BCC Minutes 10/09/2007 R
October 9, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 9,2007
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
Frank Halas
Fred W. Coyle (Absent)
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
October 9, 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
October 9, 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 IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Craig Nelson, East Naples United Methodist Church
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. September 6, 2007 - BCC/Budget Hearing
C. September II, 2007 - BCC/Regular Meeting
D. September 12, 2007 - BCC/Regular-Carryover of September II, 2007 BCC
Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
5 Year Attendees
Page 2
October 9, 2007
1) Fire Chief Jim McEvoy - Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council
2) Jack Markel - Utility Authority
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation for Tom Kuck Recognition Day October 9th to be accepted by
Tom Kuck.
B. Proclamation for Bipolar Disorder Awareness Day to be accepted by Nancy
Schultz, President ofNAMI Collier County and Kathryn Hunter, Executive
Director ofNAMI Collier County.
C. Proclamation for "Put The Brakes On Fatalities Day" to be accepted by: Lt.
Paul France, Florida Highway Patrol Lt. Harold Minch, Collier County
Sheriff's Office Sgt. Chris Gonzalez, Collier County Sheriff's Office Lt.
Greg Gaffney, Naples Police & Emergency Services Department Bob
Tipton, Director, Traffic Operations Gene Calvert, Director, Stormwater
Management Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services
Division Jay Ahmad, Director, Transportation Engineering and Construction
Management John Vliet, Superintendent, Road & Bridge Maintenance.
D. Proclamation for National4-H Week to be accepted by: Chelsea Ward,
President of 4-H County Council.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Joel Hollocher, Risk Analyst, Risk
Management Department, as Employee of the Month for September 2007.
B. Presentation for the Waste Reduction Awards Program (WRAP) to
recognize The Conservancy of Southwest Florida for their efforts to
contribute to the greater good of all of Collier County by helping to prolong
the usable life of the Collier County Landfill, by reducing their solid waste
stream through an enhanced recycling program.
C. Presentation by Clarence Tears, Director, Big Cypress Basin, on
improvements made following Tropical Storm Emesto.
Page 3
October 9, 2007
D. Poole and Kent Contractor presentation regarding the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Expansion Project.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Roberto Leon to discuss property at 1071 16th
Street N.E. and the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension.
B. Public petition request by Kenneth Thompson to address lack of
communication between Code Enforcement and the public.
C. Public petition request by Tim Barone to discuss impact fees at the Wolfe
Apartments, 4590, 4610, 4630, 4650 16th Place SW, Naples, FL 34116.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission members. Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, AshrafFawzy,
represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates,
P.A., requesting approval ofa Conditional Use in the Rural Agricultural (A)
zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for an
aquaculture facility in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, per Section
2.04.03 Table 2 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject
property, consisting of approximately 15.08 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias
Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County,
Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Health Facilities Authority.
Page 4
October 9, 2007
C. Appointment of member to the Industrial Development Authority.
D. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
F. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners continue to
uphold the prohibition relative to the severance of Transfer of Development
Right (TDR) credits from illegal nonconforming lots or parcels (properties
of record that were established after October 14, 1974) within the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Land. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development & Environmental Services
Division)
B. Recommendation to clarify the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners as to the character of the real property interest identified as
Parcels 80 I, 802, 803 and 804 which are necessary for the construction of
Phase I-B South of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP)
and amend Resolution No. 2007-89, thereby authorizing the condemnation
offee simple interests in Parcels 80 I, 802, 803 and 804. (Capital
Improvement Element No. 291, Project No. 51101). The cost to acquire a
fee simple interest in Parcels 80 I, 802, 803 and 804, as opposed to a
drainage easement only, is estimated to add $25,500 to the original LASIP
Phase 1 B easement acquisition cost estimate of $1,838,000. (Norman Feder,
Transportation Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or
purchase of the fee simple and those perpetual and temporary easement
interests necessary for the construction of roadway, drainage and utility
improvements required for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from
west of Wilson Boulevard to east of Everglades Boulevard (Phase 1), and
authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of the fee simple interests
necessary for the construction of stormwater retention and treatment ponds
required for the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from West of Wilson
Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard. (Phases 1 and 2.) (Project No. 60040.)
Page 5
October 9, 2007
Estimated fiscal impact: $18,411,297.00. (Norman Feder, Transportation
Services Administrator)
D. Recommendation to award Bid No. 07-4130 to Mitchell & Stark
Construction Co., Inc., in the base bid amount of$2,634,639 for Project
70158, the construction of Tamiami reliability wells numbers 34 & 37 and
the replacement of raw water pipelines; authorize the Chairman to sign the
contract after approval by the County Attorney's Office and receipt of final
written authorization by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP); and, to authorize the County Manager or his designee to carry out
responsibilities under the FDEP Low Interest State Revolving Fund (SRF)
Loan Program. (Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator)
E. To Provide status of efforts to resolve mineral rights issue, directional
drilling update and to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
extends the termination date of the Starnes Contract for Purchase in the
Conservation Collier Program for 60 days. (Alex Sulecki, Principal
Environmental Specialist)
F. Recommend approval of the FY 08 Tourism Strategic Marketing Plan
developed by tourism staff and Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc.
($2,402,500) (Jack Wert, Tourism Director)
G. Recommendation to award Contract #07- 4182, Chiller Plant Renovation to
Kraft Construction Company, Inc. for the modifications and additions to the
existing chiller plant, project 52533, in the amount of $1,739,000. (Hank
Jones, Senior Project Manager)
H. Recommendation to adopt a Resolution authorizing the borrowing of an
amount not to exceed $7,975,000 from the Pooled Commercial Paper Loan
Program of the Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to
the loan agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the
Commission in order to finance a portion of the construction of the
Emergency Services Complex; authorizing the execution of a loan note or
notes to evidence such borrowing; agreeing to secure such loan note or notes
with a covenant to budget and appropriate legally available non-ad valorem
revenues as provided in the loan agreement; authorizing the execution and
delivery of such other documents as may be necessary to effect such
Page 6
October 9, 2007
borrowing; and providing an effective date. (Project 52160) (Skip Camp,
Director, Facilities Management)
I. Recommendation to approve the projects identified below for SAP
integration services from Labyrinth Solutions, Inc. d/b/a LSI Consulting for
approximately $1.7M plus travel expenses, and to amend Contract No. 07-
4092 SAP Upgrade Project with Labyrinth Solutions, Inc. d/b/a LSI
Consulting with Exhibit A-I, Amendment #1. (Len Price, Administrative
Services Administrator)
J. Authorize a request from the Collier County Department of Emergency
Management in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office to develop a
fee structure for reviewing emergency plans, site development plans and
recovering cost for extended emergency responses and certain training
programs. (Dan Summers, Emergency Management Director)
K. Obtain Board of County Commissioner authorization to modify the late fees
assessed to the Public for Rental Registration. (Joe Schmitt, Community
Development Administrator)
L. Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to Work
Orders to Board-Approved Contracts. (Steve Carnell, Purchasing
Department Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
Page 7
October 9, 2007
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 Endorse Code Enforcement Board and Special
Magistrate Rules and Regulations.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Cedar Hammock, Unit 2.
3) Recommendation to approve final approval of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Cedar Hammock, Unit 3.
4) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Cedar Hammock, Tract F-4.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Cedar Hammock, Unit 6.
6) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Pine Ridge Middle School.
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for Lely Elementary School.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Tuscany Reserve, Phase 1. (IA-I & lA-2)
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Tuscany Reserve, Phase 1. (IA & IA-4)
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Tuscany Reserve, Phase 1. (1 A-3)
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Cedar Hammock, Unit 4.
Page 8
October 9, 2007
B. TRANSPORT A TION SERVICES
1) Approve the purchase of 2.50 acres of improved property which is
required for road right-of-way for the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension Project. Project No. 60168 (fiscal impact: $431,713.00)
2) Recommendation to award Bid No. 07-4167 Purchase of lime rock and
fill material, fixed term contract for the estimated annual amount of
$500,000 to AP AC, Inc., Florida Dirt Source, Florida Rock Industries
Inc.
3) Recommendation to grant a Deed of Conservation Easement to the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for the Freedom
Park a.k.a. the Gordon River Water Quality Park in Collier County,
Florida.
4) Approve the purchase of2.5 acres of improved property which is
required for road right-of-way for the Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension Project. Project No. 60168. (Fiscal Impact: $430,000)
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve award of bid 07-4189 in the amount of
$734,000 to Douglas N Higgins for Master Pump Station 316
Improvements, Project 72546 and Project 73970.
2) Recommendation to approve award of bid 07-4190 in the amount of
$784,000 to Douglas N Higgins for the Master Pump Station 318
Improvements, Project 72546 & Project 73970.
3) Recommendation to approve a Florida Innovative Waste Reduction
and Recycling Grants contract in the amount of $78,500 with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection to fund the Collier
County School Beverage Container Recycling Challenge grant and the
necessary budget amendment to allow the processing of this grant.
4) Recommendation to approve a Florida Innovative Waste Reduction
and Recycling Grants contract in the amount of $79,732 with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection to fund the Collier
Page 9
October 9, 2007
County seasonal and year-round business How to Recycle videos and
approve the budget amendment to allow the processing of this grant.
5) Receive approval for the donation of bottled water for Collier County
Government or Collier County Water-Sewer District sponsored events
in the estimated amount of $5,000 annually.
6) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement for
reconstruction of the existing interconnect between the Collier County
Water-Sewer District and Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc to provide for
reverse potable water flows at Bonita Springs Utilities expense, to
provide for the design and construction of a second interconnect, at a
location to be determined, at the expense of the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, and to establish rates for usage of potable water.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Release relating to a
Declaration of Restrictions recorded in error against property located
at 5249 Hardee Street.
2) Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to accept
the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program grant award and recognize
revenue in the amount of$67,313.
3) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize its Chairman to sign Amendment Number I to the 2007
North Jetty Doctors Pass Tourism Agreement between Collier County
and the City of Naples providing for a one (1) year time extension;
additional funding totaling $6,772 and approval of all necessary
Budget Amendments.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 37, Trail Ridge.
Page 10
October 9, 2007
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 38, Trail Ridge.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 39, Trail Ridge.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 40, Trail Ridge.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 41, Trail Ridge.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 42, Trail Ridge.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 129, Trail Ridge.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Page 11
October 9, 2007
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 167, Trail Ridge.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 171, Trail Ridge.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 172, Trail Ridge.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 173, Trail Ridge.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 174, Trail Ridge.
16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 175, Trail Ridge.
17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 176, Trail Ridge.
Page 12
October 9, 2007
18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Freeman
& Freeman Inc. (DEVELOPER) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 138, Block D, Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford
Phase Two.
19) This item continued from the September 25. 2007 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing a State Housing Initiative Program (SHIP) grant in the
amount of $22,200 to The Empowerment Alliance of SW Florida
(EASF) for Homebuyer Counseling to low and moderate income
households in Eastern Collier County. This program will consist of
homebuyer education and one-to-one counseling for potential new
homebuyers.
20) This item continued from the September 25. 2007 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing a State Housing Initiative Program (SHIP) grant in the
amount of$35,000 to The Collier County Housing Development
Corporation (CCHDC) for Homebuyer Counseling to low and
moderate income households in Collier County. This program will
consist of home buyer education and one-to-one counseling for
potential new homebuyers.
21) Recommend approval ofFDEP Amendment No.2 to Cost Share
Contract No. 05CO I and authorize the County Manager or his
designee to sign this amendment and any subsequent amendments to
this Agreement for additional funding with Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems for
the construction and monitoring of the City of Naples/Collier County
Beach Renourishment Project No. 905271.
22) Recommendation to accept the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation
and Safe Exchange Grant in the amount of$200,000 between Collier
County"Board of County Commissioners and the United States
Page 13
October 9, 2007
Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women and
approve the necessary budget amendment to recognize the revenue.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Approve Deductive Change Order No. 10 in the amount of
($1,660,798.00) for direct purchase of materials for the Construction
Manager at Risk for the Courthouse Annex Project, Contract No. 04-
3576.
2) Recommendation to approve a Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement
(FRA) between Collier County and Sprint Nextel.
3) Recommendation to award RFP #06-3971S Annual Contract for
General Contractors Services on an as-needed basis, to the following
firms: Bradanna, Inc.; Brooks & Freund, LLC; Surety Construction
Company; Wright Construction Group, Inc. and Zurqui Construction
Service, Inc. (Estimated value of $600,000)
4) Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the Human
Resources Department to host an Employee Book Fair and to use the
associated 10% rebate for Employee Recognition Initiatives.
5) Recommendation to reject all responses to Bid #07-4126, Safety
Equipment and Supplies.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services
County Grant Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution
for Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment and Supplies in the
amount of$157,253.00 and to approve a Budget Amendment to
appropriate additional grant funds in the amount of$57,253.00 which
is the difference between the $100,000.00 budgeted for FY 08 and the
$157,253.00 deemed by the State of Florida as the grant award.
2) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between Collier County
and the Florida Division of Emergency Management accepting
$105,806 for Emergency Management Program Enhancement.
Page 14
October 9, 2007
3) Recommend approval of Contract Amendment # I for Contract #06-
4007 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. to increase the
County Museum advertising budget to the amount of$120,000 and
authorize the County Manager or his designee to execute Contract
Amendment #1.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$29,800.00 to fund the increased cost of construction for Taxiway C
at the Immokalee Regional Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the East
Naples Civic Association's Monthly Luncheon for September 2007 on
September 20th, 2007 at Carrabba's Restaurant; $21.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Collier County Bar Association Annual Dinner in honor
of The Florida Second District Court of Appeals, October 4, 2007 at
the Port Royal Club. $60.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Participating in the Migrant Matrix IV: A map to decipher farm
worker services and regulations on October 4, 2007 at the Immokalee
Sports Club. $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the NAACP Annual Awards Ceremony in honor oflocal
Page 15
October 9, 2007
organizational NAACP founders, September 29,2007 at the Naples
Hilton and Towers. $75.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
paid in advance to attend the Final Weed and Seed Steering
Committee Luncheon on September 20, 2007 and is requesting
reimbursement in the amount of$20.00, to be paid from his travel
budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) To file for record with action as directed
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 15,2007 through September 21,2007 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
September 22, 2007 through September 28, 2007 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
103 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Pelican Marsh Community
Development District, Case No. 04-1532-CA (Vanderbilt Beach Road
Project No. 63051). (Fiscal Impact $1,604.05)
2) Board approval of Addendum to County Attorney Employment
Agreement providing for a 120 day extension to the term of
employment.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
Municipal Code Corporation to provide monthly electronic updates to
Page 16
October 9, 2007
the Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Land Development Code
and to modify the proof requirement for the Land Development Code.
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. Petition: SV-2007-AR-
11349, Bre LQ FL Properties, LLC, represented by Robert D. Pritt of
Roetzel & Andress, LP A, is requesting a Variance from the maximum 12
square-foot area requirement for off-premises directional sign to replace an
existing directory sign that was damaged by hurricane Wilma with a new
off-premises directional LaQuinta Inn & Suites sign. The proposed sign
would be located at 185 Bedzel Circle, in Section 34, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. V A-2007-AR-11703
Kurt Lutgert, represented by Q Grady Minor, and Richard D. Y ovanovich,
Esquire, Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, P.A., requests a variance to
legitimize the legally-constructed non-conformities and permit a minor
additional encroachment along the front of the home to enclose and
modernize the carport as a standard two-car garage. The applicant would
like to enclose the carport, and expand the width of the home alone the east
side of the property to the current side setback requirement of7.5 feet. An
addition was added to the original home on the northwest side and, although
it was legally permitted, the current survey indicates a 1.5-foot
encroachment into the required front yard. The subject property is located at
Page 17
October 9, 2007
180 Channel Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates subdivision, Section
29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2003-14 relating to mandatory street
numbering of all structures and the establishing of a grid pattern for street
numbering and replacing the repealed text with provisions that provide for
clarification of administrative processes and procedures, eliminating
potential for the duplication of addresses, street names, developments and
subdivisions and providing improvements to the public notification process
as previously directed by the Board of County Commissioners.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
Page 18
October 9, 2007
October 9,2007
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to welcome you to the Collier County
Board of Commissioners' meeting of October 9th, and we'll begin this
meeting like we do all meetings, with an invocation by Pastor Craig
Nelson from the East Naples United Methodist Church.
Please stand.
PASTOR NELSON: Thank you. Let's pray together.
Dear God, this started out as a beautiful day, and it's starting out
as a day full of promise; promise to do good, promise of cooler
evenings, at least the weatherman says; an indication, perhaps, of
season. Business owners are praying for a good season, and we join
them in asking for that blessing.
And I ask your blessing upon season, upon this region, upon this
county, upon the commissioners that are gathering here in this
particular meeting.
I thank you for the service of the people that are going to be
commended here. I ask your guidance upon the people who are going
to be appointed here, and I ask your wisdom for all the actions and the
decisions that are going to be made, by the commissioners, by the
staff, by the public.
We thank you for this day, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, would you
lead us in the Pledge?
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
October 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, if any
of you have a cell phone, if you would please either turn it off or put it
on vibrate at this point in time, it would be very much appreciated.
Anyone failing to do so will be escorted out by the deputy at the end.
No. That's not quite true. But we'll all give you dirty looks.
And with that we'll go to Mr. Mudd for any changes to the agenda.
MR. MUDD: Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, October 9,2007.
First item is to withdraw item 6B, the public petition request by
Kenneth Thompson to address lack of communication between code
enforcement and the public. It is withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
The next item is item 8A. It's continued to October 23,2007,
BCC meeting. Also note that this item should have included the
following: This item requires that all participants be sworn and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Again, 8A is being continued to October 23,2007, and it's
petition, conditional use 200-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy, represented by
Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates P.A.,
requesting approval of the conditional use in the rural agricultural
zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic yards of earth for
an aquiculture facility in the agricultural zoning district per section
2.04.03, table 2, of the Land Development Code. Again, that item is
being continued until October 23,2007.
The next item is item 10E. It says lOA on your sheet. It should
say 10E. The underlying text is added to the recommendation in the
executive summary as follows: The board directs staff to extend the
termination date of the Starnes contract for 60 days until December
16,2007, and authorizes the chairman to execute an addendum stating
same, subject to approval by the Office of the County Attorney. And
that correction, clarification, is at staffs request.
The next item is item 16Al, continued indefinitely. It's a
recommendation to endorse the Code Enforcement Board and special
Page 3
October 9,2007
magistrate rules and regulations. That item is being continued at
staffs request.
Next item is 16C6, continued to November 13,2007, BCC
meeting. It was a recommendation to approve an interlocal agreement
for reconstruction of the existing interconnect between Collier County
Water/Sewer District and Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., to provide for
reverse potable water flows at Bonita Springs Utilities' expense, to
provide for the design and construction of a second interconnect at a
location to be determined at the expense of the Collier County
Water/Sewer District, and to establish rates for usage of the potable
water between the two utilities. That item is being continued at staffs
request.
Next item is item 16E2. The frequency reconfiguration
agreement was not included in the agenda packet. Copies have been
distributed to all concerned and made available for review. 16E2 is a
recommendation to approve a frequency reconfiguration agreement,
FRA, between Collier County and Sprint Nextel. That clarification
and distribution in the agreement is at staffs request.
The next item is item 16F3. The title on the index should read:
Recommend approval of contract amendment number 1 for contract
number 06-4007 with Paradise Advertising and Market Inc., to
increase the Collier Museum advertising budgets to the amount of
$120,000, and authorize the chairman, rather than authorize the county
manager or his designee, to execute the contract amendment number
1. That clarification's at staffs request.
The next item is item 17 A, and it should read: This item requires
that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
commission members. It's petition SV-2007-AR-11349 Bre LQ
Florida Properties, LLC, represented by Robert B. Pritt of Roetzel &
Andress, LP A, is requesting a variance from their maximum
12-square-foot area requirement for off-premises directional signs to
replace an existing direction -- directory sign that was damaged by
Page 4
October 9,2007
Hurricane Wilma with a new off-premises directional LaQuinta Inn &
Suites sign. The proposed sign would be located at 185 Bedzel Circle
in Section 34, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida. And, again, that clarification is at staffs request.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, no further
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now for ex parte disclosure or
changes to the agenda from the commissioners. We'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I have spoken to the
County Attorney's Office on 17C. That's the only ex parte
communication I have on today's summary and consent, and I have no
changes to today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have nothing to disclose on
the summary or consent agendas, and I have no addition or corrections
or whatever to the -- to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I, myself, have
nothing to disclose on either the summary or the consent agenda, and I
have no other changes to the -- to the agenda.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing that I have to
disclose is on 17B, and I have no changes to today's agenda. So that
pretty much takes care of it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we proceed with the
vote to approve today's agenda, we do have one speaker at this point
in time signed up to speak, and also, too, if anyone -- is there anyone
Page 5
October 9, 2007
here that came because of the Fawzy Fish Farm? I'm sorry.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: One question, and that is relating to Mr. Halas's
comment. If you indicated you had something to disclose on 17B, you
should --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: You should disclose what that is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. I had meetings
with the attorney that was representing that case. I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, we have one
speaker signed up. But is there anyone in the audience that came for
the Fawzy -- am I pronouncing it right?
MR. MUDD: It's Fawzy Agricultural Farm and Excavation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the fish farm issue that was here?
That thing's being continued, but if you came here to speak, I was
going to give you that opportunity at this time.
Is there anyone?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There isn't, okay.
With that, would you call the speaker.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners.
Commissioner, I'm registered to speak at this time to request that an
item on the consent agenda be moved onto the regular agenda for
discussion, and it's item 16C3.
And I'm Bob Krasowski with the Zero Waste Collier County
group, Florida Alliance for Clean Environment. There's -- there is --
this involves a grant proposal that needs your approval that involves
the school system as well.
There's two specific areas I'd like to make some comments on. I
won't go into details now, but in general there's erroneous information
Page 6
October 9, 2007
in the application to the state for a grant. And erroneous doesn't mean
untrue, it just means incorrect. You know, I don't want to imply--
well, it's untrue. I'm not suggesting malicious.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't have to get into that now,
SIr.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes. And then the other item is that the
program that's being promoted involves the placement of recycling
containers with logos for junk food on the container, and that conflicts
with school board policy. So I don't -- you know, at this -- this is kind
of a nebulous issue.
I'd like to have that pulled so the citizens have a chance to
comment in front of you and help you in not signing something that
might be totally inappropriate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to exercise my ability as a
commissioner to have an item moved, and I'm going to ask for that to
be moved to the regular agenda for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I move that we
approve the agenda as amended.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, wait -- yeah, one second. Mr.
Mudd hasn't had a chance to assign --
MR. MUDD: 10M.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10 what?
MR. MUDD: 10M, sir.
Okay. So we have a motion for approval --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- of the agenda as amended by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
Page 7
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it unanimously,
4-0.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 9, 2007
Withdraw Item 6B: Public Petition request by Kenneth Thompson to address lack of
communication between Code Enforcement and the public. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8A continued to the October 23. 2007 BCC meetino: (Note that this item should have
included the following: "This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members.") Petition: CU-2005-AR-8748, Ashraf Fawzy,
represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., requesting approval of
a Conditional Use in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to excavate in excess of 4,000 cubic
yards of earth for an aquaculture facility in the Agricultural (A) zoning district, per Section 2.04.03
Table 2 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The subject property, consisting of approximately
15.08 acres, is located at 2060 Tobias Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 10A: The underlined text is added to the Recommendation in the Executive Summary as
follows: The Board directs staff to extend the termination date of the Starnes contract for 60
days, until December 16, 2007, and authorizes the Chairman to execute an addendum statino
same. subiect to approval by the Office of the County Attorney. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A1 continued indefinitely: Recommendation to Endorse Code Enforcement Board and
Special Magistrate Rules and Regulations. (Staffs request.)
Item 16C6 continued to the November 13. 2007 BCC meetino: Recommendation to approve an
interlocal Agreement for reconstruction of the existing interconnect between the Collier County
Water-Sewer District and Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc. to provide for reverse potable water flows
at Bonita Springs Utilities expense, to provide for the design and construction of a second
interconnect, at a location to be determined, at the expense of the Collier County Water-Sewer
District, and to establish rates for usage of potable water. (Staff's request.)
Item 16E2: (The Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement was not included in the agenda packet.
Copies have been distributed to all concerned and made available for review.) Recommendation
to approve a Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement (FRA) between Collier County and Sprint
Nextel. (Staffs request.)
Item 16F3: The title on the index should read: Recommend approval of Contract Amendment #1
for Contract #06-4007 with Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. to increase the County
Museum advertising budget to the amount of $120,000 and authorize the Chairman (rather than
"authorize the County Manager or his designee") to execute Contract Amendment #1. (Staff's
request.)
Item 17 A should read: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by Commission members. Petition: SV-2007-AR-11349, Bre LQ FL Properties, LLC,
represented by Robert D. Pritt of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, is requesting a variance from the
maximum 12 square-foot area requirement for off-premises directional signs to replace an
existing directory sign that was damaged by hurricane Wilma with a new off-premises directional
LaQuinta Inn & Suites sign. The proposed sign would be located at 185 Bedzel Circle, in Section
34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Staffs request.)
October 9, 2007
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 - BCC/BUDGET HEARING;
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11,2007 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING AND MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 -
BCC/REGULAR MEETING - CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER
11. 2007 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
And with that, I need an approval for the budget hearing of
September 6th, approval of the minutes and the regular BCC meeting
of September 11 th and the September 12th BCC regular carryover
meeting that took place on September -- from the -- took place from
the September 11 th meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and a second by Commissioner Henning.
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: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #3A
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE AWARDS
Page 9
October 9,2007
Okay. Service awards, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to two
five-year awardees for your advisory committee service awards. And
the first is Fire Chief Jim Mackel -- McEvoy -- I'll get it right -- for
five years for the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Commission.
Chief?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Don't see him, sir.
The next recipient is Jack Markel for five years for the utilities
authority for his worked there.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Looks like everybody is attending to
business rather than coming here, which is fine.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION FOR TOM KUCK RECOGNITION DAY
OCTOBER 9TH - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Okay. That ends our service awards and brings us
to proclamations, sir.
First proclamation is a proclamation for Tom Kuck for
recognition day, October 9th, to be accepted by Mr. Tom Kuck. As
you know, he's your county engineer and he is retiring.
Mr. Kuck?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right up here, sir. Don't be bashful.
Turn around and face the audience. And you're safe. We won't hurt
you.
MR. KUCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Tom.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have the privilege of reading this
Page 10
October 9, 2007
proclamation today. And I went to his retirement party the other day.
What a -- what a nice time and what a tribute to Tom and all of the
good work that he's done.
And actually I requested to be able to read this as well, and I
appreciate Commissioner Henning allowing me to do that.
Proclamation: Whereas, it is hereby noted that Tom Kuck is retiring
from the staff of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
after 29 years of dedicated and faithful service; and,
Whereas, it is duly noted that during his tenure with the Board of
County Commissioners, and more specifically, with the road and
bridge department, and later with community development and
environmental services division, that Tom faithfully and honorably
served the citizens of Collier County.
While serving as the public works administrator and later the
county engineer and director of engineering services, he provided road
construction supervision and supervision of all plan and plat
engineering structural reviews, engineering inspections, subdivision
inspections, well inspections, and excavation inspections, and in doing
so, served the vital interests of Collier County; and,
Whereas, having served as the director of engineering services,
community development and environmental services division from
April 1994 to September, 2007, he faithfully and honorably served to
promote exemplary residential and commercial review standards and
governmental oversight of the development and building industry, and
in doing so, promoted harmony between the industry and the citizens
of Collier County, contributing immeasurably to the enhancement of
our community development, quality of life, and community character
of the county; and,
Whereas, it is reported that every day he worked diligently and
enthusiastically and always displayed a positive can-do attitude
throughout the workday, and in doing so, led and managed one of the
most efficient and effective engineering departments in the State of
Page 11
October 9, 2007
Florida; and,
Whereas, it is reported that he managed and led a team of
dedicated employees that reviewed and processed thousands of Site
Development Plans and subdivision plats for commercial and
residential development during his tenure as the director of
engineering services, and in doing so, proficiently and professionally
enforced the dictates of the Board of County Commissioners and the
Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development
Code; and,
Whereas, given his laudable contributions to the economic,
social, and cultural well-being of the citizens of Collier County, it is
fitting that we recognize Tom Kuck for his dedicated and faithful
service to the Board of County Commissioners and the citizens of
Collier County from September 5th, 1978, to October 12, 2007.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 9,2007, be
designated as Tom Kuck Recognition Day.
Done and ordered this 9th day of October, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Fiala for approval and a second by Commissioner
Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 12
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Unanimous?
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Don't forget your picture.
MR. OCHS: Get your picture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom, we need you one time here to
get a picture that will last a lifetime.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. KUCK: Thank you. I would like to say one or two words.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. We'd love to hear from you.
MR. KUCK: Very short.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead. Give us --
MR. KUCK: I do want to thank all of you. It's been a real
pleasure serving Collier County. And for the last 29 years as you
mentioned, I've been with the -- with the county. And the -- prior to
that, I'd been a -- well, I've been a professional engineer 45 years, and
this is probably the highlight, top highlight, of my entire career.
And thank you. And I also want to thank Joe for his
administration and my staff of 13-and-a-halfyears, their dedication,
and they've made my life and work ajoy. Again, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I could be
wrong, but I feel that the engineering department, if you put all the
years together, it's the oldest department in Collier County.
MR. KUCK: Is that in age, too?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just in public service.
MR. KUCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good observation, Commissioner
Henning.
Item #4 B
Page 13
October 9,2007
PROCLAMATION FOR BIPOLAR DISORDER AWARENESS
DAY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation is a proclamation for
Bipolar Disorder Awareness Day to be accepted by Nancy Schultz,
President ofNAMI, Collier County, and Kathryn Hunter, Executive
Director ofNAMI, Collier County.
Ladies, if you'd please come forward. Thank you for being here
today.
MS. HUNTER: Thank you
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, stand right here and face the
audience.
MS. HUNTER: Lieutenant Walsh is here for Nancy. He's on
our board of directors.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh. We thank you for volunteering.
We really do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whereas, more than 10 million
Americans are affected by bipolar disorder, a serious brain disorder
that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy, and functioning; and,
Whereas, misdiagnosis is a major problem for people with
bipolar disorder, as seven out of 10 receive at least one misdiagnosis
and many suffer for 10 years before an accurate diagnosis is made;
Whereas, undiagnosed bipolar disorder can lead to suicide,
incarceration, substance abuse, and other harmful consequences; and,
Whereas, lifetime cost per consumers range from $12,000 for a
person with a single manic episode to hundreds of thousands of dollars
for those with multiple episodes; and,
Whereas, NAMI, National Alliance on Mental Illness and Abbott
Laboratories are recognizing October 11, 2007, as Bipolar Disorder
Awareness Day during Mental Illness Awareness Week; and,
Whereas, Bipolar Disorder Awareness Day seeks to increase
Page 14
October 9,2007
people's understanding of the devastating impact of bipolar disorder
symptoms on the lives of undiagnosed individuals, their families,
friends, and seeks to promote early detection through mental health
screening; and,
Whereas, there is no cure for bipolar disorder. There are
effective treatment options that can help those with bipolar disorder to
lead fulfilling lives.
Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 11,2007, be
designated as Bipolar Disorder Awareness Day in Collier County and
urge all cities (sic) and county residents to educate themselves on
bipolar disorder and mental illness, to participate in mental health
screening, to aid in early detection and, if necessary, engage
themselves or family members in a successful treatment program.
Done and ordered this, the 9th day of October, 2007, James
Coletta, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval by myself, Jim
Coletta, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: The ayes have it, 4-0.
(Applause.)
Page 15
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It is so good to see you again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much for what you do
for us.
MS. HUNTER: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Appreciate what you do.
MS. HUNTER: Good morning, Mr. Weigel, Commissioners. I
really want to thank you for this. Some of you have known me and my
county career, too long to even talk about.
But I do want to say that the National Alliance of Mental Illness
last year alone served 20,000 people free of charge in Collier County.
One in four people are affected by severe and persistent mental illness,
and those also include depression, schizophrenia, panic attack, anxiety
disorder.
We thrive to improve lives, we also give people hope, and we see
people recover every day. You all are very much aware of the mental
health funding that is being cut on the state level. I've been here with
other agencies, including David Lawrence, asking for your continued
support.
Help us to really promote hope and recovery for our most
vulnerable citizens. And I really appreciate your time today.
Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION FOR "PUT THE BRAKES ON FATALITIES
DAY" - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, your next proclamation is a
proclamation to Put the Brakes on Fatalities Day, to be accepted by
Lieutenant Paul France from the Florida Highway Patrol; Lieutenant
Harold Minch from the Collier County Sheriffs Office; Sergeant Chris
Gonzalez, the Collier County Sheriffs Office; Lieutenant Greg
Page 16
October 9,2007
Gaffney from the Naples Police and Emergency Services Department;
Bop Tipton, the Director of Traffic Operations; Gene Calvert, Director
of Stormwater Management; Norman Feder, Administrator of
Transportation Services Division; Jay Ahmad, Director of
Transportation Engineering and Construction Management; and John
Vliet, the Superintendent of Road and Bridge Department.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, gentlemen. It gives
me great pleasure to read this proclamation. I wish that we would
have a larger outcry in Washington in regards to the amount of
fatalities that we have on our highways.
And I'll begin by saying; whereas, the traffic crashes caused more
than 42,000 fatalities nationwide in 2006; 58 of those were in Collier
County. And the highway crashes are the leading cause of death for
people ages three through 33; and,
Whereas, speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all
fatal crashes in 2005;
Whereas, alcohol-related crashes account for 38 percent of all
traffic fatalities; and,
Whereas, death and injuries on U.S. highways cost the society
over $230 billion annually, about $820 per person; and,
Whereas, safer driving behaviors, such as the use of seat belts,
not drinking and driving, and obeying traffic laws would dramatically
reduce the number of traffic-related injuries and deaths; and,
Whereas, increased investment in road and bridge improvements at the
local level saves lives, such as making road lanes and shoulders wider
and adding medians;
Whereas, the Federal Highway Administration and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration data shows that for every 100
million invested in highway safety improvements will result in
approximately 145 fewer traffic fatalities over a 10-year period; and,
Whereas, Collier County has committed to spending more than
$861.7 million on road improvements in the transportation five-year
Page 17
October 9,2007
work program to improve the county's roadways, safety, and traffic
circulation.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that October 9,2007, be
designated as Put the Brakes on Fatalities Day, and call upon everyone
to help save lives by spreading these important messages throughout
our community.
Done and ordered this 9th day of October, 2007, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Jim Coletta, Chairman.
And Chairman, I make a motion for approval of this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Harold, it's good to see you again.
It's been too long.
MR. MINCH: Been here a long time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, we sure have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hey, Jay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good to see you, John.
Item #4 D
Page 18
October 9, 2007
PROCLAMATION FOR NATIONAL 4-H WEEK - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: The next proclamation, Commissioners, is one for
the National 4- H Week, to be accepted by Chelsea Ward, president of
4-H County Council. And anybody else from 4-H that's here, come
on up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, the goal of 4-H is to
provide education opportunities for the youth and adult volunteers in
Collier County in the area of leadership, citizenship, personal
development, and practical skills; and,
Whereas, the activities of the -- have resulted in learning
experience and accomplishments that have received state and national
awards; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County
feels that the 4-H program contributes to the overall development of
our youth and strengthens our community; and,
Whereas, the 4-H receives inspiration and guidance from
interested parents, Collier County University of Florida ISF -- IF AS
extension staff, volunteers, adults, team leaders and the support from
many community organizations and businesses; and,
Whereas, the 4-H forms partnerships in corroborations (sic) with
all other youth-serving agencies to reach out to a wide, diverse
audience.
And now there, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
for Collier County that the week of October 7th through the 13th,
2007, be designated as National4-H Week, and all the citizens of
Collier County's urged to join the board and give an appreciation
recognition and achievement of the 4-H members and club of Collier
County.
Done in this 9th day of October, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we move this proclamation.
Page 19
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Henning,
a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Step up a little bit closer to the
podium and face the camera there and we'll get a picture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Would one of you like to
say a couple words?
MS. WARD: My name is Chelsea Ward. I'm the Collier County
4- H President.
We'd just like to thank you guys so much. It means a lot to us to
have the county behind us. This is a really great program for us. I
can't really think of any other program that allows teens to learn the
stuff that we learn. We learn about the government and all sorts of
things. So it's really great to have the county, and we'd like to thank
you so much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
Page 20
October 9,2007
RECOGNIZED JOEL HOLLOCHER, RISK ANALYST, RISK
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR SEPTEMBER 2007 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to presentations.
The first presentation is a recommendation to recognize Joel
Hollocher, Risk Analyst for Risk Management Department as
Employee of the Month for September 2007.
Joel, if you could come forward.
Joel Hollocher, Risk Analyst, has been nominated as the
Employee of the Month for September, 2007. Joel is a professional
and dedicated employee, is an extremely hard worker, is often
complimented for high quality of services that he provides his
customers.
Joel's primary responsibilities include the administration and
management of the workers' compensation program and property
casualty claims function.
In addition to those duties, Joel also developed and managed the
subrogation recovery program. This program is designed to recover
funds owed to the county by third parties as a result of damage to
county property. Prior to the program, many departments handled the
responsibility with varying degrees of success.
Since its inception under Joel in January, 2002, he has collected
over $1,500,000 in funds. These funds have been redistributed to the
folks that had the damage in order to get it repaired to the various
departments at no additional collection costs.
Joel's dedication makes him an asset to risk management in
Collier County in particular, and he is truly deserving of this award.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to -- I'd like to present to you
today Joel Hollocher, who's the risk analyst for risk management
department, the Employee of the Month for September 2007.
(Applause.)
Page 21
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please accept this plaque, this letter,
and a check. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service. We
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your team was standing up there for
you before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Joel, we'd like to get a picture if you
don't mind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. HOLLOCHER: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION FOR THE WASTE REDUCTION AWARDS
PROGRAM (WRAP) TO RECOGNIZE THE CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR THEIR EFFORTS TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE GREATER GOOD OF ALL OF COLLIER
COUNTY BY HELPING TO PROLONG THE USABLE LIFE OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDFILL, BY REDUCING THEIR
SOLID WASTE STREAM THROUGH AN ENHANCED
RECYCLING PROGRAM - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, your next presentation is for
Waste Reduction Awards Program, your WRAP program, to
recognize the Conservancy of Southwest Florida for their efforts to
contribute to the greater good of all Collier County by helping to
prolong the usable life of the Collier County Landfill by reducing their
solid waste stream through an enhanced recycling program.
Page 22
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And it's my honor to be able to make
this presentation today. As everyone knows out there, we have the
recycling bins. We've had them now for a number of years, and
they've been very successful.
Trying to get the commercial end of the market involved, we've
had some mandatory requirements put into place, but we depend upon,
for the most part, voluntary recycling, and your organization has
proved to be one of the better ones.
And if I may, the mandatory non-resident recycling ordinance
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on July 27, 2004,
established the Waste Reduction Awards Program, the WRAP Award,
to recognize business and institutions for enhancing and innovative
recycling programs.
The solid waste management department, WRAP program, is
considered with the following -- with the guiding principles adopted
by the Board of Collier County Commissioners on December 5, 2006.
One, environmental and growth management compliance; two,
airspace preservation; three, operational excellence; and four, best
value service.
The Board of Collier County Commissioners is pleased to
recognize the Conservancy of Southwest Florida for their efforts to
contribute to the greater good of all of Collier County by helping
prolong the useful life of the Collier County Landfill by reducing their
solid waste stream through an enhanced recycling program as evident
by: the Conservancy has recycling canisters shaped as aluminum cans,
clearly marked recycling for aluminum cans, plastic, and trash at
convenient locations around their campus to eliminate the opportunity
for littering.
The Conservancy has recycle boxes placed in each office and
copying areas to recycling paper. Staff uses both sides of the paper for
interdepartment communications or local flyers. The Conservancy
uses all revenues collected from recycle material, example, aluminum
Page 23
October 9, 2007
cans and ink jet cartridges, to help care for injured and rehabilitated
animals.
The Conservancy advocates the reduce, reuse, and recycle
message throughout their entire educational outreach program to the
schools, church groups, community organization, and service
organizations.
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is an outstanding example
of an institution that manages an excellent recycling program and is in
compliance with the non-residential recycling ordinance.
The WRAP program -- award program includes a certificate
today, a trophy, use of the WRAP logo, and space on the Collier net
site, website, to showcase their waste reduction and recycling
program.
Therefore, the solid waste management department and the
Board of Collier County Commissioners congratulates Mr. Grant
Fisher, Museum Naturalist, and Ms. Barbara Wilson, Director of
Marketing Communications for their continued support in promoting
waste reduction and recycling.
Their efforts and recycling leadership is a positive example to
other institutional businesses and will have a significant impact on
substaining (sic) the usable landfill.
And with that, I'm very, very much honored to be able to present
you with these awards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh boy, is that pretty.
MS. GO: Wow, awesome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you be so kind to hold one and
face the front there for some pictures.
Would you be so kind as to give us some words of
encouragement to other people out in the audience that may be able to
follow your example? You can take one of the podiums.
MR. FISHER: We would just like to thank Collier County, as
well as Janet Go, for helping us move forward in this regard. But we'd
Page 24
October 9, 2007
just like to continue our mission statement, which is to preserve
Southwest Florida now and forever, wildlife rehab rehabilitation of
animals, as well as incorporating the reduce, reuse, recycle message
into our educational programming that we use in our nature center and
also going out into the local community as well. So we'd just like to
say thank you very much. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5C
PRESENT A TION BY CLARENCE TEARS, DIRECTOR, BIG
CYPRESS BASIN, ON IMPROVEMENTS MADE FOLLOWING
TROPICAL STORM ERNESTO - PRESENTED AND UPDATED
ON WATER RESTRICTIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, your next presentation is by
Clarence Tears, the director ofthe Big Cypress Basin on
improvements made following Tropical Storm Ernesto. I also did
mention to Clarence at this presentation if he would also talk about
how we sit as far as our water rationing is concerned and how we're
sitting overall in our system as far as from the summer, our season,
and what we can look forward to the next -- during high season.
MR. TEARS: Good morning, Commissioners. Clarence Tears,
Director of Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management
District.
And I'll be as brief as possible, but I wanted to give you an
update. Even though we're in a severe drought, we did not forget
Ernesto, and we've made a lot of improvements to the system since
that storm event.
Just to recall, Tropical Storm Ernesto, you know, moved through
Southwest Florida on August 30th. And you can see by this track, it
was estimated plus seven inches for Collier County. And by the
Page 25
October 9, 2007
colors, you can see it was right over Collier County when it dumped a
lot of rain.
And some of the things, you know, the soil in the area was
heavily saturated, and then with that enormous amount of rain, you
know, the water had nowhere to go.
This just gives you a summary of the rainfall. You can see CR
951 between August 1 through 9/25, about 22 inches of rainfall. Then
if you look through 29 through 4, about eight-and-a-halfinches, and
then you see an additional, on the 30th, an additional four inches. So
we had an enormous amount of rainfall in a month period.
So, you know, that's really -- you know, the system is designed to
handle a certain amount of rainfall each day, and once you exceed
that, the water has to go somewhere, and it starts to back up, and you
start to see the system fail, and it just takes time for the system to
catch up.
In addition to that, one thing we have to realize is that a lot of the
newer developments are designed that they only can release water at
the predevelopment scenario. So when we get an enormous amount of
rain, what happens is the lakes fill up, then the swales fill up, then the
common areas fill up, and then the roads actually fill up, but it keeps it
out of your house. If every development drained and got rid of the
water really quickly, everybody downstream would flood in some of
your lower divisions. So everything is designed to hold the water and
drain a certain rate. That's on the larger developments.
What we did is we worked with Collier County, and we actually
put together a joint report. And, you know, we submitted this report
to you and also to the basin board. In addition, there was a report
developed by, I think, the Golden Gate Civic Association, and they
put together a report and we took some of their recommendations and
findings, and we tried to do whatever we could to improve the system
in the short period, and also we're looking long-term. You know,
some of these improvements will take a longer period of time.
Page 26
October 9, 2007
Some of the things we have been able to do is we've worked with
local developments. Twin Eagles actually had some inadequate
culverts which, during peak flood events, were able to use the
Cocohatchee Canal to divert water flows to the west. Only during
peak events, you know, when the water starts to equalize and back up,
it gives us another avenue to divert water. So we were able to work
with them to replace their culverts.
These culverts here are, when you stand inside -- you can
actually stand inside of them. I think they're six feet in diameter. It's
hard to tell from this photo, but they're large. They will convey water
and this is one of the improvements we've been able to do with no cost
to the public. It was working with local developments.
We did some stabilization, enormous amount of shoal removal.
Fortunately, it was extremely dry this year, so it gave us an
opportunity to go into some of these systems and remove a lot of
sediment, so we took advantage of that.
In addition, we had some challenges after the storm event about
debris moving through the system, so we installed some trash barriers
which deflected debris to the side of the canel. It gives an opportunity
to remove it, you know, during a storm event and after a storm event,
and keep it out of the Gulf.
In addition, we identified one area where some improvements
were made that it was actually diverting water through -- to some of
the low-lying areas in Collier County. It would be the Rock Road area
and those areas. And we were able to identify a way to divert those
flows to the Cocohatchee system by installing sandbags.
In addition, recently there was a wildlife crossing installed, and
this wildlife crossing is high enough to try to divert the flows so they
don't go into these low-lying areas. So it's just another way to
improve the system and try to move the water where we need to
during major rain events.
This is some of the improvements we did in the Golden Gate
Page 27
October 9,2007
main system is the boat canal. The basin went in and cleaned up the
boat canal. We're currently working with Collier County. We believe
that this system is -- should be in public ownership. It's in the public's
best interest because it conveys flows from a school, a major roadway,
and some major development.
So we're working with Collier County right now to get the proper
easements in place so this can be maintained by the public or by
government.
Golden Gate weir number two was replaced, and is actually
about 98 percent complete. This structure will convey an additional
400 cubic feet per second, 400 to 600; roughly about three to four
million gallons a day additional water to the coast if needed. But,
however, what we did is we raised the structure to prevent
overdrainage at the onset of the dry season.
And what you've seen in our system over time, we've continually
improve it, we raise the structures, we make the gates wider, but what
you'll see this year, because we're in such a severe drought, by raising
these structures, we're able to hold back a little bit more water. It's
really helping us to, you know, meet the water supply demands during
the dry season.
A lot of trash removal, bank vegetation removal. We're
continuing to remove shoal from various channels and canal systems,
trying to take advantage of the dry conditions. And as I stated earlier,
the boat canal was a major improvement.
Another thing that the public requested is -- you know, what I
found out last year is they were always questioning us, worrying if the
structures were open and closed. And what we tried to do was we --
on our website now, you can actually go to www.sfwmd.gov and go to
BCB, and then if you look at this little icon here it says, related links,
you can actually go get the current readings of all our water control
structures that are on.
And this is real-time data, upstream and downstream, so you can
Page 28
October 9,2007
see if the structure's open, if it's closed, and you can click on it. So it's
__ the public can actually go into our system and see how the system is
being separated.
In addition to that, what we're trying to do right now is create a
hydrodynamic model which can -- you can input real data, so when a
storm's approaching -- this was another request from the public -- tell
us what's going to happen. So what we're trying to do -- we actually
have all our district scientists and basin staff working on it -- is to
create a model that, if we're going to get 20 inches of rain, we'll be
able to show you exactly what will happen to the system, and
hopefully within a year we'll have that completed.
In summary, you know, the Collier County system is limited. It
works very well in the normal situations but it doesn't work very well
during extremes. And there's extremes, too much water or too little
water. And so when you go to these extremes, you have to operate the
system outside the box.
During this drought period, we actually have the majority of the
system on dry season operation just trying to hold back the water
because it's an extremely dry year; however, during the really wet
years, we actually operate the system and maximize the openings to
try to get rid of the water.
It does have limitations. We're looking at opportunities to divert
flows, connections through the Henderson Creek, connections through
rock quarries further to the east, every opportunity to divert water
through natural flowways and through natural wetlands to keep the
water in the system longer and allow the water to move naturally and
try to prevent flooding.
You know, the challenge in the future is, you know, the growth
we will have in eastern Collier County and trying to deal with the
incremental impacts of each one of these homes out there, because it
does -- it's like adding one more pebble to the cup of water. You
know, the water keeps rising, and we need to try to deal with that.
Page 29
October 9,2007
Another question that was raised is, where do we stand this year?
We're in an extremely severe drought. We're still in phase two water
restrictions. I don't -- I do not see us coming out of phase two, and
possibly, depending on what the dry season brings, we could go to
phase three.
But if you look at the top chart, this is a cumulative total of a
deficit. And in Collier County right now from January through
August -- or through September, we're about 16 inches below normal,
and that's a lot of rainfall. This is a time of year we expect to get a lot
of rain.
What I also provided you was a little graph in the bottom of the
historical average of Lake Trafford. The blue center line is this year.
In the typical year, you see the lake rise to about, you know, 20 feet.
And this year it's staying right around 17, 17 -and-a-half feet.
I actually had to shut down the restoration project because we
don't have enough water to flow to dredge, so we had to let the
contractor go, and we'll have to rebid that project to do phase two
hopefully next wet season. But it's a severe drought.
Conservation's extremely important. Collier County is so far in
the front of reuse, you know, using the deeper aquifers that are
drought-tolerant, but you really are protecting your public and
ensuring that resource is available when they turn on that faucet. And
we truly appreciate all your efforts, and thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Tears?
MR. TEARS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have several commissioners that
have questions, but I'm going to lead off, if I may. First I want to
compliment you for the website. The last time we went through a --
that small little disaster with the rain event, there was a lot of
miscommunications. There was a lot of rumors that went around
about weirs that were shut, that weren't open when they were
supposed to. This will help to eliminate a lot of that type of rumors
Page 30
October 9, 2007
and be able to keep people focused on what the real problems are out
there. You've done amazingly well with the limited resource that's out
there. I compliment you on how well you handled the public outreach
with such things as Rock Road, Boats Canal. Very, very positive.
Now, if! may just touch on it. The Rock Road area, the
measures that you have put into place, would it have diverted a
disaster as they suffered on Rock Road at that event?
MR. TEARS: No. The challenge, if you look at the elevations in
Golden Gate main canal during the peak flood stages, right adjacent to
Rock Road, just to the south of them, the water elevation was 12 five;
12 five in the canal. Rock Road area, some of the elevations, the
lowest homes are right around 6, six five, six feet above sea level.
So basically your ground is so saturated that it's actually percolating
up. Rock Road, that area is a challenge because it is so low, and some
of those properties are developed at such a low elevation. It's
challenging to provide them flood protection, and I'm not quite sure
what the answer is in there.
You know, we do everything possible to divert the flows to
ensure we don't add to the problem. But when you have canal stages
so high, just the seepage alone will raise the elevation -- the water
elevation in their neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, one of the main concerns of the
residents on Rock Road was the road itself and the inability to be able
to get in and out. Since then there's been improvements made to the
road, and they formed their own MSTU to be able to handle future
needs as they build up the road and maintain it. So we've come a long
ways on that.
Now, the big question out there that the public asks all the time,
are we going to run out of drinking water?
MR. TEARS: Well, no. The real issue is -- and if you talk to
your utility managers, is the cost. That truly is the issue. We have the
Gulf to the west, you know. It's just the cost to produce high-quality
Page 31
October 9, 2007
drinking water.
What I can tell you is the cheap drinking water is pretty much
used up. That's Tamiami aquifer. That's why Collier County is going
to alternative sources. It's just the cost to produce quality drinking
water is going up. But we'll always have drinking water, and the way
we're heading, we will always protect our wetlands because we're
ensuring we don't overdrain, you know, the cheap water supply which
does indirectly impact surface water.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But those that are not on a municipal
system, such as residents of the Estates and agricultural areas, their
wells they have into place, are they in danger in the immediate future
of these wells going dry?
MR. TEARS: The only thing I can tell you is they're the really
extremely old, old wells, like the two-inch wells. If this drought
continues and they're close to the surface, there's a possibility, you
know, some of the old wells will go dry. But the four-inch wells that
are in the deeper part of the aquifer, I don't think so. But if this
drought continues for two to three years, you know, we don't know but
if we have an average, normal -- normal year and we start to get back
into our wet season patterns, we should be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And just one last question and I'll turn
it over to Commissioner Halas. Is there some provision that we reach
a state of crisis, like you mentioned, two or three years out, that
residents would get preference over agriculture to be able to direct the
Tamiami aquifer use to that?
MR. TEARS: Well, what you have to realize, you know,
agriculture, just like utilities, are permitted, and there's restrictions and
everyone is reduced based on the severity of the, you know, the water
crisis. So there are rules and regulations in place to protect
everybody.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Halas?
Page 32
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've got a couple of questions.
With the improvements that you had for alleviating stormwater
backing up and to release it at a quicker rate into the Immokalee
Canal, what effects is that going to have on the total maximum daily
loads that are going to be released in there?
MR. TEARS: Well, you know, if you look on the average daily
loads, I think we're improving it because we're reducing -- on average
we're reducing the impacts to the bays; however, you know, during the
major, major rain events -- you know, during that short period of
time, you know, we do have major impacts because you have these
freshwater plumes going out into the Gulf. And freshwater in itself
can be in a plume in large quantities. But they're extremes. I mean,
we don't have 20,30 inches of rainfall in 30 -- you know, a 30-day
period all the time. And during the extremes, it's extremely
challenging to meet the TMDL.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEARS: But the idea is, you know, on average, we're
continually improving the system, we're raising the structures. We've
actually seen in the north end of the county, the groundwater levels
are coming up because we've prevented overdrainage. So it truly is a
balance. But when you get to those extremes on the drought end and
on the flood end, you know, when we had those extremely -- major
storm events, you know, the system isn't designed for that. And that's
where we do have major challenges.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you're saying, basically,
with the improvements of where we're holding back water in the dry
season, that we've actually increased the water levels, groundwater
levels?
MR. TEARS: We have seen some increase in the north end of
the county, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other question I have is
in regard to phase three if we have to go to those extremes, is Collier
Page 33
October 9,2007
County going to have to abide by phase three since we've put a lot of
resources into making sure we have an adequate water supply? The
reason I say that is when I look at your chart here of Lake 0,
obviously there's a lot of communities that that's their source of water,
and either that or the Cocohatchee River.
MR. TEARS: No, this chart here is Lake Trafford.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon?
MR. TEARS: This chart's Lake Trafford.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
MR. TEARS: Actually, Lake 0 is about 10 feet above sea level,
and that's the whole east coast water supply, and it's severe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's where I'm going with this.
So are we, with the improvements that we made, are we going to be --
if this drought conditions, are we going to be put under phase three
requirements?
MR. TEARS: Well, depending on the severity of the drought, it's
possible Collier County could be put on phase three restrictions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though we put a lot of money
in regards to building a water system that is in the Hawthorne aquifer?
MR. TEARS: Yes, but what you do is you're mixing surficial
aquifer systems with the Hawthorne, and even on your reuse side,
you're mixing some of the surficial aquifer water. You possibly would
go to phase three; however, based on the improvements you made,
you ensure that, you know, the public always has a water supply
available.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. TEARS: In phase three -- what you have to realize is, phase
three is, basically all we're restricting is people from watering their
lawns and their plants. You know, the residential community
basically is -- you just can water your lawn, your plants, one day a
week. I mean, the impact isn't impacting how they take a shower, you
know how much water they use for cooking. It's just -- you know, it's
Page 34
October 9,2007
really a minor impact to protect the resource for the benefit of the
public.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So do you think that it would
behoove the South Florida Water Management and also the Big
Cypress Basin to get out in front of this, and people that do not have
reclaimed water, to basically get out there and say what you needed to
come up with is xeriscape?
MR. TEARS: The district governing board is working on that
right now, and what you'll be seeing, in the near future you'll be seeing
that effort take off.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. TEARS: You'll hear a lot more about that in the near future.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's something that --
direction we need to go.
MR. TEARS: Yes. That district governing board, the basin
board, they've been talking about that, and there's a lot of effort and
directives given to staff to move forward with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, where's the Boat
Canal?
MR. TEARS: Boat Canal is up near Orangetree/Waterways area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, you mentioned something
about the -- continuing to preserve the wetlands, right?
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I know that's something we've
tried to do to a degree and yet sometimes even when we want to, the
South Florida Water Management District has approved a
development to go ahead even though it's in wetlands, so that kind of
defeats our purpose and doesn't give us a support system to preserve
Page 35
October 9,2007
those wetlands. Is there a way that we could work together to do that
to ensure that our water supply continues in the right direction?
MR. TEARS: Well, I think you're talking about the regulatory
developmental process. You know, we have our rules and regs to
follow, and if the development meets the criteria of our rules and regs,
we permit it.
What we try to do is minimize wetland impacts. And if there is
any wetland impacts on the property, they have to mitigate for that.
So there's always -- you know, what you're trying to do is you mitigate
for every impact. Sometimes there's consequential impacts to
wetlands on site. They mitigate off site to protect, you know, a bigger
portion of the resources.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but sometimes when you
mitigate it's just like moving -- moving toward us. You know, you
move them to another place and they die, or you take something out of
a flowway, and all of a sudden you've actually ruined everything
around it. And I was just wondering if maybe there needed to be some
adjustments there.
MR. TEARS: Well, Collier County can always make their rules
and regulations more stringent than the district. But, you know, our
rules and regulations are really set up for 16 counties. And it probably
would take us a lot longer to change our rules and regs than it would if
Collier County implemented more stringent ordinances.
You know, we do -- we try to do our very best with the rules and regs
that we have to protect the resources.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Tears -- oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mudd,
go ahead.
MR. MUDD: Clarence, this relates to Commissioner Halas's
questions about what level of restrictions we're under. Is the entire
Southwest Florida Water Management District under one set
restriction, or based on different areas, are there different severities of
water restrictions?
Page 36
October 9, 2007
MR. TEARS: Yes. It's based on the rainfall, and different areas
are under different levels of restrictions. And there's like modified
restrictions in certain areas. The lower east coast got an enormous
amount of rain. If you look at all the recent rain events, they received
a lot of rain. And we actually have some discharging on the coastal
areas on the east coast. But yes, there's different levels of severity
throughout the district based on rainfall and the conditions within
those regions.
MR. MUDD: So I guess where I'm leading to is, because Collier
County's been a good steward in going into reuse, going into lower
Hawthorne aquifer, into the brackish aquifer, in some cases we're
rewarded to the fact that our restrictions might not be as severe as
other __ as other members in the South Florida Water Management.
MR. TEARS: That's correct, yes. And you truly are protecting
your resources by using these alternative resources.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just have one last question,
and I want to follow up on what Commissioner Fiala brought forward,
and that is, where we have mitigation of our wetlands in our county
for development purposes, and yet those mitigation rights end up
going into another county, which doesn't really benefit this particular
county, and I have some real concerns with that.
And I think that wetlands is used also for recharge area, and I
think that we have to look at that. That's the overall picture we have
to look for. Ifwe have growth that's coming to our county, then I
think some way or another we have to make sure that we don't destroy
any more of those wetlands and work around those perimeters.
MR. TEARS: I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Tears, thank you very much for
being here today, and please let your board of directors of Big Cypress
Basin know how much we appreciate their efforts.
MR. TEARS: Thank you very much.
Page 37
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mudd?
Item #5D
POOLE AND KENT CONTRACTOR PRESENT AnON
REGARDING THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next presentation is from Poole
and Kent, Contractor. It's a presentation regarding the South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant expansion project.
MR. GRAMATGES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm Phil Gramatges from Public Utilities
Engineering. I am the project manager for South County Regional
Water Treatment Plant, 12 million gallons a day reverse osmosis
expansiOn.
I am here to introduce the firm Poole and Kent, represented today
by their Project Manager, Mr. Pat Mitchell.
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning. We're -- Poole and Kent has
been responsible for the expansion of the South Collier Water
Treatment Plant. We added 12 million gallons a day of reverse
osmosis treatment that was completed in February.
The project site, if you're not familiar with it, is just north of the
junction of 951 and I - 75. We also have added -- we've more than
doubled the high service pumping capacity, which is the capacity that
pumps from your storage out to the mains during times of high flows.
And we're in the middle of processing the -- adding some
chemical treatment to the system, rehabbing a lot of the old lime
softening electrical systems that have been -- over 25 years old, and
the entire treatment plant of20 million gallons a day. So the -- it will
be virtually a new one when we're finished.
Page 38
October 9,2007
Just another idea or a shot of the facility where -- the locations
there, a lot of the new construction. You can see the new buildings
and all that have been built since the project started.
Final completion's scheduled for this December. We're on
schedule to meet that barring any unforeseen circumstances.
The original project was in different phases. Each phase has been met
on the time line as we've gone, and we're looking forward to final
completion in December.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. We'll start with Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of the 12 million gallons that's
going to be generated there in capacity, which is reverse osmosis, how
much of that -- how much water are you going to be blending from the
Tamiami aquifer into the system?
MR. MITCHELL: That's outside our scope, but --
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Pat.
For the record, Jim DeLony, Public Utilities Administrator. I
think Pat would not be operating that plant. I will be.
Let me explain that to you. You have two there. One that's eight
million gallons per day that deals with freshwater system, and then the
__ and then this completion here deals with the reverse osmosis.
We blend at different times different amounts. This time of year,
right now, in balancing the demand that we have on the system and
managing our wellfield stream in terms of the drawdowns on those
wells, we're probably -- I can't tell you what it is. It's a different
blend. It could be 20/80 some days, it could be 50/50 some days, it
could be 60, 70 on days (sic). The key of it is, it will be a blend, and
that blend is very important because the aggressive nature of the RO
water is buffered by that soft -- the rather softer water that we get from
the lime softening process.
So to give you an exact number, I don't have that available. I can
Page 39
October 9,2007
get that for you on an operational basis. But there is always blending
going on at that plant.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if I'm correct in what you just
stated to me, you have about eight million gallons of Tamiami aquifer
water, is that correct, and the rest will be --
MR. DeLONY: Excuse me, 12. 12, and we'll have 12 and 20.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You answered my question.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: But it's always a blend, sir. That's the bottom
line.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, thank you very much.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY ROBERTO LEON TO DISCUSS
PROPERTY AT 1071 16TH STREET N.E. AND THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions,
and the first is from Roberto Leon to discuss property at 1071 16th
Street Northeast and the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
MR. LEON: Good morning to all board members, commissioner
-- county commissioners.
This in reference to my property in Golden Gate Estates, 1071
16th Street Northeast. With my greatest respect to all the
commissioners, I decided to address myself to you this morning
seeking your help, pleading for a human solution to my situation and
Page 40
October 9,2007
most likely similar cases with other citizens in this area that are being
affected by the Vanderbilt Road extension project.
I spoke at this chamber last February 27, 2007. At that time the
board asked the department of transportation, represented by Mr. Jay
Ahmad and Mr. Hendricks, that we needed an answer to this issue this
year, 2007, not in 2008.
On September 1 st, 2007, I spoke to Ms. Debbie Armstrong at
DOT, and she stated that my property had been marked with ribbons
and markers, and appraisers will be the next step to take and that I
should hear from them by early next spring.
That statement, in part, was satisfactory, but she also told me that
the DOT had no money to pay for our property. She also mentioned
that it would be -- only happen if the commission board gave them the
money, as they are the bosses.
She also added that the project would take two years, five years,
or may be never built. I was extremely disappointed after that
conversation, as my personal economic situation is not being taken
into consideration.
Taxes on my property for 2006 were just under $4,000. My
proposed taxes this year is 3,700, and the taxable value for 2007 is
309,000, same as 2006.
I visited the taxing office on August 22nd and spoke with Mr.
Long Grambo (phonetic) and John Hamblen. After asking for a
reduction of my taxes and he proved it was true, that the property was
going to be reduced by approximately 100 by 660 feet, and they
would consider an adjustment.
A few days I received a corrected bill with reduction on a taxable
value for $270,000 and reduce my taxes to just over $3,200. Total
reduction of approximately $467.
Please, try to figure this out. If my lot is five acres and half of
the lot is being affected, how the reduction would be only $467 and
still hold a taxable value of270,000. I do not understand.
Page 41
October 9, 2007
I urge you to examine, review, and think of possible ways
available to help solve this problem. We're very aware the way the
housing industry's being affected in the whole country. The recovery
is going to be a long one.
Me and my wife are retired with a total social security check of
$1,600 a month. We're not meeting our expenses. Costs are very
high. You see it in the supermarket, gas, medicines, insurance, et
cetera.
If it wasn't by the announcement on proposals to expand
Vanderbilt Road, my land would have been sold by now. I have
reports from various realtors, including Mr. Matthew Hudson, well
known by Commissioner Coletta, that my land cannot be sold.
Please tell me what to do in our case. We need to move to
Atlanta with my only daughter and son and six grandchildren. We
feel there must be a way out of the turmoil we're facing and not caused
by us. In comparison, it is like telling a sick person, you will not be
taking any more medication.
We are owners of the property. We pay our taxes. Can't sell.
The county wants to build a road. The DOT is the only buyer but
can't pay, so what do we do?
Dear Commissioners, I want to tell you that our lives are fading
away. We're sick. Our future is today. Vanderbilt Road might be
able to wait anytime to be built; however, I urge this commission to
study what's going on with patience, with a heart, and a human touch.
Our retirement life is a nightmare. After living in this country for
over 50 years, what's happening is very unfair. We ask God to give us
strength and health to end this struggle before it's too late and we are
unable to defend our human rights and we have to depend on others to
take care of us.
Our most sincere thanks to the board members for allowing me to
share my plight, and we hope and pray I will hear from you very soon
with a positive solution. And please, don't let Golden Gate Estates
Page 42
October 9, 2007
become the forbidden city. We're also part of Naples.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I appreciate you
being here today. I'd like to hear from staff on this.
MR. AHMAD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jay
Ahmad; I'm your Director of Transportation Engineering.
I have on the visualizer Mr. Leon's property. Mr. Leon's property
is east of Wilson. It's in our phase two project of Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension. The property is shown in yellow, as I'm displaying it
here. It's approximately 5.15 acres, and the Vanderbilt Beach Road
extension runs in black color, as I see it on this map. This is -- from
here to here is Vanderbilt Beach Road extension.
Approximately 100 feet ofMr. Leon's property will be needed
for the roadway, leaving him over 230 feet of right-of-way. Mr.
Leon's property is vacant, so he can develop it ifhe wishes. He can
move ahead, sell it if he desires.
Currently we are acquiring, as directed by this board, the full take
of the properties, the ones that we need the whole take, the houses and
so forth. We have approximately 21 homes that will be needed for
this project, and to date we have acquired or have contract on 13 of the
21 homes.
So unless directed by this board, we don't have plans to acquire
partial takes for this roadway until we reach 60 percent design phase,
and that will occur in the spring of 2008.
MR. HENDRICKS: Phase one.
MR. AHMAD: For -- correct, for phase one, which extends to
Wilson. We brought before you a gift and purchase resolution to
acquire partial takes up to Wilson, and we don't have any plans to
acquire partial takes until we get to the 60 percent stage east of
Wilson.
So by spring of this -- of next year, we hope to have design plans
completed and we start acquiring those partial takes.
Page 43
October 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So, Jay, is it my understanding that
right now the game plan is that we're acquiring partial takes and
buying property, whole takes, for property just up to Wilson at this
point in time; is that correct?
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Halas, we are
acquiring full takes at this time. We have brought before you -- there
are actually two properties on this agenda for full take. Partial takes --
we are not acquiring any partial takes until we reach the 60 percent
design stage, and we're only planning to do it up to Wilson.
East of Wilson -- or west of Wilson we will be acquiring when we get
to the 60 percent. East of Wilson on a case-by-case basis.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. AHMAD: And we'll be bringing them to the board
separately each time we need one of those or we make a deal with any
of the property owners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And at this time what's paying for
those takes is the impact fees; is that correct?
MR. AHMAD: Our impact fees and gas tax are fund sources for
those properties.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So what we're -- really what
we're interested in is just strictly properties up to Wilson at this point
in time?
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We know that the road is
eventually going to go all the way out to Desoto, but at this point in
time our priority is to try to get the properties in line for all of -- to
Wilson, west of Wilson?
MR. AHMAD: That's correct. We are designing the entire
project. We have a contract with CH2M Hill to design -- 100 percent
design for the entire project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 44
October 9,2007
MR. AHMAD: And they are on schedule to bring us 60 percent
design plans by the spring of next year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You answered my question.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So let me understand. If this
gentleman, being that his house isn't here or anything, this is an
investment piece of property, ifhe waited until the spring of next year
until we have the 60 percent design phase back, then we would be
considering -- then we'll know how much of his property we need to
take and to buy from him; is that it?
MR. AHMAD: We can bring his property before you as an item
on the agenda. Staff is only allowed to negotiate, per the resolution
that you approved, up to Wilson through the gift and purchase
resolution. But we can still negotiate with properties east of Wilson
and bring them separately item by item as we are doing today on full
takes. We bring each item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But this -- but till spring, I mean.
MR. AHMAD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, we can't do that before
spring, right?
MR. AHMAD: Correct. We don't know how much exactly we
need from Mr. Leon. We could narrow the right-of-way to 165 feet or
we could end up with the 200 foot that was shown on the corridor plan
that was approved by this board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So--
MR. AHMAD: Until then, we wouldn't know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So probably with Mr. Leon, he
wants to move to Atlanta, but maybe by spring property values will
increase a little bit, especially ifhe has more property there that's left.
It might be in his best interest to wait until spring just -- because right
now the market is really destitute, and maybe by spring the price
Page 45
October 9,2007
might be a little bit better. Is that -- well, that's only an assumption,
and none of us know for sure, but -- so we will -- we can, in the
spring, then go back to him and make an offer?
MR. AHMAD: In the spring we will know how much property
we need from Mr. Leon and we can negotiate with him to bring an
item before the board. We'll be able to do that. At this stage we're not
at that stage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the reason that I asked this, Mr.
Leon to come here today, is that the consequence of our decision
making is always going to leave somebody at the short end of the
stick, and we have to be very much aware of the pain and suffering
that they're going through, and this is one of the reasons why I asked
him to be here today, and I think Mr. Leon knew it too. But in order
to keep you appraised of the situation, his own personal situation,
which becomes our problem too as time goes along, maybe when that
time does come when we get to the spring, we might be able to act
accordingly to be able to move this thing along.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would think so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll keep you appraised of the
situation. Transportation will keep you advised on how we move
forward. There are -- there are circumstances out there that may
prevail to raise the issue of what we can do.
If the state cuts us back on funding, everything's up for grabs out
there. I don't know what to tell you, sir. But meanwhile we'll do our
very best to meet your needs, of all the people's needs that are in the
Vanderbilt corridor or anyplace that we're going to be putting a road.
We thank you for being here today and taking the time to come.
MR. LEON: I thank you also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Item #6C
Page 46
October 9,2007
PUBLIC PETITION BY TIM BARONE TO DISCUSS IMP ACT
FEES AT THE WOLFE APARTMENTS, 4590, 4610, 4630, 4650
16TH PLACE SW. NAPLES. FL 34116 - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is 6C, and
that's a request by Tim Barone to discuss impact fees at the Wolfe
Apartments, 4590, 4610, 4630, 4650 16th Place Southwest, Naples,
Florida, 34116.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Tim just stepped out to use the
rest room.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what, let's take a
10-minute break. We'll be right back.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Commissioners, this is a public petition, number C. It was a
request by Jim (sic) Barone to discuss impact fees at Wolfe
Apartments.
MR. BARONE: Commissioners, and it's Tim Barone, please.
I'd first like to say that St. Matthew's House is not setting a precedent.
The county has already committed to assist non-for-profits in
payment of their impact fees or deferment, and efforts have been made
to set up specific funds solely to address this issue.
Now, the address I'm referring to is Wolfe Apartments in -- 4590,
4610,4630, and 4650 at 16th Place Southwest in Naples. It's in
Golden Gate and in Commissioner Henning's district.
Currently it is the only provider of affordable housing for
permanent __ affordable permanent housing, excuse me, for disabled
individuals in Collier County. In addition, it offers below-market
transitional housing for individuals and families who are stricken by
home1essness.
Page 47
October 9, 2007
People are also referred to us not only from St. Matthew's House,
but from other agencies in the county. For instance, the Shelter for
Abused Women and Children, we do receive clients from them as
well.
In addition, we have been working closely with the Federal
Human Trafficking Authority and housing victims of human
trafficking, and that has been a great program that we never thought
we'd get into, but they found us. So we've been protecting them, and
it's been, you know, a wonderful relationship thus far.
But what it comes down to was, is our initial pro forma, when we
started the Wolfe Apartments, did show us having a modest income,
modest net profit, that would help sustain St. Matthew's House in
underwriting the costs. Unfortunately, after some revelations of the
contract we had with HUD and current economic conditions, we are
experiencing a net loss. And we -- for the near future, we are
predicting that we will continue to have a net loss; however, we are in
the process of addressing this issue and taking this -- the necessary
steps to correct this.
We would first like to ask the county and the commissioners to
partner with the 8,000 individuals that have supported this project, to
help payoff these impact fees with designated funds. If this cannot be
done, we do request that 100 percent of these fees are deferred.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate you being here today.
We have Commissioner Henning's light on, so we're going to --
commissioner Henning's the commissioner for that district. We're
going to have him go first.
MR. BARONE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, if you're the only one that
provides housing for the homeless, what does First Assembly of God
do?
MR. BARONE: No, this is just for housing -- permanent housing
Page 48
October 9,2007
for disabled individuals. We're the only people in the county that
provide that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And First Assembly does
not do that?
MR. BARONE: To my knowledge? I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, the impact fees
were deferred.
MR. BARONE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we already did defer the
impact fees. What it is, the agreement that you had with the Board of
Commissioners, you're asking for us to change that agreement?
MR. BARONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So are you asking for us
to further defer it, waive it, or what? I'm not sure.
MR. BARONE: Well, ultimately we would, you know, it would
be in our best interests if they were waived. Two hundred and
eighty-eight __ two hundred eighty-nine thousand dollars hitting us in
April could make the project unsuccessful and us --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BARONE: Ifwe do pay that, we would have to--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want a gift?
MR. BARONE: A gift? Yes, that -- obviously that that would
be in __ the best for us; however, we understand that may not be
possible, so we do have to ask, however, a deferment would, again,
help us have the time to save the money to pay it off once that
deferment meets again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're asking for us to
further defer it?
MR. BARONE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Not waive it? You're
asking us to further defer?
MR. BARONE: Well, I am requesting a waiver--
Page 49
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BARONE: -- however, if that waiver cannot be met, the
second alternative, which is probably the more realistic one, is for a
deferment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you. Well, you
know, my position is, impact fees are going to be hard to come by to
build the necessary infrastructure for the next two years, maybe more.
I don't know. We just don't know that. And an agreement is an
agreement. And I would like to see the board stick to the agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Fiala, and
we'll come back to you at that time, Commissioner Henning, if you've
got some further comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a mistaken, I guess, idea of
Wolfe Apartments. And when -- I remember when they opened, I
went to the opening and I thought it was for people who had gone
through the program over at St. Matt's and were on their way to the
next step forward getting into the community and so forth, and I didn't
realize it had changed its -- now you house disabled people?
MR. BARONE: Well, with the agreement we had with HUD, we
received a construction loan from them for $500,000, and within that
agreement, we had to dedicate one building for the housing of --
permanent housing for disabled individuals. We have the three other
buildings that we use for the original purpose and intent of housing --
for transitional housing for people on the road to recovery. And, you
know, for __ it's part of the St. Matthew's House program. It is the
apex of that program. And we do receive, like I said before, clients
from other agencies. So we aren't specifically isolated to St.
Matthew's House residents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was -- I thought it was an
admirable program to give them a way to move forward. I didn't
realize that it changed a little bit. And how much how longer did you
want to defer this?
Page 50
October 9, 2007
MR. BARONE: I think a reasonable time period would be 10
years, five to 10 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you've already had six years,
right?
MR. BARONE: 2002, five years. Yeah, six years in '08.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all I wanted to know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If I may, I'd like to ask Jeff
Klatzkow if he'd come up for just a moment. I have some questions,
sir. I think this is a needed facility. I mean, Commissioner Henning's
right, you know. We don't want it to be a gift. And a gift would be if
we forgave it outright. We can't forgive it outright for you without
forgiving it outright for everyone. And there isn't enough money in
the county treasury to do that.
However, with that said, we can recognize this as a nonprofit
charity that has made -- is making improvements to the infrastructure
to be able to support elements out there, and that would be from that
$100,000 that we would have in reserve from impact fee interest that
we use every year to offset impact fees into that point in time.
Now, the way that program's set up is that it would go for the life
of the building as long as it did not change. If the use stayed the same
for another 30 years -- and Jeff will correct me on this ifI'm wrong --
that deferment or -- would be -- would last that point in time. If the
building use has changed or you sold it to a private interest or
something else took place, then all the impact fees would be due at
that point in time.
Now, I don't know if that's possible. But can you tell me if that
would be an option that would be available to us, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. Just a couple things. One, the
actual amount of impact fees that are owed are really 178,000.
They're not 288-. That was an error that we made when we did the
Page 51
October 9, 2007
contract, so you owe a lot less than you thought you owed.
And the other good news really is that this isn't due until June,
2008 anyway, which gives us an awful lot of time here to see if we
can't do something. I know that St. Matthew's is eligible for a number
of different grant programs, and it could be that they get one grant
from one area which frees up money to payoff the impact fees here.
Now, Amy and I will be coming back to the board shortly for
discussion on the charitable impact fee waivers, and at that point in
time we'll have several suggestions for the board. The board can
weigh to see where they want that program to go, and it could be we
will be able to take monies out of that program ultimately for this if
that's board direction.
So we have a lot of time to work on this and, you know,
depending upon what the board wants to do, I think there will be
options.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I like that idea, Jeff. The only
thing is, I don't want to get limited to anyone particular direction. I'd
like to have a menu to pick from.
MR. KLA TZKOW: We'll give you a Chinese menu of different
things that the board might want to choose from.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm not partial to Wonton
Soup, but the rest of it sounds good.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. What efforts have you made
to pay off the $178,000?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not due yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's not due, but they should
be putting some money into escrow.
MR. BARONE: As that is a very, you know, intelligent and
mindful business practice, we are -- we do have that on our agenda.
Weare attempting to save money that -- any money that we can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you haven't done anything as
Page 52
October 9,2007
far as putting money into escrow since these buildings have been put
up originally?
MR. BARONE: Well, from -- from the beginning, you know,
with original pro forma, we're expecting to receive some profit from
this building, some net profit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about grants?
MR. BARONE: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about grants?
MR. BARONE: Grants? That's part of what our plan -- our next
plan is going to be is we are -- we have been working diligently to
look for more grants to help supplement the subsidized loss we're
receiving from the HUD building.
And we are going -- we do have board-designated funds that we
could use in emergency to help pay these funds if it came to that. You
know, we're not totally out of it, but it would -- what it's going to--
what will happen is that we'll just be in that much of a space where it's
going to be putting a lot of pressure on the board to consider, is this a
viable project for St. Matthew's House to continue? Is it going to be
hurting us more than it is helping us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think that right from the
get-go you should have had a good business plan so that you realize
that eventually there was going to be a time when you were going to
have to make restitution on these fees.
So I __ I think that it's going to be difficult for me to go in the
direction of extending this because I can see this probably -- you
asked for us to extend it anywhere from five to 10 years. I can see that
this will be a continuation, that your business plan didn't put this into
the equation as far as what needed to be addressed and when it needed
to be addressed, that there was a timeline.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, you brought up some
good points but I don't think that we know enough about the business
plan to be able to make any rash decisions today. I think this is an
Page 53
"--,._.~-"
October 9,2007
item that should come back for some consideration. At that point in
time, if it doesn't reach the point of justification, this commission can
pass over it and go on to other items. But I hope that this commission
will agree that we can at least have it as part of the discussion when
Jeff K1atzkow brings back the -- what is that, the --
MR. KLA TZKOW: Charitable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- charitable waivers from the impact
fee and some of the changes that are going to take place, just for
consideration purposes. Of course, we need three commissioners at
this point in time to allow that to happen, and we could probably do it
with just a simple nod of the head if we can get three nods to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, I see two. If! could
count Commissioner Fiala twice, I'd be there. Well, we're missing a
commissioner, too. I can't tell you what may happen. This mayor
may not come back again in another time for further discussion. But
we thank you very much for being here today.
MR. BARONE: Thank you, Chairman; thank you,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't give up the faith.
MR. BARONE: I won't.
Item #9 A
RESOLUTION 2007-284: RE-APPOINTING MICHAEL
MCELROY TO THE GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Board of County
Commissioners, paragraph 9. First item is appointment of a member
to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve the applicant.
Page 54
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's Michael McElroy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Fiala to
approve the applicant.
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: In the opposition?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2007-285: RE-APPOINTING DR. JOAN COLFER
TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH FACILITIES
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9B, appointment of a member to the
Collier County Health Facilities Authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Move to approve Dr. Joan Colfer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala for
approval, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
Page 55
October 9,2007
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2007-286: RE-APPOINTING BARBARA MINCH
ROSENBERG TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9C, appointment of a
member to the Industrial Development Authority.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Barbara
Rosenberg.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Page 56
October 9, 2007
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2007-287: RE-APPOINTING LINDA HARTMAN
TO THE GOLDEN GATE EST A TES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9D, appointment of a
member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Linda
Hartman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2007-288: APPOINTING ADRIENNE L.
MARKOPOLOS TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9E, appointment of a member to the
Black Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve
Page 57
October 9, 2007
recommendation by the committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Halas and
seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2007-289: APPOINTING LUIS ALEJANDRO
BERNAL TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9F, appointment ofa member to the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve Luis Bernal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala for approval.
All -- any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 58
October 9,2007
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.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOA.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, or County
Manager, we have some residents that want to move 10H, request that
the chairman hear 10H at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10H, if that's your request,
Commissioner Henning, the chair will be happy to honor it.
Item #10H
RESOLUTION 2007-290: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
BORROWING OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,975,000
FROM THE POOLED COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM
OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND
THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO FINANCE A PORTION OF
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EMERGENCY SERVICES
COMPLEX; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LOAN
NOTE OR NOTES TO EVIDENCE SUCH BORROWING;
AGREEING TO SECURE SUCH LOAN NOTE OR NOTES WITH
A COVENANT TO BUDGET AND APPROPRIATE LEGALLY
AVAILABLE NON-AD VALOREM REVENUES AS PROVIDED
IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT; AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS
AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH BORROWING;
Page 59
October 9,2007
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PROJECT 52160)-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 10H is a recommendation to adopt
a resolution authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed
$7,975,000 from the pooled commercial paper loan program of the
Florida Local Government Finance Commission pursuant to the loan
agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the
commission in order to finance a portion of the construction of the
emergency services complex; authorizing the execution of a loan note
or notes to evidence such borrowing, agreeing to secure such loan note
or notes with a covenant to budget appropriate legally available
non-ad valorem revenues as provided in the loan agreement; and
authorizing the execution and delivery of such other documents as
may be necessary to effect such borrowing; and providing an effective
date. It's project number 52160.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: And Hank is going to present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala, but we
do have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Floyd Chapin.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think he left. Didn't he leave?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Someone's coming up.
MS. FILSON: No, he's here.
MR. CHAPIN: There are several of us in the audience that
would like to address this, but I guess I'm the designated spokesman.
Thank you, County Commissioners, for allowing me to speak.
I just want to briefly state that we are in full support of this
proposal that you have before us today to finish the $8 million for the
Page 60
October 9, 2007
EOC building.
By the way, my name is Floyd Chapin from Sapphire Lakes.
We wanted this project on Santa Barbara originally, half mile from
our residence. We couldn't have it, but it's eight miles from us now;
we want it at its present location. It's good for every citizen of Collier
County to make sure this building is built as expeditiously as possible.
So I urge you -- looks like you're all going to vote for it. Thank
you for your consideration, your time, and please move forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for coming out today.
That will close the public hearing.
And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just
want to report to the board being the liaison for the Productivity
Committee, that Hank Jones has done a wonderful job looking at ways
to stretch the tax dollar, and also the productivity's recommendations
to add value engineering on large projects like this in the future. It
will definitely serve the taxpayers of Collier County if we implement
that and move forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The board appreciates your personal
involvement on this particular item.
With that, any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those if 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 61
-----,..-..
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, being that you're located in
our neighborhood, that means when a storm or something comes up,
we all get to go in there and nobody else does, right?
MR. JONES: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bring your own coffee and
doughnuts.
MR. JONES: We'll have a special office for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
MR. JONES: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that I had the
privilege of going out there and touring this facility last week, and I
was very, very much impressed in some of the innovative ideas that
the builder, Kraft, has come up with whereby they're building the
walls right on the site, pouring the walls, and I think that in itself was
a savings of about 1.5 to $2 million in regards to this project.
And I want to say that it's moving on at a very rapid pace, and I
think they're -- if the weather holds, I think that they're looking to top
that building off sometime in late December.
So I just want to say thank you very much, and I think that
taxpayers are getting something that's going to be very worthwhile to
this community. Let's hope that we don't have to use it to its full extent
because of a major event, but in case we do, I can tell you that I
believe that when this is all outfitted and ready to go that it's going to
be a building that's going to help immensely in regards to making sure
that we address the issues and concerns of the people here in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDA nON THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 62
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONERS CONTINUE TO UPHOLD THE
PROHIBITION RELATIVE TO THE SEVERANCE OF
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT (TDR) CREDITS FROM
ILLEGAL NONCONFORMING LOTS OR PARCELS
(PROPERTIES OF RECORD THAT WERE ESTABLISHED
AFTER OCTOBER 14,1974) WITHIN THE RURAL FRINGE
MIXED USE DISTRICT (RFMUD) SENDING LAND -
DISCUSSED AND ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO A
FUTURE BCC MEETING
Mr. Mudd, next item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to go back to lOA, I
presume; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: lOA, yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay, lOA. It's a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners continue to uphold the prohibition relative
to the severance of transfer of development rights, TDR credits, from
illegally non-conforming lots or parcels, properties of record, that
were established after October 14, 1974, within the rural fringe
mixed-use district, RFMUD sending land. And--
MR. THOMPSON: Joe Thompson, for the record,
Comprehensive Planning. And with that --
MR. MUDD: Will present.
MR. THOMPSON: Oh, yeah, with that I'll just begin by giving
you a background on the issue.
In March of 2006, Mr. Schulze, who was here previously at your
September 11 th meeting, submitted three TDR severance applications
to the comprehensive planning department.
Each application represented one property and each property was
less than five acres. Now, per our program eligibility criteria, if you
have a less than five-acre property that you want to sever TDRs from,
that property has to be a legally non-conforming lot or parcel that was
Page 63
October 9,2007
in existence as of June 19, 1999, which is the date of the final order.
Now, fortunately for Mr. Schulze, two out of his three properties,
both of which were 2.5 acres, were legally non-conforming properties.
They were created previous to October 14, 1974, which is the
date of the underlying agricultural zoning standards in the coastal area
planning district of Collier County at the time, which is one dwelling
unit per five acres.
Now, the property at issue is the one that I stuck on the screen
here. It's essentially an easement. It's a .34-acre property you saw a
picture of on the 11 tho Jeff had put it up at the time. This property is
what we categorize as an illegal lot. It's not developable. There's no
density associated with this property because it was created after the
underlying agricultural zoning standards of one dwelling unit per five
acres, and that's the crux of the issue here.
And with that, I just want to address three additional points that
Mr. Schulze put on the record on the 11 tho The first point being that
he met with staff -- which he did. He met with me multiple times. He
may have met with some of my colleagues. I don't know for sure. He
referenced that at the point. He actually inquired about October 14,
1974, that staff directed him to Google that date. That's just not true.
That's inaccurate. I would have never directed him to do that, nor
would any of my colleagues have said that otherwise.
The second thing that I want to address that he put on the record
as well was that staff denied one of his 2.S-acre properties. We denied
severance to his property. Well, that's not true either, because I
provided as backup material to your executive summary a contract
that demonstrates he actually severed credits from both 2.S-acre
properties based on early entry, sold the credits as a result of severing,
so that's just demonstrating that that was an inaccurate statement on
his part.
Third point I want to address is that -- and I'll address it in the
context of how Mr. Schulze put it on the record. He read the program
Page 64
October 9,2007
eligibility criteria from the LDC. He read, any legal non-conforming
lot or parcel ofless than five acres that was in existence as of June 19,
1999, is eligible for TDR severance, and that's exactly correct.
And then he went on to say, well, based off of this, any lot or
parcel in existence as of June 19, 1999, is eligible for TDC. Well, he
missed a critical phrase, and that's any legal non-conforming lot or
parcel, and that really brings me to the point of property owner or
agent or applicant, due diligence in research that is incumbent upon
that individual when they submit a land use application to us.
And that -- and with that, I would just close by saying, I know
Jim and Nancy both have signed up to speak on this as well, so if you
want to hold your questions till after they speak, that's understandable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what we're going to do is
we're going to move forward with Commissioner Henning right now,
and then if we have more questions, we'll bring up additional staff.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where did the board adopt the
TDR program identifying the date of 1974, 1973?
MR. THOMPSON: To my knowledge the date of 1974 is not
associated directly with the TDR program, but it's associated with a lot
of record. An LDC under a lot of record definition, it references
October 14, 1974 as the date that established the underlying zoning
standards in the agricultural district of the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But in the preamble of the Land
Development Code -- and I forwarded it to Mr. Klatzkow -- I think it
clearly established of the LDC's intent in its creation. But I do agree
that a lot of this nature is not buildable. So what kind of density do
you have?
MR. THOMPSON: There isn't any density associated with this
property. It's not developable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not developable?
Page 65
October 9,2007
MR. THOMPSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. I agree with that. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, do I hear a
motion? Wait, we have speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have three speakers. Jim
Schulze.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can use this podium, sir.
MR. SCHULZE: I'd like to use the overhead, if! could.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, of course. Please, feel free to use
that podium.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Schulze will be followed by Nancy Payton.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Mudd, would you assist
him with the overhead?
MR. SCHULZE: Okay. First, thank you. I'm not trying to--
MR. MUDD: Speak into the mike.
MR. SCHULZE: Sure, okay.
MR. MUDD: State your name.
MR. SCHULZE: Jim Schulze. I'm not trying to amend the LDC.
I want it to work the way the authors intended it to.
When the environmental (sic) and the developer sat down to
compromise and update the old LDC and create an existing TDR
LDC, they came up with a give-and-take program. This program was
intending to include all of Belle Meade and all the parcels in it to set
up a conservation easement paid for by the builders.
As I stated on September 11 th, we need 100 percent participation
to allow conservation groups to create the needed flowways and
control berms to keep land nourished and free of exotics.
I'm not just here for my two non-conforming lots. What about all
the other people out there? These lots represent a large portion of
many retirement plans. They are worth nothing without TDRs.
Page 66
October 9,2007
For the land -- large landowners, this is not an issue worth
fighting. They can combine their non-conforming lots, create
five-acres parcels and receive TDRs. What about the little guy who
can't do that?
My lot, folio number 4372, the one that Joe was talking about,
was denied TDR severance because it was created after October 14,
1974. The size of my lot, .34 acres, had absolutely nothing to do with
it. I hope to convince the commission that this was not the intent of
the authors of the LDC.
The LDC gives a TDR to legal non-conforming lot parcels. Let's
look at the definition of a lot record. The county staff says the same
definition making my parcel illegal, I say it strengthens my stand that
my parcel is legal -- if we look at this definition, I agree my parcel is
not in a subdivision and it was not -- okay.
If we look at -- I have to read from here. I can read it from here.
Ifwe look at photograph number two -- and as you can see this is "or"
or "or." It's either one or two or three.
Well, my parcels are not part of a subdivision. But in number
two, a lot, parcel, or the least fractional unit of land or water under
common ownership which has limited fixed boundaries described by
metes and bounds or other specified legal description, the description
of which has been so recorded in the public records of Collier County,
Florida, on or before the date of the effective (sic) of this LDC.
Okay. I'm not contesting that it was prior to 1974, but I do
contest that it was prior to this LDC, okay?
The size of the parcel or physical buildability has nothing to do
with the ability to sever TDRs. These small parcels are just as
important as the large parcels.
For example, this parcel here does qualify for a TDR. The size
of that lot is 84 by 330. This parcel was granted a TDR. As you can
see, there was a road easement going through here. It's 1.04 acres.
This is another parcel that was granted a TDR, and these -- I'm saying
Page 67
October 9,2007
these people already have their TDRs.
You have 1-75 right through here, you have another road
easement right through here. How you going (sic) to build a house on
this lot is beyond me. I don't know.
Here is another lA-acre lot, 1.04 acre. Two road easements. It
does -- it's already had a TDR severed from it.
This parcel has had a TDR severed from it. It's 53 feet at the
widest, and when it comes down here, it's 47 feet wide. You cannot
build a house. There's 25- foot setbacks on these lots out here.
Okay. Figure out where I'm at here.
Okay. This is a map of the North Belle Meade area. Yeah,
perfect. As you can see, what we're trying to create here with this
conservation easement, the TDR program, is a flowway to alleviate
some of the flooding from Golden Gate Estates.
If you do not include these parcels -- this parcel here they have
highlighted is another parcel that I own. It's two acres. The parcel
next to it is another two acres. They were severed in 1975 so,
therefore, they don't qualify for the TDR program.
These two lots here I own. I've already severed TDRs. They
were severed in 1974 so they do qualify. I'm saying with this
definition that the county's using, all these lots should qualify as long
as they were created prior to 1999.
As far as permitted uses for sending land, I'm going to read this
because -- well --
MR. MUDD: Put it on and talk into here. Where do you want to
go?
MR. SCHULZE: Oh, okay. This is sending lands, permitted
uses. If we come down here in number B, detached single-family
dwelling units including mobile homes -- or mobile homes zoning
exists at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 40 acres or one
dwelling unit per lot or parcel of less than 40 acres which existed on or
before June 22, 1999.
Page 68
October 9,2007
For the purpose of this provision, a lot or parcel which is deemed
to have been in existence on or before June 22, 1999, is a lot or parcel
which is part of a subdivision recorded in the public records of Collier
County, Florida, or a lot or parcel which has limited fixed boundaries
described by metes and bounds or other specific legal description, the
description of which has been recorded in the public records of Collier
County, Florida, on or before June 22, 1999, or a lot or parcel which
has limited fixed boundaries for which an agreement for deed was
executed prior to June 22, 1999.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to have to ask you
to summarize it up so we can move on, okay?
MR. SCHULZE: I'm just saying -- right here, this LDC gives me
a right to have a house on my lot.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we're going to ask staff those
questions in just a few minutes.
MR. SCHULZE: I'm just saying, it says nothing about the 1974
date in here, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, listen, we appreciate it very
much. I've given you about twice as much time as we allowed. I'm
sorry, but -- I'm going to -- 30 seconds and you're through.
MR. SCHULZE: Thirty seconds, okay. I just wanted to show
this. This is a site that was put together by county staff. It shows all
the TD -- all the parcels in the TDR program that were supposed to
have TDRs. Okay. What I did, I Googled all of them, 0.1 acres to 4.5
acres. Came out with exactly 150 parcels here that are less than five
acres. Several of them have -- already had TDRs severed from them.
There's another --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir. What we're going to do
at this point in time -- the commissioners may have questions of you,
and then at that point in time, you know, we'll call you back up.
MR. SCHULZE: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But what I want to do is, first, I'm
Page 69
October 9, 2007
going to check to see if Commissioner Henning had any direct
questions of you or ifhe had--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just the staff. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We'll wait on that. We'll
come back to you, Commissioner Henning, after we finish with the
speakers.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Payton. She'll be
followed by Clarence Tears.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation and one of the authors of the North Belle
Meade Overlay. And as I look around this room, I'm probably the
person who spent the most time in the planning effort for this TDR
program.
I want to draw your attention to page 3 of 12 of the staff report
where they talk about the consequences of allowing illegal lots or
parcels. It starts off that they have estimated 150 less-than-five-acre
sending parcels that may be illegal or -- may be illegal lots or parcels.
We're not really sure at this point whether those small lots are
illegal or not.
And we saw from Jim's presentation that there are some of these
less-than-five acre lots that have been given their density and their
TDRs. It goes on to state or imply that by having these small parcels
have TDR, that we'll flood the TDR market and drive prices down.
I remind you, there's a minimum of$25,000 for the first TDR,
and these small parcels were included in the original TDR
calculations. When Dr. Nicholas did his reports, it was always
included. The maps that were produced always included these
parcels.
There was never any discussion of this October, 1974, date
through the whole planning effort, and that was 53 meetings of the
Rural Fringe Committee, and it never came up. It never came up in
any of the public workshops you had, the hearings, nothing -- the
Page 70
October 9,2007
mailings that went out to the property owners to warn them that there
might be this glitch. We had a glitch cycle to address these concerns
that never came up then.
This involves potentially 750 acres or 600 credits. And I remind
you, we've lost almost that amount ofTDR credits just from Dr.
Hussey's property because he's cleared it and he's lost those TDRs for
25 years. So you're down already a big chunk in your TDR program.
The fish farm that was to be heard this afternoon, that was 15
acres that was cleared. That lost TDRs. The symphony property
cleared some of their land. That lost TDRs. So there are TDRs being
lost through agricultural clearing. So to say this is going to flood the
market and skew is just not so. Maybe those little parcels become
even more important in the TDR program because of the loss ofTDRs
to agricultural clearing.
The issue of Estate homes -- and that's going to be an option here
on these -- I remind you that we did the bonus TDRs to address the
issue of Estate homes and to provide extra incentives to ensure that
those parcels went into the TDR program rather than be sold for
ranchettes. And also, there's a minimum of one house per 40 acres, so
I -- oh, dear. Well, I will sum up very quickly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. PAYTON: These little parcels were included in the TDR
calculations. If it's a glitch, I think it needs to be addressed
immediately because the Swiss cheese issue is going to become a
significant problem, I think, in managing larger tracts of sending
lands. So I urge you to do one of two things. Either ignore this and
allow those to be part of the program, or to do the fix that allows these
few tiny odd parcels to be included in the program because we do
want to give incentives to get those lands protected, even if they're
small. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please stay available ifthere's any
questions.
Page 71
October 9, 2007
MR. PAYTON: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Clarence Tears.
MR. TEARS: Good morning again. Clarence Tears, Director of
Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management District.
The only reason I'm up here is, we talked about redirecting
surface flows and the opportunity in some of these sending areas, and
what I look at is there's large parcels already purchased by some of the
developers. They're trying to get additional credits to put it in public
ownership. But then if you look at the puzzle, there's these little
pieces missing, and these little pieces may be an impediment to the
opportunities for surface water movement in the future. So I think it's
important to address them at this time.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Tears.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go first to Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Thompson, is it true what
was presented to us that some of these lots were severed that are never
going to be built on?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, it is true. There's legal non-conforming
lots that were less than five acres that we processed for TDR
severance, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But they never could be built
. h?
on, ng t.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, but they were created previous to the
agricultural zoning standards of one dwelling unit per five acres,
making them legal non-conforming. So we do a legal non-conforming
determination for any property that comes in that's less than five acres.
And if they meet that, they're eligible to be processed as though it
would be a five-acre parcel, unlike Mr. Schulze's .34-acre property,
Page 72
October 9, 2007
which is an illegal lot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What makes it illegal?
MR. THOMPSON: It was created after the zoning standards
were established.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In 1974?
MR. THOMPSON: October 14, 1974.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But the TDR program has
nothing -- doesn't say anything in the fringe, it doesn't reference 1974.
MR. THOMPSON: It references a legal non-conforming lot or
parcel less than five acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, wouldn't a lot that has a
road -- two roads going through it be non-conforming?
MR. THOMPSON: A lot that has two roads? I guess it depends
on the size of the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The exhibit that was shown to
us where you have 1-75 going through it and --
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. That was one of the properties that
were less than five acres that was determined to be legal
non-conforming, so we processed that property and issued TDR
credits.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So that property was non
-- legal non-conforming?
MR. THOMPSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't this gentleman's property
legal non-conforming or illegal?
MR. THOMPSON: The two that we processed were legal
non-conforming properties. They're both 2.5 acres. But the one that
we denied is .34 acres. It was created after the zoning standards were
in place. The property is not developable. So we wouldn't issue
density where density doesn't exist. That's the inherent problem, and I
think the larger issue here is the creation of an illegal lot and how that
happens.
Page 73
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow, the information I
forwarded to you out of the Land Development Code section point --
or 1.04, it -- its subsection shall not apply to final subdivision plats
prior to February 17, 1976. Does that mean that the whole LDC does
not apply to these properties, subdivision plats?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The LDC applies to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Application in previous
established time limits. A, anytime a limit of any development orders
accrue prior to the adoption of the LDC. And this is actually a
subdivision, right, southern Belle Meade?
MR. THOMPSON: This was a North Belle Meade property if!
COMMISSIONER HENNING: North Belle Meade.
MR. THOMPSON: -- recall correctly, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was it -- was it platted?
MR. THOMPSON: I believe it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This property is platted then?
MR. THOMPSON: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I mean, I think it
does apply. And I think that, you know, if these properties linger out
there, what good are they with conservation -- trying to get
conservation easements over it or to use it to transfer stormwater over
it? I mean, you just can't do that. You can't flood somebody's land.
And you will create a Swiss cheese, and I think that we need to fix it.
I don't believe the executive is correct. I think the whole LDC applies
to it, and it's not being read correctly.
MR. THOMPSON: Just to make an assertion, if! may. With
respect to illegal lots, if we were to allow illegal lots to have TDRs,
have density, you would be opening up other illegal lots that may lie
outside of the rural fringe mixed-use district that may not be
developable. You may have property owners come forth and say,
well, hey, why can't I develop a dwelling unit on my property since
Page 74
October 9,2007
you're giving density that doesn't exist to other properties through the
TDR program. So just keep that in mind with your decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I thank you for helping us
guide us through our decision.
MR. THOMPSON: You're very welcome.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I consider it as guidance and
nothing more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. How wide is this property?
MR. THOMPSON: I don't know the exact specifications of the
size. I just know it's .34 acres in total per the Property Appraiser's
Office.
MR. KLATZKOW: It was 10 and a half feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ten and a half feet wide?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if it's 10 and a half feet wide
and the gentleman was saying he could always build a house, it would
have to be a really pencil thin house to build on there, wouldn't it?
I mean, I think we were giving transfer of development rights for
something that could be developed. But at 10 and a half feet wide, I
don't know how that could be developed. And it said -- you said
something -- somebody said something about an easement on there.
What kind of an easement is on there?
MR. THOMPSON: There's no easement on there that I'm aware
of. But associated with the TDR program, there would be a limitation
of development rights agreement on the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly want to -- you know, I
listen to Clarence and I listened to Nancy, and they made very, very
good points. And as Nancy said, what they're trying to do is gather all
of these properties together and put them in preservation. But a
10-and-a-half-foot wide property can't be developed anyway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's my point,
Page 75
October 9,2007
Commissioner. I agree with you, but when it was demonstrated that
other properties that never can be built on received credits, is that fair?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wonder --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think so. And I think the
message from Nancy Payton was, we have to do something with these
properties; otherwise you're never going to have an inclusive
conservation easement or other uses. You're going to have properties
out there that people, you know, can -- I mean, this gentleman has a
right, his 10 foot, to take and cut all his property down in spite of
government, so it is broken and it needs to be fixed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And maybe there has to be
something with regard to dimensions. If it could be developed, then it
would be entitled to a TDR or something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely, but -- and I agree,
but it hasn't been done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, right. You're right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what are we going to do
about these non-conforming -- illegal non-conforming or
non-conforming lots that never can be built out, how can we put that
in conservation easements? You can't unless you offer something to
make the North Belle Meade what it should be, and that is receiving,
sending with conservation over it. You know what I mean?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the recommendations is not
going to hit that goal, and we need to give other direction so that we
can hit that goal of having -- protecting sensitive lands. If you have all
these legal non-conformities out there or non-conforming lots, they
could just cut all the trees out and you're going to have, all over the
place, little areas that doesn't hit our goal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, do you think then that
that would -- would people -- when we vote on this -- I'm so glad
we're having this discussion.
Page 76
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We need to give direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And say, for instance, this is
something that we follow through with. Would people then be buying
little pieces and trying to get TDRs all over, even though they could
never be developed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. And if! may, I'd like to have
everybody enter into the discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I think it is very rewarding to go
back and forth, and I'm hearing all ends of this, and there is concerns.
First place, we've got to be realistic. One, we've got a number of
people who have lots that aren't going to sell them for the TDRs,
they're not going to give up their rights, they're going to hold onto
them with the idea that some day they might be able to develop on
them.
And if! remember correctly, you can develop on a lot that
reached certain particulars, okay? That offer's out to those people on a
continuous basis, so you're always going to have a checkerboard
pattern unless some program comes up in the future that offers people
incentives.
Now, my concern is the fairness of this whole thing. People that
have had a legal non-conforming lot or something that was five acres,
they're getting the same credit as those that have the small, little
parcels that you can get a house on. Then you have people that can't
get a house on, they're going to get the same full credit as somebody
that has five acres.
Now, my value of a five-acre lot has been seriously diminished.
I get the same amount of credits. I'm going to have to compete with
people out there that are going to get the full credit for a little, tiny
parcel, in this case, a 10- foot strip that goes up and down that you pick
up at a tax sale.
Page 77
October 9, 2007
I'm at a disadvantage. There's only so many credits that are
going to be bought. Now, yes, there are credits out there that aren't
being used. We know that, and that's a fact of life; however, there's a
diminishing need for credits.
Right now Bonita Bay is sitting on a small ton of credits that they
don't know what they're going to do with. They purchased for their
development and they had to scale the whole thing back. And it's a
tremendous amount of credits that they have.
So the market is flooded at the present. At some point in time,
maybe they'll all be absorbed. However, with that said, there is a value
to these things. The more little things you can pick up, the more parts
of it that you can control. There's an advantage to it.
But I think we need to come up with something that really
reflects what the value of this property is as far as credits go to protect
the integrity of those people that want to sell the credits and are able to
now because market is deflated because of the housing situation.
That's my only concern I have on this. I don't mind people
making a profit along the way, but I want to be able to protect those
people who are playing by the rules we originally set.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, of course, Commissioner
Henning. Always open to suggestions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have several TDRs on a
piece of property. You know, your initial one and then your early
entry program and you put in conservation, and so why don't we have
properties that can build upon, keep that, but if they can't build upon
it, give them, you know, like their initial credit, one credit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's a wonderful premise and I
think you're getting close to it. The only thing is, if they were
recognized in the past as granted a full TDR by the rules that we put
out, we can't march backwards on them. We can only --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I agree.
Page 78
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can only make these people that
are coming forward now that didn't quite fit into the criteria fit into it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This gentleman's property has a
community benefit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But not at one credit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not at just one credit? I'm
saying that others have more than one credit. They have several
credits, whether it's -- am I correct? Non-conforming lots, they have,
like, five credits if they --
MR. THOMPSON: The ones that we've processed of less than
five acres that are legal non-conforming; is that what you're referring
to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, they would have had base and early
entry at this point. But the last two, the environmental restoration and
maintenance and conveyance have not been garnered yet for those
particular properties, if I recollect correctly where those are from and
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the non-conforming
already had two.
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and I feel this gentleman's
property is worth something to have that holistic approach. Whether
we have Swiss cheese or not, I guess that's somebody's opinion. But it
has a value. We're trying to create a conservation area where it's
needed. We need to -- we need to encourage this gentleman to sell his
property for a TDR credit.
Jeff, can you help me out?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, ultimately both staff and County
Attorney's Office are here to follow board direction and to, you know,
put board direction into focus. If -- I think what Mr. Schulze found
here really wasn't a loophole in the system. I'm not saying that's a bad
Page 79
October 9,2007
thing. And the question is, how do we fix this loophole? We've got
150 properties out there that apparently don't fall within this --
MR. THOMPSON: Approximation. There's no definitive
answer. As to whether or not those 150 properties all are -- maybe
they're all legal non-conforming and they can all get TDRs. We don't
know that answer. It's an approximation. There's nothing to say that
they're all illegal lots, absolutely not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, then we don't -- if we don't
have the information, we can't make a logical decision. Can we have
this brought back with the information we need with a couple of
choices that we can come up with?
MR. THOMPSON: You certainly can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we can bring a balance.
Because I'll tell you who weighs into this. The people that aren't here
today, those people that hold the lots and that have got them up for
TDRs for sale. They may also want to be present when we're going to
make a decision.
MR. THOMPSON: I understand. And it may not be your next
meeting because it's going to be a large research project, so staffs
going to need a little bit of time to get this information for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How do you feel about that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. Either that or we'll go ahead
and vote on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get a consensus that
these illegal non-conforming lots does have a value?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that we -- and that we need
to direct staff to see how we can get these sending land properties into
the total program and make recommendations, take a look at that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Staff recommendations where we can
Page 80
October 9,2007
see the different options for balancing out?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Absolutely. The goal -- and
again, the goal is, how do we get a big piece, not bits and pieces.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got to remember also, too, that
when we do increase the inventory out there, some of the people that
have been holdouts that may suddenly decide to sell will find they
don't have the option and they may have bigger 40-acre parcels or
whatever.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm not familiar with that.
I'd like to learn a little bit more.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's why we need more
information. I think you're correct on that, Commissioner Henning. It
doesn't hurt to have more information back.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Oh my goodness. My
question's gone. Go to Commissioner Halas. I'll think of it in a
second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You think about it.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm a little concerned about
10 and a half feet wide. Somebody could end up with a little garden
lot and want a TDR for it. I got a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I've got my question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But then again, too -- and I don't
mean to interrupt. Maybe it wouldn't be a credit. Maybe it would be
three quarters of a credit or a half of a credit. Just for thought that we
might be able to move forward on. We don't know all the answers.
We don't even know the right questions to ask yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I haven't finished up yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me.
Page 81
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You bring something in regards to
this, but I just want to make sure, as you brought up, there's people out
there that have 40-acre lots, and they're the people that are really
putting themselves out on the line here when they come up and sell all
of their credits on a 40-acre lot. That 40-acre lot is worth a lot more
than a lot that's 10 feet -- 10 and a half feet wide.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that true, but they would also
be receiving one credit for every five acres. So I mean, you have to
come up with some sort of balance in there.
Let's go to Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Now say, for instance, this
gentleman -- say, for instance, we gave him the TDR and it just
happened that nobody wanted to buy it. In this market that could be
10 years down the road. Could he ever donate his strip of land to our
__ to our program to -- for conservation and then deduct from his
income tax for what he felt he could have gotten from the TDR
program?
MR. THOMPSON: He certainly has the option to donate his
property through the conveyance bonus credit that we have to a
governmental agency, whether it's local, state, or federal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then he --
MR. THOMPSON: That's ifhe was eligible for TDRs, but
you're using the example of an illegal lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I am. But in cases where it
can't be developed but yet we would still like it in our inventory.
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm trying to find a way where
everybody wins here. We get the land. It's not really going to do him
any good. He can't build on it anyway and yet we would like it in our
inventory --
MR. THOMPSON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so he benefits by being able to
Page 82
October 9,2007
donate to us and deduct what we felt he could have gotten from the
TDR program, which then doesn't offset, as Commissioner Coletta
was saying __ somebody who has a lot that is buildable would get the
same credit as the guy that has a 10- foot lot. I'm just trying to find a
way to work that out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. If I could help you with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe when the TDR is
self-sufficient so we wouldn't have to go with ad valorem tax to buy
the land. You know, only thing I could think of would be a special
fund that we might be able to raise with an additional, like,
Conservation Collier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not buy it. Donate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, donate it with money off taxes
is the same thing. I mean, however you do it, you're taking away from
the income stream that we've got coming in. It's still, we're buying the
land, whether it comes off their taxes or we pay them outright.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Their income tax? Not the property
tax. The income tax.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now you've really lost me. I don't
understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you make a business decision--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, oh, their donation, write the
donation off. Yeah, okay. I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. I'm glad you asked.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a wonderful suggestion,
and anyone that's interested, line up over here and sign your names.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? Let's
wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If you have one TDR per
five acres and you have a portion of land that's less than five acres,
Page 83
October 9,2007
then it should be proportional to whatever that TDR would be, if you
want to do it that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Something like that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So why give somebody that
has a strip ofland 10 and a half feet wide, why give them a full TDR
credit? If you give a TDR five acres, then you come up with
something that's proportional to that. So it could be a fraction of a
TDR.
MR. THOMPSON: Which we also --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a fair way to do it.
MR. THOMPSON: We have a prohibition on the issuance of
fractional TDR credits.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who can make exceptions to it?
MR. THOMPSON: You can certainly have a Land Development
Code amendment to address it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe that's what needs to be
done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that might be an option, but
meanwhile you need to do some more research. You heard the
discussion today. You want to take the time to read the minutes of
this part of the meeting and try to come up with some -- some of the
answers to the questions that were here.
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And maybe from that, we can pick
the direction to go. But I think we got some very good ideas how we
can get to the middle of this whole thing to make this fair for all that
are concerned.
MR. THOMPSON: And we can bring this back in a couple
meetings; is that okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I think that's agreeable. Yeah,
we got three nods.
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
Page 84
--------
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that. We don't need to
vote on this item; is that correct? Okay, great.
Let's see. How long do you think it will take for that item
regarding the item K, the late fees assessed to the public for rental
registry? We've got five speakers, and I -- if you think it's going to
take longer than a half hour, then I would just as soon continue it to
right after lunch. Any idea?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That sounds good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Which one sounds good?
Right after lunch?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then the people that are here,
right after our lunch break from 12 to I, we'll get into that issue so you
don't have to sit here all day as we go through it. I see I have five
speakers for that.
Okay, Mr. Mudd, next item on the agenda?
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2007-291: RECOMMENDATION TO CLARIFY
THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE REAL PROPERTY
INTEREST IDENTIFIED AS PARCELS 801, 802, 803 AND 804
WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PHASE 1-B SOUTH OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) AND AMEND
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-89, THEREBY AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS IN PARCELS
801,802,803 AND 804. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
NO. 291, PROJECT NO. 51101). THE COST TO ACQUIRE A FEE
SIMPLE INTEREST IN PARCELS 801, 802, 803 AND 804, AS
OPPOSED TO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ONLY, IS
Page 85
October 9,2007
ESTIMATED TO ADD $25,500 TO THE ORIGINAL LASIP
PHASE 1 B EASEMENT ACQUISITION COST ESTIMATE OF
$ 1.838,000 - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next item is lOB. It's a recommendation to clarify
the intent of the Board of County Commissioners as to the character of
the real property interest identified on parcels 801, 802, 803, 804,
which are necessary for the construction of phase 1B south of the Lely
Area Stormwater Improvement Project, LASIP, and amend resolution
2007-89, whereby -- thereby authorizing the condemnation of fee
simple interest in parcels 801, 802, 803, 804, capital improvement
element number 291, project number 51101.
The cost to acquire a fee simple interest in parcels 801, 802, 803,
804, as opposed to a drainage easement only, is estimated to add
$25,500 to the original LASIP phase IB easement acquisition cost
estimate of$1,838,000.
And Mr. Kevin Hendricks, Head of Real Estate for
Transportation, will present.
MR. HENDRICKS: Mr. Mudd, Commissioners, I apologize for
the length of that title. I'll try to make them shorter in the future.
We're just correcting a scrivener's error that was on the previous
resolution here. I could have easily said the fiscal impact for this is
zero, but we wanted -- to make it simple, we wanted to reiterate what
we had said in the last executive summary, so we reiterated the total
cost of the project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas for approval.
Commissioner Henning? I'm sorry, is your light on from before?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner, go ahead, please.
Page 86
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. The estimate for
item 10C for the one that you're saying is a scrivener's error, says the
fiscal impact in the executive summary should be $960,000.
MR. HENDRICKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This one is $1.8 million
MR. HENDRICKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not a scrivener's error.
MR. HENDRICKS: The $960,000 in the previous -- well, first
of all, there are four resolutions authorizing condemnation related to
this project. The first -- there was one in May of 2006 for all of
LASIP phase lB. That's really two construction segments.
Then there was another one in October of 2005, resolution
number 2006-285, superseding the prior resolution because of a
number of mistakes found in the legal descriptions and corrections that
needed to be made. That, too, was for both construction phases of
LASIP phase 1B.
In April of 2007, we came to the board and asked them to adopt a
superseding resolution as to the parcels for only LASIP phase 1B
south. That was the first time we had come to the board and identified
that we were going to split the project in two phases for construction
purposes.
Treviso Bay was constructing already in LASIP phase 1B south,
and we wanted to try to match their timeline as closely as possible.
And we realized that in LASIP phase 1B north we had utility conflicts
that had to be resolved. So we added a couple pump stations,
converted construction easements and force mains, in LASIP phase 1B
north, and that is not part of the resolution that is before you today,
nor was it part of the resolution in April.
But the $960,000, that covered the estimated cost to acquire all
the easements necessary to build LASIP phase 1B south. The 1.838
million is the estimated cost to acquire all the easements to acquire
LASIP phase 1 B south and north.
Page 87
October 9, 2007
We'll be coming back at a later date in time with another
superseding resolution for LASIP phase 1B north to add in those new
parcels required to resolve the utility conflicts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, the last agenda, what you're
saying this is pretty much a scrivener's error, did include -- did include
parcel 108, 102 -- or I mean 801 and 802,803 and 804.
MR. HENDRICKS: That is correct, only they were incorrectly
stamped, both drainage easement and fee simple interest, a mistake,
which we are here to correct today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I -- and maybe it's
because the executive summary is confusing. What it should be stated
is the previous action by the board was a fiscal impact correction,
because it did report 960,000.
MR. FEDER: Again, Commissioner, for the record, Norman
Feder, Transportation Administrator.
The April did discuss the south at 960-. This one is identifying
the full corridor. Again, consistent with what was said in the April,
which was one million 838. So that it's not really a fiscal issue we're
dealing with here other than 25,5- that's needed to go to fee simple
interest, as was also identified in April.
The main thing that's being done with this -- and sometimes the
executive summaries get lengthy -- is the four exhibits you have for
the parcels one, two, three, and four -- 801, 2,3, and 4, is as you see
on the prompter here, has the beginning discussions in April. If you
go back to those attachments, that talked about a utility easement in
the heading and still had the stamp as you see down on the bottom
here that identifies fee simple interest so, therefore, the exhibit itself
was faulty, and that's what is being done in scriveners is to get that
first reflection of an easement when, in fact, we're going after fee
simple interest.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I understand what you're
doing. I just think it could have been a better written executive#
Page 88
October 9, 2007
summary so --
MR. FEDER: I do not disagree with you at all, and we'll try to
make sure we don't have to have that same discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have to pull my hair out
trying to figure it out either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we have any speakers on
this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already motioned for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I seconded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He already seconded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's got a short memory.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any more 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.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2007-292: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF THE FEE SIMPLE
AND THOSE PERPETUAL AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT
Page 89
October 9, 2007
INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD FROM WEST OF WILSON BOULEVARD TO
EAST OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD (PHASE 1), AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT OR PURCHASE
OF THE FEE SIMPLE INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STORMW A TER RETENTION AND
TREATMENT PONDS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF
GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD FROM WEST OF WILSON
BOULEVARD TO DESOTO BOULEVARD. (PHASES 1 AND 2)
(PROJECT NO. 60040) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C. It's a
recommendation to adopt the resolution authorizing the acquisition by
gift or purchase of the fee simple and those perpetual and temporary
easement interests necessary for the construction of roadway,
drainage, and utility improvements required for the expansion of
Golden Gate Boulevard from west of Wilson Boulevard to east of
Everglades Boulevard, phase one, and authorizing the acquisition by
gift or purchase of the fee simple interests necessary for the
construction of stormwater retention and treatment ponds required for
the expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard from west of Wilson
Boulevard to DeSoto Boulevard, phase one and two.
Project number 60040. Estimated fiscal impact, $18,411,297.
And Mr. Kevin Hendricks, your Chief of Real Estate for
Transportation, will present.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me -- let me help a little bit with
this. You're not actually -- the $18 million is not something that
you're asking for in this? It's just to be able to proceed to be able to
put everything together; is what it is?
MR. HENDRICKS: It's the estimate of the cost to acquire the
Page 90
October 9, 2007
right-of-way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right, right.
MR. HENDRICKS: All the things, the land improvements,
severance damages, and all the overhead costs as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, this is an exciting day. I wish
that I was allowed to jump up and down a little bit and yell hooray.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can. We'd like to see it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me try it sitting; hooray.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just don't kiss us, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not on the neck either. With that, I'd
like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from -- for
approval from Commissioner Coletta, second, Commissioner Halas.
And now for discussion. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a question. On the
resolution page 15, number 6, it states that the chairman can sign the
agreements and purchases by appraised value. Whose appraised
value?
MR. HENDRICKS: Our appraised value.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. HENDRICKS: The appraisal's hired by Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or at an amount not to exceed
over 50,000.
MR. HENDRICKS: That's the current purchasing limits set by
the board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So if you have anybody
that has an acre and a half that you wanted to get a few feet off of it,
and that $50 (sic) applies to that, the same if somebody has five acres
or 10 acres, the 50,000 applies to that?
MR. HENDRICKS: That's absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, that sounds fair.
Page 91
"'~--"~-
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show that
Commissioner Henning was in opposition. The vote was 3-1.
Now __ and by the way, too, just as a parting note. For all those
people out there that live in that corridor that signed petitions over the
last eight years, thank you.
Item #10D
AWARD BID NO. 07-4130 TO MITCHELL & STARK
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., IN THE BASE BID AMOUNT OF
$2,634,639 FOR PROJECT 70158, THE CONSTRUCTION OF
T AMIAMI RELIABILITY WELLS NUMBERS 34 & 37 AND THE
REPLACEMENT OF RAW WATER PIPELINES; AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE CONTRACT AFTER
APPROVAL BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
RECEIPT OF FINAL WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION BY THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP); AND, TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO CARRY OUT
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE FDEP LOW INTEREST
ST ATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN PROGRAM -
APPROVED
Page 92
October 9, 2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10D. It's a
recommendation to award bid number 07 -4130 to Mitchell & Stark
Construction, Inc., in the base bid amount $2,634,639 for project
70158, the construction of Tamiami reliability wells number 34 and
37, and the replacement ofraw water pipelines; and authorize the
chairman to sign the contract after approval by Collier -- excuse me --
the County Attorney's Office, and receipt of final written authorization
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and to
authorize the county manager or designee to carry out responsibilities
under the FDEP low-interest state revolving funds, SRF, loan
program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Fiala.
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.
Item #10E
STATUS OF EFFORTS TO RESOLVE MINERAL RIGHTS
ISSUE, DIRECTIONAL DRILLING UPDATE AND TO
RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
Page 93
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONERS EXTENDS THE TERMINATION DATE OF
THE STARNES CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE IN THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER PROGRAM FOR 60 DAYS-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10E. It's to
provide status of efforts to resolve mineral rights issues, directional
drilling update, and to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners extends the termination date of the Starnes contract
for purchase in the Conservation Collier program for 60 days. And,
again, there was a correction read into this for clarification into the
record on the change sheet.
And Ms. Alex Sulecki, your Principal Environmental Specialist,
will --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. Motion to approve
staffs recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we have enough read into the
record?
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, I have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry. He just handed it
m. Brad Cornell.
MR. CORNELL: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Cornell.
Okay with that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
Page 94
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That motion passed, 4-0.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you.
Item #1 OF
THE FY 08 TOURISM STRATEGIC MARKETING PLAN
DEVELOPED BY TOURISM STAFF AND PARADISE
ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10F. It's to recommend approval of
the FY -'08, tourism strategic marketing plan developed by tourism
staff and Paradise Advertising and Marketing, Inc. Fiscal impact is
$2,402,500. And Mr. Jack Wert, your Director of Tourism, will
present.
MR. WERT: Good morning, Commissioners. And let me hook
up here real quick. Hopefully it will come up here.
MR. MUDD: Do you have it in that book?
MR. WERT: Yes, I do.
MR. MUDD: Which tab, Jack? Actually here is the --
MR. WERT: All right, Commissioners. Good morning. As luck
would have it Murphy's alive and well. Oops.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We have a problem. We
don't have three commissioners on the dais at the moment. Let's just
MR. WERT: We'll hold for a minute, see if we can--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sit here and hum a little.
Page 95
October 9,2007
MR. WERT: See if we can resolve our--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There we go. Mr. Wert, please
continue.
MR. WERT: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, Jack
Wert, Tourism Director. And we have here to present our 2008
marketing plan that has been developed by the agency, Paradise
Advertising Marketing, and our staff, and we've been working all
summer on this.
And we took it to the Tourist Development Council just this past
month, and they recommended it, so we are bringing it to you this
morning. And I'm going to call on Cedar Haines, our president of
Paradise Advertising and Marketing to begin the presentation, and
perhaps we'll have our PowerPoint up by the time he gets through
parts of it here.
Cedar?
MR. HAINES: Thank you. So it won't do any good to use this
then, right?
MR. MUDD: Tell me when you want to flip the page.
MR. HAINES: All right. Next one then, if you would, please.
Not exactly the way we'd planned it, but it seems to be working.
Actually before I get into the marketing recommendations for
2007/2008, I would like to introduce our new manager of the Naples
office, Trent Ryan; and of course you know Clint Arlington, and Jane
Rushay (phonetic) is our new account coordinator, and they're
diligently working on this program.
So what we have then is a program that we have done that we did
last year. I'm going to give you a quick, quick overview and then
highlight some new projects, and please stop me if you have any
questions along the way.
We want to go after five major markets; Miami south, southeast
Florida actually; Orlando, Tampa Bay, Chicago, and New York.
And what we call a high-impact targeting campaign, and this
Page 96
October 9,2007
would be mostly driven with television and on-line and supported with
e-blast, direct mail, and newspaper.
And next is how we would approach other feeder markets in the
domestic U.S., and we would use cooperative programs with
newspaper, consumer magazines and e-marketing, and niche markets,
which would include golf, fishing, and cultural targets, and, of course,
travel agents, group marketing, both corporate and associations and
sports marketing, and international market, including a variety of
media. And we would work mostly in the UK and German markets,
although we are looking at the Canadian markets based on the new
parody of -- or the new strength ofthe Canadian dollar.
And looking at some of the new programs, per inquiry television.
We used this a couple of years ago. Now we have the opportunity to
go into these major targets and use per inquiry, or PI TV, and what
that means is, we pay only for the inquiries. So it's a great vehicle to
reach out and get our grand message very inexpensively to our
targeted geographic markets, and we've added Atlanta to that market
as well.
We're also looking at per inquiry cable television with The
Weather Channel. And this next one is a -- what they call a get-away
program. And in Chicago and New York we would run a -- when they
do the local weather in those markets, they would also do a get-away,
a Naples, Marco Island, Everglades weather, and then provide the
paradisecoast.com as a call to action.
And this would run in the Marchi April area. And we don't
usually run in the winter, but it is targeting spring/summer because
there's a much longer lead time in those northern markets.
And so we think that that environment of giving 20 degrees
versus our weather would be a strong -- something we want to test.
And then the -- we're moving more and more of our marketing
dollars toward the on-line component. And this is a co-op program and
visit for the state's marketing and a dialogue program targeting
Page 97
-..---
October 9,2007
outdoor nature, Florida residents, golf and family.
And this video program called Open Florida is kind of
interesting, too. They'll actually come and produce unique videos in
Collier County promoting beaches, luxury, paddling, which is
canoeing, boating, kayaking, and then sports as well. And these are
not what you would call slick videos. These are more of the
man/woman on the street type and it's -- would be distributed through
Visit Florida's web -- website, and of course our own and other
venues.
And then some new niche marketing, golf, fishing, and women's
golf, for example, which is one of the strongest emerging segments of
golfing, and a lot of programs aimed at the senior market, which have
been especially receptive to our message.
We're probably up, but this is working so well. All right. Group
business. A couple programs there. The MPI stands for Meeting
Planners International, so we're actually -- that's a core program Visit
Florida also. And anyone -- international group wanting to have a
meeting here in Florida would order this vehicle be their primary
source.
And other international programs we're looking at would include
Virgin Atlantic, which is, again, a -- very specific to Collier County,
Naples, Marco Island, Everglades program, and it would be distributed
through. They're one of the major players. In fact, I think they are the
__ more UK individuals coming over using Virgin than another airline.
We'll also do some on-line and German -- in Germany in the UK.
There will be two or three programs there, and they'll be cooperative
programs with Visit Florida and others.
And partnerships will include -- we've already generated
$150,000 plus of partnerships with our hoteliers and attractions in
Collier County, but we'll also reach out to international partners, and,
in particular, we want to reach out to airlines and we're going to hope
they go through airports to do that. And Paradise has just been named
Page 98
October 9, 2007
the agency of record for Southwest Florida International Airport, and
about 40 percent of the passengers arriving come to Collier County
from that airport. So we have expectations that we can put together
some win/win programs.
This is going to be tough showing the TV spot this way, but -- all
right. And this --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any other 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. Wonderful
presentation.
MR. HAINES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we're going to break
now for lunch and be back at one o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #10K
Page 99
October 9, 2007
AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY THE LATE FEES ASSESSED
TO THE PUBLIC FOR RENT AL REGISTRATION - APPROVED
W/CHANGES AND STAFF TO BRING BACK THE DRAFT
RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE REFLECTING THOSE
CHANGES
Commissioners, you had stipulated that 10K would start at one
p.m., and that's to obtain the Board of County Commissioners'
authorization to modify the late fees assessed to the public for rental
registration. And Mr. Joe Schmitt, your Community Development
Administrator, was due to present.
I will tell you where we are on this particular issue and -- from
the time that the executive summary was written to where we are
today. I've been having Mr. DeLony's folks take a look at the records
down in community developments on this particular late fee issue.
There seems to be some irregularities on how fees were collected
from some 2005 through the present in this particular program based
on the ordinance and the fee structure that the board had previously
approved in September and was filed in September 2004.
Those irregularities have to basically focus on fees that weren't
collected for late fees and/or fees that were collected on the property
versus collected on the unit. For instance, if you have a duplex, for
instance, and it's one property, a late fee in some instances was
collected on the property, not on the two units because of the
registration being late.
I would __ I would recommend to the board that you do not ratify
the particular memo that was -- that was signed by Mr. Schmitt in
April of 2007, that you would give staff direction to analyze and come
back to the Board of County Commissioners with a change to the rate
fee.
In the process, yesterday I drafted a letter and signed it to the
State Attorney's Office, and I've asked them to take a look at this
Page 100
October 9, 2007
particular issue to see if those irregularities in collection have any
criminality in that particular issue, and I think we need to have that
done before we __ before we take any actions on past -- on past issues.
Weare still itemizing the impact of this particular lack of
collection as far as revenues are concerned. Last briefing I was
upwards of around $900,000, and I will have a full reporting on that
by Friday of this week, which I will turn over to the State Attorney's
Office.
That's where I stand -- that's where we sit on this particular issue,
and I just wanted to make sure that I informed you of those particular
actions that I've taken as of yesterday and the recommendation that I
have for the Board of County Commissioners on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Do you feel that there has
been some improprieties in regards to the funds, not so much the -- not
collecting the funds, but do you think there was -- have any idea that
there may have been some malfeasance here?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can't say that for sure and I can't
__ and I can't say that we're -- it was just totally done in an innocent
manner either. I don't know what the background is on every one of
those renegotiation of fees.
I will tell you in your fee resolution there was no -- there was no
stipulation or statutory change that gave us the latitude to negotiate on
a particular issue, and I believe each one of those needs to be done. I
believe that somebody needs to be able to take some sworn
statements, and I can't do that in this particular case.
I believe it has renegotiation impacts everywhere from the person
that collected the fee through the supervisory channel, and I think I
need somebody else -- and we need to have somebody else take a look
at that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
Page 101
October 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think this item on the
agenda is a good item to give direction to change the fee resolution as
you're recommending. You know, I have a constituent who is willing
to fill out a sworn statement of affidavit of their experience.
But we need to move on and correct a -- actually what I think is a
great suggestion on how to correct the fee resolution going forward.
But we also, in my opinion, we need to change the ordinance, the
rental registration ordinance, because in section seven five it states,
delinquent registration will result in a daily penalty established by a
resolution of the Board of Commissioners. That needs to change if the
board is wanting to do that. So it's a dual action. It's not only a
resolution, but an ordinance. But I have some questions just on
historical (sic) of the ordinance, nothing to do with what you talked
about.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So my question is, we've had a
rental registration ordinance on the books for how long?
MR. MUDD: Michelle, can you help me on this one, if you
would.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. Since '96.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And we changed it in
2004 to kind of beef it up?
MS. ARNOLD: It was -- the ordinance itself?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: It's been changed a couple times since 2004,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's been changed after
2004; is that what you're saying?
MS. ARNOLD: No, in between --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Prior?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
Page 102
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. But the real -- the crux of
the rental registration is to identify the owners and how to get ahold of
those owners in case there's a problem?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That's one of the reasons, plus in 2004
we included the property maintenance inspections as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, okay. Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Michelle. I believe that you
were having some difficulties and you felt that you came before the
Board of County Commissioners to ask that we impose some
additional fines; is that correct?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. In 2003 there was an amendment to the
fee schedule that changed the penalty from $10 per day to -- I mean,
excuse me -- a strict $10 to $10 per day. In 2004, actually, is when
that happened.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And did you feel that that--
after we passed that resolution, did you feel that that was going
overboard?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I believe that the per -- $10 per day fee is
exceSSIve, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would have hoped that somebody
would have come back to us and said, hey, we might have a problem
here.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sure we find this all out as we
go through this process. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm hearing some very good thoughts
going back and forth here, and I appreciate and kind of agree with
everything to a point. I do think that we need to redraft this ordinance
as something that is less demanding to the point of being ridiculous.
Close to what was -- what staff put together, I think, would be a
good way to be able to address it as far as how many days you can
Page 103
October 9,2007
collect on it, but that's not here nor there now. The issue of trying to
go back to find out what went wrong so we can make those
corrections go forward is the right way to go.
I commend you, Mr. Mudd, for bringing this forward to the
County Attorney's Office so that -- not the county -- the State
Attorney's Office to see ifthere's been any wrongdoing. And I'm sure,
as this goes forward, we'll find that people were trying, what they
thought, was acting in the best interests of the public.
But be that as it may, that's not our decision to make here today.
That will be by the State Attorney's Office when the time does come.
We do have speakers on this. I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala, I didn't
want to ignore you. Why don't we go to you next, then go to the
speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just wondering, until
we get all this stuff resolved and get through this issue, if we could put
a cap in place right now at least, and help us along so that -- until a fee
schedule is resolved? Maybe a cap -- how does that sound to you,
Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, that was the question I was going to have,
whether or not the board was going to make any modifications or
recommendation for modification today to cap the fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a temporary one --
MS. ARNOLD: Until we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- until we resolve the issue.
MS. ARNOLD: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, on the next agenda
we could have a fee resolution, right? And I don't -- I mean, there's a
lot of things that have been gone on that I really don't want to discuss,
but we have a time to correct it in our next agenda, which is two
weeks. And personally, that's what I would like to do.
Page 104
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Rather than just put some--
a temporary one in place today, you mean? Because they're going to
keep going $10.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we can -- County
Manager, if you'd help us out.
MR. MUDD: Sure. Commissioners, what we can do is, we can
come back to the board the next meeting, okay, with the change to the
fee __ to the fee issue so that the board can ratify that particular issue.
The fees were due, for the renewals, were due on the 30th of June
for '07. So we're talking about putting something in place that's
basically going to tell you how you're going to do your program
henceforth, but its basic impact is going to be your '08 collection on
your -- by the 30th of June in 2008.
If the board -- if the board wants us to basically give a grace
period between today and the next time you do it and basically
annotate it that these two weeks that we're having to wait, that you
want us to take special mention of it, and then when we come back
with the resolution, you basically say, okay, for those two weeks, we
gave a grace period for the two weeks there, then that's fine too. But I
would suggest that you don't change where you are right now and the
way you do stuff until I can properly advertise the resolution that you
can -- that this board can vote on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, does that
conclude what you had to say?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's call the speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Donna Longford. She'll be
followed by Colleen Fernandez.
MS. LONGFORD: Hello, Commissioners. We've been at this
rental registration fee for several years now and we're back again. I
Page 105
October 9,2007
am the manager of Waverly Place Apartments and I'm also the
president of the Southwest Florida Apartment Association.
Apartment communities in our area house college students, your
workforce, your professionals, your retirees. We house them all, and
depending on the financing at that particular apartment community,
may it be tax credit or affordable or conventional, depends on the type
of inspections that we all endure.
Tax credit properties have inspections not only countywide, but
statewide, to make sure that they comply with those tax credits and
affordability that they've agreed upon.
Conventional properties have HUD inspections. We have react
inspections and we have mortgage inspections. No matter what type
of financing that our properties have, we are all mandated by the
DPBR (sic). That means every year we pay a renewal to the DPBR,
we get a license that must be displayed to the general public, and we
are inspected.
Weare inspected by the DPBR for health and safety issues. My
stairways are inspected. My fire extinguishers are inspected. My hot
water, you know, to make sure it's in compliance. Everything that you
could imagine on a property is inspected.
They inspect occupied units, they inspect vacant units, they
inspect my trash receptacles. They inspect everything on a health and
safety issue to make sure that I am abiding by the rules set forth by the
state.
If any deficiencies are found, obviously, I'm written up. You
know, an inspection -- a reinspection would obviously happen. If!
don't comply, then obviously I would be in default, and obviously
severe actions could be taken against me.
In 2003 we were given a letter by code enforcement letting us
know that you now wanted us to register our units by folio number at
a $20 registration fee, which we as apartment communities all
complied, paid our $20. I budgeted for the next year expecting
Page 106
October 9, 2007
another $20 to register my renewal for my registration fee -- for the
registration fee, and in 2004 got a letter letting me know that now you
had changed your mind and you didn't want to register just by folio
number, you wanted me to register by unit. So my $20 I had budgeted
for now became $6,000.
So my property owners have two properties in Collier County.
They have paid you in the last three years $27,000 to register the same
300 units on one property and 146 units on the other property. I get no
inspections. I get no renewal certificate. I get nothing, nothing for my
money that my company has paid you, nothing do I get.
And, you know, we're all about affordable housing and we know
what a deep issue this is for us, but you have to find it -- I mean, we
understand what this -- what you -- why this is -- there are, you know,
obviously landlords out there that, unfortunately, are slum landlords
and you want to make sure that they're accountable and know who
they are so that you -- if they have an issue, you can contact them.
But we obviously are here. We're out in the open, and now we've
been, I feel like, targeted, that we pay you these fees, and we're
already mandated by the DPBR and we shouldn't have to pay these
outrageous fees to continue to register the same units, the same
apartments that are never going to change every single year and get
nothing for our money. This is -- it's -- for affordable housing, how
can I continue to keep my prices low and continue to pay you money
and get no service, nothing for my -- for the money I'm giving you?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've made some very good points;
however, your time has run out. I do thank you for being here today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Go ahead, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the state inspects you
now, correct?
MS. LONGFORD: That is correct.
Page 107
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But wouldn't that prohibit us
from enforcing other ordinances?
MS. LONGFORD: As I said in the beginning, we've been round
and round, and a few years ago we came here to speak with you about
this, and we've sent you a letter from the DPBR letting you know that
what, in actually, you're doing is illegal. You're not supposed to be
imposing these type of fees on us because we're already -- multifamily
is mandated by the state.
And, you know, we've gotten no response and, you know, we've
tried to bite our tongue, and we've tried, you know, diligently to do
what we're supposed to do and we pay the fees. But I mean, we're at a
loss here. We've gotten nowhere, and are already mandated by the
state and we should be exempt. We should not have to pay per unit
per year to register units when we're already doing the same thing by
the DPBR.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, would this prohibit
us to --
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you for the question. One second, I'll
clear my throat. Pardon me.
No. In fact, yes. In the last few years, and subsequent to the
enactment of the ordinance in 2004, the South Florida or Southwest
Florida Rental Association, through counsel, their counsel, who'd been
in contact us __ and we'd also certainly seen the letter that they had
forwarded to us from the state department, a department of the state,
relating to their duties relating to apartments. What we're talking about
here is a type of home rule, among other things, and that is the county
exercIsmg --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry. That wasn't my
question.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, I'm getting to the point to tell you
that up to the __ through our review, we do not believe that the county
is preempted. And we have had significant discussions over a period
Page 108
October 9,2007
of many months with their counsel, and it was their counsel who
ultimately determined not to continue with us in further dialogue
relating to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, ifthe state has already
inspected it and we don't do these inspections, would that preempt us
from looking at the property for violations?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the question being posed, I don't think so.
One of the questions is -- being raised by the speaker is, payment for
services rendered or not rendered.
Ms. Arnold may wish to speak further about this, but the
ordinance does talk in terms of inspections and the right to inspect, but
it is not a fee that guarantees inspection of all units, and that could be
contemplated and could be legislated by the board through --
conceivably with recommendation of staff, if that were the concept
they wanted to be done.
But we're really talking in terms of apreemption. We have not, in
our research __ and it was extensive -- and we had dialogue and written
memo and legal opinion back and forth with their attorney, Mr. Pritt,
and we did not come to a consensus with him that, in fact, there was a
preemption by the state against Collier County or the other counties
that also do, in fact, have local rental registration fees in place.
MS. LONGFORD: I think -- I just -- real quickly, I just think -- I
want everyone to understand, it's -- obviously we have no objection to
code enforcement, if there is a call and there is a violation on any
apartment community, we have no objections to being inspected. We
have no objection. The objection we have is the amount of money
that we're paying you for nothing, in essence, because code
enforcement here, as Michelle can tell you, maybe one percent of the
complaint calls that you get are on multifamily apartment
communities. The majority of your complaints are coming from
homeowners that are not here that, you know, have gross negligence,
not from apartment communities that are already inspected and
Page 109
October 9, 2007
mandated by the state.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I understand that. And is there
any other questions from the commissioners of the speaker?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Colleen Fernandez. She'll be
followed by Harry Heist.
MS. FERNANDEZ: Hi. My name's Colleen Fernandez. I am
the past president of the Southwest Florida Apartment Association.
I have been on a property of 120 units in North Gate Club. We have,
as well, have our inspections.
The thing that I want to reiterate here is on your properties, on
multifamilies, we also have on-site maintenance. We have on-site
management teams as well that are there mandating these
communities.
I remember way back when, when the Golden Gate Task Force
was actually looking into finding out what we can do in order to be
able to get these absentee owners to start signing in. We couldn't find
out where they lived. We couldn't get the information. So we all
brainstormed. We determined, well, we need to be able to figure out
how we can get these people to register.
So it was a per-property fee that was initially what we were
wanting to be able to get. That was our goal, and I feel that per
property is fair. I think that the multifamily per property should be
paying per property as well as you have a duplex that has a $30 fee
per that property.
I think that the multifamily have more charges being assessed
here, then we can be up to 5 percent. The Golden Gate -- code
enforcement can come in and actually charge us $200 to inspect. And
then ifthey have to re -- come back, we're charged an additional $75.
So if you have a 500-unit property, 5 percent ofthat at 200, that's
a lot of money. We have taxes that we have to pay, you have
Page 110
~.._--~-
October 9, 2007
insurance. Some of you -- we're just looking to being able to try to get
some fairity (phonetic) with this, and I'll close with that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Harry Heist. He'll be followed by Susan
Rathburn.
MR. HEIST: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for
the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Harry Heist. I'm the
general counsel for the Florida Apartment Association, and I also am a
local attorney who has had the pleasure of representing just about
every apartment community in Collier County for the past 15 years.
The history of the ordinance was that it was -- it was created, as
you heard, to define who the owner of the property is. That was the
purpose of the ordinance -- you heard it from staff today -- to
determine who the owner is, so that you would have an accountable
local agent, somebody that you can go to.
The purpose was to reduce substandard housing. In theory, it's a
great ordinance to have. We find out who the owner is of that
single-family home where the absentee owner's in California, and
we're able to do something when it's substandard.
Well, unfortunately, something happened in 2004 and this
ordinance was morphed into something that I don't believe it ever was
intended to be. Right now the mechanics of the ordinance are that you
simply register. You'd pay your -- you pay your fee and you register.
So if! have a single-family home, I fill out my form, I pay my $30,
and I turn it in. I've registered.
If I have an apartment community with 300 units, I fill out my
form, I turn it in, and I pay $9,000 to register. That's what it costs to
register a 300-unit apartment community.
Well, as you can see, that's absurd. It makes no sense. If your
purpose is to find out who the owner is and they're there right on site
anyway, it doesn't make any sense, but that's how it is.
The problems with this ordinance is that, number one, it's a fee
Page III
October 9, 2007
where the buyer -- where the payer of the fee really does get nothing.
Yeah, we get inspections, but we have to pay extras for those. Those
don't come along with the fee. Those are actually extra.
So we're paying this. And what it is, it's an illegal tax. That's all
it is. It's a tax. Bottom line, it's a tax. The fee is also 100 percent
illegal under the DBPR preemption. We've spoken to the DBPR, we
hired Bob Pritt. Bob Pritt basically told us this. He says, it's illegal.
The DBPR says it's illegal. They said, you've got to sue Collier
County.
We can't afford to sue Collier County. We don't have the money
to sue Collier County, and we were told that Collier County will fight
us to the death. So we can't do it. So now we're stuck. We're -- you're
our only hope.
The DBPR has jurisdiction over multifamily. They inspect every
year. There's no need for another layer of inspection. The fee's
completely unfair. It hurts affordable housing. We've got taxes
killing us, insurance killing us, and now this ridiculous fee.
What we want is the fee to simply not apply to multifamily
housing because it's illegal and it doesn't need to apply to multifamily
housing. But in the alternative, if you do wish to impose the fee, let us
pay a $30 fee. We'll pay our $30, we'll send in our paper even though
we don't feel like we have to under the law. We'll pay the $30, and
then you'll know who we are, you'll know who the apartment
community is, you'll know -- you'll know where their owner is
located, and you will have accomplished everything that staff just told
you that was the purpose of the statute.
It won't prohibit people -- won't prohibit your own code
enforcement from coming in on a complaint or doing what they need
to do to do their job. It does -- the preemption does not prevent your
code enforcement from coming onto a property when someone
complains. It doesn't take any power away from Collier County.
Thank you.
Page 112
-,--~-'-
October 9,2007
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Susan Rathburn (sic).
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She had to leave.
MS. FILSON: Tammy Vidal?
MS. VIDAL: Hi, good afternoon. My name's Tammy Vidal.
I'm District Manager for Concord Management.
My company represents four properties down here that are
affordable housing. We provide tax credit communities. We're
inspected by the state. Those inspections, they inspect at least 10
percent of our communities interior-wise with all units. Ifthere's
anything that's found, maintenance, service request, file-wise,
unauthorized occupants, any of those items, we can be issued 8823s
and have to repay back tax credit dollars.
We also have the same inspections such as lender inspections and
all ofthose items that we're being hit with as well as DPBR (sic).
With my __ just my four sites down here, just this past year, we spent
$19,000. The year before that we spent 28,000, you know, and these
figures continue to go up because I'm a tax credit community, and the
ones that I operate, as well as the additional 22 of the communities
here in Collier County, of the 42, are all set up the same way. We've
not had rental increases through Collier County because of median
income amounts.
We're not anticipating, because we're 9 percent under that right
now __ unlike another property that's out there that may be able to, you
know, push these fees out to a resident, I'm not able to do that. I get
hit with taxes, insurance increases, all of those items. The only thing
that I can cut back on is staff, which is what I use to make sure that
my properties are very presentable and keeping up with the
requirements that I should.
Again, we __ you know, we definitely don't want to have these
fees. If Collier County comes in and code finds any type of issues, of
course, you know, we have to address those. I know that, you know,
we're charged $200 if they do get called out, and even if it's for
Page 113
October 9,2007
something that doesn't exist.
We gladly pay those fees if there is a problem. But having to,
you know, pay these outrageous figures for no reason and not having
any problems on the properties, I just don't see where it's required.
Thank you. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. I'm going to make a
comment next, if I may.
When this originally came before us, I was opposed to it for the
very same reasons that everyone mentioned. I do think it's a
regressive tax. I don't think it has anyplace being there on affordable
housing. It's targeting the wrong people. rfyou need to fine
somebody a $30 fee for one registry for the whole complex, it should
be more than adequate.
It was three reasons that we had listed in our executive summary
why we need to be able to continue this. One is to be able to contact
out-of-state owners, okay. $30 fee would do that.
Another one was to meet health and safety code requirements.
You already have the state doing that on a regular basis, and we have
code enforcement that can come in when the resident has a concern or
complaint.
And number three is to be assured that we collect the tourist
development tax. And r can't tell you one way or the other if this has
made any difference in those collections, but I can almost think that
the one form that would be filed would give you an idea of what you
were dealing with as far as that money and just correspond back and
forth between the records.
So I agree with you, even though that's not really the issue why
we're here today, I'm in total agreement with you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a fast question. What
does DPBR (sic) mean?
MR. MUDD: Department of Business and Professional
Page 114
October 9,2007
Regulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: State -- it's a state agency.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And who -- what company
did you say you were with?
MS. VIDAL: I'm with Concord Management.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I agree with your
sentiments. I'm going to make a motion to approve giving staff
direction to amend the fee resolution and also amend the ordinance to
reflect the changes that we're making in the fee resolution by exactly
what it says, either $10 a day or four times the amount of the
registration, but also is to remove the apartment complex from this
ordinance.
We __ if in the State of Florida we already have inspections, we
already have the ability to go in there to inspect for other things, it's
duplicative government. Being a Republican, I don't think that we
need government and government and government doing the same
thing. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, if I may
address your motion. I'm concerned about not having anything. We
heard people get up one after the other, and they said they had no
problem with the one-time fee to deal with the whole complex, a $35
(sic) fee that would be able to -- enable us to be able to keep track of
who it is and what we're dealing with out there.
If you could amend your motion to keep that in that, I could
second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you want to amend it so it's
per property ID or per property --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- portfolio instead of per unit?
Page 115
_.._---_.~-
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, instead of per unit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'll amend my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I'll second it.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I just have a question? Because at one point
we were assessing it per property, and I believe that you got a
counterargument from property owners that had multiple properties in
the county, that if an apartment complex with 100,200,300 units is
paying a $30, and $20 renewal fee, and they are having, because they
have multiple locations, to pay a fee per their location. Just -- I'm just
__ and I think that's why the board went from the--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, let me ask you the
question. Maybe you could help me out -- help us out trying to
correct something. How about if we do it per registered management
instead of per folio? Let's say that person has five duplexes. That
would be a single person or their designee; would that work?
MS. ARNOLD: So if somebody has a property manager that
handles all of their property, there would be one fee for that -- for all
multiple properties; is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Does that work for you?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I guess that could --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if! could -- if! can throw
something in just to help us a little bit more. We've got it there.
Commissioner Henning, I wouldn't throw out your idea about --
ladies, come on. Let me finish here.
The registration with the state and the Department of Business
and Professional Regulation, they mentioned earlier that they have to
pay a fee to them in order to get a certificate from them that basically
says they're registered. Okay. If I'm saying anything wrong ladies
and gentlemen, let me know.
Why not __ why not, if you want to do it for their whole complex
where they pay one fee, okay, on that property to us -- they give us the
Page 116
--"--'-~-
October 9, 2007
receipt from the DBPR, okay, because you've got that and you know
they're registered with the state, and that makes it quite different than
somebody that owns three or four duplexes here that's all over the
county, and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MR. MUDD: And they might be in the slum business, okay, and
some might not, so I don't mean to hurt anybody's feelings here. But
we want to make sure that if we have a slum landlord out there that's
got several things, then we want to basically -- part of the thing is
health, welfare, and safety on this particular inspection program.
So I don't know ifl'd go that far. If you want to take multiples,
then they got to register themselves with the state because she -- some
of your testimony today from the speakers was, they came out and
inspected stairwells and different issues, and parking and everything
else, and if that person that owns three duplexes out there registers
with the DBPR and -- so that you have that receipt, then I would take
that receipt and charge them just that one fee. If they don't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to make that my
motion, what the county manager said, and I just want to thank you. I
think that hits it right on the target.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I could second that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I -- yeah. I understand where
Michelle's coming from in regards to being fair to all people who have
properties out there. I think that maybe we ought to also give staff
some direction and look at what is compatible with the people who
own large concerns, like if they have 300 or 400 apartments and they
have, out of those 400 apartments, let's say they have six buildings,
maybe we could come up with a fee just for -- per building and make
that fair, because you've got the homeowners who are paying right
now, what, $30?
MS. ARNOLD: It's an initial $30, and $20 for renewal.
Page 117
._-,.--~-'-
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we could come up with
something where somebody has an apartment building, where they
have 60 units, they only pay a flat rate of -- for that particular
building, and if they have eight buildings on their complex, then it
would be __ with regards to the buildings. That way I think it's fair to
not only the apartment people, but it's also fair to the people who have
a residence down here that are out of town that rent.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The problem with that, if I may
interject, you could have an apartment building that has 10 apartments
and then you could have a duplex. Now you're going to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm talking about where
you've got an apartment building, let's say, that has more than 25
units, then you come up with a -- just a flat rate or whatever.
MS. ARNOLD: I think the simpler the better because I think the
reason why we're in the -- you know, looking at auditing the program
right now is because it was somewhat confusing as to what we should
have been doing. So if we can, you know, stick with the
recommendation of the county manager --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: -- you know, ifthere's a state certificate that we
can have a copy of for whatever units, whether it's multifamily or if
somebody wants to go to the state and get that certificate, then we can
have it as a one-time fee.
I do have some questions about the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to ask the county
manager --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait till we finish with
Commissioner Halas first.
MS. ARNOLD: All right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other concern is, will we have
control over health, safety, and welfare issues so that we can take care
of the individuals that are slumlords?
Page 118
..----
October 9, 2007
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we have that ability.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the biggest thing I think that
my concern is to make sure that we adequately take care of the
housing that's available here for rent, that people are living in good
conditions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, then we'll come
back to you, Michelle, for your questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now, if! understand what
was just said, if Concord Management has four different properties,
they would only pay one fee?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would be one for each -_
MS. ARNOLD: For each property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then you would know if a
property transferred names. Oh, okay, fine.
MS. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So each property, no matter -- if
they have four, each one then would pay their $20?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I was wondering how
we were going to track when ownerships change, but then it does -- it
does track that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I think we've exhausted that.
Michelle, did you have some comments you needed to make?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, that's okay. We'll come back with a
recommendation for registration, modif -- fees as well as late fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already have a
recommendation. Your recommendation is here, and we're just asking
you to amend the ordinance per what county manager said and also
include your recommendations of the -- for the resolution.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So amend the resolution and
Page 119
October 9,2007
amend the ordinance, and advertise it.
MS. ARNOLD: In the interim, we had looked at that fee for the
late fee, and I know what's being on the table today is the $10 per day
or four times the registration, whichever is less. My question is, do we
do that -- since we're going to only by property, we're applying that
per property and not by unit, correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the fee resolution is going
to say -- it's going to say -- I'm trying to remember. It's been a while
since I looked at it. It says, rental registration fee. It says -- and then
it says rental fee, and then it says late fee.
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. And I think --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it doesn't really reference
unit or owner.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just referencing it there.
Take -- actually take it out of the ordinance because if that was to
change, you'd have to change the ordinance.
MS. ARNOLD: Right. And my question is, is it the intent of the
board to apply the fee per unit or per property?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to ask the county
manager. I think we did it by property.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I just wanted to get clarification.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any further clarification that
anyone needs?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You get it, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
Page 120
October 9, 2007
second by Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you very
much for being here today.
AUDIENCE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll need you back when this comes
back again.
Mr. Mudd?
Item #10G
TO AWARD CONTRACT #07-4182, CHILLER PLANT
RENOVATION TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
FOR THE MODIFICATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE
EXISTING CHILLER PLANT, PROJECT 52533, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1.739,000 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOG, and that
is a recommendation to award a contract, 07-4182, chiller plant
renovation to Kraft Construction Company, Inc., for the modifications
and addition to the existing chiller plant, project 52533, in the amount
of$1,739,000.
Mr. Hank Jones, your Senior Project Manager, will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion to approve by
Page 121
October 9,2007
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there anything you need to read, have to put on the record, or
we all set?
MR. JONES: We're all set.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. JONES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, 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. Great
presentation.
MR. JONES: Thank you. My pleasure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Winning presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
Item #101
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROJECTS
IDENTIFIED BELOW FOR SAP INTEGRATION SERVICES
FROM LABYRINTH SOLUTIONS, INC. D/B/A LSI
CONSULTING FOR APPROXIMATELY $1. 7M PLUS TRAVEL
EXPENSES, AND TO AMEND CONTRACT NO. 07-4092 SAP
UPGRADE PROJECT WITH LABYRINTH SOLUTIONS, INC.
D/B/A LSI CONSULTING WITH EXHIBIT A-I, AMENDMENT
#1 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item lOr. It's a
Page 122
October 9, 2007
recommendation to approve the projects identified below for SAP
integration services from Labyrinth Solutions, Inc., d/b/a LSI
Consulting, for approximately $1.7 million plus travel expenses, and
to amend contract number 07-4092, SAP upgrade project with
Labyrinth Solutions, Inc. d/b/a LSI Consulting, with Exhibit A-I,
amendment number 1.
And Mr. Steve Carnell, your Chief of Contracting -- or
Purchasing, will present. And I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Another winning presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, yes.
MR. CARNELL: I'll try to do the next one in half the time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I'm delighted we're getting this
done. That's great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It is.
Item #1 OJ
Page 123
October 9,2007
AUTHORIZE A REQUEST FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO DEVELOP A FEE STRUCTURE FOR REVIEWING
EMERGENCY PLANS, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND
RECOVERING COST FOR EXTENDED EMERGENCY
RESPONSES AND CERTAIN TRAINING PROGRAMS -
MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO FORWARD TO DSAC AND
THE CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW - FAILED;
MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING IN
OCTOBER- WITHDRAWN; MOTION TO FORWARD TO
DSAC, CCPC, PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE AND THE
CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW - FAILED;
MOTION TO BRING BACK TO THE NEXT BCC MEETING -
FAILED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10J. It's to
authorize a request from the Collier County Department of Emergency
Management in conjunction with the County Attorney's Office to
develop a fee structure for reviewing emergency plans, Site
Development Plans, and recovering costs for extended emergency
responses and certain training programs.
Mr. Dan Summers, your Emergency Management Director, will
present.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Dan
Summers, Director of the Bureau of Emergency Services and
Emergency Management, and my presentation was just as good as the
previous two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nice try.
MR. SUMMERS: Nice try.
Commissioners, I would like to take you through -- I don't have
any fancy graphics for you today, but I have a little bit of a technical
Page 124
October 9, 2007
subject, and I have a brief presentation here that I think will
summarize the executive summary and give you some very quick
overview on our particular issue.
I want to bring to you five bullet points that are outlined in this
executive summary where the department of emergency management
is seeking to utilize a reporting fee or a plan review fee, some of
which are authorized within general statute, some are authorized
outside of other areas such as the federal arena.
I want to tell you what my intentions are to do with this particular
fee structure, give you a laymen's view of the legal basis for this. And
again, our goal is to bring this discussion to you for approval to go
back and further research and bring back to you an ordinance and a fee
schedule and certainly get your direction.
Briefly, there's -- and again, I'm going to refer to five sections.
There are five components within this executive summary and five
activities that I'm seeking your approval on.
The first is section I, which is review and approval of emergency
plans and procedures authorized to local emergency management
under Florida general statute 9G for certain healthcare facilities. We
take a great deal of pride in the review that we do of emergency plans
for nursing homes, congregate care, an assortment of healthcare
facilities.
And as you know, with the recent disasters we've had, how
important it is to review those plans and procedures and see what the
community needs are and particularly determine vulnerability.
There are five counties in the state right now that do charge that
plan review fee, those emergency plan fees, and there are a lot of
counties watching what I do today or what your indications are today
to see if they want to do that, again, as a result of the legislative
budget cut.
So it is authorized by statute for us to do that. There are caps on
that particular fee basis, but again -- let me also mention about the
Page 125
October 9,2007
purpose of that review fee for emergency -- for healthcare facilities.
We do outreach to those organizations so that they -- we know
what -- we tell them what should be in their plans, what quality we're
looking for. We have some facilities that report and do an excellent
job. We have some that we have to send back time after time again.
We're not out to just go through that exercise. What we are doing is
coaching and helping them build as much disaster resistance as
possible.
The second part is a reporting fee for submission and staff review
of Planned Unit Developments and Developments of Regional Impact.
I will tell you that emergency management does typically review these
DRIs and PUDs, but it's been a cursory review to some degree, but it's
very important that we capture those developments out there.
They're sort of an adjunct to our comprehensive emergency
management plan, so I know what the vulnerabilities are, what the
exposures are, what the wild land fire risks are, what the hazardous
materials risk may be with an associated major artery.
So while we have not had a formalized process for that and it's
somewhat of a new skill set for us, it's very important that we collect
that knowledge and make sure that if their plans or procedures -- that
need to be changed in our emergency management plan. Again, that's
part of our population effort by knowing what communities are being
developed.
The third section of this is a review fee for emergency plans filed
by both internal and external businesses and governmental agencies --
kind of a long sentence here -- when federal or state or local laws
reqUIre.
What I'm really after there is particularly if their risk
management plans associated with hazardous materials that are EP As,
what they call tier two list. The most extremely hazardous substances.
Now, the fire department will go and make inspections for
response, okay, and pre-fire planning fire code enforcement. My
Page 126
October 9,2007
scenario is, if that chemical leaks outside the boundary of a plant or a
facility and I need to, again, address population protection issue. So I
need to do more of that and, again, address primarily in this
environment risk management planning, not just for the plant, but
what happens if the event causes fall-out, so to speak, outside of the
plant proper.
The fourth section is sort of a -- sort of new. We're one of the
only departments that does not charge reasonable and customary fees
for training. And, again, I'm asking that we have the opportunity to
charge for those training classes and -- only in the scenario where we
don't have grant funds.
Typically, you know, I live and die quite a bit by the available
grant funds, pass-through funds from FEMA, some of those special
projects, those good things that we do. And, again, a lot of the fire
districts will charge small fees for printing and to offset some
specialized instruction. If I don't have a grant for that, I'd like to be
able to collect that.
Seminars for the general public. That's one of our main stays of
county government. So nothing that we're doing from the general.
Just -- no charges for the general public. But when we're doing
specialized training, primarily for our fellow responders.
The last section, emergency response charges to a responsible
party when the cost associated with a complicated emergency
response or extended -- or a response of extended duration. This can
be charged to a hazardous material shipper or negligent party. For
example, extended on-scene times. If we have to deploy and be on
scene with our fire districts, our emergency management, our mobile
command, where we've got a very volatile situation and we need to be
on site for an extended period of time.
We have had scenarios -- and I was very successful with this in
coastal North Carolina where we had an awful lot of manufacturing.
It's not something that we would just -- it was not a routine event.
Page 127
October 9, 2007
This is for the abnormal event where we really have a complicated
situation or we have something that's going to pose a potential
evacuation to the general public or even impact -- have the
environmental impact.
So, again, it's an opportunity for us to levy -- and again, that
schedule of, whether it's an hourly rate for staff or other supplies and
equipment, that would be a scheduled reimbursement, and most
insurance company who insure these hazardous materials in other
environments will reimburse local government for that if, in fact,
there's an ordinance developed type fee recovery.
Our intention is to offset some of our costs, improve our level of
customer service. I've mentioned this as somewhat of a new skill set
for us in terms of tracking that. I think we're very capable of doing
that, and again, it will be refining what we have been doing, and that's
reviewing and consulting on these plans but, again, refining that
process a little bit more.
Capture an opportunity to support disaster mitigation efforts if we
have some other level of exposure. Do we have some wildfire
interface issues? So it will make us a better planner for the
community as we institutionalize some of this reporting. And, again,
soften our legislative budget cuts.
In sections I and 2, in terms of our legal provisions this, again, in
layman's terms here, but obviously general statute 9G authorizes --
specifically authorizes the collection of those fees on an already
established schedule.
Within the Land Development Code does make reference to
emergency management review of the PUDs and the DRIs. We would
like -- after we receive your approval we'd like to go to DSAC and
present that for discussion, vet that with you, and as we finalize the
ordinance, bring the details back with you after the vetting process
with DSAC.
The superfund amendments and reauthorization act on the federal
Page 128
October 9, 2007
level dealing with hazardous chemicals and tier two chemicals under
the right to know legislation does allow -- does not -- rather does not
prohibit local government from collecting reporting fees so that we
can inventory and assess vulnerability of hazardous chemicals.
And in the fourth section, we're probably, as I mentioned earlier,
one of the few that don't levy some reasonable and customary fee for
training.
And the last provision really with excessive and extended
response costs. Again, charging the negligent party with -- again,
typically their insurance will cover these expenses that are typically
not parties that are here in Collier County. Mostly transient in terms
of shippers.
And we do have the opportunity for some of these response costs
to be reimbursed from the superfund, but they only do that
reimbursement once a year on a federal schedule. So it's very hard,
very complicated response. It typically has to have federal
involvement to open reimbursement to local government under
superfund for all -- primary for expendables and oil should we have an
oil release in an environmentally sensitive area, and that's a lot of
Collier County.
Pros and cons that I want to share with you, because I think, you
know, we've always tried to promote a disaster-resistant community
and voluntary compliance with emergency management activity. We
think working within the healthcare environment will be an incentive
for them to give us better plans. We think within the DRI and PUD
process it will formalize some mitigation and disaster-resistant
strategies that we want to continue to build on.
Within the third section, again, I think it will improve our risk
management assessment of those plans, and that's a positive. Training
and cost -- or training costs and fees, rather. I think that will help us
leverage available funds for additional training.
And last, but not least, again, it sets good precedent within the
Page 129
October 9,2007
federal response plan. That envelope is already there to put the burden
of responsibility on the shipper to do prudent things. Now, granted,
they do have accidents, and we're going to be there with all of our
teams and all of our organizations.
And I have reviewed this haz/mat cost recovery fee. It's been a
number of months. Time's gotten away with (sic) us. But I have
discussed it with the fire chiefs, and they are supportive of that. And
again, if they had particular response costs and the county had
response costs, those costs may be charged to a responsible party and
those funds reimbursed to the respective district.
So there's no cash gain there whatsoever. It's just trying to
recover some of the costs typically of expendable supplies.
Want to get your input and your direction on this, to move
forward for further research. Understand that I'll make that
commitment to DSAC. I haven't been in front of that group before, but
we'll have this discussion with them and come back to you with a fee
ordinance and certainly an advertisement for an ordinance and for
discussion.
So I'll stop right there, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dan, question. I just want to make
sure I fully understand what we're talking about, who we're going to
charge for training.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a large number of volunteers
out there that have been very beneficial to the county. I'm kind of
scare to death that we're going to lose these people if they ever had to
pay a fee to be able to attend a course.
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I'll be glad to take that, and we'll put that
in -- we'll address that. My goal was really only the paid responders
for that who are required -- and again, the National Incident
Management System, NIMS, we have a training load ahead of us.
Those costs, I would -- I consider those gratuitous, maybe 10 or $15
Page 130
October 9, 2007
for a class, if it means providing the materials, the instructor, and
those type of things.
We don't charge, and the fire departments, to my knowledge,
have not charged for anything related to the cert. team type activity or
anything like that. And typically we have grants for most of those
public outreach activities. This is an environment where I don't have a
grant or scope of work, but I still need to reach out and get that
training done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have no problem. I think
you're going in the right direction. In times of tight funding that we're
experiencing, we have to be creative to make sure we keep everything
going forward.
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. In one, two, three and four,
is some or all of that work right now also being performed by CDES
and/or the fire departments?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, that's a very good question.
The -- we all look at it differently. There's -- there is some
commonalties. There's some things that emergency management
looks at differently. There are some areas where I can impart some
additional knowledge over to CDES on things we need to look for.
The fire folks have their fire plan review, which is primarily under the
National Fire Protection Association, NFP A, guidance.
The emergency management really doesn't have a strong
standard for that, but my training and institutional knowledge is, I'm
looking for any vulnerabilities for that community. And, again, there
could be a wide range of vulnerabilities associated with that so that --
let's take the wildfire example. If I have some egress issues in there
that I kind of want to do some preplanning for that in terms of what
communication might need to go to that community, what
transportation assets I might need.
So while there are some similar activities there, my goal is to
Page 131
October 9, 2007
really view those plans and take the vulnerabilities and make them
subcomponents of my emergency management plan so I know what to
-- what to go after when I hear things are in danger.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So then wouldn't that be -- I
just hate to load more fees on these people that are already paying a
bucket of fees.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so if you -- ifthere are certain
things that you want to get out to, say, for instance, fire or CDES,
maybe you could list some of the criteria that is important to you so
they might include that, and maybe there could be a sharing of
paperwork so that each one that they go out and inspect or whatever,
they send a copy back to you, you'd have your information, and we
wouldn't have to charge an extra fee.
MR. SUMMERS: Understand. We have been receiving most of
the DRIs and PUDs, whether it was a courtesy review or the reviewer
just wanted to forward that. Our staff probably spends an hour and a
half to three hours reviewing each one from an emergency
management vulnerability or hazard analysis type standpoint.
We rarely make -- and we know that we don't have a have a lot of
regulatory authority to go back and make changes, but we do discuss
those concerns, and it may go back into the fire reviewer for a
recommendation or it may go back to the chief reviewer for some
other recommendations.
So we are contributing in that review process and have been
contributing an enormous amount of hours to that and we do route
those concerns if it is a fire or an egress or transportation. We do
share that back, but we have been doing that totally on the process of
emergency management.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is probably good, because a
lot of times you guys aren't working on a fire or working on a
hurricane, and so this is probably something that I bet they're happy to
Page 132
October 9,2007
do.
Let me see if I had anything. Sharing of information. And, yes, I
think that that's all for now. I just -- I just wanted to ask those
questions.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there -- you already do this
now. Is there going to be any increase of staff?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And when you go to the
DSAC and Planning Commission, you're going to provide the fees?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we are, and I think we do -- that's
something that the County Attorney's Office, my staff, are all going to
work on what that proposed schedule will be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It will be a -- similar to other
reviews that we're doing now today?
MR. SUMMERS: That is correct. And, again, we have some
legal work to do, the general statute is very clear on the fees that we
charge for healthcare facilities, and that may be the precedent that we
use. W e'lllook at other options.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more last question. At times we
hear of the process that anyone has to go through in order to get
approval, is laborious at best, and now will you be able to stop people
also then from getting any permits or anything? Will there be another
layer that they have to go through? I'm not real fond of layers of
government, to be honest with you.
MR. SUMMERS: Yes, ma'am. Ma'am, neither am r. I'm not n
this is not a scenario of us making government or making boundaries.
What I want to do is to make sure that we capture what we see
going on into the community, that our emergency management
Page 133
October 9, 2007
coordinators are properly planning and addressing potential
vulnerabilities, again, and taking that back and making some
recommendations to the reviewer that they may have other code that
would -- that would drive them to have the developer make those
changes. I really -- we really provide technical consultation. Weare
not an enforcement agency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Can I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to direct you and staff to go
forward and go through the process with DSAC and also with the
Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With the Planning Commission,
too?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: The DSAC is basically the folks that -- for review
fees and things that we go through for Mr. Schmitt, and I don't believe
this is any different in the particular case. Planning Commission, I
haven't seen them review our fees at all.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I retract that portion, but I
want it to go to DSAC.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Summers said he'd be
willing to do that.
MR. MUDD: He can, I'm just telling you that the Planning
Commission doesn't normally review our fees.
The other piece -- and I want to make sure that I've got this on
the record because Commissioner Henning asked a question about you
wouldn't increase your staff.
Dan's budget has $99,000 for fees in his budget as it stands right
now for his staff level, okay. This is part to bring this -- and this was
presented to the board during your budget workshops as far as we had
a fee for late -- for the library for late fees. That was about $40,000.
Page 134
October 9, 2007
It was $99,000 for emergency management.
This is to bring -- and to basically start the process in order to
capture that, okay. And it could be modified. And depending upon
what the board -- what the board approves, and then we'll come back
and do that. But I want to make sure that we tie both of those things
together. Yes, it's not going to increase staff. What it could do is
decrease his staff, depending on your approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Guidance.
MR. MUDD: Or if you're going to supplement his particular
budget vis-a-vis some unfinanced requirement funds or turnback funds
that we'll know more about at the end of the month.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas, did you
want to amend your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'll amend my motion to just
include DSAC to go through the process and determine what the --
what the viable fees are for this program.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, for discussion purposes I'm
going to second it because I'm waiting to see what the other ideas are.
Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Halas, a second by
myself, Commissioner Coletta.
Now discussion. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't see any -- what's
wrong with going through the Planning Commission. It's a new fee
and they might have other ideas. I mean, your -- you also have other
advisory boards that could weigh into this too. But anyways, I like the
way that -- that's why I asked him ifhe has a problem with that. He
said no.
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, if I -- may I clarify just a little
bit?
Page 13 5
October 9,2007
I do recall -- and I think this may be a suitable alternative for the
sake of time. The Citizen Corps Advisory Group is your advisory
committee that does address emergency preparedness issues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not supporting it.
MR. SUMMERS: If you'd like another committee to weigh in on
that one, that is one, I think, from scheduling purposes, I can certainly
get in front of.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll change my motion to include
them also. I think that should take care of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You were suggesting both?
MR. SUMMERS: Citizen Corps and DSAC, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that amended motion.
Any other comments or questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now there's one question I do
have is, how often does the Planning Commission sit in on fee
schedules?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, I'm not familiar. I have not seen them
address a fee scheduling process. I'd have to defer to other staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt might have some
comments on that.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your Administrator
of Community Development/Environmental Services.
I have never taken a fee schedule to the DSAC (sic). They have
never --
MR. MUDD: Planning.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry, the Planning Commission. I've
always taken them to the DSAC, but the Planning Commission doesn't
get involved in any of the funding activities or the fees associated with
the review process.
Now, I'm sure their concern -- and I believe the concern may be
for this the criteria and the evacuation criteria and some of the -- from
Page 136
October 9,2007
emergency shelters and those kind of issues that come up during the
review process or during the public petition process in front of the
Planning Commission, and that normally is the issues that the
Planning Commission has.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On DSAC, have you ever went
to the DSAC for the reinspection fees that hasn't been collected?
MR. SCHMITT: The reinspection fees?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Permit reinspection fees that
hasn't been collected over the years. Did you go to DSAC on that?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. They've been briefed thoroughly on
that, and so have CBIA, but those are fees --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When will the board be briefed
on that? When would the Board of County Commissioners be briefed
on that?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll be glad to schedule -- those are fees that are
part of the review -- or the inspection process. Those are building
permit fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Is that in the fee
schedule?
MR. SCHMITT: It's inherent -- yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Don't you think we
ought to know?
MR. SCHMITT: I can certainly provide a full report on fees that
contractors fail to pay. That's what we're talking about, reinspection
fees and other fees not closing out building permits and that's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's try to stick right to the item we
have at hand now. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 13 7
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. My suggestion might be that
you might want to consider continuing this to the next meeting when
we have five commissioners here, because I think you're at an
Impasse.
But, you know, go ahead and make whatever motions you want.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it failed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, no. It failed, the motion failed,
but I'm waiting for another motion. So we're going to leave this up in
the air where the motion, I guess, would be it failed for the lack of the
fact that we don't need fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you just take it to the
Planning Commission. I think that will take care of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not taking it to the Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I don't want to go to the Planning
Commission. Now, why do you want to put a burden on them,
something new --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then the motion failed--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to approve it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there's no second motion, so the
item is dead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a motion to bring this back
to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you can't. You already made the
motion. It's got to be -- am I correct, the next motion has to be made
by a person that wasn't part of the first motion?
MR. WEIGEL: No, there's no limitation there.
Page 13 8
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give it a try.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I make a motion to bring
this back to the next meeting in October.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You want to continue it to the next
meeting --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- in October?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Continue it to the next meeting in
October.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wish somebody else would second
it, but I don't hear it coming real quick, but I just wanted to move this
meeting along. I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're saying, no, you can't
do that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I just want to clarify that a motion has
been taken and it failed by the 2-2 vote, so by continuing this to the
next meeting, is a continuation of the item and that same motion
cannot be brought up and voted again. It will have to be something
with a difference if it is brought back to another meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But the motion that he made
is a legitimate motion; that can be voted on?
MR. WEIGEL: You can continue the item to a date certain or
whatever you wish to do, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion, we have
a second to continue this to a yet-to-be-determined -- or the next
meeting, I guess, was the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a motion, we have a
second, motion by Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
Page 139
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none -- I'm sorry, go ahead,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me just hear -- you want to
bring it back but you have decided that you don't ever want the
Planning Commission to hear it; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they don't hear -- I was
wrong in thinking that the Planning Commission did fees, but they
don't, and I don't think we should burden them any more than they --
they're there to look at the overall plans of PUDs and other items, and
I don't believe they need to be brought forth in regards to fees.
And I think we have -- as Mr. Summers brought up, we have a
core group that will also look at this to make sure that they're
reasonable, and I believe that DSAC is going to look at this and
probably go through it with a fine-tooth comb, and I think the county
manager has a question.
MR. MUDD: I have a statement. You've also used the
Productivity Committee as a fee review group over the years for
impact and any kind of fee updates, and they've even done Mr.
Schmitt's fee updates from time to time, so you use them on a regular
basis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I have no problem with them
going through the fees. That's something that they do as a normal
course of events. Taking a volunteer group and forcing more work on
them is really past the point of where we should be going.
But in any case, we have a motion -- do you want to withdraw
that motion and see if somebody would like to make the other motion
so we could just maybe end this now?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, why don't you two
just do what we want to do over here and you can be done with it.
You're taking a chance of it --
Page 140
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's two other commissioners --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're evenly divided.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Point of order, point of order.
When a commissioner has the floor, he may not be interrupted. That
is by ordinance, and I don't want you to violate an ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I don't want to violate an
ordinance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask both of you to
refrain. Commissioner Henning, make your statement and then I'll
allow Commissioners Halas, if he turns his light on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is real simple. I mean, you're
digging in your heels and you're making the other side dig in their
heels. It's a simple request. It's an advisory board that's very valuable.
They don't mind asking -- doing what we ask them to do.
Now, we had a settlement agreement on the Board of
Commissioners on July 24th and it was reprimanded down to the
Planning Commission, I mind (sic) you. Now, the Planning
Commission doesn't hear settlement agreements and -- but we all
agreed. So we're not setting precedence here. They've dealt with other
things that they haven't -- they haven't in the past.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you just said
the magic word, if we all agreed. We're not all agreeing now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we agreed in the past to
send something down to the Planning Commission that they haven't
done historically, an agreement -- a settlement agreement has never
gone to the Planning Commission before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's true, we did, and we
unanimously agreed to move it forward. In this case we don't. We
have a difference of opinion, and that difference of opinion is causing
a little bit of a roadblock.
Page 141
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just -- here's what I see,
Mr. Chairman, is you may kill a good idea just because you don't want
one of the advisory boards to review it. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I tell you what, I feel the same
way from this side of the aisle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That you could kill a very good idea
because you don't want an advisory group to be able to hear the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, no, just the opposite. I want
an advisory to give us recommendations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have a couple of choices.
We can make another motion or we could continue this to another
meeting and be able to handle it at that point in time. I'm fresh out of
motions. One of the two of you may wish to make one that you think
will go forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve,
get the input of DSAC, Planning Commission, Productivity
Committee, and the Citizens Advisory Board of the EEOC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala to
include numerous boards from this particular decision.
And with that, is there any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seeing none, all those in favor of the
motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Boy, this is what they call an impasse big-time. Now, we still
Page 142
October 9,2007
have left the motion to be able to continue this to the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: That motion has been removed. It will have to
be remade at this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, I guess I just made it
and I got a second from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm sorry. I thought I heard--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got a second from
Commissioner Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You're throwing your voice
again. Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner
Halas to move this to the next meeting when we'll have a full
complement of commissioners.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All in favor of that, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. It's dead. It's dead in the
water.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's dead in the water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need to go to the next item.
Item #10L
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS-APPROVED
Page 143
October 9,2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next items is 10L, and that is--
to report and ratify self-approved change orders and changes to work
orders to board-approved contracts. Mr. Steve Carnell, your
Purchasing Department Director, will present.
I moved this item off of the consent agenda to the regular agenda
because I wanted Mr. Carnell to talk about -- I believe it's number--
MR. CARNELL: Number nine.
MR. MUDD: -- number nine on the change order list to make
sure that we explained it completely to the Board of County
Commissioners. I believe we -- that it was -- it needed more
explanation than just the one-line entry on that particular item, and
Mr. -- and I've asked Mr. Carnell to present that to the board and
answer any other questions that you might have on this particular
item.
Mr. Carnell?
MR. CARNELL: Steve Carnell, Purchasing General Services
Director, for the record.
The item in question on the change order report was an
amendment that the staff processed earlier this summer with Kraft
Construction, and it is a -- an amendment that is consistent with the
administration of your direct material tax savings program.
And just briefly, when we enter into construction contracts, we
frequently, in most cases, will amend our contracts after award to
avoid paying the sales tax, legally and legitimately under Florida law.
In order to do that, you have to take the portion of the contract
that involves direct materials, because materials are the things that are
subject to the sales tax, and you have to literally back them out of the
contract by change order.
And what we do is we take them out of the contract that's been
awarded and then we issue purchase orders to all these different
suppliers and subcontractors who are providing these materials.
Page 144
October 9,2007
Now, what's at question here is, the contract was put in place.
This contract is nine years old. I think I had six children at the time.
And now I have nine, but the -- it's a long time ago, folks. Nine years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not counting us as four of your
children?
MR. CARNELL: No. You would be my beloved parents.
The contract though had a statement in there that was very
well-intended that said that we would keep the unused balances, we,
being the county, would keep the unused balances for these direct
material POs. That's all we're talking about here, just that portion of
the contract that we pull out to save the sales tax.
And what happened this past summer was, is we were winding
down this project. The contractor, the construction manager
approached us and pointed out the fact that we had an inequity and an
inconsistency with that statement I'm referencing versus our direct
material program.
And the inconsistency is this: When we go through the bidding
process in the front end, we get lump sum fixed prices for the major
components of the work, electrical, concrete and masonry, HV AC,
whatever it may be. We get fixed lump sum prices, and we like lump
sum prices in the public sector. We're comfortable with that. We're--
we tend to be risk adverse.
Lump sum prices are good because we can then pay and budget
and finance our projects with certainty. There are no surprises. If!
give you a lump sum contract to do X for $100,000, then I pay you
$100,000. I don't pay you 90-, I don't pay you 110-. I pay you 100-,
and there's no doubt, there's no questions, there's no guesswork. No
surprises at the end of the contract.
Well, in this case, as I said, we go through the direct material
process. In a sense what we're doing is we're kind of picking that
lump sum part -- pricing apart to get at the sales tax, to get rid of it so
we don't have to pay it, but everything else is supposed to stay intact.
Page 145
October 9,2007
It's supposed to be a lump sum agreement otherwise so that, again, the
risk stays, in this case with the at-risk contractor who's Kraft
Construction and Wright Construction as well in one of the other
items in this agenda.
So the point simply being is that we talked to the contractor this
summer, and essentially the discussion -- we realized we had an
inconsistency because we were asking to keep these balances. In
effect, what we were doing is taking the contract apart and making it
into something that's not lump sum.
Now it's becoming time and materials because we're only going
to pay for the things we literally get. That's not the way we intended
the price for this to work because we want the contractor to assume
the risk for managing the delivery.
So what we did in this amendment that's listed in the report here,
is we changed the contract provision to say -- to take out that
provision that says that we keep the balances and we say the
contractor gets to keep the balances instead. That keeps it consistent
with the lump sum arrangement, that keeps the risk allocated where it
belongs, and it's also -- it's just the fairest way to do business.
We start out from an arm's-length point of view telling the
contractor, go bid your work, get the lowest prices you possibly can,
then give us a hard bid number that you can live with, that you will
stand by, and then we go and take the sales tax out of it for our
benefit, not for his, but for ours only.
And we reach that point, and we want to leave it that way. We're
not intending to turn it into a time and materials contract where we're
trying to -- oh, you only delivered 82 and we estimated 84, so we're
not going to pay for the final two.
That's not what we're intending to do, and we don't want to
assume the risk of turning it into a time and materials agreement. So
that's why we made the change. And admittedly, it's nine years after
the fact, but -- in the case of the Naples Jail, but that is what we did,
Page 146
October 9, 2007
and we did it so that we could keep our sales tax program intact.
And in this case, the Naples Jail, we generated about half a
million dollars in tax savings by going through all this process of
creating these POs. And by closing out the balances and giving the
balances back to the contractor, we're giving him $35,000 that he __
arguably we could say was ours if we want to make it a time and
materials contract. But I would say to you, that's just not fair. That's
not really the way we should do business here.
And that's -- the staff and purchasing facilities and even the
finance division went over this at the time, and we reviewed it and we
agreed that this was the fair and equitable thing to do. So that's what
the change is.
I'll answer any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a little trouble just
understanding it, so have patience with me, okay.
The reason we decide to buy it ourselves is to save us the sales
tax money.
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So our own staff then has to go
ahead and actually do the ordering and so forth rather than the
contractor, so we then assume that responsibility of the whole process
of ordering everything.
MR. CARNELL: Not entirely, no, no. We assume the
responsibility of creating a purchase order, and on paper it becomes a
county transaction, but the contractor is totally responsible for
everything else. They retain responsibility for accepting delivery of
the materials, for storing them, for managing them, for installing them.
It's basically seamless to us. The hoopla, the work for us is to
create the purchase order and then to pay the invoices as they come in.
That's our -- that's our part of the work. But we do not become the
construction manager.
Page 147
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But when the contract says -- and
the way everybody signs it, it says it goes back to -- how does it say it
-- to the owner or whatever we're called in there, and then we change
it to say it goes back to the contractor rather than the county. Are we
supposed to change a contract after it's been signed?
MR. CARNELL: Well, your purchasing policy permits this, and
particularly given the light that we are reporting these changes to you.
And again, in our mind, Mr. Chairman, we are fixing an
inconsistency, an unintentional inconsistency in the contract. We
want to keep a lump sum arrangement with our contractor. We want
them to be responsible for the cost of the work, for managing the cost
of the work, and we don't want to create a situation where we are -- I'll
call it a default or de facto time and material arrangement has been
arranged where now we're tracking to the penny exactly what they're
putting on the site and how much work they're putting in and how
much materials they're delivering, and then saying, we're only going
to pay for what you deliver.
It sounds like we should want to do that, and that's how -- that's
why the provision was there nine years ago. But it's actually contrary
to the lump sum agreement process and to the risk transfer, because
now we assume risk if the quantities are wrong, and some items they
will vary a little bit.
If I'm buying generators or I'm buying -- like in the case of the
jail, toilets or cots or bedding, those are fixed numbers. I can look at a
set of plans and I can count how many of those there are, and that's
pretty -- and there's not going to be any confusion there. But if I've
got to look at how much concrete we're pouring, rebar, other types of
fluid materials -- the designer gives you his best estimate sitting at a
drawing table, but when you get out there and you pour or you install,
those things are fluid and they're not going to -- they're not going to
measure to the penny.
So the contractor, when he's cooperating with us in the direct
Page 148
October 9, 2007
material purchase process, he's actually guessing a little bit on his
numbers that he gives us. So that's the issue is, we're trying to be fair
to him and we're trying not to shortchange him inadvertently, so to
speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And don't they usually, in their
contract, work in some kind of a -- some kind of a fee in each of these
items for their people to do all of the work also? So the item that
would sell to us for one amount would probably sell to us through the
contractor at a different amount. And so then we're going -- we decide
to change that so that we get the sales tax back, but then we give the
money back to him.
MR. CARNELL: No, no. We only give -- what's in question is
-- take an example. Let's say we have 100 cubic yards of concrete that
we've estimated we need, and in reality we get out there and we pour;
we only need 96.
What this is saying is -- that's a direct material purchase. We've
made it a direct order so we've saved the sales tax on the concrete, but
what we're saying is -- in a lump sum agreement, we would pay for
100 regardless of what's poured. And by the way, if it's 104 instead of
100, we pay 100. That's why it's risk free to us. We pay for 100 no
matter what.
In this case, if it comes in at 96, remember, we're getting invoices
from the subcontractor because he's ordering from us under the terms
of the bigger contract, and at the end it's 96 is what come in, but he's
predicated his whole contract around delivering 100 and pricing for
100. And in essence, what we're doing is kind of changing the rules
on him at the end of the game. And we didn't think that was fair, and
that's why we processed the amendment the way we did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the last thing. Are you
allowed to change those contracts without asking us or is that just
something --
MR. CARNELL: Yes, we are. The contracts are zero-dollar
Page 149
October 9,2007
impact. There's no increase to the total contract amount by doing this.
And so what we do though is -- and remember, this is the system
that's unique to Collier County and I think it's kind of state of the art __
we have a system where you delegate and empower your staff to
approve changes to contracts but we report them to you monthly,
which is what we're doing here in this agenda item, so it allows you
oversight. It allows you to see what we're doing, but you've
empowered your staff to act, which is a tremendous asset in terms of
keeping projects timely and moving forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm finished.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, these were negotiated
contracts by the staff. This -- these contracts, it was __
MR. CARNELL: Yes and no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. CARNELL: Yes and no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was RFP, right?
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then there was a
negotiation on the certain elements of the contract.
MR. CARNELL: Yes. We negotiated with the construction
manager for his constructibility review before the design's completed.
He becomes a partner with us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CARNELL: And then we negotiated a profit fee and some
other costs that he has of managing the construction when we move
into actually building the project. The rest of the pricing, which is the
bulk of it, is competitive bidding that he manages. The construction
manager goes out and gets the bids and he gets lump sum bids __
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. CARNELL: -- so that we lock in lump sum prices, and we
get that lower risk for us. So that part of it is not negotiated, and that's
Page 150
October 9, 2007
most of the dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, other contracts are
bidded out by different companies and we see, you know, detail of
what they're going to charge for a 30-inch bolt versus a 20-inch bolt
and stuff like that.
I think that money is ours. I think this money is the taxpayers' of
Collier County, and I want that money to (sic) the citizens. That's a
savings to the taxpayers. It's not a savings to the contractor. And I am
glad this is on the regular agenda because it's -- it should be ours.
MR. CAMP: Commissioners, let me try to repackage it real
quick. We have a -- we have a construction management at-risk
contract. It's made up of low bids of all the subs. It's a low bid, and
the general contractor at risk takes that low bid. Let's say it's $50,000
for electrical. He's entitled to that money. That subcontractor's
entitled to that money. It's low bid to the general contractor.
What we do is we take a portion of that so we -- and make a
direct purchase just to save the taxes. But that subcontractor is
entitled to that low-bid amount, and he would get that if it wasn't for
this tax savings. So, you know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Camp, the contract
that the board signed was changed, right, not by the board; it was just
changed?
MR. CARNELL: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Well, I have a problem
with that. It was changed so that he can get that -- those savings back
to the contractor, and I just think that is -- those are -- these are the
funds of the taxpayers.
MR. CARNELL: If I could, he's getting his lump sum price
minus the sales tax.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You can convince the
others of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Of course, we have no
Page 151
October 9,2007
speakers on this particular item, do we?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe the -- does the Clerk of
Court have anything to say?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to give you your chance,
Crystal. Go for it.
MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, thank you. Crystal Kinzel for the
record for the Clerk's Office.
Our concern primarily was that there was a change to the contract
and we felt it needed to come back to the board to make that decision
to amend the contract this way.
Now that it's been brought before you and presented to you, it
becomes a decision of the board, and whatever that decision is made
knowingly, then we could follow that payment process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the good new.
Now, do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion that -- well, there's
several items on here. I motion that the changes in question not be
approved and the others be approved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to be site specific here?
You talking about one through seven?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have to go through each one?
I'd be happy to. Change order number one is to approve.
MR. CARNELL: Well, let me help you. The -- nine through 12
deal with this issue. One through eight do not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, and that's my motion, to
approve one through 11 (sic) and disapprove nine through one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You want to approve one through eight. You said
one through 11, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did I?
MR. MUDD: So one through eight--
Page 152
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and you want to not approve nine through 12,
and the board has also got work orders on this particular agenda item,
and I don't believe any of those are of issue. There's change orders
and work orders on this.
MR. CARNELL: There's two reports.
MR. MUDD: Two reports.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. We have a motion and we
have a second. Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
What happens at this point in time if this motion passes with
items nine, 10, 11 and 12? How is this resolved?
MR. CARNELL: Well, we're going to have to go back and
amend the contract -- reamend the -- they've already been amended.
And under -- just I would disagree with Ms. Kinzel, there's a very
clear authority in your purchasing policy that says that your staff can
approve changes of 10 percent or less to the property. This is a zero
dollar change. There's no increase to the contract. So staff had the
authority to do this.
But that aside, to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, we would
have to go back and undo the contracts, renegotiate the change back,
undo it, if you will, with the contractor, who, at this point, are acting
under the assumption that it's been authorized.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, when that happens, when
you undo the changes --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry, Commissioner Henning. I'm
going to have to ask for you to be recognized before you speak.
Commissioner Halas was before you. We'll come right to you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
Page 153
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is if we open these
contracts up, the end result could be that it could cost us a lot more
money; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: Well, I think you run the risk of getting the
word out on the street that there's an inconsistency here, this is how
we're going to do business. We're going to say we want the privileges
of a lump sum safe price, but, oh, by the way, we're going to take
money from you at the end that we told you was yours previously.
That's the struggle. That's the dilemma.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And my concern is that a lot of
these contractors, they take a -- they step up to the plate and they take
a risk when they come up with a guaranteed contract, and then we -- if
we turn around and want to change the game plan in the middle, the
rules, obviously, it could be very detrimental to us in the future in
regards to contracts that we're going to issue; is that correct?
MR. CARNELL: That's what we're concerned about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CAMP: Yeah. I just want to reiterate. All we're paying
them is the low bid amount. That's all we're paying them. And they're
cooperating by letting us take the tax savings, but we're not giving
them a cent more than the low bid that they proposed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me ask you something.
The board signed the contract, correct?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it was amended by this new
process of letter, right?
MR. CARNELL: It was actually done by amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And that amendment has
come to the board, right?
MR. CARNELL: The amendment is on the agenda today. I
Page 154
October 9, 2007
mean, it's -- you're approving it through the reporting process. The
amendments and the change orders are reported monthly that are less
than 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So you're only asking
what's already been done?
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You changed our contract, and
now you want approval for changing our contract?
MR. CARNELL: Correct. We're reporting it to you for
ratification because, that's right, because you've delegated the
authority for us to do this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With the approval of the board?
MR. CARNELL: With the reporting to the board, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the dollar amount
associated with this?
MR. CARNELL: With the Naples Jail, we have -- that project is
winding down. There's still some final things on the punch list that
are being closed out as we speak. But right now, that number is either
23,000 or 35,000 that we would be giving back. There's one $12,000
item in question right at the moment that we may not be paying at all
or giving back. We're trying to work out some issues there.
But it would be 23,000 or 35,000 that we would be -- in unpaid
balances that we would, as Skip said, would be part of that low-bid
balance that we would give back to the contractor against $500,000 in
tax savings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's for purchase of
goods?
MR. CARNELL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. That's just one of the
items. And there's several.
MR. CARNELL: Well, the other three are much earlier in their
life, and I'm not able to tell you what those balances are right now
Page 155
October 9,2007
because we're not far enough along on the construction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. KINZEL: Excuse me, Commissioner Coletta. For the record
again, Crystal Kinzel.
I think also number one change order does involve the direct
materials purchase for $6,900, so that's an additional amount, and we
did have one other one in our office, I believe, that is about 36,000.
So it's a 35- or 36- and almost 7 to date, but Steve is right, we haven't
finished out those projects. Those are just staff estimates, if that helps
to give you a ballpark on the dollar amount.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you, Crystal.
MR. CAMP: And so we -- so I -- so you understand, we're just
clarifying the language. We're not changing the intent of the contract.
That money belongs to them. All we're doing is trying to clarify the
language.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And so -- and that's what we're
doing today. Ifwe vote on this, we change these contracts, we amend
these contracts. And then secondly -- and I do realize this, they go
way out on a limb to bid on some of these things, and they never can
tell what the weather's going to hold for them or what pitfalls they
might run into, whether there's a worker shortage or whatever it could
be and so -- and I see why they bid a total project, and I just -- I just
didn't like it being changed without asking us about it. I'm glad we're
going to have an opportunity. But, again, I agree, they bid one lump
sum, we told them we'd give them one lump sum, and we owe them
that. But there is a -- there is a problem with the way it's being done.
We could do it better next time, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning. Second--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We need to clarify that
because the pages are not in order. Number nine is -- has nothing to do
Page 156
October 9,2007
with -- number nine is for approval, number two -- got to find the
hidden information here. Number two is for approval. Number three
is for approval. Number four is for approval. Number five is for
approval. Number six is for approval. Number seven is for approval.
And the others that are not -- the fixed term, Kraft Construction, is not
approved. That's part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So number nine, Kraft
Construction?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number nine is not Kraft.
That's the first one. And that's a storing and pine removal, correct?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number one is the first one
that's on our page.
MR. MUDD: Let me --let me make sure --let me make sure I've
got this. On page 3 of 26 and 4 of 26, you have administrative
changes to work orders report, okay, and that goes one through seven.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Then you go to page 12 of26, 13 of26,
and 14 of 26 and that's your administrative change order report.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're working on the
summary, and I was going by the individual one, but we're saying the
same thing.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. One more time, state your
motion so we can follow it, working from the work order and working
from the change orders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The work order summary
number one through seven is approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me get to the other one.
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Twelve, 13, 14.
MR. MUDD: The summary, sir, it's on 12 of26, that's where it
starts with the change orders.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Twelve?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It goes 12, 13 and 14.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So on that one, number one not
approved; number two, not approved; number three, not approved;
number four, approve; number five, approved; number 6, approved;
number seven, approved; number eight, approved; number nine __
number nine, not approved; number 10, not approved. No, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about 11 and 12?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Number 10, not
approved; number 11, not approved; and number 12, not approved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That's your amended motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. That's just clarifying the
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, do you agree
with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm having a problem with it,
quite frankly. I totally agreed with it before, and then I -- and then I
realized that as a full contract -- and that's what we agreed to pay them
and that's what they were banking on and that's the people that they
hauled out to the job and that's the time frame they were working
under, and I -- I think we need to do a better job about this -- where
this money -- the direct costs go to.
I don't think -- it should come to us before the project is well
underway. If you're going to change it, either change it before we
even see it or change it early in the process and let us know. I think
this way they've already banked on this money. We've already agreed
to it and we've already signed the contract, so I probably have to
Page 158
October 9,2007
withdraw my second, but I expect it to be changed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Fiala and a second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Henning, any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And with that, no one
else has anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let the record show the vote was 3-1,
with Commissioner Henning being the opposition.
Item #1OM
A FLORIDA INNOVATIVE WASTE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING GRANTS CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$78,500 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO FUND THE COLLIER
COUNTY SCHOOL BEVERAGE CONTAINER RECYCLING
CHALLENGE GRANT AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE PROCESSING OF THIS
GRANT - APPROVED
Page 159
October 9,2007
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is 10M, which used to be 16C3, and it reads, it's a
recommendation to approve a Florida innovative waste reduction and
recycling grants contract in the amount of $78,500 with the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection to fund a Collier County
School Beverage Container Recycling Challenge Grant and the
necessary budget amendment to allow the processing of this grant.
And Mr. Dan Rodriguez will present from -_
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'm the one that pulled it, so if I
may. Let's go ahead and get Bob right up here so he can make his
comments, then we'll go there with it from that point with the
questions and what presentation we need.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Can I speak from here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can certainly use that mike if
you want.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello. I'm Bob Krasowski. I'm a 27-year
resident of Collier County, and I work under the banner of the Zero
Waste Collier County Group and the Florida Alliance for a Clean
Environment.
I'm here today because I received an email from the DEP. I get
them regularly. Anybody can get them, their announcements, about
what their activities are at the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection.
And actually I would have preferred to go after the presentation
so you folks could get a full view of what I'm talking about, but let me
just proceed.
The -- in the email it showed the recycling grants, innovative
recycling grants that are to be awarded this year, and Collier County
had two of them of 17, or something like that. And I've read the first,
which is for producing videos and campaign to promote commercial
recycling, and then there was another one for the school district.
The first one you passed earlier on the consent agenda. This is
Page 160
October 9, 2007
one of the two that involves the school.
Now, in the application -- I talked to a few people. I called the
county about the other one. And I've talked to the DEP, some people I
know up there, about this second one as well as the other one. It took
me awhile to get around to reading the second one.
But in the application -- I have two issues here. One, the
information in the application is incorrect. And number two, the __
that program involves the -- in the -- putting in the schools the bottles
you have out here in the hallway, the soda bottles with the logos,
recognizable components of logos for Coca-Cola and RC Cola and
some other colas, and I don't think it synchronizes up well with the
citizen-driven nutrition programs that are going on in the school
district, but I haven't talked to them about this yet. I will in the future.
But in this application, at least specifically to this grant, the
application states that -- and it's on this projector here now, the last
recycling award you gave, similar to the one you gave today, to the
conservancy and one previously you gave to the school district, was
for -- and let's see.
You can see it on there somewhere. Maybe somebody could
point it out. But it says, for paper and for recycling containers and
metal and plastic and aluminum and stuff, okay, this, application says
-- from the solid waste department to the state -- near the grant funds,
that you had given an award -- awarded a -- given them -- the school
district award for success in recycling paper. And then throughout this
whole application, it speaks only of paper.
Now, the application for this grant is to get funds to promote a
program that is supposed to increase recycling cans and bottles and
soda containers like that. And it says here -- am I going to be allowed
to go for a little while or --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll give you another minute, sir,
because --
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay, another minute. Okay. So let me get
Page 161
October 9, 2007
to the -- get to the point then, and it's kind of it -- there's a lot to it.
But it says here in the project description -- thank you -- that -- that the
sold waste department had been working with Sunshine Recycling and
also with the school district.
Now, there's an ongoing program for recycling these containers
already in the school district. Sunshine Recycling has a contract that
went out to RFP for doing it, and I've been told today that the
contract's still in place.
So what you have here is an application to do things that are
already being done, okay, to a degree, and it's suggesting that the
measurement of the success for this program is going to go from zero
to whatever they recycle.
There's already a certain amount of the recycling that's being
done, paid for by the school district, that is being recorded. That was
part of the contract. I was very much involved in watching that whole
process.
So I don't have time to go on, but I'm saying you should be
alerted to this, and I hope that you do something about it. I suggest
this get straightened out before you sign onto this, maybe an
amendment to the application and explanation to be made to the
Florida DEP because it, to my mind, it would be inappropriate to
proceed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. We
appreciate you being here today. And if I could have the appropriate
staff person come up and help fill in the holes that might be missing
here.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sure. For the record, Dan Rodriguez, your
Solid Waste Director, Commissioner.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this grant program,
which we are very proud of. It's a partnership with the school board
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
As you mentioned earlier, in these economic times of cutbacks,
Page 162
October 9,2007
not only at the local government level, but also at the state level, we
have a great opportunity to gain $78,000 and 500 -- $78,500 from the
state to capitalize on recycling in the schools.
We currently do recycling. As you know, Janet Go and Jodi
Walters, our recycling coordinators, do in excess of about 80
presentations a year in the classroom as well as tours at our landfill.
And what this program is offering is another great opportunity for us
to develop that culture in young people to recycle. As you've done
with the single stream implementation here in Collier County, you
continue to recycle larger and larger amounts annually.
If you have specific questions, I can answer, or if you'd like, I
can give a short presentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no questions. Does any other
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've read the report that was here in
my agenda. I don't really need a presentation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion? Seeing -- yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- things like this really encourage
the kids, I think, to recycle because kids like gimmicks, if you will,
and I think that at a young age, maybe they'll learn to recycle cans and
bottles just by placing these in the school. I think it's a great idea.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. And the great thing about the
grant, Commissioner, is that those plastic containers, about $30,000
worth will be funded by the state to be placed in the school. They're
not just for soda cans. That's plastic cans, aluminum. You can get
fruit juices in plastic, you can get fruit juices in cans. So the school
board probably does a great job in their nutrition, and we just want a
Page 163
October 9,2007
great place to dispose of them and recycle them.
Thank you for your support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We have a motion, we
have a second.
Any other 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.
That looks like a nice addition to the -
Item # 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public comments
on general topics.
Ms. Filson?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we do that, we've been
running a little bit late. We're going to take about a six-, seven-minute
break and be right back. I know we're almost at the end, but I've seen
almost at the end drag out another hour. And then we'll be right back.
Ten minutes max.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Page 164
October 9,2007
Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, we have two speakers under
public comment. The first one is Randy Johns.
MR. JOHNS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Randy Johns, for the record. I'm here for First Assembly.
We're coming here today to ask you to grant us a 24-month
temporary use for care units at the church. I've worked with staff,
with Joe Schmitt, and we've got their recommendations. We just need
to come to you guys today to get an approval.
On the screen I have a site plan up there that has the blue
showing that -- the old location of 23 care units that was on the site
and being used.
Due to the sale of the property, we have to relocate those units.
We'd like to relocate nine of those units into the red area onto the
church's property and -- for the care units that we have there for
patients at the church. And staff recommended I come to you for
approval.
We are going to have sewer, water, fire, all the utilities approved
by the county before anybody will move into those units. Most of the
sewer and water stuff is there now, so we're just asking to get a
24-month temporary use for occupancy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Joe Schmitt, may I ask you to
come forward, please.
I got an email from Bill Klohn just a little while ago, and he says
that he supports this particular move and that his immediate neighbor,
that he has no problem with it.
What they're asking to do is to be able to temporarily locate these
units on their property as they're building the mortar -- the brick and
the mortar building. And that would be for how many months again?
MR. SCHMITT: Randy said for 24. For the record, Joe Schmitt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt, how can we make this
Page 165
October 9,2007
work so that they provide -- continue to provide the service that they
are while they're going through the process?
MR. SCHMITT: I just need your approval. The problem is __
and Randy knows, he and several members of my staff met last week
on this trying to figure out how we could allow for the trailers to be
moved where he wants to move them coming off of the MGD
property .
The issue here is the use, and the zoning, frankly, does not allow
it, because of the type of trailer and what's going on.
Now, all of this will be -- it's coming to you for a PUD
amendment and involved with the -- with Bill's amendment associated
with the CWHIP project. You're going to be seeing that later this year.
The commitment I have from MDG and, of course, from
Phoenix, is that they will both partner in developing and amending the
site plan for the entire site. That needs to be done.
But the criticality here is the moving of these trailers. I have no
problem. And Randy knows, as long as they're installed to code and
meet all the requirements for code, that means tie-down, electrical
hookup, water/sewer hookup, and it has to meet all those
requirements, the issue is the temporary use on site and the time
frame, and that would pretty much flow with what Bill has proposed,
and I've gotten Bill's email as well.
And Bill was at that meeting that we had and has no problem. So
it really is you allowing for this to take place, then I can at least issue
the respective building permits so that he can have the build -- the
trailers permitted. And I'll work with him on it, and we'll make sure it
happens, work with DeLony's staff. We know we have issues with
meters and some other things, and Randy's well aware of that, Randy
and his team, so we'll work and make it happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We don't have to bring this forward
on another meeting in regards to advertising what they're going to do
Page 166
October 9, 2007
here?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir, it's -- if you deem a temporary--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's all on their property then?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it's all on his property. I have two property
owners that agree. It's just a matter of the use. It's an interim
measure. It's for the pastor to continue with providing the necessary
services he does -- he provides on site. We understand that. It's just a
matter of allowing for this to take place. It is an anomaly. The PUD
-- you're going to see this PUD as an amendment. The entire SDP will
be amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: It's just a matter of you allowing it to take place
for a period of time as this thing gets transitioned.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just want to say on the
record, again, I've spoken to Pastor Mallory and to -- oh, gosh.
MR. JOHNS: Randy Johns.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Randy -- I'm sorry, Randy, and
my only concern was that these trailers are put in place and everything
meets -- meets the codes. And once that's done, I don't have a
problem with it. I think it's a great mission.
MR. JOHNS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you don't
have your light on, but you're looking like you have something to say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you want us to do?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want us to go forward and allow
him to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you need a motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion -- motion to approve
what --
Page 167
October 9,2007
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, the motion's good. I would just like to
memorialize this in an agreement, some kind of an agreement that
talks -- I've got Mr. Klohn's signature on this, Pastor Mallory's got his
signature on this, it's good for 24 months, it will meet code on hookup,
it's for nine trailers, and get it done so that you've got some -- you've
got some agreement, because I've got one party, but I don't have the
other party. All we have is a phone call. I think it would help us a
little bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to have the First
Assembly of God relocate those trailers on the property and also direct
Mr. Schmitt to write up an agreement, a three-party agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
And with that, any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-uh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you
for coming today.
MR. JOHNS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for what you do, too, for
our citizens.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is PJ. Obrecht.
Page 168
October 9, 2007
MR. OBRECHT: Hello, Commissioners. I'm a little taller here.
Okay. My name -- as you said, my name is P.l -- it's pronounced
Obrecht, and I live at 293 Spider Lily Lane in Pebblebrooke Lakes.
You will remember me from your September 25th meeting when
I was here with many of my neighbors opposing the Stevie Tomato's
that was located near our property in Pebblebrooke Plaza being
granted. We were here opposing their granting of an outdoor music
permit.
I'm here today on behalf of our neighborhood to further your
understanding of the discrepancies associated with the Richland PUD
a/k/a Pebblebrooke Lakes, and I would like to cite for the record
excerpts from the transcripts of the January 17,2002, Planning
Commission minutes and February 12, 2002, Board of Collier County
minutes. I'll read those to you now. These are just excerpts from
those meeting minutes.
Commissioner Budd: How about the -- this is from the Planning
Commission of 2002. How about the request that buildings located
within the area of the 3.2-acre be limited to single-story commercial
buildings?
Ms. Bishop: That's fine.
Commissioner Budd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion
that the Planning Commission forward the PUD, 2001-AR-1494, to
the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations for
approval with specific attachments and recommendations and that it
be agreed that the -- by the petitioner that -- lighting to be low
intensity and shielded from the residential buildings within the
3.2-acre commercial be limited to a single story.
I would like to -- and then Commissioner Strain says, I would
like to add that number 5813 be struck as an acceptable use, drinking
places.
Then in the Collier County Commission minutes, it's mentioned
that, except for 4311 and include those other two postal uses,
Page 169
October 9, 2007
removing use 28, which is other comparable use.
Then it's voted on by the commissioners and it's passed.
We -- what we've got is an outdoor bar that's within 150 feet or about
150 feet from our homes and a two-story building abutting the
property -- and a two-story building abutting our residential family
neighborhood with questionable setbacks.
I respectfully request that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners need to fix this ordinance and instructs their staff and
developer -- and the developer to comply with their direction.
I also request that the Board of Collier County Commissioners
have an independent investigation into this matter regarding the
Richland PUD a/k/a Pebblebrooke Lakes Development, to dispose of
any discrepancies and to ensure that this does not happen to anyone
else. And thank you for your time.
This other shot is the shot down at the proximity of the two-story
building. That's all I have. If you have any questions, I can answer
those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please stay there for just a moment.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow gave me the
conceptual that was in the board's packet, Board of County
Commissioners' packet.
And if you can zoom in on the bottom. Well, actually, you can
see it here. It says, a conceptual30-foot buffer. And if you can take
this off now, there's the 30-foot buffer with limited landscape. I don't
know how when the Board of Commissioners made a motion to accept
the Planning Commission's recommendations, why that wasn't carried
out.
But it is what it is, and I think that we need to correct it. I think
we need to direct the county attorney to do a scrivener's error to
memorialize what the board direction was back in 2002.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I support you fully on that, and
Page 170
October 9, 2007
I think -- oh, I didn't push my button.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you always push my buttons.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't let her kiss you on the
shoulder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What you did is you just seconded his
motion. You don't have push the button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to say --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now you've got to push your button.
Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We get little punchy around this part
of the day.
MR. OBRECHT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I still think we need to build a wall
to -- they weren't allowed to build a building that high. I don't know
who went against everything that we voted on, both Planning
Commission and the BCC. Whatever they did, they certainly didn't
abide by the approvals that we gave them, and so we need to force, to
demand, that they build a wall to protect these people behind them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there is a wall there. See
it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, I can see it. There it is,
way down there. Yeah, I can hardly recognize it. Yet, we need to do
something about that. It needs to be taller than the building if they can
-- if they can do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I think -- that could be. I
don't know. But we said something and we wanted it carried out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was not carried out. And
personally it's an embarrassment to this board that it wasn't carried
out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to interject here for just a
moment, i[I may. You asked for an investigation. I think it's more
Page 171
October 9,2007
than a scrivener's error. I heard from a person -- and I haven't
substantiated it one way or another -- that there was an error made in
the transmittal that went up to community development and an earlier
draft went by error, and that's what was approve. Now, I don't know if
that's really true or not.
I would really like to have a report made and given to this
commission at a future date so that we know exactly where it is and
also what our legal rights are to be able to enforce what we came up
with originally.
I'm not too sure where the break in this whole thing is, but it's not
right what took place. It was not the intention of the commission. I'd
like to hear from you, Mr. Klatzkow, maybe you can give us a little
more insight into this.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think there are two issues. The first issue is
that the PUD does not reflect what the board voted on. Clearly the
motion by Commissioner Henning was to take the Planning
Commission recommendations. Those recommendations were for a
single- fami -- or for a single-story commercial. That didn't happen. It
was also no drinking establishments, and that didn't happen.
The other issue is, developer came in during this process and
made a promise that's reflected in that conceptual plan that the
commercial building that really shows a single-story with a little line
on it. I don't know if you can put it back up.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's -- well, when I first saw it, I thought it
was a single-story building, then if you look really carefully, you can
almost see a line over there where it says second-story.
And the developer promised on the commercial portion that
abutted Pebblebrooke, there would be a 30-foot landscape buffer, and
then even behind that buffer, there'd be a further setback from the
commercial building, and that wasn't done.
So you have a situation where the PUD does not comport to what
Page 172
October 9, 2007
the board voted on, and the developer did not do what the developer
promised he would do. And, you know, this is embarrassing. I don't
know what else to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you're the
motion maker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'm going to include in
my motion that we direct the county attorney to conduct an
independent investigation. Also, it was reported on the email that I
received two years ago that Stevie Tomato's would receive a
temporary CO. I don't know what the conditions are of that temporary
CO. I would like to know that.
I would -- if that temporary CO still stands, I would hope that the
staff will not go further awry from the board's direction. The motion
is, as amended, is to direct the county attorney to conduct or hire an
independent investigation on this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also with the CO, if it's
temporary, pull it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know the conditions on
the temporary CO, and Jeff Klatzkow doesn't know.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think he has a permanency on now, but we
will see what the conditions were.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, i[I may, of the county
attorney. What would you recommend? Could you do this within
your own office? Or is this something -- I'd rather not have to start
spending money on additional attorneys to come in and do what we
can do. I mean, ifthere's some limitation on trying to perform this
within your office, I'd like to know that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll respond this way, and that is that
traditionally and historically the County Attorney Office has never
investigated staff, although I do believe that the context of this request
is to report to the board what the reality of the situation is and provide
Page 173
October 9,2007
to you what legal solutions or alternatives you may consider here, and
if that is the case, then I think we can do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in statute 125, it allows
the Board of Commissioners to conduct independent investigations.
MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I want done. I want
somebody to look at this with the -- that doesn't have a connection to
it, and tell us all the deficiencies.
MR. WEIGEL: And we can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's included in my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Let me clarify this. When
you say someone that's not connected to us, you don't -- you mean the
county staff, you don't mean the County Attorney's Office?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. We don't want to -- I
think the county attorney would do either/or. Here's why. If this ends
up in litigation, I think that you want somebody from the -- to have a
second eye on their -- of the events. You know what I mean?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's give specific directions.
Are you saying that the county attorney should hire somebody to do it
or they should do it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think they can hire somebody
to do that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we have retained counsel that can assist us
to do that already as far as that goes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to Commissioner Halas, then
to Commissioner Fiala, and then we'll wrap it up and see what we can
-- the direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have some concerns in
regards to -- and I know there's no sense digging up old bones here,
but I sometimes have concerns of what is passed on the Board of
County Commissioners and then what's put into the PUD document,
and it's not consistent with what was voted on.
Page 174
October 9, 2007
And I have concerns that the developers go to staff and basically
try to intervene in the writing of a PUD and ask for more than is really
in the PUD. And I have some concerns on that.
There was a case where I thought that we discussed in full detail
about an exit road for a gated community, which is an older gated
community. They were going to have, hopefully, access out to
Livingston Road. And three years after this, it was brought up with
the Royal Palm Academy, and I thought that we had things taken care
of.
But then when the PUD was written, I thought things were
discussed not put in the PUD. And here we are today still trying to
figure out what we can do to give relief to that large community
development.
So I have some concerns also what goes on, and I think that we
need to address that to make sure that the developers do not write the
PUDs afterwards, that we have staff write them, and they keep their
nose out of it after we've gone through the discussion here and had an
open forum, and then there's -- something's changed in the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Such as -- such as the
14,333-square-foot house where they override and take it upon
themselves to make decisions.
And there was just another one that came before me that will be
surfacing shortly. Again, staff decides what they're going to do no
matter what we say. And I -- and so let me go on to -- so I think you
have a good -- a good idea there and I think it should be pursued and,
but -- and let me move on to Commissioner Henning's motion and my
second.
David, did you say that as far as investigative work goes, in your
department, when it comes to staff you're kind of limited and,
therefore, it would be better for you to hire outside counsel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, typically if the client is not only the board
Page 175
October 9, 2007
but, of course, the county manager, county manager's divisions and
staff. So if we're investigating staff and providing a report to the
Board of County Commissioners in regard to staff, it can be a bit
uncomfortable in the sense that we are providing information that
may, in fact, provide, you might say, legal ammunition to another
side, if there is another side in regard to liabilities that the county may
have gotten into.
Now, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the county has any
liability here. But in the general context of the discussion, that can be
something that could be a bit problematic.
But I was telling Commissioner Henning and the board that I
think that we can provide the information that you are looking for
relating to the propriety or the impropriety of the PUD -- the PUD
process back in 2002 and what has happened on the ground since then
and everything else that we can find.
Now, we don't have subpoena power and things like that on the
outside, nor will an outside counsel that assists us. But to the extent
that I feel comfortable, I will utilize outside counsel so that we can
provide you a report.
And I always have the prerogative, of course, of talking with you
commissioners independently as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Yeah, the sooner the better,
Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion, we have a second.
We've got clear direction. No other questions. We do appreciate you
being here today.
MR. OBRECHT: Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 176
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Okay. Let's go to -- let's do it a little different. Let's start with
the county attorney first, then go to the county manager.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm here to answer any questions for any other
issues that come up, but I have nothing to go forward with at this
point, but thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. First item, I received a letter from the
City of Sanibel from the mayor. And the mayor's basically asking --
and this is Mayor Mick Denham from the City of Sanibel, and he's
basically asking that I bring before the board a resolution to extend the
term in office in command of Colonel Grosskruger of the Jacksonville
District, United States Army, Corps of Engineers beyond his
termination date of July -- termination date -- of his change of
command date of July, 2009.
And they go on in their resolution, their sample in the back, to
basically talk about having this colonel extended in command for
anywhere from 18 to 24 months.
This has -- this has happened from time to time in the Corps --
I'm giving you some experience from the Corps of Engineer days that
I was in. That colonel is in a billet for a command that is a brigade
command that's centrally selected by the Army for a three-year period
of time, and it's centrally selected by the Army.
Page 177
October 9,2007
I know of no other command colonel that has ever been extended
in a particular billet beyond that three-year period of time, because
what you do to Colonel Grosskruger is you basically hurt him in his
future endeavors in the Army. He's on a -- he's on a time period.
Normally after a command, you need to get another
career-progressing assignment normally in a three-star or four-star
general's command, and their immediate chief of staff or whatever, or
in a very important program in order to be considered for brigadier
general.
If this colonel is extended in this particular billet, you will -- you
will do damage to his future endeavors in the Army, and the chances
of getting this extended are slim to none.
So my question to the Board of County Commissioners is, do you
want me to write the resolution to draft it up? I mean, it can't hurt, but
you don't really have a dog in this fight, because they're talking about
endeavors that are happening up in the Sanibel side of the house.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd, i[I may, I think the
reasons that you stated we should state directly to the mayor in the
fact that -- you know, just as politely as possible, a nice polite letter
back to him. I don't feel comfortable, even if I thought it was an
advantage, you know, to try to manipulate something that I know so
little bit about.
With that, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, I agree with
you again, and this might set precedence --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Spooky.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for one single meeting. Just
kidding. I do agree with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's almost as good as the time you
wired my horn to my headlights.
Okay. Any other direction to the county manager?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think you're right on
Page 178
October 9,2007
target.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What else do you have, sir?
MR. MUDD: The next issue I'd like to talk about is, I'd like to
get some direction from the board. And Commissioner Henning and I
have had some conversations about this particular item, and it has to
do with litter and what's considered litter. And it gets down to
horticultural waste and what is that? And what is that out in the
Estates?
This particular opinion, when we talk -- and it goes on and talks
about a particular section. I believe we could get a little bit more
definitive about what horticultural waste is.
What we don't need to have is a resident being cited for a palm
frond that falls off their tree, okay, because that becomes a
horticultural waste, and this has to do in the Estates area. And I'd like
to get some board direction in order to clarify its meaning so that we
have no misrepresentation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm totally confused. I thought the
Estate zoning was such that grass and the keeping of your palm fronds
and all that wasn't an issue with code enforcement. Am I wrong or --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it gets into the definition of what
litter is, and I'd like to be able to get some clarification, okay?
Because as it stands right now, your Land Development Code isn't
clear on this particular issue.
The particular issue in question -- and I'm very familiar with the
area whereby a homeowner goes out and wants to develop his
property and put a single-family home on, he can dig basic -- what I'll
call a horticultural pit in the back and take the fill out in order to get
the pad on his property, and then he can take -- he can take tree
branches and whatnot and basically put them in that particular pit.
It gets -- it gets to an issue about cut material and some other
things on the particular property after that where we start to get into a
fuzzy area in this particular regard, and I'd like to be able to come
Page 179
October 9, 2007
back to the board with a change in order to clarify it so there's no
misinterpretation --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I personally don't have any problems
with it coming back.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What it says in section
101E of the ordinance, 2005-44, failure to remove downed trees or
downed vegetation growth from a residential zoned exceeding one
acre in size or Estate properties or properties containing such material
as required by this article shall result in a downed tree, downed
vegetation growth being classified as litter.
So I found 24 sites owned by Collier County that I turned in to
code enforcement or the county manager because one of my
constituents received a citation for having litter on his property, which
is palm fronds.
So I'd like to make a motion to direct the county manager to
direct his staff to delete this language from the ordinance, bring it back
to the board for approval and suspend enforcing this part of the code
so you don't have to give Alex Sulecki a bunch of citations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor of the motion, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 4-0.
Page 180
October 9,2007
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's start with Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I have two things. One, I was
handed this letter just a short while ago and I had copies made to be
given to you. I feel very uncomfortable signing it without your
directing me to do so, to Senator Martinez. You might want to -- you
don't have anything there, do you, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're talking about this. It should be
up on the visualizer.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Martinez and Nelson. It's actually to
four people, to Connie Mack.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I just corrected it. It's all the
same letter.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This has to do with your nine priorities
that you basically approved by the Board of County Commissioners,
sent to our lobbyist, lobbied by your commissioners when we took our
Washington, D.C. trip in order to get monies for your nine particular
projects.
Your nine particular projects, you've done very well this year.
You have six of them, and that's in the first six columns right here, that
have come out of the -- that have come out of the House with a
favorable dollar amount that's put up against six of your nine.
Their -- the Senate side, from what I can understand, they wait
till conference in order to put dollar amounts to those particular
figures.
What happens out of the House and Senate, it goes to conference,
and in conference committee, they decide on how those dollars get
allocated. Then the bill that gets decided upon in conference goes back
Page 181
October 9,2007
to both floors in the House and the Senate and get voted on.
This particular letter basically asks your elected officials, two
Senators and two Congressmen, to please keep their eye on those
particular six areas that we've got dollars against, and if when they're
in conference, that your other three proj ects that you asked for that
didn't get earmarked funding to, which had to do with the $2.4 million
for the tribal grant for Lely Area Stormwater Project, if they don't
forget that that's out there as one of your priorities, that the $3 million
for the maintenance and dredging of the Gordon River Pass doesn't get
overlooked, and you have $1.5 million for the design and construction
and pedestrian -- pedestrian and bicycle safety access improvements
on the Bayshore and Shadowlawn corridor.
All -- all of those projects were -- that's basically your nine that
you approved in the thing, and now we're getting down to the dollar
amounts being allocated, and this is basically still considering the
support of the board, which you'd already given and basically saying,
please keep considering these projects and push them along as they --
as they move through Congress.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. And that should be
clarified. I didn't find anything wrong with the letter, I just did not
have board direction for this particular letter and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Send it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to send it out without it, I just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. That was great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Send it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Henning.
I'm sorry. We have other people to speak. Commissioner
Henning, did you have something to add?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
Page 182
October 9,2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to say that this is
money that we've sent up to Washington, and hopefully we can get
some of this back here for the citizens and take care of a lot of
problems that we have in our area such as stormwater issues.
And I'm not -- I can understand that you might have some --
you're a little concerned about whether you should sign it or not. But
anything of this nature, hey, go after it. Get it done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Have we heard from
everyone?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0. Thank you.
The other issue -- Commissioner Henning, you do a very good job in
almost every instance of making a reason why you're voting against
something; however, you didn't do so on 10C. It had to do with the
expansion of Golden Gate Boulevard. That kind of insight I'm always
looking for. I mean, it's after the vote now, but I was wondering why
you voted against that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the resolution said,
authorize for the appraised value or $50,000 above, and it doesn't
matter if you're acquiring two feet or 150,000 feet, it said, 50,000
more. So I just didn't see equity in it. You know what I mean?
Let's say in the area of Golden Gate Estates --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- you have an acre -- an
acre-and-a-quarter lot, correct, and then you have a five-acre lot.
Page 183
October 9, 2007
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if the appraisal for the acre
and a quarter came in at a $100,000, you can go 50,000 over that
appraised value and purchase that property for 150-. And next door
you have a five-acre lot and their appraisal comes in at 350,000. You
can apply 50,000 extra, so the purchase of it would be a total of
400,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I wish you asked these
questions when we were --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did, I did. You could check
the record, and I --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, can you help us with this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I asked if it -- does it
matter if it's a small parcel or big parcel, is it still going to be that
$50,000 above the appraisal, and the answer was yes. And I was
being facetious when I said -- when I said, well, that sounds fair,
which it really didn't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm not trying to pick on you,
I'm trying to get the insight that you had that we didn't have. Can you
comment on that, Mr. Feder, very briefly? I don't think there's too --
need to go in too deep on it.
MR. FEDER: I would need to check. I don't want to mislead
this board. My impression -- and I'll check on it, and if it's not the
case, I'll make sure I get to all board members -- but my impression is
that basically 50,000 is about what it costs us to go through
condemnation, whether or not it's two feet of taking or five acres of
taking.
So I think what you're saying is it's authorizing the appraisal
amount plus the 50,000 that's a cost of a taking activity. If that's not
the case, then I will get back to the board and we'll explain further.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. But it's not a
condemnation, I realize that. That's the only reason I voted against it,
Page 184
October 9,2007
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I didn't mean to make an issue
of it. I'm just curious as anything of what your direction was on that.
And with that, I have nothing additional I don't believe. Was
there something else I'm missing? I think I covered it all.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to talk a little bit
about impact fee deferrals, and I'm a little concerned that we have
been issuing block impact fee deferrals, which then eat up our supply
of 88 a year, if that's all we have.
And we have -- in order to give everybody an equal opportunity
to receive deferrals, I'd like to suggest that each deferral must have a
qualified buyer and then that the buyer has completed and included
the approval of the paperwork.
We received something from Marco Bay Homes -- I don't
remember what it is -- and I noticed with each one they didn't get their
approvals right away because they didn't have a name with it, and yet
we just gave 14 away without any name. And I thought, that doesn't
seem to be fair.
And so I would like to suggest -- and if you think this is a good
idea -- I'd like everybody's approval-- that each deferral come with a
name rather than just block them, because somebody could come in
and block all of the deferrals, and then the other three builders, like
Freeman and Freeman and Marco Bay Homes and -- what is Bill
Klohn's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: MGM.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah -- then wouldn't have a shot at
any of them. So I just wanted to try and make it a more fair playing
field.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, for the record, Marla Ramsey,
Public Services Administrator.
I believe a couple of meetings ago you gave us some direction to
Page 185
October 9, 2007
go out and bring back a deferral element to you, and one of the
directions that I think that we were hearing from the dais, not specific
direction, but it was kind of a first-come first-served basis. So the
Collier County Housing Commission is looking at that. As a matter of
fact, I think they meet again on Thursday to discuss impact fee
deferrals.
I think one of the problems that you maybe have stated is that, for
Habitat, for example, they own the land, so it comes in as underneath
their name. I think Marco Bay is the other one that you were
discussing. Marco Bay is a builder but it's owned by a different
parcel, property owner, which is where we put the lien, but then they
sell it to a third party in order to put an eligible person into the parcel.
So they're complicated. Each one of those is different.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, if they sell it to a third person,
does that -- does that person meet the same requirements as we
demand on the others?
MS. RAMSEY: It has to meet the same requirements as the
others. It has to be sold to a qualified purchaser.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And first-come first-served, that
would mean that -- say, you mentioned Habitat would come in and get
14 or 18 at a time, and very quickly they'd eat up all of it so that then
when C -- whatever that name is -- Bill Klohn's company starts to
want to build, there aren't anything left -- there isn't anything left for
him.
Maybe we -- and I know we talked about this previously when
we were talking about first-come first-served. We were talking about
a name with each one and we were also talking about a cap that each
company --like Bill Klohn's company, couldn't come in and say, I
take the next 60. That's not fair either. So I'm just trying to look for
something that's fair and equal, balanced.
MS. RAMSEY: Commissioner, I agree, and I do believe that
they're looking at that to bring that back to you.
Page 186
October 9, 2007
I will also say that starting in your next agenda packet -- as a
matter of fact, I approved it today -- there will be an executive
summary that will say, when you approve the consent agenda today,
you will have approved so many deferrals, you will have approved a
dollar amount, you will have total deferral so far this fiscal year as
well as how much you have spent and how much you have left. So
we're going to give you a running total every two weeks on what that
deferral is looking like.
I will also say though that at the end of the year, end of
September, there was a large payment that was made to transportation
which has brought the impact fee deferral up to about 2.7 million
instead of the 2.3 that we had reported earlier. So we have a new
number as of last week. So there's a little bit more room in that
deferral opportunity for you.
We'll also let you know about the water and sewer impact fee as
well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't care -- I was just giving you
my opinions. How does anybody else feel?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself, I have no problem with -- we
keep going to -- the money goes out. We may have to restrict it to
certain economic groups to make sure that we get the best bang for the
dollars. The money's going to run out. About the only thing we could
do is maybe break it where we only give a certain percent of it. That's
always an option, but I kind of -- I kind of am leery about saying,
okay, we're only going to have so many for this developer, so many
for that developer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what about having each one
then have a name tied with it rather than, you know, saying build a
block of homes, for instance, and have them sit vacant, but the
referrals are all sitting there and they haven't been used yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are they sitting vacant?
MS. RAMSEY: Well, there are a couple of different ways that
Page 187
October 9, 2007
they do it. I mean, the developer will come in and he may pay his
impact fee and then seek for reimbursement later. Marco Bay, on the
other hand, uses their home -- their landowner so that they can get the
deferral up front so they can pull the permit to build, to build the
parcel immediately, so there's different ways of doing it, paid up front,
get reimbursed, or get the deferral when you pull the permit, and that's
why you see a landowner attached to it, but not necessarily the buyer
in all cases, the qualified buyer, so -- then we come back to you with
all of those. So in a lot of cases, you see that same lot twice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe you could just put together
something you feel is fair. You know, whatever you feel you can
work with and that's fair to the community. I don't know. I just --
MR. MUDD: One of the -- one of the recommendations -- it's a
good recommendation. I mean, what Marla just described to you is, if
a developer comes in with a -- right now they can be authorized for a
block of 50, I remember.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And one of the recommendations we were coming
back to the board is, we didn't think blocks of 50 were such a good
idea because it really has a tendency to monopolize your particular
year's worth of deferrals.
You're talking about only being able to make 88 to 95 deferrals a
year, when you come into a block of 50, you significantly increase the
amount of availability of dollars for your deferral program.
Marla just described to you one instance. Marco --
MS. RAMSEY: Marco Bay, I believe it is.
MR. MUDD: Marco Bay Builders or whatever, okay, come in.
They come in with an individual. The individual signs up. They've
already determined that this person is eligible for the program and
they're doing the one deferral, okay, so they're doing the building.
For instance, Habitat would come in with a block like you're
seeing today, and what's basically happening is you're giving the
Page 188
October 9, 2007
deferral money, okay, before the housing is built, so you basically
finance them to a certain extent in order to build their product to a
level that can be affordable in the particular category, and then they
qualify buyers into that program, and then the buyers come back with
the separate contract for you to approve.
So you're actually doing 14 today with Habitat, and let's say
within six months -- the time period is to be determined -- when they
get the unit built and they can find the eligible -- you'll see that
individual contract come back with some name on it, okay, that's
eligible, that's a citizen, and they will transfer that deferral over to that
person's name.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. And the reason it even came
up is I was riding through Trail Ridge, which is a development, and
they had -- this was two weeks ago Sunday and then the week before
that -- and they had 35 units sitting there empty, and the grass was
knee high. And I thought, gee, I wonder if we've given all those
deferrals, and yet Freeman and Freeman is coming in, he only can do
one at a time because he's a small little guy. And I wonder ifhe
wouldn't be able to get it because somebody else has already taken
them and then the homes are sitting there vacant.
So, you know, I was just wondering -- I just want to make sure
that whatever we have is fair to everybody. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, do you have something to
add to this?
MR. FEDER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Not on the issue. I'll let you
finish this. It's on the prior question that you had.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: I thought he wanted to take over the affordable
housing program. You know, I was looking for a volunteer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's exhaust this one issue
beginning to end before we go to another one.
Commissioner Halas?
Page 189
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm surprised that -- if this is an
affordable housing area that you're talking about, Commissioner, that
there's 35 homes or whatever that are just sitting vacant. That's hard
for me to comprehend since we have an affordable housing issue.
And I'm not sure -- it'd be interesting to get some feedback on the
other side of the story to find out why those homes are vacant and why
the grass is growing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns. If those
people -- if that developer has asked for and gotten the impact fee
deferral and those homes are sitting idle, I've got a problem with that.
So it would be nice to find out who it is and then ask them to come
before the board and explain what's going on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that's a wonderful idea,
because we really don't have all the facts. And I tell you, when it
comes to producing a product, because of the very nature of how they
do business, it's very hard to compete with Habitat for Humanity for
the price factor. It's just about impossible. I mean, no one's going to
work for nothing; they basically do, and they have all sorts of donated
labor and whatever.
But I agree with Commissioner Halas. Commissioner Fiala, you
know, made a statement about the houses that are empty, and that's a
concern. Is there a market for these? Are we still issuing these
deferrals to a market that doesn't exist? So it might behoove us to
invite Sam Durso or one of his representatives from Habitat--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Whoever's got these vacant homes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, not -- I think we should
probably ask management rather than 35 homeowners to come in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, no, no, no. I meant who's ever
developed these. That's what I meant, whoever built the homes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Do we have enough direction
on that?
Page 190
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One more, just part of that
direction -- and maybe it goes back to what we were talking about last
meeting or the meeting before where we still don't know what
categories are needed in our future planning. How -- now, I know
you're passionate about the lowest of low income, but do we need to
have all of them build in there or do we need to have some low and
then do we need to have some moderate? And how much of those
categories?
You know, what is our workforce going to consist of? We need
to be building for that, and maybe that's why some of them are sitting
empty, because we're not building in the right proportions. I don't
know that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, why don't we handle one issue
at a time.
MR. MUDD: Well, some of that -- some of that issue we're
going to try to get our hands on at that workshop that you told us to go
in, the one that basically talks about density per oversaturation of
affordable housing in any particular area. We're going to do that. At
the same time we're going to show you the products of where they are
based on the property appraiser's records, then we're going to try to get
our hands on what the right amount is going to be.
I'm not too sure, ma'am, I can give you a definitive, but I'm going
to give you more of a comfortable feeling than you have right now in
order to try to get our hands on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You know, I wish we could
get the chamber or CBIA or something to tell us -- or EDC -- well,
probably chamber -- what -- of their workforce, what categories
people work in and what they're expected to build, what they're
encouraging to come to Collier County so we know what to be
building for.
MR. MUDD: Well, they're doing a -- they're doing a survey
right now, and I think--
Page 191
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they?
MR. MUDD: -- you and I talked about it a little bit. Let's see i[I
can't get the results of that survey so it can help us shed light on the
particular issue, because I can know what the county's doing, but I
can't tell you exactly what every business in Collier County -- and
what they're trying --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, I don't think any of us know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But meanwhile, going back to the
first part. We're got firm direction that we want someone from Habitat
to come in and explain about the 30 houses.
MS. RAMSEY: Most definitely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sixteen or whatever the number was.
I don't know what it was. So we can have an explanation, we have a
better understanding of what's driving the market.
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the other part there, we've
already given previous direction to staff, and they're bringing it back
to us in workshop, and congratulations. It's been the first workshop
we've pulled together in a little while.
Do you have anything else you want to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. That was -- that was mainly
what I wanted to talk about.
MS. RAMSEY: Very good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Feder, you wanted to
address something. We probably got so far away with it -- from it, we
probably can't even remember what it is, but go ahead.
MR. FEDER: No. I just wanted to go back. You had asked me a
question -- again, for the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
You'd ask the question being the 50,000, whether or not it was a
thousand-dollar taking or a million-dollar take or size of the property.
The 50,000 is based on the purchasing policy, and that's where you
Page 192
October 9, 2007
can go without coming to the board up to 50,000.
That doesn't answer Commissioner Henning's concern. In taking
-- if you take a small parcel, there will be some costs in that both in
staff time, deed, recordings, and issues. Some of those are fixed
amounts, some of them, depending upon the price, so some of the
small ones may not get up to 50,000, some of the larger ones may
approximate that, and if they go over, they have to come to the board.
So it doesn't totally answer Commissioner Henning's question,
but I do want to say that it is based on the purchasing policy. That's
why it was written that way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you got the
floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, that's why I didn't
approve it. I mean, it didn't have that kind of detail, they didn't
explain. But, you know, we just authorized 50,000 for maybe a
thousand dollar approval.
One thing, on these things on the miscellaneous correspondence
that you may see me write on here not approved, is because these are
minutes and it wasn't reviewed or approved by the advisory board
meeting, so I don't know how accurate they are.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MS. FILSON: One reason that you may not have a signed copy
is because a lot of the committee -- the staff liaisons do not send us
hard copies anymore. They send through email.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And you may want to direct the county manager
to have them send just the hard signed copies. That's the way we used
to do it in the past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the way they did it in the
past?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
Page 193
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know who directed
them not to do that, change it in the past, so it is what it is.
But I mean, I can't approve something if I don't know the
committee approved or, you know, modified or anything else. So I
mean, I just want to let you know, when you see my name there, not
approved, that's the reason why.
I spoke to the county manager on amending the towing ordinance
because of your concerns, my concerns, and others.
County Manager, I also found -- brought to my attention by a
constituent, other fees are being discounted or not collected. Didn't
know if you wanted to include that into the investigation. There is one
in particular that I think that you and I need to discuss.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But there are several out there
that are not being collected.
You mentioned the 14,000 square foot; I think you mentioned
that about Goodland.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looking through the record, it
appears what happened was there was concerns -- you had concerns
about the height of it. Commissioner Coyle had concerns about the
rear yard setback.
Well, somebody must have heard you, because those plans
changed, and now they conform to the board's ordinance. Even
though we snatched the feet out of the jaws of the residents, it was
corrected. So I'm glad somebody had seen it was a good thing to do.
And that's all, folks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we're adjourned.
****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously 4/0 (Commissioner Coyle not
present), that the following items under the Consent and Summary
Page 194
October 9,2007
Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al- Continued Indefinitely
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Item # 16A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK, UNIT 2 - W /RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A3
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK, UNIT 3 - W /RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK, TRACT
F-4 - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item # 16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK, UNIT 6 - W/RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Page 195
October 9, 2007
Item #16A6
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR PINE RIDGE MIDDLE
SCHOOL - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR LEL Y ELEMENTARY SCHOOL - W/RELEASE OF ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TUSCANY RESERVE, PHASE 1. (lA-l & lA-
2) - W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TUSCANY RESERVE, PHASE 1. (IA & lA-4)
- W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16AI0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR TUSCANY RESERVE, PHASE 1. (lA-3)-
W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Page 196
October 9, 2007
Item #16All
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK, UNIT 4 - W /RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16Bl
THE PURCHASE OF 2.50 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 60168 (FISCAL IMPACT: $431,713.00) - THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A 1,650 SQ FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED ON 12TH AVENUE AVE
Item # 16B2
AWARD BID NO. 07-4167 PURCHASE OF LIMEROCK AND
FILL MATERIAL, FIXED TERM CONTRACT FOR THE
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $500,000 TO APAC, INC.,
FLORIDA DIRT SOURCE, FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES INC -
FOR GRADING AND REBUILDING LIMEROCK ROADWAYS
AND REPAIR OF COUNTY AND STATE ROADWAYS
Item #16B3
A DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) FOR
THE FREEDOM PARK A.K.A. THE GORDON RIVER WATER
QUALITY PARK IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - SFWMD
REQUIRES AN EASEMENT BEFORE AN ENVIRONMENTAL
Page 197
October 9, 2007
RESOURCE PERMIT IS GRANTED
Item # 16B4
THE PURCHASE OF 2.5 ACRES OF IMPROVED PROPERTY
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT -OF - WAY FOR THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 60168. (FISCAL IMPACT: $430,000) - THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A 1,954 SQ FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED ON EVERGLADES BLVD
Item #16Cl
AWARD OF BID 07-4189 IN THE AMOUNT OF $734,000 TO
DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS FOR MASTER PUMP STATION 316
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 72546 AND PROJECT NO.
73970 - LOCATED AT FIDDLER'S CREEK
Item # 16C2
AWARD OF BID 07-4190 IN THE AMOUNT OF $784,000 TO
DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS FOR THE MASTER PUMP STATION
318 IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT NO. 72546 AND PROJECT NO.
73970 - LOCATED AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF SR 951 AND US 41
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #1OM
Item # 16C4
A FLORIDA INNOV A TIVE "WASTE REDUCTION AND
RECYCLING GRANTS" CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 198
October 9,2007
$79,732 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TO FUND THE COLLIER
COUNTY SEASONAL AND YEAR-ROUND BUSINESS "HOW
TO RECYCLE" VIDEOS AND APPROVE THE BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE PROCESSING OF THIS
GRANT - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C5
THE DONATION OF BOTTLED WATER FOR COLLIER
COUNTY GOVERNMENT OR COLLIER COUNTY W A TER-
SEWER DISTRICT SPONSORED EVENTS IN THE ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $5,000 ANNUALLY - PROVIDED FREE OF
CHARGE TO CUSTOMERS WHO ARE WITHOUT SERVICE
DURING SYSTEM-WIDE AND ISOLATED EMERGENCIES
Item #16C6 - Continued to the November 13,2007 BCC Meeting
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF
THE EXISTING INTERCONNECT BETWEEN THE COLLIER
COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT AND BONITA SPRINGS
UTILITIES, INC. TO PROVIDE FOR REVERSE POTABLE
WATER FLOWS AT BONITA SPRINGS UTILITIES EXPENSE,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
SECOND INTERCONNECT, AT A LOCATION TO BE
DETERMINED, AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WATER-SEWER DISTRICT, AND TO ESTABLISH RATES FOR
USAGE OF POTABLE WATER - TO PROVIDE FOR POTABLE
WATER FLOWS THROUGH EXISTING INTERCONNECT AND
FOR TWO- WAY FLOWS OF POTABLE WATER BETWEEN
CCWSD AND BSU AT A SECOND INTERCONNECT
Page 199
October 9, 2007
Item #16Dl
A RELEASE RELATING TO A DECLARATION OF
RESTRICTIONS RECORDED IN ERROR AGAINST PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5249 HARDEE STREET - HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY DID NOT PURCHASE
Item # 16D2
THE RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM GRANT
A WARD, RECOGNIZE REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$67,313 - THE PROJECT PERIOD IS FROM 9/30/2007
THROUGH 9/29/2008 (FUNDED FROM THE CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE)
Item #16D3
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE 2007 NORTH JETTY
DOCTORS PASS TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES PROVIDING FOR A
ONE (1) YEAR TIME EXTENSION; ADDITIONAL FUNDING
TOTALING $6,772 AND APPROVAL OF ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO REPAIR THE DETERIORATED
JETTY
Item # 16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
37, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
Page 200
October 9, 2007
$19,372.46
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
38, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item # 16D6
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
39, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D7
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
40, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D8
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
Page 201
October 9, 2007
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
41, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item # 16D9
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
42, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16DI0
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
129, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16Dll
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT AT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
167, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19,372.46
Page 202
October 9, 2007
Item #16D12
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
171, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D13
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FORAN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
172, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19,372.46
Item #16D14
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
173, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D15
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT AT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
Page 203
October 9,2007
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
174, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D16
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
175, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D17
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
176, TRAIL RIDGE - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$19.372.46
Item #16D18
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FREEMAN & FREEMAN, INC.
(DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 138,
BLOCK D, ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD
PHASE TWO - DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,372.46
Page 204
October 9, 2007
Item #16D19
A SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM (SHIP) GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $22,200 TO THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE
OF SW FLORIDA (EASF) FOR HOMEBUYER COUNSELING TO
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN EASTERN
COLLIER COUNTY. THIS PROGRAM WILL CONSIST OF
HOMEBUYER EDUCATION AND ONE-TO-ONE COUNSELING
FOR POTENTIAL NEW HOMEBUYERS
Item #16D20
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A STATE
HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM (SHIP) GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $35,000 TO THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CCHDC) FOR HOMEBUYER
COUNSELING TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS IN COLLIER COUNTY. THIS PROGRAM WILL
CONSIST OF HOMEBUYER EDUCATION AND ONE-TO-ONE
COUNSELING FOR POTENTIAL NEW HOMEBUYERS
Item #16D21
FDEP AMENDMENT NO.2 TO COST SHARE CONTRACT NO.
05COl AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS
DESIGNEE TO SIGN THIS AMENDMENT AND ANY
SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS TO THIS AGREEMENT FOR
ADDITIONAL FUNDING WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BUREAU OF BEACHES
AND COASTAL SYSTEMS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
MONITORING OF THE CITY OF NAPLES/COLLIER COUNTY
Page 205
October 9,2007
BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT NO. 905271 -
FINANCIAL REIMBURSEMENT WILL BE INCREASED BY
APPROXIMA TEL Y $2 MILLION AND ONL Y DEPUTY
COUNTY MANAGER TO SIGN
Item # 16D22
THE SAFE HAVENS: SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE
EXCHANGE GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF mSTICE,
OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND APPROVE
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE
THE REVENUE - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16El
DEDUCTIVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 10 IN THE AMOUNT OF
($1,660,798.00) FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF MATERIALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FOR THE
COURTHOUSE ANNEX PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 04-3576
Item # 16E2
A FREQUENCY RECONGIFURATION AGREEMENT (FRA)
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SPRINT NEXTEL -
SPRINT NEXTEL TO PAY ALL EXPENSES, INCLUDING
PROJECT MANAGEMENT, RADIO PROGRAMMING,
RETUNING OF SITE EQUIPMENT AND REPLACING ANY
RADIO EQUIPMENT NOT COMP A TIABLE TO THE NEW
FREQUENCY
Page 206
October 9, 2007
Item # 16E3
AWARD RFP #06-3971 S ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTORS SERVICES ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS, TO
THE FOLLOWING FIRMS: BRADANNA, INC.; BROOKS &
FREUND, LLC; SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;
WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. AND ZURQUI
CONSTRUCTION SERVICE, INC. (ESTIMATED VALUE OF
$600,000)
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 2007-280: AUTHORIZING THE HUMAN
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT TO HOST AN EMPLOYEE BOOK
FAIR AND TO USE THE ASSOCIATED 1 0% REBATE FOR
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION INITIATIVES - INCLUDING ON
THE SPOT RECOGNITION PROGRAM, EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH AWARDS AND SERVICE AWARDS
Item #16E5
REJECT ALL RESPONSES TO BID #07-4126, SAFETY
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES - DUE TO REQUIREMENT
CHANGES
Item #16Fl
RESOLUTION 2007-281: A FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM AND RESOLUTION FOR TRAINING
AND MEDICAL/RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN THE
Page 207
October 9, 2007
AMOUNT OF $157,253.00 AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE ADDITIONAL GRANT
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $57,253.00 WHICH IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE $100,000.00 BUDGETED FOR FY
08 AND THE $157,253.00 DEEMED BY THE STATE OF
FLORIDA AS THE GRANT AWARD
Item #16F2
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACCEPTING $105,806 FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT - FOR PURCHASING
ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT, SERVICES OR HIRING
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
Item # 16F3
CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 FOR CONTRACT #06-4007
WITH PARADISE ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, INC. TO
INCREASE THE COUNTY MUSEUM ADVERTISING BUDGET
TO THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1
Item #16Gl
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,800.00 TO
FUND THE INCREASED COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR
TAXIWAY CAT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT -
TO COVER ENGINEERING FEES THAT WERE OMITTED
Item #16Hl
Page 208
October 9,2007
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION'S MONTHLY LUNCHEON FOR SEPTEMBER
2007 ON SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2007 AT CARRABBA'S
RESTAURANT; $21.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. FOR ATTENDING THE COLLIER
COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL DINNER IN HONOR
OF THE FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS,
OCTOBER 4,2007 AT THE PORT ROYAL CLUB. $60.00 TO BE
P AID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE
MIGRANT MATRIX IV: A MAP TO DECIPHER FARM
WORKER SERVICES AND REGULATIONS ON OCTOBER 4,
2007 AT THE IMMOKALEE SPORTS CLUB. $25.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - TO
PROVIDE SERVICES AND SUPPORT TO FARM WORKERS
AND THEIR FAMILIES
Item #16H4
Page 209
October 9, 2007
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. FOR ATTENDING THE NAACP
ANNUAL AWARDS CEREMONY IN HONOR OF LOCAL
ORGANIZATIONAL NAACP FOUNDERS, SEPTEMBER 29,
2007 AT THE NAPLES HILTON AND TOWERS. $75.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER PAID IN ADVANCE TO ATTEND
THE FINAL WEED AND SEED STEERING COMMITTEE
LUNCHEON ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 AND IS REQUESTING
REIMBURSEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $20.00, TO BE PAID
FROM HIS TRA VEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE CAREER AND
SERVICE CENTER IN IMMOKALEE
Item #161
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 210
,
)
BOARD OF COlTh'TY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 9, 2007
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. North Naoles Fire Control and Rescue District: Operating BudgetJImpact
Fee Budget/Inspection Fee Budget 2007-2008; Basic Financial Statements
Together with Reports of Independent Auditor - Year Ended September
30,2006; District Map; Registered Office and Agent Letter; 2007/2008
Meeting Schedule.
2. IrnmokaIee Water & Sewer District: Budget of Fiscal Year Ending
September 30,2008.
3. Collier Soil & Water Conservation District: Proposed Budget FY
2007/2008; Public Facilities Report 2007; Outstanding Bonds Letter; FY
200712008 Meeting Schedule; List of Current Board Members; Annual
Local Government Financial Report FY 2005-2006; Basic Financial
Statements Together with Reports of Independent Auditor Year Ended
September 30, 2006.
B. Minutes:
I. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee: Minutes of
July 9,2007.
2. Collier Countv Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda
for September 19, 2007; Minutes of August 29, 2007.
3. Collier County Planning Commission: Agenda for September 20,2007;
Minutes of August 8, 2007; Minutes of August 2, 2007.
C. Other:
I. Fire Review Task Force: Minutes of August 7, 2007.
H:\DA T A\FRONT DESK - 2007\2007 Miscellaneous Correspondence\100907 misc corr.doc
October 9,2007
Item # 1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2007
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 1612
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2007
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 28, 2007 AND FOR SUBMISSION
INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
A STIPULATED FINAL mDGMENT FOR PARCEL 103 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V, PELICAN MARSH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, CASE NO, 04-1532-
CA (VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD PROJECT NO, 63051),
(FISCAL IMPACT $1,604,05) - TO COVER ATTORNEY FEES
AND DEFENSE COSTS
Item # 16K2
ADDENDUM TO COUNTY ATTORNEY EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A 120 DAY EXTENSION TO
THE TERM OF EMPLOYMENT - UNTIL A SELECTION FOR
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY POSITION IS MADE; EXTENDED
UNTIL MARCH 22, 2008
Item # 16K3
MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION TO PROVIDE MONTHLY
Page 211
October 9,2007
ELECTRONIC UPDATES TO THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND
TO MODIFY THE PROOF REQUIREMENT FOR THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE - CURRENT UPDATES ARE PRINTED
TWICE A YEAR
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2007-282: PETITION SV-2007-AR-I1349, BRE LQ
FL PROPERTIES, LLC, REPRESENTED BY ROBERT D, PRITT
OF ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LP A, REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FROM THE MAXIMUM 12 SQUARE-FOOT AREA
REQUIREMENT FOR OFF-PREMISES DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DIRECTORY SIGN THAT WAS
DAMAGED BY HURRICANE WILMA WITH A NEW OFF-
PREMISES DIRECTIONAL LAQUINTA INN & SUITES SIGN.
THE PROPOSED SIGN WOULD BE LOCATED AT 185 BEDZEL
CIRCLE, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2007-283: V A-2007-AR-11703 KURT LUTGERT,
REPRESENTED BY Q GRADY MINOR, AND RICHARD D,
YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE, GOODLETTE COLEMAN AND
JOHNSON, P,A, REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO LEGITIMIZE
THE LEGALLY-CONSTRUCTED NON-CONFORMITIES AND
PERMIT A MINOR ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT ALONG
THE FRONT OF THE HOME TO ENCLOSE AND MODERNIZE
THE CARPORT AS A STANDARD TWO-CAR GARAGE, THE
APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ENCLOSE THE CARPORT,
AND EXPAND THE WIDTH OF THE HOME ALONE THE EAST
Page 212
October 9,2007
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CURRENT SIDE SETBACK
REQUIREMENT OF 7,5 FEET, AN ADDITION WAS ADDED TO
THE ORIGINAL HOME ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE AND,
AL THOUGH IT WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED, THE CURRENT
SURVEY INDICATES A 1,5-FOOT ENCROACHMENT INTO
THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 180 CHANNEL DRIVE, CONNER'S
VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES SUBDIVISION, SECTION 29,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2007-62: AN ORDINANCE REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO, 2003-14 RELATING TO MANDATORY
STREET NUMBERING OF ALL STRUCTURES AND THE
ESTABLISHING OF A GRID PATTERN FOR STREET
NUMBERING AND REPLACING THE REPEALED TEXT WITH
PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDE FOR CLARIFICATION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES,
ELIMINATING POTENTIAL FOR THE DUPLICATION OF
ADDRESSES, STREET NAMES, DEVELOPMENTS AND
SUBDIVISIONS AND PROVIDING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS AS PREVIOUSLY
DIRECTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 213
October 9, 2007
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:55 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~-/4I
JIM COLETTA, Chairman
ATTEST:
DWIGHT:E. BROCK, CLERK
-}<",... , ',';
- ..J;,
( - ..' .'..',
/PlJ '. .' . '\l'
~O ~ AttltSt lIS to'~l"'"
11lJll4bn~l,," . I
'- ./
These minutes approved by the Board on NcVeWlb& 271 '2{)O7 , as
presented ~- ..' or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 214