BCC Minutes 06/26-27/2007 R
June 26-27, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 26-27, 2007
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle (absent for morning session)
Donna Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
(1,""\\1//1,
~ -?J
)
f"
( . , ""'"
)1 ,\
AGENDA
June 26, 2007
9:00 AM
Jim Coletta, BCC Chairman, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Tom Henning, BCC Vice- Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE 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
June 26, 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
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AIL ABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. May 22, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. June 4, 2007 - BCC/GMP Amendment Meeting
D. June 5, 2007 - BCC/GMP Amendment Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating the month of July as Recreation and Parks Month.
To be accepted by Barry Williams, Director, Parks and Recreation; Patricia
Rosen, Sugden Park Sf. Program Leader; Peg Ruby, Marketing Coordinator;
Gary Stagg, Recreation Supervisor; Carol Buckler, Park Ranger; GeriLynn
Waterbury, lmmokalee Community Park Supervisor; Bradie Allen, Water
Page 2
June 26, 2007
Park Supervisor; Edward Torroni, Athletics Program Supervisor; Tony
Ruberto, Project Manager; Shannon Peters, Program Supervisor; and Murdo
Smith, Regional Manager, Beach and Water.
B. Proclamation designating June 26, 2007 as Collier County Phoenix Awards
Day. To be accepted by Phoenix Award recipients. Companion item to
Agenda Item 5A in recognition of EMS paramedics, EMTS, Firefighters and
Sheriffs Deputies, who through their skills and knowledge, have
successfully brought back to life individuals who had died. To be accepted
by those Paramedics, EMT's, Firefighters and Sheriffs Deputies who
received Phoenix Awards.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recognition of EMS paramedics, EMT's, Firefighters and Sheriffs Deputies,
who through their skills and knowledge, have successfully brought back to
life individuals who had died. (Companion to Item 4B)
B. Presentation by Tabitha Stadler, Coastal Training Coordinator of the
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, regarding the results of
six Gulf of Mexico Alliance community input workshops held earlier this
year.
C. Presentation for the Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) to
recognize Dal- Tile Company for their enhanced and innovative recycling
programs.
D. Recognition of Employee of the Month Selection, Jonathan Rudd from Parks
and Recreation.
E. Wright Construction will present the status of their construction efforts for
the new County Barn facility.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by James Piwowarczyk to discuss golf cart usage on
Henderson Creek Drive by residents of Holiday Manof.
B. Public Petition request by Pete Lytwyn to discuss amending Noise
Ordinance 90-17 relating to A TV's.
Page 3
June 26, 2007
C. Public Petition request by Brenda Talbert to discuss model home permitting
process.
D. Public Petition request by Frank Denninger to discuss the General
Management Plan for Everglades National Park.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1 :00 n.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2004-AR-6384
Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, represented by Mike
Landy, of Landy Engineering, Inc. requesting a Conditional Use in the
Estates zoning district for an additional church building pursuant to Table 2
of Section 2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The
proposed Conditional Use will replace the existing CU-96-12 (E) Ordinance
Number 97-440. The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square
feet. The property, consisting of 5.15 acres, is located at 3480 Golden Gate
Boulevard S.W., Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4, in Section 11,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Naples, Florida.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: V A-2007-AR-
11300, Irvine Dubow, representing himself, requests a Variance petition to
rebuild a pool cage damaged from Hurricane Wilma that would encroach 5
feet into the setback area. The property is located at 5901 Almaden Drive, in
the Sonoma Lake subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 26, Folio # 0000073755001459,
Section 8, Township 49 S, Range 26 E, Collier County, Florida
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item has been continued from the June 12, 2007 BCC Meetin!!:.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews, accepts
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a resolution declaring the attached
inventory list of County owned real property as surplus land in accordance
with Florida Statutes 125.379 to be sold and the proceeds used to develop
affordable housing.
Page 4
June 26, 2007
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2005-
AR-8284, Tree Farm Land Trust, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of
RWA, Inc., and George Varnadoe, Esquire, ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson &
Johnson, LLP, is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning
district to the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning
district for project to be known as Tree Farm MPUD consisting of a
maximum of 200,000 square feet of commercial uses; and a maximum of
425 residential units. The subject property, consisting of 58.84 acres, is
located at 8799 lmmokalee Road, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item was continued from the June 12,2007 BCC Meetio!!:. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8379
(MD) Home Dynamics of Naples, LLC, represented by Robert Duane,
AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A)
zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning
district for project to be known as Boxwood RPUD. The subject property
consisting of29.69 acres, with a maximum of207 residential dwelling units
of which 20 percent of the total number of units will be for Affordable-
Workforce Housing, is located at 14290 14300 Collier Boulevard, Section
35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
D. This item was continued from the February 27, 2007 BCC Meetin!!:.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. RZ-2005-AR-7271:
Collier County Public Utilities Department, represented by Fred Reischl,
AICP, of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., requesting a rezone from the
Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Public Use (P) zoning district
limited to Essential Service use only. The subject property, consisting of
42.2 acres, is located at 1300 Manatee Road, in Section 10, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance)
providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled
the Collier County Impact Fee Indexing Study, dated June 11,2007;
amending the impact fee rate schedules that are Schedules One through Ten
Page 5
June 26, 2007
of Appendix A by applying the indexing percentages and thereby
establishing the new impact fee rates; deleting the provisions referring to the
required use of income derived from the interest bearing impact fee trust
accounts to provide consistency with subsequently adopted resolutions;
amending the special requirements for each of the individual impact fees to
reflect the revised indexing provisions; incorporating the previously directed
changes to the provisions related to impact fee waivers and deferrals for
specified charitable organizations and providing for a delayed effective date
of October 1,2007.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing Board.
B. Appointment of County Commissioner to serve on the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council.
C. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to review and
approve the County Attorney Recruitment Search Request for Proposal
(RFP) and provide direction to staff regarding the timeline.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Providing requested analysis and recommendation about the ability to use
Conservation Collier lands for mitigation credit for County roads and
facilities projects. (Alex Sulecki, Principal Environmental Specialist,
Facilities Management)
B. Recommendation to approve Change Order No.3 to Contract No. 07-4075
in the amount of$143,030 with Mitchell & Stark Construction Co.
expending funds for construction of a private fence for properties in the
Queens Park subdivision as part of Phase lA of the Lely Area Stormwater
Improvement Project, Project No. 511011. (Gerry Kurtz, Principal Project
Manager, Stormwater)
C. Recommend Board approval to purchase a radio locator system, SafePoint,
from Locus Location Systems at a cost of $1 ,459,000 and to finance the
project with a loan from the Commercial Paper Loan Program. (John Daly,
Telecommunications Manager, Information Technology)
Page 6
June 26, 2007
D. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to direct Engineering
Review Staff to issue Commercial Excavation Permit Number 60.002 to
Florida Rock Industries for the project called, North Belle Meade Mine. The
project consists of998.9 acres, more or less, sitting in Sections 21, 27, and
28 of Township 49, South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, more
particularly sitting south of Golden Gate Estates and the existing Warren
Brothers PUD (the APAC Pit), in the North Belle Meade Rural Fringe
Receiving Lands north ofI-75. (Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Services
Department)
E. This item to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Recommendation to approve a
Developer Contribution Agreement with Florida Rock Industries, Inc.,
Rockland, LLC and FRK Putnam, LLC (Developer) and Collier County
(County) to acquire land, design, permit and construct a two lane rural Haul
Road within the footprint of the future four lane Wilson Boulevard
Extension. (Nick Casalanguida, Director, Transportation Planning)
F. Request the Board of County Commissioners approve the creation of a Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee to provide for Review and
Recommendations Relating to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area, as
required by 4.08.04 of the Land Development Code. (Noah Standridge,
Senior Planner)
G. Provide a Summary of the May 21, 2007 Workshop of the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) and Productivity Committee (PC) on the
Level of Service Standards (LOSS) evaluation, as directed by the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), for certain components of
the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) on Public Facilities as
provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land Development
Code, and to seek guidance for the preparation of the 2007 AUIR. (Joseph
K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development & Environmental
Services Division)
H. Recommendation to award a construction contract to Better Roads, Inc. for
Bid No. 07-4124 Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Six-Lane Improvements from
US 41 to Davis Boulevard (SR 84), Project No. 6000lin the amount of
$24,955,329.69 which includes $3,700,000.00 for allowances. CIE No. 77.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
Page 7
June 26, 2007
I. To provide the implications associated with the Tax Reform Initiatives
approved by the Florida Legislature, and to receive policy direction from the
Board of County Commissioners relative to the millage(s) to be levied in FY
08.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 12:00 Noon Notice is hereby given that pursuant
to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from
the Board of County Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2007, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the
Commission Conference Room, 3rd Floor, W. Harmon Turning Building,
Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples,
Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager James Mudd,
County Attorney David C. Weigel, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Michael W. Pettit and Assistant County Attorney Jacqueline Williams
Hubbard, and outside counsel Theodore Tripp, Esq. will be in attendance.
The Board in executive session will discuss: Strategy related to litigation
expenditures in the pending litigation case of Board of County
Commissioners v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts Case No. 07-1056-CA
B. For the Board of County Commissioners to Provide Direction to the Office
of the County Attorney as to Strategy Related to Litigation Expenditures in
Board of County Commissioners v. Dwight E. Brock, Clerk of Courts Case
No. 07-1056-CA, now Pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Collier County, Florida.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners agree to (1)
accept the funding being offered by the Department of State to comply with
the mandated voting system change found in Chapter 2007-30 and (2) abide
by the conditions contained therein. (Supervisor of Elections)
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Page 8
June 26, 2007
A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Recommendation that the Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve and execute an
amendment to the employment agreement between the CRA and David L.
Jackson, the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director,
extending the term of employment four years and modifying severance
terms, and authorize the Chairman to sign (David Jackson, Executive
Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfactions of Lien for
payments received for the following Code Enforcement actions: Daisy
Arrazcaeta, Calexico, Inc., c/o Santos Osornio and Russell and Katja
Risteen.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Reflection Lakes, Phase lB.
3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water facility for
Wal-Mart (1-75)
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Mariposa at Whippoorwill.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Whippoorwill Lane Roadway Improvements.
6) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water facility for
Unity Church.
Page 9
June 26, 2007
7) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearin!!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworD in. Recommendation to grant
final approval of the roadway (private) and drainage improvements
for the final plat of Bridgewater Bay, Unit Two. The roadway and
drainage improvements will be privately maintained.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the application by EnVont LLC for the Job Creation Investment
Program and the Property Tax Stimulus Program.
9) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement between POI
Development, Inc., Villages at Stella Maris Master Association and
Collier County regarding the construction of a private boat ramp to
serve the Villages of Stella Maris.
10) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearin!!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Vita Tuscana, approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a
Resolution, pursuant to Section 288.106, Florida Statutes,
recommending that the Governors Office of Tourism Trade and
Economic Development approve En V ont, LLC, as a qualified target
industry business, confirming that the commitments oflocal financing
necessary to support this target industry are in place, and
appropriating $16,000.00 as local participation in the Qualified Target
Industry Tax Refund Program for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013.
12) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-11.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve the purchase of 1.14 acres of improved property of which a
portion is required for road right of way for the Vanderbilt Beach
Page 10
June 26, 2007
Road Extension Project. Project No. 60168 (fiscal impact:
$388,370.00)
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Landscape Maintenance Agreement between Collier County,
Florida and the Wentworth Estates Community Development District
for landscaping within the right-of-way on Southwest Boulevard.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
one (1) Adopt-A-Road Program Agreement with two (2) roadway
recognition signs at a total cost of $150.00.
4) Recommendation to approve the purchase of improved property
(Parcel No. 154) which is required for the construction of the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project. Project No. 60168 (Fiscal
Impact: $578,000)
5) Approve the purchase of a 1,277 Square Foot Drainage and Utility
Easement required for the Gateway Triangle Stormwater project.
Project No. 518031 (Fiscal impact: $10,089.20)
6) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize additional revenue for the Collier
County Transportation Pathways Program in the amount of
$705,099.41 for Project No(s). 600321, 600331, 600501, 601201,
201202,601204,690811 and 609817.
7) Recommendation to approve a Resolution to Amend an lnterlocal
Agreement Between the City of Naples and Collier County Regarding
Maintenance Assistance for the Traffic Signal System on Goodlette-
Frank Road Between U.S. 41 and Golden Gate Parkway.
8) Recommendation to award Collier County Bid #07-4143 Furnish and
Deliver Three (3) New Holland Tractors to the Creel Tractor
Company in the amount of$148,005.
9) Recommendation to award Work Order # PBS FT 39710711 under
Collier County Contract #06-3971 for General Contractor Services
and expenditure of $109,141 for general repairs and modifications to
Page 11
June 26, 2007
8300 Radio Road for the new Collier Area Transit Operations and
Administration Center
10) Recommendation to approve Work Order #BC-FT-3773-07-09 for a
construction project to Bonness, Inc. for Radio Road Phase One
Median Improvements(Devonshire Boulevard to Broadview Drive)
using the Annual Contract for Roadway Contractors, Contract No. 05-
3773, in the amount of$433,885.43 and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
11) Recommendation to approve a revised Right-of-way Permitting and
Inspection Fee Schedule for the Transportation Road Maintenance
Department.
12) Recommendation to approve Change Order # 2 (Contract
Modification # 4) to Professional Services Agreement No. 02-3398 in
the amount of$193,523.61 for additional engineering services to be
provided by CH2M Hill, Inc., for design and permitting modifications
for the six-laning of Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard
to Immokalee Road, Project No. 65061.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve Amendment 5 to Contract 03-3517 with
Greeley and Hansen LLC for "Professional Engineering Services for
Water Main Projects" in the amount of$126,800. Projects 70151 and
70152.
2) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a Utility Easement for
the operation and maintenance of a potable water pipeline, and access,
on property owned by Enchanting Shores CO-OP, Inc. near the
Henderson Creek Park Subdivision.
3) Recommendation to approve the acquisition of a Utility and Access
Easement for a 70-foot by 1 42-foot public water supply well site near
the southwest corner of lmmokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard,
and associated pipeline and access area, at a total cost not to exceed
$19,500, Project Number 70908.
Page 12
June 26, 2007
4) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement and accept a
Utility and Access Easement from Quail Creek Village Foundation,
Inc. for Lift Station No. 107.02 at a cost not to exceed $300, Project
73970.
5) Recommendation to approve a Donation Agreement and accept a
Utility and Access Easement from Windjammer Village of Naples,
Inc. for Lift Station No. 310.06 at a cost not to exceed $300, Project
739221.
6) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 07-4132 for the Furnishing
and Delivery of a 5,000 Gallon Water Truck to Heintzelman's Truck
Center in the amount of$139,228.00.
7) Recommendation to approve acceptance of all utility facilities located
in the bridge for Bay Colony Community Association, Inc. within the
Pelican Bay community, at a cost not to exceed $52.50; Project
740231.
8) Recommendation to approve and execute a First Amendment to a
License Agreement with Collier County School District for storm
debris collection and processing.
9) Recommendation to approve the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), DEP Contract No. GC690,
authorizing Collier County to administer FDEP's Storage Tank
System Compliance Verification Program along with all necessary
budget amendments and Amendment No.4 authorizing the
termination ofDEP Contract No. GC526.
10) Recommendation to convey a Grant of Easement for all utility
facilities on property owned by Collier County within the Bay Colony
Community of Pelican Bay for an estimated cost not to exceed
$18.50, Project 740231.
11) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to fund salary
shortfalls in the Water Pollution Control Fund (114) in the amount of
$101,800.
Page 13
June 26, 2007
12) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment for $15,000,000 to
transfer $4,000,000 for South County Regional Water Treatment Plant
(SCR WTP) 12 MGD RO Expansion project 700971 and $11,000,000
for South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) Well
field Expansion-Easement project 708921 from Water Impact Fee
capital projects fund to a 2006 Revenue Bond Proceeds Fund, Impact
Fee Cost Centef.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners find that a
Vanderbilt Beach Fishing Pier qualifies as a beach park facility and
approve a Proposal dated April 30, 2007 under Contract 06-3902 with
Coastal Planning & Engineering (CP&E) to perform a feasibility
study to build a Vanderbilt Beach Fishing Pief. Study will be
performed on a time and material basis, not to exceed $29,932.
2) Recommend approval ofa Budget Amendment totaling $58,426 from
Beach Renourishment/Pass Maintenance Reserves to fund Beach Re-
nourishment initiatives for Clam Pass Dredging which is part of the
County's Beach Re-nourishment Project 900281.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with William
Auguste and Rosanna Auguste (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 80, Independence Phase II.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Valerio F.
Garcia and Juana Lopez Reynoso (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 145, Independence Phase II.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Christina
Ponce Andrade (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 82, Independence Phase II.
Page 14
June 26, 2007
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Francois
and Ifesia Charles (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 83, Independence, Phase II.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Moranie
Jean-Pierre (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 85,
Independence Phase II.
8) Recommendation to award bid no. 07-4117 to Stahlman England
Irrigation, Inc. in the amount of $266,453.51 and approve necessary
budget amendments to fund irrigation system for Golden Gate
Community Park.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Rhonda
Robinson (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 133,
Independence Phase II.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose Silva
and Maribel Castellanos (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 139, Trail Ridge Naples.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean Marc
and Marie Jean Pierre (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 135, Independence Phase II.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Elva
Montez (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 131,
Independence Phase II.
Page 15
June 26, 2007
13) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Collier
County and the City of Naples for the administration of the State
Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) program, and authorize the
Chairman to sign and submit the agreement to Florida Housing
Finance Corporation.
14) Recommend approval ofDEP Agreement No. 07COl and any
subsequent amendments to this Agreement for additional funding with
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches
and Coastal Systems Beach Management Funding Assistance
Program State of Florida Grant Agreement for South Marco Beach
Nourishment and authorize Chairman to execute agreement.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Solange
Baptiste (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 146,
Trail Ridge, Naples.
16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Cianie
Belance (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 142,
Trail Ridge, Naples.
17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Isnady
Dorcent and Marie Anna Dorcent (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 10, Milagro Place.
18) Recommend approval of Proposal dated May 4, 2007 under Contract
05-3657 with Johnson Engineering to provide planning,
environmental and engineering support for Clam Pass Park Expansion
Analysis Proposal for time and material not to exceed $20,000.
19) Recommendation to approve Modification No.1 to United State Fish
and Wildlife Cooperative Agreement 401816J091 for a Derelict
Vessel Removal Grant in the amount of$30,000.
Page 16
June 26, 2007
20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Daulat
Khan and Nasrin Akhtar (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Unit 203, Building 9, Botanical Place, Naples.
21) Recommend approval ofa Budget Amendment totaling $147,214
from Beach Re-nourishment Project 905271 to fund the 1st annual
biological monitoring of the Near Shore Hard Bottom and the post
construction biological survey of the Artificial Reef which is a part of
the County's Beach Re-nourishment Project 900331.
22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose
DeSantiago and Leslie Mandujano (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 146, Independence Phase II.
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Labanette
Dorillas and Bonatiel Dorillas (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 145, Trail Ridge, Naples.
24) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Angel
Jaimes and Darita Jaimes (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 18, Milagro Place.
25) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Javier
Jimenez and Joann Jimenez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 3, Milagro Place.
26) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with
Beauharnais Joseph and Marie Willien (Owners) for deferral of 100%
Page 17
June 26, 2007
of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 88, Independence Phase II.
27) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jaime
Cervantes Vazquez and Ana M Herrera De Cervantes (Owners) for
deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 3, Trail Ridge, Naples.
28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marco Bay
Homes LLC (Builder) and Bernadita Robles (Developer) for deferral
of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at West 75 of the West 150 of Tract
Ill, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 83, Collier County, FL.
29) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marco Bay
Homes LLC (Builders) and Amy Bollinger (Developer) for deferral of
100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at East 75 of the West 180 of Tract 70, Unit 68,
Golden Gate Estates, Collier County, FL.
30) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement with
Collier County Housing Development Corporation (CCHDC), for
$107,684 in HOME funds to acquire vacant land for the construction
of new affordable housing.
31) Recommendation to approve concessions agreement with LeHill
Partners LLC (d/b/a Naples Grande) to provide food, beverage, beach
equipment rentals, and water recreational rentals at Clam Pass Beach
Park and approve all necessary budget amendments.
32) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Lennar
Homes LLC (Developers) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for owner-occupied affordable multi-family housing units
located in a parcel ofland in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range
26 East Collier County, Tract E, Heritage Bay Commons and
Page 18
June 26, 2007
authorizes a reimbursement of the fees paid by the developer on
Building Permit 2006121829 in the amount of $194,028.42.
33) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to accept
implementing strategies related to Resolution 2007-48 pertaining to
the Citizens of Collier County and their right to use any and all Collier
County Facilities.
34) Recommendation to approve a sub-lease agreement with the City of
Marco Island for boat dock improvements and usage of the Caxambas
boat dock marina.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to amend Contract No. 07 - 4103 County Mail
Center Operations and Delivery Services to Mailbarcoding
Investments of Southwest Florida, LLC d/b/a Mailbarcoding Services
ofSWFL.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign Modification No.
2 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperative Agreement
No. 40 1815J021 to fund habitat restoration at the Malt property in the
amount of $25,000.
3) Recommendation to approve a Final Management Plan for the
Railhead Scrub Preserve under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program.
4) Recommendation to approve a Final Management Plan for the
Cocohatchee Creek Preserve under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program.
5) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment reallocating Other
Contractual Services dollars within the Information Technology
Department Client System Support cost center to WBS 500121
Project Management Standardization.
6) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4139 Concrete, Paving and
Walkway Contractor to multiple vendors listed by lowest bidder; RL V
Page 19
June 26, 2007
Enterprises, Inc., RQ. Concrete, Judson Construction Group, and NR
Contractors, Inc.
7) Recommendation to award RFP #07-4134, Food and Beverage
Concessions for Collier County Facilities to Russell's Clambake.
8) Recommendation to award Bid #No. 07-4123 Plumbing Parts and
Supplies.
9) Recommendation to approve commitment of $275,000 on the second
stage of an effort to standardize the processes involved with the
delivery of Capital Projects and to implement a computer system to
assist County Project Managers, Project Number 75006
10) Recommendation to award Bid #07-4104R to Metro Power Systems,
Inc. for the rental of generators.
11) That the Board of County Commissioners approve the award of Bid
07-4127 for Office Supplies to Corporate Express in the estimated
annual amount of$250,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve Budget Amendments.
2) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with
the Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board during
emergency situations with no annual cost.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$8,666 to fund geotechnical surveys required to complete design work
associated with the parking apron expansion at the Marco Island
Executive Airport.
2) Recommendation from the Collier County Airport Authority that the
Board of County Commissioners accept and authorize its Chairman to
execute a Grant Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration
Page 20
June 26, 2007
(FAA) for the sum of $431 ,000, and to approve associated budget
amendments. This grant funding is for environmental mitigation at
Rookery Bay as required by the Army Corps of Engineers permit to
construct a taxiway at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
3) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the purchase of a residential single family lot and house in the
Gateway 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 $275,000 plus cost and expenses to
complete the sale of subject property; and approve any and all
necessary budget amendments. Site address: 2664 Francis Avenue
(275,000).
4) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
a Grant Applicant(s) for 170l Bay Street within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area.
5) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
a Grant Applicant(s) for 2649 Lakeview Drive within the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment area.
6) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve the renewal of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA office
leases for twelve months, and authorize the Chairman to sign the
extension lettef.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Twelfth Annual Do The Right Thing Regional Awards Banquet on
June 23, 2007, at the Harborside Event Center, Ft. Myers; $40.00 to
be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Recommendation to appoint Commissioner Donna Fiala to serve on
the 2007 Collier County Canvassing Board in place of the Chairman
Page 21
June 26, 2007
of the Board of County Commissioners through the completion of the
2007 City of Marco Island, Florida Mail Ballot Referendum Election.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners designate the
Sheriff as the Official Applicant and Program Point-Of-Contact for
the United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance Fiscal Year 2007 Law Enforcement
Multidisciplinary Anti-Trafficking Task Forces Continuation Grant, to
electronically submit the application in the Federal Grants
Management System, to accept the Grant when awarded, and approve
budget amendments.
2) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of June 02,
2007 through June 08, 2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
3) To obtain board approval for disbursements for the period of June 09,
2007 through June 15,2007 and for submission into the official
records of the board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize its Chairman to sign, a Tri-Party Developer
Contribution Agreement with CDC Land Investments, Inc. and the
Collier County School District. The purpose of the Agreement is to
allow CDC Land Investments, Inc. to convey a 21-acre parcel within
the Sabal Bay MPUD to the District for use as a public school site in
exchange for educational impact fees credits in the sum of
$7,546,875, which exchange is required by the MPUD document, and
which sum represents the appraised fair market value of the parcel.
2) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
No. 156 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Joseph Sannicandro, et
Page 22
June 26, 2007
aI., Case No. 03-2500-CA(Golden Gate Parkway Project No. 60027).
(Fiscal Impact $40,237.00)
3) Recommendation to Approve Amendments to the By-Laws of the
Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. (Fiscal Impact:
None)
4) Request by the Collier County Educational Facilities Authority for
Approval of a Resolution Authorizing the Authority to Issue Revenue
Bonds to be Used to Finance Educational Facilities for Ave Maria
University.
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 VESMT-2007-AR-I0739, Lot 18, Block A Sterling Oaks
Phase 4, disclaiming, renouncing and vacating the County's and the Publics
interest in a portion of a Lake Maintenance, Access and Drainage Easement
(L.M.A.D.E.) in the rear of Lot 18, Block A of Sterling Oaks Phase 4, a
subdivision located in Section 10, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, as
recorded in Plat Book 38, Page 20 through 24 of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida, and being more particularly described in Exhibit A.
B. Request Adoption of an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Collier County
Ordinance No. 81-42, as Amended; Changing the Phrase Local Occupational
License Tax Ordinance to Local Business Tax Ordinance; Incorporating
current provisions of Chapter 205, Florida Statutes; Providing for Conflict
Page 23
June 26, 2007
and Severability; Providing for Inclusion in the Code of Laws and
Ordinances; Providing an Effective Date.
C. Adopt an Ordinance Amendment authorizing replacement of the text in
Ordinance 2001-13, the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended or
superseded, subsection 74-303, D.2.g. and authorizing a change in the
format of Appendix A, Schedule Two, Water and Sewer System Impact Fee
Rate Schedule, in order to provide clarity and consistency regarding the
separation of impact fee calculation procedures from meter sizing
procedures in the ordinance text and rate schedule.
D. Request Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Collier County Ordinance No.
87-60, as Amended; to Exempt from the County's Local Requirements, but
not from State of Florida Newly Enacted Statutory Requirements, regarding
Solicitation Activities Conducted in or Along Streets and Roads by
Organizations that are Exempt from Federal Income Taxes under Section
501(c)(3) ofthe Internal Revenue Code and are Either Registered as a
Charitable Organization (or Sponsor) with Florida's Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, or are Statutorily Exempt from such
State Registration; Providing for Conflict and Severability; Providing for
Inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; Providing an Effective Date.
E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in aDd ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2007-AR-11446
(MD) The District School Board of Collier County, represented by Gary
Krueger, AlA, of Schenkel Shultz, Inc. and Vladd Ryziw, Graef, Anhalt,
Schloemer, and Associates, requests a Variance petition for the lmmokalee
Career Centef. This variance is for the building height. The District School
Board is requesting a height variance of lO-feet to proposed design height of
45-feet from the currently permitted 35-foot height restriction. This request
will only apply to one of the three proposed structures on the redevelopment
site. The subject property is located at 800 Immokalee Drive, New Market
Subdivision, Block 24, Page 2030, Section 33, Township 46 South, Range
29 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 24
June 26, 2007
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the regular Board of Collier
County Commissioners' meeting for June 26th. And we'll begin this
meeting with invocation, which will be given by Pastor Mudd.
MR. MUDD: If you'd please stand.
Heavenly Father, we come to you today as a community thanking you
for the blessings that you have so generously provided.
Today we are especially thankful for the dedicated elected
officials, staff, and the members of the public who are here to help
lead this county as it makes the important decisions that will shape our
community's future.
We pray that you guide and direct the decisions made here today
so that your will for your county will always be done. These things
we pray in your holy name, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, would you lead
us in the pledge?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly will.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I just say -- my granddaughters
are leaving today, so excuse me. This is a little personal note. Bye,
Riley; bye, Mackenna. Have a good trip.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if you need anything, just call
Grandma.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
Page 2
June 26-27, 2007
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR
ADOPTED W /CHANGES
And with that, Mr. Mudd, any changes to the agenda?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting June 26, 2007.
First item is withdraw item 6A. It's a public petition request by
James Piwowarczyk to discuss golf cart usage on Henderson Creek
Drive by residents of Holiday Manor. That withdrawal is at the
petitioner's request.
Next item is item 8B. The legal considerations portion of the
executive summary has been replaced. Copies have been distributed
and made available for review. That correction's at staffs request.
The next item is 9C. This item should read: Recommendation for
the Board of County Commissioners to review and approve the county
attorney's recruitment search request for proposal, RFP, and provide
direction to staff regarding the timeline. That correction's at staff
request.
Also a note on that particular item; 9D is simply a continuation of
item 9C. A formatting error occurred when the agenda was printed
and split items 9C into two items, 9C and 9D. So there's only one
item and it's 9D.
The next item is item 16AIO. It's continued to the July 24, 2007,
BCC meeting. It's a recommendation to approve for recording the
final plat of Vita Tuscana, approval of the standard form construction
and maintenance agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security. That item is being continued at the petitioner's
request.
The next item is to move item 16Dl to 10J. It's to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners find that a Vanderbilt Beach
fishing pier qualifies as a beach park facility and approve a proposal
dated April 30, 2007 under contract 06-3902 with Coastal Planning &
Page 3
June 26-27, 2007
Engineering, CP&E, to perform a feasibility study to build a
Vanderbilt Beach fishing pier. The study will be performed on a time
and material basis not to exceed $29,932. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Halas's request.
Next item is to move item 16D30 to 10K. It's a recommendation
that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the
chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement with Collier County
Housing Development Corporation, which is CCHDC, for $107,684 in
HOME funds to acquire vacant land for the construction of new
affordable housing. The item is being moved at Commissioner Halas's
request.
Next item is to continue item 16D31 indefinitely. It's a
recommendation to approve concession agreement with LeHill
partners LLC, d/b/a Naples Grande, to provide food, beverages, beach
equipment rentals, and water recreational rentals at Clam Pass Beach
Park and approve all necessary budget amendments. That item is
being continued at staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16Ell, that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the award of bid 07-4127 for office supplies
to Corporate Express in the estimated annual amount of $250,000.
That item is being withdrawn at staffs request.
And you have two time certain items today. Item 10D to be heard
at 11 a.m., and that's a companion with item 10E at 11 a.m.
First of all, 10D is a recommendation to direct engineering
review staff to issue commercial excavation permit number 60.002 to
Florida Rock Industries for the project called North Belle Meade
Mine. The project consists of 998.9 acres, more or less, sitting in
Section 21,27, and 28 of Township 49 south, Range 27 east, Collier
County, Florida, more particularly sitting south of Golden Gate
Estates in the existing Warren Brothers PUD, the APAC pit, in the
North Belle Meade rural fringe receiving lands north ofI-75.
Item 10E, which is a companion to 10E. 10D -- excuse me. 10E,
Page 4
June 26-27, 2007
which is a companion to 10D, also to be heard around 11 a.m.
following 10D.
It's a recommendation to approve a developer contribution
agreement with Florida Rock Industries, Inc., Rockland LLC and FRK
Putnam LLC, developer, and Collier County to acquire land, design,
permit, and construct a two-lane rural haul road within the footprint of
the future four-lane Wilson Boulevard extension.
Item 14A to be heard at four p.m., and that's a recommendation
that the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, CRA,
approve and execute an agreement to the employ -- excuse me -- to
execute an amendment to the employment agreement between the
CRA and David L. Jackson, the Bayshore Gateway Triangle, CRA,
extending the term of employment four years and modifying
severance terms and authorize the chairman to sign.
That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Mr. Weigel, did you want to announce about the closed session?
MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. We have a luncheon date at
12 noon with the county attorney, item 12A relating to closed session
in case number CA -- 07-1056-CA, and that will be at 12 noon. The
board will then come out subsequent to its noon recess and re-open
and go into 12B. And I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And also too, I think we best
mention the fact that Commissioner Fiala has an obligation with the
elections office, she's on the Canvassing Board, and she'll have to be
over there at 10 o'clock, and we hope that she'll be able to return very
shortly after she goes.
And with that, let's go to the commissioners for their ex parte
disclosure on the summary and consent agenda and any changes to the
agenda, and we'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the summary agenda --
actually I have none on the summary or consent agenda. Mr.
Page 5
June 26-27, 2007
Chairman, I have no changes to today's regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to declare on
the summary or the consent agenda and nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I have no changes to the
agenda and nothing to declare on the consent agenda or the summary
agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning. I have
nothing to pull from today's consent agenda. I also have, on 16A7, no
disclosures. 16AI0, this is on the consent agenda, no disclosures.
On summary agenda, 17 A, I have received some emails on this
particular item, and on 17F I have no disclosures, and no other
changes on today's agenda, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. And with that, do I
hear a motion to approve --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- today's summary agenda as
amended. And I have a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 6
June 26-27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show that
Commissioner Henning was in opposition.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 26. 2007
Withdraw Item 6A: Public petition request by James Piwowarczyk to discuss golf cart usage on
Henderson Creek Drive by residents of Holiday Manor. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8B: The "Legal Considerations" portion of the executive has been replaced. Copies have
been distributed and made available for review. (Staffs request.)
Item 9C: This Item should read: "Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
review and approve the County Attorney recruitment search request for proposal (RFP), and
provide direction to staff regarding the timeline." (Staff's request.)
NOTE; Item 90 is simply a continuation of Item 9C. A formatting error occurred when the
agenda was printed and split Item 9C into two Items, 9C and 90.
Item 16A1 0 continued to the Julv 24. 2007 BCC meetlnQ: Recommendation to approve for
recording the final plat of Vita Tuscana, approval of the standard form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (Petitioner's
request.)
Move Item 1601 to 10J: Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners find that a
Vanderbilt Beach Fishing Pier qualifies as a beach park facility and approve a proposal dated
April 30, 2007, under Contract 06-3902 with Coastal Planning & Engineering (CP&E) to perform a
feasibility study to build a Vanderbilt Beach Fishing Pier. Study will be performed on a time and
material basis, not to exceed $29,932. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Move 16030 to 10K: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign a Subreclpient Agreement with Collier County Housing
Development Corporation (CCHOC), for $107,684 in HOME funds to acquire vacant land for the
construction of new affordable housing. (Commissioner Halas' request.)
Continue Item 16031 indefinitelv: Recommendation to approve concessions agreement with
LeHiII Partners LLC (dba Naples Grande) to provide food, beverage, beach equipment rentals, and
water recreational rentals at Clam Pass Beach Park and approve all necessary budget
amendments. (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16E11: That the Board of County Commissioners approve the award of Bid 07-
4127 for Office Supplies to Corporate Express In the estimated annual amount of $250,000.
(Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 100 to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Recommendation to direct Engineering review staff to issue
Commercial ExcavatIon Permit Number 60.002 to Florida Rock Industries for the project called,
"North Belle Meade Mine." The project consists of 998.9 acres, more or less, sitting In Sections
21,27, and 28 of Township 49, South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, more particularly
sitting south of Golden Gate Estates and the existing Warren Brothers PUO (the APAC Pit), in the
North Belle Meade Rural Fringe ReceivIng Lands north of 1-75.
Item 10E to be heard at 11:00 a.m. fOllowina comDanlon item 100: Recommendation to approve a
Developer Contribution Agreement with Fiorlda Rock Industries, Inc., Rockland LLC and FRK
Putnam, LLC (Developer) and Collier County (County) to acquire land, design, permit and
construct a two lane rural "Haul Road" within the footprint of the future four lane "Wilson
Boulevard Extension".
Item 14A to be heard at 4:00 D.m. Recommendation that the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency (CRA) approve and execute an amendment to the employment agreement
between the CRA and David L. Jackson. the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director,
extending the term of employment four years and modifying severance terms, and authorize the
Chairman to sign.
June 26-27, 2007
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF MAY 22, 2007 - BCC/REGULAR MEETING; JUNE
4, 2007 - BCC/GMP AMENDMENT MEETING AND JUNE 5, 2007
- BCC/GMP AMENDMENT MEETING - APPROVED AS
PRESENTED
Next the -- do I hear a motion for approval of the May 22nd,
BCC regular meeting minutes, the June 4th, BCC/GMP amendment
meeting, and the June 5th BCC/GMP amendment meeting?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve. Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion to
approve by Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Okay, Mr. Mudd, service awards?
MR. MUDD: Sir, we have no service awards for this morning.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF JULY AS
RECREATION AND PARKS MONTH - ADOPTED
Page 8
June 26-27, 2007
Brings us to proclamations, sir. And the first proclamation is
designating the month of July as recreation and parks month to be
accepted by Barry Williams, director of parks and recreation; Patricia
Rosen, Sugden Park senior program leader; Peg Ruby, marketing
coordinator; Gary Stagg, recreation supervisor; Carol Buckler, park
ranger; GeriLynn Waterbury, Immokalee Community Park supervisor;
Bradie Allen, water park supervisor; Edward Torroni, athletics
program supervisor; Tony Ruberto, project manager; Shannon Peters,
program supervisor; and Murdo Smith, regional manager, beach and
water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. It's a real pleasure to
read this proclamation. It's amazing what we've accomplished in a
short period of time here in Collier County with the addition of a lot of
our parks and also the dedication that we have with the people that are
standing before us. And there's an awful lot of people behind the
scenes that are not here today.
But at this time I'd like to read this proclamation: Whereas,
public parks and recreation systems are dedicated to enhancing the
quality of life for the residents of Collier County through recreation
programming, leisure activities, and conservation efforts; and,
Whereas, parks and recreation activities, and leisure activities
provide opportunities for young people to live, grow, and develop into
contributing members of society; and,
Whereas, parks and recreation activities create lifeline and
continuous life experiences for older members of the community; and,
Whereas, parks and recreation activities, and leisure experiences
generate opportunities for people to come together and experience a
sense of community; and,
Whereas, the employees and local supporters organize youth
activities and provide educational programming on nature, health,
nutrition, safety, and first aid; and,
Whereas, employees and local supporters advocate for more open
Page 9
June 26-27, 2007
space and better trails and ensure parks and recreation facilities are
safe and accessible places for all citizens to enjoy.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of July be
designated as Recreation Parks Month and invite all residents and
visitors alike to enjoy all that our community has to offer by taking
part in their favorite sports, visiting the outdoors, and spending time
with family and friends or just relaxing.
Done and ordered this 26th day of June, 2007, Board of County
Commissioners, James Coletta, Chairman. And Chairman, I propose
that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas for
approval and second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of my favorite departments. Hi,
how are you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for your service. Really
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're doing a great job.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for your service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not finished shaking hands.
(Applause.)
Page 10
June 26-27, 2007
MR. WILLIAMS: Commissioners, for the record, Barry
Williams, Parks and Rec. Director, and I'll be brief. I know you have
a full agenda. Just wanted to say thank you for the proclamation. And
as you're aware, we're in the midst of Camp Collier, and we took staff
out today, and these are staff that have been with us for some time.
We have a lot of years experience, and we're very proud of our staff,
as I know you are.
I did want to invite you to a special celebration that we have for
the month of July; July 28th from one to four at Sugden Park we have
our ice cream social and wanted to invite you the public to that event
as we celebrate Recreation Parks Month. Thank you so much for the
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been a pleasure working with
your department, too. They're just wonderful people, really dedicated.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to -- with your
consent, we'll go to the presentation for 5A, and then after we have
everybody up here, I'd ask you or the commissioner that's been
designated to read proclamation 4B, and this way they can be up here
when the proclamation --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a wonderful
arrangement, Mr. Mudd.
Item #4B (Companion to Item #5A)
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 26, 2007 AS COLLIER
COUNTY PHOENIX A WARDS DAY - ADOPTED
Item #5A (Companion Item to #4B)
RECOGNITION OF EMS PARAMEDICS, EMT'S,
FIREFIGHTERS AND SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES, WHO THROUGH
Page 11
June 26-27, 2007
THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE, HAVE SUCCESSFULLY
BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD DIED -
RECOGNIZED
MR. MUDD: Okay. This brings us to item 5A, which is
recognition of EMS, paramedics, EMTs, firefighters and sheriff
deputies who brought their skills and knowledge -- who through their
skills and knowledge, have successfully brought back to life
individuals who have died. Again, a companion item to 4B.
LES WILLIAMS: Commissioners, Mr. Mudd, I'm just going to
call the names of the recipients up, and then we'll go from there with
the other items.
So when I call your name, please step forward. Paramedic Tony
Hiserodt, Patricia Dixon, Jennifer Seekell, Gail Torres Staples, Charlie
Matthews, Brad Underwood, Art Wolf, Amy DeLucca, Bobbi Boone,
Walter Kopka, Juan Cabezas, Ray Sly, Frank Millot, Wesley Millican,
Eric Watson, Juan Alcantara, Jeff Bronsdon, Mark Vessely, Dave
Howard, Mark Mariani, Jerry Sandlin, Josh Morgan, Chris Vanberkirk
-- buskirk. Sorry, Chris; Nicholas Shaffer, Sylee Wagganer, and
Andrew Drew.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what is your name, sir?
LES WILLIAMS: Les Williams. Gang, you all are going to
have to slide all in and get in two or three rows, tall people in the
back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody wants to hide in the
back, notice that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in the back.
LES WILLIAMS: Commissioners, after you read the
proclamation, we have a special visitor, Gerdi Keane, that would like
to speak after that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. It is truly my privilege
to have been chosen the commissioner to read this proclamation.
Page 12
June 26-27, 2007
Whereas, the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services
developed the Phoenix Awards program in October 1986 to recognize
local emergency responders who were involved in the rescue and
treatment of a patient who has suffered sudden cardiac arrest and was
brought back to life after being found without a pulse; and,
Whereas, the award was named after the mythological Phoenix
bird that was consumed by fire, later rose, renewed from its ashes and
became a symbol of immortality, resurrection, and life after death;
and,
Whereas, Collier County has achieved a cardiac save rate of 59
percent during the period of January 1 through April 1, 2007, and
while the national average remains between 6 and 10 percent. And I
hope everybody heard that. Our people, 59 percent; the national
average, 6 to 10 percent; and,
Whereas, today we recognize those responders from the Big
Corkscrew Island Fire Department, the Collier County Emergency
Medical Services Department, the City of Naples Fire Department, the
Collier County Sheriffs Office, the Golden Gate Fire Department, and
the North Naples Fire Department, who assisted in the resuscitation of
patients who were found without a pulse; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services
would like to recognize that all emergency medical professionals serve
in a variety of roles for their unselfish dedication to Florida's residents
and visitors.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that June 26, 2007, be
designated as Collier County Phoenix Awards Day.
Done and ordered this 26th day of June, 2007, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta, Chairman.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Page 13
June 26-27,2007
Fiala to approve this item and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
LES WILLIAMS: Commissioners, we have a special lady here
that would like to say something. Ms. Gerdi Keane is one of the
patients that is a benefactor from the Phoenix Awards, one of our
cardiac arrest patients.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, come forward.
MS. KEANE: Good morning. I'm so glad to have met my
lifesavers, Paramedic Gail Staples and Art Wolf.
On March the 1 st, I had call your guys, and they came to my
help. It was the grace of God and due to their help I survived, I'm
alive. That I'm standing here in front of you today is a miracle.
I want to thank you for the circumstance I have now to live my life. I
thank you for everything you have done in Collier County and
especially in this case for me.
May God bless you and keep you safe. Thank you.
(Applause.)
LES WILLIAMS: Dan Summers would like a few words.
MS. KEANE: You're my lifesavers. May I go?
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. You can't take them home
though. We have to put them back to work.
Commissioners, Dan Summers, Director of the Bureau of
Page 14
June 26-27, 2007
Emergency Services. We'll ask our folks to take their seats.
Just briefly I wanted to mention that this is all part of a team
effort, and the team effort is successful -- and let me mention our
partners once again. We have Colonel Kevin Rambosk, our
undersheriff, is here with the sheriffs department; Chief Deputy
Bloom; we have Chief Victor Morales from Naples Police and
Emergency Services; Chief McEvoy here from the City of Naples Fire
Department; and Chief Mike Brown.
It's one thing to get to those rates. It's another thing to keep those
resuscitation rates, and we do that with our partnership working very,
very hard out there every day. And I wanted to recognize those chiefs
and those leaders that help us stay on top. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION REGARDING THE RESULTS OF SIX GULF
OF MEXICO ALLIANCE COMMUNITY INPUT WORKSHOPS
HELD EARLIER THIS YEAR - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is by Tabitha
Stadler, who is the coastal training coordinator of the Rookery Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve regarding the results of six Gulf
of Mexico Alliance community input workshops held earlier this year.
Ms. Stadler?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Let's give them just a minute
to clear the room before we start. I think they're a pretty orderly group.
You can go ahead.
MS. STADLER: I know you have a big, full day, so -- and now
for something a little bit different. Thank you so much,
Commissioners and staff, for giving me a few minutes here.
My goal is to kind of update you on the Gulf of Mexico Alliance,
Page 15
June 26-27, 2007
something that Southwest Florida's really been leading the way on,
frankly, throughout the Gulf, and then also tell you the results of six
community input workshops held in January, February, and March,
represents the opinions of approximately 300 citizens and I thought
that would be of interest to you.
As mentioned, I'm Tabitha Stadler, with the Rookery Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve.
And I -- hopefully you're familiar with us. You know, we do
manage 40 percent of this county's coastline. We're part of this
network of 27 reserves in the nation, and our goal is really education,
research and lands management.
I have to recognize that this is both NOAA and Florida DEP
sponsored project that I'll be talking to you about.
There's the boundary of the reserve. Ah, let's get to the content
here. The Gulf of Mexico. I love this photo. This is actually taken by
the space shuttle on its approach to Kennedy Space Center, and you
see Florida there in the upper portion of the screen. What's probably
remarkable about this picture is that there are no boundaries. This is a
single ecosystem so that the waters the we enjoy right here in Collier
County are the same waters lapping at the beaches in Mexico and
Cuba.
The Gulf brings us economic bounty, environmental bounty,
aesthetic recreational values, billions of dollars in tourism, thousands
of pounds of Gulf shrimp. It is some of the major ports in the area.
If you remember during the '05 hurricanes how it was difficult to
get oil and gas, and some of our grocery shelves were bare, and that's
because the Gulfprovides so many things to our community, and I
believe that the people that attended and participated in this program
really also felt that way.
So let me just say a few words here about the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance. Not just words there.
Basically back in 2004 there was an independent group, the Pugh
Page 16
June 26-27, 2007
-- Pugh Commission, as well as U.S. Ocean Commission, which had
appointees from every coastal state in the United States. They took a
look at the health of the nation's oceans and, of course, found many
problems; fisheries in decline, closed beaches, water quality problems,
loss of economic health in various communities that were fishing
communities, et cetera.
As a result of that, the then governor -- pardon me -- Governor
Bush called the other Gulf states to form an alliance. First ever, very
historic that the five Gulf states would work together. As you know,
states don't always work together. We have different laws, competing
interests.
This part -- this was formed, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, and
the very first meeting ofthe alliance ever was held in Naples, Florida,
at the Rookery Bay Research Reserve Learning Center down kind of
near Marco Island.
They agreed on five priority issues. You can see them listed on
the screen; beaches, wetlands, habitats, environmental education, and
reduction of nutrients. And then they also had eight community
workshops throughout the Gulf. So besides these five priority issues,
the local people also came up with some issues, and I'll just share that
with you in a moment.
The goals of these community workshops were these: What is
the local priority issues? How can we form partnerships and programs
to support the Gulf Alliance to move things forward in a cooperative
way and then build awareness in communities both regionally and
nationally?
And this is the results of the first eight community workshops
around the Gulf. These are not the local ones. The local ones have
been a continuation of these.
They're color coded so you can see, despite the fact that we have
kind of on the right-hand screen the Louisiana workshop and in the
upper left we have the Naples workshop, that habitat loss was still a
Page 17
June 26-27, 2007
number one priority among all these communities.
Water quality also in blue. Education in green. Population
growth and development, blue. These were all priority issues shared
across the Gulf.
And so January, February, and March, we continued these
workshops. Those -- based on those eight throughout the Gulf, plus
what we know of the local community, we held three.
In January we covered living with red tide, in February we
discussed managing water in a changing climate, and in March we
talked about sustainable development, and then pretty much I'll just
talk about the results of these workshops.
There were dozens and dozens of recommendations. And like I
said, you know, approximately 300 people attended all of the series.
Our goal here, and part of the reason why I'm here today, is to follow
through with the recommendations of the local community. And I can
provide handouts, incidentally, that has a better summary of those
three topic in the workshops.
The living with red tide is very exciting because we've actually
already seen some action based on this workshop. The top three were
educate the media about red tide. There were some great stories, and
the media's been a great partner in this program, incidentally. Naples
Daily News has helped us.
But they -- in the workshop they talked about reporters going
down to the beach and scraping together a few dead fish, shooting it
really tight, and saying, oh, we have a red tide outbreak, and that was
definitely a problem for communicating accurately about red tide.
Public information campaign. And then the number one
recommendation was to create a network of observational beach
conditions. And the Collier County Visitor and Conventions Bureau
(sic), Jack Wert, along with the City of Naples and the City of Marco
Island are all putting in for a grant with Mote Marine Laboratory to
add 10 observational reporting stations in this region, and they would
Page 18
June 26-27, 2007
be done by county park employees as well as municipal employees.
And using a BlackBerry system, they could take a look at beach
conditions, say, I feel tickle in the throat, I hear people coughing, they
could also report on wind, weather, that seaweed on the beach that's
somewhat unpleasant, and it really looks like this is going to actually
happen.
Wonderful example of what we can do on a local level because
what this is going to add is 10 more data points to the NOAA harmful
algal bloom reporting system, which is more data points for the Gulf
of Mexico to try to get an idea that we could predict red tide. It would
be very helpful both for our tourism as well as the health of our
citizens.
A little bit -- this is just a little deeper explanation about that
reporting system. I'll go ahead to the next workshop.
The next two we've -- we just have the recommendations. We haven't
moved forward, and I can be pretty quick on this.
The citizens recommended a task force climate change where
they would be looking for win-win situations, and they were focusing
on carbon reductions, things like if a business or a community was,
say, you know, adding a vessel to their fleet, that they would consider
purchasing a vessel that got good fuel efficiency.
So I would sort of pose the question, if the county would be
interested in supporting such a task force, either allowing staff to
participate or directing staff to participate in this type of task force.
Sustainable development was our March one, and that was a very
similar output to the managing water and the changing climate, which
was a work group on sustainable and green building to basically look
for those opportunities to provide incentives to builders to build green,
build sustainably with that livability, walkability in mind, also train
builders and developers, and probably the third phase would to be
educate homeowners to understand the value of having this type of a
green building.
Page 19
June 26-27, 2007
So those were the three suggestions. Again, red tide one is pretty
much moving forward. Two work groups in mind for this.
And then just to give you a final next step with their plan. We do
plan on offering a few more community workshops. This is funded by
the Florida Coastal Management Program. Our next one probably is
going to be on successful public awareness campaigns.
Everybody wanted to educate everybody about everything. That
was a solution. More education, but we realize that a lot of money is
spent on education and we want that to be well spent. So we'll
probably be doing that workshop soon, of public awareness
campaigns.
In January, February, '08, we're looking at a State of the Gulf
Conference. We will probably issue an invitation to commissioners
and staff to attend. We're hoping to have even more outcomes by that
point.
And then also to let you know that, once again, Southwest
Florida, we've been awarded an EP A grant from the Gulf of Mexico
program $470,000 for three years to hire two people to continue work
throughout the state on this Gulf Alliance, and that will include
partnering with the media, which fits really well with that
recommendation about educating the media. We want to galvanize
the local communities and work with those priority issue teams to
make sure that they meet their goals.
Just, I guess, in summary, this region has really been very
supportive of the Gulf Alliance, and I'll support our director Gary
Lytton of decades working in coastal management, working on that
environmental/economic health of the Gulf. This is really a lot of
momentum.
In July there's another meeting of the Gulf Alliance in St.
Petersburg. Several people from this region will be going to represent
the views of our community, and we just really, really hope that this
initiative will continue to move forward. And we kind of look to key
Page 20
June 26-27, 2007
decision-makers like yourselves to be informed about this and to
support the effort in any way that you can.
So thanks for your time. Hope you have a great meeting today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION FOR THE WASTE REDUCTION AWARDS
PROGRAM (WRAP) TO RECOGNIZE DAL- TILE COMPANY
FOR THEIR ENHANCED AND INNOVATIVE RECYCLING
PROGRAMS - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next presentation is for Waste
Management's award program, WRAP, to recognize Daltile company
for their enhanced an innovative recycling program.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is Patrick Henry in the audience?
Patrick, would you come up. Do you have any other members of your
firm with you?
MR. HENRY: No, sir, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. We'd love to have you come
right up front here, sir. And it's my pleasure to be able to present this
award to you.
The mandatory non-residential recycling ordinance adopted by
the Board of Collier County Commissioners July 27, 2004, established
the Waste Reduction Awards Program, also known as WRAP A ward
to recognize businesses and institutes for enhanced and innovative
recycling programs. The solid waste management department WRAP
program is consistent with the guiding principles adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners on December 5, 2006.
One, environmental and growth management compliance; two,
airspace preservation; three, operational excellence; and four, best
Page 21
June 26-27, 2007
value service.
The Board of Collier County Commissioners is pleased to
recognize Daltile company for their efforts to contribute to the greater
good of all of Collier County by helping to prolong the useful life of
the Collier County landfill by reducing their solid waste stream
through an enhanced recycling program as evident by Daltile
recycling all cardboard and aluminum cans. Daltile cardboard
recycling containers placed behind the building is shared with three
other businesses contributing to cost savings for all businesses.
Daltile also recycles all their pallets and promotes source
reduction by reusing boxes and packing for reshipping. Daltile is a
participant in the National Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design, certified program. The Daltile purchasing department
practices close the loop by buying recycled products and using
recycled paper for copying.
Daltile office staff just expanded their recycling program by
recycling all office paper.
Daltile is an outstanding example of a business that manages an
excellent recycling program and is in compliance with the
non-residential recycling ordinance. The WRAP Around Award (sic)
includes a certificate, a trophy, use of the WRAP logo, and space on
the www.collier.gov.net recycle web site to showcase their waste
reduction and recycling program.
Therefore, the solid waste management department and the
Board of Collier Commissioners congratulate Mr. Patrick Henry of
Daltile on their continued support in promoting waste reduction and
recycling. Their efforts in recycling leadership is a positive example
to other manufacturing businesses and will have a significant effect on
sustaining the usable life of the Collier County Landfill.
And with that, sir, I thank you very much for your participation
in the program. I'd ask you to turn around and face the audience. And
we're going to get a picture for you to hang in your office. Thank you,
Page 22
June 26-27,2007
Patrick. This is to hang up on the wall with a --
MR. HENRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We're proud of you and
what you're doing. This is everything we would have ever hoped for.
Thank you.
MR. HENRY: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Set a good example for others.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very much so. Pay attention, world.
MR. HENRY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Dan Rodriguez is standing there so
proudly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work.
Item #5D
RECOGNITION OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH SELECTION,
JONATHAN RUDD FROM PARKS AND RECREATION -
RECOGNIZED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
presentation, which is a recognition of Employee of the Month
selection, which is Jonathan Rudd from the Parks and Recreation
Department. And if you could please come forward, Mr. Rudd.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come right up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You brought your fan club.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It is, indeed, a pleasure for us to
announce your selection as Collier County Employee of the Month for
June 2007.
This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions
to the county through your work in the department. This honor
Page 23
June 26-27, 2007
includes an exceptional performance plaque as well as $150 cash
award, which I'm proud to present to you.
On behalf of the Board of Collier County Commissioners, I offer
sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependency
and dedication to work. Thank you very much. John, it's been a
pleasure.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We want to get a picture, John. If
you could turn around and face the audience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which park do you work at?
MR. RUDD: East Naples.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, they want a speech, I think.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're at East Naples Community
Park?
MR. RUDD: Yes. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thanks so much.
MR. RUDD: It's a pleasure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So glad you're working at our park.
MR. RUDD: I just want to thank all the bosses I work under and
all the people I work with, with the exception of Mr. Camp. And I
have a lot of fun doing it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Awe, thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5E
WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION PRESENTED THE STATUS OF
THEIR CONSTRUCTION EFFORTS FOR THE NEW COUNTY
BARN FACILITY - PRESENTED UPDATE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next presentation is with
Page 24
June 26-27, 2007
Wright Construction, and they will present the status of their
construction efforts for the new County Barn facility.
MR. HOVELL: Ron Hovell, Principal Project Manager in the
Facility Management Department. I'll introduce Keith Moyer from
Wright Construction.
MR. MOYER: Good morning. I want to start off by thanking
the BOCC for inviting us here today to give you a little update on
where we are with your fleet facility.
I'm Keith. I'm the vice-president of our building division, Fred
Edman is the president of our company, and Mark Vallen is the
project manager on this project. And we're going to allow Mark to
come up and kind of give you a few snapshots of the progress we've
made since February of this year.
MR. V ALLEN: We'll just run through a few photos to bring you
up to speed. The first three weeks of the project we basically had to
sift through about 10,000 yards offill on the site to get it ready. We
also proceeded with some of the berms.
Next photograph, temporary facilities, electrical infrastructure
started to go in, in February, underground utilities, water, sewer, and
actually stormwater began.
Also toward the end of February we started construction on the
middle building, which is basically the offices and the administration
areas, conference rooms. The foundations were started. And by the
end of February, we actually started the columns and vertical
construction on building B, which is the center -- center building.
As we moved into March, we started construction on the two
metal buildings, getting the slabs ready. In addition, the first elevated
deck was formed up and poured on building B, the center structure.
Underground MEPs, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing went in
under building number B, building B.
Stormwater also began in March, and you can see there on site all
the water and sewer piping is on site.
Page 25
June 26-27, 2007
As we move into April, we began the slab preparation for the
metal buildings. First floor slab was poured in building B in the center
and concrete block began in April.
Infrastructure utilities actually wrapped up in April. Interior
metal stud framing began in April in building B, and the block work
continued.
The slabs were poured in May for the metal buildings. Electrical
rough-in and all the rough-ins continued in the center, as you can see
with air-continuing duct work.
Also the site work continued with the construction of the
perimeter fence, which is precast wall, and the concrete structure of
building B, the center building, was completed in May.
In June the metal building was delivered on site. Erection began
immediately. There's some pictures there of the building starting to go
up. Again, building B inside continued with the MEP rough-ins and
air-conditioning.
That is a very recent photograph, actually taken about four days
ago of the fleet facility from the air. You can see the metal building is
up as far as the structure, the roofing is going on, and the building B is
ready for the bar joints to be set.
You also notice the parking lot is actually completed as far as the
subbase, which got us a good head start moving in towards the end of
the project.
The project is currently under budget. We have buy-out left, we
have contingency left, and we plan to refund quite a bit of money at
the end of this project.
These two bar charts basically represent work completed to date.
Contractually we're obligated to finish this project around the first of
'08. We are currently about 10 percent ahead as far as work
completed, and we are well ahead of schedule.
This next actually represents time, not work completed. Weare,
like I said, contractually obligated to finish around the first of January.
Page 26
June 26-27, 2007
We would like to wrap this up sometime in October, minimum 30
days early, maybe even two months early.
Quality control. Actually this is safety. We have no recorded
accidents to date. Safety's very important, and we're good to go.
Keith's going to wrap it up with some comments.
MR. MOYER: I want to throw in a few things about Wright
Construction now that we've given you the update on the job.
We're committed to Collier County. If you look at this graphic,
you'll see that 71 percent of our current workload is being performed
in Collier County. This is just another way to show to you that we're
committed to doing your work and thanking you for the opportunity.
We have a highly seasoned staff on this project. That's one of the
reasons we're ahead of the project, that's another reason we're on the
project.
We've got a great relationship with your staff and your team, and
it's been a real team effort to get us to this point.
We have excess capacity on our current workload. So if you have
anything else we could be considered for, we're here.
We're ahead of schedule, like Mark said, we're under budget, and
our commitment is to safety, quality control and relentless service.
One of the things he didn't get a chance to tell you -- and we'll leave a
book for everybody today -- Wright Construction received a national
safety reward for our industry for last year, and we're very proud of
that. So we're going to close with thanking you for making the Wright
choice. Appreciated it.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a question, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where is -- where's Wright
Construction located? What's your -- where's your home office at?
MR. MOYER: We have our home office in Fort Myers on
Page 27
June 26-27, 2007
Young Quest, and we have a satellite office in Taylor Road in Punta
Gorda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very, very much for the
presentation, and I also want to thank you for being ahead of schedule
and under budget. That's fantastic to hear in this day and age.
MR. MOYER: Thanks for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY PETE L YTWYN TO DISCUSS
AMENDING NOISE ORDINANCE 90-17 RELATING TO ATV'S -
DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT FEDERAL STANDARDS AND
REGULATIONS AND TO RETURN WITH A REPORT
REGARDING AMENDING THE ORDINANCE - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to the public
petitions section of our agenda. First public petition is a request by
Peter Lytwyn to discuss amending the noise ordinance, 90-17, relating
to ATVs.
MR. L YTWYN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. First of
all, this is not a complaint about ATVs. We own one ourselves.
Second, I believe in property rights of individuals; however, when the
actions of others affect my property rights, there is a problem.
We live in the Estates and we have neighbors that established a track
for A TV s on their properties. The A TV s of their children and their
visiting friends have changed the mufflers to what is referred to as rice
burners. These are flow-through mufflers. That makes the machines
exceptionally loud. There is no set time or duration when these
machines are used by the children.
We've spoken to the neighbors about this, and we're told, in
effect, it's our property. You do what you have to.
Page 28
June 26-27, 2007
We've called the sheriff, and although the deputy agreed that noise
seems excessive, he can only issue a citation to the neighbors if two or
more in the neighborhood complain. Then if nothing is done to stop
the problem, the matter would go to an investigator or state prosecutor
we're told.
Unfortunately, this prosecutor also handles larcenies, murders,
and other serious crimes so that this matter would, understandably, not
be a high priority on his agenda.
There is a county noise ordinance that limits the noise to 55
decibels at 50 feet from the source. We requested the code
enforcement inspector verify the noise from an -- from the adjoining
property.
At first the neighbors agreed to run their machines in his
presence, then refused when he arrived, so nothing was accomplished.
What we're asking is that A TV s in residential areas be required to
have the manufacturer's original mufflers in place or at least comply
with the national parks requirement that a spark arrester be installed
with a muffler that allows no more than 96 decibels at 20 inches from
the exhaust over the operating rpm range of the machine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir. Don't go away yet. This has
been a problem for quite a few people in the Estates, especially now
that we're getting closer to buildout and the homes are closer together
where people are lacking a place to go. Very soon we will have some
facility open for A TV riders to use. But still, people are going to take
advantage of their personal property, just as they -- as you mentioned,
they have every right to.
MR. L YTWYN: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: However, you know, it's too bad that
we have to use government to try to regulate everything to be able to
try to preserve our peace and quiet and our sanity, but sometimes
there's no other options available.
I would like to hear from our county staff as to exactly what is in
Page 29
June 26-27, 2007
the ordinance at this point in time that would offer some protection to
the residents that live out there that have neighbors that ride A TV s on
their property with souped-up mufflers or modified mufflers. And if it
doesn't exist, what could we do to change the ordinance to be able to
have people comply with what is just good common sense?
Mr. Schmitt, I guess you're the one that's appointed to answer
these questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe I can give him some help
too. All those A TV s have to meet the government standards as far as
noise being emitted from the exhaust systems, and this gentleman is
actually right that in order for them to sell that -- those particular
ATVs, they have to meet the criteria set forth by the U.S. Government
in regards to noise being emitted.
Now, I would think that there would be some way the laws could
be upheld that they have to keep those muffler systems in place unless
they have an A TV park or it's a racetrack type of affair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And ifI may, I also think that people
that live near the A TV parks -- I want to remind you that the one that's
going to be going in, in Immokalee does have residents in the
immediate neighborhood. Should people be able to have the right to
be able to remove the mufflers or have modified mufflers and make
loud noises out of them?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Definitely not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say that this should be
something that's realistic, that it's not infringing upon personal
freedom of individuals, just putting responsibility back where it
belongs, possibly saving the parents considerable amount of money
buying the souped-up mufflers. Mr. -- Commissioner Henning, then
we'll go to Joe Schmitt, or did you want to hear Joe Schmitt first?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think Commissioner
Halas brings up an important part. But I would like to direct staff to
take a look at the federal standards that Commissioner Halas brought
Page 30
June 26-27, 2007
up, but also, more importantly, to hit the mark, I think you need to see
what the regulations is as far as altering the exhaust system that would
increase the emissions that these vehicles are putting out.
I know they regulate other motorized vehicles, and it's a
substantial fine if they're altered, and that will hit the target.
MR. L YTWYN: It will. We've done some research on this on
the Internet, of course. And right now, we could find nothing that the
EP A has as far as emissions from either motorcycles or A TV s. And
this is strictly -- EP A has jurisdiction over the national parks. I'm not
sure whether state parks fall into that category or not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to--
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development/environmental services division. The reality
is, I have no jurisdiction over this. These are motorized vehicles, and
they're -- pretty much it's the sheriffs responsibility. It's -- these are
vehicles. I have no authority to stop the vehicle on the road, but these
like -- it's like any other state statute that's similar to a motorcycle,
swapping out the pipes and putting in straight pipes. But pretty much,
it's the sheriffs responsibility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, the sheriff is guided by
our ordinance as to what to enforce. Now, whether he enforces it or
not is up to him, I would assume. But I think for the most part he
would be cooperative. As far as our noise ordinance goes, is there any
way that we can include something in the noise ordinance that says
that the original factory mufflers will remain at certain types of --
MR. SCHMITT: I will look at that and find out -- to come back
to you with a report on that, what legal action we can take. I think
we're working in concert with the county attorney and figure out if, in
fact, we have authority. The question is, how do we enforce it.
I would only be able enforce it through monitoring, certainly
with the sound meters. But in regards to trying to stop the vehicles
Page 31
June 26-27, 2007
and enforce it, it's beyond the authority of code enforcement. We'll
look at it, we'll find out what we can do, and we'll come back to you
and report as to what we can do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Palmer, from the County
Attorney's Office?
MR. PALMER: Yes, sir. Tom Palmer, Assistant County
Attorney. I drafted the noise ordinance, and I've done some research
on this particular issue. Presently the Collier County noise ordinance
allows proof of violations only by decibel readings.
Now, if -- this kind of a violation, if there's a -- have a decibel
meter, these ATVs have to abide by the noise ordinance at 55 decibels
in residential areas. The ordinance can be amended to allow what are
called subjective violations, and that is that certain types of violations
can be proven without noise reading in certain instances provided the
language is proper.
And we could amend the noise ordinance. I would recommend
that its application to these subjective judgments be limited so that
they do not become the normal course of action. But something like
an A TV in somebody's front yard -- and it's true that the Code
Enforcement Board does not have the authority to stop motor vehicles,
but it certainly would have authority to enforce somebody revving up
or having a cutout muffler in their front yard and the vehicle is not on
the road.
There are certain statutes in Florida that preempt local regulation,
but they're limited, number one, to motor vehicles, and they're limited
when they're on the streets. An A TV is not described as a motor
vehicle, therefore, the county has jurisdiction over enforcing noise
ordinances in regard to A TV s, whether they're on the street or whether
they're in somebody's front yard.
So the -- so right now ifthis particular A TV violated the 55
decibel standard in the residential area and you had a noise meter and
you tested it, you could cite them for the violation. The problem in
Page 32
June 26-27, 2007
these instances are, often when the deputy sheriff is called out, he does
not have the ability to test the noise and, therefore, he says, well, I
can't do anything about it because I don't have my noise meter.
We can amend the ordinance to allow, in certain instances -- for
example, about six years ago they had a four-piece band out in
somebody's front yard about 10 o'clock at night, and the neighbors
obviously complained, and the sheriff said, well, I don't have my noise
testing equipment so I can't do anything about it.
So if you'd like, we could bring back to the board rather narrowly
focused violations based on this non-noise testing in certain instances
such as A TV s. And one of the criteria we could put in the noise
ordinance is to say that, in fact, you cannot modifY the manufacturer's
muffler and you cannot do cut-outs.
That in and of itself would not necessarily mean that the noise
ordinance has been violated, but it certainly would be evidence. And
if the noise is loud and raucous and basically just unacceptable in the
circumstances, the person that's investigating, being the code
enforcement officer or a law enforcement officer, could testify to the
court without having decibel readings that, in fact, what was going on
there was unnecessary and raucous noise. Those are well-defined
terms of the law, and you could sustain a violation on that sort of
testimony.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we do that, have
you bring it back.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I still think that you
might find something with the emissions, personally.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But who checks for the emissions --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: An emissions of exhaust coming
out?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think this is an emissions
Page 33
June 26-27, 2007
problem. This isn't --
MR. PALMER: Right. And that would not be a noise ordinance
Issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is a noise problem, but there
might be existing laws that can be enforced by the --
MR. PALMER: There are no -- I'm not aware of any laws,
federal or state, that apply to noise being emitted from A TV s.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That isn't --
MR. PALMER: That therefore, we have jurisdiction because
that jurisdiction of that type of violation has not been preempted by
the federal government or by the State of Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Mr. Palmer, what I was
saying is, when exhaust systems are altered, they affect the emissions.
MR. PALMER: The mufflers, yes, that's true. Obviously when
you do a cut-out, which means you're just basically bypassing the
muffler, or you modify the muffler beyond what the requirements are
of the manufacturer, that in and of itself is not necessarily a noise
violation, because even if you do a cut-out, depending on the source of
the noise and the sound-affected site or persons, may be of enough of
a distance that it doesn't violate whatever the applicable standard is,
which is 55 decibels in residential.
It seems to me that if you did a cut-out on an ATV and
somebody's next door in the front yard, it's beyond my belief that that
would not be -- seriously violate the 55 decibel level. And those -- as
I say, those kind of judgments could be made by a law enforcement
officer or code enforcement officer, what's going on out there in a
particular instance, Judge, or administrative law judge, was just
beyond the pale and I knew it was just raucous and unnecessary, and
that type of testimony can be a basis for a violation of the ordinance
without having the decibels actually read by a meter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's bring it back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we still apply this like the
Page 34
June 26-27, 2007
roosters that crow all night long?
MR. PALMER: We could apply it to a number of things. The
only thing is to not make it so broad that, in fact, it does away, as a
practical matter, with noise testing. So I think we want to focus the
certain types of violations that anybody -- and reasonably (sic)
judgment would say, what went on in the particular instance was just
unnecessary and outrageous.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To the benefit of some of the people
in the audience, the reason I mention roosters is, we have some, other
than just raise a couple of chickens and one rooster just for their own
enjoyment, they raise fighting cocks, and they'll have 10, 15,20,25 of
them, and it gets to be an extreme disturbance to a block or two radius
MR. PALMER: That's covered by the ordinance presently,
provided the noise in question is tested with a noise meter. The issue
is, what sort of situations do we want to allow a prosecution or a site
violation without the necessity of decibel reading?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And we don't know where
that's going to go. We could discuss this all day long. We have a lot
to cover. I'm just looking for us to be able to bring it back.
MR. PALMER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need three commissioners to
agree to it. We only have three up here. So I'm waiting for
Commissioner Henning to go one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I only go one way.
And it was totally missed, the point that I was trying to make. But if
you want to approach it by the noise ordinance, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We have direction.
We've given you direction now. Thank you very much, sir.
MR. PALMER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And thank you very much. I hope we
get to it. Forgive me, but this process is long. Maybe in the
Page 35
June 26-27, 2007
meantime, your neighbor will be listening and they'll help to comply
by putting the original mufflers back on.
MR. L YTWYN: That's all we ask. We don't ask for anything
exotic. We just want to be, as I say, civil about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think your request is reasonable, I
really do. Thank you, sir, for being here.
MR. L YTWYN: Thank you.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUESTED BY BRENDA TALBERT TO
DISCUSS THE MODEL HOME PERMITTING PROCESS -
DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a request
from Brenda Talbert to discuss model home permitting process.
MS. TALBERT: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you
for hearing our petition. It's quite simple and short. A model home
permit currently has a duration of three years from the date or
approval. No subsequent issues of a conditional permit shall be for a
period exceeding two years.
The total time period of temporary use and conditional use
permits together shall not exceed five years. All existing model home
permits for models not included in a PUD for scattered site homes or
lots will be or have expired within the next few years.
This is putting a hardship on a small group of affordable housing
builders who have models along the Golden Gate and Collier
corridors, Collier Boulevard corridors.
Due to the soft real estate market, they may have a problem
liquidating these homes. The models are essentially marketed to the
affordable housing markets and their limited locations to market a
single model home. That is within the established neighborhood.
Page 36
June 26-27, 2007
These models serve a valid community purpose by providing
affordable housing options to potential homebuyers. The models are
kept in peak condition with low traffic to and from the models, which
makes them good neighbors within the community in which they are
located.
Today we are asking for two things for you to consider. All
existing model home permits not inside a PUD and for scattered home
sites or lot sales and essentially for affordable homes should be
extended or grandfathered for a period of five years from the date of
approval of this request.
We also ask that we streamline the model home permitting
process so that all model home permits that are not inside a PUD and
for scattered homesite or lot sales be renewed for a five-year period
basis instead of the current three-year term with two possible one-year
renewals.
I thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yes. I think what we're talking
about is two places that I can see where it's very much affected by it is
Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard.
MS. TALBERT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's been model homes there for a
number of years. I always am very perplexed by the system that we
have with the fact that they build a model home and then they're
forced to move to another place and build another one and keep this
process going, leapfrogging.
And I've received -- I've received nothing as far as complaints go
from residents in that area since day one. So I kind of wonder why
we're putting this impediment in front of business, business that's been
pretty responsive, the amount of traffic they generate is minimal, and
it just doesn't make any sense. And I'm in agreement that we need to
come up with a better way of handling it.
Commissioner Halas?
Page 37
June 26-27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'd like to continue at what
we're doing at the present time because I think it gives the ability for
the neighborhood to have, after the end of three years, to let us know
one way or the other if they're satisfied with it. And if they are, then I
think we can continue that process on. But I really believe that we
should have the ability for people, in case there's a problem, that they
can come in at the end of three-year period.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pettit, is it the majority of
the commissioners present takes the day, or is it the majority of the
five?
MR. PETTIT: Commissioner, you have a physical quorum
present, so it's the majority of those present. You need three for a
quorum on simple majority items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. Well, I'm going to
make a motion to direct the staff to do maybe in a -- I don't know if we
could do it in a resolution or ordinance, to provide the guidance to
extend the conditional use process. Being that the majority of the
Board of Commissioners are considering a moratorium then, you
know, these affordable housing builders have just basically lost their
investment, and that's not fair to them, besides the economic market
the way it is today.
And the last fact is, when these model homeowners sunset in
their use, they have to move on. And if they move into other places,
there might be objections. And as long as there's no complaints -- and
I'm sure the public can petition the board if there is a problem, the
board can deal with that problem at that time -- we shouldn't make it
an incumbersome (sic) process to have some kind of verification of
complaints.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'll second
Page 38
June 26-27, 2007
your motion, but I think that we might possibly give some level of
comfort to Commissioner Halas if we were to limit it to Golden Gate
Boulevard and the Collier Boulevard rather than countywide.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if we can legally do
that.
MS. TALBERT: Currently from our research, you're really
talking about three builders and maybe five or six models. And you're
right, it's pretty much in that corridor. And I am sure my members
would definitely agree with Mr. Halas that we don't intend to disrupt
anybody's life. We really do intend to be good neighbors and peaceful
and keep the properties in good maintenance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's have staff address this
before we take a vote on it. Because I can understand, Commissioner
Halas is reluctant to apply something countywide. I don't think there's
a necessity to do that; however, you know, we need to be able to give
enough direction to staff and get the approval of three commissioners.
Of course, we always have the option, if we don't get it, to bring
it back at another meeting for discussion.
With that, let's go to staff and see if we can come up with a condensed
version of what we can do and can't do.
MS. ISTENES: Good morning. Susan Istenes. I'm the Zoning
Director. It's, unfortunately, a little more challenging in the Estates
because you actually have a comprehensive plan provision in the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan that dictates the time frame for model
homes.
And in this case, when -- let's say you build a brand new model
in the Estates, they come in to the staff and they get a temporary use
permit, and the Golden Gate Master Plan as well as the LDC limits
that administrative approval for the temporary use permit to three
years.
So after the three-year period, if the model homeowner wants to
come in and continue his or her model home, they then have to apply
Page 39
June 26-27, 2007
and get conditional use approval, and the conditional use approval, by
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and LDC, is limited to two years.
Now, I've taken the position that after that two years, the
individual, based on the wording in the compo plan, can then reapply
for another conditional use. But again, you're still limited to a
two-year time frame, and I imagine that probably presents some
difficulties for the builders.
So five years total, and then they can reapply through the
conditional use, and it's limited through the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan to two years. So you would need a Golden Gate Area Master
Plan amendment as well as an LDC amendment to accomplish --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the meantime, could we do
something to allow a continuance to take place on these model homes
until we reach that point in time that we made the changes? Now I see
Jeff shaking his head, no, no, no, no.
MR. KLATZKOW: No. There's no zoning in progress law with
respect to the compo plan. Our hands are tied on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So -- but the only thing is is
that there is a finality to this as far as when they come back. We don't
even have the right to bring them back to be able to discuss it once
they get past the five-year mark; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We've been extending them for
two-year periods of time. That comes to you, by the way, to do the
conditional use project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But there's no limit to the two-year
extensions?
MR. KLATZKOW: We've been interpreting that they can come
back to you on a continuous basis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any way to get it in the
cycle that we're working with now on the GMP amendment the board
is, you know, going to submit July 22nd or thereafter, and then a final
Page 40
June 26-27, 2007
adoption much after that?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Henning, that's a tough
question. I'd have to go assess that, but we would have to bring it
back to the Planning Commission first --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and have it heard by the Planning
Commission. We have to advertise it. The next meeting for the
Planning Commission is the 19th of July. The advertisement is due
this afternoon to the clerk's office for the 19 July meeting.
And we would have to -- then you would hear it on the 24th of
July. That's the final hearing. So it would have to be done within
hours if we were going to try and amend that portion of the master
plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the process that we
presently have works well. We've never turned down a continual use
at this point in time, and I don't foresee that -- the board ever doing
that since this is affordable housing.
And I still want to have the idea that the people -- if there is a
concern. I realize that these people are good neighbors, but in case
there is an avenue, that these people need to come forth and say, hey,
we've got a particular problem. I think that where we are right now, I
think is good.
And I understand where you're coming from. And like I said
before, we've had a number of conditional uses that have come before
us in regards to extending that ability for the people there on 951 and
Golden Gate Boulevard, and we've never really given them -- you
know, given them a problem on it, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have -- there's been -- there's been
Page 41
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think we've ever turned one
down yet.
MS. TALBERT: If! may, this has been quite a clarification. I
appreciate your comments.
We're willing to continue to work with the process as it stands if
it were being applied as it stands. Weare being denied even at
application. We're not even allowed to put the paperwork in. So this
clarification from you alone and directive to staff to do what they say
that we're allowed to do would be a blessing to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. TALBERT: I also would like to point out that this costs us
$4,000 each time we reapply. This is very expensive for a small
businessman who's trying to do affordable housing, so that might be
taken into consideration to give us some relief.
But if you would direct staff just to accept the applications for
reapplying, that would help us tremendously. At this point they're
cutting us off. They won't even take the applications.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Let's do this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's find the other side of the
story .
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'll take care of it,
Commissioner Halas. Asked to be recognized before you speak.
Didn't mean to snap at you, but I have to make sure we keep some
order to this meeting.
And stop smiling, Commissioner Henning. You're next. Yes,
please.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah, that's indirect. There is one individual
who believes that when their five-year time period is over that they
may come in and reapply for an administrative temporary use permit,
and that's not our interpretation or application of this provision.
What we have said is, once you go through the five years, first with
your administrative then your conditional use, you may come back
Page 42
June 26-27,2007
and reapply for another conditional use. And that individual doesn't
want to believe or accept that as my assumption.
So nobody has been denied. I've repeatedly told people they can
submit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I appreciate that, and you'll make
-- and I know you'll make it as user-friendly as possible.
I'm going to withdraw my second for the simple reason that it's
futile to carry this to a vote, but I think that we're going to be wanting
to explore this as far as making a change sometime in the future to the
Land Development Code, and we'll get to a discussion at that time
when we have a full commission seated and talk about what the
schedule would be to get it on.
With that, I think we have covered that. Thank you very much
for bringing this to our attention.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, yeah, please.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY FRANK DENNINGER TO
DISCUSS THE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK - TO BE BROUGHT BACK
AT THE JULY 24,2007 BCC MEETING (CONSENSUS)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 6D which is
a request by Frank Denninger to discuss the general management plan
for Everglades National Park.
MR. DENNINGER: Hi, I'm Frank Denninger from Hialeah,
Page 43
June 26-27,2007
Florida. And a lady may be handing out some folders there that have
a few maps in them and some documents to describe what I'll be
discussing.
And basically right now we're kind of in the middle of a planning
process for a general management plan in Everglades National Park.
And I'm here today really on behalf of a lot of friends of mine in
Everglades City, Plantation, Copeland, Ochopee, out in the area of
Everglades City mainly.
And I just want to alert you that all these alternatives are
preliminary. They're not fixed in concrete yet, so there's still a lot of
process to comment on them. And I'm just really wanting to make
you all aware today and hopefully that you might agree with me that
the commission has a lot of standing here to guide the parks service in
what to do. Just because you're county and they're federal doesn't
mean the say-so doesn't count.
And comments, whether it would be resolution from the county
-- I think Nancy Rosiak (phonetic) handed out a little sample
resolution I had prepared, something to guide the parks service how to
do things and to absolutely take into account the economic impact,
which if you look at alternative D, the top sheet where it shows a lot
of yellow in the upper left corner of that Everglades park boundary,
that's everything all around Chokoloskee and Everglades City.
And what you've got is -- the yellow means poling or -- I think
poling or trolling only and no internal combustion. Now, I didn't hand
out the whole book. This, what I'm holding up, is actually the
newsletter that you all, I believe -- I've been told that you all got
mailed it a while back. I tried to get 10 copies for today but couldn't
get them in time to have for you.
But the yellow means no internal combustion engines, as does
purple. And what it does, it's going to adversely affect Everglades
City real bad because people go there to use the motorboat out in those
yellow areas. And if you even go to the further maps inside Band C,
Page 44
June 26-27,2007
the Turner River area is shut down or opened up a little bit to traffic
and what have you.
So I mean -- and there's another document in there referring -- the
resolution I've prepared referred to the Gladesmen culture and the
little eight-, nine-page document there talks about that culture and how
it affects Everglades City as a part of it, et cetera, long lived.
And the last thing in the folder is a small resolution Everglades
City did regarding the Big Cypress addition lands plan, which the
yellow areas on alternative D are on the west side of 29. The addition
lands fully wraps that peninsula under federal management on -- that
has some impact on the waters. Everglades park maybe more so than
Big Cypress addition.
But either way, it's getting serious to the friends of mine that live
in Everglades City. In fact, one gentleman that works with real estate
already mentioned to me, a customer bought or second thought their
purchase due to knowing about this plan, not even having seen it. Just
having heard rumors of it. So it has a tremendous impact.
And I mean, I know Everglades park, the way -- I've studied the
planning process. First the park service has to take care of the laws
they're mandated to uphold. After that, people's comments, whether
they want motorboating or don't want motorboating, pretty well decide
what happens, and people can do email campaigns with 20,000
comments from some organization, but local communities,
governmental entities, things of that nature, people that really know
the area, have a lot of impact. I think it would just be great if the
commission could, you know, consider doing something like a
resolution or maybe formal comments. For that matter, I'd being
willing to help.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Denninger, what is the timeline
on this? Because this would be a real concern. You know, I don't
think we've got enough commissioners or enough information to be
able to do something today.
Page 45
June 26-27, 2007
MR. DENNINGER: Well, we've -- the comment, technical
comment deadline for this newsletter is July 31 st. And--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I suggest --
MR. DENNINGER: You'd have to bring it back on another
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a meeting -- we have a
meeting on the 26th of July; am I correct, Mr. Mudd? Or--
MR. MUDD: 24th, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 24th of July. This is of extreme
importance to Everglades City, very much so. I've heard about this for
years, and now there's a little bit of a meltdown over the use of the
waterways there. It's an access issue. And it will get to the point
where you won't be able to get out there with a motorboat to be able to
fish and recreate. As Mr. Denninger has said, this is part of the culture
for that area and has been for many years. I mean, this could happen
some day to Marco Island or even North Naples --
MR. DENNINGER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- as far as the access to the water and
being denied. I mean, this is effectively cutting it off to the point
where, unless you're a young person and can use a kayak or a canoe,
you won't have access.
MR. DENNINGER: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's the beginning and end of it, and I
would like very much for us to have a resolution or proclamation to be
able to give guidance to the federal service between now and the
meeting that comes up on the 24th of July.
There's a little bit more to it than meets the eye. I'd like to get
some input from Everglades City on it because they're the people
we're serving the most on it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Mr. Denninger, I think I've
asked you before if you were a resident of Collier County.
Page 46
June 26-27, 2007
MR. DENNINGER: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DENNINGER: I'm a person that loves Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, I understand that. I have
concerns -- I'm not sure what we can do in regards to putting pressure
on the national park because they pretty much do what they want to
do, and so I'm not sure where this can go.
MR. DENNINGER: Could I answer you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. DENNINGER: Yeah. I know some of the Denver planning
team in Denver, Colorado, that work on this. They take everybody's
comments, especially local people or governmental entities extremely
seriously. When something is put in writing lands on their desk they
have to deal with it in a meaningful manner.
The trouble is -- and this makes me sick -- is that most people
don't think their boat counts with the parks service or whether it's to
you elected officials, because not enough people have tried to do it the
right way to get a result to prove to themselves that it means
something.
Like the lady just said -- I'll tell you an example. The lady from
Rookery Bay mentioned, let's fix up the coastal wetlands and improve
the fisheries and all, well, South Florida Water Management's already
asking, why are we improving the fisheries in Everglades park at a
special RAC meeting a few weeks ago about this plan. They're
getting in the game.
In fact, I need to mention to you, on June 28th at five p.m. in
Palm Beach, anyone in this room can go in there and talk about this
Everglades park plan because they're having a second meeting,
especially about this plan because they're wondering why we're
dropping 20 billion to fix a wetland estuary system to improve
fisheries, like the lady says, is going to benefit everybody. Well, it
don't benefit you if you can't get to it even to see it. Some people
Page 47
June 26-27, 2007
really love seeing it, you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Henning.
MR. DENNINGER: Oh, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, you -- I think
you hit every point. No more needs to be said except for I support
your endeavor to bring this back to the Board of Commissioners on
July 22nd.
MS. FILSON: 24th.
MR. MUDD: 24th.
MR. DENNINGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 24th. Commissioner Halas, can I
have your support just to get it back here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Denninger. Hopefully you'll be able
to come back on the 24th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In a form of resolution, like you
said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And we'll -- we'll work with
you on it. I'm going to need some cooperation from Everglades City,
too. I want to make sure that they get to have serious input on this. I
know they're not going to have a council meeting between now and
then, but possibly we can reach out and touch Sammy Hamilton.
MR. DENNINGER: Yeah. I talked to people before coming
over here about it, and I just -- it was a little last-minute last week
doing this, you know, getting into their process and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll--
MR. DENNINGER: -- I'll be seeing them on the way back
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll extend a formal invitation
to Sammy Hamilton to be here.
MR. DENNINGER: Okay, yeah.
Page 48
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We
appreciate you bringing this to our attention.
MR. DENNINGER: Thank you all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, we're just a few minutes
before break time. I'm go to do it a little bit early with the hopes that
Commissioner Fiala will get back before we start up again, with the
10-minute break.
Ms. Filson, would you call over there and see how she's doing at
the elections office?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We really need a fourth
commissioner up here to make this work right. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, have we got any items we
can handle?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have -- you have a hot mike.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2007-168: REAPPOINTING LEE HORN TO THE
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 9A. It's appointment of a member to
the Contractor's Licensing Board.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioners, if! may, on my executive
summary, I said the term was going to expire June 30, 2007. I meant
to say 20 I O. It's a three-year term.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
MS. FILSON: And this is a reappointment to the Contractor's
Licensing Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 49
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning and second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-169: APPOINTING FRANK HALAS TO
REPRESENT COLLIER COUNTY ON THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is appointment of the
county commissioner to serve on the Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me --let me poll. There's -- I'm
already on it. Commissioner Henning's just coming out of it. We've
got two commissioners left. What's the interest of the two
commissioners as far as that goes? Any comments, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll turn this over to Commissioner
Fiala. If she has any interest, that's fine. If not, I'm not sure where
Commissioner Coyle is on this, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to weigh in on that just
Page 50
June 26-27, 2007
a little bit and say, I'm going to be running for election.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so I know that I'm going to be
pretty busy, but you aren't, and I think you would represent us
beautifully on there, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second your motion, before he has
a chance to decline.
With that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of
Commissioner Halas to go onto the Regional Planning Council as a
representative from Collier County, indicate by saying 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, 4-0.
Congratulations, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Just what I need.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I think you'll thoroughly
enjoy it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You will.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They have so much information
about regional -- regional issues.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I look forward to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's very helpful. And what
affects what goes on in another county does affect all the citizens of
Southwest Florida. And the initiative they had for the Cocohatchee
drainage basin is a wealth of information and a benefit to the citizens
in Collier County. So you'll enjoy it.
Page 51
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do a good job as well, I know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I'm sure you will.
Item #9C
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
RECRUITMENT SEARCH REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING THE
TIMELINE - APPROVED
Okay. Next item, 9C.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that -- and remember that 9D really is
9C, it's just a continuation and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- mistake on the printer's part. It's a
recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to review
and approve the county attorney's recruitment search request for
proposal RFP and provide direction to staff regarding a timeline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Page 52
June 26-27, 2007
Item #1 OA
REQUESTED ANAL YSIS AND RECOMMENDA nON ABOUT
THE ABILITY TO USE CONSERV AnON COLLIER LANDS
FOR MInGA nON CREDIT FOR COUNTY ROADS AND
FACILITIES PROJECTS - APPROVED W/TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOA. It's
providing requested analysis and a recommendation about the ability
to use Conservation Collier land for mitigation credit for county roads
and facilities. And Ms. Alex Sulecki, Principal Environmental
Specialist for Facility Management will present.
I'm looking for Ms. Sulecki.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know she's here because I saw her
earlier.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioners, ifit would -- if it would be
okay, we'll go to the next item, if that's all right, and then we'll come
back to A. She might be in the rest area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a polite way of putting it.
MR. MUDD: lOB, it's a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There she is.
MR. MUDD: I'll go back to lOA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should have lOB on
deck.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning. Sorry to make you wait.
MR. MUDD: Go.
MS. SULECKI: I'm up? Okay.
MR. MUDD: I've already read it.
MS. SULECKI: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Alex Sulecki. I'm the coordinator for the Conservation
Page 53
June 26-27, 2007
Collier program, and I'm here this morning because some time ago
you had asked staff to do a little analysis and make some
recommendations in regards to whether the county can use lands
purchased by Conservation Collier for mitigation for county road
projects; I think particularly transportation was discussed.
I'm not sure how you would like me to present this morning. I
can go through the executive summary and the results of my analysis
or I can answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think I'll just ask a couple
questions or talk to you a little bit.
MS. SULECKI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a little bit of a problem with
this only because one of the criteria we've had all along with
Conservation Collier lands is that they remain open to the public, and
once they become mitigation lands, I guess that closes them up, and
that isn't really what the voters voted on. That's my first concern.
What?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I missed that one.
MS. SULECKI: Well, not necessarily. That's possible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Well, like, for instance, I
thought it was interesting they currently have 1,500 acres they
manage, but you can't open to the public because it was purchased for
mitigation.
MS. SULECKI: That's true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I was thinking, maybe there's
another way because I like the idea of keeping the money in Collier
County, I liked the idea of mitigation right here.
So we have a B list from Conservation Collier that we don't
really buy, right, but yet we're thinking of buying. Maybe our
transportation department might want to consider that B list as
mitigation lands and possibly go along there, buy that, and then use
Page 54
June 26-27,2007
that. It would help augment the program and yet it's the list that we
aren't currently buying right now. That's one thought.
Another thought that I had was there's CREW lands that are in
Collier County that are contiguous with Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed area, and they're trying to buy up some of those
lands; they don't have the money. Maybe that would be something
that our transportation department would want to consider buying,
keeping in mitigation, and it would help to protect our future water
sources.
So those are some suggestions I thought I might throw onto the
table for our -- my fellow commissioners and for you. If you'd like to
comment on either one of those.
MS. SULECKI: Well, the B list we do -- I mean, the list is
public and we do communicate with all departments all during the
process of looking at these lands, so they have an opportunity to see
what we have and to tell us what interest they may have in it.
The problem is that mitigation lands typically have to be larger
than what we're looking at. So the opportunities to actually use the
lands that we have either on the A or B or even the C list are fairly
limited.
Conservation Collier is looking for high-quality conservation
lands. Those are the properties that make our list, and mitigation is
looking for degraded lands to restore. So it's a little bit different thing.
We might find some opportunities on Conservation Collier lands, but
typically our lands are not the best for mitigation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about the contiguous then to
the CREW lands?
MS. SULECKI: That would work. I don't see any problem with
that. We do have, you know, a willing seller. We're a willing-seller
program. And my understanding, from talking to transportation staff,
is that even -- when they buy lands for mitigation for transportation
projects, it's a willing-seller type of thing, too. We have already sent
Page 55
June 26-27, 2007
letters to all those folks, so I don't know if there's willing sellers there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what -- my point, of course, is
to keep the dollars here, to have our own transportation department
spending their dollars right here in Collier County, and -- and so
maybe there's a way that we can -- I see Norman. He's waiting in the
wings there. He's in the batter's cage. You want to step up to the plate
here?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
Commissioner, I think to bring the issue back to perspective,
what we're looking at is, right now, 80 percent of Collier County is in
conservation. As we go through, whether it's transportation building a
road project, other things that you do here in the county, we are
required to secure additional mitigation lands.
What is raised is we are in a process of bringing more and more
lands into conservation through Conservation Collier, which is great.
The question is, while we're doing that, those lands, can we get credit
for bringing those lands into the conservation realm and can they be
credits addressing mitigation for other things we, as a county, are
doing, whether it be transportation or other activities?
So it's not so much an issue of transportation going out and
buying more mitigation or the Conservation Collier lands, although
we have to show specifically on a project what we're buying and it has
to be related to that transportation project or I can't go beyond that.
But the issue is, when we're buying Conservation Collier lands, we're
not getting the credits, whether they be panther, uplands, wetlands
credits, or whatever, and should we not seek the ability to get credits
for those lands that we're bringing into conservation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that they were open to the public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that very much,
Page 56
June 26-27, 2007
Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with Mr. Feder. In light
of the fact of -- we're having to do rollback, we need to get smarter on
how we use the public's money.
And I don't see it as an actual prohibition to -- for the public to
enjoy these lands as I read the executive summery.
I want to give that direction to do exactly what Mr. Feder said so
we can enjoy those expensive mitigation credits and build some roads,
you know, put more pavement on the surface for the people to enjoy
their -- their quality of life. You have to have that balance, and I think
Commissioner Coyle bringing this topic up really fits that balance.
So I'm going to make that motion to give that direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Your motion is to follow the
recommendations within the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To follow what Mr. Feder said,
because that, what I'm understanding is, that wasn't -- seeing your
body language, that wasn't the exact understanding what you thought
we were going to do.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I don't think there's a conflict between
what you're saying and what Mr. Feder is saying and what we've
recommended. I'm just pointing out that the lands that we buy, the
opportunities for mitigation are fairly limited.
We do have a couple right now that we're looking at, the Starnes
property in unit 53, that may be useful, and we have determined that
we don't need an ordinance change to do this and that we can look at
these on a case-by-case basis.
But I think it's important to note that Conservation Collier lands,
the buying of them is not going to solve the mitigation problems for
transportation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it will augment it.
MS. SULECKI: Because simply the buying of good quality
Page 57
June 26-27, 2007
lands, it does not do it. It's the restoration. So there may be some
opportunities for them to buy lands for us to restore. I think -- we just
have to look at that on a case-by-case basis, and we are doing that
right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, there's -- the
last sentence of the recommendation says, on what properties Collier
Conservation is reviewing it so that all opportunities for savings to the
taxpayers through mitigation opportunities can be explored. Is that
more or less -- I think that kind of emulates what Mr. F eders (sic) is
saymg.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What everybody said, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second your motion.
Any other comments? Commissioner Halas, I'm sorry. I didn't
want to ignore you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right now, as you brought up, it's
basically the Starnes property. And, of course, if we decide to go in
this manner, that will be basically totally used for mitigation and -- as
Commissioner Fiala was concerned about because of the fact that it's
restoration of wetlands and trying to encourage wildlife to be in that
area, that's why this will be off limits; is that correct?
MS. SULECKI: Well, the conservation, or the credits that we
could obtain from Starnes have to do with panther habitat credits.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. SULECKI: Yes. And it would involve setting aside the
land and also doing some restoration on it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MS. SULECKI: And the thing with that property is that it's of
sufficient size to gain the mitigation, it's in a good location, and it's
right next to -- or it's right -- it has panther cross pathways along it,
and so it fits the bill.
Page 58
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
MS. SULECKI: Most of our properties don't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other thing is, we keep
those mitigation dollars here in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right.
MS. SULECKI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the biggest thing, especially
with the price of panther mitigation. I think it's like $62,000 or
$64,000 an acre.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: And there's a -- just a map that show us where
the panther crosses it. So it would be there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All right. Let's see, any other
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes it, 4-0.
Mr. Mudd, take one more.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
Item #lOB
CHANGE ORDER NO.3 TO CONTRACT NO. 07-4075 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $143,030 WITH MITCHELL & STARK
Page 59
June 26-27, 2007
CONSTRUCTION CO. EXPENDING FUNDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATE FENCE FOR PROPERTIES IN
THE QUEENS PARK SUBDIVISION AS PART OF PHASE 1A OF
THE LEL Y AREA STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
PROJECT NO. 511011 - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO JULY 24,
2007 BCC MEETING APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is lOB. It's a recommendation to
approve change order number three to contract number 07-4075 in the
amount of$143,030 with Mitchell & Stark Construction Company,
expending funds for construction of a private fence for properties in
the Queens Park subdivision as part of phase 1A of the Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Project, project number 511011. Mr. Gerry
Kurtz, Principal Project Manager from Stormwater will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala for approval and a second by Commissioner
Henning.
Please go ahead, sir.
MR. KURTZ: Good morning. I'm Gerry Kurtz, your Principal
Project Manager for Stormwater.
Item before you is a change order to the contract with Mitchell &
Stark to install a private fence between our newly constructed LASIP
phase 1A canal along the east side of the homes in Queens Park.
Let me just -- so everybody knows where we're talking about.
Where it says subject area there, that's the Queens Park neighborhood
to the left. The whole entire blue strip is where we constructed the
canal in between Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Davis Boulevard.
So to the left there, it affects about 30 homes.
And this issue came up prior -- briefly on the March 13th board
meeting just prior to us beginning the construction in the canal. At
Page 60
June 26-27, 2007
your time -- at that time your direction was for us to get with the
residents, the affected residents, and if they could agree on a specific
type of fence and if they could get the homeowners association
endorsement of that fence, that we would bring the fence back for
your review and approval.
Staff did receive documentation from the homeowners
association that they approved the fence installation in their board
meeting in May, and the vote was 4-1 in approval. As well, the board
did endorse a specific type of fence in size.
They also endorsed the concept of running the fence
contiguously from one end of their property to the other.
And I'm sorry, Commissioner, I didn't bring the sample that you
had gotten. I meant to and I forgot. But here's a nice picture showing
what the fence would be. It's a vinyl six-foot high wood-colored
fence.
We also received a memo from the Queens Park residents that
documented that every one of the 30 people were contacted and -- or
attempted to be contacted, and there was a little survey taken. Thirty
people affected there; three did not want the fence, two couldn't be
contacted, one was undecided, and one didn't respond, but 23 people
were in favor of this fence being constructed.
So given that, we -- we then stipulated how we could get this
fence put into the project. And we have five stipulations that staff
came up with. The affected property owners are aware of these five
stipulations. Some of them may be a little controversial. I just wanted
to point them out briefly.
The first one is, we have that fence approved and it's in the
change order, the cost and the construction of it, so we went with that
specific type of fence. But where the fence needs to be located so it
doesn't hinder our maintenance and operations, we need the fence to
be located five feet away from the maintenance roadbed. We
reinforced a roadbed, 10- foot wide roadbed, but we need clearance
Page 61
June 26-27, 2007
away from the edge. So here's a graphic showing where we'd like the
fence.
And that's to prevent the fence from being damaged when
equipment has to come up and down the maintenance way, albeit
pretty infrequently, but we'd like to just put it in the right spot one
time.
The other stipulation is that we didn't want to put the fence
behind people's houses that didn't want the fence, so we'd like to put it
only behind people that want the fence.
And the next stipulation is that the fence would be the property
owner's fence. They would have to agree to maintenance
responsibility of it in perpetuity.
And the last stipulation is that we would reserve the right to
move it if we had to in an extreme case, in case of an emergency or
there was something going on along the canal where we just needed
more room.
If you approve this change order, the cost of the fence is on time
and materials, so we can easily do it lot by lot and just be -- expense
just be incurred for specific locations.
And we would also obtain a release from each property owner so
we're absolutely certain that they want the fence.
And here is one last graphic showing the fence imposed on a
photograph I took yesterday. You can see the -- there's a reinforced
roadbed in that 10- foot area. The yellow line represents the top of the
bank. So from there to the right it's a flat area. There's a reinforced
material underneath there. That's our travel way. It's covered with
bahia sod.
And then we would put the fence back a total of 15 feet away
from the top of the bank. That would give us adequate clearance to
swing our equipment if we had to.
One other thing is, there would have to be more than likely a
little bit more clearing done. When we originally cleared the property,
Page 62
June 26-27, 2007
we cleared it as minimal as possible. We had more easement area, but
we wanted to keep the impacts as small as possible so we did not clear
in anticipation of originally putting up a fence.
And if you have any questions --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Gerry, what do we do about
the property owners that do not want a fence? What kind of liabilities
does that put us in regards to having that space open then?
MR. KURTZ: Well, the canal was constructed as the safest
design out there possible. It's a 3-to-l slope, which means for every
three feet out you only go down one foot, so it's a very gentle gradual
slope.
The designers, as well as all the guidelines for designing this type
of canal all agree that -- you know, that slope can be easily navigated
by adults and children. So I would have to say that I think the liability
is minimal, if any, to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: To people that don't put the fence
in place?
MR. KURTZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's -- my concern is that
if somebody ends up -- and they don't want the fence and then leave
that open, hopefully there won't -- we don't have any liabilities there.
That's my concern.
MR. KURTZ: It's the current state of the art for canal and lake
bank design, so there's nothing out of the ordinary with that
configuration.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so these people realize that
they're going to take on the maintenance of this? I mean, this is -- I
figured when we were going to put a fence up, that was going to be
something like a chain link fence or something. I didn't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what they had originally
planned, and this is a cheaper fence but something that the residents
Page 63
June 26-27, 2007
chose instead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is more inexpensive than a
chain link?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
I'm sorry. Were you done, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Halas'
question was never answered. And is this fence cheaper than a chain
link fence, cyclone fence?
MR. KURTZ: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you told me it was. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, I just -- I think it's
important that questions be answered.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
MR. KURTZ: I say that with a little hesitation, as we did -- we
did not get a like-for-like cost estimate for chain link versus this. But
in general, the chain link is a cheaper product than this vinyl. It looks
a lot better. It's opaque. You know, chain link you can see right
through, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, maybe that's not a bad
thing to see right through it. Maybe that's an extra value to see
through it because actually you're seeing water retention.
The -- so I mean, I think chain link is cheaper, and the whole
issue is about safety, what they brought, the citizens brought up
previously. So I'm going to remove my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll go ahead and make the motion to
approve staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.e
Page 64
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the reason I did that is very
simple. I don't think the cost difference is worth making the residents,
after the long process they went through, living with something that's
secondary. To be honest with you, I would love to know what the
difference is, but I assume that it's minimal for the most part? You
don't know, so I can't expect you to answer.
MR. KURTZ: We did get a cost for a chain link. I just -- I can't
remember what it was, but I know it was cheaper.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we bring this back to another
meeting?
MR. KURTZ: The chain link estimate that we got was for the
whole mile, it was a cost per mile. This is -- this is only 2,000 and
some feet for this, the Queens Park location.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we seem to have some
difficulty here because of the lack of information, so I'm going to
withdraw my motion and make a motion for a continuance.
MR. KURTZ: Shane might -- Shane Cox might know the
number, because we did get a bid for a mile of chain link.
MR. COX: For the record, Shane Cox, Senior Project Manager
of Stormwater.
The winning contractor came in with a bid for a mile of chain
link at 79,000. The other contractors all came in about 140-.
Now, the quote that came from the residents in Queens Park for
this vinyl fence was 58,000. They did not understand the extra
clearing, the staking, some of the other tasks that needed to be
included with that, so that's why our quote is 143-.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it sounds like it's a lot
cheaper for chain link fence, substantially cheaper.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we need any more information?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, if you don't mind. First of all,
the residents, when we first talked about a fence at that time -- I just
have to tell you, I didn't think I was misleading you because that's
Page 65
June 26-27, 2007
what Gerry told me, right, Ger? That you said the vinyl fence was
cheaper than that chain link?
MR. KURTZ: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At that meeting, no?
MR. KURTZ: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. KURTZ: I never said that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. I thought we all heard that, but
anyway. That's all right. It's not --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not a big deal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not important. The chain link
fence to the residents looks like a chain link fence around a used car
lot. It looks like the Sprint thing on Davis Boulevard. It's ugly. And
they did not want a chain link fence. And we told them that we would
get them a fence. Some said they didn't want to have a fence at all.
We said, you don't have to have a fence. We'll only put it in on those
places that wanted it.
They all had meetings together. They interviewed different fence
companies. They found the fence that they felt would be suitable and
that they could all accept, and they brought that back to us. They even
did a little homework with pricing and so forth.
And what we were trying to do was support their effort. They
lost 80 feet of their back yards, every one of them, and so they have
very little left of their back yard, and what they were hoping to do was
have something nice that's remaining. Not a chain link fence.
MR. KURTZ: Yeah. Well, I agree with you there 100 percent.
Right from the get-go we wanted to give them the fence that they
wanted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, I would suggest
that we continue the item, or at least see if we can get the support for
it. I'd hate to see all this effort go to naught.
Page 66
June 26-27,2007
I'm going to make a motion for continuance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. I'll second it. I don't
know. It sounds like people have their minds made up here, and it's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not necessarily, but I think maybe if
we have a chance to be able to study it a little bit more, come up with
exact numbers. Maybe some of the residents could come to the next
meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We have one standing there
against the wall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They're not signed up to speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think continuance would be in the
best --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. KURTZ: What other information?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think what we need is some
time to be able to digest the information you gave us, maybe a more
complete breakdown showing what the cost is on paper sent to all the
commissioners, and then we can also weigh it against the benefits that
the residents would receive there for the loss of the use of their land.
MR. KURTZ: The -- right from the beginning ofthis issue, they
were adamant the chain link was not to be even put on the table.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And one of the things they
said was, to buy the fence, being that we took so much fill out that
we're able to use now in other places --I know that they're going to be
using that over, I heard, EOC, and so forth. They said, instead of
paying us for all of the earth that we paid for originally, could you just
use that to buy the fence? And we were hoping one would pay for the
other and it would, like, discount any charge whatsoever. Weare
selling that dirt.
MR. KURTZ: We -- the dirt went back and forth a little bit. The
Page 67
June 26-27, 2007
dirt we -- originally when it was clean fill, had a value, and it started
going to the landfill, and we were going to get reimbursed a small fee.
It wasn't much. It was about $4 a cubic yard or something, and
quickly we started hitting rock, and the value of the fill with big
boulders in it -- I mean, they were like as little as this (indicating) up
to huge size. We had to stop that.
And we reverted back to the original contract, which was -- the
original contract was bid out as the contractor to disclose of the
excess. So he took it and -- you know, at his expense, he'll manipulate
it, and whatever they do with it. But it was -- no, it was actually
horrible material the majority of it. Nobody could use it, only just a
very small amount. But luckily the way we bid it we had an
alternative where we -- if it was coming out clean, it could have been
used, but it was really bad.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion for
continuance. I see two lights on. I don't know if they've been on.
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I want to put things in
perspective. It was always my understanding they were concerned
about safety, not aesthetics. And the second thing, this is a drainage
easement, and the only way that you're going to be able utilize that
easement is if you dig a hole in the ground. You know, it was always
anticipated.
And, again, you know, we need to be smarter on how we use the
taxpayers' dollars. I don't think we have a choice in that, unless we
change the level of service on things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got the opportunity to
argue that another day.
Commissioner Halas, you got a final note?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just -- maybe what we need to do
is find out what the cost for chain link fence is, and then we know
what the cost is for this fence. And if the people are interested in
Page 68
June 26-27, 2007
having this type of fence, maybe they pay the difference.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That sounds good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, all these options are--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All these options will come back,
yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, no more lights
on. All those in favor of the motion for a continuance, indicate by
saymg 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.
Okay. We have a time certain, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we have a time certain. Continuance till
the 24th of July, sir?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I think by then -- it shouldn't be
that be difficult of a matter once we come back with all the
information.
Item #10D
ENGINEERING REVIEW STAFF TO ISSUE COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.002 TO FLORIDA ROCK
INDUSTRIES FOR THE PROJECT CALLED, NORTH BELLE
MEADE MINE. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 998.9 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS, SITTING IN SECTIONS 21, 27, AND 28 OF
TOWNSHIP 49, SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY SITTING SOUTH OF
GOLDEN GATE EST A TES AND THE EXISTING WARREN
Page 69
June 26-27, 2007
BROTHERS PUD (THE AP AC PIT), IN THE NORTH BELLE
MEADE RURAL FRINGE RECEIVING LANDS NORTH OF 1-75 -
APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have a time certain, that has to do
with 10D and 10E for 11 o'clock. A recommendation to direct
engineering review staff to issue a commercial excavation permit
number 60.002, the Florida Rock Industries for the project called
North Belle Meade Mine. The project consists of998.9 acres more or
less sitting in Sections 21, 27, 28 of Township 49 south, Range 27
east, Collier County, Florida.
More particularly sitting south of Golden Gate Estates in the
existing Warner Brothers -- Warren Brothers PUD, the APAC pit, and
the North Belle Meade rural fringe receiving lands north ofI-75, and
then we'll talk about the developer's contribution agreement after the
permit issue is discussed.
Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Services Department, will
present.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski from Engineering Review.
I know I made this presentation to you. Well, the pit you're
looking at is about a 750-acre pit that's going to sit on about a
thousand acres of land in the North Belle Meade area.
And I know I made this presentation to you about two years ago
about commercial mining in Collier County. I made it to you once as
the Board of County Commissioners, and a few months later I made it
again when you were sitting with the Regional Planning Council and
the local DOT and a few other agencies up in Lee County.
And about a year ago, we had a developer's group, a consultant
group, come back in with a report about a follow-up on my first
presentation about rock mining in Collier County.
But the first slide you're looking at you've seen before. This
Page 70
June 26-27, 2007
BROTHERS PUD (THE APAC PIT), IN THE NORTH BELLE
MEADE RURAL FRINGE RECEIVING LANDS NORTH OF 1-75 -
APPROVED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We have a time certain, that has to do
with 10D and 10E for 11 o'clock. A recommendation to direct
engineering review staff to issue a commercial excavation permit
number 60.002, the Florida Rock Industries for the project called
North Belle Meade Mine. The project consists of 998.9 acres more or
less sitting in Sections 21, 27, 28 of Township 49 south, Range 27
east, Collier County, Florida.
More particularly sitting south of Golden Gate Estates in the
existing Warner Brothers -- Warren Brothers PUD, the APAC pit, and
the North Belle Meade rural fringe receiving lands north ofI-75, and
then we'll talk about the developer's contribution agreement after the
permit issue is discussed.
Mr. Stan Chrzanowski, Engineering Services Department, will
present.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Stan
Chrzanowski from Engineering Review.
I know I made this presentation to you. Well, the pit you're
looking at is about a 750-acre pit that's going to sit on about a
thousand acres ofland in the North Belle Meade area.
And I know I made this presentation to you about two years ago
about commercial mining in Collier County. I made it to you once as
the Board of County Commissioners, and a few months later I made it
again when you were sitting with the Regional Planning Council and
the local DOT and a few other agencies up in Lee County.
And about a year ago, we had a developer's group, a consultant
group, come back in with a report about a follow-up on my first
presentation about rock mining in Collier County.
But the first slide you're looking at you've seen before. This
Page 70
June 26-27,2007
wasn't changed from the original presentation. This is a map we did
maybe four or five years ago of all the commercial mines in Collier
County.
And if you look at the bottom corner here, the different shades of
purple -- I don't know how well they show up -- the more intense
mining is the darker shades. The lighter shades are areas that were not
exactly a commercial mine. They were just a development that was
hauling fill off site.
As you look at the map, this pit down here, the old Harmon
Brothers pit, that's been taken by DEP. It's no longer operational.
This is the Jesse Hardy pit. That's been closed down by DEP. No
longer operational.
C-Con has been out of operation for years. I heard a rumor that
they were going to try to come back in to deepen the lake up, but it's
relatively small. Willow Run Quarry has been running for quite a
while. The Maraytay (phonetic) Pit is done, wrapped up, and I think
turned into a subdivision.
This is the AP AC pit, from the shape of it, back quarter section is
the newly permitted area. The top section has a road through the
middle. It's pretty well dug out.
This is the Old Florida Rock pits. The Florida Rock finished, and
they turned it into the Quarry subdivision. This is the Jones Mining
pit. Jones Mining originally came in as a subdivision with a big lake in
the middle, and I think as -- you'll notice with a lot of these pits, as the
economy changes, they go from pit to subdivision to pit. Whatever's
going to net them the most amount of money.
Well, Jones started as a subdivision with a lake in the middle, and
then the value offill went up. And they are on the verge of where the
rock and the sand meet.
So at first they started and they wanted no blasting. They were
just going to dig out the fill. And you remember that they came back
in for blasting at a later date. We gave them the blasting permission,
Page 71
June 26-27, 2007
and you were on the verge of shutting that down a couple of times
because of neighborhood complaints. It's not a good idea to put mines
close to neighborhoods. They're fairly far away. They're probably a
quarter mile away from the nearest house, but the complaints
continue.
The little notch up above that is the Longanne pit. They're
digging sand out of there. There's no rock. Out here this is
Winchester Lake. They're digging sand -- not -- well, I say sand, but
it's just regular fill. Winchester Lake is fill. There's no rock.
And as you get up above Immokalee, off the top of the page is a
pit called the Stewart Mine, and it's on 82. And he's getting a very
nice grade of sand like you'd use for septic tanks or beaches. So you
can see the pattern was that the lower pits were all in rock.
As you get up into here, your fill, and this is the Sunny land pit, I
think you used engineering expression, they're putzing around out
there, but we don't know what they're doing. They kind of have a lot
of open pits out there but not really hauling much. And I think part of
the reason is they're just so far out it takes money to haul fill. Besides
the price of the fill, you pay for the trucking charges, and they're
probably too far out to do anything.
But Ave Maria also has a little pit that they started up that they're
going to use for Oil Well Road and for their own internal fill, but
Stewart up here is a very high grade of sand.
And you can see the pattern going through the mines in Collier
County. And if you look at -- we took this off the u.s. Geological
survey website. It's a U.S. geologic map of Florida.
And you can see that there's different geologic formations as you
look down through the state, and those formations -- we found another
site that was the hydrogeology of the Limestone Aquifer of Southern
Florida.
And as you looked at the sections through southern Florida, you
can see the different aquifers rise and fall, the different rock
Page 72
June 26-27,2007
formations rise and fall, get thinner, get deeper, and it continues.
Now, one point in my original presentation was that the probable
areas of hard rock availability in Collier County -- and what's way out
here was not even included in it -- we based it on the soils maps of
Collier County, and they're a pretty good indicator of where the rock
is below the soil.
If you look at these areas, it just about shows you what the mines
showed you, that the southern area is rock and the northern area is fill
or sand.
And when we overlaid the mines on the areas of hard rock, you
see the same pattern. The only one that's questionable is Jones. He
shows a little bit of rock in there. There's -- they say they're finding
more than that, which is why they want to blast, and rock is becoming
a premium commodity, so we're naturally encouraging them to get the
rock out.
Now, in your zoning ordinance, the green is the areas that we
allowed some type of mining, digging out fill or rock for some reason.
The red areas, no mining is allowed period, but the future land use
limits that even more. The red areas being where mining is not
allowed. And then you get into the combination of both with the
mines superimposed on them.
The next slide is the one that matters a lot. This was the
presentation -- the present limitations on the mining as of the time of
my presentation to you. We have -- you can't mine in the Estates, not
commercially anyway. The Warren Brothers pit shows up here. It's a
PUD, so it shows up as PUD, yellow, PUD.
Golden Gate, this is -- this is Orangetree area up in here. You
have a few PUDs. You can't mine here in the conservation areas,
which are, oh, out over here. Area of critical state concern, you can't
mme.
And the soils -- this is the soils overlaid on the areas where you're
not allowed to mine. And you can see -- you can mine up here, but
Page 73
June 26-27, 2007
there's very little rock up here, and there was quite a bit of rock in here
where you could mine. You're surrounded by PUDs and by the
Estates and by the state purchase Subsouth Blocks of the Estates. You
could still mine in here quite a bit.
Then, for some reason, in spite of me, we decided that we're not
going to let people mine in here, the rural fringe sending areas, which
left this little area in here where you could mine rock in Collier
County. And there's probably other smaller areas, but if you want to
get any decent-size mines, that's where they're going to have to go.
Now, the project that you're going to be looking at is that circle
right here, and it sits right in the middle of those receiving areas where
you can mme.
Now, I know Mr. Mudd didn't go through the introduction to the
haul road. The haul road comes from that pit down toward 1-75, and
then it heads directly west toward 951. The haul road is how they
intend getting the fill out of this mine.
1-75, when it gets built, is going to require a lot offill. It's going
to require a lot of rock. I talked to Stanley Conn (phonetic) from DOT
who had done presentations for the Florida Engineering Society and
probably some local bodies here. He's in charge of the construction of
1-75.
They told me that they have fill. They have bought land on the
sides of 1-75 and they have plenty of fill, but they don't have much
rock and they don't have a good source of it.
This appears to be a very good source of rock for the construction
of the widening ofI-75. And if you'd paid attention to the newspaper
in the last year, you've seen a lot of articles where the state was going
to issue some type of proclamation saying that rock mining, they were
actually going to overrule some of the counties because they thought
that the amount of rock mining was being stopped from happening in
the amount of -- it needed to be done for construction.
So here we have a pit that's direct n the haul road coming from it
Page 74
June 26-27, 2007
is directly heading toward 1-75. They're going to rebuild or widen
1-75. They're going to need the rock. And this is -- if you look at it,
this location is an ideal location for that mine.
I know the county manager didn't go through Nick
Casalanguida's presentation or the introduction to it, but I really think
his should be the next part of this that you should hear.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, and -- what he's referring to is item
10E, and that would be a recommendation to approve a developer's
contribution agreement with Florida Rock Industries, Inc., Rockland
LLC, and FRK Putnam LLC, developer, in Collier County to acquire
land, design, permit, and construct a two-lane rural haul road within
the footprint of the future four-lane Wilson Boulevard extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before you begin, Nick, what
I'm going to do is ask my commissioners if they'll take their questions
and write them down, and then when you get through with your
presentation, we'll come back if we need and we'll call Stan back up. I
would like to see if we could try -- how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Six.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Six speakers? I'm a little bit
concerned. I know we're going to run past 12 noon with this. We
have a 12 o'clock time certain with the County Attorney's Office that
we're going to have to break for, and we won't come back till one.
So I would like to try to see if I can fit the public speakers in
before we get to that 12 o'clock so that we can -- if they wish to stay
afterwards, they can come back at one o'clock and participate, but if
they have to get back to work, they'll be able to do so.
Nick, how long do you need for your presentation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably about five or 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please continue, then with the
permission of the commissioners at that time, we'll go to the speakers.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
Page 75
June 26-27, 2007
with Transportation Planning. If I could find my presentation, I'd be
doing okay. I'm just looking on the IDrive. Let's see. It says it's
mapped out as boardroom presentations folder. I don't see that right
here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually the Caribbean Garden one
was a good one. Just offering a suggestion.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: All right. I don't see it there, and I
was told it was on the other one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, did you need a few minutes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, if I can find this in here, then we
should be good. BCC meetings, and there should be one that's labeled
June 26, 2007.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A suggestion would be, is probably at
the beginning of the meeting to come up and put it on the desktop so it
will be ready to go for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: June 26, right on the top there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not same IDrive I was looking
at, and that's not in there. Okay. That's interesting. I can put the
displays on Elmo. I think it will work just as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was June 26th on the top of that
list.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. I can tell you I put in for
vacation this week, and I don't know if Norman's going to sign it. I'm
supposed to leave Friday, so hopefully I'll do a good job and he'll sign
the form.
It's been a year I've been driving the rest of the staff crazy with
this project, so I beg your indulgence as we go through it.
What you see on the viewer right now is the current 2030 needs
plan. And as you can see on there, you are looking at the Wilson
Boulevard extension as a four-lane roadway, and it continues south
from Golden Gate Boulevard and then west along 1-75 to the terminus
of 951. It also crosses over down to Benfield Road, which is part of
Page 76
June 26-27, 2007
the next part of our study that we're doing.
The corridor study is from Golden Gate Boulevard all the way
down to U.S. 41 with a focus on how to cross 1-75 and Benfield Road.
So as you look at that, you can get a feel for what we were doing.
The rock hauling is very much consistent with the location of that
LRTP.
If you look on the viewer, the bright yellow area is the location of
the Florida Rock facility. And to the south you can see the red line
wrapping around. It is the haul road that continues west. And about
where Mr. Mudd is stopping, it turns off on Utilities Drive, Landfill
Road, White Lake Boulevard. It's known by three different projects.
Roughly almost four miles.
What we've done -- and with numerous iterations back and forth
with the developer and our consultants, we've gone and analyzed what
that would look like and what the road would need to be.
And in doing so, we've had, I want to say, various disagreements,
and we've finally come up with something that we have agreed on.
And I want to show you the overlay of the two roads.
You can see on the map, the road on top to the right is a typical
section for a two-lane roadway with rural water management on the
outside of the road. Originally, as proposed by Florida Rock, they
wanted to put that 100- foot alignment in the middle of our future road.
Well, that meant when we go to build Wilson Boulevard, we'd be
throwing all that away. We'd have to rip it up, take care of
maintenance of traffic and so forth.
Again -- and this has been going on for a year, so you get to see
the last week of it, but for a year we've been deliberating with these
gentlemen to go back and forth.
What you see now is the four-lane section underneath that will be
our future road. If you notice, it's pretty much consistent. There is
very little throwaway between the two roads. It vastly inarrested (sic)
the costs that they're going to put into this project. It raised it up to
Page 77
June 26-27, 2007
almost $l 0 million to construct that road, but we said we're not going
to bring to the board a recommendation of approval of road if it's not
consistent with what we're going to need in the future and if we have
to rip it up later on.
What you have in front of you is the review criteria we used.
When we originally looked at the application, understanding it was
just a mining application and we looked at concurrency, well, some of
the neighbors objected and there were concerns that, well, how far out
are you looking at this traffic that's involved in this project.
And we said, well, we could go out today, what it would be like,
but that would be not particularly palatable probably to the board or to
the neighbors. So we did it with policy 5.1, which is the five-year
period.
We said, let's look out five years. Let's see what the
improvements are going to be like and compare it to what capacity is
available. Well, I got to tell you, it's deceiving. When you talk about
500 trucks a day, or in the p.m. peak hour they were restricted to 25,
that's roughly a truck every two and a half minutes. It's not that much.
It's a pretty insignificant amount when you look at vehicles coming
off. It's consistent with policy 5.1.
We have also gone to the added burden of, analysis was provided
by the consultant, WilsonMiller, and then we had concerns from some
of the neighbors. And we said, you know what? We're going to do
our own analysis. And you'll see farther in the presentation I said,
we've spent quite a bit of money, I want it back, and we'll put that as
part of the agreement that we get it back.
But at least it's in an independent analysis and not done by
Florida Rock so you know that you feel comfortable someone else has
done that.
So we did that and we took the 2010 design and we ran the
analysis on it and it passed. And our consultant said, you know,
you're talking 25 trucks in the p.m. peak hour, and there's daily
Page 78
June 26-27, 2007
volumes as well, too, but with the design that you're doing to this
intersection of 951, the intersection's not going to have a problem in
2010 when it opens up.
I'm squinting a little bit here because my eyes are going.
The project also is consistent with policy three in the transportation
element for future advanced right-of-way acquisition. One of the
biggest things you'll find going forward is our ability to secure
right-of-way in the future. We brought for you, through the GMP
cycle, an amendment to protect corridors. It was adopted. We know
that that's going to be a priority.
What happens is, if you don't buy the right-of-way until later on
as the land develops, that right-of-way value shoots through the roof.
The minute, if this road is approved, the value of the land out there
will go up, and it's even harder to acquire the right-of-way. So by
doing so in advance, you save yourself a significant amount of dollars.
So this policy is consistent with what we're doing with this
application. You are buying right-of-way for the Wilson Boulevard
extension as a public road and we're not spending a dime on it. The
developer is putting all his money towards it. And in the last bullet
point we talked about the corridor protection ordinance.
What you have in front of you is part of what I'd sent you. It's
the -- one of the highlights out of the technical memorandum, it talks
about the opening year in 2010 and what the intersection will look like
or work like, and I have an exhibit that shows you existing and future
intersections. It's a level of service D.
What should be noted critically is the last bullet point, what
they're saying is, Florida Rock's impact in the p.m. peak hour on the
total intersection is .3 percent of the capacity utilization. It's
insignificant in terms of that.
When you look at total intersection capacity or, I'm sorry, the
westbound approach, it's around 1.2 percent. So it's a small volume
coming through.
Page 79
June 26-27, 2007
Now, what will explain that, why you're coming to a number that
works well is when you look at the existing intersection and then a
future intersection, it will explain why.
Can't see the lane call too well there, but you're familiar with the
two intersections. That's City Gate north and Utilities Drive to the
south. Right now there are single lanes coming out of there. They're
not expanded to their full capacity.
You only have a four-lane section in front of you. We're going to
eight lanes for a section of 951 for a small section because we're doing
drop rights in both directions with triple lefts coming out of both
intersections and dual -- receiving dual lefts coming back in.
So you are taking an intersection -- two intersections right now
that are -- work fine today. We understand there's background traffic
and there's projects across the street coming onboard, and you're going
to go to a future intersection design that looks like this.
Tough to see the lane call. I don't know if we can zoom in on --
maybe on this southern intersection right here. It's vastly different
from what's out there today. That is what's being designed right now
under a contract that we have with CH2MHill. That is also included
in the project that we'll be trying to bring to the board next year for
construction with the Davis Boulevard section of roadway. That's that
one mile on Davis and one mile on Collier, and that's scheduled to be
completed sometime in 2010.
Now, 2007, today, Florida Rock has to go forward and design
and permit their haul road, design and permit their site, improve White
Lake and Landfill Road. The timing of all these comes together. By
the time that intersection is done, they still probably won't have a
truck running on there other than their construction traffic going back
and forth.
The conclusions I can just keep in my hand and I can go through
them with you rather than put them on the viewer because then I won't
be able to see them too well. The application meets all the review
Page 80
June 26-27, 2007
criteria in the GMP, and I've gone past the GMP and I've done some
intersection analysis in 2010.
The application would not significantly or adversely impact those
intersections. We're going to have capacity in those intersections
when they open up all the way out to the year 2015.
One thing that nobody touched on is if you don't give yourself a
local supply of aggregate, locally, as these pits, as Stan pointed out,
start to dry up, these are coming from out of county, Hendry, Lee,
other parts of Collier.
So what you're saying is, if you don't start getting local aggregate
on local roads, the trip lengths for the haul trucks will get longer and
longer, we'll have to through more intersections, highways, and
roadways. So it's important to get a local supply and control that.
I was at DOT yesterday and we talked about a slip ramp for these
folks. DOT said, we'll consider it but not until they have a local
application. So it's kind of the chicken and the egg situation with that
project. They have to get a local application first, and then their
appetites are whet and they want to talk about availability of rock to
1-75.
And the last thing I checked, I know there were concerns for
some of the neighbors. Capacity was always on a first come, first
serve basis. When we do a project and it comes in, similar to
concurrency, if it's available and you put an application forward as a
development order, you can secure that capacity, or as a DCA if that
capacity's available you can have an agreement with the Board of
County Commissioners to get that capacity.
That capacity will be available and these are -- and we're
bringing an application forward to secure some of the capacity, a
minimal amount.
The developer has committed to funding the right-of-way
acquisition, all of it, every dime of it. The design, all of it;
construction of the haul road, as you saw in the overlay, the whole
Page 81
June 26-27, 2007
south side of Wilson Boulevard for almost four miles.
Improvements to White Lake Boulevard and Landfill Road, that
was one of the outstanding items I'll go forward with in a few minutes.
Ongoing commitments to future improvements in the area, and they're
going to pay for the monitor themselves. They're going to pay us and
we're going to hire a consultant, and we're going to keep track of how
many trucks are coming in and out and what the situations and issues
are.
The county's not required to expend any funds as part of this
application until it seeks to continue to expand Wilson Boulevard
extension projects. All future contractual agreements are interest fee
and without expiration.
That's important. Nothing's affected in your five-year plan. The
only thing that will change is we'll come back to the board in the fall
when we change our CIP, we'll include Wilson Boulevard
right-of-way acquisition. We'll say, fund -- by others. We won't be
affecting our budget at all.
Second part of that is, we aren't required to give any money back
to the developer. We have an option purchase price for some land on
their property. For up to 90 years we don't have to exercise that
option if we care not to, and it incurs no interest.
So the developer is funding all of this, banking all of this, no
interest to the county, and we're exercising when we want to. So
there're pretty dynamic points in this agreement.
The developer shall not receive any credit for the 100 feet of
right-of-way he needs for that road inside of Wilson Boulevard nor for
that construction, that portion of the road. That is -- nothing on the
books for that.
The only thing we're putting as an option price on the developer's
land is the expansion from 100 feet to 180 feet, which is that 80- foot
section, and designed to go to 60 percent, and that's the option price
for the developer's land. It's a really neat way we did it, and then I
Page 82
June 26-27, 2007
credit Attorney Klatzkow for coming up with that idea. The county
will secure approximately six miles of right-of-way in water
management's part of this agreement, six miles. That's incredible.
That's a lot of right-of-way in water management you will have put
aside for future Wilson Boulevard.
There are outstanding items. We get to the point where we -- in
the memo I provided to the county manager and also forwarded to
you, the board, there were some issues that we needed to discuss. Our
public utilities and landfill site had concerns about the condition of
White Lake, Landfill Road. Everybody kind of pointed and said, it's
not my responsibility, and we basically told Florida Rock, you need to
step up to the plate because we don't have the budget for it. We just
got a haircut in our legislative session here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A haircut.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, that's pretty much what you
want to call it.
And they've said, well, what's it going to cost us? The estimates
came in about 1. I million; we said about 1.5. They said, we'll give
you 750,000. I said, how about the 1.5? So as it stands right now, I'm
recommending that they the incur cost of that, to improve that
roadway.
And we don't have a design, but we've put in some parameters in
my memo that I provided you is what it should be. And as we get
forward to design, then we'll address that.
Meeting with Administrator DeLony and Dan Rodriguez, they're
satisfied 100 percent that the improvements that are being proposed
will work with what they have.
We've asked for right-of-way for a two-lane section on your
LRTP. And ifI can go back to my first slide. That little circle is an
extension of Keane that, I'll have to admit, as we were going through
the negotiations, it didn't hit me until almost eight months into this and
I said, hold on, I'm leaving something out here.
Page 83
June 26-27, 2007
And Florida Rock was unhappy with it being brought out, but I
said, there's a section of right-of-way in our long-range plan that's
required in our network and the last thing we want is for you to do
some excavation to preclude us from doing that.
So we've said, reserve that right-of-way in today's dollars,
because the value of that road is only going to go up in the future. As
soon as we build that road, that will triple in value.
And when we need to acquire it in the future by 2030 or when
you go to change the use, as Stan pointed out, the quarry went to
residential -- when the use changes, we want the ability to secure that
right-of-way in today's dollars. It's minimal. I think the acreage is
going for 20- to 30,000 an acre out there right now for the
undeveloped parcels.
They've agreed to that tentatively, so that alleviated the
long-range transportation plan concerns.
We've asked for a 10 percent reduction in trips. And the question
is, why? If they work okay, why not? And I said, that's a sign of
good faith to your neighbors that that seems to be a number that would
work for you and still make you profitable, but at least show the
neighbors that you're trying to reduce some of the trips on there.
In discussions with Florida Rock, they've said, well, can we leave
it as a 10 percent reduction if the county manager or designee feels
that it's needed in the future, but if everything's working okay, can we
do that? I said, that's fair, as long as we have the ability to cut it by 10
percent if we feel that there's an impact there, then we can do that.
I also went out of the way to use a consultant. Again, as I
pointed out in the beginning of my discussed with you, I was
concerned that if you take Florida Rock's analysis or you took the
neighbors' complaints and you said, do you have an unbiased opinion
here?
So I went out to one of our consultants and I spent some
significant county dollars to do the analysis to make sure that
Page 84
June 26-27, 2007
everything was going to work okay, and I want it back from Florida
Rock.
So I'll ask that as part of this we give them the bill, and they've
tentatively agreed to that, to pay for that as well, too.
I think it's important to understand as we look at this that the
impacts are minimal, it's a local supply of aggregate, it's consistent
with our long-range plan, it's probably the best agreement that we've
brought for you -- forward today because you're not spending any
money up front and you're getting a significant roadway and a benefit
to that.
Now, I know Bruce is watching somewhere. Bruce, where are
you? Okay. He thinks I have a signal to you guys to tell you when it's
a good deal or a bad deal, so I'm going to pull my ear. And, Bruce,
hopefully that will satisfy your concern that it's a good deal. He keeps
watching the back tapes and thinking that I have some sort of secret,
you know, way of telling you when it's good or bad.
I think what we brought to you is a year's worth of negotiations.
It's a public benefit. It's safe, it's improvements, and there's no capital
expenditures on your part until we see it necessary in the future. And
with that, I'd like to entertain any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, we're going to hold the
questions, because what I'd like to do, I want to poll the people that
have signed up. This is going to go past one o'clock. Some people I
know want to get back to work.
If you signed up to speak and you would like to speak now
before we break at 12, I'd like to give you that opportunity, so if you
need to leave, that you can.
Ifthere's -- just raise your hand ifthere's anyone that would like
to speak now. Okay, fine. I see your hand, Tim. Anyone else? In the
back, Mr. Smith. Could you pull Tim Nance and Mr. Smith's
application and call them up. And the rest of the speakers we'll save
for sometime after one o'clock.
Page 85
June 26-27, 2007
MS. FILSON: Okay. The first speaker is Richard Smith. He'll
be followed by Tim Nance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come on, come on. Hurry, hurry.
MR. SMITH: Thank you very much, Commissioners. It's a
pleasure to be here again. I was here -- Mr. Coletta, unfortunately,
was not here for the NPO (sic) meeting. So if! could, I'd just like to
continue the same presentation that I made at that time, which
basically is that the Vanderbilt extension project is one that is
extremely expensive and which is going to end up, in my opinion, to
be the beginning of --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Smith, that's not the subject.
MR. SMITH: I understand, and I'll get right to the point. The
point is that Vanderbilt extension is going to be destroying the Estates.
This project could potentially save it, the reason being, that there can
be roads built through the North Belle Meade area to service the
traffic that's going to be from east to west at very little expense, much
less expense than would be for the Vanderbilt extension. That's my
point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Timothy Nance.
MR. NANCE: Tim Nance. I'm the president of the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association, and I don't want any of the
commissioners and the chairman's jaw to hit the table, but I'd like to
agree with my good friend Nick Casalanguida on this project. That's
probably one in a row.
The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association had a special
meeting on this project on May the 23rd, and the representatives from
Florida Rock did come and explain their project to us. It was also
heavily attended by members of the Frangipani Ag. Community Civic
Association and the North -- and our North Belle Meade members
were really out for that meeting.
I think this project has multiple public benefits and should be
Page 86
June 26-27, 2007
seriously considered by the commission. Local strategic rock and the
skyrocketing costs in recent years affect all private construction and
homebuilding costs, particularly for modestly priced homes in the
Estates area, and it also affects virtually all public works projects,
especially road building.
This is a special concern to all residents of District 5 in eastern
Collier County because now is the time when our time out there are
scheduled to be improved. I think a healthy supply of fill and stone
and some old fashioned good 01' Yankee price competition is very
healthy and will help keep Collier growing and prosperous.
Locally sourcing the rock also has the ability to reduce truck
traffic on 1-75 and major arterials, as less is needed to be imported
from Lee County, Charlotte County, Hendry County, and even the
lower east coast.
A side benefit is reducing the number of non-compliant trucks,
which they tell us are the ones that are coming from the lower east
coast.
Secondly, I think we're getting significant road construction and
improvement benefits in the form of this developer conclusion
agreement, namely the improvement to Landfill Road and Wilson
Boulevard extension, which are important in the long-range
transportation plan to our area.
Public and private benefits such as this are increasingly important
in light of the current political climate regarding tax cuts and
implications for our road improvements.
We would certainly like to see the temporary use of 16th Avenue
Southwest be properly managed, consideration be given to the
residents and their -- and the timing of that -- of that -- of the use of
that road and their safety, but in light of the long-term economic
benefits to the region, I think you'll find a very broad resident support
for this project.
The members of the civic association recommend that serious
Page 87
June 26-27, 2007
consideration be given to approval of this project.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
With that, let's -- Nick, would you come back up, please.
Commissioner Halas has a question and maybe some of the other
commissioners do.
MR. CASALANGU1DA: I need to elaborate on one more point,
if could please, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
MR. CASALANGU1DA: We left out something very important,
and I think he's not going to sign my vacation slip if I don't talk about
this.
One -- in the memorandums we talked about the ability for
Florida Rock to an ongoing commitment to future improvements as
well, too, crossing over of 1-75 or other things that we could do to get
things going out there.
So we talked about a way to do that and prorate it or deal with it
in the future. We talked about a surcharge. As I look at my notes, it
looks like a $10 -- did I say 10? It's an error there. It's $1 surcharge --
I'll give him a heart attack if --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You said 10, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I said 10. A $1 surcharge per truck for
every heavy vehicle that exits there for the life of the mine that goes
forward, and that money stays in that area to a project for capacity
improvements either crossing 1-75, a slip ramp, intersection
improvements, but at that area, so we don't go away from -- we don't
take the money and put it someplace else.
There's been some questions about that and the neighbors were
concerned at what kind of ongoing commitments they would have,
and we're strongly recommending that we do that, I think, with all
mining applications, because we don't have an impact fee that goes
with heavy vehicles. We should consider looking at something like
Page 88
June 26-27, 2007
that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how about the improvements
that have to be done to the existing infrastructure that's out there now
on Landfill Road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They will take that upon themselves,
and we're agreeable to using that as a credit for their initial payments
for the surcharge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And also, too, the limit of,
they will not be using the roads in the Estates except for their
employees going to work and for putting the original equipment into
the mining site. Other than that, there won't be any hauling through
the Estates roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I got -- are we talking about
both D and E?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Starting with D, first of all,
I think this is a great idea. My concern is that there's been a request to
dig down to 70 feet. I've got a problem with that. I think that we
should limit that to 45 feet because of the fact, I want to make sure
that we don't break through the first constraining layer. That first
constraining layer issue, once you basically break through that, then
we're into the Tamiami aquifer.
And so I feel that there needs to be boring samples that is given
to our engineering department and -- so that we make sure that we
don't interfere with the aquifer in that particular area.
Do you agree with that, Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. But we have had boring
samples and the petitioner has a geologist, engineer that can address
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still feel that I need to make sure
Page 89
June 26-27, 2007
that we protect that water source for future people, and I want to make
sure that we don't have any compromise with that constraining layer.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But the way I heard you say that was
until they prove that it's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, 45 feet is -- I think where we
need to go. Because I've got a chart here and basically it says that the
first constraining layer is right around 50 feet.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I don't think that's a continuous layer
through the whole site. I'd prefer if the applicant handled that. He has
the experts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And we know their experts and we have
worked with them before, and they are professionals.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Anyway, that's one of my
concerns.
The other one is, in regards to -- this is the item that would be on
the E section, how was -- how -- this road that we're going to have
that's going to be running along parallel with 1-75, it's my
understanding that this road is also going to be passing through
sending lands; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe that's correct, but it's
consistent with the North Belle Meade study that was done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what impacts are we
going to put onto wildlife in that area and what measures were
planned in regards to if we needed to put wildlife crossings in, or was
it going to be an impact because of all these trucks running back and
forth on this road?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, sure. It's a fair question. That's
usually not addressed at this stage, but I want to bring up the fact that
Nancy Payton from the Wildlife Commission had approved this
location with the North Belle Meade study, and that when it goes to
the design stage and the application goes forward, that all the
Page 90
June 26-27, 2007
appropriate requirements for a roadway are included.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have in
regards to the transportation issue, could -- Nick, could you put that
one slide back up there where we have two intersections at 951 ?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. When I look down here I
see this one road that kind of curves around and intersects. It seems to
me --
MR. MUDD: Yeah, I'm just -- Commissioner, I'm just orienting
it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got it.
MR. MUDD: -- so that north now points north on the -- it's the
top of your screen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What's the possibility of
trying to buy this particular road? Because it would move us away
from the 1-75 intersection and make things a lot more compatible for
getting -- addressing vehicles on and off this particular segment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The northern intersection of
City Gate Drive North --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- is privately owned by City Gate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we buy that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I suppose we could make an offer to
buy it. I think City Gate -- again, City Gate has concerns, but
professionally I think they're the same concerns I would have if I
worked for City Gate.
What they're looking at is the long-range possibilities, and we are
committed to working with City Gate to taking that northern road back
through their property -- and we're talking about as part of the corridor
study -- tying it into our landfill site, and then using that as the jump
point to cross over 1-75 into Beck. That will come out of the study,
and that will come out of -- when we get into City Gate phase two and
Page 91
June 26-27, 2007
three and as we go into the future. But that's a possibility.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I think that would work a
lot better for that whole segment of road, especially with the impact of
1-75 and the interchange and all that other stuff. And I know there's
some major changes that we're planning on some of our long-range
transportation issues of that interchange down in that area.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And as my boss, Mr.
Feder, pointed out, you do things in phases, and that's one of the
things we're looking at. We're looking to make that northern
intersection the primary intersection for that area with the southern
one a secondary. We haven't decided what that configuration will be.
Ultimately, when you jump over to Beck and take some traffic to
Beck, those movements that are now left turns would turn to right
turns, those movement that are right turns south on 951 will turn to
throughs, and that will pull pressure off of that. That's the next phase.
I mean, when the corridor study's done, we're going to have an
improvement that we can work with the stakeholders to talk about, all
right, this is today, this is 2010, this is 2015. And that commitment
from Florida Rock from some ongoing funds will help fund things like
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd also -- I'm going to talk
to the petitioner about this, but you're satisfied with $1 per truck load.
I think we need $2 per truck load.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think when you look at what they're
offering with a dollar and the volumes that come out, you know, for
me business-wise, I would like $10 a truck to put money towards
county roads, but you're right, I, $2 would be better.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other last question I
have for you, it's my understanding we want to open up this mine so
that this mine, the rock coming out of here, is going to be used for
basically 1-75, the widening ofI-75; is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would say that, you know, they're
Page 92
June 26-27, 2007
going to be -- they're a publicly traded company, they're going to be
for public pur -- they'll be going to anybody that wants to purchase
their rock. DOT would love to get their hands on it, and they are
considering options, but they won't really talk to them until they have
a local permit. But you're right, that's one of the vendors that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the reason I'm leading onto
this is that, of course we know we've got an ongoing argument with
regards to the loop road that we want to install at Immokalee. And if
they want this rock bad enough, maybe we can come up with some
kind of a bartering system here so that we can get that loop road onto
1-75 off of Immokalee Road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I don't want to go
onto that loop road right now. I've got my gloves on. I had them on
all day yesterday dealing with DOT. We'll save --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just letting you know
where I stand.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go to Commissioner
Fiala, then we're going to our county attorney --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay. It's already noon, so I'll
wait.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay if you want to do it now
so you don't lose --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay. No, no. I have--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you sure?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- everything marked down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're so accommodating. You're not
like some other people up here.
With that, we're going to go to our session. We're going to
reconvene here at one o'clock. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had, during which a closed session was
held.)
Page 93
June 26-27, 2007
(Commissioner Coyle is now present.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to turn this over to the
county attorney so we can finish up 12B. We just had a private
conference with the attorney's office.
And Mr. Weigel, would you take it from here. This will just take
a few minutes.
Item #12B
DIRECTION TO THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
AS TO STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION
EXPENDITURES IN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
V. DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COURTS CASE NO. 07-
1056-CA, NOW PENDING IN THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
MOTION TO CONTINUE WITH COURT CASE - APPROVED
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is item l2B,
coming out of the closed session of l2A. This is looking to the board
for direction relating to the case of Board of County Commissioners
verse Dwight E. Brock, case number 07-l056-CA.
And having come out of -- having been in closed session with
discussions related to litigation expenditures, the question that we
have for the Board of County Commissioners is, having had such
discussion, does the board wish for the County Attorney Office on
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners to continue with this
case in court?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, you have
your light on. I believe it was on for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's for the other one.
Page 94
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I'd like to make a motion
that we continue the course and instruct the County Attorney's Office
to continue the case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: We have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Halas.
Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of the motion, indicate by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show that
Commissioner Henning is in opposition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Commissioner, I just
haven't heard anything that changed my original position.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And same here, Commissioner
Henning, I haven't heard anything to change my original position
either. So I guess we're in agreement.
With that, let's return back to the agenda item we were on.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, prior-
Item #lOD - Continued
ENGINEERING REVIEW STAFF TO ISSUE COMMERCIAL
EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.002 TO FLORIDA ROCK
INDUSTRIES FOR THE PROJECT CALLED, NORTH BELLE
MEADE MINE. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 998.9 ACRES,
Page 95
June 26-27, 2007
MORE OR LESS, SITTING IN SECTIONS 21, 27, AND 28 OF
TOWNSHIP 49, SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY SITTING SOUTH OF
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND THE EXISTING WARREN
BROTHERS PUD (THE AP AC PIT), IN THE NORTH BELLE
MEADE RURAL FRINGE RECEIVING LANDS NORTH OF 1-75
- APPROVED W/STIPULA TIONS
Item #10E - Companion Item to #lOD
A DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES, INC., ROCKLAND, LLC AND
FRK PUTNAM, LLC (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY
(COUNTY) TO ACQUIRE LAND, DESIGN, PERMIT AND
CONSTRUCT A TWO LANE RURAL HAUL ROAD WITHIN
THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FUTURE FOUR LANE WILSON
BOULEVARD EXTENSION - APPROVED W /CHANGES,
STIPULATIONS, CONDITIONS, AND DCA ADDITIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe we left off with a question
by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. MUDD: Just so the viewing audience, just to make sure
that they all know where we're at right now.
Prior to lunch we were hearing items 10D and 10E which had to
do with the Florida Rock permit in North Belle Meade and a
developer contribution agreement for the haul road and any other
improvements to go from that particular new quarry that's being
looked at in order to -- in order to get it to 951. And the board had
heard this item for 45 minutes before lunch and is now continuing
with this particular item at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you wanted to hear the rest
Page 96
June 26-27, 2007
of the speakers before --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that was before lunch --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's happy (sic) with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- we wanted to give them an
opportunity. We could definitely take the speakers now--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on the front end and then come
back. Do you have something to add, Stan, before we go back to that?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. In spite of the fact that I
handed it over to Nick, I wanted him to talk so you'd get a full idea of
the scope of what was being done, but I do have an item here I'd like
to go over before we go into the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you think it's important before the
speakers, please do.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. This petition was, like the
petitioner said, was taken to the neighborhood information meeting,
and it was also -- because the Land Development Code says any
excavation over 500,000 cubic yards must be heard by the EAC, it
was decided that this project should go to the EAC even though they
told us that they couldn't really stipulate anything, they could just --
they decided that they would make some recommendations.
And because the recommendations sounded good to us, staff
included them as staff recommendations with the -- and we say with
the following stipulations. Well, the first stipulation addresses a little
of what Commissioner Halas was talking about. The petitioner and
his engineering geologist should pay attention to cross contamination
between aquifers.
And the petitioner has -- we talked about it and we came up with
another wording. Petitioner agrees not to penetrate any confining unit
thereby preventing any cross contamination of aquifers. Petitioner will
employ best management practices to ensure that such penetration and
potential for cross contamination does not occur.
Page 97
June 26-27, 2007
In addition, the operation will develop and implement a spill
prevention control and countermeasures plan to prevent the
introduction of regulated substances into the groundwater.
And then they gave us a plan to address the issue for the potential
cross contamination which provides for a letter of credit. And, again,
in the unlikely event of a breach of a confining layer, seal the
breached area and then take mitigative measures. And he's supposed
to maintain records, and we can send people out for that. The second
-- so we have no problem with his wording of this revised stipulation.
The second staff recommendation was that both the excavation
site and the haul road must be checked for endangered and threatened
species and species of special concern. Appropriate permits must be
obtained.
Well, the law says you have to obtain appropriate permits, and
you do have to do this, so it's kind of a redundant stipulation, but it's in
there just to clarify things.
And the third item said -- and this was something that the EAC
thought would be a good idea, and so does staff really. At the end of
the excavation, any stand-alone lake the -- of any stand-alone lake,
comma, the EAC recommends that the lake be incorporated into the
Collier County stormwater treatment system as a surge reservoir at no
cost to the county.
Now, I know that the water management district is working on
plans somehow to connect the Golden Gate Canal down to Henderson
Creek Canal. There's a few plans in the works, and I have seen rough
sketches of water flowing down through that area. And it seems like a
good idea.
What you have to remember, the APAC pit was started in 1975.
And here it is, it's 2007, and that pit is kind of still going on. That's 30
years. This pit is probably a few more yards than that, and it will be
going on for a lot longer.
To worry about taking it now or incorporating it now into the
Page 98
June 26-27, 2007
system is probably premature because whatever they do with this
when they're done, if they dig it out property to property, then it's
useless to them anyway.
But if they come in for a subdivision, they have to come for other
approvals. And as part of that approval, they would automatically be
subjected to whatever the rules are 30 or 40 years from now.
And we may still be looking for sources of water then. The Gulf
may have risen 12 feet and this may all be underwater. You know,
that's a long time away.
And the fourth one is about littoral zones. Well, we require
littoral zones whenever anybody does a lake and decides to turn it into
any type of development. Again, kind of redundant.
And adequately planted on completion of the lake. It's a long
time from now, but I don't think they have a problem with that one.
So this is the summary. And the third one, they definitely have a
problem with that. I think the word socialistic society may have come
up. But it is a good idea, but now is probably not the time to do this,
and I don't think we can make them do it.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have some commissioners that
want to talk on that, I believe. Commissioner Fiala, you had your light
on earlier. I'm going to give you the opportunity to go first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but I think I'd like to finish --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: After the speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, hear the speakers and then --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Commissioner Halas, do you
want to wait?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just got one question. You made a
comment that if they did reach this confining layer, that they were
responsible for plugging it up -- the problem is then, once you breach
it, you've already got into the water supply. So I -- I want to make sure
that we don't get to that point where we breach that confining layer.
June 26-27, 2007
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I think that their geologist is going to
make that point, and I think you probably want them to make their
presentation before you hear from the public.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, then I'll ask my--
okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, yes. I have a number of
questions, and some of them are simple.
On page -- on 10E, being that we're looking at both of these
together, 10E, 2 of 30, on the top there it says that the county will
monitor the traffic from the developer's land and restrict the hours and
intensity of operation. Then it says, the developer -- and this is
interesting -- the developer will not use any other public roads except
for employee traffic. And I think that that's written wrong. How is he
going to deliver his rock if he can't use the public road? It just didn't
seem to make any sense to me, so I thought you might want to adjust
the wording.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, for clarification --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And let us know what he's going to
do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For clarification, they would
use still any of the public roads available for employee traffic. The
restrictions would apply that they wouldn't use any heavy vehicles on,
say, the Golden Gate Estates roads, that the heavy vehicles, per the
contract, would be restricted to the haul road. So, for instance, if five
employees that worked there lived in the Estates, they could come
down 16th and use --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but after they get off the haul
road, they have to go someplace, and that's a public road, and I just
thought you might want to modify the language just so it reflects
whatever they're trying to say.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
Page 100
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Going along with what
Commissioner Halas had said, we were talking about -- I'm also
worried about breaking that confining layer. And so I would like to
see -- as we work on through these discussions, I'd like to see an
outside consultant hired by our county but paid for by the developer to
come in once a year to monitor to make sure that the groundwater
levels, the quality, and the hydro -- hydroperiod are, indeed,
functioning properly and that -- so that we know it's our person that is
coming in there rather than somebody that's hired by the developer,
yet I'm sure he wants to make sure that we don't break that confining
layer as well. I just want to see us do that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. I think that's a good idea,
but I'd have to defer to the developer's attorney as to whether they
agree to that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll just put that on the
record. That's the second thing.
We've already talked about how many here, and we're talking
about over 30 years for this operation and possibly more. We were
talking hours of operation, and they were talking about hours for the
rock delivery trucks, but that doesn't mean any of the stuff that's
coming out other than rock, for instance, the batch plant and so forth.
How long will those hours of operation be?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's governed by standard county
code. I think it's in the noise ordinance, and it starts early, like maybe
6:00 or 6:30 and it runs till like 7:30 at night.
Standard in the noise ordinance, and I think there's a limit on --
well, there's no Sundays, no holidays, and I think Saturday's a little
different. I'd have to actually refer to the code of laws and ordinances
to pull up the exact time, but it's the same one that everyone else is
governed under. And that also affects -- a lot of times what these pits
do is they dig all night long so that they can haul during the day, but
they're not allowed to violate the noise ordinance when they do that
Page 101
June 26-27, 2007
either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That makes me ask another
question. How close is the nearest neighbor, if they're going to be
digging all night long?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got to ask the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Well, I'll -- that's another
question maybe they can answer in their presentation.
Let's see. I wanted to talk a little bit about that RCWs that are on
the property. They're just, I guess, in the one corner, but I just wanted
to make sure that we were going to be protecting those listed species
that are on the land.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Our environmental department did not
get a chance -- or didn't -- wasn't afforded the opportunity to review
this project because of agreements that were made when this project
was being put into the receiving lands, so you're going to have to ask
Mr. Passarella, who is the petitioner's environmentalist, because I
don't think our environmentalists have an answer for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And when we're also talking
with them, that slip road, my big contention, it's pretty well known
already, I'm always worried about protecting our road system, and
being -- so that we the citizens, as well as they the business people,
can all use this road, and I'm very, very concerned about that
particular intersection, 951 and Davis Boulevard, which the state said
will not be improved and they guaranteed us before 2030. But it's
very difficult to move in that area now. We know that I-75 will not be
widened to that area.
You've talked about a slip road, and I want to know if they will
be hell bent for leather to get that slip road permitted and in place
while they're beginning this operation, because I think that that's going
to be essential to somehow protecting our 951 corridor.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's funny, my meetings with DOT,
they won't give you that answer until you have a permit. It's that
Page 102
June 26-27, 2007
chicken or the egg thing that we talked about. And dealing with
Florida Rock, they understand that they have to address all the
transportation concerns regardless of the slip ramp. They want the slip
ramp as bad as we do. So again, if this gets approved, we'll be
pushing for that meeting with DOT right away to see what we can do
about getting that included as part of this proj ect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As part of the beginning of the
project?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Included in the design of the haul road
or whatever it would take. DOT really won't give you any answer
until they have an application.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But what I want to do is get
on the record that if I would think of approving this, I would want to
make sure that it doesn't tangle up the traffic on an already
over-congested road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, and I agree with your concerns.
Part of the corridor study, it looks like we're going over I -7 5 to Beck.
A lot of -- the failures of intersection, a lot of it has to do with turning
movements, when you come in and want to make a left -- a
southbound left turn lane or northbound right turn lane -- right turn.
If you can get that overpass constructed on Beck and some of
your turns become through movements, it would increase the capacity
at those intersections. That's part of the corridor study.
But I went out of my way, late at night, and reviewed all the
consultants' reviews about this, and in 2010 when this opens, you are
not going to have a failing intersection based on --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. You'll still be working
here so I can hold your feet to the fire?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You hope.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just want to make sure, because I'm
going to be here, I expect you to be here --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
Page 103
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because we have to answer to
everybody.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Page 3 of8 on 10D. The staff
recommendation, the first one, it says, the petitioner and his engineer
and geologist should pay attention to cross contamination. I would
like to see that word should to -- changed to must.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. We have reworded that
one -- that first recommendation, and it says, the petitioner agrees not
to penetrate any confining unit, thereby preventing any cross
contamination of aquifers. Petitioner will employ best management
practices to ensure such penetration and potential for cross
contamination does not occur. In addition, the operation will develop
and implement a spill prevention control and countermeasures plan to
prevent the introduction of regulated substances.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I will have something
on the record before we vote that I've received from Nancy Payton,
although -- oh, you're still here. Maybe you'll be speaking, but I want
to make sure --
MS. PAYTON: I didn't sign it in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to get this on the record before we
vote. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: I have a slip.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to speak,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll wait till after the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, I'm sorry. We -- did we
agree we're going to go to the presentation from petitioner and then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we can get a full flavor of what is
Page 104
June 26-27, 2007
being offered before the speakers come forward. So if the petitioner
would be kind enough to come forward.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and
Andress law firm, here on behalf of the applicant, Florida Rock.
With me today are Scott McCaleb, Vice-President of Corporate
Development for Florida Rock, and Matt McNulty, Director of
Corporate Development.
Florida Rock Industries is the parent company of the property
owner/applicants for the excavation permit and the developer
contribution agreement, also known as a DCA.
There are also other members of our team that you or I may call
on after this overview on specific questions in their areas of expertise.
This week is kind of an anniversary. Five years ago this week,
this commission unanimously approved the special map and language
in the North Belle Meade overlay in the county's Growth Management
Plan as part of the rural fringe program.
The North Belle Meade overlay specifically identified these
receiving lands that are the subject of the excavation permit as a site
where earth mining was encouraged. The overlay also identified a
specific route for a haul road for earth mining in a future extension of
Wilson Boulevard.
The haul road set forth in the developer contribution agreement
follows the routing set forth in your Growth Management Plan. The
excavation permit and the developer contribution agreement are
consistent with and implement this commission's approvals issued five
years ago.
Florida Rock has filed a commercial excavation permit for earth
mining that will include a concrete batch plant and an asphalt plant.
The permit is for a thousand acres in the area shown in black on that
aerial photograph that Mr. Ochs is displaying for me, and it is located
in receiving lands in the rural fringe, one of the few areas in the rural
Page 105
June 26-27, 2007
fringe where earth mining is still allowed.
And it's not a secret that there is a critical scarcity of available
limerock and fill and that, as Stan told you, it does have to be
imported in.
On September 26, 2006, following a similar presentation by Mr.
Chrzanowski on the county's deficit of rock needed for the county's
own road building needs, you directed staff to expedite Florida Rock's
excavation permit.
Florida Rock has negotiated with your staff, or different members
of your staff, solid waste and transportation on a DCA that requires
Florida Rock, at its sole expense, build a paved haul road open to the
public with right-of-way acquired by Florida Rock and donated to the
county and/or condemned by the county to become the south and west
leg of Wilson Boulevard.
The value of these rights-of-way donations and constructions and
acquisition costs, all on Florida Rock's nickel, is approximately
$14,800,000, a huge donation to the county's future road network.
Approval of this DCA is consistent with and implements your Growth
Management Plan, especially the transportation element policy that
encourages the county to acquire right-of-way in advance for future
corridors.
The lands -- the county is now designing an eight-lane section of
Collier Boulevard between Davis and Golden Gate Canal where trucks
from this mine will access Collier Boulevard at the signalized
intersection with Utilities Drive. Under the limitations, which Florida
Rock has agreed to, which are unprecedented, they would use the road
only between five in the morning and four in the afternoon for rock
haul trucks. And during that time period, the total number of rock,
concrete, and asphalt trucks are restricted to 500 in, 500 out. That's a
reduction from the 600 that Florida Rock originally had proposed.
Now, the county can grant special permission to serve county or
state road projects at other times. Asphalt and concrete trucks are
Page 106
June 26-27, 2007
restricted to 50 in and 50 out during the afternoon rush hour of four to
six p.m., but no rock haul trucks after four p.m.
Only until the haul road is completed and in order to bring
mining equipment and to build a haul road, temporary construction
access to Florida Rock's property will be on 16th Avenue South. After
the haul road is finished, any other construction access will be limited
to the new haul road.
When -- as Mr. Casalanguida told you, when the haul road is
completed, all rock haul trucks and all concrete construction and
asphalt trucks must use the haul road to get to and from the mining
operations unless an alternative southern and/or western access, such
as an entry ramp onto I-75, is approved or a crossover the interstate
from Landfill Road or other connections to Collier Boulevard.
Florida Rock will design -- this is new. Florida Rock will design
and apply for a slip ramp entrance onto I-75 after all of the
right-of-way has been acquired for the haul road. They want that
access ramp. They applied for that first and they were told to come
back here, that we had to have access to a local road network for them
to act on it.
The traffic impact study as accepted by the county shows that
Collier Boulevard will operate at an acceptable level of service either
with or without the mine traffic because of the restrictions I earlier
referenced.
Mining truck traffic is identified by your own transportation staff
as being less than 1 percent, a less than 1 percent drop in the bucket
for the county that desperately needs to build roads.
Construction will not commence until all state and federal
permits are issued, which is hoped to be in the latter part of this year
or 2008.
Blasting of the property will only be conducted between 10 a.m.
and two p.m., and the annual average is estimated by Florida Rock to
be about once per week, depending on governmental road building
Page 107
June 26-27, 2007
needs when it might be necessary to do it a little more often.
And in response to your -- I don't remember whose question it
was, I believe it was Commissioner Fiala, about the distance from the
closest home -- my recollection is that we are a half mile from the
closest home.
Now, with regard to the Environmental Advisory Council
request, we do have a specific proposal that we have given to Mr.
Chrzanowski to address the concerns about the aquifer and cross
contamination. I will have Mr. Tom Missimer come up and address
that after I sit down, and he can walk you through these conditions and
answer your questions.
The only EAC request that we cannot agree to is to give the
county the lakes at the end of the mining, and that issue, respectfully,
should be deferred to when the property is converted to residential
uses because those uses are going to need the lakes for their own water
management and the county is already going to be using those lakes
for drainage from the two roads that will be alongside or through
Florida Rock's property. So the county already has some dibs on
those lakes.
And we have reached agreement with the staff on the potential
east/west road through Florida Rock's property. It's being reserved
and locked in at today's prices. And subject to some wordsmithing by
your staff, agreement has been reached about repairing and improving
Landfill Road, improvements that we have been told by staff are
needed for safety reasons now, and they will include installing a turn
lane, an eastbound turn lane, for the landfill trucks to turn into the
landfill. This Landfill Road improvements donation brings up Florida
Rock's total donations to the county to approximately $16,300,000.
Before I sit down, I want to make sure I take care of some
housekeeping items. Oh, I also want to tell you that Florida Rock held
a neighborhood information meeting, even though the county doesn't
require it. And as Mr. Nance told you, we also made a presentation to
Page 108
June 26-27, 2007
the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association.
I want to ask -- and I've spoken with Mr. Klatzkow about this. I
would ask that you admit into the record as evidence all of the
graphics that were utilized by Mr. Chrzanowski and Mr. Casalanguida
and make those a part of the record, if you would, please, and I'll see if
there are any questions for me or other members of our team, or we
can wait till after the public has a chance to comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's listen to the public speakers, and
then that might help to hone our direction for the questions.
MR. ANDERSON: Very good. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many public speakers do we
have, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Five.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Would you call them forward,
please.
MS. FILSON: Don Pickworth. He'll be followed by Roger Rice.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth. I represent City Gate, along
with my co-counsel, Roger Rice, who may have a couple diagrams to
put up there while we speak.
I guess probably the first thing I'll want to say is, from City
Gate's standpoint, we certainly are supportive of the idea of building
the Wilson Boulevard extension and we recognize that this haul road
is part and parcel of that extension, and we're not opposed to that idea.
I think if you saw the letter that we delivered to you -- and I'm
going to speak about that in a minute because certainly a few things
have changed even since that letter was delivered -- our concern is not
the idea of the haul road per se. It's, I guess, the timing of it and where
this fits in the whole picture, and we think that -- I think that our main
concern is that the Wilson Boulevard extension is essentially a system.
It includes not only the haul road, but it includes a -- a flyover at
Beck. That's on your 2030 plan. There's also been talk here this
Page 109
June 26-27, 2007
morning about the slip ramp.
The point of it all being that -- and I think everybody recognizes
that putting 500 or more heavy trucks out on the road at CR 951 and
Utilities Drive is not a very good situation. And ultimately we have to
have a more comprehensive solution than that.
And City Gate's certain and what we urge you to do is to table
this matter until such time as we are further down the road on that
ultimate solution so we can see how all this fits in.
One of the things that was spoken about earlier, I think, when Mr.
Casalanguida made his presentation was the idea of some kind of a
surcharge, $1, $2, $3, I don't know, and no question. That kind of
thing is a step in the right direction because ultimately you've got to
end up with a system, if you will, and you need to fairly apportion the
cost of that among the various parties.
It's very difficult at this point to really assess the contribution
being made by Florida Rock. I know there's been some numbers
thrown around here. There's certainly no economic analysis in your
executive summary. So I mean, we have some things that have been
orally spoken about here this morning. No one has much of an
opportunity to analyze that.
So I guess if my time is up, I would simply conclude and let
Roger pick up a couple things here, that we think we're going in the
right direction, but we think that some more needs to be done. We,
just for the first time this morning, heard about this road study that
was just done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Roger Rice. He'll be followed
by Maureen Bonness.
MR. RICE: For the record, Roger Rice. I'm an attorney
representing City Gate Development and CG II.
I've put on the overhead what may -- the road system may look
Page 11 0
June 26-27, 2007
like. You've heard Nick talk about a flyover at -- a flyover over 75.
You've also heard -- Commissioner Halas, you spoke about
possibly coming through City Gate and going out north, farther away.
You'll see this reflects a road that would come out in a more straight
line rather than going through where Landfill Road or White Lake
Boulevard currently is and turning at Utilities.
Now, we, as early as 2003, had discussions with Collier County
about coming out at the north end of City Gate, and we just haven't
gotten there because what City Gate -- before City Gate will get
involved in talking about coming out the north, it has to be as part of
an overall solution. It just can't be moving the traffic problem from
Utilities to the north. It has to be part of a system.
We're not saying that this is the system. It needs to be studied
and determined. That's what this corridor study will do.
Again, we think this is just a little bit premature. We've made a
lot of progress in the last few days, including this morning, but we still
don't know whether or not the donation that Florida Rock is making is
sufficient. Maybe it's more than sufficient, maybe it's not. And until
we know what the system is and the cost of that system, we don't
know -- we don't know what that is. Is it $1 a truck, is it $2, $3?
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Maureen Bonness. She'll be
followed by Bob Mulhere.
MS. BONNESS: Good afternoon. My name is Maureen
Bonness. I am an Environmental Consultant for the Triple H Ranch,
the Hussey property. I'm also -- as a resident of the county, I'm a
volunteer on your HCP Advisory Committee. So I've spent a lot of
time in a lot of meetings focusing on the environment of North Belle
Meade as well.
So I've got a few concerns that I have about the mining -- about
the excavation permit. And when was the hydrology? This has
already been brought up today. I know it's been brought up also with
Page III
June 26-27, 2007
the mining proposal for the Triple H Ranch and whatever, as well as
the confining layer, there's been concerns about the effect of a mine on
adjacent wetlands, and that issue pertains equally as well to the
Florida Rock mine as it does to the Triple H Ranch, and it should be
addressed for both of them or neither.
Also, I would like to hear -- I keep hearing that Florida Rock, the
future, what happens to the lake as far as this regional stormwater plan
for North Belle Meade, and it's not only a stormwater plan. When
we've been talking with Clarence Tears at the South Florida Water
Management District, it's also been a plan for somehow providing
some sheet flow to the preserves.
I'd like to get some kind -- more of a commitment from Florida
Rock, rather than just saying, oh, that's in the future, we'll talk about it
then. Just some kind of commitment to participating.
Littoral zones. The core permit for this mine proposed, say, 2
percent littoral -- 2 percent of the total area of the lake as littoral
zones. Interesting, that for the Triple H mining proposal, the staff
requested 15 percent for them.
On endangered species, the mine proposal right now comes
within 75 feet. The actual mine, the lake, is going to come within 75
feet of the property border of Triple H Ranch, so that means within 75
feet of wood stork habitat. It also means within 75 feet of current
occupied foraging area for Red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Now, their blasting area is going to be greater than 1,200 feet
away. I'm not worried about the blasting at all. RCWs are very good
at adapting to noises; however, they do need some opportunity to
habituate to the noise, so there should be some restrictions and some
considerations put on how you gradually have the noise come closer
and closer and what times of day and whether or not it's during the
nesting season. So I suggest Mr. Passarella be aware of that when he
starts designing the plan as far as when and how close you get to the
birds.
Page 112
June 26-27, 2007
Florida Rock, their proposal for the Army Corps permit has a
preserve nearby of over 400 acres, and they are going to be removing
the exotics. I would like to see them also add a prescribed burn plan
to that management plan for the overall benefit of wildlife in the
greater North Belle Meade region. That prescribed burn has a huge
benefit for many species.
The extent of mining is another concern. As you know, there is a
need for rock. I'd like to see them mine as much as they can. They've
got a lot of permits for -- a lot of ability to put a lot of houses there.
And then I also have other concerns about the road, particularly
the east/west road -- part of the road goes through RCW fly over
habitat between North and South Belle Meade, and I'd like to see
some pine forested areas included either --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
it up.
MS. BONNESS: -- in the median or the edge. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker's Bob Mulhere. He'll be
followed by Nancy Payton.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. For the record, Bob
Mulhere. I'm here this afternoon on behalf of Belle Meade Partners
LLC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who was that you're on behalf of?
MR. MULHERE: Belle Meade Partners LLC. And this is
section 20, and that is under the ownership of Belle Meade Partners
LLC. That's also receiving designated and in the North Belle Meade.
The subject property that you're talking about is right here, so we're
immediately adjacent and to the west.
At the outset I do want to say that we in no way object to the
Florida Rock DCA earth mining operation, and also I want to say that
I think staff should be commended. I think they've done an excellent
Page 113
June 26-27, 2007
job developing a very thorough DCA. I think Florida Rock has
stepped up to the plate. Probably wonder why I'm here. There is one
issue that we want to get on the record, and we'd like to have some
sort of verification on as it relates to inclusion in the DCA.
This exhibit is your 2030 long-range transportation plan showing
the existing plus committed network, and the pen-drawn circle there
shows you the general area that we are discussing, and you can see
there's not a whole lot of roadway improvements in that area at
present.
This is the same map. And if you look in the area within the
circle, you can see that the 2030 plan calls for a number of roadway
improvements in that general area, several of which will be addressed
by the Florida Rock DCA.
Along the lines of the presentation that Stan Chrzanowski made
earlier and the relative shortage of road grade rock, section 20 does
have significant quantities of road grade rock, and we have been
preparing the application process to come in for earth mining on that
site.
In -- as part of that process, we have actually met with staff,
transportation staff, and had some preliminary discussions with
transportation staff, and I do want to point out a couple of particulars.
This would be Keane Road extension. The Florida Rock DCA
calls for the dedication -- reservation and ultimately a dedication and
improvement to some degree of Wilson Boulevard south, and then
along Blackburn or White Lake extension, whatever.
And our access potentially could be from Keane Road. This is
our property. And then here the DCA has a reservation already in
place for the extension of Keane Road. One of the things that Nick
Casalanguida suggested to us, that we work with him to consider
extending Wilson from its present terminus right here to the point
where Florida Rock will commit to building it southward so you
would have Wilson at no cost to the county.
Page 114
June 26-27, 2007
Of course, we need to access Wilson, and we would want to do
that across section 21. The DCA already reserves that. We
understand it reserves it at today's costs, land costs. We want to, A,
verify that, and, B -- Nick had mentioned something about, you know,
if the county decides to build it in 2020 or 2030, obviously that's not
going to help us. If we would, perhaps, through the DCA come in and
pay for the cost to acquire that from Florida Rock and improve it, we'd
obviously like to be able to use it sooner.
So we just want to verify that there isn't a time constraint, that if
we're able to develop a DCA, which you would review through the
conditional use process -- we're not talking about the details of that
today. We just don't want to be precluded from using this reservation
and improving it to access Wilson, potentially north or south. And by
the way, that would allow Florida Rock also to go north, perhaps, if
they had a delivery that needed to go north, it would make a lot more
sense than going all the way south and all the way around.
And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yes.
MR. MULHERE: -- and we would like to get that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mulhere, I'm a bit concerned.
You know, the idea being that 2020, 2030 for that road was to allow
the rest of the infrastructure to catch up, everything from Wilson
Boulevard --
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to the completion of Golden Gate
Boulevard, you know, for the six-Ianing that will take place. All these
other improvements were going to be in conjunction to that.
MR. MULHERE: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The last thing that people out there
ever want to see is an opening made for these pits to all be able to
come out to that northern part of the Estates without any infrastructure
in place to be able to justify it.
Page 115
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MULHERE: I understand that, Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I mean, you might be rushing the
gun on this. I don't know how that's going to get you where you need
to go because what has to be done is going to be many millions of
dollars that's not even in the budget at this point.
MR. MULHERE: No, I understand that, and I think we haven't
worked through the details of either minimizing the impacts or
covering the costs of some of those impacts. But if we can't even get
from point A to point B because we're precluded, we really can't ever
even come back in and develop a plan that would address those issues.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MULHERE: I do recognize what you're saying and we do
understand we have some significant thresholds to cross as it relates to
that. But all we want to be assured is that the reservation is there, it's
at today's dollars, and if we're able to work out a DCA that is
acceptable to you and to the residents out there, that we could go
forward without being precluded by -- I mean, let's face it, to be
honest, I think competition in the marketplace is not a bad thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's not a bad thing at all, it's just
that to destruct the whole neighborhood without sufficient --
MR. MULHERE: Understood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- attempts being made. We're doing a
lot to address the situation at the 951 end, and very justly so, because
that's where our urban center is at this time. We're not doing anything
with long-range planning meaningful to be able to address the corridor
up there at Wilson.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Until we get to that point in time, I
think this is all a little bit premature. But meanwhile, you know, all
these thoughts could be entertained for some future generation to deal
with.
MR. MULHERE: Well, in addition, there may even be an
Page 116
June 26-27, 2007
opportunity for us to share in the costs of the slip road. I mean, it's
going to be expensive. We just don't want to be, you know, precluded
from going forward for some extended period of time when we think
that we may be able to address these issues. And I know that you
don't have the details today. I mean, obviously we have to come back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for coming
here today.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you. Nancy Payton, representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation.
And I appreciate the opportunity to clarify Florida Wildlife's
position on the Wilson Boulevard extension and the haul road. We're
not opposed to the haul road. It was part of the original North Belle
Meade overlay that you adopted.
But I did want to clarify that you direct staff to coordinate with
conservation stakeholders, including Florida Wildlife and Collier
County Audubon Society on the Wilson Boulevard haul road and
Landfill Road regarding wildlife crossings, panther crossings,
associated fencing and other environmental concerns. And if you
would consider that in your motion today, I would appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Payton, I wanted to apologize to
you personally for not recognizing you earlier when you turned in
speaker slips along with some of your colleagues.
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was an oversight. It's the first time
in seven years that it's happened.
MS. PAYTON: We were surprised, but the vote was okay, so--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you forgive us?
MS. PAYTON: So I didn't jump up and wave my hand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So you forgive us?
Page 117
June 26-27, 2007
MS. PAYTON: But I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Still didn't forgive us, did she?
Okay. To be able to move this thing along so we can reach -- and
there's an awful lot of work to do to this -- I'm going to make a motion
for approval with numerous additions, changes, as we get into it, and
I'm going to start off with it, and then hopefully we can have other
people join in and see if we can come up with some working
arrangement that will not only work for us, work for the petitioner and
greatly serve the public in the end.
With that motion, I'd like to include the recommendation that
Florida Rock will agree to design, permit, and construction
improvements to the White Lake Boulevard Landfill Road from its
terminus of the haul road to the existing four-lane section of Utility
Drive.
The improvement will consist of the following: Increasing the
pavement with the 24 -- 24 feet; providing paved or aggregate
stabilized shoulders as the design allows; three, drainage
modifications and improvements; four, construction in eastbound
left-turn lane into Collier landfill site; five, various other
improvements as would be required to reconstruct the roadway to safe
and sufficient condition.
The dollar value limit required from Florida Rock for these
improvements shall be capped at $1.5 million for those improvements.
Any right-of-way required for the turn lane shall be provided by
the solid waste site at no charge. Florida Rock will provide these
improvements at the same time it does similar improvements to the
haul road and will not begin business operating till these
improvements have made (sic).
Also -- and I know there's going to -- this is going to be
something we're going to want to discuss, but I'm just going to lay it
out and then we can have a discussion on it -- that a $1 surcharge
would be also applied to each truck that will be leaving the site.
Page 118
June 26-27, 2007
The language also be added that Florida Rock will provide an
ongoing -- the ongoing commitment to a $1 heavy vehicle surcharge
for all heavy vehicles exiting the property.
And I may have missed something along the way, but that's why
I have four other commissioners here to help me with this. But also,
Florida Rock will reserve a 100- foot corridor consistent with the
LRTP. The land reserves shall be available for the county to purchase
when the mining activities cease and the site is converted to another
use or in the year 2030, whichever occurs first.
The purchase price for the land shall be capped at the present-day
value, which will be determined by an appraisal within 90 days of the
execution of this agreement. Florida Rock may propose reasonable
alternatives for the location of the reservation area subject to the
county's approval.
In addition, a 10 percent reduction in the current projected heavy
vehicle volume limits until there is an alternate access point to the
public roadway network. Also to be considered, the location of the
haul road is consistent with the location of Wilson Boulevard
extension in the LRTP and the study done in the North Belle Meade
overlay.
And that's the motion as it stands at this time. First, I'd like to see
if I got a second. If I don't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a second, but I'd to add a few
things to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's the whole idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and we have a
second. And what would you like to see added?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see additional $1 charge
put on the -- for the heavy truck traffic, so that would bring it up to $2.
I'd also like to have some assurance that we're not going to interfere
with the constraining layer that will affect the lower Tamiami aquifer,
Page 119
June 26-27, 2007
to make sure that we don't contaminate that water.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, I think, had
some wording for that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, good. I think that needs to
be done. I also think that we need to give direction to staff to work
with the City Gate people to see ifthere's another way that we can
address exiting out on 951. Also there was a speaker that brought
forth some ideas of going up through the Lewis property. I don't want
to get into that at this point in time, but that may be something to look
at. I don't know what that -- what curtails -- what's involved with that
Lewis property, but I think we need to have staff look at all options
and see if we can work with City Gate so that we don't impact the
particular intersection ofI-75 and 951.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, this would be a
requirement to look at it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to see what's feasible?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm willing to incorporate that
in the motion. I do want some more discussion on going from $1 to
$2 on the hauling charge and hear the sentiments of my fellow
commISSIoners --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- before I add that to the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I haven't been -- I see all the
lights lit up, and I'm not too sure who was next, but I'm going to go to
you next, Commissioner Fiala, because you had some language as far
as the confining layer and what protection can be done as far as a
consultant. Would you care to repeat that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. First of all, I want to say I
agree with the $2 charge. I think that's an excellent -- excellent
Page 120
June 26-27, 2007
consideration that we should really stick to.
I would like an outside consultant hired by the county but paid
for by the developer to tell us once a year that our confining layer is
intact, that our level -- groundwater levels, our quality and
hydroperiod are not affected, and that we're still in a safe zone. I don't
ever want to compromise nor jeopardize our water system in any way.
Okay. That was the second thing.
Also, Maureen Bonness mentioned something about discouraging
blasting during nesting season for some of the endangered species
there, and I would probably need to talk to you about that a little bit
more, but I thought that that was an excellent suggestion.
And lastly, Nancy Payton suggested that transportation staff
coordinate with the stakeholders, including the federation and Collier
Audubon Society on the Wilson Boulevard haul road, including
panther, wildlife crossings and associated fencing. Okay. So I'd like
to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let me see if we've got this
now. According -- the outside counsel (sic) would be paid for by the
petitioner. It would be a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hired by us, outside consultant.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hired by us but paid for by the
petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And would be something that
would start immediately or start when they reach a certain depth? I
mean, I'm not too sure --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know, I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stan, could you make some
suggestions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- need some direction on that, yeah.
I think immediately you probably wouldn't need them, but I don't
know.
Page 121
June 26-27, 2007
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: I'm sorry, ma'am. I was talking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What we're talking about is
the fact that we do want the petitioner -- they already were planning to
have a consultant to be able to work on this. They wouldn't hire the
consultant. We would hire the consultant. They would pay for them
so they'd be in our employment. At what point in time would the
petitioner -- would we have the consultant be doing this evaluation?
Obviously it wouldn't be year one, I don't think, but I don't know. I
defer to you on that.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's when we would do -- we have a
yearly monitoring report that they turn over to us. I don't know how
fast it will take them to get down to the 40 feet that people think is the
safe distance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: But they tell me that they're going to
start at one end and go immediately down to depth and keep going, so
I would think you should probably institute is at the first year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Immediately.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Immediately, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And you say 40 feet is
usually a safe distance. After that it's questionable, right?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's what Commissioner Halas said.
That varies throughout the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forty-five.
MR. MUDD: Forty-five.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Forty-five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Forty-five, yep.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That varies throughout the county, like
I said. And north of Immokalee it's all sand. You can go 80 feet
down and don't hit anything. Down here -- I have a hard time telling
from the borings, but their geologist says he can, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that will be our geologist that will
Page 122
June 26-27, 2007
be making these determinations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, our geologist.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it allows them to go down to the
amount that they had originally requested with the geologist being in
the county's employment so that we can monitor it. And if it becomes
a danger, we reserve the right to be able to stop it.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'm sorry, Commissioner
Fiala, also too, we have two people now on the $2 per truck.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we -- I'm not including that in
the motion until I hear from the other commissioners on that part.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it did mention the coordinating
with the stakeholders.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, coordinating with the
stakeholders. Is somebody writing all this down so they can read it
back to us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This lady right here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think she can read it back.
Okay. Coordinating with the stakeholders.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Including the federation, and Collier
Audubon on the Wilson Boulevard haul road including panther
wildlife crossings and associated fencing, and that's already, I guess,
has been discussed with the petitioner, and it meets with -- they're
willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I mentioned something about
limiting and discouraging blasting that Maureen Bonness had
mentioned during the nesting season of wood storks and
Red-cockaded woodpeckers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think what she was saying is
that the wood -- that the woodpecker there is tolerant of noise. It just
Page 123
June 26-27, 2007
has to be brought up to that level where it's comfortable with it, and I
-- whatever it is, I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She said starting away from it and
then moving toward it or something.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what we need is a
coordination effort to take place, include that in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, that will probably --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to duly restrict them if
it's not necessary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll add -- I won't change
anything at all except that that will probably happen through the
stakeholders anyway, so I think that they can handle that for us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's see. Now let's go to
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd also like to see put in the
agreement about the slippage road on I-75. The owner said that they
would submit an application to the State of Florida for that slippage
road. I also want to -- I think the board ought to be a joint applicant in
that because it will be important to get that, and that way we are
partners in that destination to see if we could get that.
And the other thing -- the other thing is, we need to find issues to
how we can resolve the flushing of Naples Bay. And if we can
possibly have storage or lands be a pass-through to either rehydrate
Northern Belle Meade or to divert water from the Golden Gate main
down to Henderson Creek, I want to see that, and I don't want to lose
an opportunity, and I see this as an opportunity in the agreement to
request that they have -- if approached by South Florida Water
Management, to work with that district for the conveyance of that
water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That makes a lot of sense. I'm glad
Page 124
June 26-27, 2007
you mentioned the slip ramp also. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I agree. The only thing is, is let's
not put on conditions that they -- no one can fulfill. But to be able to
explore it as an open option, I think, is a wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I said.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Leave that option. Don't close
that door or wait till another 25 years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, that's a good idea. Okay.
Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. As far as the fee goes, I
would like to see some -- beyond the staffs recommendations, some
kind of rational nexus because that's really a fee, and it should be fair
for all, not just one. So anything above the staffs recommendations, I
think, we need to do a rational nexus.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? The $1 fee
that is suggested by staff and been agreed by the petitioners, why don't
we leave it as the base level as we explore a fee to be put on other
haulers, and that they could -- that it would also reflect the cost of
doing business. And we looked at this one time before and it didn't
quite work out. I remember that. It was, I think, per ton or something.
I can't remember the exact. Stan --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was 5 cents a cubic yard, and it's 16
yards in most trucks, so you're talking 80 cents. But that was many
years ago. It might be up to a dollar by now. And what we did was
we took all the fill in Collier County, how many trucks were running
and how much fill was being hauled every year, and the amount of
damage that was done to the roads as per road and bridge department.
That's how we came up with the number. It was passed by the board,
and it was in place for a couple of years before it was challenged, and
we decided to withdraw it rather than face the court challenge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. My suggestion would be is
Page 125
June 26-27, 2007
that we stay with the $1 fee but with the understanding that that is not
a given, that that could increase if we do come up with a fee that
would be across the board on everyone else.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We don't have a problem with that as
staff. Can we also add that we've spoken with the petitioner, that it's
inflated every year or deflated with the CPI. So a dollar this year is
not going to be worth a dollar 10 years from now or a dollar 20 years
from now. And I think the petitioner's okay with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, that $1 fee
would be tied into the cost of living.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The Southeastern States Consumer
Price Index.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Consumer price index. Okay. Does
that sound realistic? And then we still leave the option open that if we
come up with a fee for the industry itself, that they would not -- this
would not be their -- this would not exempt them from it?
Any thoughts on it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, where are you
now?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's why we're calling on you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This issue of the depth of the
dredging is a very important issue, and Commissioner Fiala has, I
think, addressed it quite appropriately. I'm uneasy just leaving that up
to the good judgment of an engineer who is very competent, but just
like the rest of it, who can be wrong, and what do we do ifhe's wrong?
There's substantial damage that can be done to the aquifers as a result.
I've met with the petitioners and we've discussed this issue. And
my concern was not only those that have been expressed by
Commissioner Fiala, but I thought that it might be appropriate to
require some sort of bond to provide a fix in the event the confining
Page 126
June 26-27, 2007
layers are breached.
We can certainly expect that the mining operator would make his
best efforts not to breach it, but, secondly, if it is breached, he would
make his best efforts to solve it, but we don't know how far out in the
future this might actually occur. We don't know what the status of the
operation will be at the time it might occur.
And my suggestion was to require that all excavation permits be
required to have a bond in the event there is some breach of the
confining layer for our aquifers. So I just throw that out for your
consideration.
They have come up with language that will do that, and I think
the amount of the bond is way short of where I would like to be with
this, but it's better than nothing. They have proposed a bond amount
of $100,000 to be utilized at the discretion of the Collier County
Engineering Services Department in the event of a default by the
permittee in their repair activities.
So I would -- I would let the petitioner present his ideas
concerning this idea -- or this bonding proposal, but I think a $100,000
is way short of what might be required if -- if something happened out
there. I mean, once it's breached, it's breached, and you've got some
serious problems.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Stan, can you address any part of
that?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. There is something in the
excavation ordinance where we require a restoration bond above and
beyond this $100,000 bond. That bond has a million dollar minimum,
and for rock, it's in the order of 20, $50 a foot, something like that.
I suppose we could make the two bonds overlap so that it's both
restoration -- because if they penetrate the confining layer, it is
restoration. It would give a sufficient amount to cover. Generally what
they do is they keep the first excavation low so that they keep the
bond amount low. I don't know if they intend posting the whole bond
Page 127
June 26-27,2007
at the first time or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess we'll have Mr.
Anderson address their approach to how they would solve this concern
that Commissioner Fiala and I and others have raised.
With respect to the fee, I'm not sure I fully understand what the
fee will be applied to, but I think it is unfair to have one excavator to
pay $2 and other excavators not pay anything. If we're going to have
a fee, let's have a fee for everybody and that way we level the playing
field and not give one such a competitive advantage over another.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, are you saying
we should come up with a policy shortly, a blanket policy, for all
haulers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my understanding the fee
would be used to help repair roads that are damaged by heavy haul
vehicles. And since this is not the only excavator in Collier County
doing this, it would be an appropriate thing to consider. But how
about those haulers outside of this state --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or I mean outside of the county.
I'm not sure how you'd do it, but I think it should be fair everybody.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I can address that. I
think what you're directing staff to do is to try and find a rational
nexus, maybe develop an ordinance that does that.
This $1 fee is not for the purposes of maintaining the road. This
fee is for the purpose of continuing improvements to get access off of
that Utilities Drive intersection. So if we do an overpass or slip ramp,
that fee is for that purpose alone. So what this developer's doing, what
we're doing with this developer, is we're going to push that out over 30
years. You have an ongoing commitment to another improvement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I understand that, and I
believe the developer would be happy to follow through on their
agreement to do that, but if we were going to increase it to $2 --
Page 128
June 26-27,2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- per truck, then if we're going to
do that, then we ought to charge everybody else also.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Agreed. So what we're saying is one
for this purpose, and then any other fees would be through some sort
of broad range ordinance that was fair to everybody.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that would be the most
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think your fellow commissioners,
we've got enough agreement on that so we won't increase the fee
above a dollar with the understanding, of course, that this does not
preclude additional fees in the future if we do it to the industry itself.
Okay. We've covered a lot here. Commissioner Fiala, your light's on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've just taken for granted that
this is going to go 70 feet. Is there a way to stop it at 45 so they can
come back -- Commissioner Halas mentioned 45 -- so they can come
back at a future point in time and ask for the other 25 feet at that time,
but this way then we kind of protect our underlying aquifer?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm a little confused.
Supposedly there's borings and everything else has been taken to
establish where the confining layer is. Am I wrong or -- it's an
unknown?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The geologist says he knows where the
confining layer is and it goes up and down. Some places it is as
shallow as 40 feet and some places it is down to 70 feet and they're
asking for permission to go to the 70 so that they can go in those
places where it is down to 70. But if you -- it would be an ongoing
procedure to be out there while they're digging, but I don't think -- like
I said, it's going to take many years to dig this. So at the end of the
first year you see where they are with the confining layer and just go
Page 129
June 26-27,2007
from there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They can always come back though
for extra feet, right? If we approved this at 45 and then --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. They can always come
back, but if they start off --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's not a hardship on
anybody? It's a protection for our water sources?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It depends where they start. If they start
at the place where they know the confining layer is shallow, then it
doesn't harm them. But if they start at the place where they know the
confining layer is deep and they get down there and they haven't hit it,
then they -- they're kind of stuck there, they can't go any deeper until
they come in to talk to you, and in the meantime, they're digging.
So I prefer to leave that up to Bruce to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? I mean,
because the process of coming back to the commission, getting on the
schedule and trying to bring everything forward, that we do it, what
you're suggesting, but we do it with the county manager's oversight so
it can be something that a report comes in, he can react to it and deal
with it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd want to be a part of that,
too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No, that's okay. I'm just trying
to make a suggestion to be able to make this thing flow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what Commissioner Fiala
came up with is a good idea. If they have got the justification to go
down further, it's not going to take that long to have them come
forward and say, hey, we can go down another 15 feet and show us the
scientific evidence in regards to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Help me with this, Stan. What would
be involved for them to come forward? Would they have to do a
lengthy filing? Would we be on the agenda months ahead of time, pay
Page 130
June 26-27, 2007
a large fee, or would this be something they could simply come before
the commission under regular business, announce where they are and
go forward?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. I was going to put -- I was
going to put this item on consent agenda, but it's a good thing I didn't,
because generally these kind of excavations are on consent agenda.
This one's just bigger than most. I don't see any reason why we
couldn't put this on consent agenda to deepen it, but then you run into
the problem, you let them go 75 feet or 70 feet, whatever, and then a
little further down they find out they're at 40 but they have permission
to go to 70, so you're still kind of trusting them to stop where the
confining layer is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, you're saying that the
words confining layer and drop anything that has to do with a limit of
feet?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: If they start digging in one of the deeper
areas of the pit and they get down to 45 feet and they don't find the
confining layer, they come in to you and they say, there's no confining
layer, it's another 20 feet down, you say to them, okay, you can dig to
65 feet. But quarter mile up, that confining layer has risen to a depth
of 40 feet. Now, you've already given them permission to dig to 65
feet. So what do we do? Do we come in and change it or--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, here's what we do. How about
they have to have a buffer zone of five feet from that confining layer?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. Even then that confining layer
varies more than five feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm saying if they go down to
-- if the confining layer runs down to 75 feet then they can only -- they
can only take out to 70 feet. If they're at 45 feet, then they can only
take out the 40 feet. So there's a five-foot buffer before they hit that
confining layer. I think that's going to solve the problem so you don't
have to keep going back here. What we're going to put in the motion
Page 131
June 26-27,2007
is that they have to have a buffer of five feet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From the confining layer?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From the confining layer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that gets you there, too. I
mean, there's several ways to get there. Does this make sense?
MR. ANDERSON: This is all above -- respectfully, this is above
all our heads. I'd like to ask Mr. Tom Missimer to come up and
address this issue, and then I have some language that I would read
into the record that I think would address the concerns that you have
expressed on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Please call up your expert
witness. And would you state your name and also your credentials,
sir?
MR. MISSIMER: Okay. My name is Tom Missimer. I'm a
Licensed Professional Geologist in Florida. I have 35 years
experience doing hydrogeology in Southwest Florida. I've written
four books and 200 pier review publications. I have written the
definitive publications on this particular geology in the Tamiami
formation.
I was your consultant on designing your wellfields from 1984
through 2004, so I'm very familiar with hydrogeology. And I will
assure you that since I'm involved in this, we're going to protect your
water supply.
And I just wanted to explain some practicalities here. And we
actually have the test boring data to show you how the top of the
confining bed fluctuates so that it might help you understand the
Issues.
The way mining works is you go into a site and -- like in this
particular site, and you do a number of test borings prior to going
through this process of application.
On this site you'll notice that in the area -- and I'm going to try to
use my pen and hopefully I can get this. But you'll notice in this area
Page 132
June 26-27, 2007
right here, there's a high spot on the confining unit, it comes up to 39
feet below surface, and there are other parts of this site that it goes
down to around 70 feet.
What you do in a limestone mine -- and there's a practical issue
and an environmental issue. The practical issue is, you can't mine into
this material because it basically clogs up the entire processing
facility, if you mined into it, it would be a disaster for them in its
practi cali ty .
This is lime mud and it's got clay in it. And it's a pain in the neck
if it gets into the crushing facility. That's one thing. It is not very thin
in this area. It's essentially anywhere from 10 to 20 feet thick. You
would have to over mine a lot to breach it.
Now, the idea in terms of the geology, as you go north of this
area, say from Corkscrew -- actually around Immokalee Road to the
south, you get a thinning of the confining unit or actually the thinning
of the confining unit, but also the depth of the confining unit generally
goes down. You only have 10 or 15 feet of material above it up in the
Immokalee Road area versus down in this area you have more
thickness of material.
Now, just remember, when you get south of95l, there is no
confining unit. The aquifer is from land surface the whole way down
in this area in the Tamiami formation.
So the confining unit doesn't even exist in parts of Collier
County. And the southern part of this site, you know, there's -- some
clay may not exist at all, you know, just simply because that's the way
the geology is.
So when you do mine -- and I'll explain the operation. It will
help you, you know, with this decision-making process. When you go
in you've already done a survey to show generally where the top is.
When you go in front of making a cut, a series of holes are drilled
where you do more detailed work, and those holes are drilled for a
number of reasons because you have to know how far to put the
Page 133
June 26-27, 2007
explosive charges in to break up the rock, and that stuff.
So the decision-making process of how deep you dig is done on
an ongoing basis before each cut is made back and forth. And the
practicality of coming back for a change, you may have to do it on
every cut because you're changing that depth as you're going across
the site and excavating only to the depth that rock is there.
The other thing, too, as you're excavating, if you skim the top of
it or you have a little depression in it that doesn't go the whole way
through -- because you'd have to excavate a lot to breach it fully. The
material is not stable in the sides of small holes. It's what fills these
things and it anneals itself in time. So this isn't going to be like you're
connecting the whole system together.
The other thing is, when you talk about contamination, the lake
water quality is going to be of a good quality. The only issue would
be that organisms such as bacteria and algae and those things could get
in if you breached it fully and allowed free flow from the top to the
bottom, and that's assuming that there is a relationship of pressure
from the top to the bottom, which in all cases there isn't.
So this is a fairly complicated issue, but in reality remember, if
you limit excavation depth, that's material left behind. That means, to
get the same volume of material, you have to excavate more area. So
it's much more efficient and friendly to excavate the full amount that
you can, then you don't have to excavate as much area and go back
and permit another mine. If you left five feet of rock through that
whole bottom, you can calculate how a new mine would have to, you
know, be brought in with a certain amount of acreage to replace that
five feet, and it didn't give you any more protection to confine that.
So there's a volumetric issue that you might want to look at.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What's the differential
between a cubic yard of limestone and a cubic yard of water in
weight? What's the weight differential?
Page 134
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MISSIMER: Well, if you use a specific gravity, a high
specific gravity, you're around 2.3. You mean in terms of just weight?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. In other words, when you
excavate the rock out of there and it fills up with water, what's the
pressure exerted on that confining layer? Because now you're looking
at not just rock, and limestone is porous. So what is the density on a
cubic --
MR. MISSIMER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- a cubic yard of limestone versus
a cubic yard of water?
MR. MISSIMER: The head is exactly the same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't believe it.
MR. MISSIMER: It is exactly the same, because --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're telling me that when
you've got 45 feet of water, that the pressure that's being exerted on
that confining layer is the same amount as if it's on coarse limestone
rock?
MR. MISSIMER: Remember, rock is rigid. The water exerts the
pressure, not the rock specifically. It's a rigid thing. The fluid
pleasure -- for example, the lake itself is the same as the position of
the water table. They're exactly the same. So if you have 30 feet --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if you're replacing the rock out
of there and you're taking all that water and that water is filling back
In--
MR. MISSIMER: Well, it's exactly the same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're telling me the weight of
limestone --
MR. MISSIMER: No, I'm not telling you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: --limestone, cubic yard versus a
cubic yard of water?
MR. MISSIMER: I'm talking about head pressure. The issues,
they're exactly the same. The weight issue isn't relative -- is irrelevant
Page 135
June 26-27, 2007
to how the water fluctuates up and down in the aquifer system.
For example, if the potentiometric sur -- and we call it pressures.
The potentiometric surface is a $5 word for a -- nickel type of things.
Basically the water table is the pressure surface and it's
atmospheric at the top of the system. The lower Tamiami, when you
go into it and puncture through it, the pressure is different. The
pressure is lower in the lower Tamiami than it is in the water table;
otherwise, the system would not recharge, and we know that it does
recharge.
So in this area it's probably a foot or two difference, maybe two
feet of difference -- three feet of difference between those pressures.
It doesn't matter whether there's water there, it's all water, or rock and
water. That pressure difference stays the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now we understand.
MR. MISSIMER: I hate to bring this up. It stays the same,
believe me. It's really -- it's not an easy concept. When I'm teaching
water policy at FGCU, I have the same kind of look that you have, so
don't worry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's hard for me to believe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Has there been any examples of the
aquifer being breached that you know of in Collier County? And what
happened?
MR. MISSIMER: The actual breaching that I do know about
was from faulty well construction prior to the enactment of the well
construction code where they used to what we call cable tool
technology, just pound the casing down and pull the material out.
They use no cement on the sides.
So when the steel casing's corroded, you ended up with free flow
of water down the outside from the outside of the casing through the
corrosion holes into the aquifer in the bottom.
And there was two cases, I recall, of a well breaching that where
septic tanks were located nearby, and they actually contaminated their
Page 136
June 26-27, 2007
own water supply. Now, that was a number of years ago.
Now, again, to get this cross contamination you're talking about,
you have to excavate a bunch of material because you have to take all
of it out in order to get that free flow of surface water into the lower
system.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So once again, how thick is
this confining layer?
MR. MISSIMER: The confining layer in this area ranges from a
minimum of 10 feet to a maximum of 20 to 25 feet through this area. I
mean, generally based on the studies that I did for you guys.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, anything
else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He wore you out?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, he didn't wear me out. I've got
some -- I'm a doubting Thomas.
MR. MISSIMER: I've been called that my whole life.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas wants to know if
you can pave his driveway with some water. But I understand what
you're talking about about the pressure in the rigid area. And then
again, too, I don't want to make claims to be that smart.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get Mr. Anderson to
address the additions by the Board of Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Mr. Anderson, have you made a
list of the additions that we put onto this?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I did. I mean, some were suggested
and some were taken off, and one I wanted to clarify with you,
Commissioner Henning, was that your proposal to work with the
South Florida Water Management District involved conveyance but
not storage.
Page 13 7
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Conveyance, storage. I mean,
whatever it is, we have community issues and we need some
partnerships. We don't want inhibitors to do what we need to do for
the estuary and the flooding of Golden Gate Estates.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we're fine with the conveyance part,
but the holding gets back to what the lakes would be used for anyway.
They're going to be used to accommodate drainage from the county's
right-of-ways and whatever, you know, gets built there after the
mining is completed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to use it for
storage anyways for the roadway? You have to have the storage now
for the roadway when you build it.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We just don't want to take on more
than we can promise, that's all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that you can take
on more than you can promise, correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, how are you going to
have a mining operation if you got to store, let's say, 50 feet--
horizontal 50 feet of storage? You just can't do it. You can't do your
operation. But you want to reasonably have any storage if it's
requested by the district. But at this time the only thing I'm aware of
is the conveyance down to Anderson Creek.
MR. ANDERSON: I'd like somebody that knows a little more
about it than I to address it.
MR. TAYLOR: Commissioner, for the record, Tom Taylor with
Hole Montes Engineering, Incorporated.
I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida. The
issue of discussion here is one of conveyance versus storage. Bearing
in mind that the way a mining operation works is they work in the wet
environment. They're not going to be pumping and moving water
around other than in early stages. They'll move it around on site, but
Page 138
June 26-27, 2007
they're not going to be pumping off site.
As far as water that may come through the site naturally from off
site, the plan would be -- would be to convey that water through the
property. But during the mining operation, we can't actually
physically pump water in because they're trying to keep all the water
that they have -- that generates on site, they're trying to keep that on
site and not having that spill over other than, you know, for normal
rain-type events.
Later on when the project converts potentially to a development,
which might be 25,30 years from now, then that would be the point in
which formal flood stage elevations and calculations would be done
for that development so we would know at what height we'd have to
build roads at that time, we would know at what height we have to
build house pads, et cetera.
So it's early in the -- in the process to -- really to make a
commitment specifically on how much storage might be able to be
made on site. Be more than happy to convey through.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I didn't say any specific
amount of storage.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. If the idea is to work with the district
during that process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MR. TAYLOR: -- I think our client is committed to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anyone that took notes on this
to come up with everything that we came up with? I'm sorry.
MR. ANDERSON: I looks like two, the court reporters.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, the court reporter. Can you read
from your notes or no? The conditions we placed on it, or is this
going to be next to impossible?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm not sure that I could find an
exact motion to read.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. My fellow commissioners
Page 139
June 26-27, 2007
do talk an awful lot, I realize that. Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: And I need to read into the record the
language that I had provided to Commissioner Coyle to address the
aquifer issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Read it into the record.
MR. ANDERSON: The permittee shall maintain records
documenting the depth of excavation of each mine cut to provide
assurance that the confining unit between the water table and lower
Tamiami aquifer has not been breached by mining activities.
The collected information shall be reviewed and certified on an
annual basis by a registered professional geologist by comparison
against the pre-mining borings logs and any additional pre-mining
exploration data to determine the relationship between the digging
depth and the depth to the confining unit. That's the first one.
Second one. In the acknowledged unlikely event of the breach of
the confining unit by the mining operation, the permittee will seal the
breached area by redeposition of excavated material, the use of
additional clean fill, the injection of bentonite or as may otherwise be
determined to be appropriate by a registered professional geologist or
. . .
mInIng engIneer.
Third, to provide assurance that any breach of the confining unit
will be appropriately addressed, the permittee shall provide a bond,
letter of credit, or other form of surety acceptable to the county
attorney in the amount of $100,000 to be utilized at the discretion of
the Collier County Engineering Services Department in the event of
default by the permittee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jeff, I see you have a little
disagreement with that.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a multi-bill ion-dollar public
company. They're offering $100,000. I'll take a corporate guarantee,
all right. For a multi-million-dollar company, they break it, they fix it.
I don't care what it costs, okay? It's going to be more than $100,000,
Page 140
June 26-27, 2007
I'll tell you that though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Anderson, it seems like we're a
little short with the $100,000. Can you up the ante to something that's
going to make everyone feel a level of comfort?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, corporate guarantee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Jeff? Corporate guarantee
entitles us to what?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's going to be in addition to the bond
they're going to post, but it gives us another avenue to pursue them, all
right, so it will -- we'll have the $100,000 bond. If that's not enough,
we'll have a corporate guarantee of a company that's publicly traded. I
think they're worth $3.6 billion right now. I think that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I include that in the
motion.
MR. ANDERSON: I was asked about the conditions. And as we
recall them, those -- I want to confirm some that were taken out; one,
the language about RCW and the blasting is not in there. That's going
to be left to the state and federal permitting process where it would
have to be addressed anyway. Am I correct in understanding that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's n
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought that was going to be some
type of ability where we were going to work with the people in
regards to --
MR. ANDERSON: Oh, that's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stakeholders.
MR. ANDERSON: That's a different one. That's -- that's fine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. I thought that was part of the
blasting portion.
MR. ANDERSON: No, no. Commissioner Fiala's comment was
about blasting, specifically whether an RCW was skittish about it or
not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But then you are going to be
Page 141
June 26-27,2007
working with the stakeholders --
MR. ANDERSON: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- on the haul road?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am. Okay. And the
surcharge will only be $1 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One dollar.
MR. ANDERSON: -- unless the county adopts something
uniform. No, I mean -- oh, CPI in addition to the -- whatever you
apply to the others, we'll live with, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: CPI.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: CPI.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, CPI?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, absolutely, absolutely. And
you didn't mention --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you didn't mention about the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- the county hiring our own
geologist to go once a year to test -- to make sure that nothing is
breached, and then -- and then the developer pay for it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We already got it in the
motion. That's part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just wanted to make sure
he's putting that in there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And he understood it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Somehow it wasn't in there
in his phrase.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, even ifhe doesn't repeat
everything back that we included in the motion, he's still bound by our
motion, right?
MR. WEIGEL: You've made the motion. It is on the record,
you're just recollecting it now to be sure of yourselves.
Page 142
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very good.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The engineer would be selected by the
county, paid for by my client, but there is no -- the only limitation on
digging, in light of all the other things, is the 75 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seventy-five? How did we get to
75?
MR. ANDERSON: Seventy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to China?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Going deeper and deeper.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm trying to get a little extra for my client.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Normally in these chambers height is
the issuing.
MR. ANDERSON: I mean, there's just no juice left to squeeze
out of this orange.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Are we there now? Okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, anything else that you want to
add to this or clarify? Do we have everything understood?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Only thing that I -- the only thing--
I feel comfortable except I hope that we have a good assurance that
we're taking care of the aquifer, because this is so important to
everyone out in the Golden Gate Estates, in fact, even in the urban
area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we've got a corporate
guarantee, which I think was a wonderful thing that Jeff Klatzkow
brought up and made sure that we had included in there.
Nick, you, of course, have some last items?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Of course, you know, as usual.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What did we forget?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The DCA, as proposed forward now,
stands with these additions, so we want to be clear on that. That
reservation for that east/west road, that hundred feet, we basically, the
Page 143
June 26-27, 2007
way it was written, precluded ourselves from ever using that to 2030 if
they don't ever require that. And Mr. Muller pointed out a good point.
Ifwe ever come through forward with a proposal to do Wilson
Boulevard extension, we want to access that road, that if, if the county
-- we want to clarify that the county ever needs that road sooner, we
can exercise that option if the Board of County Commissioners chose
to do so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I include that in my
motion also with the clarification that we have the option to be able to
use it sooner than 2030 or at the time of the completion. Who was my
second on this?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you were, weren't you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You agree to everything that you
heard?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So far, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So far. We're there, you know. I
can't picture what else.
Now, Bruce, you're going to talk us out of it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We just about beat this horse to
death.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think so.
MR. ANDERSON: That very last item they just can't agree to,
you know, to go through the middle of their mining operations before
they're finished with that road. We agreed to reserve it at today's
prices for the county only. Somebody else wants to buy it, that
guarantee it not for them. It's just for you, special deal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Help me with this, Bruce. Why would
you care if we built the road sooner than later? I mean, what
difference would it make? I don't understand. You're not going to
take the fill out from our road and then put the fill back in when we
Page 144
June 26-27, 2007
need the road.
MR. ANDERSON: It's going to, apparently, interfere with the
ongoing mining operations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, I have a
question. It's my understanding that you're requesting in this DCA
that we're going to do eminent domain, if need be, to have this access,
correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It was my understanding
the statute says that the only way that we can do eminent domain is for
the public benefit. So if we can't use this for the public, if needed,
why are we even talking about this item? Why don't we move on to
the next one?
MR. ANDERSON: No. We're talking about a different -- a
future road reservation on the property, not the haul road that you
would be using -- potentially using the condemnation. That road is
open to the public. We're talking about a reservation that staff asked
for late in the game that we agreed to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, here we go. Nick pointed out
exactly what part of this road he's talking about.
MR. MUDD: The circle.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As Mr. Anderson pointed out, if
somebody else was to come forward, it's if the county needs that road.
If there's a public good for that for public purposes, I'm sure we could
figure out a way to get so that haul trucks could cross.
I think to allow them a reasonable opportunity to modify the
location is fine. We put that in the agreement, the proposal. If it
needs to shift 300 feet to the north or 300 feet to the south, as long as
it -- you know, we have an alternative to use that road in the future,
that's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't believe that we would agree to
a corridor for future reservations that we don't identify.
Page 145
June 26-27, 2007
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. We have in the long-range plan,
and it's -- but when you do it in a long-range plan, it's got a lot of
flexibility. So what we're saying is if we have a need for that within a
20 -- you know, before 2030, we should be able to exercise that
option, and if the developer says, can you slide it 50 feet south or not,
we have no problem doing that.
If it's meant to connect one public area to a public road -- for
example, in 10 years we decide to build Wilson Boulevard extension
and there's residential development to the west of that and you want to
connect Wilson Boulevard to that road, that road connected to Wilson,
how would you do that? The way we've stipulated right now, you'd
have to wait till 2030 until they're ready.
So we're saying we'd like to be able to exercise that option if
there's a public good for that road, and we'll allow the developer a
reasonable flexibility to give us that reservation area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll tell you what. I don't want to -- I
don't want to see all this work go for naught, and I hate to -- maybe the
best thing to do at this point in time, if you need some time to talk it
over with staff and your client, is that we take a short 10-minute
recess. We're due for one as it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, why can't we just,
the board approve the agreement, and if they don't agree to it, they
don't have to sign it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, but then we're right back to
square one, we don't have a haul road, we don't have a future road, we
don't have the rock. We have a lot of things that are to the negative. So
what I'm saying is, if we can't come to an agreement on this now, you
want a few minutes, we can take a break while you discuss it with
your fellow associates and with our staff, and then we come back,
we'll see if you reach some sort of understanding.
Page 146
June 26-27, 2007
We'll take a 10-minute break now.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Feder, maybe you
can help to bring resolution to the problem we ran into just before the
break.
MR. FEDER: I hope so, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Norman
Feder, Transportation Administrator.
First of all, in going to the break, I think everyone has concurred
that what we can do is look at the corridor. When we're ready to move
on Wilson Boulevard four-Ianing from Golden Gate Boulevard all the
way down to the landfill in the four-laning of that, that we -- that
would be the time that we would ask for this east/west portion of
Keane and any other issues that we're developing within the area.
So we wouldn't ask for that right-of-way that's being reserved on
Keane, the east/west, you see here outlined in the loop, until we're in
the process of developing the corridor within the area of Wilson for
four-Ianing on down from Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we -- okay, I'm sorry.
Go ahead and ask the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean then that the issue
that Bob Mulhere brought up about not being able to get to his
properly unless he has that, will that prevent them from getting there
until we're ready or will that --
MR. FEDER: Until we're ready to develop Wilson, because if
we were to allow them, let's say they could connect on Keane over to
here and we have no other access points and we haven't developed
more of the grid pattern, we could not handle that at 951. That's what
I explained to Mr. Mulhere as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we have the option to keep it
open at some point in time, right?
Page 147
June 26-27,2007
MR. FEDER: Very definitely, and that's the other concern he
has. We're saying we want that reserved, want it at today's prices.
When we decide to exercise what we defined as our exercising of that
right would be when we're ready to develop the Wilson extension all
the way from Golden Gate Boulevard down on a four-lane basis.
The other thing I would add -- and I appreciate your indulgence.
I know this has been a long process, but I think a very well done one --
I will also tell you that to City Gate, I appreciate your putting in as one
of your provisions that we continue as staff to work with them. We'd
love a commitment of an access road across the northern part of their
property that allowed us to get a good access out to that northernmost
intersection, and we'll continue to work towards that end as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Could we hear from you,
Mr. Anderson, as far as agreeing to what Mr. Feder just said?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great. That's the best speech
you ever gave, sir. And do you agree --
MR. ANDERSON: But I charge the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have the motion, we have
the second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I agree with the second, yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a tremendous amount of
discussion, we have everything on record, we have covered everything
from soup to nuts. I think we're where we need to be.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner? You're approving -- based on
what I heard, okay, you're approving two items. You're approving
10D, which is the permit for the mine --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
Page 148
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MUDD: -- and you're approving the DCA with the added
stipulations that we've put on the record, 10E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, okay. And you agree?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, in the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the second agrees. Okay. And
with that, all those in favor of the motion as amended so many times,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Congratulations, you're the proud parent of a mining operation.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2007-170: CU-2004-AR-6384
GOLDEN GATE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S
WITNESSES, REPRESENTED BY MIKE LANDY, OF LANDY
ENGINEERING, INC. REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE IN
THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR AN ADDITIONAL
CHURCH BUILDING PURSUANT TO TABLE 2 OF SECTION
2.04.03 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WILL REPLACE
THE EXISTING CU-96-12 (E) RESOLUTION NUMBER 97-440.
THE NEW CHURCH BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 4,400
SQUARE FEET. THE PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 5.15
ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 3480 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
S.W., TRACT 81, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO.4, IN
Page 149
June 26-27, 2007
SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
NAPLES, FLORIDA - MOTION TO DENY - MOTION FAILED
FOR LACK OF MAJORITY; MOTION FOR APPROVAL
W/STIPULA TIONS TO 4 NIGHTS A WEEK - DENIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to board of zoning
appeals. This item is 7 A. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's conditional use 2004-AR-6384, Golden Gate Congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses represented by Mike Landy of Landy
Engineering, Inc., requesting a conditional use in the Estates zoning
district for an additional church building pursuant to table II of section
2.04.03 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
The proposed conditional use will replace the existing
conditional use 96-12, parens E. And I want to make this correction.
It says, ordinance number 97-440. It's resolution number 97-440.
The new church building is proposed to be 4,400 square feet. The
property consisting of 5.15 acres is located at 4380 Golden Gate
Boulevard Southwest, Tract 81, Golden Gate Estates, unit number
four, in Section 11, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Naples,
Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. All those wishing to
participate in this particular agenda item, stand at this time to be sworn
in by the court stenographer.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And for--
MR. MUDD: Ex parte.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- ex parte disclosure on the part of
the commissioners, let's start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have received a
number of emails and telephone calls in support of this petition, and I
Page 150
June 26-27, 2007
have not spoken with any of the petitioners directly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have had a lot of correspondence,
I've had also a lot of email in regards to this item, and everything that
was presented -- I believe I got tons of emails in here, people that are
parishioners there, and they're all here for anybody to look at.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I, myself, have had
correspondence, numerous emails, I met with Mike Landy, Mike
Cassady, Jeff Raimer, Joe Schmitt, Mark Strain, and Mark Teeters in
the past on this particular subj ect.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have many emails and
correspondence, and I have them all on file for anybody's viewing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I received some
emails, several emails, and written correspondence on this topic, and
that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, please continue.
MS. STEWART: Good afternoon, Chairman, Commissioners.
Obviously let me clarify first, I am not Mike Landy. Mike Landy is
sitting behind me. My name is Deborah Stewart and I'm an attorney,
and I'm representing the Golden Gate Congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses.
And first we want to thank you for allowing us to appear here
before you today.
As was read into the record, we're here on a petition for a
conditional use of property that is already owned by the congregation.
They own approximately five acres. The address is on 3480 Golden
Gate Boulevard.
They currently have one house of worship constructed. It has
been there for several years. The petition today involves permission to
construct a second house of worship on the five acres that they have
Page 151
June 26-27, 2007
there.
They have -- the petition complies with all the local county land
use plans, including the Collier County code, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as
well.
The application meets the criteria for a conditional use. It's
currently zoned Estates, and religious facility, church facility, is
allowable as a conditional use in an Estates zone.
Of course we'd like to think that it's going to promote the public
health, safety, welfare, and morals of the community. And they have
also complied with all of the other legal requirements as far as notice,
neighborhood information meeting. They have received approval for
this site plan by the Collier County Planning Commission, as we're
going to show in a few minutes. This site plan has actually been
enhanced somewhat since it has been approved by the Collier County
Planning Commission.
As far as I know the staff has also approved the petition, and
we've had no suggestions or requirements come back to us for the staff
prior to this, or if they did make a decision, we followed it and,
therefore, we believe that the evidence will show that this petitioner
has complied with all the conditions set forth in the zoning code and,
therefore, that -- we respectfully request that you approve their
petition.
Obviously we have many members of the congregation here.
Not all of them, I do not believe, will be speaking, but several of the
members of the congregation are here to show their support.
And with that, unless you have any particular questions, Mr.
Landy, the drawer of the site plan, will probably address the more
technical questions regarding landscaping and the buffers and those
things that the congregation has agreed to implement to appease the
immediate neighbors, especially concerns regarding noise, traffic, and
other things I'm sure you'll hear about.
Page 152
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you tell me your meeting that
you held a couple weeks ago with the neighbors, one that was
requested at the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association meeting, what
happened at that meeting?
MS. STEW ART: There was a meeting back in May, the meeting
May 16th in front of the homeowners association, or the secondary
neighborhood -- informal neighborhood association meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This was the second -- this was the
latest one. It was an informal meeting. One that you agreed to after --
MS. STEWART: Informal meeting? Oh, the one that we agreed
to at the association.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MS. STEWART: If I may back up for the other commissioners,
at one point sometime early this year, we made contact with the new
board of the Golden Gate Estates Homeowners Association and we
made a presentation in front of them.
At that meeting, as the chairman is referring to, it was suggested
that we conduct yet another informal neighborhood association
meeting, sent out invitations to the immediately surrounding
neighbors, which we did. And that meeting was held, I believe, June
7th.
And at that meeting, there was agreement on the part of our client
to increase the berm, landscape buffering. And you'll see that as a
matter of fact, instead of just building a berm, wall, and landscaping
on the east side of the property that's directly between their property
and their next-door neighbor, they further agreed at this meeting in
question to also put up a wall and I believe a berm and vegetation
landscaping on their border that borders 1 st Avenue Southwest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, did this satisfy all the
neighbors, your immediate neighbors?
MS. STEWART: Well, I'll let them speak for themselves, but as
far as I know, the answer is yes, obviously short of withdrawing the
Page 153
June 26-27, 2007
petition altogether. I mean, everything was listened to. As far as I
know everything was agreed to that evening, yes, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Because the reason you're here
now and we couldn't proceed the last time is because we made -- ran
into a major obstacle with your immediate neighbors objecting to
what's taking place. So rather than get a possible denial, you asked for
a continuance. I believe that's how it all worked.
MS. STEWART: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're here today, two years
later, is it?
MS. STEWART: It's about a year and a halflater, that is correct,
Mr. Chairman. And quite frankly, in the year and a half, we have
done many things. In addition to the two meetings that we just
discussed, there was another informal neighborhood information
meeting. I believe that was somewhere in the fall, late winter of 2005.
That would have been directly after the Planning Commission gave its
approval with the understanding that there would still be some
concerns with the neighbors. Invitations were sent out by my clients,
and no one appeared. No one from the neighborhood appeared at that
particular meeting. This was late fall, early winter, 2005.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, I understand that some of them
had some conflicts with their own schedules --
MS. STEWART: Oh, absolutely, of course.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and couldn't make it. I mean, it's
not a -- I don't want to give anybody -- it was the idea of a lack of
interest. It wasn't.
MS. STEWART: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The year 2006,
quite frankly, was spent -- I had contacted a couple other companies in
town quite honestly. I had a conversation with a past board director of
the Golden Gate Estates area's homeowners association. It was rather
discouraging, quite honestly. And so we just waited. Seemed like the
time was right earlier this year, and here we are.
Page 154
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. No, I'm glad you're going
through the process and I'm glad everybody's participating in it. I'm
going to want to -- very specially will be listening very carefully to the
immediate property owners around there to see if we've -- if you had
met their concerns. And if you have, I think you'll find my support
will be there for you.
MS. STEWART: Thank you. Appreciate that. I have no
objection if you wanted to call them up at this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it -- I think we could do that --
MS. STEWART: If that's not out of order.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Commissioner--
MS. STEWART: Unless anyone has any questions, the
commISSIOners --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MS. STEWART: -- that personally visited the project
themselves --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Commissioner Henning has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you agree with the Planning
Commission's stipulations?
MS. STEW ART: I'm sorry. As a matter of fact -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner. Yes, we did, and as I mentioned earlier, we've even
enhanced the recommendations that they required. The site plan today
-- and I think that Mr. Landy can show you a progression of what the
Planning Commission approved and what we stand here today asking
you to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I heard is you enhanced it,
so that doesn't necessarily agree that -- mean that you agree with them,
but --
MS. STEWART: We agree with them, and later -- subsequent to
that, the immediate neighbors requested even additional protections
against noise, traffic, and lights, all of which we agreed to.
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you -- do you have another
petition coming up shortly?
MS. STEWART: No, I don't, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. STEWART: If! may, sometimes I'm confused with another
attorney in town, Pamela Stewart. I'm Deborah Stewart. I get that a
lot, so I don't know if that's what you're thinking, but I have --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and
call the speakers up.
MS. FILSON: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I have--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll get to staff, but we might be
able to get there a little bit quicker. With your permission, I'd like to
proceed with the speakers.
MS. FILSON: I have nine speakers. The first one Pat
Humphries. She'll be followed by Rolando Diaz.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And it would help a lot, too,
that if you are an immediate neighbor, if you would so identify
yourself when you get up -- when you get up.
Ms. Humphries, please continue.
MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I am a
resident of the Estates and a former director of the Golden Gate
Estates Civic Association for 10 years.
When this project was originally proposed to the Board of
County Commissioners, it was opposed by the members of the Golden
Gate Estates Civic Association and a resident who lived across the
street from the proposed project.
The resident's objections stemmed from the knowledge of
Jehovah's Witnesses' characteristic to have multiple meetings in their
church that take place every night of the week as well as weekends.
With this in mind, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
petition with the stipulation that only two congregations meet in the
178-seat building.
Page 156
June 26-27, 2007
At last count, there are five congregations meeting five nights a
week and twice on Sunday, a far cry from the original stipulations
dictated by the Board of County Commissioners.
The environment is filled with traffic, traffic noise, loud talking,
and a general disruption of the neighbors' peace and quiet.
Now we have a petition before you for an expansion which was
also turned down in 2005 by the members of the Golden Gate Estates
Civic Association. I understand there is some question as to whether
this property was even eligible for conditional use in the first place
since it's over five acres.
Instead of spending so much money on a three-foot berm and a
six-foot fence, I suggest the Jehovah Witness buy property in the
newly released northeast section of North Belle Meade and raise the
money for a new Kingdom Hall. There is a new school planned for
that area, so it would be ideal.
I feel compelled to add that one of the problems that civic
associations face is when a special interest group joins for the express
purpose of promoting their own personal project. Unfortunately, once
their mission is accomplished, they aren't likely to be seen again.
So I would respectfully request that you do not approve this
expansion. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rolando Diaz. He'll be
followed by Jeff Raimer.
MR. DIAZ: Hello, my name is Rolando Diaz. I'm a member of
the Jehovah Witnesses' Congregation at Golden Gate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you can tilt the mike up a little bit
MR. DIAZ: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so you don't have to bend over to it.
MR. DIAZ: All right. I'm just going to clarify a few things
about the words spoken in the last meetings that happened, and one of
them was about community service, what do Jehovah Witnesses
Page 157
June 26-27,2007
provide to the community?
Well, one of them, we've been known historically to help out
during critical times, during Hugo in 1989, during Andrew in 1992.
We were actually one of the first to be in response to the community
to help them out. And also during Katrina, during Wilma here in
Naples, and helping all of the coast. We're known to help out our
community and -- special times and special needs.
And an extra Kingdom Hall there doesn't mean more people. It
actually means more people to help the community in the way -- not
only when a natural disaster occurs, but also in helping how to learn if
n how to read if they don't know how to read or write, if they don't
know how to write, and these are things that we don't charge money
for, we do actually these things from our heart. We do these things
freely to the community, and these are just things that will actually
benefit everybody in the community, not just us. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Thank you. Jeff Raimer. He'll be followed by
Ralph Case.
MR. RAIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing the neighborhood to voice
their opinions on this proposed expansion.
My name is Jeff Raimer. I live at 3521 1st Avenue Southwest,
the house immediately adjacent to the west of the Jehovah Witness
hall. For years our neighborhood has had to listen to noise at night
from horns, the car alarms going off, loud social activities, and
activities associated with what, in essence, is a commercial form of
use.
I could be off a day, but I do believe the folks meet six nights a
week, until 9:30 or 10 o'clock each evening, which may not always be
the same congregation, but someone is meeting in that church each
night, six nights a week.
My wife and I are 100 percent against the expansion of the
Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hall, regardless of what you're going to
Page 158
June 26-27, 2007
hear today. We want to keep what views we have and not have our
lives further disrupted by parking lots and lights.
When we bought our -- when we purchased our home, we had
Exhibit A, and now they want to add Exhibit A and Exhibit B, which
we didn't sign up for when we bought that. We knew the church was
there at the beginning.
We realize that you as county commissioners, you hold the fate
or our neighborhood in your hands, and I ask that you do not grant this
expansion. In 1997, when this property was before the county
commissioners to build the current building, the applicants stated that
they would have two congregations along with sharing their hall with
a Spanish congregation.
In fact, Commissioner Matthews made a note of pointing out that
there would only be two congregations at this hall and one would be
Spanish. The Jehovahs agreed.
In 2005 they have five congregations. Each congregation has
approximately 100 parishioners with a hall that seats 187 people.
How many congregations could they have if this application were to
pass? If this is a conditional use request for a use that is not
something provided by right, this request is inconsistent with the
Golden Gate Master Area Plan due to its size. It is incompatible with
the neighborhood noise, safety concerns for our residents and our
children, and is certainly not a use that in any way is complementary
to the very neighborhood in which it is being requested.
The Planning Commission by a majority vote voted to
recommend the approval of this application; however, it should be
noted that the planning -- only Planning Commissioner who lives in
Golden Gate Estates, Mark Strain, did vote against the application.
He was also the chairman of the most recent Golden Gate Area Master
Plan Committee.
By majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that
the west side of your pro -- of our -- your property from property line
Page 159
June 26-27, 2007
to property line, must have a three-foot berm and a six-foot masonry
wall, which is to be landscaped on both sides, and the south end of the
property, which is on 1st Avenue Southwest.
They have now added a wall to the south at the request of the
neighborhood meeting recent meeting that she had spoke about;
however, if this is -- this conditional use is destined to pass with your
vote, I would like it to be on record that my wife and I, along with the
rest of the neighbors, want the Planning Commission's
recommendations for the landscape berm along -- wall along the entire
property, west and south sides -- I'll make it quick -- along with the
stipulations that the wall be built before the construction of the hall is
-- proceeds, which we have agreed to.
I would also like to add that I have a signed petition from just
about every neighbor that I could track down in the neighborhood,
which we have about 15 homes. I have about 12 -- 10 to 12 signed
petitions that are totally against the expansion of this project.
I thank you very much for your time and consideration for our
neighborhood. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, sir. I think you're probably the
only representative of the neighborhood here today?
MR. RAIMER: There's a couple more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine. I'll wait to address this
with them.
MR. RAIMER: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ralph Case. He'll be followed
by Ruben Guadalupe.
MR. CASE: My name is Ralph Case. I am one of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. I am actually what they call a circuit overseer. My
responsibility is to supervise the activity of over 20 of our
congregations. Most of them are here in Naples.
I personally wasn't planning to be here this afternoon for this
meeting due to the favorable response that I heard that we had with
Page 160
June 26-27, 2007
our public meeting, the additional meeting that was requested;
however, yesterday I did receive a copy of our neighbor's notice of
pleas regarding inviting the community to show up for this meeting
where he's asking them to oppose the project.
That was quite a surprise to us in the sense that it seemed
favorable at the previous meeting, and it was a surprise to the ones
who are taking the lead in this consideration.
We have truly believed that the Scriptures say that we should be
-- that our reasonableness be known to all, and so in everything
basically that they have asked us to do to show them consideration in
this manner, we have agreed to do it, and gone beyond what the city
(sic) itselfhas asked us to do.
Basically this is a church, and other members have mentioned the
benefit of this church or will mention it, and I don't think we have to
explain that a lot, the benefits of the church. Many of you, without a
doubt, are God-believing people. The seal that we have right here
says, In God We Trust.
Churches have long been a center of community, just as
important as schools, fire stations, libraries. It benefits the
community, it benefits the families, the youth, are multiple. And a
church should meet the needs of its community that it serves.
This commission, without a doubt has approve -- was responsible
for approving the Catholic church that's on Vanderbilt and Weber
Road, which I believe is probably close to a 20,000-square-foot
project that's there, to meet the needs of the community that's in the
Estates area.
We're only asking for an additional 4,000 square foot, and doing
everything possible to meet the needs of our neighbors and, at the
same time, meet the needs of our parishioners that are in the area, the
Estates area, our current needs that we have.
We realize that there has been growth in that area because the
people have moved in. The meeting prior to this is stating the needs in
Page 161
June 26-27, 2007
your plans to expand or build out the infrastructure, taking into
consideration future needs of the area.
So we have parishioners that are in that area. We're trying to
serve the needs of our community that are there.
As far as some of the objections that they have, I personally live
at the 3480 Golden Gate building site. The noise. I hear noise from
the neighbors also, their children. They have also -- some of the
neighbors have a golf cart, they ride up and down the street. We see
it. We see the traffic there that comes from the school right there that
-- an expansion's been added to that.
Traffic that backs out past the -- our neighbor's house in the
morning. Far more traffic, far more noise from the park that's across
the street, the Max House (sic) project that's there. Our footprint is
very small in the community. Most of our parishioners enter in from
the Golden Gate area. There -- some might come up Weber Road, but
that vast majority enter there. We've taken into consideration the
neighbors.
As far as noise, I personally live there. I might hear parking,
sound from a car. My own car personally does it, makes a beep when
I park it and lock the door, but I think it's all within a reasonable
amount.
I personally have never been bothered being -- living there
myselfby the noise. I hardly hear it myself; however, again, we're
more than willing to take into consideration our neighbors'
circumstances and be reasonable in doing that.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ruben Guadalupe. He'll be
followed by Mike Casady.
MR. GUADALUPE: Yes, my name is Ruben Guadalupe, and
I'm a member of the Jehovah Witness Spanish congregation. I'm a
father too. I got two children, one girl, one boy. They are behind me.
And I just want to let you know that even though we live like in a
paradise in Naples, it's been great for me for the past 20 years in this
Page 162
June 26-27, 2007
city; and raising my kids in this city, they endure pressure in the
school. Have to deal with morality, have to deal with drugs, have to
deal with a lot of choices they have to make.
The fact that they have this Biblical education in the Kingdom
Hall has helped them grow spiritually just as well as physically, and
face those pressures, good -- in being a good citizen right now.
They are good examples of this community, in school and at
home and the way that they go out and preach to the other people in
this community.
So I just want to let you guys know, understand, that it's very
important for our youth and for us as a Spanish community, too, to
have Kingdom Hall because we don't only go over there to listen. We
go over there to learn and to change our way of living so we can
improve in helping other people.
And my children, Ruben and Melanie, they have their papers
over there. I don't know if you want to listen to them right now, so
you can see the importance for them as kids to have this place, spread
Jehovah.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mike Casady. He'll be
followed by Ruben Guadalupe.
MR. CASADY: Good afternoon, Chairman and commissioner
board. We really appreciate you meeting with us this afternoon and
going over this important information.
This is a very important project for us, as you've heard already
from some of the other members of Jehovah's Witnesses, that it has
many good effects on the neighborhood, the community, morals. We
pay our taxes, and it's a great training program that we offer for the
members of the church that we have to become outstanding citizens in
Collier County.
And it has rubbed off on our businesses, the people that we work
for, the companies that we've worked for, have good
recommendations, things that we have learned and are teaching at the
Page 163
June 26-27, 2007
Kingdom Hall, the instruction that we get has rubbed off and carried
over into our businesses and infrastructure of business that we have in
Collier County. So we appreciate you hearing us.
The building size is, as mentioned, 4,400 square feet, isn't a big
building. In fact, it's just a little bit bigger than this room. Probably a
few feet wider and a few feet longer than this room. So it's not a
gigantic building. It's got a low-profile single story, hip roof, and it's
all colored to the colors of earth tone colors, light green, brown roof
and so forth. It blends in real good with the landscaping that's there.
And we did agree to the wall on the south side, and that's fine, at
our June 7th meeting, and we had several neighbors at that meeting,
probably 10 or 12 neighbors, and we've come to a conclusion that they
wanted the wall on the south side. We agreed to that. And with the
additional landscaping and the hedge and so forth inside, outside, and
we agreed to that. I mean, we shook hands together; we thought we
had a great agreement for this petition to pass.
MS. FILSON: Ruben Guadalupe. He'll be followed by Melanie
Guadalupe.
MR. GUADALUPE: Hi. My name is Ruben Guadalupe, Jr. My
dad just spoke. And I want to point out that there are positives to
building the Kingdom Hall, and not only for us but for everybody in
the community.
Since I was little, I've been raised believing that God is always
watching, and just keeping this in mind, it's kept me out of a lot of
problems and helped me get through difficult situations.
I can say the same for my friends in the congregation. Besides our
responsibilities in the congregation, we also hang out together and
support each other, and it helps us keep out of trouble.
And building the Kingdom Hall, besides making everything less
crowded for us, will also give us a place to keep growing spiritually
and continue spreading hope to people who need it like we do.
MS. FILSON: Melanie Guadalupe. She'll be followed by
Page 164
June 26-27,2007
Patrick Burnell (sic).
MS. GUADALUPE: Hi, I'm Melanie Guadalupe. I think the
Kingdom Hall should be built for many good reasons. I have learned
throughout my life that God rejoices when we follow his principles,
and he also helps us do so, and especially us young people in the
world, it is very hard for us, but he knows and understands our
troubles and our difficulties that we are presented with, and also being
able to have someone to talk to and we can confide in that's always
there helps me and others in the congregation to make good decisions.
And I think that -- I mean, I love to spread the good hope that
Jehovah has given us for the future. And by having a new Kingdom
Hall, we will have the space to do so. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Patrick Purnell.
MR. PURNELL: Chairman, Commissioners, I apologize for my
informal dress. I had other things to do this morning.
The concerns that I have -- I am the property directly across from
1 st Avenue Southwest. One concern I have is the two congregations
that were supposed to be in the existing building and now is five.
How many more are going to go in there? And it doesn't seem
any body's answered that question.
The gate that's gone on 1st Avenue, the agreement that we made
on our last meeting is that it would only be used for emergency
vehicles. What kind of enforcement? I mean, how do we know that's
what it's all going to be used for?
I understand we have the word of the congregation. We also say
-- they also said they were only going to have two congregations
there, too.
And as far as other meetings in the past, I've never been
personally notified by mail or any other way by the congregation. Mr.
Raimer is the only one that ever advised me.
They're the only points I wanted to make. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
Page 165
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go away, sir.
MR. PURNELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you could, please, a couple
questions. How long have you lived at this present address?
MR. PURNELL: I don't live there. I own the property there. I
was going to build a house there, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And do you find the idea of
the improvements they're planning to make is satisfactory?
MR. PURNELL: I haven't seen the new plans. I saw the plans
on June 7th. If they agreed to everything we talked about -- if you're
going to approve it, you know, I want it approved by what we had
talked about on June 7th.
I do -- my only -- the only real question I have is, like I said, the
existing building was approved for two congregations, and now five
are there. Now we're going to build another 4,000 feet. Does that
mean that 10 congregations will be there?
And then all of a sudden that gate that's only going to be used for
emergency vehicles is going to be opened for more traffic to go out
onto 1 st Avenue Southwest.
Now, I bought that property, obviously, with the park there and
the school and the church the way it is now. I don't know that we
need any more -- more traffic or more people, more congregations. It's
. . . ,
Just gOIng to -- It s --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. PURNELL: It might be too much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We -- at this point in time, do we
have anything from staff to offer?
MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Reischl (sic) has a couple items he
has to put on the record. Anything, Fred?
Mike, sorry.
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz. I'm the
Principal Planner with Department of Zoning Land Development
Page 166
June 26-27, 2007
Review and Comprehensive Planning.
The -- there was a neighborhood information meeting on January
the 20th, 2005, and you've heard there was a series of requests for
continuations, that this petition did not come forward to the Board of
Appeals.
The -- they have met with the association and they have listened
to them and tried to address the needs of the -- that was expressed by
the board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did they get the approval vote from
the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association?
MR. DeRUNTZ: They -- at the first meeting they had their
support, but they wanted to have that second meeting with the
neighbors, and it is my understanding that at that meeting they
addressed the concerns that the neighbors had.
So I don't think there was ever a vote by the association, but they
seemed to be, from my understanding from the -- from Deborah, that
the -- that they were supportive of this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. I was there at the meeting.
There was never a vote taken to indicate there was support. There was
a couple of people that offered support.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A number of people from the church
in the audience. In fact, I think it was about 60 some. It was probably
the biggest crowd we've ever had. It was an impressive crowd.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But once the issue was over with,
they left. We were hoping to get them as members. That's neither
here nor there. But I didn't want anybody misled that the Golden Gate
Civic Association took a formal vote and got approval. They did not.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Right. I didn't say they took a vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That never came up. The last time a
vote was taken was many years ago. At that time it was voted against.
Page 167
June 26-27, 2007
And you know, I just want to make sure the record's in proper
perspective to what we're going into.
Is there anything else you have to offer?
MR. DeRUNTZ: That the CCPC voted on July the 7th. It was a
5-1 vote in support. There was four conditions. One was that a type B
buffer, which included a six-foot tall wall on top of a three-foot berm
shall be provided along the western property line consistent with the
Land Development Code regulations, which included irrigation and
maintenance.
Two, a type D buffer would be provided along the southern
property line. Three, an access to 1 st Avenue Southwest shall be
restricted by a gate to emergency vehicles only. And four, the
southernmost parking stalls shall be constructed with grass pavers.
At this meeting that was held on the 7th -- and I have on the
visualizer a copy of the site plan that was approved, it shows here that
along the western property line here that they are going to provide a
six-foot tall wall on top of the berm, and they identified that there will
be a type C buffer on the outside of this wall, and the same is along
the south side here.
One of the other concerns was about the lighting that was there at
the site, and they have agreed to have a dome-type lighting fixture and
that these would be turned off at 11 o'clock, I believe, at night.
And the -- and the staff has found that this application is
consistent with the growth management plan and found to be
compatible with the Land Development Code and is recommending
approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did anyone address the issue of the
original conditions where there was only going to be two
congregations meeting in the church and now there's five?
MR. DeRUNTZ: I believe in looking at the statement of record
that that was not a condition of the approval. That was just the
verbiage that was -- language that was spoken of at the meeting. That
Page 168
June 26-27, 2007
was not placed as one of the conditions of the approval. But I'll let
Deborah speak to that.
MS. STEWART: Thank you. And yes, I have reviewed the
minutes from that meeting in 1996, and as -- I have a set right here.
And as I recall reading it earlier, as Mr. Leruntz (sic) indicated, there
was discussion about that meeting and there was an inquiry made of
the congregation as to how far they thought they would expand.
Let's see. A Mr. Martin -- I'm not -- I don't recall who he is -- he
talks about -- I believe that there will -- and I think he was a staff
member. I believe that there will be a plan for the site for more than
two congregations, and I believe one is Spanish speaking and one is
English speaking.
Then there was some other discussion. Commissioner Matthews,
Bettye Matthews at the time, said, I just wanted to make sure we knew
it's two congregations.
But as I read the motion with their stipulations, that was not one
of the stipulations that there would only be two congregations at this
site.
And let me say again, this was back in 1996. That's more than 10
years ago. I know that if this congregation knew back then they
would have expanded more than twice its size, they would have told
you.
It's my understanding they gave you all the best opinion they had
at the time. I mean, I think a lot of us undershot the amount of growth
of our community 10 years ago.
So in my opinion, it was not made part of the record or the
motion at the time, that this conditional use back then be capped at
two congregations.
And the other thing -- and if I may continue. I'm not sure at what
point -- to address some of the issues -- the comments that were raised
by Ms. Humphries, Mr. Raimer, Mr. Burnell (sic), again, we come
back mostly to the traffic and the noise. One of the reasons the current
Page 169
June 26-27, 2007
congregation is meeting six nights a week at this location is because
they don't have the additional building. Their plan is, with the
additional building, their goal is to only meet at this site three times a
week.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words--
MS. STEWART: Two to three times a week, Wednesdays,
Sundays, and possibly one other evening.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you agree to that as a
condition?
MS. STEWART: I'd have to confer with my clients.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, because I'll tell you where we
are on these --
MS. STEWART: That would be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on this. Back a number of years
ago when Golden Gate Estates was young, there was no particular
rules. You could build a church, you could build -- put a fraternal
organization out there without having to go through a lengthy process.
It was a use that could be -- come around without difficulty.
I remember I ran into problems with the Moose in the fact that I
stopped them from getting out there when they wanted to go in a
residential neighborhood. Why not? The property's considerably
cheaper to buy in a residential neighborhood than it is in one that
would permit these kinds of use as a normal occurrence.
So we formed the Golden Gate Master Plan. This is back in '92.
And we came up with a whole matrix to be able to make it a little
more difficult for churches and fraternal organizations and commercial
to locate in the Estates, and it's been a long process and it gets you to
where you need to be. And that's where we are today.
But, once again, you know, we're talking about a residential
neighborhood that has -- now has a commercial use. Yes, large lots
and everything. And I don't think the people that have been there for a
long time ever anticipated this particular venture getting to the size
Page 170
June 26-27, 2007
that it is.
MS. STEWART: I understand everything you said,
Commissioner, Mr. Chairman. And again, if! may say, I believe that
-- it's my understanding this particular site is the -- one of two in this
area that's qualified for this transitional use, if you will. So I don't
think the board's going to see very many more applications for this
type of application.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, but still, it's the option of this
board to approve or not approve.
MS. STEWART: Yes, of course, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what I'm challenging you with,
is to see if your congregation can -- if the church could live up to what
you just said, that this larger facility will allow them to reduce it from
six nights a week to three nights.
If you can get them to agree to that, I think I might be much more
understandable of how this whole thing works.
MS. STEWART: Is this an indefinite period of time, from here
till forever or is it --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'd have to come back before this
commission again to get it changed.
MS. STEWART: So you're talking about restriction that's --
days and times of operation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, to bring it down to something --
in other words, if you're going to, you know, impede upon the peace
and tranquility of the residents that live there, what can you do to try
to bring a balance to it? Maybe it will be a more intense use for those
three nights that it happens, but at least they can be assured that they're
going to have four nights without a heavy use.
MS. STEW ART: And here's one other thing that maybe we're
not focusing on. I have heard a lot of discussion about the noise, the
traffic, the car alarms, the talking and yet I heard no one present any
proof, per se, that it was from this congregation. As you all know,
Page 171
June 26-27, 2007
Max Hasse Community Park is directly across the street, there is
another church further down the road, and there's a school there as
well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no, I understand. But the school
isn't operating at night for the general -- you know, generally late at
night. They --
MS. STEWART: No, but the park probably is. I'm not sure that
that church --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The park has got hours of operation,
baseball and everything. There's usually something that takes place
during the day. What I'm saying is, trying to compare the two of
them, the peace and tranquility of the evening nights in the Estates is
something that people treasure greatly, and the peace and quiet that
they get there. That's the reason why they moved out there to those
large lots.
And we -- and that's one of the reasons why it's so important that,
if you do this, that the walls be built on top of the berms, that all the
amenities that go into place are there. But meanwhile, we still have a
more intense use for a residential neighborhood. What can you do to
tell me that that use will only be so many nights a week? I mean, you
just said that it was going to be reduced. Either it's true or it's not true.
MS. STEWART: Well, it's true for the period right now. If
you're asking us to project into the future how much further this
congregation will expand, I think that's another question --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well -- and that's fine.
MS. STEWART: -- if that's what you want me to discuss with
them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. But this commission is
open for discussion in the future if somebody wanted to bring
something back to have a change made to their --
MS. STEWART: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- original agreement that was put
Page 172
June 26-27, 2007
together.
MS. STEWART: I would request a break and let me discuss that
with my clients. I don't know of any other way to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Stewart, how many
congregations are meeting in the church?
MS. STEWART: There are approximately five congregations
that meet there now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What was the petition in
the '90s? What name was that petition for?
MS. STEWART: I'm looking at a set of minutes, I believe, and it
reads, resolution 96-488, petition CU-96l2, Don Apperson, requesting
continual use to allow for a house of worship for property located on
the south side of Golden Gate Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the congregation is the house
of worship?
MS. STEWART: They refer to their buildings as their house of
worship. The congregation is the number -- when I use the term, it's
the number of members of that particular church.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many churches do you
have meeting in there?
MS. STEWART: Just the one congregation -- well, one Golden
Gate congregation, five separate groups. They can't all fit into the one
building at the same time, so they are scattering them out through the
week.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you saying you have five
different services or five different congregations?
MS. STEWART: I'll call up my client, Mr. Casady, and he can
probably better answer that question.
MR. CASADY: Okay. Yes, we have five groups that meet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Your name, for the record.
Page 173
June 26-27, 2007
MR. CASADY: Mike Casady.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they a member of one
church?
MR. CASADY: It's all Jehovah's Witnesses, it's all Jehovah's.
There are a couple different groups that speak Spanish that's there, and
then there's two -- there's three groups that speak Spanish and there's
two groups that are English.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I heard the
Hispanic gentleman say they lease from you. Did I hear that or is that
wrong?
MR. CASADY: No, that's not right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's one church. I mean, I
agree with Commissioner Coletta, there has to be some limitation on
that, the use on that property.
MR. CASADY: It's very difficult to calculate the growth. Just
as we are -- you hear from time to time the roads are continually
growIng.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CASADY: Building roads, and it's real hard to calculate
how many people are coming in that are receiving God want to come
in to worship.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me tell you my experience.
First Baptist Church originally started, it was right next to Naples City
Hall, and then they moved it way out there on Pine Ridge Road, and
then from there they went to Orange Blossom Road (sic), and they are
still growing. And I think they've found a property to fit their needs.
And, you know, I'm concerned, like Commissioner Coletta, that
maybe you're outgrowing the neighborhood. Maybe you're
outgrowing your space, and it impacts on a single -- or a residential
neighborhood. That's my concerns. And, you know, those conditional
uses, churches, are not really meant to be seven days a week.
MR. CASADY: Well, as 1--
Page 174
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But I'm glad you're doing what
you're doing.
MR. CASADY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am, too.
MR. CASADY: And as Deborah mentioned, you know, that we
do meet there regularly. I mean, almost every night we have a group,
and that would shrink that down to like three nights -- three nights a
week where we would be able --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that might be acceptable
to the board, three nights a week.
MR. CASADY: But the future, we don't know. I mean, how can
we stop? How can we stop people coming in to worship God in a
house of worship? It's very difficult to say, no, we can't have you
come in anymore. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. CASADY: -- we would feel -- we would not feel right to do
that, to stop by some numbers. We do want to eventually, you know,
find some property out in the Estates if anything's available, and that's
the problem. There's nothing out that way, or Oil Well Road, or for
the future in the years to come. And we'd rather be out that way, but
for the time being we need -- you know, we really need this project,
this building, to house the people that we have, and probably some
additional people that would come along in the next few years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, let's go
ahead and take a 10-minute break. And maybe you can discuss it with
members of your congregation. We think you're doing a wonderful job
with congregation. They serve a lot of purpose, but we also have to
bring a balance for the neighborhood.
So take a few minutes, talk it over with your attorney, and see
what you can come up with. Okay. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike, sir.
Page 175
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Back to you.
MS. STEWART: Thank you. Commissioners, my clients have
asked me to pose one suggested -- one suggestion, and that is, would
the neighbors be willing to agree to, say, four nights per week rather
than the three nights per week?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what. We've got one
neighbor that actually lives there. I'm going to invite him back up to
the podium, if he wouldn't mind.
Not that easy trying to find a common ground--
MR. RAIMER: No, it isn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- on a situation like this. Buy I
thought if I could buy you some evenings of peace and quiet.
MR. RAIMER: Sure. No, I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you state the name again.
MR. RAIMER: My name is Jeff Raimer. I live to the west of
the church. And you know, I want to go on record that I'm not here to
impede anything. My wife and I have a beautiful piece of property. I
don't want to see a wall go up. I want to look at my views coming out
of my front porch as they are. I don't want any services at night. I've
got five or six as it is now. You know, no to four. I mean, I don't
want any.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I understand that.
MR. RAIMER: But I can't stop that obviously, but--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's make a choice. In other words,
if we refuse this, then the status quo stays with six nights a week, no
wall, no shrubberies. If we go ahead and we accept it, then we're
down to four nights. At leave you've got three nights of quiet. And
you do have a wall, shrubbery, something to enhance the whole thing.
MR. RAIMER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Help us with this decision.
MR. RAIMER: Well, I'd love to. I know you're in a tough spot,
and I can only tell you as for myself and, you know, the
Page 176
June 26-27, 2007
neighborhood, that we met. It was pretty adamant to them that we
don't want any expansion that, you know, we agreed to this plan that
they gave us because they have to bring a plan to you for approval or
not approval.
So, you know, we said, okay, if you're going to bring a plan,
because you have to have one -- first of all, we don't want one, but if
you have to, okay, you need the wall on the south side, you need the
wall on our side, you need it on a berm, you need the landscape on
both sides, you need to put the ball lighting in to keep the things
down, but none of us want the expansion.
And I understand they want to do it. They're growing. You can't
tell me 10 years ago they didn't know they were going to grow from
two congregations to five, and now they're at five, and who knows
what it's going to go to.
And my concern is, who's in charge of -- who's in charge of
saying, okay, they're not meeting three nights a week? Who's in
charge of that? I mean, do I got to call every time they're meeting on
a night they're not supposed to meet? Do I got to call somebody up
and watch that, that -- I mean, you know, it's not a conditional use.
What they have now is -- you know, they got the transitional
conditional use which states that, to my knowledge, that the piece of
property needs to be two to under five acres. They've got 5.15 acres,
so that transitional conditional use should have never been granted
back in '96 or '97.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But it was.
MR. RAIMER: But it was. So there we are again. So I'm
asking you guys not to further that. That shouldn't have been here in
the first place, that's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, one more time, I just
want to make sure I understand. The present situation, if the status
quo remains as it is, six nights a week meeting -- and they might go to
seven because it doesn't seem like there's anything to stop them, there
Page 177
June 26-27, 2007
would be no improvements done to the peripheral part of the property,
so you know, you get to see what you are -- there will be no nose (sic)
break -- nothing to break the noise. So you would think that that
would be more preferable than to grant them the expansion and to cut
down on the amount of services they have.
MR. RAIMER: For my wife and I, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Tell me about the traffic
situation that you're enduring now.
MR. RAIMER: Well, the traffic situation, we certainly knew
that when we bought it. I mean, you've got -- at the end of our street
you've got Big Cypress Elementary, you've got a Presbyterian church,
you've got the Max Hasse Park, you've got their church. That's all
within, without exaggerating, 150 yards, all of those.
So you've got all that coming in, you've got their church. You
know, they say they don't come down 1st Avenue, I don't know how
you would know if they do or they don't. I can't say they do, I can't
say they don't. What I can say is, at nine o'clock, between 9:00,9:30,
10:00, when they are coming out, there's car horns going off, they're
sitting out in the parking lot, they're talking. You know, we're used to
it now, quite honestly, we are. I mean, it's, you know, at that point--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but if they had the expansion
and the traffic was to say double, would that be an inconvenience?
MR. RAIMER: Like I said, you know, quite honestly, I can't say
that because I don't know what cars of theirs are coming in or coming
out. I do know if they're -- you know, I do know that in the minutes,
in the Planning Commission minutes, that there is a stipulation that
they could have their right turn or their left turn taken away off of the
Boulevard.
If that happens, guess where they're going? They're going to go
down 1 st A venue Southwest because they don't have a choice. If they
can't go out of their church and take a left on the Boulevard, they're
going to be coming out of their parking lot turning right towards Max
Page 178
June 26-27,2007
Hasse and taking a right on 1 st Avenue, and that's how they're going
to be leaving.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then again --
MR. RAIMER: It's in there, it says that it could happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- it's a public road. Can't quite, you
know, tell somebody they can't use the public road.
MR. RAIMER: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But if they were to take their church
and increase the size of it, it would most likely cause more traffic. Do
you agree with that?
MR. RAIMER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to ask you just for a
few minutes to stay there in case any of my commissioners --
MR. RAIMER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- have questions for you. Thank you,
Jeff, for your patience.
MR. RAIMER: Yep, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have any questions of this
gentleman, but I do have a question of the representative of the
church.
Usually if you're a successful church, and you apparently are,
you make plans for expansion and you get a building fund and you
collect money and identify what your long-range alternatives are
going to be.
And I'm wondering if you can tell me how much money you
have in your building fund. Have you established one? Do you have
long-term plans to acquire property that suits your needs?
I hope you will not stop growing. I hope you will continue to
grow. But how do you intend to accommodate that growth, by trying
to jam more in this neighborhood, or are you really going to make a
sincere effort to find a place that will permit you to grow even larger?
Page 179
June 26-27, 2007
And that's my question.
I have -- I have run into similar situations where churches simply
don't want to spend their money on getting bigger facilities or other
facilities and they merely want to try to pack more into what they've
got, and that is understandable, but it's not necessarily fair to the
neighborhood.
And so that's my question to you. What are your long-range
building plans, how are you going to accommodate for growth from
this point forward, and have you begun to collect any money to fund
those long-range plans?
MR. CASADY: Yes, sir. We do have a building fund and we do
plan in the future, we do plan to expand elsewhere, not just this one
piece of property.
Like we mentioned in comment earlier, we'd like to find some
property, feasible property, inexpensive property, which is hard to find
in Collier County now, out towards Oil Well Road, someplace out that
way.
We're looking for some additional property besides what we have
planned to do here. So that's where our growth is. Most of our -- a
great majority of our people that come to the services there do live in
the Estates area. There are some that lives in town, but the majority of
them does live in the Estates area. And we'd like to for future, future,
in the future, to build someplace out in that area also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you have a building fund that
is going to support that strategy?
MR. CASADY: We're working on that, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Okay. Go ahead, sir, briefly.
MR. CASE: Having the larger picture, I'm very much aware of
the situation of all the congregations here in the Naples area. We have
a Kingdom Hall on Guilford and we have four congregations there.
We have one on Pine. We have three congregations there. We have
Page 180
June 26-27, 2007
one on Yarberry. We have three congregations there. We have one
on Green in Golden Gate City, and there's four congregations there.
There's five there in the Estates.
We try to not bring people from other communities into the
community. We try to serve our neighbors -- our parishioners that are
in that particular community without bringing the burden from outside
into that community that's there.
With that said, their goal was actually to build something that
was farther out, but we are having difficulty trying to find land that
will allow us those -- that use farther out towards the Everglades area,
the Everglades Avenue.
We have this piece of property that's there. This is -- would
reduce the use of the overcrowding that's in this one particular -- one
particular building.
Also in regards to the impact on the neighborhood, we try to
really keep it light. We consider our neighbors. We're not interested
in tearing down this building and building a cathedral that would have
a larger impact in the area. Our smaller building -- our meetings, we
feel, have less of an impact in the neighborhood, and we are trying to
do whatever we can, and we believe we have met the requirements of
all the zonings and also the laws in regards to considering those types
of impacts or noise and lighting and everything that they've asked, and
we've agreed so as to keep that impact there and not cause a difficulty
within the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing what I've heard and
everything and having to weigh everything -- and I mean no harm to
the church, I'm going to vote for disapproval based upon
transportation element number 5.1 and 5.2, that I think that this
particular venture would have an impact on the neighborhood that
would be negative, and the surrounding area also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner.
Page 181
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It also doesn't comply to the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan with the lot size conformity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I add that to my motion. And if
I get a second, we'll be able to proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it for discussion
purposes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Henning for
denial.
Do I hear any discussion?
Yes, Margie.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling. I also believe there was testimony as to noise, and
that is one of the criteria that exists in the code for whether a
conditional use should be approved or denied, and I don't know if you
may wish to add that to your motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I include that in my motion.
How about your second, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show
Commissioner Henning indicated with a nod yes.
With that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in the -- favor
of the motion for denial, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show Commissioner
Page 182
June 26-27, 2007
Halas was in opposition to the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I was, too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala, that the
motion only required three, correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, four.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, did it? Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we need another motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Here's what happened. It's four to approve a
conditional use. It is not approved -- this motion to deny is not
approved either, but the petition does not go forward at this point,
that's for sure. So I think if you can entertain another motion --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't need another motion?
Okay. Hearing nothing?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure that was clear. I'm not
sure David --
MR. WEIGEL: I'll restate. If, for instance, we had a motion to
approve that failed, because it failed to achieve the supermajority vote,
that is an action. It fails to move forward.
This motion to deny also fails in the sense that it's not a
supermajority vote out of conditional use; however, if there is no
motion to go -- if there is no further motion taken, the petition will fail
in any event because there is no motion to approve that it's going
forward, is what I'm trying to say.
If there is -- if there is a desire to entertain another motion and
that motion were to approve it and it fails, then I think you've, you
know, fully covered the gamut there, is what you could do. Anything
else?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear another motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a motion and --
with the stipulation -- motion for approval with the stipulation that
they are only allowed to meet four nights a week.
Page 183
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that they have the fence?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With all the other stipulations that
have been put in there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the CCPC as well as the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right, and then what was also
discussed with the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have a motion for approval
by Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you agree with -- go along with
that four nights, that's it?
MS. STEWART: Oh, yes, we do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. STEWART: And if! may, at this point in discussion, if the
motion does not go forward, will there be permitted cross-examination
of witnesses?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. One more time?
MS. STEWART: If the motion is not approved, will there be
time for cross examination?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, absolutely not.
MS. STEWART: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments,
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 184
June 26-27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were for or opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was -- I was opposed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have myself,
Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner
Coyle in opposition to the motion. The motion failed. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
MS. STEWART: If! may make one--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that--
MS. STEWART: If! may make one objection to the record,
please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. This part of the
proceedings concluded. We don't -- we don't -- we're not a court of
law.
MS. STEWART: Object based on the denial of due process.
Thank you very much, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Commissioners, the chairman
asked me to try to keep this, to get the supermajority vote particular
issues out of the way because Commissioner Coyle's a little under the
weather.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2007-54: PETITION: PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, TREE
FARM LAND TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT MULHERE,
AICP OF RW A, INC., AND GEORGE VARNADOE, ESQUIRE,
OF CHEFFY, PASSIDOMO, WILSON & JOHNSON, LLP, IS
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A)
ZONING DISTRICT TO THE MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT
Page 185
June 26-27, 2007
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROJECT
TO BE KNOWN AS TREE FARM MPUD CONSISTING OF A
MAXIMUM OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
USES; AND A MAXIMUM OF 425 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 58.84 ACRES, IS
LOCATED AT 8799 IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 22,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
And so that basically would bring us to 8B, and that is a -- this
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members. It's petition
PUDZ-2005-AR-8284, Tree Farm Land Trust represented by Robert
Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc., and George Varnadoe, Esquire of
Cheffy -- Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP, is requesting
a rezone from the agricultural A zoning district to the mixed-use
planning unit development, MPUD, zoning district for a project to be
known as the Tree Farm MPUD consisting of a maximum of 200,000
square feet of commercial units and a maximum of 425 residential
units.
The subject property consisting of 58.84 acres is located at 8799
Immokalee Road in Section 22, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Does this require the people
that want to participate to be sworn in? I'll ask them to stand at this
point in time to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, for disclosure on the part of the
commISSioners.
Commissioner Henning, can we start with you again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's see. I apologize. Yes.
8B, I have received some requests for meetings and that's it.
Page 186
June 26-27,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've met with the petitioner
and his agents and I've met with staff and I've received emails.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I received
correspondence and met with the petitioner and his representatives.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had requests for
meetings, which I have not entertained. But I did receive emails on
this, and I have talked to staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, we're on 8B for
disclosure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have met with
representatives of the petitioner's for this particular item, I have also
received telephone calls, and any correspondence I have is in my
correspondence file.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Passidomo?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, my name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 5th
Avenue South in the City of Naples.
Our firm represents Thomas S. Monaghan for the benefit of Ave
Maria University Foundation as owner, and Tree Farm Land Trust as
developer in the mixed-use planned unit development petition before
you for consideration this afternoon.
Our land use planner is Bob Mulhere ofRW A. Our transportation
consultants are Ron Talone and Vijay Kornala of David Plummer &
Associates. Our environmental consultant is Elena Mandia of
Passarella & Associates, and our economic consultant is Russ Weyer
of Fishkind.
Mr. Mulhere will present our land use plan to you at the
conclusion of my introductory remarks. Our other consultants are
available to respond to any questions that you may have from time to
time during the public hearing.
Page 187
June 26-27, 2007
At the outset, let me tell you that our client instructed us in
addressing our land use petition to do so in the context of what was
reported to them as compelling public needs in this area of the
community. We are, therefore, grateful to have garnered staffs
recommendation of approval and are appreciative of the 7-1 vote of
recommendation of approval on the Collier County Planning
Commission.
Let me begin our presentation by sharing with you some sense of
the three guiding principles which drove the plan Mr. Mulhere will
present to you this afternoon.
The first adherence to the growth management plan's mixed use
activity principles. Commercial activity is therefore concentrated
where traffic impacts can be accommodated and stripped and
disorganized, patterns of commercial development can be
discouraged.
As Commissioner Chairman Mark Strain commented during the
Planning Commission deliberations on June 7th, the proposed
commercial intensity of some 9,300 square feet per gross acre in the
activity center proposed for the mixed-use planned unit development
before you for consideration this afternoon is comparable to and,
indeed, some 10 to 12 percent less than the commercial intensity by
about 10,600 square feet across the street at the Richland mixed-use
planned unit development at Pebblebrook.
At staffs request, we have agreed to limit the amount of retail
commercial at the site to some 143,500 square feet and agreed that any
commercial activity in excess of that up to the overall cap of 175,000
square feet will be office in nature.
Residential densities are located in close proximity to an activity
center, and we believe in doing so, we will create good opportunities
for workforce housing and a pedestrian mixed-use orientation to
development within the activity center. And as Mr. Mulhere will
show you during his presentation, with the balance of the
Page 188
June 26-27, 2007
interconnectivity -- with the balance of the project and
interconnectivity with adjacent projects.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Passidomo, I don't mean to
interrupt you. Planning Commission recommendations, the staff
recommendations that came down through, I'm going to make a
motion of approval with the -- to include the Planning Commission's
recommendations and the staff recommendations, and if I get a second
from there we can proceed, and maybe cut this down to something --
we've all read this, we've been through it with staff.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think our questions are pretty well
finely honed at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for that. Let's
start with Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a couple of questions.
I'm concerned about the compatibility with the amount of density and
also the intensity of that particular development at that location, okay.
And where I'm going with this is that I'd like to see the
commercial cut back a little bit more if it would be possible. Other
than that, maybe you can elaborate more on why you need so much
density in regards to the residential.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Halas. The intensity really
is a function of compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods and the
adjacent mixed-use planned unit development at Richland.
I think as Mr. Strain pointed out, and I think as the Planning
Commission recognized, the level of intensity here is less than the
level of intensity across the street. It's 9,300 commercial square feet
per gross acres within the activity center. Across the street it's some
10,600 square feet. So as a question of intensity we think that it is
compatible with the adjacent neighborhood.
As to the question of density, we frankly look at density in the
Page 189
June 26-27,2007
context of commitments made and benefits provided. We respectfully
submit, and I think after consultation with your transportation
planning staff you may agree that the 7.42 acres, which is donated for
reservation of public right-of-way, the additional commitment that's
made for taking and accepting and treating stormwater from the
extension of Collier Boulevard all will provide significant
transportation benefits to Collier County. And we respectfully submit
that the density proposed should be looked at in that context.
All impacts, transportation-generated impacts, are
accommodated. We have agreed to not receive any Certificates of
Occupancy for any of the buildings until the three significantly
impacted roadways are, in fact, completed. That's part of a stipulation
in our planned unit development document, and we'll abide by it. But
we respectfully submit that the question of density be looked at in the
overall context, as the Planning Commission did, of the nature and
extent of commitments that are proffered, and we believe that they're
substantial.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My other question and
reason I'm asking in regards to this, we realize that the size of the land
here that we presently have, obviously it's going to be impacted
heavily because it's going to become impervious to the water.
And I'm concerned about whether this is going to be a 10-year
event that basically is established with the Estates or whether this is
going to be a 25-year event as far as stormwater and where are you
going to have the retention ponds if it is a 25-year event so that we
don't impact the Immokalee Road canal because we have to meet the
TMDLs very shortly here.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Halas. Mr. Mulhere is here.
Our civil engineer is not here. Let me ask him to address the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Because it's in the context of the zoning
issue, frankly, we weren't prepared to address the question of
Page 190
June 26-27, 2007
stormwater management. We understand through the process we'll
address that. But let me ask Mr. Mulhere to address it today.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere with
RWA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you understand the question --
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I did.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: n whether this is the -- whether this
is considered the Estates for stormwater, or is this considered the
urban area for stormwater?
MR. MULHERE: I did, Commissioner Halas, and I appreciate
that. And we've only prepared at this point a conceptual water
management plan, but we did prepare that conceptual water
management plan to accommodate about 15 percent of the site with
stormwater management lakes, which is consistent with the provisions
of treating the stormwater under South Florida Water Management
Districts for a 25-year storm event.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twenty-five year?
MR. MULHERE: Twenty-five year storm event, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would like to emphasize
one thing about this -- the conditions placed on this particular petition,
and those conditions are that it will not receive a Certificate of
Occupancy until the appropriate road segments are substantially
completed.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is a very important statement
in view of the fact that the State of Florida has ruled that we do not
have a financially feasible capital improvement element, and with
further cuts in property taxes, we are not likely to get one that will be
substantially -- or financially feasible in the long-term.
So I think these kinds of statements and restrictions on PUDs are
Page 191
June 26-27,2007
very important because they provide us the kinds of protections we
need. It doesn't say that it will be phased in, it will be -- part of it will
be developed no sooner than mid 2008.
It says, you don't get a certificate of occupancy until the roads are
completed. And so if the roads aren't completed until 2012, then you
don't get a Certificate of Occupancy, and I think that's a very strong
statement. I applaud the petitioner for participating with us.
I -- the staff has informed me that this petitioner has been
cooperative in every way and has granted a number of concessions
and made contributions that were not necessary in order to move this
ahead.
So although, like Commissioner Halas, I am concerned with the
density, I do not like the conversion rate of 4-1 for assisted living
facilities for each residence, but I've also been informed by staff that
that is the traditional conversion rate we provide.
I would suggest we revisit that decision. But for this -- for this
petition, we have no way under the rules of fairness to do that. They
must be judged under our past practices and the current law.
But I think that conversion rate is my primary concern, because if you
use that conversion rate, you can come up with 537 actual dwelling
units on the property. And so that's my only concern with it.
And -- but as I said, the staff has stated that that's what they
normally do. I don't think it's right, but that's what we normally do.
So in all fairness, I'm not going to create an issue about that. So I
would also be supportive of the approval with the stipulations that
have been included in this development.
I'll also point out one other thing. The petitioner has agreed to
give us 15 percent of the total housing units in affordable housing, and
they have not requested a density bonus as a result of that.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So those are things that work in
your favor, and so I would be happy to support the petition.
Page 192
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I need to mention on the
record that I was rather disappointed when I saw that this property had
been a party to a -- in a consent agreement to removing native
vegetation without a permit. That was not an admirable quality. I just
had to say that.
This is a development I would never approve coming onto
Immokalee Road. I just wouldn't because it's so intense, but your
saving graces are that you're interconnecting and you've got two other
roads there. Otherwise, you'd never see my yes vote at all.
I, too, had a concern with, the four assisted living units shall be
considered one dwelling unit, and we really need to get at that. That's
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because those people in assisted
living, they drive, and they go places too. They're not all
incapacitated. So I think that's something that's important.
I would like to see the Site Development Plan to see how you're
going to squish all of that onto this little piece of property, but that's
for another day and another dollar, I guess.
So that's all I have to say. I'm just registering a few comments.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it is a good project, but
my concern is what I was advised by my personal attorney, is not to
approve contracts or zoning ordinances that have donations in it.
That's contract zoning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I can't wait till we address
that issue so we can get these out of the zoning ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I really do
want to address that issue, because I think you're wrong on this. And
Page 193
June 26-27, 2007
your attorney is fine, but we've got our own attorney here, and I'm
going to ask Mike Pettit to offer us any legal sufficiency to be able to
accept this donation, and also I want to know if it's reason enough to
be able to refuse a petition like this based upon a person making a
donation to affordable housing. Two different areas. Would you
please go into that.
MR. PETTIT: Yes, for the record -- can you hear me without
this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just go up to that mike there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, step up to the podium.
MR. PETTIT: For the record, Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant
County attorney. As far as donations go, Commissioners, I think I've
told you before that it is perfectly lawful for this commission to accept
voluntary donations. There's a 196 -- as long as the donations are
deemed by this commission to be for a public purpose, and as long as
when the money comes in, when it's spent, it's spent for a public
purpose. So I think there is absolutely no problem with this
commission accepting those kinds of donations.
There's a 1967 Florida Supreme Court case that states that, as
long as there's no quid pro quo, as long as it's clearly by the donor.
And we've done this in the past, we have a resolution that relates to the
Freedom Memorial where we are accepting donations. So I don't have
any qualms about advising you that it's completely lawful to accept
donations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pettit, and I recognize that.
In fact, the board needs to recognize those donations as some sort of
an action, mostly resolution. Most of those are on our consent agenda.
And you mentioned the quid pro quo. In other words, is --
they're going to get something if they give something; is that correct?
MR. PETTIT: No. I think that ifthere were an understanding
that there were going to be -- official action was being influenced in
Page 194
June 26-27, 2007
some improper way by the supposed donation, that would be a
problem. But what I'm telling you is that as long as a donation is a
purely voluntary donation, the board -- this board sitting here today
can find that this donation is a valid -- it's a valid public purpose to
receive it, and then the only other thing I think you would find -- and
we talked about AGOs. I think the AGOs have made the point that
once you receive it, then when you spend it, it's got to also be for a
public purpose.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you also comment on whether
that be legal sufficiency to vote against the petition.
MR. PETTIT: Well, what I would comment on that,
Commissioner, is I think there are -- and Ms. Student can correct me if
I'm wrong on the number, I think there are 26 criteria, and I don't think
that's within the criteria that you would look at to either vote for or
against this petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But if -- and I understand your
motion. I said it was a good project. And I had personal legal advice.
And I can tell you that the ones that didn't have this language on it
didn't get approved by certain commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's not true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if these are not in the zoning
ordinance I don't have a problem with it whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissions Henning, you're wrong.
I can cite many examples where this has been stricken out or it wasn't
in and the items passed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I remember certain
commissioners' comments said, well, I can't support it then, so I know
what it's all about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, the record
stands for itself. You find that there's many. You pulled it out of the
one last week, or last two -- a meeting ago and it still passed.
Page 195
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also, too, we have had a number
of them come forward without this particular element and they've
passed with my vote. So that statement is incorrect, and I wished you'd
do a little more research before you would make statements like that
damning a fellow commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will provide you the minutes,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can provide anything you want,
but go and check the records on the voting record. But my motion
stands as is.
With that, any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have to close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we close the public hearing at
this time. Thank you very much, Donna.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, if I may add, let me just
emphasize that the donations they made for affordable housing, the
donations of the 7.47 acres for right-of-way reservation donation for--
to treat and accept the stormwater, are all of a volunteer nature. Let
me make sure that's absolutely clear that they're all of a voluntary
nature.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appreciate it, Mr. Passidomo.
Okay. Any other comments?
Page 196
June 26-27,2007
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show Commissioner
Henning was in opposition.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2007-55: PUDZ-2005-AR-8379 (MD) HOME
DYNAMICS OF NAPLES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT
DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE MONTES, INC., IS REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A)ZONING DISTRICT
TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS
BOXWOOD RPUD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING
OF 29.69 ACRES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 207 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS OF WHICH 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF UNITS WILL BE FOR AFFORDABLE-
WORKFORCE HOUSING, IS LOCATED AT 14290 14300
COLLIER BOULEVARD, SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to agenda item 8C.
This item was continued from the June 12, 2007, BCC meeting. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members.
Page 197
June 26-27, 2007
Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8379, M.D. House (sic) Dynamics of
Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes,
Inc., is requesting a rezone from the agricultural A zoning district to
the residential planned unit development, RPUD, zoning district, for a
project to be known as Boxwood RPUD.
Subject property consisting of29.69 acres with a maximum of
207 residential dwelling units, of which 20 percent of the total number
of units will be for affordable/workforce housing, is located at 14290
-- 14290-14300 Collier Boulevard, Section 35, Township 48 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may suggest, this item's been
before us before, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There were questions that came up last
time specifically from Commissioner Coyle that had to do with the
financial viability of the affordable housing bonus, so to speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we're going to be dealing
with that element, rather than go through the whole presentation, I
take it? Do you think we could -- if it's all right with my fellow
commissioners we could limit it to that element?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Just let me tell you what I
found out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'll recall in the past we've had
discussions about how many affordable housing density bonuses
people should get, and we wanted to make sure that we were making
the right kinds of decisions.
In this particular case, I raised that issue. The petitioner has come
to me and they have explained to me what they're doing.
They are not building affordable housing units here. They're just
building housing units. And they're setting aside a certain percentage
of those housing units to be sold to a person who meets the affordable
housing requirements and they're selling it to them at substantially less
Page 198
June 26-27, 2007
than it costs them to build it.
So it's not like there are market rate units and then there are
lower-priced affordable housing units. They are all essentially the
same types of units, and consequently their cost for providing that and
their loss on the affordable housing units when they sell them to
someone at a lower price is higher.
So I've looked at the financial analysis. I think it is reasonable
the way they're approaching it, and they did not ask for or receive
more affordable housing units than they were entitled to get, in my
OpInIOn.
So I'm happy with the outcome of this particular item. It might
be entirely different with a person who built -- does -- whose building
strategy is something different, but other than that, I'm okay with it.
They've satisfied my questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We neglected to go
through the formalities of swearing everyone in. Please stand at this
time, a little late, and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay, disclosure time,
Commissioners. Let's start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have obviously talked with the
petitioners and the petitioners' agent. I have gone through the
financial analysis of their pricing structure on their market rate and the
affordable housing units, and that's pretty much it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, thank you. I have no
disclosures on this item. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I, myself, I received emails.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, excuse me. I received emails, I
talked to the petitioner and his agent and read over completely the
information that they gave me, and I talked with staff a little bit.
Page 199
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have none.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Just one little tiny thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. My concern also was density
bonuses, especially when the density bonuses get so large that it
overwhelms a road. I just have a problem with that. But after looking
through everything I've received and everything I've gotten, I don't
have a problem with this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think that takes care of it,
doesn't it?
MR. DeRUNTZ: Oh, we also need a motion for the approval of
the affordable housing density bonus agreements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Did you want to include that
In your --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That will be included in my
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And in the second. Okay,
thank you.
And with that, any other discussion? Anything else we missed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 200
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2007-56: RZ-2005-AR-7271 - COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY FRED
REISCHL, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE RURAL
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PUBLIC USE
(P) ZONING DISTRICT LIMITED TO ESSENTIAL SERVICE
USE ONLY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, CONSISTING OF 42.2
ACRES, IS LOCATED AT 1300 MANATEE ROAD, IN SECTION
10, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 8D. This item was
continued from the February 27, 2007, BCC meeting. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's RZ-2005-AR-7271, Collier
County Public Utilities Department represented by Fred Reischl,
AICP, of Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc., requesting a rezone from
the agricultural -- excuse me -- a rezone from the rural agricultural
zoning district to the public use, P, zoning district limited to essential
service use only.
The subject property consisting of 42.2 acres is located at 1300
Manatee Road in Section 10, Township 51 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
Page 201
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Swear everyone in. Please
stand if you want to participate in this particular subject. Would you
swear them in, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioners, we'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've spoken with staff about
this actually a couple times. I've also spoken to a few of the residents
in that area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And, myself, I received
emails.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is on item 8D, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, 8D.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have no disclosures other
than talking to staff on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have only talked with staff. I
have no other disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Planning
Commission's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love it when Alicia talks because it
sound like you really want to vote for it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. Okay. You did a wonderful
presentation.
Page 202
June 26-27, 2007
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you.
MS. ALICIA: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think we've hit all of the -- all of
the supermajority vote requirements that we have today. Should we
go back to 7B? Excuse me. You have a time certain item at four --
four p.m., and that was advertised.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, you have a
gentleman that's the sole caretaker of his wife that is on 7.
MR. MUDD: B.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 7B.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Dubow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I would -- I would think
we can get that done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Under those circumstances, of
course, Commissioner Henning. Be more than happy to accommodate
him. 7D?
MR. MUDD: 7B.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Seven Baker.
Item #7B
Page 203
June 26-27,2007
RESOLUTION 2007-171: PETITION: V A-2007-AR-I1300,
IRVINE DUBOW, REPRESENTING HIMSELF, REQUESTS A
VARIANCE PETITION TO REBUILD A POOL CAGE
DAMAGED FROM HURRICANE WILMA THAT WOULD
ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE SETBACK AREA. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 5901 ALMADEN DRIVE, IN THE
SONOMA LAKE SUBDIVISION, UNIT 1, LOT 26, FOLIO #
0000073755001459, SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 49 S, RANGE 26 E,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: This item requires that all participants be sworn in
and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members. It's
petition variance 2007-AR-11300, Irvine Dubow representing himself
requesting a variance petition to rebuild a pool cage damaged by
Hurricane Wilma that would encroach five feet into the setback area.
The property is located at 5901 Almaden Drive in the Sonoma
Lake subdivision, Unit 1, Lot 26, Folio number 0000073755001459,
Section 8, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the
petitioner and staff on this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Everyone that wishes to participate at
this time, please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Disclosures by the
commissioners, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures for this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no disclosures other than
talking with staff. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Same here. My only disclosure is
talking to staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 204
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to the petitioner and the
staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Dubow, just say your name for the record.
MR. DUBOW: My name is Irvine Dubow. And wow, I'm
totally flabbergasted at the responsibilities that you guys have -- you
people have. It's amazing.
But I suppose -- I've been here since 8:30, and I suppose the extra
couple hours doesn't make any difference because I've waited 20
months in order to appear before you, and I appreciate it very much.
I'm glad, but I'm sad. And I'm glad to be here and I'm sad because my
wife and I celebrated 61 years of marriage last Saturday, and she isn't
well. She's got Alzheimer's disease.
And I have a story to tell that I think is impressive, and I've got
an ulterior motive, I really and truly do. My first motive is to ask you,
please, all I want is my cage replaced. That's all I want to do for
myself. But it really isn't for myself. At 82, it's not that important, but
it's for other purposes or for other reasons, for other people that are
coming after me, because if I didn't do what I did for the last 20
months with all the bumps and all the walls that I've bumped -- that
I've gone into, all the bypasses that I've had to experience, for me it
wouldn't -- it wouldn't be worth it, to be very frank with you.
I'm here really with a great deal of trepidation and a great deal of
anticipation, but I have a responsibility for the people coming after
me, number one, and I'm talking about the people that may run into
the same problem I have, and I'll come to that later.
And on the other -- or the same token, I have a deep
responsibility for the people that have helped me get to this point in
time. And I'm going to give you a short section -- summary of what I
went through. I've got to apologize. I'm 82 and I missed my
afternoon nap, I'm sorry. So bear with me. If you don't mind.
Page 205
June 26-27, 2007
All I thought when I lost my cage, well, okay, no problem. I've
got insurance, and all I have to do is, you know, apply for the proper --
to the proper sources and nothing -- you know, no problem. Well, that
wasn't the case, so I learned.
But you live life forwards but understand it looking back, so I
understand now the problems that I had. When I was told that the
people that built -- that constructed my property, his name is Roger
Fannay, and he's still doing business under Coastland Building
Construction. He was -- according to my contract, he was supposed to
pull a permit and a variance. It's in my contract. I'm a little boy, naive
from Minnesota. What do I know? I accept.
Well, that wasn't true. He didn't do either. Well, so here I am.
I'm applying for just a replacement of what I had. And I've had no
problems with my neighbors, no problems with the county, no
problems with anybody. But holy cow, after that, everything caved in.
I had a lot of problems.
I finally reached a point where -- and I had no knowledge of Tom
Henning and his staff, but Tom Henning and his right-hand person,
Sam, I -- I was advised to call my commissioner, so I did. And boy,
just like that, this guy was right on the ball. Sam called up Ossorio,
Michael Ossorio was down to my house almost immediately, within a
day or so, and things started to happen. But 10 and behold, things
weren't as easy as they were.
Now, at a future time I did have to come back to Mr. Henning,
and I've got to tell you that he's a great compatriot of yours because he
was empathic, he was patient. He was on the phone with me for an
hour at a time. He was willing to come down to my house to visit
with me because I have a problem at home, and he went all out.
Now, listen, you know, as he said to me, he said, we're for the
people and by the people, and I serve at your convenience. I serve at
your -- because you voted for me, and it's true. And I believe him.
And he's a very, very great gentleman in my book, and I would vote
Page 206
June 26-27, 2007
for him again and again. He was nothing but kind to me, and he was
considerate. He was patient. He was understanding. And I could go
on, but I'm going to quit right there because you might think that he's
paying me and he --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Keep going. You've got him turning
red.
MR. DUBOW: And if you were my commissioner, I'm sure it
would have been the same thing, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, is there anybody here in objection
to this? I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Henning did a -- and we need to
recognize Commissioner Henning for the excellent job he did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was really the county
manager's staff that got things going.
MR. DUBOW: I would like to continue because I do have an
ulterior motive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You already got approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You already got an approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to vote against it if
you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're going to talk him out of it.
MR. DUBOW: Can I go on and make my spiel? I mean, it's
very important for me. I feel very importune that I must go on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, please do. What the heck.
MR. DUBOW: Will you do that, Mr. Chairman? Thank you
very, very much.
I've got to say that as well as Mr. Henning, Mr. Michael Saudae
(phonetic) at the Vineyards wrote a letter to Bill Hammond, he spoke
to him on the phone. He was marvelous. Bill Hammond and I, we
reached another impasse.
Mr. Joseph Schmitt, I'll tell you, I reached another impasse
Page 207
June 26-27, 2007
because I had to come at the earliest possible time to meet you people
because I've got -- I told you I was glad and I was sad. But this coming
Monday I have to take my wife and she has to go into a home. It's
impossible for me to continue.
And so the sooner I could get through -- and I'll tell you the
person who helped me greatly, and that was Ray Bruerg (sic).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ray Bellows, John David Moss.
MR. DUBOW: Thank you. John David -- I told you I missed
my nap, guys. I'm sorry.
But at any rate, John David Moss got permission and he spent
three days in order to -- to arrive at this so I could come here today,
otherwise I would have been at the end of September, and I wouldn't
take it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's not keep you any longer --
MR. DUBOW: Can I go on?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- before September rolls upon us.
MR. DUBOW: Because I have other stuff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My gosh, you've got five votes, that's
doing good.
MR. DUBOW: Can I -- one last thing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
MR. DUBOW: Just two minutes.
Page 208
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As long as you don't talk about
Commissioner Henning.
MR. DUBOW: Thirty seconds. I implore you to think in terms
-- please, to think in terms of a grandfather's clause at least, I'm asking
you, to discuss it so that you can -- so somebody that comes along like
me doesn't have to go through this whole process, not only was it
stressful and great deal of strain and a great deal of pressure on me,
but at the same time, it cost me a lot of money. And I'll tell you, it's
not fun, and I implore you to discuss it --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We will, sir.
MR. DUBOW: -- please and take--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's got a good point there.
MR. DUBOW: -- it under consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And when we do --
MR. DUBOW: I'll tell you, Joe Schmitt's staff, they're my --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, what we're going to do --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got to move on here.
MR. DUBOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to have to get on with the
agenda, but when we do bring this up, we'll make sure that
Commissioner Henning gets ahold of you and invites you back here to
speak to us.
MR. DUBOW: Will you do that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seriously.
MR. DUBOW: You know, Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait for Commissioner--
MR. DUBOW: -- I would love that. Thank you very, very
much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Thank you. It's been a pleasure.
You've been the high point of the day.
MR. DUBOW: Thank you. You deserved a high point, I'll clue
you.
Page 209
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 207-57: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE
INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE IMP ACT FEE
STUDY ENTITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEE
INDEXING STUDY, DATED JUNE 11,2007; AMENDING THE
IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULES THAT ARE SCHEDULES
ONE THROUGH TEN OF APPENDIX A BY APPLYING THE
INDEXING PERCENTAGES AND THEREBY ESTABLISHING
THE NEW IMP ACT FEE RATES; DELETING THE PROVISIONS
REFERRING TO THE REQUIRED USE OF INCOME DERIVED
FROM THE INTEREST BEARING IMPACT FEE TRUST
ACCOUNTS TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY WITH
SUBSEQUENTL Y ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS; AMENDING THE
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL
IMP ACT FEES TO REFLECT THE REVISED INDEXING
PROVISIONS; INCORPORATING THE PREVIOUSLY
DIRECTED CHANGES TO THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO
IMP ACT FEE WAIVERS AND DEFERRALS FOR SPECIFIED
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVIDING FOR A
DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF OCTOBER 1, 2007.
MOTION TO ONLY ACCEPT THE NEW RATES FOR
TRANSPORTATION IMP ACT FEES - DENIED; MOTION TO
APPROVE ITEM W/CHANGE OF EFFECTIVE DATE TO
JANUARY 1, 2008 - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings you to 8 -- excuse me.
Page 210
June 26-27, 2007
You have a time certain four o'clock. Do you want to go there or --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no, no. We're going to have to
jump around, and I apologize. We're going to do the 8 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 8E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, what's -- 8E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8E?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8E.
MR. MUDD: Okay. That's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending chapter 74 of
the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the incorporation
by reference of the impact fee study entitled the Collier County
Impact Fee Indexing Study dated June 11,2007; amending the impact
fee rate schedules that are schedules one through 10, appendix A by
applying the indexing percentages and thereby establishing new
impact fee rates; deleting the provisions referring to the required use
of income derived from the interest-bearing impact fee trust accounts
to provide consistency with the subsequently adopted resolutions;
amending the special requirements for each of the individual impact
fee to reflect the revised indexing provisions; incorporating the
previously directed changes to the provisions related to impact fee
waivers and referrals for specified charitable organizations, and
provide a delayed effective date of October 1, 2007.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, let's cut to the chase. I
think there's going to be some discussion taking place. Anyone that
wants to hear the preambles, we can go ahead and do it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I, myself, have some definite
opinions on this. I seen the Productivity Committee's
recommendations, I seen the Planning Committee's (sic)
recommendations, and I concur with them. I think that we need to put
a freeze on any future impact fees with exception of transportation.
Page 211
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I didn't realize it was, but okay, there
it is. I know it's going to put a hardship on us at a point in time when
we don't have money coming in, but I think the hardship is going to be
minimal. The simple reason is, is that the industry is in great distress
at this point in time. If it can do a little bit to help them recover to get
their feet back underneath them to be able -- we can make it up later at
some future date in better years.
And I know this is going to cause staff some distress that I'm
taking this position, and I see Jeff ready to jump up and offer me good
legal advice.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just one point, just -- I understand
the motion and I heard what you just said, but just -- the better times
that are going to happen in the future will have to be -- will have to be
made up by ad valorem taxes because you can't collect impact fees
after you've already missed the opportunity to do so.
I will also say in the water/sewer, that's not ad valorem. That's
user fees that have to do that, so your present water and sewer
customers are going to have to supplement that impact fee loss. So just
-- that's the only thing I have to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand that.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for purposes of clarity, are we also
including the educational impact fees?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I was told that the educational
impact fees and the fire impact fees we can't exempt; is that correct?
Or can we do that, too, I mean, with the increase?
MS. PATTERSON: As far as the educational facilities impact
fees -- Amy Patterson, for the record, I'm sorry -- that's a Board of
County Commissioners ordinance and impact fee adopted by the
board, so you have final adoption authority over the school impact
fees.
The independent fire districts are not included. Those are
Page 212
June 26-27, 2007
adopted separately and you have no discretion over those. The two
dependent fire districts, those are ordinances that belong to you. Those
are your fees and you have discretion over those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then let me clarify my motion. My
motion includes everything that we legally can do with the exception
of the road impact fees. And I got -- while you were gone, I made the
motion, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay -- Henning made the second.
Okay. Now time for discussion. We're going to go to Commissioner
Henning first, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amy, what was the DSAC's
recommendation?
MS. PATTERSON: The DSAC recommendation is included in
the executive summary, and I can read that for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that.
MS. PATTERSON: Productivity Committee is the one that I
need to read into the record. I have actually two housekeeping items
that need to be addressed, but I can read you the Productivity
Committee recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thank you.
MS. PATTERSON: The productivity recommendation for the
impact fee indexing 2007 at the regular meeting on June 20th of2007,
the committee, by majority vote, recommended the following: One,
that the Board of County Commissioners accept and approve the
Collier County impact fee indexing study as submitted as it's based on
sound technical practices, and two, that the Board of County
Commissioners hold all impact fees at current rates except for
transportation impact fees, which should be increased based on the full
proposed index.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner -- I'm sorry,
Commissioner Henning. You got something else?
Page 213
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I found it. Yes. You're
looking very nice.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to let my fellow
commissioners know that obviously we went through a trying time in
this legislative session in Tallahassee, and we're going to actually find
out what the total impacts are this coming Wednesday or -- excuse me
Thursday and Friday when we go through the budgets.
I can tell you what's next on the legislative agenda up in
Tallahassee, and that is either we're going to roll back impact fees or
there's going to be a cap on them. And I feel that we're just catching
up with the spirit of growth that took place because we've been always
behind the eightball, and I feel that we need to address all of the
impact fees and that we make sure that we put ourselves in a position
so that when there is a roll back or there is a cap, that it's taken care of.
So I'm going to tell you that that's where I stand on this issue.
And I can tell you that it's going to be difficult for us to meet our
future needs in this county to make sure that we don't destroy the
quality of life for the people that presently live here and are going to
be moving here because somebody, some way or another, is going to
have to pay for growth, and I'm telling you that it's not going to get
any cheaper. So that's where I stand on this issue.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. County Manager, we're
going to be having some discussions about levels of service and all of
the various categories, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When is that?
MR. MUDD: Sir, that's going to be September, October. Well,
you're going to have an AUIR discussion about --
Page 214
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- levels of standard today or tomorrow morning,
depending on where we get on this agenda today, and then you will do
the AUIR formal presentation and approvals on that particular issue
September or October, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And why -- since those things are
going to impact fees, why are we taking action on this item now
before we have established levels of service?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you told us --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know one is an update and the
other one is also a report by staff about levels of service.
MR. MUDD: You're right, and I'm trying to -- I'm trying to get
why we're doing this impact fee issue right now. Year and a half ago
you told staff to go out there and do an indexing based on local
conditions and not national or aggregate Florida conditions as far as
the impact fees are concerned. We did that.
Mr. Tindale briefed this board, I believe it was -- I mentioned it
in his thing, was the last meeting in Mayor thereabouts. And with
that, we basically came back to this board today with that adjustment
based on board's guidance at the meeting that Mr. Tindale basically
gave the study. And so here you are today with that particular issue.
There has also been an impact fee law, okay, that was signed in
2006 that basically specifies that or highly encourages, to use
probably a better term, local indexing and local conditions as you -- as
you do your impact fees, and this basically fulfills that particular
requirement and is basically -- basically satisfies board's direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever action is taken -- let's
suppose this agenda item is passed today with an effective date of
October the 1st, 2007, and then we go through the subsequent EAR
evaluations and the staffs report on levels of service calculations
standards. Isn't that going to change the impact fees?
MR. MUDD: It could, sir, depending on -- depending if you
Page 215
June 26-27, 2007
drop the levels of service to a point in time where the impact fees
calculation and the basis for it is no longer substantiated based on the
board's decisions at that time. Our impact fee coordinator would have
to do an adjustment and we'd have to bring it to the board as fast as we
could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the other issue with
respect to any potential caps on impact fees by the state legislature --
there have been attempts each of the past two legislative sessions to do
that, maybe the last three, and I'm sure that will continue.
In your opinion, do you believe that it is better that we approve
this particular impact fee indexing study? Do you think we would be
in a better position to weather the storm if the -- if the legislature
decides to cap or otherwise limit impact fees next year?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I believe, in what I've seen out of
-- and first of all, I can't -- for the life of me, I can't tell you what the
Florida legislature's going to do, and I don't believe anybody in the
State of Florida knows for certainty what they're going to do next
session, but what I have seen as far as prior attempts to either cap an
impact fee or change the way it is, they have grandfathered present
users in based on a date, and the date that I typically see is anything
that was in effect, based on their year that they use, by 1 July of a
certain date. They will -- they will be grandfathered in. And anything
that's happened after that date won't be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then what you just told me is that
we have to pass this before July the 1st if we are going to participate
in any potential grandfathering of an impact fee if the state legislature
does move to reduce them. So why not do this?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and what I would also -- what I would
also --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. I didn't finish
asking my question. So why don't we do this: Why don't we support
the study and put a later effective date on it? That will give us time to
Page 216
June 26-27, 2007
get through the EAR and the impact fee study update by the staff,
make adjustments to the way we calculate levels of service as
necessary, and then make those revisions and have this be effective
January the 1st of2008?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: July 1st.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's what I was going to recommend,
have a later effective date when it comes in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Later effective date. So that gives
us a change to pull the whole thing together to make sure we're
calculating the levels of service accurately, but it also protects us
against -- we hope it protects us -- it's our best chance at being
protected against the legislature's actions to cap impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we already have one motion on
the table; do we not?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and the motion is to only accept the
recommendation for transportation and hold all the other impact fees
at their present rate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that, of course, means that
EMS doesn't get the necessary funds to provide appropriate coverage
for much of Collier County, particularly the Golden Gate Estates area,
it means that we cannot purchase additional units and hire the
additional people to provide the level of service that we promised our
citizens.
So if we don't adjust the impact fees for things like EMS, we're
not going to get the appropriate standards of service. So I would -- I
would encourage the motion maker to consider changing the motion to
accept this study and then -- and the staffs recommendations, but have
an effective date of January 1,2008.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will that cover us for any
grandfathering in as of July 1 st?
Page 217
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You basically pass the ordinance, and it's
just the effective date that you're keeping. And the mandatory
effective date is 90 days after you pass the ordinance, and I believe it's
your -- yes, sir. The answer to your question is yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not too sure who I should address
the question to. I believe it would be Amy. Question on impact fees.
Our rate of collection, how are we now with -- compared to last year
at this time?
MS. PATTERSON: Compared to last year at this time we
actually are a little above last year's collections. It's the distribution of
those collections that's different. We've had more commercial activity
and less residential activity. So where you may see some of the impact
fee funds that collect a mix of both residential and commercial are up,
those that are strictly residential impact fee funds are down, and that
would be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let me understand correctly.
But what you're saying is the residential's down though?
MS. PATTERSON: The residential impact fee collections are
down. The commercial are up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can you give me a comparison on --
let's just deal with residential. What's the comparison on residential
compared to a year ago?
MS. PATTERSON: Hold on one second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course impact fees, they're
collected at the time before CO, right --
MS. PATTERSON: Issuance--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or time to get the permit.
MS. PATTERSON: Issuance of the building permit. But they're
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: The rate is based on application date. So
looking at the numbers now even, there are anomalies that are
Page 218
June 26-27, 2007
involved in those numbers, and that's, you know, lots of applications
that were prior to the impact fee increases this time last year. You're
seeing those permits moving through the process and being issued
with a lower impact fee rate on those, and that's because the
application date sets the impact fee rate that's assessed to that building
permit. I know. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Now Amy, let me ask a
simpler question. Permits compared to last year at this time, are they
up or down?
MS. PATTERSON: I would have direct that to Joe Schmitt.
MR. MUDD: Residential permits are down; commercial permits
are up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Some impact fees are collected based on
commercial square footage. For instance, transportation impact fees
are holding their own because they -- they have a commercial
component to them. There are impact fees that are based on
residential only. And Amy, if you could please tell the commissioner
those, and then he would know what impact fees are down because we
are down on residential permits.
MS. PATTERSON: Sure. Libraries, for example, is collected
only on residential. Parks and -- parks and recreation, for the most
part -- they have one little fee that's for hotels and motels, but it's
mainly a residential impact fee. Those school impact fees are a
residential only impact fee. Those are the fees that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, great. I guess the question is,
we're in a declining market for residential impact fees or we're not? I
have no idea. Is it 5 percent off? Is it off 10 percent? I would assume
the numbers would probably correlate all the way up and down.
MS. PATTERSON: Yeah. I mean, overall-- the same -- I don't
know the best way to answer that question for you is -- overall we're
up, but in the residential only funds, we're down. For example -- did
Page 219
June 26-27, 2007
you want me to pick library, for example, and say--
CHAIRMAN COLETT A: Yeah, that's a good one. Library
residential?
MS. PATTERSON: Residential only. There's nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just residential?
MS. PATTERSON: They're down 40 percent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forty?
MS. PATTERSON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, we got a 40 percent decline in
residential compared to last year?
MS. PATTERSON: In residential collections, but remember
that's representative of -- also not just a decline in the permits but the
types of permits or the size of permits. It's not -- it's not a simple
answer that it's just 40 percent straight down.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I never thought it was 40
percent. I'm quite surprised it's that high. But in any case, the point is
simple, is that we're in a depressed market, and we're definitely not
going to be able to make up our shortfall just by a small increase
because it's -- I don't know. It's just -- it's troublesome. Let's do this.
Rather than get into a long discussion on it, let's get the speakers up
here, let's have a brief discussion, then vote this up or down.
Would you call the speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is David Bartley. He'll be
followed by Bill Schreck.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please state your name for the record.
MR. BARTLEY: My name is David Bartley. I am the broker
and owner of Bartley Realty Services. I am a commercial developer.
Can I put something on the screen?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure. Go ahead.
MR. BARTLEY: The reason I'm here today is to discuss the
impact of these increases in impact fees on my business, the
commercial industry.
Page 220
June 26-27, 2007
You just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that there's a 40 percent
decline in residential impact fees being collected. Has to do with the
market. The same effect is going to happen to the commercial market
with the increase of these impact fees.
I spend a lot of time looking for parcels and putting together pro
formas to try to make the numbers work so we can do development.
And I'm a small developer, do one or two commercial buildings a
year.
I just want to point out this one that you have in front of you right
now. Behind Racetrac gas station on Pine Ridge Road -- I'm sure
everyone knows where that is -- that site is approximately three acres.
We're looking at approximately a 28,000-square-foot office/medical
building that I'm working to place on this property. The impact fees
for this 28,000-square-foot building or the cost to construct this
building, the actual hard cost, the bricks, the mortar, the labor, the
work to do it, $2.8 million.
If these impact fees pass today, the impact fees would be $1.3
million, 47 percent of the cost to build the building. That's an
outrageous number.
Two years ago they were 448,000. The last time you passed an
increase, 15 months ago, they went up to 896 million -- or excuse me,
896,000. It's an amazing number. Where -- how do you justify those
numbers? Very difficult for me to do.
It basically takes a project and says, no, we can't do it. It's
impossible to build. It affects my livelihood, my family, the people
that I employ, and I'm a small developer. What about the other
developers that are out there? What about the thousands of jobs,
people that work paycheck to paycheck that are working on these
projects? You're going to shut them down. You're going to create a
moratorium by passing these impact fees because you're going to
make it impossible for people to develop, because the planning stages
to build these, the time you see these impact fees, are years, could be a
Page 221
June 26-27, 2007
couple years of planning before the SDP is approved, before you go
through the building permit process, and you get a building permit and
you pay the impact fees.
So I'm in the middle of the planning stage, so you won't see those
monies till later. Well, the planning stage is going to stop because
you're not going to see the money come in.
Now, if this building is built -- just want to say one thing --
property taxes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to wrap it up, sir.
MR. BARTLEY: Okay. Last thing, property taxes. Once this
building's completed, it's going to see 100,000, $125,000 a year in
property taxes. That's money that will continue for the life of this
building.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Schreck. He'll be
followed by Bob Mulhere.
MR. SCHRECK: Thank you. I've been here 30 years, 34 years
actually, seen a lot of commissioners, seen a lot of building inspectors
and heads of building departments. I don't think impact fees are the
answer to growth. It's showing up right now.
What he just mentioned is, it can take two years for you to collect
an impact fee from a project that you start planning, so anything you
did two years ago are the impact fees they're talking about collecting.
And right now, you've got -- oh, I'll bet they might have 150
building inspections today. You've got three-quarters of an industry
shut down. And we've got -- I could get at least 15 subcontractors in
my office to give me a number tomorrow morning just to keep their
offices open.
Impact fees are not the answer to growth. You need -- because
you've killed the goose with the golden egg with it. You've already
proved it doesn't work. It took you seven years, but you proved it
doesn't work. Thank you.
Page 222
June 26-27, 2007
MS. FILSON: Bob Mulhere. He'll be followed by Michele
Harrison.
MR. MULHERE: Good afternoon. Bob Mulhere, for the record.
I guess by default of having Dick Grant have to leave and somebody
else have to leave, I'm the last remaining soldier here representing the
EDC.
I think that you should have received a position statement from
the EDC. I'm not going to -- in the interest of time, I'm not going to
spend a lot of time.
I think to summarize, the concern is that we really are at a very
critical and very important economic point in time. Others before me
have talked about the industry, of the three major industries in Collier
County that are suffering because of market reductions. Permits are
down.
Any increase in impact fees at this point in time is going to
ultimately speed up the revenue stream reduction that you're already
seeing. While commercial is strong right now, that's not going to last,
especially with these additional impact fees which are significant. The
revenue streams are going to go like this.
So all of the things that you're hoping to pay for and the basis of
those payments, which are significantly based on impact fees, are not
going to be there. It's not going to be there.
So you're going to have to deal with this. I think Commissioner
-- absent the issue of the legislature possibly attempting to limit
impact fees, I think Commissioner Coyle's suggestion is a very good
one -- I'm not sure -- that if you could push this back until after you
had your AUIR, that you might be talking about some different
numbers.
Commissioner Coletta's motion was exactly the same as the
recommendation of the Productivity Committee, which was only to
increase the transportation impact fees, which I know are of great
concern and concern to the citizens here.
Page 223
June 26-27, 2007
The DSAC's recommendation was, we have no objection with
the analysis and the report. It's factual. It's well done, as always, from
Tindale Oliver. Our concern is that we are at the tipping point, and
our recommendation was that you not increase the impact fees at this
point in time, that you recognize that we are in a crisis situation in this
industry right now. A lot of people are going to be affected by it.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Michele Harrison.
MS. HARRISON: Hello, Commissioners, thank you. Michele
Harrison, President ofCBIA and representing them today.
The proposed impact fee re-indexing, although a more desirable
method for calculating impact fees, results in a much higher impact
fee collection. CBIA cannot support any increased impact fees at this
time of economic change, and with the runaway cost of housing. We
believe 38,000 in impact fees for a 2,000-square foot house to be an
excessive burden.
We strongly support the reevaluation of elements that are driving
the cost of infrastructure to all-time highs, and we encourage the
commission to look at the infrastructure that can be put on hold or
eliminated and allocating more funds to the development of roads and
other critical-need infrastructure.
Additionally, the Productivity Committee's recommendation is
for road impact fees to be raised to 29 percent and all other impact
fees to remain the same.
And as an additional note, I work in both residential and
commercial, and the commercial has already seen a great reduction. It
follows economically with residential. We haven't seen the bottom of
this, and it's decimating the industry and it's decimating the economy
across the board in our community, I don't think we need to see any
more of this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
Page 224
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
by myself, a second by Commissioner Henning.
Discussion? Commissioner Coyle, were you reaching for the
button or not?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm -- I've already said what I
thought about this. I--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You thought it was a good idea?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think your motion is a good
idea. I think --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would support you if you -- if you
adopted the study and put the effective date January 1, 2008, give us
time to go through the EAR and recalculate some of the levels of
service. I think you'll find some that are --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got to admit that's a fallback
position, but to be honest with you, it just gives us a brief period of
time and we're right back to where we were. So I'm going to leave my
motion where it is for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you restate it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. My motion is to only accept
the road impact fee increase and the rest of them to remain the same.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a question--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from the county manager.
With the reduction in property tax revenues, there are a couple of
areas that are impacted by that, and one is EMS; certainly the sheriffs
department is impacted by that, and you also use general fund money
for staffing parks and recreation, at least supplementing the cost for
staffing, is that not true?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that's true.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you decrease property tax
revenues, how are you going to make up for the difference for EMS,
Page 225
June 26-27,2007
the sheriff, libraries, and any other areas that are currently paid for by
general fund revenue?
MR. MUDD: Okay. The present -- the present debt that you
have on different facilities that are growth related, you're using impact
fees that come in to pay that debt, and those -- and those areas where
the impact fees are not great enough in order to handle the debt
payment, principal and interest, you augment that payment, you loan
ad valorem dollars to that particular account in order to make that debt
payment.
Right now -- and I do that out of301, okay, which is -- which is
your capital account. Right now you have about $5.6 million of ad
valorem money, your capital money in 301 going -- going to subsidize
your debt payments that are impact fee debt payments for facilities
that are -- that are in the ground or being built that are eligible to use
impact fees. And when -- and we do it as a loan so that when impact
fees increase or the amounts of money increase --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're talking about mechanics
now. Can you just tell me, where are we going to get the shortfall to
do what EMS wants to do to meet the levels of service that we have
specified for them?
MR. MUDD: Have to get it out of ad valorem, sir, or you have
to increase -- or you have to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have them.
MR. MUDD: -- or you have to increase the fees --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- people will have to pay in order to ride in an
ambulance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. To add any new capacity to
EMS, we've got to have more impact fees or you've got to have more
ad valorem property taxes; is that not true?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't have more ad valorem
Page 226
June 26-27,2007
property taxes. We have less ad valorem property taxes. So now how
are we going to fund EMS to get to the level of service we have told
them we want them to get at? We're not. We're going to hold them
steady because there's no money there to give them anything. There's
no money there to -- am I right? Are we going to be able to buy new
units and staff up on EMS?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we will not. So those are the
decisions that you're making right now. You're saying it's okay that
we do away with the property tax money and it's okay if we reduce the
levels of service of facilities like EMS and the libraries. You're not
going to have the same staffing for libraries, so how are you going to
make that up?
If you don't do it through -- if you don't provide for the growth of
these things through impact fees, you don't have any other way to do
it.
Now, for those people who keep advocating against impact fees,
I wish that you'd take some time to understand the issue. We don't
determine the cost of impact fees. The market determines the cost of
impact fees. The contractors who build our roads determine the cost
of the impact fees for building our roads. The property owners that
we buy right-of-way from determines the impact fee.
We're the middleman. We take the money in. We pay it right back out
to the private sector to do the job. So, you know, this business about,
this stuff just comes out of the air somehow, is really sort of stupid.
But nevertheless, I think you understand where I'm going with
the thing. So call the question. Let's get it voted on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not we're not going to call the
question yet. First Commissioner Henning, then myself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how much have we raised
impact fees over the last seven years? Have we doubled it? Would
that be a fair statement --
Page 227
June 26-27,2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I think that's a fair statement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Have we lowered
property taxes by 100 percent in those seven years?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've increased it over 100
percent over those seven years, correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By actually 134 percent. So I
don't see any correlation between property taxes and impact fees
except for, one could draw, by raising impact fees, it raises the
property taxes. You could draw that conclusion because that is
exactly what has happened.
Just because you don't -- you don't raise them means there's
anything else. I tell you what we could do, is take a look at the service
that we're providing and make sure that we're hitting it. And I have a
concern about, do we -- are we providing the level of service for EMS
response time? I don't know, because you base it upon population and
the eight-minute response.
We base a lot of things on population, but are we really hitting
the target for service? I think that's what we need to do.
But I know what the public wants. They want the roads to be
built, and I'm going to support Commissioner Halas -- or
Commissioner Coletta's motion. But let me also say, I think that we
need to address this again once the economy starts coming back. My
concern is, you may raise them, the amount suggested, but how much
are you actually going to collect?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may piggyback on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's one of the things that we're not
talking about. We're talking about impact fees like there's an endless
Page 228
June 26-27, 2007
supply of them and they're going to continue to flow at a predictable
rate. That's not true. Regardless of the action we take here, we're
going to have a diminishing amount of impact fees in the very near
future. We're going to go down through a cycle where it's going to
drop off, the income's not going to come in, we're going to have to
make adjustments wherever we need to, and we will.
Now, coming before us very shortly is an item on the taxes, how
we're going to accept what Tallahassee has dealt to us, and we've got
several ways we can accept it. It's going to be a decision that you
want to remember this particular element when you go to the next
element.
With that, I'm not too sure what is going to happen. Let's go
ahead and vote this up or down, see what happens.
All those in favor of Commissioner Coletta's motion, seconded
by Commissioner Henning, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The opposition has it. Let the
record show that Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta were
in favor of the motion, and the majority was opposed to it.
Now it's your turn, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'd like to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, of course.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That we accept the -- we approve
the staff study and the staffs recommendations, that the impact fee
adjustments be approved for implementation on January the 1 st, 2008.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Page 229
June 26-27, 2007
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
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?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record show that
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coletta were in opposition to
the motion.
With that, let's move onto the next -- well, we had another item.
I'm sorry. We do have that time certain, and I hate to drag this out
forever, however, I don't -- I'm not too sure how long we're going to
have Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one's the time certain?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Which one was the time certain?
Item #14A
THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CRA AND
DAVID L. JACKSON, THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EXTENDING THE TERM OF
EMPLOYMENT FOUR YEARS AND MODIFYING SEVERANCE
TERMS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That was -- that was Mr. Jackson's contract
extension.
Page 230
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got one more that got the --
second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval of his contract extension by --
MR. MUDD: Hang on, Commissioner. Before you go down this
road --
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Fiala is chair.
MR. MUDD: -- this is 14A, that means you have to -- you have
to turn your hat off from the BCC into the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- CRA, pass the gavel. This is 14A. This item to
be heard at four p.m. And I'm sorry, Mr. Jackson, that we're not at
four p.m. It's a recommendation that the Collier County Community
Redevelopment Agency, CRA, approve and execute an amendment to
the employment agreement between the CRA and David L. Jackson,
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA executive director extending the
term of employment four years and modifying severance terms and
authorize the chairman to sign, and Mr. Jackson will present.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: As chairman of the CRA, I call this
meeting to order. Did I hear a motion on the floor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve Mr. Jackson's
contract and to commend him on a fine job.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have motion on the floor and a
second with the commendation for a great job.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 23 1
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: CRA is adjourned.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Great presentation, Mr. Jackson.
Item #101
PROVIDING THE IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
TAX REFORM INITIATIVES APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE, AND TO RECEIVE POLICY DIRECTION
FROM THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RELATIVE TO THE MILLAGE(S) TO BE LEVIED IN FY 08 -
MOTION TO LEVY 91 % OF THE ROLL BACK RATE FOR FY08
PER LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATION - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think that 101 is one that the
commission has a very strong interest in getting through tonight.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: lor is to provide the implement -- implementations
associated with the tax reform initiatives approved by the Florida
legislature and to receive policy direction from the Board of County
Commissioners relative to the millage to be levied in FY-'08. Mr.
Michael Smykowski will present. He's on his way up, and I will turn
to lor and see if I can't get to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Five-minute break while we're
waiting for Mike to get here.
MR. MUDD: Here he comes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Too late. I said break first.
MR. MUDD: Five minutes.
Page 232
June 26-27, 2007
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Commissioners, we're on 10I, which has to do with tax reform
initiatives approved by the Florida legislature. Again, Mr. Michael
Smykowski, your Director of Office of Management and Budget will
present.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. Again for
the record, Michael Smykowski, OMB director.
Our objective today is to provide you with the implications as we
understand them at this point associated with the tax reform initiatives
adopted by the Florida legislature during their special session, and
we're also looking for policy direction from the board relative to the
millages to be levied in fiscal year '08.
And I'm going to walk through this very systematically. I hope
the approach worked for you. We are trying to synthesize a 69-page
bill that we finally got it in gross copy as oflast Wednesday, or last
Monday evening, so it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we levy the 91
percent of the rollback millage rate for FY -'08, which is exactly what
the legislature wants us to do; is that right?
MR. MUDD: That's what -- by majority vote, that's what they
say that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what they say we must do,
and I think that's what we ought to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's talk about it a little bit.
Would you give us the spreadsheet of the difference between the
different choices?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Sure. And what you see on the visualizer
that Mr. Mudd is putting up there is slightly different than what's in
Page 233
June 26-27, 2007
your package on -- in the executive summary package on that matrix
we just put the sum total for each of the various options. On this sheet
here we have actually put in the raw numbers and, in essence, showing
the work of how you get to the resulting numbers.
With a simple majority vote --
MR. MUDD: Hang on. Anything that you see in brackets means
it's a cut. So if you see a number -- for instance, the first -- the first
cell under FY-'08 in your chart, which is the one, far left and top,
you'll see a -- you'll see $35,520,420. It's in brackets. That means
that's a cut, okay. If you see anything that doesn't have brackets on it,
i.e., let's go over to the next cell to the right, FY-'09, by majority vote,
and it says, $12,933,221 and it doesn't have brackets on it, that means
that's money that will come in, it's positive, it's not a cut.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not dealing with FY-'09
budget decision today, are we?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, yes, you are, okay, because they're
related. This bill basically says, what you do in '08 affects what you're
going to get in '09. If you don't take -- if you don't take the 91 percent
rollback as the motion on the floor right now this year, okay -- and so
what -- based on the motion that's on the floor, that means there would
be a tax cut -- and this is only general fund -- of $35,520,420. You
have about $10 million more cuts that will happen in the
unincorporated general fund, which is a little over six million, plus
you'll have the MSTUs that will also have cuts along -- in that
particular issue, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make sure I understand.
Just let me repeat something to you to make sure I've got it fixed in
my mind. If right now the majority of the county commissioners vote
for 91 percent of the rollback rate, which is what the legislature wants
us to do, we would cut taxes by $35,520,420.
MR. MUDD: In the general fund, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the general fund. And then--
Page 234
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Eleven.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and then in FY-'09, we would get
back -- or no, we would have $12,933,000 more if we took that action
in '08.
MR. MUDD: If you did a majority vote which basically caps
your -- your increases to the rollback rate plus the per capita income,
yes, sir, if you did that based on that guidance, there would be an
additional $12 million, almost $13 million --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For next --
MR. MUDD: -- for next year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for the year following.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And if you decided to go -- if you were a majority
vote in '08 and you went supermajority in '09, you could have an
additional $40 million, and the millage rates are in those boxes.
Now, if you do -- and this is important because it tells you, if you
do a supermajority vote this year, which is not the motion that's on the
floor, you would have about $9,839,000 cut.
Now I'm in the -- I'm on the second row, and I'm in the first
column, supermajority. If that's what your choice is in '08, when you
go to '09, if it's a majority vote that you do, the law states that any cuts
that you didn't take to the maximum, i.e., if you didn't take $35
million, which was your majority vote, you only took a $10 million by
supermajority, which is 9.8 million, excuse me, not --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, pay me now or pay
me later?
MR. MUDD: You would have -- you would have to take the $25
million that you didn't take, you would also subtract that from the
rollback per capita rate in '09.
So what they're saying to you is, if you don't take the majority
cut this year, over that two-year period of time, you're going to take
Page 235
June 26-27,2007
that cut, okay. So the proposal on the floor right now is to take the cut
this year, and then next year deal with what you're going to do on that
first row, and those are your options.
Now, the only piece that you don't have in this particular graphic
that's in front of you is, what happens to the constitutional amendment
that gets voted on the 29th of January? If that happens, okay, it looks
like it's right in the ballpark of around 20- to $25 million additional
cut.
So what you do is you just take that $25 million cut that --
whatever's on that thing, and that's what you're going to take in the '09
time frame.
So, for instance, if in your first box you look like you were going
to be $12,920,000 -- and I'm into the second column on the first row,
okay, and the amendment passes where you have to subtract 25, you're
down $13 million and you're going to have $13 million more cuts in
'09. That's what that means.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But now, for our purposes
today, I'd just like to ask a question so we can get to the bottom line.
Is there more than one commissioner on this board who would not
vote for the maximum rollback this year in accordance with the
legislature's proposal? I mean, if there are two commissioners here
who say, I'm not going to vote for the supermajority vote, I'm going to
vote for what -- the maximum property tax cut we can give the
taxpayers, then there's no point in talking about any of this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. The motion you made is
for a majority vote, 91 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's exactly right, okay. So
what I'm saying is there any -- is there any reason to even think about
the supermajority vote or unanimous vote options ifthere are two -- if
there are two commissioners on this board who will not support a
supermajority vote or a unanimous vote to bypass the legislature's
cuts, then there's no point in even considering anything other than the
Page 236
June 26-27,2007
majority vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, the supermajority
would have no positive bearing; you'd have to go with a unanimous; is
that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm saying -- well, is this
board unanimous that you want to go to the millage neutral, that is the
smallest possible tax cut?
Here's the bottom line. Are you willing to go to the -- go to the
taxpayers and say, the legislature gave you what they say, incorrectly
by the way, is the biggest tax cut in history and we kept you from
getting it? Does anybody want to say that to the taxpayers? I don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What does this translate to in loss of
services though? I guess that's the biggest question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Doesn't make any differences. If
you don't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Doesn't make a difference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't make a bit of difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to end up paying--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to pay it anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, if you had a supermajority,
you take a nine million cut now and a 12 million cut next year. So it's
set up to just about guarantee a certain result.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: It just buys you, in effect, some additional
time to make those cuts, but the cuts will be made sooner or later.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let me tell you the strategy
that's being played here. The legislature is going to have something
on the ballot in January. Now, if you -- if this board votes in a
supermajority vote to keep the taxpayers from getting their full tax cut
this year, what do you think they're going to vote for in January?
They're going to say, state government was right. These local
government people are greedy and they're taking all of our money,
Page 237
June 26-27, 2007
and I'm going to vote for that charter amendment in January.
And if you don't -- you think we've got problems now, you wait
till they do that. So what I'm saying to you is, there is no choice here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no choice here. You give
the people every penny that -- that the legislature wanted them to
have, which will be $35 million -- and oh, by the way --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's more than that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we reduced property taxes $57
million last year. Did anybody notice? That was the largest property
tax reduction for Collier County in the history of Collier County.
So property -- so an important point. Legislature's claiming that
they're going to give the people $35 million in tax cuts. I'll bet you
the people won't even notice it because we gave them $57 million in
tax cuts last year overall, all agencies in Collier County, $57 million in
reductions in taxes last year and nobody even knows they got it.
So I'm voting for what the legislature told us to do. I'm not going
to stand in the way of taxpayers getting the maximum possible tax
reduction that they can get under this legislation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've got other speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry, we do. We have
some -- Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you're
talking about '08, it only takes a simple majority. Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. You talking about
me or Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I seconded it, so Commissioner
Coyle made the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you made
the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I made the motion that wek
Page 238
June 26-27, 2007
take the option in the upper left-hand corner in FY-'08 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't read that. I mean --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- that needs to really be
blowed up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we have in our packet --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just back away from the screen,
Tom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I can back into
my office and I still wouldn't see it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about -- how about this one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That takes a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a majority vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a majority?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You've been saying simple
majority --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or supermajority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, no. I was saying --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So this is -- this is -- okay. I
understand where you're at and I agree with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that solves the problem
because there's no other possible vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No other choices.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion. I'm sorry.
Commissioner Halas, your light's on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. And I believe in the fund
111, we're going to get more -- we've got to take -- we're going to take
money out of that, too, right, cut back on that?
Page 239
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Once you do this, you've got to -- you've
got to get everybody. I mean, you're going to do -- Mike, do you have
the chart?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: MSTUs?
MR. MUDD: We had a chart, Mike, I think.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let's get the whole picture
out here.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Each MSTU -- each MSTU will be rolled
back to 91 percent of the rollback within each of those, you know,
Victoria Park drainage on down the line.
MR. MUDD: The only -- the only funds, MSTUs, that won't be
rolled back to 91 percent are your MSTUs on your dependent fire
districts, and they will only be rolled back--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three percent.
MR. MUDD: -- to 97 percent, okay. And it's because they got a
special thing for fire in there. All the independent and dependents in
MSTUs and only go back minus 3. And I believe all your
independents, i.e., your Southwest Florida Water District, your Big
Cypress Basin, only go back minus 3.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wouldn't you know it.
MR. MUDD: Mike did a -- Mike did a calculation total across
the board including what the school board told us their millage rate is
going to be, and it will be a reduction of a little over .9 mills, okay,
almost a mill on the tax roll when this gets done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
you're still on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. So that's -- that's
the guidance, telling the constitutional officers to take the same, the
ones that are not fee officers, like --
MR. MUDD: Sir, we will-- we would have--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. The tax collector's a fee
officer, right?
Page 240
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is the property appraiser,
right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the question about the
others, we just don't know yet.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There is -- on Thursday we'll talk about
that and see what that particular pain level is, but we are in
conversation with one constitutional officer, the sheriff, and I think
we've got some kind of agreement and a plan to go about the cut.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What do we do -- what
do we do -- as long as we're getting guidance, what do we do if we do
a moratorium? I guess the question is, do we -- do we still build the
roads or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are lots of ways to build
roads.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are lots of ways to build
roads. And we'll debate the moratorium issue in July, but the point is
that there is so much that's vested and already approved that it will
take 12 years to build it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you just don't know if
those people look for the product. I don't know of one affordable
housing product that is vested, do you?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, the subject isn't a
moratorium.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure, Arrowhead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Guys, let's get back to the budget.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it is -- you know, it is a
part of it.
Page 241
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, everything's going to have a
direct impact, and I don't think anybody knows it yet. Hopefully
tomorrow -- when we get together on Thursday --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Budget hearings.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that we'll have a much better idea
of what's in the menu that we can pick from.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we'll discuss that on Monday
-- or Thursday?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I mean, I don't mind a brief
little note on it, but I don't want to get into a deep discussion about
moratorium. I don't think anything's going to take place now that's
going to be noteworthy.
Okay. Any other comments, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got that look on your face like
you've got something to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, but you haven't called -- did
you call the question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was just about ready to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Seeing no other comments or
questions, all those in favor of the motion as proposed by
Commissioner Coyle and seconded by Commissioner Halas to go with
the 91 percent of the rollback rate, which is -- translates out to 3.1483
mills, indicate at this time by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 242
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about that, unanimous. I'm glad
you're here. You did a great job.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So was 1.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Glad I'm leaving.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
(Commissioner Coyle left the hearing room.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we want to try one more item,
ladies and gentlemen? Or we about had it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's the most staff here on one item
that we can relieve from staying any longer and not have to come back
tomorrow?
Item #lOH
A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BETTER ROADS, INC.
FOR BID NO. 07-4124 COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) SIX-
LANE IMPROVEMENTS FROM US 41 TO DAVIS BOULEVARD
(SR 84), PROJECT NO. 60001IN THE AMOUNT OF
$24,955,329.69 WHICH INCLUDES $3,700,000.00 FOR
ALLOWANCES. CIE NO. 77 -APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yeah, Mr. Norman Feder would like to discuss
10H, sir, and it's a recommendation to award a construction contract to
Better Roads, Inc., for bid number 07-4124, Collier Boulevard/County
Road 951 six-lane improvements from U.S. 41 to Davis Boulevard,
State Road 84, project number 60001, in the amount of
$24,955,329.69 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
Page 243
June 26-27, 2007
MR. MUDD: -- which includes $3,700,000 for allowances. It's
CIE number 77, and Mr. Jay Ahmad, your director of transportation
engineering and construction will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
We have a motion by Commissioner Henning for approval and a
second by Commissioner Coletta.
Is there anything you need to read into the record?
MR. AHMAD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We think you're doing an absolutely
wonderful job, but Commissioner Fiala's going to ask you a hard
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I'm not. I already talked to
them about it. I just wanted to say that I went for burying the electric
lines again hoping that maybe we could do it this time on this road
widening, but they explained, of course, that we're widening into the
middle. And so even though we can't -- we haven't been able to bury
them yet, we keep digging up roads and never burying our lines.
So I just want to put on the record, again, that I hope we get to
that pretty soon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's do one more. Try to pick
one that has --
MR. MUDD: Sir, you've got to vote on it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Obviously it's past that
magic hour.
Okay. With that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 244
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See you at nine.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2007-172: A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE
ATTACHED INVENTORY LIST OF COUNTY OWNED REAL
PROPERTY AS SURPLUS LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
FLORIDA STATUTES 125.379 TO BE SOLD AND THE
PROCEEDS USED TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about 8A? Oh, how about 8A?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8A?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Request the inventory of real
property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Should be nice and simple.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that going to be pretty involved?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That wasn't too involved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, that was very good.
Commissioner Henning made a motion for approval and
Commissioner Fiala made a second, and now we're going to get a
complete staff report before we vote.
MR. MUDD: No, sir. Just for the record, this item was
continued from June 12,2007, BCC meeting. It's a recommendation
the Board of County Commissioners reviews, accepts, and authorizes
Page 245
June 26-27, 2007
the chairman to sign a resolution declaring the attached inventory list
of Collier-owned real property and surplus land in accordance with
Florida Statutes 125.379 to be sold and the proceeds used to develop
affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great, okay. All--let's go ahead and
-- all those -- I'm sorry. All those -- we did take -- motion was by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And with that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #10K
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN, A SUB-RECIPIENT
AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CCHDC), FOR $107,684 IN
HOME FUNDS TO ACQUIRE VACANT LAND FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING -
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We -- how about if we --
Margie's (sic) got one there that we pulled off on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marcy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marcy, rather. Excuse me. Marcy?
Why don't we do yours. She's hiding.
MS. KRUMBINE: No, I had 8A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought you got down on your
Page 246
June 26-27, 2007
hands and knees and were hiding behind the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one were you going to do?
MS. KRUMBINE: I was going to do 8A, but you -- you know,
you took care of that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's get right to it. Who
pulled it? It was Commissioner Henning, was it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, go right to it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concern was that -- first
of all, what was the $107,000 going to be used for, number one? Was
this going to be used for a house that -- or a home or something that
was going to be built immediately? Because I -- my concern is that
we've put out a lot of money to the CCHDC and we haven't seen
anything productive out of it, so that's where I want to -- that's all the
question I want to know is, what's this money going to be used for.
MS. KRUMBINE: Okay. The money -- for the record, Marcy
Krumbine, Director of Housing and Human Services.
And the $107,000 is part of our home set aside, CHDO set aside,
and it's going to be used to acquire vacant land to then put a house on
it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now, we have like Cirrus
Point, and we've put a number of -- a number of dollars that were --
that was put forth for affordable housing, and at the time we found that
they didn't get the necessary permits prior to that to go ahead and start
building. So that's the only thing I have a concern on is that -- will we
see something within a year's time of them building something?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, I can't say how the project will
progress. What I put on the visualizer is that we are working with
three CHDOs in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: The Empowerment Alliance, Big Cypress,
and the Collier County Housing Development Corporation.
Page 247
June 26-27,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's the one that you're
giving the money to?
MS. KRUMBINE: Right. But you can see that we've given
money to all of these for different types of housing projects, and for
several of them it's for land acquisition--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: -- and they've expended the money for the
land acquisition yet no units have been constructed yet because of the
development process. So I could tell you that part of the process is
that they give monthly reports, and we make sure, through our office,
that the projects move forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I was looking for.
MS. KRUMBINE: That's what we do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. We'll go to Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I, too, was going to pull this,
so it's interesting. And I was going to ask what's happening with
Cirrus Point. We've--
MS. KRUMBINE: It's in the site development plan. It's still in
the site development plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's been a couple years.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, maybe Joe would like to answer that.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. I'm doing
this by memory. I know Cirrus Point the money was used to purchase
the land. They're in the site development process. There's been an
issue over a turning lane off of Thomasson Drive and insufficient
space for the turning lane, and the impact it's going to have on the
number of residential units that are being built. So they're still back
and forth in the negotiation, but I haven't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the developer didn't buy the
land?
Page 248
June 26-27, 2007
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, he did. Well, the money that was used
-- in my recollection, the money that was used, CDBG dollars that was
used was -- actually went to the Collier County Housing Development
Corporation in partnership to purchase that land to create that
affordable housing project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then if CCHDC went in
partnership to purchase it, does it then go in a land trust so -- with our
money.
MR. SCHMITT: No, no. No, they just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The developer then gains that
money as his own?
MS. KRUMBINE: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See what my concern is?
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, yeah. The money is actually being
used for the 32 affordable units to buy down the price, the market
price, so they can be sold affordable, so that's where that money is
used. That 320,000,32 units, so each of the units are going to be
$10,000 less than what they would be. It's like a subsidy for those
units, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do we have any idea when
that's going to be?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We get these reports all the time on
how they're doing with roads and different facilities. Why don't we
invite the developer here and ask those questions of them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wonderful, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm sure that it will make
everything move forward a little bit quicker.
MS. KRUMBINE: And I think that that is a good distinction,
because the CCHDC has done their part so far. Their next part in this
will be to prequalify and prepare the potential homeowners. They
Page 249
June 26-27, 2007
cannot do that until the units go vertical.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Again, all -- just because you
mention that -- and this wasn't one of my questions. I hope we're
re-looking at our qualifications for these people because so many
people miss it because of the qualifications, and I hope we're -- so that
we can include more people. But we've all talked about that before.
MS. KRUMBINE: That particular development was already put
under the bonus densities of part 50 percent and part 60 percent of the
median income, so that can't be changed. But in the future we can
change the newer ones that we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Where is this piece of land
that you're buying?
MS. KRUMBINE: This piece of land is going to be an infill
property in East Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, how unusual to build some
affordable housing in East Naples. I see.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Some people would have said you did
that sarcastically, but I would say no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You meant it from the heart.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What price range qualifies for
HUD?
MS. KRUMBINE: These would be adjusted for the adjusted
median income, and so these would be at 80 percent or less than the
median income for the income of the buyer, and so then the house has
to be to their affordability.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this -- would this then be for
essential services or gap?
MS. KRUMBINE: That would be for low income.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Low income, 80 percent or less.
MS. KRUMBINE: Eighty percent or less would be low income.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is it located?
Page 250
June 26-27, 2007
MS. KRUMBINE: I don't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Get back to me on that, would you?
MS. KRUMBINE: I would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like the report still on
Cirrus Point?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, absolutely. On Cirrus Point,
you'll get back to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've probably got a heck of a
schedule for July. Could we do it in September?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Anybody comment on that? I
guess we've got enough direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, in September.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Let's go ahead and -- any other
comments on this?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All four ayes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I've got two eyes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll see you tomorrow at eight.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're adjourned till
tomorrow, but thank you for sticking so long.
MR. WEIGEL: Until-- okay. Recess until nine a.m. tomorrow
morning?
MR. MUDD: We're going to recess till nine o'clock tomorrow
mornmg.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
Page 251
June 26-27,2007
Thank you all for being here.
(The meeting adjourned at 6: 15 p.m., and will continue on at 9:00
a.m. on June 27, 2007.)
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m.
Day 2 - June 27, 2007
Meeting reconvened at 9:00 am on June 27,2007 with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Torn Henning
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle (absent)
Donna Fiala
Also Present:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 252
June 26-27, 2007
(The Collier County Board of Commissioners reconvened on
their second day of meeting, June 27, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the continuation of the
June 26th, BCC meeting.
The day is June 27th. We're in the final rounds of completing
yesterday's meeting.
And with that we're going to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Thank you.
Commissioner Halas, would you lead us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, I just want to remind
everybody that today we do have a meeting with the Lee County
Commission and the Florida -- Southwest Florida Expressway at 1 :00
o'clock.
Hopefully, we'll be able to finish up here sometime around 11 so
that we have about an hour for lunch before we have to make that hour
trip to Bonita.
And the reason I'm saying this out loud is just remind everything
about the constraints to our schedule so that we can finish on time.
Thank you.
What's the first item you want us -- we should start with?
Item #10C
COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER 60.002 TO
FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES FOR THE PROJECT CALLED,
NORTH BELLE MEADE MINE. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF
998.9 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, SITTING IN SECTIONS 21, 27,
Page 253
June 26-27,2007
AND 28 OF TOWNSHIP 49, SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY
SITTING SOUTH OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND THE
EXISTING WARREN BROTHERS PUD (THE AP AC PIT), IN
THE NORTH BELLE MEADE RURAL FRINGE RECEIVING
LANDS NORTH OF I-75 - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm just going over the notes,
making sure that we didn't miss anything. I believe we're on 10C.
And this is to recommend the board approval to purchase a radio
locator system, SafePoint, from Locus Location Systems at a cost of
$1,459,000 and to finance the project with a loan from the
Commercial Paper Loan Program.
And, John Daly, your Telecommunications Manager for
Information Technology will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If! may, I'm going to make a motion
to approve.
I went over this with my son, Scott, who's the vice-president of a
telecommunications firm, and my idea was why can't we use cell
phones, and he told me, he said, "Dad," he says, "in time of an
emergency, the cell towers are overloaded and it would defeat the
whole purpose of having the system." He said, "You'd better go with
it. "
So, I'll make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval, Commissioner
Coletta, a second from Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion or --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- questions?
Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to have a kind of a quick
Page 254
June 26-27, 2007
synopsis of the importance of this so that we get it on the record.
MR. DALY: Okay. The importance of this is numerous
departments that -- that I interact with have identified that they would
like some type of location technology to identify where personnel --
personnel are in the field, both from an operational standpoint and
from a safety standpoint.
Looking at a variety of solutions, some of which were cell phone
based, most of those had re-occurring (sic) monthly costs in order to
transmit the data back to a central location.
The Sheriffs Office in particular, and they have a representative
here today, are interested in this type of system because it will allow
them to do closest unit response to calls for service as opposed to
strictly the unit that's normally recommended for that location.
They also like the system because in addition to tracking
vehicles, it will track all the portable radios so that when deputies and
firefighters are out of their vehicles on scenes, they'll be able to know
the location of that -- that firefighter, particularly on major incidents,
knowing where your law enforcement or firefighter personnel are.
And this system, one of the efficiencies of this system is it uses
an existing communication that takes place between the radios in the
field and the central control for the 800 megahertz system. It
capitalizes on that communication as opposed to installing separate
devices either in a vehicle or in each radio that users are carrying.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're talking basically GPS,
right?
MR. DALY: It's a triangulation based upon the signals the radios
transmit back to the symptom.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 255
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it four to zero.
MR. DAL Y: Thank you very much.
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 2007-173: THE CREATION OF A RURAL LANDS
STEWARDSHIP AREA REVIEW COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE
FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO THE
RURAL LANDS STEWARDSHIP AREA, AS REQUIRED BY
4.08.04 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED
W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: This then brings us to 10F. This is to request the
Board of County Commissioners to approve the creation of a Rural
Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee to provide for review and
recommendations relating to the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as
required by 4.08.04 of the Land Development Code.
Noah Standridge, your Senior Planner will preside.
MR. STANDRIDGE: Hi. Good morning, Commissioners.
The Rural Lands --
MR. MUDD: State your name for the record.
MR. STANDRIDGE: Noah Standridge, Senior Planner in
Comprehensive Planning.
Good morning, Commissioners.
The Rural Lands Stewardship Area overlay governs 200,000
acres in Eastern Collier County.
The -- the five-year anniversary is June 2008. Upon that date,
Collier County is required to do a five-year review of the program to
see it's effectiveness in implementing -- implementing this program
Page 256
June 26-27, 2007
and to determine the effectiveness in the participation levels to see
how the program has played out over the past five years.
So, this review will commence with a technical review by
Comprehensive Planning staff, identifying the level of participation,
how many acres have been put into stewardship areas, how many
acres have been put into stewardship receiving areas.
And there will also be a public participation component that will
use at your direction an advisory committee to -- to oversee the -- the
public participation component of the review.
If you have any questions, it's -- it's a fairly indepth review, but
I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The first question is from
Commissioner Halas and we'll go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I would like to see if we
could put the original group back together because we've got about a
one-year timeframe on this. And it would be great if we could get the
participants that were involved in this back in the -- in the late 1900s
to -- 1990s to get involved in this project, and so we can get the -- get
it over with and figure out if we need to fix anything. If not, then
move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm -- I don't like the
recommendations. If everybody just focused on the rural stewardship
area, whether it be LDRs or GMP amendments, I don't have a problem
with that, but it's referring to a potential of changing the Immokalee
Master Plan and the Golden Gate Master Plan.
MR. STANDRIDGE: It may have implications.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I -- you know, we could
study these until the cows corne home. We already have somebody
doing the Golden Gate area and part of the Immokalee Master Plan.
We just finished up the Golden Gate area Master Plan.
So, with that, I'll make a motion to approve for the board to
Page 257
June 26-27,2007
appoint -- create a Rural Stewardship Area Committee to look and --
and make recommendations on the Growth Management Plan and
Land Development Code pertaining to the Rural Lands Stewardship
Area and also to include the recommendations from Commissioner
Halas that -- that we -- we ask the original committee to serve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To serve or to submit applications?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, Commissioner,
I think submit an application would be more appropriate because most
likely not everybody that's served will serve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're correct, Commissioner
Henning.
Okay. I'll second your motion with one thing though. I'd like it
to be understood that this committee will have a life -- life term of one
year, absolutely sunset in one year, so that they aren't going to draw
this out forever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. I'll put that in
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'll include it in my
second.
Any other discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it four to zero. Thank you.
MR. STANDRIDGE: Thank you for your time.
Item #10G
A SUMMARY OF THE MAY 21,2007 WORKSHOP OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) AND
Page 258
June 26-27, 2007
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE (PC) ON THE LEVEL OF
SERVICE STANDARDS (LOSS) EVALUATION, AS DIRECTED
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS (BCC), FOR CERTAIN COMPONENTS OF
THE ANNUAL UPDATE AND INVENTORY REPORT (AUIR)
ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER
6.02.02 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE, AND TO SEEK GUIDANCE FOR THE PREPARATION
OF THE 2007 AUIR - MOTION TO SUPPORT STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATIONS AND TO SEND TO PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR REVIEW - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10G. This is to
provide summary of the May 21 st, 2007 workshop of the Collier
County Planning Commission, CCPC, and Productivity Committee on
the level -- on the level of service standards, LOS (sic) evaluation as
directed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners for
certain components of the Annual Update and Inventory Report,
AUIR, on public facilities as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the
Collier County Land Development Code and to seek guidance for the
preparation of the 2007 AUIR.
And -- how are you doing, Michael? And Mr. Michael Bosi,
Senior Planner and Comprehensive Planning will present.
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Bosi for the
record with Comprehensive Planning. I'm the AUIR project manager.
Today I'm going to provide an overview that was contained
within the Executive Summary of the May 21 st workshop regarding
the AUIR level of service standards review by the Planning
Commission and the Productivity Committee that was -- that was held
on the 21 st, and it was ended somewhat abruptly by the Planning
Commission, and the Productivity Committee based upon the data and
analysis that the staff had provided.
Page 259
June 26-27,2007
During the 2006 AUIR, the BCC made recommendations
pertaining to a number of service providing divisions departments to
analyze the current methodology of establishing levels of service
standards to determine if those standards were the most effective in
determining need for each respective capital facility in service.
These -- these areas that we're going to look at were parks, jails,
law enforcement, library buildings, library book stock, emergency
medical services and government buildings.
The BCC did not direct staff to include transportation, drainage,
potable water, sewer treatment and collection, solid waste in the
independent fire districts within the -- the analysis.
During the 24th AUIR workshop over the AUIR with the board,
the board gave specific directions to staff to complete this analysis,
and this was from the verbatim minutes, which were attached to the
Executive Summary within this item within your agenda packet.
The first directive was to evaluate the existing basis, justification
rational nexus for the establishment of the current levels of service
standards that we currently have within our AUIR.
And then, two, was to identify what alternatives are being used
by other similar sized government jurisdictions and/or alternative
approaches that may be used to benchmark level of service standards.
The third was to evaluate if those alternatives will withstand legal
scrutiny from the impact fee standpoint, more specifically evaluate
from a level of service standpoint to ensure that proposed changes ties
into our rational nexus for impact fees.
And the fourth was, if steps one through three are satisfied, then
corne back with alternative recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners based on the new level of service standards that -- that
we know met all of these criterions.
And that -- those were the -- the premise or that the -- that staff
had taken when -- when we approach this level of service analysis.
This next slide contains -- is a verbatim from the Mayor from the
Page 260
June 26-27, 2007
November 30th Planning Commission Productivity Committee review
of the -- or the 2006 AUIR.
The first quote is from commissioner -- or from Chairman Strain
from the Planning Commissioner. He's asking the -- the Planning
Commission for a motion.
The motion is made by Commissioner Murray. And he says, I
would recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of
the 2006 AUIR summary with regard to recreational facilities, all the
park recreational facilities with the additional recommendation that
the BCC review to see if there can be a better basis to determine the
AUIR rather than just population.
And commission -- and Chairman Strain, as you can read, says, I
think that follows suit with the previous recommends.
That's to provide -- that was the consistent general tone of the
recommendations related to all the Category B facilities that the
Planning Commission had asked to us look at, was to look at the
population to see if there was an ulterior method that -- that we could
utilize for -- for determining what the -- the driver or the growth rate
was within the equation that the determines capital improvement
projects.
As part of the AUIR evaluation, as directed by the board, the
staff was -- identified the possible alternatives to level service
standards other than the methods utilized.
And following directions in order to -- to initiate the comparative
analysis, we first looked at Florida counties in which the population
and the population growths were similar to -- to Collier.
Those counties which we began with was Sarasota, Charlotte,
Manatee, Lee, Pasco and Marion. These weren't the only -- the
counties that were considered, but they were the basis point for -- for
our analysis to begin.
We also look to a joint -- a joint body task force from the Florida
legislator related to impact fees. Unfortunately we -- there was very
Page 261
June 26-27,2007
little guidance that was provided by that body that studied impact fees.
And basically the -- the legislators' task force determined that the
methodology for level of service standards is purely a local decision,
and based upon that, the -- there was no guidance being provided from
the State in terms of the -- the best or most appropriate way to
determine levels of service standard.
Based upon that and based upon the -- the original approach, the
summary or the -- the notebook, the AUIR level of service analysis
notebook that was provided to the Planning Commission and
Productivity Committee, which was also was provided as -- as Exhibit
A to your Executive Summary, determine that population was the
most appropriate method for level -- for -- benchmarking level of
service standards with -- with the exception for the dependent fire
districts or for fire districts calls for service, also EMS calls for
service, was one that has been recognized and has been endorsed by
the Florida court systems.
After the -- after the -- the 21 st meeting was ended and it was
basically -- it was stated to staff that we hadn't done or that -- the
analysis in a correct manner, we went out and we -- we expanded our
-- our sample size to see if there -- if there were -- if we had limited
our scope in our analysis to see if the conclusions we had arrived upon
were correct.
We -- we expanded it to include 45 of the 67 counties that were --
of the Florida counties, all of the coastal counties as well as the
urbanized inland counties.
Those findings confirm the original findings that populations and
response times in calls for services were the -- were the three methods
that -- that were being utilized throughout the State of Florida related
to -- related to level of service standards and impact fees.
This map here is basically a snapshot ofthe 45 counties that we
had surveyed related to parks. Each one of these stars had -- had
identified and had been confirmed that for parks that population was
Page 262
June 26-27, 2007
the -- the driver within the equation for level of service standard.
The reason why this -- this effort for parks was, it was as
thorough compared to, say, the Category B facilities as -- Category A
facilities are required to be within a county CIE, so information
related to that was readily available.
Once we got to the Category B facilities, the library books start,
the libraries, jails, law enforcement where it's not required by statute
to -- to have -- to -- to document or prescribe a level of service
standard, it was much more. That type of information was much
harder to obtain.
To give you an example, one of our comprehensive planning
staffers during the research had uncovered a couple of curious level of
service standards. In Bay County, their level of service standards for
jail was pack them in, and for Dixie County, their -- their library levels
of service was we can buy as many books as we can get our hands on.
It kind of highlights the -- almost -- the -- the level of
sophistication that -- that Collier has adopted within the Category B
facilities.
And another side note, the AUIR process is a process that I
haven't been able to identify within any other county within the State
of Florida.
The -- Collier County is unique in a sense that we put out the
Category B facilities and we put out a -- and -- and we have -- as a
Board of County Commissioners have endorsed level of service
standards for a category that the state's not -- that the state really
doesn't require that the level of service standard be expressed for.
Based upon this, the general conclusion of both research efforts
was, you know, that population was the most appropriate methodology
for -- for establishing the level of service contained within the AUIR
with the exception of calls for service and response times has also
been recognized as appropriate benchmarks of levels of service
standard.
Page 263
June 26-27, 2007
Just to give you -- to -- to give you a context to, I think, why this
was -- this determination was reached through the research relates to
the AUIR and how the AUIR has an interrelationship to -- to impact
fee studies related to Category B.
I'm just going to give you a real brief context to the AUIR, how it
sits within our regulatory fabric and Chapters 6.02.02 of the LDC
establishes the L -- established a management and monitoring program
for public facilities, and that's through the AUIR. And it provides for
an annual determination of the level of service standards concurrency
for Category A facilities and the identification of additional needs.
For the findings for the Category A facilities within the AUIR
forms the basis for -- for the preparation of our -- our CIE, within a
GMP.
The LDC states that the specific purpose of the AUIR is a
management and monitoring program that evaluates the conditions of
public facilities to ensure that they're adequately planned for and
funded to maintain the level of service for each public facility.
For Category B facilities, the AUIR serves the purpose of
identifying and maintaining the level of service standards for the
capital facilities deemed essential by the BCC but not subject to
concurrency under Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes.
Within some Category B facilities, we have an -- we have -- for
all Category B facilities we have an adopted level of service standard
that -- that's contained within the impact fee.
Some of the AUIR level of service standards are higher than what
the -- than what is identified within the impact fee studies.
For -- for example, within the law -- or within the -- or within the
EMS level of service standard, within the AUIR, the level of service
standard is -- is one unit per 15 -- for 15,000 people.
In the impact fee study, it's one unit per 34,000 people. And the
reason for that is because the number of our -- a number of our
stations are leased, and because of that, they cannot count towards
Page 264
June 26-27,2007
credit within the inventory, so when the impact fee study -- when the
impact fee study was derived or was undertaken, we could only look
at the number that -- the number of stations that are owned, that are
counted towards the impact -- towards the level of service standard.
And what that does is it gives you some flexibility in terms of
lowering or adjusting your level of service standard.
The AUIR in -- in relationship to -- to the impact fees and the
level of service standards that's contained within the -- contained
within our impact fees, the AUIR stands really as -- as a legal
checkbook to make sure that we are providing -- we're providing the
level of service standards that we're charging all of our new users.
Not only that we are providing -- not only that we are providing
the -- the appropriate growth based upon -- based upon our new users,
but that that money is being applied to new capital facilities for that
specific provision.
Within the impact fee studies for Category B facilities,
population is the one constant for each of the studies. It's based upon
that impact fees have to comply with the dual rational nexus test that's
been adopted by the Florida courts.
First, impact fee studies must establish a reasonable connection
or rational nexus between the need for additional capital facilities and
the growth in population generated by new development.
And the second criteria is that the government must show that the
rational nexus between the expenditure of those impact fee studies and
-- and the benefits that's going to be occurring for the new
development.
For the majority of the impact fee studies reviewed for the report,
population and population growth have established the first criteria of
the dual rational nexus test by establishing a reasonable connection
between the need for new capital facilities and the growth that -- and
the growth in population generated by the new development.
Each new user -- each new user that comes into this system, we
Page 265
June 26-27, 2007
borrow a small increment or an improvement within the -- within the
capital facility so that the level of service standard being provided to
the residents remains constant.
The second criteria of the dual rational nexus test is met when
impact fees collected are provided a direct benefits those individuals
pay in the fee, which is maintained through the AUIR process.
Essentially, the AUIR stands as the checkbook for -- for a level
of service standards adopted by the county and formalized through the
collection of impact fees gauged against the demands of new
population.
During the May 21 st workshop at the Productivity Committee
and the Planning Commission, there is an express -- there was
expressed by -- by -- by the members of the advisory boards that they
wanted staff to go outside of the box in terms of how we were looking
at this question.
When we did this analysis -- when we did our analysis in terms
of the level of service standards and the utilization of population, we
were all -- staff felt confined or -- or felt that we -- we did not want to
step outside of what was legally defensible.
We wanted to maintain the -- the consistency that's been
provided by -- provided by the Florida court system in terms of how
you utilize impact fees and what they can be utilized for.
And because of that, we -- we -- we understandably, or we -- we were
confined as to how far we would go in terms of how we could
establish our levels of serves.
During the meeting of the workshop, the members -- the
members of both the Planning Commission and the Productivity
Committee had expressed desire for operational data, and that
operational data such as library door count, and it was to provide
analysis to the appropriateness of the level of service standards that
were adopted by the BCC.
The question that was being asked was -- was based upon -- the
Page 266
June 26-27,2007
question that's being asked when they were looking for operational
data is really how appropriate are current levels of service standards?
How -- what is the demand that's being placed upon our capital -- our
capital facilities? What's the demands that are being placed upon our
libraries?
Is .33 square feet of library buildings per capita an appropriate
standard -- an appropriate standard? And they're look for operational
data to determine that analysis.
Is 3.2 jail beds per thousand an appropriate standard? They--
they want -- they want the demand factors that are being placed upon
these systems to be able to determine whether this is an appropriate
standard, which is -- which is a valid question and a -- and a question
that should be asked.
The problem -- and I'll get to the second. CIPs are determined by
a simple equation within the AUIR. You have new population, your
new population is charged against your level of service standard and
that equals your capital -- capital expansion.
An example is the 2006 AUIR libraries. Between 2005 and 2006,
the county added 21,161 people. The library standard is .33 square
feet per capita. Take the population, 21,161, multiply it times .33
square feet, and you -- the equation determines that you need 6,983
additional square feet required in the system.
That is the only justification based upon this procession, based
upon the -- the way that concurrency works, that is the only
justification that -- that you need for -- to -- to -- to build that square
foot.
What -- what the question being asked by the Planning
Commission and the Productivity Committee is, you know, is that .33
square feet, is that really an appropriate standard based upon what's
being demanded of our libraries?
The original question was to see if there was some other measure
rather than population as more effective for the AUIR. But the
Page 267
June 26-27, 2007
question, it really focused on the driver, the -- the driver and not the
standard.
The question that you're looking for when you're looking at
operational data is an analysis upon that standard.
So, we were told to go look at and analyze population, the driver
within the equation. But when we got to the -- the workshop, the
questions all related to this -- the standard itself, so there was a
disconnect between what staffs' understanding what the direction that
was provided based upon that original recommendation and where
we're at now.
And where we're at now is last week I sent out the memo for the
preparation of the 2007 AUIR. And in that memo, I have asked each
individual department division, and over the next three weeks I'm
meeting with -- from transportation to public utilities to law
enforcement, to libraries to jails to every one of the component, and in
that I'm going to continue to stress that we need operational data to be
able to provide it to the Planning Commission and the Productivity
Committee.
So -- and this ties into the discussion that -- that the board had
yesterday related to the AUIR, related to the financial -- the financial
issues that are facing the county related to the state legislations action
and also the -- the -- the -- the revenue that on impact fees that the
county is receiving and will receive in the future as to what is the
appropriateness of our levels of service standards?
What -- based upon the demands, is there latitude that -- is there
latitude to adjust those levels of service standards, and how is it that
we can arrive at an appropriate level of service standard that places the
county in -- in a -- in a more sound financial standing?
And one last thing that we're asking from this -- from this
individual presentation is direction for the -- for the 2007 AUIR.
One of components and one of key components and it was
related to a motion that the BCC had made related to parks, was look
Page 268
June 26-27, 2007
at it in a different way because right now we do -- we have for -- for
park facilities we have a $270 per capita facilities value as our level of
service standard.
The board recognized that that really doesn't tell the -- the reader
or the user that much upon how -- what -- how good of a job that we're
doing in providing what the people are looking for.
And with that, the Parks Department went -- looked through,
went through the process, coordinated with our outside legal counsel
related to impact fees and determined that we want to make a change,
a change from that facility's value to facility's type.
They're going to go out, they're going to inventory all of the -- all
of the private facilities, whether it be golf courses, whether it and
tennis courts, whether it be shuffle ball courts, inventory the private --
the private inventory of these facilities, inventory, of course, the
facilities that we're provided on a public basis, and then identify the
need and identify the -- the areas that we need to stress upon based
upon the preferences and based upon what's available.
For libraries, changing from a books per capita to a items per
capita is a recommendation that -- that we are looking for.
For law enforcement, last year we incorrectly -- we incorrectly,
and this was staffs -- this is staffs' responsibility for doing so, but we
incorrectly included the populations from -- from the municipalities
from the City of Marco and the City of Naples. And, of course, for
this 2007, the -- those populations would be excluded -- excluded.
And the one area, I think that -- that was -- the most explicit in
the direction that the board had provided to -- to staff was related to
EMS.
The county manager has -- has worked with the independent fire
district, and this is all related to the ALS engine, has worked with the
independent fire districts to modify the interlocal agreements that the
county currently exists.
And the specific reason in the design of these modifications was
Page 269
June 26-27, 2007
so that we can have certainty towards the contributions of the ALS
engines and those contributions can now start to be incorporated into
the inventory -- the inventory of the provisions of service for that
respective component.
And as part of the -- the -- the process, EMS, and I actually have
a meeting with EMS and their outside consultant, this afternoon, we
are going -- we're going through a master plan study, one of the
biggest stresses that we are placed into the consultant is based upon
these revised interlocal agreements, we have to capture and we -- and
we have to count the contributions that the ALS engines are going to
be provided to -- to the individual systems.
And this -- what we're looking for in October completion to that
master plan study, EMS is going to table all capital expansions for--
for the upcoming 2007 AUIR based upon -- based upon we want to
wait until we see what the findings of that -- that master plan study is
so we incorporate it -- we can incorporate the contributions of the ALS
engines and -- and a more round, sound and fair picture can be brought
in terms of the inventory of the contributions related to that service.
With that, that concludes my -- my presentation. I would be more
than happy to receive any questions from the board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there is questions. Commissioner
Henning will start.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning, sir.
MR. BOSI: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good morning. You said you
were going to provide the data for the standards within the level of
service to the Planning Commission?
MR. BOSI: No. I am asking each and every department to
provide all operational, all and any operational data that they -- that
they -- that has been collected by the -- by that individual division of
department for as many years back as they have been collecting it,
trying to -- and the reason behind that is trying to give the Planning
Page 270
June 26-27, 2007
Commission and Productivity Committee a more accurate picture of
what is the true demand that is being placed upon these systems, and if
they have this data over a time set, they could -- they can draw or infer
trends and provide analysis to -- to -- to rationally justify whatever
recommendations in terms of adjustment to levels of service standards
that that could be related to whatever the individual department or
division they're looking at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What -- what operational
data, what would that look like?
MR. BOSI: Oh, that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me give you an example.
MR. BOSI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The county manager forwarded
to me from Marla Ramsey the actual libraries and how many people
carne in and how many books and material went out.
Is that operational data?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, in Parks and Rec, for
another example, these are how many people who use the pool, you
know, this -- this month or this year or whatever and how many, you
know, people played ball or whatever.
Is that -- is that right?
MR. BOSI: That is right. I know that there's probably going to
be some limitations in terms of I know for community parks because
it's not -- there's not -- it's going to be hard to try to capture that data
but we're going to try -- any and everything that they -- that they feel
could be utilized to make a rational determination in terms of usage on
a system, we're going to ask to provide -- we're going -- we're going to
ask to provide so that the Planning Commission and the Productivity
Committee can make those -- take the steps that -- that are required.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to do this,
provide this information, to the Planning Commission and the
Page 271
June 26-27, 2007
Productivity Committee at this upcoming AUIR?
MR. BOSI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, to me, I think that's
what they were kind of looking at the round about way. I know there
was a lot of question about the validity of the population, but with that
data, I think they can get to where they want to get to at the end of the
day to make those recommendations.
MR. BOSI: Yeah. I do believe, sir, and I will say as part of the
-- the -- the effort that staff had done for the -- the May 21 st workshop,
we had did an analysis of comparison as to what was the standard for
libraries that were being provided for within Pasco-Sarasota.
And that -- that was -- that's outside of the question, a little bit
outside of the area. But we -- we -- we did provide a little bit of
analysis as to what are national or what are state trends if those were
available. But we did not provide the operational data, and that's
where the gap was.
And that's where -- that's where staff -- staff did not provide the
-- the type of analysis and that was really the cause of why the
meeting was -- ended somewhat prematurely.
And based upon, like I said, the memo I had provided last week
to the departments and the direction that the board had provided
yesterday, the board had said yesterday during -- during their
discussion related to the tax reform, that the board expects to make --
to have some -- some recommendation from the Planning Commission
and Productivity Committee related to the level of service standards
that we have adopted and -- and where we need to -- where those
levels of service need to go based upon the revenue that's expected
from each of those individual divisions and departments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Mr. Bosi, I looked at the
material that you provided to the board, what was given to the
Planning Commission.
It was great stuff, but for you to provide the operational data,
Page 272
June 26-27, 2007
which you explain, I don't see -- I felt pretty confident that this is the
stuff that they're looking for.
MR. BOSI: Well, it's -- when I heard your discussion yesterday
and that -- that that the statement was made we need to adjust our
levels of service standards, it kind of made me --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we need -- we need to
look at them. My -- my only perspective is are we hitting our target?
I don't think we're hitting our target on -- on EMS. That's what we
hear from the independent fire districts is, you know, hey, we're there
before you are, and blah, blah, blah, there's -- there's a unit in this
particular district, and it gets called out and we're having to pick up
the load and stuff like that.
So, I think we're -- my personal opinion, of course, I haven't seen
the data analysis, that we -- we corne up short.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Mike, first of all, I thought
you put -- put together a good presentation here.
Secondly, I've read all the information that was given to me over
this past weekend to read, and I think that what you provided to the
Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission was right on on
what we had said in our meeting that needed to be brought forth.
Now, all of a sudden, when this was presented to the Planning
Commission and to the Productivity Committee, someone stepped in
and said, no, this is not what we really wanted, but it is what we, the
board here, had discussed and what was put on the agenda for you to
-- to basically get your marching orders and to move on.
The other area that I'm very concerned about, and that's the fact
that throughout the State of Florida when we look at how we're going
to address impact fees, what is going to be looked at in a court of law,
it's been pretty well established that it's going to be based on
Page 273
June 26-27, 2007
population.
And I believe that everybody says we'll think outside the box.
Well, you might want to think outside the box, but I think this is
where I need to have some -- some guidance from the County
Attorney, and I think the county -- hopefully, the County Attorney
will say that you -- you've got to have a dual rational nexus in regards
to establishing not only your impact fees, but your level of service,
and I think that's -- basically comes even on Category A --
County Attorney, can you elaborate a little bit on that?
And I've got some other things I'd like to --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie
Student-Stirling.
That has been the established way to look at impact fees for the
dual -- with the dual rational nexus test.
However, I believe our legal counsel has told us, which is our
outside counsel, Greg Stewart, of Nabors and Giblin, who is an expert
on impact fee issue, that there may be a way, I believe, that demands
has been justifiable for EMS and fire, and if we were able to give him
a little more concrete direction, he might be able to also advise us on
these other areas, looking at the demand side as opposed to the
population, or also, perhaps, looking at demand as a function of the
population growth trend, so there may be a way to do this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's for fire and EMS.
How does that -- how's that relate to other facilities?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, as I stated, I am told that Mr.
Stewart said if we presented him some more concrete information, he
would take a look at that for us as well.
And what I'm saying I can see demand being a function of
population growth where you could somehow, you know, take the two
figures and corne up -- you know, extrapolate a level of service out of
that that maybe legally defensible.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That may be legally defensible.
Page 274
June 26-27, 2007
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Has that -- has that been
established in a court of law as of right now?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: As far as I know, it has not--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- but Mr. -- as I said, Mr. Stewart
would be willing to look at that for us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you know of any other counties
that are looking at it in that manner other than EMS and fire?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I do not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
I just have some very -- very strong concerns. Like I said, I
believe that we did give you your marching orders and I think that you
-- everybody did a good -- now, if it's a level of service, I know that
we may have some Category B facilities that we may have to take a
look strongly at to see if -- if it's going to be justified.
I can tell you that some libraries have an awful lot of people that
check out books. Even today a lot of people would say, well, there's --
I don't think that's really part of the equation because everybody uses
the internet facilities.
But I don't see it that way. I've been to the library a number of
times and I can see the amount of books that are checked out, so, that's
my -- that's what I've got to add to this conversation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you did.
A couple questions, if! may.
This is built upon actual population or the number of homes that
are in the area. I'm just curious how it works.
Are you taking the number of homes and multiplying it times a
given number?
MR. BOSI: No. This is -- this is based upon population, and it's
done -- it's an exercise that performed under the leadership of David
Weeks in terms of we take our beaver -- we take our beaver estimates,
Page 275
June 26-27, 2007
but then we -- we take -- and census data, but then we actually take
COs issued on a year-to-year basis, and based upon that, we -- we
extrapolate what our new population is going to be based upon the
number of COs that have been issued within a prior year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let me -- let me tell you what
my concerns are. The school system has recognized the fact that our
population is either stabilized or decreasing, I mean, it's at least as far
as school age kids are going.
Am I correct?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know if we're reacting to
what's out there, but I'm not seeing the kind of population out there on
the roads even for this time of year that I normally would see.
I think because of the slow down, we've lost a lot of our service
personnel and they had to move on as they always have to move on
whenever the area suffers an economic downturn.
You have people migrate to another area and they corne back
again when the times are better.
Do we makes adjustments on this -- on the short line scale for
this type of thing? I -- I just don't know if the population is here to
justify the kind of numbers that we have.
MR. BOSI: The -- the -- the approach that David takes, and I
can't get too far into his methodology, is based upon what our
population numbers were for -- for the prior year and then the number
of COs that -- that have been issued, and there's a discount rate in
terms of the occupancy that we can expect from those individual COso
But in terms of an adjustment for a short-term blip, if that blip
doesn't show up in the actual number of COs that -- that are issued,
then that blip could go on unaccounted for -- unaccounted for within --
within that -- that short --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand what--
MR. BOSI: -- that short term.
Page 276
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand, but so -- I mean,
the methodology will never be perfect. I mean, it's impossible.
There's -- there's going to be numbers drifting in one direction, in
another direction, but the whole thing is, and I think this is the think
that the state has tried to impress upon us on what we've been trying to
do here, is we're trying to get down to the point that we meet a basic
need out there, but we don't overproduce.
And let's face it. Every one of our departments out there are
trying to build little fiefdom.
I know that they're going to be insulted by that, but the truth of
the matter is everybody's trying to protect their little bit of turf.
They're trying to protect whatever base they can get for a revenue
source.
I -- I kind of question a lot of things; I -- you know, the EMS
response time and everything. I don't know if it's anything what it was
as far as what we might have experienced in the worst parts of the
season.
I -- I've seen such things as, well, the ALS engines. I had the
good fortune to have breakfast this morning with Chief Brown from
North Naples, and we discussed some of these issues.
He's telling me that we're very heavy in EMS in North Naples
and we desperately need it in the eastern part of Collier County, that
they're doing quite a job to be able to cover it, and we carne up with
the matrix for them to work in. And I understand they're working
within that matrix.
Ifwe have other resources out there, let's utilize it. This brings us
down to saying it's more realistic, and if we can make an adjustment to
the impact fees related to what the actual need is, let's do it.
I think there's some excellent suggestions here. I commend you
and your staff for corning up with these.
Were these suggestions here seeking direction for the 2007
AUIR?
Page 277
June 26-27,2007
Was this what you all were going to present to the Planning
Commission?
MR. BOSI: These were the individual recommendations that
were contained within the -- the components of the AUIRlLOS
workshop, but we haven't had the opportunity because of the
adjournment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's an absolute shame that you
didn't get to that point that you could produce this part, because I think
this is exactly where they wanted to go.
Commissioner Henning brought it up. And if we could have got
to this at some point. If -- if everybody didn't fly off the handle early
on and will let the presentation go forward or if this was made the first
slide maybe while everybody was still in the room, we -- we may have
held their attention long enough to be able to get their feedback in a
meaningful way.
It's regrettable when we have such resources out there and we
can't utilize it fully because of the Planning Commission and the
Productivity Committee.
All right. I think I said enough. However, I do think that we
need to keep looking at the cost factor on this, we need to be to make
adjustments for the population, and where appropriate, we need to be
able to bring down the cost of this as far as the impact fees go.
And with that, we're going to go back to Commissioner Henning
and then can go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just asked that question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. Commissioner Fiala is--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, ifthere's no speakers, I'll
just go ahead and make a motion.
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'll make a motion
to support staffs recommendations and also provide the data door
Page 278
June 26-27, 2007
count on -- on all the capital facilities in A and B to the Planning
Commission so they can make an appropriate recommendation to the
board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
I've got a question that you said Marco and Naples was included in
regards to the AUIR report.
MR. BOSI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did that take in jails, too? Does
Marco and -- and the city have jails?
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
MR. BOSI: They do not. That was -- that -- that incorrect
conclusion was strictly related to -- to law enforcement component.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, like EMS, fire, that you
just basically at this point in time you're going to -- was Marco and
Naples included in fire and EMS?
MR. BOSI: Well, the -- the -- the dependent fire districts serve a
specific geographic area, and the only municipality that's covered by
the two dependent fire districts that -- that are underneath the AUIR
process are Ochopee and -- or the -- the only municipality is
Everglades City, which is within the provision for Ochopee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, what are you talking
about then? What do you really take out of this -- the equation for
Naples and Marco?
MR. BOSI: The community -- in parks, community park land,
does not include the municipalities. Regional park land does include
the municipalities.
For jails, they include the municipalities. For law enforcement,
Page 279
June 26-27, 2007
the -- the populations are not included. EMS, it's -- it's countywide.
Government buildings and -- I should know this -- I believe does
include the -- the populations for the City of Naples and City of
Marco.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, you're going to take that
out? Is that what you're telling -- saying?
MR. BOSI: No. No. The only one that was incorrectly
assigned, because we have to -- we have to include the populations
that -- that are identified within the -- within the impact fees --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- studies.
And -- and the one area where we had the -- the incorrect
allocation of those populations was for law enforcement during the
2006 AUIR.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
MR. BOSI: Weare not going -- we realize that mistake. We're
going to make sure that it's not --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. BOSI: -- that it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You explained that sufficiently.
Thank you very much.
And with that, seeing no other lights on, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
The ayes have it four to zero.
Excellent presentation. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman --
Page 280
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I'm --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- if I could just tell you-
Item #13A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGREE TO (1)
ACCEPT THE FUNDING BEING OFFERED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO COMPLY WITH THE
MANDA TED VOTING SYSTEM CHANGE FOUND IN
CHAPTER 2007-30 AND (2) ABIDE BY THE CONDITIONS
CONTAINED THEREIN - APPROVED W/CHANGE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to -- the next item is going
to be 13A. Is that what you were going to say?
No. Okay. What did you want to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the Planning Commission
wanted to recognize the government buildings within the
municipalities, so it's going to be an issue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's a good issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the end -- you know, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Never can get too much discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- don't make those
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you.
13A, next one, Mr. Mudd, so we can get Miss Jennifer Edwards
back to the elections office.
MR. MUDD: 13 is other constitutional officers, 13A is a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners agree to,
one, accept the funding being offered by the Department of the State
to comply with the mandated voting system change found in Chapter
Page 281
June 26-27, 2007
2007-30 and, number two, abide by the conditions contained therein.
Jennifer Edwards, Supervisor of Elections will present.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
MS. EDWARDS: The title of the Executive Summary has been
presented, and I'd like to take you back though to February.
We have a new Governor and our new Governor has decided that we
should change our voting system in the State of Florida again.
And we've been very pleased with our touch screen system in
Collier County. And we -- I have joined with other supervisors,
formed an alliance with other counties that are total touch screen
counties.
We wrote a white paper, submitted it to the Governor. It was not
even acknowledged, but we expressed our concerns. One of our
concerns, of course, was having to rush into a change in voting
systems in what's going to be the biggest election year this state has
ever seen.
Also, one of our main concerns, and when I went to Tallahassee
and spoke to some of the committees during the legislative session, I
pointed out that many of us still owe for our current systems.
And as a matter of fact, according to the Clerk's Finance
Department, we still owe $2.2 million plus interest totaling $3.1
million on our current system.
However, the Governor did sign the bill and it became law on
May 21 st and they are funding some of the cost, but it's at their
established minimum level.
So, we will need additional funds in addition to what I'm asking
you to authorize today.
The state is funding $27,061,850. This funding actually is
federal funding that was allocated to the state and they have had it
Page 282
June 26-27,2007
available to them over the last few years.
So, they have identified a portion of the funding they have from
federal funds to distribute to the counties.
There are 15 counties that are total touch screen counties that
have to change their system.
After seeing the success of touch screen systems, 14 additional
counties purchased touch screen systems for their early voting.
They're very advantageous to use during the early voting process.
Collier, it is estimated, will receive under this agreement $675,015.41.
That will purchase one optical scanner per precinct and that
includes both early voting and election day.
In order to receive the funds, we must agree to the requirements
in the law that gives the Secretary of State the authority to procure our
new equipment and to dispose of our old equipment.
The secretary by -- by procuring equipment, what he's doing is
negotiating agreements with the vendors. There are essentially three
vendors that are certified in the state for voting equipment and that
will allow for economies of scale when we do make the purchase.
He is also negotiating the sale of the old equipment but, however,
the since the Governor of Florida is decertifying touch screen systems,
then no one else in the United States is going to want touch screen
systems, it seems, and our vendors tell us that they're hopeful there
may be a market in foreign countries, but we do not anticipate a huge
return on this.
They will -- the state will establish a trust fund, and if they do
receive any moneys from the sale of the equipment, the funds will go
into a state trust fund, and we will receive some of the funds to go
against the amount that we still owe on the touch screen system.
My -- of course, the law does state that the board can opt out of
the state funding scheme; however, we will still be required to meet
the letter of the law, which means we would be responsible for
purchasing the equipment and would not -- would not receive any of
Page 283
June 26-27, 2007
the state funding that is being allocated.
I have on the form that is attached to the Executive Summary, I
have one change that I would also like for you to consider, and if you
look at the form, it states in one of the sections in the middle of the
page that for the counties that use ES&S, which is our equipment,
touch screen equipment only, the number of touch screen voting
machines indicated include Ivotronic (phonetic) machines and booth
or Ivotronic machines only.
When we first submitted this, we checked that we would -- would
want to -- to return the Ivotronic machines and their booths.
But given the change in the -- the change that the legislature has
passed and Governor signed as relates to property taxes and the fact
that I've met with each of you and you asked me to please look at
ways that we can cut back, I have changed this to return only the
machines.
We will keep the booths and we will retrofit the old booths and
safe about $170,000 by doing that.
So, I would -- when we submit the -- if -- if you approve this,
when we submit the form, the original form, it will be changed to state
that we will only be returning the Ivotronic machines, Collier County
will keep our booths so we can retrofit those and use them in the
upcoming 2008 elections.
And that concludes my comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jennifer, I'm going to lead offifI
may. And I'm sorry that you have to be the bearer of bad news and we
definitely don't want to shoot the messenger.
We appreciate what you do over there and -- and I know for a
fact that you put the -- you fought the gallant fight up there in
Tallahassee, where you picked up where we left off and went on and
on and on.
I received many phonecalls from you when you were in
Tallahassee and you told me about your frustration, what was taking
Page 284
June 26-27,2007
place.
I'm glad you shared it with me and I shared some of my
frustration with you. But be it as it is, it is what it is.
Now, some of the hard questions that I have to ask and, forgive
me, because I don't want to make the system to become difficult for
our general public, the people that we serve, but in order to be able to
meet the letter of the law, I mean, forget the money that's out there
that we're supposed to get from the state, but it's federal funds, but to
meet the letter of the law, one scanner per election booth, would that
meet the letter of the law?
And I'll tell you where I'm going. It just -- it might not be a
practical idea, but I just want to know what the law says first.
MS. EDWARDS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would. Okay.
Now, this is what I'm thinking, Jennifer, and I -- and it's not to
cause you any heartache and it's not to scare the public out there, but
sometimes we have to get innovative and try to corne up with ways to
make what is handed to us, take lemons and turn it into lemonade to
be able to try to save it from the jaws of defeat.
If we were to go with one scanner per precinct, judging by the
fact now that we have a whole bunch of other things taking place from
early voting to absentee voting, and we put up a campaign to try to
encourage the public to vote absentee, made a -- you've got it very
user friendly now, extremely user friendly, but maybe take it to
another step where we might even be able to find some way to be able
to -- people that want to be able to and vote absentee but they don't
want to mail it in might be able to bring those to the Elections Office
or even possibly bring them to the precincts if we could find some
way around that where they can turn it in.
Okay. I understand, okay, that's illegal. That's off the table. But
the thing is that how can we make this work and involve the public in
it?
Page 285
June 26-27, 2007
It's the public's money that we're spending where we got a
limited resource to work with now, we've got everybody and his
brother looking for that limited pool of funds, and we've got to make it
work.
What's the possibilities of something like this?
MS. EDWARDS: We are looking at different ways to address
this to save money. I will be corning to you Friday morning at my
workshop with those recommendations.
And one of the things that we're doing is we implemented in
2006 new equipment for early voting that's called EBIDS. It's an
electronic poll book, rather the paper poll books.
We use those in early voting and we told you in the budget, prior
budget, that we were going to budget to implement those countywide
for 2008.
Well, one of the changes that I'm going to present to you on
Friday is that we will defer that purchase until the -- and purchase
those over the next two years, so we'll be ready with those in 2010.
So, that's offsetting. It's a significant cost in 301 in order to fund
what we feel we need in 301 to provide the level of service that the
voters need in Collier County.
Now, we -- in 2006, we provided eight early voting sites. We're
going to reduce the sites to seven for 2008.
There's an opportunity to reduce early voting. We provide early
voting in a minimum of seven sites over the past so that we can
provide that level of service to our voters.
Do we -- if we offer it in Naples, do we want to offer it in
Immokalee, do we want to offer in on Marco?
Those are decisions that we can -- we can look at. However,
early voting has been successful statewide, and it's been very
successful in this community and I encourage that we continue to
provide that service.
Now, when you talk about number of machines, and the state is
Page 286
June 26-27, 2007
funding one scanner for each precinct on election day in each early
voting site, based on the 2006 general election, so that means we'll get
102 scanners.
But one scanner at Orange Blossom for early voting is not going
to be sufficient. So, what we're doing is looking at the turnout in those
areas, and we're going to equip them accordingly.
Right now we're estimating about five of those at -- the scanners
at Orange Blossom. We can take another look at that.
But it's also important, as you said, that the voters, that the
public, understand that if we reduce the level of service, then there are
going to be lines. And we don't want to get them discouraged and
leave their line.
We have already begun discussions on promoting absentee
voting. I wholeheartedly agree with that. And we're talking to our --
our state association. And I'm an officer of that state association.
We have a public relations firm that works with us for voter
outreach, and he will be including that in one of his promotional items
also.
Our philosophy is if you're going to vote paper, why not vote
paper in the comfort of your own home?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the thing is, is if we can
convince the public on this, maybe we might be able to put off these
outfit scanners at sometime in the distant future if we need more.
MS. EDWARDS: But--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm just -- I'm just questioning now,
early voting, I would encourage it. If you already have the optical
scanners, you're not going to be able to -- you can use as many as you
want in the early voting, so I would try to increase the early voting to
be able -- to move as many people as possible.
Use the resources you've got to be able to maximize it rather than
cut back on early voting and then maybe we might be able to get away
with one of them per -- per -- per precinct as --
Page 287
June 26-27, 2007
MS. EDWARDS: We're going to look at the -- the number we
can use on election day, but one of the changes that this equipment
brings to us is that the scanner must be programmed for precinct and
for early voting. And we cannot change the programming by law
between early voting and the precincts.
So, we have to have individual scanners programmed based on
the ballot styles.
This -- and -- and -- and I'd like to add, too, that the scanners are
called DS200s. They have not been certified by the state. They have
not been manufactured.
We'll be using new equipment again that we have not used in the
past. So, we're -- we're looking forward to an interesting 2008
election year.
And -- and we are looking at -- at the number of equipment that
will be used in the primary versus the general. And I'm also going to
be recommending to you on Friday that we defer the purchase of some
of those scanners, those additional scanners, that we feel we need until
the next budget year because I think we'll need more in the general
than we'll need in the primary.
So, we will be deferring some costs to help -- to help in this year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for what you're
doing and I'm going to turn this over to Commissioner Halas.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I find this very interesting. First of
all, we're about seven months away for having a primary election and
we've got equipment that's not been certified yet.
And I believe you said that we've got $27 million that's being put
down to the state to address this, voting machines.
Is that correct?
Does the state fund -- or, I mean, federal funding to the state;
right?
MS. EDWARDS: Correct. Correct.
Page 288
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, here the Governor signs a law.
Now, what -- what amount of money are we getting from the state, not
being transferred from the federal government to the state, but I'm
talking about what's the state going to kick in on this?
MS. EDWARDS: Zero.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Zero? Isn't that interesting?
MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh. This is federal funds.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, they're getting their
house in order by passing this down, another mandate for us to take
care of a voting problem, and I can see where we're going to have fun
in 2008. I think we're going to be reliving the year 2000 again.
MS. EDWARDS: We're going back to voter intent issues with
paper ballots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I think what we're
going -- well, not only that, but if we end up whereby we can't provide
enough machines for a level of service that the people here in the State
of Florida have corne to realize and expect, and they have to go to the
polls and wait there for an hour or two hours to vote, I can see where
whoever wins the election, the opposition is going to be out in full
force, and we're going to relive 2000 again.
And I can't believe that this state is taking on this. They signed
something in law, yet they haven't put any -- forth any money other
than the money that's corne down from the federal government on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I don't -- I think -- I think
Commissioner Henning was first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ladies are always first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll take that opportunity.
Jennifer, I know that this is rather a unusual question, but when the
Governor signed that into law, did the law say that everybody in
Florida had to use that same machine or that the voters would have an
option of either using this machine that he feels that the voters wanted
Page 289
June 26-27, 2007
or using some of the equipment we already have on hand that seems to
not only have been popular, but a very workable system?
MS. EDWARDS: The law says that we will have a -- we will
use optical scanned ballots, and it also says that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's paper ballots.
MS. EDWARDS: That's paper ballots. And it also states that we
can only use touch screen machines for those who are disabled, and
those are the machines that have the audio capability.
We have 125 of those in this county, and we will retain those,
because we'll be able to use those in the next two election cycles.
But the law says that by 2012 we can't use those. The vendors
will have to corne forward with something else that will provide the
capability for a visually impaired voter to be able to verify how they
voted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, just to get this figure straight for
me --
MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- how many counties did you say had
gone to touch tone -- or touch -- touch screen?
MS. EDWARDS: There are 15 totally touch screen counties and
the 15 of us vote over half of the voters in the state.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, what --
MS. EDWARDS: And -- excuse me. But let me tag onto that,
that an additional 14 counties also use touch screen for their early
voting.
And -- and the reason for that is at early voting sites, we're
required to have every ballot style. And in the past, we had maybe 37
ballot styles in the 2006 general election.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, for our county, which probably
would be considered a lot smaller than Dade and -- and Broward, and
they're also on that touch screen?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, they are.
Page 290
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So, we're losing not only
$3.1 million, but then we have to go and buy a new system entirely
before another -- what, million and a half, so, say, that's four million --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's not certified.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and it's not certified. That's four
million. That's just for our county.
MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if you -- if you multiply that by
the 15 counties plus how many extras they're going to need, this has
cost the State of Florida $100,000,000 for -- to change our voting
system that has been working perfectly well, and -- and they're not
giving us anything for that $100,000,000.
Is that what you're saying?
I -- I just wanted to --
MS. EDWARDS: Well, they're giving us --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- demonstrate--
MS. EDWARDS: They're not giving us anything. They're
sharing their -- their federal funds with us, but I want -- I also wanted
to -- to explain the comment I made about ballot styles.
With this new system, because there's scanners now, and they
have to be programmed for each precinct, we will be required to print
our ballots by precinct.
So, for the primary, we will have over 300 ballot styles. So, what
that means is at early voting, you're going to be able to walk in and
have your ballot style available, and it's got to be paper.
So, the state in this funding is also including funding for us to
buy what's called ballot on demand, so when the voter walks into an
early voting site, we can print your ballot. It's a printer.
We can print your ballot for -- for you, but, of course, we're looking at
innovative ways to -- to -- to address that, too, in this county.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My last comment, I'm sure glad I'm
not going to be on the canvassing board next year. Oh, gosh.
Page 291
June 26-27, 2007
MS. EDWARDS: That's a decision that will -- you all will --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I wanted --
MS. EDWARDS: -- be asked --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Brock to --
MS. EDWARDS: -- to make in a few months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so I can't be, you see.
MS. EDWARDS: I know. I know. And thank you for your
servIces.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're going to be here for weeks.
Thank you.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to make a motion to
approve with the recommendations of the changes by the supervisor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I also want to say I'm going
to still go to the polls because I enjoy the campaign hecklers and what
propaganda they're putting out.
MS. EDWARDS: Good for you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is that an improvement you have
stated, Mr. Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Fiala, and I
want to talk about it a little bit.
So, you said that you wanted to break this up in several little
bites?
How did you want to do this again, Jennifer?
What exactly are we asking for here?
MS. EDWARDS: I'm asking you to authorize -- for you to be
authorized to sign the agreement, and what we will do is we will bring
the original agreement document to you and we are going to change
Page 292
June 26-27,2007
one piece of it, whereby we're not going to turn in the booths to the
state.
We're going to keep those booths in -- in Collier County and
retrofit them to save some money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But you're looking for the full
funding this year?
MS. EDWARDS: Well, I'm going to present my budget to you
on Friday.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: What I'm asking you today is to authorize this
agreement to receive the funding that the state is going to provide,
which is over $600,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, that -- that's the only thing
we're agreeing to --
MS. EDWARDS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- today.
MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't agreed to purchase new
machines.
MS. EDWARDS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have no problem with that.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me understand this. So, we're
going to have to print ballots, so are you telling me we're going to
have to also purchase Xerox machines, printing machines?
MS. EDWARDS: No. That's part of the state funding. We will
have to purchase a few additional so we'll have enough to meet the
service level, but part of the funding includes what's called ballot on
demand, which is a concept and a process that has never been used
before in Florida and has only been used, I think, in two locations
across the country.
That means that we will be printing a ballot when the voter walks
Page 293
June 26-27, 2007
into the early voting site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, if we decide not to turn in
our voting booths that we're going to retrofit them --
MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- with the new machines, do you
foresee that the state will deduct the amount of money that they're
going to give us for the machines that we're going to turn in?
Are they assuming that we're going to also give the voting booths
to them, too?
MS. EDWARDS: That's a requirement in the law. If you want
state funding, you must enter into this agreement that turns our
equipment over to the Secretary of State.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does that equipment include the
voting booth?
MS. EDWARDS: No. We can opt out the voting booth.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: That's why I've decided to do that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you'll still get the funding--
MS. EDWARDS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that they've said that they'll give
us if we sign this agreement?
MS. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.
As a matter of fact, I called --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: -- the Secretary of State last week and talked
to him and said, I want to hear from your mouth that we're going to at
least get this money, and he said, yes, we will, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did you get that by letter?
MS. EDWARDS: No, I haven't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think you'd better get a letter. Get
a signed letter.
MS. EDWARDS: We do in this agreement.
Page 294
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. EDWARDS: There's a backup there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, no more questions,
no more comments, all those in favor of Commissioner Henning's
motion, seconded by Commissioner Fiala, indicate at this time by
saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it four to one.
Thank you very much, Jennifer.
MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Four to zero.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: The vote was four to zero.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four to zero, yes. I'm sorry. I didn't
-- I wasn't -- didn't clarify that. The vote was four to zero.
Item # 1 OJ
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FIND THAT A
V ANDERBIL T BEACH FISHING PIER QUALIFIES AS A
BEACH PARK FACILITY AND APPROVE A PROPOSAL
DATED APRIL 30, 2007 UNDER CONTRACT 06-3902 WITH
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING (CP&E) TO
PERFORM A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO BUILD A
V ANDERBIL T BEACH FISHING PIER. STUDY WILL BE
PERFORMED ON A TIME AND MATERIAL BASIS, NOT TO
EXCEED $29,932 - APPROVE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10J, which
Page 295
June 26-27,2007
used to be 16D(I).
And this is to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners find that a Vanderbilt Beach fishing pier qualifies as a
beach park facility and approve of proposal dated April 30th, 2007
under Contract 06-3902 with Coastal Planning and Engineering,
CP&E, to perform a feasibility study to build a Vanderbilt Beach
fishing pier.
Study will be performed on a time and material basis not to
exceed $29,932.
The item was moved from the consent to the regular agenda by
Commissioner Halas. And Mr. Gary McAlpin, your Director of
Coastal Planning will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The reason I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go -- let me introduce you.
Okay?
Commission Halas, would you please go ahead?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The reason I pulled this is
that I'd like to have this study go forth, but I also wanted to make sure
that everything was brought forth out in the sunshine.
There's been one or two communities that have been concerned
that this was hidden and it wasn't brought forth, so I just want to sure
that we had an open discussion on this before we went forward with
the vote.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin,
Coastal Zone Management.
Yes, commissioner, we will completely vet this after we have
completed the study. Our study will take about 90 days to complete,
and then by the time we add to that with a parking analysis with the
traffic study, with an operational plan, then we'll vet it with the entire
community and -- and all affected parties and then bring it back to the
board at that point in time, commissioner.
Page 296
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. He's missing in action.
So, you're going -- in -- in this you're going to do a traffic
analysis?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, we will. There has been some concerns
about congestion there and we will do a parking study and a traffic
analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that will be a part of this
29,000?
MR. McALPIN: It will be a part of this plan and staff will do
that. The staff will do that part of the program, commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, the county staff.
MR. McALPIN: Yes. We'll work either -- if we can't
sufficiently conduct it ourselves and we'll corne back to you and ask
for additional funds for parking and a traffic analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't -- what is it, the Vanderbilt
Beach Extension in that area, is that considered politically strained?
Mr. Feder would know. I know there's a lot of traffic on there and I
think it's constraint --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Politically constrained for --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for letting the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A number of years, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For what, a hundred years?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: For -- I don't know. It's been there
for a number of years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, a number of years.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I -- yeah. But I don't believe
that that's going to have that large of an impact. I think we can
probably work around that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What -- what --
MR. FEDER: In answer to your question, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. FEDER: -- for the record, Norman Feder--
Page 297
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: -- Transportation Administrator.
Yes, that is in our Growth Management Plan as a constrained
facility based on board decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't know if you'd
know this right off the top of your head.
Do you monitor the level of service?
MR. FEDER: Yes, we do. And we've got traffic counts and I'd
have to get those figures for you. I don't have them.
Of course, we'll share them through this process --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- with an approximate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Gulf Shore Drive, is that a part
of a level of service or not?
MR. FEDER: I'm not sure we do traffic counts on Gulf Shore
Drive, and we don't monitor that because it's not on our major
transportation network. Of course, Vanderbilt Road to its extension to
the end is on our network.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. FEDER: We can get traffic counts on Gulf Shore Drive by I
don't believe we keep them on a regular basis, and it's not one that we
look at relative to our level of service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So, even if you did
traffic counts -- well, I guess you can base it upon two -- two-lane
roadway --
MR. FEDER: Yeah. Volume.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you can give a -- give a --
MR. FEDER: We can always do a capacity analysis, highway
capacity and other issues, but that section of roadway, I don't think
capacity is really the issue. It's -- pedestrian is slow.
The others you're looking at more of a movement, that's more of
a local street.
Page 298
June 26-27,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
MR. FEDER: It's on the county system, but it's more localized.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, I would hope
that we would do that traffic study first before we approve this item. I
think this item is very noble.
My concern is, you know, we -- we tell everybody else that
you're not going to impact our roads below the level of service, and
then the second thing is there's a fire station over there.
So, there's two concerns; is what are we telling the public, that --
that we don't adhere to our own rules.
The second thing is, how is that going to impact that fire station
and its -- its ability to go west to serve the residents in that area?
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, the reason we wanted to move
forward with this study is because before we -- we need to find out
from a DEP point of view if this is permittible or not.
And certainly one of the critical areas that they're going to look at
is the near-shore hard-bottom and the configuration of a pier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. McALPIN: So, I think that that is -- that's part of this that
we've got to wrap up together and see that even before -- you know,
we -- we need to look at it all in conjunction, but what's going to
determine the feasibility of the pier in addition to some of these other
issues, I believe, is going to be DEP.
So, we want to try to sort that out and pull that out of them and
we think we could do that within a 90-day period.
At the same time we exercise the rest of these items.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think this item is very noble,
but my concern is -- is traffic. And I don't think the government is
above its own law. And I think that takes precedent over everything
else.
That's what I would -- and -- and nothing against this item.
Whoever brought it up, it's a good one, but I'm -- I want to know what
Page 299
June 26-27, 2007
-- how -- what the impacts are going to be to the -- to Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension and what -- what the level of service it is now.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we're -- we're looking for the
feasibility study, not necessarily funding to do the engineering, but
just the really upfront to really put some -- the skeleton together, if
you would, to see if we -- we have a project here that we can in fact do
this again.
That would be the -- the parking -- the parking analysis with the
parking garage there, and the traffic analysis would be part of this as
opposed -- in addition to an operational plan --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: -- that busts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. I misunderstood,
because what you said before is staff is going to do this. It's not a part
of this.
And, in fact, I didn't see it in the agenda, so I apologize for my
misunderstanding. It was just based upon what you said.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Coletta for approval.
Any other discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it.
Thank you very much.
Page 300
June 26-27, 2007
MR. McALPIN: Thank you.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public comments now?
MR. MUDD: Which brings us to public comments on general
topics, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have anyone --
MS. FILSON: I have no--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- for public comments?
MS. FILSON: I have no public comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anyone in the audience that
meant to turn in a slip for public comment?
Okay. Public comments, the chair recognize Commissioner Torn
Cannon from the East Naples Fire Department.
MR. CANNON: Hi. I'm Torn Cannon, Chairman of the East
Naples Fire Control District.
There's been a couple of things that carne before your
commission the last month. One is the ALS MOU, which was
approved by the commissioners and approved by the City of Naples
and the City of Marco, not approved by East Naples or North Naples.
Let me explain why. All we're trying to do is get the language
changed to suit our attorney, but now we're told it can't be done
because the BCC already approved it.
I sat in the meeting here in a workshop where Commissioner
Coyle made a statement, just because staff agreed to it doesn't mean
the commission agreed to it.
And that's what we have here. North Naples or East Naples
didn't agree to the language.
There's -- there's -- it was a poorly written document. And when we
Page 301
June 26-27, 2007
turned it over to our attorney, we wanted it corrected.
Now, we're told we can't. That's one issue but I'll let you know.
East Naples approved it as a poorly written document because we
want the program to go forward.
We'd still like to get the language changed and corrected and let
the attorneys work it out, but we're always told, can't do it, it's got to
go back to the BCC, you know.
Let's have a document here agreeable by both parties, but we've
approved it because we want the program to go forward.
Two weeks ago you approved the task force to study fire code in
building. I heard so many statements; fire departments didn't want to
play. It never carne from the fire department.
I don't want to play, but I'm not speaking for the fire department.
The fire departments wanted to play.
By the time I knew this was on the agenda, it was two o'clock in
the morning, Tuesday morning, and I couldn't get here.
We want to playas a department. Personally, it's a waste of time,
my opinion. We didn't know it was going to be on the agenda.
Excuse me for being on vacation the week before, but I hate
reading the paper about how fire departments didn't want to play
because you never heard it from the fire departments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I help you a little bit,
Commissioner Cannon?
MR. CANNON: Yes, you may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I realize you were on vacation. You
probably didn't hear the whole gist of what took place.
But one of the things we did is we recognized that there's still
vacancies on there and we're going to be advertising. And we'd love
to have you apply for that vacancy. There's--
MR. CANNON: Somebody from our district will apply.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We hope it's you.
MR. CANNON: No.
Page 302
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. CANNON: Too much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we hope it's not you.
MR. CANNON: Too much on my plate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay, sir. We understand.
Let's -- we have a couple of commissioners that would like to address
some of the issues that you have, talking about Commissioner Fiala's
first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. First of all, I -- I don't know
if we have two vacancies left, but I know that we should have two
vacancies left because as long as the fire department -- and I'm -- I'm
-- I'm guessing that Commissioner Cannon is speaking for all because
he's the chairman of that group anyway, that they want to participate.
I want him to. I -- I think that we all want him to.
MR. CANNON: I'm only really speaking for East Naples.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you?
MR. CANNON: I can tell you that two weeks ago on Tuesday
we added on our agenda to name somebody, but that was after -- a few
hours after you already approved somebody.
Golden Gate had it on their agenda the day after.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I would like them to
submit those, and just like we received from the City of Naples and
for City of Marco Island for an appointee from, as they always do, and
we just automatically do that rather than have a list of people that we
have an appointee from each one. I would like to see that happen
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's -- let's talk to Mrs. Filson about
that because she's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the one -- what was the directions
we gave you as being --
MS. FILSON: The direction you gave me was not to advertise
Page 303
June 26-27,2007
until further notice. And if you're ready for me to advertise, I'll be
glad to do that.
When I initially advertised, I sent the advertisement to every fire
chief. I sent it to a contact person who made sure that everyone
received it and the deadline.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You really did? I mean, how --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What was it; like the day before you
sent it?
MS. FILSON: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How many days did you give it; two
or three days before they carne up before us?
How much notice was --
MS. FILSON: No. I advertise for three weeks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay. And you sent out the
letters three weeks prior?
MS. FILSON: Yes. Well--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they have --
MS. FILSON: Prior than that because then it takes me a couple
of weeks to get it on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you be so kind as to
prepare a time line that we could send to Commissioner Cannon of
exactly what it was that was sent and a copy of the letter that was sent
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- so he doesn't think that the county
was trying to pull a fast one.
MS. FILSON: And -- and--
MR. CANNON: I don't think -- I don't think I said that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I know that, but I just want to
make sure there's no misunderstandings about where we are. We're
trying to play this thing to involve as many people as possible.
Page 304
June 26-27, 2007
And, you know, we did leave it open.
How many vacancies are there?
MS. FILSON: I'm not sure if there's one or two, because you did
appoint the one girl who -- and I have her down as large. I think her
last name is Nickel. I don't recall her first name.
But I sent the press release to each fire chief and then -- and I
don't recall the person's name because I called downstairs to get all the
e-mail addresses, and she had one contact person that we sent it to,
and she said she would ensure that they all got it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
then that we -- that -- that we ask each -- well, I would like to have
them appointed just as we do from the City of Naples, the City of
Marco Island, that the Golden Gate and East Naples fire departments
appoint one person each to this committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: The committee has already been established
with the rules of engagement, so I guess Miss Fiala's motion if it were
taken in context to try to make at applicable would be that we're
looking to revise the standard, the resolution that was put in place as a
standard for the committee to achieve what she has just requested.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, but could you just say that
MR. WEIGEL: A resolution has gone in place creating this
committee. And I believe what you're asking is a deviation from what
the resolution provides for and as the makeup of the committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, what you -- now, let me just see
if I understand what you're just trying to say here.
You're saying that the -- the resolution says but that people have
to apply to be on the committee rather than being appointed?
Is that what you're saying?
MR. WEIGEL: No. I think you're creating a kind of a special
exception for these positions or these entities to participate, which is a
Page 305
June 26-27, 2007
little bit contrary to the standard you put in place with the resolution
you've already adopted.
Miss Filson may correct me if!'m wrong.
So, if you wish -- as a board today, wish to achieve what you're --
what you're suggesting, then you will -- your vote -- part of your vote
would be to amend the resolution to provide this desire that you're
expressing right now.
MS. FILSON: I believe the resolution says that you will make
appointments representing the fire departments from names that they
have submitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: That it says -- and I don't know what the exact
wording is, but it says something like, but not limited to.
And since no one applied, then you appointed two people who
they had not given the names. So, that leaves one vacancy.
And I will have to double check that to be sure I don't have the
file with me now.
So, I think what David is trying -- is trying to say, that you'll
have to admit the resolution, indicating that you want the specific fire
departments to submit -- submit names to participate in this committee
task force.
MR. WEIGEL: And if you -- and if you wish to do that, and we
have that understanding, we can -- we can amend that resolution
without any further board action if you take that vote today directly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let -- let me point out a tremendous
pit fall in this whole thing.
East Naples, Golden Gate, you're going to ask Immokalee is
going to say, what happened to us? You're going to have Corkscrew
corning back real quick and saying, well, if they've got a place on the
table, they're guaranteed it. We can manage a place.
Pretty soon you're going to have that imbalance again or it's going to
be another committee that's going to be mainly fire people rather than
Page 306
June 26-27, 2007
a mixture we were trying to add.
I think there's one vacancy. And if we want to keep that open, if
we want to approach it later to increase the committee, we might want
to consider that, but I -- I can't see how we can actually say this is an
East Naples seat or a Golden Gate seat.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, how about--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's open to any fire district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about filling the one seat and --
and creating an alternate position?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you've still got to leave it open.
If you -- if you cite specific to East Naples or Golden Gate or
Corkscrew or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or Marco Island, you've got a real
problem.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's hope that anybody on the fire
district that wants to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- really get involved --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Open -- open to anybody and get
their application in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's one -- that's right. There's
one position open, and so then they can bring all their applications
forward. And what --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe the lady that has been --
MR. CANNON: I think -- I think if you would check at your--
the person that you appointed at large, I don't think she really wanted
to be on it frankly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then some --
MS. FILSON: She submitted an application.
MR. CANNON: She was the secretary of one of the applicants.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then she ought to submit a--
Page 307
June 26-27, 2007
MS. FILSON: She submitted an application--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- resignation then.
MS. FILSON: -- commissioner, and she was not a registered
voter. I called her and said, in order to be on this committee, you have
to be a registered voter. She registered to vote -- to vote and brought
her registration in to me.
And -- and she indicated that she was interested.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If she's not interested enough, she
can always turn in her resignation and we've got two spots open.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I -- I think the motion would be
appropriate if we advertise it at this time for the vacancy.
MS. FILSON: For -- for one member--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I don't--
MS. FILSON: -- representing a fire --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- I wouldn't want to change the
ordinance without having to re-advertise it and bring everybody back
in on it.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself.
MS. FILSON: And I'll prepare--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's my personal opinion.
MS. FILSON: -- a memo to you with -- with a time line of what
-- of the actions I took in response to this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
MS. FILSON: And I'll prepare a memo to the entire board on the
time line of the process I did on the appointments for this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then that will be my motion,
that we re-advertise for this position.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And did I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I'll second that.
Page 308
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So, we have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have -- it's interesting that
you brought forth that North Naples wasn't satisfied with the
agreement because the night of my town hall meeting, the fire
commissioners said, hey, we've corne to resolution and we've got it
solved.
MR. CANNON: Well, that's funny because we both used the
same attorney.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm just telling you what was
told in front of me eye -- eye to eye, saying that we've taken care of
this and it's taken care of.
Then I think we had a -- a meeting with some of the people from
North Naples and we discussed some verbiage, and it was my
understanding when we broke up, that everything was taken care of.
So, I'm not sure what's taken -- what transpired after that, but all
parties agreed to the -- the language and -- and the verbiage that was
going to be put in the agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner, can -- could we first
vote on this thing --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and then discuss that issue --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- next --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You're correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because that was my next
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The motion before us is to
re-advertise for the position that's available.
All those in favor of that, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 309
June 26-27,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
The ayes have it four to zero.
Thank you for bringing that to us. Now--
MS. FILSON: And I'll make sure that I send it personally to fire
district.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, my second question was,
Commissioner Cannon was referring to just some wording that he
needed -- or that their attorney recommended they change around, but
you never mentioned what kind of wording.
Could you tell us about that?
MR. CANNON: I don't have those papers with me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I happened to have one here, if
you'd like to read it or I --
MR. CANNON: I have to say I'm at a disadvantage. Chief
Shank was the one working on this and he's out on illness for awhile,
so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Here's -- I could -- I have to
tell you about Chief Shank. He's had a minor stroke and he's home
and he's so young, too. He's in his fifties; 55 or 53, something like
that.
MR. CANNON: 56.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 56. So, he's -- he's having some
tremendous health problems right now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry to hear it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway, this thing that I received
was -- we have no problem complying with the F AC regarding
replacing a vehicle that is out of service.
However, the agreement does not even recognize that we are not
in violation with the agreement if we replaced the vehicle for the -- per
Page 310
June 26-27, 2007
the F AC.
Would you like me to read on?
MR. CANNON: Basically, what that means, if we take a vehicle
out of service to get routine maintenance, then we're actually in
violation, because there's no provisions in there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- I think what the intent of that was
to make sure that there's X number of resources out there. It was to be
able to identify a dependable source.
In other words, if you can independently remove something from
there, there's a vacuum when we're -- we're trying to build our -- our
EMS needs around, which you're going to do with the ALS engines.
If you fall short on it, then we have a shortage with EMS. So, in
other words, it has science predictable. I can understand how that
language is in there the way it is.
MR. CANNON: Yeah, but--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, he's supposed to have
a backup. I -- I --
MR. CANNON: We do have a backup, but if it's not licensed--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh.
MR. CANNON: -- as an ALS engine, we can't place it in service
and do the maintenance on that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we bring this item back? I
think it's important enough that we have the right staff people here and
that we -- I'm sorry.
What were you going to say?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Miss Delpedio is going to --
MR. MUDD: Miss Delpedio is that the -- is the party that's been
working on it at the County Attorney's Office.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Do you care to corne into
this conversation and help to enlighten us --
MS. DELPEDIO: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to make the right decisions?
Page 311
June 26-27, 2007
MS. DELPEDIO: Jennifer Delpedio, Assistant County Attorney.
I have to tell you I'm pretty disappointed to hear what I had just heard
from the chief, respectfully, but my understanding is that the
agreement that was drafted was reviewed by the respective chiefs of
the districts.
It's -- it's not so much that the revisions are unacceptable.
Certainly we can work with the district and make them. Certainly we
can put in a provision that addresses what happens if an agreement --
if -- if an ambulance vehicle is out of service for the repair. That's
certainly reasonable. We can do that.
The concern is that we've already been to this commission. The
commission has approved the agreement as written.
My understanding again has been that the chiefs have approved
the agreement. So, I'm not so sure right now, you know, where we go
from here.
It -- it might be that we corne back to the board with another
agreement that addresses the concerns.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that that would be a good
idea if -- if there -- there was one sticking point. It would be a good
idea to corne back, you working with their attorney, and just corne
back for a little revision to it.
We're all trying to work together here. We're not taking sides and
we're not drawing lines and, so, I feel that that's most important.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. The most important thing is, is
regardless of who is right, who is wrong --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- that we serve the public in an
efficient manner and provide for the safety that is needed. And I don't
care whose side that falls on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, do you think you could work
Page 312
June 26-27, 2007
with their attorney and with Commissioner Cannon and -- and work
out something so that at our next meeting you can --
MS. DELPEDIO: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Get the North Naples Fire
Department that you've got it worked out and work with also, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
MR. CANNON: Same attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. I'd like to--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to jump in a moment if I could here, and
that is the County Attorney or the Assistant County Attorneys, of
course, are working with staff, in this case, the EMS staff, and -- and
so we have not independently worked with their attorney, with whom
we know and we work with quite well.
So, the staff communicates with the chiefs and the chiefs
communicate with their attorney.
Now, in regard to timing and when an item corne up -- comes
before this Board of County Commissioners such as this agreement
and got proved, as Miss Delpedio indicates, to the extent that the
County Attorney Office has knowledge, our knowledge is only that
we know that it's gone over and purportedly been addressed with the
chiefs.
One of the reasons that we don't contact the attorneys directly is
because those attorneys are working at the behest of their clients and
they may be charging for hourly and that kind of thing and it's -- it's
importune for us to go directly to the attorneys.
That relationship is between the attorney and client of the -- of the fire
districts.
But to the extent that they have changes that they would wish to
have implemented into the agreement, all that Jennifer's indicating is
that by virtue of the fact that it's been approved by the board, it would
just corne back to the board. That's all.
Page 313
June 26-27, 2007
And there is plenty of time under the prior agreements that we
know are working toward closure, there's still plenty of time to bring it
back to the board whether it's July --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's good. I think that maybe
one of the little problems might have been that -- that we were
working with the chiefs and not with the -- the decision-makers like
the commissioners.
It's just like when somebody's working with our staff, and we're
not bothered -- we're not included in it, and all of a sudden we don't
know anything and it's corning before us or not corning before us at
all, and -- and yet we'll be responsible for the outcome.
So, I think the circle needs to be just a little bit wider. So, please
do talk with -- with them and their attorneys and see what you can do
so that it -- it satisfies all of the fire boards.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think that we pretty well
worked this to the point where we got something towards resolution.
Mr. Cannon, we thank you very much for corning in today.
MR. CANNON: If -- if! have a -- your word that we're going to
work on this, I'll sign this agreement and let's get this rolling.
CHAIRMAN CO LETT A: We just -- by per the instructions we
just gave.
MR. CANNON: I heard that, but I want to reemphasize just
because a chief officer agrees to it does not mean the board agrees to it
for the attorneys agree to it.
MS. DELPEDIO: I would like to point out that as our staff has
worked through our office, my expectation was that the chiefs would
have worked through their attorneys as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm not going to guarantee the
outcome for it, but we're going to guarantee you that there's going to
be talk taking place back and forth.
MR. CANNON: Thank you.
MS. DELPEDIO: Okay. Good.
Page 314
June 26-27, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CANNON: Good luck on your workshop and have a good
vacation --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. CANNON: -- or resist, whatever you want to call it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. That concludes public comments.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the only -- the only item that I had
was to remind Commissioner Coyle that he wanted to talk to the board
about renaming the Water Quality Park to the Freedom Park because
the Water Quality Park, people are trying to figure out where it is.
That's that -- that's that 50-acre parcel that we purchased, okay, to do
stormwater --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Over there by the zoo?
MR. MUDD: It's up just north of the street, just north of the zoo
above it. It's in the -- it's in the northwest quadrant of Goodlette-Frank
Road and Golden Gate Parkway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me help you.
Mr. Mudd, put it on the consent agenda for the next meeting.
And if anybody wants to get into a deep discussion on it, we'll pull it
from there.
We'll work with Commissioner Coyle to be able to corne together
with the parameters for it.
MR. MUDD: Can -- can -- what he was looking for was board --
board direction that the staff could corne back with the resolution so
naming the water -- the Water Quality Park the Freedom Park,
Page 3 15
June 26-27, 2007
because that's where the 9/11 monument's going to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I have no problem with it, but
what I would do is just go ahead and put it on the consent agenda and
then we --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I just need to see three nods --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You got it.
MR. MUDD: -- and then the resolution will corne and -- and the
reason for it is you're not going to have -- your meeting on the 11 th of
September, okay, of this year, is also the anniversary of the 9/11
attack and that will be in the evening, and he wanted to make sure that
the resolution does get done and it's -- the naming is done, that that's
part of that ceremony.
And, so, that's why the timing issue is there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The timing issues is there.
MR. MUDD: That's all I've got, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing further. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. One of the items that we
didn't fully discuss yesterday, and that was under Item 9C, where we
gave direction to Sue Filson and others that may be involved in the
search for the attorney.
We -- I think we need to give her some guidance in regards to the
head hunter firms that we might look into and the number that we
want to interview of the head hunter firms in regards to this.
My thoughts are maybe the top three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So--
MS. FILSON: And -- and, if I may interject --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
Page 316
June 26-27, 2007
MS. FILSON: -- Mr. Halas, I have Steve Carnell here who could
walk you through the process and give a short presentation if you'd
like?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Short presentation outlining our -- our
choices so that we can move forward on that.
MR. CARNELL: Sure. Okay. For the record, Steve Carnell,
Purchasing General Services Director.
Let me describe what we have set up at the moment.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We are prepared based on
your action yesterday to issue the RFP for the recruiting firm
tomorrow. And it will-- the proposals would be received on Monday,
July 23rd, the day before your next scheduled meeting.
And at this point we have ten firms in our sites to contact to
invite to participate. That includes six in the State of Florida, who we
received through the Florida Bar.
We don't know how many of those are going to submit at this
point, and you also don't know when you look at the submittals, how
close and how competitive they'll be. You may have two or three that
are neck and neck. You may have one that just stands out above the
others right from the get go.
So, those are always the variables that we deal with in a selection
process. But the way the process is set up now, we were scheduled to
give you an update on the 24th in terms of how many proposals we
receive, and then we were going to set the process, the balance of the
process, up with your consensus at that point.
And that would again be driven. Do we have nine submissions,
do we have three? There may be a little difference in terms of how we
handle things, but the plan was to -- to review the proposals in my
department with -- in coordination with Miss Filson to determine
who's minimally qualified.
Now, we were not going to try to parse the proposals or bring
you a top three. We were going to bring you the ones that were#
Page 3 17
June 26-27, 2007
minimally qualified, that had given a -- that were fully responsive to
the requirements of the RFP and were minimally qualified based on
how the RFP defined qualifications.
That's the way we're set up at the moment. And then we were
going to corne back.
We were also going to -- roughly, within a week of that July 23rd
submission deadline, we were going to provide you the qualified
proposals.
Do you mean each of the five of you individually with you all
serving as a selection committee, and then we would -- that would
give you the month of August to read the proposals.
We were also going to give you scoring sheets based on the RFP
and a little cheat sheet in terms of how to complete the form and then
have you corne back on September 11 th, and this is very similar to
how we do our staff selection committees, have you corne back on
September 11 th with the firm's what we call scored in pencil, maybe
not literally but a tentative score.
And it's based on -- based on what I've read, here's where I
believe I am with each of the firms. And you do that as an individual
score.
Then you corne in on the 11 th and we'll have a dialogue about
what did you see. And at that point, you can finalize your scores, and
we would total them here and determine your order of firms.
And then we would make a decision, do you have enough
information to pick one firm or do you need to bring three in to
interview, or whatever number it might be, and you might -- I see
three basic options. You could pick somebody without interviewing,
you could pick one to interview if there had been a clear cut number
one on paper.
They corne in. It's their job to lose, so to speak, in a follow-up
interview with the five of you or the third option would be what
Commissioner Halas suggested, where you bring in, say, the top three.
Page 318
June 26-27, 2007
But my suggestion to you is if you do it on the 24th, you kind of
sort through it then. The one advantage of that is you know exactly
how many proposals you have, at least so it's a little easier to structure
the process at that point, but it's up to the preference of the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is head hunter firms--
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- on the 24th.
MR. CARNELL: That's all we're talking about that day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and then --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you got -- and you just need
direction?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. I had --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You got a nod here, a nod
here, a nod there.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a question after Sue.
MS. FILSON: And my question is, Steve, if you could -- if we
can just tell the commissioners that they can start preparing their little
white sheet on what they're looking for and then we can present it to
the firm that they choose.
And they may want to be working on that during their recess.
MR. CARNELL: In terms of services or functions that you want
them to provide or --
MS. FILSON: No. For the functions that they want to look for
in attorneys.
MR. CARNELL: Oh, yes. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you don't mind, I've already
submitted it.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That I gave to the other
commISSIoners.
Page 3 19
June 26-27, 2007
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And, Sue, you're welcome to use it,
whatever they want to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you've still
got the floor.
Do you have anything else you want the ask?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do, after Sue Filson was
done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Miss Filson, are you
done.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I'm done. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all right.
The only thing I want to do is whatever the board decides,
whether they're going to have a selection of attorneys, three attorneys,
five attorneys or a hundred attorneys, I don't care, I want to submit a --
a written questionnaire so they can respond in -- in writing.
MR. CARNELL: Are you talking about the attorney candidates,
sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. CARNELL: Okay. We're talking about the recruiter
candidates initially.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I know I'm getting way,
way ahead.
Do you see any problem with that or does anybody have a
problem with that in general?
MR. CARNELL: I don't in terms of you putting written
questions together.
Now, you all as a group may want to decide. Do you want to
pool your questions and have one questionnaire as opposed to
individual commissioners sending any written questions to the
attorneys.
We could have that decision on the 24th, if you'd like, as a--
Page 320
June 26-27, 2007
where you're -- you're in a mode to formally act and direct the staff.
You don't have to decide that today. It's a good question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to have Commissioner
Coyle here when we discuss that, besides it's one-fourth to be here.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But nobody has a
problem with that, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't have a problem,
Commissioner Halas, do you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's a good idea. Get an idea
of how they respond.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's keep moving forward.
Commissioner Halas, have you got anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I've got a couple of items here.
One, if you read today's paper, there's an article in the paper
about a woman that -- death blamed on a dog act in Golden Gate
Estates.
We've been through some similar things but before it's been
passed. Now we have a human being that's been -- met their demise
because, of all things, not wild animals but domestic animals, dogs.
The Sheriffs Department is looking into this. And that's all fine and
good. But, meanwhile, we've got our Domestic Animal Services.
And I'd like to know or have a report not at the next meeting but
in the very near future what exactly Domestic Animal Services is
doing in regards to the problem of stray dogs or dogs running loose in
-- in the estates or any part of Collier County, and -- and what they're
doing to cooperate with the Sheriffs Department to try to remove this
Page 321
June 26-27,2007
particular danger.
I mean, we always talked about the day may corne when a
resident could die from a dog attack. Now it's happened.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Across the dog -- of all the type of
dogs that -- that factor. Was it a pit bull or --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, they -- they don't know. And
that's a sign that they think they have some ideas on. And for some
reason, I got a disagreement with staff, I guess, on that.
Go ahead. Corne on up front.
And I -- I'm sorry, but I really do think Domestic Animal
Services playa role in this in trying to control the situation.
MS. RAMSEY: Commission, I know that in the area that--
THE COURT REPORTER: Ma'am--
MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, Public Services Administrator.
I know in the area that we're discussing that Domestic Animal
Services has been out on a number of occasions and has removed two
dangerous dogs from that -- from any homeowner in that area and
have euthanized both of those animals.
They've been out since this incident and I don't believe that
they've been able to find any wild or stray animals running, so they --
they are out.
I guess -- I don't know this area very well, but my understanding
is there's a lot of places where animals can scoot and hide and run and
they're difficult to catch, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. And that--
MS. RAMSEY: So, there are some -- some opportunities for
maybe some cages that we can put out and try and catch the -- the
stray animals, just the standard procedure that we would do on a stray
animal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this to help with the Sheriffs
Department, if you have to. I -- I don't care if you shoot the darn
thing. I mean, I -- I just -- I'm not going to accept a person's death
Page 322
June 26-27, 2007
lightly. I mean, this is a serious situation.
And I really do want an updated report, and I hope these other
commissioner agree with me so we can direct staff to do this.
We've got an updated report as the information comes in, and
exactly what's being done to, one, try to correct the situation that
happened as far as identifying the owner of the dog, removing this dog
from our society, no second chances in this case. I can't believe that
we'd even think about it.
But what's going to be done in the future to try to avoid this.
We've had discussions like this before, but now we're down to the
nitty-gritty.
We've got a human being who lost her life and other people may
be endangered.
Do my fellow commissioners agree that I'd like to see a report by
e-mail so that they can keep abreast of this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I -- I'd like to know, is this --
do they guess, because it said they have strong indications -- is this a
pack of wild dogs?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't know. But, I mean, I'd like
to be updated.
MS. RAMSEY: Nobody -- nobody is a witness to this, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What? I'm sorry. What was that
last?
MS. RAMSEY: No one is a witness to it is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yet, that -- yet, there were other
people. A rottweiler was killed, goats were killed.
Do -- do they have any idea of what is doing this attacking?
MS. RAMSEY: I know that there was -- the Coroner's office
was trying to get a mold on trying to get a determination of what kind
of dog might have accomplished that, but I -- I don't know that we
have that data at this moment to tell us whether it's a pit bull or
German shepherd or -- or a lab or what --
Page 323
June 26-27, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Panther.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's not panther. It would be great
to be able to blame it on a wild animal, but in this case they're sure it's
a domestic animal.
I -- I -- the whole thing is, it's an ongoing investigation. Is that
correct?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I personally would like to be
updated on a --
MS. RAMSEY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- basis, you know, several times
during the course of the week as new information comes up.
MS. RAMSEY: I can -- I do have an e-mail that tells the number
of times that the officers have been in the area and what they've
observed while they're there, but I don't believe that they've observed
any strays at the moment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd also like to see some sort of
press release of what we're doing --
MS. RAMSEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- in response to this.
Okay. I got -- I got one other item -- thank you so much.
MS. RAMSEY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I do appreciate your cooperation
in this matter.
The other thing, and it's -- it's a small matter, but it means
something.
At the beginning of the meeting, Commissioner Henning, when
we took a vote on the approval of the agenda, you voted a negative,
but we never found out what exactly it was on the agenda that you
were opposed to.
And I -- I should have at that point in time stopped the meeting
and asked what it was, so you could share it with us and maybe we
Page 324
June 26-27, 2007
could have corrected it.
But I -- I did -- I do want to know at this time what was on that
agenda that was objectionable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's the same issues that I
bring up in -- in a previous, that the -- my colleagues don't agree with
me.
So, why would I pull -- pull those off the agenda to go rehash the
same old stuff when you don't agree with me?
And it's not productive, so I'd just much rather vote no on the
agenda than --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. But just a brief statement why
would -- would -- would help. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there
that will wonder what there was on there.
You don't have to go into great detail, because sometimes you
may hit on an item that we do agree with you, or at least one or two of
us, and we might want to engage in a discussion on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and -- and trust me,
those items would corne off the consent agenda, but these are the same
issues that I have over and over. You just don't agree with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have a problem with that
and I don't want to rehash it and staff doesn't want to rehash it, you
don't want to rehash it, so why rehash it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I -- you know, I'm not going to
try to change your mind on it. It's just that I thought that maybe there
was something that we overlooked, that you spotted and then we
would all be privy to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because we do -- we do appreciate
everybody's input here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And when we -- ifthere's something
Page 325
June 26-27, 2007
that's wrong, we want to know about it. We all seem to contribute
something to this process.
And -- and I'm not trying to belittle you in any way. It's just--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- a very curious situation of why it
wasn't brought up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there was something on the
agenda that concerned me on a new issue, it would have carne off that
consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you for that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing!
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I've got three items.
The 4th of July is corning up and we're still in a dry season and I just
want to know does the board need to take action to ban fireworks
within the county?
We've done it in the past.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We might want to consider in
following the county manager if warrant -- the condition warrants it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They warrant it now. I -- I don't
see how anybody can see it doesn't warrant it, but we do have
meetings the next couple of days.
Would you look into it and --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- let's address it at the workshop?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How would we control private
fireworks displays?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How would you control fire --
private fireworks displays? That would be, I believe, up to the
Page 326
June 26-27, 2007
Sheriffs Department, wouldn't it?
We'd have to empower the Sheriff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm sure we'll have that
discussion tomorrow if it's warranted to have a prohibition on
fireworks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to ask a question.
In some cases, like for instance, down at the pier and also on Marco
Island, they -- they set off their fireworks over the water. It doesn't
seem to even get close to the land.
That wouldn't include them; right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know what the county
manager is going to bring back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that we have to look
at fireworks displays that are not over water, but I think that -- I'm not
sure how -- I don't know if you're going to have enough Sheriffs
deputies to go out there to stop all the individual fireworks displays.
And I think you're bringing up a good point because
commISSIOner --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have done this in the past.
And there is still --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How they control it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- still fires going on right now,
and I think it's something that the staff ought to look at and -- and
bring back if warranted to the Board of Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a realistic thing, to have
staff corne back with an approach on it. And I don't think we need to
get into a big lengthy discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We didn't -- we don't have
it in front of us, so --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. It's the responsibility of the
commission for the safety, health and welfare fair of the community
Page 327
June 26-27, 2007
and this is a good issue you brought up, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The next one -- actually, I just
added one now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, no. Now you're up to four?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we take a lunch break?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, keep interrupting and I
might go ahead and add a little bit more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your threat's working.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- the next thing is the
Board of Commissioner just passed an item to enter an agreement with
the State of Florida on -- on the voting machines, but yet in our budget
we have on the unfinanced requests voting machines that we don't
have any -- any other choice.
So, in my opinion, they need to go on the -- the -- the budget side
of the board's agenda.
How are you going to do that?
Or do you want to talk about that in the budget meeting?
MR. MUDD: We'll do that in the budget meeting. I believe
Miss -- Miss Jennifer Edwards is going to corne to the board as part of
that discussion and she's going to modify that requirement to -- to
lessen it from what I heard her say today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Uh-huh.
MR. MUDD: It looks like it's -- it's about a two million dollar
request for the Board of County Commissioners.
And there -- there are moneys that you have that you can bring it
in the budget, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So, you -- you can
explain to me tomorrow on how unfinanced mandates get on the -- on
that list?
MR. MUDD: How man --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unfunded mandates. It's a
Page 328
June 26-27,2007
mandate.
MR. MUDD: Well, commissioner -- those commissioner, if you
listened to Miss Edwards today, she said that the state was funding
you what they considered to be the minimum requirement for Collier
County.
Now, you as a board need to determine if you need to have more
than that minimum in order to do the elections that you have, and
that's her -- Miss Edwards to -- to talk to you about. And that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's how it got on there?
MR. MUDD: That's how it got there, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Actually, I addressed the
other one earlier.
The -- the County Attorney, David Weigel, sent the board a
memo pursuant to his 2006 action plan to address issues and make
sure that we're in compliance with the Constitution, and asking to do
some amendments to the Land Development Code, work for our staff
to make -- accomplish that for the next cycle.
And I think it's -- it's wise for the board to give that direction for
this upcoming cycle to consider it.
Do you need a motion on that, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: A motion is not necessary. Ifthere's a consensus
of the board that's sitting there.
And then, commissioner, I think for clarification, we're talking
about political signs aspect of the sign code in the Land Development
Code?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think that's a good idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'd like to see that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Great. We've got -- we've got
three commissioners all running for election that are saying yes, go
ahead.
Page 329
June 26-27, 2007
MR. WEIGEL: Very good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you -- you promised us one
more.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I brought it out with Mr.
Carnell. He answered my question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then did you want to say
adjourned? It's Fred.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Actually, our -- our -- isn't our
ordinances that we need to vote on an adjournment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
All in favor? Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried 3/1 (Commissioner Henning opposed and Commissioner
Coyle absent), that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
THE RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTIONS OF LIEN FOR
PAYMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: DAISY ARRAZCAETA,
CALEXICO, INC., C/O SANTOS OSORNIO AND RUSSELL AND
KA TJA RISTEEN - AT A COST OF $10 PER RELEASE
(TOTALING $30) TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item # 16A2
Page 330
June 26-27, 2007
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR REFLECTION LAKES, PHASE IB-
W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A3
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER FACILITY FOR WAL-MART (I-75) - W/RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MARIPOSA AT WHIPPOORWILL-
W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR WHIPPOORWILL LANE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS - W/RELEASE OF UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER FACILITY FOR UNITY CHURCH - W /RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
Page 331
June 26-27, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-158: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIDGEWATER BAY, UNIT TWO.
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item # 16A8
APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION BY ENVONT LLC FOR
THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE
PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS PROGRAM - TO TARGET HIGH-
WAGE COMPANIES TO RELOCATE OR EXPAND WITHIN
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A9
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN POI
DEVELOPMENT, INC., VILLAGES AT STELLA MARIS
MASTER ASSOCIATION AND COLLIER COUNTY
REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIVATE BOAT
RAMP TO SERVE THE VILLAGES OF STELLA MARIS -
LOCATED AT PORT OF THE ISLANDS
Item #16AI0 - Continued to the July 24,2007 BCC Meeting
THE FINAL PLAT OF VITA TUSCANA, APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16All
Page 332
June 26-27, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-159: A RESOLUTION, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 288.106, FLORIDA STATUTES, RECOMMENDING
THAT THE GOVERNORS OFFICE OF TOURISM TRADE AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPROVE ENVONT, LLC, AS A
QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY BUSINESS, CONFIRMING
THAT THE COMMITMENTS OF LOCAL FINANCING
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THIS TARGET INDUSTRY ARE IN
PLACE, AND APPROPRIATING $16,000.00 AS LOCAL
PARTICIPATION IN THE QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY
TAX REFUND PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2011
THROUGH 2013
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2007-160: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE
COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE
OF DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING
FEES AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS SECTION 2-11
Item #16Bl
THE PURCHASE OF 1.14 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
OF WHICH A PORTION IS REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT OF
WAY FOR THE V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION
PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $388,370.00)
- THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF WILSON
BOULEVARD
Item #16B2
THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE WENTWORTH
Page 333
June 26-27,2007
ESTATES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR
LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON
SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD - FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION, AND PROVIDES
FOR ONGOING MAINT ANCE TO BE FUNDED AND
MAINTAINED BY WENTWORTH ESTATES
Item #16B3
ONE (1) ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH
TWO (2) ROADWAY RECOGNITION SIGNS AT A TOTAL
COST OF $150.00 - FOR THE PORTION OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD FROM DESOTO BLVD. TO EVERGLADES
BLVD.
Item # 16B4
THE PURCHASE OF IMPROVED PROPERTY (PARCEL NO.
154) WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $578,000) - SUBJECT
PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN COLLIER BOULEVARD
AND WILSON BOULEVARD
Item #16B5
THE PURCHASE OF A 1,277 SQUARE FOOT DRAINAGE AND
UTILITY EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR THE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE STORMWATERPROJECT. PROJECT NO. 518031
(FISCAL IMPACT: $10,089.20)
Item #16B6
Page 334
June 26-27,2007
A BUDGET AMENDENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
PATHWAYS PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $705,099.41 FOR
PROJECT NO(S). 600321, 600331, 600501, 601201, 201202,
601204,690811 AND 609817 - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2007-161: A RESOLUTION TO AMEND AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING
MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
SYSTEM ON GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD BETWEEN U.S. 41
AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
Item #16B8
COLLIER COUNTY BID #07-4143 FURNISH AND DELIVER
THREE (3) NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS TO THE CREEL
TRACTOR COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,005
Item #16B9
WORK ORDER # PBS FT 39710711 UNDER COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACT #06-3971 FOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR
SERVICES AND EXPENDITURE OF $109,141 FOR GENERAL
REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS TO 8300 RADIO ROAD FOR
THE NEW COLLIER AREA TRANSIT OPERATIONS AND
ADMINISTRATION CENTER
Page 335
June 26-27,2007
Item #16BI0
WORK ORDER #BC-FT-3773-07-09 FOR A CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT TO BONNESS, INC. FOR RADIO ROAD PHASE ONE
MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS (DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD TO
BROADVIEW DRIVE) USING THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
ROADWAY CONTRACTORS, CONTRACT NO. 05-3773, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $433,885.43 AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR INSTALLATION OF
CURBING AND IRRIGATION SLEEVES FOR FUTURE
IMPROVEMENTS
Item # 16B 11
RESOLUTION 2007-162: A REVISED RIGHT-OF-WAY
PERMITTING AND INSPECTION FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION ROAD MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
Item #16B12
CHANGE ORDER #2 (CONTRACT MODIFICATION # 4) TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 02-3398 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $193,523.61 FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY CH2M HILL, INC., FOR
DESIGN AND PERMITTING MODIFICATIONS FOR THE SIX-
LANING OF COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 65061 -
FOR REDESIGN OF THE STORMW A TER SYSTEM, ACCESS
MODIFICATIONS, WOLFE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND
SIGNALS, AND TREE FARM ROAD DESIGN AND
SIGNALIZATION
Page 336
June 26-27, 2007
Item #16Cl
AMENDMENT 5 TO CONTRACT 03-3517 WITH GREELEY
AND HANSEN LLC FOR "PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR WATER MAIN PROJECTS" IN THE AMOUNT
OF $126,800. PROJECTS 70151 AND 70152 - TO CARRY
POTABLE WATER FROM THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO PROPOSED WATER
STORAGE FACILITIES ON MANATEE ROAD AND TO NEW
CUSTOMERS ALONG COLLIER BOULEVARD AND U.S. 41
Item # 16C2
THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A POT ABLE WATER
PIPELINE, AND ACCESS, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY
ENCHANTING SHORES CO-OP, INC. NEAR THE HENDERSON
CREEK PARK SUBDIVISION
Item #16C3
THE ACQUISITION OF A UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT
FOR A 70-FOOT BY 142-FOOT PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
WELL SITE NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND EVERGLADES BOULEVARD, AND
ASSOCIATED PIPELINE AND ACCESS AREA, AT A TOTAL
COST NOT TO EXCEED $19,500, PROJECT NUMBER 70908
Item # 16C4
A DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A UTILITY AND
ACCESS EASEMENT FROM QUAIL CREEK VILLAGE
Page 337
June 26-27, 2007
FOUNDATION, INC. FOR LIFT STATION NO. 107.02 AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $300, PROJECT 73970 - EXPENSE IS
FOR TITLE COSTS AND RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS
Item #16C5
A DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A UTILITY AND
ACCESS EASEMENT FROM WINDJAMMER VILLAGE OF
NAPLES, INC. FOR LIFT STATION NO. 31 0.06 AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $300, PROJECT 739221 - EXPENSE IS FOR TITLE
COSTS AND RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS
Item # 16C6
BID NUMBER 07-4132 FOR THE FURNISHING AND
DELIVERY OF A 5,000 GALLON WATER TRUCK TO
HEINTZELMANS TRUCK CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$139,228.00 - TO PROVIDE PERIODIC SPECIAL TREATMENT
TO MAINTAIN THE SUST AINABILITY OF THE WELL
Item # 16C7
ACCEPTANCE OF ALL UTILITY FACILITIES LOCATED IN
THE BRIDGE FOR BAY COLONY COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC. WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY
COMMUNITY, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $52.50; PROJECT
740231- TO MAINTAIN, REPLACE AND REHABILITATE THE
UTILITY SYTEM
Item #16C8
A FIRST AMENDMENT TO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
Page 338
June 26-27, 2007
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR STORM DEBRIS
COLLECTION AND PROCESSING - LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF 47TH A VENUE NE AND IMMOKALEE
ROAD
Item # 16C9
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP), DEP CONTRACT NO. GC690,
AUTHORIZING COLLIER COUNTY TO ADMINISTER FDEPS
STORAGE TANK SYSTEM COMPLIANCE VERIFICATION
PROGRAM ALONG WITH ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENT NO.4 AUTHORIZING
THE TERMINATION OF DEP CONTRACT NO. GC526 - THE
NEW CONTRACT WILL BEGIN JULY 1, 2007 AND END JUNE
30,2017
Item #16CI0
A GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ALL UTILITY FACILITIES ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY COLLIER COUNTY WITHIN THE
BAY COLONY COMMUNITY OF PELICAN BAY FOR AN
ESTIMATED COST NOT TO EXCEED $18.50, PROJECT 740231
- TO ALLOW THE DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN PROJECTED UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
AND TO INCREASE RELIABILITY OF THE FIRE
SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
Item # 16C 11
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND SALARY SHORTFALLS
IN THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FUND (114) IN THE
Page 339
June 26-27, 2007
AMOUNT OF $101,800 - DUE TO A TRANSFER OF
PERSONNEL AND HIRING OF STAFF ABOVE BASE
SALARIES
Item #16C12
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $15,000,000 TO TRANSFER
$4,000,000 FOR SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) 12 MGD RO EXPANSION
PROJECT 700971 AND $11,000,000 FOR SOUTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT (SCRWTP) WELL
FIELD EXPANSION-EASEMENT PROJECT 708921 FROM
WATER IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND TO A 2006
REVENUE BOND PROCEEDS FUND, IMP ACT FEE COST
CENTER - EXPENSES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT
BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
Item #16Dl - Moved to Item #10J
Item # 16D2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $58,426 FROM BEACH
RENOURISHMENT/PASS MAINTENANCE RESERVES TO
FUND BEACH RE- NOURISHMENT INITIATIVES FOR CLAM
PASS DREDGING WHICH IS PART OF THE COUNTYS BEACH
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT 900281 - EXISTING BUDGETED
DOLLARS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THIS
ADDITIONAL CONSULTANT COST
Item #16D3
Page 340
June 26-27,2007
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM AUGUSTE AND
ROSANNA AUGUSTE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
80, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II - DEFERRING $8,166.25 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH VALERIO F. GARCIA AND
JUANA LOPEZ REYNOSO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
145, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II - DEFERRING $19,274.83 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CHRISTINA PONCE ANDRADE
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 82, INDEPENDENCE
PHASE II - DEFERRING $8,166.25 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D6
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FRANCOIS AND IFESIA
CHARLES (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 83,
INDEPENDENCE, PHASE II - DEFERRING $8,166.25 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Page 341
June 26-27, 2007
Item #16D7
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MORANIE JEAN-PIERRE
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 85, INDEPENDENCE
PHASE II - DEFERRING $8,166.25 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D8
BID NO. 07-4117 TO STAHLMAN ENGLAND IRRIGATION,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $266,453.51 AND APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO FUND
IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
PARK - FOR SOFTBALL, SOCCER AND BASEBALL FIELDS,
MODERATE LANDSCAPING AND REFURBISHMENT OF
DUGOUTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOFTBALL FIELDS
Item #16D9
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RHONDA ROBINSON (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 133, INDEPENDENCE PHASE 11-
DEFERRING $10,177.64 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16DI0
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE SIL VA AND MARIBEL
CASTELLANOS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
Page 342
June 26-27, 2007
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
139, TRAIL RIDGE NAPLES - DEFERRING $13,616.20 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16Dll
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN MARC AND MARIE JEAN
PIERRE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 135,
INDEPENDENCE PHASE II - DEFERRING $10,177.64 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D12
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH EL VA MONTEZ (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 131, INDEPENDENCE PHASE 11-
DEFERRING $10,177.64 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D 13
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE
PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AND SUBMIT THE AGREEMENT TO
FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION - TO ASSIST
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS WITH A WIDE RANGE OF
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Page 343
June 26-27,2007
Item #16D14
DEP AGREEMENT NO. 07COl AND ANY SUBSEQUENT
AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL
FUNDING WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF BEACHES
AND COASTAL SYSTEMS BEACH MANAGEMENT FUNDING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM STATE OF FLORIDA GRANT
AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH MARCO BEACH NOURISHMENT
AND AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
- THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE RESTORATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF THE BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM
ALONG 1.24 MILES OF GULF SHORELINE
Item #16D15
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH SOLANGE BAPTISTE (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 146, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES-
DEFERRING $12,143.84 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D16
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CIANIE BELANCE (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 142, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES - DEFERRING
$12,143.84 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D17
Page 344
June 26-27,2007
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ISNADY DORCENT AND MARIE
ANNA DORCENT (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
10, MILAGRO PLACE - DEFERRING $15,932.58 IN IMPACT
FEES
Item #16D18
PROPOSAL DATED MAY 4, 2007 UNDER CONTRACT 05-3657
WITH JOHNSON ENGINEERING TO PROVIDE PLANNING,
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT FOR
CLAM P ASS PARK EXP ANSION ANALYSIS PROPOSAL FOR
TIME AND MATERIAL NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 - TO
INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A SEPARATE PAVILION AREA
Item #16D19
MODIFICATION NO.1 TO UNITED STATE FISH AND
WILDLIFE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 401816J091 FOR A
DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$30,000 - FOR REMOVAL OF VESSELS IN THE TEN
THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR
Item #16D20
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DAULA T KHAN AND NASRIN
AKHTAR (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT UNIT 203,
BUILDING 9, BOTANICAL PLACE, NAPLES - DEFERRING
$7,158.27 IN IMPACT FEES
Page 345
June 26-27, 2007
Item #16D21
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $147,214 FROM BEACH
RE-NOURISHMENT PROJECT 905271 TO FUND THE 1ST
ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF THE NEAR SHORE
HARD BOTTOM AND THE POST CONSTRUCTION
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE ARTIFICIAL REEF WHICH IS
A PART OF THE COUNTYS BEACH RE-NOURISHMENT
PROJECT 900331
Item #16D22
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE DESANTIAGO AND LESLIE
MANDUJANO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
146, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II - DEFERRING $10,177.64 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D23
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LABANETTE DORILLAS AND
BONATIEL DORILLAS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT
145, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES - DEFERRING $12,143.84 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D24
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ANGEL JAIMES AND DARIT A
Page 346
June 26-27, 2007
JAIMES (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 18,
MILAGRO PLACE - DEFERRING $19,290.73 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D25
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JA VIER JIMENEZ AND JOANN
JIMENEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 3,
MILAGRO PLACE - DEFERRING $19,311.96 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D26
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH BEAUHARNAIS JOSEPH AND
MARIE WILLIEN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCA TED AT LOT
88, INDEPENDENCE PHASE II - DEFERRING $8,166.25 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D27
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JAIME CERVANTES VAZQUEZ
AND ANA M HERRERA DE CERVANTES (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 3, TRAIL RIDGE, NAPLES - DEFERRING
$12,143.84 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D28
Page 347
June 26-27, 2007
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARCO BAY HOMES LLC
(BUILDER) AND BERNADIT A ROBLES (DEVELOPER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT WEST 75 OF THE WEST 150 OF TRACT 111,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 83, COLLIER COUNTY, FL
- DEFERRING $19,273.98 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D29
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARCO BAY HOMES LLC
(BUILDERS) AND AMY BOLLINGER (DEVELOPER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT EAST 75 OF THE WEST 180 OF TRACT 70, UNIT
68, GOLDEN GATE EST A TES, COLLIER COUNTY, FL -
DEFERRING $19,273.98 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D30 - Moved to Item #10K
Item # 16D31 - Continued Indefinitely
A CONCESSIONS AGREEMENT WITH LEHILL PARTNERS
LLC (DBA NAPLES GRANDE) TO PROVIDE FOOD,
BEVERAGE, BEACH EQUIPMENT RENTALS, AND WATER
RECREATIONAL RENTALS AT CLAM PASS BEACH PARK
AND APPROVE ALL NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D32
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LENNAR HOMES LLC
Page 348
June 26-27,2007
(DEVELOPERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS LOCATED
IN A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, TRACT E,
HERITAGE BAY COMMONS AND AUTHORIZES A
REIMBURSEMENT OF THE FEES PAID BY THE DEVELOPER
ON BUILDING PERMIT 2006121829 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$194,028.42 - DEFERRING $194,028.42 IN IMPACT FEES FOR
10 UNITS
Item #16D33
IMPLEMENTING STRATEGIES RELATED TO RESOLUTION
2007-48 PERTAINING TO THE CITIZENS OF COLLIER
COUNTY AND THEIR RIGHT TO USE ANY AND ALL
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
Item #16D34
A SUB-LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF MARCO
ISLAND FOR BOAT DOCK IMPROVEMENTS AND USAGE OF
THE CAXAMBAS BOAT DOCK MARINA - FOR INSTALLING,
OPERATING AND MAINTAINING A BOAT DOCK AND LIFT
FOR THE CITY'S FIRE RESCUE AND POLICE VEHICLE
Item #16El
AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 07 - 4103 COUNTY
MAIL CENTER OPERATIONS AND DELIVERY SERVICES TO
MAILBARCODING INVESTMENTS OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA, LLC D/B/A MAILBARCODING SERVICES OF SWFL
Page 349
June 26-27, 2007
- AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E2
A MODIFICATION NO.2 TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE (USFWS) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO.
401815J021 TO FUND HABITAT RESTORATION AT THE
MALT PROPERTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 - TO
PROTECT ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE
Item # 16E3
A FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE RAILHEAD SCRUB
PRESERVE UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM - ANNUAL RECURRING COST
ESTIMATED AT $8,200 FOR ONGOING ROUTINE
MAINTENANCE
Item # 16E4
A FINAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE COCOHA TCHEE
CREEK PRESERVE UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER
LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM - ANNUAL RECURRING
COST ESTIMATED BETWEEN $3,000 AND $18,000,
DEPENDING ON WHETHER AN OPTIONAL VIEWING
PLATFORM IS CONSTRUCTED
Item #16E5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT REALLOCATING OTHER
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES DOLLARS WITHIN THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT CLIENT
Page 350
June 26-27, 2007
SYSTEM SUPPORT COST CENTER TO WBS 500121 PROJECT
MANAGEMENT STANDARDIZATION - FOR ADDITIONAL
ENHANCEMENTS AND TESTING THAT NEED TO TAKE
PLACE FOR THE CAPSTRACK APPLICATION
Item # 16E6
BID #07-4139 CONCRETE, PAVING AND WALKWAY
CONTRACTOR TO MULTIPLE VENDORS LISTED BY
LOWEST BIDDER; RL V ENTERPRISES, INC., B.Q. CONCRETE,
JUDSON CONSTRUCTION GROUP, AND NR CONTRACTORS,
INC - FOR MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF
ALL COUNTY-OWNED BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES
Item #16E7
RFP #07-4134, FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONCESSIONS FOR
COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES TO RUSSELL'S CLAMBAKE
- TO REPLACE THE SUBWAY NEXT TO THE RISK
MANAGEMENT BUILDING
Item #16E8
BID #NO. 07-4123 PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES-
"PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES" TO FERGUSON
ENTERPRISE AS PRIMARY AND PLUMBMASTER, INC. AS
SECONDARY
Item #16E9
A COMMITMENT OF $275,000 ON THE SECOND STAGE OF
AN EFFORT TO STANDARDIZE THE PROCESSES INVOLVED
Page 351
June 26-27, 2007
WITH THE DELIVERY OF CAPITAL PROJECTS AND TO
IMPLEMENT A COMPUTER SYSTEM TO ASSIST COUNTY
PROJECT MANAGERS, PROJECT NUMBER 75006 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16EI0
BID #07-4104R TO METRO POWER SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE
RENTAL OF GENERA TORS
Item #16Ell - Withdrawn
BID 07-4127 FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES TO CORPORATE
EXPRESS IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$250,000 - FOR SUPPLIES TO SUPPORT DAIL Y OPERATIONS
FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY
Item #16Fl
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FUNDS ARE NEEDED TO
PREP ARE AND SUBMIT A PERMIT FOR A SUBMERGED
LAND LEASE FOR DOCKS AT THE COCOHA TCHEE RIVER
PARK AND FOR THE INCREASE OF FLEET COST TO FINISH
OUT FY 07
Item # 16F2
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD DURING EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WITH NO
ANNUAL COST - ALLOWING THE USE OF A CONFERENCE
ROOM AT THEIR IMMOKALEE OFFICE FOLLOWING
Page 352
June 26-27,2007
EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
Item #16G 1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,666 TO
FUND GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE
DESIGN WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARKING APRON
EXPANSION AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16G2
A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION (FAA) FOR THE SUM OF $431,000, AND
TO APPROVE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THIS
GRANT FUNDING IS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
AT ROOKERY BAY AS REQUIRED BY THE ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A TAXIWAY AT THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT
Item #16G3
THE PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT
AND HOUSE IN THE GATEWAY AREA OF THE CRA AS PART
OF A CRA RESIDENTIAL INFILL PROJECT; APPROVING
PAYMENT FROM AND AUTHORIZING THE CRA CHAIRMAN
TO MAKE A DRAW FROM THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY
TRIANGLE CRA W ACHOVIA BANK LINE OF CREDIT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $275,000 PLUS COST AND EXPENSES TO
COMPLETE THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY; AND
APPROVE ANY AND ALL NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS. SITE ADDRESS: 2664 FRANCIS AVENUE
(275,000)
Page 353
June 26-27, 2007
Item # 16G4
CRA RESOLUTION 2007-163: A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND A GRANT
APPLICANT(S) FOR 170 1 BAY STREET WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,436.48
Item #16G5
A SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT(S) BETWEEN
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND A GRANT APPLICANT(S) FOR 2649
LAKEVIEW DRIVE WITHIN THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y
TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA - IN THE
AMOUNT OF $16,322.00
Item # 16G6
THE RENEWAL OF THE BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE
CRA OFFICE LEASES FOR TWELVE MONTHS, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE EXTENSION
LETTER - THE BASE MONTHLY RENTAL FEE IS INCREASE
TO $895.00
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE TWELFTH ANNUAL DO THE
Page 354
June 26-27,2007
RIGHT THING REGIONAL AWARDS BANQUET ON JUNE 23,
2007, AT THE HARBORSIDE EVENT CENTER, FT. MYERS;
$40.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2007-164: COMMISSIONER DONNA FIALA TO
SERVE ON THE 2007 COLLIER COUNTY CANVASSING
BOARD IN PLACE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH THE COMPLETION
OF THE 2007 CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA MAIL
BALLOT REFERENDUM ELECTION - DUE TO SCHEDULING
CONFLICTS
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED:
THE FOLLOWING MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE, AS
PRESENTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS AS
INDICATED:
Page 355
,L\~':3rJda Item ~Jo. ':611
- June 26. 2007
Page 1 of 5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 26, 2007
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS
DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
(1) Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
May 15, 2007; Minutes of April 17, 2007; Budget FY 2008; Agenda
for June 19, 2007; Minutes of May 15, 2007; .
(2) Golden Gate M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for May 8,
2007; Minutes of April 1 0, 2007; Agenda for June 12, 2007; Minutes
of May 8, 2007; Budget FY 2008.
(3) Environmental Advisory Council: Agenda for May 7, 2007; Minutes of
April 4, 2007; Agenda for April 4, 2007; Agenda for June 6, 2007;
Minutes of May 7, 2007.
(4) Pelican Bay Services Division: Agenda for May 2, 2007; Minutes of
April 4, 2007; Agenda for April 18, 2007; Agenda for June 6, 2007;
Minutes of May 2, 2007; Notice of May 9, 2007 Joint Workshop;
Minutes of May 9, 2007 Joint Workshop; Budget FY 2008.
(a) Budqet Committee: Minutes of April 18, 2007; Budget FY
2008; Minutes of February 21,2007; Minutes of May 22,
2007; Agenda for May 22, 2007.
(b) Clam Bav Committee: Agenda for June 6, 2007; Minutes of
December 6, 2006.
(5) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee: Minutes of April 12,
2007.
.-
H:\DA T A \FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondcncel062607 _ misc__cOIT.doc
:t.;.:,m 1'~Q. 1'31'1
.1'..TI8 :>3, 201.'7
Fn.:;e :2 n~ 5
(6) Collier County East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study
Public Participation Master Plan Committee: Minutes of May 14,
2007; Minutes of March 19,2007; Minutes of February 12, 2007,
(7) Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredqinq M.S.T.U. Advisory
Committee: Minutes of April 26,2007.
(8) Collier County Librarv Advisory Board: Agenda for May 24, 2007
(Meeting Cancelled due to Lack of Quorum; Minutes of April 25,
2007.
(9) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board and Immokalee
Master Plan and Visioninq Committee: Agenda for March 21,2007;
Minutes of March 21,2007; Agenda for April 18, 2007; Minutes of
April 18, 2007.
(a) Enterprise Zone Development Aqencv: Agenda for March
21, 2007; Minutes of March 21, 2007; Agenda for April 18,
2007; Minutes of April 18, 2007.
(b) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board: Agenda
for March 21,2007; Minutes of March 21,2007; Agenda for
April 18, 2007; Minutes of April 18, 2007.
(10) Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board: Minutes of April 12, 2007;
Agenda for April 12, 2007; Minutes of May 3,2007; Agenda for May
3,2007.
(11) Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Agenda for March
22, 2007; Minutes of March 22, 2007; Agenda for April 26, 2007;
Minutes of April 26, 2007.
(12) Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for May 3,
2007; Minutes for April 5, 2007; Agenda for September 6, 2007;
Minutes of May 3, 2007; Budget FY 2008.
(13) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainaqe M,S.T.U. Advisory Committee:
Minutes of May 9,2007; Agenda for June 13, 2007; Budget FY 2008.
H:\DA T A\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondencc\062607 .mise _ corr.doc
il:,;:rn 1';(1, ~ G:-~
,)'y..? 26. :?t}',J
:;:/ S
(14) Fire Steerinq Committee: Agenda for May 24,2007; Minutes of April
26, 2007; Minutes of March 29, 2007.
(15) Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee: Agenda for June
4, 2007.
(16) Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes
of April 9, 2007; Minutes of March 12, 2007; Agenda for June 11,
2007; Agenda for May 14, 2007.
(17) Bayshore/Gateway Trianqle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda for April 3, 2007; Minutes of April 3, 2007; Agenda for
February 6, 2007 Annual Goals and Priorities Workshop; Minutes of
February 6, 2007 Annual Goals and Priorities Workshop; Agenda for
February 6, 2007 Regular Meeting; Minutes of February 6, 2007
Regular Meeting.
(18) Immokalee Beautification M,S.T.U. Advisory Committee: Agenda for
May 23, 2007; Minutes of April 25, 2007; Budget FY 2008.
(19) Domestic Animal Services Advisory Board: Minutes of March 20,
2007.
(20) Collier County Historic and Archaeoloqical Preservation Board:
Agenda for April 18, 2007; Minutes of March 21, 2007; Agenda for
May 16, 2007; Minutes of April 18, 2007.
(21) Collier County Contractor's Licensinq Board: Agenda for April 18,
2007.
(22) Collier County Planninq Commission: Agenda for April 19, 2007;
Minutes of March 1, 2007; Minutes of March 5, 2007; Revised
Agenda for June 7, 2007; Minutes of April 19, 2007 Regular Session;
Minutes of April 19, 2007 Special Session; Revised Agenda for May
17, 2007; Minutes of April 5, 2007 Regular Session; Agenda for June
21,2007; Minutes of May 3, 2007; Minutes of May 17, 2007 Regular
Session; Minutes of May 21,2007 Workshop Session.
H :\DA T A\FRONT DESK. 2007\1007 Miscellaneous Corrcspondence\062607 _mise. corr.doc
:~'dT; ~'<J "1 ;::;:i1
,);H"2 ,:,Ji. :.:.~:CI7
-'i ~l: :.
B. Other:
(1) Public Safety Coordinatinq Council: Minutes of December 8, 2006.
(a) Work Restitution Release Subcommittee: Minutes of
February 16, 2007.
(b) CIT Task Force: Minutes of February 26, 2007.
H:\DA T A\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous COn'cspondence\062607 _misc.Jorr.doc
June 26-27, 2007
Item # 1611
DESIGNATING THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT
AND PROGRAM POINT-OF-CONTACT FOR THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE FISCAL
YEAR 2007 LAW ENFORCEMENT MULTIDISCIPLINARY
ANTI - TRAFFICKING TASK FORCES CONTINUATION
GRANT, TO ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT THE APPLICATION
IN THE FEDERAL GRANTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, TO
ACCEPT THE GRANT WHEN A WARDED, AND APPROVE
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 02, 2007
THROUGH JUNE 08, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 1613
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JUNE 09, 2007
THROUGH JUNE 15,2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
A TRI-PARTY DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
WITH CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC. AND THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THE
AGREEMENT IS TO ALLOW CDC LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.
Page 356
June 26-27,2007
TO CONVEY A 21-ACRE PARCEL WITHIN THE SABAL BAY
MPUD TO THE DISTRICT FOR USE AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL
SITE IN EXCHANGE FOR EDUCATIONAL IMP ACT FEES
CREDITS IN THE SUM OF $7,546,875, WHICH EXCHANGE IS
REQUIRED BY THE MPUD DOCUMENT, AND WHICH SUM
REPRESENTS THE APPRAISED FAIR MARKET VALUE OF
THE PARCEL - SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF
THOMASSON DRIVE, SOUTH AND WEST OF US 41 AND
EAST OF NAPLES BAY
Item # 16K2
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NO. 156 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH
SANNICANDRO, ET AL., CASE NO. 03-2500-CA(GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY PROJECT NO. 60027). (FISCAL IMPACT
$40,237.00) - PROPERTY AQUIRED ON NOVEMBER 18,2004
BY ORDER OF TAKING
Item #16K3
AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR AND EXPOSITION, INC.
(FISCAL IMPACT: NONE) - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMAMRY
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2007-165: REQUEST BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY FOR
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO
Page 357
June 26-27, 2007
FINANCE EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES FOR AVE MARIA
UNIVERSITY
Item # 17 A
RESOLUTION 2007-166: PETITION A VESMT-2007-AR-I0739,
LOT 18, BLOCK A STERLING OAKS PHASE 4, DISCLAIMING,
RENOUNCING AND V ACA TING THE COUNTYS AND THE
PUBLICS INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A LAKE
MAINTENANCE, ACCESS AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
(L.M.A.D.E.) IN THE REAR OF LOT 18, BLOCK A OF
STERLING OAKS PHASE 4, A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 38, PAGE 20 THROUGH 24 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND BEING MORE P ARTICULARL Y DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
A
Item # 17B
ORDINANCE 2007-51: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND
REPLACING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 81-42, AS
AMENDED; CHANGING THE PHRASE LOCAL
OCCUP A TIONAL LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE TO LOCAL
BUSINESS TAX ORDINANCE; INCORPORATING CURRENT
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 205, FLORIDA STATUTES;
PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17C
Page 358
June 26-27, 2007
ORDINANCE 2007-52: AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
AUTHORIZING REPLACEMENT OF THE TEXT IN
ORDINANCE 2001-13, THE CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE
ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED OR SUPERSEDED, SUBSECTION
74-303, D.2.G. AND AUTHORIZING A CHANGE IN THE
FORMAT OF APPENDIX A, SCHEDULE TWO, WATER AND
SEWER SYSTEM IMP ACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY REGARDING
THE SEPARATION OF IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
PROCEDURES FROM METER SIZING PROCEDURES IN THE
ORDINANCE TEXT AND RATE SCHEDULE
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2007-53: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 87-60, AS AMENDED; TO EXEMPT
FROM THE COUNTY'S LOCAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT NOT
FROM STATE OF FLORIDA NEWLY ENACTED STATUTORY
REQUIREMENTS, REGARDING SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES
CONDUCTED IN OR ALONG STREETS AND ROADS BY
ORGANIZA TIONS THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL
INCOME TAXES UNDER SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AND ARE EITHER REGISTERED
AS A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION (OR SPONSOR) WITH
FLORIDA'S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
CONSUMER SERVICES, OR ARE STATUTORILY EXEMPT
FROM SUCH STATE REGISTRATION; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #17E
Page 359
June 26-27, 2007
RESOLUTION 2007-167: VA-2007-AR-1l446 (MD) THE
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY,
REPRESENTED BY GARY KRUEGER, AlA, OF SCHENKEL
SHULTZ, INC. AND VLADD RYZIW, GRAEF, ANHALT,
SCHLOEMER, AND ASSOCIATES, REQUESTS A VARIANCE
PETITION FOR THE IMMOKALEE CAREER CENTER. THIS
VARIANCE IS FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT. THE DISTRICT
SCHOOL BOARD IS REQUESTING A HEIGHT VARIANCE OF
10-FEET TO PROPOSED DESIGN HEIGHT OF 45-FEET FROM
THE CURRENTLY PERMITTED 35-FOOT HEIGHT
RESTRICTION. THIS REQUEST WILL ONLY APPLY TO ONE
OF THE THREE PROPOSED STRUCTURES ON THE
REDEVELOPMENT SITE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 800 IMMOKALEE DRIVE, NEW MARKET
SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 24, PAGE 2030, SECTION 33,
TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Page 360
June 26-27, 2007
*****
There being no business for the good of the County, the meeting was
adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :05 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO.
GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL.
DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES OLETTA, Chairman
ATTEST:
,;>'
':':
These minutes apprgy.edDy the Board of ~ 11 5+- , as
presented V or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS AND
ROSE MARIE WITT, RPR.
Page 361