come forward as PUD talking about
a public road, my only concern is the public road. I try and -- I have
to stay out of the private agreements.
With regard to the right-of-way being donated, I would request
that the right-of-way's donated fee simple to the county be within 30
days of adoption of this PUD so that we don't have any conflicts with
private entities and agreements.
Interconnection is the second point. We're brought this up with
Page 74
May 22-23,2007
some of the Island Walk board of directors yet some of the Island
Walk residents have stated they were never told about the potential for
an interconnection. In the memo I provided to you, the value of that
interconnection is there. There should be some reference in the PUD
that that interconnection is maintained, and an arrow at that potential
interconnection identified.
The exact location can be adjusted as the developers wish, but we
should be able to require an interconnection between that corner or
that side of Island Walk and Pristine Drive.
Today, when your six-lane at Vanderbilt is functioning properly
when opened and Collier Boulevard, in the future as those volumes
come up, those people will be glad to be able to take a back road to the
shopping center, someplace else.
So I would request that any language is modified to address that
interconnection as part of this approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Pritt, would your client be
agreeable to that?
MR. PRITT: I would like to have my client come forward, ifhe's
willing to do that. The interconnection issue was -- it's a new one on
me just this minute, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sure we can get it resolved
without too much difficulty.
MR. ABBO: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for
allowing us the opportunity to speak in front of you today. It's our
pleasure to be here and our privilege.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is his name?
MR. ABBO: The matter on hand --
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Would you state your name for the
record, please?
MR. ABBO: Yes, of course. Larry Abbo of Prime Home
Builders.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Page 75
May 22-23, 2007
MR. ABBO: And Vice-President of Prime Homes of Porto fino
Falls, Ltd., petitioner for the zoning application.
With regards to the matter of the interconnectivity to Island
Walk, we have addressed this issue before. We actually have had
meetings with the neighbors, Island Walk, on numerous matters. We
maintain a good line of communication. And frankly, we are only a
portion of the PUD, so it would really need to bring in the
consideration of William Hoover as representative of the balance of
the ownership ofPUD, and the connectivity does lie outside of our
boundary. It lies within the PUD, but outside of what we own, so I--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Hoover, would you -- or Mr.
Y ovanovich, okay, for Mr. Hoover.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ifwe can--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Name for the record.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My name, for the record, is Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of Mr. Hoover and his entities that own
property within this project.
There's a couple issues related to the interconnectivity. For one, I
think this PUD has gone above and beyond regarding making sure that
interconnectivity does, in fact, occur.
If you'll recall, there's a loop road around the shopping center that
provides interconnectivity to what was known as the Nagai-Craig
parcel. Now I think it's Sonoma Oaks. So there's interconnectivity
that already occurs there, also interconnectivity between the
commercial and the other aspects of Wolf Creek PUD.
The second interconnectivity was briefly talked about is the
Wolfe Road/Pristine Drive, which we commonly refer to as the outer
loop road. That has interconnectivity for Palermo Cove, for Elias
Brothers, and also for the projects within the Wolf Creek.
The last point is this potential interconnectivity with Island Walk. I
will tell you we have received different opinions as to whether Island
Walk really wants interconnectivity.
Page 76
May 22-23, 2007
The one thing I do know is that there's nothing in the Island Walk
PUD that would allow for that interconnectivity, so I believe it will
require an amendment to the Island Walk PUD for that
interconnectivity to occur.
Quite honestly, we had hoped that up in the northern -- northwest
portion that we also have a gated community, an enclave within Wolf
Creek, and interconnectivity at that point kind of hurts the ability to
have a gated community there.
So we would -- we would -- you know, if interconnectivity's
going to occur, I would say that it not necessarily has to be on my
client's property. However, be that as it may, it does require an
amendment to the Island Walk PUD to make it happen.
So I would like to see if we could talk about time frame here,
because we really need to know what we're going to have up in that
northwest corner, and Mr. Abbo needs to know what he's going to
have on his property as well as far as potential interconnectivity
occurs.
So if Island Walk really wants to do this, they probably should
come forward within a certain time period, and I would like to say
within a year, and request an amendment to their PUD master plan to
address interconnectivity. And if they don't, let us go on with our
plans to have a gated community and Mr. Abbo, I believe, has a gated
community on his property.
And I don't think that's unreasonable to request because this PUD
has kind of been the leader of inter connectivity, if you will. We've got
two publicly -- we've got two privately funded public roads, two loop
roads, one around the commercial, as I said, and another outer loop
road which is Wolfe Road/Pristine.
So I think we've got that interconnectivity of everything we have
around us. The only exception is Island Walk, which is a gated
community. They wanted to be gated. It's -- I guess the
interconnectivity is going to be one way. Obviously I don't think they
Page 77
May 22-23, 2007
want us going through their community.
And then ifthere's going to be interconnectivity, let's see if!sland
Walk really wants it, put a time frame on that. We would request that
it be exit only, because that would lessen the impact to us, and I think
that's really what their issue is, getting to the commercial center.
That's really what they want. So that would be our request is that we
identify that location, once Islands Walk comes in, if they really want
that interconnectivity to occur.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Nick, would you come up and
sum this up for us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How can we go about getting what
we need to do to make this thing work?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could require it to be there in
place in principle. At the time Island Walk makes their connection on
the side of the road, that that availability be there, but someone has to
blink first. You can't say, well, we'll wait -- you know, Island Walk is
restricted from doing this now, so we don't want to do it. You have to
set it up for that ability to happen. So I don't think you want to set a
time certain to that.
This community in the urban area is far from being built out.
And as their pressure mounts on some of those roads, people will look
for other ways to come out.
And as far as the gated community issue, two gated communities
side by side can share gates. We get into this all the time where we
say, my land values are higher than yours, so I don't want those people
in my gated community. I don't know where you draw the line there,
so -- I think summing it up, I would like to preserve that ability to
have that interconnection, and it's valuable and it's what we strive for,
and it's in the GMP.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me get the discussion going
amongst my commissioners on this item here. Hopefully this is what
Page 78
May 22-23, 2007
you wanted to talk about.
Commissioner Halas, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Nick, can you stick around
here because I think this is a hot issue. What is the -- everybody says
that Island Walk is built out. How many residents do we presently
have there, do you see?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately 2,000 units, I believe it
is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two thousand units. Well, let me
tell you, I can assure that -- people that are in this room that as the
traffic picks up on Vanderbilt Beach Road and the traffic picks up on
951, even though we widen all this, that some day that community's
going to come in and say, you know, we need another exit.
I can tell you that I have a PUD. It's an old established PUD in
District 2. It's Imperial Golf Estates, which has roughly around 1,600
units. They've been working for almost five years now to get a rear
gate because they only have one ingress and egress out of that
homeowners' association or that gated community.
So I would think it's imperative that we set aside a right-of-way,
make sure that that's taken care of and it does not become an
easement, like a conservation easement, so that we can't get anything
accomplished, but that it's a real easement for a road in the future.
And we're not here to put Island Walk under any pressure. They
may not think that they need this at this point in time, but three years
down the road or four years down the road, they may say, you know
what, I wish we had a rear exit.
So I'd like to make sure that we put this in so that if Island Walk
in some future time comes back and says, we'd like to have a rear gate
exit, that it's available and it's open for the public.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Planning, a novel idea, huh?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you stated it very well.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 79
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all, when did we move
this community or this piece of property out of District 3 into District
5?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Other side of the road.
Forgive me. I thought I would try to take possession of it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you getting campaign
money out of there? Is that why you mistakenly -- it was in District
5?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They just love me to death there. I
get cookies, which I pay for, by the way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got a question maybe you can
answer, or somebody can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't figure out all these
communities with walls and gates. Are they trying to keep the people
in or trying to keep the people out?
Because I know one of the communities that we thought was in
District 5 but discovered is in District 3, you can't keep them out and
you definitely can't keep them in. So I just can't quite figure that out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me explain it to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In District 5 they're to keep the
people in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they're in District 4, they're to
keep the people out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Oh, that's what it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much,
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we need that gating them
out. But you know, Mr. Pritt, your client didn't answer the other
question.
MR. ABBO: If! may, which question would that be, please.
Page 80
May 22-23,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pristine Drive.
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pristine Drive.
MR. ABBO: Well, as to Pristine Drive, I"m not sure the
direction of the question, but let me give you an overview, if you don't
mind.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Let me make the
observation.
MR. ABBO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a suggestion that there be
a deeded right-of-way easement to the county in favor of the county to
be included in the PUD.
MR. ABBO: Sure. And that is consistent with the deed that we
took subject to a 30-foot right-of-way. And as far as restating such an
easement, we have no objection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, according to what your
attorney said --
MR. ABBO: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- it's standard boilerplate
language in all of them. Usually that is for utilities.
MR. ABBO: No. It clearly states, road right-of-way, public road
right-of-way. Not within the PUD, but within the deed that we took.
Nevertheless, we are --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Within the deed.
MR. ABBO: Within the deed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the deed in the PUD?
Because that's what we're approving today, and that's what is
suggested that we put in there.
MR. ABBO: Well, it can be added to the PUD as well, that's a
planning tool, and it is not an issue whatsoever. It is consistent with
the deed we received subject to the 30 feet which exists now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but deeds could be
Page 81
May 22-23, 2007
changed, right?
MR. ABBO: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Deeds can be changed.
MR. ABBO: Yes, but we're not the beneficiary of that easement,
therefore, I don't think we would have the right to change it, but,
nevertheless, to take away any concerns, we would follow suit with
the recommendation by -- that was made previously with regards to
creating a deeded right-of-way within 30 days. It is not of a concern
to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In favor of the county?
MR. ABBO: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, we got that issue--
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- straightened out. Thank you
very much.
MR. ABBO: No problem. And it is consistent with the PUD
documents that you have for the 30 feet righty-of-way. And if! may
say so, we have an agreement that's recorded and a matter of public
record that was executed between us and Mr. Hoover.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's a private
agreement. We don't record private agreements.
MR. ABBO: It's reported and it also talks about the same end
goal. So just so that you see the consistency of the matter, that's all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I mean, I've had
a lot of conversation about this -- about this access, and one being
your assistant who lives in Island Walk, and I did reach out to the
community. And it's my understanding they don't want that
interconnection. They have an ability in their PUD to have another
interconnection, which would not require a PUD amendment. So I'm
kind of confused what we're trying to do here.
Page 82
May 22-23, 2007
I understand it's part of our Growth Management Plan, but we
can't -- we can't demand -- we can't demand people to amend their
PUD. So I'm not sure what good we're going to do here by having an
easement for Island Walk when they already have the ability to
interconnect to a collector road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And as a fellow representative for
Island Walk.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I appreciate it. How much
money you getting out of there for your campaign donation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not. Be honest with you, that's a
whole different situation and they just love me there. I can't tell you
more than that.
But in any case, going back to the situation of Island Walk, I
believe what we're doing here we're reserving the option sometime in
the future where they may wish to do so rather than forcing something
down their throat. You know, because situations change, as
Commissioner Halas pointed out so well, from older PUDs or an old
PUD -- I think I almost know which one it is he's talking about, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Imperial Golf Estates.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's in District 5.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's also in District 5. But in any
case, it just gives an option for people to do the right thing in the
future. At this point in time they're not pressed, but who knows? In
the future that might be a very important amenity to go on. That's
what I see this as. Now, if I'm reading it wrong, I'd like to know.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just -- you know, we're on
the same track. We want to make sure that an interconnectivity is
there. If they don't want it now, that's fine, but what about 10 years
down the road when nobody can get in or out of that area and they
want that interconnectivity? It just seems to make sense.
Page 83
May 22-23,2007
So we have it dedicated just in case. If nobody ever wants to use
it, it hasn't harmed a thing, yet we have it in place. It just seems to
make sense because what we're trying to do is get these roads to be
passable and to be usable and not to be clogged. So anyway, I agree
with those.
What about Wolfe Road? They can't gate Wolfe Road, right, and
they can't vacate Wolfe Road? Okay, fine. Ijust -- thank you.
MR. ABBO: If! may interject. There is the chairman of the
External Affairs of!sland Walk present here with us today. If you
wish to hear from them, he is here and he's interested in speaking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think he -- we've got
speakers coming up.
MR. ABBO: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one more.
Nick, can you tell me exactly how much right-of-way we should set
aside. They're talking 30 feet. I think 60 would be more like what
we're trying to get a hold of, isn't it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thirty feet on Pristine is their half of
the right-of-way, and I think to make a clarification simple, it should
be deeded in fee simple and it's any -- the right-of-way that was
required per the PUD to construct Pristine Drive within 30 days on the
property they control.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think we just keep it really
simple. As far as interconnection, you could probably do that in a
modified, probably 30- foot section, as long as they agreed to take in
the water, which I believe they have agreed to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm concerned because I --
there was some promises made on other PUDs in regards to how we
were going to get ingress and egress out of PUDs, and it didn't happen.
And I can -- I'm sure that people some day in Island Walk, it may
be 10 years from now -- but when the roads get impacted, this gives
Page 84
May 22-23, 2007
them a back way to get to this shopping center without getting onto
the local roads, and I think that's something that we should just keep
there.
And then 10 years from now if it's not used, well, then they can
absorb the right-of-way. But at this point in time, I just want to make
sure that it's there in case somebody decides that, you know what, it's
getting to be a problem getting in and out, okay. And ifthere's any,
God forbid, any kind of emergency where people have to get out,
they've got another way out of there besides just the front gate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a comment, we've approached the
Island Walk board, I think, over a year and a half ago when Joe
Quinty was still here. We discussed the matter with them. They voted
to keep it a board decision. I asked, can we present it to the
homeowners? They said they thought it was too divisive at this time
to bring it forward.
That just brought up an example of, there were different
opinions. Some of the employees worked for the county. They said
they were never told about the potential for the interconnection. So
it's one of those things where you are going to have difference of
opinion, and it's good planning to have it. And it's no encumbrance on
Island Walk at this time. It's a future consideration, so you're just
planning. Nothing's required from Island Walk at this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we get some kind of
commitment from the other people involved in this thing to make sure
that stays open as a -- to the public in case we need it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Commissioner, if! can address that
on behalf of Mr. Hoover. Mr. Pritt will have to address that on behalf
of Prime Home Builders.
The issue is, if we -- what I've put up on the screen is a proposed
subdivision of the property in the northwest portion of the Wolf Creek
PUD. We can accommodate what Nick is talking about, a portion of
the 30 feet on the very southern portion of that property, and take it
Page 85
May 22-23, 2007
out of the lots, if you will, that are depicted on there.
And with that, if Island Walk never decides to elect its ability to
interconnect and build their interconnection, then that will always stay
green space for the people who buy those lots.
If they do elect to take 15 feet from the back of those lots, there
will -- it will be adequate in depth to provide appropriate vegetation,
and that will work.
The concern is, is that if this stays open ended forever, you know,
10 years down the road recovering that footage, it becomes
impractical, because with any luck, the economy's going to turn
around, and 10 years down the road, we'll have a developed
subdivision there. So we'd like to plan for that now.
We would be willing to give 15 feet along that southern
boundary, which would be half of the 30 feet, and we could
accommodate the water management from that, as I spoke to Nick.
And that would reserve -- if Island Walk wanted to come in and build
their exit for either access to the shopping center or for emergency
purposes, they would have their exit that they would need and they
could build it. They can do whatever they want. There's no wetlands
in that area so they're not going to run into permitting issues.
But I don't think it should be our obligation to build their second
exit. We will give them the opportunity to build a second exit, but it
shouldn't be our obligation to build it for them. And we'll reserve 15
feet if our -- if the other developer can reserve 15 feet and that we're
sharing the burden there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich, can you point
that out where you're talking about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, I'm sorry. What I was talking about
is right here. That would get you right to Pristine Drive, which means
once you got to Pristine Drive, you'd have no problems getting either
to Vanderbilt Beach Road, 951, or the shopping center that's going to
be -- or the offices at Carolina Village or the shopping center that's
Page 86
May 22-23, 2007
outside this PUD where you would have the Sweetbay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that sounds more
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That would be along this property. And
that way we could go forward with our development, hopefully Mr.
Abbo can go forward with his development, we can plan for it, and
everybody -- everybody wins.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That sounds more reasonable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Halas, then we
have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have five speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have five speakers.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This -- Rich, could you give me a
little hint on this water management? This is what we got in trouble
with Imperial Golf Estates was water management where the
right-of-way was turned over to Southwest Florida Water
Management, and then it was deeded then as a preserve, and that way
we've -- they've locked the hands of that community for trying to get
ingress and egress out the back.
So when you state something like water management, I don't
want to go down this road again. I want to make sure that when we
say that we're going to get access, one way or another we're going to
get 30 feet. So we've got some way or another to make sure that that
is open for future use way down the road. It may not be used today,
but it will be used sometime.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to let Nick talk about the
engineering aspects of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I think we could -- that won't be a
problem for us to accommodate that through our permitting process so
that our lakes are adequately sized to address the water management
Page 87
May 22-23, 2007
issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then who else is involved in
this project, so we can get the other 15 feet today?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it's Mr. Abbo, but one way to
clarify this -- and I think we're heading in the right direction. I know
it's taken a little bit of time -- as long as they design and permit that
interconnection within their project with the appropriate SDP of plats,
you will be guaranteed that connection if someone wants to come in
later and build it. So as they do a subdivision plat, they design and
permit that, and just say, for future road consideration, but the district
has seen it, it's planned for and all the connections are there. It can be
done that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what. Let's do this. Why
don't you have your discussion while we call the speakers, and maybe
when we get through we'll be able to get to it.
So I'm going to open the public portion of the meeting for public
comments.
Did you have something you wanted to add very important right
at the moment?
MS. DESELEM: Not very important right at the moment, but
eventually.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then let's wait till after the speakers.
MS. DESELEM: Right.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, is it your intention to hear the
speakers on both numbers? Because they've all registered for Band C,
which were listed together.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. This will be both items at the
same time. Because once we resolve this one, we'll just march
through the second one.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The first speaker is Henry Nardone. He
will be followed by Robert Pritt, and you don't need to be registered.
He's the presenter.
Page 88
May 22-23, 2007
MR. PRITT: I've already spoken.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. PRITT: But just for the record, I thought we were only on
B, which is the rezone. C is the CDD district.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that would be a separate issue.
That's true.
MS. FILSON: But he's registered for B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, please, your name for the record?
MR. NARDONE: Henry Nardone. I live on Whidbey Way in
Island Walk. And good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
I'm really only speaking on item B.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you start the time, Ms. Filson.
MR. NARDONE: And about the only thing -- most of what I
was going to say has already been said by Rich and Larry except I can
add a few facts, and that is, the board of directors from Island Walk
has met two times and sent letters to transportation both times stating
that they have no interest basically in an exit or an entrance onto
Wolfe Road.
We at Island Walk also have in our PUD the ability to put a gate
over on Logan. That was voted down by the community two times;
once 87 percent to 13 percent against and once 85 percent to 15
percent. So that's come up for a community-wide vote twice where
we wouldn't have to amend the PUD. We could put the gate in there.
We do have emergency entrance on our far southeast corner going
onto Logan Boulevard -- going onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. Very
hard to see, but it is -- it is there. So we have our emergency.
So we're here to say that my committee, the external affairs
committee, as well as the board of directors, is in favor of vacating
that easement for us onto Wolfe Road.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Larry Abbo. And we're down
Page 89
May 22-23, 2007
to three speakers because they each have to speak on the --
MR. PRITT: Mr. Abbo has been answering questions. Who are
the other three speakers? They may be part of our team.
MS. FILSON: After that I have William Dempsey.
MR. PRITT: Oh, no.
MS. FILSON: And he would be your final speaker on 8B.
MR. PRITT: I can't speak for Mr. Dempsey, although I'd like to.
MR. DEMPSEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Will Dempsey, for the record. I'm from 821 Fifth Avenue South in the
City of Naples, and I'm here on behalf of Elias Brothers Communities.
Elias Brothers, if you may recall, is the developer of property that's
immediately to the north of the Wolf Creek PUD property, north and
to the west.
And last year our project, which was then known as Palermo
Cove -- it's now called Raffia Preserve -- came before the Board of
County Commissioners for PUD approval.
The commissioners approved Elias Brothers' project and
approved the PUD but included a requirement in the PUD that is
troubling in light of the developments here today, and that requirement
is that Elias Brothers, for its Raffio Preserve project, only utilize
Pristine Drive for access in and out of its proj ect until such time as the
expansion of Collier Boulevard is completed and Elias Brothers can
then complete -- construct and complete Wolfe Road, which runs east
and west, connects to Pristine Drive and connects to Collier Boulevard
to the west.
The difficulty that we're having conceptually with approval of the
PUD that's before you is that it does not provide for any definiteness
in terms of when Pristine Drive will be constructed. We certainly are
aware that there are certain easement grants that are absolutely
necessary in order for Pristine Drive to legally exist as a publicly
dedicated right-of-way.
And with all due respect to Mr. Abbo, I'd suggest to the
Page 90
May 22-23,2007
commissioners that the reservation of 30-foot right-of-way or the
conveyance of property subject to a 30-foot right-of-way in the past,
the deeds Mr. Abbo's referring to, are not legally effective to create a
publicly dedicated right-of-way.
In light of these concerns, we would respectfully ask that the
commissioners include two conditions in the PUD approval. And one,
Mr. Casalanguida has hit upon, that is that all necessary dedications to
legally create the Pristine Drive right-of-way occur within 30 days
after the PUD approval.
The second condition -- obviously that addresses the creation of a
legally effective right-of-way, but it does not address construction of
Pristine Drive. And, again, a physically existing Pristine Drive is
something that my client, Elias Brothers, absolutely needs in order to
access its project per the PUD that the Board of County
Commissioners approved last year.
We would respectfully suggest that the PUD, the Wolf Creek
PUD, contain a condition that no certificates of occupancy be issued
for any of the PUD lands until the central section of Pristine Drive is
constructed and accepted by Collier County.
I should note, Commissioners, that we're not looking for a free
ride here, Elias Brothers, that is. We have an obligation to build
Wolfe Road, which is comparable in terms of length and expense of
cost to construct to Pristine Drive, and we are solely responsible for
the construction of Wolfe Road, Elias Brothers, that is.
We just want some assurance, in light of the requirement that we use
Pristine Drive to access our project, that that road, Pristine Drive, will
be legally created and constructed within a reasonable period of time.
Thanks a lot for your time.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, sir, on this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioners, what's your
pleasure?
Commissioner Henning?
Page 91
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree with the last
speaker. All these little PUDs was contingent upon that
interconnectivity of Wolfe and Pristine because of the roads being
under constructed (sic).
And Elias Brothers is a local builder, and I would hate to see --
hurt a local builder by approving this amendment, so that needs to be
addressed. Besides the fact, I think Prime Builders did agree to
dedicate the necessary right-of-way for Pristine Drive.
So the only two issues that we have is construction of Pristine
and also the southerly easement for the potential connection to Island
Walk.
MR. ABBO: May I present something, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. ABBO: What I am showing here is an aerial photograph as
ofa month ago of the area that we're speaking of, the PUD. And I
simply wanted to illustrate for you that -- why don't I take the other
microphone.
I simply wanted to illustrate for you that, of this agreement, that I
do realize it is private, although it is recorded and is of public
knowledge, that this was subject to that same agreement. This area
here is Pristine Drive, and we have completed construction of that first
segment.
It is our intent that should this application be approved today for
zoning, that we immediately commence the process for construction.
And I think that is in the interests of everyone involved. I think our
interests are parallels. We just have uncertainties about timing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Sir, the only way that
that's going to get done, if it's in the PUD document. That's the only
controlling factor of what we have. You're asking us to take action
today, and I want assurance that this road is going to be done in this
document.
MR. ABBO: That's fine.
Page 92
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ABBO: That wasn't contemplated in the document
originally because usually you build those roads as you build out.
And the commitments made previously --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's maybe what you do on
the east coast, but that isn't what we're trying to do over here.
MR. ABBO: I see. We have various -- various commitments for
this type. We'd be more than happy to reaffirm them through the PUD
if that is your request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ABBO: Based on what I just said.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then the next thing is the
easement for -- potential easement for Island Walk, the one that was
shifted further to the south, the dedication of 15 percent from Wolf
Creek and --
MR. ABBO: Fifty percent, 15 feet on each side.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fifteen?
MR. ABBO: Yeah, 15 feet. Fifty percent on each side of the
ownership. We have no issue in proceeding with the relocation so
long as the burden's to the properties equally.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I guess we don't have
a problem with those two issues. No COs would be issued until that
road is complete, Pristine, and a dedication of right-of-way.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I, Mr. Henning, in response to your
question about the timing of Pristine -- and I just spoke to Mr. Abbo
and I've spoken to Mr. Dempsey. He appears -- everybody seems
comfortable with commencing construction of that road within a year
of PUD approval and completing it within a year of commencing
construction. That will give us all some certainty and enough
flexibility to deal with the issues of when we really think we're going
to develop those portions of our respective PUD. So if that's
acceptable to the commission, I think that gets you the certainty you're
Page 93
May 22-23, 2007
looking for, and I believe that's okay --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One year to date, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: One year from today, from the PUD
approval, we would -- which hopefully will be today, we would
commence construction of Pristine. That means we can get through
the permitting. And then we would complete construction a year after
we start, which would give us all enough time to make sure it happens.
And I believe that's okay for Elias Brothers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ABBO: I think I -- while we were resolving that issue, I
missed a comment that was just brought to my attention with regards
to COs being subj ect to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We got it straightened out.
MR. ABBO: Straightened out, okay. Is there an outcome for
that? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the issue was Pristine
Drive, saying it's going to be constructed within a year.
MR. ABBO: Constructed, begun within a year and completed
within a year following that. Is that not what you proposed? That's
what was --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's going to be two years
before it's done.
MR. ABBO: For completion, in the worst of cases, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't know. Are you
using the same contractor we are for roads?
MR. ABBO: No comment. But no, we're not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we borrow your contractor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you got a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's close the public
hearing.
Page 94
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Close the public hearing. I'm
sorry. One moment. The County Attorney's Office.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Kay Deselem.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: We'd -- for the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. We've recommended
that Ms. Deselem put the specifics of the affordable housing provision
in the record rather than just a reference to a letter.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning.
I just wanted to clarify, as has been alluded to, that the developer
is going to pay $1,000 per unit of the 830 units that are addressed in
the ago parcel that's being added, and the timing of that would be prior
to the certificate of occupancy being issued for anyone of those units.
And other than that, the staff report and the executive summary is
part of the record. Weare recommending that it be found consistent
and we are recommending approval of the amendment. I would ask
that, you know, you clarify your motions as far as what the specific
stipulations you're adding are so that we can track them and make sure
that they get in the PUD document. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, one last thing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just -- I want to clarify again so we're
clear. Within 30 days they dedicate, the developer, which means all
of them, dedicate the necessary right-of-way required for the public
roadway known as Pristine Drive, that's one.
Within one year, they shall co-design, permit, but not build the
interconnection between Island Walk and Pristine Drive adjacent to
the respective boundary lines within 30 feet and, not to mess them up
in zoning, that that interconnection shall not be subject to road setback
requirements. Because it's considered a road, we get into all sorts of
setback issues, it's interconnection. And that's done within one year of
Page 95
May 22-23, 2007
approval of this as well, too. That will cover us, I think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's all in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Mr. Casalanguida, the --
were you just referring to that connection, potential connection, to
Island Walk?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You wasn't referring to
Pristine then?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Pristine will be permitted within
a year and constructed within a year, so worst-case scenario they said
two years from this day would be the worst case you'd get it, I think.
They can permit it sooner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to make
a motion to approve based upon the input of our staff and the
petitioner, the petitioner's agreeing to start construction of Pristine
Drive within one year of the approval of the PUD and being
constructed within a year after that, being a total of two years from the
time of date of approval that Pristine will be complete and accepted by
the -- by the county and up to standards, the county standards, and
also that the interconnection on the proposed vacant property -- I want
to get this right. I want to make sure that we get -- identify where this
interconnection is going to be.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. On the viewer you have the site
plan that's showing it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do you put that in the
PUD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will be adjacent to the two owners,
and I guess you'd have to identify who those owners are, Mr. Abbo
and Hoover Development.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Also in my motion is,
there will be a potential future interconnection for the community of
Island Walk between -- would it be Wolf Creek PUD --&
Page 96
May 22-23,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Same PUD. The two owners would
be --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Well, you -- the
owners would be --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Abbo, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Prime Builders.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Prime Builders and Hoover
Development -- Wolf Creek --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wolf Creek Estates, LLC. Each
will dedicate 15 feet respectively on their adjoining adjacent property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And they'll design and permit that, but
not build it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And design and permit it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As a future --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- interconnection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, are you going to
put in there also, legally -- dedicate -- or sign the right-of-way over
within 30 days? I think that was part of the stipulations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And -- well --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For Pristine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For Pristine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, for Pristine, okay. Well,
that's -- see, you said that and you said it had nothing to do with
Pristine. And also in my motion that they will dedicate an easement to
the county, the right-of-way needed for completion of Pristine.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fee simple dedication.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fee simple dedication.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by Commissioner
Henning, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Page 97
May 22-23,2007
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to clarify that the
motion did also include Planning Commission recommendations that
are included in our executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner. It
does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: And that the motion includes the acceptance of
the stipulation relating to the affordable housing, $1,000 per unit, SO
units to be paid at CO.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you see, I have problem
with that, and I shared it with your staff.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's called contract
zoning, the information that I forwarded to your staff. And I think this
is what spurred the affordable housing donation.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, then, that's why it's important that it be
brought up because I think otherwise there is an understanding that
that perhaps was part of the -- part of the approval of the board, so, at
that point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reflect a donation? You see, my
attorney advised me not to vote on any of these that have donations of
affordable housing within and a part of a zoning item.
MR. ABBO: May I -- may I jump it just a moment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
MR. ABBO: If it is your pleasure, we really -- one thing is not
conditioned on the other. It was just an extension for that donation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I understand.
MR. ABBO: Yeah. And so however it is resolved into the
Page 98
May 22-23,2007
future, our commitment still stands, whether it is a condition of the
zoning or not.
MR. PRITT: We thought that might be taken care of today with
the other item that has been rescheduled to next week. If you'd like to
have -- I hate to say this. If you can trust us for a week or until it
comes back to you -- but you heard Mr. Abbo make the commitment
for the donation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait, I'm a little lost on that. You're
saying to withdraw the donation and then resubmit it in a week? Why
would that be any different?
MR. PRITT: No, no, I have -- no, that's not what we had in
mind. If it's a concern that it be in and part of the motion or part of the
PUD, our PUD, we don't -- we don't care how it's done. Obviously we
would like to get everybody's vote, and we don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not buying my vote, Mr.
Pritt. That's what you're just about ready to say.
MR. PRITT: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. PRITT: No, that's not what I'm saying. We'd like -- we
would like to have everybody happy with the PUD as it is. The
voluntary contribution is something that is part of another item or was
to be part of another item today, and we're happy to make that
voluntary, voluntary donation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're client said --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to take just a minute here
myself.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tell me what the difference is
between the donations that are made for the right-of-ways and the
donation that they have offered up willingly on their own completely
separate from everything this commission's doing?
Page 99
May 22-23, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: I think I'll have Ms. Student address it very
specifically.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. For the record,
Marjorie Student-Stirling. I reviewed materials on contract zoning
lately, and it would be my opinion that this voluntary donation would
not be contract zoning. Contract zoning occurs when a board, a local
governing body, if you will, bargains away their police powers, not
the subject of a public and advertised public hearing, but by maybe a
separate contract or an agreement they might have with the developer
that's not in, you know, subject to the same rigorous requirements that
you have for an advertised public hearing.
Here we have an advertised public hearing that's been duly
noticed. We have issues with affordable housing in the community.
It's voluntary. It's not an exaction. That may cast it into contract
zoning if it were not -- a bit if it were not voluntary. So in summation,
it would be my opinion that in this scenario, because it's voluntary
especially, it wouldn't be contract zoning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when I put a voluntary
donation, Ms. Student, part of a zoning action -- and Mr. Pritt alluded
to, that we wanted every vote to count, what is that?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I can't speak to what may be in Mr.
Pritt's mind.
MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. I was making a different point, okay,
and I apologize if I did not make it well.
We would like to have our PUD approved. There is a question
that was just raised about the voluntary contribution. We don't care
how you handle that. It's a voluntary contribution. That's my point on
that.
Everybody who comes before you would like to have all of their
__ have their applications approved, but that's a separate matter. And
Page 100
May 22-23, 2007
so that was the source of that comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did any commissioner or member of
staff here ask for this donation?
MR. PRITT: No, sir, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Has it been extracted from you in any
way, shape, or form?
MR. PRITT: No, sir; no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Just wanted that for the
record.
How do my fellow commissioners feel about it? I'd say if
somebody's willing to step up to the plate and make a donation to
affordable housing on their own over and above everything else, same
as the donations of right-of-ways that we receive all the time, that we
should accept it.
MR. PRITT: Mr. Chairman, may I add just one thing to that?
Remember, this has to do with item 10M that -- this was in response to
a provision that we thought you were going to have today that's a
different item, has to do with your trust fund. And the -- so we're just
advising you that that's -- we're happy to make that voluntary
contribution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't know how my fellow
commissioners feel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would feel more comfortable
once that's passed. So if you're willing to come forward after we get
all the necessary problems taken care of and address the issues that
we're -- that I guess obviously we're concerned about, after that time,
if you're willing to do that, then so be it. That's how I stand on this.
But at this point in time, since we don't have anything that really
covers us or controls us, I would just as soon leave that off the table.
But if you're going to make that donation after we get this item taken
care of, that would be -- then I would go along with it, okay?
MR. ABBO: Y eah. We have a particular concern about
Page 10 1
May 22-23,2007
affordability in housing, and to us it's something that's dear to our
heart. We work towards that. So we just felt that that was a good
cooperative effort. Nevertheless, yes, we will commit to what you just
stated where we'll come back later.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Until we get that item taken care
of?
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So let's clarify the motion so
that it stands as it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My motion is to approve, Mr.
Chairman, with the Planning Commission's recommendations, also the
dedication of right-of-way for Pristine within 30 days, and the road to
be completed within two years of date of pool of the PUD amendment,
and also the future right-of-way connection jointed in by the two
parties, Prime Builders and Wolf Creek, LLC, jointly -- or separately
donating 15 feet of right-of-way for the possible interconnection of
Island Walk.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do you -- your second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's all in my second, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. One question. We shouldn't
be taking the donation of the land. That wouldn't be right.
Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If I can, just one clarification. The
discussion regarding the setbacks, I'm assuming, is part of the motion
for the interconnection meaning that it would not be treated as a road
right-of-way. There was discussion that Nick brought up for setback
purposes. I just want to clarify that that's part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of the motion, and
that -- you're talking about the future interconnection?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm talking about that future 15 feet, 15
feet.
Page 102
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't -- we don't know
whether that's going to happen or not, yeah. It's just the 15 feet, 15
feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the second thing, you know,
Commissioner Coletta, on the roadway dedication, it was part of the
analysis of our traffic that that road would be there, so it's related to
our project. The construction of Pristine Drive is, in fact, related to
our project. So I'm not advising the county attorney, I have comfort
from my client's perspective that we're not -- I mean, we're doing that
because it's part of our transportation impact analysis. So there is a
relationship between that requirement of our PUD and the like
dedication.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments? Any
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion, we've got a
second. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMANCOLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it unanimously. We'll
see you back here in the near future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or in a minute, right, the next
subject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's future.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right after this break.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We're going to take a break,
10 minutes.
Page 103
May 22-23,2007
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #SC
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE FALLS OF PORTOFINO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CDD) PURSUANT
TO SECTION 190.005, FLORIDA STATUTES. (THIS ITEM IS A
COMP ANION TO ITEM RZ-2005-AR-7422 WOLF CREEK PUD)
- DENIED
Next item on our agenda is SC. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members.
This is a recommendation to consider adoption of an ordinance
establishing the Falls of Porto fino community code district, CDD,
pursuant to section 190.005, of the Florida Statutes.
This item is a companion to item RZ-2005-AR-7422, Wolf Creek
PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Take a minute and swear in
those people that wish to participant in this agenda item. Please stand
at this time.
MR. PRITT: I might.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't mean to call you on it, but it
seemed kind of unusual that you wouldn't be participating. Let's start
with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I have had meetings with
the petitioner and his agent, including Richard Y ovanovich, Larry
Abbo, Will Dempsey, Rick Mercer, and Linda Socolow. I've had
Page 104
May 22-23,2007
email from Will Dempsey and Rick Mercer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That concludes it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No other emails, phone calls?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Shake head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I've had -- in the past I've had
meetings with the petitioner, also had meetings with the staff, had
correspondence, emails, and phone calls in regards to this subject.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I also met with the petitioner, his
representatives, had meetings, correspondence, emails, and phone
calls.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Although I met with the
petitioner and his agents and had correspondence, I don't think any of
them are related to the CDD actually, but I'll put them all on the
record anyway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This was on our agenda
previously. That's the only correspondence that I had.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please continue.
MS. KENDALL: Okay. For the record, Marcia Kendall,
Comprehensive Planning. This CDD was initially submitted back on
December 13, 2005, by Prime Home at Portofino Falls, LDC, a
Florida limited partnership by and through their undersigned
representative, vice-president Larry Abbo, of Prime Home Builders.
A mandatory 15,000 application fee was submitted with the
original petition. This petition was previously presented to you on
October 24, 2006, without the 20-acre rezone and is, therefore, back
Page 105
May 22-23,2007
before you today for your consideration.
And just to add to that, the petition was readvertised four
successive Sundays prior to this hearing, and a letter was requested by
staff and received from the petitioner that states the submitted petition
remains true and that the consent of the property owners within the
boundaries of the proposed CDD also remain true.
Should you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them, or
the county attorney. Otherwise, we'll turn the floor over to the
petitioner's representative, Sue Delegal and Larry Abbo.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, have the presentation from the
petitioner. Continue.
MS. DELEGAL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the
commission. My name is Susan Delegal, and I do represent the
petitioner here before you on the public hearing in connection with the
petition for creation of the community development district, and I
have been sworn.
As has been indicated, we have worked with staff for a
considerable amount of time to create a petition that meets the
statutory requirements of chapter 190 Florida Statutes, and it's going
to provide for certain infrastructure within the CDD, particularly
drainage, which is stormwater management and a lake system, which
will be owned by the CDD and also managed by the CDD.
Additionally, a water distribution system and a wastewater
collections system, which will be -- which will be constructed, funded
and constructed, by the CDD and then turned over to the county as
part of the county's facilities at no cost.
Additionally, there will be a right-of-way and open space in
connection with the maintenance of the district. We anticipate a
project of approximately seven and three-quarter million dollars to
fund these infrastructure components for the residential area that you
have just approved, and we believe that it meets all of the statutory
criteria.
Page 106
May 22-23,2007
And we have included in our petition our various members of the
initial board of supervisors, one being a resident of the district that
already is there.
We're certainly here to answer any questions but request that you
authorize the preparation of the ordinance to create the special -- the
community development district and to affirmatively respond to our
request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a couple of questions.
I believe that there's going to be about 490 residents in this location, is
that correct, on this 69 acres?
MS. DELEGAL: There will be 490 dwelling units, townhouse
units, within the CDD currently -- currently planned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: These are townhouse units?
MS. DELEGAL: They are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me what the average
price of these townhouse units would go for?
MS. DELEGAL: I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Abbo.
MR. ABBO: Yes, if I may. A pleasure to be before you once
agam.
This community began selling in the 300s.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three hundreds.
MR. ABBO: And it sells from the 300s -- low 300s to the low
400s.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're looking at a cash
outlay here of about $7.7 million, 7 and a half million?
MR. ABBO: Those are only the improvements that are
considered public improvements, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Don't you think these would
be an added burden to those residents in these price range? I mean,
we're talk 300,000, and we're looking at that gap housing.
MR. ABBO: That's correct, sir.
Page 107
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're looking at, on top
of county taxes, they're going to have to also pay this CDD tax.
MR. ABBO: We have done extensive analysis of this because
we use CDD's throughout the State of Florida and multiple
communities of this similar price range and less. And what we have
found is that it actually gives them a great benefit.
And in large part, the CDD, as the community matures, allows
them the opportunity to access capital markets to make improvements
that otherwise would be unaffordable through special assessments.
So what we have also found is that where we can have a savings
of improvements that we would otherwise fund directly, we can make
an equal adjustment to purchase price with unmarked up dollars, so no
developer profit or anything of that nature. And that is a direct
deduction on price.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I think what you're doing is
you're burdening the individual homeowners. If I figured it out
correctly, it's about 15,000, $16,000 per household; is that about right?
MR. ABBO: The number sounds close, whether it's exact or not,
I'm not certain. But I will say that it does not burden them that
amount. It only -- it only goes with the land. And for however long
they live in that home, they pay a portion, which is a great advantage
over paying an extra $15,000 at the time of buying the home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So can you tell me what the
assessment of each of the homeowners is going to be? And I'm sure
that these CDD's go up over a period of time. So I got two questions
there.
MR. ABBO: No. Actually the debt service portion of the
assessment is a fixed amount, and I can tell you what that is. The
maintenance portion, however, is a budget that's reconsidered year
over year through the same process you're following now under the
sunshine laws, and that is estimated right now on a total annual
assessment of 1,750 for both items, for both maintenance and debt
Page 108
May 22-23,2007
service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's starting out 1,050, you said?
MR. ABBO: One thousand 750.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One thousand 750?
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir, per year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the property taxes are
probably going to be around 2,000, I would say, 2,500.
MR. ABBO: I think that's a good guess, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's quite an added burden
when we're trying to get gap housing.
MR. ABBO: That's deducted from their mortgage, sir. As a
matter of fact, what we're doing is we're accessing -- we're selling
bonds right now from somewhere around 5 and a quarter, 5 and a half
percent long-term debt in the markets, and they can't access a
mortgage with that amount.
What I'm saying why, and just to clarify why it's deducted from
the mortgage, because should we have this approval today, it is normal
for us to make an adjustment on price of a similar amount of what we
otherwise would have incurred in cost. And that is the intent of this
vehicle.
And so if they live seven years for -- in this home, they pay seven
thirtieths of the total debt, and they don't pay the full $15,000. Now,
that would otherwise be financed by a mortgage.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So tell me what the -- what the
average price of 300,000 --
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- what would be the mortgage
payment then, including their CDD, per months?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maintenance.
MR. ABBO: And I'm going to just have to guess.
Page 109
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the maintenance.
MR. ABBO: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the maintenance.
MR. ABBO: I'm going to guess that it's in the mid 3,000s,
$3,000, 3,500, something like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is gap housing?
MR. ABBO: Well, I'm not representing that this is gap housing.
I'm simply saying that this is a much more affordable project that (sic)
most anything that's being built around us. But I'm not making a
presentation for gap housing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when you tell me that we
have -- that your pricing -- the first question I asked you was the
pricing of your units.
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because this is multifamily.
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's basically two- and
three-bedroom condos.
MR. ABBO: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, that you're going to sell.
And so you -- you're here today --
MR. ABBO: Some are four.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon?
MR. ABBO: Some are even four bedrooms, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, but you're here today asking
for a CDD--
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- in regards to addressing this
housing issue or this project that you want to build.
MR. ABBO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you have basically a $7.7
million price tag on this that you want the residents to pay for
Page 110
May 22-23, 2007
basically to offset this. And my concern is, we're looking at $300,000.
That's what we consider, in our area here, gap housing.
MR. ABBO: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that when we're looking at
trying to mortgage units for people to live in, we're hoping that there's
not a lot of added cost. But you already are going to add cost to this
gap housing through a CDD and through maintenance fees, and the
maintenance fees, they're going to -- they can rise over a seven-year
period.
MR. ABBO: We -- the way we see it, we're not adding cost. As
a matter of fact, I assure you that an equal amount of cost that gets
deducted from our line items gets credited of a sale price when we sell
a home. So I respectfully disagree with that.
As a matter of fact, we're giving them the ability -- and again, it
seems as though I didn't say it clearly. Ifwe have a benefit of$12,000
from a CDD, it is our experience and it is our intent to deduct an equal
amount from the sale price. So our base price of our homes will be
lower tomorrow if a CDD is approved. I think this is a huge benefit.
And from a planning perspective, if I can share with you our
experiences in other communities who have been -- which have been
maturing over the years. The board understands that they have the
ability to create improvements whether it is drainage that needs work
20 or 30 years from now or re -- well, repaving in this case is not
something that's within what we're asking for -- but like
improvements, embankments that need improvements, water systems
or sewer systems that need improvements. They have a source
without adding anything to their monthly payments to access hundreds
of thousands of dollars. And that is a huge planning tool for them.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you're telling me that the $1,750
will be deducted off of the sale price of the home?
MR. ABBO: Oh, no, sir, more than that. Actually the present
value of that. So if the benefit for us is $10,000 for the issuance of
Page III
May 22-23, 2007
those bonds to pay instead of us, we will deduct an equal amount on
the sale price, absolutely.
And that allows them to finance at what is now a market rate of
5.25 or 5.5 percent and not have to pay it in full. Only pay during the
period that they live within the home. And that -- that is what we have
been doing in many other communities that I can give you examples
of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much,
Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're welcome.
MR. ABBO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you're not building gap
housing. You're building market rate.
MR. ABBO: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're building market, right?
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So whatever the market --
MR. ABBO: There's no -- there's no restriction on pricing on the
community that we're building, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, but whatever the market
will stand, that's what you're going to sell it for?
MR. ABBO: That is what we have been selling for, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So you already have
existing contracts --
MR. ABBO: That is right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the units? Are they aware
of --
MR. ABBO: Absolutely. We have full disclosure within our
contracts. I have copies for you. We provided them to staff. We also
have them sign an acknowledgement at closing, and it is within their
deed recorded. So not only they are on notice, but anyone who comes
Page 112
May 22-23, 2007
after them has constructive notice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we all know that 190 gives
you an opportunity to bond for public infrastructure.
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do I get to enjoy that when
you build it?
MR. ABBO: Well, it's the extension of things like what we were
discussing in our previous hearing, Pristine Drive and all of those
improvements that we are building for public benefit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that's part of building
Pristine Drive?
MR. ABBO: It can be, yes. It is a -- it is a permissible financing
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it may build Pristine Drive?
MR. ABBO: We definitely build Pristine Drive. How much of it
financed -- let me clarify. There are not enough monies generated
through our intended bond issuance to cover all of the development
costs. So it is rather subjective whether it builds all of it or part of it.
We have to fund -- deficit fund the entire difference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But it's going to build the
stormwater?
MR. ABBO: Yes, that's correct, water and sewer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Water and sewer.
MR. ABBO: Yes, and roadways outside of any gated areas. No
walls, no gates, no clubhouse, no -- anything like that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Walls outside of the community
then.
MR. ABBO: Nothing of that nature, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not going to fund any
roads inside of the community?
MR. ABBO: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But the stormwater, it's
Page 113
May 22-23, 2007
going to?
MR. ABBO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How do I get to access
that?
MR. ABBO: Well, we are making that representation through
the engineer's cost estimates, and we have to operate under the
sunshine laws, advertised meetings, board of supervisor, and the
whole. It really is much more monitored and much more restrictive
than something like an HOA or a condominium association that
wouldn't have that oversight.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. ABBO: So we make that commitment here and now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So how do I get to enjoy this
public infrastructure, the water retention area?
MR. ABBO: Well, for example--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I go fishing out there?
MR. ABBO: Well, for example -- no, this is -- these lakes, the
insurance companies usually don't allow us to fish, but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ABBO: But this -- these lakes service other communities in
the area through interconnection, sir. And as a matter of fact, we are
interconnected with Island Walk next door to us. There is drainage
issues, and we have the engineer here who can tell you a little bit
about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great.
MR. ABBO: But all of that serves a public purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yep. Commissioner Halas is
starting to get CDDs and what they're all about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'll skip for now. They've asked
a lot of the questions. I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'd like to call Nick
Page 114
May 22-23,2007
Casalanguida up, ask him some questions.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, while he comes up, county
attorney here. Mr. Abbo swore in on a prior item. I believe he did not
swear in on this one, so he can either be sworn in again or just
acknowledge that he's still under oath.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'd rather acknowledge
he's still under oath.
MR. WEIGEL: That would be fine.
MR. ABBO: I acknowledge that I'm still under oath.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's transportation's concerns with
this CDD?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if interconnection is outlined in
the PUD prior, is not restricted by the CDD, we would not have any
concerns. Pristine will remain a public road, Wolfe Road would
remain a public road, and that interconnection would not be gated and,
therefore, transportation would not have any concerns with the CDD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As long as it isn't a gated community?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That interconnection isn't gated. The
internal project that Mr. Abbo is working on can be gated to Pristine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand. Thank you very
much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas then
come back to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think Commissioner Fiala was
first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here's the problem I have.
MR. ABBO: Of course.
Page 115
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're talking about the price range,
$300,000. Right now I'm just watching one go up. We never
approved it here on this commission, but it's Sierra Meadows. It's
right on Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Their prices start at $300,000. Maybe just a little bit lower, as a
matter of fact, and they never asked for a CDD. They're just putting in
their infrastructure as is without ever coming to us and asking us for a
CDD. The CDDs we have dealt with, in some cases, have really lent
the new residents quite a problem and additional expense, and I'm
very concerned about that.
MR. ABBO: I understand that. As I outlined before, I don't
think that everyone who uses these vehicles uses them the same way
that we do, and we think that we use them very properly.
I almost find that that community you just named has a
disadvantage over this one if this one were to have a community
development district approved in that, again, rolling forward 30 years
or even 20 or 10 -- we have some communities that six years later, the
board of supervisors is in total control of the -- or the residents within
the community are in total control of the board, and they decide that
there is an improvement that they desire that was not originally
contemplated within the development plans.
Again, whether it's preserve improvements or anything of that
nature, lakes, or anything that can be considered public improvements
and -- or they may come to you, as an earlier petitioner did, and ask
for special powers to build something.
At that time you can consider that we are not asking for those
special powers because we do not intend to include that within our
community development process.
But over the years, they will amortize this bond, and all they
have to do is refinance it and be able to extract whatever they have
paid down from their own funds without modifying their annual
payment of the debt service, which, in turn, allows them access to,
May 22-23, 2007
again, as I said before, a couple hundred thousand dollars or even
millions of dollars, depending on how much time is -- happens from
the point of issuance to their time of refinancing -- to make these
improvements, which I'm encouraged to say, have to be under the
supervision of an engineer or an attorney -- and an attorney and a
number of other very responsible parties for oversight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I understand that, but a lot can
be built before there's a resident ever on the CDD board, and I've dealt
with a couple communities that have been dealing with extra things
put on the backs of the CDD that actually didn't benefit them at all,
actually wasn't even in the perimeters of their particular CDD.
MR. ABBO: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that does happen.
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've never seen a house lowered in
price yet that had a CDD, so--
MR. ABBO: If you approve of this today, I will assure you that
tomorrow the pricing would be different, so -- and I would be happy
to show that to you. It is our intent, it is the way that we do business.
We see great benefit in community development districts.
Frankly, from a city or county perspective, I think it's going to prove
to be a higher level of maintenance for these communities and also a
higher level of responsibility for the boards that are running these
kinds of things.
So I think you will see over time -- as a matter of fact, there was
an FlU report that was prepared last year for -- at the request of a
county in the State of Florida that compared communities with and
without community development districts and recommended that it
was for the benefit of the community. That was at the -- that was
commissioned by Dade County, to give you an example.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that in our executive
Page 117
May 22-23,2007
summary there wasn't a breakdown of what the -- if we decided to
approve this, what the cost benefit factor would be for the residents
moving in there. There's nothing in our executive summary in regards
to that.
MR. ABBO: Well, all of the items that we have to present have
__ are outlined in chapter 190, and we're fairly consistent with those
applications.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I don't have chapter 190,
okay?
MR. ABBO: No, no, no. I understand. And your question --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're telling me that you're going
to lower the price -- if we approve this CDD, that you're going to
lower the price of the homes.
MR. ABBO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it would have been nice if
you put that in our executive summary saying, okay, if you don't
approve this CDD, here's what it's going to cost the residents, if you
approve this CDD, here's what the cost--
MR. ABBO: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- is going to be of the residents,
and here's how much we're going to knock off the price of the homes
and here's a breakdown of the relationship that they've got to pay for
the CDD versus pay for the mortgage rate, okay?
MR. ABBO: The reason it's not in there, if I may -- and it's
because it's the way that we operate but not the way that the state
requires it to be presented. We would be happy to do that.
But as far as the amount, the present value, you are correct in that
it is in the 15,000 range; however, it is dependent on how much it has
sold for as an interest rate variable when it's sold -- when the bonds are
sold to the market. So the present value will be determined at that
time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe, maybe I didn't -- maybe I
Page 118
May 22-23,2007
didn't -- wasn't clear enough. What I'm saying is, you told -- you
basically said that those homes were somewheres between 300- and
$400,000.
MR. ABBO: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You talked about how many
bedrooms there were going to be, and so on.
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But in our executive summary --
MR. ABBO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- there wasn't a breakdown
because you brought out the fact that if we approve this CDD, you're
going to drop the price of the home.
MR. ABBO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I wanted to see is the
difference in the price of those homes.
MR. ABBO: Okay. It is about $15,000. The exact amount to be
determined upon issuing of the bonds, based on the interest rate. Of
course, it's a time value of money calculation, and to get the present
value, we've got to get the exact factors. But it will equal the exact
amount issued, so it is directly proportionate to the assessment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No offense, but I don't know where
we're going with this. This is a free market issue. I don't want to
dictate what the price of these homes are going to be. The consumer
out there is going to come across. With the market the way it is today,
if they're not price competitive, they're not in the market.
MR. ABBO: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not like they're the only show in
town, and if they go ahead and they pad this thing on the high end so
that their CDD's included in it and they can make full profit off the
house, then they're going to have advantage over the consumer. The
consumer out there has a tremendous amount of choices to make, and
just about every maker of homes today has dropped their prices
Page 119
May 22-23, 2007
because of the fact as such. I really don't see where this is such an
issue. And that wasn't in the form of a question. It was a statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was a motion, wasn't it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion -- I'm sorry, no.
We've got to open the public portion of this agenda, and we have one
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Henry Nardone.
MR. NARDONE: I waive it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on. You're supposed to get up
and speak. No, just kidding.
Okay. So let's close the public portion of the meeting and go
back to --
MR. ABBO: May I say one more thing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. ABBO: It's short. This is very much in line with keeping
the prices as affordable as possible from our perspective. Weare
doing whatever we can to lower our prices today because sales are
very difficult to come by. The market is a difficult place.
This does give us an advantage up front to be able to have them,
instead of paying $15,000 additional to the purchase -- whatever the
purchase price is, you're correct. But it behooves us, since we give
them full disclosure at the time of contract, they're making an
informed decision that it includes the CDD and what the assessments
are.
We did submit a copy of our contract as part of the submission so
that you could see the type of disclosure that we do above and beyond
what's required of chapter 190. So there's no question from a
competitive standpoint.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 120
May 22-23, 2007
Discussion? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. I'm not going
to support the motion based upon the findings. Number three, it says
where the land within the district is significant in size. You know, this
is -- has to be -- it's definitely the smallest CDD, if approved, in
Collier County, if not the State of Florida.
Number four, the district is the best -- whether the district is best
to -- alternative available to deliver community development services
and facilities. Well, you know, it's such a small project, and the
surrounding communities don't have CDDs, and they have all their
infrastructure.
So those are the reasons I can't support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And if! may, the only
argument -- whether it passes or not's almost immaterial. They're still
going to build the project. It's just that the cost of it will be on the
front end and it will be part of the mortgage that they'll pay for it.
This gives them the ability to be able to stretch the cost over 30 years
and stays with the land.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's no guarantee that
those residents will see a reduction in those units.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's true. There's no reduc--
there's no guarantee that you'll see a reduction in price. You might see
an increase if the market goes forward. It's called a free market. Be it
with the CD (sic) or without the CD, the market's going to be what it
is. Unless this is low-cost housing that you're going to agree to the
price ahead of time and they've got special incentives to be able to
keep those prices where it is, it's going to float. It's going to float with
whatever the market is.
So I mean, it's almost immaterial. It's just, it puts a little bit more
of the load on the front end that they have to carry in the mortgage and
pay the interest on.
So whatever we decide here today, I'm sure everything's going to
Page 121
May 22-23, 2007
go forward.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm not. I am not in favor of the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's try again. Start over
fresh.
All those in favor of the motion, in a very loud and -- voice, say
aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think you spoke up for
Halas.
Those opposed say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion fails 3-2.
So you've got some direction to go with.
MR. ABBO: Thank you.
Item #10C
THE COUNTY MANAGER'S ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF
WOULD LIKE DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE IMP ACTS OF THE CURRENT
Page 122
May 22-23,2007
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS
THEY RELATE TO THE MIXED USE PROJECT (MUP)
APPROVAL PROCESS PERMISSIBLE IN THE BA YSHORE
AND BA YSHORE TRIANGLE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIFICALL Y AS THEY RELATE TO THE ARBORETUM
VILLAGE PROJECT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON SEPTEMBER 12,
2006. THEY ALSO REQUEST AFFIRMATION THAT A 3 OR
MORE YEAR TIME FRAME FOR PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION
OF THIS PROJECT, AS NOW PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER
AND AS EVIDENCED BY THE INITIAL SDP SUBMITTAL FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH
THE INTENT OF THE BOARD WHEN THEY APPROVED THIS
PROJECT IN TERMS OF THE AWARDING OF DENSITY
BONUS UNITS, AND FURTHERMORE THAT IT DOES NOT
CONFLICT WITH THE BOARDS POTENTIAL PLANS TO
BUILD A PARKING GARAGE IN THE BA YSHORE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA AS DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING APPROVING THIS PROJECT - MOTION TO TAKE
NO ACTION - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, the next item is 10C. County
manager's zoning department staff wishes to discuss with the Board of
County Commissioners the impacts of the current requirements of the
Land Development Code as they relate to the mixed-use project
approval process permissible in the Bayshore and Bayshore Triangle
overlay zoning districts specifically as they relate to the Arboretum
Village project, which was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on September 12, 2006.
Staff also requests affirmation that a three or more year time prior
because of construction of this project is now proposed by the
developer and as evidenced by the initial SDP submittal for
Page 123
May 22-23,2007
administrative review, does not conflict with the intent of the board
when they approved this project in terms of the awarding of density
bonus units, and furthermore, that it does not conflict with the board's
potential plans to build a parking garage in the Bayshore
redevelopment area as discussed at the public hearing approving this
project.
And Ms. Susan Murray Istenes, your Zoning and Land Use
Director, will present.
MS. ISTENES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Susan Istenes.
As Mr. Ochs referenced, this is in reference to the mixed-use
development plan or the MUP process, particularly the Arboretum
Village project that the board approved on September 12,2006.
I have the master plan as part of the MUP process that you
approved. That was attached to the resolution up on the visualizer
now so you can see what was approved. And it is located at the
northwest comer of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in the
Bayshore Gateway overlay zoning district.
I'm coming before you today because staff believes that the
development of the project is not progressing as expeditiously as the
board and the staff was led to believe when the project was heard by
the board on -- and approved on September 12th.
The requirements of the Land Development Code require that the
petitioner submit a Site Development Plan within six months of
approval, and we have received the initial Site Development Plan, and
I'd like to put that on the visualizer now.
I'll explain it in just a minute, but let me give you a little
background. The initial SDP that was filed by the applicant as
required will only authorize modification of an existing lake, which
I've shown in blue. There is an existing lake out there, and the
developer will be required to modify it in order to meet their water
management district requirements, and that modification, essentially,
shows the lake split in half. They'll do some modification to the bank
Page 124
May 22-23, 2007
as well, and the elevation so they can meet their water district
management requirements prior to development.
And the construction of a driveway leading to an existing
building which will act as a sales center, and that's what is highlighted
in pink. Everything else shown on that development plan is shown as
future, which means that, as submitted, this will not authorize the
construction of buildings or internal site circulation.
Why we're concerned is the application for the MUP indicated
that this would be a phased project but also implied that there would
be some construction of buildings at the initial phase, and that is not
the case per this SDP.
Approvals to authorize the construction of internal site
circulation and building construction will require multiple future
amendments to the initial SDP. And furthermore, the sales center was
not authorized as part of the MUP approval.
So the requirement for initial site development plan approvals to
develop the project will obviously extend the development timeline.
That's where staffhas its discomfort, because we believe testimony
put on the record did not clearly explain that.
The other concern is that, if you'll recall, 232 density bonus units
from a limited density pool were awarded to this project, and it was
staffs belief, based on the testimony put on the record, that it was the
board's expectation that this project would spur economic
development -- or redevelopment in -- I should say just redevelopment
in the Bayshore area.
Again, the fact that there's no buildings on this will result in an
extended time line for development, and staff feels that it may not
achieve the board's objective, and in staffs opinion, it was not
anticipated when this project was initially approved.
And I just want to note that a time line is not required for MUP
approval; however, the developer is now contending with some
representation that a vertical construction will not be available for
Page 125
May 22-23, 2007
occupancy until late 2009. So we did receive a -- what I would call a
very vague development schedule with the SDP. You did not get that
with the MUP. And it is indicating that some representation of
building -- it doesn't say the member of buildings or what type or
anything -- should be available for CO in late 2009.
And our concern was, I don't think that was really explained to
you or to us at the public hearing. If I'm wrong, that's fine, and if
you're comfortable with that, that's fine too. I just want to be able to
have a conversation with you about it so you're not surprised later if
you don't see activity in that area.
The other concern is that the resolution that you approved
requires that the applicant facilitate an agreement with you as the CRA
board to construct a parking garage at the time of SDP submittal. That
was the language that was in the resolution. This is the first SDP that
is submitted, and an agreement was not submitted with this SDP that
would give the CRA option to construct a parking garage. And per
the resolution in the public hearing, you had two years to consider that
option.
So I don't feel that they've met the requirements for the parking
garage that they agreed to with you at the public hearing.
It's our opinion that the project as submitted will not meet the board's
development timeline expectations and will encumber the awarded
residential density bonus units which were thought of as tools to spur
development in the area, or redevelopment.
The other thing I want to mention is that the applicant may claim
that the design of the project was delayed by the need to wait until the
board approved the ability for the applicant to deviate from the
Bayshore Gateway overlay development standards.
If you recall, we amended the Bayshore Gateway development
overlay, and then later came back and approved some deviations, or
ability for the developer to deviate. So the MUP approval was granted
in September 12th of2006, and the deviations were approved by the
Page 126
May 22-23, 2007
board on December 14th of2006, so just about two months later.
It's our position that the approval of the development standards in
December did not cause a delay of the project.
Lastly, I just wanted to point out that I'm not standing up here
intending to point fingers or be objectionable to the project. I just
strongly feel that what was put on the record and implied or conveyed
-- and I do have some statements, both the verbal testimony and in the
application that was submitted for the MUP process -- that leads me to
believe and that I feel may have led you to believe that this project
was ready to move forward with a substantial amount of development.
And so what we're seeing after the fact is, I do not consider
substantial amount of development based on what was presented. If
you're comfortable with this, I mean, that's fine.
What I had suggested as three options -- and I'll go ahead and put
those up and I can explain them. I might need to read them. The first
option is, essentially, you could do something. That would tell staff
that the board is satisfied with the progress of the project to date and,
furthermore, it doesn't conflict with the intent of the board when it
approved the project and the LDC amendments for the MUPs.
Again, if you decide to do nothing, that would tell us that the
board does not take any issue with the fact that the application has not
submitted -- or the applicant, I'm sorry, has not submitted any formal
request for their consideration for the construction of the parking
garage as well.
Second as an option, you could request that the applicant come
back to the board for approval of a detailed time line for the project
and an agreement for the option for a parking garage.
And a third option could be that you find the project out of
compliance with the approved MUP resolution. And by not meeting
the terms of the resolution, it is staffs position that the applicant will
need to reapply to the BCC for a MUP approval both for the project
and for the bonus density units.
Page 127
May 22-23, 2007
I did put the minutes of your MUP approval meeting in your
agenda package so you could recollect what happened that day. But I
would also further recommend that, to prevent future issues with
similar projects, that we suggest to you that the board might want to
set policy direction at this meeting to require a detailed timeline for
MUP projects to be submitted with future MUP applications and to
direct staff to amend the LDC to include a development timeline for
all MUP projects, if you desire, and that is just a suggestion.
I know their applicant's representative is here. I'd be happy to
answer any questions for you at this time or later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please. Commissioner Fiala has
a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Being that I've never seen an SDP
before, is that how they usually look?
MS. ISTENES: Well, yes. Is that how they usually look? It--
no, not normally. Normally -- if it's a phased project, they will
normally show the breakdown of the phases, and they may do,
depending on how many buildings there are -- in this case there's 13
buildings. We may see a percentage, like 25 percent of the buildings
if it's a large phased project. That's fairly typical. Phasing is not
atypical. So, yeah, we commonly see phased projects.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Secondly, I just want to say,
that was a good catch because I've been wondering where it was. I
had understood there was an anxiousness to get this going and get this
thing built, and when it came before us and it was going to have an
element of essential service provider housing there that we were
looking forward to -- in fact, that's why they wanted the extra
densities.
And it just seemed like everything was ready to go and then
we've heard nothing more, so I'm very glad you brought this to our
attention. I've been wondering what happened to it.
On this thing it says, the request will have no impacts on
Page 128
May 22-23,2007
affordable housing, but wasn't it supposed to include some?
MS. ISTENES: The project was -- is going to build 35 gap
housing units, and they were going to make contributions to the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund, I believe, to the tune of about
$325,000, was the amount that was put on the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hear from the agent of the
applicant.
Mr. Saunders?
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Good afternoon. My name is Burt
Saunders. I'm with the Gray, Robinson law firm, and here
representing the developer, and also Michael Fernandez is here
representing the developer. And Michael Bays is -- or William Bays
is here also, and they may be able to talk to you a little bit about the
timing of this, but let me -- I'm not sure where the board wants to go
with this, but let me simply say that -- two things.
The issue of phasing was never an issue that was in doubt.
There's a document that was presented to staff and to the board
members that you'll recognize, and in this document there are several
references to the various phases of the project.
On one page it's titled, Arboretum Village project unit price point
phasing, summary schedule, and then it has phase one, phase two,
phase three, and phase four. So the question of phasing I don't think
was ever at issue.
In addition to that document -- and there's several others, but I'm
just going to point out two of them -- there is a mixed-use project plan,
MUP submittal requirements. And in that, it says criteria for
mixed-use project approval.
And one of the questions deals with, 25 percent of the residential
units within a mixed-use project shall be on gated roadways, and then
there's a response that says, project phasing has been developed with
consideration of many development factors, including but not limited
Page 129
May 22-23,2007
to, permitting, land use, et cetera.
Goes on to say, the entire Arboretum Village development is
planned to be a phased construction with office and commercial space
being built simultaneously with residential units.
And it continues to say that -- in that same paragraph, neither the
residential -- well, it says, neither the residential nor commercial
structures shall be developed in the initial phase.
And I want to point that out because there's never been any
question that the first phase of this was going to be the issue dealing
with the lakes and the roads, and it says specifically that neither
commercial nor residential buildings would be in that first phase.
They will be in the second phase.
There was an issue of whether the developer has any anxiousness
in terms of proceeding with this. I can tell you the develop has over
$30 million out of pocket. They're going to be tearing down the
existing rental facility out there. And the developer has every reason
to move this project along as quickly as possible.
They filed the first SDP for the first phase to get the horizontal
infrastructure in so they could begin with the horizontal -- or rather the
vertical construction.
And then also, members, there was something that your staff said
that I think is very important here. They have some discomfort
because there's no fixed timeline. But your staff said, there is no
requirement for an absolute fixed timeline. Now, ifthere was, we
would have an absolute fixed time line, but that's not part of your
requirements.
Your requirements recognize that on a complex project of this
size, phasing is not unusual. Your staff said phasing is not unusual.
This particular SDP filing, though they don't like to, is not unusual.
And if you'd like to hear from the developer in terms of his desire to
move this along as quickly as possible, he is here to address that.
And finally, there was a question concerning the parking garage.
Page 130
May 22-23, 2007
You do have two years in which to make your election as to whether
you want a parking garage there or not. The developer has absolutely
no problem with the county taking longer than that to make your
decision. It's your decision. If you want a parking garage there, there
will be a parking garage there no matter whether you make that
decision.
So I think the point that I want to emphasize is that the developer
has every reason to move this along as quickly as possible, he is doing
everything he can to begin the horizontal infrastructure so he can
begin the vertical construction.
There is no requirement in your codes for a time line on any
developer. So if you want to impose that at some point, then
obviously that's something you can do. But that's not something that
was part of this approval.
And again, Mr. Chairman and members, there are representatives
of the developer here to talk about the actual process and the actual
timeline, if you will, in terms of when vertical construction will begin.
And if I might, Mr. Chairman, it's my assumption that what the
board will do today is basically number one of those three choices,
which is really to do nothing but recognize that this is a phased
project, as it has been represented to you and to your staff from the
very beginning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have some concerns
because of the fact that when this was brought before us and you
requested the added density, it was pretty much conveyed to me that
this was moving at a very rapid speed, and I believe Mr. Fernandez
made a statement to the effect that they were working with the
architect, that they had everything almost put in place, but yet on the
-- but yet on the SDP there's nothing there to show any relationship to
that.
And I think that was one of the things that, I know as -- I as a
Page 131
May 22-23,2007
board member here, that's why I stepped up to the plate and basically
said, yeah, we're going to go along with the added density because we
were somewhat assured that this was going to be moving at a very
rapid rate.
And I have some concerns because I think that there was some
discussions with the developer -- and I'll read from what I read here in
my book, which is a part of the executive summary. Further
discussions with the developer representatives after submittal revealed
that the project will be phased with the construction of buildings to be
approved and the possible commencement no sooner than two years
from now, which would be late 2009, which is approximately three
years after the plan was approved by the -- was approval by the BCC.
Additionally, there were no provisions in the code that would
allow the applicant to extend the SDP, approval of time line for a
lengthy period of time by making nominal submittals to keep the SDP
in review stage.
I have some real concerns because I think there might have been
some other people out there that might have wanted that additional
density, and we should maybe have given it to them because I was
under the impression that this was going to move along at a very rapid
rate. So maybe you can relate to that a little bit.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Yes. Commissioner Halas, I'm going
to have Michael Fernandez talk a little bit about what the developer's
actual schedule is. I will assure you that engineering work and
architecture work is progressing on the buildings that are part of this.
I also would take -- I think would disagree that there's somebody else
out there right now that would like to build those additional bonus
units. I don't think that the market is there. I don't think that this
project is holding up anybody else.
But let me have Michael Fernandez talk a little bit about the
speed with which the developer is progressing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what Mr. Fernandez brought
Page 132
May 22-23, 2007
up at -- when the time this was before the board, it says, Mr.
Fernandez -- they asked a question, where he was on this in regards to
-- CRA has an architectural design, and I believe this was by
Commissioner Fiala. I think you and I spoke about this in the past,
and you're moving along in that direction to set the tone, therefore the
area.
Mr. Fernandez, absolutely. And as you know, one of the
architects, David Humphrey, who you are aware of -- and we're
working with him on the old Florida and West Indies combination
look, and we're very happy with the way it's going at the time, which I
think led me to believe that this was -- everything was laid out. Pretty
much the concept was there on paper, but yet there's nothing there as
far as the county is concerned as far as a Site Development Plan.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: And I think, perhaps, Mr. Fernandez
needs to explain a little bit about the process also. We do have that
first phase Site Development Plan in place so we can begin the
horizontal work. That doesn't mean that we're not proceeding to
develop the structures. But we need to get the lakes in and the roads
in before we can start building the buildings, and that's why we have
that SDP in there now so we can begin that work. Perhaps Mr.
Fernandez can --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the Site Development Plan
does not show any buildings whatsoever.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: And that's because we need to put the
horizontal infrastructure in first, and that's what we're trying to do as
quickly as we can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. The concept. The
concept should be in a Site Development Plan.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioners, Michael Fernandez, for the
record, representing the developer. You're absolutely right,
Commissioner Halas. When I came up here before we were going full
guns with architectural concept drawings, we had renderings of
Page 133
May 22-23, 2007
specific buildings. We have two architects under contract working on
different buildings.
Weare actually progressing as quickly as possible in the process
that we're working under. The MUP was approved in September. The
deviation provisions that allowed us to put buildings within the project
instead of right on the property line, and that was the major problem
we had, were not approved until December.
We have been waiting patiently, or impatiently, with staff to give
us the requirements, submittal requirements, for the deviation
ordinance application measures that will allow us to identify all the
specific design criteria for the buildings and for the relationship to
on-site features.
Having said that, keep in mind that this is a redevelopment
project. It's currently -- there's 200 apartments on that development
right now. This is -- if! can place this on the overhead. This is the
design and permitting timeline that we submitted to county staff with
our SDP amendment. And a couple clarifications, because they
misread some of the information.
For instance, we're showing that we will actually start
construction with the initial buildings or anticipating to do that next
year, and that the first building will actually be occupied within three
years, not we're starting construction within three years.
But we've notified the residents that live in the apartments that
they need to vacate in August. We're looking then at a demolition.
And this SDP will allow demolition of those properties. We're going
to be demolishing the major asset that still exists on this property,
those 200 residential units. And believe me, the developer would not
be moving forward with that unless he had the intent on moving
forward with the entire project. That's a major financial asset that's
producing revenue for him at this time.
The lakes -- right now there's a six-acre borrow pit we're looking
at reconfiguring, and that reconfiguration is exactly what was shown
Page 134
May 22-23, 2007
to the square foot on the MUP master plan. In other words, we're very
consistent with that design. Not only are we doing the lakes there, but
we're also doing the other water management, pretreatment, and water
quality features that are also part ofthat project.
The SDP also includes extending a 12-inch water main
underneath Bayshore from across the street. That's being permitted
through the City of Naples, and that will serve for fire protection for
the initial sales center, but also for the future infrastructure and the rest
of the development.
We're also showing that we'll be submitting for the second SDP
in September for our schedule, and that assumes that we'll have the
appropriate documents from staff so that we can submit those, and
those will have our infrastructure drawings including the architectural
design concepts for the initial buildings.
This project has always been a phased project. In the application
forms that were submitted in part of your packet it stated that -- it also
stated that there's a four-year anticipated development program once
construction commences.
As you can see on that timeline, we're looking at -- and it shows
there, both our work as civil engineers, landscape architects, but also
the two architects working concurrently with us to develop their
program. Those architectural design standard packets get submitted
with the next SDP.
It takes them approximately three months to finalize those
drawings. They then take approximately five months in the review
process from the county, and then we can start on the actual
construction drawings.
The client has expedited, quite literally, the process by
concurrently looking at reviewing the construction drawings and the
SDP, and that's the only way that he can actually achieve vertical
construction starting in the fall of next year.
So this is actually a very aggressive schedule that's been
Page 135
May 22-23, 2007
proposed. We're looking at moving forward as quickly as possible.
The lake construction was always dependent on the water table
receding, which happens in November, which will be -- work and
dovetail very nicely with the demolition of the existing units on the
property.
So I'd submit to you that we're right on schedule. It was
anticipated to be in this format. We're actually only being delayed by
the lack of forms and guidance that we need from staff relative to
submittal requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one quick question?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the added density bonus, you
then stepped up to the plate and said 15 percent of this was going to be
gap housing, which would be 35 units. When are we going to get the
35 units?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Those 35 units are intended to be part -- as
you may recall --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is it going to be the first units?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. You'll recall that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, see, we got all this -- we got
all this affordable housing that's out there, but we haven't -- nobody
wants to build it right now.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. If you'll recall, Commissioner, our
design basically has stratified the price range from high next to
Windstar to low next to the parking garage and commercial
components that are the most incentive.
We have shown you in the past a diagram or some information
that shows how the dispersal of these units occur within the
development and so that you don't have a concentration of those units
in anyone location.
And so they'll come on-line as the individual buildings come
on-line. And right now, the first buildings that we're looking at
Page 136
May 22-23, 2007
developing are the ones -- this color coded, and basically the -- what
you're seeing is in the first phase, will consider, over here in that area.
There's actually four pads that are labeled 2A through 2D.
Two of those building pads will overlook the lake, two will be
interior, and then there's actually a fifth pad, which will be the single
residential-only development, and that will be the only gated element
of the project that abuts Windstar. And that will be part ofthe first
phase. In that first phase, there are some of those 15 percent units that
we are talking about.
But we're moving expeditiously in the permit process. If you
think about it, with the deviations being approved in December of last
year, we're only now in May. It takes approximately, staff, about five
months to go through a review process for an SDP. That SDP was one
sheet out of many sheets. And in fact, we would have submitted a lot
more development. In fact, we've shared with staff the other
development sheets that we would have submitted with the initial
submittal except that the forms hadn't been generated that would have
allowed us to do it.
The -- so in our minds, we're moving very fast. We're looking at
12 months construction for the buildings. You're looking at two
SDPs, that's 10 months. So you're looking at about 22 months, and
that's right on line with our timetables.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Susan?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why isn't this governed by our
sunsetting provisions?
MS. ISTENES: It's not a PUD. This is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why not?
MS. ISTENES: Code doesn't say it should, I guess, is the easy
answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I guess that's the
Page 13 7
May 22-23,2007
second problem I've got with this. I don't like the idea that the mixed
use design -- and it's not going to affect this project, okay.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it's been approved. But I
don't like the idea that these mixed-use projects avoid the normal
review procedures that we have for others. It avoids the Planning
Commission review. I don't think it should avoid the Planning
Commission. I think we -- I think we did that so that we could get
mixed-use developments done faster, and we've apparently also
apparently -- well, bypassed the sun setting provisions for mixed-use
developments.
Maybe that's something we should correct because what we're
getting involved with here is a debate about when somebody should
build something, but yet ifthey've got a PUD, they've got five years to
begin to make acceptable progress on building the thing.
So we're not -- we're not causing any difficulties for a PUD that
is not building something this year or next year, but we are doing it for
a mixed-use development. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
And I understand how market conditions influence people's
investment and building schedule. You can't get around it. It's -- you
know, if I were a builder, I wouldn't be building anything right now
either. It's really crazy. And the scary thing is, we might be in this
down market for another two, three, four years.
MS. ISTENES: Understood, Commissioner, and that's why I
suggested the first option. Your staff just has a discomfort level with
the testimony that was put on the record versus what was submitted
with the initial SDP. And if you're comfortable with that, we're
comfortable with it.
The -- I do want to correct one thing, and I am not intending to
get into the debate, but the SDP that was submitted does not authorize
the roads to be constructed. They are labeled as future, and under our
procedures, the applicant would have to come in and amend that SDP
Page 138
May 22-23,2007
to take future off in order that they may pull permits and -- I just want
to correct that for the record.
Point well taken. If you wish us to do this through a different
process, we can certainly take the board's direction and look at it, but
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, with respect to authorization
for the roads, is that something you can do administratively?
MS. ISTENES: Yes, that will be through an administrative
review process. My point is, it's just a longer time because you have
to come in for another process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But look at it
this way. We have 5,146 affordable housing units that we have
approved. A little over 1,200 have been built. The other 4,000 or so,
nobody's doing anything with them and we're not hassling anybody
about it. I don't know why we singled out this particular development
to get excited about it except it's different. It's a mixed-use
development.
MS. ISTENES: Honestly, just the gut feeling, Commissioner,
when I read the minutes. And if you want to tell me to shut up and go
take my seat, I'll be happy to do that because that will tell me that
you're satisfied with the project and we'll be satisfied with it. That's it.
It wasn't to single out or put anybody on the spot, you know. That
was --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think -- I think that kind of
review is appropriate. I mean, if you've got a gut feel on something, I
think you're right to share it with us --
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because you're closer to these
things than we are. All I'm suggesting is that we've got a lot of these
hanging out there, and acceptable progress has not been made on any
of those other affordable housing units, and I suspect it has to do a lot
with market conditions.
Page 139
May 22-23, 2007
MS. ISTENES: No doubt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I can't quarrel too much with
people's reluctance to start investing a lot of money in a down market,
as badly as we need these things.
So I guess my feeling is, certainly require that they do the things
that they should. If they have to get approval for the roads to do that,
get it done administratively and let's see if we can't move along. But it
-- in relation to all the other projects we have, I don't see that this one
is causing us any more difficulty than the others, and in view of
economic situations, I'm willing to be a little flexible.
MS. ISTENES: Appreciate the feedback.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's your recommendations?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend that we approve it, let
it go, but get them in and make sure they get the administrative change
for the PUD or the MUD (sic) to do the roads, if they're going to do
the roads.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, that will be handled through the Site
Development Plan process --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: -- which is administrative and you won't see that
if --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I understand, but
you've got to get it, right? You've got to get that done.
MS. ISTENES: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So your suggestion is number one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. I'm suggesting that we
move ahead with it. Let it go, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Henning, you're next --
Page 140
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or can we go to the speakers?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, what?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I want to go. I want to
speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Don't go to a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to thank Mrs. Istenes for
bringing this forward to get clarification. We really need to commend
her for that. I mean, I've seen some crazy, crazy stuff, that I feel that
should have came to us for an interpretation if that was our intent, so
thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Open the public participation
part of this --
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Mr. Chairman. David
Jackson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He waved. Close the public petition
part of this agenda.
So was that in the form of a motion, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it was. Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we had a second by
Commissioner Henning. And we're off and running.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We already got it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Did you have a last comment?
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners,
I want to thank your staff, Susan, and Joe Schmitt; they've been
extremely courteous in setting this up and accommodating my
schedule. They've been nothing but professional. And I can assure
you on behalf of the developer, his interest is in moving this thing as.
Page 141
May 22-23, 2007
quickly as possible, and that's what you're going to see. And I
appreciate the board working with us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas would
like you to restate the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas is
right. There's nothing to approve or disapprove here. Our option
really is to take no action.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's -- that's what I'm
suggesting, we take no action.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's been clarified.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That doesn't mean we shouldn't
take another look at it sometime in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we should take a look at it
in the future because when this was presented to us they asked for a
large allotment of density, and we did this on -- I did it anyway, on the
auspices that this was going to move forward very rapidly and that we
were going to address the issues of affordable housing. And I realize
that there has been a change in the economic climate, but I would still
think that we need to make sure that this moves on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We start repeating ourselves all over
again. Let's take a vote on the motion, move on to the next item.
We've got a long ways to go to finish the day.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amen.
MS. ISTENES: May I just get clarification? You mentioned
your displeasure with this process not involving the Planning
Commission. Is that something you wish us to look at?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I personally would. I would like to
see these things go through all of the planning review processes, but
let's do it quickly, you know. Let's try to speed them up.
MS. ISTENES: We've only approved one other, and that was
Treviso Bay. And there is the six-month time limit on here to submit
Page 142
May 22-23,2007
the SDP. I don't know if! made that clear, so there's somewhat of a
time limit.
But once you get past the initial SDP, things can be drawn out.
Do you wish that I look at, perhaps, requiring some sort of sometime
schedule you all could look at as part of the application process when
it comes before you for approval?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be a great idea.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, in those cases where, as
Commissioner Coletta -- or Commissioner Halas has pointed out,
where we granted some additional density bonuses essentially here,
the point is, we don't have anybody else clambering for those right
now for -- to do anything with. If somebody comes in next year and
nothing's been done with this project and they've got a project they'd
like to do and they're going to do it fast, I might want to revisit all this,
okay, but I don't see that happening right now. And I think our
executive director will tell you the same thing.
MS. ISTENES: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Thank you.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 143
May 22-23, 2007
Item #10D
AN INTERIM REPORT FROM THE HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND PROVIDE THE
COMMITTEE DIRECTION FOR FUTURE EFFORTS -
APPROVED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10D, which is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept an
interim report from the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory
Committee and provide the committee direction for future efforts.
And Mr. Bill Lorenz, your Director of Engineering and
Environmental, Community Development.
MR. LORENZ: Not quite yet, but--
MR. MUDD: Did I get it all together?
MR. LORENZ: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay -- of community development's
environmental services will present.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you. Bill Lorenz, Environmental
Services Director.
The purpose of this -- the purpose of this agenda item is to bring
to the board an interim report of the Habitat Conservation Plan
Advisory Committee and essentially cover two basic points. One point
that the committee is looking at in terms of a geographical area of a
habitat conservation plan, or an HCP, which would be the Immokalee
designated area, and secondly would be to request some clarification
from the board regarding looking at alternatives to an HCP
simultaneously with evaluating the feasibility of an HCP, and I'll
cover the details of that just in my presentation.
I'm just going to give a very brief presentation. Maureen
Bonness is here. She is with the advisory committee. She would
provide some additional clarifications and information after I speak,
Page 144
May 22-23, 2007
with the chair's permission.
And also I know that there's some other advisory committee
members that are in attendance and they may be registered to speak as
well.
Regarding the Immokalee area, in late February, the advisory
committee did take a vote to looking at the feasibility of what we
would call a countywide HCP and found that that would not be
feasible in the broader sense ofthe broader county, but they did look
-- want to take a look at some smaller geographical areas, of which
case the Immokalee designated area, and that would be urban
designated area on the future land use map, was an area that they
thought would be -- have some opportunity for an HCP and would
look at that further.
Along those lines, at that particular point staff was aware that the
Immokalee -- there are an Immokalee Visioning Committee or several
committees that are looking at a revision to their master plan. We also
brought in Tom Greenwood, who is here, who is a staff liaison to
those Immokalee committees, and began, essentially, some
coordination with that committee, of which last week staff and the
HCP committee did come to the Immokalee committees and present a
presentation to them concerning this issue.
We received some fairly good comments and some feedback and
some questions that I think the Habitat Advisory Committee needs to
look at if they want to go further with the Immokalee area master --
Immokalee habitat conservation planning effort.
But at least that's -- we did -- I did want to brief you of that fact
that you may be seeing some recommendations from that committee
as well, or you may not, depending upon how they -- what their
recommendations will be to you, but we did have that coordination.
Also, regarding the alternative to HCPs. In your executive
summary, the charge to the committee -- and it's under B6 where it
talks about alternatives to HCPs ifHCPs are not being feasible. The
Page 145
May 22-23, 2007
advisory committee would like to get some clarification from the
board or, perhaps, some different direction to look at alternatives on a
simultaneous basis to -- as opposed to coming to the board with a final
recommendation of feasibility and then looking at the alternative. So I
just wanted to get some clarification of that.
And by advice from the County Attorney's Office, the suggestion
there, if the board wants to proceed along those lines, is simply, the
County Attorney's Office can draft a resolution to come back to you
on a separate agenda recognizing that -- that direction.
So those are the two issues, the Immokalee master -- the
Immokalee area as an HCP and also doing -- looking at alternatives
simultaneously to the HCP feasibility analysis.
With that, I would -- I know Maureen Bonness may want to
clarify and provide some additional information subject to the chair's
direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bill, if I may?
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Immokalee Master Plan, have
they requested that this study be done?
MR. LORENZ: No, they have not. Last week was the first time
that we had a briefing with that committee. We basically presented
them information at that time.
They've agreed to having one or two members set up a
subcommittee. They're going to attend the Habitat Advisory
Committee's meeting tomorrow. I believe they'll be in attendance so
we can have some additional dialogue along those -- along those lines.
And they will be looking at a recommendation to -- I'm not sure
exactly the schedule. It's sometime in the summer, June/July time
frame. I'm looking at a revision to the master plan. And at some
particular point along the line, they will make a decision as to whether
they would want to recommend it or not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wouldn't we want to wait for
Page 146
May 22-23, 2007
them to come forward with a recommendation, whether they want to
work with it or not rather than try to take it to the point where we tell
them to do it?
MR. LORENZ: I think that that certainly is part of the board's
policy direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we've been through this many
times before where we thought we knew the will of the community,
and we tried to put things on them --
MR. LORENZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and then it blew up in our face.
MR. LORENZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In this case, I hope that we follow the
directive we have, like in Goodland and we followed up in Naples
Park, and the fact that we're trying to get the feel of the community
before we step forward and say, this is what we're going to do for you.
That's my own feelings.
MR. LORENZ: Certainly. And that's why one of the -- we
wanted to make sure when we brought this particular report to the
commission that we had at least sat down with that committee and
understood what their time lines were and bring that to your attention.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go ahead with Ms.
Bonness's presentation.
MR. LORENZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for being here.
MS. BONNESS: Maureen Bonness, representing the Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee. I actually don't have that
much to say. I think Bill covered a lot of it. I did want to put one
thing up on the visualizer.
When we started off with this committee, we did start off
studying RCW HCPs, and we have not forgotten that, and we are now
in the process of working on our alternative to an HCP because Fish
and Wildlife told us they couldn't do a single species RCW HCP, so
Page 147
May 22-23, 2007
we came up with this alternative. And we are, right now, working on
a neighborhood information meeting that will be this Thursday to talk
to residents of North Belle Meade to tell them about this proposed
plan that it -- and try to get neighborhood feedback. So we are still
working on the RCW issue.
But yeah, we did want to get more guidance from -- more
guidance from you as to how much we should pursue any alternatives.
And now that we're off in the Immokalee area instead of North
Belle Meade, is that okay or not, or -- what do you want us to do?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you're asking the commissioner of
the district, I say, I'd like to hear from the master plan. You know,
work with them, come to some sort of consensus with them whether
this is something they want to incorporate in or not. It seemed like
when they were there, there was quite a bit of interest, but, you know,
it's a little early on.
I don't know what to tell you other than that. I think there's
enough interest that you should go back there and talk to them some
more, my own feelings.
MS. BONNESS: The Immokalee area, I mean, as we are
learning more and more about HCPs and deciding whether or not a
countywide infrastructure HCP would work, there's some parts of that
that didn't work, and you start to think, well, where would this work?
And Immokalee was one that shined out because they have so many
issues with endangered species in that area. To have a regional plan
for lots of little developments, it might boost their economic
development. But it's up to them to -- I agree. It's up to them to say
we want to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand the benefits would
be also that we might be able to get in front of some of the objections
that we received from Fish and Wildlife as far as locations of houses
and business? We might be able to be a little more proactive in how
we deal with the situation. And it -- but still, once again, I need for
Page 148
May 22-23, 2007
you to work with the community.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you have a great start, of
course, working with the community and see if that's what they want.
But with so many endangered species all in that area, why just look
for the Red-cockaded woodpecker? Why not identify some of the
other ones, as long as you're in the area anyway so that you can see
what areas might need to be preserved and where you can direct
development away from some of those environmentally sensitive
areas. It seems to make sense.
MS. BONNESS: Immokalee has a lot of endangered species.
They probably have every terrestrial endangered species in Collier
County except Red-cockaded woodpeckers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No kidding?
MS. BONNESS: So -- they do not have Red-cockaded
woodpeckers there. But that is why the multi species HCP was
recommended by Fish and Wildlife, because as long as you're doing
one, you need to cover the other species in that area; otherwise,
developers -- or any kind of clearing will have to deal with the other
species anyway. So you might as well find them all. And that's why
we're dealing now with multi species instead of just RCW.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's wonderful. Let's do that --let's
do this. Don't go too far. Let's go ahead and get the speakers, then we
may have some more questions for you.
MS. BONNESS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bonnie Michaels. She'll be followed
by Katherine English.
MS. MICHAELS: Good afternoon. Bonnie Michaels, with
Natural Resources for the League of Women Voters.
I've been observing the committee for the last six months, and I
just wanted to say that I have been so impressed with the amount of
time and energy problem solving to come up with solutions to a very
Page 149
May 22-23, 2007
complicated issue in a set of stakeholders.
I would highly recommend that the committee could at least be --
continue to meet, because even if Immokalee decides to have us be
part of their master plan, a lot of time might have gone by. The fact
that they meet regularly and are able to continue the research on how
this might be done, I think is really important. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's one of the main objectives
why we're here today is to okay the committee going forward?
MS. ENGLISH: Part of the objective, am I right, Bill? Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Katherine English. She'll be
followed by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whichever one you want, depends if
you're right-handed and left-handed.
MS. ENGLISH: Thank you for hearing me, Commissioners. My
name is Katherine English. I am an attorney with the Pavese law firm,
and I am here today on behalf of Williams Farms ofImmokalee, Inc.,
and I have complied with your lobbyist registration rules.
Last week the HCP committee sought the support of the
Immokalee Area Master Plan Advisory Committee in regard to an
HCP for the Immokalee urban area. At that time, the committee wasn't
comfortable that they had enough information to provide support or
even reach a determination, as your chairman pointed out in regard to
this request.
To date there has not been adequate communications with
landowners or stakeholders in the Immokalee urban area about an
HCP. Prior to an HCP being incorporated in the Immokalee Area
Master Plan, there really should be a concerted effort by the HCP
committee and the stakeholders there to try to build a consensus and a
plan for what this needs to be.
The HCP process has a stunning lack of clarity and certainty at
this point. While there have been a number of HCPs approved in the
Page 150
May 22-23, 2007
southeastern United States, none of them have included a flagship
species like the Florida panther, and that is a critical species in that --
in the Immokalee area from Fish and Wildlife Service perspective.
It is not clear at all that an HCP will streamline permitting or
provide clarity in the process, and it's not clear that the Army Corps of
Engineers that's charged with permitting wetlands impacts will accept
the HCP as an adequate substitute for their section 7 consultation with
the Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection of listed species.
Regardless of your direction to staff in regard to the HCP process
and its alternatives and their review of it, we would respectfully
request that you not direct the Immokalee area to incorporate policies
related to the HCP at this time. We would -- while it may be
appropriate at a later date to incorporate that in the Immokalee area
master planning element, it's certainly not appropriate now, and we
would request that you not slow down a process that has a tremendous
amount of community support in that area at this time with something
that's a little more controversial.
Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Roslyn Katz.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
I wanted to raise a couple points on this interim report, and one is that
we have evaluated the HCP process, and we're one of the original
advocates for you all considering that as a way to more proactively
protect endangered and threatened species in Collier County.
Since that time, it's our opinion that habitat conservation plans
are not feasible for what our needs are, what the county's needs are, in
protecting species right now; however, we do believe that they should
still be evaluated, a mix -- multi species habitat conservation plan
should still be evaluated for its usefulness in the future, and to work
also with the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Page 151
May 22-23,2007
Service to achieve a permitting outcome in the permitting process for
county and for landowners, individual landowners, that would be fair
and equitable and protect and recover the species that we're talking
about.
Because it's not feasible for the -- our needs right now, I think the
county -- we recommend strongly that the county actively and
proactively pursue alternative policies that will protect habitat for
endangered species, listed species, and recover those species.
Those kinds of policies would provide incentives, direction,
mitigation, and alleviation of legal vulnerability, because we've got to
remember, the reason -- one of the big reasons that we're looking at
this is not only to recover and protect these species, which is
obviously an ethical issue, it's also a legal issue.
The county and individual landowners have legal liability under
the Endangered Species Act as well as other laws, federal and state
laws. And so working on proactive policies will help alleviate that
liability, and we need something -- we need alternative policies to the
habitat conservation planning process right now for Collier County.
The county has been very proactive with rural land stewardship
policies. That's a great example of local policies that are very
effective and work to protect habitat and species and are fair to
landowners and provide incentives. That's the kind of creative
thinking we need to apply to the rest of the county that is still
vulnerable. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thanks you.
MS. FILSON: Roslyn Katz. She'll be followed by Fred Thomas.
MS. KATZ: Hi. I'm Roslyn Katz. I'm on the Habitat
Conservation Plan Advisory Committee.
And I want to go back to some of the comments that Bill made,
and I really just want to add weight to our position that in
consideration of the time that we are devoting right now to
determining whether or not a habitat conservation plan is feasible and
Page 152
May 22-23,2007
the fact that it's in the notes to you, I believe, we've learned that it
could take as much as five years to actually develop a habitat
conservation plan.
I really think it's in the best interest of the county to permit us to
consider alternatives to HCPs while we're going forward with our
study of the feasibility, and it's been expressed to us that we were not
directed in your original charge to do that. So today I -- one of the
things we're asking you to do is to give us permission to consider
alternatives at the same time that we consider the HCP.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you want
to wait till after the last speaker?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'll just say my piece now.
You know, the -- Immokalee's been working for two years to develop
their master plan and Land Development Code changes, and they're
late now. I do not want to slow down that process.
I think it's not fair. That community is -- well, the community
leaders want to get started under a new Land Development Code. And
by the way, they used to have their own Land Development Code two
decades ago separate from the coastal -- coastal one.
And since then, I think that we know what kind of amendments
that really spurred the community of Immokalee on to separate -- go
back to a separate code.
So I don't want to deviate what we're asking today. I don't want
to deviate. I don't want to grant it because we see where it's going to
go, it's going to slow down Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's fine. Let's hear from
the horse's mouth, Mr. Thomas, who's also the chair of the master
plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you calling him a horse?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. THOMAS: I'm the horse's mouth. My name is Fred
Thomas, and I have the master plan and visioning chair hat on. The
Page 153
May 22-23, 2007
one reason -- and in all fairness to Bill Lorenz, the one reason why we
didn't flat say no to it when he was there is because he indicated that if
we can get a good habitat plan, that it might expedite processing
through Corps of Engineers and whatnot, but they had to go get more
information and bring that back.
We don't want this slowing down, and I appreciate very much
you understanding our position, Mr. Henning, Commissioner
Henning. We need to be able to move forth, move forth quickly.
We're losing agriculture. We need to get industrial. We need to
broaden our tax base and help the overall county, and anything that
stands in the way of that will be a problem.
But if we can do a plan, if they come back with information that
we can do some sort of plan that would expedite our processing
through the other federal regulators, then that's what we need to do.
But we don't know that yet, that's why we want to hold off till we get
more information, but not slow us down from moving ahead with our
code changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion that what
we do is we leave this in the hands of the master plan review
committee, and at that point in time, if you see this thing has some
meaning to it --
MR. THOMAS: That works for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- keep exploring it, keep it going
forward. If it doesn't apply to what Immokalee's visions are, and then
just say, cease with it, and I think--
MR. THOMAS: That works for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- this commission will support you.
MR. THOMAS: I think that will work for us in our community,
because that was the tense that we got from our committee members
there.
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. That's it?
Page 154
May 22-23,2007
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we close the public
portion of this agenda item. And I thing the direction that we're going
with as far as Immokalee, is to work with the master plan at that point
in time that they reach a decision whether to proceed or to cease.
MR. LORENZ: Okay. And just for clarification purposes on
that then, we will work with -- the habitat advisory committee will
work through the master -- work with the master plan, the Immokalee
Visioning Master Plan Committee, to come up with answering some
of those questions, and at some particular point, the Immokalee Master
Plan Committee can weigh in and say, yes, we think it should be a go
or a no go. That doesn't have to -- that doesn't have to delay their
current planning effort.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just to make sure there's no
misunderstandings, I'll put it in the form of a motion.
MR. THOMAS: Before you put it in the form ofa motion, it
would be good if three or four members of the master plan committee
sit with them on a regular basis so we can get constant information
back and forth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That would be part of my
motion.
MR. THOMAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Bill. I haven't got a second
yet.
MR. LORENZ: Okay. And then the second item would be the
alternatives, allowing the habitat advisory committee to look at
alternatives simultaneously to continuing a feasibility study for an
HCP for the Immokalee area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As long as it's under the jurisdiction
of the Immokalee master plan and the fact -- I mean, I'm not going to
endorse this if they say they don't want to do it. I want to try to make
that clear.
Page 155
May 22-23, 2007
MR. LORENZ: Well, I was making -- I was making a distinction
between the Immokalee -- the Immokalee area master plan and the
alternative. Two issues, one was habitat -- the feasi -- the HCP for the
Immokalee area is one issue working with the Immokalee committee.
The second issue is -- is to allow the habitat conservation plan
committee to look at alternatives to HCPs right now. That would not
necessarily have to be -- that's not part of -- part ofImmokalee that
could be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, okay. I understand what you're
saying. I make that part of my motion. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Mr. Lorenz, I don't
understand your second part.
MR. LORENZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My understanding, that you
were going to see about a -- creating a -- is this a multi species that
you're looking at, the second part, or is it just cockaded woodpecker?
MR. LORENZ: No. The second part, when we talk about
alternatives to an HCP, alternatives could be, as Brad Cornell had
mentioned, maybe other regulatory standards that the county would
adopt, incentive programs, things --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For animal species or what?
MR. LORENZ: For protection of -- yes, animal listed species.
So when -- the charge currently is for the committee to look at
alternatives to an HCP, which would encompass that kind of broad
spectrum. But the current direction is to look at alternatives to HCPs if
HCPs are not deemed feasible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: At the moment the committee -- excuse me. At
Page 156
May 22-23,2007
the moment the committee is still evaluating feasibility of HCPs, but
they would like to have the direction to also evaluate the alternatives
simultaneously.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How long has the
committee been formed? Two years?
MR. LORENZ: Two years, yes, 2005.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you going to put a sunset on
this alternative feasibility second thing, or whatever?
MR. LORENZ: If the board wants to establish a--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, there's got to be a time
when you say -- I mean, you can sit and meet and have coffee and
doughnuts until the cows come home. I mean, I think there needs to
be a timeline.
MR. LORENZ: And certainly the board wants to put a timeline
on --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sorry. You know, that
reference to, you know, sitting around and having coffee and
doughnuts, they're not. They're hard at work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, I'm saying --I'm
saying -- I mean, there's groups -- and I apologize if I offended
anybody, and I definitely apologize to the committee. But, you know,
there's got to be progress. And I mean, there's a lot of studying going
on and a lot of information, but there's nothing that we can adopt. So
what I'm saying is -- how long you want to let this go?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think that before they can
ever make decisions and give us recommendations, they first have to
study and they first have to research. I wouldn't want them to just,
you know, have a timeline to be jumping to and maybe not come up
with all the information they need to make a good suggestion for us to
follow. I don't agree with the timeline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 157
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion on the floor and
a second.
Is there any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor --
MS. FILSON: Can I ask a question? Does the motion include
extending the committee?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's a motion to extend the
committee with a certain--
MS. FILSON: Three years?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- with the certain parameters as far as
Immokalee goes, and we already outlined those parameters to be that
-- to work with the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee
until that point in time that they either get a go or no go.
MS. FILSON: And I guess my questions is, are you approving a
resolution to extend the committee?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the reason I brought
my question up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, and I understand,
Commissioner Henning, but we get a chance to evaluate these
committees on a regular basis. If it gets to the point where they're
nonproductive -- but they are serving a purpose. They're giving us a
lot of food for thought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they are moving some issues
forward and they're keeping it up front. Now, true, they've had some--
they have some times when it -- their ideas have not been productive
and haven't been endorsed, but they're still good to have out in front of
the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean all the committees?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, all the committees, yeah. I
Page 158
May 22-23, 2007
mean, there's a point in time I agree where everything reaches an end,
but I don't think this committee has.
With that, all those in favor, indicate by --
MR. THOMAS: Did your motion also include adding four more
members to that committee from the Immokalee Master Plan
Committee?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I don't -- that wasn't part of the
discussion. I'm kind of lost now. You have to determine first --
MR. THOMAS: Well, if we have some of our members working
with the committee on a regular basis, then we're in a better position to
stay in time with them and make a decision whether we want a go or
no go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Bill, you have how many
people on this committee now, 15?
MR. LORENZ: It's 13. We haven't been able to get up to that 13
level yet, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many you missing?
MS. FILSON: Two after today's appointment.
MR. LORENZ: Okay. Thanks, Sue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then let's have the two vacant
appointments, let's have people from Immokalee submit applications
for them, and I think -- the only thing is, I'm telling you right now, if
they submit applications, they're on that committee, not just for the
master plan, but for the whole thing. And if the master plan doesn't
endorse it, I expect them to stay. Okay. Then I include that in my
motion.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you really want to get the job
done quickly, you cut the committee in half. The bigger you make it,
the longer it's going to take you to get the job done. End of story. It's
a known fact. If we had 13 members on this board, do you realize
how long one of our meetings would be?
Page 159
May 22-23,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two weeks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'd be -- at least for two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In fact, I'd like to cut it down to three,
to be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, as long as I get to select the
three, and you won't be on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In all fairness to Bill, the reason his
committee is so dam big is because of the fact that we wanted to
balance it out with other stakeholders and we had them grow the
committee sometime back from, what was it, nine to --
MR. LORENZ: Nine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- fifteen.
MR. LORENZ: Thirteen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why it hasn't moved any
faster.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it was your idea to do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it wasn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I thought I'd give you credit.
I'm sorry, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Alternatively, perhaps what we can simply do,
as I think earlier Mr. Thomas indicated, that he would have several of
his committee members simply attend our committee meetings and we
can coordinate that activity --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great.
MR. LORENZ: -- and ensure that we have that cross work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And of course, people from
Immokalee can apply for those two vacancies there, and we'll give it
due consideration.
MR. LORENZ: And I'll also have my staff attend the
Immokalee Vision Committee, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be wonderful. Fine.
Okay. With that, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Page 160
May 22-23, 2007
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, and we're
taking a break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, before we
leave --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go, don't go. Everybody
just stay still.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for one second. What time are
we going to end today? You had said six?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's do this. When we get to
six o'clock -- if we get close to six and we see we still have a sizable
amount of the agenda left, I'm for reconvening tomorrow with
whoever's here. We need at least three commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we need to tell Terri what
we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Terri, I can't tell you this soon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How late can you stay?
THE COURT REPORTER: I can stay until we're finished. Ijust
need to let my office know if we're going tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do this. We'll cut off at six
unless we're down to the last 15, 20 minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Because I could turn into a
pumpkin about 5:55.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, you're already a zucchini. It
would be an improvement.
That's it. Take a break.
Page 161
May 22-23,2007
(A brief recess was had.)
Item # lOA
TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEE INDEXING STUDY
PREPARED BY TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES,
INCORPORATED, IN ASSOCIATION WITH ROBERT W.
BURCHELL, PH.D., AS DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND DIRECT THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO FINALIZE THE STUDY,
PREP ARE THE NECESSARY AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 74
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, THE SAME BEING THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, TO
INCORPORATE THE CHANGES TO THE INDEXING
METHODOLOGIES AND CORRESPONDING CHANGES TO
THE IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULES FOR CONSIDERATION
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT A
FUTURE MEETING(S) - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next item is lOA?
MR. MUDD: It's lOA, sir. It's four p.m. time certain. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the
findings of the report entitled Collier County Impact Fee Indexing
Survey prepared by Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Incorporated, in
association with Robert W. Burchell, Ph.D., as directed by the Board
of County Commissioners, and direct the county manager or his
designee to finalize the study, prepare the necessary amendments to
chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the
same being the Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance to
incorporate the changes to the indexing methodologies and
Page 162
May 22-23, 2007
corresponding changes to the impact fee rate schedules for
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at a future
meeting.
And Ms. Amy Taylor, your Manager for Impact Fees --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Taylor -- Mrs. Taylor, you
look very nice today.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry. Amy Patterson.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. For the record, my name is Amy
Patterson. I'm the Impact Fee Manager for Community
Development/Environmental Services, and I'm here today with Steve
Tindale from Tindale-Oliver to present the findings of the localized
impact fee study. This study was directed by the Board of County
Commissioners just a little more than a year ago to address some of
our concerns about the validity of our indexing, which is in place for
each one of our 12 impact fees.
With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Tindale for his presentation.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. Steve Tindale. I've got a
button here to push to go down.
What I'd like to do this afternoon is, fairly briefly, without going
into too much detail, give you an overview of what we've done and go
through a little bit of the technical study, again, trying to keep it to
where it's pretty clear and concise.
The background is, 1978 is your first impact fees in the county.
In 2002 we started indexing, and throughout the State of Florida, I'm
working nowhere where anybody has done anything but raved about
indexing, including the development community. They really like the
idea of having every three to five years fees change 30 to 40 percent.
So, so far we've found them to be very accepted by all the different
factions in the impact fees.
In 2006 it became pretty obvious -- we were doing some studies,
and Collier County's experiencing issues that are different than other
parts of the state. And to be honest with you, the State of Florida is
Page 163
May 22-23,2007
experiencing things that no one else in the United States -- I'm
working on impact fees throughout the United States, and they're not
experiencing some of the things we're experiencing in the Sunbelt in
terms of inflation and the rates of growth and the cost.
So -- but Collier itself -- so we were basically asked not only to
look at maybe an index for the State of Florida, but actually look at
Collier County itself in terms of what you're experiencing, so that's
what initiated the presentation I'm making and the study we've made.
The purpose is to actually capture the increased cost. Not let it get out
of hand, not wait three to five years and have major differences in fee
schedules and have big lumpy numbers in terms of the change in the
fee.
The second thing is, we found consistently that over a 15- and
20-year period, you can see the revenue differences are tremendous in
terms of being able to meet the quality of service you're trying to
provide and having the revenues to build your capital facilities.
The study itself. We have several variables. We looked at land costs
for multiple service areas, we looked at building costs for multiple
service areas. You have buildings in those.
Equipment and vehicle costs and transportation costs. And
transportation costs, I kind of broke that out because it is somewhat
unique in terms of the cost. Then we have a land cost and a
construction cost and transportation specific.
Terms of methodology. We moved from a four- or five-year
average to what we call a three-year rolling average and do a little
regression line. It basically smooths the process out. So we have
changed and adjusted other than just the actual data and where it's
located, a method we think is a little smoother in terms of indexing
each year and having it more consistent.
We are adjusting the cost to your local costs and it's a differential
between your changes in cost to provide labor and et cetera and other
places, so that's one of the major -- major differences.
Page 164
May 22-23, 2007
I'll go through each one of them, again, very briefly. The land
cost. The current one was based on the property appraiser data. There
was no adjustments needed. We were using local data for your land
cost. We weren't -- we weren't getting involved with national indexes.
I did have -- we went back and rechecked. We had some communities
where the tax assessed values were going up faster than the -- what we
were seeing as the actual cost to purchase land time period. We
checked our work, and your tax appraised values versus your raw land
sales are matching. So we think we really got a good match between
using that index, which is changing the actual tax value or the just
value for land.
The original one was 21 percent versus 17.9 percent. So by using
this rural land average, we've adjusted the index land a minor amount.
Building cost. We had one number we used. It was a national
number, ENR, and that was all we were using for indexing.
What we're proposing. We're adding what's called a Turner
Building Cost Index, which is a national numbers, and an RS means.
It's a number that actually comes out of Miami. It's very specific. It's
a national study but it uses individual cities, and we had a Miami
number, and we adjusted that Miami number to a Collier number. We
took the Turner Building Index, which was a national number, and,
again, we adjusted that to a local number.
So we're -- basically went from one index to three indexes to
make sure we had a good representative value of what the changes in
cost were, and we've adjusted those where they're reflecting local --
your local costs.
The number there is moved from 4.1 percent to 8.4 percent. And,
again, I'll maybe back up a little bit. The biggest item we utilized to
adjust this, one of the biggest items, is the change, not the absolute
value, the change in your labor. We -- and that's in the report.
Your labor prices over five to 10 years are dramatically different in
Collier County than they are in the state and in the State of Florida,
Page 165
May 22-23, 2007
and we used that as one of the adjustments for doing the index. And it
was a very -- I think it was one of the best things we came up with was
to use that specific number.
Dr. Burchell actually found that information where we then
adjust all these national numbers to the local number not by the
absolute value of your labor, but the amount your labor is changing
during that time period and your labor costs.
Equipment costs. We had a consumer price index. We got it
right out of Miami. We were using it. What we've moved to is the --
both combination of the Miami/Fort Lauderdale area, and then we
went to a public building furniture national data, and we adjusted that
to your -- by using your local -- your local numbers.
So we moved from one index to two indexes, and we took the
national index and we used a local adjustment factor because of your
changes in labor rates.
Results of that was we moved from a 2.8 percent to 5.9 percent.
Again, you see in general each of these turned it up a little bit in terms
of the changes you're experiencing versus what's being experienced
throughout the state or the national numbers.
Transportation costs. We went to two items, construction costs.
We're using the DOT cost index, to be honest with you, and it's --
we're brutally honest.
DOT had an index out there that they used for estimating what to
put in their five-year work program. We were running 3 to 5 percent
changes at a highest in terms of changing costs. They looked out five
years and they were -- no way were they going to take 20 percent
indexing and put it in their work program and cut half the projects.
Just wasn't going to happen.
So that index they were using for their five-year planning became
pretty well worthless to us. We didn't catch that for several years, but
it was not a -- it wasn't an index. But what's happened, it was an index
of them protecting what their costs were, and they could not afford to
Page 166
May 22-23, 2007
just decimate their five-year work program: And we kind of tried to
document that a nice way in the technical report.
And the right-of-way. Again, we used your property appraiser
for the right-of-way, and we found it was right on in terms of the
changes in your land values that we had looked at.
What we moved to. The DOT does what they call a long-range
estimate. It's a detailed, fairly elaborate, by each different component
of road construction statewide. It's made available, and we went to
that long-range estimate. It's really current-day costs. They're using
bids and bid prices for the state.
We didn't want to just take one index because these numbers are
changed dramatically, and they have been changing for two or three
years.
We went to the PPI for highways and streets. The consumer price
index is kind of a national, but the PPI -- and it's abroad (sic) for
several things consumed. The PPI has specific areas, and they have
highway construction, street construction as one of their indexes. So it
was a clean index that was related to that.
We went to those two and, again, we adjusted the street and
highway -- the PPI for highways and construction to a local index.
Again, looking at the indexes that we're -- they're experiencing
nationally and adjusted that with your labor rates, which were
dramatically different, the change in your labor rates.
The transportation cost went from that index. Remember I told
you about the DOT was using a number to say, we've got to budget 4
percent a year or 5 percent a year, and if sixth, seventh, eighth -- you
know, fourth, fifth, sixth year of our work program, well, that wasn't
useful. The actual number is 32 percent. A dramatic difference
between the two.
What we've done is we've taken that index over the last 12
months, that methodology and compared that to what's actually been
experienced, and it just about hits the number. You could take the last
Page 167
May 22-23,2007
12 months, and we could do a dramatic -- you know, a detailed cost
estimate for construction a year, year and a half ago, or we can plug
this index into the numbers a year, year and a half ago, and the two
match.
We kind of got a validation that if -- you went through that
process. So that the construction costs were coming up, we think, is
very valid in terms of using that combination index, and it should be
sensitive to what's going on here in the state.
One of our recommendations, if any index is greater than 15
percent, that you do a mini study, that you go back and you get some
bids, go back and you verify what's happened in the last 12 months.
Don't index anything greater than 15 percent. If it's 8, 9, 10, 11
percent, which I think is very reasonable in terms of what we've seen
all over the state -- but if you have an index -- and you just saw one
that was 30 percent -- that you'd -- you then would be required to go
out and find some bids, do a, you know, a mini kind of update and
verify that the 15 percent was legitimate.
This is a summary of the previous numbers and how they would
have changed over a 12-month period versus what we're proposing.
The transportation where you include both land -- I mean construction
and right-of-way, would -- it went up about 7 percent. We're saying
it's going to be -- it'd be pushed to more like 30 percent.
Regional parks within 14 would be the 20 community parks. It's
10 versus 16. And the reason the community parks would actually go
up at a little faster rate there is you've got more equipment -- I mean,
excuse me, the regional park is because you have more land, and the
land is the one that's the big number right now.
EMS is about 8 to almost 12, versus 12. Government buildings, 6
versus almost 10. Schools is 6 versus almost 10. I don't know if I
need to read every one of these. You see generally that the number is
-- the change in number is fairly dramatic, but the absolute differential
within a 12-month period, from what we've been experiencing in
Page 168
May 22-23,2007
construction costs and land costs are very reasonable, specifically that
we're moving from a national index to one of a -- one in the Sunbelt,
one in Florida, and one specifically in Collier County.
Went ahead and put down some numbers. Your current index.
Your current single-family home with the current indexes would
moved from 31,000 to 33-. If you use the revised indexes, it'd be
36,000. That'd be basically adding an additional $2,800, you know,
rather -- in additional fees versus the old index, or about a $4,800
index, and that's about a 15.
What we're basically saying, it costs 15 percent more to do
business after a 12-month period than it does 12 months ago. And I
can tell you, all over the state, that is a very conservative number from
what I've seen.
Again, I've seen building costs in the last two or three years
double, land values go up 40 or 50 percent, and so these indexes, I
think, are very reasonable numbers to put in. And if -- again, the other
thing I'll say, if you don't do this, what you'll find over a 15- or a
20-year period, there's a tremendous differential in the revenues
because you're not biting off little chunks as you go along. You're
biting off big chunks, you know, every three to five years.
It's my understanding that basically this is presented to you for
your comments and your direction of what to do. If you approve that,
we would then go ahead and move the steps, I think it's going to go
committees, et cetera, for the final adoption and be refined, that we all
-- we now always have that 90-day delay in terms of, once it's
adopted, it will be another 90 days before anything really happens in
terms of changing any numbers in any impact fee schedules.
And that's the presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just a couple things. You
figured in the cost of land for the parks, right, both parks?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, ma'am.
Page 169
May 22-23,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we buy the land or do we
already own it or do we get it donated when -- you know, when -- like,
for instance, I'm thinking of Orange Blossom Ranch and some of
those --
MR. MUDD: Orange Blossom we got the lake, but land
surrounding it, Mr. DeLony has for his water plant, and we're going to
have to purchase that land that surrounds the lake for Mr. DeLony in
order to put a regional park in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. MUDD: So we normally buy the land. I mean, we did get a
contribution when Heritage Bay came on-line. That's the comer of
951 and Immokalee Road in the northeast comer. When they came on
line, they did give us some monies for parks and rec. in that particular
process, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering,
because I thought, if there's any way that we can kind of hold the lid
down on something. I don't want to see us in any way jeopardize our
parks because we need all the equipment and we need the personnel
and so forth.
I just thought if we could modify it some -- if we don't have to
pay for the land, we can -- you know, the money's important for the
parks, as is the library, and our survey this morning proved that the
people are really, really interested in museums, parks, and libraries,
and we have to make sure that those things are adequately equipped
for the public. But if we don't need the land -- you know, if the land's
there, maybe that could help us a little.
The second thing, second question I have was, you figured wages
in on this, and I didn't -- I was surprised. I never saw wages figured in
ever before. Is that something they do or is that -- I mean, normally or
what?
MR. TINDALE: It's a very common method of looking at
inflation and indexing for inflation. And we went over that several
Page 170
May 22-23,2007
times with Dr. Burchell. If you want to localize your costs, the wages
are the most direct way when you've got a national index that is not
sensitive to the changes. And we went through a lengthy conversation.
I could not find in my mind why -- we got concrete, steel and
some things that's happening nationally. But there's a huge difference
in the inflation and what was going on in several of the Sunbelt states
versus the national. And it was obvious that it was mainly being
reflected, not just in the commodities -- that's what some of the
indexes do -- but it's reflected in the wage rates, and we thought that
was the most direct way to get the differences between the inflation
rates of what things were costing to go get constructed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I had --I'll tell you, I had a lot
of trouble. I spent -- believe it or not, I spent a couple of hours on this
particular subject alone, and I'm going to read you a sentence. And I
had so many problems -- I was reading this to Jim Mudd too just so he
could hear what I was saying.
As stated in the consultants' reports, the benefit of this approach
is that the change (sic) of the change is incorporated into the inflation
analysis and the year to year change is smoothed by a linear
regresSIOn.
How many of you understand that when you first read it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good for you. I had to pore over
that one, so a lot of this stuff was written in that same vein, and I want
to say, I probably don't understand a lot of the ways that you came up
with this, but those were my questions. Thank you.
MR. TINDALE: I understand. And it is -- we're talking about--
you notice I talked to the board about absolutes versus change. We
didn't look at your absolute labor compared to somebody else that may
be five times higher.
Page 171
May 22-23,2007
So your change in labor will be only 10 percent, but you may be
paying three times as much as someone else. We weren't looking at
the absolutes. We were looking at your labor rate changes compared
to the others. And you have changed, percentage-wise, dramatically
faster than other people are. And so we weren't looking at absolutes.
We were looking at indexing in the change, cost and change, so we --
it's probably not the best way to put it, but we want to make it very
clear, we were not looking at absolute differences when we're looking
at indexing. We're looking at your changes over that time period of
what things cost.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, understood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, they're called change
orders. The -- 80 percent of the people surveyed didn't go to our
parks. The--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But the ones that did liked them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, my son does.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- sir, the legislators
announced that they're going to raise property taxes to cover capital
improvements for the schools. Are you anticipating that into the
equation?
MR. TINDALE: We've not adjusted -- we know what -- the
school system using their two mills, I think what they're saying is
they're not going to cap the two mills for construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. But the legislators in
Tallahassee are going to raise the local property taxes for building
schools and -- are you taking that under consideration?
MR. TINDALE: I've not read that. I know they're talking about
not capping the two mills and they're not going to reduce the budget
for capital and they're --
Page 172
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the local, the local ones.
That's local control.
MR. TINDALE: The state only operates or puts operating funds,
as far as I know -- all the two mills capital is a local thing that can
either be capital or reconstruction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. TINDALE: And I think the state's making a commitment
that they don't have to eat into what they already have available for
capital because they're not going to reduce or they're going to change
their operating costs. But I've not read anything that the state is
actually raising revenues to -- for capital that I'm aware of, and I'm
sure I've not read everything, but I've not come across that yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you take that under
consideration now that I reported it?
MR. TINDALE: Sure. Well, if they do any changes in the credit
process, then -- and if it's this dramatic, then you need to do an update
because I'm telling you, that's dramatic. Ad valorem tax -- in anyone
of your fees for using ad valorem tax, any change in an ad valorem tax
credit needs to be responded to because this is a dramatic income.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying that you're
going to take a look at that?
MR. TINDALE: Well, if it happens I think the school system
would almost be required to take a look at that very quickly because
it'd be -- if we have a huge, you know, influx of ad valorem, the -- you
and the school system both would have to look at it or you'd be in big
trouble with being -- charging too much. So the answer's yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MR. TINDALE: Sometimes a simple yes is a lot easier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it sure is. I like them.
The -- and I was -- I asked for the indexing. I thought it was a better
way to do it to keep up with it.
But Commissioner Coletta and I at the Regional Planning
Page 173
May 22-23,2007
Council, we got a report. Last year to date, Collier County, we did
483 single-family permits and 406 multifamily. March of this year,
we're doing -- we did 113 single-family and 174 in multifamily. So
more than 100 percent drop.
So I guess the question is, what good would it do to raise impact
fees at this point? Would it really do good or should we -- should we
look at certain ones that needs to be updated to keep up with the
infrastructure?
I mean, all the infrastructure's important, like you said, you
know, but there's a certain point when you're going to -- and I think
this is it, is when you're going to actually start collecting less than
more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think you might have a
point there, but I believe that as we go along there's not -- and I'm not
sure what we're going to do to address the growth issues that are going
to be before us.
In fact, when we look at road impact fees, we all realize that
they're going up at a tremendous amount. I believe that some of the
impact fees that we presently have, we have bonding issues that we
have to payoff for those items that we built.
One of the areas that I think that we should look at -- and I think
it's that we need to address this with our state legislators -- and that's a
transfer fee on all real estate that's sold in the State of Florida whereby
the transfer fee of the real estate sold in that particular county stays
there and that's the -- what we use to address the impact fees so that
we can eliminate the impact fees.
I know, I believe, that CBIA --I've talked with them very briefly,
and I think that they might jump on this bandwagon. And I -- just my
idea of where I think the transfer fees ought to go.
My thought is that the transfer fee ought to be as high as one and
three percent, and let me explain. The one and a quarter percent
Page 174
May 22-23,2007
would be used strictly for all the infrastructure that needs to be
addressed here in Collier County or in the whole State of Florida for
each county as -- and that one and a quarter percent of the transfer fee
would be used strictly to address the growth, the roads, whatever else
needs to be taken care of.
The other half percent could be at a voter option where the voters
would say, we need to -- in this case, for instance, Collier County --
we need to address buying land for launching boats. We need to buy a
marina that may be up for sale or we need to buy property that we
need to buy next to the coastline to -- so that what -- present and future
residents have a place to go to the ocean.
So that, I think, would be -- that would take the place of the
impact fees and that way -- there's been talk that there's -- that people
that have been living here for a long period of time haven't paid their
fair share. But when -- when they sell their property, then they would
have to pay that transfer fee and -- because the new residents that
come in or people that buy new properties, they have to end up paying
the doc. stamps.
So I think that the people who sell the property, whether it's
developers or whether it's individuals, they're the people that ought to
pay the transfer fee because -- the new people coming, or if you're
buying a new home or you're buying an existing home, then you have
to pay the doc. stamps to the state. So that's my two cents' worth.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's very interesting, but we're
talking about what to do on this item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think in this item, I think
what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to go forward
and address the impact fees or have a further study on this because of
the fact that we've got some issues that are coming up before us as far
as addressing growth issues.
And until such time as we can get the people on board that will
draw up a bill that gets passed in Tallahassee, I think this is the best
Page 175
May 22-23, 2007
way. As you know, Tallahassee's already looking at ways of putting
caps on impact fees, but that doesn't address our issues here in the
State of Florida in the 67 counties.
So I think we need to find another way and then we don't have
the -- hopefully it will help alleviate the affordable house (sic) issue
where people are saying, well, the impact fees are to the point where
it's burdening the people who want to buy homes. And if we come up
with a transfer fee, maybe that would take care of everything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that
we accept the findings of this study committee, or the Tindale-Oliver
study, and direct the county manager to finalize a study, prepare the
necessary amendments to the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances, and to incorporate the changes in indexing methodologies
into the impact fee rate schedule.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second all that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We got a motion by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas, and we
have four speakers. Okay. Let's go the public participation part of
this agenda item.
MS. FILSON: You have two speakers, sir. Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fred?
MS. FILSON: Okay. I didn't see you over there, sorry.
Sharon Aragona.
MS. ARAGONA: Not for this issue.
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it. Okay. So we have a
motion. We have a second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have some comments you
want to make before we vote?
MS. PATTERSON: One clarification.
Page 176
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Clarifications we love.
MS. PATTERSON: Twelve impacts fees that we need to decide
on what schedule? If you want me to bring them all forward at once
or if there's a -- bring them all forward at once?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As fast as possible. Tomorrow
morning will be fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you going to be here in the
morning?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, yeah. I will be for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, any other
discussions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion indicate by saying ayes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 4-1, with
Commissioner Henning being the dissenting vote.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, in this particular -- we have a 4:30
time certain. We're running about 30 minutes late. At this time you
need to put on your CRA hat. I made a mistake earlier when I said
one of the items Commissioner Henning pulled was 16G 1, and I said
that it would go to lOR. It really needs to be 14B. That's something
that the board needs to do with your CRA hat. So while you have
your CRA hat on, I'd ask you to do 14A and now 14B, which is the
item that was pulled off the consent agenda, 16G 1.
Item #14A
Page 177
May 22-23, 2007
THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
APPROVAL OF THE EXPENDITURE OF $250,000 FROM FY07
FUND 186 RESERVES TO ASSIST WITH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE RURAL HEALTH TRAINING CENTER
IN IMMOKALEE. (COMPANION ITEM TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BUDGET AMENDMENT
APPROVAL UNDER lOB TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE 10B)-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So which one -- the CRA board will come
to order. Keep your hands off of the gavel.
MR. MUDD: 14A is a recommendation that the Community
Redevelopment Agency, CRA, approve the expenditure of $250,000
from FY -'07, fund 186 reserves, to assist with the establishment of a
Florida State University School of Medicine Rural Health Training
Center in Immokalee. This is a companion item to item lOB, and
you'll hear that right after --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I hear a motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle. It was
a wonderful presentation, by the way.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this item -- this is going to
include, what is it, 10 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: lOB--
MR. MUDD: We'll get to it, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, all right. I have some
Page 178
May 22-23, 2007
questions on that, but I'll reserve them for lOB.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. And now I understand we have
three speakers. There's somebody out there that wants to talk us out of
this. Would you call the first speaker who wants to talk us out of this.
MS. FILSON: Okay. You're on 14A, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to pass?
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're welcome.
MS. FILSON: Sharon Aragona.
MS. ARAGONA: I'll pass as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great.
MS. FILSON: Richard Rice.
MR. RICE: Waive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Rich. All right. Very good.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay. And now we go to
lOB?
Item #14B
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
Page 179
May 22-23, 2007
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA. ($8,000) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: No, it brings us -- hang on to that gavel, ma'am.
That brings us to item 14B, which is 16Gl. The item was asked to be
pulled by Commissioner Henning, and I'll read it for the record.
To approve and execute site improvement grant agreements
between -- agreement of agreements between the Collier County
Community Redevelopment Agency and a grant applicant within the
Bayshore Gateway Triangle redevelopment area, and the fiscal impact
is $8,000.
Mr. David Jackson, who's the Director of your Bayshore
Gateway CRA is here to answer any questions or to present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I just can't support -- I
know it fits in -- I mean, the CRA is very -- is not limiting at all what
you can do, but we're going to spend -- contribute $8,000 to put
hardened -- replace windows, impact-resistant windows on a
single-family home, and put pavers in somebody's driveway. Just
can't do it. I'll just vote no and move on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do any other commissioners have any
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do I have a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coyle.
And further comments?
(No response.)
Page 180
May 22-23,2007
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. Next?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now you can turn the gavel back
over to Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, thank God.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have to close. The CRA board is closed.
Item #lOB
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $250,000 FROM FY07
FUND 186 RESERVES TO ASSIST WITH THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE RURAL HEALTH TRAINING CENTER
IN IMMOKALEE. (COMPANION ITEM TO COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE
UNDER 14A TO BE CONSIDERED FOLLOWING ACTION ON
14A) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOB, which
is a companion item to 14A, and it is a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners approve a budget amendment totalling
$250,000 from FY-'07 fund 186 reserves to assist with the
establishment of a Florida State University School of Medicine Rural
Health Training Center in Immokalee, and it's a companion item to
14A.
Page 181
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's still motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle and second by Commissioner Henning.
With that, we have how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: Two. The same two--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we can open the public portion of
this --
MS. FILSON: -- Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- agenda item, and --
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're more than welcome, sir.
MS. FILSON: And Sharon?
MS. ARAGONA: I'm available if you have any question.
Otherwise --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I don't think -- we're moving fine.
Thank you very much.
Okay. With that, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The concern that I have on this
particular item is that there's a guarantee that this is going to be
provided -- the funding will be provided for one year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that's--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's going to happen after that
point in time? We don't have any guarantees on this. And is this
going to be a funded mandate from the county? Or how we going to
address this? Because -- are we going to close the place up?
MS. ARAGONA: Well, I'd like to--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name, for the record, first.
MS. ARAGONA: Sharon Aragona, Vice-President of Collier
Page 182
May 22-23, 2007
Health Services. I'd like to comment. The summary did have some
incorrect facts there. There is continuing money. $1.2 million is
continuing money from the legislature for the FSU project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we know how the
legislature is.
MS. ARAGONA: That part is guaranteed as much as we can be
guaranteed. The additional $967,000 that was mentioned would be as
a one-time money with the -- they would ask for continually for
expansion. But the 1.2 is guaranteed today. So we're not expecting the
project really to fold.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I know that this is a state
grant university that you're getting this from, FSU -- or University of
Florida. But my concern is -- or you know, I guess it is FSU.
MS. ARAGONA: FSU.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But my concern is that if
something happens in Tallahassee where this money is not available,
how is this going to -- how is this project going to continue on? Do
you have any idea?
MS. ARAGONA: Well, I think--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Without coming back to the county
and us being responsible.
MS. ARAGONA: We're not asking for any operational money
from the county. The money here that we're asking for is simply to
improve the building to get it in shape so it can be used for this
purpose, the education of students in the community. And the project
will incorporate some revenue as it sees patients and bills patients for
services and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, how I read this, it says, there
is never a guarantee that the reoccurring funding will be approved by
the state legislature; therefore, the BCC runs the risk of approving a
medical center that potentially could close within one year due to the
fact of operating revenues.
Page 183
May 22-23, 2007
MS. ARAGONA: That's what it says there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that correct in what I'm reading?
MS. ARAGONA: I believe it is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You believe that it's incorrect,
okay.
MS. ARAGONA: Yes. The $1.2 million for the operating
expense has been guaranteed insofar as it can be. It's been ongoing
allocation of money for this project through the state system. And we
do have the commitment of FSU that there are other dollars that would
be available. No one's entering into this project thinking that it would
just be for one year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I'm going to do, too, since this
has become a discussion item and we're not going to a vote, I'm going
to open it up for the speakers when we get to that point in time.
MS. FILSON: Those are the two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought we were going to vote.
But let me clarify something here. This money is being provided out
of the tax increment funding, correct?
MS. ARAGONA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tax increment financing from the
redevelopment agency, so it's not coming out of the general funds.
MS. ARAGONA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we will run no risk
whatsoever, to my knowledge, if it does fail.
MS. ARAGONA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope it doesn't fail. We just won't
approve any more funding for it if it fails. So we're not going to invest
any of the general revenue in this process. It's coming from your
community, your taxes. You're reinvesting in your community, and
that's the way it's supposed to be. So you're taking the risk. I don't see
that there's a downside here, but -- and I hope it -- hope it continues. I
Page 184
May 22-23, 2007
hope it doesn't fold, and I don't think it will.
MS. ARAGONA: I would concur with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously.
MS. ARAGONA: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if! could just ask, how many
people in this room are from Goodland?
MS. FILSON: Sixteen speakers.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I want to poll my fellow
commissioners, because we have some other people that have been
waiting all day, and if we just continue right till nine o'clock at night,
we might get done. I know we have part of tomorrow available.
We've got a lot of agenda still to go through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I suggest you take those tomorrow
mornmg.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we're at 5:12 now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You got Conservation Collier,
you've got at least three --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, three, at least, Conservation
Page 185
May 22-23, 2007
Collier things on the agenda ahead of the others. So do the three
Conservation Collier things, it will take us up to six o'clock, and we're
gone and do the rest of it tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, let's do it differently. Let's do
Goodland and get them done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got some -- and at that point in
time, yeah, it would be six o'clock. And if we've got a few more
minutes, we'll try to squeeze something in to meet the other people in
the audience.
I apologize. I mean, it's a very heavy agenda we've had today.
We started at eight clock this morning. I'm the youngest person
up here and I tell you, I'm getting tired, carrying the load for the rest
of these people
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're not younger than he is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am younger.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got one quick thing. I want to
make a motion to approve lOD, recommendation of the Board of
Commissioners to accept the interim report. No, the 10C, that's
buying that land up --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't we do that already?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one was it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Commissioner Henning, we're
going to hear each item for what it's worth. There's some that I have
questions on. You know, if --let's go through this. We've got time,
then we'll discuss where we're going to go with the next one.
But I really do want to get the people from Goodland who came
here. We've got 16 of them. And if they come back tomorrow, they're
not going to be happy campers, and we'll have to make them breakfast
Page 186
May 22-23, 2007
or something to make them happy.
So let's go right to that issue.
Item #12A
THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY OF GOODLAND RESIDENTS AND
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED WITH PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE GOODLAND ZONING OVERLAY AS WELL
AS THE CREATION OF A GOODLAND ADVISORY BOARD - MOTION
TO TAKE NO ACTION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would -- if we're going to take
a look at the Goodland survey, that would be 12A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we ended at -- 10E was
the next one up, right? Everything up to that point.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We have to do 10E, and then we'd
move our way up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But right now we're going to
12 --
MR. MUDD: A, ma'am, that the Board of County
Commissioners consider the results of the survey of Goodland
residents and determine whether or not to proceed with proposed
amendments to the Goodland Zoning Overlay as well as the creation
of the Goodland Advisory Board.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, earlier at a
prior meeting, working with the Goodland citizens, you directed the
County Attorney Office to assist and administer a survey that was
prepared by a citizen group to go out to the property owners of
Goodland.
I want to say at the outset, you have the survey result before you
in the executive summary, which is quite explanatory. But
additionally, there has -- an issue has come up since the receipt of the
surveys and the compilation of results relating to the Board of County
Page 187
May 22-23, 2007
Commissioners and how you would review the results that came in
from the survey.
Now, at a prior board meeting there were three different
indications by commissioners as to the viewpoint of the board toward
the survey results.
Mr. Coyle indicated that he'd be looking to a 50 percent plus one
of the owners. And in this case, we had, I believe, about 469
properties, 357 owners there. Again, Mr. Coyle indicated looking to
at least 50 percent plus one of the owners.
Mr. Halas indicated that he was looking to 50 percent plus one of
the people. Mrs. Fiala indicated 50 percent plus one of the votes.
So it's your decision, your policy, as to how to apply. The
executive summary, which Marjorie Student-Stirling will explain a
bit, and the results, has been prepared indicating 50 percent -- 50
percent plus one of the owners.
And if you have no further question of me, I'll allow Ms.
Student-Stirling to present.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. For the record,
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney, and I just want
to give you a little bit of how we handled the mail-out and survey and
so forth.
Goodland Preservation Group brought to us a letter that was a
cover letter to accompany the survey and the survey with the
questions that you see replicated in your executive summary.
We obtained the property appraiser list, and our staff, in
particular, Ms. Sandra Herrera and Ms. Tamara Outhouse, looked at
the property appraiser list and the envelopes to whom they were
addressed and verified that they, in fact, were on the list.
Our office also accompanied representatives of the group for
when the surveys were mailed, so they were mailed out.
Random phone calls, about 30,35 calls, were made by our staff to the
recipients of the survey to make sure that they had, indeed, received
Page 188
May 22-23,2007
them, they were a property owner, and so on.
The survey required not only the signature of the property owner,
but they had to print their name as well. They were count one vote per
property, but if you had multiple properties, you only got one vote,
and I think we explained that to the commission when this matter was
discussed prior to.
Mr. Weigel explained how in the minutes of the prior meeting
where there -- this was discussed, that Commissioner Coyle had
expressed an interest in 50 percent plus one of the property owners,
Commissioner Halas had stated 50 percent plus one of the people, and
Commissioner Fiala had stated 50 percent plus one of the vote.
And in the executive summary, you see under each question how
the votes -- how they're counted, yes or no.
If you looked at 50 percent plus one of the property owners, then
you will see that the requisite amount, being 177, didn't make it.
If you look at a majority or 50 percent plus one ofthe actual vote,
you will see that every one of the votes carried with the exception of
the one concerning the maximum square footage of the residence.
So that is an overview of how we proceeded. We worked
diligently for, oh, about a month, or our staff did, and I take this
opportunity to thank them as well.
So depending upon what is the commission's pleasure. I -- these
will be factored, I suppose, when Land Development Code
amendments are considered, because as I understand it, the group has
gotten LDRs in progress on these matters.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. This is really, really tough.
What's happened in my opinion, only my opinion, is you have a whole
village of people who want the same thing and that is they want to
preserve their village the way it is. They don't want any change. And
everybody feels the same.
If they want to put crab traps in their front yard, they should be
Page 189
May 22-23, 2007
able to do that, and they want that. If they want to park in the swales,
they should be able to do that, and they want that.
If they have a trailer that flows over on a 25-foot lot, they want to
have nothing restricting them from building back on the 25-foot lot
because it's their village. It's a fishing village, and that's their
character.
Both sides have actually from what I've seen, said the same thing,
we don't want change. We want to be left alone as we are. The thing
is, it seems that as one side -- and it becomes like the Hatfields and
McCoys really. One side is trying to put that into legislation to
preserve that village, the other side is fighting it and is misinterpreting
it.
And what can happen, very simply, is ifthere aren't any type of
regulations at all, anybody can come in and build -- now,
14,333-square-foot home is now the norm. That's considered average
because that's what -- in the law it says it has to be a small village --
fishing village character and that's what we're going to build, so that
means anything can up from there, anything can go down from there.
It can be all over the board.
And if that's what they want, then that's okay, if that's what they
consider fishing village character. If you want to be able to build as
much as you want and how much you want, well, that's fine. That's
the way I feel. Just let them do it.
The other side has been saying, well, now, you know -- but then
people are going to go crazy because you see what's happened in the
City of Naples and you see what's happened on Isles of Capri. There's
a lot of people out there that have a lot of money and want to locate on
water, and they look at that water and they buy up lots, and then they
build bigger and bigger. And then all of a sudden, like in the City of
Naples, the people that were living there who had the quaint little
places -- it was a darling little place at one time -- all of a sudden are
overrun with the mega houses.
Page 190
May 22-23, 2007
Now they are trying to stop them because they also have
problems with stormwater runoff because there's things filling their
whole lot, so then they have problems with that. So that's what the
other side was trying to do.
Now this lady's shaking her head, and maybe I'm wrong. Maybe
you want big houses like that. Do you? Okay. Well, then if you want
great big houses, the way I feel is -- and -- but don't ever come back to
us and then say, why did you let this happen to us, because if that's
what you want, you want as big as they get and you want nothing
stopping any developer -- just take a look and see what's happened to
that.
And as far as I'm concerned, you know, I just don't know what to
do anymore. It's -- how can you make a decision between one side
and the other? I think they both have good intention.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know. This decision's -- the
decision of this commission as to whether -- how to interpret this
survey and where to go with the action.
You know, we always believe in the right of the people to be able
to express themselves through a vote. Only thing is, the interpret (sic)
of what the vote is what's raised all sorts of problems.
I kind of agree with you that a vote's a vote. Now, we're not
elected to office by the majority of the population. We're elected to
office by the majority of the voters. Whoever shows up, expresses
their opinion, they're the ones that have their say. If you don't -- I
mean, it's really weird when you go through these numbers. They're
talking about a total of 198. If you add anyone of these columns up,
it doesn't equal 198. So some of the people voted on some of the
issues and some of the others they didn't. What do they call that? A--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Cherry picking?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, cherry picking. But there's a
term for it in voting, where you just ignore certain things. You--
either you --
Page 191
May 22-23,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Under vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And it raised a little bit of
confusion. But the way I look at it -- I mean, God help you because, I
mean, whatever you do, you're going to have a little bit less than half
the population mad at you on every one of these issues.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, I wouldn't want
to trade places with you for anything in the world right now.
Let's go to Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is real easy. We got in the
middle of this kind of fight in Naples Park. I'm not going to get in the
middle of it again. I am not going to stand between two groups of
people in a community who are fighting about what they want to do,
and so I'm not going to do anything.
And whenever there is a very clear majority and a very clear
direction among the residents there, I'd be happy to listen to some
proposals. But until that point in time, I'm not getting involved in this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's a good opinion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and I totally agree with
that. And this vote is not a -- you're not voting on the -- it's not a
beauty contest. It's about property rights. And, you know, they all can
vote except for one person who wants to retain his property rights, and
that's going to be a problem for me and the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what you mean by that.
If you just let it go, it doesn't stop anyone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, but if you -- I agree with
that, but if you go along with doing massive changes, that is a property
rights thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, can they still-- 'cause if we
don't have anything in place, can they still put lobster traps in their
front yard? I mean, code enforcement can't come -- one of the things
Page 192
May 22-23, 2007
that they did was, I want to preserve the old sign. Well, unless you're
wrong. Am I wrong?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wait a minute. Let me ask
answer your question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can have crab traps there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't think -- how many
lobsters they catch. I think they catch some other stuff. But that is in
the fishing village.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we put that into the overlay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Because code enforcement
was coming in and saying, you can't do that and you can't rebuild on
the small lots. And so we said, no, we want to be able to have the old
signs. If they want old signs, let them have the old signs. And if they
want to have parking swales, let them do that. And if they want to
rebuild, let them do it. And that's the way --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what'd you do about it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it's in place. There is an
overlay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you fixed it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think. But now if they don't
want that either, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, they want that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's not engage the audience
before they get up front.
County Attorney?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I just wanted to state that last year
you all passed an amended post disaster recovery ordinance, and the
ordinance should cover the situation ifthere's a hurricane or some type
of catastrophe where they needed to rebuild on a -- what was called a
Page 193
May 22-23,2007
legal nonconforming lot. And perhaps, if anyone's here from
community development, they could possibly address that further.
We also have protection --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait. Margie, let me stop--
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you right there. You said legal
nonconforming. What about if it isn't a legal nonconforming lot? I
mean, if it's just -- you know, some of the lots are really old. Can they
still rebuild on a tiny lot?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: A legal nonconforming lot means
that you were platted and subdivided before the first Land
Development Code or before amendments to the code that would --
those amendments would now make your lot too small. They are
protected because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- they are part of a -- and I am told
by staff that in Goodland it is a subdivision that was platted legally
and all that. So they should -- based on what I was told, they should
enjoy that legal non-conforming lot of record status, you know, as to
amount of lot area that you need to rebuild.
And then in the post disaster recovery ordinance, there's also
provisions that if you can document your original footprint and so
forth, you can rebuild to that. So the post disaster recovery ordinance
would come into play there as well where you can build to your
original footprint.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One of our options is to take no
action at all. We don't put it even to a vote, correct?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's up to the -- that's up to the
board. Our mission was to present to you the results of the survey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do this. We've got
Commissioner Halas, and then let's go ahead and listen to the 16
speakers and we'll go from there.
Page 194
May 22-23,2007
MS. FILSON: Seventeen now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. What's that, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was going to say unless there's
somebody that wants to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's an hour's worth of speakers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to -- my turn?
Okay. I just want to say that I feel sorry for where Commissioner
Fiala is.
I inherited the problem up in Naples Park. And what happened is
that one particular individual who led the charge made it sound like --
that the whole community was in favor of that particular person's idea.
And the county spent a vast amount of money to address some of
the concerns. And all of a sudden it turned into an uprising Hatfields
and McCoys, and the commission was really abused because we got in
the middle of it and didn't realize that the -- the real concern was that
-- was just a small fraction of people and it wasn't an outcry from the
community.
We learned our lesson. And as Commissioner Coyle said, we're
not going to get involved in this issue but -- unless you can convince
us. But I'm telling you now that we don't want to get involved and
make a judgment in which way to go. It has to be a very decisive
clear direction from the people of that community, then we may have
an understanding of where we're going on this, the direction that we
need. But I want to thank each and every one of you for being here
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
make a motion the board doesn't take any action --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on any Land Development
Code amendment.
Page 195
May 22-23,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We can put it in the form of a
motion, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Coyle to take
no action.
Now, we're going to bring the speakers up. Now, let's talk about
the terms of engagement. You're coming up here, you're addressing
the commission. You're not addressing those in your community that
you have a disagreement with.
And please, it's getting late. Don't be repetitious. I mean, we're a
little slow. You don't have to repeat it more than two or three times.
We can get a message through.
So let's go with it. And if for some reason you think that it's
already been covered, don't hesitate to -- Mr. Mudd, I'll be right with
you. Don't hesitate to give a wave sign. It's very healthy to do that.
And then we'll proceed to the next speaker. And then everybody can
go home for dinner.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I believe that Mr. Clay Brooker represents 16
of those speakers. And if you would hear him first, and he can
basically show the people that he's representing and to give their --
and give you their opinion or their side of the particular issue, I think
you can shorten your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is Clay here? Yes, please come
forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless he likes the motion as it is,
huh?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know where we're going with it,
so however you're going to address us, keep everything in mind.
We've seen people sometimes change our minds.
MR. BROOKER: I hear you loud and clear. Clay Brooker, for
Page 196
May 22-23,2007
the record, with Cheffy, Passidomo. We do represent many of the
property owners in Goodland who oppose this proposal and oppose it
from going forward at this point in time.
There is a proposal alive right now. It has been before the
Development Services Advisory Committee, and parts of it have been
before the EAC. The DSAC voted unanimously against the proposal
primarily on a property rights basis.
But I think the majority of the people here -- as a matter of fact, I
think all 16 or 17 speakers are in opposition to the proposal. And if I
could get a show by hands who is opposed to the proposal, I'd
appreciate it. That gives you an idea. I think that covers the vast
majority of the speakers.
What's happening here is there's a movement by certain groups
within Goodland that mayor may not claim that they have the
majority of the community behind it. These people are here to tell you
they don't think that's the case. No matter how you crunch these
numbers -- and there's different ways you can do it -- I believe you see
that even in the best-case scenario, the vote is very, very close.
And so under those circumstances, there is not a decisive outcry.
I think there's going to be problems down the road in terms of who
gets a vote, who doesn't get a vote, why if someone owns more than
one property -- if they own 10 properties so they're going to be
impacted 10 times by this change, why do they only get one vote?
That's just one of the many issues that exist and why there is a
movement here for these people who have sat here from this morning
to say, not just don't take any action, but the agenda item was whether
or not to proceed with the proposal. And I believe their request would
be not to proceed at all.
So we are in favor of the executive summary in terms of the fact
that it doesn't show a decisive outcry one way or the other. Weare not
going to oppose a motion that says, let's not take any action because
that's not so bad for our position. But our preference would be a
Page 197
May 22-23,2007
motion to say, stop now because your survey results -- by the way, the
survey was drafted and sent out -- I know with the help of the County
Attorney's Offices -- but by one of the groups that's not represented
here, so there's an issue here that we've had three surveys, some
people just throw them in the trash after they get the second or third
because we're tired of it.
So until -- I think the preference would be from these speakers to
have it say --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I help you?
MR. BROOKER: -- not to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I help you? The motion that's
on the floor is a good one. It gets you where you need to be. If we're
going to have 16 people argue with us at this late time, I don't know
where it's going to go. And you people pay a fortune for an attorney.
And while you're arguing with us, he's charging you by the hour, too,
by the way.
MR. BROOKER: That's unfair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So with that, we're going to call each
and every one of your names, and if you still want to argue with us
about the motion, we'll be happy to listen to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we just clarify the motion? To
me the motion is exactly the same thing that Clay is saying. When we
say, we're not going to get involved in it, we're not going to take any
action, that means we're not going to approve any overlay that is
processed. That's what it means to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No action.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's over with, okay. Is that right,
Commissioner Henning? Is that your --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. So it doesn't go anywhere.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The skin lady has sung.
Page 198
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But call the names off in a nice
orderly fashion, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: Jim Inglis?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just wave if you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just wave.
MR. INGLIS: Vote for your proposal.
MS. FILSON: Russell Holden?
MR. HOLDEN: Same here.
MS. FILSON: Niki Graham.
MS. GRAHAM: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You do? Very good.
MS. FILSON: Steve Comancho?
MR. COMANCHO: Thank you kindly, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Clyde Camerson?
MR. CAMERSON: Good job -- Camerson, you got my vote.
MS. FILSON: Bobbie Dusek?
MS. DUSEK: (Waves hand.)
MS. FILSON: John Boggs?
MR. BOGGS: (Waves hand.)
MS. FILSON: Beverly Boggs.
MS. BOGGS: (Waves hand.)
MS. FILSON: James Boggs?
MR. BOGGS: (Waves hand.)
MS. FILSON: Mr. Schmidt. I can't pronounce your first name.
MR. SCHMIDT: I agree.
MS. FILSON: Thank you, sir. Harlan Johnson?
Do I get a waive?
MS. GRAHAM: Oh, I'm sorry. He had to leave, but you get a
WaIve anyway.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Ken and Tommie Moss?
MR. MOSS: Waive.
Page 199
May 22-23, 2007
MS. FILSON: Earl Cowles?
MR. COWLES: (Waves hand.)
MS. FILSON: Kim --I'm sorry. Jim Ketchum?
MR. KETCHUM: (Waves hand.)
MS. FILSON: Ray Bozicnik?
MR. BOZICNIK: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Rick Kames?
MR. KARNES: Agree, thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with that, I'm
closing the public portion --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to change my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. We didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's approve that overlay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before anything goes wrong here, all
those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. Go in peace. I
hope. I hope you go in peace.
I'd like to -- real quick. We have a few more minutes. I'd like to
query who's still here that has items that -- we want to try to avoid
them coming back tomorrow. I know one is water management.
MS. FILSON: I have seven speakers on seven different items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seven different speakers on seven
different items. We're never going to make six o'clock at that rate.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to call the items out? 10E,10F,
Page 200
May 22-23, 2007
lOH, lOP, 10 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The water management, I do believe
that they were planning to be back over in Palm Beach, and so we
should take that item and get them off the table here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Which one was that?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's 10H, this is a--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see your hand, ma'am. We're trying
to accommodate as best we can everybody in the world.
Item #lOH
A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD)
RELATED TO A SEPTEMBER 23,2003 AGREEMENT THAT
CONVEYS OR CAUSES TO BE CONVEYED AT NO COST TO
COLLIER COUNTY FEE SIMPLE INTEREST TO 640
CONTIGUOUS ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FOR OFF HIGHWAY
VEHICLE (OHV) USE AND APPROVE ANY AND ALL
BUDGET AMENDMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY IN
ASSOCIATION WITH THIS ACTION - APPROVED
W/MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE ON THE AGENDA CHANGE
SHEET
MR. MUDD: This is 10H. It's a recommendation to enter into a
supplemental agreement with the South Florida Water Management
District related to a September 23,2003, agreement that conveys or
causes to be conveyed at no cost to Collier County fee simple interest
to 640 contiguous acres more or less for off-highway vehicle, OHV,
use and approve any and all budget amendments deemed necessary in
association with this action.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, slow down.
Page 201
May 22-23, 2007
MR. MUDD: Mr. Barry Williams, your Director of Parks and
Rec. --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this a new one?
MR. MUDD: -- along with Ellen Chadwell from your County
Attorney Office will be present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why do they give this to us now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Everything changed is
underlined or marked through, right? Otherwise, I want to continue
this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I'm going to jump right to
the chase of, the only thing I have against this agreement -- and I'm
really having a problem with it -- and maybe it's been struck out with
the new thing you're handing out now, I don't know.
It has to do under the amended agreement between South Florida
Water Management, number eight, the district will have no affirmative
obligations under the October 2003 agreement, between the district,
the county, and the board of trustees and the inner -- internal
improvement trust fund to maintain the roadways and/or provide
access to the Picayune Strand in the areas identified in the 2003
agreement.
It is the intent of the parties as represented in the previous chapter
164 discussion with counsel for the board of trustees that the State of
Florida Division of Forestry shall have the sole responsibility for the
maintenance of roads and the providing of access in the Picayune
Strand in areas referenced in the 2003 agreement. Wow.
Is this another way of saying that this is going to nullify that part of
the agreement, that they don't have to provide access to the Picayune
MS. CHADWELL: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or Jane's Scenic Drive?
MS. CHADWELL: No, sir. The original agreement says the
Page 202
May 22-23,2007
state and district agree to maintain those roadways, and then it lays out
these number of conditions.
The district has always maintained that it was never the original
intent of the parties that the district have that responsibility since the
state, through the Division of Forestry, takes care of that area. So
they've been trying to just have that clarified by having them removed
from the agreement.
My concern was to make sure that the state was -- because this
was a tri-party agreement, I thought we needed all three parties to
agree to it. So I had asked the district to contact Mr. Bud Vilhaur
(phonetic) from the DEP, who was responsible at some of the joint
discussions that we had under chapter 164, and he emailed me back
today, and he said that as we've discussed previously, the board of
trustees has a managed agreement with Department of Forestry to
handle the road and access obligation. The district is not responsible
for that issue. Accordingly, we have no objection to deleting them
from that paragraph.
So the obligation is there. It's just -- the obligation is squarely on
the state's shoulders in that respect. It just removes the district from
having any purported obligation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They were part of the original
agreement to share that responsibility, weren't they?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes. They were both listed on there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They want to be released from it, in
other words, so that it's only -- we only have to deal with the
Department of Forestry; is that correct?
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah, because it's their contention that they
don't have any control over that area and that the state has agreed to
maintain the access to the areas under the original agreement, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My concern is, why did they enter
into the agreement in the first place?
MS. CHADWELL: Why did the district?
Page 203
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Where they took on the responsibility
along with forestry, water management took it on with forestry to be
able to make that agreement.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, quite honestly, I included them in that
provision originally when I drafted that agreement --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work.
MS. CHADWELL: -- just because I always like to have
everybody kind of on the hook when it comes to those sorts of thing.
But because the state is -- through the Division of Forestry is manning
that and they are certainly on the hook to maintain that, I didn't have
any problem with removing the district at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But you don't feel this is giving away
any of our ability to be able to assure that our residents will have
access to the Picayune and Jane's Scenic Drive and all the other
amenities that were originally promised?
MS. CHADWELL: No, I do not, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's all I needed. That's why
we got counsel.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this was also an item that you
discussed at the joint workshop that you had with the South Florida
Water Management District. It was one of their items of concern.
They're really not controlling the roads because they -- they're not the
agency to do it, and they asked they get taken off that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I had to bring the subject up, and
I appreciate the honest and straightforward answers.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Chadwell, what's changed
between our agenda item and this one?
MS. CHADWELL: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The only thing that's changed, sir, is what I read
into the record this morning on the change sheet under 10H.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't get that. All I got -- oh,
Page 204
May 22-23, 2007
I got the one from last night.
MS. CHADWELL: Yeah. Unfortunately the copy that was
given to you doesn't have the underline because it's a final executed,
fully executed lease. We've been waiting for that for a number of
weeks now to include it, and John was just able to take care of that
yesterday so he brought it over with him today.
But that's going to be attached as part of the agreement. My
concern was that this board enter into any agreement without having
that tied down. So I wanted them to execute the lease before we
entered into this supplemental agreement, assuming you approve it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the change between this
one and the one in our agenda again?
MS. CHADWELL: They've added some language in paragraph
MR. MUDD: Here we go. The last sentence of paragraph five
of the supplemental agreement will be amended to read, if no
objection is made, district, at no cost to the county, shall convey title
to county to the Lake Trafford site by quitclaim deed.
Paragraph three of the lease to be attached as Exhibit B to be
supplemental agreement has recently been modified by Alico to read:
Lessee shall provide or cause to be provided on-site management
during all times that the premises is open for public A TV use,
including a gatekeeper stationed at the gate to be constructed at the
public entrance to the premises and another gatekeeper stationed in --
at the exiting gate along the boundary line between the premises and
the lessor's adjacent property.
The county's on-site manager shall be equipped with a fire
extinguisher and a shovel for use as a first line of defense in the event
fire threatens the premises while they are on site.
The emergency telephone numbers for the local fire department
and emergency medical response unit, the Collier County Sheriffs
Department and the Alico fire management officers, shall be posted at
Page 205
May 22-23, 2007
the gatekeeper's station.
In addition, under use, no fuel shall be bought, sold, or stored on
the premises. A copy of the lease will be available at the presentation
of this item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did anybody get a change
sheet?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did? Can I look at it,
physically look at it? Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe it's because of the
budget cuts we only get one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no. I think everybody got
one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't get one either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You didn't?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
MS. CHADWELL: Commissioner, while you're reviewing that,
could I have Mr. Dunnuck also clarify something on the record
regarding the fuel storage?
We're concerned that we're going to need to have some fuel in
the parking areas in order to refuel any A TV s that staff is using as well
as the private A TV users, and we wanted to -- my concern was that
that storage could be interpreted as applying in that instance, and I
think he would like to clarify what his understanding what Alico is on
that position.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, John, go ahead.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon. For the record, John
Dunnuck, Program Implementation Manager for the Everglades
Restoration Program.
To clarify, Alico's concern was that there be a permanent
mounted fuel facility at the site, and they wanted to avoid that because
Page 206
May 22-23,2007
that puts them into a realm of additional environmental protection
issues. To bring the extra can of gasoline to keep in the truck to make
sure that we keep the A TV s fueled for driving around is not their
issue. They just want to make sure it doesn't stay there overnight and
doesn't become a permanent facility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to the questions the
commissioners have and we might be able to get this moving forward.
We've got one speaker that we'll get to very shortly.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns, as
Commissioner Coletta had. When we turned over the roads out there,
I assumed that Jane's Scenic Drive would become passable. And since
we've turned that land over, if you got a standard passenger car, it's
almost unpassable with a passenger car, and I don't own a Jeep.
And I'm wondering what we can use for a hammer to make sure that
that road is graded to the point where it can be passable, that it isn't --
it doesn't have the six-foot deep holes in it filled with water so that
you can't get around through it.
I also have a question in regards to this agreement with Alico. Is
it for 150 acres or is it for 120 acres? I need some clarification on that
because I heard a rumor that it may be only 120 acres and not 150, as
we assumed it was going to be.
MR. DUNNUCK: The executed lease is actually for 164 acres.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A hundred and sixty-four, usable
acres?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, yes, it's in the lease area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: I mean, to define usable. There are wetlands
within that usable area, but that was also, you know, considered.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, what can
we do to put pressure on and to get that road so that's passable by
automobiles and not by tanks or Jeeps?
Page 207
May 22-23, 2007
MS. CHADWELL: Well, I mean, I'm not sure what obligation
you're referring to that relates to Jane's Scenic Drive.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Jane's Scenic Drive, the whole road
to use that as a way to take people out there and observe the
wilderness and all of the wonderful abundance of wildlife.
MR. WEIGEL: Let me jump in as historian on this, and this is,
there was about 10 years ago an intent to do that, and the fact was that
environmentalists, Ms. Payton and others, owned property along there
at that time, and they were going to assure that there was not going to
be the ability to improve that area.
Since that time, with the purchase of essentially all those parcels
by the state -- by the state, we deal solely with the state in that regard.
So the pressure probably would exist at the political, at the elected
level at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, boy. That's why I hate to cut
the South Florida Water Management out of this -- out of this contract
because I think that we can apply pressure to them to make sure that
that road is somewhat passable. I'm not saying it has to be blacktop,
but it should be to the point where all you need to do is, you can drive
down through that area, just to drive. You're not parking, you're not
doing anything else. You're just observing what's there as far as
wildlife, the abundance of the flora and the fauna.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. I hear you. Let's go to
Commissioner Coyle and see if we can--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't have any questions. It must
have been left on from last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I tell you what, I've heard
everything. I listened to it. I'm going to take a motion for approval,
and I'll tell you why.
MS. FILSON: I have a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to --I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already have a motion to
Page 208
May 22-23,2007
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've already motioned to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. Did we get a second?
MS. FILSON: No, no second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll make the motion for
approval and you can second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know the lateness of the hour, and
I'll tell you why, and then we'll call up the speaker. It's because of the
fact that we've been through the meeting with water management, they
showed good faith in coming out to meet with us, they brought
everybody over from Palm Beach, we discussed all these issues. We
got through to them the importance of how important it is to able to
keep the area open.
They absolutely have no control over it. They're almost a third
party to this whole thing. They're trying their best now to make us
whole on a deal that was less than perfect when it was made, and I
don't want to hold it up any longer. I want to see this place opened up
for, the temporary facility. I want to be able to see us move to the
permanent facility in how long, about a year?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two years. And if we -- if we debate
this and we move it to another realm, who knows what might happen
at that point in time.
But with that, let's call the speaker. Let's go to the public portion.
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker. Jess Moscardelli.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for waiting.
MR. MOSCARDELLI: Hi. This really has been a deal that was
not well made.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state your name first.
Page 209
May 22-23, 2007
MR. MOSCARDELLI: Jeff Moscardelli.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Jeff.
MR. MOSCARDELLI: Let's face it, it's been dragged out for so
long that it's ridiculous. At this point I'm asking that they at least have
to be attached onto this deal, because they have jerked everybody
around for so long in this process, it's ridiculous.
I explained it to him earlier on today. We had some words back
there, whether he liked it or not. That land that was Bad Luck Prairie,
people for generations of families went out there. They went
camping. They went and stayed the night out there. They had no
problem. That was a great place. It wasn't just some place where
people went A TV riding, that it gets publicized as.
This was a place where families went to get away from, I hate to
say this, but the mess that our politicians are making with the
overdevelopment. It got them away from the traffic jams for the
weekend.
And now we have to be told, in order to do that -- but you can't
go camping anymore. You got to go all the way out to Immokalee.
No one wants to go out to Immokalee, okay. I mean, let's face it,
going up Immokalee Road is like taking a rickshaw ride right down an
icy mountain, all right. It's not any fun. Is it? No. You know, it's
like taking, you know, a sharp stick in the eye sometimes.
It's -- you know, I've asked them at this point if they've dragged
this out this long, they can come up with some more money, they're
going to end up buying land for us out in Immokalee. They can find
some around here in Naples. Heck, there's some off 95 1. There's the
old Gargiulo places on 41. This is getting ridiculous. It's like treating
us like third-class citizens. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for your input.
And with that, is there any other discussion? Commissioner
Henning, do you have something else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
Page 210
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just discovered this first page
is Exhibit B. It's not marked, at least on mine. Right? That's what
we're talking about the change.
MS. CHADWELL: The lease is Exhibit B to the agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, it's not marked.
MS. CHADWELL: The one that you just got handed isn't
marked, but the one that was in the package should be labeled Exhibit
B.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah, I know. And that's
what I read.
MS. CHADWELL: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what are we adopting, this
one, or the one in the book?
MS. CHADWELL: You're adopting this -- well, I don't know
what this board is going to do. The recommendation is that the board
adopt the supplemental agreement which, as an attachment, has the
lease agreement between Alico and the district.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why was I -- let me ask it
differently. Why was I handed this? Why'd you give it to me?
MS. CHADWELL: Just so you had the current copy of the
document as an attachment. I'm sorry. It should have been labeled
Exhibit B. But let me address a couple of the issues regarding --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I still have further questions.
MS. CHADWELL: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. You say paragraph
three. Is that section three? Is that section three on page 2?
MS. CHADWELL: Paragraph -- it is one--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It says paragraph three.
MS. CHADWELL: I don't know what page that is. It's the third
page of the supplemental agreement. Oh, are you referring to the lease
or the --
Page 211
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm talking about the
change sheet. You see, we get thrown information at the last minute,
and I feel like throwing it back because, you know, you prepare for it,
and just -- like I don't know what we're doing.
MS. CHADWELL: I'm sorry, sir. The first change is to
paragraph three of the supplemental agreement. That is on the third
page.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Third page.
MS. CHADWELL: Is that -- oh, okay. I'm sorry. Paragraph
three, it does refer to the lease. So it is page 2 of the lease, which is the
document that you just received a few minutes ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- paragraph three
includes the gatekeeper.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is what was read in the record,
I think, this morning; is that correct?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was what was read in the
record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, it goes all
together, and we're approving a document saying Exhibit B. The
Exhibit B is not even marked Exhibit B. So why would you adopt
something without correcting it right -- the right way? And paragraph
three, I'm assuming, is section three.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, you call sections or paragraphs,
whichever --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me help to bring this to an end,
because this is going to take -- this is taking too long. Give me the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll just vote no on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the exact identification -- the exact
identification of it and I'll include it in my motion. What is the correct
thing and how the terminology is that we identify what we just got
through reading?
Page 212
May 22-23,2007
MS. CHADWELL: The changes that Manager Mudd read are
from paragraph three on page 2 of the lease agreement between Alico,
Inc., and South Florida Water Management District, which is Exhibit
B to the supplemental agreement which is before the board for its
consideration this evening, okay. The changes refer to gatekeeping
stations, fuel storage, things of that nature.
There was also one other change. It was read in -- off the change
list this morning, and that was language that we added to the body of
the main agreement, which is a supplemental agreement, paragraph
five, the language was, at no cost to the county. I just wanted to make
sure that it was clear that on the transfer of title to the county that we
are not coming out of pocket for any of that.
If you would be interested, I can explain a little bit on the Jane's
Scenic Drive matter because --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We'll answer Commissioner
Henning's question. The motion that's been made and seconded, is it
sufficient or does it not (sic) lack clarity for where we need to go with
this?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, the -- you either approve the
agreement as is with the attachments with the new lease that's been --
with the changes that have been read into the record, and that -- or you
don't, so that's sufficiently clear, I think, for the item to pass.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But let me go back and ask the
question again. The motion that's been made and the second, does it
cover what we need to be able to come up with end results, or do we
need to be more specific in the language that we use in that motion?
MS. CHADWELL: You need to move to approve the agreement
with the modifications that were read this morning off the change list
regarding the lease and the other paragraph five. But those changes
are incorporated into the supplemental agreement and you either
approve that or you don't. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. You're tired, aren't you? So am
Page 213
May 22-23, 2007
I?
MS. CHADWELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Chadwell?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion as it is, do I have to
physically state what you just said to be able to make --
MS. CHADWELL: As amended by the change list this morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I include that in my
motion, and I appreciate Commissioner Henning pointing this out.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't second it. It was
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Does that include that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead with the discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Chadwell, do we need to
give this to the court reporter?
MS. CHADWELL: She has a copy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's what we're voting on.
Has the county manager made preparations for the staffing? Do we
have to provide a site manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and it's -- I believe that the costs for that
site manager are borne by the South Florida Water Management
District to reimburse us for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That really was my
question, but I needed to follow through.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go ahead now. All those
in favor of the motion -- Mr. Dunnuck, I seen your finger pointing up.
I hope it was to the sky.
Page 214
May 22-23, 2007
MR. DUNNUCK: I only have to clarify one thing on the record,
and that's the expectation. And you mentioned two years that it will
be ready. We don't know that yet. I mean, it's an interim agreement
for two years. The long-term agreement is contingent upon us
completing the restoration of the Lake Trafford site and then finishing
that up, so I just wanted to clarify that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So how about if we get an interim
report every month and a half?
MR. DUNNUCK: How about --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Something realistic.
MR. DUNNUCK: -- every six months we'll give you an interim
report.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Because the idea is to get it
completed as soon as possible. And I'm sure parks and recs. is going
to be monitoring the progress as it's being made.
Really? Okay. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, he doesn't. He doesn't have his
light on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I just don't want you to adjourn
before --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we're not going to adjourn.
We've got one more piece of business.
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye. And
don't leave. We need you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. Don't you leave.
Page 215
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
Item #10Q
A RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
LIEN FOR PAYMENT RECEIVED - APPROVED
We have one last piece of business. I've got a young lady in the
back who works to support five children, and this is the reason I pulled
the item off the consent agenda. It will just take just a second to go
through this. Remember that one that has to do with the lien on
property that I pulled off the last time.
(Commissioner Coyle left the hearing room.)
MR. MUDD: This is 10Q. It's 16All, and it reads, a
recommendation to approve a release and satisfaction of code
enforcement lien for payment received.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, the reason I pulled it -- and
we're going to get to it under commissioner comments tomorrow --
has to do with the issue that Henning brought up about the previous
code enforcement action against one Spanish speaking person, and
you were with him on it and the other three commissioners, including
myself --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you had a chance to
reconsider it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe I did. You're going to have to
wait and come back tomorrow to find out.
In any case, that enlightened me to the fact that there was
something missing in the equation. The gentleman in question that we
talked about came and visited me. His English was very, very poor.
Page 216
May 22-23,2007
Investigations and that led me back to Copeland where, about a month
ago, I had the father of this young lady come to me and say, my
daughter got a $34,000 code fine or violation she had to pay.
And I said, well, I tell you what. I said, I know the process, and
probably if she had to pay that, it was a lesson well learned, very
expensive. And of course, they were put out. And I just put it out of
my mind because I figured every procedure has been taken to protect
the rights of the public.
After that little episode with what took place before and finding
out the gentleman could not speak fluent English, and it was a
tremendous disadvantage, I started doing research into this particular
lien.
Now, as far as the lien goes. We're probably going to have to
approve it, but you have to be aware of what took place. This code
violation case was opened in July of2003, a notice of violation was
sent to the homeowner advising them that they had so many days to
clean up the property or the county will bid out the job and have the
property cleaned up at owner's expense.
The code violation process is that after the express time passed of
no compliance, a bid automatically goes out to the contractor to abate
the violation and the contractor does the work, and the county pays
them to do the work -- fine, at that point in time -- and then puts liens
on the homeowner's property with interest of 12 percent annual until
such time as this fine is paid in full.
At no time is the property owner advised of the cost of the
cleanup and given an opportunity to either bid the cleaning job out
themselves or to clean up the property themselves in the allotted time
or given the opportunity to come before the special master to plead the
case or provide -- with an attorney to advise them of their rights to
plead their case.
Here's a history of -- this piece of property. Nicole Ellison
inherited the property at 228 Singletary Street in Copeland from her
Page 217
May 22-23, 2007
grandmother, Lorena Patten. Nicole inherited the two dilapidated
trailers that sat on three pieces of property which needed to be
disposed of. She inherited the responsibility of keeping the grass
mowed, to keep up with code after her grandmother's death.
People began using this property as a dumping grounds for all
sorts of things, such as tires, appliances, and so on. It is my
understanding that Mrs. Ellison was not capable of cleaning up the
property herself, nor did she have the money to have someone else
clean it up; therefore, notice of violation was issued, and when the
mess did not get cleaned up, the cleanup was bidded out, and the
contractor for the -- a lien put on the property.
Nicole Ellison, who was not familiar with terms like lien on the
property, nor did she have the means to hire an attorney, let things go
until the cost escalated to $33,678.35.
I understand that Nicole works at Everglades City Circle K and is
raising five children. The county's bid for cleaning up the cost of
$23,600, with interest until the time the property was sold. Because
the money was not there to be able to pay for the cleanup, she was
forced to sell it. The fine escalated to $33,678.
Mrs. Ellison recently was forced to sell this property to cover the
cost of the lien. Almost 60 percent of her profit went to pay for the
lien. She sold that property for about a third the market value to get
out from underneath the fines.
And this is the process, as I understand it, that code enforcement's
used for notice of violation. They send the notice of violation out and
give the owner 30 days to comply or the county will bid the job out
and send the owner the bill.
Then after 30 days, the bid goes out, and when it is accepted, the
job is contracted out and the county pays the contractor. The county
puts a lien for that amount on the property.
What is missing? What is missing is there's no notification of
what the costs for cleanup will be to the owner after it's bidded out,
Page 218
May 22-23, 2007
and the owner is not given the opportunity to bid the job themselves,
clean up the property themselves with an additional -- with additional
allotted time, given the opportunity to come before a special master to
plead their case, provided with an attorney like we do in regular cases
that we held over at the courthouse, provide an attorney to advise them
of their right and plead their case.
Meanwhile, today, we approved item 16A10 for James Keshner
(sic) and Southern Exposure of Naples, which was just negotiated
down from $123,750 fine, plus ongoing operating costs, to a
negotiated settlement of $10,000.
After the owner got a lawyer and took his issue to federal court, the
Derifer Serona (sic), am I pronouncing that right?
MR. MUDD: Sincherara (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- SentofUm (sic), was approved in
federal code -- court on the sole grounds that the amount of the fine,
$350 per day, exceeded the amount authorized by statute, 250 days --
two hundreds dollars fifty a day (sic).
So, if you have the means to hire an attorney to go to court, you
can get your fines negotiated down by 92 percent.
Okay. Now, the rest of this has to do with the issue I'm going to
bring up under commissioner comments tomorrow, and I'm going to
apologize for not listening a little more carefully when you brought up
the issue --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You still had a time frame to
reconsider that. That gentleman had eight kids. That gentleman
remortgaged his house to pay his debt off and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- what I find out, that
gentleman had to get a permit to tear down the shed that code
enforcement said he didn't have a permit for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got it right. And what's the
whole message on this? We have a breakdown between those people
Page 219
May 22-23, 2007
that are disadvantaged economically or they don't know the system or
want to mesh with it.
In the case of the one person you're talking about, he didn't
understand English well enough to even return your phone calls. He
did not understand English well enough to be able to respond to the
written notices that were coming in.
When he came before the special magistrate, I seen the CD, I
watched it three or four times. She asked him a question, and he told
her a date that had nothing to do with the question. There was a total
breakdown. There was nobody --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why didn't you reconsider it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because this information took a while
to accumulate. It was only in the last couple days it came together.
Meanwhile --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, can we do anything
with that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me --let me--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I intervene in this also?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Ifpeople don't understand
English, that's not my problem. They have neighbors. They don't
have to hire an attorney. They can get ahold of a neighbor who is
bilingual and bring them to a code enforcement issue so that they can
get their case explained exactly what the problem is. Also, I would
think that when they get a notice of violation, they need to then take
action to get someone to tell them exactly what that notice of violation
IS.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. There was more to it than that.
The man's father was sick in Mexico. He was gone for quite a while,
came back --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was he an -- was he a citizen or is
he illegal?
Page 220
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I would hope that he's a citizen.
But I mean, that's almost -- let's stick with the point we've got in front
of us now.
We have a -- we have a breakdown in the system in the fact that
we don't have people that are duly represented. If you have an
attorney and you have the means for an attorney, you can get these
fines mitigated.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, wait, let me finish. If you don't
even know that you can ask to have these things mitigated, you're
never going to ask. You're just going to roll over, play dead and pay it.
Now, what I'm suggesting -- couple things. One, that we can,
with the special agenda item at some future agenda, address this issue
and the other issue. We bring it back. We don't have to reconsider
that issue per se. We can bring it back under our own cogni -- we've
got that ability. I'm sure we do. Do we not? County Attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you have a lot of ability, and it's not just
under reconsideration. But in regard to -- we have to look at the fact
of each situation very carefully -- I'm trying to give you the straight
answer -- and that is, where a debt has been paid as opposed to the
reduction of a debt is something we would have -- reduction of a debt
yet to be paid is something we'd have to look at very carefully, work
with the clerk as well.
And another -- a question I might raise is -- I don't know if
anyone's here from code enforcement, perhaps assistant attorney Jeff
Wright can respond either with a nod or at the mike, and that is, our
notices of violation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wright?
MR. WEIGEL: Beg your pardon?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Wright.
MR. WEIGEL: Jeff, are the notices of violation printed
bilingually or not?
Page 221
May 22-23, 2007
MR. WRIGHT: They aren't. They're in English.
MR. WEIGEL: They are not.
MR. WRIGHT: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: They're only in English. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. And I'm going to add another
note. When the person that Commissioner Henning was talking about
came before the special magistrate, he asked for an interpreter and he
was told, just like Commissioner Halas said, that English is the law of
the land.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, what's wrong with this
picture? I mean, I don't think that we're obligated to provide
attorneys. I don't think we're obligated to provide the interpreters, but
we certainly can put together an amnesty group that could be out
there, maybe retired attorneys who might be able to step in to be able
to protect some of the rights of these people that are underserved that
have no ability to be able to mesh with our system. They can't
interface with this in a meaningful way.
They're the ones that are being left out. And I'm not saying the
county. You can't -- you can't bring a person before this special
magistrate, you can't be prosecuting and defending them at the same
time. That's not going to work. But somewheres along the way
there's got to be some way that we can bring some sort of fairness to
this.
MR. WRIGHT: Commissioner, if! may add -- Jeff Wright, for
the record, Assistant County Attorney. I actually was on the phone
today with the interpreter's office at the courthouse and -- at the
direction of my office, I've been looking into extensively what the due
process requirements are for interpreters and special masters in code
enforcement proceedings. We just want to follow the law.
So I spoke with them today, and they've indicated that they are
available for all those proceedings, and it would be as quick as a
Page 222
May 22-23,2007
phone call 24 hours in advance to let them know. So I don't see that
being a huge glitch in the system. It's just something that we
mechanically need to make --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it wasn't made available when
the person requested an interpreter. And that's another issue. Today
we're dealing with this one situation of the young lady from Copeland
that has five kids, sustains her family by working at a convenience
store in Everglades City, and she lost out on her land and everything
because her -- she just was not able to cope with the system the way
we have it set up.
I think that we had a terrible shortfall. How we address all these
situations, I don't have the answers. I just know that there's a problem.
Who was it earlier that said, two things, first you identify the problem,
then you solve it. Well, I'm partway there. I've identified the
problem.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas, your lights
are still on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I want to find out --
we're going to take action on this one, and I apologize for deviating
from this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, it's fine. They're tied
together, they're related.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- and, you know, I'm not
where Commissioner Halas is, and never will be as far as this goes,
because this is just not just. The crime doesn't fit the payment. So
what can we do to that Hispanic guy who paid $32,000 because he
didn't get a permit for his shed?
Mr. Weigel?
We could reduce fines, I know that.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right. And you see, part of the issue--
and we're seeing the problem. Part of the solution and issue is, in fact,
finding a way to provide relief. And I think that it's probably beyond
Page 223
May 22-23,2007
an off-the-top-of-the-head response to you right now to indicate that
we can find relief for the past -- the past situation that has moved on.
I believe the item that is before the board today is a satisfaction of a
lien that has been paid as well. So there's a similarity there.
And I think you can task our office and the County Manager
Office to use every effort to provide you some responses quickly in
this regard if you do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the board is asking on this
one, recommendation to release satisfaction of lien. So the board
hasn't released the lien yet. So we could make this zero if we want to,
correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the
payment has been made -- and this is in -- this is the action to take the
lien, as a matter of record, off the real property, the clearing of title, so
to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, just clearing oftitle?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's correct, unless there's some other
additional facts here.
MR. WRIGHT: That is correct. And they have paid it, and this
condition encumbers their property until it's formally released.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And do we have -- may I jump in
front of you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have the ability to be able to
make this an agenda item where we could bring it back at another
meeting to give a refund from general funds to try to compensate for
the -- what took place here if we felt so inclined?
MR. WEIGEL: I think that you can certainly bring it back as an
agenda item, and then the staff recognizes what the intent is and we
would provide -- and, again, we'd be working with the clerk office as
well in regard to the potential for a refund or reduction, some
Page 224
May 22-23, 2007
additional finding.
It's been through the hearing process and is now past that. Again,
I can just say right now that we would look at it, attempting to offer
every viable solution or option that you might have in this regard.
Ultimately then, it would be a board decision. It will be a decision
upon the options that we can place before you. You can bring this
back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we need to approve this one
then?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. We have to approve it, but
how else was I going to get it in front of you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I appreciate it, but feel
even bad about approving it because it -- I think it --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we can still bring it back as an
agenda item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think the county attorney
is, from what I hear. So I do make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would probably be appropriate.
Appreciate the fact that you listened to me, and I hope that we can
bring this back on another agenda. We can --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I can tell you, I won't let
this one go. I mean, I felt bad for days of the Board of Commissioners
accepting $32,000 because a man didn't have a permit, and it just so
happens he has eight kids. And I know how you feel, Commissioner
Halas. You don't have to say it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, come on. That's not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I got an opportunity here to
talk. I think that basically when people are -- let something go and
continually (sic) to violate the law and they realize -- that's why it
ends up to $32,000. If the person would step up to the plate and do
what's right, then we wouldn't run into these problems.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They didn't understand. And
Page 225
May 22-23, 2007
Commissioner Coletta gets it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not my -- it's not our right (sic)
to figure out if it's -- whether it's going to be English, Spanish,
German, or Hungarian.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's see if we can get three
commissioners to agree to bring back both of these items for a future
discussion and see if we can be done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we've got a motion on
the floor to release this lien, and I'm going to second it. Thank you so
much for being here.
And with that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor of the
release of lien, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Absent.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
And with that, we're going to continue this meeting tomorrow
unless there's something you've got to share with me right now, Mr.
Mudd. What is it?
MR. MUDD: No, no, nine o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to do it at eight? Would
you rather start at eight? Would you rather start earlier?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
Page 226
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At nine or eight?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, you know I'm not going to be
here, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. We're going to miss you.
MS. FILSON: Are we starting at eight or nine?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, nine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nine.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, just for an official statement
real quick, this meeting is continued until tomorrow morning at nine
a.m.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I just got through saying.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:18 p.m. and
continued until May 23, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.
Page 227
May 22-23, 2007
DAY 2 - May 23, 2007
Meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m. on May 23, 2007 with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Fred Coyle - absent
Donna Fiala - absent
ALSO PRESENT:
James Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Michael Pettit, Assistant County Attorney
Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the Board
Page 228
May 22-23,2007
Item #lOE
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GEORGE
P. LANGFORD, AS TRUSTEE OF THE R. R. LAND TRUST
DATED THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 1998 FOR 55.35 ACRES
UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $10,687,700-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. Welcome back. This
is a continuation of our May 22nd meeting. It started on May 22nd
and we're going to finish this morning. Where are we, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Last time we were on 10-E. The recommendation
to approve an agreement for sale and purchase with George P.
Langford as trustee of the R&R Land Trust, dated the 1 st day of
December 1998 for 55.35 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $10,687,700, and Ms.
Alexandra Sulecki, your Manager for the Conservation Collier
Program will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for second. Second. motion
for approval by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
And we have Sue Filson over here in the wings with a speaker,
and we're going to go to all the speakers that feel it is necessary to talk
about it.
MS. FILSON: And these are left over from yesterday. I'm not
sure they're here but -- Lonnie Martin? Okay. And he'll be followed
by Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I don't see Brad yet. He might
be here by the time --
MR. MARTIN: Good morning, gentlemen. My name is Lonnie
Page 229
May 22-23, 2007
Martin for the record. I am a participant in the trust that owns the
property, as well as the listing real estate broker.
I just want to establish the fact that this, purchased at
$10,687,000, is a very good value. I know there is an increase from
the original estimate, but the reason for my comment about the good
value is that we have found some sales very close by, and I just want
to bring those forth for your information.
About 1300 feet east of our property, there is a parcel, unzoned,
that was purchased last year, closed in July. Twenty acres for 280,000
an acre. Ifthat same price was applied to our property, the price -- the
purchase price would be $15,500,000. That's 15,500,000.
Also, further east also along the Veterans Memorial right-of-way,
is another parcel that was purchased last July, and the price of that one
was 320,000-plus per acre. If that were applied to our property, that
would give a value of $17,750,000.
So I feel that because of these sales, as well as some others in the
general area there near Veterans Memorial, that this is a good value.
And I just wanted to establish that primarily, also to say that it is a
pristine piece of property.
Obviously it meets the criteria that the Conservation Collier is
looking for. It's a beautiful piece of land, never been cleared which
would be ideal for use in the future by people that live in the
Vanderbilt area and the North Naples area.
So with that, I will stand down and answer any questions that you
all may have or any new concerns.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
MS. FILSON: Brad Cornell. Doesn't look like he's here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll close the public portion of this,
and go to Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Henning.
COMMISIONER HALAS: Alex, what is your personal opinion
on this piece of property for the amount of money that we're going to
invest in with the taxpayers' money in this, solely?
Page 230
May 22-23, 2007
MS. SULECKI: Well, Commissioner, at this juncture, since I
have not given my personal opinion to the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee, they have made a recommendation. I would respectfully
say that I would think it would be inappropriate for me to give you my
personal opinion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sorry to put you on the spot. I was
just trying to get some idea. When I look at the this, this is about
$192,000 an acre, and is the value of the land -- actually, is it worth
this amount of money to try to save this piece of land? I mean, what
is unique about this piece of land? Can you give me some
background?
MS. SULECKI: I can tell you that it has very good habitat. It's
got a pine flatwood, it's got very nice quality scrub, which is one of
our priority habitats. It's got some scrubby flatwood which is sort of
an ecotone between pine flatwoods and scrub, which is also becoming
rarer. This is very nice quality, and it has some wetlands on the site.
So it does have a diverse amount of vegetation communities. It is
close to and right across the Veterans Memorial Boulevard, future
Veterans Memorial, from the Railhead Scrub Preserve. It is going to
be separated from that preserve by that road when it comes in.
Initially, when we purchased the Railhead Scrub, there -- there
was talk that the road would be in five or six years. And now, that
road has been pushed out quite far.
There is a railroad. It's not an easement; it's actually a parcel that
goes directly through this parcel and separates it. Crossing it requires
an easement. So for management and public use, that presents
difficulty.
And that's really the major points about the property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying because of
the fact that this crosses the railroad, because of the fact that the
long-term ability to get there is going to be a long-term item --
MS. SULECKI: It is going to be long-term.
Page 23 1
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because we don't have anything in
the immediate plans for the Veterans Highway that's going to be in
that. So how will people access this, they won't, right?
MS. SULECKI: Not initially. However, I have had just a brief
conversation with Transportation, and there is some potential to clear
that right-of-way that the county already owns to provide an unpaved
access. But that's about it until that road goes in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any idea what the cost
is to put a road through there once we cross that railroad? Maybe
Norm Feder can give us some insight?
Gentlemen, I know this line. I know it's part of the CSX line, but
this guy owns -- has got the rights to it.
Do you have any idea what it would cost to get a road through
there?
MR. FEDER: For the record Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. Commissioner, I can't tell you the exact dollar issue. I
know that we've worked with a number of developers, and pretty
much what we're looking at along the Veterans is that developments
are coming in, like the school board came in and we developed the
first portion or half of the roadway off of Livingston. We've had
discussions with development interests on this portion of that future
Veterans Parkway, and the biggest issue was the cost of getting across
the railroad itself.
And so obviously you've got your general road costs, where
basically, to be about 8, 9 million a mile, but that's including
right-of-way and other issues. And the right-of-way is generally
available, but you do have the added cost in trying to get across the
rail border itself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it would have -- do you have
any figures on what it costs to cross the railroad tracks?
MR. FEDER: There have been different numbers bandied about.
We have not gone into serious consideration. We've had others
Page 232
May 22-23, 2007
looking into it. But my understanding is, first of all, it's owned by
CSx. The underlying land, Seminole Gulf is the shoreline operator.
They have made this a marketing process in many crossings.
I know Lee County had some legal problems with one crossing
and we've had pretty high figures that have been thrown around, but
what it would be, I couldn't tell you exactly.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I looked at the appraisals -- two
appraisals by two independent appraisers, and they were really close
together and I was quite impressed on their approach.
But we heard from the -- one of the owners saying, what I'm
getting, he wants more money for it, and I just -- I'm very concerned
about that. So at the end of my motion is a stipulation that we make
this offer, and if it is refused, not to come back to the board for any
counteroffer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One year maybe time lap.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Correct. One year.
Alex?
MS. SULECKI: Excuse me, Commissioner. We do have a
purchase policy that says that we make one offer and that offer is this.
We don't negotiate.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, good. My motion
still stands, and I'm glad it's per the policy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other comments?
Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say, "aye."
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 3 to O. Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #10F
Page 233
May 22-23,2007
THE WINCHESTER HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL PROJECT AS A
CATEGORY A PROJECT ON THE CURRENT CONSERVATION
COLLIER ACTIVE ACQUISITION LIST AND DIRECTION FOR
THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ACTIVELY
PURSUE PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS PROJECT,
CONSIDERING CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND A RISK REDUCTION
APPROACH DEVELOPED BY STAFF - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Which brings us to the next item which is 10-F.
The recommendation to approve the Winchester Head Multi-parcel
Project as a Category A project on the current Conservation Collier
Active Acquisition List. And direction for the county manager or his
designee to actively pursue properties within this project, considering
conditions provided by the Board of County Commissioners and a risk
reduction approach developed by staff.
And again, Ms. Alex Sulecki will present.
MS. SULECKI: Again, good morning. Winchester Head in the
map there. And I would just tell you that we brought to you in
January of this year, a proposed recommended acquisition list from
the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. Winchester Head was on
it as recommended as A property.
At that point in time, there were concerns from the Collier
County Soil and Water Conservation District about the conflicts
perhaps between the projects they had and us purchasing in the area,
and you asked us to resolve this conflict and then come back to you at
a later time.
We have met with Soil and Water. We perhaps still have some
fundamental conflicts about what our ordinance should say, but I
believe we are in agreement at this point that our buying in
Winchester Head can fit within their project goals.
They did write a letter to you rescinding their objection to buying in
Page 234
May 22-23, 2007
this area.
And before I open this to your questions; however, I would like
to just say a few things.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas. Second by Chairman Coletta. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISIONER HENNING: You know, that's for this one.
They are also -- also there's some, you know, in the statement on our
Executive Summary, it says this estimate is current market would
support $22,000 an acre. That doesn't say that the current estimate
market value is $23,000. So what is the market value?
MS. SULECKI: Well, before I prepared this Executive
Summary, I checked with our real estate services department to find
out what an estimate is in that area, and that's the number I received.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's fair to say that --
and I guess should say this estimate is a current market value, instead
of just saying this a current market value that would support 23,000.
MS. SULECKI: I'm not sure of the technical difference between
those. I believe -- we believe it's 23,000 because there were sales that
support it. There's about one on this here, perhaps if we put in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to do that. And I
can't support the motion because what it's saying in our Executive
Summaries, give us a proposed 15 percent above and being a steward
of the taxpayers' money, I think market value is what we should be
doing.
MS. SULECKI: Well, there's a couple things that I need to tell
you and I was getting ready to because as I was preparing this
Executive Summary, time sometimes is short and time enough to get
to other meetings.
So a couple of these ideas were new and I brought them to the
Conservation Collier Committee just last week, and they had a little
Page 235
May 22-23, 2007
bit different take on it. So I wanted to give you their recommendation,
as well as correct an error, because I made an error in this Executive
Summary.
And I'll do that first. And that's in the last paragraph of the
considerations where I say that if we acquire all 20 -- and it's 25
parcels now, because I got another application last week -- if we
acquire them all, we'll have 40 percent. And it's the wrong math, it's
33 percent -- let me get that on the record -- we will have 33 percent
of this area.
But the difference is that the Conservation Collier Committee
wanted were in your conditions. You gave us some conditions to go
buying in there again, and you asked us to appraise all of them at once
and make the same offer.
And the Conservation Collier Committee wants -- would like you
to consider that some parcels, perhaps on the outer edge, may be a
little bit more buildable than those in the deeper center, and they may
be more money; or, and then conversely, the ones in the center would
be less money. So they would ask you to consider that difference so
that we don't make the same offer to everyone.
And the second one is that in bullet number 3 of staffs approach.
We have been advising the staff, we were working on this risk
reduction strategy, but the thing about 15percent, and Commissioner
Henning brought that up, that was something fairly new and it was
intended to kind of give you a little more confidence with these types
of projects and put a cap on it. But the committee didn't like that too
much, and they wanted to propose another approach.
They felt that it would be better and their recommendation would
be instead of creating a ceiling value with an automated list drop, that
they wanted to send a report to you when the values increased beyond
20 percent, and then make -- have you make a decision at that point.
So those are the two differences in what I have presented today.
Please consider that.
Page 236
May 22-23, 2007
COMMISIONER HENNING: The -- that was Commissioner
Coyle's concern. I'm -- I'm more concerned about the values. Are we
getting the bang for the buck? That's the only concern that I have, and
I would like to hear more about the appraisal.
MS. SULECKI: We haven't gotten the appraisals yet. We would
need your permission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to hear from
somebody who gave you the opinion on the prices of -- in the
Winchester Head.
MR. LEONARD: Roosevelt Leonard, County Appraiser. The
values for Winchester Head, 23,000 per acre, is for the inland parcels
that are wet. Unfortunately, there were only two sales. One of the
sales generated 22,000 per acre and another sale was 23,000 per acre.
So naturally, two sales really cannot determine the market.
So according to the property appraiser, there's another market
comparable to Golden Gate Estates Unit 65, is Golden Gate Estates
Unit 91. So I took a look at Golden Estates Unit 91 and there were
two more sales. The average of those sales were 25,000 per acre. So
in one area that was similar, there was 25,000 per acre, and in the
Winchester -- Winchester Head, it was 23,000 per acre. So that's
where the 23,000 comes.
Now, can we acquire lands for that particular value? Once we go
to the outside appraiser, let him know the different markets where he
can extrapolate some data from, he should be somewhere in that
particular range, 23 to 25.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Sir, those two purchases within
the heart of Winchester, who was -- do you remember the purchasers?
MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry, I did not bring those with me, but
they were from citizens that were inside Naples and they were --
COMMISIONER HENNING: The Soil and Water District
bought parcels in there and I think it was December of last year?
Page 237
May 22-23,2007
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that a part of your --
MR. LEONARD: No, it wasn't. I did not use those sales.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there a reason why not?
MR. LEONARD: Well, for two particular reasons. One, there
are other -- what we could call government sales, which typically
sometimes do with soil and water sales may have been negotiated
more so, and that's why I would prefer to take sales from the average
citizen, which could be more of an arm's length there. So there's no
external pressure or reasons why they wouldn't sell it as above market
value.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. Okay. I support the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion? We
have -- how many speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have two, but I don't know if Brad's here.
The first one is Bridget Washburn.
MS. WASHBURN: Based on your motion, I waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And Brad Cornell.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll close the public portion of this.
Any other comments, questions regarding this? All those in favor of
the motion indicate by saying "aye."
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The motion passed 3 to O.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2007-143: THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON
THE PROGRAMS PAST ACTIVITIES, TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS
AND APPLICATIONS, AND TO APPROVE THE FIFTH CYCLE
Page 238
May 22-23,2007
TARGET PROTECTION AREAS (TPA) MAILING STRATEGY-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-G. It's a recommendation to
conduct the Conservation Collier Annual Public Meeting to provide an
update on the programs, past activities, to solicit proposals and
applications, and to approve the Fifth Cycle Target Protection Areas,
TP A, mailing strategy.
Again, Alexandra Sulecki will present.
MS. SULECKI: Well, hello, again. This is the time of year
when our ordinance requires us to come before you and give you a
report of what Conservation Collier has been doing and what we're
planning on doing.
We, at this point, call for nominations -- public nominations and
applications, which I'm doing so now. Our deadline date for this
year's cycle is August 15th. And we're also -- are asking for your
approval of our Target Protection Areas mailing list.
I have a short presentation. If I can go through that; it's basically
what's in your Executive Summary or you can ask me questions.
Whatever your questions are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think that will be necessary,
but I did want you to get enough on the record so the public knows
there is an opportunity here in government leading the way.
MS. SULECKI: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are there motions?
Commissioner Henning, anything you want to say?
COMMISIONER HENNING: Yes. I have a need to amend the
ordinance with the purchasing policy and correspond with Alex about
the TDR program and further refining that, but that's contrary to what
Commissioner Coyle wants to do, which I do agree.
He wants to -- correct me if I'm wrong -- he wants to provide
opportunity to partnership with other agencies to create a -- like a
Page 239
May 22-23, 2007
mitigation bank, to capture all those mitigation-zoned properties. Is
that what it was?
MR. MUDD: Basically come back to the board, and I believe
Mrs. Sulecki is looking into that right now with the County Attorney's
Office to see if we can get our mitigation and hold it before we put it
in a conservation easement so that we can get the -- get some monies
from it too.
COMMISIONER HENNING: So my previous concern about it,
make sure we don't purchase land that has viable TDRs. We can take
that whether it be in the major plans or the rural fringe, would be
contrary, most likely, to what Commissioner Coyle wants to do.
It is my understanding about creating some sort of mitigation on
those properties, is those units need to stay within the property.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I haven't completed all of my research at
this point.
COMMISIONER HENNING: But you understand my concern,
right?
MS. SULECKI: I do, but I think it's going to be resolved
because the information that I'm getting gives me confidence on that,
that it will not.
COMMISIONER HENNING: So you're going to proceed under
the understanding what Commissioner Coyle has brought up recently?
MS. SULECKI: At this point, my understanding is that I'm to
bring back information to the board. I am proceeding with everything
that we started.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. So are we going to wait
on amending the ordinance until we get an answer?
MS. SULECKI: I believe it would be prudent to wait until the
research is completed and bring it back to you to do that, yes.
COMMISIONER HENNING: That's the only question I have
and I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 240
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve, second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? Being
none, all in favor of the motion indicate by saying "aye."
(All respond aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it, 3 to O.
Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #10J
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS AT AN
ESTIMATED COST OF $90,000 - APPROVED W /CHANGE
(FUNDS TO COME OUT OF FUND 111)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you've done lO-H and 10-J
yesterday. Next item -- excuse me. 10-H and 10-I. The next item is
10-J, the recommendation to approve and agreement with the District
School Board of Collier County for transporting school-age recreation
program participants at an estimated cost of $90,000.
Mr. Barry Williams, your director of Parks and Recreation, will
present. This item was originally going to be on the consent agenda
and Commissioner Henning had some items of interest and that's
where we --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to address that up front,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISIONER HENNING: Yes, I can. What that is, is
providing transportation coming out of two sources, the general fund
and the community center MSTU, which is Fund 130; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. For the record, Barry Williams, Park
and Rec. Director.
Page 241
May 22-23,2007
COMMISIONER HENNING: The -- what would be the split
between those two funds?
MR. WILLIAMS: It's the 130 and 111 funds. The 111 is 60
percent, the 130 fund historically has been right around 40 percent.
That has differed over the years, though, and the millage rate, as you
are aware, with the 130 fund in the last five years was actually
reduced. The ordinance allows for up to nine-tenths of a mill applied,
but that's -- it's about 60/40.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. And you're going to
provide the service and it's reimbursable by the users; is that right?
MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How are you going to
keep that differential between 130 and 111?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I do have some information about that.
With Golden Gate Community Center, we do offer summer camp at
Golden Gate Community Center. The revenues that we receive for
Golden Gate Community Center go there. The expenses also go to
that cost center, so we keep them within that same cost center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The -- how many
satellite programs have you offered out of 130 -- Fund 130 in the past?
MR. WILLIAMS: Historically -- well, from this year, I can tell
you, we were offering a satellite site at North Naples Middle School as
well as Pine Ridge Middle School.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From 130?
MR. WILLIAMS: We do have staff that are assigned and
working those off-site, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. How does that
Ordinance 73-4 create the MSTU?
MR. WILLIAMS: As far as -- I'm not sure I understand your
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the ordinance creating the
taxing district voted on by the people was a benefit to the people in the
Page 242
May 22-23,2007
taxing district. How do those satellite services benefit the people in
the taxing district?
MR. WILLIAMS: I understand the question. The cost center,
Golden Gate Community Center, is funded through unincorporated
funds, Fund 111, as well as the 130, MSTU and that 60/40 split. The
off-site locations that we have, they are in proximity to the Golden
Gate area.
We do, with our summer program, though, to let you know, we
have 13 sites that we provide throughout Collier County. We have
1400 children that we work with in summer -- summer camp. Just in
our ability to provide those services to all of Collier County, we set
those camps up in the geographical locations that are required, and
support them with staff throughout our Parks and Rec Department.
I don't know if that answered your question. But that's --
COMMISIONER HENNING: You did. Mr. Weigel, I have a
real concern that this is not a benefit -- a direct benefit to the people in
Golden Gate City. And as we all know, Parks and Rec is funded by
111. The Golden Gate citizens enjoy funding Fund 111. So in my
opinion, they are paying twice out of the MSTU, the unincorporated
III and also 130.
And I think in my opinion, Commissioners, it will be easier just
to fund these, since this is a countywide program, out of the
unincorporated 111 and -- instead of doing that.
The State statutes 125.101 (7), says: "No county revenue shall
be, except those derivatives especially for" -- "on the behalf of the
municipality service taxing district or special districts in
unincorporated area, service area or program area, shall be used to
fund any services or projects provided by the county when no real and
substantial benefit occurs to the property or the residents within a
municipality -- or municipality." This is a countywide program and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: Commissioner, what we could do is we could
Page 243
May 22-23,2007
work with the County Attorney's Office as well as the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board. We've kept them up-to-date over
a number of years to make sure that we're meeting the ordinance, they
follow that very closely in all the activities they do and we'd be happy
to do that; work with you, and communicate with you off-line about
how we're doing that, if that would be helpful.
COMMISIONER HENNING: It would be helpful for me to
amend the Executive Summary so all the money is coming out of the
unincorporated MSTU 111.
MR. MUDD: Not a problem, sir. That is a different account. It's
coming out of 111 and doesn't commingle with the 130 fund because
it has a Golden Gate MSTU with it. That's not a problem.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Has this been done in the past,
with this transfer?
MR. LEONARD: Sir, I'd have to research that, okay, and get
back to you.
COMMISIONER HENNING: I'd also like to know what other
programs where this exact sample has happened.
MR. LEONARD: We can research that for you.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can the county attorney tell us
what's been done in the past on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I cannot recollect the funding sources
utilized for the program in the past, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did your office do research on this
Executive Summary before it was published?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we review it but we did not review the
funding aspect of it, to be quite honest.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So at this point in time, the
direction is to forego taking it from the Community Center fund and
go straight from 111; is that correct?
Page 244
May 22-23, 2007
MR. LEONARD: We can do that, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Care to make a motion?
COMMISIONER HENNING: Yes. And I also want to follow
up. I make a motion that the agreement in the Executive Summary
states that all funds would come out of the MSTU 111 fund.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that motion. Do we have
any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISIONER HENNING: May I follow up, please?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I just wanted to make sure I understood the
last statement you made regarding the MSTU fund. And I also have
comments to Mr. Halas as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to ask you a question.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When an Executive Summary
comes under our agenda, you review it just like you stated, but isn't it
a fact that it's the policy of the Board that you're there also to assist as
requested by the County Manager on executive items?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that's true. But additionally, in regard to
the fiscal aspect, ultimately, I believe that if expenditures are
appropriate or not, the clerk's office will be looking at those, as well.
But in terms of the question of whether there's a public benefit
coming, whether it's expenditure from one fund or another, that is
largely differential to determination of the Board of County
Commissioners, and of course, it's related to the underlying facts that
are there.
And it's a little hard to tell if, in fact, there is no benefit to the
people within the MSTU or not. But in your observation, I thought it
was right on target, but it appeared that it was not, that it was, in fact,
Page 245
May 22-23, 2007
for the county generally, and that there was a potential for a double
taxation, and that would be inappropriate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you haven't been asked to
audit this Executive Summary on the funding, right?
MR. WEIGEL: No. We see it when it appears on the agenda.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? We have a
motion by Commissioner Henning, second by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, to approve this item with a change that the monies that
finance it will all come from 111.
With that, any comments or questions? Hearing none, all those
in favor indicate by saying "aye."
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 3 to O.
Item #10K
DIRECTION ON THE ACQUISITION OF A PARCEL OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AS A
RESULT OF A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND (PROJECT NO. 60001) - MOTION TO BRING
BACK AT A LATER DATE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-K, to seek Board direction on
the acquisition of a parcel of property owned by the City of Marco
Island as a result of a follow-up discussion with the City of Marco
Island.
Mr. Norm Feder, your Administrator for Transportation will
present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, I'll be fairly brief. If you read the
newspapers, I believe you probably already know that the City of
Marco Island was not in favor of donating this right-of-way.
Page 246
May 22-23, 2007
The right-of-way in question is part of our project to six-lane Collier
Boulevard from 41 up to Davis. I have graphic -- I have a graphic
right here that shows the center, we're purchasing 35 feet of
right-of-way.
We're also getting a temporary construction easement along that
section of what is called the Marco Lakes, which is where they are
getting their water supply from. And the issue at hand was obviously
asking Marco Island if they felt comfortable giving this to benefit
them as well, if they would donate that right-of-way.
It was their budget cycle. There were a lot of other discussions
had, even before I got up to speak. So it's quite obvious where I was
going, but because, say they were not receptive to the idea of donation
and they're looking to be paid, based on the full appraisal, which is
what was presented to you in a prior board meeting.
I do need to find out, though. What we're doing in this area is
doing water retention in that section we're purchasing, as well as
putting in a 10- foot multiuse pathway.
I went back to our design consultants and presented this issue that
maybe we consider stopping the pathway and try to modify to not
have any traffic in this area. Unfortunately, that's not feasible. We
have our permits, and, in essence, north of here, we go up by the canal
and in that area, we've got a very nontraditional permit agreement for
storm septic and exfiltration based on some increased storm water
efforts here in this section. So we are pretty much glued to having to
purchase this portion of the property to move forward on the project.
And as I'm reporting back to you at your request, the City of Marco
Island does not see fit to reduce the course or to provide it for free.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is that do we have any
options here of not providing a six-lane down in this area until they
come to the realization that they need to negotiate? Maybe not so
much giving it to us, but to coming in at a lower price than what they
Page 247
May 22-23, 2007
are asking.
MR. FEDER: It's obvious that this Board has the ability to tell us
not to move forward on this project, but we are still looking at it. But
I will tell you that you have approved development and you have
needs in this corridor to get to that six-lane configuration that are not
Marco-driven. There is also development that is occurring in this area
and has already occurred in this area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that maybe the
developers could put some heat on Marco to be more realistic about
the price of this property.
MR. FEDER: I'm at whatever direction the Board provides. We
are ready here, as I said, to move on and letting this construction. We
have had a lot of interest we have held off.
As you are aware, we brought to you that we are working with
our own utilities division. Weare working on that corridor to actually
expedite in working that corridor so that we can go out and let it
without having conflict between the two efforts. And this is a needed
portion of the overall network and grid.
But again, obviously, the Board can provide any direction that
they --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I realize the urgency and that we
have already permitted some growth to take place in that area, but I
would hope that Marco would be somewhat of a good neighbor. And
like I said, maybe we don't want to -- we're not there to take, have
them donate the whole thing, but I think they ought to be a little more
realistic in regards to the value of that property so we can get on.
MR. FEDER: All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
And I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, and I went there with
that stated desire and intent, pointing out that I felt that what we're
taking was not infringing upon the remaining 203 acres of what's
called the Marco lakes.
Again, at the same time, their discussions centered around the
Page 248
May 22-23, 2007
fact that our assessed -- assessed values have gone up, and therefore,
ad valorem has gone up. That they pay a disproportional -- this is
their terminology here -- I should say in quotes, share, and that they
are capped-constrained, and these funds are needed, as they were
sitting there working on their budget issues as well.
So it was not necessarily a timing of desire, and there was an
item that if I was purchasing, to anyone else, we are saving
considerably on this project by being allowed to go exfiltration and
storm septic, because we are over-treating in this area. And so it is a
large savings, in spite of what I will agree with you seems like a very
high cost to the city, this piece of property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You just won me over.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, the road that's in Marco
Island, what is that number, 90-?
MR. FEDER: 92-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 92-A? And is that -- Marco Island is
supposed to keep that road under repair. For some time they have
failed to do it in a timely fashion and it's degrading by the moment.
Meanwhile, on one end of the scale what they are asking for is almost
a million dollars. On the other end of the scale they are not repairing a
road which is in their domain, and they are supposed to take care of, to
serve the people in that end of the county.
Now, we're the -- we're the fall guys for this whole thing. In
other words, we're the pot of money that can always underwrite
everything that is there.
I think at some point in time, we should come to a realization
where we're going. Now, I agree this project is very important. Mr.
Tucker -- Councilman Tucker was heard commenting that -- by the
way, I consider him to be a tremendous friend; I've got the greatest
respect for him -- he said that probably what will happen is they'll end
up paying in the end.
Now, I don't think we would ever do that to them, but we were
Page 249
May 22-23, 2007
just looking for realistic people to be able to step forward and just be
able to say, you know something, maybe we can do something for the
other end, take care of 92-A, get that repaired with some of the money
that's coming, some sort of concession to be able to make this a better
world for everybody, rather than, you know, we're going to protect our
own turf, our own pot of money and the rest of the world be damned.
I don't feel comfortable with that. I kind of hope that the motion
will be to direct you to go back one more time to talk to them and see
if there might be something, realistically, they can come up with if not
a trade, or -- I mean, ifnot a forgiveness of the amount of money, at
least to be able to buy a portion of it for the repair of 92- A.
MR. FEDER: My recommendation to you, Mr. Chairman, and
obviously, I'll take whatever direction comes from the Board, but we
provide -- we're in about the third or fourth year providing a million a
year to Marco Island as part of those roads that they were to take on
and to maintain. I don't know that you necessarily mean to tie these
two issues together, but this Board may want to, and I will get with
Marco Island hopefully on something more amenable as opposed to
directions.
But you may want to direct me not to make payment on that
million a year until they make that improvement to section 92-A, and
they definitely have an influx of dollars on this project, as well, to get
to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would that be a separate thing to
come back to us or would that be simultaneous --
MR. FEDER: That would be a separate item. If that's what I'm
getting the direction here, that's a separate item. I might recommend
that. It may unfortunately fly into the face of what council had said to
me, is they'll come back and make us pay somehow. I'm not trying to
do that, but I understand exactly what we're saying is we have that
issue. They were to maintain it, but that was related to that million a
year for 13 years, and you might want to keep it related to that issue.
Page 250
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're doing, we're trying to
benefit the people on Marco Island to move there. That's what the
road is exactly made to do.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I had the
opportunity to talk to a couple of councilmen yesterday and they
mentioned to me about this item. The main reason, let's say, what I
was told why they didn't consider the Board's request, is they were
working on their budget, and they had to delete several pathways on
Marco Island just to meet their budget.
And I must remind everybody that unlike others, Marco Island
doesn't come to us with their hat in their hand during their budget. So
I'm going to make a motion to approve. We need to get this facility
done for the benefit of everybody in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I respect your motion, but I'm
also not going to accept that, the fact that they -- I won't call ot
anybody comes to us with hat in hand. We're looking to benefit the
residents.
What we can do in the City of Naples benefits the residents of
Collier County. What we do in Everglades City benefits the residents
of Collier County. You know, they come to us for just reasons.
Now, we do have a million dollars that we're going to be turning
over to them for benefiting just the Marco Island area, which
indirectly probably benefits all Collier County.
So I would like to put that in the correct light with my second.
Okay.
So we've got a motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
myself, Commissioner Coletta.
We're going to go to you, Commissioner Halas. I see your finger
pointing up like this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned because you brought
up some good facts, Commissioner, in regards to 92-A, so ifthere's
Page 251
May 22-23, 2007
something that can be put into the motion that I would be comfortable
with, that they have to have -- we have to, some way or another, to
apply pressure to the City of Marco in regards to addressing the issues
there in Goodland.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I think probably Mr. Feder said
that can come back, when is it, during the budget cycle?
MR. FEDER: If this item is approved and if it's the Board's
direction, which I think it is, we will discuss with Marco and bring
back to you whether or not we should look to withhold any of that
million a year until the improvements are made to 92-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May we be more specific when the
time comes that we say that million dollars can only be used toward
91-A?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 92-A. Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 92-A.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's fine. I believe --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know if it would be a good
idea for the part of this motion. There's only three commissioners up
here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three commissioners here, but I
assure you we'll come back to you on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe try to keep going forward, I
would feel comfortable.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. We could bring it back at a
later date. I think we need to address that because this has been an
ongoing issue for a number of years with -- for the people of
Goodland, where they haven't gotten any satisfaction from the City of
Marco in regards to addressing their needs on 92- A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Are there any other
comments? Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Coletta. Any comments? All those in favor indicate
Page 252
May 22-23, 2007
by saying "aye."
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it, 3 to O.
MR. FEDER: Thank you. We'll bring the other issue back.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Item #10L
RESOLUTION 2007-144: A 2005 DISASTER RECOVERY
SUB GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
$2,339,882 AND AN ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
IMPLEMENT THE DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
PROGRAMS, AND TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT, AND TO DELEGATE TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE THE AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT
REQUIRED REPORTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE
SOLEL Y MINISTERIAL IN NATURE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10-L. It's a
recommendation to accept and approve a 2005 Disaster Recovery
Sub grant Agreement between the Department of Community Affairs
and Collier County for $2,339,882 and an associated budget
amendment to implement the Disaster Recovery Initiative programs,
and to adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the chairman to
sign the agreement, and to delegate to the county manager or his
designee, the authority to submit required reports or other documents
which are solely ministerial in nature.
Marcie Krumbine, your Director of Housing and Community
Services, will present.
Page 253
May 22-23, 2007
MS. KRUMBINE: Housing and Human Services.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Human Services. All right. Before
you go on, we -- Commissioner Halas has got his light on. I don't
know if he wants to ask you a question now or after.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As I go through the organization
and the activities in the DRI funding, I notice that Collier County
Housing Development Corporation is included in this.
Can you give me some background of why that particular firm is
involved in this?
MS. KRUMBINE: These organizations -- there were several
organizations that submitted proposals. There were 14 that we
accepted proposals from, and these were ranked the highest. And
Collier County Housing Development Corporation is going to
purchase and install two generators from Copeland Water and Sewer
Facility. So that's the project. And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wouldn't that come under the
jurisdiction of the county staff some way? Or how does -- that's why I
don't understand the connection between Collier County Housing
Development and why the county wouldn't just come up with
something like of this nature? For instance, maybe utilities, since it's
water and sewer.
MS. KRUMBINE: In Copeland?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know this since it's their own
private system, but --
MS. KRUMBINE: I would think that that's why it is --
Well, Mr. Maloney?
MR. MALONEY: For the record, Jim Maloney, Public Utilities
Administrator.
Sir, would you restate your question, please?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is that this is in
regards to Copeland, they want to install two generators for Copeland
Water and Sewer, and who's put the request in is Collier County
Page 254
May 22-23, 2007
Housing Development Corporation. And my question is, how did
Collier County Housing Development Corporation get tied into this?
MR. MALONEY: Sorry, I do not know. We have not had any
oversight to that effect. There's the Copeland Utility Administrator.
The Copeland Utility is a private utility, not under our purview.
Certainly, we can get that data maybe from either of those two parties,
but I have no knowledge of either that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Collier County Attorney, can you
give us any guidance on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I can't. I don't know if Jeffrey Klasikow
may have anything further, but the agenda is to come forward through
the grants program and requests for grants and things of that nature.
And so clearly Mr. Maloney is correct. If it's like, you know, it's
a private water and sewer district, so it's outside of county auspices
generally. So aside from the county stepping up and providing some
funding, which would be an illegal act for a private benefit,
notwithstanding the private utility serves people in general, I can't
think if there is any irregularity in this particular organization coming
forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not saying it's irregularity. I'm
just trying to figure out how this all ties together.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, I would like to say that when Housing
Development came down a couple of years ago and toured the area,
one of the areas that they identified as needing as much redevelopment
and assistance as possible was Copeland.
And so the grants area has focused a lot of their activities in
doing community redevelopment in Copeland, and this was a project
that was identified, and something that the Housing Development
Corporation could do with the grant funding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure if I --
MS. KRUMBINE: And I -- can I interrupt--sCOMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
Page 255
May 22-23,2007
MS. KRUMBINE: -- just for one second and say that at the
April 24th meeting, we brought these projects to you and -- and--
well, actually it wasn't April, it was last year on September 12 of'06.
The Board of County Commissioners approved us submitting this
grant application to the Department of Community Affairs with this
project in it, and that's how the contract was submitted, was this way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The Collier County
Housing Development Corporation, does it -- I know it owns some
property in there, is that correct, in Copeland?
MS. KRUMBINE: Only -- no. They are doing some -- what
they are doing is they are -- they are building a home there through
grant funding. And so actually the grants have lent them the money
for the property, to buy the property, and then they'll -- and then
they'll build a home and then sell it.
So it's all been done through these types of grant. This is -- the --
what you're referring to is done through our CDBG program. This is a
hurricane mitigation program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm just trying to get the
connection, that's all. I'm not --
MS. KRUMBINE: I think the connection is that the Housing
Development Corporation, they are identifying the projects and
programs that they can do within Copeland, which is an area that has
been earmarked for redevelopment activities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Which is I can give you a little bit of information
of Copeland. I was just talking to Jamie French on the phone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Jamie French is our liaison to the waterways/water
authority that you have in Collier County, and they regulate all the --
all the privately owned water/sewer entities in Collier County out, you
know, outside of the utilities that Mr. Maloney is responsible for.
And Copeland is a co-op, so they are a private -- they are
Page 256
May 22-23, 2007
completely out of even the regulatory overview of your
waterways/water authority. They -- they are co-op, and all the
regulatory issues just go along with it, basically go to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. So we really don't have any
oversight.
And Copeland has been a problem over the years. I believe
Commissioner Coletta will attest to that over the water/sewer
particular issues. I mean, ever since I've been here, I mean when --
when Bill Wallace was still here, I used to ask him about did he give
him money, how it got used, or money that got put into the water plant
and sewer field in decades past. This is a - this is another issue.
But there is no -- there is no overview of their co-op as far as
waterways/water is concerned in Collier County government, per se.
The only time we ever get involved is when, ifDEP comes down and
puts them in receivership by court order, and the only person they can
look to is Collier County to bail them out. And that's happened over a
number of times, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that they need these, but I
was just trying to get the whole picture. Basically, this is the picture in
my mind on how that -- this group was involved in Copeland to
whereby they came and they actually submitted for the grant and got
the grant. That's all I'm doing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate this going back and forth.
I kind of hope you've gotten a comfort level with it. Now maybe you
would make the motion, you know, but if you want to hear more, this
is extremely important to Copeland.
We've only got three commissioners on this dais. I'm sitting here
at the edge of my seat. This whole thing is about ready to unravel.
All you hear is the word "grant money," trying to get the money,
having it go away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. Mr. Henning, Commissioner
Page 257
May 22-23,2007
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, what do I need?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did I put a guilty feeling on you?
COMMISIONER HENNING: No, you didn't. I'm just trying to
figure out --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll try to work at it if you like.
Mrs. Krumbine, will these items come back to us at all?
MS. KRUMBINE: No.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. How do we know the
breakdown of the expenses?
MS. KRUMBINE: You mean the expenses within the
subrecipients?
COMMISIONER HENNING: Correct.
MS. KRUMBINE: We would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How do we know how much
administration costs are in each one of these items?
MS. KRUMBINE: We would do that internally in our office.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Is there a limit on -- on those type
of things?
MS. KRUMBINE: There is no -- I mean, you know, I don't -- I
don't know the specifics on that, but I'll tell you that for us, for Collier
County, we're getting a 3 percent administration fee on this. And
that's why I think, you know, it's -- that's why we've had to kind of cut
down staffing and everything for it, so there will be very little money
passing through, aside from actually doing the work.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me -- let me kind of
restate my question so you understand it.
On these subrecipients, they have costs for materials. I'm sure some of
them are labor costs. Is there any administration costs within the
subrecipient agreement, and if so, how much?
MS. KRUMBINE: Actually, we will be executing subrecipient
agreements for each of these, okay, and they will go through the
Page 258
May 22-23, 2007
county attorney. And we -- these grants are very heavily audited and
have very specific rules and regulations, so whatever are the rules and
regulations within it, we'll follow it to a T.
And you see it in there? We will be going -- we couldn't execute
the subrecipient agreements until you approve this and we've executed
the contract. So that would be our next step, to do the subrecipient
agreement.
And also, let me clarify that this is -- this is a package deal. This
is this contract with DCA. So we can't -- that they approved this grant
with these, 1,2,3,4,5 -- six programs in it. So if we change these in
any way, then we'd have to go back and redo it, and chances are, that
we would not receive the $2.3 million.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. So we just don't know
those costs. Okay. I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You scared the daylights out of me.
Okay. Any other discussions? I know where you live, by the way.
Let's call the question. All those in favor of the motion that was
made by Commissioner Halas, and seconded by Commissioner
Coletta, indicate by saying aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it, 3 to O.
And stop that pregnant pause, Commissioner Henning. I've got
the gavel. It could be dangerous.
We can go to the next item, please.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, as mentioned on our -- on our
change sheet, 10-M was continued to the 12th of June.
Item #lON
RECOMMENDATION TO SIGN THE FORMAL HAZARD
MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM (HMGP) APPLICATION FOR
$1,639,225 IN HMGP FUNDS TO BE USED TOWARDS THE
Page 259
May 22-23, 2007
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW COLLIER COUNTY
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC) - APPROVED
Next item is 10-N that the recommendation is signed in formal
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, HMGP, application for $1,639,225
and HMGP fund --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MR. MUDD: -- for construction of the new Collier County
Emergency Operations Center.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and second by Commissioner Henning to approve. Any other
discussion? Being none, all in favor indicate by saying aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? And the ayes have it, 3 to
O.
Item #100
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING THE FISCAL YEAR
2007-08 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ENTITLEMENT FUNDING, AND
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(SHIP) ALLOCATIONS. ($7,1 73,560) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is No. 10-0, is the
recommendation to approve budget amendments recognizing the fiscal
year 2007-2008, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, HUD, entitlement funding and State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program, SHIPP, allocations of $7,173,560.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that motion. Motion by
Page 260
May 22-23,2007
Commissioner Halas to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion indicate by saying
aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed. The ayes have it, 3 to O.
Item #10P
TO PROVIDE REQUESTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL FOR CONTRIBUTING $500,000 FROM
CONSERVATION COLLIER FUNDS TO ASSIST THE CITY OF
NAPLES IN BUILDING TRAIL AND BRIDGE ON CITY-
OWNED LAND AS PART OF THE GORDON RIVER
GREENWAY - MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM TO THE NEXT
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next item is 10-P. It's
providing requested information about potential for contributing
$500,000 from Conservation Collier funds to assist the City of Naples
in building trails and bridge on county -- excuse me, on city-owned
land as part of the Golden -- Gordon River Greenway. And again,
Mrs. Alex Sulecki, your Manager for the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas first for a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My question is, is there any --
has the city offered up some type of a maintenance program in regards
to taking care of this or is that Conservation Collier going to have to
take care of this? Because this is within the confines of the city, and I
would hope that there would be some partnership here so that the
maintenance portion of this would be taken on by the city.
Do you know anything about that?
Page 261
May 22-23, 2007
MS. SULECKI: Well, Commissioner Halas, I think -- for the
record, Alex Sulecki. I'm here for Conservation Collier. I think that
it's way too early to think about those kinds of specifics. I've had
some brief discussions with the city about this and the ordinance was
not set up for this.
It would be a -- kind of a push in there. We'd have to control the
land, we'd have to have a management plan that you approve.
In my discussions with the city, they have said, yes, it's possible
that we could give you an easement over the land; yes, it's possible
that we could agree to a management plan that your Board could
approve. But the devil is in the detail and I think it would take a
mighty political will to get the city and the county together to approve
something like this through the Conservation Collier ordinance.
And I would just tell you that the -- your executive summary was
prepared in conjunction with legal advice from our County Attorney's
Office. So it's mostly legal stuff, and that's about all I have to give
you at this point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would it be more beneficial for us
to build the walkway and the bridge?
MS. SULECKI: It is from city land to city land. So I guess that's
up to you if you would want to fund something like that. If it came
through Conservation Collier money, it would have to be on lands that
we controlled into perpetuity for Conservation Collier purposes, and
only through a management plan that had amenities approved by you.
So it's a stretch.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I don't feel
comfortable. This is a report. I would feel more comfortable if
Commissioner Coyle was here, since it's in his district. So I'm going
to make a motion to continue this matter.
Thank you.
MS. SULECKI: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 262
May 22-23, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to continue by
Commissioner Henning, and second by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas. Discussion?
How many speakers?
MS. FILSON: I only have one speaker and I don't believe she's
here, but just to be fair, Ellie Crier.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed. The ayes have it, 3 to O.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, continue to the next meeting; is
that correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
Item #10S through Item #lOCC
LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS WITHIN INDEPENDENCE
PHASE II, IMMOKALEE AND TRAIL RIDGE (AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to item 12-2 you
did yesterday, 10- R, which I mistakenly used to be 16-G 1 was pulled
and went to 14- B and the Board did that yesterday.
That brings us to 10-S through 10-CC and I believe they are
hopefully the same issues and concerns that Commissioner Henning
had, and it was item 16-D1 through 16-D9, and then there was 11 and
13 that were also pulled.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go right to Commissioner
Page 263
May 22-23, 2007
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize for doing this, I
just need to feel comfortable.
My issue is these impact fees deferrals are between parties and
not over land. And Mr. Klatskow -- that's one of my concerns. Mr.
Klatskow said that he can straighten it out for me.
MR. KLATSKOW: Jeff Klatskow, County Attorney's Office.
Commissioner Henning, it works like this.
It all comes into our office, or Marcie's office, asking for the
impact fee deferrals generally on Habitat for Humanity, and what we
do, we get into an impact fee deferral agreement with that developer at
that time pursuant to the ordinance.
Permits are pulled and because impact fees are on permits, we
have to have that agreement recorded, so that Amy knows that she
doesn't have to collect the impact fees at that point in time.
Eventually, the Habitat for Humanity will sell that house to
someone else and they give us the name and we get into, pursuant to
the ordinance, a new lien agreement on that property.
So we already have a lien on the property as it is, and the lien's
not personal, it's towards the property. So there is no individual
liability on it. It's just a lien on the property.
So we get a new person come in, they buy the house, and we
prepare the agreement and we record the agreement.
Now, where there's the possible rub is that if for some reason that
closing doesn't happen, there's a potential that the land records will
have somebody's name on a lien that never owned the property. Now,
eventually it will get resold by Habitat for Humanity and the right
person will come in and that name will go on.
If the Commissioner's concerned that from time to time there
may be a lien recorded on the property with the wrong name on it, we
can wait until we get confirmation that there was a closing.
My concern with doing that, is that from an administrative
Page 264
May 22-23, 2007
standpoint, it's easy for staff to simply do these agreements and record
these agreements, and we know they all get recorded that way. If they
actually have to monitor this, I can't guarantee we'll have 100 percent
accuracy on this and there may be some error. That's why we do it the
way we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And actually, I was concerned
about the one that was coming up on the next agenda, which the
deferral is in a developer's name. But in Habitat's case, I feel fairly
comfortable about it, on impact deferrals. Once that land is changed
over to somebody else's name -- somebody else's name, those impact
fees mayor shall be reimbursed.
So in Habitat's case, if, for some reason, the person who's
actually benefiting on the deferral, the end user, decides for some
reason they are not going to occupy that unit, does that mean Habitat
needs to come up with the money to pay those impact fee deferrals?
MR. KLATSKOW: No, because it runs with the land. Ifwe
ever were decide that because it was not being used for affordable
housing, the remedy is foreclosure, we would not look at Habitat for
Humanity.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know I cannot go up to
the fourth floor and look up a lien for Jeff Klatskow's house, but it
wouldn't be any good. And that's my concern, the need for it to be
straightened out. There's a need to have some sort of agreement with
the landowner, too.
MR. KLATSKOW: We have the agreements with the landowner
where it sort of falls in the crack, sometimes is when a closing doesn't
occur. I don't know how common that is.
As I said, we could wait until we got confirmation of a closing
then record it. My concern is that they're going to miss a couple of
those.
And I know that when I bought my house a couple of months
between the time I signed my deed and it got recorded, the clerk,
Page 265
May 22-23, 2007
depending upon the market, it can take awhile before we get that
confirmation. But if that's the will of the Board, we can do that.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Well, it needs to be clean and
that's all. And I know you can't lien somebody else's property, and
that's exactly what we're doing.
The second concern that I have, Commissioners, is 15-D5. I
found where this person, Maria Mathurin, has actually received
several thousand dollars including from Collier County for an
affordable housing.
MS. KRUMBINE: Actually, Commissioner, we did verify that
from your information yesterday, and there are two Marie Mathurins;
one has bought in Malaga Place, another affordable housing
development in Immokalee; and this is another -- this a whole other
person, another Marie Mathurin, who lives in Ashlawn in Immokalee,
renting, and will now buy a home on Trail Ridge in Naples. They are
two separate individuals.
COMMISIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll take your word for it,
but that seems kind of odd with someone that's not Mathurin.
MS. KRUMBINE: Mathurin is actually a very common Haitian
name. If you notice on the list, there's a Jeannine Mathurin also, so it's
a very common name.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, I did notice that. And
you -- and you feel confident that the background checks of these
deferrals meet the ordinance?
MS. KRUMBINE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll make a motion to
approve all of the items that I pulled off the consent agenda, dealing
with the affordable housing deferrals.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'll go down the list quickly to
make sure we adopt. 10-A is 16-D1; 10-B is 16-D2; 10-Q is 16-D3;
10-V is 16-D4; lO-W is 16-D5; 10-X is 16-D6; lO-Y is 16-D7; 10-Z is
16-D8; 10-AA is 16-D9; 10-BB is 16-Dl1; and lO-CC is 16-D13.
Page 266
May 22-23, 2007
Those are the items that you pulled on this particular issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner, can I ask you a
question? Did you talk to staff prior to pulling these from the consent
agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was -- it was Tuesday
morning that I discovered that a developer coming on the future
agenda is asking for impact fee deferral. I knew that we had several of
them on the agenda today, and I mean, that's the kind of research that
we really shouldn't have to do, but I just didn't feel comfortable with
the way we're doing it.
And I still don't feel comfortable with liening somebody's
property that they don't own, but I have confidence in Habitat for
Humanity, and these cases, they are going to relieve my concerns.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second your motion. There is one
other thing. We need to do an ex parte on these items one after the
other. It was listed as required ex parte. Let's do that now because we
approved the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where does that --
MS. FILSON: These are not ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. My mistake.
COMMISIONER HENNING: I apologize, and thanks for your
indulgence.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Mary Ann Durso.
MS. DURSO: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mary Ann, sure you don't want to put
a commercial in? Maybe what the next project is? We really support
you.
State your name for the record.
MS. DURSO: My name's Mary Ann Durso. I'm the Executive
Director for Habitat for Humanity. An interesting fact, I know you
like to do houses that have been approved that are really closing. I
thought you'd be happy to know that we have closed 92 houses since
Page 267
May 22-23, 2007
December 22nd. We have 40 houses ready in Naples and 40 ready in
Immokalee, and we'll have 20 more by June.
So we have been building houses. We're working together in
partnership with you and your staff so we are happy that we could
resolve this issue together.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mary Ann. Okay. With
that, any other comments? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion
indicate by saying aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, 3
to O.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, this completes our regular agenda.
Item # 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: The next item is public comment and general
topics.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we do have a speaker or two.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I do have two speakers under this
topic. Timothy Ferguson, who will be followed by Kenneth
Thompson.
MR. FERGUSON: For the purpose of the record, Timothy
Ferguson. I represent clients that have application TRP 205-03 and
-04 on the Growth Management Plan amendment. I requested that
they be continued. That request was summarily dismissed, and I'd like
to have that put on the agenda for either the 4th or 5th at the end of the
agenda or on the 12th. I don't think there is really a need to have it on
the 4th or 5th. I don't see that that is necessary, but we're asking those
items be continued.
Page 268
May 22-23, 2007
And what the Board did was they summarily just dismissed it,
didn't vote, didn't discuss it, just said, either you continue -- either you
bring it before us or withdraw it. No option to continue. It wasn't
debated at all.
And basically the reason for the continuance was we were really
working with the residents surrounding that to get a consensus on
what should be done with those parcels, and we really felt like we
were getting somewhere, but we weren't going to be able to get there
in time.
And after two years and as much money as they paid to have this
thing get a full hearing, we thought it was only fair that we get a
continuance in the matter, and we'd at least like the Board to entertain
granting those continuances.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the County Attorney on
this and maybe we can find out what our abilities are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a question.
MR. FERGUSON: What is it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you talking about the Planning
Commission?
MR. FERGUSON: Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So the Planning
Commission hasn't reviewed these yet, right?
MR. FERGUSON: We brought it before the Planning
Commission and I was told by the Chairman of the Planning Board
that either you go with the application as you have it or you pull it.
Weare not even going to go to any continuance, and he did not have
any discussion, no debate, nothing. Those were just -- those were my
options.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You think we should fire him?
MR. FERGUSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we should do is
probably take it back to the Planning Commission. It should go
Page 269
May 22-23, 2007
through that first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's --let's hear -- they are for
the County Attorneys, and I'm lost on this one. I'm not too sure what
the proper -- what can be done at this point.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm a little unclear.
Mr. Ferguson, can you state again the petitioner matter that was
before the Planning Commission, whether it was an amendment or
Growth Management Plan amendment?
MR. FERGUSON: It was Growth Management Plan
amendment.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Under private petition?
MR. FERGUSON: Correct.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I see two things that could occur. One is it
comes to the Board of County Commissioners in the normal course
following what the Planning Commission has done or -- and the -- and
the Board take it under advisement, what the Planning Commission
did, and the petitioner has represented indicating what occurred
because ultimately, the decision-making is yours, in any event.
Another aspect would be when it comes to you, if you wish to
have the Planning Commission have another bite of the apple as to
instructions as to what you would like them to do, you can remand it
to the Planning Commission and they would hear it pursuant to your
direction. It would be processed by the Planning Commission. They
would take a vote at the hearing and then send it back to you at that
point in time.
Both of those -- both of those operations would take some
additional time and that might secure the kind of review that Mr.
Ferguson may be looking for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, got a
suggestion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can the Chairman send a letter to
the Chairman of the Planning Commission and basically say we'd like
Page 270
May 22-23, 2007
to have you look these two items over and get this thing taken care of
before it's sent up to us?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think what the man is asking
is that he just wants to have a continuance, or you want them to hear
it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He wants them to hear it.
MR. FERGUSON: Well, what I'd like to have is I'd like to have
a continuance for those two application items, and since it is your call,
I think it might --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, let's do this. Since
you're asking for a continuance, we don't have -- we have to take that
action at a time we're going to be doing the changes to the Land
Development Code. We can't really do it now.
MR. WEIGEL: No. The matter isn't before you now. It would
come to you after the Planning Commission. I believe Mr. Ferguson
is asking that the item either can be continued by the Planning
Commission at this point in time rather than heard by the Planning
Commission.
Is that correct, Mr. Ferguson?
MR. FERGUSON: Yes. I would like the items to be placed on
the next cycle, next Growth Management Plan cycle, continued.
Okay.
What I was suggesting might be the most convenient thing to do
is to put it at the end of the June 4th and 5th hearing, and just let you
decide whether you'd like to continue and put them on the next cycle
or not. That might be the easiest way to handle it, but I'm up to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ifwe did continue it, too, we could
always send you back to the Planning Commission at that time.
MR. FERGUSON: Correct.
MR. MUDD: We have a problem on the 4th and 5th. Those two
items are not advertised. I just talked to Mr. Cohen (Ph) and just
going through some of the details.
Page 271
May 22-23, 2007
Mr. Ferguson withdrew the items, and they weren't advertised for
the 4th and 5th. And notice the 4th and 5th is an advertised public
hearing for you to talk about the Growth Management Plan
amendments.
I would believe if you want us to bring this item back up for the
next Board meeting, with discussion with Board, and we can put all
the facts together for the Board, and the Board can give us some
direction what you want to do once you have the whole -- the whole
list of these questions.
At least the thing looks like right now you're shooting blind
outside of what Mr. Ferguson tried to relay to you with two GMP
amendment numbers. You don't know, you don't understand the broad
complexity of the issue.
I would recommend to the Board that you direct staff at the next
Board meeting to bring this forward to you for your future direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, we can possibly comply
with the request that we have before us.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can do it at the time after you
say everything. You can say fine, bring it back to the next GMP
cycle. It will not be this cycle that you are at right now on the 4th and
5th, but it would be the next one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do my fellow commissioners agree
with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about you, Mr. Henning?
COMMISIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. FERGUSON: So we will be pulling some of the agendas on
the 12th?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I want to note that there would be an
advertising requirement so the time required for the newspaper for the
12th is three weeks ago. I don't know for sure that that can be met,
Page 272
May 22-23,2007
just to let you know that.
MR. FERGUSON: Well, I don't believe we're -- you're going to
__ I don't believe they are going to hear it. I believe they are going to
make the decision to tell us to continue it to the next cycle, which is a
year and a half from now.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I don't think we're asking the Board, or
Mr. Ferguson asking the Board, to make a decision on his amendment.
MR. FERGUSON: No.
MR. WEIGEL: I recognize that. Just if it needs to be advertised,
it's a little tight for three weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I suggest that ifthere is some
extra costs that have to be incurred to advertise it, maybe Mr.
Ferguson might volunteer to cover that cost if it has to be a separate
advertisement.
MR. FERGUSON: I have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would get everything on
schedule. I can't picture that there is not enough time in there for that
ad to appear.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we're specifically told by the clerk's office
in doing this they need 17 days lead time, and that's 21 days away. So
it could be done if advertisement is required separate from merely the
notice in the agenda.
I just wanted to mention that we have to work quickly in that
regard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Crystal, do you have any comments
on this?
MS. KINZEL: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If there are any additional costs,
Mr. Ferguson will pay for the additional costs.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Ferguson, thank you for being
here today.
MR. FERGUSON: Thank you.
Page 273
May 22-23, 2007
MS. FILSON: Our next speaker on your public comment, Mr.
Chairman, is Kenneth Thompson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Haven't seen you for awhile, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: You know, we've got this thing right behind
the Texaco Station, Suite 108, 10 o'clock last Sunday night. I don't
believe I have ever seen so many people. We need some cotton
pickers, send them to North Carolina, that's where they need to go.
But, man, they tore that place apart. I don't believe I have ever heard
horns blowing like that. Jesus, Christmas. Then they left, they come
back. I don't know how many times before that. They got to stop. I
can't take it. I can't take it.
And then now, you got the garbage. They are doing a pretty
good job right now of picking it up. But you got this one -- one guy
here, I don't know, I got his truck number -- how many do I have --
264350. He's out there every morning beating and a banging at 4
o'clock. He was there this morning with my damn water. I don't
believe -- the man is a fruitcake.
And this one here, Larry Bird, district manager, if you haven't got
rid of him yet, please do so because he is the worst. Send him to
cotton-picking North Carolina, too, because I'm telling you, you can't
live there.
I don't want to cause no people no problems, but you got the
Sheriffs Department, you call them. You spend so damn much
money -- excuse me, I said that -- but little boxes, little boxes this big,
not telling how much one of them cost, to hold up and pin on his
shoulder here. Why in the hell don't he do his job and quit begging for
money? I'm sick of him begging for money. If you do the money that
you give him and put him in the right place at the right time, he would
be a good sheriff.
But I got news for you, and I hope you vote for her. Got a lady
running this time that's of his deputies, and boy, she's a sweetheart, let
me tell you.
Page 274
May 22-23, 2007
But then, you got Mrs. Arnold telling me what I can do and what
I can't do. I don't work for the county; she does, but I really like Mrs.
Arnold.
And then you got Linda Wolf. I wish you would call her out, she
wouldn't cuss so bad. It's pretty bad when a man's cussing, but when
you get a woman cussing, that's pretty bad, on the job.
But if I have to, I want Mrs. Arnold fired. If I had to one more
time, she's messing up everything. We had road rages cutting beside
the road. She told me that we've got everything going now, you have
to cut clear to the blacktop. I have to clean the ditches. I'm not going
to do that.
You got -- let me finish.
You got this guy, John Emory, lives next door to me. He likes to
beat on women, and Mrs. Arnold -- at the time, 13 years my wife was
at that beauty parlor, she showed up and told me I couldn't have the
beauty parlor.
But since then, she's never got off of my back. It is 24 hours a
day, but yet you go issue a permit here. He's already putting a lock on
it and there is no call for electric.
He's done everything that you can imagine. He's from
Massachusetts, does that tell you anything? He loves to beat women.
I've got -- you should see the stuff that two deputies was driving by
my house and he was in the yard stealing my plants. This guy is loco;
he's nuts. He put all his tools over in the yard. I called the deputy and
he tells me to put them in the garbage.
But somebody ought to let her know before you issue a permit,
put it across the front of somebody's property. You don't let them do
it up in North Naples and, boy, it's gone to the pigs. That's the worst
place I've ever seen.
But please help me with this guy here. This guy here, if he puts
up a wooden fence, he's telling me he's going to put it up across Lot
44. Well, he won't. He'll keep going across Lot 43. If you would, I
Page 275
May 22-23, 2007
need you to get that wooden fence, because they wouldn't let me get
that wooden fence in, but --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do this. You're running over
your time.
MR. THOMPSON: I know it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't put that away; I'd like you to
hand it to the County Manager and County Attorney. Somebody can
look into that for you.
MR. THOMPSON: This morning, he came out right there at
Royal Palm, right where --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you loud and clear.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes. He comes here this morning with the
truck, he picks up the dumpster, and he got it right here before the
yard and dumped it right in front of the dumpster. You know, he had
beer bottles and the cans just rolling. It's the truth. And then he just
picked it up and turns and drops it.
I've had about all I can take of this man, and you need to tell Don
Hunter when somebody is helping him get criminals off the street,
especially child molesters.
They give me a poster with this man on it. He goes to 2277
Cypress, and they are living in tents, motor homes. You try to get to
Mrs. Arnold to tell her that they'll go up there and you don't put a
motor --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have to ask you to wrap it up, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: -- air conditioning inside that motor home,
you can't go down the road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, sir. It's really
good.
MR. THOMPSON: All right. It's good to see you. Please, one
more thing. You take Mr. Weigel back in here, he will back me; he's
my right-hand man.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good man.
Page 276
May 22-23, 2007
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Closing business, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: This has to do with two commissioners that aren't
here today, and they asked me to bring some items up in their absence.
Item #16A2
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE
FINAL PLAT OF SILVER LAKES PHASE TWO-G : MOTION TO
CONTINUE TO THE JUNE 12 BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: First is, there was a phone call that I received from
Commissioner Fiala last evening. It has to do with Item 16-A2. And
this item requires an ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members, should a hearing be held, they are required to be sworn in, a
recommendation to approve for final Silver Lakes Phase II-G. She
made mention of Silver Lakes yesterday on 17. I couldn't find it.
Later we found it was 16-A2.
She got a letter from the homeowners' president of Silver Lakes
II, an e-mail, basically asked the commissioner at the time -- and this
came in early in the morning on May 22nd, which was yesterday, at
5:42 in the morning -- and the commissioner didn't see it before the
item was approved on the consent agenda by the Board.
But it read, "Dear Mrs. Fiala, currently, we have a problem with
the developer bringing Silver Lakes into compliance with the Health
Department as it relates to our pool and required water flow.
Page 277
May 22-23, 2007
"I have been in contact with Mr. Rock of the Health Department, and
he, in turn, has been working with the building department to resolve
this issue.
"We are concerned that Time Quest's development may not bring
the pool into compliance. Can this issue be addressed today at the
hearing? I know this is a very short notice and I apologize for that.
"Mr. Rock has been in contact with Mr. Hammond and Mr. Smith and
trying to find any kind of resolution of the water flow issue. We have
had these problems for over seven years without a concrete solution.
"I am the president of Silver Lakes, would appreciate any input
you may have. "Signed, Jim Beck."
Commissioner Fiala asked me to bring this to the Board's
attention and ask the Board -- and I know it's kind of awkward in her
absence -- if the Board would consider a reconsideration of this
particular item today before it gets resolved with public records, and
this item be continued until the next meeting.
And that was her request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For a reconsideration?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I talked with the county attorney, as
long as the Board is still in session, which you are, the Board can
reconsider an item that they approved or disapproved in -- during the
process of the ongoing meeting, and they can take another vote on that
action if they decide to reconsider it at the same meeting.
Did I get it right, Mr. Weigel?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, question before you
begin. In other words, the reconsideration has to be final and we can't
reconsider to have it brought back to the next meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: No. That's exactly what Jim was suggesting,
that what Mrs. Fiala requested fell under 241, the reconsideration
ordinance.
You can entertain a motion to reconsider if someone makes that
motion. If passed by a majority of the Board present, take two votes,
Page 278
May 22-23, 2007
then reconsideration is achieved. And then upon another motion, you
can make a motion to continue the item to the next meeting, like that
which Commissioner Fiala has requested.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion for reconsideration by
myself, Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas. Any
questions, comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On 16-A2?
MR. MUDD: 16-A2.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we'll take a vote. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? And the ayes have it, 3 to
o.
Now, the next motion would be --
MR. WEIGEL: Whenever you wish --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- continued to the next regular BCC
meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we have second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion to continue the item to
the next BCC meeting, motion by myself, Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion?
Being none, all those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(All say aye.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it, 3 to O.
Next thing, Mr. Mudd?
Item # 15 (continued)
Page 279
May 22-23,2007
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Commissioner Fiala had one other issue
that she wrote a note on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She's keeping us busy for not being
here.
MR. MUDD: Yes. And I'm going to read it best I can in her
handwriting.
"I'd like to ask the commissioners if they would consider adding
an agenda or on your agenda, addressing people who are arrested
using false identity in the criminal justice system. Although this is not
a commission issue, identity theft and illegal aliens using false identity
can seriously affect our residents."
"I would like to prepare a resolution in support of our sheriffs
office and judicial system working together to tackle this problem and
eliminate it from our court system."
"If you approve, I would ask that our Chairman write a letter to
Judge Hugh Hayes if he would consider inviting Mike Carr to assist in
writing the resolution and giving the BCC a presentation on the
problem and offering solutions."
"I'd also ask the Chairman to invite Sheriff Hunter to also
participate. "
COMMISIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, the --
Commissioner Fiala has every right to put anything on the agenda she
wishes. Constitutional officers are independent, so are the judges. I
wish her well and look forward to her getting it on the agenda with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would agree with you. I think it
would be appropriate for her to go ahead to make it an agenda item.
She can make a resolution as she sees fit and we can see what it is at
that moment in time.
MR. MUDD: Last issue, this has to do with Commissioner
Coyle.
Page 280
May 22-23, 2007
Commissioner Coyle has some concerns about Ordinance
Number 2001-55 amended by Ordinance 2006-39. And this has to do
with the County General Advisory Board Ordinance amending
qualifications and requirements for membership for same, and it talks
about certain candidates that are running for public office.
His question is -- right now as it stands, if someone is running for
public office, they have to vacate the position that they have on the
advisory Boards. He mentioned to me the possibility of some officials
in the City of Naples who are maybe sitting on our Coastal Advisory
Committee. He has concerns if our Board members are serving on
advisory boards, do they have to give up that advisory board position
because of the ordinance. And he was just asking the Board to
consider that, have the county attorney take a look into it and come
back and talk to the Board a little more about it.
When this was originally done, I believe it was Commissioner
Max Hasse that had concerns about people using their particular
position on advisory boards as bully pulpits for when they were
seeking elected offices.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we amended it, we already,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I researched this for Mr. Coyle and
prepared to speak. And Mr. -- Chairman Coletta is correct. The
ordinance was amended and came up in the context of Mr. Sileski
(phonetic), who was looking to run for, I believe, Fire Control or Fire
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fire Commission.
MR. WEIGEL: -- at the time. And so the Board orders
consideration to change what had been an absolute bar requiring a
resignation to run. The Board direction and ultimate amendment of
the ordinance, two years ago, provided for positions of none or no or
low remuneration, a la, we noted that the Fire Board may pay up to
about $4,000 a year and Mosquito Control Board very little.
Page 281
May 22-23, 2007
We're talking now about a position such as Naples City Council,
a council member on the CAC who would be running for re-election.
The remuneration of a City Council position is, I believe, about four
times that $4,000-figure.
So the Board is having placed before it through Mr. Coyle the
question of either to potentially direct the ordinance be amended to
take away the requirement or raise the requirement relative to
remuneration in office.
Of course, in any event, the concept was originally that it just not
be an opportunity to serve and -- while you're running at the same
office. And obviously, the ordinance can be amended to follow any
policy of the Board.
MR. MUDD: Once again, Commissioner, ifthey are opposed, it
makes no difference.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle can bring this
back at a regular meeting, rather than us trying to decide what he
wants. It's nothing that timely that we can't wait for him to be here if
he'd like to change this.
MS. FILSON: If! might comment. I think what he's referring to
is Councilman Sorey, who is on the Coastal Advisory Committee, and
he's already become a candidate and he's running for --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Either way you draw the
line? Yeah, when I was the president of the homeowners' association,
I didn't get any money at all and I had to resign that presidency while I
was -- when I decided to run for County Commission. So, and that
was nothing that I was getting paid for.
So I would hope that we would look at this, and have some
concerns also that people would use that as a bully pulpit to some of
their assignments on special advisory boards when they are an elected
official, and then on a particular advisory commission, I would have
some concerns about that also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, Commissioner Coyle can
Page 282
May 22-23,2007
always have these put on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, and that's what I would suggest
to see --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That way you would have all the
commissioners making all --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Many thoughts but nothing to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISIONER HENNING: How are you doing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm doing great, sir. How are you
doing?
COMMISIONER HENNING: I've been doing some research,
and I found an ordinance in 1979, maybe the first Comprehensive Plan
that Collier County had, and what I find interesting is the Board in the
'70s had the same concerns that we have today, being with growth and
in particular affordable housing, which I found quite interesting.
In there, they had -- in their Comprehensive Plan, they stated
their concerns about the lack of affordable housing and moderate
housing, made certain recommendations for policies that minimized
review, encouraged greenhouses, and things of that nature.
So just a little tidbit, or what my wife calls is "useless
information. "
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, far from useless. I think history
repeats itself over and over again. Hopefully we are better with it
happening.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think before the housing issue is
starting to take their --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When we look at what the prices of
Page 283
May 22-23, 2007
homes are, if you look in the Naples Daily News on the weekends, it's
amazing how the prices of homes have started to drop. And it's
getting into the level of affordable housing, that we consider
affordable housing, for some of the programs that we have. And I'm
glad that it's taking care of itself.
Yes, we still have some issues, but I'm telling you that it's getting
closer to where it is getting more affordable for young couples who
are getting married. They are stuck now in the low two thousands. So
it's just coming down from where it was.
Let's say a year or so ago, we were almost -- the average house
was about $500,000, and of course, there was stuff on the other side of
it; but you couldn't find anything for around $200,000. It was almost
impossible. Now, it's starting to show up, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see this as a long-term thing, and
we're not going to have any concerns in the future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not long-term, but I'm just
letting people know out there that we are getting -- the affordable
housing is happening, and of course, we had a large discussion, a long
discussion yesterday in regard to a particular issue where a developer
was supposed to be addressing three to five units because we gave him
additional density bonuses, and we have other PUDs out there that
haven't been addressed.
So hopefully that if the market starts to ramp up again, then these
developers will step forward and start hoping they'll start building
affordable housing for our residents here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's the best scenario event
that might be taken. We've been through this fight.
I've been in Naples since 1984 and in the building industry in
both those years the prices are coming down, trying to provide
housing on a level that's going to be able to meet the high point, the
middle point and everything across. So I think we're still on target.
I don't think we need to be able to say, okay, our problem's gone
Page 284
May 22-23, 2007
away, the solutions in hand, we can all go home, the job is done.
No, it's not. I don't think so. The problem is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can bring that to -- what I was
trying to convey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I temporarily -- I'm just
saying that there is people out there, if they are looking for homes,
they need to start shopping in the Naples Daily News on the weekend,
and I think they can find some affordable housing if they are renting
and in the position where the would like to buy a home.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you're in the market for a $200,000
home, there is plenty of them out there right now. Thank you for that.
Anything else, Commissioner Henning? We've got plenty of time for
you.
COMMISIONER HENNING: No. I'm going to walk out so you
don't have a quorum. But I would imagine the next three decades
we'll have the same issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a sign that's been ongoing. You
tackle the problem as best you can with what you have to work with.
We're going to go to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I almost feel like I should
give up my time because you gave up yours.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tell you what, we're adjourned. Get
out of here.
****Commissioner Coyle moved, seconded by Commissioner Halas
and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
Page 285
May 22-23, 2007
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "AREZZO AT TUSCANY
RESERVE"
Item #16A2 - Continued to the June 1th BCC Meeting
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "SILVER LAKES PHASE
TWO-G"
Item # 16A3
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER FACILITY FOR FOREST GLEN , PARCEL 7 -
W /RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER FACILITY FOR FOREST GLEN , PARCEL 4 -
W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2007-124: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA UNIT ONE", THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECUIRTY
Item #16A6
Page 286
May 22-23, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-125: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "SUMMIT PLACE IN NAPLES,
PHASE I", THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED -
W/RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER FACILITY FOR FOXFIRE CLUB HOUSE EXPANSION
- W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MILANO, PHASE 1A - W/RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MILANO, PHASE 2A - W/RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A10
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR COMPROMISE
AND RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTION ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V JAMES KEISER AND
SOUTHERN EXPOSURE OF NAPLES, INC., CASE NO. CEB 98-
005 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 287
May 22-23,2007
Item #16A11 - Moved to Item #10Q
Item #16B1
COLLIER METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S
(MPO) OPERATING BUDGET FOR FY 2007/08, INCLUDING
$10,221 COUNTY MATCH FOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION PLANNING AND FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5303 GRANTS - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (BEGINNING JULY L 2007)
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2007-126: LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT (LAP) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY
WOULD BE REIMBURSED UP TO $306,205 OF THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST OF $420,000 FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION OF
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION
OF 111 TH (BLUEBILL) AND 8TH STREET (PROJECT 600741)
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2007-127: AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED TRUST FUND
TRIP/EQUIPMENT GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED (CTD) ($608,398) - COLLIER COUNTY IS
ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE IN FY 07/08 AND IS REQUIRED TO
MATCH AT 10% THROUGH PROJECT #314271
Page 288
May 22-23, 2007
Item # 16B4
PURCHASE OF TWO FIXED-ROUTE BUSES AS SCHEDULED
REPLACEMENTS TO BE OPERATED BY COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT - FROM THE GILLIG CORPORATION AT A TOTAL
COST OF APPROXIMATELY $ 324,326 EACH W/DELIVERY
FEBRUARY, 2008
Item #16B5
SUBMISSION OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROJECT PROPOSAL REQUEST FOR
100% GRANT FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $816,512 - TO
PROVIDE TRANSIT CONNECTION SERVICE FORM CAT TO
LEETRAN IN LEE COUNTY
Item #16B6
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AN ADDITIONAL
$993,198 IN FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION GRANT
SECTION 5307 FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 06/07 - TO BE
USED TO HELP FUND 07 CAPITAL EXPENSES INCLUDING
THE PURCHASE AND RETROFITTING OF 2 CAT BUSES AND
FOR GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MORANDE SITE
Item #16B7
PURCHASE OF 2.90 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT
Page 289
May 22-23,2007
LOCATION -760 23rd STREET NW, NAPLES (PROJECT NO.
60168) (FISCAL IMPACT: $723,148.50)
Item #16B8
ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF THE
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TO SPRAY HERBICIDE ON
VEGETATION IN THE BOTTOM OF A SW ALE/CANAL/DITCH
THAT DRAINS APPROXIMATELY 1,000 ACRE BASIN THAT
INCLUDES THE BOYNE SOUTH PUD, A PORTION OF US 41,
AND SOME AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY NORTH AND
SOUTH OF US 41 ($2,500) - PRIOR TO THIS YEAR'S RAINY
SEASON SO THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE DITCH TO
CONVEY WATER IS AT IT'S BEST
Item #16B9
CHANGE ORDER NO.1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT NO. 05-3865 IN THE AMOUNT OF $503,793
WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL, PROJECT
NO. 68056 - TO PROVIDE FOR FINAL DESIGN AND
PERMITTING FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO GREEN BLVD.
Item #16C1
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TWO BUDGET
AMENDMENTS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $107,101 TO
REALLOCATE BUDGETED FY07 PERSONNEL COSTS FROM
THE PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING COST CENTER AND
TRANSFER BUDGETED FY07 PERSONNEL COSTS FROM THE
Page 290
May 22-23, 2007
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SCALE HOUSE OPERATIONS COST
CENTER TO REFLECT THE TWO FTE TRANSFERS IN THIS
FISCAL YEAR TO THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS COST
CENTER.
Item # 16C2
SATISFACTION FOR A CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPACT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS
$18.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN - FOLIO
#68890920002
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2007-128: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $30.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S: #66220760009 AND
#56404920002
Item # 16C4
RESOLUTION 2007-129: 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 $50.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S: #37749800000,
Page 291
May 22-23, 2007
#63500880000,#66220760009,AND#74030640000
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2007-130: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $60.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
_ FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S: #0057200002, #00338920001,
#37749800000, #63500880000, AND #66220760009
Item # 16C6
RESOLUTION 2007-131: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED
IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $50.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
- FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S: #00338920001,
#37749800000, #63500880000 AND #66220760009
Item # 16C7
RESOLUTION 2007-132: 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. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $80.00 TO RECORD THE_SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Page 292
May 22-23, 2007
- FOR THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S: #00338920001,
#26735240009,#37749800000,#38398560004,#39326960002,
#63500880000 AND 66220760009
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2007-133: 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 THE FOLLOWING FOLIO'S: #00338920001,
#00739880009,#26735240009,#77163440006,#37749800000~
#38398560004,#63500880000, AND #66220760009
Item # 16C9
ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL INC. (CONTRACT 05-3661)
AND SOLID RESOURCES, INC. (CONTRACT 05-3831) AS THE
INITIAL DEBRIS RECOVERY TEAM FOR COLLIER
COUNTY'S 2007 HURRICANE SEASON DEBRIS REMOVAL
AND MONITORING CONTRACTORS FOR OPERATIONAL
READINESS - FOR DEBRIS CLEANUP IN THE RIGHT-OF-
WAYS THROUGHOUT COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C10
RIGHTS OF ENTRY REQUIRED FOR THE REPLACEMENT
AND REHABILITATION OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM SERVING THE DALTON AND CYPRESS MOBILE
HOME PARKS ON AUTO RANCH ROAD AT A RECORDING
Page 293
May 22-23, 2007
COST NOT TO EXCEED $1,000, PROJECT 710101- TO
REPLACE AND RE-ROUTE WATER SERVICE LINES AND
METERS TO SERVE 36 LOTS
Item #16D1 - Moved to Item #10S
Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #10T
Item #16D3 - Moved to Item #10U
Item #16D4 - Moved to Item #10V
Item #16D5 - Moved to Item #10W
Item #16D6 - Moved to Item #10X
Item #16D7 - Moved to Item #10Y
Item #16D8 - Moved to Item #10Z
Item #16D9 - Moved to Item #10AA
Item #16D10
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF
PROPERTY ADJACENT TO EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY
PARK WITH NO ANNUAL COST - A 10 YEAR LEASE FOR 6.4
ACRES FOR ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Item #16D11 - Moved to Item #10BB
Page 294
May 22-23,2007
Item #16D12
SUBMISSION OF THE 2007 CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC)
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE CONSOLIDATED GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD), AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE APPLICATION
ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY AND THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ($443,645) - AS DETAILED IN
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D13 - Moved to Item #10CC
Item #16E1
AWARD BID NO. 07-4110 "ON-CALL ROOFING
CONTRACTOR SERVICES" TO CROWTHER ROOFING AND
SHEET METAL OF FLORIDA, INC. AS PRIMARY, ADVANCED
ROOFING, INC. AS SECONDARY AND GULF WESTERN
ROOFING AND SHEET METAL, INC. AS THE THIRD VENDOR
FOR ROOFING SERVICES (ANNUAL COST ESTIMATE
$600,000) - FOR MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND
REPLACEMENT OF ALL COUNTY BUILDING ROOFS AND
ROOF ACCESSORIES
Item # 16E2
AWARD RFP #07-4101 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ADA
SURVEYING AND ADA SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN" TO CH2MHILL TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY
SURVEYS, CREATE A COUNTY ADA MASTER
PLAN/TRANSITION PLAN, PROVIDING PROGRAMMING,
Page 295
May 22-23, 2007
PROGRAM VERIFICATION, CONCEPTUAL AND SCHEMATIC
DESIGNS AND OVERALL ADA DESIGN AND PLANNING
CONSULTATION SERVICES ($100,000)
Item # 16E3
AFTER-THE-FACT APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY MANAGER
OF A CAP ABILITY SURVEY REQUESTED BY THE DISTRICT
SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY THAT SUPPORTS
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE
TOYOTA F AMIL Y LITERACY PROGRAM (TFLP) - FOR
F AMIL Y LITERACY SERVICES TO BE DEVELOPED IN
HISP ANIC/LA TINO COMMUNITIES
Item #16E4
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH WILLIAM C.
SCHERER AND IRENE K. SCHERER FOR 80.00 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSER VA TION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $548,000 -
LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, WITHIN THE MCLL VANE MARSH AREA
Item #16E5
PRICE ADJUSTMENT UNDER CONTRACT 05-3796 - "TRAFFIC
SIGN MATERIALS AND RELATED ITEMS" - TO ALLOW FOR
ALUMINUM PRICE INCREASES INCURRED BY THE
AWARDED VENDOR MUNICIPAL SUPPLY AND SIGN
COMPANY
Item # 16E6
Page 296
May 22-23, 2007
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JAMES L.
PRICE, JR. FOR 20.00 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $141,200 - LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP
51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST - WITHIN THE MCLL VANE
MARSH AREA
Item #16E7
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH THOMAS J.
CONNOLLY, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE UNDER THE EDWARD
L. CONNOLLY, JR. REVOCABLE TRUST AGREEMENT,
DATED JUNE 16, 1993 FOR 70.00 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $480,200 - LOCATED IN
SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST -
WITHIN THE MCLL VANE MARSH AREA
Item # 16E8
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RALPH A.
CALO AND BARBARA CALO FOR 40.00 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $276,700 - LOCATED IN
SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST -
WITHIN THE MCLL VANE MARSH AREA
Item #16E9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ROBERT
REED RIVERS, JR. AND KARL LEWIS PREDMORE FOR 19.54
Page 297
May 22-23,2007
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$139,500 - LOCATED IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST - WITHIN THE MCLL VANE MARSH AREA
Item #16E10
AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY DRIVER
EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TO FUND DRIVER EDUCATION IN
PUBLIC AND NON-PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS
Item #16E11
AMENDMENT NO. 02 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER
COUNTY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE DRIVER
EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E12
AWARD RFP NO. 07-4100 "AIR FILTRATION SERVICES" TO
KLEEN AIR RESEARCH, INC. IN AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $153,000.00 - FOR AIR FILTRATION SERVICES
AND SUPPLIES FOR ALL COUNTY BUILDINGS
Item #16F1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND EMMANUEL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
COLLIER COUNTY - FOR EMERGENCY AND RELIEF
SERVICES DURING PRESIDENTIALLY DECLARED &
Page 298
May 22-23,2007
UNDECLARED DISASTERS
Item #16F2
AMENDMENT TO THE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR NCH HEAL THCARE
SYSTEM FOR NON-EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE -
FOR A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF AMBULANCES, NCH
WILL OPERATE NO LESS THAN (1) ONE AND UP TO THREE
(3) GROUND UNITS ON IMMEDIATE CALL AT ALL TIMES
Item # 16F3
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF ASSISTANCE TO
FIREFIGHTERS GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY FOR THE
INST ALLA TION OF POWERED COMPUTER MOUNTING
SYSTEMS, INCLUDING DOCKING STATIONS, TO PROVIDE
MOBILE DATA TERMINAL CAP ABILITY IN EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES' AMBULANCES AND COMMAND
VEHICLES FOR A TOTAL OF $61,200 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F4
OUTSOURCING OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (EMS)
BILLING FUNCTIONS TO AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING,
INC. (AD PI) BY PIGGYBACKING ON THE SEMINOLE
COUNTY AGREEMENT #RFP-0780-05/TRJ FOR AN
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL COST OF $273,019 IN FY 08,
RESUL TING IN A PROJECTED INCREASE IN GROSS
REVENUES OF $1,296,270 IN FY08 (THE FIRST FULL YEAR
Page 299
May 22-23, 2007
OF IMPLEMENT A TION) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY - FOR MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
COLLECTION PROSESSES
Item #16F5
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND MOORINGS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF
COLLIER COUNTY - FOR THE COORDINATION OF
EMERGENCY AND RELIEF SERVICES DURING
PRESIDENTIALL Y DECLARED AND UNDECLARED
DISASTERS
Item #16F6
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $231,000.00 FROM RESERVES TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO
SUPPORT THE PURCHASE OF SEVEN (7) PORTABLE
GENERA TORS FROM GODWIN PUMPS OF AMERICA UNDER
BID NUMBER (06-3953) TO IMPROVE THE DISASTER
RESPONSE CAPABILITY FOR COLLIER COUNTY - TO
PROVIDE TEMPORARY PORTABLE POWER FOR AT LEAST
50% OF DESIGNATED EVACUATION SHELTERS
Item #16G1 - Moved to Item #10R and further Moved to Item #14B
Item #16G2
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A VACANT RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE
HOME) LOT IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART
OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; APPROV AL FOR
Page 300
May 22-23,2007
PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN
TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $110,250.00 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO
COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND
APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 4005 HARVEST COURT,
NAPLES, FL 34112
Item #16G3
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A VACANT RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE
HOME) LOT IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART
OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; APPROVAL FOR
PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN
TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y
TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $110,250.00 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO
COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND
APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 3991 HARVEST COURT,
NAPLES, FL 34112
Item # 16G4
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A VACANT RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE
HOME) LOT IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS PART
OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; APPROV AL FOR
PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN
TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
Page 301
May 22-23, 2007
TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $114,500 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO
COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND
APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 3979 HARVEST COURT,
NAPLES, FL 34112
Item # 16G5
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO APPROVE
THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL (MOBILE HOME) LOT
AND TRAILER IN THE BA YSHORE AREA OF THE CRA AS
PART OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; APPROVAL
FOR PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZE THE CRA
CHAIRMAN TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE
GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF
CREDIT IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,000 PLUS COST AND
EXPENSES TO COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY; AND APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 3032 VAN BUREN
AVENUE, NAPLES, FLORIDA
Item # 16G6
CRA BOARD TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT LETTER
ASSIGNING THE CURRENT LEASE FOR ADDITIONAL
OFFICE SPACE FOR BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE CRA
OPERATIONS TO A NEW LOCATION WITHIN THE SAME
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT NO ADDITIONAL COST AND
AUTHORIZE THE CRA CHAIRMAN TO SIGN - FOR
ADDITIONAL SPACE AT 2740 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES,
FLORIDA
Page 302
May 22-23, 2007
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE FIFTH ANNUAL TOURISM
WEEK CELEBRATION LUNCHEON ON MAY 16,2007 AND IS
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30.00, TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET - TO BE
HELD AT THE RITZ-CARLTON GOLF RESORT IN NAPLES
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN
ADVANCE TO ATTEND THE AVE MARIA UNIVERISTY'S
COMMENCEMENT CEREMONIES AND LUNCHEON AND IS
REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12.00, TO BE PAID FROM HIS TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT
THE TIT AN AUDITORIUM AT GOLDEN GATE HIGH SCHOOL
Item # 16H3
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 25,2007 AS
NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY TO ENCOURAGE
ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO TEACH A CHILD
IMPORTANT, POSSIBLY LIFE-SAVING, SAFETY TIPS AS
P ART OF THE CONTINUING EFFORTS IN COLLIER COUNTY
TO PREVENT ABDUCTION AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN. TO BE MAILED TO MS. KATHLEEN CURATOLO,
Page 303
May 22-23,2007
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING
AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN, COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
Item #16H4
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20 - MAY 26, 2007 AS
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
WEEK. TO BE SENT TO JEFF PAGE, CHIEF, COLLIER
COUNTY EMS - ADOPTED
Item # 16H5
PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATING MAY 2007 AS MENTAL
HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH. TO BE SENT TO MS. PETRA
JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE MENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - ADOPTED
Item #16H6
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 21,2007 TO MAY 25,
2007 AS IMMOKALEE FOUNDATION WEEK. TO BE MAILED
TO THE IMMOKALEE FOUNDATION - ADOPTED
Item # 16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - NONE RECEIVED
Item # 16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 28, 2007
THROUGH MAY 04, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Page 304
May 22-23,2007
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 05, 2007
THROUGH MAY 11, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #1613
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SERVE AS THE
LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FISCAL
YEAR 2008 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AND DESIGNATES
THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT, SHERIFF'S
OFFICE STAFF AS GRANT FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM
MANAGERS, APPROVE THE GRANT APPLICATION WHEN
COMPLETED, AND AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF AWARDS
AND ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FISCAL YEAR
2008 ALLOCATION IS $171,689 USED FOR THE CHILD
ABUSE/ SEXUAL PREDATOR PROGRAM
Item #16J4
DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL FISCAL
YEAR 2007 APPLICANT AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-
CONTACT FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, EDWARD
BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG)
PROGRAM, ACCEPT THE GRANT WHEN AWARDED, AND
APPROVE APPLICABLE BUDGET AMENDMENTS - THE
POTENTIAL $127,567 AWARD OF FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR
Page 305
May 22-23,2007
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OVERTIME & BENEFITS
Item #16J5
RESOLUTION 2007-134: BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND EMBARQ TELEPHONE COMPANY OF
FLORIDA - ALLOWING EMBARQ TO COLLECT A FEE AT
$.50 PER MONTH PER ACCESS LINE TO FUND ENHANCED
911 SYSTEM FOR FY 07/08
Item #16J6
REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF ASSETS NO LONGER
DEEMED TO SERVE A USEFUL FUNCTION OR TO HAVE A
COMMERCIAL VALUE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16K1
JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,100 AS TO PARCEL 163
IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V THOMAS F.
SALZMANN, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2550-CA (GOLDEN GATE
P ARKW A Y PROJECT NO. 60027) (FISCAL IMPACT $7,446.00)
Item #16K2
MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED
INCORPORATING THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
THE MEDIA TED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $165,000.00 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
Page 306
May 22-23, 2007
PARCELS 112 AND 712 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V RAYMOND A. MCCAULEY, ET AL., CASE NO. 05-
0633-CA (COUNTY ROAD 951 PROJECT NO. 65061) (FISCAL
IMPACT: $104,600.00)
Item # 16K3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO PARCEL 101 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V ROBERTO BOLLT,
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE, UNDER LAND TRUST AGREEMENT
DATED 1/27/86, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-2433-CA (RANDALL
BOULEV ARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD INTERSECTION) PROJECT
#60171 (FISCAL IMPACT: NONE)
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2007-135: A VPLAT-2007-AR-11489,
DISCLAIMING, RENOUNCING, AND VACATING THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF
A COMBINED LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT,
DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT
LYING OVER TRACT "B", PRESTWICK PLACE, A
SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 46, PAGES 9
THROUGH 14 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SITUATED IN SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND BEING MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A"
Item #17B - Continued to June 12,2007
PETITION: CU-2006-AR-9458, SILVER STRAND III
Page 307
May 22-23, 2007
PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY GEORGE L. VARNADOE,
ESQUIRE, OF CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON,
LLP AND FRED REISCHL, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER &
BRUNDAGE, INC., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR
RINKER CONCRETE PLANT AT SILVER STRAND IN THE
RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH AN MOBILE HOME
OVERLAY (A-MHO) ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 14.74:1: ACRES, IS LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET SOUTH OF STOCKADE ROAD
ON THE EAST SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846), IN
SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2007-137: CU-05-AR-8900, RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH REPRESENTING PAUL AND RUTH WILLIAMS
REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE (CU)
FOR AN EXISTING STABLING FACILITY IN THE
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT, AS SPECIFIED IN
SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) - LOCATED AT 256 ROSE
APPLE LANE, NAPLES, FLORIDA
Item # 17D
RESOLUTION 2007-138: CU-2006-AR-11034 (NG) NAPLES
BRIDGE CENTER, INC., REPRESENTED BY JOSS NAGEON DE
LESTANG, P.E., OF GULFSHORE ENGINEERING, INC.,
REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE OF ESTATES (E)
ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO TABLE 2, SECTION 2.04.03
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). THE 2.5:1: ACRE
Page 308
May 22-23, 2007
ESTATE ZONED SITE WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED UNDER
CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION 94-424 ON JUNE 14, 1994,
FOR A SOCIAL ORGANIZATION CONSISTING OF A 3,500
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND A PARKING LOT OF 83
PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR AN EXPANSION
TO PERMIT AN ADDITIONAL 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR
AREA AND AN ADDITIONAL 49 PARKING SPACES. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5865 GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY, IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 30, SECTION
29, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 309
May 22-23,2007
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :00 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO
GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL
DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~~
JIM WL , Chairman
A TTESTt'." "_
DWIGHT E. ?RI;lCK, CLERK
~C'1~i\!'~~ ~
Attest. uti) eha I run ,
s1gnature o(lf'Il.
These minutes appro~y the Board on Co (d...6t()~ , as
presented , ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI
LEWIS AND KA YE GRAY.
Page 310