BCC Minutes 02/26-27/2008 R
February 26-27,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 26-27,2008
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:
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle (absent 2-27-08)
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney's Office
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
(Commissioner Coyle absent at roll call on 2-26-08)
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
February 26, 2008
9:00 AM
Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Vice- Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
Page 1
February 26, 2008
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 VERBA TIM 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) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Chuck Cary, Moorings Presbyterian 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. January 22,2008 - BCC/LDC Meeting
C. January 25,2008 - BCC/CRA Advisory Board Workshop
D. January 29, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation recognizing the continued support for Drug Free Collier and
supporting "The Adolescent Mind and High Risk Behaviors" presentation
scheduled for Wednesday, February 27,2008 by Michael Nerney. To be
Page 2
February 26, 2008
accepted by Maria Victoria Delgado of Drug Free Collier.
B. Proclamation to recognize Golden Gate Fire Chief Donald R. Peterson for
27 years of dedicated service to Collier County. To be accepted by Chief
Don Peterson.
C. Proclamation to offer our appreciation and thanks to the volunteer drivers,
office staff, and their families for their efforts in making the quality of life
better for the veterans in our community. To be accepted by Jim Elson,
President, Collier County Veterans Council and Don Peacock, Treasurer,
Collier County Veterans Council.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Construction briefing on six lanes of new roadway including new signals
and street lighting on Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to 7th
Ave North and from Mission Hills to lmmokalee Road. Also includes bridge
improvements at Tree Farm Road and new roadway on Tree Farm Road. In
addition building a new multiuse pathway on the east side of the canal
parallel to Collier Boulevard from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee
Road.
B. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Presentation by the Collier County Fire
Chiefs Association regarding the Consolidation Report.
C. Recommendation to recognize Mary-Jo Brock, Executive Secretary, County
Managers Office, as Employee of the Month for January 2008.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Michael and Tammy McEndree to discuss the
Santa Barbara Extension Project and a sound barrier wall on the east side of
Polly Avenue.
B. Public petition request by Donald Kennedy to discuss clearing of Hurricane
Wilma debris from Rock Creek.
C. Public petition request by Gregory Pellechia to discuss Johnnycake Drive
portion of the Willow West Stormwater Improvement Project #510776.
Page 3
February 26, 2008
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2007-AR-11977
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control Rescue District, represented by Robert L.
Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use allowed in
the Estates (E) zoning district pursuant to Table 2, Section 2.04.03 of the
Land Development Code (LDC). The 6.5 acre (E) zoned site is proposed for
a Fire Station not to exceed 17,642 square feet. The subject site is located on
6.5 acres in the north east corner of Desoto Boulevard North and the
proposed 22nd Avenue N.E., Golden Gate Estates Unit 72, Section 28,
Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
B. This item has been continued from the Februarv 12, 2008 BCC Meetinl!.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: V A-2006-AR-
10092 Mohammed M. Rahman, represented by Stephen J. Fleming, P.E.,
requesting a before-the-fact variance from Section 5.05.05.B. of the LDC to
reduce the lot width along the north and south property line from the
required 150 feet to 135 feet, and to reduce the side yard setback along the
west property line from the required 40 feet to 25 feet to permit an
automobile service station. The subject property is located at 2393 Lake
Trafford Road, Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier
County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Request for the Board to consider a proposed amendment to section 1.04.04,
Reduction of Required Site Design Requirements, of the Collier County
Land Development Code as part of the Special Land Development Code
(LDC) amendment cycle for 2008 as previously approved by the Board.
B. This item has been continued to the March 11,2008 Meetinl!. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided
by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0l71 Eastbourne
Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of Johnson Engineering, Inc.,
and Patrick G. White, Atty. of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP.,
requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (ST)
Page 4
February 26, 2008
Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Brandon RPUD, for the
development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. The
subject property, consisting of 51.1 acres, is located on the southeast corner
of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard,
Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners by Andrea Sims, Waters-Oldani Executive Recruitment, a
Division of the Waters Consulting Group, Inc. and consideration of the
recommended five finalists for the Collier County Attorney position.
B. Appointment of member to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
C. This item to be heard at 3:00 p.m. To provide information on the status of
the Southwest Florida Expressway Authority (SWFEA) activities and the
ongoing Toll Feasibility Studies for 1-75 and to take action to support or
deny the attached resolution. (Commissioner Coletta)
D. Appointment of members to the Radio Road Beautification Advisory
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Discussion on the history and application of the Land Development Code
regulations concerning the rear yard setback requirements for accessory
structures in the Golden Gate Estates Zoning District. (Susan M. Istenes,
AICP, Director, Zoning & Land Development, CDES)
B. Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Olde Cypress Unit One (Olde
Cypress PUD). The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained. (Stan Chrzanowski, Sr. Engineer, Engineering & Environmental
Services Department, CDES)
Page 5
February 26, 2008
C. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners evaluate the
feasibility ofa Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Transfer of Development
Rights program applicant proposal relative to severance eligibility in relation
to the attainment of the Environmental Restoration & Maintenance and
Conveyance bonus credit to a CDD. (Joe Thompson, Senior Planner,
Comprehensive Planning Department, CDES)
D. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction
to the County Attorney and the County Manager, or his designee, related to
desired changes to the Charitable Organization Impact Fee Deferral Program
(Amy Patterson, Impact Fee, EDC Manager, CDES)
E. Recommendation to adopt FY09 Budget Policy. (John Yonkosky, Director,
Office of Management and Budget)
F. Recommendation to amend the FY08 Emergency Medical Services
Department budget by reducing personnel, operating and capital
expenditures to offset anticipated ambulance fee revenue shortfalls. (Jeff
Page, EMS Chief)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 4:00 p.m. Discussion regarding Richland PUD
(Pebblebrooke)
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Page 6
February 26, 2008
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners for the
proposed schedule for the Land Development Code (LDC)
Amendment Cycle for 2008.
2) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the sewer utility
facility for Botanical Place
3) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Treviso Bay Temporary Sales Facility.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for VeronaWalk, Phase 3A
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Mediterra, Parcell 06
6) Recommendation to award Bid No. 08-4197 Nuisance Abatement
Services to Ecosystem Technologies, Inc. and Environmental
Mowing, Inc.
7) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Liens for payments received
8) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 125, Replat of Lots
44- 47
9) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission Members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve
for recording the final plat of Alligator Alley Commerce Center Phase
One.
Page 7
February 26, 2008
10) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mediterra Parcel 103 with
the roadway and drainage improvements being privately maintained.
11) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Classics Plantation Estates
Phase One, (Lely Resort PUD), the roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained.
12) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Augusta at Pelican Marsh
(Pelican Marsh PUD) with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5016 On Call Landscape and
Irrigation Service by category to various vendors for an estimated
yearly cost of $500,000 (Fund Ill).
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1991,
1995, and 1996 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services Special
Assessment. Fiscal impact is $68.50 to record the Satisfactions of
Lien.
2) Recommendation to approve, execute and record a Satisfaction of a
Notice of Claim fLien for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal
impact is $10.00 to record the Satisfaction of Lien.
3) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development related review and
processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws Section 2-11 to
include a $1,000.00 fee to cover the cost of performing hydraulic
modeling and analysis necessary to ensure concurrency for water and
wastewater services.
Page 8
February 26, 2008
4) Approve a budget amendment to recognize funds provided by South
Florida Water Management District Grants in the amount of $450,000
and approve the necessary budget amendment for the Reclaimed
Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project 74030.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Margarita
Del Socorro Escobar (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 165, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Esaie
Foreste and Lyla Foreste (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 161, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Antoinette
Laguerre (Owner) for deferral of 100% ofCoUier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 163,
Trail Ridge, East Naples.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Antoine
Joseph and Saintherese Joseph (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 3, Block 14, Naples Manor Addition, East Naples.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Danielle
Alexandre (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact
fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 162,
Trail Ridge, East Naples.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose J.
Rosas Arroyo and Maria E. Rosas (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Page 9
February 26, 2008
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 160, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Gabince
Fanfan and Monique Willien (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 49, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Zilana
Marc (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for
an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 51, Trail
Ridge, East Naples.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Lunel
Napoleon (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 52, Trail
Ridge, East Naples.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Vida
Trainie Baltazard (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 164, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jacqueline
Jules (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for
an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 142,
Independence II-A, Immokalee.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose Angel
Olvera and Nora Beatriz Olvera (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 19, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
Page 10
February 26, 2008
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Islaine
Georges (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 50, Trail
Ridge, East Naples.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Minouche
Carilus (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 26,
Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Samuel
Trejo and Rebecca Castro (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 27, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Emmanuel
Louimare (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 30,
Liberty Landing, lmmokalee.
17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Passiana
Belizaire (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 35,
Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose
Penaloza Jasso and Aracely Penaloza (Owners) for deferral of 100%
of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 31, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Miguel
Angel Gaspar Francisco (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
Page 11
February 26, 2008
located at Lot 22, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean Vital
Astreide and Marie Astreide (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 10, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
21) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Freeman
and Freeman, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 20, Block 29, New Market, Immokalee.
22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Freeman
and Freeman, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 18, Pine Grove, Immokalee.
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Robert
Martinez and Juani Martinez (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 34, Liberty Landing, lmmokalee.
24) Report to the Board of County Commissioners a summary of the
Impact Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY08,
including the total number of Agreements approved, the total dollar
amount deferred and the balance remaining for additional deferrals in
FY08.
25) Recommendation to cease implementation of the Collier County
Lethal Yellowing Disease Ordinance 2004-11 suppression program
due to funding constraints and lack of consistent evidence of program
need.
26) Request to approve the renewal of Contract #03-3445, Vanderbilt
Beach Concession with Day-Star Unlimited, Inc. d/b/a Cabana Dans.
Page 12
February 26, 2008
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to award bid # 08-5013, Safety Equipment and
Supplies to a primary, secondary and tertiary vendor, based on the
lowest and most qualified bids.
2) Recommendation to approve two Second Amendments to Lease
Agreement with A&P Boole, LLC, for the continued use of the
maintenance garage and parking space on Arnold Avenue for the
Sheriffs Office, at a combined annual rental of$92,248.80.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
of the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to
execute Agreements, Deeds, and other documents required for the sale
ofGAC Land Trust property during the 2008 calendar year.
4) That the Board of County Commissioners award RFP No. 08-5012 for
Cellular Communications Services and Equipment to Sprint Solutions,
Inc. and further authorize the chairman to sign the standard County
Attorney approved contract. ($320,000)
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve a Fifth Amendment To Lease Agreement
with Gulf Shore Associates, Limited Partnership, for the continued
use of office space by the Pelican Bay Services Division at a first
years annual rent and Common Area Maintenance fees of$33,588.
2) Recommendation to approve the submittal of a Volunteer Fire
Assistance grant application from the Isles of Capri Fire District to the
Florida Division of Forestry for the purchase of wild land firefighting
equipment and protective clothing.
3) Recommendation to approve the submittal ofa Volunteer Fire
Assistance grant application from the Ochopee Fire Rescue District to
the Florida Division of Forestry for the purchase of wild land
firefighting equipment and protective clothing.
Page 13
February 26, 2008
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation for the Community Redevelopment Agency to
approve an extension of Site Improvement Grant Agreement OS/2007
between the CRA and Phillip and Debra Pierce due to certain
construction and permitting delays. (3144 Pine Tree Drive.)
2) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$44,500 to fund mitigation at Rookery Bay to meet South Florida
Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers
mitigation requirements for the South Taxiway construction permit at
Everglades Airpark.
3) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners accept additional funds from the Florida Department
of Transportation in the amount of $14,650 and provide a fifty percent
(50%) match in the amount of$14,650 for a total Budget Amendment
of $29,300 for security enhancements for the aviation fuel storage
tank system (fuel farm) at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
4) To approve and execute Sweat Equity Grant Agreement(s) between
the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and a Grant
Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community
Redevelopment area. (2500 Lee Street)
5) To approve and execute Site Improvement Grant Agreement(s)
between the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency and
a Grant Applicant(s) within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Community Redevelopment area. (3043 Cottage Grove Avenue)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Attended the
Economic Development Council's VIP Breakfast Meeting at The
Hilton Naples on Thursday, February 7,2008; $20.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
Page 14
February 26, 2008
2) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval for reimbursement
for attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Is attending
The Marine Industries Association of Collier County Members
Meeting at the Elks Lodge on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008; $25.00
to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending the Economic Development Council of Collier County first
Member Investor Meeting and Mixer for 2008 on Thursday, February
28, 2008, at the Naples Beach Hotel and Golf Club. $40.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will be attending
the Celebrate the Naples Launch of DayJet on Wednesday, February
13,2008, at the Naples Municipal Airport. $7.50 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement for
attending a function serving a valid public purpose. Will be attending
the 2008 Women of Style Honorees on Friday, February 15,2008, at
the Naples Grande Resort & Club. $125.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 2, 2008 to February 8, 2008 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
February 9,2008 to February 15, 2008 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
Page 15
February 26, 2008
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parcel
Nos. 860 & 960 in the lawsuit styled CC v. J.S. Roath Corp., et aI,
Case No. 05-1093-CA (South County Regional Water Treatment
Wellfield Project #70892). (Fiscal Impact-- $114,900.00)
2) Recommendation that the Board approves and authorizes the
Chairman to execute a continuing retention agreement for services on
an "as needed" basis with the law firm of Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.,
to meet County Purchasing Policy contract requirements.
3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $42,000.00 for Parcels I 26FEE and 126TDRE in the
lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. Michael J. Crouch, et aI.,
Case No. 07-369l-CA (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal
Impact $17,762.05)
4) Recommendation to Approve a Mediated Settlement Agreement and a
Stipulated Final Judgment to be drafted incorporating the same terms
and conditions as the Mediated Settlement Agreement in the amount
of $215,000.00 for the acquisition of Parcels l13A, 813 and 913 in the
Lawsuit styled Collier County, Florida v. Delbert Ackerman, et aI.,
Case No. 06-1 I 24-CA (County Barn Road Project #60101). (Fiscal
Impact: $99,919.00)
5) Recommendation that the Board review and approve an Affidavit and
Attorney Certification, as well as a Consent to certain mortgages
made by the Assignee, Light Tower Wireless, LLC, of a certain lease
heretofore entered into by the Board on April 13, 1999 by and
between the County and Acme Towers, Inc.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDA TION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
Page 16
February 26, 2008
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 bv Commission members. Petition: CU-2007-AR-
12384, Enterprise Leasing Company d/b/a Enterprise Rent-a-Car, applicant
and owner, is requesting a Conditional Use pursuant to LDC Section 2.04.03
for a rental car agency within the General Commercial (C-4) Zoning
District. The subject property is located at 13560 Tamiami Trail North, Suite
8, in Section 15, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
B. Recommendation to approve Petition A VESMT-2006-AR-I0754, to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and the Publics interest in a 25
foot wide drainage easement over the south and east 25 feet of the north of
the northeast of the northwest of the southwest of Section 24, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and being more specifically
described in Exhibit A and accept the replacement drainage easement also
shown on Exhibit A in place of the vacated easement.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 17
February 26, 2008
February 26-27, 2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Commissioner, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Commissioner -- or
Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, County Manager.
We're going to start out today with the invocation by Pastor Chuck
Cary of Moorings Presbyterian Church, and following that, we will
have Chief Don Peterson lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Would you all rise for the invocation.
PASTOR CARY: Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice-Chair, I'm glad
to be here and to represent Moorings Presbyterian Church. Let us
pray.
Gracious God, in you we trust. You are our shelter from the
eternal blast and our eternal home.
We give you thanks and praise for the privilege of living in
Collier County. We thank you for its heritage, its strong witness, its
courage, and its beauty.
We ask that you would bless the gathering of these leaders and
public servants, remind us always to seek your wisdom as we seek to
rule wisely and to make good decisions, decisions that contribute to
the common good.
We thank you and we praise you and ask for your guidance.
In your great name, amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Chief Peterson?
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, would you walk us
through the changes to today's agenda, please.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Page 2
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, Board of County
Commissioners' meeting, February 26, 2008.
Item lOB, continued to March 11,2008, BCC meeting. That's a
recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Olde Cypress Unit One,
Olde Cypress PUD. The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained. That continuance is asked at staffs request.
Next item is item 16Al. The date listed in the executive
summary for the BCC/LDC meeting 1 has been changed from
Thursday, September 18th, to Wednesday, September 24,2008, at
5:05 p.m., and that change is at staffs request.
The next item is 16A12, continued indefinitely. It's a
recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Augusta at Pelican Marsh,
Pelican Marsh PUD, with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained. That's at petitioner's request.
The next item is item 16Bl, continued to the March 11,2008,
BCC meeting. That's a recommendation to award bid number
08-5016 Oncall Landscape and Irrigation Service by category to
various vendors for an estimated yearly cost of $500,000, which is in
fund 111, and that's at staffs request.
Just -- if you have a cell phone, if you would please turn it off
during this meeting. Again, if you have a cell phone, please turn it off
or put it on vibrate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or I'll hold it.
MR. MUDD: The next item is to move item 16C3 to lOG, and
that's a recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the Collier
County Administrative Code fee schedule of development related
review and processing fees as provided for in Code of Laws, section
2-11, to include a $1,000 fee to cover the cost of performing hydraulic
modeling and analysis necessary to ensure concurrency for water and
wastewater services. That item is asked to be moved at Commissioner
Page 3
February 26-27,2008
Fiala's request.
The next item is item 16F 1. The first sentence in the second
paragraph under considerations should read, the current lease term
expires on February 28, 2008, rather than 2007, and that clarification's
at staffs request.
Next item is 16G 1. At the time the agenda went to print, the
amendment to extend the grant agreement for this item had not been
signed. The agreement has been signed and replacement pages have
been distributed and provided for the record. It's at staffs request.
Item 16H4 and H5, the recommendation should read that the
Board of County Commissioners, in accordance with Resolution
Number 99-410, approve payment by the Clerk for Commissioner
Fiala, rather than Commissioner Coletta, to attend a function serving a
valid public purpose, and that clarification's at staffs request.
Next item is 17B, should include the following: This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members, and that clarification's at staffs
request.
Commissioners, you have a number of time certain items today.
Item 5B to be heard at one p.m. rather than 9:30 a.m. as shown on the
index. It's a presentation by the Collier County Fire Chiefs association
regarding the consolidation report, and that time certain changed at
Commissioner Henning's request.
Next item is item 9A to be heard at 10:30 rather than 10 a.m., as
shown on the index. The presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners by Andrea Sims, Waters-Oldani, Executive
Recruitment, a division of Waters Consulting Group, Inc., and
consideration of the recommended five finalists for the Collier County
Attorney position. And, again, that change is at Commissioner
Henning's request. So it went from 10 o'clock to 10:30 on 9A.
Next item is item 9C to be heard at three p.m., to provide
information on the status of the Southwest Florida Expressway
Page 4
February 26-27, 2008
Authority activities and the ongoing toll feasibility studies for I-75 and
to take action to support or deny the attached resolution, and that item
was at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is 12A to be heard four p.m., and that's a
discussion regarding the Richland PUD, Pebblebrooke, and the
County Attorney will do that presentation.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I need a clarification on
8B. It's stated that we are continuing that till March lIth. Does that
have to be disclosed before we vote?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, not if you're -- not if you're going to
continue it, sir, because you'll do that disclosure at that time when it
comes up on March 1l tho
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't we just need to say that it's a
change in today's agenda, that it's going to be continued?
Mr. Klatzkow, do we--
MR. MUDD: Sir, it was published as a continued item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. KLATZKOW: You just said it, so I think we're good either
way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You had the same concerns?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, Chairman
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have ex parte also on today's
summary or consent?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm glad you asked. On the
consent agenda, item A9, I met with Bruce Anderson on 1/21 and met
with county staff on 1/20, and that concludes -- and I have no other
changes to the agenda. That concludes it.
Page 5
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm sorry but I don't have my
ex parte, so I'm looking through them real quickly to see. But I, from
what I could recall, I do not have anything to declare on the summary
or consent agenda, and I have no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning. I have no ex parte
on either the summary or the consent agenda for today's meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any changes to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No changes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No changes.
I have no ex parte on the summary or consent. Commissioner
Fiala pulled the one I was -- one of the ones I was concerned about.
I want to remove from today's agenda 16H2 and also would like
to move to the regular agenda l6E3, and that's the Golden Gate Land
Trust. And 16K3, that is the contract with County Attorney's Office
on the contracts, purchasing contracts; is that right, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is a -- this is K2? K3?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: K3.
MR. KLA TZKOW: K3 is an eminent domain issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I want to pull the one with the
contracts.
MR. KLATZKOW: So that's K2.
MR. MUDD: That's K2. It has to do with the law firm of Allen,
Norton & Blue, P.A.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. That's K2.
Okay. Commissioner, 16K2 will now become 12B. 16E3 will
become 10H. And you want to -- and you want to withdraw 16H2; is
that correct, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
Page 6
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion to approve
today's agenda, consent, and summary as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 16H2, what is that item again?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is for my attendance to a
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, sir. I'll make
the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta makes
a motion to approve as amended. Is there a second? I'll second it.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Februarv 26. 2008
Item 10B continued to the March 11. 2008 BCC meetin!!: Recommendation to grant final approval ofthe
roadway (private) and drainage improvements for the final plat of Olde Cypress Unit One (Olde Cypress
PUD). The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately maintained. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A1: The date listed in the Executive Summary for the BCC LDC Meeting 1 has been changed from
Thursday, September 18 to Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Staff's request.)
Item 16A12 continued indefinitelv: Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Augusta at Pelican Marsh (Pelican Marsh PUD) with the roadway
and drainage improvements being privately maintained. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 16B1 continued to the March 11. 2008 BCC meetin!!: Recommendation to award Bid #08-5016 On Call
Landscape and Irrigation Service by category to various vendors for an estimated yearly cost of $500,000
(Fund 111). (Staff's request.)
Move Item 16C3 to 10G: Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development related review and processing fees as provided for in
Code of Laws Section 2-11 to include a $1,000.00 fee to cover the cost of pertorming hydraulic modeling
and analysis necessary to ensure concurrency for water and wastewater services. (Commissioner Fiala's
request.)
Item 16F1: The first sentence in the second paragraph under Considerations should read: "The current
lease term expires on February 28, 2008 . . . " (rather than 2007). (Staff's request.)
Item 16G1: At the time the agenda went to print, the Amendment to extend Grant Agreement for this item
had not been signed. The Agreement has been signed, and replacement pages have been distributed and
provided for the record. (Staff's request.)
Item 16H4 and 16H5: The Recommendation should read: "That the Board of County Commissioners, in
accordance with Resolution No. 99-410, approve payment by the Clerk for Commissioner Fiala (rather than
Commissioner Coletta) to attend function serving a valid public purpose." (Staff's request.)
Item 17B should include the followinll: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. (Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 5B to be heard at 1 :00 D.m. (rather than 9:30 a.m. as shown on the index.) Presentation by the Collier
County Fire Chiefs Association regarding the Consolidation Report. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 9A to be heard at 10:30 a.m. (rather than 10:00 a.m. as shown on the index). Presentation to the Board
of County Commissioners by Andrea Sims, Waters-Oldani Executive Recruitment, a Division of the Waters
Consulting Group, Inc. and consideration of the recommended five finalists for the Collier County Attorney
position. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 9C to be heard at 3:00 D.m. To provide information on the status of the Southwest Florida
Expressway Authority (SWFEA) activities and the ongoing Toll Feasibility Studies for 1-75 and to take action
to support or deny the attached resolution. (Commissioner Coletta)
Item 12A to be heard at 4:00 D.m. Discussion regarding Richland PUD (Pebblebrooke).
February 26-27, 2008
Item #2B, #2C and #2D
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 22, 2008 BCC/LDC SPECIAL
MEETING; JANUARY 25,2008 BCC/CRA JOINT WORKSHOP
MEETING AND THE JANUARY 29, 2008 BCC REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
I'll entertain a motion to approve January 22, 2008, BCC/LDC
Meeting; January 25, '08, BCC/CRA Advisory Workshop; and
January 29th, '08 BCC Regular Meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning to
approve, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Today we have no service awards.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE CONTINUED SUPPORT
FOR DRUG FREE COLLIER AND "THE ADOLESCENT MIND
AND HIGH RISK BEHAVIORS" PRESENTATION SCHEDULED
FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27,2008 BY MICHAEL
NERNEY; ACCEPTED BY MARIA VICTORIA DELGADO OF
DRUG FREE COLLIER - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The first proclamation is a proclamation
Page 8
February 26-27,2008
recognizing the continued support for Drug Free Collier and
supporting "The Adolescent Mind and High-risk Behaviors"
presentation scheduled for Wednesday, February 27,2008, by
Michael Nerney. To be accepted by Marla Victoria Delgado of the
Drug Free Collier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Welcome all.
MS. DELGADO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So nice, all the work that you're
doing for our community and our youth.
Whereas, alcohol and other drug abuse in this nation have
reached epidemic proportions; and,
Whereas, approximately 55 people died in Collier County of
accidental drug overdoses just in 2007, an increase of approximately
35 percent in 2006; and,
Whereas, we should keep our youth, our greatest resource, drug
and alcohol free and guide them to a future of hope and opportunity;
and,
Whereas, the most effective way to reduce juvenile drug
addiction is to reduce demand; and,
Whereas, this effort depends on the active participation of
families, schools, and community organizations through education and
prevention; and,
Whereas, Drug Free Collier, a coalition of community leaders
and partners, parents and the community at large, dedicated to a
heightening substance abuse awareness and education, urges all the
citizens of our community to participate in alcohol and drug education
and all related preventional -- prevention activities, thus making a firm
statement that we are strongly committed to a drug-free lifestyle; and,
Whereas, in recognition of and to continue the celebration of
February 10th through l6, 2008, as having been designated National
Drug Prevention and Education Week, Drug Free Collier has invited
Michael Nerney, national consultant in substance abuse prevention
Page 9
February 26-27, 2008
and education to make a presentation entitled "The Adolescent Mind
and High Risk Behaviors" on Wednesday, February 27,2008. This
presentation will be held at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Administration Center located at 5775 Osceola Drive in Naples from
6:30 to 8:00 p.m. That's the school administration building for
everybody, just in case you didn't know.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that it urges our
community members to make a visible statement that we are strongly
committed to a drug-free community by both supporting the efforts of
Drug Free Collier and particularly by attending this special event.
Done and ordered this 26th day of February, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, a second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. Thank you.
(Applause.)
JUDGE BRODIE: On behalf of Drug Free Collier -- my name is
Lauren Brodie, and I'm president of Drug Free Collier. I would like to
thank the county commission, the County Manager, and everyone in
Collier County for the continued support of Drug Free Collier.
I would like to especially introduce to you our new Executive
Page 10
February 26-27,2008
Director, Maria Delgado; Judge Greider, who's one of our board
members; UndersheriffRambosk, who's one of our board members;
and Marla Ramsey, wherever she disappeared to, who you know.
She's one of our board members. And we're hoping to do an annual
event like this every year so we can help educate parents, business
owners, citizens, and other people as to how to reduce juvenile
substance abuse in Collier County.
So thank you very much for your continued support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING GOLDEN GATE FIRE CHIEF
DONALD R. PETERSON FOR 27 YEARS OF DEDICATED
SERVICE TO COLLIER COUNTY; ACCEPTED BY CHIEF DON
PETERSON - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is to
recognize Golden Gate Fire Chief Donald R. Peterson for 27 years of
dedicated service to Collier County, to be accepted by Chief Donald
Peterson.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, I'd also like to
recognize the board for the Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District.
Commissioner Dave Steadman, Commissioner Stoneberger, and
Commissioner McMahon is also in attendance today.
Whereas, Chief Donald Peterson has diligently served the
residents of the Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District for 27 years and
is the longest serving chief in Collier County's history;
Under the chiefs leadership, the fire district has created four new
stations and numerous firefighters and equipment to better protect the
Page 11
February 26-27,2008
population in the growing exploding growth (sic) since 1980;
Whereas, Collier County -- or Golden Gate Fire District was the
first in the county to support a joint emergency service facility
consisting of fire, Emergency Medical Services, and law enforcement;
Whereas, Golden Gate Fire District's light technical rescue team
became the first Florida (sic) to complete the state-mandated training;
and,
Whereas, Chief Peterson was instrumental in protecting the
Golden Gate Estates from numerous wildfires, structure fires,
hurricanes, and other disasters throughout his tenureship as fire chief
serving as a knowledgeable commander, a strike team leader and
liaison to the state and national agencies; and,
Whereas, the fire district has never had a line of duty death; and,
Whereas, Chief Peterson has made numerous personnel and
professional sacrifices to ensure the safety of the residents of Golden
Gate Fire and Rescue District.
And now, therefore, the Board of Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, recognizes Chief Donald R. Peterson for his lifetime
career of service of Collier County, and we thank you endlessly and
wish you well in your semiretirement.
Done in this order, the 27th day of February, 2008, and I make a
motion that we move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commission Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 12
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHIEF PETERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank
you very much. This certainly is quite an occasion and very much an
honor. I appreciate that very much.
I couldn't do what we've done over the years though without a
great family, immediate family. Had to wave to my daughter. She's
watching this morning via the Internet with just about -- well, this will
be about three-week-old Jackson, and Cooper's in North Carolina.
Not sure ifhe's watching or not. He's just a couple months old. That's
one of the great things about as you get older.
But my extended family -- and we've always looked at it as an
extended family -- in the emergency services, it's very easy to occur,
that when we get times of need, not only the community that's out
there that needs help, it's the people that are responding out to the
community in their times of need that also need help, and it's a team
effort. That's certainly no "I" in the system there.
I've been very fortunate to be in the position I have and be able to
help people along the way. We've brought some great ideas along the
way. We don't always have the same answers, which is good, because
we can agree to disagree, but when it got down to the rubber meeting
the road, we were able to do some great things, not only in Golden
Gate, but in the whole county as a whole.
Mr. Feder and his transportation group, Mr. DeLony with the
support during Hurricane Wilma that -- in his operations and working
with us in the water issues out in the Estates, we certainly appreciate
that.
We've got some of my key staff here this morning with you.
They're very much a part of being able to make this happen. In my
time of needing help, they stepped in and carried the ball very well,
and I certainly appreciate them for that.
And your -- Commissioners, your staff as well. Commissioner
Page 13
February 26-27,2008
Henning, Sam, over the years, we appreciate everything they've done.
Mr. Mudd, we had some good times in EOC. Unfortunately it
had to be there, but it was always interesting to see who was pinning
the map closer.
And Mr. Ochs, we thank you for everything you've done over the
years that -- but once again, there was -- a couple of weeks ago the
sheriff recognized me with his members, and there was a group that,
unfortunately, I missed and forgot in that group, and I wanted to share
it with the commissioners because they were a vital role in being able
to protect the community. And with these tight budget times, there's
going to be issues coming up that, not only the Division of Forestry
fly the fires for us and assist, and that air support is very key, but also
the sheriffs chief pilot and his crew support us time and time again.
Lieutenant Cherney and his folks, we couldn't have done it
without them. And it was interesting because he -- by being able to
fly those flights, it helped us to bring the GIS into fire fighting a little
better.
We had a day on the one fire we were estimating over 14,000
acres. When we actually flew with the GIS, it actually came out to
just a little over 10,000 acres. And when we do that, we get almost an
exact footprint of where it's going, and that plays into the resources
that you've got to have, where is it going and those type of things. So
we certainly want to thank them very much for their resource.
And I know helicopters are expensive to operate; however, in the
times of emergencies, you just -- they're indispensable in the services
that they can provide.
Again, thank you on behalf of the family and everybody, and I
especially thank everybody for coming this morning. I appreciate you
taking the time out to share this time with us. Thank you again.
(Applause. )
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Chief Peterson is
retiring, and the reason I said semiretired, rest assured, we can always
Page 14
February 26-27,2008
count on him when we need him, either individually or as a
community. I don't see -- he has so much knowledge, I just can't see
Collier County not having Chief Peterson, and it always will be Chief
Peterson. We always will have him for advice and the leadership that
he's provided us.
And, Commissioners, I just want to say that I had the privilege to
serve with Chief Peterson in the mid and late '90s with his staff and
learned a lot and always had a respect for the fire service and Chief
Peterson's leadership.
So it's -- Chief Peterson is not going away because we're going to
drag him back one way or another. Thanks. Thanks for your service.
Next one?
Item #4C
PROCLAMA nON OFFERING APPRECIA nON AND THANKS
TO VOLUNTEER DRIVERS, OFFICE STAFF AND THEIR
FAMILIES FOR THEIR EFFORTS IN MAKING THE QUALITY
OF LIFE BETTER FOR VETERANS IN OUR COMMUNITY;
ACCEPTED BY JIM ELSON, PRESIDENT, COLLIER COUNTY
VETERANS COUNCIL AND DON PEACOCK, TREASURER,
COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is to offer
our appreciation and thanks to the volunteer drivers, office staff and
their families for their efforts in making the quality of life better for
the veterans in our community.
To be accepted by Jim Elson, President of the Collier County
Veterans Council, and Don Peacock, Treasurer of the Collier County
Veterans Council.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would those two gentlemen please
come forward. It gives me great pleasure to read this proclamation
Page 15
February 26-27,2008
and -- because of the people that served throughout the generations to
make sure that we have freedom here at home.
And I also want to take a moment of silence for the troops that
are now in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Whereas, the Veterans Transportation Program is a cooperative
effort between the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
and Collier County Veterans Council; and,
Whereas, the purpose of this transportation program is to provide
free transportation for Collier County veterans to VA healthcare
facilities in Fort Myers, Bay Pines, Tampa, and other facilities in
South Florida; and,
Whereas, the drivers of this program are all volunteers who
donate their time and effort to see that our veterans receive the needed
healthcare in a timely manner; and,
Whereas, the families of these volunteers also contribute to the
success of this program by supporting the volunteers and the goals of
the transportation program; and,
Whereas, in 2007, our volunteer drivers donated 2,044 hours,
transported 610 veterans, and logged 57,195 accident-free miles.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we offer our
appreciation and our thanks to the volunteer drivers, office staff, and
their families for their efforts in making the quality of life better for
the veterans of our community.
Done and ordered this 26th day of February, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chair.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this very
important proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 16
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Peter, do you have any of the drivers here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any of these drivers?
Yes, come on up. Please.
(Applause.)
MR. PEACOCK: I used to think I had a lot of stripes until I met
Chief Peterson.
I'm only here to -- as many of you are, in support of the drivers.
The Veterans Council is proud to support the Office of Veterans
Services, Petey Kraley, Joanne Dolby, Jane McDonald. One of their
functions is to run the program where the volunteer drivers transport
the veterans. In fact, one driver, Bill Hauck is not here today. He's on
the way up to Bay Pines. He left this morning. Many of times they
have to leave at five o'clock in the morning to get up to Tampa in time
for the appointments for the veterans, so we join the commissioners
for giving sincere thanks to the volunteer drivers for making the
program possible in transporting all these people. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. PEACOCK: Let me read off the names of the drivers, all of
whom are not here. I see Jigs Fuedo is here is one of our -- he must be
our driver emeritus, but he drove for many years.
We have Duane Bourdo, Arlie Cantrell, Steve Driscoll, William
Geary, George Gulley, Bill Hauck, as I said is not here, Roger
Johnson, Dick Kline, Ken Mabuchi, Don Mielke, Arthur Pope, Paul
Seday, Herb Sorin, Ellis Sweat, John Welch, and Jim Wiley.
Page 17
February 26-27,2008
Sincere thanks to all of you once again.
MS. FILSON: Sir, could you give the list of names to the
stenographer?
MR. PEACOCK: Oh, sure.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I also want to -- each of us up here
on the Board of County Commissioners want to also pass on thanks to
each of those people that so diligently help support our veterans.
Thank you.
MR. PEACOCK: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY ROBBY POWELL OF BETTER ROADS
CONSTRUCTION ON THE SIX LANES OF NEW ROADWAY
INCLUDING NEW SIGNALS AND STREET LIGHTING ON
COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GOLDEN GA TE BOULEVARD
TO 7TH AVE NORTH AND FROM MISSION HILLS TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD; ALSO INCLUDES BRIDGE
IMPROVEMENTS AT TREE FARM ROAD AND NEW
ROADWAY ON TREE FARM ROAD IN ADDITION TO
BUILDING A NEW MULTIUSE P A THW A Y ON THE EAST SIDE
OF THE CANAL PARALLEL TO COLLIER BOULEVARD
FROM V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that brings us to
the presentations section. First presentation is a construction briefing
on six lanes of new roadway, including new signals and street-lighting
on Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard from 7th Avenue
North and from Mission Hills to Immokalee Road.
Page 18
February 26-27, 2008
Also, includes bridge improvements at Tree Farm Road and new
roadway on Tree Farm Road, in addition to building a new multi-use
pathway on the east side of the canal parallel to Collier Boulevard
from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Immokalee Road.
And Mr. Jay Ahmad, your director of engineering for
transportation --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we hear the presentation, there
is a number of members of the public here to hear 10F or give the
board some guidance, and that is to recommend to amend the '08
Emergency Medical Services budget. We really -- to be efficient in
the public's time, we need to make that a time certain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. County Manager, what do you
think of five o'clock, five p.m.?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, that would be the next time, unless you
think you can squeeze it in this morning, sir. It's a tough -- it's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I don't see where that's -- that's
going to happen. It might carry over, so --
MR. MUDD: Five p.m., sir, would be the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Okay. We'll need a motion
and a second on that. Entertain a motion to approve a time certain for
lOF at five p.m.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll so move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala, and I'll
second.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 19
February 26-27,2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So do your business and be
back here at five.
Mr. Ahmad?
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Jay Ahmad. I'm your Director of Transportation
Engineering and Construction Management.
With me this morning is Robby Powell. He's the project manager
with Better Roads Construction, our contractor building this roadway
for Collier County.
The project that began in October 25,2006, is progressing ahead
of schedule, approximately 26 percent today ahead of schedule, and
it's within the budget. And without due delay, I'll let Robby explain
the project and if you have any questions for him.
MR. POWELL: Good morning. My name is Robby Powell. I
work for Better Roads, Incorporated.
Our current work schedule right now is we're placing limerock on
the northbound sections of Collier Boulevard from Mission Hills to
Immokalee Road. We're progressing with our signal and lighting
work, and we anticipate approximately mid to the end of March we'll
be beginning the final phases of paving, asphalt paving, for the rest of
the project.
Like any project, we run into issues that's come up. Currently,
we're awaiting a redesign at the intersection of Immokalee Road and
Collier Boulevard. Once that redesign is in our hands, we'll have to
examine the redesign, acquire some materials if needed, and at that
point we will be able to have a better understanding on our final
completion date.
Right now we anticipate or hope for a final completion date of
this fall of2008. Just wanted to point out that a lot of the success of
this project is not due to just Better Roads but actually the team in
itself, which requires of our project manager for Collier County, John
Page 20
February 26-27,2008
Conti, the CEI representative of Johnson Engineering, specifically
Roy Dodshell (phonetic), and our team as far as Ralph Bridger and
Roy Richard Ucob (phonetic) for Better Roads.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just have a comment. It's -- boy, that
sure is a construction project. I've never seen something move so fast
as this Better Roads project, so thank you.
MR. POWELL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I concur with you, and also, too,
I'd just like to tell the County Manager's Office how much I appreciate
the fact that we've been bringing these items forward on a regular
basis.
I think that they make staff a little more proactive, and also the
contractor is a little more responsive to the needs of the public, and I
want to thank you very much for the job that you're doing out there.
MR. POWELL: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, 5B, again, is a one clock time
certain.
Item #5C
RECOGNIZING MARY-JO BROCK, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR JANUARY, 2008 - PRESENTED
5C is your next presentation, and that's a recommendation to
recognize Mary-Jo Brock, Executive Secretary of the County
Manager's Office as Employee of the Month for January 2008.
Mary-Jo, if you could come forward, please.
Page 21
February 26-27,2008
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody that called the County
Manager's Office and got Mary-Jo on the phone, it's sure a pleasure to
hear a -- such a kind voice.
Mary-Jo, that -- it's indeed a pleasure on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners to recognize you as the Employee of the Month for
January, 2008, and it's well deserved, and it's a valuable contribution
to the residents of Collier County for your work in the County
Manager's Office.
So I would like to present you with this plaque and a small check
that we made out to you, and you can give it over to your better half,
I'm sure. Or maybe not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Definitely not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your work, Mary-Jo.
We really appreciate it.
MS. BROCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MICHAEL AND TAMMY
MCENDREE TO DISCUSS THE SANTA BARBARA
EXTENSION PROJECT AND A SOUND BARRIER WALL ON
THE EAST SIDE OF POLLY AVENUE - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions.
Our first public petition is a special request by Michael and Tammy
McEndree to discuss the Santa Barbara extension and the sound
barrier wall on the east side of Polly Avenue.
Could Michael and Tammy McEndree come on up. Whichever
microphone you'd like to go to.
Page 22
February 26-27,2008
MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay. Commissioners, just for the record,
I'd like to note that this matter is in litigation.
MR. McENDREE: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which means?
MR. KLATZKOW: This issue's in litigation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's a right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I was just wondering if you
want to give us some advice when he said that.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's board policy whether you want to listen
to it and not comment or proceed with comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
MR. McENDREE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MR. McENDREE: Good morning. Weare Michael and Tammy
McEndree, my wife. And just a quick background. This is my 27th
year as a UPS driver in Collier County, and Tammy has 29 years as a
registered nurse with the Naples Community Hospital.
And I'm very nervous. But hopefully I'll settle down a little bit.
The reason we are here is to ask the Board of County
Commissioners to approve a sound barrier wall separating our
property from the proposed six-lane Santa Barbara extension which
will run adjacent to our property.
At the last planning meeting, in which 90 percent completion of
the drawing for the Santa Barbara extension was unveiled, I talked to
staff members regarding my concern for the increased noise reflecting
off the opposite wall. This was confirmed by the sound engineer.
At this time we were informed that the extension was increased
from four lanes to six lanes and that there would be no landscape
median, which would also increase the noise level.
And I wrote that and I don't even understand it.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. There's a pointer up here too, sir.
MR. McENDREE: Oh, there is.
Page 23
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: There you are go.
MR. McENDREE: I'm too nervous. Calm down. Take a deep
breath. Okay. That's how important it is to us.
You know, this is the south end of Santa Barbara extension and,
of course, this is Rattlesnake here. And this is our house right here,
and this is Royal Woods, and this red area is the sound barrier wall
that's already confirmed on the drawing, and then this would be on our
side of the road. This is Hollow Drive, and then there's a little section
here.
And what I was trying to explain was, without the median and
with six lanes, the noise would bounce from this wall and be generated
towards our home. And the reason this is L-shaped is because this
faces, this road, we have six sliders that open to that. It's our back
patio area, so that would generate even more noise for us.
But I just didn't understand why they would stop here and not
continue to Everett Street, and that's what we're asking the board to
consider.
And then basically, everybody does have the sound barrier wall
except this section. And from here all the way to Davis is all vacant
land. And it's all vacant land right now but -- except from here to --
there won't be any reason for another sound barrier wall.
So, yeah, we're just asking for the sound barrier wall to be
continued to Everett Street to help us divert the noise from our house.
Basically that's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's it?
MR. McENDREE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments from the board
members? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just -- I'd like to ask transportation
one question and that is, does it meet FDOT requirements?
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner Halas, my name is Jay Ahmad.
I'm your Director of Transportation, for the record.
Page 24
February 26-27,2008
Sir, it doesn't meet the warrants established by the federal
warrants or the state warrants, and those are the standards that we use
in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me why it doesn't meet
the standards?
MR. AHMAD: Yes. The warrants contain two components to it.
One is the noise reduction; that the wall would have to reduce the
noise substantially to effect a reduction in noise for this gentleman and
his wife. The second warrant is a cost benefited receiver warrant.
What that warrant says, you have to have approximately -- the cost of
the wall cannot exceed approximately $42,000 per benefited receiver.
If we were to build this wall, it would cost approximately anywhere
between 250,000 to $300,000 for this -- for this benefited receiver.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's based on 16-foot tall, but
we don't need 16-foot tall, right? So if you based it on a wall that
would be more appropriate, the cost would be greatly reduced, right?
And yet the cost was okay for the other places along that line, right?
MR. AHMAD: Commissioner, the -- again, a noise study was
conducted by ESA, a noise consultant hired by Collier County, and
they come up with a conclusion that the wall -- these folks do not meet
the minimum standards for warrants for walls.
It is, of course, up to you to direct us to not follow these
standards, but I would caution you that there is a lot of areas that
would qualify -- would not qualify for walls that would come before
you and ask for walls as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, we don't want to
give them a wall because we might set a precedent for other areas; is
that what you're saying?
MR. AHMAD: It's -- because your standards for walls are not
met, Commissioner. And you're hitting an area that I would caution
Page 25
February 26-27,2008
you from doing so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I went and took a look at the
property and rode around there. It's not that far from the road. I can
understand when you've got a six-lane highway with -- now you've got
semis going up and down, it is going to make a lot of noise, and
they're not that far from that road. I would hope that maybe we could
discuss it at another meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand where you're coming
from, Commissioner Fiala. There was a couple of instances in my
particular district where we had the same concerns, and it didn't meet
the warrants. And so the choices were that if residents wanted a wall,
then -- and it didn't meet the warrants, we more or less came to the
conclusion that it was up to them to build the wall.
When you start looking at the price of these sound walls, it's
pretty drastic as far as the cost per mile, and I think that we need to
really examine this, where we're going with walls. There is a lot of
counties that do not get involved in sound noise if they do not make --
meet the requirements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And sometimes -- thank you for
adding that. Sometimes those requirements, or the warrants, as we're
talking about, possibly could be exaggerated considering they're
talking about the cost for a 16- foot wall. Where do we have a 16- foot
tall wall in this entire county?
You know, that's -- I think that it's an exaggerated figure. And
you're right, we need to examine the sound walls further, because now
we're six-laning into a lot of people's neighborhoods, whereas, we
never did that before, and we're coming right up to people's yards.
And I think we ought to start considering that we have to protect
our people. We have to protect the people in these homes. I wouldn't
want that in my home. So I think it's something we ought to be
discussing.
Page 26
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no problem
sometime at a workshop bringing this up. I want to remind the
commission that this is in litigation. Anything you say here could
undermine the county's case in trying to come to some sort of
conclusion.
You want to add anything to that, Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I mean, as an attorney, my preference
is that the board would say nothing, but I do understand this is an
important policy decision for the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see enough willingness on the
board to bring this back on a regular agenda.
But as Commissioner Fiala stated, we have several other
examples of properties, same situation, and we understand where
you're coming from.
No, I'm sorry. You told me that you were done with your
presentation. That's what I got.
MR. McENDREE: I thought I got a rebuttal. I talked with this
gentleman at our --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You could step out and rebuttal --
make any remarks to him if you want, but --
MR. McENDREE: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MR. McENDREE: All right. Is that a denial?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If the board wants to put this on a
regular agenda, ask staff to make a presentation, we would ask to do
that in the future. I didn't see enough support to do so.
MR. McENDREE: At this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. McENDREE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. McENDREE: I didn't understand.
Page 27
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sorry.
MR. McENDREE: That's okay.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY DONALD KENNEDY TO
DISCUSS CLEARING OF HURRICANE WILMA DEBRIS FROM
ROCK CREEK - CHAIRMAN HENNING TO WRITE LETTER
TO VARIOUS AGENCIES ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE -
CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a request
by Donald Kennedy to discuss clearing of Hurricane Wilma debris
from Rock Creek.
Mr. Kennedy, state your name for the record, sir.
MR. KENNEDY: Donald Kennedy, and I represent Rock Creek
Resort and hopefully the -- all the properties along Rock Creek.
Rock Creek is a beautiful little crick, if you know where it's at. It
starts at -- back in East Naples somewhere. I don't know where,
probably a couple miles beyond Airport-Pulling Road.
And after Hurricane Wilma -- I'm not a resident here. But
anyways, I came in and they had a telephone number to call, and I
called it, and -- about cleaning out Rock Creek because it had not been
cleaned up.
I have pictures here of the crick as it exists today. But I have a
letter from the Nebus family which owns Rock Creek Resort. It's to
the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Naples, Florida.
Dear Sir and Madam Commissioners, as owners of Rock Creek
Resort bordering approximately a quarter mile of Rock Creek, we
write this letter in support ofMr. Donald Kennedy.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma, we were struggling to clear
debris and repair water and sewer lines as such at the park.
Page 28
February 26-27,2008
Mr. Kennedy and a group of 26 volunteers, with the permission
of the county environmental department, cleared debris from the rock
crick to make it temporarily navigable. It has been two years since the
commendable volunteer action, and I have a letter that I have -- got
from William Lorenz.
At this time we are still largely submerged -- there are still
largely submerged logs, stumps, organic debris, that clog the
waterway and make it perilous for all but the smallest watercraft.
We would ask, along with Mr. Kennedy and other concerned
residents of Rock Crick to aid us in any way to see fit to return Rock
Crick back to its fully navigable waterway.
This is signed by Janet Nebus, member of the Nebus family.
The letter from Mr. Lorenz was -- I would like to take this
opportunity to -- opportunity to extend the gratitude of Collier County
for the efforts of you and your team from Rock Crick volunteers.
Hurricane Wilma caused major damage to waterways throughout
Collier County. Your efforts have saved the Federal Emergency
Management Administration well over $1 0,000. Your 25 volunteers
put in over 550 hours of volunteer labor clearing the hurricane debris
from the crick and reopening it to navigation. Thank you very much
for your efforts. Signed by William Lorenz.
But anyways, it is still, as you can see by the pictures, that it is
still quite a mess after Hurricane Wilma. And I, I guess representing
Rock Creek and other residents, think that it should be finished
clearing on.
There are large trees that have come down in the crick that we
cut out. And of course, when a tree goes down into the creek you can
see the one-half of it. The other half of it is clear down in the water,
which we took and cleaned out. This is an area right here where it
was completely plugged and there was debris building up in the creek,
and it could have been -- become a major health hazard, and also
caused flooding because it was damming up the water and all the
Page 29
February 26-27, 2008
debris.
And that's basically about it.
Did we show all the pictures?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I showed every one of them, sir.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you. But I believe, as you can see, that
it is still quite a mess, and three years after Hurricane Wilma came
through, which is actually devastating when a hurricane -- I've worked
in disaster areas for 14 years with a volunteer mission team from our
church. And when I came down, why, I saw that and says, something
has to be done. Somebody organized the volunteers. I talked to a
gentleman, Doug Suiter, and he says it would be three months -- or
three weeks, three months, three years before it could even possibly be
done.
I says, that's not going to work. So I told him, I says, what if I
organized volunteers? And he says, if you can. So I went through the
campground. That afternoon I called him back and I says, I have 17
volunteers to start. They would like to start tomorrow. And so he
says, that would be great if you could do that.
And I says, well, we'll start tomorrow with your approval. And
so we did. It took us almost -- almost 600 hours of volunteer time.
We had 27 men that worked in the crick. Some worked for one hour,
some worked for 90 hours.
And so I would like to ask you if you would make some kind of
provision to get the rest of it cleaned out.
And if you have any questions -- and if you would want to see it
personally, I'd gladly take you down the crick in my little boat and
show you exactly what it looks like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Up the creek with a paddle?
MR. KENNEDY: Yeah, I guess that's what you could say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas wants to go up
the creek with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I believe should be -- this
Page 30
February 26-27, 2008
should be under the auspices of the Coast Guard since this is tidal
waters.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We had -- we cleaned up all the
debris in all the cricks that are freshwater, and now it would be very
difficult to get any FEMA funding to address the problem that you
have because since it was -- since you touched it, it's very difficult for
FEMA to have an idea of what was destroyed by Hurricane Wilma
and what basically came down by natural causes, maybe in other
windstorms or whatever else.
So the big problem is, is that even though you really wanted to
get involved in cleaning this up, the best thing to -- you should have
done is left it in the manner it was, and chances are we would have
probably been able to get FEMA backing for it through the Coast
Guard, and they would have come in there and cleaned it up. And I
think they would have probably done it in a lot quicker than three
years, too, because we've got all of our stuff already cleaned up and all
of our drainage basins.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Kennedy, I want to
take a moment to compliment you for doing what a lot of our citizens
are going to have to start doing in Collier County now with the budget
cuts that we're seeing in the staff layoffs, and that's taking the
initiative to go forward and doing what has to be done to be able to
keep your part of the community together.
The fact that you were able to pull that many people together, 17
people, and put in all those untold hours serves as a tremendous
example for what your community was able to do.
This is going to have to be a return of the old days back when we
used to -- now Commissioner Henning can remember them well when
we had the volunteer fire department and we used to raise money by
raffles and spaghetti dinners, and we did a lot of labor to be able to
Page 31
February 26-27,2008
establish the grounds for a future fire department, which was
eventually built on 13th Street.
This is what we're going to have to return to, the very basics of
how our society was originally created back when this country was
founded. So I commend you for what you did.
I know you were looking for a little more from this commission
than a comment as far as the greatness of your community; however,
with that said, thank you for what you did, and please, I hope this
serves as an example to the listening audience out there how you can
still get something done even in the times of a budget year that's
making an impact on us all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Questions -- any further
questions, comments?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Does Gary McAlpin have
anything to say?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a comment?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Sir--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's finish up with the commissioner
first. You complete?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: In this particular case, why don't we try to initiate
a letter to the Coast Guard and to FEMA and see if they'll look at the
particular issue, and let's make sure it's a dead-end before -- we're
assuming it's a dead-end. Let's ask the question, and maybe there's
funds remaining someplace out there where they can come in and take
a look at this particular tidal basin.
So with the board's -- with the board's approval, staff will draft
that letter and get the chairman to sign it, if that's okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And while you're talking about that,
Page 32
February 26-27,2008
could Coast Guard Auxiliary be a part of that? I know we have an
active Coast Guard --
MR. MUDD: Yeah. I don't know how many -- how much funds
they have in order to do it. You're basically talking about people,
somebody that's going to come in there with some kind of a floating
instrument, a small barge, whatever, and basically yank those trees out
and cut them down and move them out all along that particular stretch.
But I would -- I would ask the question to make sure that we've
killed the particular source.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Kennedy?
MR. KENNEDY: Yes. While we were doing this, I was in
communication with Doug Suiter. I--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's with the environmental -- Collier
County's Environmental Department.
MR. KENNEDY: Okay. And I had a contractor board my small
boat, and we went down as we were clearing. And he told me, he says
that -- oh, he says, by the time I'd get a price in and everything and
organize it, he says, you fellows probably will have it all -- a route
through the crick, and so it was dropped at that point.
The contractor, I took him back and they got off the boat, and
that was the last I heard of it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Mr. Kennedy, are you
agreeable for myself to write a letter to the agencies to see if we can
get some help that way?
MR. KENNEDY: Oh, any help that we could get would be
greatly appreciated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is -- Commissioner Halas, are
you okay with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Coast Guard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Commissioner
Coletta?
Page 33
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have a consensus. I don't think
you need a vote on that one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing from Gary?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. KENNEDY: Would you like to hear from Gary?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not necessarily. I think the board
gave direction.
MR. KENNEDY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we know where we're going.
MR. KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GREGORY PELLECHIA TO
DISCUSS JOHNNYCAKE DRIVE PORTION OF THE WILLOW
WEST STORMW A TER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT -
PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: The next public petition is a public petition request
by Gregory Pellechia to discuss the Johnny Cake Drive portion of the
Willow West Stormwater Improvement Project.
Commissioners, I have to give you my apologies, number one,
because I have had a public petition on this particular item before, and
if I was in better health and I was in the office at the time, I would
have written this particular petitioner a letter that basically said it had
already been heard by the board and already been brought up to the
board vis-a-vis a regular agenda item.
So for that, my apologies. This one -- this one got through my
office. I was out, and we didn't catch it, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's kind of a -- big of a guy to say
Page 34
February 26-27, 2008
no to, isn't he?
Sir, please.
MR. PELLECHIA: Can I carry on? Okay.
On March 27th of last year the board was asked to approve the
Willow West stormwater Improvement Project, Number 510776,
which included funding for culverts and swales on both Johnny Cake
Drive and Mentor Drive.
The board voted to fund only the swale portion of the Willow
West Stormwater Improvement Project saying that the culverts were
the full responsibility of the homeowners.
This -- following this decision made by the Board of
Commissioners, Johnny Cake Drive homeowners were proactive and
fully cooperated with the Collier County Stormwater Department by
paying for their own culverts out of their pocket, totaling expense for
the nine homes was $36,000. Mentor Drive homeowners refused to
do this at the same time.
At the subsequent board meeting on January, just recently,
January 15,2008, the board was, once again, asked by the County
Stormwater Department to approve funding for the remaining of the
Willow West Stormwater Improvement Project which consisted of
replacing and installing new culverts on Mentor Drive.
We would like to know why the Johnny Cake Drive homeowners
were excluded from this. We were part of the same stormwater
improvement project from the beginning, and without our cooperation
and benefit of this project, it would cease to exist.
Commissioners approved funding all the culvert work on Mentor
Drive but not on Johnny Cake Drive. We feel Johnny Cake Drive
homeowners are entitled to -- for the $36,000 to be reimbursed.
Nine homes on Johnny Cake Drive were a necessary and
imperative part of the Willow West Stormwater Improvement Project,
therefore, we request the same consideration given to Mentor Drive
homeowners.
Page 35
February 26-27,2008
We would like to be compensated for the money we were -- paid
or we paid ourselves for the culvert portion of the Willow West
Stormwater Improvement Project. And that is all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's it?
MR. PELLECHIA: That is it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Any questions,
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for being with us today.
MR. PELLECHIA: Okay.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2008-47: APPOINTING ROBERT A.
PENDERGRASS (FROM THE "RESIDENT" CATEGORY
W /TERM LIMITS EXPIRING ON 3/31/10) TO THE PELICAN
BAY SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is, I believe, 9B. And that
is an appointment to the Pelican Bay Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas is going to make
a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that Mr. Robert
Pendergrass be appointed to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board,
and that was the committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 36
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9C is a time certain.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2008-48: RE-APPOINTING DALE L. LEWIS
(W /W AIVER OF TERM LIMIT) AND BETTY R. SCHUDEL TO
THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Move on to 9D, and that's appointment to the members of the
Radio Road Beautification Advisory Board, and I'll make a motion to
appoint Dale Lewis and Betty Schudel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries, 4-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2008-49: RE-APPOINTING BILL L. NEAL
(W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMIT) AND MAURICE GUTIERREZ
Page 37
February 26-27,2008
(W/W AIVER OF TERM LIMIT) TO THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
Next one is appointment of members to the Bayshore
Beautification Advisory Committee.
MS. FILSON: And, Commissioner, in may just interject
something on this one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You betcha.
MS. FILSON: Bill Neal, 12-year member, seven excused
absences.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not 17.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seven.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Seven, yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow. Commissioner Fiala, you want
to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make a motion to -- motion
to approve Bill Neal and Maurice Gutierrez on this committee per the
committee recommendation. And also, I was wondering ifthere's -- if
we could have an alternate position for -- in case there are excused
absences so somebody could be voting. Dwight Oakley comes to all
of these meetings, and that would be nice to have him as an alternate
so he can fill in whenever people are out of town.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not a part of your motion, but I
think that's direction to the County Attorney's Office and Sue to see if
that's allowed in the ordinance.
MS. FILSON: Okay. We presently don't have that provision in
the ordinance, but the County Attorney could amend the ordinance to
indicate that you want an alternate on this committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that would be --
MS. FILSON: And in your vote, is that also to waive section 7B
of the 2001-55 for the two-term limit?
Page 38
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That is a part of my motion.
So my motion is to waive section B, did you say?
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh, section 7B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Section 7B, and approve Bill Neal
and Maurice Gutierrez.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. It's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. KLATZKOW: And we have board direction to amend the
ordinance to bring it back to include an alternate?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It might be helpful, because Bill
right now is -- you know, he goes away in the summers and it would
be helpful to have somebody fill in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, I -- you know, I think
that's a good idea but we didn't do that to the Productivity Committee,
which I'm still amazed on that whole deal. But I'll go along with your
request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Nods head.)
MR. KLATZKOW: We have direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Brings us to lOA, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's going to take a while.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You want to take a break?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Let's go to 15 after, and then
Page 39
February 26-27,2008
we'll go to our time certain at 10:30.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item is 1OB. No that one's
withdrawn.
Item #10C
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS EVALUATE THE FEASIBILITY OF A
RURAL FRINGE MIXED-USE DISTRICT TRANSFER OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM APPLICANT PROPOSAL
RELATIVE TO SEVERANCE ELIGIBILITY IN RELATION TO
THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION & MAINTENANCE AND CONVEYANCE
BONUS CREDIT TO A CDn - TO INVITE OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES TO THE MARCH 25, 2008 BCC
MEETING TO DISCUSS OPTIONS REGARDING TDR'S
MR. MUDD: 10C, sir. lOC is a recommendation that the Board
of County Commissioners evaluate the feasibility of a rural fringe
mixed-use district Transfer of Development Rights Program applicant
proposal relative to severance eligibility in relation to the attainment
of the environmental restoration and maintenance conveyance bonus
credit to a CDD.
Mr. Joe Thompson, Senior Planner, Comprehensive Planning
Department for Community Development's Environmental Services,
will present.
MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, Commissioners. Give me
one moment. I'm going to queue up a PowerPoint.
Okay. Thank you. For the record, Joe Thompson,
Comprehensive Planning Department.
This issue today that we're discussing deals primarily with the
Page 40
February 26-27,2008
TDR program, specifically with respect to the conveyance bonus
credit that's associated with the program. Actually we're dealing with
an issue of eligibility really.
The issue, really simply, is whether a community development
district, a CDD, can be eligible for the conveyance bonus. Now, we're
not basing it off of an interpretation question. We're basing it off of,
can a CDD be viewed as an eligible governmental agency, a land
managing governmental agency for the purposes of attaining the
conveyance bonus credit. That's the question. It's a policy question.
What staff did is we looked at our interpretation of what the
intent of the bonus amendments were. And you look at specifically
the conveyance bonus. It was contemplated at adoption that an
agency like the South Florida Water Management District would be an
agency that you would essentially convey your property to. They
would manage it. That would be an eligible governmental agency.
And actually, other agencies that would be eligible -- when you
look at agencies that have the knowledge and a history of restoration
and maintenance activities, you look at South Florida Water
Management District, like I referenced, the Division of Forestry,
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District, and potentially
Conservation Collier on a limited basis. Those are the type of
agencies that staff believes should be managing properties,
TDR-severed properties.
Now, with respect to North Belle Meade, staff has recently come
to an arrangement with the Collier Soil and Water Conservation
District where if they were to submit -- a property owner was to
submit a site-specific restoration and maintenance plan that actually
met the Land Development Code requirements for what we require in
the code, they could convey their property to the Soil and Water
District because they are, essentially, a state agency.
And that's a site specific restoration and maintenance plan. We're
talking about the property in question could be a North Belle Meade,
Page 41
February 26-27, 2008
South Belle Meade.
Now, when we look specifically at the Florida Statute for a CDD,
190.002(l)(a), it references clearly what the intent ofa CDD is, basic
development services and also to provide a solution to the state's
planning, management and financing needs for the delivery of capital
infrastructure. So we're looking at basic development services and
capital infrastructure. That's the intent.
Then if you assess the legislative findings of a community
development district, you look at it from the sound planning practices
and principles perspective, and it's highly unlikely that the state
legislature anticipated or intended the use of a CDD to conduct off-site
restoration management activities for TDR-severed properties in
perpetuity.
Brief summary. The CDD proposal undermines the intent and
viability of the TDR bonus amendments, in staff opinion. CDD
proposal fails to recognize the existing management/conveyance
arrangement that we have with the Soil and Water District, and
thirdly, the proposal is not consistent with 190.002(1) (a) and the
legislative findings.
Essentially, in summary, the staff recommendation would be that
the BCC concur with staffs position that a CDD is not an acceptable
governmental agency for the purposes of attaining the conveyance
bonus credit.
And an alternate scenario, if the board accepts the premise that a
CDD is an acceptable governmental agency, staff would request that
we have some guidance on how to proceed with ensuring that the
TDR program is not undermined in terms of its intent.
And with that, I'd take any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And I share a lot of the
concerns that you mentioned, also some additional concerns. One, we
seem to be stuck in a quagmire and we're not going anyplace.
Page 42
February 26-27, 2008
Everything is a dead stop.
Soil and water, who seems to be the agency that fits that criteria
of a government agency that would be the person to manage these
lands, there's -- what's the problem with that, with them coming
forward? Explain that again.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, essentially what they did is they
submitted a general management plan to the environmental services
department to assess. It was a plan that would have encapsulated all
of North Belle Meade. Well, I guess the issue was, essentially, with
environmental services -- and I don't want to speak for them, but from
my understanding in collaborating with them is that they needed more
specificity.
So if you were to come in as a property owner with a site specific
restoration and maintenance plan working with the Soil and Water
District that addressed the needs of that property, whether it's
ecological or hydrological and that met the LDC requirements, you
could then convey to the Soil and Water District, and that's the
arrangement that we're working with now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we do a hybrid? I mean,
because we don't how long it's going to be before you get the soil and
water whereby we allow them to proceed with the fact, at some point
in time, that when the soil and water or some other agency -- and I
have no problems even with private --
MR. THOMPSON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- agencies out there since
there's Conservancy or Wildlife Federation or someone like that
assuming responsibility for these lands. And I bet you they can do it
for even less than any government agency out there could do.
But in the meantime, could we come up with some hybrid that
would allow us to go forward with CCD (sic) with the thing that we
could call them due at that point in time, we have a mechanism set up
where they could channel the money to this organization and they
Page 43
February 26-27,2008
could take over the responsibility and ownership?
MR. THOMPSON: Staff could certainly assess that possibility.
It's just a matter of sitting down with the stakeholders and figuring out
if that's possible, in terms of implementation, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand. My concern
is that we're getting so lost in the details we're not producing the final
product.
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And somehow we've got to get
this off dead center and get it going, because the TDR program is a
wonderful program, even in spite of the economy out there, it's still
got viability to it and it will survive. The only thing that will kill it is
our inability to be able to act.
MR. THOMPSON: I agree with you, sir, and I think you raise a
good point, and that's something that staff needs to look at because
there are various venues that we could go with hybrid-type alternative
scenarios where we could produce these last two credits for
participants.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
MR. THOMPSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I've thought about this, and
I think this would be a great plan if the land was adjacent to the CDD
so that the people who are going to move in there have an
understanding of what their requirements are. I believe where this
proposed CDD is and where the lands are for the TDRs, there's some
separation --
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- by a number of miles; is that
correct?
MR. THOMPSON: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the people who are going to be
moving into this area understand that they have an obligation that they
Page 44
February 26-27, 2008
have to pay for the infrastructure. But do they really know what the
cost ofthe mitigation of taking care of this -- these TDRs that's going
to be forced upon them? Do we have any kind of cost estimate?
MR. THOMPSON: I think that's a good question, and I would
leave that to the applicant who proposed the potential arrangement to
answer. But you are correct in your assessment. The CDD -- the
proposed CDD is in section 36, south ofImmokalee Road, and the
sending lands are in North Belle Meade, contiguous and
noncontiguous kinds of groupings of property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I like Commissioner Coletta's idea. I
think it's unique, and I think we can address it during the CDD
process. Each CDD is different. I appreciate somebody's opinion on
the law, but I think we need County Attorney's opinion.
But the way I read it, it is allowable to restore and maintain
preserves. But CDD's are approved through resolutions; is that
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: CDDs are approved through the board by
resolution, yes.
(Commissioner Coyle entered the commission chambers.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: By resolution. Could that be stated in
the resolution to memorialize what Commissioner Coletta has
suggested, is to wedge a state -- or a government agency is ready to
take over the lands, to manage the lands that will be converted at that
time?
MR. KLATZKOW: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So it is possible.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just one brief point,
question, ifI may. The people that are getting the TDR's that are
purchasing to be able to do their development, they have to pay for all
the credits, correct?
MR. THOMPSON: My understanding is that the sending land
Page 45
February 26-27,2008
applicants are actually the same applicant or a subsidiary of the
developer, so it's essentially --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. THOMPSON: -- the developer is severing the credit to
themselves or a subsidiary development corporation and developing in
the tract where the CDD is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. Let me clarify the
question --
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and talking about money.
MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The developer has the
responsibility to pay the money for the TDR's whether it's under their
jurisdiction or not, correct?
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it makes no difference the
fact that it's removed by miles or if it's next door, their cost is a fixed
cost more or less, to be able to have to do that, and it's going to be
assigned to the development when it gets going, it's going to be passed
on to the people that purchase in there, and that is not something that's
up for discussion because that's a fact.
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's no way they're going to
absorb that and not do it. So whether it's a private entity or CCD (sic)
that's doing it, the cost is fixed.
MR. THOMPSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's kind of a moot point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go to public speakers ifthere's
no questions by our staff at this time. Duke, are you signed up as a
public speaker?
MR. DUKE: I was here only to support Mr. Thompson, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, good. First speaker?
Page 46
February 26-27,2008
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers, Mr. Chairman. Nancy
Payton. She'll be followed by Brad Cornell.
MR. MUDD: There is a maintenance requirement cost, okay, in
perpetuity outside of the fixed cost of the TDR. So there is a
continuing cost for the life of this particular property. Bring that--
MS. PAYTON: Good morning, Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. We're not comfortable at all with a CDD
accepting the sending lands for a variety of reasons, and many were
articulated by your staff, that a CDD really, eventually, when it's
going to be managed by the residents, are going to have very little
interest or concern about 110 scattered acres in North Belle Meade. In
fact, they probably won't even be able to figure out how to get there,
much less properly manage them and keep them exotic free.
So I think that that is a very bad alternative and it was not what
was envisioned when the fourth TDR was developed, and I was part of
that. And I think it gives some insight into how Mr. Anderson, who
was part of coming up with this idea in the CDD, never consulted the
environmental community. I think he kind of knew we would think,
this isn't what the program was about.
It does bring up, this agenda item, a very pressing problem and
one that we all need to sit down together and address, and that is, who
is going to ultimately take these sending lands in North Belle Meade.
In South Belle Meade we know the state has said that they would take
them to be part of Picayune Strand.
It's North Belle Meade that's really the problem, and we do have
to sit down, get soil and water off their dime to come up with a plan
that we all can understand and can be done and work specifically on
managing those sending lands and not try to solve the county's water
management or stormwater problems, but to initially just take those
lands with an overall management plan they have for North Belle
Meade so it can manage it for wide-range species, we can manage it
for rehydration and we can manage it for public access.
Page 47
February 26-27, 2008
The Growth Management Plan doesn't allow private entities to
take land -- sending lands, and one of the reasons was public access,
public enjoyment, public use. It's more -- and it can be monitored
better if it's in a public forum.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you done? We don't want to
interrupt your time.
MS. PAYTON: Well, ifhe has a question, I'll take it. The most
important message I'm trying to get across here is that there's an
urgency to sit down with stakeholders, interested parties, landowners,
agencies, to find someone who will responsibly take these lands, and a
CDD is not the answer. And in the interim, I think the county ought to
be accepting these lands that have severed their four TDR's.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Like the parks and rec.?
MS. PAYTON: Conservation Collier.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe the state recognizes a
CDD as a form of government, so it's not a private entity.
MS. PAYTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The concern that I have --
and I hope that I get some kind of an answer out of the people that
have the CDD -- is what their projected costs are that are going to be
basically put upon the residents as they move into this CDD, okay.
So I mean, it -- I can see where this is a viable way of doing it.
My concerns are, what is the cost going to be? What's the projected
cost of keeping up the maintenance program?
MS. PAYTON: No, it's not a viable way of doing it because the
goal of the North Belle Meade sending lands is to have this large area
of land, thousands of acres under one management program. If you
have, I don't know how many CDD's and maybe somebody else
manages it, you'll never have a comprehensive management plan.
Folks won't even know where their land is. It really does need to go to
an agency that has a demonstrated knowledge and record of managing
Page 48
February 26-27,2008
land. A CDD is just not it, and it's a bastardization of the program.
It's not what the program's about.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's get into the next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Doug Lewis.
MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
And we couldn't agree more with Nancy Payton, a CDD is not an
appropriate government entity. It is a public entity, but it's not set up
for land management. And I think that the homeowners association
that ultimately ends up with that responsibility of land management, if
that's ever to be considered, is going to be really unpleasantly
surprised, and they're not going to be good land managers.
We're going to have a very difficult time monitoring and tracking
the management plans of all these CDD's and other entities. It just
sounds like a recipe for disaster. And also, as I read the executive
summary of this item, it really reads like the developer is deeding the
land to themselves, which -- it's a very strange relationship. I think it's
a tortured relationship that shouldn't even be considered.
We do recognize that there is a problem here. We need to find an
agency that will be willing to accept these, and I would recommend
that you, Board of County Commissioners, consider accepting these
lands on an interim basis. Nancy mentioned that. I think that's an
excellent idea.
You know, you have the program yourselves. You would be an
excellent interim accepter of this. You're a government agency and
you have land management expertise in Conservation Collier, as well
as parks and rec.
And in -- then, while that is going on, convene a group of
stakeholders to discuss this quickly and come up with some
recommendations and bring in the state agencies like Big Cypress
Basin, South Florida Water Management District, Department of
Page 49
February 26-27,2008
Forestry, et cetera, to consider how that can be worked out on a
permanent basis. Thanks very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a question for Mr.
Cornell?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just -- I wanted to see if
maybe we could get people -- the channel of thinking in the direction
so we can clarify it.
My whole issue is the fact that this thing here is stopped, it's not
going forward, which we're trying to get it to the next level, whatever
it is. Do I really care if it's Water Management, the Conservancy, or
some other government agency taking over, no. It's just trying to get
the darn thing underway.
But as far as county government taking it over and managing it,
I'm really starting to have concerns over that.
Mr. Mudd, with the dilemma that we're in now with the budget,
where would this put us if we all of a sudden wanted to assume
responsibility for this?
MR. MUDD: Well, it's not -- if you're talking outside of
Conservation Collier, it's not going to put us in good stead. And I will
tell you, even county governments, okay, that have had to go into land
management don't do a good job. Conservancy Collier is very unique
in that regard in order to get this done.
Now, let's talk about it a little bit. The lands get put in and
they've got a conservation easement, or whatever, in the process. And
Conservation Collier now has to do the maintenance. But you haven't
had to buy the land, so it really kind of helps you a little bit because
you haven't had the capital outlay to purchase the property like we
have traditionally.
And, yeah, you're going to assume a maintenance responsibility,
but you're just going to get about 150 acres into your portfolio as far
as lands that you're basically managing. So it's cheaper for
Page 50
February 26-27,2008
Conservation Collier to join the program, so to speak, in that regard.
The part that's going to be a challenge -- and I believe it's
something that Ms. Sulecki and her folks have to -- have to -- we have
to get good hands on, is that 15 percent maintenance amount of money
that's in the ordinance, is that going to be enough in order to maintain
all the properties that we have in perpetuity? And we'll have to take a
look at that.
But I would say from a -- if you remember the Pepper Ranch
discussion that you had, you pretty much bankrupt the program except
for, you know, a couple -- up to 20 million, and you were pretty much
done. This way you could bring additional properties into the
portfolio, assume the maintenance for it without having to buy it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all right. I'll wait till after
the speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: -- is Doug Lewis.
MR. LEWIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Doug Lewis. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Roetzel & Andress,
and I'm here today representing Caloosa Reserve on this item.
There were some specific questions that were asked. I can
address those specifically at the end of my general comments.
By way of background, prior to June, 2005, the rural fringe
mixed-use district TDR program offered a single base TDR to
incentivize voluntary participation in the program.
The program at this time was in a failed state, as the single TDR
did not provide sufficient economic incentive to encourage
participation in the program.
In order to generate interest and encourage program participation,
the Comprehensive Plan was amended on June 25, 2005, to provide
Page 51
February 26-27, 2008
for three additional bonus TDR's, namely the early entry bonus TDR,
the environmental restoration and maintenance TDR, and the
conveyance TDR.
The land management code was -- Land Development Code was
later amended effective as of August -- October 3,2005, to implement
the comprehensive amending and providing for these three additional
bonus TDR's.
Commissioners, it is now almost two-and-a-halfyears later and
the program activity and participation has been significant based on
these additional incentives. Staff has processed and/or approved TDR
severance applications for base and early-entry bonus TDR's on
several hundred sending land parcels and thousands of acres of
environmentally sensitive lands. And I have personally been involved
with many of these severance applications on behalf of various clients.
Despite all of this activity in severing base and early-entry bonus
TDR's, staff has only processed and approved in this
two-and-a-half-year period a single application for the conveyance of
bonus TDR.
Page 4 of the executive summary states -- says that the TDR
program has not yet reached a point of, quote, undeniable dysfunction.
I'm note sure what staff means by this; however, two and a half years
after the creation of these three additional bonus TDR's, a single
application for the conveyance bonus speaks volumes about the
current state of dysfunction.
The fact is that we still do not have a list of governmental
agencies who are willing and able to take title to these sending land
parcels. It is precisely this problem that has necessitated our clients'
efforts to obtain what we might call an interim solution or repository
for determination by this board that sending lands can be conveyed to
a CDD for purposes of obtaining the bonus -- conveyance bonus TDR.
Section 2.03.07(D)(4)(C)2B (sic) of the Land Development Code
provides that conveyance bonus credits are generated at a rate of one
Page 52
February 26-27, 2008
credit for each TDR severed from that RFU MFU sending land that is
conveyed in fee simple to a federal, state, or local government agency
as a gift.
The interpretive question for the board to decide today is whether
a community development district is, quote, a local governmental
agency. In this regard, I have four comments.
First, while the board interpretation impacts our clients' project,
the interpretative question to be addressed by the board today would
apply to any future proposed transfer of sending lands.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could he please finish,
Commissioner Henning? This is very vital.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Commissioner Coletta wants
you to continue.
MR. LEWIS: Thank you.
The interpretative question to be addressed by the board today
would apply to any future proposed transfer of sending lands to a
CDD located in the rural fringe. As such, the particulars of our clients'
project are not directly relevant to the question to be considered today.
The board will have the opportunity to address our clients'
particular CDD when that CDD of creation application comes before
you at a later date.
Second, pursuant to chapter 190 of the Florida Statutes, a
community development district is clearly a local government agency.
I have a slide. It is a local unit of special government for the purpose
of having general powers under section 190.011, which include,
among other things, the ability to acquire by gift, devise and/or
otherwise dispose of other real property.
And it has certain special powers under section 190.012 which go
well beyond the powers that were listed on page 2 of your executive
summary. Such powers include things such as the ability to finance,
fund, plan, establish, acquire, construct and/or reconstruct, enlarge,
extend, equip, operate or maintain systems and facilities for the
Page 53
February 26-27,2008
following -- following items: Conservation areas, mitigation areas and
wildlife habitat, including the maintenance of any plant or animal
species, and any related interest in real or personal property.
In addition, any other project, facility, or service required by
development approval, interlocal agreement, zoning condition or
permit issued by governmental authority with jurisdiction in the
district.
A CDD clearly has the power to maintain sending lands under an
approved restoration and maintenance plan.
Third, page 3 of the executive summary states that staff does not
believe that a CDD qualifies as a conveyance-accepting governmental
agency, as they are not viewed as a public agency configured or
equipped to conduct the necessary land management activities.
Being configured or equipped as an agency to conduct in-house
land management activities is clearly not an express or implied test in
determining eligibility for the conveyance bonus under the code or the
Comprehensive Plan.
Obligations to provide land management activities are created
under an improved restoration and maintenance plan for the purposes
of the environmental restoration and maintenance bonus TDR.
Private landowners, much like a CDD -- and I suspect many
other types of governmental agencies can and do contract with outside
mitigation and restoration contractors who, I might add, must be
deemed qualified by the county under an improved RMP pursuant to
the requirements of the code in the compo plan for issuance of the
environmental restoration bonus TDC.
In other words, the CDD, just like a private landowner -- and
those petitions have been approved and processed -- is adequately
equipped to contract with an outside company to provide any required
land management activities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we wrap it up, please.
MR. LEWIS: Yep.
Page 54
February 26-27,2008
Finally, the code and the Comprehensive Plan provide that no --
that no -- well, I won't give you the final comment just in interest of
time. But I will say that we are in a critical juncture right now in the
TDR program. We're talking about time and money.
And again, we're two-and-a-half years into the program and we
need to provide some market certainty, some stability.
There were some comments that were -- some questions that
were raised, we have been unable to get Conservation Collier to work
on this program, to take these lands. We've been unable to get Collier
soil and water to take these programs.
There was a meeting that I was personally involved with well
over a year ago in which staff directed the type of program that Nancy
Payton mentioned, an overall comprehensive plan. Within the last
week staff has indicated a new direction that they would like, instead
of an overall comprehensive plan for the sending land, they would like
individual RMP's.
The point is today, here we are, we have a development, we've
participated in good faith, and we have no real solution, no agencies
that are lining up. Competition is not a bad thing. I think it provides
incentives and it provides opportunities. We estimate, based on our
RMP that we have currently, between an annual of500 to $1,000
annual maintenance cost per acre, 110 units --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. He said
something interesting though. I felt, as you looked at this, we've got a
perfect plan really. CDD wants to get going. That's what it's all
about. All of their other stuff he was saying, they just want to move
forward.
The TDR program; we feel strongly about the TDR program.
We want it to be successful. The environmentalists want to make sure
that the land that we have is preserved in the proper way and open for
public access. So we've got all of this stuff in place.
Page 55
February 26-27, 2008
So we have Conservation Collier, and I don't see why you can't
give it to them. You're willing to give the land, you're willing to pay
the maintenance, and the Conservancy and the environmental
community in general would be happy if Conservation Collier was
taking care of it, so what's the problem?
Just give it to Conservation Collier, put it in your CDD that
you're going to be paying for it, and we're done with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I couldn't have said it better.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What did you say the maintenance
was?
MR. LEWIS: It depends on the scope of the RMP. Now, we
have an individualized RMP that's site specific. It hasn't been
approved yet, but if it gets approved, we think -- and we haven't bid it
out yet, but based on prior RMP's, we think it will be between 500 to
$1,000 of annual maintenance going forward per acre.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Per acre.
MR. LEWIS: And there's 110 acres. So it's basically 500 to
1,000 per year per homeowner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's -- per homeowner?
MR. LEWIS: Yeah. There's 110 units and there's 110 acres.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So it's 500 to $1,000 per
homeowner to take on that. And is that going to be in your -- in your
documents as a CDD, that they have to --
MR. LEWIS: When we come back, we would address that issue
with the board, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you know, we need a -- one
government agency at the end of the day to manage the North Belle
Meade. I don't see Conservation Collier doing that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why?
Page 56
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is hundreds of thousands. You
think you can -- you can fit I don't know how many Pepper Ranches
into this. It is a lot of acreage. And I think the soil and water will be
poised later on to do so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then maybe we can just make a
provision to do that to -- maybe Conservation Collier can hold it until
such an agreement is worked out, and then they can give it to soil and
water.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we can do that, but what happens
-- maybe that is -- maybe that is a solution and the residents in the
CDD -- but how do we know that Conservation Collier wants it? I
guess we need to ask them, right? Put it on a future agenda. If not,
we still need to deal with this issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If Conservation Collier was
agreeable and if it wouldn't cost the taxpayers of Collier County any
additional money, I mean, where the CDD would pick up the cost of it
in perpetuity -- my concern is, this is land that's already going to
conservation. It's a given.
Conservation Collier funds their -- is designated to bring new
lands into conservation. I want to make sure that at no point in time
we divert the Collier Conservation funds to work the rural fringe there
and rural lands, which is supposed to be a marriage between the
sending and receiving lands. So that would be my only concern. If
we can show the fact that we don't incur any cost and that the funds
that go into Collier -- Conservation Collier can be for what they were
originally designated for, I'd have no problem with them being the
managing authority.
MR. LEWIS: To your point, Commissioner Coletta --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So can I ask a question? Ifwe can go
this way, is, ask Conservation Collier if they want the lands to manage
it as an interim until we find -- or somebody steps forward as a
government agency to manage all the lands in the North Belle Meade
Page 57
February 26-27,2008
(sic) --
MR. LEWIS: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and then the next thing is to -- if
they're not willing to, is to allow this to go forward as a CDD interim
management until we find one government agency to manage all the
lands in North Belle Meade.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. LEWIS: Commissioner, the reason why we're here is
because, in essence, we've -- a year and a half -- two-and-a-half years
into the program, a year and a half later we still don't have the answer.
And we have a CDD petition that's ready to go before the board.
It's been reviewed by staff. There's a time and a money consideration.
I think you can appreciate that as a commission. And our client really
has no assurance at this point that we can go forward with our
development, and especially in this economic climate --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You must have offended somebody.
They're all leaving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. What'd you say?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What did you say?
MR. LEWIS: I thought you could appreciate in this climate that
we have a real economic uncertainty. And what we're looking for is
some certainty that we don't have today. And you know, we've been
told -- I was in a meeting over a year ago, and we were told that we
would have an approved -- based on the CREW management plan, an
approved RMP for Collier soil and water. That was well over a year
ago.
And what this does is give competition, it gives options, it
provides an interim repository, and it provides our client and --
frankly, the certainty that it needs to go forward with the development
I think, not only our clients, but other clients would need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we have to make a
motion on this.
Page 58
February 26-27, 2008
MR. MUDD: Sir, and I could have Conservation Collier back
here on the 25th of March. This way it gives your subcommittee a
chance to hear it, okay, in the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We could have it back to the Board of
Commissioners on the 25th?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. LEWIS: If it helps, we've approached them, and we have
gotten nowhere. What I don't want to happen is that we waste another
two or three weeks or another month. We have -- you know, we have
loan documents, financing commitments. And again, again, we're
two-and-a-halfyears into the program, and we still don't have an
answer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You may -- if I could recommend,
you may want to wait because we might approve staffs
recommendations, the way I see it, personally. One more month is not
going to hurt anybody.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree, Commissioner
Henning. Let's not let ourselves get stampeded into making a decision
today.
The point here is that we need to find a way to move the TDR
program forward. We don't want to get stampeded into a decision.
This is the first time this has come to us. We have not been part of
this delay.
If you were having problems getting people to work with you,
you should have come to us and said, will you please help us solve
these problems.
So I'm not inclined to want to just run into making a decision on
this issue today, but I think the recommendation that we get
Conservation Collier in here -- I would suggest we bring others in
here, other governmental agencies and find out from them what their
role should be in an overall management program. Let's not do it
Page 59
February 26-27, 2008
incrementally. Let's get all of those agencies here the next meeting
and try to resolve this once and for all and give the petitioner closure
to this and hopefully arrive at a reasonable decision concerning the
maintenance of our environmentally sensitive lands.
So that would be my motion, if you're looking for a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that. I think that's a great
idea.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And in your motion, if we can't
resolve that, we're going to allow the CDD to go forward, but with the
caveat in the creation of the CDD in the resolution, they shall -- they
shall turn over lands to a central agency, government agencies that
want to manage and preserve the North Belle Meade.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hesitate to include a guarantee of
a future vote in this particular motion, but I would say to you that if
we don't -- if we don't reconcile it in the next meeting, I personally
would have no objection to doing it on that basis, on a temporary
basis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Commissioner Coyle's got a
motion, seconded by Commissioner Halas.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I -- the only thing that I'm
concerned about -- I think this is the right direction, but I just wanted
to add to this that if we put it on the back of a CDD and the citizens
that are going to move there, a CDD pays almost--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not on the agenda right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know, but I'm just making sure
that we understand that it could be a huge burden.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have that concern, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
Page 60
February 26-27, 2008
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You've got some direction.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take 10 minutes.
MR. MUDD: Come back on the 25th with the government
agencies involved. I'll invite the ones that I have no control over. If
they come, fine. If they don't, you know, I can't force them. And
present this issue and try to find a willingness of the folks to accept the
property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a 10-minute
break. Be back -- well, nine minutes. Let's be back at 10:50.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, nine minutes.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #9A
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS BY ANDREA SIMS, WATERS-OLDANI
EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT, A DIVISION OF THE WATERS
CONSULTING GROUP, INC. AND CONSIDERATION OF THE
RECOMMENDED FIVE FINALISTS FOR THE COLLIER
COUNTY ATTORNEY POSITION - MOTION TO APPROVE
Page 61
February 26-27,2008
SELECTION OF THE 5 FINAL CANDIDATES - APPROVED;
DISCUSSION REGARDING INTERVIEWING PROCEDURES
AND QUESTIONS - INTERVIEWS TO BE HELD APRIL 9, 2008
- CONSENSUS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The Board of Commissioners
has a time certain, that's 9A, a presentation to the Board of
Commissioners by Andrea Sims.
Can we be quiet in the back of the room, please.
Executive recruitment and division of the Waters Consultant
Group, Inc., in consideration of the five finalists for the County
Attorney position.
Ms. Sims?
MS. SIMS: Good morning, Commissioners. Wanted to--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask that
the staff take this thing off the visualizer. It has nothing to do with
this subject. It might be confusing. Sorry.
MS. SIMS: That's quite all right.
I had provided a memo that was in your interview packet that
discussed the pros and cons of the candidates that I had entertained.
Elaine Asad, Maria Chiaro, Gary Glassman, JeffKlatzkow,
Michael Hunt, Julia Lee, John Turner, and David Weigel. If you have
any questions on my discussion, I can go over that. But other than
that, I wanted to go to the recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I have a question --
MS. SIMS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on one. I was approached by a
member of the public who told me that Marie Chiaro was sanctioned
by the local courts or -- there could be another word for it -- of what I
understand is, she had a case, it was on the docket and she failed to
show up. And to me, that is a -- very concerning to me, that a person,
one of the candidates, the finalist, is -- in my opinion, has a black
Page 62
February 26-27,2008
mark.
MS. SIMS: I can understand that concern. We will be doing--
for the final five, we will do in-depth background checks which will
include review of any records such as that. If that was the case, you
know, we have a couple of choices. One is, we could, you know, prior
to her being invited to -- and, you know, she could be removed from
the final list prior to interviewing.
I would hate to move someone -- not move someone forward
based on something from the public that may turn out to be something
not as severe as a sanction. But, you know, I'll defer to your judgment
on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any other comments or
questions before we get to the recommendations on the five finalists?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I would think that we need
to get more additional information about Maria in regards to that
particular charge.
MS. SIMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I look forward to getting that
information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I agree. May I also ask?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There was another one being
considered. I'm sorry, I don't remember the name.
MS. FILSON: Spencer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. SIMS: Thomas Spencer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Should we discuss that at this
time as well?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's part of the 10 finalists.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five.
MS. SIMS: Five.
Page 63
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Five.
MS. SIMS: That's part of the five.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. SIMS: And the reason -- we can discuss that with Thomas.
He was sent an electronic questionnaire, as the others candidates were,
for -- because of the email account that he has, he did not get it. When
he read the newspaper article saying that all candidates got the
questionnaire, he, you know, raised the issue.
I explained that that wasn't the case, but we -- I did also explain
that he was a person who was to get a questionnaire. We sent it to
him, we received it; however, I also let him know that because of the
lateness, there would be a question mark on whether he would be
moving forward or not.
Based on the interviews that I've had -- and again, I'll, you know,
reiterate, you know, in the -- what I did in my status report. The
candidates were excellent; however, given the criteria of, you know,
the strong, you know, law management, public sector, Florida
experience, these were the ones I was moving forward. Because I was
moving forward with only four, I would -- you know, would
recommend that he be treated as a semi-finalist. I would have an
in-depth interview with him. He would provide the additional written
materials and if -- I don't know if that's any kind of a sign or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's angry.
MS. SIMS: He's angry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It clicked over to the generator.
MS. SIMS: Exactly. You know, you know, he would move
forward also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other discussion before
we get to the five finalists, please.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MS. SIMS: Okay. Would you like to take them one at a time?
Page 64
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. SIMS: Okay. The first one recommended Maria Chiaro,
and a motion for her to move forward as a finalist.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why don't we
do all --
MS. SIMS: Oh, all?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- five, actually six. Are we going to
do six?
MS. SIMS: No. It would be the five.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Five, okay.
MS. SIMS: No, okay. So we would be doing Maria Chiaro, Jeff
Klatzkow, Gary Glassman, John Turner, and assuming that Mr.
Spencer moves forward successfully after the interview, he is a finalist
also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, comments on the five
finalists?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve the five
finalists.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas. Is
there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 65
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Unanimous approval on the vote or
the selection of the five finalists.
MS. SIMS: Great. And I'll get back to you on, you know, the
questions that you have.
The other item is the interview process. Based on discussions
with staff, we're recommending that the interview take place on
Wednesday, April 9th, so that we'll avoid both your legislative session
and, you know, the holidays.
So the interviews would take place, starting with an early
morning meet and greet and it would be, you know, something casual
like a coffee just so there would be something besides the one-hour
public interview for the candidates.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Comments on the process on April
9th? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only one question, whether or not
one hour will be sufficient for the interview. How do you see this
going?
MS. SIMS: Typically they usually go a little bit longer, so if you
want, we can schedule an hour and a half. The only thing is, you
know, just being considerate of your time because you usually need at
least 15 minutes in between, so it will be a long day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what would be the result of
this interview?
MS. SIMS: The result of the interview, we would -- in fact,
you're leading me to the next piece. We have a scoring sheet for you
to choose from. Typically I help to facilitate a pros and cons of each
of the candidates, but a scoring sheet is also helpful for writing notes.
Page 66
February 26-27,2008
Prior to the interview, you'll get another, you know, book from us
with a thorough write-up on each of the candidates, you know, their
salary expectations, the pros and cons more in-depth, a copy of the
accomplishments, a critical problem that they have submitted to us, a
copy of their current ORC chart, we'll share any issues that have come
up. You know, we do a credit, a civil/criminal background check,
LexusNexus, that's why, you know, sanctioning all of these things.
We verified their degrees, bar membership and all of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we really will be selecting the
winner at this interview? I'm not sure that an hour or even an hour and
a half is sufficient to properly interview five applicants. I'm wondering
if we can spend two to three hours, at least block it out for two to three
hours; is that possible or is that --
MS. SIMS: You could. That would -- you'd probably die if you
tried to block off three hours --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SIMS: -- but an hour and a half to an hour and 45 minutes
would probably be sufficient. The other thing is, you'd probably be
taking it over two days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas -- or
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This needs to be done in the sunshine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the -- I mean, I don't know if
there's any benefit for a meet and greet time. That would be time
saved to get into the meat and potatoes of the questionnaires -- the
questions that the board has. That's my personal opinion.
I'm sorry to interrupt you. Are you complete?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think I am, except we're
going to be making a very critical decision on the basis of roughly 15
Page 67
February 26-27,2008
minutes interview per person. That--
MS. SIMS: Oh, no, no, no. This would be per person.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh.
MS. SIMS: Per person an hour.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, oh, oh, okay. I misunderstood
you.
MS. SIMS: Yeah, no, per person an hour.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. SIMS: That's why I said you would kill yourself if you tried
to schedule three hour interviews each person.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with that assessment, yeah.
Okay. So an hour to hour and a half per person.
MS. SIMS: Per person, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine with me.
MS. SIMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
MS. SIMS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think one of the things that is very
important is to have the ability to interface with the person not when
they're being interviewed but with the social background to find out
how they basically fit into the realm of things, and I think it's very,
very important that we have social --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I don't have a problem with
that now that I understand. I was on the same page as Commissioner
Coyle. And it is a very important position. If we're going to spend an
hour with all of us at one sitting with each candidate, I think that's
sufficient. I don't have a problem with that, so we can have coffee and
doughnuts and whatever beforehand, socialize.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'm not going to eat any
doughnuts, I'm going to tell you right now.
Page 68
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. You're a bagel guy, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pepperoni.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That will be a first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Strictly -- in any case, I want to
make everybody aware -- I don't know how this particular date was
picked, but depending what happens today, the meeting of April 9th of
the Expressway Authority could be a very critical one for me to be at.
It's a one o'clock meeting. So I'm really going to have to weigh where
I should be at that point in time. It will depend what the agenda is, of
course, for the Expressway Authority. So I may not be here for the
final decision that's made.
I hope when they put this together, whoever did put this schedule
together, took that into consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I changed a trip to Tallahassee, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I can't change this. I mean,
this is -- you know, there's seven other members that will be there and
it's a planned meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think maybe you can convince them
today to change their meeting. I mean, I did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I will suggest it to them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was just going to comment,
but my comments were the same as Commissioner Halas. I think it's a
good thing to meet socially.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: Good. So the direction is for me to have a meet
and greet set up with coffee and with some vendor to have set up prior
to the interviews? And the money comes from my budget?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it comes from County Manager's
budget.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to recommend--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or Commissioner Halas's travel
Page 69
February 26-27,2008
budget.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There we go. That's what I was
going to recommend.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's where all the money is
anyway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next process?
MS. SIMS: Okay. The next piece is a questionnaire. Sue and I
have been working on a questionnaire that was going to be sent to the
candidates prior to the interviews that would just get a little bit more
detail.
We eliminated the pieces that were duplicated by our -- the
background checks that we do and wanted to get your input, approval,
that, you know, these can be sent out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner--
MS. FILSON: I had originally sent a memo to each
commissioner dated February 15th with questions, and I think it was
like 18 pages. After meeting with Andrea it's down to eight pages. I
passed that out this morning. So if you would let me know which one
you want sent to the candidates.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think there are a lot of
good questions in here so, you know, I would like to see the applicants
answer all these questions.
MS. SIMS: As long as they have the time ahead of time, it's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's right.
MS. FILSON: The 18-page one are you talking about, or the
eight?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The one that says 1 through 8, page
1 through 8.
MS. SIMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would vote in favor of getting
this questionnaire out and having people answer those questions. I
Page 70
February 26-27,2008
have some recommended changes just to the score sheet and the rating
sheet.
MS. SIMS: That's fine, too. That was going to be the next piece
of things.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go to the rating sheets first.
Item number two, knowledge of Growth Management Plan. I guess I
would be more interested in understanding their knowledge of growth
management processes or procedures rather than knowledge of a
specific Growth Management Plan.
So I just think that growth management is a very, very critical
issue for Collier County, and we need applicants who understand what
growth management processes are, successful or possible, both locally
and statewide, and that's pretty much it from my standpoint.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see if we could put more
weight on management. I think that's very, very important to make
sure -- because this is a fairly large group of people, and we want to
make sure that we have good management skills and that we can
address the issues or address to make sure that we're getting maximum
efficiency out of that department.
MS. SIMS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would this prohibit us from asking
questions to the candidates when we're sitting as a body?
MS. SIMS: No, no. Actually--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it won't be scoring on our
question -- our individual questions though.
MS. SIMS: Yeah. Based on the criteria that are in these scoring
sheets that, you know, those will be how you will rate the candidates
based on the questions.
The questions will be in that book that I provide you, and
typically I provide you more than enough suggested interview
questions, and then typically ahead of time we, you know, pick the
Page 71
February 26-27,2008
ones that are most important. Say, if we give you, you know, 40
questions. That's, you know, too many for an hour session. So we
would just -- those were types of questions that you can ask, and we
would pick the ones that are most relevant, make sure that your
favorite ones are in there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the board needs to do that.
MS. SIMS: That's what I meant. When I said we, I mean, you
all will decide that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. SIMS: And you'll have it ahead of time and be able to do
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One of the most important things for
me is getting good legal advice, and this board is very -- this is a
political board. We represent different aspects of the community.
And I know that everybody counts votes, but I want the right legal
question on things that the board does. I don't want anybody -- what
we have in other areas where everybody wants to play politics. I just
want the straight and skinny, period.
MS. SIMS: Right. I understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So -- and I -- that's not in the
questionnaire. We're going to go Commissioner Fiala.
MS. SIMS: Oh, no, no, no. But in the questions that we ask --
that we give you, the suggested interview questions that you will
receive, you know, you will get questions asked of the candidates that
will give you an --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board will have to adopt that
sconng.
MS. SIMS: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner--
MS. FILSON: Well, will you send that to me ahead of time to
put on an agenda for them to adopt --
MS. SIMS: Yes.
Page 72
February 26-27,2008
MS. FILSON: -- before we actually do the interviews?
MS. SIMS: Yes, I will.
MS. FILSON: Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You narrowed down some of
the questions. There were some that -- on the original one that I found
very important. And being that we were just given this, I don't know
if they were eliminated or not. How do I make sure, or at least present
this to the other board members, that those questions that -- weren't
eliminated?
MS. SIMS: Some of the ones that may have been eliminated
asked about, you know, say questions about sanctioning and things
like that, and they duplicated the process that -- they duplicated the
released that they're already signing off on for us to do the
LexusNexus search, the civil background checks, things like that.
Others are health related, which would come out in a, you know
-- you know, a physical exam. I removed things that -- the original --
the original document that you had was set up for the judiciary, and
they're held to a different standard. We don't want to make the
County Attorney held to a different standard than, you know, say the
County Manager or other senior executives in the organization.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we do want the new County
Attorney to be held by the highest standards?
MS. SIMS: We do want them to be--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And some of these in here -- now--
and I don't know if they've been removed or not. Like have you ever
been held in contempt of court, right? I don't know if that was
removed. That was -- that was one that I thought would be -- would
be important. Have you ever been sued by a client? Some of these
things that I have in here I feel are very important, but I don't know
what you've removed.
MS. SIMS: We have removed some of those. Those would come
Page 73
February 26-27,2008
out in the background checks. Why don't -- if you can provide Sue the
ones that you're questioning and I can provide what is shared through
the background checks, we should be able to come up with something
that both parties are comfortable with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I like the direction this is
gomg.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala raises
an interesting point. And I've just looked through this more
thoroughly. I thought it was essentially the same one that I had
reviewed yesterday.
MS. SIMS: No, it's not. It's much cut.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I think you should go back to
what Commissioner Fiala had submitted first. And I'm going to
remove my support for this one.
I think the one she submitted earlier was very appropriate. There
were things that had to be removed, however. It's just that we don't
know now which ones those -- why they were removed and which
ones were removed, and we can't do that on the fly here. So I would
have to remove my support for this questionnaire, eight-page
questionnaire.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What I understand is the long -- the
18 pages, that's going to be answered in the -- in your review and
responded back to the board, correct?
MS. SIMS: Right, and that was why -- you know, what I'll do is
work with Sue to make sure that you have a comfort level that the
information that you're looking for will be covered in other -- in the
background checks that we do. And I can, you know, provide that in a
matrix format that will -- you know, she can share with you all --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle --
Page 74
February 26-27, 2008
MS. SIMS: -- by the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- may I make a suggestion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If when we -- when we -- when the
board considers a -- the questionnaire with the scoring, we also want
to know what Mrs. Sims is going to answer -- ask them and provide us
answers for. Is that -- is that fair?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fair, but the problem is, there
-- I don't know that there is a complete record of what Ms. Sims asks
and what they said. There might be a summary, but I don't know that
there's a complete record.
There is -- you know, nothing replaces an affidavit signed by an
applicant that says, I have or I have not been found guilty of an ethics
violation or I have or I have not had a suit filed against me for some
reason.
I'd like to see the applicant sign the statements that they -- that
these things have been addressed. And it would be helpful, I think, if
you took the questionnaire that Commissioner Fiala originally
submitted and maybe just annotate on that. Either you're getting a
written answer from them in your interviews and you're going to
present that written answer to us, or we're going to get it on this sheet,
one or the other. But I think we need to have the written answer to all
of those questions that are relevant.
There were some that are relevant only to judges, and we
understand that. And I think what we do there is maybe you just line
through that question and say, not applicable. And get us back
something that just gives us the comfort level that Commissioner
Fiala's original questionnaire is going to be adequately covered and
signed by the applicant.
MS. SIMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Page 75
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm comfortable with that, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta is.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then obviously it's going to be
something between eight pages and 18 pages, right?
MS. SIMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Hopefully -- because I
understand where my fellow commissioners are coming from, but I
don't think we want to make it the point where it's so burdensome that
some of these candidates will say, the heck with it. This is way too
complicated if I've got to go through 18 pages.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, wait till they get to our
questions if they're hired.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
MS. SIMS: Well, they've gone through an onerous process. You
know, Mr. Klatzkow could speak to it already so it will be okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It brings us to the questions. Now,
I want to make sure I don't misunderstand this issue either.
You're going to prepare for us some recommended questions.
Let me assure you I'm going to have questions that you haven't
thought of, okay. Now, I might want to ask my own questions. I don't
necessarily want to be constrained by a list of questions that you have
gIVen me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, is there any intent that we're
supposed to take your questions and only select from your questions
what we ask the applicants?
MS. SIMS: What I typically recommend is you take the
questions that I provide, see if they're adequate. If they're not, add
your own questions, and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 76
February 26-27,2008
MS. SIMS: You know, as long as your own questions are then
asked of everyone and they're legal questions, it should be fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, are these questions
being released to the applicants?
MS. SIMS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. So we can ask
anything we want to ask?
MS. SIMS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, on the scoring,
it's very important that we -- we're all on the same page. And it's just
like the concern that I had, I think that, personally, that needs to be
scored on. And I would hope -- the question about, you know, politics
belong on the dais and not -- nowhere else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- and if you have some other
questions, we need to add that to the scoring list. And whatever -- and
we all need to agree to that.
Well, that might be -- if we're going to score them, you're going
to take that score sheet and add them up to figure out what the -- who
the candidate -- the final person is, it needs to be on the score sheet.
MS. SIMS: Or we have to have questions that fit the categories
under the scoring sheet. So we're going to have questions that will
address -- you know, that will, you know, come up with what you're
looking for.
So, again, I'll provide that. If you have questions -- if you have
favorite questions ahead of time and you provide them to me, I'll make
sure they're on my list. But again, other than that, I'll share -- you
know, I'll give the suggested interview questions to Sue so she can run
them by you ahead of time so you'll have adequate time to review and
make recommendations of different ones that you want to use.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
Page 77
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if! could. I need to
clarify this because I really am confused.
I don't know how we do what has just been described. Let me
give you an example. Let's suppose if one of us were to ask a
question, have you ever been involved in a Bert Harris lawsuit and
what was the outcome? Then what we're going to do is get answers
from each of these applicants and they will reflect, to some degree,
their Florida law experience.
MS. SIMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It will reflect somewhat on their
litigation experience, it will reflect on their Growth Management Plan
understanding, and it probably will reflect in their management score,
how well did they manage the case and what did they do to manage
the case properly.
MS. SIMS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's going to be impossible for us
to take a canned set of questions and ask them and have them relate
neatly into one of the categories for grading.
MS. SIMS: That's agreed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that correct?
MS. SIMS: That's agreed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. SIMS: That's agreed. But I also want to give you questions
that will, you know, hopefully represent the categories that you're
grading.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not a problem. But there's
not a question you can ask about, let's say, Florida law experience that
doesn't overlap into some of the other categories.
MS. SIMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so we're just going to have to
take the answers and then try to arrange what we hear from the
applicants into the scoring categories.
Page 78
February 26-27,2008
MS. SIMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what we're going to do. And
if you give us questions that don't cover everything that we want to
ask or we are asking questions of applicants and something pops into
our mind and we need to clarify something, we're going to have to ask
a question that's not on the list.
MS. SIMS: I agree, and you would be probing based on the
response.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
MS. SIMS: And that would be perfectly accepted for anyone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
of that because I was getting the impression that I was going to be
locked into a --
MS. SIMS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- brief --
MS. SIMS: No, no. I'm sorry I gave you that impression.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. I understand.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Ms. Sims, have you -- and this is a question for
you, ma'am. Have you provided the commissioners areas that they
need to keep away from? You basically answered a question for
Commissioner Coyle, as long as the questions are legal.
For instance, if a commissioner walks up here and is going to ask
everybody, what's your marital status, what's your sexual preference,
you're going to get a lawsuit, and you know it and I know it. Have you
given them the be-careful kind of questions, Andrea?
MS. SIMS: No. We usually include that in the book that's sent
out, but when I prepare the list of suggested interview questions to
share with Sue, I'll provide, you know, those categories also.
Page 79
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: Yeah, just the areas to watch out for when you ask
a question, because if you ask, are you married, you're going to get
yourself a lawsuit. That's not an issue. Or when are your kids going to
come here, you know? That gets you someplace you don't want to be.
MS. SIMS: Yeah. And that's part of what we were trying to
move away from when I was deleting questions from the judicial
listing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue?
MS. FILSON: Are we going to vote which score sheet we're
going to use, or are we going to use both of them and, if so, then the
one that I've prepared with the weight are the percentages. Do the
percentages meet the commissioners' --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have that. I think you're going
to come back with that.
MS. FILSON: No. I passed it out right before Ms. Sims got up
here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My only concern, if we go
by percentages, that I think that management skills should be rated
somewhat higher. It can be 5 -- 5 percent higher or whatever, but I
think that's important.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who else?
MS. FILSON: So if you want that one 5 percent higher, do you
want to reduce one of them by 5 percent so that we have a 100
percent, and which one would that be?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe GMP, that's my feeling.
MS. FILSON: To 25 percent. Does everyone agree with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me neither.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Gee, I thought I was always in the
Page 80
February 26-27,2008
minority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just wait a few minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner
Halas that management is very important here, but I think we've got to
be careful. There is no greater challenge in Collier County than
knowledge of growth management procedures. I'm not talking about
Growth Management Plan. I'm talking about growth management
procedures. We've got to -- got to deal with that. And we're not going
to get that kind of guidance through a manager no matter how capable
he is, unless he has that knowledge, and that's all I'm suggesting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Florida law then?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Florida law, you know, that's
important, too, and litigation experience is important. But the thing I
would say about litigation experience is that I don't think it is
necessary for the -- the County Attorney to directly get involved in
litigation. He will be managing people who do litigation, but -- so
litigation experience is important, and I would probably like to have it
even a little higher, but -- so I don't know how to balance those out.
We might have to make some compromises, 5 percent here and there.
I don't know what to do with it, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I agree. The county -- the chief
County Attorney's going to be managing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Some of these others, like Land
Development Code, even growth management.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is -- I mean, he needs to delegate that
stuff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But in could -- you're right.
Here's the problem. How does he manage litigators well if he doesn't
have experience in litigation? You see, that's how they're tied together
Page 81
February 26-27,2008
and it's difficult to separate them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just leave it as is then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe; might be the best, I don't
know, I certainly would --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I rate all these highly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I feel that it's essential
that the manager has a good background in land use because that's--
he sits there all the time and we're asking him land use questions all
the time, so that probably involves that Growth Management Plan, or
procedure probably would be a better word for that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly right. I wouldn't
want this to mean Growth Management Plan like our Growth
Management Plan or the state's Growth Management Plan. I would
like to think of this as growth management procedures and land use or
something of that nature. We'd maybe combine both of those
categories.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I think they should have a
strong background in that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So we're going to keep the 30, 30, 30, 10.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a better suggestion
without compromising on something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Leave it where it is.
MS. FILSON: So are we going to also utilize the other score
sheet as well?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's answer that -- this first one.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. There's a consensus, the
majority wants to keep the percentages the same.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And I'll change the GMP to Growth
Management Plan procedures and land use.
Page 82
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not Growth Management Plan.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. Growth management procedures and
land use. That's what I had written.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, the -- I think what you have on
this scoring sheet, rating sheet, it would be compiled and go on the
percentage, be part of the percentages.
MS. SIMS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Part of the percentages?
MS. FILSON: Use both of them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it's very important for the
board at this time, if this is what we're going to approve, is there any
other categories that we should consider?
Now, I think my question is here by leadership abilities. So I
don't -- but I'm still going to ask that question --
MS. SIMS: Oh, sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is for leadership abilities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a question. Another
area I'm a little confused about. Interest to coming to Collier County
and overall job career motivation. Those don't all fit in neatly into our
score sheet.
MS. SIMS: They don't, but that's something that you're going to
be grading the person on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. SIMS: Because, you know, the person you ultimately make
the offer to, you know, either they're already here or you think they
want to come. You want someone to get to a yes. And based on their
responses to the interview and based on, you know, any other
discussions, my write-up, you'll be rating that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we want to add then another
category in the score sheet that might be miscellaneous at maybe 10
Page 83
February 26-27,2008
percent or something of that nature and have more than 100 percent,
100 points?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, can I help you out?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, please do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Interested in coming to Collier
County. If they're not interested, they wouldn't have applied for the
job.
MS. SIMS: Nor would they have gone through our arduous
process. They've worked hard by now to get to this stage.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So do we really -- do we really
need that or should that be a --
MS. SIMS: An assumption.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a category for individual
commissioners' questions.
MS. SIMS: That can be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good suggestion.
MS. FILSON: So we're going to take that one out?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to change the -- okay.
MS. SIMS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other -- anything else? Kind of
quiet down there today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we're doing a wonderful
job. In had objections to anything, I'd be sure to state them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. SIMS: Okay. So I'll be sharing information in between the
meetings with Sue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just clarify one --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Since we've been talking about
some of these extra questions, what was the final outcome of the
questions that were deleted? Only a few here that I felt were really
Page 84
February 26-27, 2008
important. Are you going to add them back into the list or what?
MS. SIMS: I'm going to share what was deleted and what is
covered by the background checks that we're doing, you know, give
that to Sue to share with you all. And if -- you know, if there are
questions that need to be -- need to be added back in, you know, we'll
act accordingly before she sends out the book.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll share with her the questions
that I felt were very important to be on there, okay?
MS. SIMS: Sure.
MS. FILSON: And what I'll do -- hopefully she'll get that to me
soon enough so that I can bring it back at a future board meeting prior
to the interviews --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll give them to you today.
MS. FILSON: -- to get the input from the board.
MS. SIMS: Okay, then. That's fine. And I'll also be sharing,
you know, the -- not the questionnaire dos and don'ts, but the
interviews dos and dont's; that information, I'll also be sharing that
with Sue.
MS. FILSON: And then Ijust have one other question. On the
date of the interviews, April the 9th, I'm going to schedule like the
coffee and bagel thing at eight o'clock in the morning, and then the
interviews will begin at nine; is that satisfactory?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I might not be here at nine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Eight. I'll be here at nine. I might not
be here at eight.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Or we could change the interviews till 10,
beginning at 10.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, then we're getting into lunch.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've got -- well, we're still going to
Page 85
February 26-27,2008
be getting into lunch.
MS. SIMS: You're going to be getting into lunch, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe could go closer to eight, it
would -- it might be a little more advantageous for me to be here for
more of the meeting if I have a conflict.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's a reason to go toward
nme.
MS. FILSON: Well, the eight, Commissioner Coletta--
Commissioner Coletta, the eight o'clock to the nine o'clock is the
coffee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. It's just the social.
MS. FILSON: In our conference room. Nine o'clock--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it has to be open to the public. It
has to be open to the public.
MS. SIMS: I guess you could allow it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It has to be advertised.
MS. FILSON: Oh, I do. That brings up one additional question.
Because it's April 9th on Wednesday, is that something I could put on
the agenda for the previous day and say, to be time certain eight
o'clock the next morning, or do you want that to be advertised on its
own?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you need to talk to the state
attorney on that, personally. Not that County Attorney, but--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Some other County Attorney.
MS. FILSON: He said -- no, he said either way works, and I
believe that's the way we did it the last time. But it's up to you. I'll do
whatever you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why can't we put it on the agenda?
Wouldn't that be the best way to do it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MS. FILSON: Then the public would be aware of it because
Page 86
February 26-27, 2008
they all read the agenda, and I'll just say starting at eight.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you could charge the public
2.50 a head and cover your cost of the doughnuts.
MS. FILSON: You know, and I really don't know how much to
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just get five doughnuts and five
coffees, and if we run out we run out.
MS. SIMS: That's what I was going to say, you're going to be
nice to the candidates, and everybody else can bring their own.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So the board has given me permission to
use my budget to do that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or Commissioner Halas'.
MS. FILSON: Out of one of your travel funds.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to use--
Commissioner Henning, he doesn't make that many trips on his
expense account.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: List it as BYOB, bring your own
bagel.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could just add a little bit. Sue,
I know you're dealing with the budget issues up and down. Have you
considered in his contract or anything, you know, there's going to be a
TDY cost on every one of those candidates, overnight stay, travel and
all of that stuff? You could be running a thousand to $1,500 a
candidate just to come here.
MS. FILSON: No, I don't have budgeted money for that.
They're all from Florida and they're all within driving distance, so I
didn't think that would be an issue. And I'll defer to you.
MS. SIMS: Well, depending on the length of their drive, you
may want them to come the evening before. And you know, we can
talk through that, you know, logistically.
Page 87
February 26-27,2008
MS. FILSON: Yes. But the board will have to give me direction
on if they want them to come the night before and stay and where
that's going to be paid from. I absolutely do not have money in my
budget for that.
MR. MUDD: We'll work on it, Commissioner. We'll work on it,
between the County Attorney's budget and mine, we'll work on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it necessary that we pay their stay
here if they decide to stay overnight? It is? Okay.
MS. SIMS: Typically, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He answered my question.
MS. SIMS: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else? I don't think
we need a vote on this. We've had consensus on what you need to do,
and I think it's clear.
Anything else? Nope?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the stay, we also have to pick
up a couple of meals probably, like maybe the dinner before or
breakfast or something of that nature.
MS. FILSON: Well, we're going to give them coffee and bagels.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Well, just -- if they're
driving any distance, okay, and you want them here at eight o'clock in
the morning.
MS. FILSON: Well, we have one from Miami who actually lives
in Naples, one from Collier County, one from Tampa, and one from
Lee County. So maybe -- or -- and Spencer's Pinellas County. I'm not
sure. That's Clearwater, I think.
MS. SIMS: Clearwater, yeah.
MR. MUDD: Clearwater.
MS. FILSON: I'm not sure how far the distance is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Do we have something we can
take care of -- thank you, Ms. Sims.
MS. SIMS: Thank you very much.
Page 88
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great -- before noon?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we can do -- well, lOA or 10D, whatever
the board desires. One-
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY AND THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, RELATED TO DESIRED CHANGES TO THE
CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
PROGRAM - MOTION TO ACCEPT AL TERNA TIVE
PROPOSAL NO.2 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go to lOD.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: lOD, sir, that's a recommendation the
Board of County Commissioners provide direction to the County
Attorney and the County Manager or his designee related to desired
changes to the charitable organization impact fee deferral program.
Ms. Amy Patterson, impact fee coordinator, will present. I
believe Mr. Klatzkow will be part of this discussion. How we doing?
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson, for the record. I'm your
impact fee manager and economic development manager for
community development. I'm going to pull my presentation up. We
lost it during the power surge.
Okay. Sorry for that delay.
I'm here today to discuss the charitable organization impact fee
deferrals. This is back on direction by the board to take this item to
the Productivity Committee for their review.
I just have a brief background. I can go quickly through this.
Everybody knows why we're here and the history of this program.
It started out as a waiver program back in 200 1. We've gone
Page 89
February 26-27,2008
through some changes over the years in the dollar amounts allowed
under the program, and now with the program being an impact fee
deferral rather than an impact fee waiver.
Getting to where we are today, October 9th, this came up
regarding the presentation on the St. Matthew's House Wolf
Apartments, and on November 13th, the board directed that the
Productivity Committee review the program and the various proposed
changes and provide the board with the committee's recommendations.
Program -- so I'm going to go briefly through each of the things
that the Productivity Committee made recommendations on, and this
is all outlined in your executive summary.
There are -- program eligibility. There are organizations that are
currently prohibited from participating in the program, and those are
listed there. Where we run into some contention is with the
religiously affiliated organizations because those also traditionally
provide services like homeless shelters and things of that nature.
So there's been some questions on whether the board may want to
consider allowing some religiously affiliated organizations to
participate.
Our options would be to continue with the current direction to
exclude all of those on the previous slide, and we would need to
amend the code to accurately reflect that change. It's not a change in
policy but rather to make sure that it's clear in the ordinance, or
expand the allowed participants. This may allow organizations such
as Ave Maria, the Humane Society, the Salvation Army, or any of
those types of organizations to participate.
And this is what the Productivity Committee recommended.
They recommended that we continue with the original intent to
provide services of substantial benefit to low income residents of
Collier County, and that's for free or low cost. They recommended
that religiously affiliated organizations be allowed to participate but
only for services that provided -- that target indigent or low income
Page 90
February 26-27,2008
residents and that they're provided in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Impact fees eligible for deferral is our next category we were
looking at. The program currently allows all Collier County impact
fees to be deferred except for educational facilities and fire impact
fees for the independent fire districts.
The County Attorney's Office has previously opined that water
and sewer impact fees should be similarly precluded or paid from
another funding source.
Our options on this one are to include water and sewer impact
fees as those that cannot be deferred under the program or to allocate
funds to pay the water and sewer impact fees.
The Productivity Committee did not feel like this was a problem.
They feel like water and sewer impact fees should continue to be
deferred as part of the program because the potential loss of revenue to
the district is very small.
And here I have -- the staff comments is that water and sewer
impact fees should be precluded from straight deferrals. We've had
this same conversation regarding other types of deferrals. This puts an
inordinate burden on the ratepayers of the district because they are
limited to their funding sources. Those are user fees and impact fees.
They don't receive any outside funding sources, and so it creates a
disproportionate burden on those ratepayers.
If you have any questions at the end of my presentation or now,
Tom Wides is also available to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't you continue on with your
presentation.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. The options here then, regards to
that, are to exempt the district from participation in the charitable
program, the charitable organization impact fee deferral program, or
establish another funding source to pay those fees. And those are
actually previously outlined on slide nine as our options.
Repayment provisions. The program currently is structured as a
Page 91
February 26-27,2008
long-term deferral with no interest provisions. Repayments required if
the entity ceases to operate in its charitable capacity or it moves from
the subject location.
We do monitor that in my section. We do check on them to
make sure that they're still operating in their charitable capacity and
that everything is as it was when they applied.
Our options are to provide the deferral for a specified time, and at
the completion of the term of the deferral, allow for repayment of the
impact fees over time. So if we offered a lO-year deferral, we could
have a 1 O-year payback; provide for a straight deferral ending at a
specified point in time. For any more, we have a
six-year-and-nine-month deferral for apartments, which is now a
10-year deferral, and at the end of that term, they have to pay it back.
Establish a designated funding source to pay the impact fees, and
then establish a time frame for repayment. That operates more like
our fee payment assistance program for the EDC.
And then interest. The question is, do we want to continue to
offer this as interest-free deferral or should there be an interest
component.
The Productivity Committee recommended the deferral should be
for a fixed term without interest. They did not specify what that term
should be. The term of the referral should be at the discretion of the
board and subject for renewal. The recipient should provide a yearly
affidavit affirming the entity's eligibility, and that they continue to be
-- to operate in their charitable capacity.
The deferral should be secured with the lien on the property in
the amount of the impact fees deferred, and additionally, they
recommended that other funding sources should be considered to fund
or offset this program.
And finally, residency. There are currently no provisions related
to the residence requirements in order to participate for the charitable
organization impact fee deferral program. We did discuss this related
Page 92
February 26-27,2008
to the Fun Time Academy who willingly provided information on how
they established the residency of those using their services.
Our options. Require participating organizations to limit their
services to U.S. citizens or legal residents, or we could require
participating organizations to limit services to U.S. citizens or legal
residents except if the organization is required by law to provide
services. For example, hospitals; they have to provide service to all
people.
The Productivity Committee recommendation: The program
should give priority to those organizations that primarily serve citizens
and legal residents. They did not feel like we should actually make
that a requirement but that there should be emphasis placed on those
organizations that do have some sort of residency requirements.
And the last issue is separate from this, and I don't know if you
want to stop here and address the charitable orgs., and then this is just
another issue that was addressed by the Productivity Committee that's
related but a little bit different.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You know, I'm glad -- I love
Productivity Committee recommendations. I felt that they were
sensible and met the needs of the community.
One of the things that I think we've sadly missed is religious
organizations reaching out to the community. Most every one of
them, if they're reaching out, St. Matthew's House, Youth Haven,
they're reaching out because of their religion and wanting to help
others.
And that's something that we as a government right now do not
do. We don't provide any money for any of these agencies, so I think
that's one way we can work with them.
Certainly we have a limitation. We only have $200,000 a year,
but still I think that all religious organizations that are reaching out
into the community and helping citizens -- and maybe we should limit
Page 93
February 26-27,2008
it to legal residents, I don't know about that yet, but the talk ensues.
But I think it's important that we do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you. And I think
this is really interesting. I remember when this first started up we
were very uncertain. We came up with -- I think it was $7,500 that we
would allow to be paid towards impact fee. The rules were all over
the place. I think this is getting well defined. I think the Productivity
Committee has put some very good recommendations forward.
However, a couple of things I'd like to keep in mind is the
original intent for this was that private organizations do a much better
job than government ever could in serving the underserved of the area.
We all know that. That's not an item in dispute.
But what we have to deal with is the fact that if we're going to do
anything that impedes them as far as putting additional restrictions as
far as interest that has to be paid at some point down the road or
payments that have to be made, that is going to be a burden on them at
any point in time that will take away from the clientele they serve. I
mean, we're talking nonprofit.
I see no problem, whether it's a church organization, as long as
people that apply for the service do not have to be of that particular
faith or participate in religious services. It should be something that's
nondiscriminatory. And the Productivity Committee actually came
out and said that.
I think it's a wonderful idea. I think it should be open-ended, or
at the very least it would come back for reconsideration after a period
of time by the commission in case some item does change. But my
compliments go out to the Productivity Committee for what they've
put together.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I like most of what I hear, particularly from the Productivity
Page 94
February 26-27, 2008
Committee. So I would like to make a motion that we approve
alternative two, provide for a straight deferral for a specified time
period with the total impact fees due at the completion of the term
without interest; that the water and sewer impact fees should be
precluded from straight deferrals; that a lien will be placed on the
property as security; that the benefit will be only to low income
residents and only to those who are legal residents of Collier County;
and that it be nondiscriminatory.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me -- what page are you on, so
we can all follow you?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. it's page -- well, that
covered a number of pages, but let's start with page 4 of9.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I second his motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Y eah. You're going to second his
motion, okay. So number two, provide a straight deferral.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then with the other -- what
I've done is I've pulled a number of recommendations from staff and
from the Productivity Committee to formulate the entire proposal,
which I think covers most of the areas that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you understand the motion?
MS. PATTERSON: I do. I just wanted to get clarification on the
legal residents that will keep places like Naples Community Hospital
from utilizing the program. Is that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the way it's got to work.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I don't want to pass a
local law that exacerbates the failure of the federal government to
carry out its obligations with respect to illegal immigrants. So I'm not
willing to pick up the slack just because the federal government is
incompetent.
Page 95
February 26-27,2008
MS. PATTERSON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Commissioner Coyle, I just
want to get some clarification on Collier water -- or Collier County
water and sewer. Are you saying that we should give them the ability
not to have impacts on them or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'm saying that there would be
no deferrals of water and sewer impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I can't support the
motion, and I have to explain why. There's too much in here that
impedes the ability of the nonprofits to be able to perform.
We can't expect people to be out in the streets. We have to
provide something in the way of services. Now grant you, I'm totally
opposed to us allowing people to be hired that are illegal aliens. I very
much support that but the realty of the whole thing is, we have women
and children that are here that would be qualified as illegal aliens.
Such places as the Abused Women's Shelter would not be
eligible for funds; Friendship House would not be eligible for funds. I
mean, you could go down the list time after time. Agencies that
provide service to these people that are in need at times of distress,
such as a hurricane coming, would not be eligible for funds to be able
to build their infrastructure, and it would come to a dead-end. The
funds could only be used for a very, very narrow scope.
I think that we're off target on it, and it makes it very difficult.
And we -- Productivity Committee recommended sewer and water be
included in the $lOO,OOO to be allotted towards each applicant and --
because it had a minor impact on the whole thing. And as far as
justification goes, whatever you do for any agency, whether it's impact
Page 96
February 26-27,2008
fees that go to the schools or impact fees that go to the EMS, there's
always going to be an impact on the rest of society for what takes
place. There's no doubt about that.
But it's -- the way that we're going with this -- and also, too, the
fact that we're going to have it where it has to be paid back at a given
period of time and with no inclusion of the recommendations that it
can come back before the commission for reconsideration to extend it
makes this very difficult to be able to accept.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just respond to that.
There's nothing difficult at all.
If someone is here illegally and they are having great difficulty,
the best way to solve their problem is to reunite them with their family
in the country they came from and to do it as quickly as possible.
If someone is abusing them here, the best thing in the world is to
get them away from here where they cannot be abused. That's back
with their family at the country they came from.
We -- when I am convinced that we are taking care of people
who are here legally and we're doing it adequately, I'd be happy to
consider doing something for somebody who is here illegally. I don't
see that happening.
There are too many American citizens who are not getting the
services they need because emergency rooms and other places are
overcrowded by people who are not even supposed to be in this
country, and that is not my responsibility. I'm not going to assume it
and I'm not going to pretend to try to help them.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Counter?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if it's going to do you
any good, but you can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if it would make you feel
Page 97
February 26-27,2008
better.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got six minutes before
lunch.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're here to make you feel better.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And to that argument, suppose
that 95 percent of the residents of the Abused Women's Shelter are
legal aliens and totally meeting the needs and the women's shelter
can't expand because of the fact that 5 percent of the people they serve
are illegals; do you feel that this also fits into the equation?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet it does.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, let me
respond to you. The Abused Women's Shelter has a shelter now.
There is no restrictions on them if -- and I think they're going to
expand, there will be restrictions. So there's ways for the Women's
Abused Shelter to get around your concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's no restrictions on their
existing facility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If they expand and want impact fee
deferrals, that's where the restrictions would be, on that expanded
facility, not the old facility.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I think I know what
you're say, Commissioner Henning, if I may elaborate. You're saying
the old facility would be able to operate as was. The new facility
would have to make sure that the people that go there -- I mean, that
makes total sense. I can't argue with that. That -- you know, if that
was the possibility, how that would be laid out. That may be it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the way it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And you would have one
Page 98
February 26-27,2008
facility that would just be for legal --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Isn't that the way you understand it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- residents and the other one
could be for whoever?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Impact fees are granted on a
facility-by- facility basis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, deferrals, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not -- it's granted to an
organization as much as it is granted to a structure, a facility.
MR. MUDD: Impact fees go with the land.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So that's exactly the
way it works.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very interesting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That helps a little bit, but
there's still some other elements in there I don't feel comfortable with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Especially the one about not
allowing it to come back before the commission for reconsideration.
They would be unable to petition the commission at any point in time,
or would they still be free to do that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where'd that come from?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where'd that come from?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. You made -- in
part of your motion you were saying that the funds had to be paid back
at a given period of time. But you didn't go to the next step. The rest
of the recommendations from the Productivity Committee was to have
it come back before the commission for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't think we've ever
denied anybody the right to come before the county commission and
Page 99
February 26-27,2008
ask for relief from something or to change something. Everybody--
people do that all the time. I don't --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you could include that in the
motion, I could support it, recognizing that right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not a need. It's not a need to put it
in the motion because --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because it exists.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- we always allow people to petition
their government.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know, but it's a comfort level.
If it makes no difference, just include it in the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amy, are you going to restrict
somebody from coming to us --
MS. PATTERSON: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- if they want to -- they have some
problems paying their deferred impact fees?
MS. PATTERSON: No. We would actually have to come to
you, because the next step, if they couldn't -- after the -- say it was
lO-year deferral period, if they could not pay back and there's a lien
on the property, before we took any action, we would have to come to
the board in order to collect that money or to get your direction on
how to proceed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But this is all going to be part of
the minutes that accompany this so at that point in time, 10 years from
now, some future commission sitting down and wants to know the will
of this commission, they have picked it up that it is the right of these
organizations to be able to come back and appeal before the
commission?
MS. PATTERSON: No. I understand. They have that right to
come before you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's the problem with your
Page 100
February 26-27,2008
recommendations. We're going to enter into an agreement, you're
going to pay it back in 10 years, but in the agreement you're going to
say, well, you've got a -- you know, you can change your mind.
I mean, an agreement is an agreement. We all are human beings
up here. We all understand there are circumstances that are
unavoidable. But if we enter into an agreement, they should try to
honor that agreement. And they -- if they can't, they could always
come to us, and we might convince Commissioner Halas to go for it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, here's the way to convince
him is that we are -- we are proposing a method of deferring impact
fees for people who are in need. If Commissioner Coletta doesn't
support it, he is depriving those organizations of this benefit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- okay. Is there any other
discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course. Commissioner
Coyle's analogy of this is absolutely ridiculous. But then again, too, I
wouldn't expect anything from the far right any different.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We all know--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With that, call the motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, love it over here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I join you over there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, come on over.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need some more guidance?
MS. PATTERSON: One more direction, I'm sorry. This was a
Page 10 1
February 26-27, 2008
separate issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One more minute.
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. This is a separate issue brought
forward by Commissioner Fiala about impact fees for small
businesses. We did take this item to the Productivity Committee. We
need to find some way to address those impact fees for things like
dance studios, karate, gymnastics, and small doctors' offices. These
are otherwise being lumped into categories that don't really apply
because our rate schedule doesn't have rates that address them.
The Productivity Committee's recommendation was that staff
work with the county's impact fee consultant to develop additional
rates for these types of land use categories to better address their
demand. And I just wanted to make sure I could get direction on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I say something to that? I would
really try to target high-wage jobs, target industries, those types of
things, those economic incentive programs. I think this is very noble,
but in reality, our impact fees are too damn high. That's our problem.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. Let me explain it just a little
bit. That isn't -- that isn't what the subject is actually.
I had a dance studio come in. They were just opening a dance
studio for little children going into a -- into a zoning that would allow
it, over in an industrial center, but because there was no category for
them, they were charged as a retail operation, although it wasn't a
retail operation at all.
They had to have -- they had to have limitations on how many
trucks and everything, but they don't have trucks. And there were
certain -- they were -- they were required to comply by somebody
else's rules because there aren't any for them.
So what she's saying is, you know, there aren't categories to
support these small little businesses, and so they're trying to talk about
new categories that would be appropriate for tiny businesses. It's the
Page 102
February 26-27,2008
mom and pop businesses, and we have to support the mom and pop
businesses. They're just as important to our community as high-wage
jobs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's true.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got a little dilemma here. I
support Commissioner Fiala, what she says as a citizen. As a
commissioner, I'm going to have to abstain if there's a vote on this
issue, because I brought this very issue up on a piece of property that I
own, and I feel that anything I did would be construed as serving my
own personal interest.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I didn't even know that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. You had no reason to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't see anything wrong
with this. All you're trying to do is to get more specific about the
impact.
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if the impact of a dance studio
is substantially less than an impact of a retail store which occupies the
same square footage, we should have a different category for it and a
different impact fee. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the county
staff trying to get more specific about the impacts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And realistic.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I would -- I would
encourage the staff to continue working with the impact fee consultant
to develop rates for these types of land categories. I think it's a good
thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't -- you just need guidance
on that. I'm in favor of it, too, now that I understand it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Technical question.
Page 103
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. We're not going to take a vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no conflict --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- with just guidance. Okay,
thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just guidance.
MS. FILSON: Can I get a confirmation on the last vote. Was it
5-0?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was 4-0.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 4-l.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 4-l ? You did vote no?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, because I just didn't like
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What kind of business are you
looking at? You're not going to tell me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Serving my fellow man; service
above self.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not in a category. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's lunchtime.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's lunchtime? We're going to be
back at 1 :03.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of County Commissioners are
back in session. Everybody take your seat. Put your cell phones on
vibrate or they will be confiscated by the County Manager.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: We're looking for a changeover. That would be
good for cell phones.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Take them free of charge.
Page 104
February 26-27, 2008
Item #5B
PRESENTATION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S
ASSOCIATION REGARDING THE CONSOLIDATION REPORT
- MOTION THAT COUNTY MANAGER INCLUDE ALL
PARTICIPANTS INCLUDING EMS AND OTHER
INDEPENDENT PARTIES IN THE DISCUSSIONS -APPROVED;
MOTION THAT THE BOARD RATIFY IF CONSOLIDATION
OCCURS EMS WILL BE INCLUDED AND WILL NOT BE
UNDER CONTROL OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 5B. This item's to be heard at one
p.m. It's a presentation by the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association
regarding the consolidation report. And I believe --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Tom Cannon, Fire Commissioner
Tom Cannon.
MR. CANNON: For the record, my name is Tom Cannon, Fire
Commissioner of East Naples Fire Department.
What you're about to see today is an accumulated effort between
the five independent districts and the two city departments on their
operational study report for consolidation.
They've worked very long and hard and they're continuing to
work. They finished the operational part. Now they're moving into
prevention, training, and the other segments of the fire district.
So I'll turn this over to Chief Metzger from Golden Gate Fire
Department now.
CHIEF METZGER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bob Metzger. I'm the incoming fire chief for the
Golden Gate Fire District.
Before I go any further, do you all have copies of the original
written proposal? Very good, all right. Then I'm going to try to keep
this moving along at a pretty rapid clip here.
Page 105
February 26-27,2008
Back in October, the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association, in
an effort to move forward the concept of studying consolidation,
decided to task its operations group, which is comprised of fire chiefs
who have the responsibility for operations responses from all lO
entities within the county that provide fire rescue and EMS services,
with sitting down and trying to work out an operations plan for
consolidation.
I would tell you that this is a limited plan, it's based solely on
whether or not, from an operations standpoint, it is not only feasible
but practical to consolidate all of these emergency services.
The committee was given approximately two months to complete
the report. Fire rescue services are provided throughout Collier
County by nine separate fire rescue organizations and Collier EMS.
Some of these fire rescue organizations provide advanced life
support response as well, augmenting the capabilities of Collier EMS.
When the operations group sat down to conduct this study, they
did so under certain parameters and assumptions. They wanted to
make sure that we examined the placement and staffing of all
apparatus using existing vehicles, station structures, and personnel,
and that this study would encompass only those resources. We're not
augmenting or adding any additional resources other than what is
currently available.
We established minimum safe staffing on fire response apparatus
at three and on the EMS transport units at two, and we decided just for
purposes of initial placement, of having one fire suppression unit and
one medic unit in each of the response zones identified throughout the
county.
In addition, some other responses or some other assumption were
that no members of any of the participant organizations will lose
employment, that the total organization duties and capabilities will
represent everything that is currently being done now, including EMS
transport, which will be a significant component of this new fire-based
Page 106
February 26-27,2008
consolidated organization.
In addition, we determined that the organization must be created
as an independent district with its own governing board.
To start, we sat down and looked at the locations of all fire and
EMS stations throughout the county and we determined that initial --
that current daily staffing is at 151 positions every day, including the
-- through the rank of supervisory battalion chiefs.
With the assumptions that I just gave you, we determined that the
organization would need a daily staffing of l64. Based on that, we
developed a basic organizational chart which was appendix one in the
written document that you have, and I believe we've got some smaller
representations of that within the body of this presentation.
Because we narrowed our scope solely to operations, the majority
of this presentation is solely on operations. Operations are responsible
for the management and coordination of all fire rescue and emergency
medical services throughout the county.
This section was going to be led by an assistant chief of
operations who was supported by two additional chiefs, and they
managed three divisions between them; the south division, the north
division, and a special operations division.
We delineated south and north because currently Collier County's
communication system has a Collier North and a Collier South, and
we just decided, for simplicity, to keep those along those lines using
that.
This is a representation ofthe operations section. It is very, very
simple in terms of what we're presenting to you today. I would just
highlight a couple things to you. First of all, there's an assistant chief
at the top who reports directly to the fire chief of the organization, but
beneath that assistant chief, he's supported by one deputy chief of
operations and then the division chiefs of the three separate divisions
for operations.
The operational divisions themselves are broken into six
Page 107
February 26-27, 2008
battalions, which is a real practical breakdown of how the structure of
the organization will function. It provides for a fully functional span
of control yet an effective means of operating emergency response.
This chart here demonstrates our l64 staffing on a daily basis.
As we discussed this, we discussed a number of concepts here. Right
now there's a disparity between the current daily staffing of 151 and
what we believe is the necessary staffing of 164 on a daily basis.
But we believe these numbers can be readily resolved by
relocating some fire and medic unit assets to different locations and
eliminating some duplicity, or duplication, rather, where we have units
double staffed or -- and that kind of thing.
In addition, there's going to be an expected push down from the
top on down as, particularly, people who are in the higher leadership
positions are essentially displaced downward. We're starting with 10
organizations who have lO separate chiefs in charge, and we're going
to end up with one, with one chief, and there's going to be a migration
downward of a number of those positions.
That's going to displace other folks who will be pushed on down
further. Eventually we end up with more people in the field to round
out that number that we were talking about.
Anytime we end up -- there's a typo on this slide, by the way.
Anytime this system has more than l65 people on duty, or -- yeah.
Anytime we have more than 165 people on duty, we're going to be
able to use those additional assets to either put additional specialized
apparatus in service, such as additional brush trucks if it's that season,
we can overstaff or at least extra staff certain types of medic units if
that was appropriate, particularly ones that are out in the outlying
areas. We can provide additional engine or transport vehicles in rural
areas when we have staffing above this.
Right now the jurisdictional boundaries prevent us from
deploying additional assets from one district into another. For
example, if North Naples for that particular day is flushed with people
Page 108
February 26-27,2008
and Immokalee needs additional people, we can't send people out
there right now.
The concept is, with this kind of a consolidation, everybody's on
-- under the same umbrella. We're all in the same structure, and we
can deploy assets as they're needed.
As we talked about this, we decided to apply a strategic planning
tool called a SWOT analysis. SWOT is basically short for strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. And the idea is, as a group, to
sit down and brainstorm the various strengths of what you're
proposing, weaknesses within what you're proposing, opportunities
that present, and threats either to it or threats it imposes upon other
situations.
Among the strengths that we identified in this proposal is that
there's an adequate pool of extremely experienced and trained
personnel throughout the county. That's a given. We all know that.
We've got good people everywhere.
Our apparatus, for the most part, is modern. Currently it's well
maintained, and we have adequate facilities for the service delivery
that we're contemplating here.
The proposal provides for standard minimum staffing countywide
that's level. You're not going to have disparities where you have four
people in an engine here and, perhaps, one or two someplace else
where they don't enjoy the same level of service.
And this provides for manageable span of control so that we can
certainly manage the assets that we have out there adequately without
having too much fluff. Typical span of control is going to be
somewhere between five and eight reports.
There's going to be a single standard set of operating guidelines
and standard operating procedures countywide. No confusion.
Everybody's on the same page with this. It also provides for a single
advanced life support medical protocol countywide, eliminating
different levels of capability, which are currently advocated by some
Page 109
February 26-27,2008
in the county EMS department, including the medical director.
The consolidated district will result in a reduction of duplication
of services and it will create efficiency in the administrative services
over this. And in addition, there will be a standard interpretation of
fire code and code enforcement, which we believe is a plus as far as
developers are concerned. Finally, the consolidated district will have
a low average debt ratio.
And what are the downsides? We don't pretend to be able to
identify everything, but what we did identify was that the proposal
does not provide standard response times countywide, and that's just a
fact of life. The more populous areas are going to enjoy a -- faster
response times than the more rural areas.
Minimum safe staffing levels, which we're proposing here, fall
short of compliance with the National Fire Protection Association's
standard l7l0. That's just the fire departments or the fire services
standard for staffing, and we're going to be short of that. But we don't
necessarily see that as a problem because nobody's doing it, and
within this county there doesn't seem to be a mandate to do that.
Current funding assumptions for this consolidated district rely
heavily on ad valorem tax revenue. I don't think I need to say a whole
lot more about what that potential is as far as problems for funding
this.
There exists a disparity in the benefits of the collective
bargaining agreements between the different labor unions that are
represented by all lO organizations. Somehow that's got to be
reconciled. But there are some opportunities that this presents to all of
us.
This district, consolidated district, can explore alternate revenue
sources, find a way around the ad valorem restrictions for us. There's
-- there will be a period of future years where the district will be able
to realize economies of scale.
Fire prevention education countywide will become standardized.
Page 110
February 26-27,2008
There will be expanded efforts in those areas that really demonstrate
the greatest need for fire education and fire prevention.
Now, what are some of the threats that are posed by this? Well,
there may be a lack of stakeholder acceptance of this concept, and that
may be from the various fire districts themselves, from their
constituencies, from unions, from you all, possibly from the city
councils that we're asking to be involved in this. Whatever we come
up with in terms of a funding mechanism, we may be criticized by
certain taxpayer groups.
And this one's important to me, that there may be a preexisting
misconception that a consolidation such as this must demonstrate an
immediate cost savings. We can tell you that this probably won't, not
straight out of the chute, but we believe in the long run that it will
demonstrate a cost savings. And more importantly, in the immediate
short term, you will see an improvement in service delivery which
from my personal bias, is worth whatever we do to get there.
Additional threats. Without a unified method for funding this
new district, we probably won't develop the momentum to move this
forward. Disparate millage rates across the county create problems for
this initiative.
Future tax reform initiatives may put implementation of this
proposal at risk. We do believe that an outside consultant is essential
to bring in to add legitimacy to this initiative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. Could I interrupt for
just a minute?
CHIEF METZGER: I apologize. I've gotten way ahead of
myself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHIEF METZGER: Thank you. An outside consultant will be
important to bring in to assist us with further studying this and giving
it some additional legitimacy that we think is appropriate for this.
Funding that may be a problem.
Page 111
February 26-27, 2008
There has been some discussion of a straw ballot regarding
language that might be implemented for making this special district or
this new district happen. If that is contemplated, we believe that the
language for this referendum must originate within the Fire Chiefs
Association.
We'll have to consult with legal assistance to make sure that
we're following all the appropriate steps and so forth.
Now, this next section of stuff I'm going to breeze through rather
quickly. But this is -- these are the non-studied sections, and we
included them here just to let you know that we understand that these
are areas that absolutely have to be addressed as the consolidation
concept is further studied, but we didn't have the time nor, frankly, the
direction to spend any time looking at these kinds of things.
There's an administration section that we looked at. The
structure of it is going to look something like that. You're going to
have an assistant chief who's in charge of that with varying levels of
assistance.
The categories that you see there are not personnel. Those are
merely functions. And we haven't yet determined how many people
will be required to fill those different tasks. The EMS section, same
concept going to be headed up with an assistant chief who is a direct
report to the fire chief. That assistant chief will be assisted by a
deputy chief and division chief.
In addition, there's going to be the medical director who's going
to be part of what we call the office of the medical director, who will
be a direct report -- who will essentially report to the fire chief
basically through the assistant chief of EMS. It's going to look
something like that.
Again, the separate boxes underneath the deputy chief of EMS
and the division chief of EMS are functions only. We don't know how
many people it's going to take to fill those things.
Training section will also be headed up by an assistant chief with
Page 112
February 26-27, 2008
support. It's going to look something like that. Same limitations.
And the fire prevention section will be headed by an assistant
chief directly reporting to the fire chief of the new organization. That
structure will look something like that.
Again, particularly in fire prevention, which is a labor-intensive
area as well, these are just tasks. There's going to be a lot of people
that will have to be dedicated to fire prevention to properly do this
function.
Areas for further study. Well, we just identified some of them,
but in addition to that we have to identify the political authority that
will allow us to do this. And because this is a complicated thing
involving five independent districts, two so-called dependent districts,
two cities, and a county agency, it's going to be challenging.
The legal authority to consolidate must be determined, and then
the governing structure that will be put in place to administer this
district will have to be determined as well.
Comprehensive evaluation of all the staffing requirements in all
those different subsections of the organization will need to be
identified, and then we've got to fund it. In addition to that, we have
to perform a detailed budgetary analysis for all the districts and try to
extrapolate from all that what we believe will be the cost for running
this new organization. That has yet to be done.
Collective bargaining agreements in some way will have to be
renegotiated or consolidated themselves so that we end up with one
larger entity where everybody is essentially going to be made whole to
some degree. And the period of time for that to happen has to be
discussed, and so labor has to be brought in for those kinds of
conversations.
A new district-wide standard operating procedure and/or
guidelines will need to be established so that everybody's working
under the same pages of operations, and then we have to identify the
plan for phasing this in. It's not going to happen in one day. We're
Page 113
February 26-27,2008
probably going to be stepping this in within a phased process.
But after we looked at all that, our final recommendation, which
I'm sure you all know by now, is the general group consensus of this
group and the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association now is that
consolidation by the participant organizations warrants consideration
and further discussion.
Toward that end, the Fire Chiefs Association gave additional
direction to the operational group to go back and study this further.
And the very sections that identified in there where we hadn't studied
them, we are now further studying those. We've got groups that are
actively working from a number of the departments who have -- who
are specializing in their areas of administration, finance, fire
prevention training and so forth, and these people are working very
hard to come up with their components of how their section of the
consolidation effort needs to look.
Okay. We have one serious issue that I feel compelled to bring
to you, and that is, for all of us to get a good clear picture when we're
talking about merging 10 groups, we need the participation of 10
groups. We're not getting it.
We have had at various times substantially less than 10 groups,
but I feel responsible to tell you that notably absent has been Collier
EMS and the two dependent fire districts on a regular basis. We're not
getting the regular participation and involvement from them that this
kind of effort requires. And until we do, we can't be certain that the
specific interests that they represent will be met in this effort.
So we're bringing that to you to ask that we can assure that their
involvement is going to be assured to us in the future.
With that, I would accept any questions. The rest of the team
members are behind me. These are folks that spent an enormous
amount of time and energy helping put this concept together.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Chief, before we go to the
commissioners, can you identify the working group by standing or
Page 114
February 26-27,2008
naming them?
CHIEF METZGER: Absolutely. Members of the operations
committee, please stand. This is not everybody but these are a number
of the principals. These are what I call the heavy lifters.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. A lot of work.
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle,
then you probably want to say something, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I sure do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I want to say that this is
a giant step forward, and I think it was something that we were
contemplating for a long time that it would take place.
I look -- as you brought forth your organization, I was a little
concerned. I think maybe it's a little top heavy, but maybe it will get
leaner and meaner as you work through the process.
One of the things that hasn't really been discussed fully is the
debt service that may be encumbered by some of the fire districts
while other fire districts are very flush with cash.
When is your time frame for addressing getting together and
figuring out what the debt service is and what's going to take place as
far as how you're going to payoff the bonds? And how is all this
going to be put together?
CHIEF METZGER: Well, first we have to truly understand that
aspect of it ourselves. But the direction given to the study group has
been an additional 90 days, I believe, to finish that study, and they're
working hard to assemble the kind of information that you're asking us
about.
Whether or not we can actually produce a written report within
that time, I'm a little concerned about whether we'll be able to meet
that arbitrary deadline, but that's what we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I think that's the thing
that's going to bond -- this is the cement that will bond this together.
And are you anticipating maybe just getting two or three districts
Page 115
February 26-27,2008
together, bring those into the fold, and then work to bring the rest of
the fire districts into the process?
CHIEF METZGER: No, sir. That's not really what we've been
looking at.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHIEF METZGER: What we've been looking at has been a
countywide consolidation. We haven't discussed anything short of
that at this point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think -- now, I may stand to
be corrected by my fellow commissioners. But I think that the
direction that we gave the fire districts was that they needed to
consolidate first, get that worked out, and then EMS was going to
basically follow suit.
CHIEF METZGER: May I comment on that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
CHIEF METZGER: That is not our understanding.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHIEF METZGER: We believe that in terms of the participation
-- let me rephrase that. It's not that I'm disagreeing with your position
on it. It's that we believe that in order to be able to properly discuss
how all that occurs, whether they're brought into the mix from the
beginning or not, they still have to participate from the beginning to
make sure that the end product is truly the appropriate organization.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I totally agree. If you're
coming together with a plan to put all of these groups together to work
together, if I were a part of the EMS, I would want to -- I would want
to be a part of it, tell you our concerns, tell you what we need. Same
with the independent fire districts. They would want to be a part of it.
They're going to be in the end process, so why not participate in all of
Page 116
February 26-27,2008
the talks, and I feel they should be there now and an active participant.
Do you -- what is your next step now after today?
CHIEF METZGER: Well, right now we're engaged in, that is,
the members of this operations committee are facilitating the meetings
of the different other subgroups from finance, training, and fire
prevention and so forth.
We have one person in our EMS section that is meeting with
himself. He's very effective, but he's not getting a whole lot of
interaction there, so -- but we're doing the best we can with those
limitations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. How long do you expect this
to take before you get to a point where you can present us with a final
plan? And I'm saying now with the participation. I don't know if!
have the agreement with my fellow commissioners, but I would
certainly want to see all of the other participants a part of this now.
And if you had that from this day forward, how long would it take you
to come up with a plan?
CHIEF METZGER: We've committed to trying to meet a 90-day
deadline.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whoa.
CHIEF METZGER: There's a number of hurdles with trying to
do that. It's a very ambitious time frame, but we felt that we had to
hold ourselves to some kind of a deadline to keep the action moving.
The progress has been substantial, but as to whether or not there's
going to be a finished written report, it's going to be hard to do that,
but that's what we're trying to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's admirable. I'm so happy
to hear that, that you have this ambitious program in front of you, and
thank you.
And so, Commissioners, I vote to have all of the participants
attend these meetings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion
Page 117
February 26-27,2008
to direct the County Manager to include the participation of EMS and
the dependent districts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second on that motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second on the motion.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's direction by a vote.
CHIEF METZGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not done yet. Far from being
done. You're doing a good job though.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I have a few questions.
Tell me, Chief, what is your impression of the willingness of the
municipalities to participate in the consolidation?
CHIEF METZGER: I don't have a clear understanding of that at
this point. The reality is that their fire and emergency response
leaders are certainly willing to participate in the discussion and bring
some real important insight into it. But at this point, they don't know
what the elected leadership will feel about this. And I think it's as
much because all of us have said, let's study it first, come up with a
report that describes the pros and cons, the benefits and the downsides
Page 118
February 26-27,2008
of consolidation so they have an informed ability to make that
decision.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you give me an assessment of
where the unions, the fire commissioners, and the fire chief stand on
this? You sense there is general support for continuing this study and
ultimately consolidating if it works out to be in the best interest of the
entire county?
CHIEF METZGER: I wouldn't quite take it as far as you've just
taken it. I have no reservations saying that both organized labor and
the fire commissions have expressed high interest in continuing to
study this to identify what the final organization would look like and
the benefits to everybody, not only within their respective current
independent districts, but also throughout the county. And of course,
labor has their specific interests.
But because we've included them from the beginning, number
one, they are -- they are certainly more trusting of our intent and,
number two, they provided some important insight into how best to
effect some of these things in the areas that affect them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, you mentioned a
referendum. How important do you believe a referendum would be?
CHIEF METZGER: I really can't speak to that, Commissioner.
This was a concept that was voiced by a few of our people, and I don't
think we're taking a position as a group on the relative importance of a
referendum.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As I recall the earlier discussion
about referenda, we thought that it might be something appropriate to
determine the level of community support for this idea. But based
upon what you've told us today, it seems that the agencies that are
actually participating in this are reasonably supportive of at least the
study and the concept; is that a fair statement?
CHIEF METZGER: That's a fair statement, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I would -- I would tend to
Page 119
February 26-27,2008
agree. If a referendum is considered, it should be something that
would be considered by the people who are considering the
consolidation to gauge the level of community support for this
concept.
If you at any time feel that there is a question about that, I think
it's something we should discuss later on. But if we feel that there
appears to be no community opposition or no significant community
opposition to consolidation, then I don't think that the referendum
serves any purpose.
Now, finally, having said all that, we started out this process by
saying to you, as a commission, that we would be happy to
consolidate EMS with a consolidated fire organization in Collier
County. I think based upon some of the rumors I hear, you need to
hear from us very clearly that we intend to stick with that obligation
and commitment.
We, I think, intend --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion? Make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not a motion, it's a request. But
if you want me to make a motion, I will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's make it clear what we're telling
the independent districts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't want there to be any
misunderstanding about this. It is my intent, and I make a motion, that
the board ratify this motion, that if there is a consolidation of the fire
districts in Collier County, we will transfer EMS to that consolidated
district and the consolidated district will not, in any way, be under the
supervision or control of Collier County government, that is, the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
Page 120
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow, I think you got four
seconds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a unanimous second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, if -- for -- just for clarification,
whether it be a straw ballot or a mandatory ballot for consolidation of
districts, and that's part of my question I want to bring back later on,
that would be the direction. It is going to be fire, EMS, rescue,
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Just one clarification on the motion for ratification.
Are we talking about a unified fire -- you said -- you didn't say one
unified fire district in your motion. You left that word "one" out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I said consolidated.
MR. MUDD: Consolidated.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Consolidated.
MR. MUDD: Do you -- okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That means one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think -- that would be my intent if
there's any --
MR. MUDD: It's a -- it's a countywide system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Including the municipalities?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's get to that in just a minute.
That's part of my question. But we need to make it clear what the
intent of this elected body is so you can take it back to the dependent
districts.
Any more discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 121
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you still have
the floor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just wanted to provide that
clarification that appeared to be raised here. The fire chiefs are
continuing to go through this process, and the municipalities are
participating in that. I think what we do is, we hope that we can get
everybody, a consolidated fire district, one consolidated district for
entire Collier County.
If there are circumstances which indicate that it's not possible to
do that but there are substantial benefits to the community to continue
the consolidation anyway, I'm certainly happy to proceed with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coletta. That's Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The ugly guy's Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I apologize.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The other Coyle. Yeah. If I
may, first off, I'm extremely pleased with what you've come up with,
but a couple questions, if I may.
When you're talking about 90 days, what do you expect to
produce in 90 days?
CHIEF METZGER: We expect to produce a document that
fleshes out the areas that we were not able to study in the initial study
that's focused solely on the operations aspect. So it will at least touch
on administration and finance, the training area, and the prevention
area, fire code officials, which will be part of the prevention area, and
to whatever degree possible that we have the participation, EMS.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When do you see them
Page 122
February 26-27, 2008
consultants becoming involved? Because I know a consolidation of
this nature without a consultant, you're really at a loss.
CHIEF GREENBERG: For the record, Commissioners, Chief
Rita Greenberg, Big Corkscrew Fire Department.
As president of the chiefs association, I wanted to address that
question for you. The mission that they're on now is the net 90 days,
to take those avenues that they're working on and have a similar
presentation to what you saw today, brought out in numbers, the
numbers of bodies that we have currently, the numbers that would fill
those positions. Currently it's under a functional situation versus
actual personnel.
Once that is completed, I know the direction of my board is to
look at it and review it at that point and make a determine --
determination regarding costs associated with funding for an outside
consultant. And I believe the other board members and the other
independent districts have that same concept.
I'm still waiting, again, for additional information before funding
is provided.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would assume that you're
talking about all the districts, including the county, sharing in the cost
of the consultant.
CHIEF GREENBERG: That would be the intent, I'm sure. That
would all be brought back once it's determined to move that far.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the ballot issue itself, like
has been said by Commissioner Coyle, there may not be need for it if
there's enough community support. But if there's some doubts and
you want to do a ballot, we're not a charter county, so it would have to
be a straw ballot from what I understand, unless the state legislators
already wanted to take it on and make it binding, which I think would
be extremely difficult to do. At that point in time when you got it, is
this something we can do collectively ourselves, or is this something
we have to take back to the state legislative body and have them act on
Page 123
February 26-27,2008
it?
CHIEF GREENBERG: To do a straw ballot in reference to
public opinion regarding -- I believe we can do on our own. The
legislative would be -- need to be involved in either dissolving or
creating a new district. But to determine public consensus, I think we
can do that in-house.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great. Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, last but not least. Some of the
fire districts were created by the vote of the people in the servicing
area.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's something that we're going
to have to ask the -- I believe the legislators.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, what do we do in this
case.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Most of us have that clause and our
enabling act. If we were created by referendum, we have to be
dissolved by referendum --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
CHIEF GREENBERG: -- of the agency we serve, which would
have to go through -- to create a new special district, we'd have to go
back before legislation and have that created, go through legislation,
go through the special election, and the ballot question would be
similar to -- I'll use my example, are you in favor of dissolving the Big
Corkscrew Island Fire, Control, and Rescue District and becoming a
member of countywide consolidated fire service.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. This would be a 191 district,
fire district?
CHIEF GREENBERG: Yeah, 182.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Special district? Or is it 189?
MR. CANNON: I believe it would be a 191.
Page 124
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 191. We really haven't heard from
the municipalities on this issue, and I think it's important that we all
get together.
CHIEF MURPHY: I can answer for Marco Island.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But you're not a city council
person?
CHIEF MURPHY: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And I think that's where the
rubber hits the road is the city councils, the City of Naples, and Marco
Island, to come together and, you know, kind of give some feeling on
where they want to go.
I don't think a straw ballot would be a bad idea, personally, in
November, but I'm not going to force that issue. That's -- you know,
that's not my issue.
But I think the people need to understand at the beginning, it's
not going to be a tax savings, but it will be a better enhanced service.
But we need to -- Commissioners, I think we need to be involved with
this financially, depending on when we want to try to hit the target.
Could it be a year from now, could it be two years from now or
whatever.
Commissioner Fiala -- or Halas --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know. It's a tricky name to
remember.
The -- I think you're right on target, Commissioner Henning,
when you're talking about the municipalities out there. And what I
would like to see us do is give due consideration to having a workshop
with our fellow elected officials at some point in time just to be able to
be briefed by the chief association and everybody start to think about
the possibilities that are out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that a -- County Manager?
Page 125
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: I just want to bring one thing up. Every one of
those independent fire district commissioners is elected.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Okay? And I want to make sure, because the
discussion is municipalities right now, and I believe you do a
disservice if you don't get those other elected officials in the
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And that's one of the things
that I wanted to bring it up. But I believe that we have facilities that
we all could get together, and the chiefs association run the show.
Is that okay with you, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I was just looking at the
fact that we haven't been a player, and I don't know if Marco and
Naples have been a player. That was my concern.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we don't know if the independent
districts want to be a player either. I think that's very important.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to suggest that we
do that, but let's wait a bit until some more of the questions are
answered.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The last thing we want to do is go
before the municipalities in particular to talk about things for which
we do not have sufficient answers. And so I think we should let the
fire chiefs proceed with their analysis, round this thing out a little bit
more, involve the municipalities and Collier County more in this
discussion, and then at that point in time, we try to have a joint
meeting to see if we've got general support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm a little concerned.
There has to be a benefit to the citizens here, and hopefully it is in
Page 126
February 26-27,2008
regards to a tax savings. There's some districts that are taxed more
than others. So I think it has to be equalized across the whole
spectrum. So I think that's one area that we need to really look at, that
the -- it's parody, not only in service, but in responsibilities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It was -- the question was
asked if the municipalities have participated, and I just looked over at
Mike Murphy, or Chief Murphy from Marco Island, and, yes, he has
been involved in all of the talks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know about the City of
Naples.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We just don't know about the
elected officials, how they feel. And it was a great presentation,
absolutely wonderful. A lot of information in there. And I'm glad the
public got a chance to see it through this vehicle. But it's important
that we ask the opinion of the elected officials how to proceed.
CHIEF GREENBERG: I would like to offer, Commissioner
Chuck McMahon of Golden Gate is the chairman of the Fire Service
Steering Committee that represents the independent districts, and that
is an avenue in which we have had all the independent districts gather
together and discuss these issues amongst their elected officials, and
they are in favor of this subcommittee presenting those reports to the
councils to try and get their input as stakeholders as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Is there any other thing you
need from us? I mean, we did presentation, we did give some
guidance. Is there anything?
CHIEF GREENBERG: We just need your support in moving
forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're doing a wonderful job, in my
opmlOn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
Page 127
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Continue on.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Don't go too far.
CHIEF GREENBERG: I know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're done with this item.
Oh, we've got public speakers on --
MS. FILSON: I only have one public speaker, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. It's a presentation. I'm not sure
if we take public --
CHIEF GREENBERG: It was me.
MR. MUDD: You can, sir, on presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is?
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION 2008-50: PETITION CU-2007-AR-1l977 BIG
CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTROL RESCUE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE
MONTES, INC., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE
ALLOWED IN THE ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO TABLE 2, SECTION 2.04.03 OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). THE 6.5 ACRE (E) ZONED SITE
IS PROPOSED FOR A FIRE STATION NOT TO EXCEED 17,642
SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON 6.5
ACRES IN THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF DESOTO
BOULEVARD NORTH AND THE PROPOSED 22ND AVENUE
N.E., GOLDEN GA TE ESTATES UNIT 72, SECTION 28,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to 7A, and this
Page 128
February 26-27, 2008
is Board of Zoning Appeals. This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. It's conditional use 2007-AR-l1977, the Big Corkscrew
Island Fire Control Rescue District, represented by Robert L. Duane,
AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a conditional use allowed in
the Estates district pursuant to table 2, section 2.04.03 of the Land
Development Code.
The 6.5-acre zoned site is proposed for a fire station not to
exceed 17,642 square feet. The subject site is located on 6.5 acres in
the northeast corner of DeSoto Boulevard North and the proposed
22nd Avenue Northeast, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 72, Section 28,
Township 48 south, Range 28 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate, please rise
so the court reporter may swear at you.
(The speakers were duly sworn and responded in
the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte disclosure communications,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. I need to
pull it up real quick here. 7 A, discussed it at the town hall meeting I
held in 2007, correspondence from Chief Greenberg, many emails,
calls from Chief Greenberg, Dan Summers, Jeff Page, set up future
meetings, and that about covers it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there something else that
you wanted to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I'll wait till everybody
finishes. Come right back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
Page 129
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I spoke to the chief briefly and our
staff.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to close the public
hearing.
Commissioner Coletta makes a motion to approve, and second by
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir. I'm sorry. We have one speaker on 7A.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have one speaker on 7A. Please
call the lady or gentleman up. Sue Filson? Would you please call the
public speaker up?
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry. Chief Rita Greenberg for 7A.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You said it well. No further
discussion on the motion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is the shortest petition that I
think we've ever done.
Page 130
February 26-27,2008
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, this gentleman signed up on one
sheet for the last item and another item, and he wants to speak on the
last item, the one you just heard about the consolidation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're done with it.
MS. FILSON: I know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it -- is that relevant that the
gentleman needs to speak? Give you a minute.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I come back during general
communications and come back?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. That's great. I think that's
appropriate.
Next item.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2008-51: PETITION V A-2006-AR-10092
MOHAMMED M. RAHMAN, REPRESENTED BY STEPHEN 1.
FLEMING, P.E., REQUESTING A BEFORE- THE-FACT
VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.05.05.B. OF THE LDC TO
REDUCE THE LOT WIDTH ALONG THE NORTH AND SOUTH
PROPERTY LINE FROM THE REQUIRED l50 FEET TO l35
FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK ALONG
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE FROM THE REQUIRED 40 FEET
TO 25 FEET TO PERMIT AN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE
STATION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2393
LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - ADOPTED
W/ADDITION OF "NO LOITERING SIGNS"
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. Next item is 7B. This item has been
continued from the February l2, 2008, BCC meeting. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
Page 131
February 26-27,2008
provided by commission members.
It's petition V A-2006-AR-10092. Mohammed M. Rahman,
represented by Stephen 1. Fleming, P.E., requesting a before-the-fact
variance from section 5.05.05.B of the Land Development Code to
reduce the lot width along the north and south property line from the
required l50 feet to 135 feet, and to reduce the side yard setback along
the west property line from the required 40 feet to 25 feet, permit an
automobile service station.
Subject property is located at 2393 Lake Trafford Road, Section
32, Township 46 south, Range 29 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participant from this
item, please rise to be sworn at by your court reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and responded in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication,
Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I've had meetings,
correspondence, and emails and phone calls.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: None for me.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, not from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead and make your
presentation, please.
MR. FLEMING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record.
MR. FLEMING: For the record, my name is Steven Fleming.
I'm with Stephen 1. Fleming & Associates. I'm representing
Mohammed Rahman in this endeavor.
Just wanted to go ahead and give you a project briefing. We
Page 132
February 26-27,2008
heard a little bit before, but I wanted to go ahead and give you a little
bit more detail.
The site is a . 89-acre property which has an existing
1,000-square-foot building, and it's current use is a drive -- a
drive-through convenience store. It was built in 1987, so to paint a
picture, it is, I wouldn't say run down, but there are some
improvements to be made to the structure.
So with that being said, I wanted to go ahead and give you guys
an overview of what we propose, and then I also want to let you know
why we're here to ask for the variance.
Basically the new -- the proposed site will include a demolition
of the existing structure and also a removal of the two driveway
connections that go along Lake Trafford Road. The new structure will
be a 4,000-square foot convenience store and will also include two gas
pumps and new landscaping, parking, and some stormwater
management areas which currently are not there.
The proposed site does function very well for traffic flow and it
also includes, like I said before, landscaping, the new parking for 22
vehicles, and also some privacy walls which were put into the plan
based on correspondence with one of the neighborhood -- the
neighbors of the property from the Lake Garden Apartments. We had
some correspondence with them.
The first variance request is for a l5-foot reduction of the
north/south property line to 135 feet from the required l50 feet, and
subsequent to that, the second variance is for the reduction of the side
yard setback along the west property line for the building, and that
would become 25 feet from the required 40 feet.
Benefits that I can see for this new facility will -- there will be an
increase in competition in the area. The new site will be attractive and
will also provide gas and food, facility for a primarily pedestrian
community, which basically, if you've been in that area, there's a lot of
surrounding neighborhoods that the people would access the site just
Page 133
February 26-27,2008
by pedestrian and handicap access points.
From a safety standpoint, the two driveway connections along
Lake Trafford Road would be removed and replaced with a right-out
-- right-in, right-out only along Lake Trafford Road. That would
basically -- the traffic would no longer be directed into the site from
the westbound lane. Let's see. The new sidewalk and handicap access
points will make this site accessible to the community.
And I just wanted to close by saying that the subject property
provides an existing service to the community. The proposed
automobile station will serve to enhance and beautify the quality of
services -- beautify and enhance the quality of services to the
surrounding community while also increasing traffic and pedestrian
safety .
Thank you. I'll take any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Right now we'll go to the staff
report next, and then we'll take questions. Thank you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land
Development Review.
And staff is recommending denial of this before-the fact variance
for a convenience store and gas station. As mentioned earlier, there
are two variances that are being requested. Each of them are l5 feet.
The first 15-foot variance is from the 150-foot-wide width, minimum
lot width, and the second variance is for a 15-foot reduction from the
setback for the convenience store from the residential district. Reduce
it down to the 25 feet.
Now, the reason the LDC requires these dimensions for
automobile service stations such as this is because of intense use.
There's a lot of light, noise, a lot people that tend to congregate at the
convenience stores, and also a lot of traffic that's generated. And so
that's why the LDC has these requirements to try to ameliorate for
these intense uses.
Page 134
February 26-27,2008
We did have one speaker who spoke in opposition at the Collier
County Planning Commission hearing back in December; however,
the CCPC did vote unanimously to approve of this petition.
In short, while redevelopment of this site is a good idea, the site
is a little bit small for this automobile service station project and,
therefore, staff is constrained from recommending approval of this
petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nancy, Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Fiala have some questions.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the Planning
Commission was unanimous on it?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I believe it was Paul
Midney pointed out the advantages and the support that was in the
community of Immokalee itself. Would you say -- would you
consider this to be a soft no?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I see. In other words --
excuse me. I see Joe Schmitt back there getting a little chuckle out of
it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you want to say something, Mr.
Schmitt?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was quoting Joe Schmitt.
That's beside the point. We won't go to it.
But in any case, this is something that's embraced by the
community, this is something that's needed that's going to offer an
amenity that the people almost universally have come forward, and
we've got a number of speakers here from the chamber of commerce
and the rotary and citizens at large from Immokalee that are going to
speak on this item.
And I would really like to make it easy for them by making a
Page 135
February 26-27,2008
motion for approval based upon the recommendations that came down
from the Planning Commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations. Is
there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second it, but I have a
comment before I -- that's why I didn't want to second it right away, so
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you don't mind?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You did second it, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did second it, but I have my
comments to make before I could ever vote on this.
They have not maintained their property, and it's -- in fact, it's
been rather disgraceful looking. What says that then after we
determine that they're going to build a wall and that they're going to
put landscaping on both sides, according to what we've said, that they
don't maintain that? And instead of having something that the
neighbors were hoping to be much more pleasant to look at, instead
they've just got dead stuff again. How do we -- how do we enforce
them taking care of what they agreed to build and to plant?
MS. GUNDLACH: Well, I can definitely answer from the
landscape perspective. If somebody calls it in, code enforcement can
make them maintain their landscaping.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And if they don't?
MS. GUNDLACH: Then they'll have to replant and replace.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because that's why I hesitate to vote
for this. If they want -- you know, I want them to be a good neighbor
and I want the people -- they're trying to improve the appearance of
Immokalee. And everything that we approve, we approve for the
betterment of that community, and this being one of it. And so maybe
we can even go out there and inspect ourselves every once in a while.
Page 136
February 26-27, 2008
Okay, fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How close is this business
establishment going to be to the residential area?
MS. GUNDLACH: I'm sorry, Commissioner. Could you repeat
that question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. How close is this business
establishment going to be to the residential area?
MS. GUNDLACH: Twenty-five feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have some concerns then in
regards to starting at five a.m. and going on till II p.m., especially if
the residents, they're small children and stuff in this area. Was this
brought up with the Planning Commission?
MS. GUNDLACH: That particular recommendation in terms of
the hours of operation, that was a specific CCPC recommendation. It
actually reduces the hours that they could otherwise have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm concerned with starting
at five a.m. and then going tillll p.m., especially if it's in a residential
area.
Has lighting also been addressed?
MS. GUNDLACH: That is addressed in our automobile service
station section of the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So that there isn't any
bleed-over into the residential area? Do you know if that's in our
Land Development Code? Because there are some automotive
establishments whereby it's lit up like a Christmas tree at night.
MS. GUNDLACH: My understanding is, is that -- and these
were probably adopted five or six years ago. That was the intention of
establishing these standards was to try to reduce the impact of things
like lighting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you are going to, some way or
another, be able to address bleed-over from this establishment into the
Page 137
February 26-27,2008
residential neighborhood behind it?
MS. GUNDLACH: I'd have to verify that for you. It depends on
whether or not we require the shades on the lanterns to keep them
shining onto the site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was this discussed at all with the
Planning Commission?
MS. GUNDLACH: No, it was not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was there any concern with them
on this?
MS. GUNDLACH: I believe not, because they didn't discuss it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's interesting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You know, this guy up here
really wants to say something.
MR. THOMAS: I mean, I can help. I can really help you all
understand the questions that you all are answering (sic), if you all
would let me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to hold your time and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll wait. I'll wait till all the
speakers are finished.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three minutes, right?
MS. FILSON: I only have two speakers, Mr. Chairman. Are
you ready for them?
MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Thomas needs to say
something.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Mr. Thomas. He'll be
followed by Richard Rice.
MR. THOMAS: Fred, director -- I mean, the chairman of your
Master Planning and Visioning Committee.
You've got to understand this situation that we have up there
right now. You have a drive-through that can get in there and operate
Page 138
.
February 26-27, 2008
2417. Nobody can stop it, okay? There's a drive-through that -- on the
south side of Lake Trafford Road surrounded by trailers with a lot of
migrant workers living in those trailers with a nice or subsidized
housing unit next door to it. That's the one where they're going to put
the fancy wall down, okay.
Across Lake Trafford and a half block down was one nice house
that made the first complaint about the noise and the lights, across
Lake Trafford Road. And you go down another block and you're at
another convenience store. If you stay on the same side of Lake
Trafford and go east, you've got to go three blocks for your next
convenience store.
Now, what they're proposing to do is to put a convenience store
with gas pumps out front, okay. A convenience store with gas out
front. Five clock in the morning. What is happening in that
neighborhood at five clock? People are going to work, they're going
down to meet the buses, to get on to go to the packing houses, to go to
the fields and whatnot. So that's why they got to be open early enough
for people to get their orange juice, their milk, or whatever they're
going to take with them in the morning.
By putting that facility there, the folks in the next door -- around
them in the back and next door to them on the west do not have to get
their canes or wheelchairs and whatnot and go across Lake Trafford to
get a pack of cigarettes or a loaf of bread. They can go right next door
to this facility, okay.
So it makes a lot of sense and it helps our whole area down there
for you all to approve this, because the way they're going to set it up --
and I was concerned about it myself, about the lights, but the lights are
going to be out in front of the building, then the building, and then the
residents around it.
The only person that complained about lights was across the
street and about 150 yards to the west of this location, and his house
faced to the west, okay.
Page 139
February 26-27,2008
And this is about eight blocks from where I live. And I'm telling
you, it's a good idea. It's a safety concern that we have to keep people
from trying to go across the street to get to the convenience store when
they can go right next door.
And if I can answer any other questions for you, I'll answer them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have a
question of staff?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Is this the same owner who
is improving property or is it a new owner?
MS. GUNDLACH: I believe it's the same owner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But you have the petitioner here to answer that
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Can we get that question
answered?
MR. FLEMING: Yes. It's the -- Steve Fleming, for the record.
Yes, it's the same owner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same owner. So we've got a piece
of property there that has deteriorated and is unsightly, but if we give
the same owner who let it deteriorate and become unsightly an
opportunity to depart from our zoning codes, then we're going to
reward him by letting him do that and we have no assurance that it
won't be unsightly and deteriorated five years from now.
MR. THOMAS: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thomas --
MR. THOMAS: Commissioner, now I'm going to answer the
question because --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. You had --
MR. THOMAS: -- you made an assumption. He made an
assumption that's not right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You had your time.
MR. THOMAS: It hasn't deteriorated in the last five years, sir.
Page 140
February 26-27,2008
It was deteriorated long before this guy took it over.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thompson (sic), that's uncalled
for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I'm a business owner, then I'm
going to try to make the place presentable. It doesn't take me five
years to do it, okay. Ifhe's owned it for five years, he's owned it for
two years, and it hasn't improved, I'm not going to give him another
bite at the apple. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to vote in
favor of this variance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next public speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next public speaker is Richard Rice.
MR. RICE: Commissioners, Richard Rice, executive director of
the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. The current owner has owned
the property for about five years, but he has made improvements to it
over this five-year period of time.
What he's trying to do now is take it a step further and provide a
better facility than what he has and what he's already improved upon.
So I think you need to take that into consideration and not say, if he
hasn't done anything in five years, because he has done things. We
would support this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next -- oh, you have a
question for --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you take it as your
responsibility to oversee the appearance of that piece of property if we
approved it and it would be directly on the Chamber of Commerce's
shoulders that you would be overseeing this property?
MR. RICE: We'll be happy to work with the commission and
with any county agency to make sure that the property stays in the
state that they want to make it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 141
February 26-27, 2008
MR. RICE: It's part of our beautification area too. You might
want to keep that in mind.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you what. I'll
personally take it as my responsibility to check on this property on a
monthly basis and work with Dick Rice there, and I have code
enforcement within the building where my office is, and I'll be with
them every minute if they're starting to go downhill with it.
The whole darn thing is, is what have we got if we leave it where
it is? We have a dilapidated piece of property that's going to be an
eyesore forever. At least this way we've got a standing chance to be
able to get this back up to par and then making them maintain it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Sir, before you go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Richard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me what
improvements have been made in the last five years that you can --
MR. RICE: Hurricane Wilma, there was some damage to the
roof. They've replaced the roof and they have painted the building,
painted the structure. They've made some other minor improvements
to it as they've gone along with those repairs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Now supposedly it's
dilapidated. Has the surrounding grounds been taken care of or can
you give me kind ofa picture of the grounds?
MR. RICE: They haven't had the need to put any landscaping in,
if that's what you're referring to, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just cleaned -- just generally in the
appearance there's --
MR. RICE: Generally the appearance of the building and the
surrounding area has been improved, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any more speakers?
Oh, the County Manager wants to speak.
Page 142
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, thank you.
Sir, I think you need to hear from the petitioner because I've
heard some dialogue here, and it seems like there's an impression that
the existing facility is going to get gussied up, you know, get
beautified or painted or whatever and then they're going to put the fuel
pumps on.
This is a complete destruction of what's on this -- on this
particular piece of property, and then they're going to build a new
facility. And I hope I haven't misspoken, sir.
MR. FLEMING: No, that's correct. For the record, there would
also be added stormwater management areas as well as landscaping
and demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new
building.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any more speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One last comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One last comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Simple. So that means we have to
reelect Commissioner Coletta to make sure that he can oversee this
property for the next five years?
MR. RICE: We'll support that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I owe you one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- question for the petitioner.
There's been concerns about bleed-off from the lights. Would your
client be willing to put shields to guarantee there would be no
bleed-off from the lights from your property?
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I have some LDC
information. This project will be required by code to have shielded
lights and low-level lighting under the canopy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have another question for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's concern about a place for
Page 143
February 26-27, 2008
people to hang out. Can you -- would your client be willing to put "no
loitering" signs in the parking lot?
MR. RAHMAN: Yes.
MR. FLEMING: Yes, that would be -- that would be fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, can
you put that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll include that in my motion
that "no loitering" signs be included on the building.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At the appropriate locations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At the appropriate location,
right, not in the back? Although maybe that's not a bad idea, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Fiala, is that in
your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries, 4-l.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. FLEMING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Did a good job, sir.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that -- just -- you made a motion
Page 144
February 26-27,2008
and said "no loitering." I want to make sure because somehow you get
lottery in there. They can still sell a lottery ticket there, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: I just want to make sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No loitering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did I say lottery?
MR. MUDD: That's how it came across, okay? And I just want
to make sure we're talking about loitering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I apologize.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The next question (sic) is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No gambling.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2008-l2: REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO
CONSIDER A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION l.04.04,
REDUCTION OF REQUIRED SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS,
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS
PART OF THE SPECIAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
AMENDMENT CYCLE FOR 2008 AS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
BY THE BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: -- 8A. It's a request that the board -- to consider a
proposed amendment to section l.04.04, reduction of required site
design requirements of the Collier County Land Development Code as
part of a special Land Development Code LDC amendment cycle for
2008 as previously approved by the board, and I believe that Mr. R.
Bruce Anderson will present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Halas to approve the -- put this in the special cycle, second by
Page 145
February 26-27,2008
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MS. FILSON: I do have one speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you call that speaker up,
please.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Anderson is waving.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, you want to come up
and say something?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. I just wanted to
correct the record. This is not to put in a special cycle. It's actually to
approve it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Approve it.
MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Is there any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 8B has been continued.
Item #lOA
DISCUSSION ON THE HISTORY AND APPLICATION OF THE
Page 146
February 26-27,2008
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REGULATIONS CONCERNING
THE REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
ZONING DISTRICT - MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION NO.3
ON LAWFULLY PERMITTED STRUCTURES; COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO MEMORIALIZE ACTIONS IN A
RESOLUTION TO BE BROUGHT BACK AT THE NEXT BCC
MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and 9C is at three p.m., so that brings us
to lOA, which is a discussion on the history and application of the
Land Development Code regulations concerning the rear yard setback
requirements for accessory structures in the Golden Gate Estates
zoning district.
Ms. Susan Istenes, your Director of Zoning and Land
Development Code from Community Development's Environmental
Services, will present.
MS. ISTENES: Good afternoon. Susan Istenes, Zoning
Director.
Commissioners, I'm here to initiate a discussion with you to
review the history of the application of the rear yard setback
requirements for accessory structures in the Estates zoning district and
to discuss potential means to resolve a longstanding conflict between a
historical policy application for accessory setbacks and the minimum
setbacks as set forth in the Land Development Code which conflict.
Since 1982 there has been a separate table in the LDC and a
separate section titled supplementary district regulations that has
specified setbacks for all types of accessory structures for residential
land uses. And in the Estates zoning district in 1982, the district set
forth minimum yard requirements but did not qualify as to whether or
not the setback requirements were to apply to principal structures,
accessory structures or to both.
Page 147
February 26-27, 2008
If that's not clear, I have excerpts from that code I'd be happy to
put on the visualizer to explain that, but essentially the Estates zoning
district set forth the setback regulations and did not qualify as to
whether or not these were to apply to accessory or principal structures.
To confuse that matter more, there was a separate table in a
separate section of the code that spoke in generalities about the
setback requirements for accessory structures. And I believe -- and
this is my theory. I was not here in 1982 nor were you, and I'm not
sure that anybody -- well, there are a few staff members that we
brought along that you may question. I believe they were here in '82
or shortly thereafter.
But this is my theory, and my theory is that that discrepancy
between the language in a separate table and the language in the
Estates zoning district probably prompted an administrative
interpretation as to which standards should apply, because the
standard in the Estates district -- I'm putting that right up on the
visualizer. Might want to -- where you see the -- highlighted in the
middle of your page, item C, and then if you would look also at three.
So if you start at three, it says, minimum yard requirements, and
it does not tell you if those are to apply to accessory or principal. It
just says minimum yards. And then you'll see there that the rear yard
says 75 feet.
This is the table I'm referring to. It's actually in a separate
section of the 1982 code, and it says that -- well, it goes on to talk
about accessory structures and their location and whatever, and it
speaks very generally about accessory structures.
And then you see a laundry list of different types of accessory
structures and you see the front, rear, and side regulations dependent
upon the type of structure.
I believe the differences between the Estates zoning setbacks, as I
showed you earlier, and this table probably prompted an inquiry from
staff to management at the time as to which setback standards should
Page 148
February 26-27,2008
apply, and I believe that probably an administrative decision was
made or an interpretation was made that basically said that you should
apply the setback standards in the table for districts that allow
single- family residential homes, and that would include the Estates.
In 1991, I believe this interpretation -- and it was still -- my
research indicates that that was still being carried forward in 1991. I
believe that when the Land Development Code was adopted in 1991 --
and that was after your Growth Management Plan was adopted in
1989, then you had your implementing LDC regulations in 1991 -- my
research shows that some additional text was added to the Estates
zoning district, and it said -- and I'll put it up on the visualizer.
But it said, the following dimensional standards shall apply to all
permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the Estates. So that's
different from '82. In '82 it didn't tell you what it should apply to. It
just said, these are the standards, and then you had that separate table.
And then in '91 it was actually qualified by the addition of that
language, and I highlighted that.
And so, in a sense, I guess you could say the addition of that
language somewhat changed what probably was an interpretation or a
policy decision, administrative policy decision simply by qualifying
the requirements.
At that time there -- staff advises me there really was no change
in the administrative policy decision or interpretation, or whatever you
want to call it. They continued to apply lO feet to their -- as the rear
yard setback requirement in the Estates zoning district.
And that carried on throughout all the LDC changes and it has
been an accepted practice to be applied by staff for over 20 years now
and really has been accepted by the public largely until one inquiry
was made about two months ago, and that inquiry was as a result of an
out-building, a metal out-building, approximately 5,000 square feet in
area that was in the process of being erected on an Estates zoned lot
approximately 31 feet or so from the rear property line, and the
Page 149
February 26-27,2008
adjoining property owner questioned the setback, rear yard setback
standard, because it was -- my understanding is, it was his assumption
it was 75 feet, and the staff had historically been applying 10 feet.
So that really raised the issue. And at that point I got involved
and started looking at why 10 feet has been the standard for so long.
And again, this summary is basically my theory after having
worked here for II years and understanding how -- when you get
conflicts in the code, how they've been handled in the past.
I have no evidence of a written policy to that effect. I mean,
quite frankly, we didn't even have a software -- a word processing
software program in place in the county until the late 1980s. I mean,
so you're talking about a code that's been around since '82 and
possibly before that. So the likelihood of having any electronic record
of that is slim.
I did ask staff to research and look for that. They could not find
any of that, although they did indicate they believe one did exist at one
point.
I do have staff available in the audience to give verbal testimony
to the lO-foot rule application if you want their perspective. One of
the staff members has been here for 25 years; another close to 20, I
believe.
What I'd like to kind ofleave you with in some of your points to
consider, and what we're looking for here is -- I really need you to
direct us as to how you would like us to remedy the setback situation
for accessory structures. And please note that an LDC amendment
would likely be required.
So until that time it would be necessary to get your guidance as
to which setback standards should apply.
Some things to think about -- and after I wrote the executive
summary and turned it in to the County Manager's office, I -- we have
continued to do research on the issue. I wanted to point out that there
was, in your executive summary, a draft number given to you about
Page 150
February 26-27, 2008
the possibility of the number of permits that had been issued at less
than 75 feet.
I do not believe it was clear that that data, when given to me, was
not clear, that that was for a cross section of approximately one square
mile in the Estates, and so please don't interpret that to mean that that
is the total number of permits for accessory structures that have been
issued.
We, since that time, have dug deeper into our records. Again,
you're talking about records that are over 20 years old. My
understanding is, by law, permit records associated with residential
structures at one point were only required to be kept for 10 years.
Now it's 15. So we -- before the advent of computers or the presence
of computer tracking for our permitting records, we may not even
have paper files to go back and look at if that is your desire.
But I do have some more up-to-date data that, if you're interested
in hearing about, we have staff prepared to explain, if you wish.
I want to leave you with the following points just to consider in
your deliberation. That the 10- foot rear setback has been routinely
applied for over 20 years now without any known concerns until
know, and that basically one concern, and that's -- from my II years
here, this is the first time the issue has been raised, to my attention.
A change now to require an additional setback beyond 10 feet --
so if you wish to revert back to the 75 feet -- is going to create legal
nonconforming structures.
I'm not sure if the number of legal nonconforming structures is
important to you or not. I mean, you need to tell us that. Quite
frankly, in my opinion, lO legal nonconforming structures or 210 legal
nonconforming structures is still the same issue, it's still the same
problem. I'm not sure if the number is going to help in your
deliberation, but you need to tell us that.
Nonconforming structures are undesirable from a planning
perspective; however, they are curable over time.
Page 151
February 26-27,2008
One thing to think about, too, is that -- and in thinking after I had
presented the executive summary to you and noted in my executive
summary that a 10-foot rear yard setback really probably isn't in
keeping with the harmony and intent of the Golden Gate Area --
Estates Area Master Plan.
And in thinking a little bit more about it and the length of time
this issue -- that 10 feet has been applied to this area of the county,
you know, the Growth Management Plan really is the public
document, and it's adopted. It's the public's map and guide as to how
they wish their community to be developed.
Seventy-five is not expressly stated in the GMP but, again, I do
not believe, given the purpose and intent of the Golden Gate area on
our Future Land Use Map that a lO-foot rear yard setback is in
harmony with the intent; however, it is important to note that it has
been in place over 20 years and seemingly has been accepted by the
public.
And to that end, perhaps that is a decent argument to consider the
fact that the public's okay with it. That's, again, up to you. Just kind
of food for thought. I wanted to -- something I had been thinking
about.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some questions.
MS. ISTENES: I'm pretty much done. So, again, I said we just
basically need you all to direct us as to how you would like us to
apply in the interim and what the end result will be, because we likely
will have to do an LDC amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Fiala, Commissioner Coletta, and then Commissioner Coyle. I got a
litany of questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to start off by asking--
that there was a study group that came up with what they wanted to --
the Golden Gate Estates to look like; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: Well, yes.
Page 152
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: In a nutshell. I won't attempt to qualify that,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the people that were in the
study group basically sat down and said, this is how we want our
community to look and this is the setbacks we're going to have,
because some of these properties were anywhere from acre and a
quarter to five acres, right?
MS. ISTENES: You're correct on the property size,
Commissioner. I'm not sure -- certain that the community sat down
and specifically determined the setbacks. When you're talking about
master planning, you're talking in broad terms and you're not talking
in specifics. When your -- your LDC is your implementing document
to your master plan so your LDC gets into specifics of setback
dimensions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, where I'm going with this is,
this isn't the only time that the citizens who tried to put down an
overlay or something were basically shunned or basically didn't even
-- well, said, that's -- we don't care what the citizens come up with.
We're interested in making sure that we address a particular
individual's issue whether -- I mean, why would you put a 5,000
square- foot building 10 feet from the property? You don't even do
that in the commercial building.
And whatever this guy was building here -- I'm not sure if it was
a granary or a cattle barn or whether he was working on dump trucks.
And -- so how do you address something of that magnitude where it's
so far out of whack?
I could see maybe something like a Ted's building; a Ted's Shed,
you know, a small one where you put a lawn mower or something in.
But when you come up with this magnitude and continue to use this, I
would think that common sense would prevail.
And then what about all the work that was done by the people out
Page 153
February 26-27,2008
there in Golden Gate in regards to how they were looking at the big
picture of what they were hoping to get their community to look like,
and then somebody takes it on themselves to make a change. And it's
kind of like an insubstantial change to whoever that person was that
made the change.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I'm listening, and I'm going to
attempt to answer, at least comment on your points that you made.
First of all, I mean, I believe this -- based on the testimony staff
has given to me, this is an issue that's over 20 years old. Now, your
compo plan was adopted in 1989, so this was something that has been
going on before your compo plan has even been adopted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But why wasn't it stopped?
MS. ISTENES: I can't answer that, sir. I really can't. I -- I
essentially have put a stop to it in that my interpretation is that 75 feet
is the setback that is stated in the code and should be applied, and --
but that was just two months ago when the issue was discovered.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two months ago. Why didn't staff
come up with some type of check and balance early on?
MS. ISTENES: I think the staff was just simply proceeding on
former policy direction that, quite frankly, my frustration with it, just
was never implemented into the code, sir. I mean, that is my only
explanation. I'm only guessing because I wasn't here. And -- but I
know how, when you have a conflict in the code, the planning director
at the time is asked to interpret the code and direct staff as to how it
should be applied. And I can only assume that that is what happened
back, perhaps, in the '80s.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did one person take this upon
themselves to initiate this?
MS. ISTENES: I can't answer that. I just don't have those details
because it was so long ago, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there people that are still on staff
that were here at that point in time that maybe can give you direction?
Page 154
February 26-27,2008
I mean, it seems to me that -- you know, that we hire people here to be
accountable, and I would think that someplace along the line there has
to be a check and balance, and it shouldn't take 20 years to find a
problem of this magnitude.
MS. ISTENES: I have staff here who could testify to the fact
that they were -- basically this was, they testified to me, was
essentially a policy decision that was implemented sometime ago that
they just carried through. It's--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My last question, so I can let my
other commissioners -- because I'm sure there's a lot of questions by
all my commissioners in regards to how this all came about.
But an individual that constructs a 5,000-square-foot building, it
would seem to me that they would have an engineering firm that
would come out and say, we're going to build this building. Wouldn't
the engineering firm, wouldn't they have some common sense and say,
wait a minute. You know, when we build this in a commercial area,
we have to have X amount feet of setback. Here we're going on a
residential lot and I'm going to build this huge big building and it's
only going to be 10 feet away and we don't have any requirements for
landscaping or buffering or anything else.
MS. ISTENES: I mean no disrespect to the engineering
community, sir, but no, I do not believe they would have that sense.
I'm in total seriousness and honesty.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's why they get a license.
MS. ISTENES: Well, ifit was a planner, perhaps, they would
recognize that, and I'm not picking on planners or engineers. My boss
sitting over here is an engineer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's an engineer? Oh, you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's his fault.
MS. ISTENES: I better keep my mouth shut. Again, look at it in
the perspective of an engineering firm or any contractor coming into
the county year after year after year and being issued and told that the
Page 155
February 26-27,2008
setback is lO feet. Why would they question it? They really wouldn't.
And the other thing to think about, too, in the Estates is, we see a
lot of people these days maximizing their use of their property in the
Estates. They have large lots. They want to build large storage
buildings. They have hobbies or businesses or animals or things that
are allowed in the Estates that they want to house in in-door structures.
And that's where they can do it, and a lot of -- and that's why they
move out there for a lot of reasons.
So I think these days, you're seeing a lot of people maximizing
and building these large structures to do whatever it is they're doing
out there that's within the code, assumably, and you're seeing a lot
more of that than you did 20 years ago.
So perhaps 20 years ago you were talking about a small well
house or a little metal shed that somebody wanted to stick up and they
needed a permit for and they came in and got one and they were told
10 feet. Now the impact seems to be much greater. That's just my
perspective from having been there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to move on. I think
I have solutions, but I'm going to let my colleagues go first.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I think Commissioner Fiala
was first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. She said she's -- Commissioner
Halas answered a lot of her questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Asked my question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
And I appreciate the opportunity because, you know, I think
we're losing sight of what we've got for a problem here. A problem
that's been going on for 20 some years, oversight on the part of staff,
who's responsible.
The truth of the matter is, you've got to remember at all times, no
matter who is responsible, it is not the person that applied for these
Page 156
February 26-27,2008
permits. They've been told in good faith it was 10 feet, and they did it
at 10 feet. I live on an Estates lot, 660 feet deep. I haven't seen the
back line of my lot in over five years, and I imagine there's a lot of
other people that haven't seen their back line.
So the problem exists only in the eyes of the beholder. In other
words, when the item comes up, which is this rare case where you
have one lot that's cleared to its lot line where you can see through the
trees, another one where they build a large building 30-some feet back
from the property line, and it stands out.
So how do you address the problem? It's pretty dam simple.
You address it by -- when it comes up before the commission. If
somebody comes forward and they make a complaint about a building
being so close, come up with some sort of matrix by the line of sight,
make them plant some vegetation there to be able to screen the
building, and then just paint the building if necessary -- if you've got a
couple of them out there. I don't think there's going to be that many --
something that makes it blend in, only when a person complains.
Keep it as simple as possible. I mean, the idea of intruding upon
these people and holding them responsible for an oversight that's taken
place for 20 years is just unconscionable on the part of the government
to do that.
And I've heard suggestions where, okay, we'll go with the 51
percent rule. If 51 percent of the buildings destroyed, we're going to
make them move the whole thing back. Well, you know, give me a
break. If they have to move it, they're going to get enough money to
cover the 51 percent. Now they're going to have to absorb the cost of
the slab and all the cost it is to put the infrastructure back in to be able
to cover the cost of the building being rebuilt again.
Out there in the Estates, people live with each other without
conflict as a regular way of life. I mean, sure, they have some
neighbor problems every now and then. But let's try to handle this in
a humane and expedient matter so that we don't complicate the
Page 157
February 26-27,2008
situation.
Thank you. I think I've said what I need to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I haven't heard anybody
talking about tearing down buildings. That's not your
recommendation. I don't think we've suggested that you do that.
What you've recommended -- although it's confusing to me, I
think I understand where you're going. It seems to me you're saying,
alternative two, but let's, you know, recognize those buildings that are
under construction and that sort of stuff and have already been
constructed. It's not much different than option three as far as I can
determine it, but that's neither here nor there.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, may I just put these options --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, please.
MS. ISTENES: -- and you could tweak them?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I think I -- you know, I
have an opinion that it is way, way too much trouble for us to go back
and revisit all of those things that have happened over the past 15,20
years. You just grandfather those things in, they become legally
nonconforming structures, and then we're done with these. And from
here forward, we begin to apply the 75-foot setback rule.
But -- now that leaves us with a situation where a building is
currently under construction. Now, what do we do about that one?
That's the only one that puzzles me. And it's probably the only one
that we should even be dealing with in this process. But I -- my
motion would be to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have some questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You don't want any
motions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I mean, I have questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I mean, I provide -- staff
Page 158
February 26-27, 2008
provided me a lot of answers I want to share with my colleagues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then go ahead and ask the
question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not going to make a
statement, although I would like to. But I just want to put this in
perspective.
The lots in Golden Gate Estates, if they have not been
subdivided, are 660 feet. You got a 75 front (sic) setback, 75-foot rear
setback. That is 510 feet that the people enjoy to work in. Staff
provided me information on Unit 1. And out of the -- correct me,
Susan, on this -- 180 residential structures out there, correct, that you
analyzed --
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. There were -- there are 11
potential setbacks, 75 (sic) setbacks. So 161 of the people got it right;
11 didn't. And out of that, three of the structures are within 74 to 55
feet, three of the structures are 55 feet to 35 feet, and five of the
structures are 35 to 10 feet.
But of those, Susan, that was provided to you -- to me, the first
one says it's a screen pool enclosure with a 40-foot rear yard setback.
Well, that isn't what shows up. What the problem is, is the pole barn
(sic), that is far beyond the 75-foot setback, okay.
The next one, Commissioners, we have a subdivision within Unit
1 of Golden Gate Estates, Castello Drive. It is an average of
125-by-125 lot. That is your standard lot, typically; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: I'm not familiar with that subdivision,
Commissioner, but yes, I know there are subdivisions within the
Estates that, provided they meet the minimum requirements of the
code, can be established, and they have been. So yes, your 660 is
your typical lot in the Estates, but there are varieties that are less than
660 that still are lawful.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, that's true, but this one
Page 159
February 26-27,2008
subdivision within Golden Gate Estates doesn't apply, but that's part of
your examples or your study of Unit 1.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, I will caution you on the data,
even the most recent data, because the collection of the data and -- and
I may -- I don't want to go too far afield because I didn't do the data
and analysis past the numbers that were just given to me, and we have
people here that can explain the data if you have specific questions,
but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, if we're going to go any
further, I think this really needs to be studied in more detail, because
the information that was provided to me, it's really not a problem.
And my opinion, we need to be consistent up here on the dais. We
gave direction for one community, a PUD, that we said that you have
the ability to do administrative variances. Other than that, the others
would have to come to the board.
And if you would wait just a minute.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just letting you know I'm
going to do it, sir. I didn't say anything to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I recognize.
But that's what I think the board has. I think the information they
got, it's not that big of a problem. You could do a majority of these
through an administrative process, just like we've done before, and
others would have to just come to us.
But what we also are doing under the recommendations, we're
giving somebody more uses than what has historically been done.
And what about the people who have complied, the majority -- the
supermajority of the people have applied (sic) -- in the zoning district.
So we're saying to them by the recommendations that you don't
have the same pleasure. We'll just make these nonconforming. And
we've seen nonconforming uses go on for decades, and I don't think
that's consistent, what we have done in the past.
And besides, I don't think that we know how bad it is. But it's an
Page 160
February 26-27,2008
example in one unit, then it is not as bad, and we ought to be
consistent.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And Commissioner
Henning, I have some concerns over what you said.
First, staff time is extremely valuable. We're very, very short.
We don't have a problem unless we create a problem.
And we keep referring to the people that have complied. They've
complied. They're all within the 10 feet they were told they had to do.
Why are we going to make life difficult for them and our staff and
ourselves by making them do things and jumping through hoops and
getting variances and going through so much government bureaucracy
that we're never going to get to where we need to be?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I can tell you that we're giving
to the minority, and the majority of the people have complied to the
setbacks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They have all complied. Ten
feet is what they were told to comply with.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'll tell you, that is a policy that
has been applied, and the policy is wrong. The Golden Gate Estates
always had a separate category from the -- your residential, your
RSF-l your RSF-2 and--
, ,
MS. ISTENES: I don't disagree with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. All those, it had a 10-foot
setback. But those are -- those lots are 125, 150 feet deep. That is
normal to have that kind of a setback. So it is not consistent with the
Growth Management Plan. And I think that we ought to be consistent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, we're at the -- we're
at the mercy of what we're told the rules are. When people go down
and they say, what is the setback and they tell them 10 feet, fine, put
me down for 10 feet, here we go.
First, I can't understand why anybody would want to be that far
Page 161
February 26-27, 2008
away from the road. It's a tremendous expense to put a road back
there, but some people did it. Not many. A lot of them did what you
say, used the word comply. I say what they did is they used common
sense and they stayed closer to where their house was and everything
so they didn't have to take care of a tremendous amount of road and
property maintaining it all the way out to the out-building that they
had.
But as far as people not complying, you have to know that there's
a rule in place that says you're violating it before you cannot comply
with it. And staff has been telling them without a break for 20-some
years that it's 10 feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know. You said that twice.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know I did, but I didn't think
you understood it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, Ijust disagree with you
because that is not the board's policy. That's not in the board's
ordinance, okay, and we have public speakers.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but it is what it is.
As far as I'm concerned, the ones that are already there, nobody's
ever complained about anything and we've never heard about it
before, I don't think anybody should be penalized.
Staff, because they've just been going according to what they've
been told. I know I do that sometimes. If it's been repeated long
enough, you feel it's fact. And people who have built there, whether it
be a swimming pool or a doghouse, doesn't make any difference,
anything, or a shed, if it's too close to the rear yard setback but they
were told 10 feet, let them just have it. Maybe we just have to deal
with this particular item and then move forward. I would think that
that would be the sensible way to do it.
MS. FILSON: Ready for the speakers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
Page 162
February 26-27,2008
MS. FILSON: First one is Mark Finger. He'll be followed by
John Hatz.
MR. FINGER: My name is Mark Finger. I'm -- I own Naples
Steel Products. I've been doing pre-engineered buildings in the Gate
since 1975.
Your 10- foot rule, whether the -- you all knew it or they knew it
or whatever is what this county's been following for 25 years.
We -- the question was asked about engineers. On this one
particular job, we've had three engineers out there before the building
was built. We have a surveyor layout where the building was going to
be where we would make sure we met the setbacks, okay. The
setback was 10 feet. We're 31 feet off the back property line.
I have built probably -- in that time period I have probably built
50 buildings in Golden Gate. I can tell you five right now in the last
year that don't meet your 75-foot setback, okay. And they're not in
that area. They're in different area of Golden Gate Estates, okay.
The way the code, we understood the code -- now, this is going
through my engineers who do my site work and everything for me
over the years, was the main house, the main principal structure had to
be 75 feet from the back property line. The main structure was
understood to be the house, okay.
The secondary structure, which could be a dog pen, a garage,
whatever you want it to be, couldn't be more than 5 percent of the total
square footage of the lot. That's the first thing. Then it could be built
within 10 feet of the rear property line.
Now, I have never built any 10 feet within the rear property line.
The less we've ever done is 30 feet, okay, in all that time that I've
been building buildings out there.
Now, you got them -- if staff went through the whole nine yards
of Golden Gate and went back for the last 20 years, you've probably
got a hundred buildings out there that don't meet your criteria of75
feet. I can you tell that right now. I'm only one builder. There's five
Page 163
February 26-27,2008
or six guys here in town that have been doing them as long as I have
out there, and it's a major problem.
Now, whether the code was 75 feet -- it was interpreted by staff
at 10. They didn't have the guidance. I don't know who was supposed
to give it to them -- but it shouldn't be the public that has to pay the
bill.
As long as I remember, you all are supposed to be working for
us, not -- and the public did not goofup. We've done exactly what we
were told to do. I got a building right now for this owner. It's been on
hold now for what, three months?
MR. HA TZ: Three months.
MR. FINGER: Three months. The building's built, slab's done,
doors are in, all he's waiting on is his electrical, and a lot of money
spent. It wasn't a cheap proposition. That's all I got to say.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Hatz.
MR. HA TZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As Mark said,
I'm the owner of the property, unfortunately.
Commissioner Halas, it is not a granary. It's for a collection of
classical cars I have. My wife and I built a new house with the
auxiliary building behind it.
We went to three engineers. The first engineer did the slab for us
for the homeowner -- the homebuilder, did that for us. The second
engineer Mark brought in to do his site plan. When the question came
up by the county about, I should have been 75 foot, we called in a
third engineer. He came up with a lO-foot rule also.
At the time, had my wife and I known that it was 75 foot, I would
have had no problem making it 75 foot. I'm not here to accuse the
system. I want to work with it. I want to be a good citizen; however,
at this point in time, if I had to make it 75 foot, I've got to move my
house forward another 40 foot or the rear accessory building goes into
my house. I have no problem with doing that, but it's too late now.
Thank you for your time.
Page 164
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta has a question
for you.
MR. HA TZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's a perplexing problem, and it
hasn't come up before. But still, there is a problem that exists, and it's
not of your making.
Now, the problem being is that, how are we going to deal with
this? We could go through a whole thing with the LDC and try to
come up with a line of sight and then come back and require you to
put in some sort of planting to buffer your back of your building.
Do you think you might be able to get with your neighbor to
come up with some understanding of what you could put in to be able
to lessen the impact to them?
MR. HA TZ: I don't understand what the neighbor's complaining
about. I've been told it's someone in the back. When you stand on my
property, you cannot see his house; he can't see my house. It is total
vegetation back there. On my property, nothing's been removed. On
his, the same way. I don't know what the problem is as far as sight.
I know Bob Dunn has some pictures. Maybe he'll share them
with you, but it's not something where somebody sees it other than my
neighbor to the left that looks at it. And he's not the one complaining.
It's the people behind me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With your permission? It might
give us a little more insight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we're making a decision on all
of Golden Gate Estates and not one property.
MR. HATZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know this issue came up because
you're still building.
MR. HA TZ: That's my luck.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're the fortunate one.
MR. HA TZ: Yes. If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have any
Page 165
February 26-27,2008
at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to see the picture?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fine.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. I've got to get a little wider.
MS. ISTENES: Is that the rear of your building?
MR. HATZ: That's correct, it is. That's 31 foot from the
property line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the rear of the building?
MR. HATZ: That's correct, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're not looking at the
neighbor's property; you're looking at your -- the rear --
MR. HA TZ: We're looking side to side on that, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Side to side, yeah, not to the rear?
MR. HA TZ: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. HATZ: It's that dense looking the other way. Actually it's a
lot more dense than that looking the other way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We don't have another view
from the neighbor's property back to yours then?
MR. HATZ: No, I didn't bring that in with me, no. I mean, if it's
an issue of putting in landscaping, I'd be more than happy to do that,
you know, bushes or something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I'm getting to.
MR. HATZ: Right. Anything that you guys decide to hide it,
I'm more than willing to do. I just need to get it resolved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can tell you that the neighbor
you have is a very reasonable person, he's very respected in the
community. And I think that if you two got together, you could
probably solve this whole problem in a very realistic fashion.
MR. HA TZ: Like I said, I have no idea who it is. It's just from
what I've heard -- hearsay, which you don't take -- it's somebody
Page 166
February 26-27,2008
behind me. That's all I know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Is this your district or
mine? I'm sorry. I don't know for sure, Commissioner Henning.
MR. HA TZ: It's Standing Oakes off of Oakes Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry?
MR. HA TZ: Standing Oakes off of Oakes Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning's
district, so I don't want to jump in the middle of it, but -- you know,
making those kind of contacts. Maybe Commissioner Henning would
do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do what?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Work out some sort of
understanding between the two neighbors.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A variance? Work our a variance?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Neighbor to neighbor, do away
with government.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. HA TZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe just an agreement. Could --
maybe just an agreement between the neighbors to paint the building a
green color and plant some extensive landscaping around there. It
would kind of hide it. And by communicating with this neighbor and
getting his neighbor's agreement, it could be all taken care of just that
simply.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not just this particular
individual. We're not here to pick on this particular individual. It's
what's been going on for the last 20 years and there was no checks and
balance in the system. That's what I got a problem with.
And somebody made an interpretation a long time ago that was
wrong, and it carried through to the point where now we've got this
Page 167
February 26-27,2008
huge problem out there, okay? Somebody somewhere along the way,
there's got to be accountability for the people that work here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree with that. We just need to
somehow institute it.
Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to leave well
enough alone.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to clarify your motion, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we take
this and we legalize any existing structures and deal with it in some
way that if we have a complaint that we come up with some sort of a
working arrangement, line of sight or whatever, how high a building
is, what kind of screening factors.
I'm sure we could come up with something that's -- when the
problem exists and a neighbor complains about another neighbor
within that distance, they could be able to deal with it on a one-to-one
basis rather than get involved to the point that we have this going on
for years and the situation will be very difficult to resolve. Keep it
simple.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm just trying to understand
the motion. So your motion is -- is to any structure not within the
75-foot rear yard setbacks to grandfather them in?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was duly permitted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, that excludes those that
were built illegally. I want to make sure that's understood.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, could I suggest maybe you read
option number three? It sounds like that's -- and it's up on the
visualizer, it basically says, adopt a different standard for different
Page 168
February 26-27,2008
periods of time with a build back policy subject to landscape
buffering.
My point after that would be it essentially creates different
regulations in the zoning district which are subject to errors in
application -- and I can't read the last.
MR. MUDD: Confusion.
MS. ISTENES: -- confusion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
MS. ISTENES: It just makes it more complicated to apply
essentially, but I think that's where you're going.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. In other words, those that
took place prior to when you put the freeze on it, and then everything
from that date forward has to comply with that 75 feet.
MS. ISTENES: Those that were lawfully permitted from the--
prior to the time I put the freeze on it is what I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That's the simplest way.
I mean, ifthere were a lot of complaints out there, I'd have more
concern.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I need a clarification of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Many a times we have heard the
public say that, well, I got a permit for this building, '92, '82,
anywhere in between, but the records are gone. Now the
preponderance is on the public. We put the preponderance on the
public to produce that permit. And how many times do you keep such
records? Because you would think that the person giving you that
permit -- so how are you going to address those issues?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, to be honest with you,
Commissioner Henning, I don't have any intentions to because it's just
Page 169
February 26-27, 2008
too deep. It would have to go way past anything that's here in front of
us, simply direct the Land Development Code amendment which
legalizes those accessory structures that were lawfully permitted in
and issued Certificates of Occupancy at less than 75 feet and set forth
an effective date to revert back to required 75 feet for future
structures. Anything over and above that is just going to be too big. I
wouldn't mind dealing with it in a workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's your new motion. Is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the same motion I just
read, wasn't it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, you had
something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Well, yes, I do. This business
of setting a new date is problematic. What new date are you going to
set? Who's going to set it? When are you going to set it? You know,
we need to set it in the motion. We don't need to leave it just dangling
out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would suggest we do -- what I
was originally proposing earlier is we consider everything that has a
Certificate of Occupancy that has been done in the past will become a
legal nonconforming structure. Anything that is currently under
construction will proceed. If they're in violation of the 75-foot
setback, they'll be required to put in vegetation to screen the structure,
and that effective immediately, the staff will begin enforcing the
75-foot setback requirement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I like that, Commissioner Coyle.
I reword my motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it covers all of the
elements, it gives staff the guidance. There is certainty here. It
doesn't get anybody into problems, but it requires that if they've done
Page 170
February 26-27,2008
-- that they've completed a construction or they're working on a
construction that is less than 75 feet, they're going to have to screen it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And before we vote on it, there's
one last thing. And I think maybe Jeff might want to cover it. But
what about the place where we have the stop work order, can we let
them continue?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what Commissioner Coyle just
said.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right, okay. So that covers
that, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He asked to put plantings in to
screen it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: Just to avoid a future code enforcement case
for lack of buffering, what type of buffering would you suggest be put
in?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Lots. How about a type B?
MS. ISTENES: Type B. Okay. That would involve shrubs and
trees, and essentially 15 -- well, 15 foot wide, which you couldn't
accomplish if you had a lO-foot structure. But we could at least have
the amount of plantings present in the type B, which should
adequately buffer. And if we just include shrubs and trees in that.
I want to -- I don't want to sugar coat the option number three
there, because Commissioner Henning brings up a really good point.
This is a longstanding problem and records are gone, and so when
people come in and want to rebuild or want to say, I did get a CO or a
lawful permit, it is going to be very challenging for staff to present --
or to get the records and/or for the applicant to get the records if they
didn't keep them or if they bought the house after, you know,
somebody else had built it.
Page 171
February 26-27, 2008
So I just want to make that known for the record that it's not
going to be easy to implement, but we'll certainly go with your
guidance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We didn't recommend option three.
MS. ISTENES: No, I understand, sir. You -- and let me -- while
we're talking, if you don't mind, you -- I'll read back what I understood
your motion to be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion.
MS. ISTENES: Or -- I'm sorry, your motion, thank you.
Effective immediately, staff is going to apply the 75-foot rear
yard setback for accessory structures, any buildings currently under
construction will proceed with the requirement for a landscape buffer,
which will be the type B vegetative requirement, and any existing
structure that does not meet the 75 feet that has been issued a CO will
be considered legal nonconforming structure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a legal question. And
there's a whole bunch of -- there's only one official lawyer in -- two
official lawyers in the room. But how do you propose that the board
memorializes the action or the motion that's on the floor now?
MR. KLATZKOW: I propose you do it by resolution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Jeff, the LDC is going to be -- need to be
changed. There's just an inherent conflict in it.
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no conflict in the LDC.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. No, it's clear.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's 75 feet. It was an interpretation -- my
understanding, it's an interpretation issue.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: The LDC clearly says 75 feet.
MS. ISTENES: All right. I guess I somewhat disagree, but I
understand your point, so I think it still needs to be clarified in the
LDC.
Page 172
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Send out a memo. The -- what about
-- do you have any concerns of treating people in one community
different than others?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So this could be -- you have a
concern that it could be challenged? Anything could be challenged.
MR. KLATZKOW: Anything could be challenged.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I mean --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I have the same concern, and
especially when you're placating to the minority. But it is what it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What happens if the building or the
structure is taken down?
MS. ISTENES: Under your proposed policy, I guess.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then wants to rebuild a
building, does he revert back to 75 feet or does he rebuild on the 10
feet?
MS. ISTENES: If it was built less than 75 feet lawfully and it
was -- it's removed greater than 50 percent of the -- is it construction
value, Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Then it would have to conform to the 75
feet upon rebuilding or file for a variance obviously, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You better believe it. So if I'm
understanding you correctly, by what we just put together, if they have
suffered a loss of 51 percent, they get the insurance money for 51
percent of it, they still have to tear down the slab and everything else
and move it back to 75 feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the way our ordinance says.
Page 173
February 26-27, 2008
MS. ISTENES: They have to do whatever it takes to make that
building comply to the 75 feet, meaning relocate or obtain a variance,
yes.
MR. MUDD: And she said or come in and get a variance. That
would be the way to get around having to go to 75 foot on an existing
slab that's been damaged more than 50 percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or it could be an administrative
variance, too.
MS. ISTENES: If it qualifies.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because you still have the 25 percent
rule.
MS. ISTENES: Ifthe rule is in effect at the time and if it
qualifies, certainly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: And would you like us to come back with a
proposed resolution for the board for the next meeting so we could get
this memorialized?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have to memorialize it somehow.
Can't just do it here.
MS. ISTENES: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the answer's yes, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion carries, 3-2.
Okay. We're going to take a 10-minute break. Thank you.
Page 174
February 26-27,2008
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The board's back in session
from its break, and we're going to item 10D. No.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9C?
Item #9C
INFORMATION ON THE STATUS OF THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY (SWFEA) ACTIVITIES
AND THE ONGOING TOLL FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR I-75
AND TAKE ACTION IN SUPPORT OR TO DENY A
RESOLUTION - MOTION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION TO
EMPHASIZE NON-PARTICIPATION IN THE TOLLING OF
LANES 5 AND 6; LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS FOR MOVING
TRAFFIC NORTH AND SOUTH AND TO DRAFT A BUDGET
AMENDMENT FOR A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF $300,000
TOWARDS THE FUNDING OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: This is three p.m. time certain. It's to provide
information on the status of the Southwest Florida Expressway
Authority activities and the ongoing toll feasibility studies for I-75 and
to take action to support or deny the attached resolution. This item
was asked for by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Fellow Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I just wanted to let
you know how much I appreciate you letting me be your
representative on the transportation authority.
Page 175
February 26-27, 2008
It's been an eye-opening experience, one that has not been easy.
However, with that said, I can tell you this, the controversy that exists
out there over the issue is actually helping to drive it towards a
solution.
And today, I think you're going to hear some innovative ideas
that are coming forward, some suggestions. And mind you, nothing
has been decided at this point in time. We've been in the act of
discovery for some time now, and there is more discovery to be made.
Now, one of the things at the last meeting that's very important
that you know is that during that meeting when we were talking about
how we were going to handle our presentation to the commission, I
brought up the fact about 951. 951 is a subject that's very dear in the
hearts of many people here in Collier County. We see it as a route to
be able to solve many of our transportations (sic) in Collier County,
and perhaps even much more important than I-75, and they agreed that
they would allow us to be able to bring this into the mix for
consideration.
I kind of hope as we go forward through the day's deliberations
and you hear from the presenters, that you keep this in mind at all
times. I -- excuse me. 951 would serve a tremendous purpose in
offering an alternative to getting to points north for a good part of the
population of Collier County and may lessen the needs for an I -75 to
be built in the future.
Of course, we don't know this without the proper kind of studies,
and I'm sure that this board will give them some guidance today.
And with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Bruce Anderson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Questions from the
board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, or good afternoon, Mr.
Page 176
February 26-27,2008
Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce
Anderson. I'm here as one of your representatives on the Expressway
Authority.
I volunteered to serve on the authority because I supported and
thought you had decided that I-75 needed to be widened beyond the
six lanes that are under construction and that the most probable way to
do that was to construct new tolled lanes.
The Expressway Authority was established with your approval
by state statutes in order to provide a form of regional home rule
powers over the widening of Interstate 75. You, through your
appointments to the authority, have control over whether, when, how,
and how much and at what cost I - 7 5 is widened beyond six lanes and
tolled.
Florida Department of Transportation has a special division that
operates toll roads in the state. It's called the Florida Turnpike
Enterprise, and they are working on an investment grade traffic and
revenue study to see if, perhaps, they should widen I -75 and collect
the tolls. Representatives of FDOT are here and they can tell you
more about that.
The present focus of the authority's attention, and as I understand
it, the Turnpike Enterprise study, is the stretch ofI-75 that runs from
Immokalee Road to Daniels Parkway.
At the last authority meeting two weeks ago, we learned for the
first time that FDOT would consider relocating the 40-foot wide future
multimodal corridor from the median where it is presently planned. It
could be relocated to the sides of the interstate. FDOT would consider
that.
That was big news because it's estimated to be significantly
cheaper to widen the interstate from the center rather than from the
sides. How much less? I don't know. Do we really need 10 lanes in
Collier and Lee still, or will eight suffice for the future? These are
two of the most important questions that the authority would be
Page 177
February 26-27,2008
seeking answers to.
There are others, too, such as other north/south corridor roads.
Under the expressway statutes, the Board of County Commissioners
can add roads that they want to be widened or constructed and tolled.
It's not limited to I-75, but it can be expanded with your approval at
your direction.
The only prohibition that's in there right now is, we can't do
anything with regard to County Road 951. And as Commissioner
Coletta told you, at our last authority meeting we voted unanimously
that if you all wanted to pursue removing that prohibition from the
legislation and direct us to look at that, that we would be supportive of
that.
Again, there is that element of local control that you have
through the Expressway Authority.
I'll ask Mr. Stan Cann from FDOT to come up here and share his
thoughts with you, and then Amy Davies, who is our consulting staff,
would have a few things to share with you, and then we'll be open --
open to questions, and I'd like to reserve some time at the end in case
there are questions or new issues brought up that we can address at
that time.
Thank you.
MR. CANN: Good afternoon, Chairman and members. Good to
be here again with you all.
You know, I really have no right to stand here and ask you all for
certainly any financial participation in the Expressway Authority,
particularly since the reason why the authority was formed in the first
place is because the Department of Transportation does not have the
resources to do what we're talking about here.
An $800 million project has been kind of laid out at least to date.
You all know, as well as I do, being members of the Collier County
MPO, that the cost feasible plan, which goes out many, many years,
shows nothing for I-75 in Collier County beyond the six lanes that we
Page 178
February 26-27,2008
are building today under iROX.
Same goes for Lee County. Same goes for the whole length of
I-75 from Collier up into Sarasota County. That's where we start up
with a project coming up in a year or two to six-lane a portion in there.
There's nothing in our program for Sarasota and Manatee.
There's nothing in our program for I-4 through Polk County, which is
also in my district, too.
So the chances of any state funds -- state or federal funds coming
to do anything to increase the capacity ofI-75 beyond what we're
doing today just isn't going to be there.
So obviously this was the reason why the Expressway Authority
was formed and why both counties got together and agreed to see if
there was any other way that everyone could agree upon to determine
a financial mechanism to produce this project.
Bruce mentioned that the turnpike is interested. Yes, they are
very interested. There are a few projects within the state that holds a
lot of interest for them. They don't, like us, at least at the present, they
don't have the bonding capacity to do this job. Their bond cap was
increased last session to $10 billion; however, unless at some time in
the future they get a statewide toll rate increase, they will not have the
cash, the revenue coming in, in order to go out and finance this
project. As I say, that may change.
But in the meantime, Turnpike Enterprise, as Bruce said, is doing
an investment grade traffic and revenue study to get the hard numbers
necessary in the event that they do get a toll rate increase in the future.
This information is going to be shared with Expressway
Authority, with their consultant, Wilbur Smith, as the authority
proceeds in their investigation of the possibilities of the authority
doing this project.
But where (sic) I really wanted to share with you all today is,
you've heard so much about tolling lanes five and six, which is what
we're -- again, what we're building out there today. Yes, it was funded
Page 1 79
February 26-27,2008
with state and federal funds completely, totally funded within the
five-year program. We're building it under a design/build finance
mechanism, which is the first time that's ever been used in Florida. It's
gone extremely well.
It's been proposed that we put tolls on lanes five and six, and then
in this expansion to 10 lanes, we end up with six toll lanes and four
un-tolled lanes. Understand your concern with that, but I want to
assure you, you know, as a -- even though I'm a nonvoting member of
the authority, I sit in those meetings and I participate with everyone.
Commissioner Coletta is very active in his participation at those
meetings, certainly.
And we have not, as a group, accepted that as the only
alternative. We continue to look at different ideas. You've heard
mention the possibility of maybe eight lanes. You know, that hasn't
been really evaluated.
I personally, representing DOT, want to be able to stand up in
front of this group, Lee County Commission or any group and say
emphatically, we have one possible way of getting this done, and this
is it. We can't say that yet because we have not evaluated all
alternatives.
So we're pursuing that. We're continuing with that. DOT is
helping by funding these studies almost completely out of the toll
facilities revolving trust fund, and we've got up to $1.5 million a year
that we can take out of that trust fund. And we need to take a look at
every possibility to make this happen.
And certainly, I think speaking, ifI may, on behalf of some of the
members of the authority, the support of the Collier County
Commission, at least in the continued investigation of all potential
possibilities of funding this product, would be an absolute benefit to
the -- to the whole concept and show that this project is -- is regional,
which it very much is. And from that aspect, I do encourage you to
support the authority.
Page 180
February 26-27,2008
As also, Bruce mentioned, and we had some discussion, I think,
at the last joint Lee/Collier Commission meeting, or MPO, excuse me,
about the transit envelope. And I think Norm Feder brought it up
because he was sitting right next to me. And he said, well, how about
considering moving the transit envelope, which, if you'll recall, is 44
feet in width in the median. We've reserved that through Lee, Collier,
Charlotte, Polk, all of our interstates, for the potential of a transit or
rail system of the future.
You know, widening to 10 lanes, that's our ultimate. Nobody
wants to go to 15 to 20, 30 lanes out there. Eventually we're going to
go to some form of transit, so we need to make room for it. I've said in
the past, no, we can't move it from the median.
Well, I've done some more research in that with our people in
Tallahassee, and they interpret our policy to say, we can consider it.
Obviously it goes to one side or the other, but it's got to be -- you've
got to be able to have the right-of-way in place in order to consider
moving that transit envelope to one side or the other.
That's another thing we're going to look at. Wilbur Smith is going
to do an evaluation to see if that's possible. If that's possible, that does
reduce the cost because it consolidates the lanes closer to the median,
requires less work to expand the interchanges, and that's the bulk of
the work to lO-lane this job, is the work that has to be done to expand
the interchanges. So if we can do that, we can cut the costs some.
And my hope -- and again, it has to go through all these studies --
is that maybe we can cut down the number of lanes that have to be
tolled, but that will be considered throughout the study.
Again, I'm just here to encourage you all to support the authority.
And if there's any questions of me now or later, I'll be glad to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Coyle,
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I don't have any questions. I'll
Page 181
February 26-27,2008
wait until after the speakers --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- have spoken.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You know, I hear this same story
all the time, well, we're going to toll I-75, you know. Now all of a
sudden we bring in 951, and that even concerns me since I read in the
paper this morning that Lee County is looking at getting rid of some of
their impact fees.
And I think the majority of that 951 is in Lee County that needs
to be constructed. I'm not sure how you're going to raise the toll
money for that because there's nothing there at the present time.
My concern is, that through the discussions of tolling I-75, it's
always been discussed that at the peak hours we were going to charge
the maximum rate. And it amazes me, because I've been out there in
the peak hours, which are six in the morning till nine in the -- six in
the morning till nine in the morning, and that's the people that can
least afford all the tolling.
The other thing that concerns me is that if our state legislatures
would spend more time in Washington D.C., as a group, talking with
the people who are on the transportation committee than worrying
about taking away home rule here in the counties of the State of
Florida, we might be a lot better off.
This is the fastest -- one of the fastest growing states. We're
looking at -- we have 18 million people here -- people here with the
possibility of 36 million.
It seems to me that that alone should be enough emphasis to tell
the people that are up in Tallahassee that they need to address this
problem and they need to go to Washington and figure out how it's
going to be done, other than putting the whole expense of this thing on
the back of the people who are trying to make ends meet, and I've got
a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 182
February 26-27,2008
MS. DAVIES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Amy Davies,
Wilbur Smith Associates. Weare the general engineering consultant
and are providing staff services for the Expressway Authority.
The authority is here today to request your approval of the
project limits of the initial phase, which are proposed to be Immokalee
Road to Daniels Road. This is required by statute.
We're only requesting endorsement of an investment grade traffic
and revenue study and other studies that would look at other
alternatives for expanding the interstate. Weare not asking for
approval of any tolling configuration, what the toll rates would be, and
what the phasing beyond Daniels Parkway and Immokalee Road
would be.
The traffic and revenue study will determine the initial tolling of
lanes five and six, whether that would be a requirement. It would
determine project costs, financial requirements, toll rates, detailed
traffic numbers, and the schedule to expand the interstate.
Collier County will still be involved in the project, and any
decisions made requiring tolling configuration will require the
Expressway Authority to come back to this board for approval.
The surplus toll revenues, if Collier County is onboard, they will
guarantee local control of surplus toll revenues. You can negotiate
with the authority for distribution of those surplus toll revenues, and
they can be used for -- surplus toll revenues can be used for any lawful
transportation need of the county. So it would be up to you, this
board, on where you decided those surplus toll revenues would be
distributed.
And finally, we're requesting approval of the resolution that we
drafted for this authority for funding participation to the -- to allow the
authority to proceed with its operating costs, which are mainly legal --
for legal requirements, any financial consulting services that are
required. Most of the funds the authority has spent to date, as Mr. --
Secretary Cann said, are from the state's revolving trust fund loan.
Page 183
February 26-27, 2008
And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. It's my
understanding that you're going to look at expanding I - 7 5 to 10 lanes
from Golden Gate Parkway to Daniels. Am I hearing different now?
MS. DAVIES: The investment grade study will look at the entire
corridor, but the initial phasing that the authority has required for this
board to approve would be from Immokalee Road to Daniels Parkway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Phasing of what?
MS. DAVIES: Of expansion of the interstate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. Okay. Well, my
misunderstanding. Quite a bit of money for -- what would it be, less
than two miles in Collier County?
MS. DAVIES: I think it's almost three miles.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Versus 34 miles?
MS. DAVIES: The initial phase is 17 miles, and -- three miles in
Collier County, 14 miles in Lee County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I gotcha. Okay. Thank you.
Do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to ask the
question so we can get clarification about -- the breakdown of the
authority -- if you wouldn't mind staying back up there for just a
minute.
If Collier County is a participant in this and if their participation
is half, at that point in time that it comes for a future consideration of
what's being done in Collier County or Lee County, Collier County
would be an equal partner with equal concerns; am I correct?
MS. DAVIES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that's how the -- the thing
breaks down. Even though a portion -- good portion, part of this
road's going to be in Lee County, we would still be recipients of 50
percent of the revenue stream that eventually would come from it.
MS. DAVIES: Well, the surplus toll revenues would be
Page 184
February 26-27, 2008
negotiated with both counties once the traffic and -- investment grade
traffic revenue study is done so we can determine exactly what the
surplus toll revenues were. The distribution would be equal if Collier
County is an equal partner in the -- in the funding support of the
authority.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, is there anything to
prevent the authority from doing such things as a 29/82 bypass,
getting involved with that some day? That goes through three
counties, touches on Hendry in a little way. Would there be some
prohibition for consideration sometime in the future over that?
MS. DAVIES: I need to defer to Mr. Cann. I believe the state is
already working on 29/82.
MR. CANN: No, there would be no -- there would be nothing
that would not allow that to be considered. I mean, as the authority is
set up, ifboth county commissions vote to pursue a project, you know,
and toll it and build it, we are certainly most interested in allowing
you to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. CANN: We're doing a PD&E study, as she mentioned, and
that's just the first stage. It's just to try to layout the whole
configuration of the improvements to those state highways, which are
-- by the way, are both on the SIS (phonetic). And just as you'd
mentioned 951 being a possibility, any other road is a possibility, as
long as both counties agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's also the possibility
that we could give consideration to expanding the lanes from where
they'd end now at Immokalee Road all the way down to the Golden
Gate interchange and maybe even right to 75 where the -- it picks up
with the tolling there?
MR. CANN: Oh, yes, absolutely. And as we mentioned, the
section that goes between Immokalee north to about Daniels is just the
first phase. That's the section that has been determined to have the
Page 185
February 26-27,2008
most traffic during the early parts ofthe project. The most financially
feasible to bond at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The -- and may I continue, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We got a lot of speakers.
How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: We have a total of 13 speakers; but--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead and continue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that.
Let's just play what-if. If we decided in the very near future to
collapse the transportation authority, a vacuum would be created.
Who would eventually at some point in time possibly fill that vacuum
up if the interest was ever going to get the roads -- extra lanes added?
Who would be the entity that would come forward if the transportation
authority was -- would cease to exist?
MR. CANN: Well, the only other ways that I can think of would
be the Turnpike Enterprise.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they have expressed
interest in the past?
MR. CANN: They've expressed interest. As I mentioned, they
do not have the bonding capacity to add a project of this size to their
program.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Anybody else?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have 13 speakers, however, Mr.
Eidson has given me a group of 10 that will give up their time for him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: So I don't know if you want me to call out all
their names or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much time is he going to
take?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two days. Okay. Mr. Eidson, what
Page 186
February 26-27,2008
we're going to do is allow -- allow the other public speakers to yield
the time to you, so we're going to call off their names and we'll give
you two minutes.
MS. FILSON: Karen Eidson?
MS. EIDSON: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Heidi Kulpa?
MS. KULPA: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Jim Burce (sic)?
MR. BURKE: Burke.
MS. FILSON: Oh, Burke, I'm sorry. Jim Burke?
MR. BURKE: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Betty Hull?
MS. HULL: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Nelda Fox?
MS. FOX: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Richard Royal?
MR. ROYAL: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Harold Kurzman?
MR. KURZMAN: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Olga Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: Yield.
MS. FILSON: Gene Nordell?
MR. NORDELL: Yield.
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. Go ahead.
MR. EIDSON: Thank you very much. My name is Gary
Eidson, and I'm the chairman for the Citizens Transportation Coalition
of Collier County.
This organization was formed back in March and much in -- in
part because of our interest in I-75. We've been studying this project
very closely and we hope that we are the loyal opposition.
What we are -- wanted to do today was to show you a couple of
Page 187
February 26-27,2008
ideas. Actually we wanted to examine the benefits of the tollway
option. We wanted to explore new funding opportunities for the
freeway, and we also wanted to take a look at the government options.
Some of these things have already been touched on by
Commissioner Halas, but we would like to highlight our support.
The -- to date, what we've seen with the tollway solution is that
they want to be established any way they can, and they're looking
desperately to do so. They've even gone so far -- they want to take
our toll -- our paid-for lanes. They're looking to incorporate with the
new airport connector. They're looking at bringing in Collier --
Charlotte County and even going, perhaps, all the way up to Sarasota.
What we're concerned about is that this is a very expensive
project. When it started out, it was talked about as being 1.9 billion.
And the beautiful thing about that is that it attracted the attention of
the folks that are -- that have the money. That makes -- that puts you
into the game.
One of the things when you talk about money is the cost of
having a toll road. This is what alarmed us, and we don't see these
figures thrown around very much. But when you start putting in a
tollway, as much as it is -- appears to be a panacea, the one thing that
it does do is to bring in a lot of extra costs and a lot of opportunity for
other people to make some money.
I'm not going to go through all these things, but look at this. A;
gantry, cameras, transponders, and signage. The most interesting
thing about the signage is, you have to have a -- we have to have
signage that is dynamic because the rates are always changing with
the thesis that they presented, and that alarms us considerably.
But this little project that you're looking at here, when it
originally was presented, was going to add a half a billion dollars over
20 years, not to lay asphalt, not to build 29/82, not to give us 951, but
what it's going to do is a half a billion dollars just to keep the thing
runnmg.
Page 188
February 26-27,2008
Now, granted, it may be reduced moderately if we go to eight
lanes. I still think you've got to put the gantries in and I still think you
have to put in the rest of the program. And the rest of the program
includes a nice, whole new set of bureaucracies.
What we wind up with is a central control unit where people can
take care of making sure that we monitor our police force that's going
to have to chase down the folks that don't have the little transponders,
because when they drive through those cameras, they're still going to
get charged.
We're going to have to make sure that we have little customer
service centers that were proposed. And we didn't misspell the Ft.
Myers. The $400,000 study folks did that.
Now, one of the things that we wanted to raise a question about
was the ease of use. You know, we're going to start to mix tollway
and freeway together. Now, I just want you to picture our population,
which does seem to be senior, driving 60, 70 miles an hour trying to
decide whether this is the right time to take the tollway, or should I do
the freeway? This is almost like a lotto contest because you're driving
down the road at 70 miles an hour and deciding whether you're going
to weave from one side to the other. There's no toll booths, so we
don't have to worry about that. That's easy. But what we do have to
worry about is the safety of the people that are using the road.
Now, we talked about the fair pricing, and Commissioner Halas
already touched on it; 77 percent of the folks that use this road are
commuters. Now, these are the working folks. These are the folks
that make it possible for you and I to live and have a nice life, and
they can least afford this cost.
When we talk about the costs, in the original proposal -- and
granted this proposal has changed. It is a -- kind of a moving target.
But when this thing was set up, it's set up in zones, and the thing that's
remarkable about it is, you don't have to pay -- go the whole way to
pay the whole fee.
Page 189
February 26-27, 2008
And this -- the way this was originally proposed, we were
looking at $16 a day if you went through three zones. That, my
friends, is a lot of money to anybody when you start thinking about 50
weeks out of the year, taking a two-week vacation, if you can afford it
-- which I don't know if you could after this -- you would be spending
$4,000 in to date-out (sic) money.
And oh, by the way, if we were adjusting this with a CP -- with a
CPI, you'd be up to $5,000 in 2015 is what it would cost a working
man in the highest time of the day, which is when he's going to use it,
to use that road. And you know, if you think about that, that's as much
as taxes and insurance on a home.
Now, the ease of the congestion on I-75. Now, here's a -- this is a
picture that our folks at Wilbur Smith showed us. Interesting thing
about -- this happened to be up at Minneapolis. It's called an
MnP ASS.
But you know when you have a high toll charge, you always
have the option of going in the free lane. It's going to be as congested
as the worst time we have now. And who's going to be in the high
speed lane? The people that can afford it, or if they're not in that lane
and it looks like that, we aren't getting any excess revenue generated.
There isn't anything going on.
Now, what happens with those people that say, I don't want to be
in the free lane with it congested and I don't want to be on the high --
on the express lane, it's so expensive. Well, what I'll do is go to our
wonderful alternative roads.
And isn't it interesting. I want you to go back in time. See where
it says gridlock in 2005? Do you remember what it was like in 2005
when we were out here? Couldn't move. I remember when Ace had
their tournament. You could not move on Immokalee Road. Every
Friday night was like somebody turned out the lights. You just didn't
get on 75. You couldn't get on anywhere.
Look at what's happening today. We've got our new 41, and I
Page 190
February 26-27,2008
use it to go to the airport all the time. Interstate 75 will have six lanes
by 2015. Livingston, Three Oaks, everybody thinks that somebody
dropped that road down from heaven.
So now we have -- well, by 2010 we're going to have 16 lanes of
traffic. We will have doubled our capacity, and they want to toll those
two lanes? You've got to be kidding me.
Now, we've got Treeline that's opened up, Six Mile Cypress is
going to be opening up. We are making them -- and Collier. And
look at the fine job we've done with our roads. We've got terrific
roads going, grid east and west, and we're now going to have these
new north and south roads.
Now, I hear a lot of talk about the money that's going to be
coming your way. This is kind of like the brass ring, the free lunch.
This is sort of like the gift that keeps on giving. There's all this excess
revenue. You know, the higher the tolls, the higher the traffic, boy,
the money's going to come rolling in, and you guys won't have to
worry at all because we're just going to have all this money. The only
problem is, it's based on projections. And from what we've seen, the
projections haven't been so great.
You know, there was 10 projects done by URS, and URS is the
folks that do the work for the federal -- for the Florida Turnpike
Enterprises.
Now, I want you to look at year three. That's called the hump
year. By then everybody has had a chance to see whether or not
they're going to be comfortable using that particular roadway, this new
tollway. And what's interesting is, after three years they only had one
project out of nine where the folks had met projection. Now, where is
the excess revenue? I don't see any excess revenue if you're not
meeting projections.
There's another disturbing figure that I see here. Look at the
trend. Instead of being -- take that Oocea Greenway North, 85, 81, 69,
77. What that's saying is that that's the percentage of -- a projection
Page 191
February 26-27,2008
that they're reading -- reaching, and they aren't there yet, and people
still aren't using the road. That's alarming.
You know out in Denver they ran a -- they did a study out there,
the Denver Post did; 23 different toll projects prepared by Wilbur --
that's the folks that, of course, are working for us here. Two other
firms, URS and Volmre.
Here's what they found out. In 15 out of 20 that had been three
years -- open three years, they had failed to meet the company's
projections. And we took Wilbur Smith and looked at their figures.
And out of 13 projects that they've done -- and they're more national.
They don't seem to -- they're not as focused here in Florida.
But in their national projects, only three of them broke even or
met the projections -- that's that horizontal line -- or exceeded it. The
other 10 didn't even come close. Some of them missing by as much as
over 70 percent. Now, that's where your revenue stream's going to
come from. That's where all of that excess revenue's coming from,
except it isn't happening.
Now, I want to tell you about the -- where the investors are. And
boy, the investors are eager to do these projects. P3 Advocacy is a
private -- public/private partnerships (sic) that just recently formed, in
January, a new group called America Moving Forward, and look who
the steering committee members are. They're not guys like me.
They're not just average citizens.
This is Centra from Spain, Macquarry from Australia, Trans
Urban from Australia and, of course, your friends and mine, Goldman
Sachs. And what are they out trying to do? They're out trying to help
us lease out our public assets. Now, why do we want to give away
what we already own? It doesn't make sense to me.
Now, there's other interested parties that are certainly behind this
project. CitiBank has already tried to get on the bandwagon by
getting a P3 agreement with SWFEA to do the Lee County bridges.
That has been turned down and we hope that it stays that way. But
Page 192
February 26-27,2008
boy, the marketing consultants, the bond sellers, the sign makers --
and by the way, URS, who's doing the studies, they make the designs,
too.
And the toll authority bureaucrats would love to get those
paychecks coming in every month and, of course, the building
industry, and I'm talking primarily highway building industry, got to
love it.
Now, you've been told that you're going to have local control.
You're going to be able to make sure that this thing is just the way you
want it every day. I want you to take a look at this.
This came out of Car and Driver. Now, that's not a particularly
sophisticated magazine, but it reaches the people like you and I that
drive automobiles.
One of the things about the P3s, hobbling the competing free
road alternatives is standard operating procedure and the
public/private toll roads.
What they're talking about is arrangements like this. In
California, the California Department of Transportation, as -- and
along with the California private transport company, on a road called
91 express lane, had a contract that forbade improvements to the
parallel road, the Riverside Freeway.
The people went nuts after a while because the road wasn't
getting fixed. They couldn't drive on it. It was damaging the
automobiles. And guess what they got to do? They got to buy back
the deal. So no excess revenues from that project.
How about the Texas Department of Transportation? Be
thankful you don't live in Texas. What's going on down there is
almost criminal. TxDOT had a private contract on a 40-mile stretch of
road. Geez, we're 30 miles. Well, this is a 40-mile stretch of road on
state -- excuse me -- state 130.
It includes a provision that TxDOT would pay Centra -- you
remember the Spanish company Centra -- for lost profits if some state
Page 193
February 26-27,2008
projects interfere with Texas 130 over the next 50 years. Now that
would mean that the state would be penalized for widening or building
competing roads. And don't think it can't happen here.
Now, we're being talked about equal participation. And I'm
sorry, I said 27 miles. I guess it's only, what, 14 miles in Lee County.
But we're asked to get involved in this thing with -- Immokalee to
Daniels, it's not an equal benefit to us, and I don't think it's going to be
an equal benefit in the future if you don't get excess revenues.
We want you to join our representatives, Connie Mack and
Senator Burt Saunders, and say no to the tollway scheme. He's dead
set against tolling. Senator Burt Saunders has said, it was never my
intent to see a financial burden placed on commuters in Lee and
Collier Counties. It's simply not acceptable.
Now, we have a freeway solution that we would like to talk to
you about that's remarkably practical, it eliminates the middle man, it
allows us to retain ownership, and you know, it involves the citizens.
Now, I know there's some sophistication and technicality to this
that I can't address today, but I'm here to plant a seed, and I think it's
here to make a public statement that we're all involved in this.
You know, I got a dear-friend letter from Governor Crist. He
was very nice to send me a reminder of the billions of dollars that
we've been able to save because of the various tax programs, 10 and
15, we're up to $25 million of savings. And I think you folks are
aware of it, if I'm not mistaken.
The citizens of Collier County are going to get $143 worth of
savings out of this. Now, that would, unfortunately, be only enough
for nine round trips on the new I-75 as proposed. But I was thinking,
why not take that $143 and put it to work.
First of all, we don't want to use the word taxes, because we're
not allowed to use that word, but we could talk about the highway
improvement assessment fund. Forty dollars per registered vehicle.
We'll cap it at two per family, a maximum two per family. Do you
Page 194
February 26-27, 2008
know that in 22 years we could raise $9 billion doing that? That
would be 493- for the two -- two counties, 493 million for the two
counties.
Here's another novel idea. Now, there's -- I want you to see
pictured on the left, that's the simplest tollbooth in the world. Doesn't
require any sophistication at all.
Now, that one, five cents a gallon. Now, you might have to do
that through a cost -- you know, a CPI or you might have to do it
through any variety of things. But I -- let's face it, folks, we're all in
this together. Five cents a gallon. The average person uses about 750
a year, 750 gallons a year, 15,000 miles, 20 miles a gallon.
Thirty-dollars. That's a little better than $4,000.
We could generate $10.3 billion over 22 years, another 542
million. That would give us 19 billion in the state, a billion down here
in Southwest Florida, just through this one idea.
Now, would that be easy to drive? Well, we wouldn't have all
the complicated equipment and the roads would be straight. We
wouldn't have to weave through them like they were a maze; would
keep lanes five and six toll free, and after all, that's going to be a 50
percent increase in our capacity. Shouldn't we be able to enjoy it
without having to pay for it again?
And the eight lanes is certainly a viable option. And with the
kind of money that I just showed you, maybe we can do it. We don't
have to bring in Goldman Sachs and Centra and all of those kinds of
people.
Is it a lower cost? Well, we've already learned that we could
build 30 miles for $430 million, and it's going rapidly under the
leadership that we have sitting with us today, and our hats are off to
them. Certainly we could do better than the billions that have been
proposed.
And will it be easier to maintain? You betcha it will, because we
won't be spending 500 million. It's not going to be needed.
Page 195
February 26-27,2008
Is it a fair -- oh, I'm sorry. Am I -- I'm already gone here. Well,
just wanted to say to you -- the last thing -- and I'll go through this
quickly. It's a fair alternative.
And the last thing is, I want to support Commissioner Halas. We
need to go and get people involved in this, and the government is
taking too much of our money.
I do want to show you this quickly. Fifteen million bucks is
going to eight -- to unrelated projects out of the 40 billion that collect.
Only 13 billion from our gas tax dollars today is going for road
construction.
And they say we don't have any money, there's a billion -- 1.25
billion that gets into the toll agencies right now. Somehow that's
getting down here.
I want to thank you very much for being a part and for letting us
come in here today, and we hope that you'll vote no -- on this
proposal. We think it's poor public policy, and we're counting on you
to support us on it. Thank you so much for your time and the 55 extra
seconds.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You actually went through it quite
quick, quite quick. There's a lot of information there.
Next public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Steve Hart. He'll be followed by
Gina Downs.
MR. HART: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
You're familiar with -- you know the position that the Greater
Naples Chamber of Commerce has taken, and we've had discussions
with all of you. And I'm just here today to reinforce the idea that
without your participation, without your continued participation, we
cannot continue as a region, as a community, to the discussion about
what we will do ultimately with our transportation here in Collier
Page 196
February 26-27,2008
County. We need you.
I-75 is not the complete answer. We know that. But we know
that I-75 is the backbone of our transportation system.
We cannot forget about the rest of the network, all the rest of the
connecting roads, all the parallel roads. We need you as a community.
The community needs you to have a broader vision.
We don't like toll roads. In fact, the chamber board of directors
has gone on record saying, we would prefer not to have tolls, because
we know tolls hurt the working men and women, and that's not what
we're after.
What we're after is -- and what we would encourage you to do is
continue your participation with this particular body, with the
Expressway Authority, so that we can maintain local control over how
our regional transportation network is developed -- if you'll forgive the
pun -- down the road. We need you there, continue to -- your
participation.
That's really all we're here to ask you today. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Gina Downs.
MR. EIDSON: She had to leave.
MS. FILSON: Tom Conrecode.
MR. CONRECODE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Tom Conrecode. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
today on this particular subject, and many thanks to Mr. Eidson for his
passion for this subject, and it's good to see people engaged in public
process that way.
I would encourage you, as Mr. Hart did, to stay engaged, and
there's a couple of important reasons why. If Lee County goes
forward with the Expressway Authority or the Turnpike Enterprise
goes forward with the Expressway Authority, it's in Lee County. It
impacts your citizens, your constituents, every time they drive that
road.
If you disengage from the process, then you won't have a say in
Page 197
February 26-27, 2008
the process, and your constituents won't have a say in the process. So
I'd encourage you to stay engaged.
Also to recognize that the Expressway Authority can be a tool for
you to use for other projects both in terms of through the excess
revenues that have been generated and through other opportunities to
build projects that you find tolling as a viable reason to do those.
Lastly, I know that you've been bold and brave in your comments
about not wanting to toll five and six. You could still make that a
condition of your participation in the Expressway Authority process as
you go forward.
But I would encourage you to continue to be engaged and
continue to support this effort financially. If it's not feasible, it's
clearly not going to survive. But I think it's a little bit too early and
too shortsighted for people who are supposed to be the vision for our
future to walk away from the opportunity at this point.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah, I'm still not in favor of
tolling five and six. But nobody has really convinced me where the
growth is. We know where it is in Collier, all in District 5, far out in
District 5.
I don't know where the growth is, and I don't know if it's the best
idea to put all these people down an eight lane or 10 lane or whatever,
and we need to figure out what is the best alternative. It may not be
951, it may not be I-75.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As people were speaking here today, I began to think back when
we first started considering this tollway authority.
Back in the very beginning we were promised that the Florida
Turnpike Authority was going to do an investment grade study so that
we would know if it was a feasible plan before we ever agreed to form
Page 198
February 26-27, 2008
the tollway authority.
And we were promised that study, and the study was delayed.
And I think maybe nine months or more passed, and we got some kind
of -- Stan can probably remember this better than I do. But we got
some kind of report that said, yeah, four lanes is possibly feasible;
tolling four lanes would probably work.
And so we, as commissioners, in Lee County and Collier County
agreed to give it a try. Now we're what, three years later? And we're
right back where we started. We want to do a study to see if it is a
financially feasible project.
Things keep changing on us. We were assured a year, year and a
half ago that it was absolutely essential beyond any question that we
needed to do this right now or otherwise we would have gridlock on
I-75.
And then what happened? We've noticed a reduction of traffic
on I-75 and it really isn't something that we need to do right now, and
we're looking at other alternatives.
We were told in no uncertain terms that you can't do it with four
toll lanes. You've got to go to six toll lanes. Now we're looking at
alternatives. Maybe we can do it now with four toll lanes.
You know, the bottom line is, in my opinion, this is a tolling
project looking for a home. It's not a transportation plan. It's not
designed to move traffic from one place to another in the most
efficient and cost-effective way. It is a plan designed to create a
tolling authority. That's all this is.
We can move from that traffic in 10ts of different ways. But it is
curious that we are being offered an opportunity for home rule when
we're willing to accept the costs and obligations of debt, but when it
comes to the opportunity to generate revenue, we're being denied
home rule authority.
The legislature strips money away from us, we have major
reductions in budget, and who do you come from -- or come to to get
Page 199
February 26-27, 2008
the money to up-front this project? Local government. It's just not
going to happen.
If we -- if we provide the money for the study and the tollway is
presented to us as a financially feasible project and they are wrong, as
the estimates are so frequently wrong in the past, what's going to
happen? The Florida Turnpike Authority is going to take it over.
That's what's going to happen. And we will have spent all of our
taxpayer money getting this thing up-fronted, and somebody else is
going to take it over because the traffic projections didn't come to pass
and they're going to get a bargain basement price.
We're talking about an extension of951. I don't know of any
plan for an extension of951. Nobody's drawn up a plan for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I don't think we've -- you've
got any right-of-way or anything else for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you haven't gotten the
environmental permits. You're talking about a long, long, long, long
time for something like that. There's no real plan for that.
So it is a situation where I would like to see traffic move better
on I-75, but I'm not willing to -- I'm not willing to put more money
into this project. We can't support it. I have no confidence in any
traffic projections that are produced anymore. I think traffic
projections are produced by consultants to justify the end, and I have
no confidence in them. I've seen them change too much.
And my feeling is that the tollway authority has missed its date.
It is no longer relevant, and if the state or the Florida Turnpike
Authority want to pick it up and run with it, they have every option to
do that. But I, quite frankly, don't want to be a part of it. I think it's a
big mistake.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I -- Commissioner Fiala,
you want me to go?
Page 200
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We all know that growth has slowed
down. We all know that that's not going to stay. The projections are
out there where the growth is going to be so, you know, I think we
owe the public -- that we prepare for that in transportation.
And, again, I don't -- I don't know if it's I-75, to put our eggs all
in one basket, but I think there could be some alternatives. But we
need to figure out where the growth is going, we need to figure out
where -- the generators of trips, and where's the attractors going?
Something needs to be done, I know that.
But -- and I think we have the vehicle to do so, but there -- I
agree, they need to get away from these tolling ideas and look at --
find out what the needs are in the future between the two
communities.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree -- I agree with you in
that we need to prepare for our future right now. Right now
everything is slow, but it will not stay that way, and we don't even
know what it's going to be like in 10 years, 15 years.
I like being a participant rather than being told what's going to
happen to me. I'd like to participate and say what I want to do.
I wondered -- they talked about the toll auth -- the turnpike
authority quite frequently. Does that mean that they could just come in
and take over; if we don't go with this, then somebody else will take
over? But then we have no jurisdiction where the dollars will go.
That concerns me a lot, as a matter of fact.
I would never vote for anything -- let me say that very clearly. I
will not vote for anything where they propose to toll lanes five and
six. If that's on the table, I'm off the table, period.
I believe that we don't need 10 lanes. I believe we need eight,
but I'd like to see a study going on for 29/82. I think that needs to
move forward, because I think that's another avenue for us to traverse,
Page 201
February 26-27,2008
and definitely tolling 951. The only way we're ever going to get 951
extended and built -- because it's going to have to be an elevated road
-- would be by tolling. I don't think we can do it any other way.
If we're talking about working with Lee County -- and I like that
idea. I like to work with Lee County. I think we need to show our
participation. At the same time, if the study, as I mentioned before, is
going to be studying tolling five and six, I'm off the table.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I listened to everything
that was said here, and there's a couple of -- well, inaccuracies. One,
we do have the right-of-way for 951 up to Lee County. Lee County
can't say the same thing though from the other side. 951, to me, is a
very important project. It has to go forward at some point in time.
There's an issue of money. There will always be an issue of
money. I mean, we're a long way. I've heard a lot of good ideas about
coming up with some money for gas tax or putting on an extra fee.
We found out some years ago when we tried to do the half cent
for roads, that was a terrible idea. People just don't like to tax
themselves. It's -- in the end it doesn't matter what we do here. It's just
going to be some inevitable point in time, some other agency's going
to have to come in and deal with that.
You know -- Stan, would you get up for just a minute?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nope. We're done. We're going to
give direction. We're going to move, Commissioner.
I'm going to make a motion that we direct the County Manager to
create another resolution; no tolling of five and six. We need to also,
in the resolution, the authority needs to identify the crucial road to
move traffic from Lee County to Collier, from Collier to Lee, and we
need to do a budget amendment to -- for the authority to move
forward, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many dollars?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, they need to tell us whatr
Page 202
February 26-27,2008
we need. But the thing is is they're putting their -- everything in I - 7 5.
We need to take a look at other -- we mentioned --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 951.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 951. That has already been
studied. But, again, is that the target? We need to really take a look at
what the growth is in Lee County, and where's the destinations? How
we going to get the people from eastern Collier County where the
growth is to the airport? Is there a better way than I - 7 5 or 951? I
think there could be.
So that's a form of a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning,
if I may just go on your motion. Your motion is to have a new
resolution drawn up that will deal with the situation whereby this
commission will not participate if five and six becomes the ultimate --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No tolling of five and six.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I understand that. And
then other than that, to look at the alternates out there, including 951 ?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Don't put any limitations on it.
The goal needs to be --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The study.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The goal is, what is the quickest and
best way to get people from north to south and south to north.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know something, I'll
second your motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. My problem -- one problem
with the study that we've all seen happen with this last study is they
bent it to say whatever they wanted it to say rather than to give us real
facts. And then later on, as it was unraveled, we found out that, 10 and
behold, no, that wasn't really the way it was. And I'm afraid of studies
anymore. I'm very, very nervous about them.
Page 203
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're going to them all the
time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, well --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not going to support this
motion. I think that we've beat this horse enough. Now we're talking
about -- well, if we can't toll I-75, we'll toll some fictitious road that
Lee County needs to address. We've got our portion taken care of,
and now we want to throw some other things into this hopper. And I
can't -- I can't -- I can't support anything whereby we're going to throw
more money out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But you know, Commissioner, I
didn't say to do another toll road. I didn't say that at all. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you're talking about money
that -- they're coming here to look for money to continue this study,
and I think we've put enough money into this, and that's where I stand.
I'm not putting another dime in there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I tend to agree. Why would
we ask the toll authority to do a study for alternatives to the toll
authority?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's the Expressway Authority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, expressway, whatever you
want to call it. They're collecting tolls. So why do we want to give
them more money to study alternatives to what they want to do?
If we want to look at alternative routes, we've got a transportation
department that does that all the time. Let's task them to do that. But
secondly is the important issue of, how much money are you willing
to commit to this and where is that money coming from?
I think that's -- that has to be decided before we make a decision
to provide funding. Weare facing an extremely difficult year as far as
budgeting is concerned.
Page 204
February 26-27, 2008
Let's get down to the issue. I-75 is a federal and state
responsibility, okay? We're having a really tough time trying to do the
roads that we have primary responsibility for. Let's hold the federal
and state government responsible for what they're doing or supposed
to do. They're holding us responsible for doing what we're supposed
to do.
I don't get it. I'll tell you what I think. I think if things get bad
enough, they'll find the money. It's that simple. And I don't see why
we've got to up-front the study to answer that question for them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're past our time certain,
but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I just -- I agree
with what you say, but yet I still want to be a participant, a player. I
still -- I still want to be there when we're planning for our future roads.
So I would be willing to put in half the money -- I.realize we have a
lot of problems financially, all of us do right now -- to at least show a
sign of good will toward Lee County. Let them know that, yes, we do
care. We are concerned, and to see -- I know it's a lot of money to
advance, but at the same time, I don't want to just close the door and
then afterwards somebody tell us what we're going to do.
I at least want to have somebody at the table, just like we were
speaking of earlier in the day, EMS. They hadn't participated in any
of these things because they weren't allowed to. Well, all the players
should be at the table. And if it costs us a couple hundred thousand
dollars to do that to be in charge of our future, then I think we should
be there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we vote on the motion now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I make one last comment?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it a -- do you have to?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, not if you don't allow me
to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I mean, it was a question. Yeah,
Page 205
February 26-27,2008
I mean, you can, but I'm telling you, we've got a lot of other people
wanting to talk on other subjects, but go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, how
come it's when I want to talk it becomes an issue, but everybody else
IS --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it seems like everybody wants
to have the last word, but go ahead. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, sir. I do appreciate it.
Yeah, just simply, if we do go ahead and we do allow for the
funding of this, I'll carry the directive forward to the authority, the fact
that five and six is not an option under any circumstances, and I'll
carry that forward in the future. And at that point in time, if it comes
down to there's no other way to do it, I'll inform this commission, and
then we can take the appropriate action.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But that's going to be in the
resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the dollar amount will be in
there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. But the authority needs to tell
us what that is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think we should tell them
what it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we have to do a budget
amendment. But do you really know what is needed to do --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. They want six and a quarter,
and I don't feel like I want to go six and a quarter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. You seconded the motion,
right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't second the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You want to put limitations on
Page 206
February 26-27,2008
it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Give me your suggestion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I would say $300,000 is my
limitation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's part of your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question about the
motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is it, 14 miles in Lee County,
two miles in Collier County, and we're going to split the cost half?
Give me a break.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, let me --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What would you go for?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, wait a minute. Let me just say, I
don't think I-75 is what is needed between the two communities. I
don't think it is. Could be 951. It could be somewhere --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 29/82.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. It could be something like that.
But the thing is, it's the people in Southwest Florida, Collier and Lee.
So the motion is no tolling of five and six, look at other
alternative corridors to move the traffic north and south, and with the
limitation of 300,000. Okay. So you have to come back with a
resolution and a budget amendment.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 207
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-2; Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Coyle dissenting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope you --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're moving on. We're moving on.
We've got a four o'clock time certain. It's 4:30.
Item #12A
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE RICHLAND PUD
(PEBBLEBROOKE) - MOTION TO SEEK LEGAL ACTION TO
CLOSE THE BAR AREA AT STEVIE TOMATO'S - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: You have a four o'clock time certain. This is item
12A. It's a discussion regarding the Richland PUD, Pebblebrooke. I
believe Mr. Klatzkow is going to present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many public speakers do we
have?
MS. FILSON: Six.
MR. KLATZKOW: We had everything set up but the power
outage took it out, so it's going to take just a minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we still under power outage?
MR. MUDD: Yes. I haven't been -- I have been updated
otherwise since the last time. The state had a little bit of a blurb as far
as power grid is concerned, and there's still sections of this county and
other places in the state that do not have electricity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're still on generators, right?
MR. MUDD: We are, yes, ma'am. I haven't seen it click off yet.
MS. FILSON: I have seven speakers now, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, you might want to
ask your staff if there's any other PowerPoint presentations they need
to pull up and start working on that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Next break I'll get it back up on the
Page 208
February 26-27,2008
machine so it's there, but I --
MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff Klatzkow, for the record. County
Attorney's Office.
This is coming back at a request of the board. This is a discussion
on Pebblebrooke, and I will be seeking board direction on this.
What I have on the monitor is the website for Stevie Tomato's at
Pebblebrooke. I figured they can describe themselves better than I
describe them. It's more fair, I think, of what Stevie Tomato's is.
Two issues in Pebblebrooke. The first is Stevie Tomato's and the
second is this two-story building, and I'd like to talk about Stevie
Tomato's first.
The Planning Commission had an extensive discussion with
respect to this project, and they were very cognizant that this was
being built adjacent to a residential neighborhood. And what they said
was, we're okay with restaurants where somebody could sit down and
have a glass of wine, but we just don't want any drinking
establishments here.
And that was codified into the PUD ordinance as follows: It
says, eating and drinking places, group 5812 only. Now, I'm talking a
little -- we're going to have to get into a little zoning here. But what
we do in our PUD's is refer to standard industrial codes so that people
will know what uses they can and cannot do.
And the standard industrial codes that we use is a 1987 book, a
Standard Industrial Classification Manual is -- in the LDC. It's how
we define what uses can be done.
And what you see is that the standard industrial code manual
breaks down these businesses in two types of places. One is an eating
place and one is a drinking place. And you'll see that sports bar isn't
in anyone of them, okay.
What they say about a drinking place is the sale of food
frequently accounts for a substantial portion of the receipts of these
establishments. So we're just not talking about a traditional bar where
Page 209
February 26-27, 2008
you go to drink. You're allowed to eat there and get your chicken
wings and hamburgers and everything else.
If you can get the -- now, if you look at the pictures that are
flowing through their own website, I see one picture of a bar after the
other. The picture up there currently is their outdoor seating area. A
better picture, which I took Sunday morning, is this one.
It has been staffs position -- and I'm not going to say it's an
unreasonable position. But it's staffs position that this is a seating
area that's accessory to the restaurant use. Another person could argue
that this is an outdoor bar.
It is dominated by the bar. There are TV s running around. My
experience there -- and I do live in the neighborhood -- is that people
come here and they drink and they watch sporting events and they
smoke. That's why it's outdoors. It doesn't overlook the ocean, it
doesn't overlook a park. It overlooks predominantly a parking area.
But the attraction isn't the view. The attraction is you can sit down
and have a beer and you can smoke, which is why there are no walls
around it. And we have many other establishments in town that are
going the same way.
And the question I have for the Board is, if we're going to
approach this as a restaurant who has, as a secondary use, this drinking
area, then at that point in time there's nothing else for us to do. It is
what it is and the neighborhood will have to live with it.
If it's the Board's feeling that what we have here is an outdoor
bar, then we have a different issue. And one approach to take would
be to authorize the County Attorney's Office to bring suit to shut down
that bar as in violation of the PUD ordinance.
Now, if I can go back to their own website, just to look at the
calendar of events of what they have. What you typically see at
Stevie Tomato's is during the day they are a restaurant. They have kid
specials during the day, they have a roast pork loin special, but the
place converts at night from a predominantly restaurant use to a bar
Page 210
February 26-27, 2008
use.
They have Monday night football, they'll have Texas hold 'em
tournaments. They have late night happy hours. They've got the
specials on the Bud Lights and bottles.
And as you go through the calendar, it's the same thing week
after week. During the day they're a restaurant, and during the
evening they're a bar. So the argument would be if we took this to
court, is that you were permitted in your zoning ordinance or your
PUD to be a restaurant. You are not permitted to be a bar. What you
are is a hybrid. You're both, okay. During the day you're a restaurant
and at night you're a bar.
I don't believe that it is the restaurant activities that the people in
Pebblebrooke are protesting. I think it's the bar activities they're
protesting. I think it's -- and Commissioner Henning and I were at a
homeowner association meeting, and I think it's the drunks that leave
there at two a.m. that are bothering the community, and I think it's the
people in the outdoor seating area 1 :00 p.m., 1 :30, drinking and
talking loudly that are bothering the community. And that's the
portion of the business that we would target.
Again, if you feel this is predominantly a restaurant which has an
accessory use as a bar, then that's the end of it. But if you feel that
what this is is both a bar and a restaurant and you want us to close
down the bar, then I'd ask you to direct the County Attorney's Office
to bring suit.
Now, I am not going to tell you that we are going to be
successful in this suit. I think this, quite frankly, is a coin flip. I
Googled these two SIC codes. Half the sport codes -- half the sports
bars in this country consider themselves restaurants and half the sports
bars in this country consider themselves bars. It's -- it could go either
way. But if you want this thing closed down, that's how we're going to
do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
Page 211
February 26-27, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. We may have a difficult
time, especially if they can prove that 50 percent of their income is by
the sales of food.
I think another avenue that we need to address -- and I've been
basically preaching to the choir -- and that is, if we come up with a
stringent noise ordinance, that will put a stop to it real quick. With the
noise ordinance that encompasses the -- where the sound carries over
into people's homes, inside the homes, in their back yards.
I think if we have a -- I'm hoping that we come forth with an
LDC amendment with a stiffer noise ordinance that it will address this,
and I think you'll see the television sets and everything else disappear
out there because they'll be cited many times.
But when you look at somebody that has a restaurant, I
understand where you're coming here, but I think you might run into
some -- it's going to be interesting to see how this turns out, because if
they can prove they're 50 percent or more, even during the bar times,
it would be considered bar times.
MR. KLATZKOW: Sir, it would be a good defense. I don't
think it's the dispositive. Under the SIC codes, you're allowed to be a
bar with the substantial proceeds of food use. What I would argue is
that they're a hybrid. During the day they're a restaurant, at night they
were a bar. Your zoning says you can be a restaurant, but you can't be
a bar. They're both.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I say, let's shut down the bar.
If they want to become a restaurant, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I go along with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I'd like to see that,
too. I have similar concerns that Commissioner Halas brought up.
What is substantial? You know, no one's defined that. Commissioner
Halas said 50 percent -- or 51 percent or more, but I don't know where
you got that number. It could be 60, 70, 80.
Page 212
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's staffs interpretation. Can you
put up the SIC code and explain that to the Board of Commissioners
again, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Henning. What am I supposed to be looking at?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, up above you've got SIC code
5812, which is restaurant, and then you have below that 5813, so we
just need to zoom into it. 5813 is a drinking place. And if you just
read what is highlighted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. So 5812 is what's
allowed. 5813 is not allowed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so that's -- food frequently
accounts for a substantial portion of the receipts of these
establishments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep. That's a bar.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One thing that I found to be
very curious was the fact that they have down there on the menu
something about an acoustic dinner? What's that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a loud happy hour.
MR. KLATZKOW: They do do live shows there, or they have
live entertainment there. That could be that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And the only other thing,
you know, with the great discussion that we're having, do we know if
the owners of the establishment have done anything recently or are
planning to do anything? Are they here to be represented to be able to
tell us what their plans are?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe they are here, but I will tell you
that we have had a deafening silence from them on this issue from day
one. The owner of the shopping center -- and I'll get into this a little
later -- has been very cooperative with us. Stevie Tomato's has not.
Page 213
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was that a motion you made earlier
about proceeding with closing down the bar?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarification, I could bring a cause
of action just on the outdoor bar or I could bring in a cause of action
for both the outdoor bar and as well as the indoor bar. It's both.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You see the thing, a normal restaurant
doesn't have the hours of operation that a sports bar has. You know,
you do have some anomalies out there with Waffle House or
something like that, but that is not a place where they serve liquor.
Those are to serve the people who get up damn early in the morning or
the people who leave Stevie Tomato's to get something to eat.
It needs to be a restaurant. The hours need to be defined. It
needs -- that's it. Stop the bar practice.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Inside bar or outside bar?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All over. What I'm saying,
inside/outside hours. It's supposed to be a restaurant, and most of
those go to -- I don't know. I mean, I usually go --
MR. MUDD: A lot -- during the week, a lot quit serving at nine
o'clock, and then on the weekends, because it's high season, they
might go to 10:30, max, 11 o'clock before it closes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not going to call the motion
because we have --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you did. We have --
MR. KLATZKOW: There are speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a whole bunch of speakers.
Now, the next issue --
Page 214
February 26-27,2008
MR. KLATZKOW: Now the second issue. The second issue is
the two-story building. And the developer is here. I don't know if you
want to see his presentation.
The original idea was that we were going to show the
presentation to the people of Pebblebrooke first. The presentation was
only completed just a few days ago, so we never had the opportunity.
They're here now to show it to you if you'd like to see it, or we
can wait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you want to do? You want to
see it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, go ahead.
It still needs to be presented to the restaurant -- the residents. It
can't be done in this type of a setting.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Mr. Pickworth?
MR. MUDD: Do you want to use the overhead, do you want to
use the computer?
MR. PICKWORTH: We have several drawings, so I guess that
would be what we need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Pickworth, thank you.
MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Don
Pickworth. I represent DAD development, which owns the shopping
center.
They acquired the shopping center after the zoning actions --
which have formed the basis of the concerns about the two-story
building -- had taken place.
In fact, to clarify some information that has been promulgated
that some -- a good bit of which is not exactly correct, DAD entered
into a contract to purchase this property. The contract provided that
the previous owner would -- it basically provided that the property
would have an additional number of square feet of commercial
authorized, and it was the responsibility of the previous attorney to
Page 215
February 26-27,2008
obtain that.
There was nothing in the contract, no condition about number of
stories or any of that. That was not an issue for these purchasers.
They wanted to know that they could build a number of square feet of
commercial that they would be able to build.
It was the responsibility of the previous owner to obtain the
zoning using his consultants and at his expense. He went through the
process. We were not part of or aware of all of this. You know, all
this talk about an agreement for one story at the Planning Commission
and all of that, we were not part of any of that.
After the board had taken its final action on the PUD and the
PUD was signed, we received a letter from the previous owner saying,
basically, the condition of the contract has been fulfilled. Here's the
PUD which shows you can build the number of square feet of
commercial which you contracted to be able to build. Let's set a
closing, so we closed on the property.
In fact, the -- had no idea there was an issue of two stories until
really long after the building was built; really not too long ago was the
first time that issue had come up. The owner has the -- obviously the
awareness of Stevie Tomato situation has been around for a long time.
And they have met with representatives of the county on that.
They either funded entirely or a substantial part -- the previous noise
study that was done, so they've taken part in that. But now the
two-story building issue has arisen.
And so from the standpoint of DAD Development, the question
is, how can we find a way to move on from there?
Obviously the building is not going to be voluntarily tom down
or anything like that because their position is that that building was
totally lawfully built.
But we have engaged the services of a landscape architect to see
what could be done to adequately screen, through landscaping, the
two-story building.
Page 216
February 26-27, 2008
And we have -- and again, it's -- these -- there's probably a few
details that we still need to work out. We just found out late last week
that we'd be able to do some enhanced planting in that preserve which
would help screen off one end of the building, so we very quickly
showed some prospective plantings in there. So we're still -- we're
still working on that.
But I think you can see on the drawings what we're basically
planning to do, which is to provide a heavy landscape screen
alongside of the building. You can see that. It then wraps around the
end of the building, and those plantings at the end of the building
there, those are actually going to be in the preserve.
As you may know, there was a fire in there some time ago. It got
pretty tom up by the fire department, and so it's not -- it doesn't -- the
preserve itself is not very thick in there, so the idea would be to plant
some native species in there which would act as a vegetative screen
for two or three homes that are located -- they would otherwise be able
to look through the preserve and see that building.
We had thought -- and I understand this is still going to be done.
We certainly are looking forward -- we thought we were going to have
a second meeting with the people in Pebblebrooke, and we certainly
look forward to such a meeting where we can kind of go through all
these things in as much detail as anyone wants to as far as exactly
what's being done.
But I just wanted to give you an overview of what -- of what
we're ready to commit to do. There's also going to be a -- I think one
of the drawings may show a concrete wall -- did you show that?
MR. MUDD: This one?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, yes. Okay. You see that concrete
wall, and then that's the preserve right behind it, and those are the
enhanced plantings that would be in the preserve.
I guess -- I'll certainly answer any questions, but I wanted to let
you know the direction we're going. And, you know, we look forward
Page 217
February 26-27,2008
to, you know, further interface with the residents of Pebble brooke, to
move this along.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to thank you for being
so cooperative. It's our understanding from the County Attorney that
you have been very cooperative in trying to address the residents'
concerns. I think that's very good. I appreciate that.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I just want to mention that the
board gave directions to see if there's any kind of resolution to this
outside of going to court, and DAD was very responsive to that.
But, again, that -- residents haven't seen that. But I just wanted to
clarify what the board's direction was, okay?
Okay. Let's call up the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have seven speakers, Mr. Chairman. The first
one is Adam Cohen. He'll be followed by Walter Bruno. And ifI can
have the second speaker please come up.
Okay. Go ahead.
MR. COHEN: My name's Adam Cohen, and I live at 298 Spider
Lily Lane in Pebblebrooke.
I'm here just to implore the commission to institute the scrivener's
error. I do not believe that any kind of mitigation through plant life or
walls can bring back our quality of life, could bring back -- you know,
we've -- you know, we've got quite a few homes that are for sale in our
development now, just about everybody does.
We've got folks driving down there, driving that -- when they see
that wall right there, they see that wall, renters will not come any
further and they turn around and leave, you know. So I'm just
imploring you all to do the right thing, go back to the PUD that was
supposed to be instituted.
Page 218
February 26-27,2008
We've got more than just a two-story building. First of all, it's too
close, too close to the homes that are right up against it. That's
unacceptable. It's unacceptable for many -- number of reasons.
There's dumpsters every day being -- and I believe one of the
other speakers has a video of that -- of dumpsters at all hours of the
day and morning being dumped, and these folks -- we're talking 30
feet. It's very loud. I mean, I'm not even 30 feet. I'm across the street
and I hear it. These folks are being woken every single day.
And I do appreciate the -- Stevie Tomato's, the way that's being
handled, but that's not the only issue. The issue is, somebody made a
mistake, and it seems like the residents of Pebblebrooke are the only
ones being accountable for it. And that's just my opinion. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Walter Bruno. He'll be followed by Angela
Joseph.
MR. BRUNO: Walter Bruno, 288 Spider Lily Lane. The last
time we were here, I think it was Ms. Fiala, had questioned if there's
problems still with noise. We have a short DVD to play that will
show you there's still problems, and a major ongoing problem is the
dumpster collection, 5:00, 5:30 in the morning.
Again, like I say, I also feel that the scrivener's error needs to go
through so that any sort of negotiations over this property can begin in
earnest.
(The DVD is now being played.)
MR. BRUNO: That's 5:30, 5:40. And there's a shot from a
resident's patio. I think he is about 200 feet away.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to say something,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think this is a good example of
why we need a stiffer noise ordinance, and not only just in this
neighborhood, but there's going to be other locations throughout the
county, and that's why -- I know there's other communities that have
addressed a stiffer noise ordinance because the people do need relief.
Page 219
February 26-27,2008
MR. BRUNO: Have they thought of the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we know the bar --
MR. BRUNO: Also, there was a provision, it's supposed to be
part of the PUD, I believe, that the garbage disposal be handled off
site, which I have no idea how they'd do it, but that was supposed to
be in the original PUD that was approved, and also one of the things
that never made it in. You know, I think we need the scrivener's error.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: May we have a copy of that DVD,
Troy.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Angela Joseph. She'll be
followed by Greg Rearden.
MS. JOSEPH: Good afternoon. Angela Joseph, 281 Spider Lily
Lane in Pebblebrooke. And I'd like to say I regret having to be here,
number one, because as citizens we trusted that years ago this would
be settled.
My issue, obviously, I am the home directly behind the wall. I'm
the closest property there. It's 28 feet from my property line, and I had
the second-story windows that looked into my home. And I can show
pictures of that.
But to keep it short -- I know there are a lot of people that have to
talk. In viewing -- trying to do research and viewing things here, on
your website says, that the commission, your obligation is providing
services to protect the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the
citizens of Collier County.
I came across the organizational chart of the county, wanting to
go -- where do we go from here? We're not happy with how things are
gomg.
Who does the county answer to? Can you tell me, Mr. Henning,
who the top of the organizational chart is? Us, the citizens by your
display? I see you responding to corporations and developers and
businesses and not to us.
Page 220
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I could remove my motion.
MS. JOSEPH: A corporation -- a corporation is not a citizen, as
far as I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. But if things had been
handled the way we were promised, the original meeting years ago, I
would not have had to postpone meeting my family in grief right now
for the loss of a member of my family because this is so important to
handle. I shouldn't have to be here right now. I want not to have to
deal with -- and I don't know. Can this be viewed?
MR. MUDD: Sure, if you give it to me.
MS. JOSEPH: The first picture was my home and the privacy I
had on my patio. Yeah, we all agree, that wasn't going to stay.
Then I had to go from that to this. And excuse me a minute. My
mind is elsewhere, obviously.
I don't know if that can be projected. But what you will see now
is what I have to view now every morning. Excuse me for the time,
but you have to see this. And now you're asking me to go through, in
that little bit of 28 feet what is going to take -- and yes, developer, I
thank you for all the efforts you've taken to try and come up with a
solution. I am -- I am pleased with the efforts, but I don't want to have
to live through that.
Imagine behind me, living through now again, from all of that
you saw, now you're going to dig up and you're going to put walls and
trees and how close that is to my pool, and what will that do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're going to have to wrap it.
MS. JOSEPH: Thank you. I just want to know, what will that do
to my property. I want a scrivener's error, I want answers. I don't
want to have to live through it, and I've spoken that before, and I thank
you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Greg Rearden. He'll be
followed by Kim Kish.
MR. REARDEN: Hi. My name is Greg Rearden. I live at 297
Page 221
February 26-27, 2008
Spider Lily. We've had meetings before on the issues, and you know
the issues are noise. You know the issues are the two-story building.
I know that there are efforts being made to try and rectify the
problem. I understand some landscaping mayor may not do the trick;
however, I do wish that you would make a motion to close the bar,
stop the liquor inside and out, because I'm five doors down from the
bar, can look right into the back of the bar and hear nothing but
screaming, yelling.
And you've seen the video before, all of you have, and today's
video. It's very loud. We can't even go outside. Ifwe have company,
we can't go out on the lanai, have any privacy.
Our lives really, we feel like, are being, little by little, day by
day, just been affected by the noise. I really feel sorry for the lady
that has to live there, you know, next to the building, but I also feel
sorry for the person that lives directly behind Stevie Tomato's and
listens -- even that person that took that video is even three or four
doors down. There is even some closer that can hear the noise even
louder.
You know what you get when you start doing the drinking and
the motorcycles and the horn blowing. And there's one truck up there
that has some kind of big train sound that you can hear from a half a
mile away. It's very loud, and our homes -- even with my TV on
inside my house, I still hear the noise.
I personally believe that the only way you're going to be able to
solve the noise is to put up a big wall behind the building, do all kinds
of landscaping to try and do that. But as far as where the building's
concerned, you know, I'm asking for scrivener's errors as well to
implement some of the mistakes that have been made by the county
and/or the inspectors, code inspectors, whomever they may be. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Kim Kish. She'll be followed by Jeri Buehler.
Page 222
February 26-27,2008
MS. KISH: Hi, again. I want you to know I'm on first name
basis with all of my sheriff deputies within the 951/Immokalee area.
The point I wanted to make tonight is that the entire issue, if you
can continue to refuse to put forth a vote for the scrivener's error that
your own staff report shows and recommends and the continued lack
of oversight by many within this county, including Mr. Weigel who
was the attorney during this entire period that allowed this issue to
come to fruition (sic), you are, in essence, saying that the Planning
Commission and its recommendations and its very existence are
irrelevant and unnecessary, that each board member here in the future
can make decisions regardless of the will of the people, the set laws,
and the regulations, that you and you alone will be the deciding factor.
I don't believe this is your intent. For you to try to put forth an
argument that a lawsuit will last for many years is something that will
have to be handled, but not at the expense of the people who trusted
you to speak for us and protect us. The only choice is to call for and
approve a scrivener's error posthaste.
The consequences of the poor oversight of staff in allowing a
developer's agent -- and I think this is the biggest point on this issue --
that the developer's agent was allowed to clean up and sit with staff
and remove the words "no" and "not allowed" and that came forth for
you to vote on is, perhaps -- you know, it will be a test between your
attorney, the developer, the builder, and the bar owner, but not our
problem. We were here first. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Jeri Buehler. She'll be followed by Clay Brooker.
MS. BUEHLER: Good evening. I'm Jeri Buehler and I live at
389 Sweetbay Lane, and I live at roughs of the building.
And we sat here a couple years ago in front of the county
commissioners. We didn't even know that the property was being sold
out. We were told that there were going to be more homes back there.
So much to my dismay, we all came, and the developer not only
sold the PUD, the P-U-D -- we sat here, we asked that a tavern not go
Page 223
February 26-27,2008
in. We didn't mind a restaurant that served wine and beer -- that's an
issue of its own -- but not a restaurant that close to our homes.
The other point was that the building was to be 60 feet from my
lot line. The building is 30 feet from my lot line. When DeAngeles
Diamond was footing it, I went out and said to the man, oh, that's the
wall, correct?
No, ma'am, that's the building. I talked to John DeAngeles
personally. My husband called him. I called, I went down.
Then the wall is 15 feet from my building, from my house. Then
I'm watching the wall go up, not just a one story, but a very intrusive
two-story building that everyone that drives down my street says, my
gosh, Jeri, what happened? Who allowed this? I want a scrivener's
error.
I am rather flabbergasted that the county commissioners, that we
elect, don't drive out and see what's going on in their county, our
county. And as a taxpayer, I depend on you, Commissioners, all of
you, and I'm very disappointed.
And I'm sorry that the man that has come to own this didn't do all
of his due diligence to find out what was going on, because we did
complain. A lot of tears, a lot of aggravation.
I asked John DeAngeles where he lived, ifhe would like that
building behind his home.
I want to sell my house some day. To be honest with you, I will
never get out of it what I originally decided.
We -- we're on a dead-end. I have a handicapped daughter,
Christina, who's 32 years of age. We built there so that she could ride
her bike to Publix.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to wrap it up, please.
MS. BUEHLER: All right. I just want you to do what's right by
us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Clay Brooker.
Page 224
February 26-27,2008
MR. BROOKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm ofCheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, &
Johnson. I appear before you on behalf of the Stevie Tomato's
establishment.
First offI'd like to comment a little bit on the comment by Mr.
Klatzkow that we've -- there's been nothing but deafening silence from
us. That is untrue. We had no notice of to day's discussion item on the
agenda. We found out about it yesterday. Apparently DAD
Development Corporation was given notice, but we weren't.
Upon finding out about it, I tried to call Mr. Klatzkow. No one
knew where he was, so I sent an email to him. The response I got was
silence.
I've been in touch with Commissioner Henning since the
beginning on this. On September 25,2007, we appeared before you.
We offered a sound barrier at that time.
On January 10th, a neighborhood meeting was held.
Commissioner Henning was in attendance. I was in attendance. Mr.
Klatzkow was in attendance. My client was in attendance.
We participated and offered sound attenuating shutters at that
meeting. We offered to close them every day at seven p.m. That
meeting ended with an agreement to follow up with a second
neighborhood meeting. I don't know where the status of that is. No
one's told me anything about when the date of that meeting is going to
occur. But we're ready to participate again whenever that meeting is
called.
The dumpster is not us. We don't control the timing of it. It's for
the entire shopping center, so that can't be blamed on Stevie Tomato's.
As far as whether we're permitted under the PUD, your own
zoning director investigated this matter the end of last year and she
wrote, I quote, Stevie Tomato's is correctly classified under SIC code
number 5812 as a restaurant. The outdoor seating bar area is correctly
considered an accessory use to the principle use of the restaurant, not
Page 225
February 26-27, 2008
unlike the indoor bar.
The restaurant use, including the outdoor bar seating area, was
properly and appropriately permitted by staff under the restaurant uses
as defined under SIC code 5812 by the PUD, end quote. The revenues
at Steve Tomato's in terms of food far exceed 51 percent.
The sound attenuating shutters we've offered time and time again.
Although no one seems to want to take us up on the offer, they are
going up anyway next week.
We have responded, and what we suggest is to expedite the
resolutions that have been offered to you, from our standpoint for
months, from DAD's standpoint, they showed some on their -- plans
for landscaping and a wall today.
I suggest we expedite these resolutions prior to filing a suit which
your own attorney gives you, at best, a 50/50 shot of winning.
One last sentence. When clients come into my office and ask to
go to court and I tell them that there's a 50/50 shot, my advice is, never
go to court on a 50/50 shot of winning; reach a resolution. And we
believe we've offered a reasonable one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. My wife and I went out to
dinner on Friday night across the street in the Vineyards, and -- Italian
restaurant. It has a bar in there. And they're very busy, so we choose
to eat over there, and it's nothing like what we've seen on that video.
It was quite a pleasant experience.
And I know they don't stay open till two o'clock in the morning,
one o'clock in the morning. I bet you they close the doors at 10 p.m.,
maybe 11. I don't know.
There is a difference between a restaurant and a bar, and
somebody needs to inform your staff what the difference is. Very
clear.
And these errors that keep on happening is just overwhelming,
whether it be a setback, a bar, or whatever. And the only person that
we have accountable is the County Manager.
Page 226
February 26-27,2008
But I think we have the ability to do budget amendments, and I'm
almost that close to taking a budget amendment to positions in your
organization. This has to change.
Y '?
es, Sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A couple of points here.
I went online to look up about Stevie Tomato's, and it's classified
numerous times online as a bar. Just to point it out to you, something
that I did. I went to the Yellow Pages, and I couldn't find anything
there that indicated whether it was a bar or a restaurant. It was listed
under restaurants.
But if I may address Mr. Klatzkow.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sir, I'm a little bit disturbed.
When you were in my office the other day, I asked you if there'd been
any communications taking place and that I heard something about
sound shutters, and I asked you what you knew of it, and you said, no,
there's been nothing.
Have they -- what they just said, is that not true or is it true, that
they had contact --
MR. KLATZKOW: They have been talking about sound
shutters for, I can't tell you how long, and I've never seen them come
up. Now they're saying we're putting them up. I think it's -- maybe a
coincidence, but maybe it's because of this meeting right here.
What I will tell you is those sound shutters; I don't think it's
going to make a heck of a difference.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's fine. It's just that
when you were in my office, you didn't give me all the information I
was hoping to get so I can move forward on it. What I'm hearing from
them here is that there is an effort going underway. I wished you told
me at that time that you had these discussions. Nothing happened--
MR. KLATZKOW: If you remember, sir, Mr. Mudd came to
you sometime ago with a permit on this issue for the shutters, I don't
Page 227
February 26-27, 2008
know, six months ago, nine months ago already, it's been.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: November.
MR. MUDD: It was November, September.
MR. KLATZKOW: November sometime. They're still not
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A little more detail in the
explanation would have helped tremendously.
I still support your motion, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1, Commissioner
Halas against the motion. Okay.
Do we need a break?
We're going to take a 10-minute break and get back to the five
o'clock time certain.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seat.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item is 10 -- which is it, 10
MS. FILSON: lOF.
Item #10F
Page 228
February 26-27, 2008
RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE FY08 EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY REDUCING
PERSONNEL, OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
TO OFFSET ANTICIPATED AMBULANCE FEE REVENUE
SHORTFALLS - MOTION MADE FOR A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO CONTINUE FUNDING (FROM RESERVES)
EMS AT CURRENT STAFF LEVELS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 10F, sir. It's a recommendation to amend the
FY -'08 Emergency Medical Services Department budget for reducing
personnel, operating and capital expenditures to offset anticipated
ambulance fee, review shortfalls.
Mr. Jeff Page, your EMS Director, will present.
CHIEF PAGE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Jeff Page with Emergency Medical Services.
This first slide is just illustrating the fact that we're not fully
supported by ad valorem taxes. Generally historically we've been 50
percent revenue and then 50 percent tax based.
In May of last year the board approved an out -- or outsourcing
our EMS building to Advanced Data Processing. Based on the
historical data model that they used from Lee County and other
Southwest Florida clients, the county's population increased
projections included with that. They provided a revenue collection
estimate of 11.2 million for the fis -- for this fiscal year, and 11.9 for
FY-'09.
After reviewing our pay class mix over the past several months
and at first quarter collections, they now advise us that there will be a
2.4 million shortfall in FY-'08, and a 3 percent increase over that
amount in FY-'09.
On this slide you can see that in FY-'05 we had nearly a 12
percent increase over the previous year of FY-'04 in billable
Page 229
February 26-27,2008
transports.
In FY-'06, we went a little bit more conservative in the estimate
to a little bit less than 5 percent yet we saw only a 3 percent increase
that year.
In FY-'07, again, based on population projections, we estimated a
4.5 percent increase, and we actually ended up with a 3 percent
reduction that year over 2006.
This year's projection is now estimated to come in at only 2.5
based on ADPI's last several months of collection data.
Some of the contributing factors. While historically we've seen
an average 57 percent of the calls for service resulting in a transport
over the years, in our first quarter here, we actually dropped down to
under 50 percent to 49, and that's the first time I've ever seen that
happen before.
Other contributing factors. The mix of business, ADPI's Florida
clients have an average of 38 percent of their charge mix of patients
falling under Medicare. And historically in the county, we've seen
about 40 percent over the last four or five years.
Since May ADPI has seen this class mix rise to 47 percent for
Collier County. So we're higher than, significantly, the other counties
around us, and we've got no explanation as to why that's happened.
We're also seeing a reduction in the number of patients with
private insurance. As you know, due to the economy, many
businesses have reduced their coverage liability and, of course, many
have lost their jobs.
Collier County has historically had a slightly higher trend than
those other Florida clients that ADPI services, but this has only
increased over the past several months.
Along with that are, the insurance claim policies have changed.
Typically, before, Blue Cross/Blue Shield would pay us directly.
They've now gone to paying the patient directly and, therefore, we
have to try and get that money from the patients themselves.
Page 230
February 26-27,2008
The other part of that with the insurance is, other carriers like
Aetna, some other insurance carriers, where before they would attempt
to low pay the bill, you could actually try and negotiate with them and
get that reversed. But what's happened in the past seven to eight
months are they're refusing to negotiate, and a lot of these are ending
up in lawsuits in other counties.
And lastly, fewer patients are electing to use advanced life
support services for non-emergency reasons. Part of that is Medicare
and other insurance agencies. If they deem that the transport is not
medically a necessity for that type of unit, then they won't pay, and
then the patient's actually responsible for the bill.
Recommendations. We're talking about delaying the purchase at
these three ambulances that we were to replace this year in FY-'08.
This is only a temporary solution. At some point they will need
replacement, but this is something we've done in the past.
Since nearly 77 percent of the EMS operating budget is
comprised of personnel services, what our recommendation is is that
we offset this 983,000 by the reduction of four EMS units or the
equivalent of 24 personnel.
I need to point out that this is not the only reduction in salaries.
There is probably another 40- to 50,000 in salary contract incentives
along with that that will need to be made, whereby, some of these
specialty units that we have or specialty programs such as field
training officers, special operation technicians, things of that nature,
will have to be reduced or eliminated.
Okay. This slide represents or illustrates what the reduction of
the 24 personnel in the four EMS units -- how that works with the
carryforward. It's -- even with this, it's important to note that it's going
to require an additional fund contribution of 1.9 million next year.
And this slide here, with the staff reduction -- without the staff
reduction, it reflects a negative carryforward of 1,654,000 and would
require a general fund increase of 4,862,000 in FY-'09.
Page 23 1
February 26-27,2008
The next few slides I'm going to show you are going to give you
the highlights of the areas of patient care outcomes and what might be
the effect of the response times.
Ifwe go back in FY- -- in May of2006, following the February,
2006 AUIR meeting, you gave us permission to start hiring the staff to
equip these four growth ambulances that you approved in the AUIR.
We went from 83 percent, and then in FY-'07 it came up to 84 percent
with just EMS only. We started tracking the ALS engine contribution
as you requested. That brought us up to 88 percent with our units, and
then the first quarter ofFY-'08, we're at 85 percent with EMS only and
89 percent with the ALS engines.
We would assume with the reduction of the four units, because
these units are not really closing any stations down, those four units,
those stations, have not yet been built. They're doubled up at other
station locations that we own and operate.
Where it will make a significant impact are concurrent calls in
those same zones. In other words, the first zone call in that area, we
should be fine, but there is going to be some kind of impact in
concurrent calls that should initiate as a second unit's needed and has
to travel from out of zone.
Cardiac resuscitation rates. In FY-'06, 38 percent; in FY-'07, 48
percent, and these are patients that are arriving at the hospital with a
pulse. First quarter results so far are 40 percent. So if we were to go
back to the '06 level, that's what we would assume historically to be.
This is just reviewing some of the contributions to what our
survival rates have been. And, of course, should we see any trends out
of the -- of -- other than what we expect to see as far as response times
or cardiac resuscitation rates, we would, of course, get with the
County Manager and come back to the board.
So basically, that's my presentation. We felt that it was urgent to
bring it to you as quickly as possible, noticing that -- there's one thing
I have to point out here. For every pay period that goes by, there's
Page 232
February 26-27,2008
about a $63,000 salary cost to that decision.
So we wanted to get it to you as soon as possible because it just
extrapolates it out. Had we gone another two weeks to bring this to
you, the number would have been higher than 24.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that in our
AUIR report, we did designate that we were going to increase the
amount of assets that were going to be added, and that was based on
population growth; is that correct?
CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so -- therefore, we've got two
factors here. One is population growth that didn't materialize as we
had projected; is that correct?
CHIEF PAGE: That's part of it, but, Commissioner, remember
back in that AUIR, we went from a permanent population to a waiting,
and that's what put us into the deficit. I originally came to the board
and asked for two units. You wanted me to address it more
aggressively and gave me four.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So these four units are
actually the units that we basically gave you direction to address,
providing that the growth was going to continue at that rate; is that
correct? Would that be a good assessment?
CHIEF PAGE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that we also gave you
direction to start to ramp up to bring people onboard to train them; is
that correct?
CHIEF PAGE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So this doesn't have
anything to do with taking any particular units out of service at this
point; is that correct?
CHIEF PAGE: These four units are currently staffed. They're
Page 233
February 26-27, 2008
out on the road, but they're second units in one station. There's no
station for them to go into yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's no station -- because that
would be part of putting in additional facilities, right?
CHIEF PAGE: They're just not built, correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And where would these
facilities be located?
CHIEF PAGE: Primarily in North Naples district. There's -- I
can give you -- Heritage Bay is one, Old 41 and new 41, Logan and
Vanderbilt.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And those were based in regards to
units that were for sale and that were going to be sold that would cause
us to have a shortage of equipment and personnel if the growth
continued to ramp up as we anticipated back in 2006, 2007, correct?
CHIEF PAGE: They were -- they were -- I'm not sure I
understand that question. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We were -- when we gave
you direction --
CHIEF PAGE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we were looking at, such as
Heritage Bay, ramping up, building more homes and those homes
being filled with people.
CHIEF PAGE: Not necessarily, Commissioner. If you can
remember the map I had with all the dots?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHIEF PAGE: These were specific areas where we were having
response times in excess of 10 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHIEF PAGE: And we recognized that we needed to address
that, and that's why those locations were specifically targeted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But it still had the effect of
those particular areas being built out.
Page 234
February 26-27,2008
CHIEF PAGE: Future growth, yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Coyle, and I'm sure Commissioner Fiala wants to say
something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You bet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
I received a couple emails I'd like to address with you, and I think
I know the answer already, but please bear with me.
Nick Heally wrote from -- president of Ave Maria University,
and he goes on to say, this is a matter of great concern to Ave Maria
because the number of visitors to the campus and town center now
exceed one thousand per week. Response time to a medical
emergency is critical, and they ask for the vote to be postponed until
they have more time, more information on it.
But then, again, too, we've got Jake Sullivan, who's the head of --
the president of Waterways in Naples, sends me an email.It.s fairly
lengthy, but it boils down to, rumor control now has it that there are
plans to call -- close the aforementioned Immokalee Road EMS
station and move the personnel assigned to it to the town of Ave
Maria.
Obviously the residents currently served by this station would
vehemently oppose any consideration to closing this station. A move
of this nature would undoubtedly jeopardize the public safety and
welfare of the residents served by this station at the very least through
delaying response time.
Could you please reply to those two emails?
CHIEF PAGE: Sure. Regarding Ave Maria, since June of2006
we've had about 15 calls out there. Now, I'll tell you in the last couple
of weeks we've had three. But one of the options that we had sent to
the manager was that, given the fact that -- that was a growth unit that
was supposed to come up this year, but we expected Ave Maria to be
Page 235
February 26-27,2008
further along. But long-term planning had a growth unit going out
there.
Since there cannot be any growth this year, and due to the tax
reform, one of the proposals was, is that we've got two units stationed
in the Immokalee station now running out of there. One of the options
would be to take one of those, move it the seven miles to Ave Maria,
and you kind of decluster your units that way. So that ifthere's an
accident on Camp Keais Road, that Ave Maria unit would be closer,
and you'd keep the Immokalee unit in town.
However, there is quite a call volume in Immokalee. I can tell
you that on any given weekend you can have four to five calls at the
same time for that one area, so you're bringing resources from Big
Corkscrew, Golden Gate, you know, to cover that.
Do I think there's enough call volume to warrant a fully staffed
unit out there? Probably not, but there may be some other -- and I
think we're going to have a meeting with you sometime down the road
here to look at other options as far as -- probably right now, in talking
to Chief Alvarez in Immokalee, he's staffing, I think, 12 hours a day,
one person out there. There could be a possibility where we would
take a paramedic/firefighter, have him out there for that same amount
of time or time period. But that's something we're going to need to
talk to you about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What about the other part of the
question regarding the station, the EMS station near Waterways? Is
there any plans to close that station?
CHIEF PAGE: Waterways. Is that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's Orangetree.
CHIEF PAGE: No, no. That's -- no, not at all. Even if the
reduction of these four units, if you were to make that decision, none
of the existing stations would be closed or vacated. We'd just be back
to where we were in 2006.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And of course, one of
Page 236
February 26-27,2008
my concerns is the fact that I know we were running a deficit for
many years trying to get EMS personnel to come to work in Collier
County, and it's only about the last two or three years or two years and
some months that we were able to get up to full strength, and we were
very proud of that.
And of course, I'm concerned that, you know, how long is this
going to last? And then we're going to have to go back out on the
market and try to draw people back in again. And if we start to make
cuts now, these people are going to be long gone for other parts of the
country .
A question on reserves. That's a question that came up to me.
Reserves to cover the costs. What is in reserves? Can you tell me
that, Mr. Mudd? Is this something that would be substantial? Is this
something that becomes a real burden to try to deal with the health,
safety, welfare issue from reserves?
CHIEF PAGE: You're talking about county reserves, correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Not your reserves.
CHIEF PAGE: Mine now.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, at the September budget hearings,
you had $5.6 million in the -- what we call the unfinanced requirement
funds that you as a board decided not to allocate, to wait to see what
would happen in January as far as the vote on amendment one, and we
all understand that particular issue.
So you have that $5.6 million that's sitting out there, and it's not
in reserves. It's sitting over to the side. You also have another $7.2
million in excess turnback, okay, that came to you vis-a-vis the
constitutional officers that was above and beyond what they had
projected as their turnback was going to be. So they turned back $7.2
million.
So you've got a total, sir, outside of your regular reserves that
you've got -- and you keep a certain percentage, 2.5 percent to be
Page 237
February 26-27, 2008
specific that you keep as reserves -- you have $12.8 million that are
sitting out there at this particular juncture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My question then would be, if
we were to use a portion of this reserve just to cover the EMS
personnel and not pick up the extra unit, to try to maintain a staffing
level that's comparable to what we may need in the near future, if we
were to do that and go by attrition -- in other words, over the course of
a year's time there's going to be people leaving for one reason or
another, even though there's less and less employment out in the
immediate area, would that be a doable thing or is that a workable
solution?
MR. MUDD: I believe -- I believe that that $2.4 million in the
projection for '09 -- you correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Page -- I believe
you already have attrition that's basically been computed into those
particular figures? Yes or no?
CHIEF PAGE: Yes. I can tell you. Just give me -- okay.
Projections without staff reductions and no ambulance purchases. So
we would go ahead and do away with the 550,000 for replacing those
ambulances. We would still have a negative carry forward of million
-- 1,099,000, and it would increase the general fund contribution next
year to four million, 307.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Could you explain that
again, too. I mean, between now and next year, there's undoubtedly
going to be some people leaving. Is this projected into it?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, Commissioners, as far as -- there's
nowhere for my staff to go. So anybody leaving is retiring. And I did
have one just the other day. But I don't think that we're going to have
-- our attrition is about 1 percent this year so far.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And another thing, when I was
meeting with the paramedics, they said that there is -- there's no one
being cut from management; is that correct?
CHIEF PAGE: I had one battalion chief resign, so she's part of
Page 238
February 26-27,2008
that 24 that we counted. And Commissioners, I have no assistant
chief. There's myself, two division chiefs in the office, and the
battalion chiefs in the field.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One other question, and I
appreciate your patience. The collections are down to 30 percent,
from what I understand. Before when we did it in-house they were 50
percent. Is there any possibility that if we took it back in-house we
might be able to pick up part of this deficit?
CHIEF PAGE: Well, I couldn't find those people again,
Commissioner. But the other part of it is, I don't -- I think that this is
part of the economy. And even with my own people that I have
before, correct, we did do a much better job, especially at collecting
insurances, than they're doing currently.
But the insurance landscape has changed completely since then.
So when I reduced those five people last year, along with another
division chief -- a training division chief went to North Naples -- ifI
brought -- tried to bring the five people back to help in billing, I don't
know that we could ever ramp up.
Our problem before was, is that it took us 30 days -- we were
always 30 days out. The advantage of ADPI is they can do a thousand
tickets a day. So they're much faster in getting that initial bill out than
we ever were. And--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there's only 30 percent
return, but you're saying that -- a good part of that's due to the
economy.
CHIEF PAGE: I believe it is. You know, I can tell you the first
time -- it took us a couple of weeks to get into this with them, because
when they first told me what the projection was, we were talking three
million.
And I said, how can you make a $3 million mistake, you know?
I mean, we were devastated. So as we got into it more, we have got
their commitment to assign us more personnel to our account. We've
Page 239
February 26-27,2008
also had them agree to change the manager that manages our account
because we had some concerns with that.
We've talked about trying to get the follow-up bills quicker and
eliminating one in the cycle. Instead of four letters and then we're
sending you to collections, they're going to get three letters and then
be advised they're going to collections.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Our county's a pretty affluent
county. Some day I'd like to see statistical data of other counties
similar to us and how they're doing with collections.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, they're not doing well. And you
have a state -- you have two state bills, one in the Senate, one in the
House, that have been filed that basically tell that -- the insurance
carriers that they will -- they will provide the -- the bill amount, will
provide it directly to the people that provided the service and not send
it to the patient, as they do right now.
That didn't happen because it's just Collier County, okay. It's
statewide in that particular issue. Those bills are moving through the
House and the Senate with some opposition from the insurance
companies that you would expect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What time do you have to leave,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nine minutes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the time,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's no problem. I just --
hopefully we can come to a conclusion while Commissioner Coyle's
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can at least share my opinion with
you and my vote. I -- and no offense to our EMS people, but based
upon what I've heard today in this meeting, I have a really, really hard
time taking any of this seriously.
If somebody had come here and said, we want to reduce the
Page 240
February 26-27, 2008
amount of money we're spending on limerock road surfacing and we
want to give it to EMS, I'd take that seriously.
If somebody said, I want to reduce the amount of money we're
putting into stormwater solutions and provide that to a real health,
safety, and welfare issue, I'd take that seriously.
If somebody would say, rather than spending $350,000 on a
traffic study, they would use that money for EMS, I'd take that
seriously.
But the first, the first substantial budget issue that comes before
us is reducing emergency medical services. Absolutely ludicrous in
view of what we have been doing.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We apparently have tons of money.
It just keeps popping up every time we want to do something.
Wow, yeah, here's another pot of money we can spend. Let's put it
into the EMS program.
You get rid of 24 people, and next year your calls go up. What
are you going to do then? We're going to ramp right back up. It's
going to be more expensive.
The thing you want to do is take the money out of the limerock
roads, out of the stormwater, out of the studies that we have going on,
paying consultants, and give them to the people who save lives. So
that's where I am. I don't even want to talk about this anymore.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't either. And, you know, I'd like
for you to make a motion, but if it would have to be amended --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If it would have to be amended, you
know, we just can't do that. So I'm going to make a motion that we
direct the County Manager to make a budget amendment to make sure
EMS is whole for this year and this following year. All right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
Page 241
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And -- but we need to talk about the
units. Those units were to be paid by impact fees?
CHIEF PAGE: No. Their operation --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're just replacements. So if those
units are broken down because they needed to be replaced, it's not
going to do any good. We need to find a solution to make sure that
our units are in operational condition. So I just want you to think
about that.
CHIEF PAGE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we need to secure EMS for the
next two years. The economy is what the economy is, but we don't
know what it's going to be next year. And it's hard to find
professionals.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I could just finish
up just a quick moment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What Jeff said about Ave Maria is
very critical. The last time we met about this, we directed staff to
come back to us with a proposal as to how you were going to cover
Ave Maria. They've got something like, what, 2,500 full-time
residents out there. Things are going to happen.
So I don't recall having gotten that information. But if you've got
a plan for covering Ave Maria, I'd like to make it part of this motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have impact fees to -- were
you going to buy a new unit to put --
CHIEF PAGE: No. There's no need to do that. I mean, they've
already provided the double-wide trailer, everything's set up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need a unit to go out there.
You're going to use it --
CHIEF PAGE: Well, I'd need the personnel, unless you want me
to move it from somewhere else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hey, we've got plenty of money.
Page 242
February 26-27,2008
CHIEF PAGE: I'm with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. Hire them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I don't see anything -- we need
to -- we need to do the next two years, and we need to find a
resolution of what we're going to do to keep these units on the road.
Commissioner Fiala? I apologize for getting in front of you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. With Commissioner
Coyle leaving, it was good that he was able to get his -- actually he
said some very profound things, so it's good he went first. Now, go
home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. Good luck
to you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So many things that we talked of,
one of the things that has been concerning me though were the figures
that you gave us a couple years ago. You know, we've talked over
and over again about the figures that were given, and how accurate are
they or how much are they embellished upon? And we never really
know, do we? And I'm afraid that we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Came home, didn't it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh, uh-huh. And I think that
maybe -- well, anyway. Now we've got these 24 people that we're
going to keep, and you're going to have to find a way to do that, and
we don't need to buy extra units right now. Maybe -- maybe we
should be doing this bill collecting in-house, keep five people doing
that. There are ways you can find to do that.
But if you found a way to augment this budget that you gave us
and the need, then you ought to be able to find out how to keep these
people working.
Let's see. Are there any people that are near retirement and ready
to retire? I notice that you've doubled management in the last five
years. Maybe, you know, I hate to see --
Page 243
February 26-27,2008
CHIEF PAGE: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I --
CHIEF PAGE: My management's actually gone down.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know, one of the things
we've learned in other governmental bodies is a lot of times they get
rid of the people that are doing all the work and they leave the people
at the top, and maybe we ought to be looking at that, so anyway.
CHIEF PAGE: That's an option.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, we got how many
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Seventeen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are you okay with the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm fine with the motion, but
just one last comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that we're going to need
management, too, to stay in place. We've got to be realistic about this.
We can't blame the people that we manage as being the whole
problem out there. And I think you're doing a wonderful job. And
now you've got direction from the commission how to do it.
I'm concerned about some of the suggestions Commissioner
Coyle made as far as where the money comes from.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, no. We got it in reserves.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is the motion, okay?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We've got it in reserves, right.
Well, the numbers that Mr. Mudd just came up with from turnbacks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We have it set aside, and
turnbacks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate you giving me the
opportunity to talk again, Commissioner.
Page 244
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's fine. Are you okay with
the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, but I just -- excuse me. I'm
somewhat comfortable with the motion. But I'm concerned that
there's been an implication that we were given the wrong data or input,
and I don't really believe that's so.
I believe that nobody could see these storm clouds looming on
the horizon, and things have changed drastically in the last three or
four months, so just to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know I
didn't think that we were going to be in a tail spin here as we have
been.
So we're going to have to take some serious looks as we go
through this upcoming budget. I think Commissioner Coyle made
some good points in regards to, when it comes to health, safety, and
welfare. Maybe we'll have to look at limerock roads, we may have to
look at landscaping. There's a lot of issues that we're going to have to
address to make sure that the health, safety, and welfare is addressed,
but that's for another day's discussion.
But I just wanted to get it out there that the tail spin that we're in
at the present time, we don't know if we're almost at the end of the
dive and going to start to pull out or whether this is going to be a
continuation for another year.
Just want to let my fellow commissioners know that the
assessment that was made at this point in time, I believe, is based on
the fact that we will put a Band-Aid on the problem as it stands as of
today. But if the economic situation gets worse, I'm sure that these
people are going to be back to address the shortfall again.
And being that -- saying that, we are a little bit different than the
federal government. We don't manufacture money. We have money
that comes in from the taxpayers, and then we have to make sure that
we address those issues accordingly, and we've got a lot of challenges
in the upcoming year. Thank you.
Page 245
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why thank you.
How many speakers do we have, Sue?
MS. FILSON: Seventeen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's hear from the public.
Thank you, Mr. Page.
MS. FILSON: George Vogeney. He'll be followed by--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We'd like to have one speaker
that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: For everyone? Oh, perfect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's -- here's what we're going
to do. Who's going to be the designated speaker?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That will be me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You stand up to the mike, and
we're going to start calling off names, and if you want to give your
voice, your time, just say, I waive, and then we'll probably get there
quicker.
MS. FILSON: George Vogeney?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker -- go ahead. Start
calling them off.
MS. FILSON: Matt Galwenski.
MR. GAL WENSKI: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Mark Weiss?
MR. WEISS: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Rob Schmidt?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is Rob Schmitt here?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: William Simpson?
MR. SIMPSON: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Allen Drescher?
MR. DRESCHER: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Walt Stevens?
Page 246
February 26-27,2008
MR. STEVENS: This is Walt here.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Mike Horz --
MR. HOLOBINKO: Holobinko.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you waive? Wait a minute. We
need a --
MR. HOLOBINKO: Yes, I did.
MS. FILSON: Greg Dewitt?
MR. DEWITT: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Mike Bucher.
MR. BUCHER: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Betty Moenkhaus?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Betty Moenkhaus? Is she here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Lascheid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: She wants to speak. She's part of the
EMSAC.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Elroy (sic) Ricardo.
MR. RICARDO: I'll speak.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: You want to speak?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He wants to speak.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Frank Messana?
MR. MESSANA: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Barry Brown?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Barry Brown is here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. He's not here.
MS. FILSON: Chief Rita Greenberg.
CHIEF GREENBERG: I waive in view of the motion.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Fay Biles.
Page 247
February 26-27,2008
DR. BILES: Here.
MS. FILSON: You want to speak?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: She wants to speak, yes.
MS. FILSON: David Aldrich.
MR. ALDRICH: I waive.
MS. FILSON: Okay. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, please.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So your first speaker is Walt Stevens.
He'll be followed by Nancy Lascheid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He has two days on his speaking --
minutes?
MS. FILSON: How many? Six minutes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
MR. STEVENS: Commissioner, I'd like to thank you for
allowing us to be here and to speak. I guess my initial request would
be to see if you would continue with your vote. That may make my
attempt to produce all this information not necessary, so if that's
possible.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I'm not -- I'm not backing down
from my motion.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm with it.
MR. STEVENS: I guess my request is--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't withdraw my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. You've got a majority here.
MR. MUDD: The only thing you can do right now is talk them
out of it.
MR. STEVENS: That's correct. So I guess what I have to say
then is thank you. I appreciate your time over the past week. I
believe your due diligence moving forward is moving in the correct
direction, and I appreciate that. I think the citizens and their safety
Page 248
February 26-27,2008
and health will also appreciate it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree.
MS. FILSON: -- speaker is Nancy Lascheid. She'll be followed
by Eloy Ricardo. Okay. Would you like to come up for when she's
finished?
MS. LASCHEID: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for
what you do for the community. But also I want to compliment you
on this motion.
I came here tonight not representing EMSAC nor the position
that I hold as chairman of the subcommittee to evaluate the program
that was submitted for the master plan.
I come here tonight as a crisis/emergency trauma nurse. I come
here to tell you that you're doing the right thing by not reducing these
24 positions.
In the hospital we have a golden moment. The golden moment
relates to a stroke, the golden moment relates to a cardiac arrest, but
there's another golden moment in medicine, and it's what happens in
the field by that paramedic. That paramedic is equal to what's going
on with our stroke care and our cardiac care. Under stress, in the field,
they have to make accurate and sharp-edge decisions.
As someone who has stood at that emergency door year after
year, I want to tell you what that field person does is contingent on
what happens when I get them in the back. So I compliment you on
that.
And in regard to the economy, if you reduce those 24 positions,
beyond the issue of trying to find someone to hire, it would be also
finding people with the equal skill level that we enjoy here.
So as a self-proclaimed patient advocate and as a trauma nurse, I
thank you. You're doing the right thing.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Eloy Ricardo. He'll be
followed by Dr. Fay Biles.
Page 249
February 26-27, 2008
MR. RICARDO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Eloy Ricardo, and before anything, I want to let you know that I'm -- I
am grateful for your movement on your motion and the support. What
you're doing today will affect everybody for the next two years on the
road, on where we, as a team, work on the streets, service for all.
Commissioner Coletta, those units that they were talking about
were the units east of75, the long transport times. These members
that are out here today, these are the professionals that are out there
sacrificing that -- their lives and risking longer transport times than
probably anywhere in South Florida, coming from Immokalee all the
way down to North Collier.
So I just want to make sure that we understand that you have --
you have done something for this community that will be heard
throughout time because you made a decision today to keep our
service and keep our team intact.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Fay Biles?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was there anybody else?
MS. FILSON: No, sir, that's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. There's one fellow in the back.
Did we miss you? Yeah. Stand up next to -- or behind Mrs. Biles,
please.
DR. BILES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you.
DR. BILES: For the record, Fay Biles, Dr. Fay Biles. I served
many years on the EMSAC committee, as you know, and as chairman
for many, many years. And I can't tell you how proud we were of the
time when we won the best EMS system in the State of Florida, and
we then won the best EMS program in the nation. And I just don't
want that type of skill and that reputation to be reduced.
We -- I support the current training methods that are set forth by
Dr. Robert Tober. I think those skill levels and what he is doing with
Page 250
February 26-27,2008
hands-on is absolutely necessary, and I think it should be continued.
I'm afraid that we are reducing some of the skill level training,
and that worries me more than anything, because health and safety,
the health aspects are absolutely up here as -- what we have to do in
the county.
So I -- all I could say is, I'm happy with what you just said. I
couldn't be happier. And I just hope that we can retain the skill level
and the credentialing and the training of all of our EMS people.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
MS. FILSON: And I believe the next person is George Vogeney.
MR. VOGENEY: George Vogeney, glad to speak to you today,
and I appreciate -- I live in North Naples, and I appreciate the decision
that you made today.
Since -- in 1989 I started in the fire service in this county.
Fifteen years I have to say was with the City of Naples, and I also did
nine years with Collier County.
Couple years with Isles of Capri. Chief Rodriguez did an
excellent job. In Ochopee Chief McGlaughlin's done an excellent job.
I wanted to speak earlier about the consolidation, but I'll talk that
at another time.
Being here with this county, I started when there was only eight
medic units in this county and one EMS chief, Don Eckert. We loved
working with EMS. The cities loved it. We were number one in the
nation and number one in the State of Florida, your EMS system.
Since then a lot of things have happened. Some of the things that
have happened have been good and some things, as you know, have
been bad.
Chief Page did bring up one aspect which I think you guys need
to reconsider with everything else. Buying future EMS trucks. My
wife is a 10-year paramedic lieutenant with Collier County EMS. She
is right now involved with a lawsuit with three other EMS personnel
over a truck that had broken down on Alligator Alley, and the lady
Page 251
February 26-27,2008
became a fatality between the time they left the scene till they got all
the way to NCH.
That -- I think a person's life is a lot more than three trucks or
four trucks, or maybe -- possibly another Medflight helicopter should
be added on in this county.
What I'd like to state is, you talk about staff. Fire chiefs, fire
chiefs with your county departments do an excellent job. Your under
sheriff and your sheriff at this time do a wonderful job like you all do.
What I'd like to bring up is, during the last week -- why I have
laryngitis is talking to all your constituents, chiefs, fire administration,
EMS administration, and fellow brother firefighter/paramedic union
members.
What I've heard is what I was told from Mrs. Merit -- thank
goodness she did retire from human resources, but I was told that
being a nine-year county employee didn't mean one thing. That has
also come across EMS's administration in this last week. A 10-year
paramedic with no QAs doesn't matter.
But I have two applications -- because the two gentlemen here
know who I'm talking about. I have two applications, like they
suggested to several EMS employees that are on that 22 to get laid off,
which leaves a lot of civil liability with -- my family's been through
hell the last week thinking that my wife was going to be laid off after
10 years of nonstop service with Collier County EMS.
Your staff has pushed, in the EMS division, "Lee County EMS is
hiring." Them two need the applications to go to work for Lee County
EMS.
Appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. No, we're very
appreciative of, you know, making us look good. You know, the
national awards for year after year, the great compliments that we get,
we're very proud of it.
And we did ask Chief Page to let us know about those units that
Page 252
February 26-27,2008
do need to be replaced, and we will deal with that. And like we said,
we don't want one broken down, right?
And I don't think that has anything to do with that one that
happened whenever, a few days -- few months ago, few weeks ago,
few years ago.
MR. MUDD: Sir, we replace them based on mileage, and we
make sure, if they're -- if they're getting old, that we replace. We've
got a schedule to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any further discussion?
I have one more thing. We know it's going to be quite loud in
here when they leave. Now, do you guys want to continue or you
want to -- you want to break it off here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to break it off here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. Well--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many -- we only have --
MR. MUDD: You've got about four or five items, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: And one's budget.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That's going to take a while.
So we're going to leave with you. After this vote.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It carries 4-0. Thank you. Good
night. This meeting is continued until tomorrow, Wednesday at nine
a.m.
Page 253
February 26-27,2008
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:15 p.m.
Page 254
February 26-27,2008
(The Collier County Board of Commissioners reconvened on their
second day of meeting, February 27,2008 at 9:00 a.m.)
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT FY09 BUDGET POLICY -
APPROVED; RESOLUTION 2008-52: ADOPTING BUDGET
SUBMITTAL DATE OF MAY 1,2008 FOR THE SHERIFF'S
DEPT. & THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE-
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. This is the
continuation of the board's meeting. February 27th, I believe it is.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item, I believe, is a --
MR. MUDD: 10E.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. MUDD: 10E. It's the budget presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: It's a recommendation to adopt the FY-09 budget
policy. Mr. John Yonkosky, Director of Office Management and
Budget, will present.
MR. YONKOSKY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good
morning. My name is John Y onkosky, and I'm your Budget Director.
Agenda item 10E is a recommendation for the board to take five
actions today. Number one is to adopt the FY-09 budget policy;
number two is to set budget workshop dates for the FY 2009 budget;
number three is to set a date to adopt the proposed millage rates;
number four is to set dates for advertised public hearings; and number
five is to adopt a resolution defining a date for the Sheriff and the
Page 255
February 26-27,2008
Supervisor of Elections budget submittals to you.
The County Manager, as he has done in prior years, met with the
Productivity Committee to review the FY-2009 budget policy. A
letter from the Productivity Committee critiquing the recommended
budget policies is included in your agenda package.
The recommended budget policy is broken down into three parts.
Part one is, at the beginning of it, is new policy items that -- we're
recommending the board take action on each one of those items
independently, and then number two is a reaffirmation of budget
policies that are continuing. And staffs recommendation is for you to
take action on them as one unit. And number three it a three-year
budget projection of a countywide general fund in the unincorporated
area general fund.
If there are no questions at this time, I will present the
recommended budget policy for FY two oh nine to you. Please turn to
page 3 of 22 in your agenda package.
The first item is a recommendation to set the general fund
millage rate. As you know, the tax reform legislation adopted by the
state legislature last year allows you to adopt the rollback millage rate
plus an adjustment, which would add approximately -- it's a 5 percent
adjustment. It's for personal income growth.
That can be adopted by a simple majority vote; however, the
County Manager, in view of the overwhelming 80 percent vote on the
amendment on January 29, is recommending to you that you adopt the
rollback rate minus approximately $8 million for the additional
homestead exemption and the $25,000 business exemption for
tangible personal property.
So if you will, the starting point is the rollback rate. The state
gives you the flexibility to increase that, but the County Manager is
recommending that you reduce it. You start at the rollback rate and
reduce it for the approximate -- or estimated $8 million that you're
going to lose in the additional homestead exemption. So that is the
Page 256
February 26-27,2008
recommendation for the general fund millage rate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're giving guidance, we're
not adopting budget millage rate today; is that correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct, sir. You are -- that's the
recommendation for the County Manager, and we're looking for you
to give us directions either on that or another guidance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the constitutional amendment
equals 2 percent less than last year?
MR. MUDD: That's what I believe it's going to be, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Okay.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd just like to get just a little
discussion and clarification just so I better understand exactly what
we're doing here. In -- going back to what happened yesterday where
we -- this commission did the right thing when they recognized, when
it comes to emergency service, as you know, we have to make sure
that that's met before everything else out there.
With consideration given to the fact that we've just taken care of
our EMS for the next two years and that we'll soon have to deal with
two -- with our fire departments there, Isles of Capri and Ochopee,
where are we going to be with all this? I mean, if this is going to be --
if this just came out of equation and it raised at one end and we're
going to take these decreases at the other end, is there some sort of
cumulative effect that we don't understand here?
If you would, please, just a little bit of discussion would help to
clear my mind on this.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, what we're going to do--
and you're setting policy and setting guidance out so that we can get
that in the letter and send it, number one, to two constitutional
officers. We'll give courtesy copies to the other three. And then -- it
will go out to all our agencies, and then they'll start working on their
budgets and try to meet that guidance that you've put or -- approve or
Page 257
February 26-27,2008
don't approve today, and then we'll come back, hash this thing out
during the workshop in June, and we'll find out where people have
trouble getting there or not getting there, if they can't meet it or it
causes this, then we'll bring it out and give it to you right up front and
kind of let you know, and then you can make those decisions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir. I do understand.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You've got to start someplace. And see
-- I remember when I first got here, it was submit 10 budgets and we'll
pick one somewhere in the middle. Well, we wasted a lot of time on
nine budgets, and it didn't -- and you spent a lot of staff time and
burning midnight oil for nothing, and we finally came up with a way
to do it by setting guidance early in the -- you know, either the latter
part of February or early March, and then from there, everybody has a
start point, and then we have the budget workshops and we say, if you
made the guidance, you didn't make the guidance, why didn't you
make it, and try to explain it the best that the staff can, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's the right thing to do. I'm
glad you suggested this. I totally agree with it. This is what the voters
asked for. Now we're going forward.
I'm glad you asked for the conversation on that because it did
explain as far as how we're going to handle EMS and so forth goes,
and we're just going out now to see if we can get everybody else's
budgets to see if they can fall within these guidelines. But I think
that's the way we ought to move forward.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. Another thing you also need to
understand is when Mr. Y onkosky started this, based on House Bill
IB that was done in June of2007, this board by simple majority vote
can do rollback, plus the Florida income adjustment, which averages
around 5 percent. My recommendation is, you go rollback, minus 8
million, no 5 percent, okay? You give up that Florida income
adjustment add-on.
Page 258
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to take a vote on
the recommendations. But, you know, my opinion, I think -- what I
would like to see is that we keep direct constituent services whole if
possible, and those indirect, such as administrative services, is to cut
those first. And then -- I mean, things like parks and rec., libraries,
EMS, those type of things, try to keep those whole, and then take the
rest out of administrative services and other services that is not a direct
service to the constituents.
So I'm going to make that a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Administrative services. A
better example, like you're talking about, for example, EMS, the
administrators for that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. I'm talking about anything that is
not a direct service to constituents, such as fleet management, such as
human resources, such as -- you know, go down the list.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, you're saying
human services will not be a direct beneficiary to the public out there.
I'm a little curious about that, you know, how you came up with that
determination. You're talking about just the administrators in there or
the service itself?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The services. The service itself.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course, that particular service
is not something that we have much play in. It's mandated from the
state level.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's not -- that's not true. It's our
budget.
MR. MUDD: No. Commissioner, I think you're -- I think you're
confusing -- Commissioner Henning's recommendation is, you
basically keep everybody that has a face to the public whole at 100
percent funding with increased fees -- or excuse me -- increased costs
Page 259
February 26-27,2008
for chemicals or whatever it is, you keep them whole, and what you
do is take Admin. Services; Len Price's outfit, and you make that
outfit be the bill payer to keep everybody whole. I'm not too sure it's
workable, but that's what I heard Commissioner Henning say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think then what we need to do is
lead by example, and then we need to cut some of our office help, and
maybe you could lead the charge there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody second my motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not yet. I'm trying to get the full
impact of what you just said. I am concerned with -- we've got to
function. And yes, we're in a lull and yes we're cutting taxes, but
we're going to be coming back up, and we've got to be prepared --
prepared for it. I don't want to see us cut off our nose to spite our face,
and so I'm trying to get the full whole impact of what you've just said.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if it's workable, but I
think we ought to task the County Manager to see if it is workable -- is
get lean and mean on those administrative support systems and try to
keep those customer support systems whole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree about keeping customer
systems whole, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What we have now, what the
recommendation is, is just spread that cut across the board.
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me just make sure I
understand what you just said. So what you'd like to do is not take
any action right now, just come back with a recommendation of how
he could do that -- follow through on your recommendation?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's true, and what we're
doing is giving guidance to set up the budget. We're not -- we're not
adopting anything today. It's just -- all this is guidance.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 260
February 26-27, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You know, I wouldn't
mind giving directions. I just want to make sure that -- not directions.
Asking for a -- the County Manager to come back and tell us what
happened, how it could happen, what ramifications would be, fine
with that. I don't want to give directions that it's got to be and then
find out that, like Donna Fiala just -- Commissioner Fiala just said, we
cut off our noses to spite our face.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now there's a lot of options that
are out there that we need to look at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And there's no harm in looking
at every single one of them, but I want to -- I want a report that has a
lot of detail to it rather than just an edict given from this dais at this
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it might not work. Anyways,
that's the -- my suggestion.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. There's other options. I
think there's landscaping that needs to be put into this equation. I
think that the citizens realize that what they demanded was a tax cut,
and they're looking to make sure that every area is looked at.
So I don't believe there's any sacred cows out here. I think they
all have to be addressed, and I believe that all constitutionals need to
step up to the plate. That's the directive that I see that we got from the
mandate that was sent down.
So there's no sacred cows. I think the whole area needs to be
looked at, whether it's parks, whether it's recreation, or whatever the
deal is. It may be even beach stickers. So I think the whole arena
needs to be opened up and not just start picking and choosing. And as
I said, I think that we need to set an example ourselves, because that's
administrative.
Page 261
February 26-27, 2008
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you want to do?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like -- I'll go along with
your suggestion, but I'd like to see variations of that as well. Just
come up with all types of variations, but.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, what we'll do is, if I can make a
suggestion. Let me put the 2 percent on the line so we even squeeze
the face to the people --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Exactly.
MR. MUDD: -- and then we'll take a look at those things that are
really faced to the people versus administrative even within those
organizations and Len Price's organization as a bill payer, and then
bring that all forward to the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And I'll add one more thing,
libraries. That's -- we hear from all over the county, keep our
libraries, and I think we should. That's one thing that we offer our
citizens, and not only that, but we offer our children. And in these
hard times when they can't afford to go anyplace else, maybe that's the
only place they can go -- or the park. So I think it's important to keep
them as whole as you can, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And County Manager hit it on
the head is, those interfaced services, we're going to try to keep those
whole, and the ones that are -- that are not, that's the first thing he's
going to look at cutting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need a motion on that?
MR. MUDD: No. I've got direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I apologize.
MR. MUDD: John's doing great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y onkosky?
Page 262
February 26-27, 2008
MR. YONKOSKY: Do I -- I do need a motion for the board to
approve the general fund millage rate scenario that -- so that is to take
the rollback rate, regardless of how it's allocated, but to take the
rollback rate minus the estimated $8 million, because that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second, second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think that we need -- that
should be guidance on how to set up the budget. We're going to adopt
the budget in July.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, but we -- your staff needs to have
this guidance so that it is a basis to build that budget.
MR. MUDD: You've got to have a revenue basis, is what John's
basically saying, and he needs your guidance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just want to make sure I'm on the
same page, because I heard differently.
So there's a motion by Commissioner Halas to approve the
guidance, there's a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you, sir.
The second item on the specific recommendations is the general
fund budget allocation. That takes two key parts. The first one is that
the County Manager's recommending that you continue your policy
and your budget guidance from prior years in the general fund that
everybody share, all the agencies, maintain the percentage that they
had in '04. That is the first part.
The second part is that in order to meet the budget guidance
Page 263
February 26-27, 2008
above and that the County Manager addressed is that 2 percent below
whatever the '08 adopted budget for this year is. That would be all the
agencies. That's the target.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's still recognizing the
constitutional amendment, what the citizens passed?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a motion by Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala, and
that's for all agencies?
MR. YONKOSKY: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a discussion on the motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, if! could say a couple words.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please.
MR. MUDD: Just so you know, this minus 2 percent will also be
in the unincorporated general fund because we're going to take that --
it isn't $8 million. It's something less than that based on what we'll get
from the property appraiser, but we're going to subtract that from the
rollback piece so that it will be 2 percent across the board. So I just
want to make sure that you have that.
My recommendation is that you don't do that for the MSTUs that
are out there because it really -- it really starts getting -- it gets really
hard at that particular juncture with those folks because some of them
don't collect very much money. And you start -- you start doing that
stuff, and then there's all kinds of ramifications, and how do you set
that.
So my guidance to Mike, and now John, was to do it for the big
funds, i.e., general fund and the unincorporated general fund, and
subtract it right off what the rollback rate was, but for the MSTUs, not
do it, but don't have the Florida income 5 percent add-on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner--
Page 264
February 26-27, 2008
MR. MUDD: So it would be strictly a rollback for the MSTUs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So let me make sure I
understand. MSTUs, which for the most part are -- they're voluntary
MSTUs that people have put together, such things as Sabal Palm Road
and Rock Road, would this be against what they've done last year, or
is this against what their MSTU is capable of raising?
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's what your basic -- your guidance is, unless
they want to come back and talk to the board during the workshops, is
to go straight rollback with them, which is whatever revenue that they
grabbed last year plus whatever new construction is within their
district. That's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And I'm a little
concerned with that because I know -- Rock Road, I've been working
with them very closely for some time, and this year I don't believe
they took anything as far as the full amount that they could take. And
this would take the latitude away from them to be able to decide what
MR. MUDD: No, sir. If that -- if that group wanted to come
forward to the board and say they wanted to increase their millage rate
and they wanted to increase it threefold, okay, this board, to do that,
would have to take a supermajority vote in order to do that particular
piece, to do the increase. And then overall, we'd have to, when we
take this guidance plus that one piece from Rock Road that's different
than everybody else, the board would have to do a supermajority vote
for that so that we're in keeping with House BillIB.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the MSTU, would
that include the fire departments and the county's inventory?
MR. MUDD: The dependent fire departments, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So they would basically be
staying whole?
MR. MUDD: What I'm basically saying is, they're going to take
Page 265
February 26-27,2008
less cut than what the general fund and the unincorporated general
fund's going to get.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But now isn't there also an
MSTU that's a beautification fund?
MR. MUDD: There's lots of those, sir. There's lots ofthose.
There's lighting districts, there's beautification MSTUs in the county,
and we're basically saying they're going to be able to -- based on this
guidance, they're going to be able to get the same amount of revenue
that they got last year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Can we -- could we deal
with them on a case-by-case basis?
MR. MUDD: Oh, I think you will, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Once the guidance goes out there and once each
one of these boards meets and they talk about it, they're either going to
say we can do it or we can't do it. And if they can't do it, then they're
going to come back to the board with some recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do agree with Jim Mudd's
suggestion that we should keep those whole. These people voted to do
that. They've put that in place because they're trying to build
something, whether it be sidewalks or streetlighting or landscaping or
whatever it is that they want from their MSTU, and I don't think we
should tamper with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, too, they have the ability
to lower it if they want to just by coming before us and saying, we
want to cut it in half or we don't want to pay anything this year. Sable
Palm Road has done that before.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They can -- they can do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree, also.
MR. MUDD: And what Mike used to do is layout those millage
rates for you and let you know when it was rollback, if it was
Page 266
February 26-27,2008
increased, and we'll continue to do so.
We just have to be cognizant ofthe fact that House BillIB
basically said that your pie, okay, is only so big. And if you want to
go above that authorized shape or that amount, you have to have a
supermajority vote in order to do so. And we'll be cognizant of that
and we'll let you know when that has to transpire, if it does have to
transpire.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that in your vote then?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We haven't -- we're still in
discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but you put a motion on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not yet, no. I still have questions,
too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. There are some MSTUs that
are out there that are pretty aggressive. Some of them are -- I know
one in particular that's been working the last couple of years to bury
the power lines, and they're finding that that's becoming very, very
expensive, but they're going forward with it.
And so they're trying to gamer all the money they can to go
forward with that project. So I think that's a good way of approaching
this and giving the citizens the ability to take care of those type of
situations instead of giving it to the government.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- just a clarification. So you're
saying the constitutional amendment won't apply to these independent
-- not the independent, but these small MSTUs?
MR. MUDD: No, I didn't say that, sir.
The constitutional amendment -- the constitutional amendment
doesn't really affect the way you can do your millage rate, okay.
There was nothing in the constitutional amendment that said you had
Page 267
February 26-27,2008
to honor it. And what I'm basically recommending to the board is you
honor it in the two big funds so you get the majority of the tax savings
for the taxpayer.
In the MSTUs, they all have individual boards, they all have
individual agendas for projects they've got to do, and they've got to
wrestle that.
And if you start automatically decreasing them, okay, in that
process, you're going to get -- I believe you're going to get more
conversation with them than you would. And my recommendation is,
because the money is so small in nature with the rest of the general
fund and the unincorporated general fund, is you don't decrease them
by that amendment, but you don't add the Florida income increase that
you're authorized to do by house bill. We just basically said, we're not
even going to put that on the table.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask it a different way. Is the
-- we know that people are going to get an extra 25,000 homestead
exemption, and it applies to everything. So what you're saying is,
we'll take that extra cut or hit out of the 01 budget -- or the 01 fund
and the 111 fund to make up for those other small ones?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, you can't on those MSTUs. The MSTUs
are set up by resolution and/or ordinance in the county, and they're
basically set up on how much millage they can collect from the voters
in that particular -- that particular area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they're not affected, you're saying,
by the constitutional amendment?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I'm saying to you -- is, they have an
option to take, based on, here's where your revenue is, okay, then they
can take a look at what we finally get from the property appraiser on 1
June. We don't have that now, which kind of makes it unfortunate for
us as we try to sit there and try to come up with a policy, but you have
to start someplace so that you can meet your deadlines of July.
You've got a revenue amount. And once they see that, and when
Page 268
February 26-27, 2008
they see what they got from the property appraiser, then they can
adjust that millage up or down at the pleasure of the thing. And if they
get outside of the boundaries of House Bill 1, bravo where it's a
simple majority vote, then they've got to come see the Board of
Commissioners to get a supermajority vote.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, I think they should
enjoy -- and everybody else -- and cut their funds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't agree, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't either.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion that we approve
the millage targets -- well, I'm sorry. Yeah, that's what we were
talking about, millage targets, right -- except remove the MSTUs and
MSTDs from that.
MR. YONKOSKY: So if I might.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. YONKOSKY: The unincorporated area general fund would
be -- the target millage rate would be the rollback rate minus the
impact of the amendment one, and then for the MSTUs, the target rate
would be the rollback millage rate?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for saying that so
clearly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly what my motion was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 269
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
Passes, 3-1.
MR. YONKOSKY: The next item that your staff needs direction
on is the limitation on expanded positions to maximize the
organizational efficiencies.
The County Manager is recommending that you establish the
policy; there will be no new net positions. In addition, he's
recommending that you continue the freeze on selected positions that
are vacant right now and may become vacant in the future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You need a motion on that?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Just a clarification. Is that when positions become vacant, we
leave them vacant?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I'm basically talking about in the
general fund predominantly, because that's the fund that's most
affected by this particular issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the only -- and the board can
override that policy?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I was just -- I was just going
to ask about key positions where it would actually cripple a
department or a facility if a person for some reason died or -- you
know, or left for some reason and then we didn't have the ability. But
Page 270
February 26-27,2008
you just said we can override that. Okay, fine.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next, healthcare programming?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir. The healthcare program cost
sharing, the County Manager's recommending that you continue the
80/20 breakdown between 20 percent of the funding coming from the
employees and 80 percent coming from --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. YONKOSKY: If! might add, that the second part of that is
to -- for you to include the constitutional officers --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- in that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we tell them what to do?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you can highly suggest, okay. You can't
tell them, but you can highly suggest.
You have two constitutional officers, and Crystal represents one
sitting here today, and Jennifer Edwards represents the other, that are
in keeping with the 80120. And it's the other three that have different
-- and they're higher than 80/20 as far as the government subsidy in
the particular health plan.
Page 271
February 26-27,2008
So we highly encourage. The Sheriff has spoken to this board in
the past and basically said he will try to get it down to 80120, and he'd
work to do that.
So a high suggestion would be a good one, and that high
suggestion --there's also a letter that I normally sign every year for the
constitutional officers that have to report to Tallahassee, and I can put
that highly suggested note in that particular letter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I agree. But why is the
County Manager writing the letter and not the chair?
MR. MUDD: Because they asked from the state to basically
signify that their budget meets the guidance or whatever, and that's
just the way it's been in the past. I mean --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. I just wanted to
question it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion--
MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioners, the next item--
Page 272
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- approved.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- is compensation administration. And as
you know, compensation has been a three-legged stool in the past, and
that included the cost of living, a COLA, awards program, and a pay
plan maintenance program.
The County Manager is recommending that you approve only
one of those this year. That is a COLA, the cost ofliving. And the
reason for the cost of living request in there is that with the cutback
that's going to go on, your staff is going to have to take on more
responsibilities.
And we -- your goal is to keep the best, to retain the best
employees. So the recommendation is to include the COLA in there
and then see where it falls out in the other areas that -- and as long as
the budget meets your guidance, overall guidance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas, and I do have a question for you, and
maybe you'll answer it.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Well, first thing I want to make sure that
you understand that there's a mistake on this chart, okay? Under
FY-08, it's not 4.2, it's 4.1, okay, because when you add the numbers
to the bottom, that's the only way that you get 5.85. So there is -- there
is one mistake on that chart, and that's it.
The next thing, on the note, and the note is very -- and the note is
very specific and it's underlined annual. The way we have habitually
done this COLA, for as long as I've been here and probably before, it's
always been hinged on the increase in December, okay, for South
Florida. That number came up to 5.8, okay.
And so what I asked Mr. Smykowski to do before he left, I said,
please get every month for the last nine years on this thing and then
give me the annualized rate versus the December rate, okay, and give
Page 273
February 26-27,2008
me, you know, what it would be averaged out, and it's two-tenths of a
percent difference, and it just so happens the two-tenths percent
different happens to be the difference between the annualized rate of
4.2 percent or the 5.8 percent.
And I told Mr. Smykowski to change the way we do it and go to
the annualized, because I believe 5.8, it -- I'm not saying that the data
is wrong or right. I'm just saying it's too rich for our blood this year
and we need to go to the annualized rate so that we take the spikes out
of it, so to speak, and we smooth that. So that's the recommendation,
and that's why it says annual.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The question I have, your
budget director, or interim budget director, I'm not sure, has stated that
the employees that are left over will take up the slack. Is that your
understanding?
MR. MUDD: That's my understanding, sir. We're not trying to
drop the ball unless the board decides they want to cut out a service.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. There's -- any
question on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor ofthe motion --
MR. MUDD: Can I -- before you -- sir, I don't want to take
victory out of the jaws of defeat, or whatever is -- the jaws of victory
into defeat, whichever way it goes. I just want to make sure you
understand there's also an issue out there, and it has to do with union.
We only have one union, okay, and you saw a lot of their members
last night in yellow T-shirts. They have a -- they have an item in their
agenda that says a 2 percent merit increase --
MR. TEACH: Correct.
MR. MUDD: -- okay. And we're going to talk about that a little
bit because if -- can I finish, sir? If you --
MR. TEACH: Mr. Mudd, there is -- Scott Teach for the County
Attorney's Office, pardon me. There is an issue regarding an
Page 274
February 26-27,2008
grievance right now.
MR. MUDD: I understand. I'm not going to talk -- I'm not going
to talk about the grievance.
MR. TEACH: Okay.
MR. MUDD: What I am going to say to the board is, if you do
COLA at 4.2 percent, your union's going to get the COLA at 4.2, and
then they're going to get a merit of 2 percent based on -- based on their
contract. And we're going to talk about that a little bit.
And the reason I want to talk about it a little bit, we might come
back to you at the final budget hearings and basically say, we want
COLA to be less and merit to take part of it so that we even this piece
out a little bit. But that's what I needed to bring up just so that you
know.
I'm sorry, Scott. I hope I didn't get us in trouble.
MR. TEACH: No. No, you're fine. One thing I wanted to add to
it, a lot of other counties are sort of struggling with wishes with some
of their union contracts. Some have even discussed and explored the
possibility of reopening because the unions understand that this
pressure of the fiscal restraints that we're all under, that there might be
a need to engage in some discussions, so that's something that may be
an opportunity as well.
You afforded them a two-year extension, a comfort zone, and
maybe they would be willing to work with us in this respect as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a question,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Teach?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't know that we were under
contract negotiation.
MR. TEACH: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is the first time I heard that --
Page 275
February 26-27, 2008
MR. TEACH: No. We have not reopened contract negotiation.
MR. MUDD: No, we have a grievance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We've got a grievance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. We've got a grievance with the
whole --
MR. TEACH: With the union.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- with the whole union?
MR. TEACH: Regarding a matter, and it's just currently under
discussion. There's -- but that's why I urged caution in discussing the
Issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for your clarification.
MR. MUDD: And I tried to stay as far away from that as I could
in my comments to you. But I just wanted to make sure that you're
aware of that as we do this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay? Because depending on how things turn out,
we'll come back to the board and talk to you a little bit more about it,
okay? But they're -- no more than 4.2 percent, may you call it merit
or may you call it COLA, okay? And we'll get into that later.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Any more discussion on
the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Next item, sir?
Page 276
February 26-27,2008
MR. YONKOSKY: Next item is stormwater funding,
stormwater capital funding. There is a resolution in the agenda
package that the board adopted. It's 2005-115. That sets your
stormwater management capital funding at .15 mills annually. And the
County Manager's recommending that you give us direction to
continue that.
MR. MUDD: In the guidance you've told -- excuse me. I
interrupted John.
In the guidance -- we've got to go by what you got in your
ordinance, and your ordinance still stands. Now, this board has told
Norman to come back, okay, and Norman plans to come back to this
board with his recommendation before we get to the budget
workshops in June.
I'm just trying to set the budget. And, Commissioner, you might
find that this could be a bill payer when we get to those things that are
straight up in the public's face as far as service is concerned and where
we're at, but that's something for the board to decide. But I really
don't have a choice but to recommend to you what you've got in your
ordinance and just say that you're going to do it, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I need a clarification on this.
What ordinance are you talking about?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The stormwater ordinance.
MR. MUDD: It's a resolution, I think. I'm sorry, sir. I said
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Resolution.
MR. MUDD: Let me look.
MR. YONKOSKY: It's in your agenda package.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, it is a resolution.
MR. MUDD: It's a resolution. I'm sorry, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just want to be on the same page.
I'm going to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Resolution 2005-115.
Page 277
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, before I'm going to make a
motion, I'm going to ask Commissioner Fiala if she has any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no questions. I would like to
make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion? None?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: The next item for the commissioners to give
direction on is the scheduling issues. There is a table on the top of
page 6 of 22.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. YONKOSKY: I would like to suggest that you adopt the
resolution separately and then approve the other dates, if you would,
please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What page is that on again?
MR. YONKOSKY: It's on page 6 of 22. And there is -- that
table shows that you're establishing the budget submission dates for
the Sheriff and the Supervisor of Elections as of May 1, 2008. There
is a resolution in your agenda package that addresses that issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Henning makes a
motion to adopt the resolution.
Page 278
February 26-27, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion? That resolution, Commissioners, is on page 18.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: And the next item, Commissioners, is the
setting of the dates for your June budget workshops. For the BCC
agency and the courts would be Thursday, June 19,2008, and for the
constitutional officers, and a wrap-up if needed, for Friday, June 20,
2008. And the note's in there that this does not conflict with your
F AC conference if you decide to go, which is June 24th to June 28th.
The next item is to set a date for the adoption of the proposed
millage rates that would be July 22nd, is what we're recommending,
that's a regular board meeting date, and that gives us time to prepare
the documents to get them to the property appraiser but -- which are
due on August 4th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion to approve the
schedule in the board's agenda packet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
MR. MUDD: You didn't -- John, did you say July 29th or July
22nd?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 22nd.
MR. YONKOSKY: July 22nd.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I thought I heard you say the 29th. 22nd.
Page 279
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whatever's in our agenda packet
we're going to approve. I heard different things too.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: The next item is the comparative budget
data.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: The next item is to set the level for the
reserve for contingencies, and the County Manager's recommending
2.5 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And second.
Page 280
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Just one question. That would apply to the board's budget, too,
right, or the county's budget?
MR. MUDD: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously. I just wanted to
recognize the County Manager agreed.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I agreed.
MR. YONKOSKY: And the next item is accrued salary savings.
This is a little bit different than last year in the fact that the County
Manager's recommending we will drill down, and for all those cost
centers that have 10 or more people funded in them, that the attrition
amount will be included in the cost -- at the cost center level. Right
now it's included at the fund level, and the idea is that there will be
more accountability if it's at the cost center level.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve the accrued salary savings, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 281
February 26-27, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: The items on page 7 of 22, 8 of 22, and 9 of
22 and 10 of 22 are continuing items from prior years. And unless
you have any questions, I would ask you to adopt all of those with one
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll make a motion to approve
all of those.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Coletta, you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I just wanted to bring up
for brief discussion maximizing the impact fees.
Collier County will assess the maximum impact fee allowed by
law as supported by impact fee studies, and I realize that
Commissioner Henning and I were on the short end of the vote before
on this particular issue when we were trying to keep the increases
from going forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, you're correct, Commissioner,
but that has -- still has to be -- if there's any changes, still has to come
to the board for approval. We don't have to adopt that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And in fact, you might see some of
them go down. I don't know if -- how many studies we're going to do
this coming fiscal year.
MR. MUDD: About six, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're going to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. What I got from Amy was six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I just want to go over all of
those so I have a complete understanding. Okay.
Page 282
February 26-27, 2008
MR. MUDD: The other -- one point that maybe Mike
Smykowski gave you years ago but I want to just bring forward to you
again, where it says reserve on your page, first page -- it's on the first
page of these three or four. It's on page 7 of 22 about halfway down.
Okay. This is on top of the 2.5 percent. This is basically to cover the
-- this is to cover the expenses that you have in your organization
before the taxes are collected in November and December, okay, and
before they come in. So I just want to make sure that that's $8 million,
plus you got another 2.5.
At one time in the county years ago they used to be combined
together to a total of 5 percent, okay, and we've separated those.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. YONKOSKY: And the final item was on page 11 of 22
through 17 of22, which is the three-year projection of the general
fund. It's the ad valorem projection for the general fund and in the
unincorporated area general fund, and it's based on assumptions that
we've talked about as we went through your adoption of the budget
policy. Ifthere's any particular questions on it --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a comment. I can't approve a
millage increase for '010 and '011.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir. This is just a projection. We will
Page 283
February 26-27, 2008
come back to you next year with the budget for -- recommended
budget policy for '010 and the adoption of '0 lOin the same course that
you're doing this. This is just a pro forma, if you will, or a projection
based on today's circumstances of what we expect you're going to see.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it shouldn't say, general fund
millage history; it should say, projections?
MR. YONKOSKY: Well, part of it is the history, and there's a
projection for '09, '10 and'l1. It just gives you a broader span to look
at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not, no way, giving guidance to
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- increase millage rate and--
MR. MUDD: No, sir. This is only to give the board an idea.
You're basically doing a budget policy for the next FY, but you have
no idea, if that's all you do, what happens in '10 and what happens in
'11, and what are some of the -- what staff has been able to identify as
some of the requirements that are being asked of us.
So it gives a better idea of what's out in the future, then we'll
update that next year to give you another three-year outlet. That's all
it's trying to do is to give you a better idea of what's out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why is the recommendation for '09 to
increase the Naples CRA payment by 200,000?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you don't have -- you don't have a choice on
how much that is. That's basically what the CRA payment is going to
be. It's going to be an increase, and so they capture it here, and it's
based on what their values have been in that particular CRA, and
they've been increasing. And they set the base rate back in '97, Leo, I
believe it was, or '96. And when base rate's there, anything above that
is the TIF, and it's been going up. And so our estimate is, it will go up
by $200,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
Page 284
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When does that CRA end?
MR. MUDD: Thirty years. Ma'am 30 years. I wish it was less,
but it's 30 years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nineteen more to go, huh?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It doesn't look too blighted
anymore, does it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have a motion on this yet?
MR. MUDD: No, you don't need a motion on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's just a report.
MR. MUDD: This is just to make sure, if you had any questions,
that John or I could answer them on the three-year projection.
Are you done, Mr. Y onkosky?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, I am.
MR. MUDD: Subject to any further questions, Commissioners,
that ends our presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Have a great day.
MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good start.
Item #lOG
RESOLUTION 2008-53: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN CODE OF LAWS SECTION 2-11 TO
INCLUDE A $1,000.00 FEE TO COVER THE COST OF
PERFORMING HYDRAULIC MODELING AND ANALYSIS
NECESSARY TO ENSURE CONCURRENCY FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER SERVICES - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Page 285
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOG, which used
to be l6C3, and it reads, a recommendation to adopt a resolution
amending the Collier County administrative code fee schedule of
development-related -- related review and processing fees as provided
for in code oflaws section 2.11, to include a thousand dollar fee to
cover the cost of performing hydraulic modeling and analysis
necessary to ensure concurrency for water and wastewater services.
The item was asked to be pulled by Commissioner Fiala. And
Mr. Phil Gramatges, senior project manager in --
MR. GRAMATGES: Principal project manager.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry -- principal project manager in public
utilities division, will present.
MR. GRAMATGES: Good morning, Commissioners. Phil
Gramatges, public utilities engineering.
You have seen the description. Of course, our recommendation
is that the board approves this addition to the CDES fee schedule for
the performance of hydraulic analysis for new PUDs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my question was -- the reason I
asked to pull it, if you don't mind me just interrupting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I have questions, too. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Great. Was -- DSAC voted
against it. They voted to deny. I think it was an 8-1 vote. And with
these tough times, I was wondering, is that -- is that a fair amount?
MR. GRAMATGES: This amount was calculated based on an
average of our cost of conducting these analyses. This is being done
by an outside consultant who has the necessary software and
engineering expertise to do this analysis.
Yeah, DSAC opposed the fee. They felt that this fee should be
covered or is already covered in some of the fees that CDES is
charging for all new PUDs. Unfortunately, however, those fees are
Page 286
February 26-27, 2008
there in order to pay for the costs of the engineering group,
engineering department within CDES to conduct their regular
inspections and regular review of the documents and plans that are
submitted for approval to them. It does not include this work.
And this work is necessary because it's a matter of public safety
and public health. An improperly designed water system will affect
their ability to provide pressure for fighting fires, and an improperly
designed sewer system will affect our ability to control sewer
overflows, which is obviously something we do not want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, yeah, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more question. What did
DSAC -- what did they discuss? Why did they vote to deny?
MR. GRAMATGES: The vote was denied, once again, two
reasons. The main reason being that they felt that the fees that are
being charged by CDES should cover this work. Unfortunately, it
does not. And even though I argued this point with them, they still
insisted that it should be.
Unfortunately, once again, these fees go to CDES. They don't
come to public utilities, and we have no way of paying for the cost of
doing this analysis.
Another reason, of course, was that -- this is probably the wrong
time to bring -- to increase fees. Unfortunately the work needs to be
done regardless of what time it is or what economic reasons there are.
Once again, this is a matter of public safety and health.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe the other thing, too, is that
if this isn't approved, then it falls on -- back on the ratepayers; is that
correct?
MR. GRAMA TGES: You're absolutely right, Commissioner,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the ratepayers would have to --
whoever are involved in the utility in the incorporated area, then that's
Page 287
February 26-27,2008
put on their back. Just want to get that on the record.
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I -- I'm sorry, talking back and
forth. I didn't have a problem with it. I just felt, being that this was
added to it and it had been denied, it should be on the regular agenda
so we could discuss it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I have questions, too. The--
how many reviewers do you have?
MR. GRAMATGES: Reviewers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MR. GRAMATGES: We don't have any reviewers within public
utilities that do this kind of work. This work is being done outside.
MR. MUDD: Contracted out, Phil?
MR. GRAMATGES: It's contracted out, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So -- but there is another fee
in your SDP reviews; is that correct?
MR. GRAMATGES: There is -- there are several fees in the fee
schedule that cover costs that are incurred by CDES personnel to
conduct reviews --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm just talking about public works.
MR. GRAMATGES: I'm not aware of any public works fees
that are included in the fee schedule, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: None under Site Development Plan?
MR. GRAMATGES: None that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what you're recommending still
won't work because you're recommending to put it under zoning
petitions and not site plan review.
MR. GRAMATGES: Well, according to the executive summary,
we're recommending that this fee will be due at the time of Site
Development Plan, Site Improvement Plan, or plans and plats. In fact,
at one time DSAC recommended that we do this. They rescinded the
recommendation because they didn't want the fee at all. But they felt
Page 288
February 26-27,2008
if a fee had to be imposed, it should be imposed at that time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, your resolution says to
put it under K. That is zoning petitions.
MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, we can certainly change that, sir, if
you so desire.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't care what you do, but what
you're asking is not what the resolution says. The resolution says K,
zoning land use petitions. Modeling -- utility modeling and analysis
fee for all DRIs any PUDs. It doesn't say SDPs, SPIs, or PPLs. It
doesn't say that.
MR. GRAMATGES: Well, that is correct, and I will refer to
Jennifer Belpedio, who's not here right now. But if we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She is.
MR. GRAMA TGES: Do we need to change it? Oh, there she it.
Here she it. We can change the resolution, I am sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who changes the resolution; is that
the board or staff?
MR. GRAMATGES: Staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh.
MR. GRAMATGES: The board approves it. We will change the
proposed resolution.
MR. MUDD: Based on board guidance.
MS. BELPEDIO: Assistant County Attorney, Jennifer Belpedio,
for the record.
When I look at this resolution, I come to the conclusion that the
fee is to be applied to all properties that are within a DRI or PUD
zoning, but I see that as being different than when the fee is actually
collected. And there might need to be some clarification in the
resolution. Because if that's the conclusion you're coming to, then that
might be the conclusion that others do. So certainly we can revise
that. We can do it right here on the record or we can bring it back at
another meeting.
Page 289
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Do you have the fee schedule
in front of you, Jennifer?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, sir, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Look on -- look on page 4, and it says
F.
MS. BELPEDIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's where they want to put
that. Actually it should be F7.
Commissioners, if you want to follow me, it's on page 4 and 5.
Here is site development, 7.
But I do have a question under 7. It says, utility plan review and
inspection fees. Construction document review .75 of potable water
and sewer construction cost. Who's that money go to?
MR. GRAMA TGES: That money goes to CDES because --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's going on here? Seems to me
like it's a double dip.
MR. GRAMATGES: CDES conducts reviews of all the plans
and documents that are submitted and makes sure that these plans and
documents meet the utility standards. The utility standards, however,
are very generic documents that establish minimum requirements for
materials for the sign, and for the way in which the quality of the
product that is being put in the ground is constructed. It cannot
address the individual --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Flows?
MR. GRAMATGES: -- hydraulic designs and flows of every
development. Unfortunately, that has to be done on an individual
basis, and this is not included there. Plus, CDES does not do any
hydraulic analysis. We do it through a contract.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we -- I guess we have to ask Mr.
Schmitt, does he have the ability to review it instead of outsourcing it?
I mean, it's an engineer calculation, right?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Page 290
February 26-27, 2008
Community Development/Environmental Services.
I have one reviewer who conducts or does -- performs the utility
reviews. Those utility reviews are simply nothing more than
reviewing to assure compliance with the utility regulations and the
utility standards manual.
A registered professional engineer submits those. Those are --
design professionals are required to design and submit in accordance
with that manual and other engineering practices. All we do is review
for compliance.
We then go out and inspect those. Those costs that you see in
that paragraph are my costs that I incur for one plan reviewer who
does the reviews for all utilities, and then all future field inspections,
to include final acceptance. So those costs are my costs.
What Phil is talking about is the modeling costs, which are
separate. Once the plan is reviewed, once the plan is approved, then
that plan goes to utilities where they then load the system into their
model so they can assess and model the entire system in the county
from a standpoint of a hydraulic load and all the other activities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, my question was, does your
department have, your reviewer, have the ability to review these
hydraulic models?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. I do not maintain that model.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I know that. I say, do they have
the ability?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
MR. MUDD: Sir, they -- I don't think it's to review the model.
It's to run the model.
MR. SCHMITT: Run the model --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Run the model.
MR. MUDD: -- to get the answers, and I don't think he's got the
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you don't have a model. Okay. I
Page 291
February 26-27,2008
understand. All right.
MR. MUDD: Once you've got the model results, I think you
probably could read them and know what --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So where do you want to charge this?
Do you want to charge this at zoning petition or do you want to
charge this at site plan?
MR. MUDD: Phil, answer the question.
MR. GRAMATGES: I'm sorry, sir.
MR. MUDD: The Chairman asked you a question. Do you want
to do this at zoning or do you want to do this at site plan?
MR. GRAMA TGES: Well, as is stated in the executive
summary, we want to do it at the Site Development Plan, site
improvement plan, and plans and plats application. That's when we
want to do it.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it would be at F. It wouldn't be at
-- it would be per your --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Does the board have the
ability, since this is advertised a resolution, does it have the ability to
correct a -- the resolution?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
You want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think you should.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I want to make one clarification, and you
picked it up during one of your questions that I read, and it was a very
astute question. You only want this to happen for those DRIs and
PUDs that are in the water/sewer district. You know, they could be
outside the water/sewer district. You have no modeling fee for
something that's not, so you want that clarification, too, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you want me to make the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you can, or I would just
Page 292
February 26-27,2008
motion to approve and change the resolution to reflect the discussion
that we just spoke of as to when the payment is to be made.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala made a motion to
correct the resolution, adopt and correct the resolution to identify that
the modeling will be placed in the fee resolution under F and only be
subject to the PUDs and DRIs within the water/sewer district, or
should be the water district, which, I think, is the same.
MR. GRAMATGES: Water and sewer, sir.
MR. MUDD: We do sewer, too.
MR. GRAMATGES: We do model both.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you model both?
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The incoming and the
outgoing.
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #lOH
Page 293
February 26-27,2008
RESOLUTION 2008-54: AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, DEEDS,
AND OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SALE OF
GAC LAND TRUST PROPERTY DURING THE 2008
CALENDAR YEAR - ADOPTED W /STIPULA TIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10H. Is it used to
be l6E3. And I'm going to have to look up real quick -- and it used to
be -- and it states, it's a recommendation to approve a resolution
authorizing the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
Collier County, Florida, to execute agreements, deeds, or other
documents required for the sale of GAC Land Trust property during
calendar year 2008. Ms. Toni Mott, your real estate services manager,
will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hi.
MS. MOTT: Hi. For the record, Toni Mott, Real Estate
Services.
With the exception of last year, since 1990 the Board of County
Commissioners has approved a resolution in this format. We do have
two components in the GAC Land Trust. We have the available
properties. There are currently seven remaining parcels that total 8.94
acres. This resolution would only be applicable to those parcels that
would allow us to streamline it.
If there's an offer made, it goes to the committee, the GAC
committee, staff prepares the paperwork, it's reviewed by the County
Attorney's Office, and then the chairman ofthe BCC would execute
the agreements and the statutory deeds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I pulled that. The only
concern I have, I don't think I have the ability to do so unless the
board approves to sell property.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think we could easily make this a consent
Page 294
February 26-27, 2008
item and go through the board for approval for your signature.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And we have 100 days for the
process -- 120 days, I'm sorry.
MS. MOTT: It's 120 for the agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hundred and twenty days. So I'm
going to make a motion to approve this resolution with the addendum
that the sales will come on the consent agenda of the Board of
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Thank you.
MS. MOTT: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is l2B. That used to
be l6K2.
MS. FILSON: We have public comment, sir.
Item # 11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 295
February 26-27,2008
MR. MUDD: It's before 12, I'm sorry. We have public
comments at 11. Thank you, Ms. Filson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please call up the public for
comment.
MS. FILSON: I have one from yesterday. I don't think he's here.
George Voseney. And -- pardon me?
And the next public comment is Kenneth Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: It's going to take me a while, I'd rather wait
till this meeting's over.
MS. FILSON: You get three minutes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Three minutes, they don't last long.
Now, I never been battered so bad in my life. I got more permits
than this county will ever sell anybody. Here's the one I got hit from
the cones. I told Mr. Mudd. I got a letter here stating that you guys
give it to me. I got another one here for letters on my house. I got
letters on my house, and when they come and took the picture of the
letters, he took a picture of me about that big and he went out and he
wrote all over it, and he went through the neighborhood giving my
picture out and telling all these people I turned them in.
So about a week ago, they all went over the bridge, and they had
a meeting, and Mrs. Donna Fiala there -- and I have never been so
harassed in my damn life.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was never at a meeting. I don't
even know what he's talking about.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, you do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I don't.
MR. THOMPSON: Do you know about this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I don't even know what that is.
MR. THOMPSON: This is your property, ma'am, and you're
illegal. Now, since you said that -- you told me you don't remember.
You don't remember the things that's your house. You don't remember
the pictures I showed.
Page 296
February 26-27,2008
Here's a thing stating that you're completely illegal. I am tired of
being illegal and run over.
Now, I'm going to give it to Jim Mudd. Right here is where you
one day stood here and told a lady that, buyer beware, buyer beware,
and here's where you should have been buyer beware over there on
Shoreview Drive. Right here it states you can't do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Thompson, you are talking
about some kind of a meeting. I don't even understand what you're
even talking about. Against you?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, you will, you will. Because you're
telling me something -- I have never been so beat down. And I'm
going to get a plane out of here in a few minutes. I don't want to live
in a damn county like this. It's -- if the county's going to treat me like
this -- I come here with nothing. I worked hard. I've worked for the
richest people in this town that lives in Port Royal. I saved my
money.
Four cents a day, I put 8 in the bank. I live a life a long time for
-- to have what I got now. I worked hard for the property my
mother-in-law and them lived on.
Right here it states that you can't have what you got, and that's
that apartment or your house that was put on it. Right here. Right
there. This says, due to the -- or I can't see. Due to the -- the
statement on this house here, you build too -- you build too close to
the line here. Yeah, you are.
I don't mean to be mean to nobody but, you know, I'm 72 years
old, and damn if I ain't never took a beatin' in my life.
And I want you to fire Michelle Arnold now because I'm telling
you, here's where she's after money from me. Here's a guy wanted to
take me for three years to North Carolina on a Hollywood limousine,
and that's David Hedrick. And here's another one. Michael Ossorio
accused me of tearing up his truck, and Michelle Arnold wanted me to
pay for it.
Page 297
February 26-27, 2008
You know, I'd have agreed to do that if they'd keep it quite (sic),
I sure did. If they would keep it quite (sic) --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thompson?
MR. THOMPSON: -- I would pay for it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I appreciate you being here, but your
time's up.
I do have a question for the County Manager. Are you aware of a
notice or letter that was sent to Mr. Thompson?
MR. MUDD: About the cones? Yes, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: The cones are out there by the Sprint box, okay,
and it's the -- so when people come around the comer they don't take
out the Sprint box. And we've got Sprint and the county to agree that
we could position those cones there so that the motorists wouldn't go
into the shoulder by his house and tear up the Sprint box. That was
several years ago, sir. And I will ask staff where we're not abiding by
our agreement for the cones.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. THOMPSON: That Florida Power & Light has that right
under his line. They have no trouble. And Sprint has it at the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thompson?
MR. THOMPSON: And if they hadn't of had them there the
other night, there wouldn't have been no box.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Thompson, your time's up, but
the County Manager said he's going to look into --
MR. THOMPSON: Do you want these papers? I'll give them to
you.
MR. MUDD: I'll take them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We want to -- County Manager wants
a copy of them.
MR. THOMPSON: If you going to do me in, then you're going
to do somebody else in.
Page 298
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is l2A.
Item #12B
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A CONTINUING
RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES ON AN "AS
NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF ALLEN, NORTON
& BLUE, P'A.' TO MEET COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY
CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS - APPROVED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: It's l2B, sir. It's l6K2.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The old l6K2. And I talked with Mr.
Teach. I had some concerns about the contract. He has been so
gracious to make some corrections to the contract.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner Henning had some astute
observations on the agreement. One doesn't change the substance, and
that is, we're going to delete the last two sentences in section 1.3. That
section generally is a favorable provision for the county to the extent
that these outside counsel are used, if they use more than two
attorneys in a conference that extends more than 30 minutes, we get a
45 percent reduction.
The other item that Commissioner Henning proposed, and I think
it's a worthy one to add in here as well, on pages 16 and 17 of the
agreement, I'm going to add language in the agreement that will come
to the board that will limit any outside counsel's lodging expense to
$150 per night.
In Exhibit B, paragraph one, I'm putting in a paren that says,
lodging expenses no greater than $150 per night. The board can limit
that amount if they want to make it less; that's the purview of the
board. I'm just suggesting $150 because certain times of the year
lodging may be more or less, but the board can make that lower or at
Page 299
February 26-27,2008
any rate that they wish.
And then on page 17, the third bullet point, I'm also putting a
comma after that item and said with a cap of no more than $150 per
night. And again, if the board wishes to change that rate, that's subject
to the board's approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Just one. You're still
leaving in that we get a 45 percent discount?
MR. TEACH: That's correct, sir. The only thing that was
deleted out of there was the illustration, which was -- you thought was
confusing, and I agree that sometimes less verbiage is better, and I'm
pleased to take that out and be straightforward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve as a
recommended amendment by Scott Teach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Fiala says, second
that.
MR. TEACH: Very good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. TEACH: Thank you.
Item #15
Page 300
February 26-27, 2008
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think -- I believe we're under
communications?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the first one is County Manager.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. The -- yesterday we had a power outage
sporadically throughout this county, and I believe we have everybody
back in service as we speak. If there's somebody that doesn't have
their power, just call our EOC and they will get that number to FP&L
or the Lee County co-op, depending on where your service area is, and
we'll let them know and they'll be out there to try to fix you and get
you back up.
They're just trying -- right now they're just trying to figure out the
aches (sic). But for the most part, the state's back up on the net.
And the news coverage pretty much did a pretty good job
explaining what happened.
Next piece, just to make sure that I'm doing what the board wants
us to do as far as -- I mentioned before when we were going through
the budget, and if we had problems with the budget as we -- as we did
different cuts and whatnot, if there was something that came up with
public, health, and safety, that I was going to bring it to the board's
attention, okay; I wasn't going to handle it from the County Manager's
side of the house, and that's why yesterday you got to see Emergency
Management Services. And so -- in the particular predicament that
they're in.
I didn't mean that to be an eye-opener. I tried to do memos if
there was issues with public services, and we sent that one from Marla
Ramsey that talked about different issues that she's got in her
organization, as she tries to meet the guidance and the budget that was
presented to the board and approved by the board in September of
2007, and that is a challenge.
Page 301
February 26-27,2008
We knew it was going to be challenging because we had -- the
basis for that budget had a certain number of vacancies that were
going to be projected and that were going to transpire during the year,
and in those -- in the county overall, people have pretty much stuck to
their job as hard as they could stick because the economic times out
there aren't good.
So we aren't meeting that projection, and so we are taking cuts,
and in some particular cases, we are rifting people, reduction in force,
in order to make that happen. And I just wanted to make sure you
understood why emergency services was on the agenda yesterday,
okay. It was -- it's because I promised this board that I would come
back if it had to do with any public, health, and safety issue. So that's
what happened.
The other thing that I need to kind of give you a little bit of
feedback -- and I believe Commissioner Halas will chime in on this
particular item -- is basically give you some feedback from our visit to
Washington, D.C. with our priorities.
We delivered all those priorities of the board with the F AC sheets
in that particular case. We were received openly and warmly in the
particular offices.
We got to -- we got to see three representa -- well, two
representatives and one senator face to face, and in the other a chief of
staff, but that was -- been kind of the norm for a series of years for us.
In every regard they received our priorities, and they thought they
were good ones.
I did -- I did ask Congressman Diaz- Balart if something had
changed since last year -- and I'm talking about sidewalks -- because I
was pretty much told last year that the CRA sidewalk on Linwood and
Shadow lawn wouldn't get federal funding because it's hard to justify
that particular project with all the other federal projects. And what I
was told is, no, it hasn't really changed as far as the federal -- the
federal fees is concerned.
Page 302
February 26-27,2008
So we brought that up. We provided everybody with that
particular information. They have it. They know that if there's an
opportunity that opens up in that particular category, that they'll keep
us in mind and let us know so that we can push forward with any
paperwork or whatever that they need in order to justify to make it
happen.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In fact, in our discussions, he was
quite surprised that -- because we said that -- I said to Congressman
Diaz- Balart that you had direct communications in regards to the
sidewalk issues so we didn't know whether things changed or not, and
he said that he hadn't had any discussions with you.
His staff member said that you -- she had received a phone call
but he didn't receive anything directly. And when we went to Mack's
office, we talked to Connie briefly, and then when we talked with his
staff members, they didn't know anything about it.
But they said, no, it hasn't changed, and they would appreciate it
if we wouldn't bring something of that nature forward because these
are scrutinized very heavily when they bring this up in their different
committees for trying to get items approved. So I just want to relate
that, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By the way, I didn't request that. I
don't know how it got on there. That isn't something I had requested
because I don't think we can even do that sidewalk on Linwood until
we get the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. This--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This was in regards to where we
put together a whole group of sidewalks throughout --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Collier County, which I believe
came up to a $100 million.
Page 303
February 26-27,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that -- that's where we stand
on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. But back to the Linwood
sidewalk, we had CDBG funds for that years ago; do you remember
that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What we did was we put those
CDBG funds into somebody else's stuff because we couldn't put a
sidewalk in there because of the city water lines, right? I don't think
that's changed, has it?
MR. MUDD: The city sewer line, yes, sir. There's a series --
there's a series of lines there, but the sewer line is the big issue, and
Mr. Jackson and I have got a meeting scheduled to talk about that
tomorrow in the particular regard.
We still have the lines there. That CDBG -- yeah, it's easy for
me to say. That money was returned to that account because it was
unused, but the board that oversees it understands that when it
becomes an -- a project that can happen because the sewer lines are
moved, then they will give that high priority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, sir. I just wanted to give you an
update.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a question,
Commissioner Coletta, on that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney, do you have
anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, Commissioner. You had asked me to
raise this yesterday.
Mr. Weigel's contract expires March 22nd and it does not look
Page 304
February 26-27,2008
like there will be a new County Attorney until sometime in April, and
I'm not sure what the board wants to do in that interim period.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My personal thoughts is, why don't
we -- the board have Mr. Weigel fulfill duties as Chief County
Attorney until the position is filled by somebody else.
Does anybody have a problem with that? Do you need a motion
on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I will communicate that to Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: I will communicate that to Mr. Weigel.
MR. MUDD: So the board is basically saying we're going to
extend Mr. Weigel's contract through the date that you pick the next
County Attorney and that person is able to come on station for the first
work day; is that what the board's saying?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I'm saying.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you want to extend that a little
bit more so he can train him or ease him into the position or no?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that would depend on the
person who's fulfilling the position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But that is a very good point. That's
something that we may want to consider once we pick the candidate to
be the chief County Attorney.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, do you have a
problem with that guidance?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You okay with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: I will communicate that to Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Do you need a motion on that, Mr. Klatzkow,
Page 305
February 26-27,2008
because they're going to extend the contract?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know that they are.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, they are. You're basically -- they're
basically saying --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I guess it's the offer to extend. I don't
know ifMr. Weigel's going to accept.
MR. MUDD: That's right. But if they take a motion to offer and
it comes forward, then that -- then that particular --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- extension comes back before the board for
approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I make a motion that we direct the
Chairman to send a letter to David Weigel, our Chief County
Attorney, requesting an extension of his contract until that position is
filled by the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And request that he respond in
writing to the letter to him, and it's seconded by Commissioner
Coletta.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-1.
Okay. Is there anything else?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
Page 306
February 26-27,2008
I don't know about my fellow commissioners, but I can tell you
last night was not a comfortable night. It was extremely draining
yesterday. It was probably one of the more contentious meetings I've
sittin' -- sat through in a long time.
One of the issues I just wanted to bring up -- and just for
reflection. I don't expect that I'm going to change anybody's mind on
it -- was how we handled the issue of the charitable impact fee
deferrals.
In my mind I was trying to rationalize how this would all work,
and, of course, trying to divide facilities, future facilities, up where
they -- a facility can only be used by the vast majority of people that
are legal residents or legal aliens would be next to impossible, like
hurricane shelters or numerous other organizations out there, Red
Cross, whatever you want to go with.
The only one I could find in my whole list that would qualify
under the criteria that we've set up to be eligible to be able to build
infrastructure improvements and to be able to benefit by that small
amount of money, $200,000, $100,000 per occurrence, would be
Habitat for Humanity.
And I just wanted to share that with you. I went through the
whole list in my mind. Now, I may be wrong. I mean, we were pretty
exact in who it was supposed to serve as far as meeting some of the
very basic needs in times of emergency, and these agencies either by
federal law or by their own decree, can't differentiate between
different people as far as being citizens or residents or even aliens.
However, with that said, I'm in total agreement as far as
immigration policy has failed greatly, that this county bears a
tremendous impact from the illegal immigration that's out there, our
jails, the population that's in excess of 30 percent or better illegal
aliens, and that something should be done, and we have been doing it.
We've been addressing it as far as work policy, our hiring policy, our
vendors that work for us have to have it and I support every one of
Page 307
February 26-27,2008
those issues; however, with that said, we can't get away from the
reality that we do have a certain segment of our population that lives
here that will be demanding a service of something from nonprofits
when that time does come, and nobody's going to deny them that
service, and meanwhile this particular contingent of funds that we set
aside will be of little value to those agencies.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's coming back as an
ordinance change; isn't it?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It basically says you want us to come
back for the program, so we have to bring that document back to the
board for their approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, you want to raise your
objections at that time?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Objections and concerns,
probably more towards concerns. Oh, I certainly will. But it's just
one of those things that I had to share with you now, so I can get on
with what I have to do in the next couple of days and keep going
forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's tons of things, but I
think that's enough.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's clearly -- clearly up to
you. If there's something else --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, sir. I appreciate the
opportunity .
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to share with
you, I wrote the County Manager a little note and I asked if he would
please invite the Greyhound Bus people over to give us a report on
Page 308
February 26-27, 2008
what they're doing to clean up their property. Now, of course, we
don't have any right to ask them to do that, and the County Manager
pointed that out, but he said he will follow that through and send them
a note because maybe that would encourage them to do something
about it.
MR. MUDD: The letter's in my sign box as we speak.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. So I just wanted to let
you know I'd asked him to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good, thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to follow up that
-- on our Washington trip that I feel that it was fruitful, and I believe
that some of the programs that basically were initially funded last year
will continue to be funded, and we're hoping to see if there's anything
else that will open up. But most of the items that are on there are
transportation related, and so I think that's a big plus for us in
addressing some of our issues in regards to interchanges, and I think
that -- I think it's going to work out well for us.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So how was your reception
there? And what all do you feel -- do you feel you accomplished --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think we accomplished a
lot, I really do. And the reception was -- as usual, is always very
good.
What's impressed me is that a senator from the other side of the
aisle always makes a real effort to see us.
(Commissioner Coletta left the commissioner room.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And, in fact, he was in the working
-- in the working session, and he was supposed to meet with us, and he
called his aide and said, could you bring the Collier County group
Page 309
February 26-27,2008
over and we'll meet outside the chambers of the Senate chambers. So
we immediately hustled over there, and he spent about 10 minutes
with -- that was Senator Bill Nelson. So he always makes a real effort
to address our concerns and our issues here in Collier County.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, then we sat down with his
administrative aide and went over everything item by item, and
Commissioner Halas hit the big items.
It's interesting how that senator knows exactly how many people
voted for him in Collier County. He knew it right off the top of his
head. He says, I got 47 percent, and he says, when I go over 50, I'm
breaking out champagne, okay. That's a direct quote. But he knew
exactly how many people from the county voted for him, okay? He
keeps tabs on this particular issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's been a good senator.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Little too liberal for me.
But I have a correspondence from a constituent about helium
balloons. And there's a relay for life coming up, and they want to
decorate and sell helium balloons. Is there a prohibition that anybody
knows to do so?
MR. MUDD: No, sir, but I'll check. I don't think there is, sir, but
I'll check to make sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: People have had helium balloons at the zoo and
everyplace else. They've had helium balloons in used car lots and
things, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The next thing is, what is the
status of the variances in Olde Cypress?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I've been -- I asked Mr. Schmitt
that question yesterday, and the planning director will have her formal
opinion by Friday of this week and at that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the opinion on the -- on the
setbacks of the preserve?
Page 3 10
February 26-27, 2008
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board gave direction about
administrative variances and other variances. That's my question.
What's the status on those variances?
MR. MUDD: Can I get Mr. Schmitt up here to address that
question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the -- where we are
right now, but all those are in. We're processing them for approval.
As far as I know, they've all been approved, but I will send you a note
to make sure that you understand. I do not have the exact status of
where they are right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What about the -- those are
administrative variances.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there other variances?
MR. SCHMITT: The other two are in the process. We've had
pre-apps. Well, the one we've heard nothing. That's the Greider
residence. We've heard nothing other than conversation or -- with his
attorney.
The other one, they hired an attorney and they're in the process of
proceeding with the variance. They've had a pre-app. and they're
proceeding with the request for a variance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any other actions been taken
on the other variance on the Greider residence?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir. Actions in regards to -- other than the
official interpretation. We're waiting for some correspondence from
Mr. Greider's attorney. She asked that she could forward any
recommenda -- or any comments or her -- at least her position, and in
consultation with the County Attorney, we said it'd probably be best to
see what she has before we finalize the official -- or the OI, the official
interpretation.
Page 3 11
February 26-27,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What was -- wasn't there a
correspondence that you sent to that person about a temporary
Certificate of Occupancy? Was there an expiration date on that?
MR. SCHMITT: There is an expiration date, yes. There is --
there's nothing been sent -- nothing final. A consultation, again, with
the County Attorney. We're waiting until the OI, and I'll ask if Jeff
could opine on that. Based on the County Attorney's input on this,
this is all going to be contingent on the official interpretation and
which party will file an appeal to that interpretation.
MR. KLATZKOW: The board directed Susan Istenes to come
back to you with an official interpretation whether the 25- foot setback
applied to Olde Cypress. If her interpretation is that it does not, then
there is no variance to be requested. There's no need. That the
property would be in compliance.
If her interpretation is that it is required, my strong expectations
is that interpretation will be appealed to this board for this board's
review of the issue. At that point in time, if the board upholds the
decision, we will go forward with the code enforcement case and
proceed at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So is it my understanding that the
TCO is then held in abeyance for now and all correspondence of --
about expiration of the TCO?
MR. SCHMITT: The TCO is -- expires at -- in the -- I believe
the date was February 25th. It expired. We've informed the
contractor that it has expired. The only authority is the building
director can initiate action to cut the power or have the power shut off.
But that has to be based on a health, safety, welfare issue, strictly
involving an issue with unsafe structure or some aspect of the house.
And again, this is a discussion with the County Attorney. We
haven't gone down that road yet. I don't think -- based on the advice
of the County Attorney, I don't think we have any authority to request
that type of action right now.
Page 312
February 26-27,2008
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm waiting for the official interpretation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So basically the temporary CO means
-- means nothing? We can't revoke it because it's your opinion it's not
MR. KLATZKOW: It's expired.
MR. SCHMITT: It's expired.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know it's expired, but --
MR. KLATZKOW: Under normal circumstances--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not going to do anything
because of health, safety, and welfare? It doesn't --
MR. SCHMITT: Legally I have to turn to the County Attorney
for advice on this. It's an issue with -- the building director has the
authority, again, based on a determination that the house is unsafe --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- for occupancy, then he can -- he can shut off
the utilities or direct that the utilities be shut off. We can initiate that
action. I certainly would expect a counter move by their attorney.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I would not recommend that action. I mean,
normal procedure, sir, is we would take this right to the Code
Enforcement Board. This is not a normal issue though. It's an unusual
case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So I need to inform the public
that it was different than their understanding, that action was going to
be taken on February 25th, but there is no action.
The next question I have is, did the County Manager's Office
receive any notification from the state's attorney or other agencies in
the investigation of the rental registration?
MR. MUDD: Not yet, sir. Mr. Ochs had conversations with the
investigators and the Sheriffs Office about when they're going to have
the report for us. And, Leo, if you'd like to chime in.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. I spoke with Detective White. He
indicated that they had completed their interviews, but that he did not
Page 313
February 26-27, 2008
have a specific date on when the written report would be available. I
told him we were obviously anxious to get it as soon as possible. And
he said he would endeavor to get that to us, but I have no specific date,
SIr.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The last thing, the board just
approved a contract with cell phone provider. We'll be getting all new
cell phones. The policy of the Board of Commissioners are charged
for calls that -- personal calls. That is a different policy from the
County Manager's policy.
And I wanted to know if my colleagues wanted to be like the
County Manager's policy that he applies to all employees, and that
policy is, the -- they are taxed. Is it -- every -- $15 each month. Is it
each month?
MS. FILSON: They pay taxes on the $15.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They pay taxes on the $15 for any
personal use that is applied to the minutes. In other words, if you call
your brother --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Daughter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: - in Tallahassee, whatever, that you
would pay taxes on $15 for those personal calls, up to; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Len, you want to get the specifics, please?
MS. PRICE: The way our policy is written, it allows for the
incidental use of the cell phone by employees. We tax $15 a month to
all employees who have a cell phone for the benefit of -- you know,
the tax benefit of the incidental use.
We -- the policy also states that the cell phone is not to be used as
their primary personal device and that disciplinary action could be
taken if those calls were to result in more than a $15 benefit. We
audit; on a monthly basis we spot audit the bills.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I guess a self policy, we
can't -- we shouldn't, because it's against state statutes, use any
government property, such as cell phones, for campaigning.
Page 314
February 26-27,2008
So do you want to change the policy and be equal to the
employees?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or do you want me to put something
on the agenda so to kind of make it clear?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. So in other words -- well, I
pay my bill -- everything I call on a personal basis, whether it be my
kids or somebody calling me. And I have one that lives in Idaho and
he's called me on my phone while I'm driving. But I just pay for them.
And sometimes I pay more than $15, and sometimes I pay less.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this will be taxed on $15 worth
of use. So in other words let's say you're taxed on 30 percent of -- I'm
going to say this wrong -- 30 percent of --
MR. MUDD: We estimate that per employee, it's about a $15
benefit a month for the cell phone. Because it's a benefit, okay, it's part
of what we consider a taxable entity as far as compensation for the
IRS, so we tax that $15 benefit, and that's what we charge for that
phone so that we're in keeping with the IRS rules.
Now, you'll also notice in our particular agenda item, calls after
seven o'clock at nighttime till when, are free; is that what it said in that
executive summary? Help me here, Len.
MS. PRICE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Seven P to seven A.
MS. PRICE: Seven P to seven A are not going to be charged--
MR. MUDD: By the carrier.
MS. PRICE: -- by the carrier, exactly. Weekend calls are not
going to be charged by the carrier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. But now, I make all of my
return calls -- my phone is in my car, so I do not carry it in so it won't
disturb any kind of meetings. But when I get into my car, anything
that's there that I have received or any of the calls that they tell me in
the office, I just make all my calls from the car because I have an
Page 3 15
February 26-27,2008
automatic thing where I don't have to -- no-hands type of a thing.
Most of my calls are obviously just on a business basis, because you
have to return the calls.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In other words, it's going to be like
$4.50 a month --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rather than --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not $15. You're -- they take out
withholdings out of your paycheck of a $15 benefit so --
MR. MUDD: If you're at the 35 percent tax bracket--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tax bracket, yeah, thank you.
MR. MUDD: -- if you're at 35 percent tax bracket, that's about a
third of 15 bucks, so you're going to pay $5 a month.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: In taxes, for that particular issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But most of my calls are business
calls on there, and I calculate all of them. I turn them in to Sue all the
time, right. So do you get -- do you pay the tax on all of your business
calls as well; is that it?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, it's $15. It's just a straight rate, and then
you don't have to itemize the calls.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Well--
MS. FILSON: One question -- in may, one question I have on
this, even though the calls from seven p.m. to seven a.m. are free, and
on the weekends they're free and on holidays they're free, they're still
listed on the telephone bill and they still are totaled in the total
minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's talk about this another time.
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, why don't I do this for you. I
could work through the County Attorney's Office and get a better
interpretation of the IRS issues associated with this. I can provide that
to you, and then you can use that information to, perhaps, make a
change to your -- to the way you want to handle things. So this is all
Page 316
February 26-27,2008
based on IRS rules.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If a person doesn't use the phone
that's issued to us for personal calls and everything on it is business
calls, are we still taxed the $15 a month?
MS. PRICE: Commissioners, the IRS requires that if you -- to
demonstrate that, that you must log all of your calls, to whom they
were made --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not going to worry about the $5 --
MS. PRICE: -- and the purpose of the call, so you can
demonstrate to them that you got no personal gain from it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. PRICE: This was the reason that we went this direction for
the employees. There may, however, because you're elected officials
and because you're in a different position, there may be some different
IRS rules. I'm not sure of that.
So like I say, if I just get you what the rules are, then you can
make a determination as to how to best handle it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah,
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. You explained it to me.
Okay. I got it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think that it's worthy of
changing or being consistent with everything else, and I don't see a
need for us to do so, to be different.
So anyways, yeah, let's follow up on it. I think that's the only
thing I got. Pardon me? I don't read lips. Sign -- some sign language.
MS. FILSON: In may, can I talk about the Animal Services
Advisory Board?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, yes, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Just so the commissioners know, I had
issued a press release for three applicants for the Animal Services
Advisory Committee. I received two. I sent them over and then I re-a
Page 3 17
February 26-27, 2008
advertised for the third one. I failed to take the word veterinarian out
of the press release.
And then after I had received a recommendation for appointment,
I received another application from a veterinarian, and they are very
passionate about this committee and they want to be considered.
So my suggestion would be, since I'm advertising now and the
deadline is March the 7th, that I just take all of the applications, send
them back over for recommendation to bring back to the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's a great idea.
MS. FILSON: And that might solve all the issues.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. FILSON: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have unanimous approval.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I need a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second?
Any opposed to the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned.
****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Henning and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Page 318
February 26-27,2008
Item #16Al
THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE (LDC) AMENDMENT CYCLE FOR 2008 - AS DETAILED
IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # l6A2
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR BOTANICAL PLACE - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR TREVISO BAY TEMPORARY
SALES FACILITY - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VERONA WALK, PHASE 3A - W/RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MEDITERRA, PARCEL 106 - W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A6
Page 3 19
February 26-27, 2008
AWARD BID NO. 08-4197 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT
SERVICES TO ECOSYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND
ENVIRONMENTAL MOWING, INC. - FOR LAWN SERVICES,
INVASIVE PLANT REMOVAL AND MAINTENANCE WHEN
PROPERTY OWNERS FAIL TO DO SO AFTER THEY HAVE
BEEN GIVEN LEGAL NOTICE
Item #16A7
RELEASE AND SA TISF ACTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
LIENS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED - COST FOR RECORDING
IS $10.00 PER RELEASE, TOTALING $650.00
Item # l6A8
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. SHOULD A
HEARING BE HELD ON THIS ITEM, ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE SWORN IN. RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
MEDITERRA PARCEL 125, REPLAT OF LOTS 44 THRU 47-
THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO FINAL
APPROVAL LETTER
Item # l6A9
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE
PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS. SHOULD A
HEARING BE HELD ON THIS ITEM, ALL PARTICIPANTS ARE
REQUIRED TO BE SWORN IN. RECOMMENDATION TO
APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
Page 320
February 26-27,2008
ALLIGATOR ALLEY COMMERCE CENTER PHASE ONE -
THE DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO FINAL
APPROV AL LETTER
Item #16AlO
RESOLUTION 2008-42: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MEDITERRA PARCEL 103 WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16All
RESOLUTION 2008-43: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CLASSICS PLANTATION ESTATES
PHASE ONE, (LEL Y RESORT PUD), THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A12 - Continued indefinitely
FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF
AUGUSTA AT PELICAN MARSH (PELICAN MARSH PUD)
WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
BEING PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Page 321
February 26-27,2008
Item #16B 1 - Continued to the March 11, 2008 BCC Meeting
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID #08-5016 "ON CALL
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SERVICE" BY CATEGORY
TO VARIOUS VENDORS FOR AN ESTIMATED YEARLY COST
OF $500,000 (FUND 111)
Item #16Cl
RESOLUTION 2008-44: APPROVING THE SATISFACTIONS OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991, 1995,
AND 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL IMPACT IS $68.50
TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN - FOR ACCOUNT
NOS. 87308, 94252, 22282, 24536 AND 29696
Item # 16C2
RECORDING A SA TISF ACTION OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF
LIEN FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $10.00 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTION OF LIEN
- FOR FOLIO #31155007024
Item #16C3 - Moved to Item #lOG
Item # 16C4
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE FUNDS PROVIDED
BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
GRANTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,000 AND APPROVE THE
Page 322
February 26-27,2008
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE RECLAIMED
WATER AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT
#74030 - REQUIRED AS CONTINGENCY FOR THE PROJECT
TO COVER WORK THAT HAS DEVELOPED DUE TO NEW
REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS, INCLUDING DISINFECTION
BY-PRODUCT LIMITS AND NEW REGULATORY
CONSTRAINTS
Item #16Dl
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARGARITA DEL SOCORRO
ESCOBAR (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 165, TRAIL
RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT
FEES
Item # 16D2
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ESAIE FORESTE AND L YLA
FORESTE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 161, TRAIL
RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT
FEES
Item #16D3
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ANTOINETTE LAGUERRE
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 163, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST
Page 323
February 26-27, 2008
NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ANTOINE JOSEPH AND
SAINTHERESE JOSEPH (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
3, BLOCK 14, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, EAST NAPLES-
DEFERRING $26,240.68 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DANIELLE ALEXANDRE
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 162, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST
NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # l6D6
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE 1. ROSAS ARROYO AND
MARIA E. ROSAS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
160, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D7
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH GABINCE F ANF AN AND
MONIQUE WILLIEN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
Page 324
February 26-27,2008
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
49, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D8
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ZILANA MARC (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 51, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D9
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LUNEL NAPOLEON (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 52, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16DlO
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH VIDA TRAINIE BAL T AZARD
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 164, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST
NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16Dll
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JACQUELINE ruLES (OWNER)
Page 325
February 26-27,2008
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 142, INDEPENDENCE II-A,
IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,274.83 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D12
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE ANGEL OLVERA AND
NORA BEATRIZ OLVERA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
19, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12,442.52 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # l6D 13
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ISLAINE GEORGES (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 50, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D14
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MINOUCHE CARILUS (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 26, LIBERTY LANDING,
IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D15
Page 326
February 26-27, 2008
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH SAMUEL TREJO AND REBECCA
CASTRO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 27,
LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46
IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D16
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH EMMANUEL LOUIMARE
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 30, LIBERTY LANDING,
IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46
Item #16D17
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH P ASSIANA BELIZAIRE (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 35, LIBERTY LANDING,
IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D18
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE PENALOZA JASSO AND
ARACEL Y PENALOZA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
31, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Page 327
February 26-27,2008
Item #16D19
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MIGUEL ANGEL GASPAR
FRANCISCO (OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 22,
LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12,442.46
IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D20
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN VITAL ASTREIDE AND
MARIE ASTREIDE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
10, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12,442.52 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D21
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FREEMAN AND FREEMAN, INC.
(DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 20, BLOCK
29, NEW MARKET, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,305.88 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item # l6D22
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH FREEMAN AND FREEMAN, INC.
(DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
Page 328
February 26-27,2008
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 18, PINE
GROVE, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $19,300.01 IN IMPACT
FEES
Item # 16D23
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT MARTINEZ AND ruANI
MARTINEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
34, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12,442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D24
A SUMMARY OF THE IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY08,
INCLUDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS
APPROVED, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED
AND THE BALANCE REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL
DEFERRALS IN FY08 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16D25
CEASE IMPLEMENT A TION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
LETHAL YELLOWING DISEASE ORDINANCE 2004-11
SUPPRESSION PROGRAM DUE TO FUNDING CONSTRAINTS
AND LACK OF CONSISTENT EVIDENCE OF PROGRAM NEED
- WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR FOR FLARE UPS AND
PROVIDE OUTREACH EDUCATION TO HOMEOWNERS &
LANDOWNERS ON CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO HELP
Page 329
February 26-27,2008
PROTECT THE PALMS AND WILL BE BRINGING BACK
ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2004-11
Item # 16D26
THE RENEWAL OF CONTRACT #03-3445, V ANDERBIL T
BEACH CONCESSION WITH DAY-STAR UNLIMITED, INC.
D/B/A CABANA DAN'S - FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS
UNDER THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE
EXISTING CONTRACT
Item #16El
AWARD BID #08-5013, SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
TO A PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY VENDOR,
BASED ON THE LOWEST AND MOST QUALIFIED BIDS -
AWARDED TO SAFETY PRODUCTS INCORPORATED
(PRIMARY), RITZ SAFETY, LLC (SECONDARY) AND
GRAINGER (TERTIARY)
Item # 16E2
TWO SECOND AMENDMENTS TO LEASE AGREEMENT
WITH A&P BOOLE, LLC, FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF THE
MAINTENANCE GARAGE AND PARKING SPACE ON
ARNOLD AVENUE FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, AT A
COMBINED ANNUAL RENTAL OF $92,248.80 - LOCATED AT
3573 ARNOLD AVENUE; NEEDED UNTIL THE SHERIFF'S
NEW FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY IS COMPLETED IN
FEBRUARY 2009
Item #16E3 - Moved to Item #lOH
Page 330
February 26-27,2008
Item # 16E4
AWARD RFP NO. 08-5012 FOR CELLULAR COMMUNICATION
SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT TO SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.
AND FURTHER AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
STANDARD COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED CONTRACT
($320,000) - FOR COST EFFECTIVE WIRELESS SERVICE
Item #16F1
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH GULF
SHORE ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE SPACE BY THE PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION AT A FIRST YEAR'S ANNUAL RENT
AND COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE FEES OF $33,588 -
FOR SPACE WITHIN THE SUNTRUST BUILDING AT 801
LAUREL OAK DRIVE, SUITE 605, NAPLES
Item # 16F2
SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT
APPLICATION FROM THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE DISTRICT
TO THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF WILD LAND FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING - FOR A 50/50 MATCHING
GRANT
Item #16F3
SUBMITTAL OF A VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT
APPLICATION FROM THE OCHOPEE FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT
TO THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY FOR THE
Page 331
February 26-27, 2008
PURCHASE OF WILD LAND FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
AND PROTECTIVE CLOTHING - FOR A 50/50 MATCHING
GRANT
Item #16G 1
AN EXTENSION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
AGREEMENT 0512007 BETWEEN THE CRA AND PHILLIP
AND DEBRA PIERCE DUE TO CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION
AND PERMITTING DELAYS (3144 PINE TREE DRIVE) - FOR
AN EXTENSION TO APRIL 30, 2008
Item #16G2
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,500 TO
FUND MITIGATION AT ROOKERY BAY TO MEET SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE SOUTH TAXIWAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT
EVERGLADES AIRPARK - TO REMOVE EXOTIC
VEGETATION FROM 44.5 ACRES WITHIN THE ROOKERY
BAY NATIONAL MARINE ESTUARY RESERVE WITH A
REVISED COMPLETION DATE OF ruL Y 31, 2008
Item #16G3
ACCEPT ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$14,650 AND PROVIDE A FIFTY PERCENT (50%) MATCH IN
THE AMOUNT OF $14,650 FOR A TOTAL BUDGET
AMENDMENT OF $29,300 FOR SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS
FOR THE AVIATION FUEL STORAGE TANK SYSTEM (FUEL
Page 332
February 26-27, 2008
FARM) AT THE MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT-
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SECURITY LIGHTING,
FENCING AND SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS AT THE AIRPORT
Item # 16G4
SWEAT EQUITY GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (2500 LEE STREET) - WITH
MICHAEL AND KELLY V ANDERS TEL FOR AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $793.25
Item # 16G5
SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY AND GRANT APPLICANTS WITHIN THE
BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (3043 COTTAGE GROVE AVENUE)
- FOR RENTAL PROPERTY OWNED BY PATRICK PHELPS
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL'S VIP BREAKFAST MEETING AT THE HILTON
NAPLES ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7,2008; $20.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET
- LOCATED AT 5111 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., NAPLES
Page 333
February 26-27, 2008
Item #16H2 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER HENNING REQUESTS REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. IS ATTENDING THE MARINE INDUSTRIES
ASSOCIATION OF COLLIER COUNTY MEMBERS MEETING
AT THE ELKS LODGE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2008;
$25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HENNING'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 3950 RADIO ROAD,
NAPLES
Item # l6H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. WILL BE ATTENDING THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY FIRST
MEMBER INVESTOR MEETING AND MIXER FOR 2008 ON
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28,2008, AT THE NAPLES BEACH
HOTEL AND GOLF CLUB; $40.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
851 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD N., NAPLES
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE CELEBRATE THE NAPLES
LAUNCH OF DA YJET ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008,
AT THE NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; $7.50 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 580 TERMINAL DRIVE, NAPLES
Page 334
February 26-27, 2008
Item # 16H5
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID
PUBLICPURPOSE. ATTENDED THE 2008 WOMEN OF STYLE
HONOREES ON FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15,2008, AT THE
NAPLES GRANDE RESORT & CLUB; $125.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT 475 SEAGATE DRIVE, NAPLES
Item # 16I1
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 335
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORESPOPNDENCE
February 26, 200S
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Bayshore/Gateway Triang]e Loca] Redeve]op Advisorv Board:
Agenda of November 6, 2007; December 4,2007; January S, 200S.
Minutes of November 6, 2007; December 4, 2007; January S, 200S.
2) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of December 19, 2007.
Minutes of December 19, 2007.
3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board - Form 1:
Minutes of November 29, 2007.
4) Collier Countv Planning Commission - Form 1:
Agenda of February 7, 200S.
Minutes of November 2S, 2007; December 6,2007.
5) Deve]opment Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of January 9, 200S.
6) Emergency Medica] Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of December 19, 2007; January 17, 200S.
7) Environmenta] Advisorv Council:
Agenda of January 7, 200S.
S) Fire Review Task Force:
Minutes of October 30,2007; November 30,2007; December 14,
2007; January IS, 200S; February 1, 200S.
9) Forest Lakes Roadwav and Drainage Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of December ]2, 2007; January 9, 200S.
Minutes of November 14,2007; December 12, 2007.
10) Go]den Gate Communitv Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of January 7, 200S.
11) Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee:
Minutes of October 17, 2007.
12) Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of January 3, 2008.
Minutes of January 3, 2008.
13) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of February 11, 2008.
14) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of December 20,2007; January 17,2008.
Minutes of November 15, 2007; December 20,2007.
15) Library Advisorv Board:
Agenda of January 23, 2008.
Minutes of December 12, 2007.
16) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Minutes of February 6, 2008.
17) Public Vehicle Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of February 4, 2008.
18) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of December 18, 2007; January 15,2008.
Minutes of November 20,2007; December 18, 2007.
19) Utility Authority - Form 1:
Minutes of June 25, 2007.
20) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of December 6,2007; January 3, 2008.
Minutes of November 1, 2007; December 6,2007.
B. Other:
1) Hearing of the Collier County Special Magistrate:
Minutes of January 4,2008; January 18,2008.
2) Clam Bay Committee:
Minutes of December ]9, 2007.
February 26-27,2008
Item #1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 2, 2008
TO FEBRUARY 8, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 9, 2008
TO FEBRUARY 15,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL NOS. 860 &
960 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED CC V. J.S. ROATH CORP., ET
AL, CASE NO. 05-1093-CA (SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL
WATER TREATMENT WELL FIELD PROJECT #70892) (FISCAL
IMPACT-- $114,900.00) - LOCATED ON THE SUPER 8 MOTEL
PROPERTY AT THE COLLIER BOULEVARD/I-75
INTERCHANGE
Item # l6K2 - Moved to Item # 12B
Item # l6K3
STIPULATED FINAL ruDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$42,000.00 FOR PARCELS 126FEE AND 126TDRE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
MICHAEL J. CROUCH, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-369l-CA (OIL
WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMP ACT
$17,762.05)
Page 336
February 26-27,2008
Item #16K4
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND STIPULATED
FINAL JUDGMENT TO BE DRAFTED INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $215,000.00
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 113A, 813 AND 913 IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V.
DELBERT ACKERMAN, ET AL., CASE NO. 06-ll24-CA
(COUNTY BARN ROAD PROJECT #60101) (FISCAL IMPACT:
$99,919,00)
Item # 16K5
AN AFFIDAVIT AND ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION, AS WELL
AS A CONSENT TO CERTAIN MORTGAGES MADE BY THE
ASSIGNEE, LIGHT TOWER WIRELESS, LLC, OF A CERTAIN
LEASE HERETOFORE ENTERED INTO BY THE BOARD ON
APRIL 13,1999 BY AND BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND ACME
TOWERS, INC. - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #17 A
RESOLUTION 2008-45: PETITION CU-2007-AR-12384,
ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY D/B/A ENTERPRISE
RENT-A-CAR, APPLICANT AND OWNER, IS REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO LDC SECTION 2.04.03
FOR ARENT AL CAR AGENCY WITHIN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL (C-4) ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 13560 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH,
SUITE 8, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
Page 337
February 26-27, 2008
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item # 1 7B
RESOLUTION 2008-46: PETITION A VESMT-2006-AR-l0754, TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A 25 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT OVER THE SOUTH AND EAST 25 FEET OF THE
NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHWEST OF THE
SOUTHWEST OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BEING MORE
SPECIFICALL Y DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A AND ACCEPT THE
REPLACEMENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT ALSO SHOWN ON
EXHIBIT A IN PLACE OF THE V ACA TED EASEMENT
Page 338
February 26-27, 2008
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:42 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPE~DIST CTS .UNDER ITS CONTROL
TOM HENNING, Chai an
ATTEST: ,
DWIGHTE.BROCK,CLERK
i .
.
.~.~.' ~..~ Ql- r
.-..,"
.~;.1"
These minutes approved by the Board on ffil1AZ.!\ ?b1zoot, as
presented V or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INe., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 339