BCC Minutes 09/09-10/2008 R
September 9-10, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 9-10, 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
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
AGENDA
September 9-10, 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 PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
Page 1
September 9-10, 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 VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. July 22, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. August 4, 2008 - BCC/V AB Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards
B. 20 Year Attendees
1) John Conti, ECM
2) Samuel Poole Jr., EMS
Page 2
September 9-10, 2008
3) Kevin Potter, EMS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating September 26, 2008 as Veterans Recognition Day.
To be accepted by John Skiles, President of The Vietnam Veterans of
America, Chapter 706, Naples, Florida.
B. Proclamation designating that the week of September 15 - 20, 2008, as
Industry Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Tammie Nemecek,
President & CEO of the EDC.
C. Proclamation to recognize September 9,2008 as Leukemia, Lymphoma &
Myeloma Awareness Month. To be accepted by Melissa Peacock, Patient
Services Manager of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Thomas Keegan, Investigator, Code
Enforcement Department, as Employee of the Month for July 2008.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Milton J. Thomas to discuss proposed draft noise
control ordinance.
B. Public petition request by Phil Woodhouse to discuss refund for
overpayment of impact fees.
C. Public petition request by Gayla Brittain to discuss a notice of code violation
referencing chickens.
D. Public petition request by Janet den Hartog to discuss the Traveling Dignity
Memorial Vietnam Veteran Wall.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 V.m.. unless otherwise noted
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Page 3
September 9-10, 2008
A. This item to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesdav~ September 10~ 2008.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. ADA-2008-AR-13212
Craig and Amber Grider, represented by Margaret Cooper of Jones, Foster,
Johnston and Stubbs, P.A. is requesting an Appeal of Official Interpretation,
INTP-2008-AR-12880, initiated by the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners for the Olde Cypress PUD. Appellants' property is located in
the Olde Cypress PUD, Tract 5, Lot 28, Olde Cypress Unit 3, in Section 21,
Township 48S, Range 26E, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. followin2 Item #12B.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an
ordinance repealing Ordinance Number 99-38, as amended ("Maximum fees
for non-consent towing and storage of vehicles"), to establish new
requirements for non-consent law enforcement towing of vehicles, to
address requirements for private property tows, to provide for updated
maximum fees for non-consent law enforcement towing, private property
towing, and the storage of towed vehicles, and to facilitate the future
adjustment of fees as necessary, by approving a Resolution establishing
maximum fees as required by the proposed ordinance. (Michelle Arnold,
Scott Teach, Diane Flagg)
B. Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners of Ordinance
for the creation of Clam Bay Advisory Committee. (Gary McAlpin)
C. This item continued from the Julv 22~ 2008 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation to repeal the Animal Control Ordinance (Ordinance No.
93-56, as amended), and to adopt Ordinance No. 2008-xx as the Animal
Control Ordinance, to strengthen the section pertaining to dangerous dogs, to
provide a uniform method for revision of fees, to provide for mandatory
spay/neuter of animals upon return to owner after impoundment, and to
more clearly define penalties, leash law, and the affidavit of complaint
process. (Amanda Townsend)
D. At the petitioner's reQuest~ this item is continued from the Julv 22~ 2008
BCC Meetin2 and is further continued to the September 9~ 2008 BCC
Meetin2. This item must be heard BEFORE item PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875
and requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
Page 4
September 9-10, 2008
~'--_".,_.____....L"""_^'.~~'__"""_~~",___,_,_,~,,
Added
F.
provided bv Commission members. PUDA-2007-AR-11734 KRG 951 and
41, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and
Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette,
Coleman, and Johnson, P.A., is requesting an amendment to the Artesa
Pointe PUD to remove a +/- 0.88 acre parcel of land and add it to the
proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD abutting its northern boundary. The
subject property is located approximately 1/4 ofa mile south of the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and US 41, in Section 3, Township 51
South, Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875)
E.
At the petitioner's reQuest~ this item is continued from the Julv 22~ 2008
BCC Meetin2 and is further continued to the September 9~ 2008 BCC
Meetin2. This item must be heard AFTER PUDA-2007-AR-11734 and
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided bv Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Q
Grady Minor, representing KRG 951 and 41, LLC, has submitted a PUD
rezone for Tamiami Crossing CPUD. The applicant proposes to rezone the
A (Agricultural), C-2 (Commercial Convenience), C-4 (General Commercial
Zoning) Districts and Artesa Pointe PUD to Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district. This is to allow development of
commercial land uses with a maximum of 235,000 square feet. The property
consists of +/- 25.45 acres and is located in Section 3, Township 51 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to PUDA-2007-
AR-11734)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves an
amendment to Collier County's False Alarm Ordinance No. 97-8, as
amended, and proposed by the Collier County Sheriffs Office, to change
whether a deputy "shall" write a violation to "may", to change "attendance"
in a program to "participation", to clarify fines and violations and to change
Special "Master" to "Magistrate".
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Collier County Planning Commission.
B. Appointment of member to the Environmental Advisory Council.
Page 5
September 9-10, 2008
'-"~'._~'___"____""~'''W'"'.~_.,. ,._ .~ _ _'... __"_'''''..''_',,_,~-,"_..,._..
C. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Immokalee Master Plan and
Visioning Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
E. Appointment of members to the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Advisory
Committee.
F. Appointment of members to the Board of Building Adjustments and
Appeals.
G. Recommendation to declare vacancy on the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
H. Appointment of members to the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
I. Appointment of member to the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad-Hoc Advisory
Committee.
J. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
acquisition of Independent Certified Public Accountant services, in an
amount not to exceed $25,000, to determine if the Clerk is following the
Board's direction (Resolution 2007-257) regarding Board interest income.
(John Yonkosky)
B. To report to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners concerning
the potential scale of a proposed Rental Registration refund of late fees in
excess of eighty dollars ($80) for the period of Fiscal Years 2005 through
2007, and a recommendation for a potential refund methodology. (Joe
Schmitt, Gary Mullee)
C. Requesting Board decision on local preference for Bid No. 08-5106 - "Santa
Barbara Boulevard Extension (Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis
Boulevard)", Project No. 60091. (Steve Carnell, Jay Ahmad)
Page 6
September 9-10, 2008
D. Recommendation to approve plan for immediate and long term purchases of
systems furniture for various County facilities. (Steve Carnell)
E. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the
County Manager or his designee direction as to how to proceed regarding
the potential adverse impacts of the escalating foreclosures within the
unincorporated area of the county. (Joe Schmitt)
F. Recommendation to approve an Agreement between Collier County and Dr.
Marta U. Coburn, M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical Examiner dba
District Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc. to provide medical examiner
services for Fiscal Year 2009 at a cost of$I,085,000. (Dan Summers)
G. Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing removal of 11,541
ambulance service accounts and their respective account receivable balances
which total $7,986,828.72, from the general ledger of Collier County Fund
490 (Emergency Medical Services). Although the amount was recognized
and recorded as Bad Debt Expense during Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, it
cannot be removed without Board adoption of an authorizing resolution.
(John Yonkosky, Jeff Page)
H. Recommendation to award Bid #08-5061 "Golden Gate Parkway
(Livingston Road to 66th Street) and (60th Street to Santa Barbara Blvd.)
Roadway Grounds Maintenance" to Ground Zero Landscaping Services, Inc.
in the amount of $41 ,651.39. (Fund 111, Cost Center 163831) (Steve
Carnell )
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Notice is hereby 2iven that
pursuant to Section 286.011(8)~ Fla. Stat.~ the County Attorney desires
advice from the Board of County Commissioners in Closed Attornev-
Client Session on TUESDA Y~ SEPTEMBER~ 2008~ at a time certain of
12:00 noon in the Commission Conference Room~ 3rd Floor~ W.
Harmon Turner Buildin!!~ Collier County Government Center~ 3301
East Tamiami Trail~ Naples~ Florida. In addition to Board members,
County Manager James Mudd, County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klaztkow and
Assistant County Attorney Jacqueline Williams Hubbard will be in
Page 7
September 9-10, 2008
"-~"'_'~''''''~'."'''''''_'''.,. .".,...._'O,'__."."..._.~.,"__.__,_,. .,.."...._~ _", .___~< ,__ ,..,,~.~___
attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement
negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending
litigation case of Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC v. Collier County, Case
No. 2:07-CV-411-FTM-29DNF, now pending in the US Middle District
Court of Florida, Fort Myers Division, and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC.,
Brennan, Manna & Diamond (Reg. Agent) v. Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Appeal Case No.: 07-2035-CA,
Lower Tribunal Case CEB No. 2007-35, now pending in the Administrative
Appeal Division of the Circuit Court.
B. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. For the Board of County
Commissioners to consider approving a Settlement Agreement in Bonita
Media Enterprises, LLC., v. Collier County Code Enforcement Board,
Collier County Board of County Commissioners, Case No: 2:07-cv-411-
FTM-29DNF, now pending in the United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and Bonita Media Enterprises,
LLC., Brennan, Manna & Diamond (Reg. Agent) v. Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Appeal Case No. 07-2035-CA,
Lower Tribunal CEB No. 2007-35, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, in the Administrative Appeal
Division of the Circuit Court and authorize the Chairman to execute the
Settlement Agreement and authorize the appropriate budget amendment.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Page 8
September 9-10, 2008
1) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the
submittal of the attached HCP Planning Assistance Grant Proposal to
the USFWS via the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission to support the development of an HCP for the
Immokalee Urban Area, excluding the RLSA and authorize the
Chairman to sign any additional application forms or documents that
may be required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission or the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2) Recommendation to approve the Release and Satisfaction of Code
Enforcement Liens for payments received.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida approve an agreement between Collier County and
the Economic Development Council of Collier County for
continuation of the Economic Diversification Program by providing a
contribution to the EDC of up to $400,000 for Fiscal Year 2009, and
authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
sign the agreement on behalf of Collier County.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for TIB Bank.
5) Recommendation to execute a Quit Claim Deed as satisfaction for
subdivision improvements for various projects developed by Lely
Estates and Lely Development Corporation.
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fiddler's Creek Phase 2A,
Unit One. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained by the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District
7) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Mustang Island II (Lely
Resort PUD) and the roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained.
8) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Avellino Isles
Page 9
September 9-10,2008
9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fiddler's Creek Phase 2A,
Unit Three. The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained.
10) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Quarry Phase lA
(Heritage Bay PUD) with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained.
11) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Da Vinci Estates
12) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fiddler's Creek Phase 3,
Unit Two. The roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained by the Fiddler's Creek Community Development District
13) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Cedar Hammock - Unit 3
with the roadway and drainage improvements being privately
maintained.
14) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Bellagio at Fiddler's Creek.
15) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Majorca at Fiddler's Creek.
16) Recommendation to review and approve the recommendation of the
Public Vehicle Advisory Committee (PV AC) to adopt a fuel
surcharge relating to taxi rates.
17) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution amending the Collier County
Administrative Code Fee Schedule of development-related review and
processing fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 2-11.
18) Recommendation to accept a proposed settlement agreement
providing for Compromise and Release of Lien in the Code
Page 10
September 9-10, 2008
'~__~'.""~..~_.,,.__, _"",~____"m_"~_'M._'_"_'''_'~'~_.__
Enforcement Action entitled Collier County v. Joseph Hamilton, CEB
No. 2004-76, relating to property located at 20610 Tamiami Trail E.,
Collier County, Florida.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement for the purchase
of a perpetual road right-of-way, drainage, and utility easement which
is required for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project. Project
No. 60168, Phase II (Fiscal Impact: Purchase price of$64,680 plus
recording and title insurance fees not to exceed $500).
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
Resolution authorizing its Chairman to execute a Local Agency
Program Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) in which Collier County will be reimbursed up to $448,100
for landscaping and irrigation improvements on State Road 951,
between the Jolly Bridge and McIlvane Bay. (FM#414534-1)
3) Recommendation to approve the sole source purchase of eight (8)
additional Wavetronix SS125 HF count stations, as well as upgrading
nine (9) existing Wavetronix SSl05 count stations to Wavetronix
SS 125 HF count stations from Wavetronix in the amount of
$154,864.00.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
Landscape Maintenance Agreement between Collier County, Florida,
and The Mercato LLP, for landscaping within rights-of-way on US 41
North and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
5) Recommendation to adopt a resolution requesting that the Florida
Department of Transportation Quitclaim to Collier County all that
portion of State Road S-953 (Bald Eagle Drive), former State Road
951, Collier County, Florida, lying between former State Road 92
(San Marco Drive) on the south, and Marco Pass on the north, per
State of Florida Road Department Right of Way Map Section No.
(0303) 0351-250 for Road No. S-951, and to approve an Interlocal
Agreement between Collier County and the City of Marco Island
transferring jurisdiction of said public road to the City of Marco
Page 11
September 9-10, 2008
Island. Estimated fiscal impact: Approximately $35.50.
6) Recommendation to recognize and accept revenue for Collier Area
Transit bus shelters in the amount of $5,000 and to approve needed
budget amendments.
7) Recommendation to approve the submission of the attached Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) Intermodal Development
Program Application for FY2012/2013 and 2013/2014.
8) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
budget amendments to reallocate and correct funding issues with
Pathways Proj ect.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign an
easement instrument with the Board of Trustees of the Internal Trust
Fund of the State of Florida (hereafter, the State), for the existing
roadway bridges crossing the Cocohatchee River and one of its
tributaries on Vanderbilt Drive within the existing right-of-way.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
Resolution authorizing a First Amendment to the Highway
Landscaping Installation and Maintenance Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), relating to the
Interstate 75/Golden Gate Parkway Interchange.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to authorize submission of Amendment One (1) to
the State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement (DWllll 040) through the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) for the
SCRWTP 20 MGD RO Wellfield Expansion, Project No. 708921.
2) Recommendation to authorize submission of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund Low-interest Construction Loan Agreement
DWll11 010 to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
for the construction of Wells #34 and #37 and Pipeline Replacement
Project No. 701582.
Page 12
September 9-10, 2008
---~-"_._--.-._."~~._."._,.~..._~--".".--_.._-..,,....'--"_"~_"_____~_~'__V~__
3) Recommendation to award Bid 08-5099 to Aerex Industries, Inc. for
the purchase of Reverse Osmosis Hardware Components in the
amount of $162,065.00 for use at the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, Project Numbers 70094 and 70095.
4) Recommendation to authorize submission of Amendment One (1) to
the State Revolving Fund Loan Agreement (DWllll 030) through
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the
SCRWTP 12 MGD RO Plant Expansion, Project No. 700971.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Berjean
Augustin and Marie Claire Augustin (Owners) for deferral of 100%
of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 6, Block 9, Naples Manor Addition, East
Naples.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Hyppolite
Joseph and Mertha Joseph (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 32, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Roseline
Nicolas (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 130,
Trail Ridge, East Naples.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Remy
Chery and Ginette Gabriel (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 137, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Luis G.
Payero Madera (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County
Page 13
September 9-10, 2008
impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at
Lot 167, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose
Fernando Cruz Leon and Marina Aguilar Sanchez (Owners) for
deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 22, Block 6, Naples Manor Unit
1, East Naples.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Agustin D.
Chavez Cruz and Maria G. Ramirez De Chavez (Owners) for deferral
of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 7, Block 9, Naples Manor
Addition, East Naples.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose M.
Pantoja and Yusleidys Pena (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 134, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Norberto
Chavarria Lezama and Beatris Adriana Ibarra (Owners) for deferral of
100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 46, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Pascual
Mateo Simon and Juana Vasquez Lopez (Owners) for deferral of
100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 44, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Ruben
Mandujano and Camila Martinez De Mandujano (Owners) for deferral
of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 43, Liberty Landing,
Page 14
September 9-10, 2008
..._"" ... ,......... ,... ._"~.."'~-~".....~~-~.,-,.,'-".^'-_...~~".""'--,.."'"----~_...-,~.- -'-'-'->''''''.--.-' ._-_.._-_._-_...~.,,-_._--
Immokalee.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with
Cuauhtemoc Garcia Laurel and Jennifer Elizondo (Owners) for
deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 45, Liberty Landing,
Immokalee.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Lucce S.
Exinor and Kettly Jean Charles (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 131, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
14) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Lurdes A.
Barajaz (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 42, Trail
Ridge, East Naples.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Irette
Augustin (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 104,
Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
16) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Nielida
Jaimes (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 101,
Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
17) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Marc
Raymond Calvaire and Orgette Odette Calvaire (Owners) for deferral
of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 28, Liberty Landing,
Immokalee.
Page 15
September 9-10, 2008
,---~~_._-,-~"..~..,...._.,""-._..".."",-,~~"-,,-~,,,--,,~'.. -..
. ____....-_,_~",..__.._"._'"_~_~~,_..h__.,_._,._._
18) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Rigoberto
Martinez and Maria Cristina Martinez (Owners) for deferral of 100%
of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 98, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Edgar M.
Galvan and Jaqueline Ramirez Mendoza (Owners) for deferral of
100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 115, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Leunique
Exantus (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 166,
Trail Ridge, East Naples.
21) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Amable
Mas Ponce De Leon and Elaine R. Alvarez Tauler (Owners) for
deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied
affordable housing unit located at Lot 132, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Djenie
Regis (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for
an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 103, Liberty
Landing, Immokalee.
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Aleon
D'Haiti and Amalise Aurice (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
located at Lot 156, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
24) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Pedro
Rivera and Liset Cisnero (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
Page 16
September 9-10, 2008
located at Lot 6, Block 10, Naples Manor Addition, East Naples.
25) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jose
Lazaro Diaz and Marile Pajon (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 133, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
26) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$7,260.00 to recognize additional revenue from the collection of co-
payments from the Collier County Social Services Program.
27) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing a Community Development Block Grant in the amount of
$75,336 to the City of Marco Island, for the construction of sidewalks
on Marco Island.
28) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its Chairman to sign a modification to Disaster
Recovery Initiative Grant Agreement #08DB-D3-09-21-01-A03
between the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and
Collier County.
29) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign, a grant agreement amendment
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to extend the contract period for a 2006 Supportive Housing
Agreement (FL14B50-6002, ID #FLI4066) for St. Matthew's House.
30) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes its Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement
providing Supplemental Disaster Recovery Initiative (DR!) funding in
the amount of $300,000.00 to Immokalee Helping Our People in
Emergencies, Inc. (I HOPE), to fund the construction of two owner-
occupied, single-family homes to replace homes severely damaged by
Hurricane Wilma.
31) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its chairman to sign a Florida Recreation Development
Page 17
September 9-10, 2008
Assistance Program (FRDAP) Grant Agreement No. A09048 in the
amount of$135,611 for improvements to the Immokalee Sports
Complex and to approve all necessary Budget Amendments.
32) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
an agreement with the District School Board of Collier County for
transporting school-age recreation program participants.
33) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
request to apply for a Florida Recreation Development Assistance
Program Grant in the amount of $200,000 for improvements to
Vineyards Community Park.
34) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to amend
previous years' Action Plans; authorize the reprogramming of
Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds;
and authorize the Chairman to sign the notification to HUD of the use
of reprogrammed federal funds for the purchase, rehabilitation and
resale of foreclosed homes to income qualified individuals/families as
affordable housing.
35) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve,
and authorize the Chairman to sign, a Subrecipient Agreement with
Collier County Hunger and Homeless Coalition (CCHHC) for
$102,154 in Continuum of Care funding to support their Homeless
computer system known as Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS).
36) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with David
Cruz and Claudia V. Corrales (Owners) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Vistas III at Heritage Bay, Unit 1306, North Naples.
37) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners enter into
an Agreement with Heart of Adoptions Alliance, Inc. to authorize the
distribution of funds received from the sale of Choose Life license
plates and authorize the Chairman to execute said Agreement.
Page 18
September 9-10, 2008
38) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its Chairman to sign an Agreement between Collier
County and VI Ltd., Limited Partnership, regarding professional
services that VI Ltd. will provide to Collier County for Collier County
beach amenities on Bluebill Avenue.
39) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its Chairman to sign a modification to Disaster
Recovery Grant Initiative Agreement #07DB-3V-09-21-01-Z01
between the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and
Collier County.
40) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement funding agreements for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment
Partnerships (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative
(ADDI) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funds for FY 2008-
2009.
41) This item continued from the Julv 22~ 2008 BCC Meetin2.
Recommendation to adopt a Resolution establishing the Collier
County Domestic Animal Services Fee Policy as of October 1,2008
and superseding resolutions 95-107, 95-106, 93-404, and all other
resolutions establishing animal services-related fees.
42) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5058 in the amount of$66,350 to
Marine Contracting Group, to replace the deck and pilings at
Cocohatchee River Park Marina.
43) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Jean
Napoleon and Clairgimene Napoleon (Owners) for deferral of 100%
of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 37, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
44) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Pedro
Ulloa and Mercedes Ulloa (Owners) for deferral of 100% of Collier
County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit
Page 19
September 9-10, 2008
located at Lot 40, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
45) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Robert
Luna Jr. and Ana Laura Galvan-Frias (Owners) for deferral of 100%
of Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable
housing unit located at Lot 116, Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
46) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Velma
Vasquez (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 100,
Liberty Landing, Immokalee.
47) Recommendation to approve a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease
Renewal and Modification Agreement with the Board of Trustees of
the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida at an
increased first year's rent of$I,168.11.
48) Present 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.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
Amendment #1 to Contract No. 07-4151, "Annual Contract for Sale of
Baled Corrugated and White Goods" with Mike Anderson Hauling
Inc., to increase the tonnage price that the County receives for the
hauling of white goods from $67.00 per ton to $200.00 per ton and to
add a price adjustment clause.
2) Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Horseshoe Square Development, L.C., c/o Pe1concepts, Inc., for
the continued use of office space by EMS Administration at a first
year's renewal rent of$142,605.70.
Page 20
September 9-10, 2008
3) Recommendation to authorize a budget amendment to increase the
FY08 Fleet Management Fund (521) and recognize revenues from
scrap metal sales in the amount of $45,000.
4) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Worker's Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the third quarter of FY
08.
5) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to recognize and
appropriate Building Maintenance Special Service revenues totaling
$201,267 for reimbursement of personnel and operating expenses in
Fiscal Year 2008.
6) Recommendation to reject Bid #08-5002 "Pressure Cleaning".
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes its Chairman to sign the Collier County Government
Equal Employment Opportunity Plan.
8) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign Modification No.
3 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperative Agreement
No. 401815J021 to fund habitat restoration at the Railhead Scrub
Preserve in the amount of $15,000.
9) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the 2009 Fiscal
Year Pay and Classification Plan, providing for a general wage
adjustment effective on October 1, 2008 (the first day in Fiscal Year
2009) and also to continue authorizing the creation of new
classifications, modification and/or deletion of classifications and
assignment of pay ranges from the proposed 2009 Fiscal Year Pay and
Classification Plan, using the existing "Archer" point-factor job
evaluation system, subject to quarterly ratification by the Board of
County Commissioners.
10) Recommendation to approve change order #3 to work order #PBS-
FT-3971-07-16 with Professional Building Systems (PBS) for the
Primary Data Center project in the amount of$28,762.
Page 21
September. 9-10, 2008
11) Approve August Changes to Contracts and Changes to Work Orders
Report.
12) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to increase FY08
appropriations for motor fuel and associated revenues in Fleet
Management Fund (521) in the amount of$150,000.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the participation of two former Pelican Bay Services Division
employees in the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program, authorize
the Chairman to sign the enabling Resolution, and authorize the
County Manager to implement the program.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emergency Agenda
Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's scheduled
recess. (In Absentia Meetin2 dated AU2ust 12~ 2008)
a) Approve a budget amendment for $124,000 to increase
budgeted revenues and expenses for the sale and purchase of
aviation fuel at Immokalee Regional Airport.
b) Request the Board of County Commissioners approve the final
payment in the amount of$12,163.75 to Sunshine Pharmacy for
prescription medication to medically needy clients in the Social
Services Program.
c) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, to authorize the Supervisor of
Elections to accept federal election activities funds subject to a
15% matching contribution from the County.
d) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance
proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Adopted Budget.
e) Recommendation that the BCC approve a resolution to
establish a "No Parking" zone along the right-of-way on both
sides of Spanish Oaks Lane between Oakes Boulevard and
Page 22
September 9-10, 2008
Tarpon Bay Boulevard.
f) Recommendation to award Bid No. 08-5105 to Howard
Technology Solutions for the installation of powered computer
mounting systems, including docking stations to provide
Mobile Data Terminal capability in Emergency Medical
Services' ambulances and command vehicles in the amount of
$50,692.00.
g) Recommendation to recognize fare-box revenues collected from
April 11, 2008 through August 4, 2008 for Collier Area Transit
and to approve budget amendments.
h) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign, an amended
funding agreement with the South Florida Water Management
District for an additional funding amount of $108,700 providing
assistance with construction of the Freedom Park (alk/a Gordon
River Water Quality Park).
i) Recommendation to recognize and appropriate $865,121.00 of
the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) FY08 5307 grant
funds for preventative maintenance and ADA
Paratransi t/Planning.
j) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes
to Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
k) Proclamation designating the week of August 25th through
August 31 st, 2008 as Collier County Firefighter Appreciation
Week. To be accepted by Alison Morse of the MDA in BCC
Office; presentation by Chairman Henning.
2) Board ratification of Summary, Consent and Emergency Agenda
Items approved by the County Manager during the Board's scheduled
recess. (In Absentia Meetin2 dated AU2ust 26~ 2008)
a) Recommendation to award RFP No. 08-5022 "Annual Contract
for Right-of-Way Acquisition and Real Estate Related
Services" to HDR Engineering, Inc. Fiscal Impact: None.
Page 23
September 9-10, 2008
b) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for a temporary
construction easement and other site modifications necessitated
for closure of one driveway and the modification to another
driveway at Mavrick House related to the expansion of Santa
Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to north of Golden
Gate Parkway. Project No. 62081. Estimated fiscal impact:
$27,957.00.
c) Recommend approval of Change Order #1 for Agreement with
Dia Monde to increase international tourism marketing
expenditures by $16,000 for the balance of FY08 and authorize
the Chairman to execute Change Order # 1.
d) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) ratify the Collier County Airport
Authority's approval of the attached Airport Authority
Resolution No. 08-34 on August 11, 2008 required by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to apply for
and receive a Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG).
e) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approve a budget amendment in the amount of
$38,115 to fund engineering, surveying and ecological
consulting services for the extension of Runway 9/27 at the
Immokalee Regional Airport.
f) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approves, and authorizes the Chairman to sign a Sub-recipient
Agreement with Shelter for Abused Women and Children, Inc.,
for $113,000 in Continuum of Care funding to support the
shelter operations and supportive services.
g) Approve a budget amendment transferring $66,000 of General
Fund reserves to the Other General Administration cost center.
h) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
accept and authorize its Chairman to sign an awarded Hazard
Mitigation Grant Agreement No. 09HM-6G-09-21-01-019
(75/25) for $58,750 from the Florida Division of Emergency
Management for the purpose of shoreline preservation at the
Page 24
September 9-10, 2008
Isles of Capri Fire Station and to approve the associated budget
amendment.
i) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve, and authorize the Chairman to sign, grant agreements
accepting two Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance grant
awards from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) totaling $217,645; and approve the
associated budget amendments of$113,000 and $104,645
recognizing the funding associated with the two grant awards.
j) Recommendation to approve the proposed "No Parking" signs
on Spanish Oakes Lane at Oakes Neighborhood Park.
k) Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners to
exceed the $750,000 threshold of the annual Contract No. 06-
3902 by $99,818. (Project No. 195-905363)
3) Recommendation to approve a Joint Project Agreement between the
State of Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County to
fund the purchase of OptiC om Receivers/Transmitters for use in
County Emergency Medical Services vehicles in the amount of
$75,000, together with a Resolution memorializing such approval.
4) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's Office to amend
Ordinance No. 98-114 in order to accurately reflect changes to the
Goodland/Horr's Island Fire Control District.
5) Recommendation that the Board approves prepayment of the
Caribbean Gardens Commercial Paper Loan in the amount of
$1,100,000.00.
6) Recommendation that the Board approves Commercial Paper Loan
prepayments in the amount of$4,121,000.00.
7) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Adopted Budget.
Page 25
September 9-10, 2008
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners A ward
Bid #08-5085 in the amount of $79,660 for Pelican Bay Streetscape
Oakmont Parkway Irrigation to Stahlman-England Irrigation, Inc.
9) Recommendation to approve an Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Agreement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the
purchase of 30 Stair Chairs for Emergency Medical Services for a
total project cost of $62,850.00 and to approve a Budget Amendment
to recognize and appropriate the funds from FEMA.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to approve a Statutory Deed between the Collier
County Solid Waste Department and the Collier County Airport
Authority for 1.01 acres for the Marco Island Executive Airport, at a
cost not to exceed $25.00.
2) Creation and adoption of an Employee Personnel Policy for Collier
County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) employees
working under the supervision of the CRA Executive Directors.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attending a Retirement celebration for Sheriff Don Hunter on
Saturday, October 4, 2008, at the Naples Hilton. $45.00 to be paid
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the East Naples Civic Association Luncheon on July 17,
2008 at Carrabba's in Naples, FL. $37.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Grand Opening of the City Furniture and Ashley
Furniture HomeStore Showrooms on July 18, 2008. $34.00 to be paid
Page 26
September 9-10, 2008
from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Approve the cash payment option for a special assessment relating to
County owned property in the West Winterberry Assessment Area.
2) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners Authorize the
Extension of the Tax Roll Before Completion of the Value
Adjustment Board Hearings Pursuant to Section 197.323, F.S., and the
Tax Collector's Request.
3) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the
Local Coordinating Unit of Government in the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement's Fiscal Year 2009 Edward Byrne Memorial,
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program and designate the Sheriff as
the Official Applicant, Sheriffs Office Staff as Grant Financial and
Program Managers, ratify the approval of the Certificate of
Participation for 20th Year Funding and the 2009 JAG Grant
Application as "After-the-Fact", and authorize acceptance of awards
and associated budget amendments.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 12,
2008 through July 18, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
5) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 19,
2008 through July 25, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
6) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of July 26,
2008 through August 01, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
Page 27
September 9-10, 2008
-. _______..____"~"'_,,._~_,~.."._,._.._~.__"_",.,."_.__....'_"_'h__
7) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
2, 2008 through August 8, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
8) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
9, 2008 through August 15, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
9) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
16, 2008 through August 22, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
10) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of August
23,2008 through August 29, 2008 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
an exception to the current hiring freeze policy for general fund
positions and authorizes the County Attorney to advertise for and
replace a newly-vacated essential Assistant County Attorney
(Litigation) position.
2) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution approving the County
Attorney's Office Fiscal Year 2009 Pay and Classification Plan,
which is identical to the current approved plan, and to provide for a
general wage adjustment (Cost-of-Living), effective on October 1,
2008, the first day of the Fiscal Year 2009.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Retention Agreement for legal services on an "as needed" basis with
the law firm of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., to meet County
Purchasing Policy contract update requirements.
4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the total
amount of $1 ,900.00 for Parcel No. 149 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Virginia Fetch Titus, et al., Case No. 95-2863-CA. (Radio
Road Phase II Stormwater Outfall Swale Project No. 65033) (Fiscal
Page 28
September 9-10, 2008
Impact $1,000.00)
5) Recommendation to approve an Offer of Judgment and Stipulated
Final Judgment in the total amount of $ 32,420.50 for Parcel 150 in
the lawsuit styled Collier County v. T.E. C.H. Foundation, Inc., Case
No. 03-2499-CA. (Golden Gate Parkway Road Project #60027) (Fiscal
Impact $8,820.50)
6) Recommendation to approve the Stipulated Final Judgment in the
total amount of $85,520.00 for Parcel 198RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Jose Munoz, et al., Case No. 07-2823-CA. (Oil Well
Road Project No. 60044) (Fiscal Impact $29,220.00)
7) Recommendation to approve the payment of costs of$5,000 to be
included in a Stipulated Final Judgment for Parce1214FEE in the
lawsuit styled Collier County v. Jose Munoz, et al., Case No. 07-2823-
CA. (Oil Well Road Project No. 60044) (Fiscal Impact $5,000.00)
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners Approve
the Proposed Joint Motion for Agreed Order Taxing Attorney's Fees
and Costs relating to the dismissal of Parcels 102FEE and 102SE in
the condemnation action styled Collier County v. Meridian
Broadcasting, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-1253-CA, Tree Farm Road
Project #60171. (Fiscal Impact: $6,131.50)
9) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the total
amount of $44,000.00 for Parcel 1 88RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Armando B. Yzaguirre, et al., Case No. 07-2746-
CA. (Oil Well Road Project #60044) (Fiscal Impact $17,200.00)
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the release oflien in relation to the Code Enforcement Action entitled
Collier County vs. Jaime Gutierrez, Special Master Case No. 2005-
010437, relating to property located at 1369 Hilltop Drive, Collier
County, Florida.
11) Recommendation to approve an Assumption Agreement substituting
the law firm of Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP for the law firm of Garvin
& Tripp, P.A., in the Retention Agreement dated October 27,2004, as
amended and to authorize the Chairman to sign Consent to
Page 29
September 9-10,2008
Substitution of Counsel in the cases where Theodore L. Tripp, Jr., is
counsel of record.
12) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
Authorize the Filing of a Declaratory Relief Action with the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit relating to the matters involved
in the Bert Harris Act Claim served on the County by the owners of
the Hussey Property.
13) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit
on Behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
against Jessie C. Cervantez, Jr. and Hizarith Torres in County Court
Small Claims in and for Collier County, Florida, to Recover Damages
in the Amount of$3,407.16.
14) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of$67,500.00 for Parcel No. 190RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Pablo Sardinas, et al., Case No. 07-2824-CA. (Oil
Well Road Project No. 60044) (Fiscal Impact $19,000.00)
15) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit
on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
against John Swasey in County Court Small Claims in and for Collier
County, Florida, to Recover Damages in the Amount of $2,908.60.
16) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit
on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
against Alina M. Diaz in County Court Small Claims in and for
Collier County, Florida, to Recover Damages in the Amount of
$3,522.45.
17) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit
on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
against the Entity Known as Naples Sunrise, Inc. in County Court
Small Claims in and for Collier County, Florida, to Recover Damages
in the Amount of$1,102.03.
18) Recommendation to Authorize the County Attorney to File a Lawsuit
on behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners,
against Paul Vescio in County Court Small Claims in and for Collier
Page 30
September 9-10, 2008
--------"-~--~-~..,,._---~--,,-"_.~,..,.~ ~,.. '-'",'~------~._..,._~-
County, Florida, to Recover Damages in the Amount of $8,625.60.
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
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation to adopt resolutions approving the preliminary assessment
rolls as the final assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem
assessment rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste Municipal
Service Benefit Units, Service District No. I and Service District No. II,
Special Assessment levied against certain residential properties within the
unincorporated area of Collier County, The City of Marco Island and the
City of Everglades City pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 2005-54, as
amended. Revenues are anticipated to be $17,787,100.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. This item continued
from the November 13~ 2007 BCC Meetin2. PUDA-2007-AR-11283
Wing South, Inc., represented by Heidi Williams, AICP of Q. Grady Minor
and Associates, P.A., requesting an amendment of the ShadowWood
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance No. 82-49 to increase the
number of single family dwelling units from 11 units to a maximum of 16
units by deleting all of 10.3 acres from Commercial (Tract D) and adding it
to Private Air Park District (Tract C). 1.98 acres from the Private Air Park
District (Tract C) shall be added to Single-family Residential (Tract B). The
additional 5 units would increase the overall maximum number of dwelling
units in the PUD from 569 to 574 units. The subject property is located
along the north side of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road, approximately one mile
west of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), northeast of the intersection of
Page 31
September 9-10, 2008
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road and Skyway Drive, in Section 16, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-
13209, Michael Corder represented by Michael Fernandez of Planning
Development Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning
District to the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District. The subject
property is located in Section 04, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida.
D. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2008-AR-
12861, Kevin Ratterree ofG.L. Homes of Naples II Corporation, represented
by Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a PUD
Amendment to the Terafina PUD to make a minor change to Section 6.5,
Development Standards, of the PUD Ordinance to change the side yard
setbacks. The subject property is located in the Terafina PUD, Section 16,
Township 48, Range 26, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. AR-2008-CU-12996,
Bob Annibale of Avis Budget Group requests a Conditional Use to permit
truck rentals within the C-4 Zoning District. The +0.98-acre subject property
is located at 1965 Tamiami Trail, in Section 11, Township 50, Range 25,
Collier County, Florida.
F. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance to amend Chapter 49 of the Collier County Code of Laws and
Ordinances in order to extend the sunset date of the Fee Payment Assistance
Program, the Property Tax Stimulus Program, the Job Creation Investment
Program and the Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program
from the current date of October 1, 2008 to October 1, 2013 in accordance
with the request by the Economic Development Council of Collier County
and prior direction of the Board of County Commissioners.
G. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2007-08 Adopted Budget.
Page 32
September 9-10, 2008
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 33
September 9-10, 2008
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, County Manager.
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners' meeting of September
9,2008. We're going to have the Pledge of Allegiance followed by
the invocation given by Reverend J .R. Pagone from the Worship
Center located in Golden Gate City.
Would you all rise, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Reverend?
REVEREND P AGONE: Good morning.
Heavenly Father, we come to you this morning thanking you for
another beautiful day, Lord, and thanking you for the commissioners
that comes over here, Lord, to make the business of this community
the best.
I ask you, for every person that come over here, God, that you
give them the wisdom to take this community to a next level.
Lord, I want to take this opportunity also, Lord, to pray for the
next elections that are coming up, God, that you are in control of that,
and also I ask you for the armed forces wherever they are in the world,
that you protect them, God.
Thank you for this community, thank you for every leader, Lord,
and allow us to be the best of the best.
I ask you all these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Before we go through the
change list, I want to remind everybody who has a cell phone to please
turn it off or put it on vibrate. Speaker slips are out in the hallway.
Before the item is to be heard, speaker slips need to be filled out.
County Manager?
Item #2A
Page 2
September 9-10, 2008
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, first let me just do this real fast.
We've got a N ational Weather Service alert, okay, for a tornado
warning until around 9:30 today because of outer bands that are
coming through Eastern Collier County and moving to the northwest.
So I'd just let folks know that that's out there and watch their weather
channel or their NOAA radio in that particular regard.
The next is agenda changes, Board of County Commissioners'
meeting September 9, 2008. The following items were included in the
electronic agenda posted on the county website but were not included
in the printed packet. Copies have been made and distributed.
Item 10C, backup material was missing from the printed packet.
Item lOA, the executive summary was missing from the printed
packet.
Item 16A 1, the executive summary was missing from the printed
packet.
Item 16A2, the executive summary was missing from the printed
packet.
Item 16A5, the quitclaim deed was missing from the printed
packet.
Item 16A 7, the resolution was missing from the printed packet.
Item 16AI0, the resolution was missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A13, the resolution was missing from the agenda packet.
Item 16D40, the agreement was missing from the agenda packet.
Item 16F2A, attachment 1 was missing from the printed packet.
Item 16F3, the joint project agreement and resolution was
missing from the printed packet.
And item 16K 7, the backup materials were missing from the
printed packet.
Page 3
September 9-10,2008
Again, those items were included in the electronic agenda posted
on the county website but were not included in the printed packet.
Copies of the missing items were made and distributed to the
commissioners and staff.
Next item is item 3B. John Conti is an employee of the
transportation engineering construction and management section
rather than ECM.
The next item is item 8A. The following changes are to be made.
Page 5 should read: Private property means all, scratch the word out
tangible, all, and add real property not owned by, leased, to or
similarly controlled by a governmental entity including private roads.
On page 25, item G, tow truck companies providing services
pursuant to this article shall not store or impound a towed
vehicle/vessel at a distance which exceeds a 10-mile radius of the
location within Collier County from which the vehicle/vessel was
recovered, towed, or removed unless no towing company providing
service under this section is located within a 10-mile radius, in which
case, a towed or removed vehicle/vessel must be stored at a site within
20 miles of the point of removal within Collier County, and that
clarification is at staffs request.
Next item is item 8B. The fiscal impact on the executive
summary should read, the source of funds is for an unincorporated
general fund 111, and that clarification's at staffs request.
Next item is to add on item 8F. At the July 22, 2008, BCC
meeting, the board directed staff to draft an ordinance amending
Collier County ordinance number 97-8, the false alarm ordinance.'
This item has been advertised for the September 9, 2008, meeting but
was omitted from the agenda.
The title reads, recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approves an amendment to the Collier County's false
alarm ordinance number 97-8 as amended, and proposed by the
Collier County Sheriffs Office to change whether a deputy shall write
Page 4
September 9-10, 2008
a violation to may, to change attendance in a program to participation,
to clarify fines and violations, and to change the special master to
special magistrate, and that item is being walked on by the county
attorney and the clarification is the county attorney's request.
The next item is item 16Al. It's moved to 101. This item has
been -- will be heard no sooner than three p.m. today. Recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the submittal of
the attached Habitat Conservation Plan, HCP, Planning Assistance
Grant Proposal, to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service via the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, to support the
development of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the Immokalee urban
area excluding the Rural Land Stewardship Area, and authorize the
chairman to sign any additional application forms or documents that
may be required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This item
is being moved at the request of Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Coletta.
The next item is 16A5, move to 10J. It's a recommendation to
execute a quitclaim deed as satisfaction for subdivision improvements
for various projects developed by Lely Estates and Lely Development
Corporation. This item is being requested at -- is being moved at the
request of Commissioner Henning.
Next item is 16A16, which is move to 10L. It's a
recommendation to review and approve the recommendations of the
Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, PV AC, to adopt a fuel surcharge
relating to taxi rates. This item is being moved at Commissioner
Coyle's request.
The next item is item 16B9. The title on the agenda index is
correct but the backup material is incorrect. Correct copies have been
distributed. That correction is at staffs request.
Next item is 16D40. The title on the agenda index is correct but
the backup material is incorrect. Correct copies have been distributed
Page 5
September 9-10,2008
again, and that clarification's at staffs request.
Next item is 16F2 (J), is a delete item. The full agenda item with
all backup material can be found under item 16F 1 (E) on the August
12, 2008 in absentia agenda, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16F2 (K), move to 10K. It's a request,
approval by the Board of County Commissioners to exceed the
$750,000 threshold of the annual contract number 06-3902 by
$99,818. It's project 195-905363. The item is being moved at
Commissioner Henning's request.
The next item is 16F3 . Under considerations the fifth sentence
should read, the agreement allows funding of $75,000 to equip rather
than equipment. That clarification's Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is item 16H2. The last sentence should read, $16
rather than $37, to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
That clarification's at Commissioner Fiala's request.
Next item is to withdraw item 16D38. It's a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners approves and authorizes its
chairman to sign an agreement between Collier County and VI
Limited, limited partnership, requesting professional services that VI
Limited will provide to Collier County for Collier County beach
amenities on Bluebill Avenue. Item is being withdrawn at county
attorney's request.
Commissioners, you have a series of time certain items. The
next -- first item is item 7 A, and that will be heard at nine a.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, September 10,2008.
Next time certain is item 8A, and it will be heard at one p.m.
following 12B. Item 12A is to be heard at 12 noon. Item 12B to be
heard at one p.m. And, again, it will be followed by item 8A.
And item 101, formerly 16AI, this item to be heard no sooner
than three p.m.
Commissioner, I'd also like to make a correction that was -- and
just for your edification, in case you get any calls, there was an article
Page 6
September 9-10,2008
in the paper today by the Naples Daily News that basically talked
about what your agenda had, and it mentioned in the agenda that, in
absentia, that I had approved a $12 million article for Sunshine
Pharmacies. I'd like to make a correction to that, okay, because the
agenda -- correction to the paper because the paper's wrong. I
approved in absentia, subject to your ratification, a final payment in
the amount of$12,163.75 to Sunshine Pharmacy for prescription
medication to medically needy clients in the social services program.
I want to make that clarification because I don't approve $12 million
items in the absentia agenda. In no way would that ever happen. And
so I just want to make sure that you know that in case you get a call.
Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I -- 16A5, that is the
quitclaim deed, the subdivision improvements in Lely Estates, I did
not request that to be moved off the consent agenda to the regular
agenda. Could it be staff members or another commissioner that
requested that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we could leave it on 16A5 and just
leave it alone.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Yeah, let's do that because,
you know, I didn't have any problem with that.
County Attorney, do you have any changes, recommendations, or
any words of advice on today's agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
any changes, further changes, to today's agenda and ex parte
communication on today's consent and summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chairman, I have no further
changes to our agenda, I have no ex parte disclosure for the consent
agenda, but on 17D, delta, of the summary agenda, I do have a
disclosure for the G.L. Homes of Naples Corporation, PUD Terafina.
I have had meetings, correspondence, emails, telephone calls, with
Page 7
September 9-10,2008
people associated with the developer's petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, good morning.
I have no changes to today's agenda. I have nothing as far as ex
parte on the consent agenda, and I have nothing to the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir.
I have no further changes to the agenda. On the summary
agenda, on 1 7D, I did speak to the petitioner.
And that's all I have.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. On 17 -- oh, I have nothing on
the consent agenda. On 17B, this is the Shadow Wood Planned Unit
Development. I remember us talking about that previously, and then I
think it was sent back to them for some modifications and changes at
some point in time, but I can't put my finger on it. Anyway, I just
seem to remember that, but I haven't spoken to anybody about that.
17D, I -- Terafina, I have spoken to the petitioner, and 17E, I've
had emails regarding the Avis Budget group regarding truck rentals,
and I did inquire about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta, good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good morning, Commissioner
Henning.
I have no changes to the agenda. On the summary agenda, on
17B, I've received emails. On 17C, meetings, correspondence, emails,
and phone calls. On 17D, meetings, correspondence, emails, and
calls, and anyone that wishes to see my file on this -- these particular
items, I have it right up here for them to view.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With that I'll entertain a motion to
Page 8
September 9-10, 2008
approve today's agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any -- motion by Commissioner
Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Seotember 9. 2008
The followina items were included in the electronic aaenda oosted on the County web site. but
were not included in the orinted oacket. Cooies have been made and distributed:
Item 10C: Backup material missing from the printed packet.
Item 10F: The Executive Summary missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A1: The Executive Summary missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A2: The Executive Summary missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A5: The Quit Claim Deed missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A7: The Resolution missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A10: The Resolution missing from the printed packet.
Item 16A13: The Resolution missing from the agenda packet.
Item 16040: The agreement missing from the agenda packet.
Item 16F2A: Attachment 1 missing from printed packet.
Item 16F3: Joint Project Agreement and Resolution missing from printed packet.
Item 16K7: Backup materials missing from printed packet.
Item 3B: John Conti is an employee of TECM (rather than "ECM")
Item 8A: The following changes are to be made: Page 5. Should read: Private property_means
all tangible real property not owned by, leased to, or similarly controlled by a governmental entity,
including private roads. Page 25. (g) Tow truck companies providing services pursuant to this
article shall not store or impound a towed vehicle/vessel at a distance which exceeds a ten-mile
radius of the location within Collier County from which the vehicle/vessel was recovered, towed
or removed unless no towing company provided services under this section is located within a
ten-mile radius, in which case a towed or removed vehicle/vessel must be stored at a site within
ten (10) twenty (20) miles of the point of removal within Collier County. (Staff's request.)
Item 8B: The Fiscal Impact on the Executive Summary should read: "The source of funds is from
Unincorporated General Fund 111." (Staff's request.)
Add On Item 8F: At the July 22, 2008 BCC meeting, the Board directed staff to draft an Ordinance
amending Collier County Ordinance No. 97-8, "The False Alarm Ordinance". This item has been
advertised for the September 9, 2008, but was omitted from the agenda. The title reads:
"Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves an amendment to Collier
County's False Alarm Ordinance No. 97-8, as amended, and proposed by the Collier County
Sheriff's Office, to change whether a deputy "shall" write a violation to "may," to change
"attendance" in a program to "participation," to clarify fines and violations and to change Special
"Master" to Magistrate." (County Attorney's request.)
9/9/2008 8:34:38 AM
Item 16A1 moved to 101: (This item will he heard no sooner than 3:00 p.m.) Recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize the submittal of the attached HCP Planning
Assistance Grant Proposal to the USFWS via the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission to support the development of an HCP for the Immokalee Urban Area, excluding the
RLSA and authorize the Chairman to sign any additional application forms or documents that
may be required by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. (Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coletta's request.)
16A5 moved to 10J: Recommendation to execute a Quit Claim Deed as satisfaction for
subdivision improvements for various projects developed by Lely Estates and Lely Development
Corporation. (Commissioner Henning's request.)
16A16 moved to 10L: Recommendation to review and approve the recommendation of the Public
Vehicle Advisory Committee (PV AC) to adopt a fuel surcharge relating to taxi rates.
(Commissioner Coyle's request.)
Item 16B9: The title on the agenda index is correct but the backup material is incorrect. Correct
copies have been distributed. (Staff's request.)
Item 16040: The title on the agenda index is correct but the backup material is incorrect. Correct
copies have been distributed. (Staff's request.)
Item 16F2(J) is a "deleted" item: The full agenda item with all back up material can be found
under Item 16F1(E) on the August 12, 2008 In Absentia agenda. (Staff's request.)
Item 16F2(K) moved to 10K: Request approval by the Board of County Commissioners to exceed
the $750,000 threshold of the annual Contract No. 06-3902 by $99,818 (Project 195-905363).
(Commissioner Henning's request.)
Item 16F3: Under "Considerations," the fifth sentence should read: "This Agreement allows
funding of $75,000 to equip (rather than "equipment" . . . . . (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 16H2: The last sentence should read: $16.00 (rather than $37.00) to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget. (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Withdraw Item 16038: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves and
authorizes its Chairman to sign an Agreement between Collier County and VI Ltd., Limited
Partnership, regarding professional services that VI Ltd. will provide to Collier County for Collier
County beach amenities on Bluebill Avenue. (County Attorney's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 7A to be heard at 9:00 a.m.. Wednesday. September 10. 2008:
Item 8A to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. followina 12B:
Item 12A to be heard at 12:00 noon:
Item 12B to be heard at 1 :00 p.m.
Item 101 (formerlv 16A1): This item to be heard no sooner than 3:00 p.m.
9/9/2008 8:34:38 AM
September 9-10, 2008
Item #2B and Item #2C
MEETING MINUTES: JULY 22, 2008 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING; AUGUST 4, 2008 - BCC/V ABMEETING -
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the
July 22, 2008, BCC regular meeting, and August 4, 2008, BCC V AB
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: 20 YEAR ATTENDEES - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now if we could do service awards,
Commissioners. Go down in front of the dais to recognize our
long-term employees. No, we've got -- we have no advisory board.
MR. MUDD: That's right. We don't have any advisory board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just employee awards.
Page 10
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: And so the people you're going to recognize are
20-year attendees.
Commissioners, your first 20-year attendee to be recognized
today is Mr. John Conti from Transportation Engineering Construction
and Management. Mr. Conti?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Congratulations for your
dedicated service.
MR. CONTI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: John, congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, John. Thank you for your
dedicated service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your years of
.
serVIce.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See you in another 10.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why don't you get right in the
middle. We'll take your picture.
Thanks, John.
MR. CONTI: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Your next 20-year attendee, awardee, is Samuel
Poole from Emergency Medical Services.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Poole, congratulations. Thank
you for your service.
MR. POOLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thank you from me as well.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate your service.
MR. POOLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 11
September 9-10,2008
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next 20-year awardee,
attendee, is Kevin Potter from Emergency Medical Services.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Congratulation, Mr. Potter. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, Kevin.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Kevin, congratulations.
MR. MUDD: Congratulations; thank you.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 26,2008 AS
VETERANS RECOGNITION DAY. ACCEPTED BY JOHN
SKILES, PRESIDENT OF THE VIETNAM VETERANS OF
AMERICA~ CHAPTER 706~ NAPLES~ FLORIDA - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next we go to proclamations.
MR. MUDD: Proclamations. The first proclamation, Mr.
Chairman, is a proclamation designating September 26, 2008, as
Veterans Recognition Day, to be accepted by John Skiles, president of
the Vietnam Veterans of America, Chapter 706, Naples, Florida. Mr.
Skiles, if you could please come forward, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would like to personally
invite all veterans in the audience to come forward at the same time.
How about you in the back, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. DeLony. I think we all
need to share in this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Mudd.
Page 12
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Mudd?
It's indeed an honor and a privilege to be able to read this
proclamation.
Whereas, the Vietnam Veteran Committee in honor of all u.S.
veterans has dedicated a faux granite replica wall 240 feet long, eight
feet high, inscribed with the names of more than 58,000 Americans
who died or are missing in Vietnam; and,
Whereas, the wall is three-quarters scale replica of the veterans --
Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C., known as the
Dignity Memorial Vietnam Wall; and,
Whereas, the exhibition is a community sponsored event and
features the support and assistance of local veterans groups, civic
organizations, and countless community champions, supporters and
volunteers; and,
Whereas, this powerful tribute was created by the Dignity
Memorial network of funerals, cremation, and cemetery service
providers as a service to those who might never travel to the nation's
capital to experience the wall firsthand; and,
Whereas, the Dignity Memorial Vietnam Wall will be on display
in Naples Memorial Funeral Home and Cemetery beginning at nine
a.m. Friday, September 26, until midnight Sunday, September 28th;
and,
Whereas, during the exhibition, the community will have the
opportunity to pay their respect especially to those who made the
ultimate sacrifice while answering their country's call to arms.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that September 26, 2008, be
designated as Veterans Recognition Day.
Done and ordered this, the 9th day of September, 2008, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
Page 13
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stay right there for a picture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, Jack.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. Thank you.
And you're going to say a couple words to enlighten us a little more
about the memorial services coming up?
MR. SKILES: Yes, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Take the mike right over there.
Thanks for being here today.
MR. SKILES: Thank you, Commissioners, for this
proclamation. And all the veterans appreciate it very, very much.
And I just want to say that we're inviting everybody, veteran,
non-veterans to these festivities which start on Friday morning and
end Sunday evening. It's really going to be an experience. And we
promise you it will be something that you never forget.
And thank you for your support of veterans. It's very much
appreciated. And I want to thank you again for the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 14
September 9-10, 2008
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THAT THE WEEK OF
SEPTEMBER 15 - 20,2008, AS INDUSTRY APPRECIATION
WEEK. ACCEPTED BY SCHMELZLE, CHAIRMAN OF THE
EDC - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next proclamation is designating
the week of September 15th to the 20th of 2008 as Industry
Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Tammie Nemecek, President
and CEO of the EDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd also like to at this time, ask Julie
Schmelzle, Beth Skotzke, and Kristi Bartlett and Richard Grant if
they'd all step forward. And if there's anyone else from the EDC,
you're more than welcome to come forward here.
It's a pleasure to read this proclamation. Wait till everybody gets
situated. Anyone else from EDC?
Whereas, the industry of Collier County is vital to the
community's economic health; and,
Whereas, Collier County's existing industries are the key to a
prosperous future; and,
Whereas, the recruitment of new companies with highly skilled,
highly waged job opportunities in Collier County is considered a
priority for Collier County; and,
Whereas, these industries help sustain a quality of life, exemplify
high standards of excellence and a positive responsible approach to
economic diversification and community enhancement, and provide
all citizens with the opportunity for upward mobility; and,
Whereas, public knowledge of the contributions made by
industry is essential to maintaining a good community industrial
relationship.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Page 15
September 9-10, 2008
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of September
15th through the 20th, 2008, be designated as Industry Appreciation
Week.
Done and ordered this 9th day of September, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Chairman, Tom
Henning.
And, Chairman, I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good to see you.
Julie, please.
MS. SCHMELZLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you
so much on behalf of the EDC. As chairman this past year, my term is
getting ready to wind down.
But your ongoing support of our public/private partnership
continues to be very meaningful in terms of our ability to execute on
our mission, and we look forward to your continued support in
whatever manner going forward.
The business community appreciates it. And obviously in these
times it's even more important that we're celebrating our businesses,
our community, and the vibrancy that being well employed brings to
Page 16
September 9-10, 2008
all within the community.
So thank you very much for the proclamation and your continued
support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 AS
LEUKEMIA, LYMPHOMA & MYELOMA AWARENESS
MONTH. TO BE ACCEPTED BY MELISSA PEACOCK,
PATIENT SERVICES MANAGER OF THE LEUKEMIA &
LYMPHOMA SOCIETY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is to
recognize September 9, 2008, as Leukemia, Lymphoma, and
Melanoma Awareness Month, to be accepted by Melissa Peacock,
patient services manager of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Melissa here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the
proclamation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 1 7
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #5A
RECOGNIZED THOMAS KEEGAN, INVESTIGATOR, CODE
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR JULY 2008 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next paragraph is presentations,
and we have a presentation today. It's a recommendation to recognize
Thomas Keegan, investigator, code enforcement department, as
Employee of the Month for July, 2008. And Mr. Keegan, if you could
please come forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, Commissioners, it's
a -- it's an honor for me to recognize, with the Board of County
Commissioners' assistance, Mr. Keegan for the outstanding work that
he has done, and especially the Bayshore area.
MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We all have witnessed the
improvements in that area with the CRA, and naturally with your help.
So I'd like to present this plaque --
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for Employee of the Month.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Also I'd like to give you this --
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- letter of appreciation and then a
small token of our appreciation for the outstanding work you do.
Page 18
September 9-10, 2008
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. Appreciate
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That Bayshore area's really
challenging, isn't it?
MR. KEEGAN: It's tough.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We appreciate your service, sir.
MR. KEEGAN: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MIL TON J. THOMAS TO
DISCUSS PROPOSED DRAFT NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE
- DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to public petitions.
The first public petition is a request by Milton J. Thomas to discuss
proposed draft noise control ordinance. Mr. Thomas?
MR. THOMAS: I'm M. J. or Milt Thomas of 560 Wilson
Boulevard North, Collier County, Florida. And it may be asked, why
am I speaking to the Board of County Commissioners when
eventually this board will likely make a final decision on the proposed
noise ordinance after much consideration by others? It may be asked
why I've not first spoken to the planning board. Well, perhaps this
explanation may answer such questions.
My understanding of proper procedure or protocol, when one has
a question regarding some subject pertaining to a Collier County
specific situation, is to contact our area representative, our elected
commissioner, and then after that initial step, to follow guidelines as
suggested by our elected representative, and by so doing, our
Page 19
September 9-10,2008
commissioner is then aware of the support and/or misgivings of his or
her electorate long before the board is put in a position of making a
binding decision. Perhaps this could be called the top down theory.
And with that, here are my points of discussion, not necessarily
in order as listed in the proposed draft.
I was a legal immigrant to this great United States of America
and am now very happy to be a voting citizen of the United States of
America.
Dear Board of Collier County Commissioners, guests, and fellow
citizens, I'm very grateful for this opportunity to speak to you today.
Further to reading over the proposed changes to the Collier County
noise ordinance, I have some comments on the draft as well as some
suggestions to submit for consideration by that body as well as all
other entities involved in the formation of this very necessary
ordinance, which may be helpful in formulating such additional
changes as may be implemented before final approval of the
ordinance.
The proposed new draft contains a lot of probably necessary legal
language yet does not seem readily comprehensible or pertinent to
those of us who are subject to repeated noises, the homeowners of
Collier County, with our various desires and requirements.
Often long response times effectively cancel out any benefit from
calling anybody who may be able to remedy specific noise problems.
I personally have encountered difficulty knowing who to call re
noise complaints on any particular time of day or night, collier County
code enforcement, Collier County Sheriffs Office, state police, et
cetera, and have found that for response times of
one-and-three-quarter hours to two or three days is not beneficial.
Tome a taxpayer, there seems to be a somewhat gray area as to
what department looks after noise complaints from various causes,
businesses, residences, vehicles, loud noises, on page 21 of the draft
and item G of page 27.
Page 20
September 9-10,2008
Most of us have none of the time, expertise, or desire to study a
copy of the noise ordinance to see what we need to do at a time of
urgency.
Insufficient teeth in such an ordinance, such as vehicle
impoundment for vehicle stereo noise both on public roadways and
while parked in the parking lot or private yard clearly audible from
over 25 feet from the originating vehicle, page 25 of the draft, such as
Peoria, Illinois has and possibly Sarasota, Florida has, a 10 p.m.
curfew for some types of noise such as wood chipping, et cetera,
pages 11, 14, 20 of the draft, seems a considerably late hour.
The property boundary of their originating site of any noise, the
subject of any complaint by a citizen could well be the standard
distance for all unnecessary noise such as sound from so-called music
players, parties, fights, voices, et cetera, et cetera.
Use of police-type scanners by persons originating noise which
has caused complaints should somehow be curtailed. I personally
have experienced on several occasions, noise stopping suddenly after
C.C.S.O. has been called late in the evening only to start up again 10
minutes later. On one occasions, four times in one night.
A copy of an article taken from a newsletter I recently received
very accurately parallels a situation in my own neighborhood, and
there's a copy attached.
In short, what I believe most homeowners want is an assurance
that noise complaints will be handled expeditiously and satisfactorily
without necessitating repeat calls. I suggest some sort of call system
like our current 911 system that would route complaint calls to the
proper entity no matter what time of day or night with resulting
curtailment of unnecessary noise 24 hours a day, seven days a week,
but with prompt action upon receiving such calls.
Please note, I'm not -- I'm trying to make such suggestion in a
helpful and constructive manner as briefly as I can and not in a
complaining or derogative way. I'm very thankful for the efforts of all
Page 21
September 9-10, 2008
Collier County departments in whatever ways each are currently able
to function.
If officers could be staged at various locations with sound
measuring devices and the 25-foot statute, otherwise unannounced,
such as speed traps are, I suggest a great place to start would be
Wilson Boulevard north of Golden Gate Boulevard from, say, anytime
between three p.m. and three a.m., I'm sure all involved would be
amazed at the thunderous noise heard from vehicles at such times, and
this could be a significant source of revenue, perhaps, to help offset
cost of implementation for C.C.S.O. coffers or whatever entity
benefits from such activity.
I've had C.C.S.O. officers tell me to, A, one had never heard of
the 25-foot Florida Statute and, B, one had to often stop vehicles with
loud stereos blasting noise from the vehicle and giving the operator a
$73.50 ticket, to C, telling me there was nothing they could do.
In the case of Sarasota, Florida, and Peoria, Illinois, it seems at
least one member of those various police forces was deeply involved
and encouraging and assisting in having workable, enforceable noise
ordinances formulated. Perhaps we need critical input from such in
Collier County to be able to count on the involvement of same to
really help clear up all noise problems in our county. Indeed, perhaps,
we do have this input now.
Based partly on our own experiences in Collier County, as well
as the experiences of other communities in Florida and other states,
perhaps with due diligence we can see a very workable noise
ordinance that may be the foundational pattern for other communities
to follow all across our great nation.
Thank you for listening to me. I'm available to help in any way I
can. And as a PS, I suggest that item C, page 29 of the draft should be
anytime, and I believe many in the room already have copies of this
article. Thank you for hearing me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any questions,
Page 22
September 9-10,2008
comments? Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll let Commissioner Fiala go
first. I'll follow her.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, this is your district. You
go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no, no. The noise belongs
to the whole county. I'll share it with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I really think he has a
good idea there, that we would have one number to call 24 hours a
day. And if there is a number like that -- I don't know how we would
get that message out -- but we should do that because our people are
ready to respond. It's just possible that sometimes people don't know
how to get ahold of our people. So maybe they can give us some
information on that, whether they have something like that or plan to
do something like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly Mr. Schmitt might
want to come up. I know we have the noise ordinance being reviewed
for reconsideration.
This seems to be one of those things that no matter how hard we
try, we can't quite get it right, according to what the public's looking
for. I know in your area of the county and Commissioner Coyle's area
of the county, you have establishments that have music playing at all
hours of the night. And I think Commissioner Henning had an issue
not too long ago with Stevie Tomato's, I believe it was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was some kind of vegetable. I
forget what it was.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And you probably don't
ever want to ever discuss it again. But this is an issue that seems to be
without end, and maybe Mr. Schmitt might be able to shine light on
where we're going with it.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Page 23
September 9-10,2008
Community DevelopmentlEnvironmental Services Division.
We're still working on the noise ordinance. Currently the county
attorney, Jeff Wright, is working with our consultant. We've already
brought it to the Planning Commission. We have issues that have still
yet to be resolved.
Two important points, one having to do with noise emanating
from crowds. There's discussion about the legality and the
constitutionality of applying that, which means a crowd gathering at
an event, and how do we apply the noise ordinance, so we're trying to
deal with that.
And the other is -- has to do with the application or the
enforcement with A TV s, off-road vehicles primarily in the Estates.
Two very sticky issues. Issues we're coordinating with the Sheriffs
Office, the S.O. is involved with this, along with the county attorney.
I don't know, Jeff, if you want to opine on anything, but I know
Jeff Wright is working this as well. We have to bring it back to the
Planning Commission and then bring it back to you all.
In conjunction with that was another element called the outdoor
seating permit, which you directed us to bring back to the Planning
Commission as well, and both of those have been at the Planning
Commission. We have to bring them back to the Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
If I may, Commissioner Henning. I see Mark Strain's in the
audience. Mr. Strain, would you be so kind as to introduce yourself to
Mr. Thomas and acquaint him where the Planning Commission is on
it, when you get to that point in time and invite him to that meeting,
and then I'll have him follow up with the commission when the noise
ordinance goes forward to that point.
Maybe with a little more community effort, with people like Mr.
Thomas and other people in the community that care, we might be
able to come up with something that will be more workable in the
Page 24
September 9-10, 2008
future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I think the public
speaker has some good ideas. I, for one, strongly support the
impoundment of any of these cars with the base speakers thumping
through the neighborhood at any time of the day. In fact, I would go
even further and suggest immediate destruction of the vehicle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sound system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, maybe the driver also, I don't
know.
It's a widespread problem. I think most of the people are coming
from Commissioner Coletta's district and they're driving through our
districts and creating a very serious noise problem. So I think he has
some good ideas.
But let's look at this from a practical standpoint. We are not
going to write the noise ordinance. The Planning Commission is not
going to write the noise ordinance. We will review what the staff has
written. So the public's comments need to get into your draft.
And I would suggest that you include the gentleman's comments
in -- for consideration to the draft that you're preparing, and then when
you submit it to the Planning Commission for review and to us for
review, the public, in addition to the public speaker today, will have a
chance then to provide additional input. But we're not going to sit
down and draft this out, so we're not going to put these details into the
-- into the ordinance.
So I would just suggest that you include him -- his comments in
your draft to the extent that they are consistent with what we're trying
to do.
MR. SCHMITT: We will do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We know this is coming
back, so let me go to Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas.
Page 25
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have a 24-hour phone line?
MR. SCHMITT: For those type of complaints would be the
Sheriffs Office. It's -- phone calls go into the Sheriffs Office. They
will determine if it's a -- any moving violation or any type of vehicle
that is operating on the public streets is not a code issue. It is a
Sheriffs Office issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's good to know then.
Maybe we can even put that on our screen every once in a while on
our public TV to just say, for any noise complaints, to call the office.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some of the things you have to
realize -- I know everybody is concerned about noise, but you also
have the rights of citizens. And so when you write new ordinances,
you have to take this into consideration, a lot of other things that go
into writing an ordinance so that you don't violate the constitutional
rights. So it's not an easy task.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The question ofa telephone
number to call is a particularly difficult one because we will find
ourselves spending a lot of time and money just publicizing that
number, and people are still not going to know what it is.
I would suggest we investigate having a transfer. If people call
the Sheriffs Office about a disturbance in the evening and it's
something that really is the responsibility of our code enforcement
people, that they can transfer that immediately to someone in code
enforcement to investigate it if that is the thing.
In other words, not creating another number because then we've
got to publicize and make sure people understand all the various
numbers for the various kinds of complaints, and that becomes an
almost impossible task. But it would be more convenient, I think, for
the public, if they could call a central number with a complaint, and
Page 26
September 9-10, 2008
then if it is not a complaint that the Sheriffs Office normally would
handle, they will have the ability to immediately transfer it to
somebody else in government who will take action on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, can you follow up
with that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And we have after duty hours code
enforcement operators, so we'll make sure we get that number and
make sure that transfer happens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next item?
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY PHIL WOODHOUSE TO
DISCUSS REFUND FOR OVERPAYMENT OF IMP ACT FEES -
MOTION FOR STAFF TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT WITH
POSSIBLE REFUND - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a request
by Phil Woodhouse to discuss a refund for overpayment of impact
fees. Mr. Woodhouse.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to come to the mike.
MR. WOODHOUSE: With your permission, I would like my
daughter to speak on our behalf.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's fine. State your name
for the record, please.
MS. WOODHOUSE: Amy Reynolds Woodhouse.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At the microphone, state your name
for the record.
MS. WOODHOUSE: Oh, I'm so sorry. My name's Amy
Reynolds Woodhouse.
Good morning and thank you for allowing me to take your time
Page 27
September 9-10, 2008
and speak on this matter. In the past few months, my family and I
have just completed and opened a new Tropical Smoothie Cafe in
North Naples.
During the construction, we had applied for permits based on 42
seats. With this number, the impact fees were calculated to be
$15,937.61.
Upon the delivery of our kitchen equipment, we discovered that
the booths and the tables for the six tops and the four tops were
exactly the same size. The tables were 24 by 48 for the four tops,
along with the six tops.
With this in mind, we figured that our seats actually would be
able to comfortably seat 34 people, not 42 people, which we paid on
42.
When I went down to get our occupational license, I brought it to
the attention of the impact fees department. They gave me Gilbert in
public utilities to speak with, who then told me if we had it
recalculated, that there would be a savings of $4,000 that we had
overpaid.
I'm here today asking if we could have that recalculated based on
34 seats, not 42.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. WOODHOUSE: And I have pictures and the blueprints
showing the size of the seats and the tables and showing that there is
not room to seat six people in those booths. I didn't know if anybody
would like to see them. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I don't. You want to see those,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, since they're presented
evidence, I would put it on the visualizer so that the audience knows
what we're talking about. We're here to serve the public.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Questions, comments from the
Page 28
September 9-10, 2008
board members? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that they should get a
refund if, in fact, they don't have the seating that they originally paid
for and if that is the primary basis for the assessment of the impact fee.
That would be subject to verification by our impact fee department
and possibly by follow-up inspections once you begin operation to
make sure you're really not crowding six people into a four-person
booth, because if you are, then you're going to have to pay an
additional impact fee. I mean, fair is fair.
MS. WOODHOUSE: No, absolutely. And that's -- you know,
that's all we're here for. We have been operating about almost three
months now. Not once has anybody tried to sit three people because
it's just -- there's no room in those booths.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So Mr. Chairman, I would suggest
that we ask our staff to take a look at the situation, and if they're due a
refund on impact fees, I think they should get it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a motion for direction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
And we're going to have discussion. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think there's -- was some
additional opportunities here for you prior to accepting your CO to
have this renegotiated, but my under -- I'm under the understanding
that you accepted the CO and then you came back later on stating that
you didn't have the size.
MS. WOODHOUSE: We had set an opening date, obviously. I
went down to get the occupational, and I had put on there 34 seats,
and they said because the permits were based on 42, they could not
change it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MS. WOODHOUSE: And then I went down to speak with a
Page 29
September 9-10, 2008
woman -- which I apologize, I do not remember her name -- in impact
fees who, then again, gave me over to Gilbert who said we'd have to
take these steps and it would, you know, reapply for permits, which
we'd be willing to do. We just did kind of want to uphold our opening
date.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to hear from staff
on this, because I think where we're going here, we may be opening
up Pandora's box here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wides?
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, for the record, Tom Wides,
Operations Director, Public Utilities.
The facts here, as we understand them, is yes, the Tropical
Smoothie building permit was originally -- the building permit was
applied for and issued for 42 seats, and the impact fees are triggered
from the building permit. They're the basis for calculation.
The Certificate of Occupancy was approved for 42 seats and the
floor plan for the facility was permitted for 42 seats.
It becomes very difficult for us to -- on a more broad basis, to
monitor when someone chooses to downsize, we give impact fee
refunds, and then they subsequently decide to upsize. Commissioner
Coy le referenced that.
In a community as large as ours, to try to monitor when people
move up and down, we can't do it. We just don't have the staff to do
that. So what we do is we use the building permit as our trigger to
calculate the fees.
And yes, as the young lady said, there is approximately $3,600
here that's outstanding as a refund; however, we -- this is just one
situation. We can't possibly monitor. If there's a consideration to go
back for a building permit and go back through the process again, I
would -- I would think that we could work that with our community
development group. But to leave it as a building permit with 42 seats
and a CO for 42 seats and only charge them for impact fees on 34
Page 30
September 9-10,2008
seats is just going to create a basis for an inequity for the rest of the
folks in the districts, especially when you expand this past the current
situation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let me ask you a question. If a
restaurant was permitted for 36 seats and I go in there and find out
there are actually 50 seats and report that to code enforcement, are
they going to act upon it?
MR. WIDES: The -- for the water/sewer district, we will try to
act upon it because, again, we've reserved --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what's wrong with acting upon
the realty of what's there today?
MR. WIDES: Again, if we can match the building permits and
the Certificate of Occupancy to what's there today, a brand new
facility, that's a very easy process, relatively easy process. This is
what we planned to do. This is what we did. So there's no question of
even having to visit there, then reserve the capacity for 34 seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you talking about at SIP, Site
Improvement Plan?
MR. WIDES: I'd have to defer to Joe, but -- Joe Schmitt, but I
don't believe it's that dramatic. It's a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the request is simple. I can
support the motion. There was an error. Why can't we move on?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with Mr. Wides about the
administrative procedures for accomplishing this. My motion stands
that we should give them a refund, but the administrative procedures, I
think you're absolutely correct. You've got to amend the Certificate of
Occupancy and permit to reflect the number of seats that are
authorized and permitted there.
Now, I am not familiar with the charges for doing that. Are there
associated charges for getting that accomplished?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, I'm sure there are. I'm going to
Page 31
September 9-10, 2008
defer that to Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt.
Administratively she would have to reapply to do a -- an amendment
to the site plan and to the building permit. It would be a revision to
the building permit to identify anything on the -- any on the --
information on the drawing specifically identifying the capacity,
because utilities uses head count or capacity of -- seating capacity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much is that going to cost?
MR. SCHMITT: I have absolutely no idea. It depends on the
square footage of the building and then also the resubmittal of an
amendment to the site plan. It could be several thousand dollars. It's
going to be more than probably $3,600 because they have to also pay
for reengineering. Somebody has to redo the drawings and resubmit
the site plan and submit a revision to the building plans. I would
suspect that that alone is going to cost them more than the impact fees.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Now, we can look at it trying to do it
administratively, just noting through the record both on the site plan
and the building plans that it's a reduction in capacity. I have not
reviewed the building plans nor the site plan for this, if it could just be
a simple pen-and-ink type of amendment, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would prefer that if we can do
that legally. And -- I mean, this seems to be a fairly simple case.
There shouldn't be any reason to put these people through the cost and
the delay of requesting revisions to the site plan and having it
reengineered and all that sort of business. If we could do that
administratively, that would be a perfect solution for me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, let me --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MR. MUDD: I want to get this straight.
First of all, it's not -- we didn't take this to the County Attorney's
Page 32
September 9-10, 2008
Office to try to work a way to get this resolved, okay. Based on your
laws and ordinances, staffs correct at what they did. Now, if the
board's going to direct us to do something differently, then if you say,
let's do an admin. correction, Le., to the permit, we can't change the
CO document based on the attorney's opinion, and try to make a
change to the site plan based on pen and ink, and if that is so -- if that
can happen, then the board basically is going to vote an exception to
the particular ordinance to have the impact fee recalculated for water
and sewer to make sure it's very specific on that direction, and take a
vote on it, please, if you would, based on those particular items you
want us to look at. And I think then we're in good shape to go in there
and try to get it done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess one question that I have on
this -- and were the tables that you ordered, did you reorder the tables
to be smaller?
MS. WOODHOUSE: No, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then how come the tables
that you ordered didn't complement the amount of people that you
need in the restaurant?
MS. WOODHOUSE: Right. I understand what you're saying
because that's a very good question. We, with Tropical Smoothie,
have a company called Cafe Concepts who does a rough draft of the
blueprints for us to give to an engineer, and I have them with me right
now. On those, without seeing the tables ever--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't need to see the print, just
explain to me --
MS. WOODHOUSE: They put a six on -- with the booth, they
put a six on the top of that table and a four on top of the ones with just
regular chairs. The whole time we were going through this we had no
problem with it. We assumed we were going to get tables bigger than
the four tops, so --
Page 33
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, then can you send the tables
back and tell them that they sent you the wrong tables?
MS. WOODHOUSE: They didn't send us the wrong table. They
-- if anybody's mistake, I suppose it would be theirs that led up to this
because they had marked --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not our mistake. It's --
MS. WOODHOUSE: We're not pointing the finger at anybody.
It's nobody's mistake, honestly, not anybody in the county or--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the question is -- but my
question is that there wasn't anything that the county did wrong.
MS. WOODHOUSE: No, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was in regards to you ordering or
you working with your vendor in regards to acquiring the tables.
MS. WOODHOUSE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. WOODHOUSE: I apologize that, you know, I'm a new
business owner, I'm new to this, and I was expecting to get more seats,
and I have no problem paying for those, but we just do not have
enough seats for 42. We only do have 34, and--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't see where the county's at
fault.
MS. WOODHOUSE: I'm not saying the county's at fault. I'm
just asking for, you know, a recalculation on what's fair for how many
people we did seat in our restaurant. Thirty-six hundred dollars is not
a lot, but it's a lot when you're just starting out in this business.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. You know, I
understand where you're coming from, and we always need to be fair
as far as how we treat the consumer out there, and I think this a perfect
example of fairness.
Now, I think we're giving directions to staff that's fairly adequate,
but I'd like to just make sure one thing is covered, and that's that
Page 34
September 9-10, 2008
somehow there's some sort of record kept as to what the capacity of
the restaurant is, possibly with the fire department, whatever, and
that's to recognize capacity. At any point in time that this changes
hands, it goes to another use or they remodel it, that we're able to
count tables again, or hopefully, you'd come back and report the
difference and pay the difference in impact fees.
MS. WOODHOUSE: Absolutely. I would have no problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's fair in one way is fair the
other, too.
MS. WOODHOUSE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In that case, I would be able to
support the motion. Of course, it would be an item coming back to us
to explain the mechanisms that we're going to use to get there, I would
assume.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there any further discussion
on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying 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. May I ask you
where your ice cream shop is?
MS. WOODHOUSE: Well, it's actually a sandwich, salad, soup,
smoothies, and wraps cafe, and it's in North Naples at the new
Gateway Plaza off Wiggins Pass and 41.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, thank you.
Page 35
September 9-10, 2008
MS. WOODHOUSE: Thank you. Thank you very much for
your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next public petition?
Item #6C
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY GA YLA BRITTAIN TO
DISCUSS A NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION REFERENCING
CHICKENS - MOTION TO ALLOW PETITIONER 60 DAYS TO
ABATE CODE VIOLATION - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next public petition is a request
by Gayla Brittain to discuss a notice of code violation referencing
chickens.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
MS. BRITTAIN: Good morning. I have a lot of paperwork. I'm
sure you don't want to take the time to look through all of it.
I was visited on June -- I'm not sure the exact date -- 26 by a code
enforcement officer referencing chickens that are in my back yard.
They're not chickens. I mean, they are by breed. They're my personal
pets. They're show animals. They're shown all over the United States.
I have several thousand dollars into each bird. I've got all the
documents to represent this. I am an MPIP participant. My birds are
tested annually by the State of Florida for pylori and typhoid and for
the AB and influenza. All my birds are negative.
Now, granted I do live in Immokalee. And just in the block, the
city block where I live, there's over 300 chickens running loose. Now,
I called animal control because I was concerned. My birds are tested
by the state. My birds are under a very strict healthcare plan. They
get wormed on a certain day of each month. They get shots. They get
everything they're supposed to have. If my birds are exposed to one of
these diseases, by one of these chickens running loose, who's liable?
Page 36
September 9-10, 2008
No body seems to claim those chickens. They belong to the county, I
presume.
So, you know, they're telling me I can't have my pets, my show
fowl. It's no different than having a Macaw, a parrot, that somebody
keeps in a cage in their house. They're not barnyard animals by any
means.
And I'm requesting to be able to keep my show fowl in my back
yard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete? Okay. The
board's going to have -- might have a question for you; otherwise,
we're going to probably give direction to the county manager.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I appreciate the board's
indulgence in this point. As you know, I brought this item before you
and asked if we could hold off code enforcement till that point in time
that the -- Ms. Brittain could appear before us under public petition,
and that's why she's here today.
There are several different issues here that are kind of unique to
the case. I mean, Immokalee is a -- truly a chicken town. There are
chickens all over the place. And here we are, because the way our
codes and ordinances are set up, we're in the process of citing Mrs.
Brittain for having chickens that she maintains as -- they're a special
breed of chickens.
MS. BRITTAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very fancy birds. And, you
know, I don't think there's been any complaints or anything, but once
again, we do have codes and ordinances that are in place, and I'm not
too sure what we can do at this point in time, and I kind of hope that
my fellow commissioners might have some suggestions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a suggestion. We have many
4-H children that participate in 4-H that there are animals such as pig,
goat, horse, cow. They must be in a certain zoning district. And if we
Page 37
September 9-10, 2008
make an exception to the rules, I think that we need to be equal and
fair to all.
And I have -- I don't think that you want to change the zoning
districts to allow for show animals of -- some consider them farm
animals, some do not. I don't think you want to do that. And I can't
accept the request.
MS. BRITTAIN: Okay. Can I ask a question, please?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nope. You said you were complete.
MS. BRITTAIN: Okay. Well--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I asked you and -- if you had anything
else. The board is going to have --
MS. BRITTAIN : Well, yes, sir, but you just proposed another
question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board's going to have a
discussion and give direction.
MS. BRITTAIN: Okay. So I have nothing else to say then?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, I wish you would --
MS. BRITTAIN: Well, it's just a comment in something you just
referenced because you stated show animals like pigs, cows, et cetera.
Those are considered livestocks. Chickens are considered fowl.
They are not livestock.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Are you done?
MS. BRITTAIN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you sit down, please?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to ask her a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, Commissioner Halas has a
question. Apologize.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question for you. Where
you're living at, what is that zoned? Is that zoned residential or
agricultural?
MS. BRITTAIN: There is an overlay, sir, that nobody can seem
Page 38
September 9-10, 2008
to find and explain. I spent a lot of time with Floyd Cruz looking
through all the paperwork, all the maps, all the overlays at the
commissioner's office in Immokalee.
There is an overlay on the agriculture that actually ends at the
corner where we live. But it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So there's an assumption then that
may be residential?
MS. BRITTAIN: It may be residential. It may be agricultural
residential.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other question I have is, are
these prize chickens of yours, are they in a pen or do they run loose?
MS. BRITTAIN: No, sir. They're each in a small pen. It's
three-and-a-half foot tall and it's 36-inches in diameter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And how many of these
chickens do you have again?
MS. BRITTAIN: I have a total of 12.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Twelve.
MS. BRITTAIN: Actually it's six pairs, but they're separated
right now because they're molting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess I don't know the -- all the
ins and outs in regards to how many pets a person can have, but I
would assume if it's a pet it would be like a dog or a cat or whatever
else, or a parakeet, so I guess that's probably a point of discussion in
regards to how many pets a person can have in a household.
I'm not sure how you can distinguish between pets and chickens.
Maybe somebody from code enforcement can help me out here.
Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt.
The zoning is village residential. My understanding, this is a
rental property. It's the owner that would be responsible, and it's -- for
enforcement. Village residential prohibits any of the farm animals
that would be called either fowl or livestock.
Page 39
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's the distinguishing,
okay.
MR. SCHMITT: If this were Estates or ag., you could conduct
such practice, but in the village residential of Immokalee, it is
prohibited. Now, if you want to rule so different, we'll apply it the
way you so direct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That was the missing bit of
information. We have been given no information yet concerning the
basis for the code violation, so that answered my question, I think.
I guess we should try to clarify one thing. Is there a limit -- let me
rephrase it. In the residential neighborhoods, is there a limit on the
number of pets one can have at a residence?
MR. SCHMITT: No, not that I'm aware of. When you're talking
pets --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if I had six dogs in a residential
neighborhood or 12 dogs in a residential neighborhood and they were
confined to the back yard, that would not be considered a zoning
violation?
MR. SCHMITT: If you're kenneling or running some kind of a
business or otherwise, but even -- and I'll have to turn to Dave,
because Dave -- if you want to get the -- Dave Scribner's, Code
Enforcement.
MR. SCRIBNER: For the record, Manager Investigations, Dave
Scribner.
Commissioner, when you have dogs like that, I think you used
the number six, that would be considered kenneling, and that would
have to be done in an agricultural zone.
Cats, there is no exclusion on cats. We've had that issue come up
before. So depending on the pet.
As far as fowl goes, a limit of 25 in the Estates is allowable.
Page 40
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that is residential zoning or is
MR. SCRIBNER: Estates zoning. Estates and ago Residential--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this property in Estates zoning?
MR. SCRIBNER: No. It's considered village residential. Fowl
are not allowed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In village residential, four are not
allowed?
MR. SCRIBNER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then that's what the rule says,
okay.
MR. SCRIBNER: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And I put that up on the visualizer at the county
attorney's request. That's parens J.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I have to be honest
with you, these rules and regulations aren't arrived at by the
commissioners on their own. There's a lengthy process that involves
the community that these regulations take place in, and they're
reviewed on a continuous basis. In order to change the overlay or
whatever it is for Immokalee, we would have to have a buy-in from
the community, and they wouldn't be able to make an exception.
They would have to be able to allow everyone under the same similar
circumstances to be able to harbor animals.
And it gets to be perplexing with the fact that, you know, the next
step would be, you know, that they have these pet Vietnamese
potbelly pigs now that are small animals, they're adaptable to houses,
they're house broken, and they seem to be wonderful pets, and that's
the next exception. Then you would keep going from there to maybe
miniature ponies and there's no end.
But I have no problem, you know, backing anything that the
community itself gets behind. In the meantime, I can see where this is
Page 41
September 9-10, 2008
going, and it's not going where this commission's going to allow a
special exception for this particular thing, not without extreme amount
of community meetings and feedback from the community, and that's
the same as a Land Development Code change, and that takes like
about a year to a year and a half to accomplish and many thousands of
dollars of staff time and work.
My suggestion to you would be, is possibly we can get code
enforcement to hold off on enforcing for a reasonable period of time
while you check your residency and see if you can find residency in
another rental, maybe in Golden Gate Estates where such a use is
permitted. That would be a suggestion that I would make. You know,
and if you would be agreeable to that, I would make that suggestion to
try to buy you some time until you could make that adjustment to your
life.
MS. BRITTAIN: One thing I want to make sure is on the record.
They've stated this is a rental property. This is not a rental property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm sorry about that. It
would have made it a lot easier if it was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, is there a motion to give staff
some direction?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if I may, one more
question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Would giving you any additional time to be able to figure your
best next move, would that make your problem a little less?
MS. BRITTAIN: Yes, sir. If I could have 30 to 45 days, that
would give me ample time to try to find someone that I know across
the United States that would be able to take these birds and put them
in their residence, because like said, I can't just give them away. I've
got thousands of dollars. I've got receipts to prove how much I paid for
these.
Page 42
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I would make a
motion that we direct staff to allow 60 days under special
extraordinary circumstances before code enforcement would start to
enforce this particular law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second to allow
up to 60 days to abate these citations to allow the owner to find a new
housing for these fowl.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries, 4-1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY JANET DEN HARTOG TO
DISCUSS THE TRAVELING DIGNITY MEMORIAL VIETNAM
VETERAN WALL - REQUEST FOR THE BOARD TO WAIVE
CAT FEES, PROVIDE VARIABLE SIGNAGE AND THE EMT
MOBILE UNIT - DISCUSSED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next public
petition, which is a request by Janet den Hartog to discuss the
traveling Dignity Memorial Vietnam Veteran Wall.
Page 43
September 9-10, 2008
MS. HARTOG: I want to thank the board today for letting me
address you. My name is Janet den Hartog. I am a representative of
the Dignity Memorial Vietnam War Committee. The sponsors is the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, Leadership Collier
Foundation, the Collier County Veterans Council. The Dignity
Memorial Wall is a traveling three-quarter replica of the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C.
We are hoping that there will be 35- to 55,000 people in the
surrounding area that will come to see the wall and honor the Vietnam
veterans' names that are on it as well as the other Vietnam veterans
that are with us today.
The exhibit is free. It is open to the public for 24 hours a day the
26th, 27th and 28th of September. On the 25th of September, that is
put aside for a school day where we try to educate busloads of school
children -- not really children, but busloads at school -- to educate
them about the Vietnam war.
We will have people there to tell experiences of what it was like
to come home. What it was like to have a parent on the wall, how
they were treated. There will be all sorts of people available to
actually educate our school people about what the Vietnam era was
really like.
That afternoon we hope that the nursing homes will be able to
come out, talk to people, and relive and try to find some closure for
themselves and some of the experiences that they had during this time.
The cemetery is an ideal spot for reverence and respect to display
the Dignity Memorial Vietnam Wall among a flying field of over
1,400 other veterans in that cemetery. So with the flags out those
graves, this sets the stage so that people will actually treat this with
respect and the dignity that it deserves.
The cemetery also is a healing place for people that are having
problems with somebody dying. It does help to bring closure, and
hopefully this can help some of our veterans and some of the women,
Page 44
September 9-10, 2008
the mothers, the children, that are around, if it can help them with the
healing process or help them to bring closure to this.
The problem is the location. And after a lot of discussion with
the Collier County Sheriffs Department, we have come up with some
suggestions.
This -- in the green packet of information, the second sheet back
on your left is from the Collier County Sheriffs Office operations
department and they are asking that I ask you for a variance on the
fees of seven variable message boards, the location of which -- that
they have addressed below.
They feel that they need this so that they can reduce the amount
of sheriffs that actually have to be there that day if we have message
boards out to tell them that they cannot park at the cemetery. We have
to have everybody park at the Fort Myers Naples Dog Track and bus
them back the five miles to the cemetery. The road just is not big
enough, so we have to have a busing situation. It's not ideal, but it
was the best that we could come up with.
This also leads to the next request that I have, which is a fee
variance on CAT busing if at all possible. The third sheet back, the
one behind the Collier County Sheriffs Office operation department,
is a bid from MBI Florida Busing, of which we -- if we cannot come
to an agreement or if we cannot get some help for (sic) you all, it
comes to $18,100 that the veterans -- or that the committee will have
to pay.
We are collecting funds. We haven't got that much yet to even
pay for the busing. If there is money left over in the funds that are
being collected, it will be divided between scholarships for university
students, the memorial that is being built now by the veterans, and the
money will all stay in the Veterans Council. It isn't a 501 C-3. It will
go to no individual or no company at all. But as of yet, we have not
collected the $18,000, let alone to pay for the other things that we do
have to have.
Page 45
September 9-10, 2008
We have a maximum of eight motor coaches at any time, and
then we will reduce that on a variable depending on the crowd.
This brings me to the last request that I have on a fee variance.
This is from the fire, the county, and the North Naples Fire
Department. They're asking that we have a dedicated mobile unit. The
one that has been suggested, of course, is the Collier County mobile
unit. The fire department, county, has been extremely helpful, and
they have suggested that we have that there. Because a lot of our
residents are older, they're afraid that there may be some sort of a
problem. Also with the type of display this is, they do not know if
there will be flashbacks, if there will be other problems, if people will
have different problems with the wall.
We will have nurses there that are retired from the military. We
will also have chaplains available, but they suggested with the
location, with Florida's heat, with the age, that they would like to just
leave a dedicated unit there in case of any sort of emergency.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions? Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This organization, Dignity
Memorial, this is a for-profit organization; is that correct?
MS. HARTOG: Dignity Memorial is a profit organization.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. HARTOG: Well, yes and no. Dignity Memorial is the
public relation end of SCI, and SCI is a profit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. HARTOG: The money is not coming to Dignity. The--
Dignity built the wall as a public relation, and they send it to about 10
cities a year. They do not make any money off of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Now, this is -- you're going to this
cemetery, and obviously this is to sell some type of services, right?
MS. HARTOG: No.
Page 46
September 9-10,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it says here, Dignity
Memorial brand and its vast network of providers have created a quiet
revolution and funeral, cremation and cemetery services.
MS. HARTOG: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So obviously this has something to
do with trying to sell plots.
MS. HARTOG: No. There will not be any plots sold by any
means. I grabbed those off of the back room because I thought they
looked nicer than black notebooks. But there is nothing allowed to be
sold.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. HARTOG: In fact, we can't have even -- it's a
non-soliciting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me ask you another question.
So you're asking us to provide you with message boards, and I think
we've just recently come up with a new ordinance in regards to
message boards where somebody -- that we just can't hand these out.
The other thing is, you are asking for a number of buses from the CAT
bus system.
MS. HARTOG: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's going to pay for all this?
You expect the taxpayers to pay for all this?
MS. HARTOG: Actually, the foundation, the Greater Naples
Chamber of Commerce, the Leadership Collier Foundation, and the
Collier County Veterans Council will be the ones that will pay for it if
we cannot get a variance. They're the ones that are --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So in other words, you do have a
source of income?
MS. HARTOG: They are asking for donations. I think as of yet,
the expenses far exceed what has come in. I think Ed Morton said we
had $15,000 in at this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I can tell you that I can't -- I
Page 47
September 9-10, 2008
can't support something like this that's a for-profit organization. Okay.
That's just me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As long as you're concerned
about getting people in there, because the streets are narrow and
heavily traveled as it is, and you want to bus them from the dog track,
why don't you have this at the dog track?
MS. HARTOG: The reason that the -- it is not at the dog track is
two different reasons. One is, not everywhere is permitting as difficult
as in Naples. Where the wall goes is very limited. And they have a
definite policy that no one can make money off of the wall per see
Nobody can do any soliciting.
We have had people that have called us to try to set up
concession stands, people have wanted to come in to take pictures. In
many locations -- if you have this at a park, if you have this at the dog
track, then people could come in and they could set up all these
different things, and they could make money off of the wall.
The idea is not to make money off the wall. No one -- the -- like I
said, the sponsors of this is the Chamber, the foundation. We are just
the host site, and that is all we are. We do not make money off of it.
We're just putting it in the cemetery among the veterans field.
It is respectful to put it there. One of the questions -- and I asked
this -- was that one is, we don't want anybody to make money off of it.
We don't want people to set up little stands around it and make it like a
fair.
The other thing is -- and the way the girl explained it to me, she
said, you're in Florida. She says, have you ever been to Arlington
National Park? What type of a feeling do you get when you go into
Arlington National Park and you have all those flags there. And you
know that, what do you do? What do you feel?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me interrupt you -- I'm sorry.
Let me interrupt you because this is taking too long and we really
Page 48
September 9-10, 2008
have to move on.
MS. HARTOG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think, you were concerned
with people staying in the heat in the sun and so forth. In a dog track
they're in covered stands and, of course, you would have the speaking
things. At the dog track, they don't allow other people to set up other
stands and sell things anyway, and you can certainly prohibit that.
It would seem that it would be better parking and a better way to
display this so that everybody can see from the stands, rather than
have to go through all this other stuff and, of course, that's in a
different county so the rules might even be different there, so.
MS. HARTOG: It was just a thing that the corporation that owns
the wall has to be careful of where they place it and they have to make
rules as you all have to make rules, and there is this -- that it needs to
be in a cemetery in a veterans field, and that's one of their rules. They
don't feel that it is displayed well in places of gaming and places of
fun. They want it to be a field of respect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. And I'd like to
thank you personally for going through all this trouble to bring the
Dignity Memorial to Collier County. And you've got to understand
there's some underlying issues that you're probably not familiar with
that are raising great difficulty for the commission and why the little
bit of uncomfort on the part of my fellow commissioners, and one of
them is the fact that over the last two years and this coming year, it's
going to be almost an $80 million cut to our budget.
We're down to the bare bones. We've laid off close to a quarter
of our employees. We just -- we don't have any financial resources
left to be able to help. And we've had requests from every
organization in the past, and some of them extremely deserving, just
such as your organization, be it the Abused Women's Shelter, Fun
Time Nursery, right on through, have been in desperate situations, and
Page 49
September 9-10,2008
we're kind of limited.
Recently, as far as the message boards go, because of the fact we
had a number of civic associations and nonprofit organizations asking
for these message boards to be able to help with their local
organization, we had to pass a special ordinance that more or less
removed them from consideration just because of the heavy demand
that -- there was so much of a demand we couldn't use them for the
purposes they're originally intended, and so that becomes extremely
problematic, and transportation could explain it to you.
And I mean, I spent some time going through your request and
seeing what I could find out that might able to -- be able to be a help
from the county's end, and I met with people and I talked to people at
the county level about our staff -- about our CAT bus system. It's
fully committed.
We're at the process now where we may have to roll back part of
it just as a budget cutting measure to be able to take buses that are
already serving the public and moving them back and forth to their
jobs, and they have no other way to get there, to be able to go to
another function -- and another thing would be, is we would have to
send them out of the county to be able to get to the Bonita Dog Track
-- raises all sorts of jurisdiction problems as far as the money we get
from the federal government and where we're allowed to go from and
how we're allowed to use them.
So I explored that particular avenue, and I came up with a
complete zero. I couldn't find anything that we could do to help you
with. Couldn't do anything with the message boards.
Now, I met with -- I realize that EMS is in a very, very
precarious position at this point in time. There's a hiring freeze. We
have had a cutback in the number of people who have been left
through attrition, and they're at the point now where they're going to
be retiring some units that are out there that are serving the general
public. When these units are retired and moved down --
Page 50
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where's the timer?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning,
please. I spent a lot of time researching this. And if you want to cut
me off, cut me off, but I'd like to share what I found out there. Okay?
I don't need a distraction.
But in any case, the EMS, if we went and dedicated a unit to this
particular thing, we're going to have to take it from some other place
in the county and the response time to the citizens that are expecting
that response time to be where it is, is not going to be up to that point.
However, with that said, I talked to the union, and they -- the local
EMS union, and they said they would be willing to see if their
membership might be able to assist in this particular venture, as long
as they're not in conflict with any of the county ordinances doing it.
They also suggested contacting the North Naples Fire
Department, which was one of your sponsors, and they might be able
to present a unit.
However, with all that said, I plan to be available to help you any
way I personally can.
MS. HARTOG: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any more questions? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just would like to take the
opportunity to thank you for your efforts in getting this organized.
This is a particularly difficult thing for me to deal with as a former --
or as a Vietnam veteran and retired army officer. I think this is a
wonderful gesture.
I think it's important that everyone get an opportunity to see the
replica of the wall if they can't get to Washington, D.C.
There is the underlying potential conflict or perception of conflict
with a for-profit organization using it for public relations purposes for
their corporation. But nevertheless, you're trying to do it as tastefully
as you possibly can.
Page 51
September 9-10, 2008
I would like to suggest that -- the veterans organizations have
Veteran's Day ceremonies there at that location every year.
MS. HARTOG: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they attract a very large
crowd, and they have been able to accommodate those crowds and the
parking and the medical services and everything else that was
necessary for that -- for those ceremonies.
I think that you might find that the organizations can do the same
thing for this display. It will be going on longer, and I am not certain
that you're going to get 35- to 40,000 people there by busing them.
They're just --
MS. HARTOG: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They just will not -- they will not
go to that kind of inconvenience. So I think that you might very well
find that you can accommodate the parking necessary for the crowds
you're going to get because it's spread over three days. They're not all
coming at one time; whereas, in the Veteran's Day ceremonies,
everybody comes at once.
And I think things will work out better for you than you really
might think. But it is -- we have no precedent for waiving fees for
services for for-profit organizations. And I know that the money is
going to the veterans organization and it's a 501 C-3 organization --
MS. HARTOG: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- but it's actually being sponsored
by a for-profit organization, and that's the hang-up here. We have no
protocol for doing that, unfortunately.
MS . HARTOG : We had hoped, when we first started talking to
the Chamber, that we could have the parking at the church and
Wal*Mart. The Sheriffs Department is the one that said that we
cannot do that. We cannot park anybody there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think they might have said
that because of the estimate of35,OOO people, okay. If -- the Sheriffs
Page 52
September 9-10, 2008
Department has never told us we can't park there during the --
MS. HARTOG: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- Veteran's Day ceremonies.
There's never been a problem with that. And I think we'll find that
there won't be a problem with it here either.
MS. HARTOG: They are planning at this time -- which -- and
the sheriffs have been very, very nice, very cordial, very helpful, but
they will be stationing people on 111 th Street to move everybody out
of there so that people don't come down, and that's where they wanted
the signs. I think the Sheriffs Department is the one that requested
those, so they didn't have to have on so many sheriffs. They thought it
would be less expensive for Collier County to have the signs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think what Commissioner
Coyle said is that on the grounds proper, there's adequate parking
there. And I don't think you're going to get an onslaught of 35,000
people on any particular day. I'd be surprised if you got 5,000 people.
And I'm sure that they can accommodate that on the grounds of the
cemetery .
MS. HARTOG: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on this item?
Terri, we can get through the appointments fairly quick. Is it
okay to go ahead and do that now?
THE COURT REPORTER: (Nods head.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2008-261: RE-APPOINTING DONNA REED,
BRADLEY SCHIFFER AND MARK STRAIN (W/W AIVER OF
TERM LIMITS) TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION - ADOPTED
Page 53
September 9-10, 2008
So let's go to item 9A, appointments of members of the Collier
County Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Donna J. Reed
Caron and -- reappointment, and a reappointment of Brad William
Schiffer for District 2.
MS. FILSON: And Commissioner Halas, as I spoke to you
earlier, does that include --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Donna Reed Caron, three-year
term, and Brad Schiffer, a four-year term.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And could I also nominate Mark
Strain for reappointment? I would like to also suggest that Mark
Strain be given a lifetime appointment to the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And to waive the requirement. But
we have to appoint three members, so that would round out to three
members. So this is not, in any way, a conflict.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that included in your motion,
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's included in my motion.
Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that would include the waiver
of the --
Page 54
September 9-10,2008
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Waiver of the ordinance requirements
on the restrictions for number of terms. Okay, good. Thank you.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2008-262: APPOINTING NOAH STANDRIDGE
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appoint members to the
Environmental Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Noah Standridge,
which is the -- I guess he's the committee -- no, they can't recommend.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala to appoint Noah Standridge, second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2008-263: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
IMMOKALEE MASTER PLAN AND VISIONING COMMITTEE
- ADOPTED
Page 55
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9C, recommendation to declare a
vacancy on the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
seconded by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2008-264: APPOINTING MICHAEL Y. WU AND
RE-APPOINTING VICTORIA DINARDO AND CONFIRMING
APPOINTMENTS OF KATHLEEN MARR, DEPUTY CHIEF
CHRIS BYRNE, GAIL DOLAN, CHIEF JAMES MCEVOY AND
COMMANDER BILL RULE TO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9D, appoint members to the
Emergency Medical Service Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the committee
recommendations, Michael Wu and Victoria DiNardo.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MS. FILSON: And the confirmation of the whole list
underneath?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. And a confirmation
Page 56
September 9-10, 2008
of all of the appointment confirmations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's in my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2008-265: APPOINTING THOMAS D. OAKLEY
AND VICTORIA NICKLOS TO THE BA YSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9E, appoint members to the Bayshore
Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion to accept the
committee recommendations to appoint Thomas Oakley and Victoria
Nicklos.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas (sic)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 57
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2008- 266: APPOINTING WILLIAM SYLVESTER
AND JOHN MELTON TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appoint members to the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, appoint two members to fill the remaining
vacant term expiring.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Both candidates meet the criteria, so
William Silvester and John Melton.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 58
September 9-10, 2008
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2008-267: DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9G, recommendation to declare a
vacancy of the Development Services Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Henning.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2008-268: APPOINTING TONY MARINO,
RUSSELL BERGHUIS, STEVEN QUINN AND RONALD DOINO
TO THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appoint members to the Public
Vehicle Advisory Board (sic). This is a -- appoint four members to
serve four terms expiring September 2, 2012, to the Public Vehicle
Page 59
September 9-10, 2008
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Tony Marino,
Russell Berghuis, and Steven Quinn to serve.
MS. FILSON: And you'll need one more member, ma'am. And
Randall Smith applied, but he applied -- his resume was received two
weeks late. So if you choose not to accept that, the only other -- he's
an affiliated member. The only other member to appoint would be
Ronald Doino, D-O-I-N-O.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Doino.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he would be what?
MS. FILSON: He would be--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Affiliated.
MS. FILSON: An affiliated member.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll motion to appoint Ronald
Doino.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's included in your original
statement?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, with Tony Marino, Russell
Berghuis, Steven Quinn and Ronald Doino.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Page 60
September 9-10, 2008
Item #91
RESOLUTION 2008-269: APPOINTING JON C. STAIGER TO
THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AD-HOC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the last item on 9 is?
MS. FILSON: I have two more.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appoint members -- oh, I'm sorry.
Appoint members to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
MS. FILSON: You skipped the Habitat.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did we skip one?
MR. MUDD: Yeah, Habitat Conservation Plan Ad-Hoc
Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 91.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Jon Staiger.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve Jon Staiger by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9J
RESOLUTION 2008-270: APPOINTING GERALD A. MOFFATT
Page 61
September 9-10, 2008
AND GEOFFREY SCOTT GIBSON TO THE PELICAN BAY
SERVICES DIVISION BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Next one is appointment of members to the
Pelican Bay Services Division Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to appoint Gerald A.
Moffatt and Geoffrey Scott Gibson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes?
MS. FILSON: I have a quick question. I received an email this
morning regarding this committee, and they are anticipating another
resignation, and they would like to know if we can use the candidates
who were not appointed today for consideration on the next BCC
meeting to fill that position.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No reason why not.
MS. FILSON: If I receive the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we -- don't we first have to
recognize a vacancy?
MS. FILSON: I'm just asking the question on their behalf.
You're correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the protocol is the protocol.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have to recognize the vacancy
Page 62
September 9-10, 2008
first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you need to get that on the agenda
if do you receive a resignation.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think she's asking for
guidance about what she does with the people who are not selected
and she has applications from them. Are we going to force them to
resubmit an application if, in fact, we declare a vacancy, or can she
use the applications that she now has and include them in the total
group of applications without forcing them to resubmit?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I don't--
MS. FILSON: The email indicated--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't have preference on that.
MS. FILSON: -- that there was going to be a resignation this
week and could they appoint someone from this pool of people instead
of readvertising again. That was the question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what you're going to have to
do is you're going to have to have one item on the agenda that says
you have a resignation, and then possibly on the same agenda, if it's
within our ordinance, to then say we'd like to appoint someone, and
then we have to have clarification whether the individuals that didn't
get appointed could still be used as the same appointment for that
person that would be on the next agenda that would resign.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And I would like to add that
once we declare a vacancy, it seems to me that we're obligated to
advertise the position rather than just filling it.
MS. FILSON: That's the way I normally do it, but I told them
that I would check with the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you see, my point is, you
should readvertise it and give everybody a chance to apply for it, but
Page 63
~ ,,- ,. -"-----..--________.....,_v.... ,.
September 9-10, 2008
you can take -- I think you can take -- we should authorize you to take
the current people who have not been selected but who submitted an
application this time and consider them if, in fact, they're still
interested and available.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all I was saying, just
simplify the administrative process a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree, yeah.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. You didn't call
for the question, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, we did not call the question? All
in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Let's take a 10-minute break and be back at 10:50.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #10A
RECOMMENDA TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE THE ACQUISITION OF
INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
SERVICES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000, TO
DETERMINE IF THE CLERK IS FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S
DIRECTION (RESOLUTION 2007-257) REGARDING BOARD
INTEREST INCOME - APPROVED
Page 64
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: You have a live mike, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're moving on to item lOA.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's a recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the acquisition of an -- independent
certified public accountant services, in an amount not to exceed
$25,000, to determine if the clerk is following the board's direction,
which is resolution 2007-257 regarding board interest income.
Mr. John Yonkosky, your Director of Office and Management
and Budget, will present.
MR. YONKOSKY: Good morning, Commissioners. John
Y onkosky, Budget Director.
Agenda item lOA is, as the county manager said, a
recommendation for the board to approve the acquisition of auditing
services -- independent certified public accountant auditing services in
an amount not to exceed $25,000 to determine if the clerk is following
your resolution, 2007-257 regarding board interest income.
This item first appeared before the board on June 24th, agenda
item 10K. The board at that time, the chair, asked that the clerk be
asked to provide the information, and that was the direction from the
board.
The clerk was asked to provide that information in a letter that's
part of your agenda package. To date there has not been a response to
that letter.
In addition, the clerk's attorney sent a letter to the chair and to
each commissioner stating that the clerk would cooperate with this
audit.
At your July 22nd meeting it was brought back to you as agenda
item 15A, and it was discussed, there was a vote, approval to go out
and obtain auditing services and bring it back to the board, and that's
what we're doing at this time.
We've received three quotes from -- one quote from a small firm
Page 65
"~".-...""""."~.~- .._'"~"'_o........__.. II ""'-__...'''''....''',. ,.,.......".,.."."-...,,,".-.,.....-.,' .~.. ._..._-_,..,_."~""_"..,......"",,,,,,,,,,,,,, "llI!
September 9-10, 2008
here in the county, a no vote or a no response from a large firm in the
county, and a response from a firm in Miami, Rachlin, and that's who
staff is recommending that the board approve. The engagement letter
from Rachlin, they have extensive experience, forensic accounting,
and extensive governmental experience.
Basically that's the presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions?
MR. YONKOSKY: If there are any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I was giving -- given a letter
this morning written by Jim Mudd in regards to journal entries. And
can you be -- give me some information or be more specific in regards
to some of these journal entries such as -- do you have a copy of this?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, I do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could you put it on the
visualizer?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In regards to -- what's the
$455,480? Let's -- we'll start offwith the October invoice. What was
that for?
MR. YONKOSKY: These invoices were prepared and booked
on the clerk's general fund financial statements and in SAP as of 7/31,
and their invoice that -- is supposed to represent a billing by month
from the clerk's operation, clerk's staff, to the Board of County
Commissioners. The board -- and there's an invoice for each month
from October, November, December, January, February, March,
April, May, and June. To my knowledge these invoices have never
been presented to the Board of County Commissioners or to staff.
If you will recall, an invoice did come before you in November
that was for $452,000. This invoice that's on here for October is
$455,000.
But those invoices are supposed to represent the cost, staff, and
Page 66
September 9-10, 2008
actual out-of-pocket cost that the clerk has spent on your behalf to
provide services to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you -- are you insinuating that
this was posted on 7/31? So are these costs backdated?
MR. YONKOSKY: No, I'm not insinuating that, Commissioner.
I'm just saying that these invoices were posted --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On 7/31.
MR. YONKOSKY: -- on 7/31.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And there was nothing that came
before the Board of County Commissioners for each of the months of
October, November, December for this amount of money that showed
up on our agenda; is that what you're saying?
MR. YONKOSKY: Other than the one invoice that was
presented to you that was received by the former budget director. The
county manager had that put on your agenda and discussed. There
was no detail behind that invoice that was presented, and none of the
other invoices have been presented to the Board of County
Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: And in that particular case, sir, in the October
invoice, the board's direction -- or the result was the board did not
approve that October disbursement and asked the clerk to come back
and basically provide this board details on how those dollars that he's
invoicing you for came about, in other words, in order to detail the
expenditure, and that has never been submitted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Commissioner Fiala
wanted to go, but I would want to talk about the item on the agenda
before we get too far off.
It's my understanding that the County Attorney's Office has
received several documents as far as statements. And we don't have
anybody on our staff to account for those invoices?
Page 67
September 9-10, 2008
MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner Henning, those documents
that you're referring to that were received by the County Attorney's
Office were the result of a public records request where someone from
the County Attorney's Office and myselfwent over and reviewed the
documents, and basically the gist of that public records request was,
where did the $3,200,000 worth -- or that's recognized as income on
the clerk's accounting system, where did that come from?
And as a result of that, public records request, we obtained copies
of these invoices that you have in the letter that was given to you this
.
mornIng.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But I'm talking about the
request for auditing service -- accounting services.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We do not -- we do not know at this
particular time how much the clerk has spent of your interest money.
We have an idea. We have a rough guess, but we have no way right
now to determine exactly how much money he's spent of your interest
.
monIes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my question is--
MR. MUDD: Thus the audit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- did the clerk provide statements on
-- Crystal, maybe you can help me -- on interest accounts and other
folders. What was earned and what was expended?
MS. KINZEL: Thank you, Commissioner Henning. For the
record, Crystal Kinzel with the clerk's office.
As part of the public records, I believe in both January and most
recently, the board's office has been provided with all of the bank
statements, the interest statements, the journal entries Mr. Y onkosky
references, and other financial documents that they've requested. So
to my knowledge, they've received all the financial information
they've requested.
MR. YONKOSKY: We know -- we have received information
that showed us how much interest was earned and where that interest
Page 68
September 9-10, 2008
income went. There's been $28 million worth of interest as of the day
that you received this executive summary.
Twenty-eight million dollars has been earned on investments in
the custodial account. That money was transferred over to the clerk's
general fund and deposited into the clerk's concentration account.
What we do not have is what portion of that dollars was actually
spent to fund the clerk's operations. That's the purpose of this audit.
The purpose of the audit is not to -- I mean, it will determine and
verify unequivocably the amount of interest that your staff has told
you has been moved from the concentration -- or from the trust
account into the clerk's concentration account.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To get back to my original question --
and I'll go to Commissioner Fiala -- we don't have anybody on staff to
go in there and account for those?
MR. YONKOSKY: I have looked at the records that are
available to me, and through those public records requests, we have
determined what we think is the amount of interest that has been taken
from the trust account and put into the clerk's operating account.
We do not know, because we do not have available, the detail to
identify the amount of interest income that belongs to the Board of
County Commissioners that has been spent, consumed by the clerk's
operation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you didn't ask for the detail.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just two fast questions. With
the interest, aren't they supposed to transfer it to us rather than to his
account?
MR. YONKOSKY: Your resolution, 2007-257, directs the clerk
to take your interest and to provide it back to the board on a monthly
basis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Has that been done?
MR. YONKOSKY: No, ma'am, it has not.
Page 69
September 9-10,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second question is, with
these invoices that we were handed this morning, these are invoices
that we're supposed to pay the clerk; is that correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: Those are invoices that we discovered in the
public records request. Those invoices have never been presented to
the Board of County Commissioners or to the Board of County
Commissioners' staff. If there's invoices --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How do we know what they're even
for, by the way? It's a one liner, and it says, invoice for $455,000.
We wouldn't pay an invoice for $5,000 to any company unless they
gave us a total breakdown. Is there going to be backup material in this
-- in this audit?
MR. YONKOSKY: There is backup material in the clerk's side
that defines how those invoices came about. For example, there was a
charge of -- most of the transactions have a $6 charge. So, for
example, every check that was disbursed on behalf of the board,
there's a charge for $6, and there's generally $6 for every type of
transaction, a series of transactions that, by month, that they have
priced a $6 charge on, and that $6 charge, by multiplying it out, comes
out to the dollar amount of those invoices except for two items.
There's a $36,000 a month statutory charge that there's no backup
for, and there is the clerk's IT department, which is the total budget
divided by 12, and that's on there for 80 some thousand dollars a
month. So 80,000 and 30,000 a month, part of that is something that
there's no backup on. The rest of it has backup where there's $6 a
transaction basically for every type of transaction.
There's -- you know, there's some of them that show, response to
an email, $6 charge for it. So basically that's the backup for those
. .
InVOIces.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioners, what he's basically saying --
today you had a couple of items on the consent agenda that are
basically reimbursements for an event you went to, okay, that served a
Page 70
"'"""'''~''''"-'''---'''''''''----_.~.,,,_._,~-"
September 9-10, 2008
public purpose, okay, and one of yours was $16. In this particular
event you'll get a $6 surcharge on the $16 check.
And there's a $6 surcharge on every check that's written for
payroll for every employee, and that's times the number of employees
times twice a month or whatever we get.
So we discovered that. No place has that ever been -- that has
never been brought to this board, never been negotiated with the
manager or whatnot as far as the charge is concerned. It basically
came about in July, and thus you have backdated invoices which
you've never seen and I have never seen.
So I just made sure in the public records request, when these
invoices showed up out of nowhere, that basically let the clerk know
that, you've never showed them to us, you've never told the board
anything about this particular issue. They're just there, and then hence
my letter to the clerk that I signed last night.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Halas, and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell me why this is important.
Why should we care?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You've got a resolution that you provided
in September of 2007 that basically stipulated that your interest money
that you get from the principal that the clerk invests for you, that that
interest money would be yours and it could be spent, saved, reserved,
whatever you wanted to do at the discretion at the Board of County
Commissioners, and any interest monies, as Commissioner Fiala
brought up and John answered, that the interest money would be
returned to the board on a monthly basis. The interest money hasn't
been returned on a monthly basis.
Staff has looked at the 210 report in SAP as far as the general
fund account for the clerk and noticed that there are interest entries as
far as receivables in that particular account, and we've also noticed of
late that there has been some expenditures -- not exactly expenditures,
Page 71
---'--'-'''-''''-'--~'--~"~,...~..,,,.,.,, ....- . -""'~""~"~""'"~-''''''''--''-'''"'''~~''--
September 9-10, 2008
but the tally sheet basically showed things like $3 million had been --
had been basically put against some kind of obligation.
The judge, during the -- this went to court. The judge has ruled
that the clerk shouldn't spend your particular interest money further.
We've been back to the court, and another judge has basically
said that the clerk needed to bond the $3.2 million that was potentially
spent by the clerk, at which time the clerk went -- from what I could
tell out of the 210 report -- went into the interest money, took $3.2
million of your interest money and used that for the bond.
Mr. Y onkosky, have I misspoken, sir?
MR. YONKOSKY: No, sir; you're exactly right.
MR. MUDD: So basically what happens right now with the
present situation, at turnback time your interest monies are going to be
some $6 million short in my estimate of what you have. So that's $6
million that you can't put up against those things that you've cut out of
the budget like limerock road repaving, repaving your road program,
which you've cut back, your landscaping that we talked about on
Thursday this week, and so on. And I provided the board a list of
those things that were cut out at your workshop in June at your
Thursday meeting at your budget hearing.
So that's what's important in the particular issue. You basically
have millions of dollars of your interest money that you're assuming
are going to come back to you to basically make up for shortfalls.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the -- the clerk, according to
general opinion, is the watchdog of the Board of County
Commissioners. What would the clerk say if we allowed the
expenditure of taxpayer money without an invoice and without backup
detail ?
MR. MUDD: He would say it's illegal and he wouldn't pay it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And he would probably file a
lawsuit.
Page 72
---<..,~<~~.,~,.--".~~_...."';----_...,....."'..
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: I can't say that for sure, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, my understanding of
our obligation is that no taxpayer funds are spent on anything unless
we authorize it; am I correct? That is our responsibility; is that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The sheriff doesn't spend any
money, any taxpayer money, unless we authorize it; is that right?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's why they come to you and do a
budget hearing, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Supervisor of Elections does
not spend any money unless we authorize it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Tax Assessor and the Tax
Collector do not spend any money unless we authorize it, and they all
understand this, right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can't -- I can't speak for the Tax
-- I can't speak for the Tax Assessor or the Tax Collector, but they do
provide you their budgets and they basically are allocated a certain
surcharge upon the actions which they do for Collier County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that is correct, yes. But the
clerk doesn't operate that way. He takes the money and he spends it
without our authorization; is that what's happening here?
MR. MUDD: In regard to your -- in regard to your interest
income, sir, I believe that's what's happening.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. I just wanted to
make sure we understood what the issue was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question has been answered by
the questions that were presented by Commissioner Coy Ie.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, basically that did answer
it. I do want to know -- let's go back in time. How did this work
Page 73
R . .. ~ - ~-......._~______,,_,,_...~
September 9-10, 2008
before all this took place? The clerk came to us with a budget request
and we went over his budget and we granted him the money from our
treasury to be able to run his department; is that the way it used to
work?
MR. YONKOSKY: I believe in 2002 there was an arrangement
made between the board and the clerk, or an agreement, if you will,
where the clerk would take the interest income and then take it and
give it back to you, and it lost its color, if you will. It came back to the
general fund and there wasn't any ties on it at the end of the year.
As time went along, and when you passed this resolution, and in
the lawsuits, the clerk's actual -- it appears that the fees that the clerk
is earning, for example, the fees -- for recording fees, those fees have
gone down because of the economy in this state, and so the clerk is
now taking that interest income that he used to hold in trust for you
and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're missing the question.
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go back before 2002.
MR. YONKOSKY: Before 2002 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Before 2002, did the
clerk come before us with a budget?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, he certainly did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that budget we discussed,
and we were more or less the oversight of his department, just as we
have oversights on us?
MR. YONKOSKY: You approved a budget for him, and the
clerk's office did not take any more than what you approved, just like
Commissioner Coyle was talking about the sheriff and the Supervisor
of Elections.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And how far back in history
does that go?
MR. YONKOSKY: Probably all the way back to 1923, sir.
Page 74
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the way it is now--
now, the clerk is no longer, he claims, a budget officer. He's a fee
officer. If that takes place and he is a fee officer, who offers the
oversight over his budget?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's a legal question. I -- you know, the
clerk -- a fee officer prepares two budgets, one for the -- goes to the
state for the courts and another budget that, his entire budget, is
required to be provided to the clerk to the local government authority
as of September 1 st.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that is not
happening?
MR. YONKOSKY: That is happening, but there's no -- the
appropriation that the board has made for the clerk is the $60,000 for
someone to sit on the dais with you and for those statutorily required
elements that you are required to fund, and that's what the board has
appropriated this year and next year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So the biggest difference
between what he was doing in the past and what he's doing at the
present is -- simplify it.
MR. YONKOSKY: He's keeping the interest. The interest that's
earned on your investments is being transferred from the custodial
account into the board's -- or the clerk's operating account, and he's
using that money to fund his operations. And whatever's left over, he
will return at the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I think we need to
understand the board did recognize that he's a fee officer, and that's
why his budget was not within our budget, and he's reporting just like
the other fee officers. So I don't know why we got this item here.
The second thing -- and I must ask, because it seems like Judge
Lundy or Lindy made a ruling, and then he kind of amended it. Of
course, it's all handwritten so we don't know what it is. But that is still
Page 75
September 9-10,2008
-- that issue about the interest is still being hashed out in the Circuit
Court, correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: I think you need to ask your county attorney
about that, sir.
MS. HUBBARD: Good morning, Commissioners. How are you?
Jacqueline Hubbard, Assistant County Attorney.
I take it the question is, what exactly happened in the Circuit
Court recently; am I correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it Judge Lundy?
MS. HUBBARD: Judge Lundy issued an order finding that the
county was correct in its interpretation of the law regarding the use of
interest income and granted the county's motion for summary
judgment.
And what we have in this case is, we have three rulings in which
the Circuit Court judges, not just one judge, numerous judges, have
ruled in favor of the county, and they have held that the custodians of
county funds and the body that controls the fiscal affairs of Collier
County is the Board of County Commissioners.
When those initial -- when the initial cases were won by the
county, the Clerk of Courts immediately appealed that judge's
decisions, and that appeal is pending.
We were still involved in the case involving whether or not the
clerk needed to abide by the resolution that was passed by the Board
of County Commissioners in September of 2007 . We went into court
and filed a motion for summary judgment once we had determined
that the Clerk of Courts had actually moved several million dollars of
income generated from board funds into his operational account.
We filed a motion for summary judgment asking Judge Lundy,
who was the third judge on this case, to rule in the county's favor that
the Clerk of Courts, under Florida law, is obligated to expend income
earned on board funds pursuant to the directions of the Board of
County Commissioners.d
Page 76
September 9-10, 2008
The judge ruled in the county's favor. So that issue has been
decided in the county's favor in the Circuit Court. The Court has
ruled, as I have said.
Now, immediately following the written ruling by the judge that
was entered in June of2008, in fact, the same day that the judge
entered the written ruling, two things happened: The first one is that
the counsel for the clerk moved to disqualify the trial judge stating
that the trial judge, when the trial judge made comments in the
morning of that hearing that the attorney for the clerk and the clerk
had done everything they could to avoid taking this matter to trial and
when the judge also stated that the clerk had filed motion after motion,
paper after paper, and done everything he could to keep from trying
this case, the attorney for the clerk took umbrage at that. And after we
broke for lunch and came back, he filed a motion to disqualify the trial
judge.
The trial judge entered the written order sustaining and -- you
know, not changing at all the verbal order that he had entered in
March. On March 18, 2008, the judge first ruled in the county's favor.
It took the judge some time to enter a written order for a number
of reasons. One of those reasons is because the judge instructed the
county to draft the order of judgment. The county drafted the order of
judgment and submitted it to the Clerk of Courts for approval. That
approval never came.
In fact, after several weeks the Clerk of Courts' counsel indicated
to the judge that the Clerk of Courts would not agree to any form of
the order and insisted that the Court draft its own order. This all
involved delay, which led us to June 16th when we finally got the
written order.
Now, the second thing that happened that day after the counsel
for the clerk moved to disqualify the trial judge was, the clerk filed a
notice of appeal.
So in every single forum where we have argued and litigated the
Page 77
September 9-10, 2008
issue involving the control of taxpayer funds, the Clerk of Courts has
lost. He has not won a single case yet, in our opinion anyway, the
clerk continues to defy the orders of the Court and the specific
instructions of the Board of County Commissioners regarding the
expenditures of interest and income earned on board funds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've answered my question.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've forgotten what I was going to
say now.
MS. HUBBARD: Did you have any additional --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was a very good description, but
I would like to clarify two things.
MS. HUBBARD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've talked about continuing
delays in avoidance of the Court's decisions by the clerk and his
attorney. Understanding that the clerk's attorney will soon become the
state representative for this district in Tallahassee, is it likely that we'll
see this matter brought up in a piece of legislation in Tallahassee?
MS. HUBBARD: As you are well aware, this matter was
brought up during the last legislative session, and the county
commissioners and the county went to Tallahassee and met many
legislators and discussed this issue. Fortunately for us, we located a
legislator who opposed the clerk's legislation on public policy
grounds. And once the public policy discussion regarding the
legislation took place -- in any event the legislation never passed;
however, it is expected, I would think, that it would probably be
brought again.
But I could not tell you that since I only really deal with the
litigation, and my involvement in the Tallahassee matter was limited
to explaining, when needed, the status of the litigation. I was not
Page 78
September 9-10, 2008
involved in the politics or the drafting of litigation of legislative
matters at all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the second point I'd
like to -- like to address is, I do not believe that we -- the board has
ever acknowledged or said that the clerk is a fee officer. Actually it's
more complex than that. And please correct me if I say something
that is incorrect here, Jackie.
The clerk has two hats. He is the Clerk of the Court and he
provides lots of services related to the court over which we have
absolutely no jurisdiction. He gets his money from fees that he
charges, and in that respect he is a fee officer. We have no control
over what he does and should not have any control over what he does
in that respect.
But then he is also the chief financial officer, budgeting officer,
for the Board of County Commissioners. He writes the checks; he
approves payments for us. And under those circumstances, he is a
budgeting officer, and a budgeting officer can expend only those
monies that are approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
So what we have to do is be careful about how we throw those
terms around. He is a fee officer with respect to the courts. He is a
budget officer with respect to the budget services he performs with his
other hat on for the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was basing my --
MS. HUBBARD: Yeah, there's one clarification on that issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I was basing my comment on what
the county manager told us in the budget office, so maybe if he can
clarify that as maybe a misunderstanding.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I think we have a little bit of a
misunderstanding. Number one, he's not your budgeting officer.
Your budgeting officer is standing right there at that podium. His
name is Mr. John Yonkosky.
Prior to this FY-2008, you treated the board -- you treated the
Page 79
September 9-10,2008
Clerk of Courts as a budget officer in our opinion. He came forward
to you -- and Mr. Y onkosky basically stated back to 1920 something,
okay, in his statement earlier to a question by Commissioner Coletta --
that the clerk had come to the Board of County Commissioners with a
budget, as any other budget officer had done, either Supervisor of
Elections or the Sheriffs Office, and provided you that portion of his
total budget, so to speak, that the board is -- that he was asking the
board to basically pay for. That turned out in recent years to be some
60 to 65 percent of his yearly outlay.
One thing that was overlooked, so to speak, was the fact that
there are statements in the budgets that were submitted that the clerk
had claimed that he was a fee officer.
In FY -2008, the current year that we're in right now, you're
treating -- because the clerk was quite emphatic about his statement
about being the fee officer, he -- you, as a board, have considered him
totally as a fee officer for this FY and again for FY -'09 based on his
statements that he is a fee officer and not a budget officer, at which
time you are -- you, the Board of County Commissioners, are paying
the clerk those statutory fees and those things that were agreed upon
by the Board of County Commissioners that you would fund.
Two off the top of my head that seem to be things that you would
fund were the $60,000 for a clerk's representative to sit on the dais
during your scheduled meetings, and the second would be the amount
of money that it would cost a clerk employee to invest your particular
principal and monies in order to come up with this interest.
You learned about that cost from the clerk during a presentation,
I believe, in the spring of2008. It was to the tune of$125,000. It was
during a presentation that he provided from a professor from Florida
State University that came forward and talked about investments.
And, Commissioner Coy Ie, you were -- you were quite active in
that particular dialogue as far as investments are concerned as far as
the clerk -- as far as the clerk does with your particular monies.
Page 80
September 9-10, 2008
So there has been a change based on the description and the use
of your monies as far as the clerk is concerned, and it changed in
FY -'08 where you considered him strictly as a fee officer based on his
demand that he be considered as a fee officer for the Board of County
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will disagree with that, okay? We
have not changed, in any way, the authority of the clerk to spend
monies that he gets from the Board of County Commissioners. What
we did was we said, okay, if you want to be a fee officer, then we will
not approve your expenditure for any of the funds from the Board of
County Commission except for these specific ones, okay.
We have not changed his conduct in any way. He is still
obligated to come to us to solicit our approval if he wants to expend
our money. So if we say that we have made him a fee officer, I have a
big problem with that because I don't think we have made him a fee
officer.
MS. HUBBARD: I think that's a very good and technical point.
What has happened in the litigation is that as of 2007 when the board
made that decision that you're speaking of, that meant, in effect, that
since you were not going to budget for him unless he requested that
you do so, then he would have to operate on the fees that he collects.
So in that sense, we agreed that he was a fee officer.
But ifhe comes and requests budgetary funds from the board and
the board decides to budget those funds for him as it had done for the
past 10 years --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He is a budget officer under those
circumstances?
MS. HUBBARD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So all we have done is to say to the
clerk, if you do not come to us for approval of expenditure of property
tax funds, then you don't get to spend any of them unless we
specifically agree on an amount that you should get from the services
Page 81
September 9-10, 2008
you provide, and we have done that. We have decided, okay, we'll
give you this amount of money for these kinds of services. That does
not make him a fee officer for all of the services that he provides for
Collier County, because if that is the case, in my opinion, we don't
have a legal case. Okay.
MS. HUBBARD: Yes. I don't believe that you and Mr. Mudd
disagree at all on that one. I think --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the perception is very, very
different. My perception still is that for those things the clerk does for
county government, he is a budget officer and he has to come to us for
approval for the amount of money that he needs to do -- perform those
services for us. He is and always has been a budget officer with
respect to those services.
Now, we have elected -- because he refuses to come to us for
approval, we have elected to say, we're not going to approve any funds
for you except for this and this. That does not change him into a fee
officer.
MS. HUBBARD: Right. We're not -- what we're saying in the
litigation is that -- I mean, we don't disagree with you at all in the
litigation it's just that he has decided, apparently, that he is going to be
a fee officer. He is not going to come to the board and ask the board
to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Budget.
MS. HUBBARD: -- budget and appropriate for him. He's
simply going to have the authority to expend the funds. And in the
litigation we are -- as Mr. Mudd said, we're not contesting that. If he
wants to be a fee officer, that's his decision and we won't contest it;
until such time as, I guess, he comes and is willing to sit with the
board and discuss the amount of fees or services, he's a fee officer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The item on the agenda is to hire
Rachlin, LLP, for -- to do auditing services for the Board of
Commissioners, a budget amendment of up to $25,000 from the
Page 82
September 9-10, 2008
general fund.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Coyle, seconded by
Commissioner Halas to approve the staffs recommendations on this
item.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1.
Item #10B
TO REPORT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL SCALE OF
A PROPOSED RENTAL REGISTRATION REFUND OF LATE
FEES IN EXCESS OF EIGHTY DOLLARS ($80) FOR THE
PERIOD OF FISCAL YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2007, AND A
RECOMMENDATION FOR A POTENTIAL REFUND
METHODOLOGY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to lOB. It's a report
to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners concerning the
potential scale of a proposed rental registration refund of late fees in
Page 83
September 9-10, 2008
excess of $80 for the period of fiscal year 2005 to 2007 and a
recommendation for a potential refund methodology.
Commissioners, just to -- for the sake of brevity, you have heard
this now twice. You made a decision partially to go from 2007
forward. Earlier this year you made a decision to apply a methodology
that was pretty similar but not exact to the back years from 2005,
2006, and 2007. And the only question on the table that staff needed
to have answered or what the board wanted to do was, what do you
want us to do with people that might have overpaid based on the
board's decision?
And the board said, we can't make a determination on that until
we understand the quantity and dollars of that refund. And staff has
gone back, and you said for the staff to come back with that particular
information.
At this particular juncture Mr. Schmitt has that information, is
willing -- and has provided that to you and wants to know now what
the board would like to do as far as refunds are concerned based on the
years 2005, 2006, and 2007 where we may have had landlords
overpay the fine, that they overpaid more than $80.
Would you like us to refund that or would you just like us to
leave it the way it is? We're waiting for some direction.
Mr. Schmitt, did I miss anything?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have --
MR. SCHMITT: Jim, thank you. I have no other comments. I
think Jim presented it, and we're just looking for your guidance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question related to this, but
let any of my colleagues -- Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The -- when I look at this, there's a
couple of different ways of looking at it. Number one is, at the time
that we charged these fees, this was the county ordinance.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is what was brought into
Page 84
September 9-10, 2008
law. It would be like paying income tax and then saying two years
later, oh, by the way, we're going to -- we changed the law. Now, are
we going to give you a refund on your income two years that you paid
on it?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but the inequity came into play when we
-- if somebody comes in today, we would charge them the maximum
of $80 if they didn't pay for, let's say, year 2006.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm saying, if you had tax codes --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. If the codes change--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- then -- exactly. And so we've
changed the codes.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what I'm asking you is that --
it's like where you change the tax codes for the federal government or
the state or whatever else, and then all of a sudden you say, well, now
I should be able to go back and get a refund on those -- that was
basically clarified by our law stating that this is what the funds were
going to be.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Again, that's your policy. If you want us
to contact these folks and have them come back to us and ask for a
refund, we'll certainly take that guidance and we will notify . We've
identified approximately 584 potential applicants who may be due a
refund that could be in the neighborhood of about a hundred thousand
dollars.
Of that 584, rough guess, maybe half of them may come in and
apply, owners may have changed, those kind of things may have
happened over the last couple of years, but we would then come back
to you with a list of those. After we determined what the refunds
were, we would come back to you and it would be a board action to
allow these refunds to be paid by the Clerk of Courts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think you understood my
question.
Page 85
September 9-10, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. But I understood the question basically is
if the law changes, are you due a refund? Again, that's your policy. If
you want to retroactively apply, that's what we're willing to do.
Would that happen in the federal government, I don't know. I doubt it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think so. That's what I'm
saying, you know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue, do we have any speakers on this
item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. The question I have is, you're
going back and charging people who were charged $10 or $5 to
charge them $80?
MR. SCHMITT: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MR. SCHMITT: If somebody paid over $80. We were charging
$10 per day late fee. And let's say you were a 100 days late, you paid
$100. We would notify you that the board haw now placed a cap of
$80 on that late fee. You could then ask for a $20 refund.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm not -- that wasn't my
question. If somebody was supposed to pay $80 but they are charged
$20, are we going to try to collect $60?
MR. SCHMITT: We did not go into that direction, no. No, we
did not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. This is just --
MR. SCHMITT: We can do that as well, but this was only
looking at those who potentially may have overpaid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I believe, if I remember
correctly, didn't we change that law a little bit because there was some
confusion as to how the -- it was supposed to be collected, and in
some cases, it -- people were charged like $50,000 in excess fees, and
Page 86
September 9-10, 2008
so we decided to make that a little more clear?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. We changed it in two ways. One is, it
was $20 per unit. We now charge $20 per property. We're not
dealing with any of that. What we're dealing with here is strictly the
late fee. It was $10 per day. If you were late a year, you would get
paid $365 for a $20 registration, and it was deemed that four times the
fee was the maximum that should be allowed, which was -- is $80. So
if you miss a year, you pay an $80 fee. Some people under the
application of the previous approved ordinance, may have paid more
than $80, and you directed us to look at --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: -- evaluating whether -- or what the impact
would be if we provided refunds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So what we were trying to
do is just tighten up what we thought we were doing in the first place
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and make it correct, and now this
is refunding to those people who maybe were caught in the confusion;
is that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I think this is
the right thing to do. It's a case of fairness. I never was supportive of
this rental registration to begin with, and I think that we're looking at
this thing or the county was looking at, it was an idea of a cash cow.
I t never ended up to be that.
And the fact we were trying to collect fees that were extremely
excessive there for a while was wrong, we stopped it. We realized
that what we have collected, some people that stepped up to the plate
and paid the fees because they're good citizens, they should be
refunded just as much as the people that didn't pay them and got the
Page 87
September 9-10, 2008
fees reduced when they seen the reduction.
With that said, I would be more than happy to make a motion
supporting staffs recommendation to make an outreach to try to find
these people. And we're not going to be successful with every one
because many of these properties have exchanged hands, some of
them gone out of business. But we should make an honest attempt to
return that money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And just a clarification of the motion.
It's staffs recommendation -- it's to approve staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I stated staffs
recommendations, didn't I, Mr. Schmitt, in my motion?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Basically staff is recommending a
methodology which includes first notifying the potential refund
recipients that they may be eligible for a partial late payment refund
and asking them to contact our office and we'll pull records and
negotiate or -- not negotiate but evaluate what the refund will be.
We'll categorize that and we'll bring that back to this board for the
board to approve it.
It will probably be a list of a series, over a period of time, a list of
the refunds that will be approved by this board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what we're doing is we're
depending upon the word that we're speaking today to get out to the
public? We're not going to make a public outreach?
MR. SCHMITT: We will send postcards to every -- I will send a
postcard to every potential applicant, or at least rental registration
applicant. We'll send a postcard notifying them that we've identified
them as being eligible for -- potentially eligible for a refund.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make that part of
the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a suggested minor
Page 88
September 9-10, 2008
modification, if you'd be willing to consider it. You've told us that
your records could be incorrect and inaccurate because you have
overwritten some of the fields, the accounting system has overwritten
some of the fields because of multiple year payments and some other
things.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir. What--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So consider this. You send out the
postcards to people notifying them that we have changed the penalty
and we've made it retroactive, and if you believe that you have
overpaid any penalty for the years blank to blank, please submit us --
submit to us documentation for your claim for overpayment, then we
could get paperwork from them, compare it with our records, and
thereby make more accurate calculations of what is due because we'll
have records from them and records for us.
And I think they're going to know better than anyone else
whether or not they have overpaid and they will have the records that
indicate what they paid because they keep journals of checks that have
been written and cash that's come in. So they probably have better
records than we do. So at least if we could do that, I think we'd have a
better, more accurate accounting of what we actually owe.
MR. SCHMITT: And I appreciate your clarification. That's the
best approach to take, and I appreciate that, yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make it part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any discussion on the
amended motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 89
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
I -- you know, this next item is going to take more than 10
minutes, County Manager.
MR. MUDD: So is the -- D.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So how about go to G?
Item #10F
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR.
MARTA U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER D/B/A DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER, INC. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINER
SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AT A COST OF $1,085,000
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Okay, or F. That was pretty easy. It's a
recommendation to approve an agreement between Collier County and
Dr. Marta U. Coburn, M.D., Florida District Medical Examiner,
District 20 Medical Examiner, Inc., to provide a medical examiner's
services for fiscal year 2009 at a cost of$1,085,000, and the item will
be presented by Dan Summers, but in his absence --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's three.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 90
._,. ~._,,,w___,,.__v_"'~~_"_"'__~""~"'h.""___'_-_"'_'''''_' ,--
September 9-10, 2008
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2008-271: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
REMOVAL OF 11,541 AMBULANCE SERVICE ACCOUNTS
AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE
BALANCES WHICH TOTAL $7,986,828.72, FROM THE
GENERAL LEDGER OF COLLIER COUNTY FUND 490
(EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES). ALTHOUGH THE
AMOUNT WAS RECOGNIZED AND RECORDED AS BAD
DEBT EXPENSE DURING FISCAL YEARS 2004 AND 2005, IT
CANNOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT BOARD ADOPTION OF
AN AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOG. It's a
recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing removal of 11,541
ambulance service accounts and their respective accounts receivable
balances which total $7,986,828.72 from the general ledger of Collier
County fund 490, which is Emergency Medical Services.
Although the amount was recognized and recorded as bad debt
expense during fiscal 2004 and 2005, it cannot be removed without
board adoption of an authorizing resolution.
And Mr. John Yonkosky and Mr. Jeff Page are here to present if
Page 91
September 9-10, 2008
you have questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just have one question.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I -- Senator Saunders got a bill
through to where if you have a hospital bill, they can go after your
home. Does that include, you know, transportation to the hospital?
MR. PAGE: I'm totally unaware of that bill. The one that we
were addressing about the Blue Cross/Blue Shield not paying their
fees and paying directly to the patient, that was addressed and that
takes effect in November. But I'd have to check into that. I can
certainly get the information for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Well, it concerns me that we're
writing off almost $8 million, and general taxpayers have to pay that
for somebody who received a service.
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, refresh my memory. It
seems to me that we negotiated an arrangement with some collection
firm that was going to provide a greater return on these bad accounts.
MR. MUDD: No.
MR. PAGE: Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: You, last year, hired a firm to do collections for
you based on the bills, okay, and you used the outside contractor and
decreased your staff by some six to seven people, if my memory
serves me correctly.
In these particular cases in 2004 and 2005, when we determined
that the bill is -- looks like it's going to be uncollectible, we turn it
over to a collection agency in order to go after the particular person in
order to get that money.
So we not only contact them numerous times in 2004/2005 with
our staff at the time and try to get them to pay, and then once we
determine that it's not going to happen and we have to go out and get
Page 92
September 9-10,2008
somebody that's a little bit more zealous, okay, in their collection
methods, we go do that.
In this particular case, we have done that, and in 2004/2005, we
determined these are bad -- these are bad debts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's nothing more we can do
with them?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was the -- what's the return
ratio with the firm that we've recently hired presently in regards to
make sure that people who request EMS, that we are collecting on
those services? Do you have any data on that?
MR. PAGE: We're still right around 65 percent, which
historically has been our normal collection percentage, and that
traditionally -- we checked with, as recently as yesterday, with
Manatee County. They're right where we are with contractual
write-offs versus non-contractual write-offs and debt. So their
collection's about the same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what you're saying is that we
can anticipate debts of this nature year after year of 8 million, $7
million?
MR. MUDD: You need to tell him that the law changed as far as
payments are concerned.
MR. P AGE: We should be able to collect a higher percentage
based on that legislative law that was passed recently this year. We're
anticipating an increase; however, the economy's down.
The -- one of the big things I would tell you as far as the
comparison to Manatee County, our bill -- our charge is substantially
higher than theirs, and generally what that means is, the higher your
bill is, the less percentage of collection you're going to make; in other
words, your collection actually goes down the higher your bill is.
The fact that we're maintaining evenly with Manatee County,
Page 93
September 9-10, 2008
which is a fairly good system for us to look at as a countywide
agency, I think we're doing very well.
As far as the future holds, I mean, a lot of these things are based
on -- I think, Commissioner Coyle, you had asked for, about a year or
two ago, the number of transports that were illegal aliens. Well, there
was no way we could actually do that, but what we did do was we
went in to identify those that we transported that didn't have a social
security number. Now, that could be somebody from Europe or
anything else, but it was a pretty good measure.
We found that one particular year -- and I think it was '07 --
almost 2,500,000 were people that had no social security number and
we were not able to collect on. So we do have a lot of indigent care
here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendation by Commissioner Fiala. Is there a second to the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just for clarification on the bill that
was passed, okay, and why Jeff said that we should get a higher
Page 94
September 9-10, 2008
percentage. Prior to the bill being passed by the Florida legislature,
payment by the insurance company went to the patient, okay. And
then the -- it was the patient's obligation then to pay the providers for
the service.
Now, if there's an EMS charge, i.e., for a transport, the payment
for that service comes to the provider of the service and not to the
patient. So we should see -- because a lot of times the patient would
receive the money, pocket it, and not pay the bill, and that won't
happen in the future. So it should get back for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item used to be 16A1. It's a
move to 101.
MR. MUDD: We have a 10H. Do you want to do that one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 10H?
MR. MUDD: 10H, which is a recommendation to award bid
number 98-55 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's going to be a lot of --
MR. MUDD: You think it's going to be a lot of --
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker on that one.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We could do that. Commissioner
Halas wants to break for lunch, and at 12:00 o'clock we have a-
Item # 12A - Closed Session
THE BOARD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION DISCUSSED:
SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND STRATEGY RELATED
TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES IN THE PENDING
LITIGATION CASE OF BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC V.
COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:07-CV-411-FTM-29DNF, NOW
PENDING IN THE US MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF
FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION, AND BONITA MEDIA
ENTERPRISES, LLC., BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND (REG.
Page 95
September 9-10, 2008
AGENT) V. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPEAL CASE NO.: 07-2035-CA, LOWER
TRIBUNAL CASE CEB NO. 2007-35, NOW PENDING IN THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT.
MR. MUDD: Shade session.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- shade session. I'm sure Mr.
Klatzkow will explain that.
MR. KLATZKOW: We have a shade session, sir, Bonita Media
Enterprises litigation. In attendance of that shade session will be the
five commissioners, County Manager Jim Mudd and myself, and
assistant county attorney, Jacqueline Hubbard. The shade session will
go through the lunch hour, and we will reconvene here at 1 :00 o'clock.
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Klatzkow, that's agenda item 12A; is that
correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
(A closed session was held, followed by a luncheon recess.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot
mike.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board's back in session from its
shade session and also lunch. We're going to move on to 12B.
Item #12B
TO CONSIDER APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN
BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC., V. COLLIER COUNTY
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD, COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, CASE NO: 2:07-CV-411-FTM-
29DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
Page 96
September 9-10, 2008
COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS
DIVISION AND BONITA MEDIA ENTERPRISES, LLC.,
BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND (REG. AGENT) V. BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, APPEAL CASE NO. 07-2035-CA, LOWER
TRIBUNAL CEB NO. 2007-35, NOW PENDING IN THE
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND AUTHORIZE THE APPROPRIATE BUDGET
AMENDMENT - MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT (PERIOD OF 2 YEARS) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 12B is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 12B.
MR. MUDD: -- the item to be heard at one p.m. for the Board of
County Commissioners to consider approving a settlement agreement
with Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC, versus Collier County Code
Enforcement Board, Collier County board of County Commissioners,
case number 207-CV-411-FtM-29DNF now pending in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division,
and Bonita Media Enterprises, LLC, Brennan, Manna & Diamond,
which are registered agents, versus the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, appeal case number
07-2035-CA, lower tribunal Code Enforcement Board number
2007-35 now pending in the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, in the administrative appeal division of the Circuit
Court, and authorize the chairman to execute the settlement agreement
and authorize the appropriate budget amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the Exhibit A is a settlement
agreement that the Board of Commissioners is going to consider.
Page 97
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: I believe so, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is -- commissioners have any
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion? I'm going to
make a motion that we accept the settlement agreement of 12A of
attachment.
MS. HUBBARD: For the two-year period?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the two-year period for Bonita
Media to display their wares in Collier County boundaries.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second the motion by Commissioner
Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. HUBBARD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Move to --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- item 8.
Page 98
September 9-10, 2008
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2008-47 AND RESOLUTION 2008-272: AN
ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-38, AS
AMENDED ("MAXIMUM FEES FOR NON-CONSENT TOWING
AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES"), TO ESTABLISH NEW
REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-CONSENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
TOWING OF VEHICLES, TO ADDRESS REQUIREMENTS FOR
PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWS, TO PROVIDE FOR UPDATED
MAXIMUM FEES FOR NON-CONSENT LAW ENFORCEMENT
TOWING, PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWING, AND THE
STORAGE OF TOWED VEHICLES, AND TO F ACILIT A TE THE
FUTURE ADJUSTMENT OF FEES AS NECESSARY, BY
APPROVING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM
FEES AS REQUIRED BY THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE -
ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: -- to 8A, and this is -- the item to be heard again,
at one p.m. following 12B, and you just finished 12B. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve an
ordinance repealing ordinance 99-38 as amended, maximum fees for
nonconsent towing and storage of vehicles; to establish new
requirements for nonconsent law enforcement towing of vehicles to
address requirements for private property tows; to provide for updated
maximum fees for nonconsent law enforcement towing, private
property towing, and the storage of towed vehicle and to facilitate the
future adjustment of fees as necessary by approving a resolution
establishing maximum fees as required by the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Michelle Arnold and Mr. Scott Teach and Mr. Diane Flagg
are here to present, but I think we'll start with you, Michelle.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Michelle, before you start, if there's
Page 99
September 9-10, 2008
anybody wishing to speak on this item, the considered ordinance,
there's a speaker slip outside, sign up for that, and hand that in to Sue.
As our rules are, you're supposed to sign up prior to the item being
heard, so you want to get those in if you want to speak, or forever hold
your peace.
Michelle?
MS. ARNOLD: All right. For the record, Michelle Arnold,
alternative transportation modes director and I'm following up on
something that I left behind, the towing ordinance.
In February -- on February 12th the board heard a public petition
item regarding the current ordinance and the concerns of the rates that
were established in that particular ordinance. At that time the board
directed staff to look at the ordinance in addition to exploring the
private property towing.
Our current ordinance does not include regulations for private
property tows. It only addresses police-directed tows.
So with the direction of the board, staff, with the assistance of the
county manager, met with members of the industry and had several
meetings with a select few as well as opened up meetings to anyone
that was interested in reviewing the ordinance, and now we have an
ordinance that we are bringing before you with the input, we believe,
from the industry.
Some of the changes that are being done in this particular
ordinance is repealing the old ordinance and replacing it with a new
ordinance that replaces an updated definitions section. It also is
updating the towing class specification, looking at all the vehicle types
and defining what those vehicle specifications need to be within the
county .
And I just wanted to note that we're looking at class A through C,
and not including a D classification spec because the majority of the
people in the industry are using A through C and there's only a few,
and then the classification specifications related to D would be similar
Page 100
September 9-10, 2008
to that C specification noted in the ordinance.
The ordinance is also providing clear guidance for when charges
should be assessed for towing. There's rates that are -- have been
established for police-directed tow. There's also rates that have been
established for private property towing, all of which are nonconsent.
I t identifies that the first hours are to be free for storage and then
establishes when the storage fee can be applied thereafter. It clarifies
when charges for weekend and/or late hours can be assessed, and also
the administrative fees that can be assessed for this process. And most
of those fees are applicable to nonconsent police-directed tows.
As I noticed previously, the ordinance establishes guidelines for
the first time for private property tows, it limits the removal of the tow
vehicles outside of Collier County. It also establishes a radius for
where you should be moving vehicles to. If a vehicle's towed from
one location, you want to keep them within a 10-mile radius. If a tow
yard is not within that 10-mile limit, then the ordinance also has a
20-mile limitation all within Collier County.
With private property tows, it establishes a requirement for
written contract with the private property owner and also requires that
there needs to be a sign-off on the removal of these vehicles.
I think that there was a recent incident where one of our
undercover sheriff deputy's vehicle was removed inappropriately, and
I think this ordinance will address that particular situation.
There's signage requirements for--
MR. MUDD: Before you leave that, that particular point is a
very big point in this ordinance. It has to be a sign-off by the manager
of the condominium and/or homeowners group before the vehicle is
towed.
I've had one commissioner ask me, well, you know, if it was
there with the sheriffs deputy, why didn't somebody knock on the
door to see if they could move the vehicle prior to going? I believe
what you have in this particular case is a delegation of that authority
Page 101
September 9-10, 2008
that the manager of that particular condo association and/or
homeowners association had given to the private towing company,
thereby the private towing company just picked the vehicle up.
In this particular regard, this would change.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
MR. MUDD: There has to be a sign-off for the particular issue
to basically give them the direction to take the vehicle and tow it.
MS. ARNOLD: And there's also -- okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With regard to that particular item
yet -- and that's even during the night?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, they can't come in the
middle of the night and haul things off, right?
MS. ARNOLD: Without that approval from the private property
owner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And that private property has
to call on each one, don't they? And they have to sign something,
according to what I read in here. They have to sign something with
their name that they are authorizing that tow before it happens, right?
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct. The association and/or manager
that's authorized the towing company to perform that service within
that private property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The tow truck can't go in and just
solicit to tow anything out of there that they please.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They have to be called there.
MS. ARNOLD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right.
MS. ARNOLD: Also there's signage requirements for notifying
the general public that you're in a tow zone or whom is going to be
removing the vehicle.
There's also requirements that have been included in the
Page 102
September 9-10, 2008
ordinance that provides information to the general public. We are
requiring the-- hour of operations to be posted on the businesses, the
ability to inspect the -- the property owner's ability to inspect the
vehicles and when they can inspect the vehicles, their ability to
recover items from their vehicles.
There's requirements also that they have to post their maximum
charges, the rate charges, and their ability to post a cash or surety bond
to recover their vehicle.
And also, a new requirement is including minimum insurance
requirements for tow truck companies doing business in Collier
County. Those are the -- I would say the major changes.
The ordinance also creates a mechanism for us to kind of review
these rates on a regular basis. The last time this ordinance was
reviewed was some time ago and the rates itself hadn't been evaluated,
so now there is a mechanism included in the ordinance so that there
can be regular review to make sure that we're kind of keeping up with
the expenses.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more. I think that
neighborhoods have forgotten that they have neighborhoods there and
they're supposed to be working together for the -- you know, as a
neighborhood, instead of them blanketing and calling -- you know,
just allowing tow trucks to come in and just take away things.
My question is, can -- and I don't blame the tow trucks for it.
They're hired to do that. I blame the neighborhoods for forgetting
what their purpose is to be neighbors.
Can a tow truck come in and haul a car -- it doesn't say it
anywhere in here -- off of somebody's private property like their
driveway, for instance?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'm going to kind of defer to Scott, but I
believe that they're -- it depends on the particular neighborhood and
the requirements within that association. But again, there's got to be
Page 103
September 9-10, 2008
notification posted at the entry into the development so that everyone
is made aware of what the rules are in terms of towing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And my question is about
private property.
MR. TEACH: And Commissioner, the -- Scott Teach, deputy
county attorney. There will be -- there is a contract between the tow
truck companies and these private communities where these tows
would take place and they would designate the areas where vehicles
could be towed from, and that would also be clearly displayed on
these signs.
So if it's an area where a vehicle is in a tow zone, let's say, then it
would be susceptible to being towed. But as you said, the ordinance
also provides that before the vehicle can be towed, either the property
owner, an authorized representative, the leaseholder, whoever's in
charge of that private property, has to identify themselves with their
driver's license and sign off on the tow truck ticket. So before the
vehicle's gone, they've made that notice for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No further questions?
I have -- Mr. Teach, do you have any recommendations for
changes of this ordinance?
MR. TEACH: We had a couple recommendations that made the
change sheet, and some were definitional. I've heard that there were
some concerns regarding the signs and the notice requirements that the
burden is on the tow truck operators to maintain the signs.
Quite frankly, Commissioners, if you want to change that section
and put the burden on the property owners to install the signs and
maintain it, that would be fine. That's 715.07 of the Florida Statute
says that the property owner is a logical choice for that.
A lot of the tow truck operators, when we received feedback, do
a lot of that anyways, and that's why we did it that way with a
secondary responsibility on the property owners in case they got
knocked over or whatnot, or if the tow truck company was dissolved.
Page 104
September 9-10, 2008
But that certainly would be something, if the board wishes to change,
could be an easy fix to the ordinance. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I'm not quite done yet. What
about in cases where a repair shop, body shop or mechanical shop
calls a tow truck to pick up a vehicle to be repaired? Do they -- do
they have to comply to this ordinance?
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, I don't believe that falls within the
parameters of this ordinance. In those instances, I would presume that
the car -- the vehicle's owner would probably be giving authorization
to have it towed to the body shop or whatnot. This more primarily
concerns the nonconsent towing situation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My final question, on page 4
of the ordinance, number seven, extra time on the scene. Every
quarter or 15 minutes they are charged a -- 25 percent of the rate of
what's on -- what's in number two, I believe. No, I'm sorry. What's in
number three.
What justifies a higher charge for class C versus class A for the
time spent on the scene? I think most of the time you're there trying to
-- the policeman is trying to secure the scene, take evidence, and then
the vehicle is hauled away.
So I guess the basic question is, there is a huge difference
between class A and class C for somebody to stand around waiting for
that officer to clear the scene.
MS. ARNOLD: I think the rates for classes were based on the
vehicle type, and we apply the 25 percent rate to their flat rate, so we
didn't make a distinguish between -- you know it's not just one fee for
extra time on the scene. It's based on a percentage of their flat rate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What are they doing -- the
first hour is the fee, A through C. What justified the fee rate over that,
the differential rate over one hour?
MS. ARNOLD: The rate is based on the type of equipment, and
there's, you know, I guess a higher charge for the more massive the
Page 105
September 9-10,2008
equipment that's needed to -- at that particular site.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, if what you're getting at is rather
than charge a 25 percent rate based on the class, why don't you just
charge a flat rate of $25 or $35 for every additional 15 minutes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. TEACH: You know, that's certainly up to the board if the
board thinks that's more fair. That's something that the board can
consider.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, let's hear from the
public on that. I really -- I can't see a vehicle going to the scene -- I
understand the vehicle is more expensive. The cost of the vehicle,
regardless how long you're on the scene, doesn't change the price of
the vehicle.
So my point is, please justify why the differential under our
deliberations to consider this ordinance. That's all. Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As I was reading through it,
on section six, which is page 17, and under I, parens I, you have in
regards to a sign for each 25 feet of lot frontage. You got -- it says,
the sign shall be permanently installed not less than three feet to six --
to six feet above the ground level. How about if we change that from
four feet, because three foot, I don't think anybody would -- it's harder
to see the sign. So I think if you had it at four feet to six feet.
MR. TEACH: That would be fine, Commissioners. That
language mirrors the statute, but the statute does provide that if this
board wants to impose more stricter language, we can do that. So we
change that to four feet. That's something that the board can consider
and adopt.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think the visibility would be
better for the sign.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any others? We have six speakers?
Sue, you want to call up the speakers, please.
Page 106
September 9-10, 2008
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Susan Dixon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Speakers have three minutes.
MS. DIXON: I give my time to Robert Dixon.
MS. FILSON: Robert Dixon. He'll be followed by Tom Baker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue, did I understand that Ms. Dixon
yielded her time to --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Mr. Dixon? Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to give him six minutes then?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. DIXON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
MR. DIXON: My name's Robert Dixon. First thing I'd like to
start off with is, Commissioner Henning, you asked about the time
spent at the scene that the -- for the trucks. You have a $350,000 class
C truck out there versus a 75,000 class A truck, you've got drivers
with certification, and what you have to pay them on a class C, a lot
higher than a class A, which shows the difference in money, but it's
not that they're sitting around in their truck listening to the radio and
smoking a cigarette.
They'll have rollovers that they have to roll over, they have a
scene they have to clean up. It's not all about the time that we're
waiting for a deputy to clear the scene or clear the accident scene. It is
about the labor that is actually done out there. That's what the labor
charge is on there, for the scene time.
You can't get these scenes done in the 30 minutes that you get for
going out there. There's some that we've been out there actually in
excess of 12 hours for scenes that we've had to do. That is what the
difference in those prices are.
Commissioner Fiala, you were asking Ms. Arnold about the
signage and stuff and you got to the point where it was a private
Page 107
September 9-10, 2008
house. We'll say out in Golden Gate; 39th Street, you've got a house?
Does that have to be signage, is what I was getting from you; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I was wondering if -- I had a
friend whose car was towed right out of her driveway because it was
three- inches over the sidewalk walkway, and she got out to -- she went
to go to work in the morning and she had no car there.
MR. DIXON: In a condo association?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. DIXON: In a condo association, they write it in the rules,
they give everybody those rules/the private property removals are
done by their rules, and I can understand changing that because I can't
see that myself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was looking for.
MR. DIXON: That is what happens with that.
The things that I really wanted to discuss with you here is -- I'm
not here to complain about the rates, I'm not complaining about a lot
of things. It's just that a lot that is written in here is open to
interpretation.
I have talked to Doug Leffin with the Sheriffs Department who
would be interpreting most of this when anything -- any problems
happened, and his opinion and my opinion and somebody else's
opinion that we talked to out in the public, out in the hallway, there's
three different opinions. It's -- it is not set exactly what it should be.
If Doug's in charge this week and he says one thing and he retires
and somebody else comes in and they look at the same rules, there is
just too much open to interpretation on some of these rules.
One of them is -- and you got the packet. And I apologize, they
were late, because I didn't get any of this until the end of the week.
But on the maximum towing rates section versus the ordinance
for storage. They talk back and forth, and both of them are different.
I went over it with Michelle Arnold. Michelle Arnold says, this is the
Page 108
September 9-10, 2008
one it should be. Okay. I can agree with that. That's what it should
be. Well, we've got to get rid of the other one. If you have them both
there, they're contradicting each other.
One of the problems that a lot of the towers have is, it doesn't say
if it's mandatory to release cars 24 hours a day. And I'm not talking
private property rules. That's set by the state. Everybody that does
those knows those have to be released 24 hours a day.
I'm talking about if I get called out there to an arrest for a drunk
driver, a cripple, something like this, they get released six hours later
on bond, two o'clock in the morning. We are allowed to, according to
this, to call a deputy out there due to the danger. And I can show you
where the 14 staples are in my head for the danger from eight weeks
ago.
To have the deputies come out there every time we release a car
at nighttime, it's putting more problems on the budget of this county.
At 10:30 this morning Commissioner Coletta was talking about
something and said that the budget is down $80 million. This is just
going to be more cost that we're going to be paying the deputies and
everything else to go out there to do something that really doesn't need
to be covered.
The -- we cover the extra scene. A lot of this though, seriously,
is I know you did this because you wanted to take care of the private
property removals. That has been the biggest problem in this town.
They have towed the wrong people and they have not treated people
correctly. If you do business correctly, none of this would have been
gOIng on.
And it is all being thrown together as nonconsent tows. Private
property removal is a nonconsent tow. The police tows are a
nonconsent tow, but they're not the same thing. Believe me, people
have no problems with us going out and towing their car because they
went to the hospital and having take care of -- safe for their insurance
company or their family to take care of.
Page 109
September 9-10, 2008
Private property removals, on the other hand, they think we're
stealing their car because they did something wrong or they parked in
the wrong place. They're just so separate. I would love to see you
separate this into a private property deal and nonconsent tows for
normal towing.
It is just -- they don't even compare. And it -- everybody you
talk to. You've seen tows out there. You've all been out there in the
street and seen us picking up wrecks and stuff. Normally you're going
to see it for your 10, 15 minutes sitting in traffic.
You're not going to see it out there for the 12 hours that we're out
there for a rolled over tractor trailer. You just want to get by it and get
home and get on with life.
Other than that, the last thing I have is, there is nothing in here
for the bigger tows that show anything for specialty equipment. You
go out there -- and I'm going to use a Coca Cola truck as an example --
rolls over, 5,000 bottles of one liter Coca Cola in it strewn across the
road. You're not going to go out there and pick it up by hand. You
need equipment to pick it up. You need equipment to carry it back,
and nothing is written in there about being able to have specialty
equipment come out there.
I guess that was my time? I guess that's my time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete? Are you
complete? I know that there was some exchange there. Do you have
any other points on the ordinance?
MR. DIXON: I think that we have covered just about everything
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My understanding, that they
-- that most of the people that were involved in this, as we were going
through the ordinance, they brought the people in from -- to deal with
towing. Did you -- were you involved in any of this discussion?
MR. DIXON: No, sir. I wasn't invited. It was four companies
Page 110
September 9-10, 2008
that were invited. I have been in the towing business in this town
since 1987 of February. It was under a different name, and then when
I split with my partner, it turned into Dixon's. So they might have
gone just by whichever name was used for longer, and there have been
some that were used for longer, but it's not the same owners, so it's not
like they've been here longer than I have.
And I just got this at the last minute to go over it. Because there
was a draft sent to everybody -- that I got ahold of. That was one way.
And then between the last draft and the meeting you're having now, it
has switched so much -- and they're both in your packet -- that it's like
night and day. One had everything covered. This one doesn't, in my
. .
opInIon.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. DIXON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue, before you call up the next
speaker, I'm concerned if it -- the board passes an ordinance for the
Sheriffs Department to enforce and it's too interpretative and not
directive and clear, whether we should even consider this today. Does
anybody else share that concern?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had the same concern because we
want to do it right when we pass it. Maybe we could -- maybe we
could get some more input from Mr. Dixon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Mr. Dixon has a voice, I'm
sure, but so does everybody else. But it's the -- the Sheriffs
Department is going to enforce one part of this ordinance, and the
other one is an enforcement by code enforcement about the private
property tows?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it clear to the Sheriffs Department
the way the ordinance is written?
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, we can get the Sheriffs
Department up here. I can tell you that Officers Leffin and Minch
Page 111
September 9-10, 2008
were involved in the whole process. And, in fact, the sheriffhas a
large packet of rules and regulations for the rotation, and they said that
if this ordinance passed, that they would conform their regulations to
conform with whatever ordinance that the board approved. But I
would suggest if, Mr. -- Doug, you want to come up here and give
some feedback to the commissioners?
Officer Leffin?
MR. LEFFIN: Good afternoon. Yes, sir, myself, as well --
MR. MUDD: State your name.
MR. LEFFIN: I'm sorry. My name's Doug Leffin. I'm a
Corporal with the Collier County Sheriffs Office, Commercial Motor
Vehicle Unit.
Myself and Lieutenant Minch were part of the group that started
or spearheaded the rewriting of the ordinance. As long as everything
is put into print as to what our direction is going to be, that is the
direction that we are going to follow.
If it says that, you know, that it's mandatory that somebody
comes out and releases a vehicle regardless of the time of night, then
that's what we're going to do.
To my knowledge, that language was not put into the ordinance.
It's left open to the tow company as to whether or not they want to
come out. And if they do come out they're eligible for a gate fee to be
charged for the releasing of that vehicle.
But like I was stating when I was talking to Mr. Dixon in the hall,
it was not my understanding that there was a word mandatory in the
ordinance that they have to come out. It's going to be at the tow truck
company's discretion as to whether or not they want to come out at
one or two o'clock in the morning, but, you know --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I apologize.
MR. LEFFIN: That's quite all right, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker? Commissioner Halas?
MS. FILSON: Tom Baker.
Page 112
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just wanted to ask the
officer one more. Officer?
MR. LEFFIN : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Excuse me. You heard some of the
concerns that Mr. Dixon had. Do you feel that there's some
ambiguities in regards to how the ordinance is written at this point in
time?
MR. LEFFIN: Not -- no, sir, no. We worked very hard on this
ordinance, and I feel that, you know, it's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I believe that one of his questions
were, it was in the interpretation of the way the ordinance was written.
MR. LEFFIN : Well, again, that's -- you know, what he stated
was the mandatory coming out at one or two o'clock in the morning.
Again, that was not my interpretation of what the ordinance said. And
there was -- you know, I did not know there was a word mandatory in
there. To my knowledge, there is not a word that says mandatory. So
that is where -- you know, I told him, you know, it's interpreting -- as
far as I'm concerned, I will not require any of my tow truck companies
that are on rotation to come out at one or two o'clock in the morning to
release a vehicle to somebody that just got arrested for DUI or
whatever. It's not safe, you know, so --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there are some things in the
Florida Statutes that basically state that you can't stop an owner of a
vehicle that's been towed from asking to have medications taken from
the car and to get at it, okay. And some of the towing owners had
some reservations about that because, as Mr. Dixon talks about his 14
staples in his head, there are other people that have found out that
mandatory medications happen to be a bag of adult toys, could be
confiscation of illegal drugs, and in that particular case, we try to
make sure that if they were going to do that, that they had the ability
to call the sheriff to have a patrolman to be out there with them so that
we can discern if they're illegal drugs that are being picked up as
Page 113
September 9-10,2008
medications, adult toys, you know, that -- it's all about medications
that they need to get to the daylight, you know, till it gets to be dawn
where they can actually have the operation open for normal business
because there's some emergency situation.
And that -- and there is some reservation by the towing
companies about this after dark opening for emergency medication or
whatnot. We even got into our prescription eyeglasses, a particular
emergency, in order to have them.
So we discussed all of those particular items during our eight
meetings that we had, and as Michelle said, some of those meetings
were open to everyone. And so there was not just four. Yeah, we
started with a small group of stakeholders, and then we opened it up
for everybody as soon as we had something that people could review.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Tom Baker. He'll be followed by Thomas
Sepanski.
MR. BAKER: I'm Tom Baker, Baker's Towing. I'm your oldest
tow truck company. Been here since '86, haven't changed my name.
But Mr. Dixon pointed out with the big trucks, we have to be
certified, we have to pay extra insurance. There's quite a bit we do
have to do with regards to specialty equipment. We do have some
trailers for -- we do have some trailers that are extra trailers for
hauling Grey Hound buses, which is not addressed in there. We also
have loaders, backhoes we have to take out for dump trucks that have
rolled, that's not addressed in there that really needs to be addressed.
Some of the equipment we have is just -- nobody else has it. We
have to have it to clean this mess up. And that needs to be addressed.
And as far as the nighttime, people coming out two or three in the
morning, we've had some incidents out there where the gang bangers
have come over to try to get their cars and they bring 30 guys to get
one car, and we've had eight or nine sheriffs there, and it just wasn't a
safe situation for any of my employees or me.
Page 114
September 9-10, 2008
So I can understand if they need their eyeglasses or their
medication, but when you're dealing with some of the people we have
to deal with, they're not nice people sometimes. And it's really a
safety issue. Eight to five Monday through Friday, we have no
problem. I'll come out and help anybody.
We have to come out quite a bit of time for a fatality for the
highway patrol on the weekend or nights so they can do their
investigations. We have no problem with that because we have law
enforcement there, but we do have a lot of problems with drunks
calling up at three o'clock in the morning as soon as they get out of jail
to come get a car that doesn't belong to them, that they borrowed.
And by law, we have to give these cars back to the owners.
And the same thing with private property. Private property has to,
by law, come out within one hour to give that car back. The rotation
system isn't a private property. I don't do private properties as a rule
unless the car's been sitting there for two weeks. That's the only way I
come. I say, you know, I'm not coming out and doing this Condo
Comanches things where the car's parked there for 15 minutes because
this guy's having a little bit of fun up in the condo. It's just not right.
So -- but eight to five, Monday through Friday, you know, for
rotations. For the private properties, they have to do their own thing.
They're under statute. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great, thank you. And I understand
the added minutes after Mr. Dixon explained that.
MS. FILSON: Thomas Sepanski.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sepanski.
MS. FILSON: Sepanski? He'll be followed by Melissa Young.
MR. SEPANSKI: Well, I think we've gone over the gate fee.
And I mean, that was one of my major concerns was coming out after
hours, but I think it's pretty much been addressed.
I would just like you to put in there somewhere where down the
line they can't say that it's mandatory, because it does say if the owner
Page 115
September 9-10,2008
or agent seeks to recover it. It doesn't say anything about being at our
option, so -- I mean, I just think it's worded improperly.
It gives us a $65 gate fee. I just also think -- I mean, it's been that
way for a while. The county charges a hundred bucks for their people
to come out and turn on the water. I think for us to come out on our
own time, you know, a hundred bucks would also be fair since that's
what the county's getting.
One of the other concerns is, when they were talking about the
private properties within the 10-mile radius, well, I don't know who
they're going to get to tow private properties out, you know, in Orange
Blossom and Orangetree out there off Oil Well Road. We have a
number of properties out there. I mean, that's 22 miles from --
whether you go from Immokalee or you go from Naples.
So I mean, there's some big developments out there, I guess, that
we wouldn't be able to service or nobody else will, so -- because
there's only a couple industrial parks. Everybody's based out of the
industrial park. There's only two in this county. I mean, if you
include Immokalee, I guess that would be three. But -- so there's a
number of properties that nobody'd be able to service.
On that same page where it talks about getting a signature on a
private property from a police officer in letter C, I mean, I don't know
what vision (sic) this is. On mine it was page 14. You know, it says,
except as otherwise provided in this article, every prior express
instruction made in writing or shall be indicated by the date and time
and instruction and shall be signed by law enforcement officer on
identification.
So I don't know, does that mean every time we do a private
property, we have to call an officer out there and wait for them to
respond to sign off that we're towing that vehicle? I mean, that's what
it reads, unless it's in the wrong place and doesn't make any sense to
me, because then we'll be sitting out there for an hour waiting on an
officer, and usually, you know, I mean, chances are in that hour
Page 116
September 9-10, 2008
somebody's going to come out and have a confrontation, so that's
putting my drivers at risk if they're doing that type of towing while
they wait for an officer to respond, and I really don't think the Sheriffs
Department wants to respond to every single private property tow
that's done in this county and have to initial off on it. I mean, you were
talking about a waste of time. That would be a huge waste of time.
The other question I had was on truck insurance. Operating -- the
way I read it is that all trucks in Collier County are going to have to
have $300,000 liability and those rates. I mean, most us that are
rotation don't have a problem with that because that's what we carry
right now. I mean, if we're going to make a playing field level, just as
long as they enforce it against everybody else and make the
competition the same. I just want to see that the Sheriffs Department
or code enforcement is going to enforce them same rules that they're
enforcing upon us on everybody else and they start stopping these
companies that don't have any insurance and citing them.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Melissa Young. She'll be
followed by Troy McMass, McNass (sic).
MS. YOUNG: My name is Melissa Young. I'm the former
legislative lobbyist for the Florida Independent Towing and Recovery
Association. I've also worked for several companies between Lee and
Collier County, including Alligator Towing in Fort Myers.
I've heard several people complain about having to release a
vehicle to a person at night if they've been towed by law enforcement.
Now, for every person that owns a vehicle, that is the second
biggest investment that you make in your life. You're going to spend
30-, 50-, $60,000 on a car. If you're in an accident or if you've been
arrested, it shouldn't matter whether or not it's law enforcement or
private property. Yau have a right to your vehicle. So if you call and
request, you should be allowed to pick it up, to address that.
As far as what Mr. Sepanski was saying about the -- without
written instruction from a law enforcement agency, that is not a
Page 117
September 9-10, 2008
police-directed tow.
Private property tows have been a problem with the State of
Florida for years. I go every year to Tallahassee. I've spoken to every
senator and every representative that is in Tallahassee right now.
Every single committee hearing that you hear, every issue that is
brought up is private property towing.
What the county has done with this ordinance has made exactly
what has been proposed in the Cox/Moran Bill in 2004 and 2005, by
allowing the state and local government to regulate and have a person
present when a car's towed.
You had had a question about whether or not somebody needed
to be there to sign if it's in somebody's driveway. If it's being towed
from private property, somebody has to be there according to what the
ordinance has written, and that is not just protecting the consumer.
That is taking the liability off of the towing company for towing an
incorrect car and placing that responsibility on that property
management, the property owner, or the authorized person signing.
As far as the addresses about having specialty equipment added
for the bigger trucks, most of the time they're going to charge extra for
a second truck on scene. If they have to have specialty equipment, I
don't really see an issue with that being added in because that is
something that, with anybody that's part of the risk program or the
Tim stub (sic) has to have a loader, a backhoe, sometimes a dumpster,
depending on how big the wreck is, and that's something that I didn't
have the thought to mention before, and I don't believe that Mr. Baker
did in the meeting that -- you didn't go to any of the meetings, but Mr.
Sepanski did. And I don't see that being an issue.
But the main concern that I had heard from several people that
had asked me to come in on this was that there was an issue with
private property towing in Collier County, and 85 percent of the
complaints that you're going to get from people who have been towed
fall under that.
Page 118
September 9-10,2008
And this ordinance clearly covers any of the complaints that the
consumer's going to bring while adding protection to the towers who
are doing the tows and protection to the consumers who are picking
their belongings up and having their cars towed to begin with.
Was there -- you had had something else that nobody had
answered in the middle? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
MS. YOUNG: All right. Then that's kind of pretty much all I
have to say. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Troy McNass (sic).
MR. McNABB: My name is Troy McNabb, McNabb Towing.
There's a huge difference between nonconsent towing, private
property, and law enforcement nonconsent towing; specifically your
car was towed due to a DUI, you've broken the law or you didn't have
insurance or you didn't have a license plate, and there's just a huge
difference. And for us to come out in the middle of the night, like
everybody else has said, is unsafe to us, and this whole ordinance was
supposed to be about safety and issues.
And I'd like to add to what Mr. Sepanski said. Ifwe have to
follow these ordinances, it should be fair that all the wrecking
companies in Collier County have to follow this ordinance and be
enforced.
I do have a question on the truck requirements on the class A tow
of being a 19,000 GVW truck. I'm not sure why that's been put in or
for what reason. It's a little too much of a truck. A 19,000 GVW
truck borderlines a class B truck and not a class A. I believe it says
that -- give me a second. I'll find it here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It should be in the definition.
MR. McNABB: Yeah. It's section three, tow truck class
specifications. Class A rating, minimum gross weight 19,000 --
MR. MUDD: Your page 8 and 9.
Page 119
September 9-10, 2008
MR. McNABB: Gross weight 19,000 pounds. That's a pretty big
truck to do the job. I have a truck that is about 3,000 pounds less than
that, and in the last five years, there's nothing I haven't come back
with.
So I just don't understand why we're going to change the rules
and how that's going to affect or help the citizens of Collier County.
That's pretty much all I've got.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Now I'm becoming
concerned. You know, if you've been doing a service out there and
you've been providing that service without any kind of default, I am
curious now why all of a sudden this particular rule has been upgraded
to the point where you no longer would be able to interact out there
with the public in a business way.
MR. McNABB: I have the exact same concern.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's see if we can --
MR. McNABB: Why do I have to spend $75,000 when I have a
truck that I just bought so I can take a $30,000 bath and have to go
buy a truck that I don't need.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Let's hear why.
MS. ARNOLD: I was just going to address that we relied on the
industry to give us some of these classifications and what was
currently being used. So if the modification has created a hardship, we
wouldn't have an issue with reducing it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I need to jump back in here
now, if I may.
Sir, were you part of the discussions that took place when they
were putting these rules together?
MR. McNABB: Nope. I wasn't invited either.
MS. ARNOLD: That's incorrect. You were at the meetings and
Page 120
September 9-10, 2008
you reviewed all of the information, and this was something that was
discussed.
MR. McNABB: At the time -- at the time the 19,000 minimum
GVW was not in the rules. That has been something that's been added
to at least the last two revisions. I did address a subject of having a
twin line extendable boom, which I was told, if you don't have it, you
don't need it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, my concern is the fact that
your cohorts in the industry who attended all the meetings might be
putting together a -- rules and regulations that will benefit what they
own as far as inventory goes. That's a concern.
MR. TEACH: Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Teach?
MR. TEACH: I just wanted to mention that the class specs came
from the truck manufacturers. But I will note that Palm Beach County
has an ordinance, a very large ordinance, and their class specs for a
class A are -- is 14,5-.
So if the board wanted to show some flexibility because we may
have some tow truck operators who have a lower class truck but
carries the insurance requirements and has been able to perform their
job with a smaller truck, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to something
like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, I feel very strongly
about this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we change this today and
consider the ordinance?
MR. TEACH: I think --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a major or a minor change?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. You can change it. It's been properly
advertised.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're looking at
classification A and B, changing A and B?
Page 121
September 9-10,2008
MR. McNABB: Just A. B is the way it should be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you have a -- what size is
your truck?
MR. McNABB: I have a truck -- I have a class A and former
owner of a class C, and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, no. What size do you have
now?
MR. McNABB: Sixteen thousand pounds--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sixteen.
MR. McNABB: -- which is basically just about what you're
going to get if you buy a new truck today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So 14,5- to 19,000, correct?
MR. TEACH: Ifwe -- on the class A tow truck minimum gross
weight, we have it at 19- now. If the board wants to go to 14,5- --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fourteen -- scratch--
MR. TEACH: -- which is what Palm Beach does, we can do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just scratch 19,000, put in 14,5-.
MR. TEACH: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Now, are we talking about -- get some
clarification. We just talked about tow truck, or we talking about car
carrier now?
MR. TEACH: Right.
MR. McNABB: Well, most flatbed car carriers have above a
19,000 GVW.
MR. TEACH: So we can keep that 19.
MR. McNABB: I'm talking about your Ford F-550s, F-450s,
one-ton Chevys.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. McNABB: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. The -- I guess it would
probably go to address all the concerns that the public speakers had to
Page 122
September 9-10, 2008
say if we can go down one by one.
MS. ARNOLD: There was one concern about the
inconsistencies, I believe he said, between the resolution and the
ordinance, and I think that it's pretty clear, but we could modify,
because we make reference to that section of the ordinance from the
resolution to -- and let me just point you to the pages. It's page 3 in
the resolution and page 11 in the ordinance; page 11, paragraph three,
where it's talking about, storage charges shall begin after six hours.
And they both indicate that, but in the ordinance it gives an
example to identify exactly when the charge will be applied. If we
want to have them state -- be stated exactly the same, I don't think that
there would be a problem. That way there's no confusion.
MR. TEACH: I agree with Michelle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry, Commissioner Halas. Do
you mind if we go through all the changes? You want to address this
particular one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is what I was going to do is go
through; one of them was the -- making sure that it's not mandatory to
go out at night.
MR. TEACH: And there is no mandatory language in there,
Commissioner. And I think the intent was, Mr. Mudd explained it
regarding the prescriptive medicine and the eyeglasses.
And the thought behind this was -- and through our discussions,
through our dialogue, was that most of the trucks that are on rotation
are sort of on call anyways. And so there may be an opportunity
where somebody needs their medication and they're on call anyways,
similar to a private tow where they'd have to release the car if they
wanted it in an hour anyways. But it's not mandatory that they go out
in the middle of the night except if there's medication or prescription
eyeglasses.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go back to that previous point.
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
Page 123
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Page 11 and page 3. And I lost what
that was.
County Manager, do you remember?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's basically saying that there's some
kind of an inconsistency the way it's written on page 3, which is the
resolution. Talks about the fees as far as storage and how they can
charge, and what exactly it says on page 11 of the ordinance under
paragraph three on page 11.
And what Michelle --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Storage charges.
MR. MUDD: And what Michelle basically said is, we'll make
them exactly the same as far as the verbiage is concerned so there'll be
no confusion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll put the language of three into
the reso?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. TEACH: Correct. The really -- the distinction there and the
only difference is that in the ordinance we give an example so that
people can understand when the clock starts ticking, and we left the
example out of the resolution. But we'll make those -- that language
mirror each other in the resolution and the ordinance so there's no
difference.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next -- next concern? Did you write
anything else down? What I heard also was --
MR. MUDD: Scott brought something --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's an exception on page 15, C. I
think that's a misunderstanding. Where -- the private property
impoundment, and it says, except otherwise provided in this article.
The gentleman was saying that you need an officer for every vehicle
being towed. I don't think that is what -- it doesn't say that at all.
MR. TEACH: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What it just says is, if a law
Page 124
September 9-10, 2008
enforcement gets involved, that's the exception to this section?
MR. TEACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. TEACH: I do want to bring something up that I recall, too,
Commissioners. The discussion regarding the extra equipment on
scene and things of that class. And just -- the reason why we didn't
put a class D class in the ordinance was, it was our understanding that
there were only three or four trucks out there at most in the county,
and so we thought we'd -- the rates are the most recent that we were
aware of.
And we looked at Palm Beach County because they had done a
study and it was very similar in part, as we arrived on the rates, and so
we didn't see the need to do a class D now. We've heard today that
there's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not regulating that.
MR. TEACH: Right, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So they can charge whatever the
market is.
MR. TEACH: Right. And as far as, you know, bringing extra
equipment on the scene and whatnot, or spending extra time, there are
provisions for the extra time on the scene as we've discussed.
MR. MUDD: I guess I need--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then I'm okay.
MR. MUDD: -- some clarification with your statement, Mr.
Chairman. They can charge what fees the market brings. No. They
can charge the fees that are in the resolution right now, and we'll come
back with an update to the board. If gasoline prices should go up
another dollar and 50 cents or whatever like that, we'll come back to
the board with an adjustment on the resolution so that would adjust the
fees so that they would be staying within the market-driven aspect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you don't have accessories. An
example was you have a Budweiser truck that overturns, and you've
Page 125
September 9-10,2008
got Budweiser all over the place and you need -- you don't need a tow
truck to pick up Budweiser cans. You need a whole bunch of people
to drink them.
MR. MUDD: Just 12 thirsty guys.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it costs a lot for those guys
standing around drinking beer.
MS. ARNOLD: I think that we could possibly add another
allowance for fee when extra equipment is needed for that exceptional
thing for, you know, the Budweiser truck.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Heineken or whatever.
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, my point is, since it's not in
here, you're not regulating for that accessory use to perform that duty.
That's what I'm -- that's my point.
MS. ARNOLD: Well, they would be performing it, but we're not
allowing them to assess an additional charge for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then we need to put that in this reso.
MS. ARNOLD: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think we have enough to pass
this, but what do we do in the time if a Heineken truck overturns on
1-75 and somebody has to go out there with 12 guys?
MR. TEACH: Well, Commissioner, we certainly can bring back
a revised resolution with -- which would express the intent of the
commission. So that's one option.
MR. MUDD: But what -- right now -- and I wish Mr. Baker -- if
I could get Mr. Baker to come back up again. By now he's fixed his
phone. Good.
What do you do right now, okay, if you have to bring in a bucket
loader or another dump truck in order to pick up the rock that the
broken down dump truck or the rolled over dump basically did? How
do you -- how do you account for those fees and how do you charge
for those fees?
Page 126
September 9-10,2008
MR. BAKER: We have our own backhoe. We charge $350 an
hour for a backhoe. Dump trucks we have to sub out, so whatever
they charge us for the dump truck.
I believe in our meetings we had, if you took the class D rate we
had, the 477, and stuck that in there like we had, you'd cure it all. Just
give us back the 477 for the class D, the 50-ton truck, because the way
,
you re --
MR. MUDD: Somebody's listening.
MR. BAKER: The way that we have it right now is we had it at
477 in the hourly to 25. And then anything we do over top of that is
the -- the extra charges for the dump truck to be cleaned up or
whatever. And we've always -- I've always, and I'm sure Bob and
Bumper to Bumper -- we're the three big guys in town with the big
trucks. When we call somebody out, nobody really argues with our
costs on what we charge for this big truck towing because all they
want is the road open.
Ifwe have a semi flipped on 1-75. They don't care. Drag it into
the median, get it out of the way. And if it's Budweiser, all these guys
are going to show, so.
But that's the way -- if you put it back in the way we had it at the
477, we're good.
MR. MUDD: On that visualizer right there I've got the class D,
out of a couple of versions ago, but the class D tows are basically
locked down, private and the law enforcement directed tow, and that's
what you're talking about, I believe.
MR. BAKER: Right. That'd be fine. We don't have no
problems with that at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we add that today?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir; absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is there anything else?
Any discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, yes. I have something that needs
Page 127
September 9-10,2008
to be clarified that Scott Teach brought up originally, and it had to do
with posting signs as a responsibility of the tow truck company and/or
the homeowners' association.
And I believe Scott pretty much gave you a recommendation, and
I don't want to put words in his mouth, but we would change it so that
it would be the property owner's responsibility to post. And then if the
tow company hit it, then they could fix it and put it back up. That way
it would be uniform and you get the responsible person to basically
tell people that it's a tow-away zone.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also, instead of three feet, I think
we should start with a minimum of four feet.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. To go four to six instead of three to six.
And sir, that change would be on -- that would be on page 17, section
6A 1, subparagraph I, and it's one, two, three, four, five, six lines down
changing it from three to four and not more than six feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
MR. TEACH: Commissioner, one more thing just to clarify for
the record. Since we're going to accept the class D rates, as Mr. Baker
came up here, I'd like to make a slight change in the ordinance just to
reflect that all tow trucks over class C, that would be -- fall into the
class D category, and that way it will be consistent with the rates that
we're going to charge, and I'll do that in the resolution as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion to approve
staffs recommendations to the ordinance and resolution as amended.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second to the motion by
Commissioner Halas. Do we want to capture all the changes within
the motion?
Page 128
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: We got those, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got those.
MR. MUDD: And we're going to -- and the county attorney and
I will go over them based on the verbal, but go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: And the only question I have,
Commissioners, we could either do this here and now and make those
changes, or we can bring it back to your next agenda on our consent so
you can see the changes. That's up to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, this ordinance is -- I'm going to
hand sign it and go through those changes myself, so somebody gets
to sit down with me and do so.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 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. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, before everyone
leaves, there isn't -- if there's anybody out there from the tow industry,
I don't believe that I've ever -- I haven't seen in the eight meetings that
we had, and I'd just like to thank them, each and every one of them,
for the time that they volunteered into doing this, because this wasn't
easy, and it's pretty meticulous. And when you're dealing with a legal
document, it's not much fun.
But they stayed with it, and it didn't start out very pretty, and we
probably are going to find something in here that's an unexpected
Page 129
September 9-10, 2008
consequence, and when we do, we'll bring it back to the Board of
County Commissioners for a change. But I'd like to be able to thank
those people for devoting their time in order to make this the best
ordinance we could possibly get right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item?
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2008-48: AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CREATION
OF CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to 8B, and
that's to recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners
of an ordinance for the creation of the Clam Bay -- Clam Bay
Advisory Committee. And Mr. Gary McAlpin will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, right now we have
10 speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have 15, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we -- at 2:30 we're going to take
a break. Mr. McAlpin.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Gary
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management.
On 7/22 the board approved creating a Clam Bay Advisory
Committee to review all the issues affecting the long-term viability of
the entire estuary and make directions through the Coastal Advisory
Committee to the Board of County Commissioners.
The ordinance that you have in front of you supports that
direction. It provides for creation, purpose of function, powers and
duties, appointment, composition of the board, and sunset provisions.
Page 130
September 9-10, 2008
This ordinance was legally advertised per -- and properly noticed
prior to the BCC meeting, and I'm here to answer any questions that
you have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question but I'll let my
colleagues go first.
Nobody wants to speak. Are we going to -- is the study per the
Tomasko report?
MR. McALPIN: I think that what we have done is we will leave
that up to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee. We will make some
recommendations on the items that will be addressed, but clearly that
will be under the jurisdiction of the advisory committee, Mr. Chair.
So bringing those items up and forward would be -- would be
discussed with them at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I have a concern, so
what did you have in mind? What are they going to study? Is it the
Tomasko report or is it Clam Bay?
MR. McALPIN: The Tomasko report serves the basis for it, but
it is for the Clam Bay Estuary, the entire estuary, which would include
the upper, middle, and lower Clam Bay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What I have ~- what was given
to the board was in the Tomasko report. It is outer Clam Bay
mangrove, Clam Bay middle, and Clam Bay south. It extends all the
way from Vanderbilt Beach Road to, looks like, 5th Avenue South.
MR. McALPIN: It would include going down to Seagate Drive,
Commissioner, and that's what we generally consider the entire
estuary for Clam Bay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Because the -- the total
maximum daily -- total maximum daily loads and nutrients were based
upon this study.
MR. McALPIN: That was from the -- that was -- that is a
handout that was -- that's presented by the Pelican Bay Foundation for
your review, that is correct.
Page 131
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's in the Tomasko report?
MR. McALPIN: And that was for the Tomasko report which
showed the influence of the other tidal systems on the estuary. So
that's showing the influence of the surrounding bays that have on this
influence -- on this estuary because we do have an inflow from the
south at Seagate Drive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Clam Bay watershed shown above
drains approximately 5,000 acres, highly urbanized area. That's a
stretch.
MR. McALPIN: Mr. Chair, one of the things that this -- when
we consider Clam Bay, it's upper, lower, and middle Clam Bay and
the influences of that. But clearly, I think this is one of the issues that
the advisory board will address, is what is the boundaries and
influences of the entire estuary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. One of the sections, section
three, the appointment and composition, I think it should be changed,
leaving the first portion up there with the representative of Pelican
Bay Services Division and also Pelican Bay foundation. The other
one would be that instead of having a resident from Naples Cay
preference as a member of the board, that maybe we ought to appoint
somebody from the city council as a representative for the City of
Naples.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner Halas, that was part of the
original recommendation that we brought before the board, and at the
last meeting the board directed us to change that to a person from -- a
member of the board of Naples Cay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. McALPIN: So it's whatever the board would direct us, we
would --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We can discuss that.
MR. McALPIN: Okay.
Page 132
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can you call up the public speakers,
please.
MS. FILSON: The first public speaker is Jim Hoppensteadt. Mr.
Hoppensteadt?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: I'm coming.
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by John Domenie.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, Commissioners. For the
record, Jim Hoppensteadt from the Pelican Bay Foundation.
Before you, you have a presentation that I'd like to go through
with you. We certainly appreciate the opportunity for dialogue, and as
the commission knows, the foundation is on record for not opposing
the ordinance, but we hopefully would like to suggest some items that
might serve to improve it.
There's three short items or items that we'd like to talk about.
First has to do with the definition of exactly what area is covered by
the ordinance. In the page that -- page one of the packet that you have
-- and I had it for the group, but if Mr. Ochs doesn't mind walking
through it on the visualizer, that might be good for the audience.
First page is what typically is viewed as Clam Bay that sits
within the Pelican Bay PUD. I think it's important here to recognize
that in June Commissioner Coyle asked for a committee to be formed
that dealt with the NRP A.
On the next page, page 2, you will see that the area that is
designated as the natural resource protection area is the area that is
designated on page 1. That is the only area in this area -- sea line that
is -- or gulf line, I guess, that is designated as such.
Page 3 of the brief presentation here speaks to what
Commissioner Henning was talking about. In the Tomasko report
they redefine Pelican Bay as not being that NRP A and as not being
what we traditionally think about it but they, in fact, called it outer
Clam Bay mangrove.
That's important if you flip to page 5, because in the Tomasko
Page 133
September 9-10,2008
report, the Tomasko report in the summary section goes on to talk
about loading of Clam Bay. And you will see in the summary report
that it says, Clam Bay runoff has increased 68 percent. It will say that
Clam Bay total nitrogen levels have increased 108 percent, that Clam
Bay total phosphorus loads have increased 418 percent, and that Clam
Bay total suspended solids have increased 525 percent. That is only
true of this extended area.
In fact, if you look at the inserts, Clam Bay mid. is defined by --
in the Tomasko report as being between Seagate Drive and Banyan
Boulevard. Clam Bay south is from Banyan Boulevard down to 5th
Avenue South, and I guess I'm going to run out of time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you wrap it up, please.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yeah. I think some people are going
to cede some time to me, so I'll stay up here and I'll finish my
presentation when they do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's going to do that? Mr. Cravens
and -- state -- what is your name?
MS. LEVERE: Bunny Levere.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bonny (sic) Levere.
MS. LEVERE: Bunny Levere. I'd like to relinquish my three
minutes to Jim Hoppensteadt.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Tom Cravens. Okay.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Okay. So I'll keep going.
Outer Clam Bay mangroves, if you look at each of these graphs,
is Pelican Bay as we talked about as being defined on page 1 and 2,
and you can see the numbers increase there are much -- and
significantly different than those identified in the Tomasko report.
Ifwe flip back to page 4, we kind of blew out this area with an
aerial photograph, and you'll see visually why that's important.
If you look in the upper left-hand corner, you'll see Clam Bay,
and it is visually a very different landscape with the mangrove estuary
and the bay system than the rest of the area that was identified in the
Page 134
September 9-10, 2008
Tomasko report, which has a lot of hardscape and a lot of direct runoff
into those bay systems from the impervious surface.
So the first thing we'd like to recommend is that the ordinance
clearly define exactly what is being considered by the Clam -- the
newly formed Clam Bay Advisory Committee.
The second point I'd like to make is the ordinance recommends
that the newly formed Clam Bay Advisory Committee reports through
the Coastal Advisory Committee, and that was directed by the
commissioners to staff in July, and we would suggest that this
committee should report directly to the Board of Commissioners, and
the reason is, is that in section two of the proposed ordinance, there
are a number of areas contemplated by this new committee.
The estuary system, day-to-day operation of the estuary, water
quality and sampling, tidal flushing and mixing, mangrove
maintenance, nutrient loadings, runoff control, marine life, none of
which falls within the jurisdiction of the CAC. It might fall within the
jurisdiction of the EAC, but they don't have -- the EAC doesn't have
other important elements that the committee's going to deal with when
it comes to the Clam Pass maintenance and sand bypassing.
And so it would seem like, rather than have this committee report
to another committee which may have more narrow expertise and a
more narrow sense of what should be done, that the committee should
be direct -- directly report to the BCC, and that if they need further
technical advice, that they go out to the various committees within the
county structure, all of whom have done a great job, and get the
technical advice as they need it. So that would be the second point,
that the committee report directly to the BCC.
And the third point, as you might expect, the makeup of the
committee currently is seven members. Page 7 will show -- in the
presentation to the CAC, in August there was some numbers, these are
in millions of dollars, of who's invested what in the Clam Bay Estuary
and the breakdown by percentages.
Page 135
September 9-10, 2008
I mean, certainly the county MSTD fund has contributed a lot of
money to the maintenance of this. It is an estuary open to everybody,
and it certainly should be overseen by a committee that represents
that.
The only thing we would ask is in recognition of the amount of
flesh, as it were, that the Pelican Bay has in this, and that can either be
viewed as what they've invested directly through the PBSD or by the
fact that there's no other area that has $5.4 billion worth of real estate
property that is impacted by the health of the mangrove system, and so
that we would look for a higher representation for Pelican Bay and
that three people be appointed from Pelican Bay.
And you can see the breakdown there, the percentages, and why
we think that that makes a fairer representation of the makeup of the
committee.
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a fast question as I'm
looking at your maps. Does the county own any of the land in here?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala. Which
map?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just on the Pelican Bay.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Yeah. By deed the county owns the
conservation area, which is the area in green. They also have the
services division area, 12 acres in the middle of the golf course.
They've got the county park, which is to the north there. They've got
the library and the EMS station. So everything in red there is county
owned in addition to the boardwalk that Naples Grande uses for the
lease to access the park out there. And the beach park, which, you
know, the black line kind of goes through it, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see, so -- I didn't -- from your
presentation I didn't realize that we owned anything in there, but we
also have a great stake in that -- in the health of that whole pass, don't
Page 136
September 9-10, 2008
we?
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Oh, absolutely. It's a very symbiotic
relationship between the county and Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is John Domenie. He'll be followed
by Brad Cornell.
MR. DOMENIE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, John Domenie.
F or eight years commissioners have lauded Pelican Bay for its
management of your Clam Bay. Seagate then claimed that somehow
Pelican Bay was responsible for killing sea grasses in outer Clam Bay.
The county had to spend $40,000 to prove them wrong.
Quoting from Dr. Tomasko's study, page 17, quote, of the 30 sea
grass sampling sites visited, sea grass was found at 13 of them for a
rate occurrence of 43 percent, unquote. Pelican Bay's also accused of
somehow degrading the water quality in outer Clam Bay.
Turn to 23 and 24 of the same study indicating five locations in
outer Clam Bay where water quality tests were made. Here are the
results as reported by Dr. Tomasko for a location called CB5 at the
bridge over entrance to outer Clam Bay and another called CBCNL, a
canal within Seagate in the City of Naples over which Pelican Bay has
no authority. I think that the data will speak for itself.
I'm very afraid that as a result of Seagate's allegations, the new
committee will find that the city may have to incur heavy expenses to
clean up those canals.
A lot has been said about navigation. You all know that I offered
to sit down with David Busier to come up with reasonable private
navigational signs. I never received a response.
Over 18 months ago, Mr. McAlpin came to the services division
stating that he would see that the navigational marks be installed
promptly, but he, too, has found out that not all controlling agencies
Page 137
September 9-10, 2008
see eye to eye on this matter, and so far nothing has been done.
A year or so ago Mr. McAlpin set up a study group which had
nine subcommittees. What happened to their recommendations?
Have they been published? Where can I find these? Will this new
committee face the same fate?
Commissioners, I do not object to a technical review and study of
Clam Bay; however, you are being asked to create a new committee,
but can you define the limits of the adjacent waters? I have no idea
what adj acent waters are.
We would like to see environmentalists on the committee, people
who know a red from a white mangrove, who know tannin effects on
water clarity, how stormwater runoff enters the system systems, et
cetera.
We are also concerned that Naples Cay, which had to buy
mitigation credits for their destroyed wetlands mangroves, will be
making decisions about the mangroves on county property.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brad Cornell. He'll be
followed by Doug Finlay.
MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Brad
Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of Collier County Audubon Society.
I want to first state that in this proposed ordinance for
establishing this committee, there is no mention of the Clam Bay
NRP A, the natural resource protection area. That NRP A is Collier
County's very first and was established to restore and protect the
delicate shallow mangrove and estuarine ecosystem there. I'm
concerned that this ordinance will conflict with the goals of that Clam
Bay NRP A.
I was on EPT AB, the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory
Board, when this NRP A was established almost 10 years ago. I don't
see how a nontechnical advisory committee can effectively give
recommendations on the ecosystem restoration purposes of the Clam
Page 138
September 9-10, 2008
Bay natural resource protection area.
Collier County Audubon Society recommends an ecologically
based committee with environmental staff oversight which reports
directly to you, the Board of County Commissioners. This would be
more appropriate than the civic committee described in the proposed
ordinance. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Doug Finlay. He'll be followed by Sarah WJ
(sic).
MR. FINLA Y:Hi. Doug Finlay, City of Naples. The last time I
was up here and spoke on Clam Bay, I mentioned to you that I had
just kayaked in the system the weekend before, and I'm happy to say
that I was kayaking in the system on Saturday morning, so I do spend
a whole lot of time in the estuary, and it's very important to me.
The one thing I do want to make clear, the Tomasko report was a
land use modeling study only. That's it, as far as pollution loading.
Nothing definitive with regard to pollution loading came out of the
Tomasko study. That is to be determined into the future with water
quality testing in both Moorings Bay and Clam Bay.
The Clam Bay committee, in my mind, should report to the CAC.
The two are much too intertwined with each other, especially with
regard to the pass.
Also, as you all know, the county owns the uplands of the Clam
Bay Estuary, and for this reason the seven-member committee is
proper in my mind.
And one thing I want to point out, Mike Bauer of the City of
Naples has snorkeled in Clam Bay and the Seagate canals on more
than one occasion. And he's not here to speak for himself, but I'm sure
he would confirm what I've said, because I just talked to him at city
council when they had the Clam Bay discussion.
And the healthiest sea grasses that he finds in outer Clam Bay are
actually within the Seagate canals right where the exchange of waters
takes place between Moorings Bay and Clam Bay, which is near the
Page 139
...._"....,"'__," . .."__..._,.._,.,..._."...._"m"~___,.,,.___.... '. .. .c.,......~-.-..,__._.".__..,.~,."."..."
September 9-10, 2008
culverts, which is quite interesting to know that. But anyway, thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Sarah WJ. She'll be followed by Meredith Dee.
MS. WU: Good afternoon. My name is Sarah, and that last
name is spelled W -U, and I live at 51 -- or excuse me -- 5052 Seashell
Avenue, and I own at 5194 Seahorse Avenue in the Seagate
neighborhood.
My husband and I bought in this neighborhood back in 2002.
We chose this neighborhood because of many reasons. We're close to
the beach, we have a great school district, but we also chose Seagate
because it is a boating community. If you just drive down our canal--
or down our street, you can see many boats, many docks.
We currently own kayaks, but we do have plans. We have a boat
dock to put in place in -- a boat lift and, you know, have a small
motorized boat that we can access the bay and the gulf.
As I said, we chose it because it is a boating community, and this
is upheld by the Collier County ordinance 96-16, which provides for
the utilization of the Clam Bay area by motorized watercraft.
I am here for one reason -- two reasons actually. One is that we
-- I support the ordinance as written. There's some discussion about
Naples Cay seating their appointee and that maybe we should have
someone from the city council.
At the last city council meeting this topic came up, should city
council have representation on this advisory committee, and their
feelings were that they shouldn't because it is -- the committee reports
to the Coastal Advisory Committee. And on the Coastal Advisory
Committee, city council has representation.
I am also here to call on your immediate action regarding the
navigational markers that are long overdue. Please, please, make this
the number one priority of this advisory committee.
They were supposed to be put in place 10 years ago. Many
federal agencies have told you that they need to be put in place. The
Page 140
September 9-10, 2008
Turrell, Hall & Associates have given recommendations on where
these navigational markers need to be placed. This is a safety issue
for our neighborhood, all right.
And it also is an issue in regards to the underground or
underwater resources. We need to be able to get from our community
out to the gulf safely . We need to stay in the channel so that we don't
harm the underwater resources of the bay.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Meredith Dee. She'll be followed by Ned
Renfroe.
MS. DEE: Hi. Meredith Dee. I live in Seagate. I've been a
Seagate resident for 12 years. I'm also on the board.
We support the current ordinance as written as Sarah mentioned.
The seven-member committee is appropriate. Reporting to the
Coastal Advisory Committee is appropriate.
And what I want to do today is have something on record from
the Clam Bay restoration management plan. This is the permit that
we've been talking about that's been ongoing for 10 years.
Presently Collier County has enacted ordinance 96-16, which
ordinance provides for the utilization of the Clam Bay area by
motorized watercraft provided that they operate with no wake and at
idle speed, which we do.
The management plan recommends no change in that protocol.
The PBSD will, however, in cooperation with the county, vigorously
enforce the existing ordinance. Appropriate notification, signage, and
policing will be provided by the county or by PBSD to ensure
compliance. The signage will be strategically placed both at the
entrance to Clam Pass and in the areas around the boat ramp located at
the southern end of outer Clam Bay.
These are intended to ensure that persons accessing the Clam Bay
system are informed of its unique ecological characteristics, the
limitations of access resulting from variations in water depth, the
Page 141
September 9-10,2008
existence of no wake and idle speed requirements for motorized boat
operation, and importantly, the necessity of staying out of areas
identified as having maturing sea grass beds and potential manatee
habitat.
Precise locations and language to be included in the signage will
be determined in cooperation with the agency's post permit issuance.
Finally, the main channel will be marked in accordance with the
requirements imposed by the United States Coast Guard to ensure that
those who use the system clearly know where the channel is and the
prohibitions against operating their watercraft outside the same.
Additionally, the enlargement of the tidal exchange mechanism
creates potentially hazardous conditions at the mouth of the pass.
Historically this area has noticeable tidal movement but is gentle
enough to allow free swimming and wading.
The adjustments contemplated here are likely to result in tidal
movement that can be hazardous except to the strongest of the
swimmers. Channel depths will prohibit wading, particularly during
high tide.
Appropriate warning signs and monitoring of the human use in
Clam Pass area will be required. The federal government, specifically
the Army Corps of Engineers, agrees with this, markers are a must.
We feel the committee goals need to focus on the location of the
markers and ongoing safety issues, not whether there should be
markers.
Furthermore, Seagate asks that the committee makes such
decisions in a timely manner, as resolution to this issue is long
overdue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: How many more speakers do we
have?
MS. FILSON: Seven.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to take a break now?
Yeah, we're going to take a 10-minute break.
Page 142
September 9-10, 2008
(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.
MS. FILSON: The next--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: -- speaker is Amber -- whoops, I'm sorry.
Someone put this down. Next speaker is Ned Renfroe. He'll be
followed by Chuck Roth.
MR. RENFROE: My name is Ned Renfroe, and I live at 5088
Seashell Avenue.
Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you for
allowing me to speak.
I agree to the ordinance as it is, and I don't agree to a change in
the make-up of the committee. Pelican Bay may have been a good
steward for themselves and done great things, but we don't feel well
represented in our interests in the pass. I'm not sure if it's simply
because they begrudge our boating rights or what.
I was born and raised in Naples, Florida, and have lived in
Seagate for almost seven years. I bought my house because it is on
the water. I'm a lifelong boater and a fisherman. My family and I
have spent and continue to spend a lot of time on our 15- foot flats
boat. I don't think anybody's looking to bring a 65-foot Hatteras
Sports Fisherman through Clam Pass.
I need you to understand that I have a narrow focus but I'm
concerned that the goal of this committee may be to affect my boating
rights, and if it does so, that will not be acceptable and will not stand.
We have riparian rights which include motorized boating access
through the Clam Bay system, and interference with those rights by
any private and governmental agency constitutes a taking for which
we are entitled to compensation.
If someone doesn't want to see me in my boat, then let me add up
Page 143
September 9-10, 2008
my investments so far, and they can just write me a check, and I might
go away. I paid a premium for a house on the water. I have installed
a dock, two boat lifts, and I've purchased a boat. So for already spent
hard costs, I come up with over $200,000.
The future property value loss would be difficult to calculate but
probably doable. Does anybody really expect me or this community
to throw these rights and this money away? I don't think it's going to
happen.
I have also read commentaries in the Naples Daily News that say
Seagate is a non-boating community. These false statement affect my
property value and these false statements border on commercial
disparagement for which damages can lie.
I would also like to caution the agency responsible for putting in
the mandated channel markers in Clam Pass. It has not been done and
it creates a dangerous and potentially libelous situation for them to the
boating and swimming interaction.
Seagate has been a quiet little community and has been minding
its own business in the past, but I would say that I, for one, am fed up
with the people who think they know what is best for me and are
blatantly trying to take something of real value away from me.
With regards to all the games and politics that are being played
with these issues, I suggest they back off. We are forced -- we are
being forced to go all the way on this one. And this includes taking
appropriate legal action to defend ourselves.
Thank you for your consideration, and please give Seagate as
great a voice on the committee as you can. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Chuck Roth. He'll be followed by
Nicole Ryan.
MR. ROTH: As you said, my name's Chuck Roth from 7575
Pelican Bay Boulevard.
I don't really have a dog in this race, but I just wanted to -- I've
been reading some of this stuff, and I wanted to ask if maybe the
Page 144
September 9-10, 2008
commissioners could ask -- to sort of put some words into the enabling
document that the people on this committee review what -- this fiasco
that's gone on at Wiggins Pass where dredging, re-dredging, dollars
spent -- you all, I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
And I would -- my eyes were struck by one of the
recommendations now that this mixed use area is going to have no
swimming signs possibly posted on Barefoot Beach because it's too
dangerous. That's what it says in this report.
So as I say, I think it's useful reviewing what's gone on after all
the past has prolonged the future. That's all I have to say.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She'll be followed by Marcy (sic)
Cravens.
MS. RYAN: And one of the following speakers, Sue Smith, has
asked that her time be added to mine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Smith, Sue Smith?
MS. SMITH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You waive your -- or donate your
time to Nicole Ryan?
MS. SMITH: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. RYAN: Thank you. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on
behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And the
Conservancy would like to offer some suggestions in an effort to
ensure that the composition of this committee and the scope of work
for the group will result in positive added benefit to Collier County
and to you, as our final decision makers, for the Clam Bay Estuary
and the stewards of this very important estuarine system.
Our first suggestion is to include a map with this ordinance that
clearly outlines the boundaries of what the county believes is part of,
as the ordinance states, the entire Clam Bay Estuary system. My idea
of what the entire system is may be different than yours which may be
different than others. So a map would provide the illustration to
Page 145
September 9-10, 2008
define the area that the committee is going to be reviewing.
Another thing that is missing from this ordinance is a brief
description of the Clam Bay system and an acknowledgment of its
environmental sensitivity and importance as a natural resource. So our
second suggestion is to include some sort of acknowledgment of Clam
Bay as a natural system that is at equilibrium or very near it, that it's a
natural resource protection area, and as such, is afforded additional
protection through county regulations, and that this area's also part of
a conservation area as part of the Pelican Bay PUD. And for clarity,
we would ask that the NRP A and the conservation areas be part of this
recommended map attached to the ordinance.
Our third suggestion on the scope of work for this committee.
The draft ordinance states that the new committee will review all
issues affecting the entire Clam Bay Estuary system. This is an
enormous scope of work. It contains enumerable options and possibly
topics.
We would recommend that this ordinance focus on what really is
important for the committee to accomplish, and we believe that this
should be a focus on maintaining the health and viability of the Clam
Bay Estuary system and that it mirror the intent of the Clam Bay
restoration and management plan. But as the ordinance is now
written, the committee would be looking at discussing and making
recommendations on best management practices, nutrient loading,
stormwater runoff. That really is a watershed management plan, and
you already have watershed management planning in the process for
all of your watersheds.
So we want to make sure that this committee isn't doing
something at cross purposes with watershed planning. So again,
focusing it down to making sure that the health and viability of the
estuary is maintained.
In addition, the county's going to need to clearly layout for the
committee members what constraints are involved in the Clam Bay
Page 146
September 9-10, 2008
area as a designated NRP A, the protections offered as other protected
waters under the federal coastal barrier resource system, and equally
important, what the constraints within the various conservation
easements and protective covenants are and what these will or won't
allow.
We want to make sure that the committee won't be making
recommendations that would be at cross purposes with legally binding
agreements.
Our final suggestion is that the number of members of this
committee be increased by at least two members with technical
environmental background regarding mangroves, hydrology and other
technical areas of expertise. As is currently proposed, a technical
expert from Districts 1, 3 and 5 could apply, but if they're appointed,
it's by chance, not by design.
Because of the many technically based issues this committee will
be discussing, the value added by assurance of specific technical
experts engaged in the discussion and dialogue is very important.
Now, naturally, the county will bring in technical experts for
specific issues and, of course, those experts who are interested can
attend the meetings and speak as public speakers. But the ability for
an expert to be part of the committee to engage in dialogue as a
committee member is really a value added, and we believe that the
benefit of their perspective should be as specific committee members.
And these experts will be volunteers, so the county will benefit from
their knowledge and you don't even have to pay them for that.
Of course, these committee members, the technical members,
should not have any conflicts of interest or any work projects in the
Clam Bay system.
The Conservancy believes that by making these recommended
changes, this ordinance is something that certainly could provide a
benefit to Collier County, making it more diverse and robust with a
clear scope of work and a defined scope so that we can protect our
Page 147
September 9-10, 2008
Clam Bay system. We ask that you implement these additional
changes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Technical support you're
talking about. Now, District 1, I could look at a couple people right
now. You live in my district and you would be perfect on that, or
Mike Bower lives right in my neighborhood. So we've got a couple
people right there in District 1 that would be good technical people,
and I'll just throw that in.
MS . RYAN: Right. And now because it isn't limited to those
technical people, I think the concern is that if technical experts are
appointed, it's by chance, and we want something in there that will
provide for those spaces for technical experts as part of the design of
the committee.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marcia Cravens. She'll be
followed by Sheridan Arnold.
MS. CRAVENS: Sheridan Arnold has agreed to cede her time to
me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Arnold?
MS. ARNOLD: I do, yes.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Marcia
Cravens, Pelican Bay resident, Master Naturalist for Coastal Systems,
member of the Sierra Club, on the board of Mangrove Action Group,
and most recently founder of Friends of Clam Bay, which is a free and
open organization for all persons dedicated to preserving and
protecting the Clam Bays in their natural state. Thank you for this
opportunity to speak to something so close to my heart.
I absolutely applaud the commission's desire to have this new
sunshine committee to be more inclusive of other representation for
the stewardship of this unique and special place.
The Clam Bay's Clam Pass natural resource protection area, our
Page 148
September 9-10, 2008
very first NRP A in Collier County. It is an NRP A because it is special
and unique, right here in urban Collier County.
I think we can all agree that this NRP A has historic,
environmental, recreational, and cultural significance.
Commissioner Coy Ie asked for and a motion was passed to create
a new advisory committee for the Clam Bay NRP A, but somehow this
new ordinance has missed including recognition that this is an NRP A.
A simple request. Please correct this new ordinance to give
recognition that is does address an NRP A.
This NRP A is a complex system. The management issues are not
simple. A management plan will need to be consistent with the
comprehensive growth plan. To be consistent, this new management
plan would have not only a coastal element, but also, importantly, a
conservation element.
Couldn't you accomplish this by including technical experts on
the new committee? Almost every single issue to be addressed
requires technical expertise.
To address this on an as-needed basis, in reality, is a truly
constant need. It just makes sense to structure this new committee to
be a fully functional committee with technical experts on the team.
We have so much talent and expertise locally with the
Conservancy and other nonprofit conservation organizations, and this
is consistent with the GMP and the LDC to coordinate with these
kinds of organizations.
And then we also have all kinds of talent and expertise at FGCU.
And with these technical experts who don't have work contracts with
the county, there is no question of a conflict of interest. So if you did
this, incorporated technical experts into your committee, you wouldn't
need the bureaucratic layering, would you? I mean, you would then
have a fully functional committee that could report directly to the
commission. That's all I'm asking for, recognition in the ordinance that
it is dealing with an NRP A and to include technical experts on this
Page 149
September 9-10, 2008
committee so that it is fully functional and could report directly to
you. I truly believe we can have a win-win-win situation as a result of
this organization.
Now, I was not going to bring up the boating issue, but since
someone already has, I just have -- I'm prepared. I have two things I
would like to enter. One of them is an email from Cynthia Obdenk,
the person with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who said that she
believed that the management plan required the channel to be marked.
And I have to tell you, I fully respect and understand the Seagate
boaters' consideration of respecting their boating rights. It doesn't
need to be 28 huge regulatory signs though. I believe there can be a
sane way to do this.
And this most recent em ail I have from Cynthia Obdenk also
addresses this. She says, Dear Marcia, after further review of the
Coast Guard signage requirement for marking channels, the Corps has
determined as long as the permittee marks the channel per these
requirements, they will be in compliance.
The size or quantity of the signage makes no difference in
meeting compliancy with the permit, as long as they are erected in
accordance with standard requirements of the Coast Guard; therefore,
the Corps enforcement section can offer no further assistance to your
concerns as related to our permit condition required to be marked for
compliancy. Because I've been asking for a meeting with her so that
we could go over these terms and try and come up with a more sane
situation.
And as far as Turrell, Hall & Associates with the map that they
had of the 28 markers, I have asked Tim Hall to please modify that
and show a more sane plan, and he has done so. I'm going to put that
up on the screen for you, if I might.
And I also want to ask one other thing, that this new organization
be allowed to come up with maybe some innovative ideas on how to
deal with this system. You know, there could possibly be a
Page 150
September 9-10,2008
reconstruction of the natural shoreline on the south end right at the
city/county line. It could be a buffering filtration system and you
could open up Seagate Drive. That would help everyone. You could
allow the boaters to transit out through a bridge of Seagate Drive, you
could improve the water quality where they are by having a buffering
system that has reconstructed the natural shoreline, and you could
preserve this NRP A in its natural state.
I think those kind of ideas warrant some consideration, and I
hope that the new organization will not be constrained and not be
unable to deal with new ideas. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Jim Burke.
MR. BURKE: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jim
Burke, and I reside in Pelican Bay, and I need to tell you that for the
past eight years I've sat on the Pelican Bay Services Division Board
and the past two years I've been on the Coastal Advisory Committee,
so I'm an individual who, for the past eight years, has devoted a lot of
his life to the betterment, the restoration, of Clam Bay. In fact, eight of
those years represent 10 of the years of the original permit and
management plan.
I'm totally dedicated to the restoration, health, and management
of Clam Bay. I can also tell you that I in no way speak today or
represent either one of those committees. I'm on my own here. I'm an
involved citizen.
Now, seven of the years on the service division I can tell you I
have been humongously proud of what we have accomplished with
what you entrusted to us. We did a good job.
My eighth year I'm not so proud, which leads me up to saying, I
regret that we're here today to discuss this. This didn't have to happen.
It's completely -- it just didn't have to happen, and I have been on
public record saying that for a year.
But I'm a realist. It's happened. We're here today, and we have
to get on with the restoration and maintenance of Clam Bay . We have
Page 151
September 9-10, 2008
to get on with it.
So everything I've heard today and in two previous commission
meetings where the public's come in front of you, it all says to me, we
need this new committee and we need to put it in operation and get on
with the health of Clam Bay.
I have studied this ordinance. I'm comfortable with it. I think it's
well crafted. I think the membership representation is solid, and I
strongly recommend you move ahead with this.
One closing point. We're now operating the maintenance of
Clam Bay on a one-year permit renewal that expires next July . We
only have 10 months left. So each month we drag this out it cuts into
that. So we need to get on with it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Discussion? Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle,
and then that's it. And then me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the speakers have added a
great deal to the consideration of this particular committee and how it
should operate.
I am concerned. It never occurred to me that we would -- we
would create a committee and designate specific positions and/or
individuals to occupy the committee. That's not the way we have
established other committees. We've always taken the best qualified
people to sit on committees rather than take people who occupy
certain positions in the community, and that bothers me a bit.
I do appreciate that we need to make sure that we have
representation from the communities that are most affected by what
happens in Pelican Bay, and I strongly encourage that we continue to
/
Page 152
September 9-10, 2008
do that, but we don't have to name specific individuals or people who
occupy specific positions on homeowner association boards or Pelican
Bay Services Division.
I would like to see us broaden the membership as suggested to
include at least two technical positions. We need the technical
expertise here. This is going to be a complex process. And while the
people who have served in the capacity of stewardship of Clam Bay in
the past have a lot of, lot of good knowledge and background -- and I
hope they are going to be the applicants for these positions so that we
can choose among them -- I do believe we need some technical
expertise on this committee.
So essentially what I would recommend is that we designate that
two members of the committee should come from Pelican Bay, not
specifically from anyone organization or position on the Pelican Bay
Board, but it should come from Pelican Bay, and one from Seagate,
but the rest of them, I think, should be chosen based upon their
qualifications and what they can contribute to the preservation of
Clam Bay.
And I think that's probably the only recommendation I'd like to
make to change what staff has prepared here today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- Commissioner, I like your
comments. So you're saying two from Pelican Bay, two from
Seagate?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it set up now for two?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One from Seagate, one Naples Bay
(sic).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's one from Seagate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Naples Cay.
MR. MUDD: Naples Cay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Naples Cay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, and--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the total -- I understand that.
Page 153
September 9-10, 2008
And the total makeup, at least two of them will be technical.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, at least two would be
technical.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And those technicals would be
biology, conservation organization, or scientists.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would prefer scientists. Of
course, many of the people who are with the conservation
organizations do, in fact, have a science background. So I want to get
the skills that are necessary for doing the job properly on that
committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm less interested in the politics of
it than I am in the technical expertise. And certainly we should not
permit anyone to serve on that committee who has a personal vested
interest, such as a consultant who is likely to -- might have a contract
to do something.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. That would be against Florida
Statutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it would be; yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would like to remove, on section
two where it says Clam Bay and adjacent waters -- bodies, I would
like to remove adjacent water bodies. And the reason is, this whole
thing is about Clam Bay, and we heard from the Seagate residents, is
access into Clam Bay.
I don't want to get out of Clam Bay what we know is Clam Bay.
The Clam Bay, the NRP A Clam Bay, and we can't change that. We
designated that an NRP A through the Growth Management Plan, and
many other documents, it says NRP A. So you can't -- you just can't
change that with another ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, as -- you know, the speakers
have correctly pointed out that when I made the original motion I
specifically said NRP A. I mentioned NRP A. I wouldn't have a
Page 154
September 9-10,2008
problem doing that, but I ask that you consider one other thing.
We do need to identify more specifically the duties of this
committee and we need to identify its boundaries. And I would
suggest that we -- rather than delay, that we go ahead and constitute
this committee and charge them with making recommendations to us
as to the boundaries and their particular tasks, what it is that we expect
that committee to do, and that could be done in a public hearing and it
can benefit from public input, but we task the committee itself to draft
its own statement of mission and define the area.
So that everybody -- or nobody is confused, where I'm going
with this is that we've identified NRP A, and those are the directions
that we gave to the staff, but as we move forward with this effort,
there might be good technical reasons why you'd want to expand the
area of responsibility, but I'd like to get that input from the people who
understand it best and let them make recommendations to us about
whether we should expand it or we should not expand it, and if so, to
what boundaries. And that's -- that's really all I would like to see -- to
see happen right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'm hoping we're not getting
off the track. When I look under section six it says, ordinance shall
automatically sunset on December 31, 2009, unless otherwise
extended by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.
And I think as one speaker brought up, Mr. Burke, was that we
have some obligations in fulfilling the permit by the Corps of
Engineers, and that's the main reason that we're putting this group
together is to make sure that this group sits down and comes up with
an idea or gives CAC some ideas in regards to addressing the channel
markers so that we can close out this Corps permit, and I think that's
what our main concern is at this point in time.
And then if we decide that we want to have this committee
continue, then we, as the Board of County Commissioners, have that
Page 155
September 9-10, 2008
right to go ahead and keep this committee intact to further study that
area of Clam Bay.
But I believe that's the main intent at the present time with this
ordinance is to put together a group so that we can sit down and figure
out exactly how to close out the Army Corps of Engineers' permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree with both of the
previous speakers. I think Commissioner Coyle hit it right on the
head, and I think that's the direction we should go, and Commissioner
Halas absolutely is right. I totally agree with both of them.
I think that we have to make sure that the composition of this
group is also a group that will be working together for the betterment
of this estuarine system rather than working who's from what
community. We don't need that at all. We need people who are going
to get on there and benefit this whole -- this whole Clam Bay area.
And as far as the technical people go, are we going to appoint
them or --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Appoint everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's great, rather than --
okay. Do people have to apply to us first, or can we just hand pick
somebody? No. Apply to us first, and then -- and what time -- and
within what time frame?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tomorrow morning.
MS. FILSON: No. I advertise the positions and I give it three
weeks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So we have forty-five days
then, right?
MS. FILSON: Three. Three weeks, and then staffwill have 41
days to give it back to me --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's a forty-five day process from
tomorrow, right?
Page 156
September 9-10, 2008
MS. FILSON: No. Three weeks and 41 days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three weeks and 41 days. So it's
more than that. Okay.
And then it will come back to us to determine who will be on that
committee. And one last question. Are we then going to have them
reporting to the CAC or to the BCC?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It says here both. Make
recommendations to the Coastal Advisory Committee and Board of
Commissioners on pertinent matters to Clam Bay Estuary.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You know, I think we're
heading the right way, although I do have a concern. We have the
advisory committee -- the Coastal Advisory Committee has the
technical end of the help that we need when the time does come. Who
is going to be the technical people? Where are they going to come
from? Is that going to be from one of my picks, does it have to be
technical, or does one of the whole bunch have to be technical, or do
you want to add some technical people over and above the picks that
we already got? I mean, you might not be able to find a technical
person that lives within Seagate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no. What -- if I may share what
Commissioner Coyle says, and I agree with it, out of the whole
makeup, two of them need to be technical.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, here's the problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if they're not in -- they're not in
Pelican Bay, they must be in District 5 or --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't tell you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got a load of them in District 1.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or in District 1.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and, you know, that
might be possible, but the whole thing is is that it almost seems like it
would be easier to add two more people to it at large that would be
Page 157
September 9-10,2008
technical.
I really don't want the burden of having to go through the people
in my district and trying to find someone that's going to fit into a
technical end of the whole thing. And it is political. It's very political
what we're involved in, and it has to be, I mean, to a point. But we
can bring this back into the reins if we make sure we have the right
kind of advisers there that are going to be able to move it forward and
bring it back to the Coastal Advisory Board (sic). So I would strongly
suggest that we add two at large that would be technical.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you misunderstood what
Commissioner Coyle said. It could be -- any of the appointments
could be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no. I understand it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But my concern is that -- and
when we get down to it, we might not have -- we might not be able to
come up with two of them from anyone point that's going to fit that.
Just a concern.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is this -- entertain a motion.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Rather than to get into an
argument about how we do that and in order to get the greatest
possible support for moving forward, let me just suggest that if it's
important that each of the commissioners has someone appointed from
their district, if that is a really, really very important issue, then let's
add two additional positions to this thing for technical people to be
appointed at large.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's hear it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion would be that we
expand the membership to two additional people, they would consist
Page 158
September 9-10, 2008
of two members from Pelican Bay and essentially two members from
Seagate --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Slash Naples Cay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- slash Naples Cay, there would be
one person from District 1 and, I guess, District 3, or is that what we're
talking about --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: District 1,3 and 5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and 5, and two people who are
technical people to be appointed at large, and then that gives every
commissioner an opportunity to have one of their applicants to be
selected but still give us the very best technical representation we can
get from the entire county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the definition of technical?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A scientist, hopefully someone
who understands the issues of water quality and preservation and that
sort of thing in Clam Bay. And there are -- there are a number of
people here who have that kind of expertise, and we won't have any
trouble getting people to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And their functions, powers, and
duties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'd like to see, again, is that
their functions, powers, and duties, they would come back to us with a
detailed description of their functions, powers, and duties, with a
proposed work plan.
And one other thing that I would like to ask; Commissioner Halas
brought it up. I feel uneasy about an automatic sunset on December
31, 2009. We can terminate this committee anytime we want to.
I would suggest we at least appoint them for a three-year term. If
we want to terminate it earlier than that, we can. Ifwe feel that the
job has been done, we can do that. But to tell somebody that you want
them to devote some time to this effort -- and it could be a substantial
amount of personal time, but then they've got to go away on
Page 159
September 9-10, 2008
December the 29th next year, I'm a little concerned about whether or
not we'll really get the very best representation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The other -- can I add something?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, let's -- are you seconding the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, not at this point, until I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second the motion and I'll
add then, just to what you said, was, you're absolutely right, it takes a
few months to get up to speed on an issue anyway, especially if
they're going to first determine what their duties and responsibilities
are. My goodness, by the time they've figured all that out and gotten
up to speed, half the time would be over with, so I agree with the
three-year term.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. The main focus of this --
let's not lose sight of what the main focus of this is, and that is to
address the issue with this Corps permit, to get this Corps permit put
to bed.
So the first function of this group is to sit down and get this taken
care of before -- we've only got a one-year extension, and that has to
be completed. That's the primary source of this thing. Am I correct
on that, Gary?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, Mr. Chair (sic). The Corps permit has to
be -- has to be resolved, and a permit extension needs to happen for
that. So there's two critical activities. A permit extension for
dredging in case there is a storm, and the -- and the Corps permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It's been my experience,
it's easier to extend a committee than it is to put it out of existence. If
you grant them two years or three years, their whole time frame will
be built around that time that they are allowed.a
Page 160
September 9-10, 2008
I personally like the original direction with the one year, and then
you're nine months out, you can take a look at it. If they need another
six months or a year and they're serving a function that's worth it, then
we can extend it. That's my own personal feelings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Once again, in order to get this
moving forward, I'm not going to get involved in an extensive debate
concerning the term, but it's my feeling that the health and vitality of
Clam Bay is an issue that we've got to be concerned with beyond
December, 2009. I don't see this as closing out a Corps permit.
If this is an NRPA, somebody has to manage it like an NRPA and
make sure it remains a health area. I don't know that you do that by
disbanding the committee next December.
This is just as important as the Coastal Advisory Committee, and
their responsibilities are ongoing. I think the responsibilities of the
committee that will make recommendations and help manage this
NRP A to assure its health is an ongoing responsibility.
We can close out the Corps permit pretty much just about
anytime you want to do it, okay. You can do it without a committee,
right?
MR. McALPIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's absolutely nothing you
need to do to close out the Corps permit that you can't do yourself.
MR. MUDD: With the board's approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With the board's approval, that's
right.
So I'm looking at the long-term health and management of Clam
Bay for the best interests of the adjoining neighborhoods and Collier
County as a whole, and that's all I would like for you to consider.
But let's face it, if we can get unanimous support of this board by
having it terminate on December 31 st of next year, I'm willing to do
that. But I would vote against terminating it next year if, in fact,
Page 161
September 9-10, 2008
they're doing good work and there's a continuing need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that an amended motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second? Are you going to
agree with the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, okay. It's just that I think one
year is kind of -- you know, it's shortsighted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In nine months you can review
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, yes, except that you've got a
Clam Bay system here that's going to be ongoing forever and ever. I
mean, there's always going to be some concerns to keep it healthy.
December next year isn't going to stop it from being that way. But if
that's the only way we get your vote, well, then I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't want to sound difficult
and I'm not trying to be difficult. I mean, it's not a deal breaker, I
mean, but I hate to see this thing just drag out when I'd like to see their
feet held to the fire to come up with something. If we need to extend
them at nine months, go forward at that time. I'll endorse it. There's
no way on earth I'm going to refuse letting them go forward. They
may feel they completed their mission then.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's amending the
ordinance and there's an amendment to the motion and there's a first
and a second.
Any further discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the motion clear?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You want to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Then it's clear?
MR. MUDD: You want to extend it from seven to nine
members. I want to make sure -- I'm going to repeat it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 162
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: You've got non-office holding membership in its
entirety, okay, you want two from the Pelican Bay area, you want two
from the Seagate/Naples Cay area, you want one from each district of
1, District 3, and District 5, and you want two scientists that know
something about bay restoration and bay activities to be members.
And what you're basically saying right now is that the committee
will sit down and they will define in more detail the specific area
which they will look at, along with the description and scope of their
particular job as a committee, and they will report back to this Board
of County Commissioners within a year to tell you what they've done,
and if there's more to be done, then they will tell you that they need to
extend the committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But they're also coming back to the
board to tell us the scope.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
MR. MUDD: Sure. As soon as we've got that, we'll bring that
back to you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to do that by bylaws so we
don't have to amend the ordinance again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. KLATZKOW: So that they'll come back with a proposed
set of by laws for your approval, and the by laws will set forth the
duties?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we scratch out their powers and
duties in here?
MR. KLATZKOW: If want to do it right now, you can do it, but
if you want them to come back -- what I'm saying is, if you want them
to come back to you with --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We don't want it to conflict with the
ordinance, that's all.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It won't conflict with the ordinance.
Page 163
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's clear.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying any opposed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow, 5-0.
I had a request by the petitioner of 8E. Client has a flight
schedule.
MR. MUDD: For five o'clock, and it has to do with 8D and 8E.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Is the board okay with that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's do it.
MR. MUDD: Ifwe go to that. Okay.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2008-49: PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-11734 KRG
951 AND 41, LLC, REPRESENTED BY D. WAYNE ARNOLD,
AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. AND
RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE,
COLEMAN, AND JOHNSON, P.A., IS REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE ARTESA POINTE PUD TO REMOVE A
+/- 0.88 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND AND ADD IT TO THE
PROPOSED TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD ABUTTING ITS
NORTHERN BOUNDARY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
Page 164
September 9-10, 2008
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1/4 OF A MILE SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND US 41, IN
SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION ITEM TO PUDZ-
2006-AR-10875) - ADOPTED
MR MUDD: 8D, and then I'll read 8E. At the petitioner's
request, this item is continued from July 22, 2008, BCC meeting and
is further continued to this September 9, 2008, BCC meeting.
This item must be heard before item PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875,
which is the next item that I'll read. It requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's PUDA-2007-AR-11734, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented
by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A.,
and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson, P.A., is requesting an amendment to the Artesa Pointe PUD
to remove a plus or minus .88-acre parcel of land and to add it to the
proposed Tamiami Crossings, CPUD, abutting its northern boundary.
The subject property is located approximately a quarter of a mile
south of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41, in Section
three, Township 51 south, Range 26 east of Collier County, Florida.
Again, it's companion item to PUDZ-2006-AR-1 0875, which I'll read
next, which is 8E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me just make a motion on that
one right away because that one's so simple. It's just a no-brainer, and
I make a motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, you've got to -- you've got to basically --
you've got to do ex parte on it and you need to swear in if anybody's
there so--
,
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: It's a little bit more complicated than that. Sorry,
Page 165
,_ __""'_'_'''''_''~."_'__'___~___ ~ -. Fl 11"" <..--~~
September 9-10, 2008
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: 8E, again, continued from July 22nd to this
meeting, the 9th. Again, it has to have all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's petition PUDZ-2006-AR-1 0875, Q. Grady Minor
representing KRG 951 and 41, LLC, has submitted a PUD zone for
Tamiami Crossings, CPUD.
The applicant proposes to rezone the A, agricultural C-2
convenience commercial, C-4 general commercial zoning districts,
and Artesa Pointe to a commercial planned unit development, CPUD,
zoning district.
This is to allow development of a commercial land use with a
maximum of235,000 square feet. The property consisting of plus or
minus 25.45 acres and is located in Section three, Township 51 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida, and it's a companion to 8D,
which I just read.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All wishing to participate in
these two items, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
Raise your right hand, please.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communications. Start with
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Come back to me, okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have talked
with Greg Urbanic, David Caldwell, Jeff Burr, Rich Y ovanovich, I've
had meetings and correspondence, and all of that is included in my
public records file here for anyone to review if they wish to do so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The only disclosure that I
have are emails on 8D, and also I've had emails in regards to this on
Page 166
September 9-10, 2008
8E. That's all I got.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I had an email from Carolyn Kriz and
an email from Sam Tucker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've spoken with Rich Y ovanovich
and Wayne Arnold and Eric Strickland numerous times. I've spoken
to members of the Planning Commission about this. I've spoken to
East Naples Civic Association and to their strategic planning
committee, I've spoken to staff, I've had emails, I've had phone calls,
and I've got a lot of it right here in these folders to file.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wow. I'm impressed. I didn't
do quite that much, but I did meet with the petitioner and his
representatives, I did talk to staff, I received emails and phone calls on
it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, I guess
you're going to do a presentation?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, on item 8B --
8D, I just make a motion to approve. That's transferring the .88 acres
from the one property to the other, but it will still remain no buildings
on it; it will be parking space.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's -- we have a public
speaker. We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by
Commissioner Halas.
First public speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have one public speaker, Mr. Chairman,
Mario -- and I know I'm going to get his last name wrong.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Curiale.
MS. FILSON: Curiale.
MR. CURIALE: Not on this petition. I'm on the next one.
MR. MUDD: He's at the next one, Tamiami Crossings.
MS. FILSON: 8E?
Page 167
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm going to close the public
hearing. There's a motion by Commissioner Fiala to approved
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, second by Commissioner Halas. No?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. No, no. That's the next item. This is
PUD-A-2007-AR-11734.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Just in the recommendations,
it --
MR. MUDD: It just says it's got to go before the one that you
specified, and that's 8E.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 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.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2008-50: PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Q
GRADY MINOR, REPRESENTING KRG 951 AND 41, LLC, HAS
SUBMITTED A PUD REZONE FOR TAMIAMI CROSSING
CPUD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REZONE THE A
(AGRICULTURAL), C-2 (COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE), C-4
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING) DISTRICTS AND
Page 168
September 9-10, 2008
ARTESA POINTE PUD TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS TO
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES
WITH A MAXIMUM OF 235,000 SQUARE FEET. THE
PROPERTY CONSISTS OF +/- 25.45 ACRES AND IS LOCATED
IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION ITEM TO PUDA-
2007-AR-11734) - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: This is 8E, and it has to do with the Tamiami
Crossing CPUD.
Commissioner, this was put on the summary agenda by staff. I
pulled both items to the regular agenda to make sure there was no
confusion in what the board was voting on.
When I read the Tamiami Crossings CPUD executive summary,
and I read it more than once, I was confused. I didn't know at the end
of the executive summary if the board was recommending plan A, was
-- staffwas recommending approval of plan B, and/or if there was a
plan A and B and you were going to let the petitioner be able to decide
that. And instead of having that confusion in my mind and maybe in
your mind if the summary agenda was approved this morning at 9:05,
that that be put on the record, and then when the board makes their
vote, then it's clear so when something gets built there isn't an outcry
and I've got half the board saying, that's not what we voted for.
So I just wanted to make sure that that clarification was there and
we knew exactly what this board was voting on in this particular
petition.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if I can, there's a plan A that can be
built or a plan B that can be built. There cannot be a combination of
the two. Both plans were reviewed and analyzed by the Planning
Commission, and they're comfortable with our building either plan A
or plan B. And the plan A would be basically a big box development
Page 169
September 9-10, 2008
and a plan B would not be a big box development.
So if we do have a big box tenant or purchaser, we would do plan
A, and if we don't we would do plan B. But both plans were reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission. They are mutually
exclusive. We cannot combine the two.
So I hope that clarifies. And I believe that's consistent with what
the neighborhood wanted, and we spent a lot of time with
Commissioner Fiala making sure that the big box plan, which there
were some issues with some of the Planning Commissioners regarding
the height of the structure. It was revised to bring the height of that
structure down because those buildings are closer to U. S. 41, and we
did not have any objections from the neighbors nor any objections
from the Planning Commission, and I appreciate County Manager
Mudd wanting to make sure you're clear that it's an either/or. It's
either A or B, not both.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I had the benefit of
meeting with them many times and had many questions, and that was
terribly important to me.
The first plan that they came out with, when I saw it on the
Planning Commission, I immediately called and said, don't even bring
it to us because it's not going anywhere. They were going to go 65
feet tall and just, I don't know, 30 feet from the road, and I didn't like
that at all because I was worried about the canyon effect.
And to their credit, they took that baby and they went back and
they went through the whole process, redesigned the whole site. I was
very impressed with that because they were responding to the needs of
the community there, and they came back and went through the
Planning Commission again with a revised plan, which is something
that we as the East Naples community can live with and also as it -- it
will be setting the standard for the building on that corridor. This is
Page 170
September 9-10, 2008
going to be the first of many, I'm sure.
He -- they showed me both site plans, and both of them then I
took to our people at the East Naples Civic Association because I
wanted to see everybody buying into this, and they liked the plan. So
I tell you that I am in full support of this and I'd like to make a motion
to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor by Commissioner
Fiala to approve, second by Commissioner Coyle -- Coletta. .
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So Commissioner Fiala, are you
telling me that you're happy with either one of these plans?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes. The -- and the reason is,
the first one was going to be for a big box, Commissioner Halas. The
other was going to be for a Super Target. But it's been in the making
for so long, they don't even know if they're going to get that in there
anymore.
If that's the Super Target, the only way they're going to be able to
get it is to be located by the road. That was the stipulation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This one right here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is plan A.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then this is plan B here, which
I think is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You did your homework.
And thank you. And yes, if they cannot get that Super Target in, they
do want to build a shopping area there, but now it can be set back on
the property and away from the road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And plan A -- and what's
going to be the height of this, the zoned height?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, they're going to have a tower
Page 171
September 9-10,2008
thing on there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, it's going to be -- the zoned height's
29 feet for the first 200 feet back from U.S. 41. The actual height of
that is 32 feet, and then there's two towers. The zoned height of the
tower's 35 feet and the actual height of the tower is 38 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's not going to be 134 feet, right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's going to be 38 feet actual height.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
We have one public speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Mario Curiale.
MR. CURIALE: My name is Mario Curiale. Good afternoon,
Commissioner.
I have no problem with plan A or plan B. The only problem I
have is plan C. How we going to get out of this place?
I never had a chance to attend any community meeting. I did
attend several meetings when they had four concerns about this
project.
I wasn't going to be here today but at the last minute I looked at
this -- I happened to be at the county and I picked up this agenda, and
I realized the fact that the drawing does not show anywhere any
connection from my exit that I already have on 41. That kind of
blows my mind.
I spent a quarter million dollars to put an entrance in there to be a
full-blown entrance. That is designed by the DOT to be transferred
from my first entrance, which was close to 951, and I had to transfer it
down, another 750 feet down eastbound toward Miami in order to
accommodate the full four-way intersection going in and out with the
semi trucks.
The plans in place that we have right now -- I don't know if you
guys ever seen it -- it doesn't show that at all. They have three
Page 1 72
September 9-10,2008
entrances in and out on 41 facing my property. My property's to the
same stretch that they own, abut the same land with frontage on 41.
They have three entrances. I only have one blown up entrance and
one median entrance.
My question on all matters is, they can adjust the plan to make
this work to accommodate that one full entrance that we can all
benefit from. They can get off on this side, to the left, to the right,
north and south, and I can still do the same thing as I'm doing now.
Specifically, I also have a -- now and presently, is the Taxpayers
of National Tenants, we turned the use semis (sic) at least four or five
times a day right now. There's no business up there. During season,
we're going to have semis up, around 20, 30 semis turn around. And
there's no other way to turn on this area here.
So I would recommend the board, also transportation department,
to make sure to make an effort to interconnect the entrance. The
entrance shows over here in the plan, it doesn't show nearly where my
entrance is. I mean, I already spend money for decel, I spend money
to accommodate to get in and get out.
If they want to shift this entrance here -- sorry about that -- if
they can bring it over and go over here, I don't see any problem, none
at all, because they already have one here, one here. This would be
much closer and we all get benefit from it. I don't want to see any
problems down the road that we have something built and then we're
going to be in a hostile problem among the neighbors.
They can build what they want. I'm pleased with what they are
going to do. I hope you guys understand my situation. If we put the
thoughts together, we can make it work. I appreciate it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I'll step out of the way when Nick
corrects me if I'm wrong. But what we shown on our master plan is
obviously -- these are consistent with the current FDOT access points
that are required. They're not fixed in stone. We'll have to go through
Page 1 73
September 9-10,2008
the FDOT access management plan. And wherever FDOT tells us to
actually put those access points, we will do that.
These are conceptual in nature, as every PUD is, subj ect to final
permitting throughout the appropriate agencies. And if the appropriate
agencies require that we move those entrance points to line up, we'll
do that. But right now we can't put anything on there that we know is
inconsistent with the current access management plan, and I hope I
said that correctly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And while you're saying that, while
Nick's coming up, one of the things that you've incorporated in here --
and you haven't even mentioned that -- is that there's a connectivity
between U. S. 41 and 951, also to the Wal * Mart over there and also to
the neighborhood behind it --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- so that there are connections all
the way through this property which will keep people off the roads.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
with Transportation Services. I think Rich just got his job with FDOT.
He's correct. It will be the access management policy that will be
reviewed by FDOT. When the project goes to design, there'll be an
access management meeting held with the neighbors. All
considerations will be taken at that point in time. So Mario's concerns
will be addressed. They'll sit down and go through with a similar
neighborhood information meeting at the 30 or 60 percent design plan
and we'll look into all those issues.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Nick, I've got a problem
with this. You know we're approving something where the accesses
don't even match up from across the street. We shouldn't be putting
this stuff out. You know, we shouldn't be making decisions on these
kinds of things when we don't have proper intersections designed here.
We've got too many situations in Collier County where streets
Page 174
September 9-10, 2008 .
don't line up from opposite sides. It's causing us serious problems
with traffic movement and rerouting.
I don't understand why a project gets this far along without
having that issue resolved. It just isn't acceptable to me for somebody
to say, here's my plan, approve it, but I don't know where I'm going to
exit onto U.S. 41. I mean, this is crazy.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I can assure you that
those access points are conceptual. They show that on a site plan
because they've asked for that kind of detail, but that preserve area
that you see in the document there, when they go to apply for their
actual Site Development Plan consistent with the access management
policy, they're going to get shifted around. They may lose an access
point.
So we don't like to see the access points defined on a PUD. At
the request of the Planning Commission, they want to see the detail of
the site plan. We prefer it to be at the point that the site plan comes in
for definitive approval.
So I can tell you that you're seeing three access points. They
may shift. He may lose one. This road is going to go through a design
that takes it from a two-lane road to a six-lane road, and I can assure
you that they're conceptual. They will not sit exactly the way they
are, and Mario's concerns will be taken into consideration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what that is going to do is
change the entire layout of this project. There is no way they can
continue with the square footage that they intend to build here without
moving those access roads, and when you change that, you change the
entire appearance of the project. To me, if I'd known this before, I
wouldn't have even considered it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The parcel that's shown,
Commissioner, when the development part takes place, that access
point will probably be a right-in, right-out, the one that's closer to 951.
As you head east away from 951, where they show the preserve
Page 175
September 9-10,2008
and the lakes, those can be adjusted, and they fully intend to come
through with a roadway design plan, and that will lead to
signalization, spacing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've already got a roadway
across the street. It's already there. Is anybody seriously going to
change that intersection?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In terms of changing it in terms of
requiring it, it's going to have to meet probably a half-mile spacing, so
whatever the half-mile spacing for that signalization requires, it would
be shifted to the east.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. I'm talking
about the one that already exists on the north side of U. S. 41 there on
the right-hand side. The road that -- no, the one further to the right.
Now go north. I'm sorry. Go west. No, no, no. I was right in the first
place. Go northeast. No, move it down further.
Now go across. Now move it down one more -- no, no. To the
right, right, right, go right, go right, right there. There is a road that
exists. Is that road going to change?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's an emergency access point, not
a full access point to that community, sir.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Falling Waters.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you -- you would not insist
that the road across the street align with that one so that if you ever
wanted to use a full access you've got an aligned intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't have that call, sir. That's an
FDOT design and reviewed road. So I could make that
recommendation, but they'll make the final call on that project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle,
I'm very familiar with that particular development and that road. That
road is gated and they only use it for emergency vehicles.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Today. Ten years from now you
don't have any idea what it's going to be used for.
Page 176
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but I'll be 10 years older.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm getting 10 years older
just listening to this. Okay, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. Entertain --
Commissioner Fiala, you had a motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to approve staff recommendations
on -- to approve PUDZ-2006-AR-l 0875, and second by
Commissioner Coletta.
I want to make sure that I have the right one because my agenda
packet on 8E has that, that PUDZ.
MR. MUDD: This is PUDZ-2006-AR-10875.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This makes no -- oh, I'm sorry. I'd
like to say something when you finish.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Say it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What assurance can I get if
I vote for this that we're going to have properly aligned roads entering
and exiting this property on U. S. 41 ?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I'm not sure I can give
you an assurance that they'll line up, that the access management will
be consistent with what you're looking for. I can tell you that they're
going to have guidance on policy and median openings and
signalization. They'll meet those minimum standards. Mario may not
meet that standard. They may look at it and say they want the signal
farther away based on design criteria.
When that road comes through at 30,60 percent design plan,
they'll look at all those things, a public meeting will be held, just like
Page 1 77
September 9-10,2008
we do a county road project, and they'll try and make those alignments
and adjustments as they -- as they see fit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We already have two roads built on
the other side of the street, and you're telling me that we can't have
any control over aligning those roads? We're going to have a puzzle
work of entrances on and off of U.S. 41 there. We don't want that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, I can tell you it's a state
controlled road. We'll have median openings as needed and required
per their access management policy. I can't guarantee you, sir,
something that I don't have control over. It will go through a design
process, it's been through a PD&E, everybody will be notified, and
they'll look at providing access management the best way that they
can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They might not even approve a
median opening, a full median opening. It might be just a --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Directional median opening.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a median or something like that.
Sir, you are not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You spoke. According to the board's
rules, you had your time.
MR. CURIALE: Can I show you this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can after the meeting. I'll be
happy to sit down with you.
MR. CURIALE: No vote before though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we could discuss this at the
MPO with the people who make those decisions. We could always
bring that up and discuss this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we will have already approved
it here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, but our approval --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sir, you're not approving --
Page 1 78
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- doesn't state what they're going to
do.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're not approving an access point.
I just want to be clear. It's a conceptual --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that, and I have
always had a problem approving a development without knowing
what the traffic pattern was going to look like and also without
knowing what the internal circulation of traffic was going to look like,
because they'll have to change it based upon those
later-to-be-determined entrances and exits off of the main
thoroughfares.
I understand this is a conceptual kind of thing, but once I have
approved it, what authority do I have now to insist upon certain things
being done? Not much.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I wonder if this gentleman that
spoke earlier, obviously he's got some major concerns here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you want to have him come up
here, that -- I have no problem with that. The board's rules is the
board's rules, and I'm going to enforce them. So if you want to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to have you come up and
have you explained. You've spent how much already, 2 -- no, at the
mike there, sir -- 250,000?
MR. CURIALE: I spent about $250,000 to make sure I build
something the way the DOT required me to build to accommodate my
business use, and that was -- the reason being that we had to transfer
my main entrance from further north on 951 to shift it east to
accommodate the distance from the traffic lights all the way to the
entrance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CURIALE: The cutoff was 1950 feet. That's what the DOT
Page 1 79
September 9-10, 2008
required.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Norm, since DOT has made a decision with this gentleman's
property, will DOT follow that same criteria with this PUD so that
things line up?
MR. FEDER: I cannot speak to what decision they've made with
him, but what I can tell you is their basic standard's about a half mile
for a full median opening. You're fairly close to where his entrance is
across from the way of a half mile, and I believe Nick has told you
correctly that it is DOT's decision on this; however, having said that,
there's no question that we would want to, just as Commissioner Coyle
has pointed out, try and make sure that wherever we can we have
cross access that makes sense.
And since there's an effort to try and get a full opening in that
area, which may well be a half mile, we would want to make sure that
the access to this property was across from them.
So we can't promise that to you, Commissioner; however, what I
can tell you is, that would definitely be our direction both with this
developer and with Florida DOT.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind
then, I'd just like to make one concluding comment.
I haven't decided which way I'm going to vote on this, but if I
vote yes on it, it is going to be contingent upon having entrances to
these two properties at the same place. I do not want to see staggered
entrances on and off U.S. 41 anywhere near this intersection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I think Commissioner
Fiala made a very good suggestion. When we have our MPO meeting,
I think it would be a great idea for Mario to come forward at that time
under the public comments section and bring up this issue so we can
make the secretary of District 1 aware of the fact that it's a concern of
ours.
Page 180
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, Commissioner
Coy Ie, I think what you're talking about is that entrance, not
necessarily the emergency access road. You're looking for cross
access with that development. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a time certain?
Item #101
RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZE THE SUBMITTAL OF THE
ATTACHED HCP PLANNING ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROPOSAL TO THE USFWS VIA THE FLORIDA FISH AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION TO SUPPORT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF AN HCP FOR THE IMMOKALEE URBAN
AREA, EXCLUDING THE RLSA AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ANY ADDITIONAL APPLICATION
FORMS OR DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE
Page 181
September 9-10, 2008
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION OR THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE -
MOTION TO PUT ON HOLD UNTIL NEXT YEAR'S GRANT
CYCLE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: You have an item to be heard after three p.m., and
that is item 101, which used to be 16A 1, and that reads, recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners authorize a submittal of the
attached Habitat Conservation Plan planning assistance grant proposal
to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service via the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission to support the development of a
Habitat Conservation Plan for the Immokalee urban area excluding the
rural land stewardship area, and authorize the chairman to sign any
additional application forms or documents that may be required by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta and, I think, Commissioner Halas asked
this to be pulled off the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason's very simple. I
have received correspondence which I've shared with members of this
commission from the CRA in Immokalee with great reservations
about going forward. They're not supportive. They feel that this is
not something that they want to see continued.
Fred Thomas is here, and I -- if the chair would permit, maybe
we could get his testimony at this time and move this thing forward in
an expeditious pace.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm fine with that, Commissioner.
Mr. Thomas? And then call up the rest of the speakers.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please.
Page 182
September 9-10, 2008
MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have on my
hat as the chair of the CRA Advisory Committee.
We're not against the concept of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
We just want it -- as we told the folks from the committee, that we
wanted them to get us something from the various regulatory agencies
that indicate that once we develop a plan and they sign on to it, that
would expedite the processing of any development permits as it relates
to the environmental side in the future, because understand, with the
loss of agriculture, the loss of the owner-occupied agriculture in our
community that happened after the -- at the beginning ofNAFT A, we
have become a landlord/tenant community. We need to get money
circulating back in our community. That's why we were very
interested in doing a number of things we did like getting you all to
form the Airport Authority, becoming an enterprise zone, and the
CRA and all the rest of the stuff that you've done for us.
In order for our CRA to make money, we've got to be able to
compete with Central Florida, okay. And we're not trying to add
another layer, but if we can do things that expedite that -- because we
want to protect the environment, just like everybody else. And you
know I'm a wildlife photographer. I want to be able to get close to the
wildlife, okay.
So we just ask you all to delay this, defer it till another time when
the committee can get final sage from people like the Corps of
Engineers, South Florida Water Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
so that when they buy into the program and say, once we get a plan
together -- because this will be the first time that they would have had
a plan like this that's multi species, multi environmental, because
you've got swamp, we've got pine flatlands, we've got all that, where
most of the other habitat plans are in the monolithic kind of
environment. So we want to make sure that we're in a position not to
delay the process anymore, make it more difficult.
One of the reasons why we supported the rural lands concept was
Page 183
September 9-10, 2008
because we were putting land in preservation and controlling how we
develop, and that's all we ask you to do now; just table it and let us
bring it back when we've got more of the pieces together.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I understand what you're
saying, Mr. Thomas. On the other hand, it's kind of difficult to tell the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Army Corps or any other agency, state
or federal, what to do and when to do it and how to do it, much as
we'd like to do that. We've -- we had to wait for a LASIP permit for 16
years, as much as we wanted to tell them how to do it. So if you put
this off, you might be putting this off for years and still never get the
answer.
MR. THOMAS: No. We're asking them to be partners in the
development of the plan so that when we get a final plan, they're all
signers on it already.
For example, we would like to be in a position that after the plan
is in place and everybody's approved it and bought into it, we can say
to a developer coming in, if you're going to develop this section of
land, you're going to do A, B, and Q. If you're going to develop that
section of land, you're going to do D, E, and F.
And they know if they do those things, they'll get their permits
fairly quickly. But if they've still got to go through the same steps
they have to do now with the extra steps of dealing with the local
situation, then having to deal with this, it just slows the process even
further for us.
And I think we can get them to work with us because we know
our master plan's not going to be finished for another year and, I mean,
this doesn't hurt anything just to delay it a little longer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much for your patience and
understanding. Thank you.
Page 184
September 9-10,2008
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Judith Hushon. She'll be followed
by Amber Crooks.
MS. HUSHON: I'm Judy Hushon, and I'm Chair of the HCPAC
that you all created to look at Habitat Conservation Plan.
You created us three years ago to look at the whole county . We
decided Collier County's pretty big and pretty difficult, a lot of
species, and it was just too difficult to get our hands around.
A year ago we really decided to focus on Immokalee because it's
having so much -- it wants to do so much development. They have --
and they had a master plan in progress. We were able to incorporate
into that the concept of a habitat management plan, which is a really
important thing for them; otherwise, development could just occur and
you won't be looking out for those habitats.
We've been briefing the IMPVC monthly on our developments.
We have had joint meetings with a number of their members. We've
had seven j oint meetings so far.
The Fish and Wildlife Service made us aware of a grant program.
This is a very tight window for us. There's only an annual program,
and we have only two weeks to get our application in now. We've
been working like dogs this summer to get this application polished
and ready to go in.
The grant does not require that an HCP be generated. Just want
to point that out. It's a feasibility study grant. It's gathering data on
where these critters are located. There are 22 listed species in the
Immokalee urban area. This would gather information on where they
are and how best to manage them. This is information you can use at
any point in the future.
The county contribution is a match in time and volunteer efforts.
This means that the county isn't putting out money for this. We're
going to get money to do this study from Fish and Wildlife Service.
We think that's a great thing, especially in a time when your finances
are a little under.
Page 185
September 9-10, 2008
Right now the HCP strategy advantages: Mitigation for
Immokalee will benefit Immokalee. No surprises. You'll know
exactly what mitigation is required.
We will get a more rapid review . We've already talked to these
people. We've tried to bring this message back. It's not quite getting
back yet. We'll get there.
The grant will identify and prioritize mitigation strategies. That's
a really important one for Immokalee. What areas need to be set aside
as mitigation areas. Where can they develop things? Where should
they put those educational walkways? Where should they go? How
should they be done? How much are they going to cost?
This grant represents a win-win scenario. It will supplement
county funds for data gathering, provide knowledge on listed species,
it defines the mitigation and strategies.
Our committee asks that you please approve the submittal of this
application. There will be another approval to accept the grant funds.
You'll have another shot at this in a few months if we get the grant.
Six months from now we might -- we'll hear whether we get the grant.
We've put in a lot of effort to bring the application to this stage,
and we're anxious to move forward on this. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Amber Crooks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta -- Ms.
Hushon?
MS. HUSHON: Oh, sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you leave. Thank you so
much. And I do appreciate all the effort and time and energy that you
have put into Immokalee. It's greatly appreciated.
But aren't you a little bit concerned that the leadership of
Immokalee has all of a sudden drawn back from this and they're not
ready to go forward?
MS. HUSHON: Well, there are very few people in that
leadership. We've actually have some of their leaders meeting with us
Page 186
September 9-10, 2008
on a regular basis. It has not been Mr. Thomas.
Floyd Cruz has met with us, Ski Olesky's met with us, some of
the other people in Immokalee have met with us on regular occasions
and many times. And what they keep -- he keeps saying is he wants
this letter. Well, we actually are going to bring in some letters. He
wants this letter from Fish and Wildlife Service and from -- they don't
normally generate these letters. They -- it's their program. Obviously
they're for this program.
What happens is that they give this -- if we go for an H -- if we
go for an HCP, that's an if, the county gets to award the mitigation and
take permits. That is definitely going to speed up the two years it
takes to go through Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Army Corps of Engineers has told us that if we have an HCP
in place, they don't have to go to Fish and Wildlife for section seven
consultation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did that answer your question?
MS. HUSHON: Take that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So based on what you're
saying is that Mr. Thomas is not speaking for the CRA or the
Immokalee master plan?
MS. HUSHON: Not for all the CRA. We have some of the
members of the CRA that have been actively meeting with us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I guess the
question -- and we'll have a chance pretty soon because Penny Phillips
(sic) is also coming up to speak to us -- to find out if they've taken
some official votes on this.
MS. HUSHON: They have not yet taken official votes. This
application is not an official vote. Before they took a vote, they said
they wanted the letters.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did that answer your questions?
MS. HUSHON: We immediately requested the letters and we
don't have the letters.
Page 187
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Amber Crooks. She'll be
followed by Penny Phillippi.
MS. CROOKS: Good afternoon. My name is Amber Crooks.
I'm the Vice-chair for the HCP Advisory Committee.
The Habitat Conservation Committee has been working with the
Immokalee community to assess the feasibility of an HCP for the
Immokalee urban area.
It is essential that the decision be made by the Immokalee
stakeholder citizens and landowners as to whether the HCP would
provide a benefit to the community by balancing a quality of life
through preservation of exceptional natural areas while
complementing its need for economic development.
The grant proposal before you today is just part of assessing that
feasibility. The grant does not obligate the county to submit an HCP.
If the Immokalee stakeholders ultimately decided that an HCP was not
right for them, the information collected could be used by the county
to develop other planning mechanisms that may be needed to satisfy
the listed species management requirements in the proposed
Immokalee master plan.
The HCP Committee is working with the IMPVC to ensure that
the public and all the stakeholders can participate fully in deciding if
Immokalee desires an HCP. We're just beginning on that process. We
have a while yet to vet all of the public concerns.
There have been joint meetings, as Judy mentioned, between the
HCPAC and the IMPVC to continue to explore how this HCP may
benefit Immokalee by streamlining development permit review if it's
implemented.
In response to whether the grant proposal should wait until the
requests of the IMPVC are fulfilled and the letters of support from the
regulatory agencies obtained, the timing of this grant proposal is
Page 188
September 9-10, 2008
appropriate.
The letters of support that Fred Thomas and the IMPVC
requested are anticipated to be received soon. I actually have some
emails from the FWC and the FWS that speak to that. And Kerstin
can hand it out if you'd like them. But we do anticipate formal letters
to be received that will clarify and address some of the IMPVC's
concerns for our regulatory certainty.
We do plan on having additional meetings with the regulatory
agencies that are going to sign on to this HCP, and along with the
regulatory assurances that the stakeholders requested a funding source,
which could be provided through this grant, would provide the
Immokalee community with the information and resources they need
should they choose to apply for an HCP.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the commission has
indicated that if Immokalee stakeholders decided at the end of the
grant year not to ultimately apply for the HCP, the county would be
under no obligation to submit an HCP.
Because of the benefits to Immokalee and to the county through
the grant monies, we respectfully request that you approve the grant
proposal before you today. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Penny Phillippi.
MS. PHILLIPPI: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Penny Phillippi. I'm the Executive Director of the Immokalee
Community Redevelopment Agency.
I came here today to specifically talk about the brief history of
this endeavor that -- the feasibility of a Habitat Conservation Plan.
And the committee, HCP committee, came to the IMPVC asking for
joint meetings, that they attend their meetings and vice versa.
And in truth, we have two -- three committees, the IMPVC, the
CRA advisory committee, and the EZBA board who were quite at a
loss as to understand exactly what this was about.
Amber did a beautiful PowerPoint presentation. The U.S. Fish
Page 189
September 9-10, 2008
and Wildlife Service came over to talk to them about it, and then the
process began, how are we going to find out if it's feasible to do this.
And basically what the committee's asked for was pretty
straightforward. It was pretty simple. We want a letter -- first it was a
memorandum of understanding, changed to a letter saying, we just
want a letter from each one of these regulatory agencies saying, once
an HCP is in place, these will be the rules and we will abide by them,
and there won't be any backlash, because currently we have major
landowners in that area who are -- who are not real excited at all about
an HCP.
And, in fact, Friday, several of our advisory board, CRA board
members, received phone calls from major landowners saying, wait a
minute. What's going on? Put a stop to this until we figure out what
the heck's going on. So you see the result of it.
Mr. Cruise, Mr. Thomas, the other folks who were called
immediately went into action saying, gee, we need to stop this.
And it's not that the committee is opposed to an HCP that will
expedite development. It's simply that this was kind of ramrodded,
and they're just not there yet. I mean, I believe that they have been
working through this process trying to understand, trying to politically
figure out how to make it work, but they feel at this point this was
kind of slammed, and they aren't ready for this at all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they're not forming an HCP
from what I just understood. All they're doing is getting a grant --
which has to be filed in two weeks or they don't get it anyway -- to
study what's in there. Nothing else is taking place.
So why would anybody be against that when they don't have to
do anything with the study or they can use it to further their goals
when, at such time an HCP is being formed or is thinking of being
formed, they at least have the data that's already been paid for through
this grant?
Page 190
September 9-10, 2008
I don't understand why you don't want that.
MS. PHILLIPPI : Well, I believe the general consensus is once
all those things are in place, that an HCP will happen whether they
want it or not, and that's dealing with the parameters that they're in
right now. I mean, I don't think they really truly believe that if all this
work is done that it won't result in an HCP at the end of the day,
whether they want it or not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. Or did you want to
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I have nothing for -- well,
Penny, just one thing for you. Have you seen these letters that have
been generated, emailletters, mentioning the fact that a letter is on the
way, or is this something you --
MS. PHILLIPPI: Yes, sir. I saw the letter that was drafted that
was to sent to all the regulatory agencies. I mean, we have been, you
know, in partnership throughout this entire process.
And again, I'll reiterate. I believe that the CRA committee and
the IMPVC committee were very carefully trying to figure out how to
work in partnership with the HCP committee to try to get to where
everybody wanted to be.
And when this -- when this -- when it came up quite suddenly,
they felt like they were derailed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I just -- my
question would be, does this grant come available every year, or is this
a once-in-lifetime deal? I mean, in other words, if we did not jump at
it right this moment and had more time for everybody to get aboard --
I'll be honest with you, thing's going noplace if the landowners that are
out there aren't going to get on board. The rest of the county has been
canceled out. Nobody wanted anything to do with it.
Immokalee embraced the idea to be able to go forward with it
and looked into it. They haven't done their discovery yet to the point
they're comfortable, so I can't support the next step. I can support
Page 191
September 9-10, 2008
keeping the dialogue going for a year and bringing it back at the next
grant cycle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Foord, Commissioner Coletta has
a question about, will this grant opportunity be available next year?
MS. FOORD: Hi. Good afternoon. Marlene Foord, Collier
County Grants Coordinator.
Yes. For the record, these grants have been available in previous
years; however, there is no guarantee on an annual cycle that a grant
will be available in the next coming years. We are seeing a lot of
federal and state grant programs dwindling away as funding is cut. So
there's no guarantee of it, but based on past history of having previous
years, there's a good chance of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make -- I'd like to make a
motion that we pass up the grant this year, keep the study group going
forward to get the landowners aboard and apply next year for the
grant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second it for discussion. I have a
question.
This committee that was formed, it was to look at the cockaded
woodpecker and graphical areas, or was it countywide?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it started out looking at the
Red-cockaded woodpecker. And from what I remember, the Fish and
Wildlife Service wasn't happy with just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What did the board approve? Did we
approve a countywide committee to look at this?
MR. MUDD: I'm going to let Mr. Schmitt come forward because
I can't remember that question. I could tell you how it started and I
can tell what your Fish and Wildlife said, they weren't going to
participate unless it was a holistic particular study, but I can't
remember if the board decided to participate in a holistics.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. Your question was,
how did it start?
Page 192
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Is it a countywide --
MR. SCHMITT: It was a countywide committee. It was focused
once as a countywide evaluation. If you recall, it was the industry and
members of the environmental community came to the board and
asked to form this committee. They began to look countywide. And I
think Judy pointed out, the scope of the county was just too large, and
then they began to focus more narrowly on an area like Immokalee
where they knew there would be development and concentrated on the
habitat that they would encounter out there as the scrub jay habitat,
black bear, panther. Those are the kind of things.
But yes, it was a countywide -- originally you were looking to
create regional, but it would -- it was a countywide Habitat
Conservation Plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Judy may be able to add more from the
committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, we've had speakers, they
had their time, and now it's time for the board to make a decision and
go to another topic.
Any further discussions on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1. Commissioner
Halas dissenting.
Thank you.
Page 193
September 9-10, 2008
Next item.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2008-51: REPEALING THE ANIMAL CONTROL
ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 93-56, AS AMENDED), AND
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 2008-XX AS THE ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE, TO STRENGTHEN THE SECTION
PERTAINING TO DANGEROUS DOGS, TO PROVIDE A
UNIFORM METHOD FOR REVISION OF FEES, TO PROVIDE
FOR MANDATORY SPAYINEUTER OF ANIMALS UPON
RETURN TO OWNER AFTER IMPOUNDMENT, AND TO
MORE CLEARLY DEFINE PENAL TIES, LEASH LAW, AND
THE AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT PROCESS - ADOPTED
W/CHANGE
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8C, which is, this
item was continued from the July 22, 2008, BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to repeal the animal control ordinance, ordinance
number 93-56 as amended, and to adopt ordinance number 2008
whatever number is up, as the animal control ordinance to strengthen
the section pertaining to dangerous dogs; to provide a uniform method
for a revision of fees; to provide for mandatory spay/neuter of animals
upon return to owner after impoundment, excuse me, and to more
clearly define penalties, leash law, and the affidavit of complaint
process.
Ms. Amanda Townsend, your Director of Domestic Animal
Services --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by -- who wants it?
Page 194
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta wants it.
Discussion?
MS. TOWNSEND: Commissioner, I'm sorry, but I do have one
verbiage change that I need to read into the record.
What we talked about on July -- or excuse me, June 10th, there is
one phrase that is missing from the documents that I've submitted, and
I'd just like to read this into the record, please.
On page 27 of your strikethrough version or on page 23 of your
clean copy, section 12, paragraph 2C2, this is the part that discusses
mandatory spay/neuter of animals upon return to owner after
impound. There's a phrase missing. The last sentence of the
paragraph says, no spay/neuter is required if a licensed veterinarian
certifies in writing that, we need to add the phrase, the animal is a
breeding animal in good health and standing, or resume the text, the
surgery would endanger the animal's health.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's included in my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My second also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. In light of what took place
out in the Estates a couple weeks ago, there's no way, my
understanding, we can ban any type of breed of animal; is that
correct?
MS. TOWNSEND: In general, sir, no, there's no support in the
state statute for a breed-specific legislation. Colleen Green, the
county attorney, may be able to add to that.
MS. GREEN: Colleen Green, Assistant County Attorney.
Amanda stated correctly, there is no statute that allows that. In fact,
there's a statute directly on point in Chapter 767.14 that says there are
no breed-specific bans allowed by the county.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because there has been some
discussion on newspaper blogs about trying to see if there is any way
Page 195
September 9-10, 2008
to ban certain vicious breeds of dogs.
MS. GREEN: I believe that Miami-Dade County is one of the
few counties that has a breed-specific ban for pit bull dogs, and it's my
understanding that was grandfathered in. They had their ordinance in
place prior to implementation of the statute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Commissioner Coy Ie reminded me that we need to take a break
for the court reporter, so let's take a 10-minute break and be here at
2:27 (sic) -- 4:27. I wish it was 2:27. We've got a lot of work to do.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: At this time I want to ask my
colleagues whether they -- we have seven more items on the agenda.
We have public speakers on some of those items. Do you want to go
tonight until we finish the agenda or do you want to quit at a certain
time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Quit at a certain time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion, seven o'clock. I
think past that point we're going to lose Commissioner Coyle.
Page 196
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'll loss me at six.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But that's okay. We'll
leave your body here for a while and I'll take your proxy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seriously. We have some members
of the public that needs to know what we're going to cover tonight.
They've been here all day, and I hate for them to sit here for the rest of
the day if we're not going to discuss.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I make a suggestion that
you put the agenda in an order that will serve the public in the best
possible way?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And we're quitting at six?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Six.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Six o'clock, and then we'll finish up
on the rest after the time certain at nine o'clock. It may take the whole
morning until noon. It may not. So we'll play it by ear.
The next item is?
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2008-52: AN AMENDMENT TO COLLIER
COUNTY'S FALSE ALARM ORDINANCE NO. 97-8, AS
AMENDED, AND PROPOSED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE, TO CHANGE WHETHER A DEPUTY
"SHALL" WRITE A VIOLATION TO "MAY", TO CHANGE
"ATTENDANCE" IN A PROGRAM TO "PARTICIPATION", TO
CLARIFY FINES AND VIOLATIONS AND TO CHANGE
SPECIAL "MASTER" TO "MAGISTRATE" - ADOPTED AS
AMENDED
MR. MUDD: Is 8F. It's the false alarm ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this somebody we have in the
Page 197
September 9-10, 2008
audience here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That will take just a few minutes.
MR. MUDD: At the July 22, 2008, BCC meeting, the board
directed staff to draft an ordinance amending Collier County
ordinance number 97-8, the false alarm ordinance. This item has been
advised for September 9, 2008, but was omitted from the agenda.
The title reads, a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approves an amendment to the Collier County false
alarm ordinance number 97-8 as amended and proposed by the Collier
County Sheriffs Office to change whether a deputy "shall" write a
violation to "may", to change "attendance" in a program to
"participation," and to clarify fines and violations and to change
"special master" to "magistrate," and that clarification -- that item was
added at the county attorney's request.
And I believe you have a representative from the Sheriffs Office
here to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tina?
MS. MULLEN: Tina Mullen with the Collier County Sheriffs
Office, false alarm bureau.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The amendments are in the board's
packet, explained by the county manager. Is there any questions on the
amendments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve the ordinance as amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One question. Nothing to do with
this. I've been asking them from the Sheriffs Office to get together
with my -- with my county attorney to get that camping ordinance
ready, and they keep putting it off, although our county attorney has
Page 198
September 9-10,2008
been begging them to work with him.
And would you please let them know that I'm getting a little
impatient. It's only been about six months, seven months.
MS. MULLEN: Which one was that, what--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No camping ordinance.
MS. MULLEN: Oh, no camping. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you, Tina. Good to see you.
MS. MULLEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue, what -- how many speakers you
got?
MS. FILSON: For 10C I have one speaker, for 10D I have two
speakers, for 10E I have one speaker, for 10H I have one speaker.
MR. MUDD: And anything for 10K or 10L?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Item #lOC
BOARD DECISION ON LOCAL PREFERENCE FOR BID NO. 08-
5106 - "SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION
Page 199
September 9-10, 2008
(RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD TO DAVIS
BOULEVARD)", PROJECT NO. 60091 - MOTION TO ACCEPT
ASTALDI CONSTRUCTION AS A LOCAL BUSINESS-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Okay. Commissioner, that brings us to lOCo It's
requesting board's decision on local preference for bid number
08-5106, the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension, which is Rattlesnake
Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard, project number 60091.
Mr. Steve Carnell and Jay Ahmad will present.
MR. CARNELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. Steve Carnell, Purchasing Director. This is a two-phase
project that includes the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard for two
miles approximately from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock
and the construction of LASIP canal along that same right-of-way.
Bids were opened on August the 18th. We received eight bids.
All were well under the engineer's estimate. The apparent low bid
came from Astaldi Construction Corporation.
Several weeks prior to tendering their bid and to the public bid
opening, Astaldi Construction has contacted my office and requested
up front consideration and eligibility to be considered a local vendor
under your local vendor preference policy.
Staff reviewed this request, meaning my office and the Office of
the County Attorney, and it's our position at this point in time that
Astaldi does not satisfy all of the requirements in terms of how the
policy strictly reads, and we advised Astaldi of that shortly before the
bids opened and encouraged them to bid nonetheless, which they did,
and they were, in fact, the low bidder with a bid of just over $18
million.
They briefly -- if you'll remember your local vendor policy
adopted in June, there's three criteria essentially that comes down in
order to be eligible. You need to have an -- have held an optional
Page 200
September 9-10, 2008
license in Collier County for a full year prior to bidding, you need to
have a local physical address, and your business needs to be
contributing to the local economy in a verifiable and measurable way.
We received information from Astaldi as part of their request
prior to the bid award or, I'm sorry, bid opening supporting their
contention that they met these requirements, and they did, in fact,
identify a local address that they conduct business out of and have
been for about the last 21 months. They also gave a rather detailed
explanation which we provided to you in backup yesterday with
regard to their contribution to the Collier County economy which
includes the fact that they have 65 employees on their payroll who
reside in Collier County, and they also have a number of
subcontractors they use on different projects who are local as well.
The issue, again, at this point is that I think you can make an
argument they have a local address and you can make a very strong
argument that they impact the local economy, but they -- at this point
in time they did not hold -- they have not held an occupational license
for a full year. They recently obtained an occupational license.
From what Mr. Morgan from Astaldi told me -- and I'm going to
-- he's a registered speaker -- give him a chance to tell you his story
directly in just a moment, but he said that his company sought to get
an occupational license two years ago and was told at the time that
they did not need one to conduct business in Collier County from their
location that they were in, which was Immokalee Road trailer for the
Immokalee Road job that they've been building, the design-build
segment of Immokalee Road that they've been constructing for us.
So the -- I wasn't able to confirm that that's actually what they
were told two years ago, but Mr. Morgan did provide documentation
that he did register his general contractor's license in Collier County
two years ago, and there's actually documentation to that effect, and
that's the point in time where we inquired about the occupational
license.
Page 201
September 9-10, 2008
Again, I wasn't able to confirm what happened literally two years
ago, but when I called the Tax Collector's Office who issues
occupational licenses, they said the same thing to me. They said, if
you have a temporary address, then you would not be required to have
an occupational license. And it's really a difference in paradigm. The
folks in the Tax Collector's office -- and we've given out legal opinion
from the county attorney previously on another matter where the
paradigm's difference is, we're looking at it from the enforcement side
as you're not required to have one, we're not going to force you to get
one, we're not going to cite you, there are not going to be sanctions if
you don't have one.
But in Mr. Morgan's case, he was attempting to get one and was
told he didn't need it. And, of course, at that point in time we had no
local preference ordinance, nothing that, from a competitive
procurement contracting side, would insight him or incent him to get
an occupational license.
So that's our situation in a nutshell. I would encourage you to
hear from Mr. Morgan briefly, and then I can give you just some final
thoughts about how you might want to proceed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. You know, the intent that
we are up against here, our intent was to provide jobs for local people,
and that's exactly what we're doing here. Now, has he met the full
requirements to be able to say, yeah, he did steps one through five?
No. He missed one by slightly, you know, as far as registering at the
right time, one year ahead of time. But the truth of the matter is, he
employs more people of Collier County than the competitor does.
I'm at a loss as to why we just don't declare him a local vendor
and get on with it. The local economy would be better off if he
continues the way he is rather than bring a firm out of Fort Myers that
has a number of their employees coming from the Lee County area.
That's my own personal preference.
Page 202
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're saying he meets the intent?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He meets the intent, correct,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: One public speaker, Jack Morgan.
MR. MORGAN: Good afternoon, Commissioner. Jack Morgan,
Astaldi Construction, resident of Collier County.
You've heard it. Steve's done a very good job of telling you
exactly what had happened. I can elaborate a little bit more on this
occupational license, as my engineers actually went down two years
ago, and that's the story you heard from Steve that they said you don't
need one, it doesn't benefit you, it's just a tax license.
And so when I heard that from my engineer, I actually called
down there and I said, I would like an occupational license, and they
gave me the exact same story that, Mr. Morgan, you don't need one.
You are registered -- just register your general contractor's license
with the county and everything would be fine.
As you know, when we first signed a contract here in Collier
County, we had possibly four residents of Collier County that worked
for us at the time. I'm proud to say at this time we have 65 employees
that reside in Collier County; fifteen actually own property here. So
we are very much contributing to the tax base.
And also I'd like to say that we believe in working with the
communities that we actually are working in. We've done 320
man-hours for Habitat for Humanity, we've actually -- we're a
corporate sponsor at Sun Fest. .We helped with the MOT in parking at
Sun Fest. We contributed out there at the Wild West one, you know,
the county fairgrounds, and I actually won a trophy out there for chili.
But -- so please consider us a local contractor.
I would hate to disband the crews that we have put together here
in Collier County at this point, and that is 65 personnel that live here
in Collier County.
Page 203
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Astaldi as a
local contractor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
recognize Astaldi as a local vendor, local --
MR. CARNELL: Could I ask you to just reconsider the wording
of the motion briefly? Talking to the Office of the County Attorney,
we don't believe that Astaldi meets the definition of local the way your
definition reads now. Now, whether or not he meets the intent of your
policy is another matter. I think you can make a very reasonable
argument there that that's the case.
What we would suggest is a matter of process -- and, Mr.
Klatzkow, you qualify this if you feel any need to -- is we would
suggest that you waive the strict application of the local vendor
preference policy and that you authorize us to proceed with award to
Astaldi based on the fact that you believe they meet the intent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now we're talking about
not just this time but future contracts that come up, too?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. We would -- yeah, we may need to
look at amending the policy in some way to give you some more
latitude. Right now your only area of state of discretion in the policy
is waive it if somebody doesn't meet it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Klatzkow, would you help
with the wording? What would be the correct wording?
MR. KLATZKOW: I have no issue with the motion if you wish
to consider Astaldi as a local company for purposes of the policy, or
the other way to do it is simply waive it as to Astaldi. Either way
works for me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I prefer to keep it the original
way where I recognize them as a local --
MR. CARNELL: That's fine.
Page 204
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- vendor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And award the contract to Astaldi for
bid number 08-5106.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. That's in my
motion.
MR. AHMAD: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jay Ahmad. You
don't want to award the contract at this time. We're going to bring the
contract to you next board meeting. At this stage we're just trying to
clarify the local versus nonlocal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So your motion is to accept
Astaldi as a local -- local business?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That wording works fine, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And a second by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 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. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 10E. It's a
recommendation to approve a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas wants to say
something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just want to -- as I read
through this and I look at the savings to the taxpayer, I'm starting to
Page 205
September 9-10, 2008
wonder if we were too confining in regards to local businesses.
I understand that we're trying to make sure that we have
employment opportunities for our local businesses. But my concern
is, I don't want to see us get into a situation where we were a couple of
years ago when we were helter skelter looking for people to help build
roads. We only had two road builders, and then we were held hostage
as far as accomplishing the task before us.
So it's just a point of discussion. I'm concerned about how
confining we've made this ordinance, and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe I can address that. What your
concerns are, are concerns, but actual reality is, if we didn't recognize
Astaldi as local vendor, the next one --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- who has never bidded on a road
project who is local, they have a local address, local occupational
license, would have to match Astaldi's bid.
So in this case, what has actually happened is it spurred more
competition and it wouldn't have cost the taxpayers any money.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that is -- I presume that is
true for this situation, but the long-term effect of this is going to be a
reduction in competition and a higher cost to taxpayers.
This policy is going to get us in trouble. It's not going to do it this
time. It won't do it next time, but cumulatively it is going to get us in
trouble. And that's the reason I didn't vote for it the first time around,
but I know that this is not the time to debate that.
The only thing we can do is when we do notice that the costs are
going up and the bidders are going down, we're going to have to
change it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the reason for that is that this
is a bad policy, but nevertheless.
Page 206
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Question was simple, Mr. Morgan.
Did you say you have a home here?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That was great.
MR. MORGAN: I live on Marco Island. I'm here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're local.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you're my commissioner?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, I am. Well, commissioner -- constituent.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah. I'm the commissioner. I
think I better go home.
Item #lOD
A PLAN FOR IMMEDIATE AND LONG TERM PURCHASES OF
SYSTEMS FURNITURE FOR VARIOUS COUNTY FACILITIES -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the next item is
10D. It's a recommendation to approve a plan for immediate
long-term purchases of systems furniture -- of system furniture from
various county facilities.
Mr. Steve Carnell, your Purchasing Director, will present.
MR. CARNELL: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, in May
of this year, the Board of County Commissioners had asked your
citizens Productivity Committee to examine questions regarding the
purchases of systems furniture by the board agency, and we made a
presentation to the Productivity Committee in June, and as a result of
that presentation, the Productivity Committee represented -- I'm sorry
-- prepared and submitted four general recommendations regarding
how they felt we should proceed going forward.
Page 207
September 9-10, 2008
One was to look at our existing standardization and product
standardization of systems furniture, revisit it, and look -- and take a --
conduct a market-wide review to determine if there were credible
alternatives to the products that we were using. They also wanted us
to verify that the accompanying companion services that we buy with
the furniture are being purchased in the most competitive priced way,
and they also suggested that we look at our existing standard projects,
Steelcase and Herman Miller, and determine if there are other dealers
of those products who potentially could compete against the dealers
we've been using to further generate competition for the cost of those
services, and then they also encouraged us to form a staff committee
that would incorporate different using agencies into the process.
I'm here today to tell you we're essentially following those
recommendations and have a plan together to implement. We would
specifically recommend with regard to doing that review of our
existing standards to hire an independent professional architect or
interior designer who would evaluate the major product lines that are
out there that are under the State of Florida contract and provide us
some analysis regarding the quality, the life cycle, the functionality
and versatility of the project, and provide us other information that
will enable us to make some comparisons as to whether or not we
need to alter, expand, or for that matter, eliminate our standardized --
our existing product standards and replace them with new and updated
standards and the different procurement strategies as well. So we're
recommending that we do that.
We're also -- in the meantime, we're anticipating it will take
about four months for all of that to happen, by the time we get a report
back from the architect, which we would bring back to you all for
subsequent action.
In the meantime, we do have some projects scheduled for the
coming fiscal year, and we're asking for direction as follows:
For the purchases that are less than a $100,000 -- I don't have any
Page 208
September 9-10, 2008
specifically right now on the radar -- we would in that case negotiate
the design and installation costs, and using similar negotiation
strategies that we use now in the contract administration section, in
my department, they use particularly for engineering consultants, and
then we would be looking to anything of the larger projects, 100,000
or more, and there are specifically two on the radar this year that we
would put out -- we would bid out the design -- the installation
services and all the services associated with accepting the product
delivery, staging the product, storing .it, and then bringing it to the site
on time and installing and assembling all the furniture at that time, that
we would bid that among our current Steelcase -- the current Steelcase
dealers within the State of Florida, of which there are 10, and there's
also a local Herman Miller dealer, who we would include as well since
Herman Miller products are part of our standard. So we'd have
potentially a pool of 11 bidders that we would recommend that we bid
to for these interim orders, if you will, the projects that are pending
that are scheduled for implementation this year, and then obviously
from that point on, future purchases after the report comes back would
be covered and dictated by the findings that we'd get from the
architectural firm as to how we proceed more long term with how we
buy product.
So we're -- just in a nutshell, we're here telling you that we're in
alignment with the Productivity Committee's recommendations and
we're seeking to move forward with your blessing to implement those.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, a couple questions. The overall
100,000, so that would eliminate any of Marco Office Supply because
they don't carry the same kind of furniture?
MR. CARNELL: Only in the short term. We're going to be
looking at all products, including the products that Marco Office
Supply sells, and they'll be fair game in terms of the evaluation for the
long-term purchases.
Page 209
September 9-10,2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like you to explain to me,
because I don't understand, what does the State of Florida contract
mean or say, or -- I know you've referred to it a number of times here,
and what does that mean?
MR. CARNELL: State of Florida contract is a contract that is
placed by the Department of Management Services within the State of
Florida government. It is available to all state agencies and to city and
county governments.
It is they -- State of Florida contract, in the case of systems
furniture, adapts -- adopts the federal contracts for systems furniture
product purchases, in which -- in other words, you have retail pricing
listed for all furniture items, and then you have standing discounts,
and there's a sliding scale. The more you order, the bigger discounts
you get.
The discounts that are in that contract originate from the federal
GSA, which, by law, is the maximum discount you can provide based
on the quantities of order that you're placing. In other words, the
vendors are obligated to give the feds the best deal they possibly can
in terms of a fixed-term agreement.
So the State of Florida just takes that federal GSA contract and
rolls it over and adopts it into their contract, and then the State of
Florida has also competed the assignment of dealers under the
contract, of which there's almost 100 dealers of the different products.
There's 25 major manufacturers in the State of Florida contract,
so we've got a pretty big base to draw from, product lines to look at.
And by -- the main -- in short, Commissioner, it's -- the State of
Florida contract is a leveraged way for everybody to save time and
money because the State of Florida has competed -- or in this case, the
federal GSA has competed the pricing of the furniture, which is about
85 to 90 percent of what you spend when you buy. And we are
permitted by Florida law to buy off of those contracts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So what the State of Florida
Page 210
September 9-10, 2008
contract really is, is a group of vendors approved by the state who are
supposed to give you a great price; is that -- does that boil down --
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- to what you just said?
MR. CARNELL: Yes--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you just -- and your department
adheres to that rather than getting other bids from other companies; is
that the case? I mean, say, for instance, you're buying computers or,
you know, pianos or something like that and they have one or two
vendors but you have some local people you'd like to ask because the
local people might not have as high a delivery charge or something
like that, you don't stray from that state --
MR. CARNELL: -- we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- contract?
MR. CARNELL: It's purchase by purchase. There are other state
contracts where the leverage prices or discounts are not nearly as good
and are not necessarily better than what we could do on our own.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, that's refreshing.
MR. CARNELL: So it's case by case.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then you said design,
delivery, and installation services would be negotiated centrally, and I
don't understand what negotiated centrally means.
MR. CARNELL: Well, you're looking at centrally (indicating).
That would be -- meaning we would, on behalf of all board
departments, for the smaller purchases, we would negotiated the
installation fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your department. Centrally means
in your department?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, my negotiations staff do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And prevailing office
configuration standards. What does that mean?
MR. CARNELL: That means that we have standards that an
Page 211
September 9-10, 2008
architect had prepared for us many years ago that dictate the size of an
office and typically what type of furnishings would go in those
offices. What we're trying to do is adhere to that more closely and
also to update, to make sure that we have standards that still work. So
in other words, some kind of basic typical standard for, let's say, a
reception area for a private office, for an executive office, for a
common area. Those different setups.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand. I was just asking you
those simple questions because I don't want to presume anything. I
want to hear from you what actually you mean. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, centrally. Can you --
MR. CARNELL: Call me Cen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Centrally Carnell. Let's go to the
phrase that says purchases of $100,000 or less for new installations
will be procured through the State of Florida contract. Why does it
have to be for new installations? Why can't it be for all furniture?
MR. CARNELL: Well, it could be, if you look at the caveat at
the bottom, which is just that -- if you look at that last paragraph,
pursuant to and in tandem with the recommendations -- oh, I'm sorry,
wrong paragraph here. Hold on.
Look at further down, sir, just before number three. All
purchases of products and services associated with reconfiguring
existing -- existing as opposed to new -- existing furniture would be
procured from that product line in that work area, which simply just
means, if I've got an existing area that has Herman Miller and I want
to either purchase another work station or I want to reconfigure my
whole work space, then I'm going to go and I'm going to buy -- I'm
going to buy Herman Miller product. I'm not going to try to mix
either Steelcase or Knoll or some other product into that area.
So in areas where we already have a beachhead, if you will, with
an existing product, we're going to buy off the state contract using that
Page 212
September 9-10, 2008
product. If it's an area that's, we'll call it virgin space, so to speak,
where we don't have systems furniture, then we're going to do the
other process that's described above. That's what a new installation
would be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I must have a different copy
than you have because my number three doesn't say what you just
said. But nevertheless, mine isn't formatted either so it's a little
difficult to read it with the gabled characters and everything that
appear here.
MR. CARNELL: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that still doesn't really answer
my question. How about a $12,000 glass table? How is that going to
be procured in the future?
MR. CARNELL: In that case we would go to the state contract
and simply buy from the product line available to us. Now, again, if
there are no needs with regard to configuration and connectivity, if it's
just a stand-alone table, then at that point we would just look at
competitive prices on the state contract. Now, if you're just buying a
table, if there aren't installation services. Because if you're just buying
a commodity, you're typically not going to have installation charges.
You may have some delivery charges. If need be, we'll negotiate
those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But are you saying to me that
anything you buy will be bought off of the state contract?
MR. CARNELL: The products, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The products will be bought off of
the state contract?
MR. CARNELL: And the services negotiated.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it doesn't really have to
be a purchase for new installations. It can be any kind of purchase is
going to be purchased off the state contract?
MR. CARNELL: That is correct, that is correct.
Page 213
September 9-10,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we word this to make that
clear?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah. If you'd like to maybe, just all
purchases will be -- of the product will be under the state contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That makes me happier.
Now, you said that purchases of 100,000 or less will be procured per
the State of Florida contract, if -- you said all purchases.
MR. CARNELL: All products.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All products will be purchased
from the state contract, I'd be happy with that. Then it says, purchases
greater than 100,000, the product for new installations will be
procured through the state contract.
MR. CARNELL: State contract, yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Again, that's repetitive. But if you
change the first one and eliminate the second one so that all products
are purchased from the state contract and then you competitively bid
the services or installations, that's fine with me.
MR. CARNELL: That's the intent, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But then you say, all such contracts
will be brought to the board for award.
MR. CARNELL: Over a 100,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, does that apply to
only the service contracts, or does it involve the contracts from the
state contract?
MR. CARNELL: Well, what's going to happen is the purchase
that will be brought to the board will include everything, but we're
going to tell you that the product purchase is off the state contract. In
other words, the bidder is going to win the furniture order and then
they're going to win the installation services too so that we can keep it
all bundled, one order from one source.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. So you're not
Page 214
September 9-10, 2008
going to try to accumulate $100,000 in purchases; if you've got
$150,000 in purchases, it's going to be made off the state contract,
right?
MR. CARNELL: Correct, correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. That's all I needed to
know, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Carnell, is it automatic that the
value that we would be receiving is the best to buy it off the state
contract? I mean, when you talk about, in this case, furniture, the
installation, designing and installation, is it the assumption that we're
going to get the best deal off the state contract?
MR. CARNELL: For the product, that is the assumption, and the
reason is that the state contract has scales that go up to a million
dollars, in some cases higher than a million dollars of the list price.
We're not ordering beyond a million dollars at a time. And the -- if
you're at a million and less -- and don't hold me to a million because it
varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Some are a million, some
are a little more, some are a little less in terms of their maximum scale
on their discounting.
You have to be up over that before you can do better in your
discount. And we're -- while we're ordering -- we have two
decent-size jobs this year. We are not, even when you leverage our
ordering, we're not going to be anywhere close to the maximum on the
state contract.
So we're not, by law, by federal law, the manufacturers are not
allowed to sell to us at a lower price unless we're buying in quantity
way beyond what the scale is on the schedule.
Give you an example. Dade County has a large order coming up
where they're buying literally thousands of work stations. They're
buying so much that they actually break the GSA scale. So they can
go and get beyond the top discount and negotiate with the
manufacturer, and they're permitted to do that by federal law.
Page 215
September 9-10, 2008
But if you're not buying 6,000 work stations -- which you'll be
happy to know we're not in the coming year -- then we don't have that
kind of leverage. And so that is, by law, the best price for the product
that we can be offered by the manufacturer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wasn't talking about price. I was
talking about value. Value--
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is not --
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- price. The value is, you know, the
product, how long it's going to last.
MR. CARNELL: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's your anticipation of that, if
that will last and what the cost is?
MR. CARNELL: Well, that's what the study's all about, sir, and
that's what we tried to look at 22 year years ago. And we didn't buy
the cheapest product. We didn't select the cheapest product. We
picked the product that we knew had a good life cycle, and we had a
product that had a broad and deep breadth with a lot of options to it
and flexibility, and believe that decision has paid off.
When you look at the ownership and our actual history over 20
years, we haven't thrown a lot of this stuff out. We've been recycling
it, we've been able to reconfigure it. When my department remodeled
a few months ago, every piece of furniture that came out of my office
went into another county office and was redeployed for continuous
use, and some of it was 20 years old. So that's -- we are very conscious
of that. The independent review is going to be very much focused on
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we buying the top of the line of
furniture?
MR. CARNELL: I think we're buying near the top. And I do
believe you can find a few that are more expensive, not necessarily
Page 216
September 9-10, 2008
greater value.
But let's take a look. We're going to find out, and that's what the
analysis is going to be in terms of where we are in 2008. That's a very
important question. I think you're on the central issue going forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Speakers? Oh--
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, please.
MS. FILSON: Joe Gammons. He'll be followed by Philip
Penzo.
MR. GAMMONS: Good afternoon. For the record, Joe
Gammons. I'm the Owner of Office Furniture & Design, the local
Steelcase dealer. And being (sic) from 8:30 to 5:00, I have a
newfound respect and appreciation for what you do. But -- neither
here nor there.
Nothing to add really to what Mr. Carnell has said other than just
to reiterate what you -- from a guy who sells office furniture every
day, you are purchasing at the best possible price, and I would argue at
the greatest value, down to the design.
The state contract mandates we charge $55 an hour for design.
To every other customer we sell to, it's much higher than that. So it's
-- just wanted to come and bring my support of this executive
summary is what it's called, you know, as the owner of the local
Steelcase dealership and, by the way, a resident of Naples. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Philip Penzo.
MR. PENZO: Philip Penzo with Marco Office Supply. Thank
you for your time.
What I see here is no changes are being made. Everything's on
state contract. We're the HON showcase dealer. All the HON
products on state contract. Herman Miller's on state contract. You're
going to get an expert in to say, yeah, you're buying a good grade of
furniture, but what you need to do is go out on bid. You're going to
Page 217
September 9-10, 2008
spend $100,000 for $50,000.
And they keep talking about, you know, the -- you're talking
about furniture that -- panel systems, but panel systems isn't the bulk
of your sales.
We've got a -- from Skip Camp. We asked him, well, how many
kick panels did you buy since 2005, which is Steelcase. He said,
127,000. Well, you spent over a million dollars a year on furniture. So
how much of it was chairs?
My whole thing was, is they came in here at the Productivity
Committee, and almost every member says, you need to go out and
get competitive bidding. Standardizing's great. Get competitive
bidding. He brought in a chair and says, look, this chair is
economically sound. It's this, it's that. You're paying $500 for it.
Well, why does Naples Community Hospital, Lee County
Hospital standardize on a $300 HON chair, saving you $200 a chair?
There was -- you know, the bottom line is, I think standardizing's
great, but if you're going to do an office, there's nothing in it, you've
got your plans, this is what I need in it, what does it hurt to get three
bids and say Steelcase is this, HON is this, Herman Miller is this. If
somebody else has a bid, what's the problem getting the price and
comparing it?
Because I think what I'm seeing here is they're standardizing,
which is saying, I'm not looking at anything else. So I standardize on
this 20 years ago, I haven't looked at anything else in 20 years.
So all we were saying is, this needs to change. You need to go
out on bid on every job. It's a $20,000 job. If one person's 20 and the
other's 15 and he's offering the same quality, why wouldn't you go
with the l5? You know, I don't -- this standardizing -- I understand
you have panels there, but then they didn't bring up the point that you
went with Steelcase panels. You got three types of Steelcase panels
that aren't interchangeable.
So somewhere along the line the standardizing didn't work
Page 218
September 9-10, 2008
because you switched panels. They don't connect to the old panels.
He said you reused the panels over in purchasing, but when you
did Horseshoe, you threw them all out. You took the metal stuff to
recycling and the panels to the dump, so you didn't recycle those.
So bottom line is, every job you do, what does it hurt to get a
couple prices and see what's out there in the marketplace? Next year
the marketplace might not be the same. You never know who's
leaving.
You know, like Steelcase is -- and a U.S. company like HON,
right? Their panels are made in Mexico, the kick panels. I mean,
that's the way the world is now. We can't say, I'm going to
standardize and not look at this. I don't see the problem of every job
going out on bid, getting a couple bids and saying, this is, I think, is
the best deal.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question, Mr. Penzo. How
do you know that community development didn't recycle those?
MR. PENZO: Because we happened to hire an installer that used
to work for the Steel case dealer, and he was on the job over there, and
he said they took truckloads of furniture to the recycling plant that was
metal and all the other panels went to the dump. I mean, you weren't
using those panels because you switched the kick.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They were recycled.
MR. PENZO: Well, they went to recycling, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They was recycled.
MR. PENZO: Sometimes it's not -- I remember purchasing quite
a few years ago wanting me to send a letter saying, well, do we have
to hold these panels to wait for an auction to sell them because they
have no value? And you know, 20-year-old panels, is it worth
recycling and buying new ones? It might be cheaper just buying new.
Get a price, how much is it to do a new one instead of putting these in
storage and then trying to recycle them?
Page 219
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What would Mr. Scamp -- Camp, the
information he provided you, what is the hot item that -- of purchases
that we do?
MR. PENZO: Well, no. We just -- we were curious because we
said, well, when did you switch? Because we looked at the purchasing
and you were buying Steelcase panels, but then suddenly you went to
the kick panel, which is a Steelcase, but like I said, it was made in
Mexico. It wasn't the ones you were buying. So you actually
switched lines. He said, well, they switched in 2005, and we said,
well, how much did you spend? And his note here says 127,000, and
he lists all the offices it went into.
But what got me, it says down here, you know, who is
responsible for county's decision to purchase kick panels? The
decision is generally left up to the individual department user group as
long as they stay with two standard manufacturers.
So you're not getting -- you're getting a competitive price. You're
going in and saying, I want this, I want this, I want this, and I'm going
to buy it from this dealer, this vendor. You standardized on two
vendors, not two -- you know, you look at those, there's more than
Steelcase in those orders, you know. And that's fine, but I still think
the county -- what does it hurt to go out and bid, get 10 bids, look at
them all, throw them out? I mean, you don't have to go with the
cheaper vendor. You can say, this is better quality and I like it better,
but at least you see what's out there in the marketplace, and by doing
that, even if you buy it -- I guarantee, even if you buy it from who
you're buying it from now, you're going to get a better price because
they know they're going to have to be competitive.
And right now, if you come to me and say send me a desk and
don't ask me a price, how competitive am I going to be? You're going
to get 40 off. If I know I'm bidding against 10 people, I may say, well,
I can sharpen my pencil and I'll give you free freight on that, you
know, and that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying I deserve the business.
Page 220
September 9-10, 2008
I'm saying I'd like the opportunity to bid. I think it should be bid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, that's the thing that's been
bothering me, I guess, about this whole issue all along. We're so
careful about saving the taxpayer dollars and going out to bid, and it
doesn't make any difference whether we're buying landscaping or a
road or, you know, building a building. We go out to bid. Sometimes
we would have preferred to use another vendor maybe because we
would have liked another vendor because they build a better road or
something like that, but we choose the lowest bidder.
And here on office products, we don't, and I don't understand
that. Why -- why isn't it the same across the board? Why do we
standardize here? And like Mr. Penzo just said, if you have an empty
room, does it really make any difference what kind of furniture you
put in it as long as it's the lowest price, and best quality, best value, as
you were saying? Yes, you have to have good value, you have to
have a product that will withstand all of the use that we give it with
employees, you know, using a lot of it and so forth. But still, that
bidding, I think, should take place also rather than just a standard bid.
MR. CARNELL: Well, if I could address that. First off, I'm not
sure I disagree with Mr. Penzo long term. I think that's what we want
to look at and decide.
What your staff is telling you is, look before you leap. Let's take
a look at the marketplace objectively. We've had a number of claims
from a number of salesmen and vendors who have a self-interest for
saying what they're saying. That doesn't mean they're wrong. They
could end up being right.
Commissioner Fiala, you partly answered your own question in
terms of we -- a lot of times we're up here with the low bid, talking
about the low bid, but if you look at your purchasing policy as a
whole, your policy as a whole, when you look at our purchases across
the board, we have a number of purchases where we don't buy low
Page 221
September 9-10, 2008
bid, where we -- either a best overall selection or in the case of our
CCNA consultants, you have to compete on quality and you don't
even consider price in the selection process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: CCNA, tell me --
MR. CARNELL: I'm sorry. That's the hiring of architects and
engineers. And we're not allowed to consider price. So purchase to
purchase, it varies a little bit. But you're absolutely right -- and back
to what the chairman said, you're after best overall value.
Now, what we're telling you right now is, if you buy off the
federal GSA through the State of Florida contract, you're getting the
best prices available for that given product. Mr. Penzo's point is, well,
yeah, but what about my product versus that product or someone else's
product might be cheaper than Steelcase and might have just as good
value. I'm not going to argue the point with him right now. I think
he's right in the sense that we ought to look at that question and make
a long-term decision, and we as a staff are committed to considering
that approach.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now let me just interject
also. Say, for instance, you did, you considered that, and you decided
to go out to bid and Mr. Penzo won this next bid, and then the
following bid came up, you wouldn't use him again just because he
used it; you would go out to bid again, right? I mean, what's fair is
fair. I would think you should go out to bid every time to see what
kind of a price -- as it's been stated, when everybody knows that
they're going to be bidding, the prices -- the pencil is a little bit
sharper, the prices are a little bit more in line --
MR. CARNELL: Well, it depends if you're competing across
products or within products. Now -- and that goes back to the point of
standardization.
Again, Mr. Penzo's saying, gee, they don't have that many panels.
Well, panels is where the rubber meets the road initially with
standardization because the products don't connect -- the panels don't
Page 222
September 9-10, 2008
connect to each other. Acme doesn't connect to ABC, Steelcase
doesn't connect to Herman Miller.
And the problem you run into with the paneling systems is, that if
you buy three competing products and put them in the same place,
they can't connect to each other. You have to buy actually redundant
and additional panels, you have to buy additional electrical sources,
and there's other configuration problems that come in.
When you reconfigure, you're now mixing and matching three
products. It makes it much more difficult to take your existing
product and use it sensibly and wisely.
But that said, we're not saying that's the parting line long term.
We want to look at the study to see if that logic is worth holding onto
or if Mr. Penzo's logic is worth introducing. What we just said,
bidding cross products, and kind of like standardization be damned.
We may end up saying, it's better to open it up to product, and that's
what we want to get in terms of the architectural view.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any way that we can put off
the purchasing of these two large purchases until you answer your
question?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, we looked at that. The -- right now, the
EOC building is scheduled to be occupied, what, January, and we're
closing up, and we won't know the results until January. If we delay
that, we're going to have to delay the contractor.
And you know, for once, we're not only on budget, but we're
early -- and this is kind of the benefits of a slow economy . We have
the contractor actually a little ahead of schedule, and so we'd have to
-- we'd have to look at renegotiating the contract, potentially
extending it, maybe remobilizing them. You're looking at costs if we
don't try to bid the furniture and acquire it as timely as we can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What about the other one?
MR. CARNELL: And the library's a couple months later out.
That one, we're talking about needing the furniture in place in March;g
Page 223
September 9-10, 2008
this is the south library. And do we have -- do we need it before then
for any other reason, before March? Do we need it? Okay. All right.
So the library potentially you could delay . Well, if we get the
findings back, we probably aren't back to the board until late January,
first meeting in February. We need to order in January, right, for
March opening. So it's cutting it really close. It would delay the
.
openIng.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we approve the staffs
recommendations except with the caveat, bring the purchase of the
furniture for the library -- try to -- try to meet the deadline so we can
answer the question, you know, do we need to go out and bid or
whatever, and come back to us and tell us no if we can delay this -- if
we can meet?
MR. CARNELL: Are you just focused on the library, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Let me ask another -- let me throw another option
out there. Mr. Penzo, sir, did you state -- and I want to make sure my
hearing is okay. Did you state that you are on the state contract for
HON furniture?
MR. PENZO: Yes, and so is our competitors, okay. You can
buy state --
MR. MUDD: My answer is -- and we're talking about two big
purchases, the only two that I got out there this year -- and I don't see
a whole lot out there in this year at all. And I know we're going to
have an architect that's going to go out and study the thing. Let's put
HON into the mix. And if we have an interconnection thing, we can
identify it during that bid, and we can get that thing resolved and let's
see what we get.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That works for me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And with all new furniture,
we probably wouldn't have too much of an interconnection problem,
right?
Page 224
September 9-10,2008
MR. MUDD: Well, ma'am, if you're going to outfit the entire
south library, there is no interconnection problem, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And same with the EOC. I would
think both --
MR. MUDD: I've got multiple users in the EOC and they're not
all getting new furniture, so we've got -- we do have some issues,
ma'am. I can't say that for sure.
MR. CARNELL: And there's a possibility people could move in
and out of the facility to somewhere else and take their furniture with
them. That's more likely in the EOC than in the library.
MR. MUDD: So, sir, in this particular case, my recommendation
to you as the board, based on what I'm hearing -- and Mr --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Penzo.
MR. MUDD: -- Penzo did state that he is on the state contract
for HON furniture. Mr. Carnell's -- excuse me -- his methodology for
under 100,000 and over $100,000, my recommendation to the board is
let's put HON into the mix, and if we have an interconnection problem
we'll bring it up, and -- when we come to the board and say, hey,
we've got an interconnection problem. We couldn't go that way. But
if we don't and they have good quality and the price is -- well, then
that's our recommendation and what we'll do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion?
MR. MUDD: I can't make a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'll make that motion that we
go out to bid for the purchases that are coming up until you have a
settlement -- or until you have a conclusion from a -- from a local
contractor who -- or I'm sorry -- you call them local contractor who
would then give you recommendations as to how we proceed with the
purchasing of furniture?
MR. CARNELL: Well, how about -- could I suggest this, that
you adopt the staff recommendation with the caveat that we go ahead
and put the library out for open competition; is that what you had in
Page 225
September 9-10, 2008
mind?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I did, but I like the county manager's
recommendation, and that is to use the state contract, include HON
within that, and compare them, best value, and in the meantime go out
and hire an architect. I think that's part of your -- and the rest of the
recommendation by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, were you referring to both --
both purchases of furniture here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: County Manager only said library.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, he said both.
MR. MUDD: I said it all. I just basically said right now -- right
now in Steve's recommendation is he wants to -- he wants to stick with
the status quo which is Herman Miller and case?
MR. CARNELL: Steelcase.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Steelcase.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And what I'm basically saying is, put HON
in the mix, okay, and go to the third -- the third vendor beyond the
state contract and then bid them out, and then you've got all three
coming in, and we'll use state contract to determine the lowest bidder
and quality, and we'll come back to the board and tell you what we
find.
MR. CARNELL: Are you talking about for the EOC as well,
sir?
MR. MUDD: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, there's nothing fairer than that,
so I would make a motion to do just exactly that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
Page 226
September 9-10,2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #10E
PROVIDE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE
DIRECTION AS TO HOW TO PROCEED REGARDING THE
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE ESCALATING
FORECLOSURES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
THE COUNTY - MOTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSED
REHABILITATION PLAN BY CDES ADMINISTRATOR -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item
which is 10E. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners provide the county manager or his designee direction
as to how to proceed regarding potential adverse impacts of the
escalating foreclosures within the unincorporated area of the county.
Mr. Joe Schmitt will present.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, good afternoon, Commissioners.
Record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community Development and
Environmental Services Division.
I won't go through great detail. This is as a result of a public
petition from Mr. Steve Harrison on July 9th where he discussed the
impacts of foreclosure in Collier County. Included in your packet and
enclosures one through four or attachments one through four were the
Page 227
September 9-10, 2008
information -- or is the information that he provided.
After that meeting and based on your direction, Deputy County
Manager Leo Ochs convened a meeting with several of the impacted
parties involved, primarily the Sheriffs Office, code enforcement,
folks in my staff, and, Leo, I think, Mr. Harrison was there and others,
yes.
And just to highlight, we have some programs ongoing. I can go
into detail on those. Hopefully you read the executive summary. But
we do have two standing ordinances, the property maintenance
program and the nuisance abatement program.
You had asked what we were doing. Most of what we do is
reactive in nature. The Sheriffs Office certainly has a very robust
program ongoing with -- called the community care taking initiative.
Of course, we have our programs and affordable housing has theirs.
Your main concern and I believe the concern that was raised by
the community was the impact that these vacant properties would
cause, a blight on the community and potentially be a potential for
crime scenes or pilfering or other things on property.
So bottom line, our shortfalls are pretty clear. We're pretty much
reactive in nature. We -- I note that the first line of defense in many
communities are your community HOAs or your condo associations
that deal with foreclosures. Within those types of communities,
mostly what you're talking about are those communities where there
really is not a robust HOA, meaning that it has an oversight
responsibility as a master association that manages the property. So
we're talking primarily about those platted lots in the Estates and other
areas of the county.
The question to you is to consider, do we want to create a
program where we require some type of registration for abandoned
properties. Of course that would have to be handled through my code
enforcement department. Properties that would be subject to this
requirement would be properties that were identified which would be
Page 228
September 9-10, 2008
going through some type of foreclosure.
The registration would identify the name and the mortgagee or
other appointed representative responsible for the property and
provide the direct contact so that in case there's any type of property
issue, we can deal with it.
We're primarily looking at trying to maintain these properties as
if they are and look and appear like they're occupied. And that is in
your executive summary.
My proposal is, if you want us to pursue this through property
maintenance, that we look at amending the existing code, our property
maintenance code, and include some kind of requirement, or I, in fact,
can come back with a separate program dealing specifically with an
ordinance dealing with foreclosures, and that would have security
requirements as well.
I've identified the potential could be as high as $150 per property.
That's what other communities are assessing right now. It could be
less than that. We would have to look at the cost. I would note that
it'd probably be at least two FTE to manage this program. One
specifically to deal with the registration and managing and monitoring
the program and, of course, it's going to take your code enforcement
assets to go out and manage the program as well.
What I haven't addressed in here are the projects that are under
construction. We have 148 products right now inactive construction
sites, sites that are -- have open permits but are inactive, meaning there
has been no activity for at least six months.
And working with -- Bob Dunn is working with the CBIA.
We're trying to create a program that would allow a contractor to
extends those permits for six months. We will have an inspection --
we'll conduct an inspection which then validates the continuation of
those projects to remain open. We would do an -- they would call for
an inspection, of course, we would charge for that inspection, but it
would at least keep that permit active for six months.
Page 229
September 9-10, 2008
So we're looking at dealing with those sites that are, quote, under
construction but inactive. This would be primarily dealing with those
sites that you've referenced that are -- that are homes, private homes,
condos or whatever, that may be abandoned or people walked away
because of a foreclosure or other financial problems.
That concludes pretty much my presentation. I can go into detail
if you wish. But subject to your questions, that concludes my
presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My first one was with a mandatory
registration and $150, and I can see where that would be considered
fair except if the person's already losing their house because they can't
make the payment and they can't mow the lawn or anything, how can
they pay $150?
MR. SCHMITT: Understand, ma'am. This would be the bank or
the managing company that would take over the property. You're
right. It would not be the -- it would not be someone who's
undergoing foreclosure. This would be after the property has been
abandoned and the bank has taken over the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My second thing and my last
comment at this time is, you know, we -- we see that they are still
building affordable housing out there when we have a plethora of
affordable housing units on the market under $100,000, hundreds of
them. And is there some way that we could discourage building any
more low-income housing until the ones that are already on the market
are sold so that, you know, possibly we could get those houses
inhabited again and maybe reduce blight in the neighborhoods and
give these people a neighborhood to live in?
You can go buy -- I was in one with a swimming pool and
everything, it was a beautiful little place; $90,000. Right over here
across the street, and three bedroom, one bath.
Page 230
September 9-10,2008
So I see that it -- I think it would be great if we could somehow
discourage building more low-income housing for -- and we'd have to
defer the impact fees on that stuff anyway. Why not just have people
buy the homes that are already on the market?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I think buying the homes on the market is
certainly the answer. Number one, we don't have to deal with impact
fees --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. SCHMITT: -- because the impact fees have already been
paid and stay with the property. Number two, certainly the only way
you -- to incentivize it -- but I guess to discourage future building of
affordable housing, the only way you really could discourage it, if it's
already zoned, would be to put a cap on the deferrals. That would
probably stop the people coming in and asking to build affordable
housing if the deferrals, which we're going to be tight with anyway --
but certainly anything we can do to incentivize purchasing properties
that currently exist.
The properties are out there, and I just -- I agree with you. I
think right now for some of these homes, what they're selling for, you
can't build a home for that square-foot value.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And then you have down
payment assistance from our --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- people in housing and -- housing
department, we have down payment assistance and dollars to help
them rehab those homes.
MR. SCHMITT: And Marco has those CBDG and other
programs that -- she's here to talk about those that incentivize to go out
and promote those properties turning around rather than building new
residential affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle and
Page 231
September 9-10,2008
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I like the structure you've
laid out here. You've already got a program where you're providing
incentives for people to rehabilitate these homes and sell them.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're committing $1.7 million to
that now, and you already have, what, I think three organizations, two
nonprofits and one for-profit -- all nonprofits, okay. They're working
on that now. The only problem is that your estimate is about 30
homes. I presume that's 30 homes per year?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll have to turn to Marcy for that. That's about
what she's getting, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's still not bad. You're
taking at least 30 homes off the market that could be deteriorating.
But here -- and I'd just like to make sure that the county attorney
can reassure us that we have the authority to charge registration fees
and we have the authority to force banks to hire a resident manager for
their foreclosed properties to make sure they're properly maintained
because here's what -- here's what happens. When the bank
forecloses, they're probably going to turn off the power --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and the water, air-conditioning is
going to be gone, mold is going to grow in these places. They're
going to require extensive renovation if people are going to inhabit
them. There might be cases -- I'm sure there will be cases where the
homes will deteriorate to the point where they will not be habitable,
and the only solution is we tear them down.
Now, that raises another problem. Can we require that homes be
demolished whenever they reach the point that they really are a blight
on the neighborhood?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Because I guarantee you some of
Page 232
r I ..._ ""..~..,
September 9-10, 2008
these homes will not be sold and they will just get worse and worse
and worse. And the only solution for the neighborhood is to tear them
down, clear the lot, and one day somebody will build something nice
there. So if we -- do we have the authority to do those kinds of
things?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, under your property
maintenance ordinance, you do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the county attorney's
question.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, there are other communities
throughout Florida who are enacting ordinances substantially similar
to the one that's being proposed here. So that if I'm wrong, that you
don't have the authority, so are a bunch of other county attorneys as
well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's worth trying?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would try if that's what the board wants.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I think you're on the right
track. I like what you're doing. I like the rehabilitation program. I
like the idea that you're going to charge a registration fee and require
the banks to identify a local property manager for their foreclosed
home so that we can hopefully keep these things in presentable
condition. We're just going to have to be very vigorous about
enforcing our codes.
So I would make a -- make a recommendation that we approve
the steps that you're proposing here and encourage you to expand, if
possible, the rehabilitation of the homes, and maybe -- we have to
remember 30 homes a year is not a lot. If we remove an incentive for
building new homes, we might not have enough affordable homes
going up. But if we could get the not- for-profits to shift their emphasis
to rehabilitation of new homes, say maybe a 75/25 split, they're
rehabilitating 75 percent of their homes and only building 25 percent
new ones, that would be a good way to change focus here.
Page 233
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second your motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas, then I want to go.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Of the 148 construction sites that
are inactive, and if we extend the building permits for six months, how
are we going to maintain the area even though they're inactive as far
as weeds and just the general oversight?
MR. SCHMITT: The -- actually the builder would request a
continuance. I can hold the builder responsible under -- through
inspecting the site, my building inspectors, not code, but through
building inspection, I have mechanisms to go after sites that are not
kept up. So I can go over the builder.
Now, if the builder abandoned the site, then I -- then it will not be
an extension of the existing permit. If they abandon the site, I have no
option, but -- then it becomes a code problem. So to answer your
question, I can go after the builder. If the builder, for whatever
financial reason needs another six months, he would --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In another six months he would
probably revert back to the bank?
MR. SCHMITT: But if it's -- if the builder requests an extension
and calls for the inspection, the inspection will be an inspection of the
property, is it properly maintained, is the site clean, are the -- is there a
dumpster, dumpster empty, all the other type of things that we require
for an active construction site, I can enforce those through the building
code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But the other part of the
question then would be if the builder vacates the area, let's say he goes
broke, then obviously that lands is probably owned by the bank or
something.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. And that's going to be a
foreclosure or a bankruptcy.
Page 234
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that way we can again go after
the bank and make sure that that site --
MR. SCHMITT: And understand, the bankruptcy is a whole
different issue. And I'll turn to the county, because bankruptcy in the
State of Florida, there's not much any of us can do.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, this was a lot more fun than two years
ago. We're getting a lot of bankruptcy in our office that we're
responding to, and Mr. Schmitt's right, bankruptcy, we lose control.
The bankruptcy trustee is the one that takes it over. And we recently
had WCI go bankrupt on us, and it was a national bank we see in
Delaware. Impacts a lot of developments around here. And, you
know, it's getting worse, you know. It's not getting better.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so you're saying we don't have
control over those bankruptcies?
MR. KLATZKOW: Once they go bankrupt, we file papers with
the court and we go to court, and the bankruptcy trustee at that point in
time is trying to marshal the assets and salvage what he can.
MR. SCHMITT: And in individual bankruptcy, the homeowner
still legally owns that home, and I can't even get on the property
without homeowner -- yeah, it's -- State of Florida is pretty protective
from the standpoint of home protection and bankruptcy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a triplex on Golden Gate
Parkway that I know somebody who wants to buy it. They're buying
it for less than what the code enforcement fines are, and the -- so it
presents a problem. Those code enforcement fines presents a problem.
It's -- it probably will prohibit or inhibit the sale of this property.
MR. SCHMITT: Those fines, they can come back and ask to
have them adjusted certainly if --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why would anybody invest any
money in a piece of property knowing that you have a $200,000 fine
and not know for sure -- close on it -- you're not going to close on it
with that kind of a lien on there. So I mean, I think that's --
Page 235
September 9-10, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: You can't close on it, but they can come back
and --
MR. KLATZKOW: We come to you, sir, all the time with
settlements of these code enforcement liens just for this purpose, so
somebody could purchase.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any way to expedite those?
The sooner that we can --
MR. KLATZKOW: You own the lien. We have to come to you.
MR. SCHMITT: I think you just did two on today's executive
summary. We do them pretty quickly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: We do them -- so if they have -- especially for
something like that that's going to turn a property around that's vacant,
we will work that quickly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great, thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Diane will work that with the county attorney,
and it's on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Very quickly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next thing I forwarded to the
county manager, I think it's Palm Beach County, just passed an
ordinance where it demands mandatory mediation in foreclosure.
MR. MUDD: Seminole.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seminole.
MR. SCHMITT: Seminole.
MR. MUDD: Seminole.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that a part of something new --
MR. SCHMITT: That was a judge ruling. I have to turn to the
county attorney on that one.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's up to the courts. That was an
administrative ruling. Their court system is inundated by foreclosures,
and this was their response to it.
Page 236
September 9-10, 2008
You know, our court system could do the same thing here, but
outside of your jurisdiction, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, so we need to talk to the judges
to --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sure our judges are probably looking at
the same thing. I'm sure all judges in Florida are looking at this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But that's an assumption,
right?
MR. KLATZKOW: A very strong assumption. I mean, if--
MR. MUDD: But this could be --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let it go then.
MR. MUDD: This could be something that Commissioner Coyle
could bring forward with his committee that has to do with jails and he
basically talks to the chief judge and representatives from Collier
County where they talk about judges' ability to rule on cases that have
to do with criminality versus foreclosure, and if foreclosure burdening
is being too great, then they can initiate in this particular regard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would somebody restate the
motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations.
MR. SCHMITT: And that recommendation is to come back with
this type of program in an amended ordinance, identifying the fiscal
impacts and everything associated with that. I believe that was -- I
think that's the way you want to package it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Call the question. It will tell
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we have a public speaker.
MR. SCHMITT: We have speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have one public speaker, Steve Harrison.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's the guy that started all this
Page 237
September 9-10,2008
stuff.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's all his fault.
MR. HARRISON: Steve Harrison, a private citizen and broker
under Florida's real estate laws.
Pleased that you're giving the direction. I just wanted to report
that since July, the numbers are up. We're now up to almost 1,400
bank-owned properties, according to the appraiser's records.
We have about 3,500 in the pre-foreclosure process, so we're on
track to get to the 8,000, but they're coming in faster than they're being
put back into circulation.
So if you had your news on this morning, Lee County appraiser
reported 20,000 foreclosed bank-owned homes in their county, so
they've got a much bigger problem up there.
But the only thing I would add, that ideas that code enforcement
has include relying much more, I think, on the local property manager
to do things like get a detailed property condition report done. That's
available to them. Documents all the code deficiencies. It's really a
win-win-win because the mortgagor, the bank, ends up with a better
quality property that yields more to them, the mortgagee has less of a
remaining liability, neighbors have better property values, and the tax
base is preserved, so the sooner the better, I think, on the new
ordinance. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
All in favor Of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Schmitt.
Page 238
September 9-10,2008
Item #10H
AWARD BID #08-5061 "GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
(LIVINGSTON ROAD TO 66TH STREET) AND (60TH STREET
TO SANTA BARBARA BLVD.) ROADWAY GROUNDS
MAINTENANCE" TO GROUND ZERO LANDSCAPING
SERVICES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $41,651.39. (FUND 111,
COST CENTER 163831) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10H. It's a
recommendation to award bid number 08-5061, Golden Gate
Parkway/Livingston Road to 66th Street and 60th Street to Santa
Barbara Boulevard, Groundway Grounds maintenance to Ground Zero
Landscaping Services, Inc., in the amount of $41 ,651.39, fund 111.
Cost center 163831 will be used for this particular project.
Mr. Steve Carnell, your Purchasing Director, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
MR. CARNELL: You do have a registered speaker.
MS. FILSON: Dale Hannula. And who made the second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I did.
MR. HANNULA: I'm Dale Hannula, from Hannula Landscaping
& Irrigation. I did appeal the decision from the purchasing
department, and the basis for my appeal is as follows:
As you're aware, the protest -- the appeal as in relation to the
implementation and the enforcement of the local vendor policy
adopted by the board in June of this year, it is my understanding that
the intent of the local vendor policy is to provide a way to support the
local economy of Collier County and to help develop the local
business community without creating a negative effect on competition
through loss of interest in county business as well as keeping the costs
Page 239
September 9-10,2008
of projects and materials from rising due to the lack of competition
from outside vendors.
The local vendor policy requests the following information to be
enforceable. Number of years in business in Collier County. Hannula
Landscaping & Irrigation has been in business in Collier -- has done
and conducted business in Collier County since 1992.
We've been awarded projects and have done a -- what we feel is
an excellent job; however, our physical address is only nine-tenths of
a mile from the Lee County border, which puts us within walking
distance of the county border. But that does not qualify us under the
local vendor preference as a local vendor.
The number of employees that we have are on the average of 70
employees. Of those, 33 reside in Collier County, and of those 33, six
are my management people, people that I have to look at each day and
say, I can provide ajob for you.
The number of -- the amount of money that I've spent in Collier
County over the last three years has been an average of 2,324,000 in
wages to Collier County employees. The number of vendors that I've
paid money to has been an average of7,349,000 over the last three
years. To me, that's a significant impact to Collier County as far as
providing measurable services.
The -- we also pay an occupational license in Collier County, and
I have done that since 1992.
The local vendor policy restricts our ability to do business in
Collier County and has a significant impact on our commitment to
provide jobs for employees who reside in both Lee and Collier
County. I employ employees in both counties.
Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation asks that we be considered a
local vendor based on the impact we have on the economic well-being
of Collier County which is, in essence, the basis for our policy, not
merely a physical address.
And we ask that we be awarded the project that Mr. Carnell has
Page 240
September 9-10, 2008
said that we would not be awarded.
In addition, I would ask that the board consider a reciprocal
agreement on local adjoining counties in the gesture of good faith to
those that contribute significantly to Collier County. And may I add
that the only difference that I see, you've already awarded a local
vendor to Astaldi Construction based on an insignificant item, and I
feel that nine tenths of a mile is, you know, less significant than not
having a license in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because of this I want to work with
Lee County Commissioners through a resolution to see if we could get
that reciprocity going so that we can recognize and they can recognize
local preference.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- Mr. Hannula, I think
you're absolutely right. I think we've made a terrible decision with
respect to this local ordinance situation, but unless staff recommends
that we consider you a local vendor, I don't know how we can proceed
under our existing rules.
Are you prepared to recommend that Hannula Landscaping meets
the intent of our rules?
MR. CARNELL: No, sir, I'm not, based on the way your policy
reads, and that's why I -- my office denied the protest. But I think all
that said, Mr. Hannula's raising valid points here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CARNELL: Mr. Hannula employs almost three times as
many people who reside in Collier County as the person we're going
to give the bid to, and I don't believe that was really the intention of
what you all were trying to do. I welcome the chairman's suggestion
that may be the solution here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will withdraw my motion, by the
way, for approval of the award to the other company, and if the
chairman can find some way to resolve this issue, I'd be happy to
Page 241
September 9-10, 2008
support him.
MR. CARNELL: I would recommend you proceed with the
award as recommended. I think Mr. Hannula understands that the
bigger picture long term though, Chairman Henning, if you pursue
that, if there's anything staff can do to help with that, I think that is
something that will help you with these kind of border war situations
where you've got somebody who's vibrant in Collier County but
physically located in south Lee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me contact the Lee County chair
and see if we can meet with the assistance -- if that's okay with the
county manager -- of the purchasing department to create a resolution.
MR. MUDD: I think it's fine. I've already tried to work the
reciprocity issue with Lee County through the staff and tapped it
through the County Manager's Office. The -- and I believe Mr. -- your
present speaker has tried to work it through the Lee County
commissioners too.
Lee County commissioners aren't interested, based on what I've
been told, in coming up with a local preference ordinance. But I can't
see why they couldn't come up with a reciprocity issue if and when
they do, and I can't -- I can't understand why you wouldn't basically
accept that particular reciprocity in Collier County if they were so to
give it to Mr. Hannula?
MR. HANNULA: Hannula.
MR. MUDD: Hannula, I'm sorry, sir, Hannula. And I've been
mispronouncing it all these times with all these awards.
MR. HANNULA: That's all right. I spell it 20 times a day.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir. And why they couldn't write a
letter that basically said, in this particular case they'd offer reciprocity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioners Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just -- this Ground Zero
Landscaping, are they a Naples-based firm?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am.
Page 242
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they're not allowed to work in
Lee County, right?
MR. CARNELL: Oh, no. They can compete for work in Lee
County .
MR. MUDD: Lee County commissioners are not interested in a
local preference ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought they had one.
MR. CARNELL: Let me correct. They do have a preference
ordinance, but it's different than ours. It's a much smaller percentage, 3
percent versus 10, they don't have the right to match provisions in
their ordinance, and they apply it selectively. They do not do what
we're attempting to do, which is all purchases. They don't -- they don't
do it on large projects, and I'm note quite sure I understand myself
when they apply it and when they don't. But they're not applying it as
uniformly as we are.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because I didn't think that we had a
right to work in their county, like Mr. Hannula can work in -- well,
was able to work in both, whereas, Ground Zero wouldn't be able to
work there.
MR. CARNELL: I don't know if they have--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, this will apply the
same thing, this is such a small amount--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that they're -- if you had a Collier
County within 3 percent of the lowest bid who's a -- well, just the
opposite. If you had Collier County, the lowest bid, you have a local
one, their local preference does apply. They just don't apply it to the
MR. CARNELL: They do it a little differently, but they do the
same thing; they do give a preference to Lee County businesses when
they utilize their policy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see.
Page 243
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Thanks for the clarification, Steve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 3-2.
MR. HANNULA: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can talk to me after the meeting.
MR. HANNULA: Okay.
Item #10K
TO EXCEED THE $750,000 THRESHOLD OF THE ANNUAL
CONTRACT NO. 06-3902 BY $99,818. (PROJECT NO. 195-
905363) - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10K, which used
to be 16F2 (K), and that is a -- request approval of the Board of
County Commissioners to exceed the $750,000 threshold of the
annual contract number 06-3902 by $99,818. It's project number
195-905363.
You asked -- the chairman asked that this item be moved to the
Page 244
September 9-10, 2008
regular agenda, and Mr. Gary McAlpin will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the reason I pulled it off the
agenda, I was watching the CAC meeting, the same company is doing
work over here, and we are paying for their stay over here while they
do the work, and I've just got to ask why are we doing that.
You have three bidders on this RFP, and it actually -- if
somebody local was doing it, we wouldn't be paying for their stay.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We -- we elected to go
with Coastal Planning and Engineering on this particular work. They
have done the work -- the original design on the project, they did the
preconstruction monitoring, they did the post-construction monitoring,
and they did the first-year monitoring moving forward.
We originally wanted to try to do a more competitive bidding
process. This year we had one of the consultants object to that. And
because time was running out relative to our annual beach monitoring,
we elected to go back to the original -- our original policy, which was
to award to the vendor who had previously done the design and has
the experience with this.
We asked that this be moved up in absentia, Mr. Chair, because
with Hurricane Fay coming in, the first thing we have do is do a
physical monitoring of our beaches, and this is what this is.
So we were -- we are within purchasing policy at this point in
time to pay reimbursables, which is room and board. This company
rents a condo, and we only pay for the time there, and they are very
cost effective with that. That has been approved by both the clerk's
office and the purchasing department prior to the fact.
So we did this as a result to -- they were the most qualified
vendor, they have done the work in the past, and we needed to get this
work done to satisfy our annual monitoring with DEP, and it was also
moved up as a result of Tropical Storm Fay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there -- is there a way that we can
change the contract to -- so we don't have to pay hotel? Is there a law,
Page 245
September 9-10, 2008
or is that just a --
MR. McALPIN: This is our standard contract. It conforms to
Florida Administrative Code. If we did this at this point in time, Mr.
Chair -- I'm not saying we couldn't do it in the future moving forward
-- but I think at this point in time we have a contract that has been in
effect with not only this company, but with all the companies that we
do Coastal Engineering with that allows them to charge reimbursables,
certain approved reimbursables.
So if it's the board's wish that next time we bid these contracts
out that we will not pay for a lodging or meals, that certainly we could
look (sic) that into the contract, but we do have contracts with these
companies which allow them to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm going to make a
motion to approve this contract, but I would like some guidance from
the purchasing department about, you know, that item of lodging.
I know that other communities give companies and this one --
this is a CNA -- traveling expenses to like the permitting agencies and
that, but I've never heard about paying their hotel stay while they do
the work.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So--
MR. CARNELL: I will tell you, this is appropriate timing to ask
the question because we are rebidding the contracting as we speak.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion to
approve staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seconded by Commissioner Coyle.
Discussion? Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just wondering why we
were unable to accomplish the task originally within the deadline.
MR. McALPIN: Commissioner, we -- we wanted to go through
the bidding process and put this out for competitive bid where we
Page 246
September 9-10, 2008
would bid all the monitoring and have all the monitoring within the
county, both physical and biological monitoring done at the same
time, bid it on one contract.
One of the consultants objected to this, and that pushed the whole
cycle back. We got -- then we got into a situation where we needed to
move forward with DEP, so that's the reason, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just to tag in on the
comments about the hotel room. So what we'd be asking them to do is
give us a complete package up front so we knew the actual costs, and
they would try to prorate their --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think that you can do that on a
professional. What you grade them on is their qualifications. Our
contract says -- I guess our contract says, is while you're here doing
your job, we're going to pay your hotel and motel, or your lodging.
MR. McALPIN : We typically select the most qualified firm that
has done this work, and then we solicit a time and material proposal
from them. We review it to make sure it's cost effective and appears
reasonable, and if that's the case, then we move forward to award a
work order for that consultant.
MR. MUDD: But you don't necessarily have to have a
reimbursable line item that talks about lodging and/or car or anything
else or meals while on station.
And if that's the board's desire when you cut the contract and go
through the negotiations, so be it. That's the contract we'll bring back
and it will be minus those particular items.
MR. McALPIN: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think Mr. Carnell's going to
take a look at that.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I appreciate that.
Page 247
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: Normally when you get -- when you get this kind
of item -- well, there's another thing Mr. Carnell has done in the past
that has been quite successful. He's basically got all the bidders on a
CCNA. If it's an IDI -- indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity kind of
policy -- it's an old term from the Corps, you don't use it much here --
but you have multiple vendors that are providing a service that are on
a list based on a proposed amount of money.
What you can do in that particular case is you can get all the
vendors to agree to a common work schedule as far as cost per salary
for the project manager, a scientist, or whatever it is, so that you got
that, and then if you deduct the lodgings and things from the particular
cost, you could probably get a cheaper price if that -- if they're bidding
on that particular item. So there is some hope.
If you only do it on one and you tell them you're not going to do
lodging, don't be surprised if they jack the prices up on the costs per
man-hour. But if you've got a group and you've got a common labor
rate that's in there, they can't do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we can have a local preference
and score for local bid.
MR. MUDD: You do score for local on your CCNA's. You
have --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We do?
MR. MUDD: Yes, you have an item, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I heard different in the CAC
meeting, but I'm glad -- the county manager --
MR. CARNELL: No, we -- CCNA is exempt from your local
vendor preference. We do consider location in a general way. It's
more about accessibility to the job, access -- and responsiveness, but
it's not a local preference.
Now, what I said was, we'll take a look at it. It's a fair question.
We'll take a look at it. But let's not cut our noses off and spite our
faces. Let's find out -- I believe the lodging costs, without elaborating
Page 248
September 9-10, 2008
here -- were reasonable. It was $125 a night, four people, the way they
set it up, because they have them in a condo.
So you're getting $30 a night. It's pretty good for lodging costs
as far as reimbursable. So I don't think they were unreasonable, but I
understand the chairman's point about, let's take a look at the picture
and what's the best way to compensate what we should or shouldn't
pay for. We'll take a look at it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, significant
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries. We're a minute late.
How many more items have we got to do?
Item #10L
RESOLUTION 2008-273: THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE (PV AC) TO ADOPT A FUEL SURCHARGE
RELATING TO TAXI RATES - ADOPTED W/STIPULATIONS
MR. MUDD: One. Commissioners, 10L, used to be 16A16.
This is a pull by Commissioner Coy Ie. It has everything to do with the
PV AC rates -- let me see if I can find it real quick.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do that one tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Shouldn't take more than 30
minutes, I promise.
MR. MUDD: It's a recommendation, review and approve the
Page 249
September 9-10, 2008
recommendation of the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, PV AC,
to adopt a full surcharge relating to taxi rates.
Again, Commissioner Coy Ie pulled the item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One quick question.
MS. FLAGG: Diane Flagg, Director of Code Enforcement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. According to this surcharge
schedule, if gasoline prices go from $3.00 to $3.50, there's a $1
surcharge. Now, explain that to me. Gasoline prices go up 50 cents,
and you're charging a $1 surcharge.
MS. FLAGG: Right. What -- basically what -- we did some
research. We surveyed communities around the State of Florida. This
is the exact full surcharge that Miami has implemented, that Broward
is getting ready to implement, as is West Palm Beach.
What they did is they made the decision that they would start the
surcharge at 3.50. So when gas reaches 3.50 for a period of three
weeks, then they receive a dollar surcharge, then it's 50 cents
additional for every 50-cent increase.
So this surcharge begins, commences at 3.50 a gallon, and then if
it reaches $4 a gallon for three weeks, then it goes up to a $1.50
surcharge.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, yeah, I can see that. All of
the increments are 50 cents except the first one, which is a dollar.
Now, because Broward and Palm Beach did it, it makes me even more
. .
SUSpICIOUS.
MS. FLAGG: I think another way -- I see what you're saying,
but another way to look at it is the surcharge commences when it
reaches 3.50 a gallon.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. When it goes up to $4 a
gallon, it only goes up 50 cents, so why do you get a $1 surcharge
when it goes up 50 percent first time, but you only get a 50 percent sur
-- 50-cent surcharge when it goes up 50 percent?
MS. FLAGG: Because there's some -- there's some costs
Page 250
September 9-10, 2008
associated -- initial costs associated, which is why it started at a dollar
for the first jump, and then it's 50 cents incrementally --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What initial costs?
MS. FLAGG: Just initial costs in terms of maintaining the
vehicle along with the gas. It's part of what's in the taxi meter rate.
So in discussing it -- and at the PV AC meeting they had taxi
drivers there, taxi companies there to discuss this surcharge rate
schedule, and the only comment that the folks had was that they
wanted to make sure that this surcharge was in the meter rate, which it
will be per the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a fuel surcharge --
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- it's not a taxi maintenance
surcharge, it's not an operation surcharge. I'll be willing to bet you the
reason they made that first increment a dollar is so they could get a
rate increase at the same time they get a fuel surcharge increase
because they know that that's the general range that the fuel prices are
going to be at. So they just increased their rates 50 cents. And tag
that onto 50-cent surcharge for fuel, and now you've got a dollar
increase. I don't know why you do that. I would approve a 50-cent
surcharge based upon the increases of gasoline in 50-cent increments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner -- and I just want to make sure
I've got some clarification in my own mind. So what you're basically
approving is what you have in front of you, minus 50 cents on every
level?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: On every level?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On every level.
MR. MUDD: Minus 50 cents.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: So the first increment starts at 50 cents, it goes to a
Page 251
September 9-10,2008
dollar, dollar-fifty.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When fuel goes up 50 cents, the
surcharge goes up 50 cents, you know. How can you look at it any
other way? That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. 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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously, and I
want to see that one.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Who made the second?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta.
Okay . We're in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:06 p.m. until
September 10, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.
Page 252
September 9-10, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, September 9-10, 2008 (Day 2)
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 Coy Ie
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney
Joe Schmitt, CDES Administrator
Susan Istenes, Zoning Director
Page 253
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, could you please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. This is a continuance of
the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, today being September
13th -- no, September 10th--
MR. MUDD: Tenth, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 2008. This is a time certain.
Item #7 A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2008-274: ADA-2008-AR-13212
CRAIG AND AMBER GRIDER, REPRESENTED BY
MARGARET COOPER OF JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON AND
STUBBS, P.A. IS REQUESTING AN APPEAL OF OFFICIAL
INTERPRETATION, INTP-2008-AR-12880, INITIATED BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD. APPELLANTS' PROPERTY IS
LOCATED IN THE OLDE CYPRESS PUD, TRACT 5, LOT 28,
OLDE CYPRESS UNIT 3, IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48S,
RANGE 26E, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO
ACCEPT ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AND PLACED AS
PART OF OFFICIAL RECORD - APPROVED; MOTION TO
UPHOLD OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION (RESOLUTION
PREPARED)-ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's item number seven, and this item,
again, to be heard at nine a.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's ADA-2008-AR-13212. Craig and Amber Grider represented
by Margaret Cooper of Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A., is
Page 254
September 9-10,2008
requesting an appeal of an official interpretation
INTP-2008-AR-12880, initiated by the Collier County Board of
Commissioners for the Olde Cypress PUD.
Appellants' property is located in the Olde Cypress PUD, Tract 5,
Lot 28, Olde Cypress Unit 3 in Section 21, Township 48 south, Range
26 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Ms. Cooper, I would like for you to inspect our agenda packet to
make sure it is in order. You're going to be referring to your tabs. I'll
let you use mine if you wish.
MS. COOPER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also want to read the rules of the
procedure today. The members of the Board of Zoning Appeals -- I'm
sorry. Wrong page.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you want to, you could have the
county attorney do it and read those over, if you can't find those
particular items.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I found it. The commissioners is
sitting at the Board of Zoning Appeals, and we must make individual
ex parte communication disclosures. All communications must be
disclosed including letters, emails, phone calls, and meetings.
Presentation will be as follows: The appellant, the appealing
party, present its case, and the time limit is one hour, and that is
including your expert witnesses.
The zoning director may question the appellate party or any
experts, and that time limit will be 10 minutes.
The property owners in the agreement -- in the interpretation
presented in this case including the testimony of any expert witnesses
in this time will be limited to one hour.
The zoning director may request questions and be limited to 10
minutes. The appellate party may request questions, and that time will
be limited to 10 minutes.
Page 255
September 9-10,2008
Interesting (sic) members of the public may speak, and that time
limit includes -- that will be limited to three minutes to our -- what the
board limits speakers on, and then also the appellant, Ms. Cooper, you
may -- we're going to have rebuttal?
MS. COOPER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, Jeff, that is limited to how many
minutes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ten.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ten minutes.
This is a hearing on the official interpretation of the setbacks of
Olde Cypress. It has nothing to do with building permits or whether it
was a Budweiser truck or a Heineken truck that flipped over on 1-75.
We're going to stick to the issue, and that includes things of how
it was done back then. I think that's part of the issue, those relevant
issues. It has -- this is not a -- this is a quasijudicial board, and that's
why we allow the public to participate.
It is not an appeals court. It's an appellate court to where we're
going to narrow down the issue, but we're also going to focus on the
.
Issue.
Is there any questions, board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any questions by the zoning
department?
MS. ISTENES: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Cooper? You may take the mike.
MR. MUDD: Either side.
MS. COOPER: Let me return your packet, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it in order?
MS. COOPER: No. There's some things missing, but let me
address that. I think we can resolve that rather quickly. Let me just
get my materials up to the podium.
Thank you. May it please the commission. And for the record,
Page 256
September 9-10, 2008
my name is Margaret Cooper, and I represent the Griders who are the
appellants in this matter.
I've looked at your packet. What I see missing, first of all, is we
submitted a rather lengthy narrative that went with the exhibits that are
in your notebook there, and I don't see that that's there.
And I think we had five or six volumes of appendixes. You can
see, for example, with the county attorney's permission what we had
done. There are either five or six different appendix books that look
like this that I took from Mr. Schmitt that involve different sections.
And if you look at your initial one, you have the index to volume
one and you're missing the entire argument that was made, and I think
we also had supplemented that. So it's not quite in the order.
But my suggestion, just to get by this is, the county -- I think the
county attorney and I can get together after this is over and make sure
that the record's intact. That would be the easy way to handle it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, the -- it's my understanding that
you're supposed to submit the material for the appeal of the official
interpretation to the zoning director.
MS. ISTENES: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you -- was there any other
material that Ms. Cooper submitted besides these two packets in the
timely fashion to the zoning director?
MS. ISTENES: Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. My
understanding -- what -- and I'm not sure what she's referring to as far
as being missing.
The books were taken to a printer for your copies as they were
submitted to me. So everything in the books and everything she
submitted within the 30-day window is what you are -- I understand
you're to consider today and what I understand was copied by our
printer and delivered to you last week.
I understand there was some information submitted, a letter I
think dated the 28th of August. I did not get a copy directly from Mrs.
Page 257
September 9-10, 2008
Cooper. I also understand there was a notebook submitted. I did not
get that either.
My understanding is that information is inadmissible. It was
submitted after the 30-day requirement.
So, again, I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to,
Chairman, Mr. Chairman, or what she's referring to as missing, but--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, we are referring to that.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board members did receive a
Federal Express packet. It was a notebook. And I believe, Ms.
Cooper, that's what you're talking about?
MS. COOPER: No, I'm not. If I might have the mike back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please.
MS. COOPER: What I'm talking about is, I submitted a lengthy
argument along with the materials inside the 30 days, and that's not in
your packet, and that was submitted inside 30 days. So there's a
lengthy argument that explains everything.
What I gave to you last week was in accordance with the county
attorney's instructions to me and his written instructions that anything
we wanted to supplement or any arguments we wanted to make should
be submitted at least a week before this hearing.
And so what I did was, I took most of the materials that were in
the notebook that I delivered to you all about a week ago, is a
condensed version of the record that that's -- that's that big with the
argument -- with the argument and an outline of some of the
witnesses' testimony to facility this hearing.
County attorney and I discussed the procedures ahead of time,
and I received a written memo, a copy of a written memo that he had
given to you all saying these are the procedures, and he gave you a
copy of the ordinance that you're proceeding under.
And in his memo he advised, anything that we wanted to submit
to you in addition to what had already been provided should be done
Page 258
September 9-10, 2008
at least a week before the hearing. So I complied with the county
attorney's directive there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That isn't according to the board's
rules though.
MS. COOPER: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think the board's rules is you're
supposed to submit it within 90 days.
MS. COOPER: Well, I've got a copy of his directives.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have an official record. The official
record was submitted to Susan that was given to you.
If anyone wishes to submit anything after that, they can do that
during this proceeding as we speak, all right. And so if she has any
additional documents that she wants to present to you, she can do this
during her presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. COOPER: Okay. But what's missing from your packet
right now essentially was my initial argument as well, which was
given within -- within 30 days.
But, you know, what I think is the -- is probably the easiest thing
to do is for the county attorney and I --
MR. SCHMITT: That was your initial one.
MS. COOPER: Right, that's the initial one.
MR. SCHMITT: That is in their agenda packet.
MS. COOPER: It is?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. It was not part of the books. It was part
of the printed agenda. Everything else was in a separate book. But
your original letter is in the -- is in their agenda.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Then that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the one under tab 28?
MS. FILSON: No. It's tab 7. We took it out of your agenda
book and put it --
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. The -- it's behind
Page 259
September 9-10, 2008
your blue executive summary. It's in that packet. It's part of your
agenda packet. That is the -- unfortunately the pages are not
numbered, but that is the start of it.
It was the letter that was submitted to the zoning department for
the appeal, and that's Ms. Cooper's initial letter to the zoning
department filing the appeal of the official interpretation, and the
backup material -- portions of the backup material was part of your
agenda packet.
All the supporting documentation that supported this letter was
printed separately and handed out in a book.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. COOPER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete? Because we're
going to give ex parte disclosure. We're going to have -- we'll swear
everybody in that's going to participate. Are you ready for that?
MS. COOPER: Yeah. The only thing that I would like to
supplement the record with is the exhibit book and the letter that was
submitted about a week ago, just to supplement the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And those books are in our offices,
and --
MS. COOPER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and Sue will make sure that we
have those. The ex parte communication, I think, will cover those
communications.
MS. COOPER: That's fine. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would all wishing to
participate in this hearing, please rise and be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Those wishing to speak from the
general public, you must sign a speaker slip, and those are out front.
And according to the board's rules, you should do that prior to the item
Page 260
September 9-10, 2008
starting. So I'm assuming that all those are in. That doesn't include
witnesses.
So let's do ex parte communication. It starts out like this. I met
with Clay Brooker, Michelle Showalter, Carol Kolflat. I did not meet
with Tor Kolflat; he did not show up.
I received a -- these are immaterial. I met with David Bryant,
Karen Bishop in the BCC office. I have a copy or an -- or a letter from
Ms. Cooper. I have another letter from Ms. Cooper, another letter
from Ms. Cooper, a correspondence from the County Attorney's
Office on the procedures, correspondence from the County Attorney's
Office on the procedures, an email from a resident inOlde Cypress, an
email from the office manager, a printed copy of the procedure that I
sent to my assistant, a letter -- or an email from a resident of Olde
Cypress, a cover email from Ms. Cooper, cover em ail from Ms.
Cooper, an email from the County Attorney's Office, a copy of an
em ail that I had my assistant print, a letter from county attorney on the
procedures, an email copy from my assistant asking her to print
something for me, correspondence with Mark Strain, Planning
Commission member, a correspondence from Ms. Cooper,
correspondence -- email from County Attorney's Office, and another
copy of the interpretation.
My assistant sent me an email that Mr. Bryant wants to meet with
me, phone call from Clay Brooker, phone call from Clay Brooker,
phone call from Clay Brooker, a phone call from assistant in PMS,
Karen Bishop wants to meet with me, and another phone call from --
David Bryant wanted to meet with me, and that's my ex parte
communication. You're more than welcome to look at this. It's in my
file.
MS. COOPER: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who's next? Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
Page 261
September 9-10, 2008
I have received correspondence and had meetings with a number
of people, and I will go through them in some detail so that we don't
miss anything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have correspondence from Jeff
Klatzkow, our county attorney, dealing with the appeal itself and the
official interpretation of the land code and also the procedures to be
used in this particular hearing.
I have a letter from Mrs. Cooper dated September the 4th, 2008,
addressing this issue. I have a fax from Mrs. Cooper dated -- received
September the 5th and dated September the 5th concerning this matter.
I have had a meeting with Clay Brooker, Tor Kolflat, Carol Kolflat,
and Melissa, his daughter, who is apparently the owner or who resides
in the home adjacent to the Grider property.
I met with Diane Ebert concerning this. I have -- I have received
a call from Attorney David Bryant concerning this on September the
8th.
I have not -- I have avoided discussing this issue by telephone
with anyone. I cannot recall talking with anyone on the telephone
about this issue because there is no record of telephone conversations
and I prefer that there be records when we're discussing items such as
this.
I have received an email from Clay Brooker dated January the
10th, 2008, an email from Carlos Vidales, who is the owner of the
home located in Ibis Landing of 2941 Lone Pine Lane. I have
received a letter from Richard Pignatara. I have received a letter from
Carol Wisely.
I have received correspondence -- copies of correspondence from
county staff to various persons interested in this particular issue. I
don't know of any correspondence I've received directly from the
county staff communicating to me any information directly.
I have received a copy of an email from Keith Gelder to Stan
Page 262
September 9-10, 2008
Chrzanowski, a member of our staff, and an email from Leo Ochs to
Commissioner Henning. I received a copy of that. Another letter --
maybe it's the same letter, September the 5th, 2008, from Mrs.
Cooper, and copies of the ordinance. I have received copies of
ordinance 91-102 and 93-89, and that concludes my ex parte
disclosure, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Halas, I
have also spoken to staff on this item.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My ex parte is the
following here: That I received from the Office of the County
Attorney basically the appeal and also the official interpretation and
also the ground rules of how this testimony was going to take place
this morning.
I also received email from Ms. Dee in regards to -- it's Lew and
Jeanne Dervin, I was guess that's it. I was reading the email address,
and they live at 7540 Treeline Drive in Old Cypress.
I've received communications from Ms. Cooper in regards to the
Grider situation here, and that was dated September the 5th, and was
an email and it's also addressed to Mr. Klatzkow so it was cc'd to me.
I have em ail from Linda and Ray Bernard, and they live at 2858
Lone Pine in Olde Cypress. Carlos Vidales. I received that September
the 8th. He, again, lives at Ibis Landing and basically it was an em ail
in regards to where he stands on this.
I also received a letter from Jeffrey Klatzkow, and this is dated
September the 5th. Received another correspondence from Ms.
Cooper. That's dated September the 5th. Received another email,
September the 5th, another one was dated September the 5th also from
-- anyway, that's the date that's on here, from -- and it's in regards to
the official interpretation. Again, that was from Ms. Cooper.
Another one -- I'm not sure if these are the same or -- anyway, it's
Page 263
September 9-10, 2008
-- I have another one here that's dated September the 5th, so I'm not
sure -- originally it looks like September the 4th, but for some reason
it was inked over. It says September the 4th, so I'm not sure why that
is the case.
Received a letter September the 4th or email from Jeffrey
Klatzkow in regards to how long this proceedings ( sic) might be
taking place. Received one from Clay Brooker, and that was on
9/4/2008, another one from Jeffrey Klatzkow, September the 3rd.
Received a phone call from David Bryant in regards to this --
where he wanted to see me, I believe, that it was -- yes, and he visited
my office on September the 2nd at three o'clock.
I received another email from Jeffrey Klatzkow on Monday,
September the 4th, and also visited with Clay Brooker and received --
had a meeting with Diane Ebert, and that was 10/10 of 2007.
Had a phone call on 11/8/2005 to meet with David Bryant ofHD
Development, Olde Cypress. Would like to do lunch with you.
And that is about what I have here, and I've just got some others
that I'd like to add also to this to make sure we got all the disclosures
taken place.
Again, I met with David Bryant, met with Clay Brooker, the
attorney, Carol Kolflat, Melissa Showalter and Diane Ebert, had
discussions with the county attorney, Joe Schmitt, and had made some
inquiries on the phone to Susan Istenes, and that's the length of my ex
parte.
Thank you very much, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Yes, I've met with Clay Brooker, Tor Kolflat, Carol Kolflat,
Melissa Showalter. That was in October of last year. I also met with
the same group of people, again, Clay Brooker, Melissa Showalter,
Carol and Tor Kolflat on -- in September of 2008.
Page 264
September 9-10, 2008
I also met with David Bryant in September of2008. Again, I met
with Clay Brooker, Melissa Showalter, Carol Kolflat, regarding a
presentation by Mr. Farese in January of 2008.
I met with Diane Ebert and Carol Kolflat in January. I have
toured the Showalter home, by the way, to take a look at the -- from
their house to the Grider home and walked the street in that area.
I received two phone calls from David Bryant, and we talked
about this subject. I talked with staff members at various times
including Joe Schmitt and Susan Istenes. I met with Diane Ebert in
January. I met with Blain Spivey or Spivy, Spivey, Keith Gelder in
December. I met with Clay Brooker, Tor Kolflat, Carol Kolflat
Melissa Showalter again in October. I met with Diane Ebert in
October.
I received a letter from Margaret Cooper September -- from
September 5th, and we have quite a few letters as well in our backup
material for today's hearings, and -- that are also a part of the public
record.
I received an email from Clay Brooker, actually a series of emails
between Clay Brooker, Susan Mason, Roland Holt, Ross Gochenaur,
Susan Istenes, Joe Schmitt, Alamar Finnegan, Angel Tarpley, a whole
series of emails.
I received an email from Leo Ochs regarding K. Gelder and Blain
-- and copied in K. -- that's an initial K. Gelder. I'm not quite sure the
-- oh, Keith it would be, okay, and Blain Spivey and the other
. .
commISSIoners.
I received another email from--oh.this is just from my aide and
she was saying that Diane Ebert wanted to have a meeting with me.
Something here from Tony Pires, an em ail from Tony Pires back in
November of2005, an email from Carol Wilsey. This is from
September in 2003.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 265
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you'd just hang on. When was the
official interpretation? That was in March?
MR. SCHMITT: March.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: March of'08 is all -- that forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Okay, thank you.
Well then I can skip that. Here was another Tony Pires. Ed
Schifman; I received an email fromEdSchifman.Andagain.this is
the Margaret Cooper thing we had. All of the information and backup
material on hearings of appeals that we were sent from our -- within
our own staff members to give us the outline for today, and then I had
a series of emails here which were public records requests. And I
could go through each one, but most of them just contain the stuff that
I've just mentioned to you. I don't think there's anything different, but
I could go through them if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. If that's public records requests
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that was prior to the official
interpretation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This was January, 2008.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Commissioner Halas, you said
you had another one?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, but that was prior to the
official interpretation that was put out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I just want to put on the record.
It was, Mr. Tor Kolflat was in my office, and that was in October,
2007.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also through the County Manager's
Office, received an email from Joe Schmitt.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I've been looking
Page 266
September 9-10, 2008
forward to this all day long.
So let's see. Where do we start? I'm just going to go through this
in the order that it's in front of me, and it may not follow in any
chronological order.
But I have before me an email I was copied from on September
8th. It was from Lew and Jeanne Dervin. It was sent to
Commissioner Halas, and I was copied on it along with the other
commissioners, another email for September 8th, which I was also
copied on that went to -- from Carlos Vidales, if I'm pronouncing it
right, and it was directed -- well, to Frank Halas, myself,
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, and Commissioner
Henning.
On September the 8th also -- excuse me. September the 7th, I had
a direct email from Linda and Ray Eynard, E-Y-N-A-R-D, regarding
the preserve setbacks for Olde Cypress.
On September 5th, I had an email that was sent to me in the -- as
one of the recipients, along with the other commissioners, and it was
from Margaret Cooper, and it had an attachment to it and a file that--
regarding this particular case.
Bear with me. I just want -- and then I received a similar email
on the same -- on the 4th from the same person with a different file
attached. On September the 3rd -- well, I don't have to divulge from
the county attorney when I receive something? I'm not too sure how
this works.
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then we won't go to
that.
On January 3rd, January 4th, I was copied on the public records
request that was taking place. April 17th, also on the public record
request, interoffice type of memo from Sue Filson. April 16th,
received a -- I'm sorry, were you -- oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were
talking to me, Commissioner Henning. Forgive me.
Page 267
September 9-10, 2008
On April 16th I received a letter from Jones, Foster, Johnson, &
Stubbs regarding the -- the Olde Cypress issue in the code case. Also
I have in my possession in my file here copies of the development
requirements according to the 1991 LDC and the 2004 LDC. That's
prior to the March date so we don't have to go through that.
So March 26th, I was copied as a one-way communication from
Commissioner Henning to Leo Ochs regarding the case, and it was
comments that were directly related to it from Stan Chrzanowski.
On March 26th, I have an email from Commissioner Henning, a
one-way communication that came to me also regarding the Olde
Cypress unit one construction, maintenance, and escrow agreement,
and it had an attachment to it titled Olde Cypress unit one
construction, and that's all part of that communication.
And also in my file dated received January 9, 2008, from Tor
Kolflat, I have a letter in my possession, subject matter, Olde Cypress
PUD investigation by Lawrence A. Farese dated September 7, 2007. I
have the Farese report on Olde Cypress in my file.
I've had meetings with Mark Strain from the Planning
Commission. I've met with staff. I've met with Clay Brooker.
Melissa Showalter (sic), Tor Kolflat, Carol Kolflat, and Diane Egbert
(sic), Karen Bishop, David Brandt (sic).
Give me just a second to make sure I'm not missing anything
here. And I also have in my possession a letter dated March 17, 2008,
from the Collier County Government Development and
Environmental Services Division, excuse me, regarding the border
preserves within Olde Cypress, and I believe that concludes it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I'd like to view your file
at some time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can have it right now if
you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ready to rock and roll?
Page 268
September 9-10,2008
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Let's go.
Commissioners, I would ask you to refrain from asking questions
until after the presenter is complete, okay.
Ms. Cooper, you're on deck.
MS. COOPER: Thank you very much.
MR. KLATZKOW: We will commence the time limitation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Cooper, you have an hour. The
time is 9:40, to make it rounded. You have until 10:40.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Thank you. May it please the
commission. I want to thank you for your attention to this and giving
us this special time. I think that this matter is well deserving of the
time and attention that the county -- both the county and you and
myself have put to it.
This is a very important issue not only for 0 Ide Cypress -- the
issues being presented today are what are the preserve setbacks in
Olde Cypress, but Olde Cypress is in the identical situation the county
staffhas identified 30 other PUDs, and there's a multitude of other
single- family lots in the -- in areas that are not PUDs that are similarly
situated, and what the decision is made today will affect not only the
people in Olde Cypress but the people in all these other subdivisions.
And I'm told by my witness that -- witnesses that there are many
others that the county staff has not yet identified.
So this is an issue of great importance and will affect many,
many, many people. We haven't -- we haven't counted them up, but
there are hundreds if not thousands of people that this could affect.
In terms of the monetary impact either to the residents or the
county, it's enormous. And so the attention that you spend here today,
I think, is very important, and I think that the precedent that's going to
be set is going to be very important to your citizens.
I have a couple of housekeeping matters before I really start. I'd
ask for more time than an hour. We have approximately eight or nine
Page 269
September 9-10, 2008
witnesses. They're not all experts, so they have an interest in this
matter. Some are just asked to be here, some are experts who've done
research.
I've obtained affidavits from practically everybody, so if we don't
get through, I wanted to put the affidavits in the record just for the
record's sake, and so I have the original and copies for the
commissioners here.
And Commissioner Henning, how do, procedurally, would you
like me to do it to -- when I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have an hour to do it in.
MS. COOPER: No, no. But who would you -- who do I hand
this to is what I'm asking.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To go into the record?
MS. COOPER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You could just give it to the county
manager who is sitting -- or is sitting next to you.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Well, right now I'll start with the
originals and then later on I'll go with the copies.
And these are the affidavits of Terry Cole, Keith Sowers, James
Allen, Jay Westendorf, Douglas MacLaughlin from the South Florida
Water Management District, Karen Bishop, and Ron Nino. They'll try
to keep their testimony shorter than their affidavits and really hit on
the high points to try to not be repetitive or redundant in what I'm
going to say.
I don't know whether you all can see the boards from there, but
I'll put this here, and if not, I've got smaller versions.
MR. MUDD: Put it right up on here, right up on that.
MS. COOPER: Here's copies for the commissioners.
I'm going to address four reasons why I believe that this
interpretation is incorrect today.
The first is -- the first and probably the most important is that
Olde Cypress is a grandfathered PUD, and when Olde Cypress was
Page 270
September 9-10, 2008
approved, platted, it was grandfathered under the old rules, different
rules than are applicable today.
The premise that the official interpretation is based upon is a
premise that a 25- foot construction setback has always been in the
LDC since 1991. I've seen that as a theme throughout the official
interpretation. I did a lot of public document requests. I've seen it in
emails, I've seen it in reports, and that is a -- that's a premise that
makes up the very foundation of this official interpretation, is that this
rule, that this construction setback has been in the code since 1991.
That's not accurate.
That is a -- that is a change that came about in 2003/2004 after
Olde Cypress was approved and platted and the lot lines set and the
rules established.
When those new rules -- you'll see as we present our case, when
those new rules were written in 2003/2004, there was a specific
grandfather position put into the new rules that said that these don't
apply. Exempted from this are previously platted developments, and
we'll have some witnesses that will talk to that.
Secondly -- I think that the second mistake that has been made is
measuring the setback from -- which line do you measure it from?
The code says you measure your setbacks -- if you apply the new
rules, the code talks about measuring your setbacks from the preserve
line.
And I think where the staff has gotten mixed up -- and I'll explain
how and why the confusion has arisen -- is they are confusing the
conservation easement line with the preserve line. They're not the
same. And we'll go through many, many, many of the provisions of
your code that say that they are different. We'll go through the South
Florida Water Management District rules that they are different.
What we have is we have the jurisdictional wetland preserve line.
That is what the district takes jurisdiction over. The jurisdiction also
asks for a buffer or a setback, and then they take a conservation
Page 271
September 9-10, 2008
easement over both of them.
So the conservation easement line is not the preserve line. The
preserve line is the South Florida -- the district's wetland preserve line,
and then there is a buffer.
So the evidence that we're going to show you is that when you
measure from the actual preserve line, the Grider house is somewhere
between 30 to 60 feet away from the preserve as opposed to if you
measured from the conservation easement or the buffer -- the end of
the buffer line.
The third reason that I'd like to address is that the Griders, when
staff approved the Griders' house, you're going to see that the Griders'
house was approved in the building permit stage, the site plans were
submitted, it was this -- the location of the house on the site plan and
the setbacks were approved by zoning staff no less than four times
specifically. The plan --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I stop you there, please.
MS. COOPER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Number three has nothing to do with
the official interpretation.
MS. COOPER: Well, I'd like to preserve that argument for the
record, and -- so we'll just sort of throw it in there for the record. And
I understand your position, but I'd like to preserve that for the record.
But I also think it's important because what it demonstrates, in
addition to an estoppel argument, I think was what you were talking
about, Commissioner Henning -- but what it demonstrates is this that
is how staff interpreted it, and so -- and there had never been any
training on any change of interpretation.
Mrs. Istenes had not announced to staff we're going to be doing
things differently now than my predecessors handled it. And so staff,
when they approved the Griders' house, were operating under the old
rules. And so the fact that they approved it no less than four times is
very relevant on the issue of, is -- was that the interpretation and is this
Page 272
September 9-10, 2008
now a change of interpretation that is being retroactively applied, and
I think that's the real issue that we're going to be talking about today is
whether you can take new rules and apply them to grandfathered
developments, whether they're single-family houses or any other
development.
The last thing is that there's some other language in your code
that talks about a single-family residence exemption. And I think that
we're going to be able to demonstrate to you that that language is clear
and unambiguous, and so there is no need for an interpretation.
I'm going to talk to those four points and I'm going to address
them separately. Before I get there, I think what's going to be helpful
for you is for me -- I tried to give you ahead of time some of the things
that I was going to talk about because I know that our time is limited,
and I gave you some timelines, and I'm going to be talking about
those, and I'll walk you through the time lines so you can see how it's
relevant on each of the four points that we're discussing.
The timelines that we'll talk about are the Olde Cypress PUD and
platting that occurred in the year 1999 before the changes to the code
and what the rules were then and what -- what the document says so
that you can -- I think that's important, so we'll be talking about that,
and we'll demonstrate to you that Olde Cypress was approved and
platted under the old rules and then grandfathered when the rules
changed.
I'm going to -- then we'll go to a time line of the 2003/2004
amendments so we can show you the changes that occurred and how I
think Mrs. Istenes is taking those changes, and I think she was
informed by staff that those changes have always been in the code,
and I'd like -- we'll try to demonstrate to you how they were not
always in the code, that they're a change of the rules.
The third -- the third time line that I prepared for you was the
Grider approvals so I could show you all of the steps where the
Griders did everything correctly, their builders did everything
Page 273
September 9-10, 2008
correctly.
The witnesses -- after I get through my presentation, the
witnesses who will appear before you that will concur that what I'm
telling you is accurate -- and each will have their own special areas to
address -- will be -- will be the following: First, Wayne Arnold. He
was your planning services director in 1991 when this LDC -- when
the rules that were applied to the Olde Cypress were adopted, and he
can explain to you how the county deferred to the district buffering
and those were the -- that that were -- those were the setbacks, and he
will -- he will concur with the written presentation and the oral
presentation that I'm giving you today. He absolutely concurs in it,
and this is a change of rule -- of rules, and he'll point out to you where
Olde Cypress is grandfathered right in your code.
Ron Nino will appear. Ron Nino was the current planning
manager in 1999 and Mrs. Istenes' supervisor when Olde Cypress was
approved. He concurs in exactly what we were saying, that Olde
Cypress is grandfathered under the old rules and he'll tell you what
those old rules were.
Third we'll have an engineer, Terry Cole, come up. Mr. Cole
was the engineer in charge of the Olde Cypress project, and he took it
through permitting, and he will tell you the rules that he went through,
what his understanding, what the county's understanding were at the
time. He will also show you -- he's also done the measurements to
show you, if you measure from the preserve line as opposed to the
buffer line what the distance is. He's done those. He has very accurate
measurements.
The next person who will appear is Karen Bishop. Karen Bishop
has been practicing, she's an expert and a permit facilitator who's been
practicing in front of you in excess of20 years. Karen's been very
helpful in helping me understand some of the history.
And there's a little aspect to it that I'll tell you a little bit about,
but Karen can tell you more about it and how she finally has figured
Page 274
September 9-10, 2008
out where staff has gotten confused on a point, and she'll be able to
clarify that for you. But she also concurs that this is a change of the
rules.
Keith Sowers and Jim Allen will come up. Keith Sowers was the
builder. He will testify how many different times this site was
approved, particularly the 10-day tie-in survey. After the foundation
is poured, they have a 10-day tie-in survey that goes back to the
county and they actually circle all of -- the zoning department circles
all the measurements and they okay it, and they -- before you go
vertical, and so that was the last approval on the setbacks before it
went vertical.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Again, Ms. Cooper, this has nothing
to do with the official interpretation.
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir. All right.
We have an affidavit from the South Florida Water Management
District where the attorney for the South Florida Water Management
District has explained his rules. Karen Bishop will also talk to that,
and he's explained how they have a conservation easement both over
the preservation and the buffer and that the buffer is the setback. So
we've obtained an affidavit from him. We didn't have subpoena
powers to make him come, but he was kind enough to provide me
with an affidavit that's been put in the record.
Jay Westendorf is an engineer with many other projects that are
affect -- that will be affected by your decision. He will testify as to
how it affects you. He also has brought some various charts.
Mr. Sowers will also bring you a diagram as to the effect on the
Griders' house, that essentially the whole house has to be torn down if
your ruling is to the contrary.
And then lastly, Mr. Grider will testify.
All right. With that, let me go just for a minute very quickly to
the timelines. I can't even read that.
MR. MUDD: Well, how do you want to do it? Do you want too
Page 275
September 9-10, 2008
do one column bigger?
MS. COOPER: I'll talk my way through. That might be the
easiest thing. I think you all have seen these time lines, so let me -- I'll
just go through them briefly.
First we go to 1991. and what did the code say at that time. The
code had only one provision dealing with preserve setbacks, only one.
Later on it appears in two different places, but in 1991 when this code
was adopted, it was only in one place, and the only place that it was in
was in the subdivision standards.
Subdivision is -- means platting. It's when you subdivide your
land, you're required to come in and do a plat map, and I'm sure you
all know what a plat map is, and that's where you delineate where the
lots are going to be and you subdivide. You divide up your property.
All right. The only place that they talked about preserve
standards was in your -- was in the subdivision portion, not the
preserve portion. The preserve portion at that time only said, we want
you to retain 25 percent of your native vegetation. There were no
preserve easements given to the county, none of that stuff. It was just,
retain 25 percent of your native vegetation.
Then over in the platting side it said, any buildable lot designated
on a plat must be set back 25 feet from the boundary of a preserve. So
when you platted your lot lines or your parcel, the lot line had to be set
back 25 feet from your preserve. And then it went on and it said,
unless, unless that setback is accomplished through buffering that the
agencies require; in other words, the district buffering. Unless it's
required, unless it's met by the buffering. That's what it said.
Now, there are three types of native vegetation, and I don't think
you've heard this so I'm going to say it twice because it's so important.
There are three types of native vegetation that the county dealt
with, all right. The first type was -- the acreage was -- I believe it was
40 -- Karen, is it 40 acres? Less than 40 acres?
MS. BISHOP: Less than 40.
Page 276
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: Okay. If it's less than 40 acres the agencies don't
have jurisdiction over it so they don't care. So a preserve or a
retainage that was created, whether it was wetlands or uplands with
less than 40 acres, county jurisdiction. And the code did say you set
back 25 feet from the boundary of the preserve, so that's one type, less
than 40 acres.
Type number two, more than 40 acres but it doesn't have any
wetlands, then the district -- the Army Corps of Engineers and South
Florida, they don't care about it. It's just the county 25 percent native
vegetation. In that case, yes, the code said, your lot had to sit back 25
feet from that upland vegetation.
Third type, that's the Corps. That's the one that the Corps takes
jurisdiction over. More than 40 acres and has wetlands on it. In that
case the Army Corps of Engineers had jurisdiction over it. And the
way your code was written -- and I've written this -- I've put it in a lot
of places -- it said, any buildable lot had to be set back a minimum of
25 feet from the boundary of a preserve -- that's when -- county's
preserve -- unless it can be accomplished buffering pursuant to the
agency rules, okay. So the agency -- sorry. In that situation, that's the
third situation.
Now, what Mrs. Istenes was told and what she heard and what
she sincerely believes is, she says, I remember sitting there and I
remember Mrs. Burgeson or this person or that person talking about
the 25 feet has always been in the code. Yes, the 25 feet has always
been in the code, but that was for county jurisdictional matters.
Your Growth Management Plan, I went back and I looked at that.
That said, we're not going to duplicate where there's agency
jurisdiction. We're not going to duplicate all these efforts. We're
going to defer to the agency. That's the way your GMP was written.
I went into the code. I pointed out every provision of your code
that said, we defer to agency, we defer to agency. And right in your
code it says -- it talks about the difference between a preservation area
Page 277
September 9-10,2008
and a conservation area. They are not the same.
And in the notebook that I gave you -- and we go -- we can go
through the district permits, we can go through everything, and I'll pull
out some of the exhibits in a minute and show you -- each -- if you go
to the district permits, they talk about the difference between buffer,
upland preservation, wetlands preservation.
A conservation area goes over -- a conservation easement goes
over it all, but they are totally different. The preserve, the
jurisdictional preserve line and the buffer are two different distinct
things in the permit. They're distinctly spelled out differently in your
Growth Management Plan, they're distinctly spelled out differently in
your Land Development Code. So they are not -- they are not the
same thing.
All right. So Olde Cypress comes along in 1999, and the original
rules are in places. All right. The PUD document at the time -- at the
time there's no other provision anywhere that talks about the
construction. It says, the lot line has to be 25 feet back, and in that
area between the lot line and the preserve line you can't build anything
in it. So you go to the lot line, preserve line, and you can't build
anything in it. That's the way your code was written.
All right. So what was -- and it had to be 25 feet, unless it's
agency, covered by the agency. The agency rule was slightly different.
The agency rule said, I want 25 feet on average with no less than 15
feet unless you can give me a retaining wall or a berm or something
that you can cut it down a little bit more. Those were the agency
rules, 25 feet on average.
And why were the agency rules like that? Because wetland lines
are meandering. They're irregular, they're not smooth, they're not like
lot lines. So if you follow that line, you've got a crazy situation to
deal with.
So they said, put it on average, so some places it's bigger, some
places it's smaller. For any more, with the Grider house, I told you it's
Page 278
September 9-10, 2008
between 30 to 60 feet away from the preserve -- the actual preserve
line because the actual preserve line is very irregular. So that's the
way the agency rules were written.
All right. The 0 Ide Cypress document, there were no other
preserve setbacks other than the platting setbacks, that was it.
Olde Cypress came in. The plats were approved according to the
LDC. There were no other -- the -- later on when they adopted these
later on -- construction setbacks in the preserve section of the code,
they weren't there to spell them out to specifically call them out as
something differently, rather the rule said, if it's agency jurisdiction,
we'd defer to the agency buffering. So that's exactly the way the PUD
document was written.
Development's going to be according to the district permits.
Buffer zones adjacent to preserves -- that's the language right in the
LDC -- right from the PUD document. Buffer zones adjacent to
preserve shall be in accordance with the district permit.
Wetlands preservation, upland buffer zones, and upland
preservation areas shall be dedicated as conservation easements.
Right in the document it talks about the three, the same way that the
district rules require, the same way that your code was written, the
same way that your GMP is written.
All right. They come along to the plat, then the plat is approved.
The plat just shows the conservation tract lines, because once you're
platted, you don't need to worry about preserves anymore. Your lot
line is 25 feet or buffered. It's already set back.
So the plat is platted, the practice of the county at that time was
they did not require the jurisdictional wetlands to show on the plat, but
the county did require you to bring in and show those, just not on the
plat. There's a bunch of other plans and documents that are in the
permitting file, in the platting file, that the county required that shows
the jurisdictional preserve line.
There's -- the witnesses can talk about them directly. I'm trying
Page 279
September 9-10,2008
to remember the name of them. But before a plat is approved, you
have to bring in the district permit, so you've got the district map that
shows the jurisdictional line and the buffer, and county staff checks it
off to make sure you have the right amount of the buffer before they
let you plat it.
After it's platted, end of discussion. You just look at the setback
chart that's contained in your PUD document. That's the way the rules
were written. That's the way county did business. That's the way each
of these witnesses will tell you that it was done.
Yes, Mrs. Istenes is correct, it was done differently where it was
county jurisdiction where it was less than 40 acres or it was just
uplands and the districts were not involved. If the district was
involved, it was a deference to the district rules.
Okay. 2003/2004, they come along and they amend the LDC,
and this is the first time that they -- that they take preserve setbacks
and they leave them in the platting section that we've already talked
about, but they add them in another section. They add them in the
preserve section.
This time they don't talk about locating your lot lines on the plat,
but they say your construction must be set back 25 feet from your
preserve line. They adopt that.
When they adopt that, a lot of people recognize that that was a
change, and I went back to all of the minutes, and these witnesses will
talk about it, and we found it in the minutes when they were adopting
that. A number of people got up and said, this is a change in the rule.
So right in -- when they added that language, right in the code
they said, exempt from this are previously platted subdivisions. So
Olde Cypress is a previously platted subdivision. The code, the law,
says that it is exempt. Not just the general rules.
And I understand that that has been a consistent practice of this
county and this board that when you adopted a new rule, you always
put in a grandfather provision. I've seen it time and time and time
Page 280
September 9-10, 2008
again, the grandfather provisions. And you were consistent. You have
a grandfather position when the rules changed.
All right. The other thing that was interesting about the change
that came about in 2003/2004 was they took out the language, unless
-- unless the setbacks are accomplished through buffering. But once
again, there was specific grandfather provisions put into that, and I'll
pull my exhibits out in a minute and show you some of these things.
Okay. The old Grider history. I will defer to you, Commissioner
Henning. We have -- we have those in the exhibit book. But what
happened was staff was reviewing this according to the way county
had always done business, and they looked to the chart in the PUD
document, not only for the Grider house, but every other house.
I saw somewhere in this record that someone said, well, I -- I had
to comply with this 25-foot setback. So I asked the county, I asked for
two things from the county. I said, please show me where this change
of interpretation was staff -- was trained on it. Show me the
document, show me. And the answer I got back was no, this is -- this
has just come up, so this official interpretation is the change.
o Ide Cypress was reviewed by staff in accordance with how the
rules had always been. Not a mistake. So what we're talking about is
a change in interpretation and whether you can retroactively apply that
to a grandfathered PUD.
Second thing I asked was, I said, show me anybody, anybody
who has come in here and asked for something less and has been
turned down, and the answer I got back was no, nobody has.
So the people in compliance with the new interpretation, it was
because they voluntarily -- that's where their builder sited their house.
I t wasn't that they came in and asked for something and were turned
down. Everybody was approved in accordance with the old rules.
All right. Let's go -- I don't want to take up too much of the time
of my witnesses, so I'm going to be -- just a couple little points and
then I'll probably come back. I'll get these in order and put them into
Page 281
September 9-10, 2008
evidence. They've all been in the notebook that I gave you, and -- but
I think some of my witnesses will talk about it.
But if you want to see--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we can take a break anywhere
from now to 10:30.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Probably after my witnesses I'll put in--
I'll put into evidence the various code provisions where you can see
the grandfather provision. I probably want to show you that one.
Well, the visualizer's not too great. I'll put them into evidence. But
they've been in your notebooks that I gave you in advance of this so
that -- you'd had an opportunity, so they'll be in the record.
One point that I found very, very interesting was this, on the
change of interpretation on where the -- whether you measure from the
conservation easement line or whether you measure from the actual
jurisdictional wetlands line for that 25 feet, and here was the
interesting observation, which just -- finally just struck me, was when
you look at the plat -- you all have seen the plat. And when you look
at the plat line if that -- if the setback is to go from the conservation
tract, the plat itself was wrong because the lot line and the
conservation line are one in the same.
So if you are required to have your lot set back 25 feet or
buffered 25 feet from the conservation tract, the plat itself shouldn't
have ever been approved in the first place. It would have been wrong
right from the get-go. But back then it wasn't 25 feet from the
conservation easement line. It's 25 feet from the preserve line, the
wetlands preserve.
Let me just -- I'm going to -- I'll probably -- I'll be back up to
conclude. I'm going to turn this over to some of the witnesses, but one
of the things -- another observation that I had is, I thought, my gosh,
you know, what a huge problem for this county under this new
interpretation. Not just 17 people in Olde Cypress, but countywide in
everybody's districts, to go back and tell people you have an
Page 282
September 9-10, 2008
unbuildable lot, your house needs to be torn down. You have to come
in, a thousand people, 2,000, 3,000 people have to come in and apply
for a variance. What an administrative nightmare.
The way to solve this, and the correct way and the legal way, is
to say, this interpretation is fine for the new rules, but the code itself
says you don't apply it to previously platted subdivisions. It's that
simple. Your problem vanishes countywide. This is not just the
Griders we're talking about. It's a lot -- it's a lot of people.
With that having to be said, I'm going to call my first witness,
who is Mr. Arnold. I want to clarify something. Mr. Arnold is not
here as a paid expert. He -- I asked him if we could hire him. He
refused to be hired by either side. He told both of us, no, he would not
be hired. So I asked the county if they would ask him to come to say
what it was like in 1991 and what the rules were and what it means.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then after that, we'll take a
10-minute break.
MS. COOPER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we don't deduct it from your
time.
MS. COOPER: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We won't deduct it from your time.
MS. COOPER: Very good. Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Wayne
Arnold, and as Ms. Cooper said, I am not retained by either side in this
matter, and I did receive a letter from Mr. Klatzkow requesting that I
appear before you to testify in this matter.
And I followed the case, I guess, since its early inception and
have read Ms. Istenes' interpretation, and I think there are a couple
things that struck me there in that the rules were very different back in
the 1990s in the time period when -- and this plat was approved in
1999, I believe -- but the rules were very different and there was
language that deferred to agency buffer requirements, and I think
Page 283
September 9-10, 2008
you'll find if you look through many of the old plat files or even site
plan files that those agency jurisdictional requirements allowed zero
setback to a preserve if there were physical buffers and barriers
between them, because the intent was not to allow encroachments into
these preservation areas, and the intent of the plat requirement at the
time was, try to have some separation between your preserve area and
the native vegetation we were trying to preserve and the yard itself
because, as time would go along, people would tend to increase the
size of their yard by mowing a little bit more here and clipping a little
bit more there.
So you'll find many PUDs of this era that had fence
requirements, berm requirements, or physical separation by having
platted tract lines between them.
So the rules were very different, and as Ms. Cooper indicated, the
rules did allow for a reduction from the 25 feet that was specified
where jurisdictional agency weighed in on the matter. So that, I think,
is a very big distinction looking at the time frame.
The other thing that to me was very clear that occurred back in
the 2003/2004 time frame was that it's become very explicit. There
was a 25- foot and a 10- foot setback requirement from preserves. If
you look at the PUDs that have come before you from that point in
time forward, you'll clearly see on the development table that you
have a preserve setback. It's very explicit.
We know -- and we all know exactly what that setback is because
up to that point in time, you did have deference to your agency
buffers. I think there's also a distinction to be made for some of the
larger PUDs that came about at the time because they were reviewed
by multiple agencies.
And I think as Ms. Cooper indicated, the plat established where
that setback was. It was established, and then you looked to your
planned development to determine what your setbacks were, whether
it was side yard, rear yard, maybe some specified preserve, but I can't
Page 284
September 9-10, 2008
recall one that did.
But I do think that you have to distinguish between those that
appeared before you in 2003 versus those that came forward in 1990
because the rules were different, and I think the staff made a very
conscious effort in 2003 to 2004 to one, maybe clarify it, because it is
kind of ambiguous, maybe they were trying to clarify it, and I think
we all now know that the rule was very explicit at the 25 feet and
10- foot setback.
The other thing that I think's important to note is that you do now
have in your code a specific exemption that I think the date was June
16, 2003, that said, if you were a previously platted subdivision prior
to that date, you are exempt from those rules.
I know that that's a wide exemption, and it's been offered that
maybe that doesn't apply to everything in that native vegetation
preservation section, but it doesn't distinguish a specific section, so I
think the rule would be that you are exempt from that section if you
were a previously platted subdivision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's take a 10-minute break
for the court reporter. Be back at 10:25. Thank you.
(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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We took 16 minutes instead of 10
minutes. Please.
MS. COOPER: Okay, thank you. While we were on our break, I
located the amendment and -- but I tried to put it on the visualizer and
it's a little hard to see, but it's an amendment that was passed,
ordinance 03-27, and this is the amendment that -- for the first time --
MR. MUDD: Want me to go to the highlighted area? Where do
you want me to go on this one?
MS. COOPER: Yeah, the highlighted area.
Page 285
September 9-10, 2008
MR. MUDD: I haven't done this before.
MS. COOPER: I'll tell you what, I'll call up another witness
while we play with this, but I'm going to show you the exemption --
the exemption language probably after the next witness when the rules
were changed and they specifically exempted out previously platted
subdivisions, and we'll get to that in a minute.
In the meantime, I think for my next witness -- and also for the
record, with regard to our experts and also Mr. Arnold, I'd like -- I
need to ask that the chair recognize their expertise. May be we could
just do them all at one time. You have their resumes. It's Mr. Arnold,
Mr. Cole, Mr. Sowers, Ms. Bishop, Mr. Nino, Mr. Westendorf.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we have their resumes?
MS. COOPER: You have their resumes in the package. I think
you all are familiar with all of them. They've been practicing in front
of you for 20-something years, and so we'd just like to have the chair
acknowledge their -- that they're being tendered as experts.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't remember seeing their
resumes.
MS. COOPER: They're in the package of affidavits that I've
submitted to you. I've attached the resumes to the back of them that I
submitted this morning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You submitted them this morning?
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This submissible?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can accept them, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, I haven't -- you submitted it
this morning, I haven't seen it.
MS. COOPER: No, I understand that, but I believe that each of
you -- rather than have each get up and say what all their degrees are
and where they've worked and et cetera, et cetera, their resumes are in
the record now, and I'd just think it's probably expeditious to simply
accept them as experts at this point.
Page 286
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, that's up to the board. I
mean, I don't know if they're experts or not. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I don't know if they are.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Me either.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just by the experiences I
had interacting with them over the years I would say that their
knowledge far exceeds mine on the subject matter. I don't know what
an expert -- how you qualify an expert.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. COOPER: That's exactly how you -- education or
experience is exactly how you qualify them as an expert.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I know Ms. Bishop's background, I
know Ron Nino's background, I know Wayne Arnold's background. I
don't know the rest of them's background, so I can't say that they're
expert.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Well, the ones that you do know, I'd
submit that we accept them as experts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I -- I don't
know that employment at the county 10 years ago, 12 years ago, 15
years ago, qualifies a person to be an expert on the county's current
Land Development Code. These people might very well have good
experience in dealing with land development matters in their current
jobs. Whether that makes them an expert on the county's Land
Development Code and the interpretation thereof is an entirely
different issue.
I think we can accept them as witnesses, but I would -- I would
hesitate to accept them as expert witnesses.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Well, then for the record, I'd like to
Page 287
September 9-10,2008
proffer this on behalf of -- Mr. Arnold is still here. He has a Master's
in urban planning from the University of Kansas, he has a Bachelor in
science and urban regional planning from Southwest Missouri State,
his work experience has included Grady Minor, WilsonMiller, he was
the planning services director for Collier County from 1994 to 1998,
he was a senior planner from 1991 to 1994, he was a senior planner in
South Florida Water Management District from 1988 to 1990, and he
was a planner for Palm Beach County from 1987 to 1988; is that
correct, Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
MS. COOPER: All right. My next witness I'd like to call is
Terry Cole. And I'd like to ask Mr. Cole to address first his
qualifications and then I'd like him to address his work in getting the
o Ide Cypress PUD approved, what the rules were, how the document
was written, and the platting process.
MR. COLE: Good morning. My name is William Terry Cole.
I'm a register Professional Engineer, and I've been practicing in Collier
County since 1989. I went to Texas A&M University, after
graduation I was a civil engineer, Corps officer in the Navy, and
worked for a small engineering company in Rhode Island for about a
year and a half, and then I've been here since 1989.
I have worked on the Olde Cypress project since approximately
the mid '90s and was involved specifically with Olde Cypress unit
three in which lot 28, Mr. Grider's lot, is contained.
I concur with the discussion that Ms. Cooper led regarding the
setbacks and buffers and preserve lines. And I wanted to point out on
this map that I've shown here -- is it possible to have a camera come to
this?
MR. MUDD: Sure. Hang on. It's on. Hang on. Make sure we
got everything. Is there a pointer? There's a pointer right here. Use it,
and this will make it a lot easier.
MR. COLE: Thank you.
Page 288
September 9-10, 2008
This is one of the permit drawings for the project, and it shows
the preserve area, and there is a line here that is the preserve line, and
that's referring to the Cypress slough wetland area here; and then
between the preserve line and the tract line is an additional
preserve/buffer area, and that is here.
I'm going to bring up another map that shows this a lot closer in
relation to Mr. Grider's lot. This is in this vicinity right here where lot
28's located.
And this is the South Florida Water Management District
jurisdictional wetland preserve line, and this is the boundary line of
tract A, which is the conservation preserve and drainage easement of
the Olde Cypress unit one plat. And then this is the tract line which is
the rear of the Olde Cypress unit three plat.
And this is the building structure that was located according to
as-built measurements by Rhodes & Rhodes Survey, and it shows that
the closest point between the structure and the jurisdictional preserve
line is 31.4 feet, which is in excess of the 25- foot minimum
requirement. And I'll just point out that it's in excess of 60 feet in
another area over here.
As Ms. Cooper discussed, the criteria, which is contained in your
information that she provided, indicates that the 25 foot is to the
preserve line, and this was in the Land Development Code which she
described and, therefore, the 31.4 is in excess of that 25-foot
requirement.
I will point out that in some cases where the preserve line is
closer to other lots, it is possible to have what they call a structural
buffer, but in this case it was not necessary because the 25-foot
minimum was exceeded.
MS. COOPER: I have one question. Mr. Cole, your firm was
the firm that wrote the PUD document?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Yes. And if I understand it correctly, the
Page 289
September 9-10, 2008
environmental section was put in so that all the development standards
were to be -- were to comply with your district permits?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. When you platted, did you give the
county the documents and maps that showed the jurisdictional
wetlands versus the uplands and where the conservation easement was
going to go?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. So if you go behind the plat -- the plat is
an approved document by the county, correct?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. There are other documents that the
county approved at the same time as the plat; isn't that correct?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And one of the documents that was also
approved or that they look at to make sure the plat was correct were
the district jurisdictional maps that you just described?
MR. COLE: Correct.
MS. COOPER: And the jurisdictional map shows the difference
between the buffer and the preserve line?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And there were also clearing dimension
layout plans that were submitted at the same time as the plat, correct?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. So if you go to the one document, the
plat, the only thing labeled on the plat is conservation area, right?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Then -- but if you go to the documents
behind it that were approved at the same time, those documents
behind it show both the preserve line and the conservation line and the
-- and the uplands buffer, correct?
MR. COLE: Yes. Those were contained in the district permit.
Page 290
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: Okay. And is that the way that the county did
business back then?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: All right. Now, you've also reviewed -- and you
got a notebook like I gave to the commissioners, correct?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: All right. You reviewed the changes that took
place in 2003/2004?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: All right. You saw the one change where,
ordinance 03-27, I believe -- here -- well, 03-27 where the county for
the first time put in a provision that said, construction has to be set
back 25 feet from any preserve line?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. That wasn't in the code at the time that
your firm wrote your PUD document, was it?
MR. COLE: No.
MS. COOPER: Okay. So was there any way that you could
possibly have specifically spelled out a deviation from that standard
when you wrote the PUD document?
MR. COLE: No.
MS. COOPER: It didn't exist.
MR. COLE: Correct.
MS. COOPER: And your understanding of the county's
understanding at the time was that the setback chart in your PUD
document controlled construction setback; is that correct?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: All right. The rules are different today, aren't
they?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: All right. And when you go in and you practice
before the county today, they make you do something different, don't
Page 291
September 9-10, 2008
they?
MR. COLE: Yes.
MS. COOPER: But that's a change from when Olde Cypress was
grandfathered and approved; isn't that correct?
MR. COLE: Correct.
MS. COOPER: Thank you. Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to have some questions on
that, County Manager, but not now.
MR. MUDD: I was just going to put it down.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We'll remind you.
MS. COOPER: May it please the commission. I'm going to show
you the change in the grandfathered language. This is the '03
ordinance that for the first time put into the preserve section the
language that said principal structures have to be set back 25 feet.
And it says under subsection four, required setbacks to preserves, all
principal structures shall have a minimum 25- foot setback from the
boundary ofa preserve.
Then if I turn the page, in that very same amendment, it has this
exemption, and this is different than the single-family house
exemption, which I'll get to later. The exemption says, applications
for development orders authorizing site improvements, i.e., an SDP or
FSP -- FSP is final subdivision plat -- that are submitted and deemed
sufficient prior to June 16, 2003, are not required to comply with this
new regulation.
And that's the language that Mr. Arnold was talking about and
that I've been talking about. It's right in the ordinance where they first
adopted that 25-foot principal structure setback as opposed to the plat
line setback.
All right. For my next witness I'd like to call Karen Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Karen Bishop. I did not work on Olde Cypress PUD. I am here
because, unfortunately, about seven of the projects that are on the list
Page 292
September 9-10, 2008
of affected PUDs that was provided by the county, I did, in fact, work
on those.
I want to clarify something that Ms. Cooper said earlier. The
way -- when those PUDs were done originally, the way the county
addressed these, anything under 40 acres with no jurisdiction, the
county did all the permitting. It was not sent up to South Florida
Water Management to review. Anything over 40 acres with or without
jurisdiction, South Florida Water Management provided review.
If you had no jurisdictional, then it would be a surface water
permit -- surface water permit that you would acquire, and then you
would come back to Collier County, and then they would apply their
25 percent wherever it worked out that you had your 25 percent, and
then those setbacks off of that line, that native vegetation for
protection, applied to those.
On projects such as Olde Cypress and some of the others that
were listed where that was jurisdictional wetlands, then it was the
agency's determination on buffers and what we protected, what we
didn't protect, mitigated, and that's how all of the PUDs that I worked
on were administered.
There was no -- there was no what we called buffer from the
buffer at that time. Now there is. Since 2003/2004, the new language
is essentially -- I'm interpreting it to be a buffer from the buffer.
The PUDs that we all worked on with the jurisdictional lines in
them were consistently administered through all of the processes,
whether it be platting or subdivisions, and were always done the same
way.
The new code changes have made most of our designs adhere to
the new stuff as opposed to arguing over buffering the buffer.
Okay. Margaret, is there anything else that you need for me to
say?
MS. COOPER: No. Other than the one correction, did I say
anything that you think was incorrect?
Page 293
September 9-10, 2008
MS. BISHOP: No, not at all. And, you know, I did, in fact, meet
with Susan Istenes and, you know, it wasn't until I had spoken to her
that it dawned on me where the confusion was coming that, you know,
we're all focusing on these PUDs with jurisdiction, and it -- and I --
you know, she was right in saying, you know, I remember being in
these preapps. and I remember, you know, Barbara insisting on these
buffers from these jurisdictional lines, and she was correct. That is
exactly how it was at the time but only for the things that the county
was reviewing for themselves, what they had jurisdiction on.
Everything else that was an agency's jurisdiction was deferred to
the agencies, and that's -- and the reason why none of the PUDs had
any specific development standards deviation, one is because in those
days you didn't really do deviations the same way you do now, but
because most of them have a language inside the environmental
section that said, buffers as per the South Florida Water Management
or Corps of Engineers determinations and permits.
And so that was -- that was the blanket language that we used
over and over again through these PUDs to where the agencies --
everyone deferred to the agencies and their buffers. And sometimes
they were, like in the case of the Griders, more than 25 feet, and then
that covered it for them.
So at that point -- you know, things are a little bit different now
so we all address it differently now, but back in those days, that is
exactly how it was. It was always deferred to the agencies because
there was no jurisdictional review at Collier County at that point.
MS. COOPER: Let me put the amendment where they took out
MR. SCHMITT: Margaret, you need to use the microphone.
MS. COOPER: I'm going to put on the visualizer the amendment
where they took out the deference. Can you -- were you -- were you
around when this 2003/2004, these amendments came down?
MS. BISHOP: I was.
Page 294
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: Okay. And were you an act -- were you an
active participant in those?
MS. BISHOP: Not in the changes themselves. I mean, I wasn't,
you know -- I really usually don't get involved in a lot of the LDC
changes unless there's something egregious in them.
When I first looked at this I assumed -- and right or wrong, I
assumed what they were doing was mimicking the district's language
with the setbacks, but then after speaking with staff what -- we penned
it the buffer from the buffers after that, which is this new language.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Well, let me go to the preserve part in the
platting section, not the construction setback, but where you're putting
your plat.
This is the amendment, and I'll read it to you. I'll read the
highlighted portions. Any buildable lot or parcel subject to or abutting
a protected preserve area, and then it goes down, shall have a
minimum 25- foot setback from the boundary of such on protected
preserve, and then it used to have the language stricken out, unless the
above setbacks are accomplished through buffering pursuant to section
3.2.8.3.4. And that was the way you understood the rules to be?
MS. BISHOP: Absolutely.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And it wasn't until 2003/2004 that that
language was stricken, and they said, additional buffering
requirements may be required?
MS. BISHOP: Correct. And just to give you a little background,
there was a time South Florida Water Management allowed for lot
lines to be in conservation areas. And as alluded to, I believe it was
either by Wayne or by Terry, that the district soon figured out that
people, when you have preserves in their back yards literally in their
lot, that they have a tendency to make their lot bigger and the preserve
area smaller.
So the district started requiring that no lot lines be in the
preserves. There would be issue no conservation easements over it,
Page 295
September 9-10, 2008
and then they even went as far as to say no buffers in the lot lines.
So all of the plats and all of our designs were moved to the
outside of the buffer, not to the jurisdiction line but the outside of the
buffer.
And then the district requires, for protection of the jurisdictional
wetland, they require that both the wetland and the buffer be put under
conservation, but they're two separate things. So -- but they would be
put -- both put under conservation, and our lot lines or our
development plans would be outside of that line with no further
setback.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And when we reviewed the district
permits, we also reviewed in your file the district rules, we reviewed
the Growth Management Plan. In those documents, is there a
distinction -- in the South Florida rules, is there a distinction between
a preserve, a buffer, and a conservation easement?
MS. BISHOP: There is. And actually in the rules, you can query
-- there's a whole section that says, what is a conservation easement,
and inside that, that explanation of what a conservation easement is, it
specifically delineates the difference between the wetland and the
buffer and then, of course, the conservation easement over both.
MS. COOPER: And is a buffer a wetland preserve?
MS. BISHOP: No.
MS. COOPER: Okay. One other thing. We also looked into
your Growth Management Plan, the county's Growth Management
Plan. Were you able to locate policies in your Growth Management
Plan that also distinguish between a buffer, wetland preservation and a
conservation easement?
MS. BISHOP: Yes. Yes, there are specific -- in the current
Growth Management Plan -- well, this is as of2002. There is, under
6.2.6, they talk about specific wetland preservation, buffer areas, and
mitigation areas shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas
in the form of a conservation easement and shall be identified or
Page 296
September 9-10, 2008
platted as separate tracts. So it specifically has them delineated
separate, not combined as one.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, do you need that document? You're using
't?
I .
MS. COOPER: I'll go ahead and--
MR. MUDD: Let's put it all in the court record if you're using
them.
MS. COOPER: Okay. This is policy 6.2.6 out of your Growth
Management Plan, and it talks about within the urban designation,
where this is, it says, wetland preservation, buffer areas, and
mitigation areas -- three different things -- shall be dedicated as a
conservation and common area.
So what we have here in the 0 Ide Cypress plat is a conservation
area, and it consists of two things, the preservation plus the upland
buffer, and the buffer is different than the preserve in your rules, the
district rules, and in your Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Cooper, your hour's up.
MS. COOPER: There -- it's a complicated area and we have
been trying to keep it short, but we have other people who have come.
We have Mr. Nino, Mr. Westendorf, and if we could just hear from
those two, we'll leave the other witnesses off at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine with me and, in fact, I
prefer to hear those. But it's not up to me. It's up to the board.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's okay with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Nods head.)
MS. COOPER: Okay. Mr. Nino?
MR. NINO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Page 297
September 9-10, 2008
Ronald Nino. I'm here in the capacity of an expert witness. I don't
want to take too much of your time up except to confirm that when I
was employed by Collier County in the capacity of current planning
manager, it was our understanding that the Land Development Code
deferred to the Southwest Florida Water Management District in
regards to the designation of conservation tracts which included both
the jurisdictional wetland preserves and an upland buffer.
I could editorialize a bit on that by suggesting to you that if that
were not the case and, in fact, you required an additional 25-foot
setback from the conservation boundary, you will find that there are a
whole lot of platted lots that would, in fact, become unbuildable.
And I can think back to Lely Barefoot Beach in particular on the
east side of Lely Boulevard. There are numerous platted lots that are
very shallow and would not be buildable were it not for the fact that
the setback is from the conservation line itself and not the -- and not
the jurisdictional wetlands. There are multimillion dollar houses on -_
another editorial comment is that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What does --
MR. NINO: -- there are multimillion dollar houses --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- this have to do --
MR. NINO: -- on most of these lots.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What does this have to do with the
official interpretation?
MR. NINO: It suggests that staff, in fact, acted in the manner
that is concurrent with the existing approval of the Grider house.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the multimillion dollar house
have to do with the --
MR. NINO: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does the multimillion dollar house
have to do anything with the official interpretation?
MR. NINO: Well, it suggests the magnitude of the development
that occurs on lots that are adjacent to preserves; therefore, the effect
Page 298
September 9-10,2008
of the decision -- your decision will reap -- will be severe in terms of
its impact. Thank you.
MS. COOPER: Just one question.
MR. NINO: Yeah.
MS. COOPER: Mr. Nino, if I understand it correctly, you were
the current planning manager who was in charge of the approvals at
the time that Olde Cypress was approved?
MR. NINO: Yes, that's correct.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And those approvals were in accord with
the way that the LDC was interpreted and applied by the county at the
time?
MR. NINO: Correct.
MS. COOPER: And this new interpretation is going back and
changing what was applicable at the time; isn't that correct?
MR. NINO: Correct.
MS. COOPER: Thank you.
MR. NINO: Thank you.
MS. COOPER: Who else? Mr. Westendorf.
And could you give your credentials as well, please.
MR. WESTENDORF: Yes.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jay
Westendorf. I am a practicing civil engineering project manager in
Southwest Florida. I have been in the area and working -- worked on
projects in -- all over Southwest Florida, including Collier County,
since 1989.
I am a registered professional engineer in the State of
Massachusetts, and I have a total of 24 years of experience in the State
of Florida, and the last 18 of those in Lee and Collier, as I mentioned.
All of my experience has been with land development
entitlements and permitting of projects such as Olde Cypress. I was
not specifically involved with the Olde Cypress development. I am,
however, familiar with the permitting ofOlde Cypress. I have
Page 299
September 9-10, 2008
reviewed the permit book and compiled information that Ms. Cooper
has referred to, both the water management permit, the plat, and the
construction plans, as the county calls them, the PPL plans, that
accompanied the plat through the county's permit process.
I'm also familiar and been involved with several of the projects
that the staffhas identified that could be potential problem projects,
depending on the interpretation of the matter that we're here to speak
of today.
I'm also very concerned about many, many other projects that
I've been involved with over the years and currently involved with that
could also be added to that list. So this has a very significant impact
on some of my former and current clients and the developments.
I also do remember the 2003 and 2004 LDC amendment, the
changes that were made to the codes at the time. I'm familiar with the
codes that were in place prior to that time, specifically the setback to
preservation areas and how it was rephrased or added to the '03 and
'04 amendments.
In our industry, we kind of refer to that, as Ms. Bishop referred
to, as the buffer to the buffer or the setback to the buffer.
Again, as Ms. Cooper and Mr. Arnold have already described,
the purpose of that buffer that the agencies, the water management
district, has required was to separate human involvement, the
development line, from the actual preservation, the jurisdictional lines.
That was the original purpose from the water management district and
the other environmental agencies to require this buffer to separate that.
It seems rather redundant to add a buffer on top of that or a setback on
top of that buffer.
As I mentioned, there are -- I have significant concerns over what
this interpretation and the appeal to this interpretation would set as a
precedent for other projects. We have done a -- some research and I
have a few examples that I'd like to show you of significant impacts
that these could have, or this ruling could have, on existing
Page 300
September 9-10, 2008
development. And I know that for every one that we have been able
to find, there are countless others out there.
The first one is Wilshire Lakes. This is phase 2A I'll put on the
visualizer.
MR. MUDD: I'm still widening. Tell me where you want me to
go.
MR. WESTENDORF: The full page, that's fine.
This is a copy of the plat for Wilshire Lakes, and we've
highlighted a few of the lots on here. These lots are averaging about
85 feet in width.
The PUD does not specifically refer to a deviation to setbacks on
buffers in this PUD specifically on the side yard setbacks. The side
yard setback is seven-and-a-half feet according to the land
development regulation table in the PUD document.
This was platted in '95 and '96, depending on the phase that
you're looking on. The specific lots that are highlighted here have
dedicated preservation or conservation tracts adjacent to those lots. If
we applied the current staffs interpretation to this, it would take off 25
feet of buildable land on the lot versus the seven and a half that the
PUD refers to.
I haven't done the exact calculations, but my assumption is that it
would render these lots unbuildable.
I have one other brief example, and it is North Shore Lake Villas.
Again, this is a copy of the recorded plat document, came from 1995.
And I've reviewed the PUD document for this project, and it does not
speak to exceptions to setbacks due to adjacent preserve areas or
conservation lands.
The highlighted lot that shows here, again, is adjacent to tract P, I
believe it's called on the plat, that is a preservation or a conservation
tract. These are villa lots that actually are 35 feet wide. Obviously if
we applied a 25-foot side yard setback to that, it would render the lot
unbuildable.
Page 301
September 9-10,2008
Just wanted to share those examples with you. And if we need to,
we can enter these -- copies of these plats into the record.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have one question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Ijust want to make sure, you gave some
credentials at the beginning of your presentation, and you said you are
a registered professional engineer in the State of Massachusetts?
MR. WESTENDORF: That's correct, sir.
MR. MUDD: Are you a registered professional engineer in the
State of Florida?
MR. WESTENDORF: No, I'm not.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So you cannot practice engineering in the
State of Florida based on your licensure; is that correct, sir?
MR. WESTENDORF: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: Okay, thank you. That's all I needed to have for
clarification for the board. Thank you.
MS. COOPER: Nothing stops you from being a permit
facilitator, much like Mrs. Bishop?
MR. WESTENDORF: That is correct.
MS. COOPER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Cooper, would 10 minutes be
acceptable to wrap it up?
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir. Actually, if we could take a break, I'll
just pull out my documents that I want to put into the record that I've
been referring to, and then I'll be done. If we could take a break, I'll
organize them, and then I'll just enter them in the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you could do that anytime
though, right?
MS. COOPER: Well, before I -- all right. Just -- I will reserve
putting those into the record as though I were doing it in my case, and
I'll be happy to do it on a break. That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.R
Page 302
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And, I mean, I have questions, but I
want to allow my colleagues to ask questions also.
MS. COOPER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Who wants to start first?
MS. COOPER: Of me or of the witnesses?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, of the witnesses.
MS. COOPER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you.
MS. COOPER: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you.
MS. COOPER: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The--
MS. COOPER: Who would you like first?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're up there, so might as well ask
you. Ms. Cooper, I think you're absolutely correct about the 2003
amendment. It has nothing to do with this PUD, because it was at the
time of plat that the clock stopped in this case; is that a fair statement?
MS. COOPER: I'm waiting to hear the context that you're
putting it in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, a lot of your presentation was
about the '03 amendment to the development standards in our Land
Development Code, but Olde Cypress was platted in '99, 2000?
MS. COOPER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm just saying, you're absolutely
correct on that.
MS. COOPER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're right on point.
MS. COOPER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we never go back to the PUD and
the requirements of the PUD at that time.
MS. COOPER: Well, I think we did, and let me explain it. The
Page 303
September 9-10, 2008
-- the requirements of the PUD document were met at the time. What
Mrs. Istenes says is that your PUD document, it has construction
setbacks in it, and that's what the county did the approvals were on the
construction setbacks in the PUD document, which becomes a little
zoning code in and of itself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. COOPER: And she's saying, well, you should have spelled
out specifically a deviation from your preserve setbacks.
Now our witnesses addressed this. And what the answer to that
question is, is that the building setback didn't exist at the time so they
couldn't have spelled it out specifically at the time the PUD document
was written.
It was written under the old rules. The old rules only had platting
requirements. And the platting requirements said, you defer to agency
buffering. So that's what this PUD document did.
And what we're looking at on setbacks is the specific setbacks in
the document -- in the PUD document itself. Mrs. Istenes said, hey,
you should have spelled out these ones because they've been in the
code since 1991. They haven't been in the code since 1991. They
weren't there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand what you said.
MS. COOPER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I really did, but I just want to tell you,
I agree with you on that point.
But you also said there are several other subdivisions that have
problems with setbacks from preserves.
MS. COOPER: Under the new interpretation. Not under the way
-- when they were platted and approved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. That's part of your argument.
MS. COOPER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One of them was Golden Gate
Estates.
Page 304
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: I don't recall. I'd have to look at the -- I relied
upon your county staff, were the ones who identified it, and then my
experts identified others. I did not go and look at them directly. So
what I was relying upon, Commissioner, was your county staff memo
that said these are the ones that said these are the ones that are in the
same shape and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- and that's another point. Did
you ever ask the person who wrote that memo how they determined
the setbacks?
MS. COOPER: No. I wasn't permitted to talk directly to the
county staff. Mr. Klatzkow asked me not to, so I didn't. But what I
did have was a number of people reported to me what their
conversations were, and the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand.
MS. COOPER: And what I understand was, it was based upon
corporate knowledge, that this individual had been working for the
county for many, many years, and he was the one with the most
corporate knowledge, and so that these were ones that he recalled.
But then on top of that, to verify that, in addition to that,
Commissioner --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You answered my question.
MS. COOPER: -- I had Ms. Bishop verify hers that were on that
list, and Mr. Westendorf verified his that were on that list; and Mrs.
Bishop testified, Mr. Westendorf testified, that this precedent, that
they're in the same shape and that there are many others out there as
well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next question -- if you can go to
tab 24.
MS. COOPER: Of my book I supplied you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Yeah, that's the one. Mr. Houldsworth
was the individual who prepared it.
Page 305
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But that isn't what is it says on tab 24.
Tab 24 you have rules of the old Land Development Code.
MS. COOPER: My tab 24 is Mr. Houldsworth's memo. Are you
going on the -- I have the condensed version that I gave you right
before this. Can you tell me what it is that we're looking at?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me just take out and --
MS. COOPER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and we'll put it on -- as the display.
MS. COOPER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now, is this what you're referring to
as the rules of the -- the time of the PUD and the platting?
MS. COOPER: Yes, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you're saying there is a
25-foot setback that should be from the preserves. That's what it says,
right?
MS. COOPER: I'll read you the exact words, and this is a very
important distinction, Commissioner, and one that we really need to
focus on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to read the whole
thing?
MS. COOPER: No, I'm not to going to read the whole thing.
It says, any buildable lot or parcel shall have a minimum of a
25- foot setback. The lot line must have a 25- foot setback. The first --
and in that setback area between the lot line and the preserve, you
can't build anything. That's what this says.
It changed in '03 and they added another section over in the
preserve part that said, all principal structures must be set back 25 feet
from the preserve. But this says, any buildable lot or parcel must be
set back 25 feet on the plat, and that's what we have -- and then it goes
down to the bottom. It says, unless the setbacks are accomplished by
buffering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 306
September 9-10,2008
MS. COOPER: So that's what we have here is the buffering
that's part and parcel of your conservation easement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is what you're saying what
you did here through the South Florida Water Management?
MS. COOPER: Right. The conservation easement contains both
the buffer and the preserve, and that's what Mr. Terry Cole showed
you, the difference in the two lines. It's not distinguished on the plat.
That's where everybody gets confused because the only line that
appears on the plat is a conservation line. But then if you look at the
documents that were submitted along with the plat and approved by
the county, they contain both the preserve line and the buffer line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have that provision,
3.2.8.3.4?
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir, absolutely, and I'll read it to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, your --
MS. COOPER: It was in the materials that I gave you about a
week ago.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. COOPER: But it says, 3.2.8.3.4. It says buffer areas, and --
it has a lot of stuff, but the bottom line is, it says, buffer areas adjacent
to protected preserve areas shall conform with the requirements
established by the agency. I'll put it up on the visualizer for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. COOPER: Let's go up to this part first. This is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Let's stay there.
MS. COOPER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because that is the requirement for
what you're saying as far as the buffering goes, not setback, but the
buffering, right?
MS. COOPER: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it also calls for -- you need to
comply to 2.4 of our Land Development Code, division 2.4.
Page 307
September 9-10, 2008
Subdivision and developments shall be buffered --
MS. COOPER: That -- oh, okay. Don't get confused. That's a
totally different buffering that we're talking about. Those are like
buffers on the -- that's not preserve buffers. That has nothing to do
with preserves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So going back to the previous sheet,
when it -- when the board passed that, it doesn't comply -- or the
provisions are exclusive of 3.2.8.3.4. What you're saying, it only has
to apply to the last sentence within that provision?
MS. COOPER: You've got me all confused now, Commissioner.
I don't --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you're looking at that provision
and saying, only the bottom sentence applies to this.
MS. COOPER: Well, it's not me who's saying it. You've had
Wayne Arnold, who was the planning services director when this was
passed, told you that; Karen Bishop, who has lived it for 20 years has
told you that; Jay Westendorf, who's lived it for 20 years has told you
that; Ron Nino, who was the current planning manager at the time that
this was approved has told you that. Who else? Terry Cole, who's the
engineer who took the Olde Cypress development through this has
told you that. It's not me.
You have -- every one of these professionals told you that the
way that we -- telling you to read this is the correct way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What you're saying right now is the
staff that worked for us only did part of what the board asked?
MS. COOPER: Absolutely not, no, sir. If you read it, it says, the
lot line is to be set back 25 feet from a preserve unless that can be
accomplished by way of buffering, and you're confusing the preserve
line with a conservation easement line. They're not the same. Every
document distinguishes between the two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. I didn't say that. The point
that I want to make is, you want to go by 3.2.8.3.4, just the last
Page 308
September 9-10, 2008
sentence of it?
MS. COOPER: I want to go by what the law tells you to do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's--
MS. COOPER: That's what this says to do is, you set back 25
feet unless your setback is accomplished by way of your buffering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: By way of3.2.8.3.4.
MS. COOPER: Right. And we go back to that and it says, right
here, buffers adjacent to preserve shall conform with requirements of
the agency.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What does the sentence above it say?
MS. COOPER: All right. That is not a--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Separation shall be created with a
landscaping buffer strip which is designed and constructed in
compliance with the provisions of 2.4.
MS. COOPER: Well, I don't want you to confuse buffering
between different subdivisions, different PUDs, which is one
requirement of your code, and a preserve --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what it says.
MS. COOPER: -- a preserve setback or a buffer to a preserve
area. They are not the same.
And I mean, I am not -- I'm not the expert on this, and I'm sure
Karen Bishop can address it to you. I'm sure that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we get Karen Bishop up here
then?
MS. COOPER: Sure.
MS. BISHOP: I'm here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What was the requirement for these --
buffering of the preserves?
MS. BISHOP: The requirement at the time for the preserve
buffers were the South Florida Water Management mandated buffers,
whatever they would be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying it doesn't have to
Page 309
September 9-10, 2008
comply to the board's ordinance where it says, separation shall be
created by a landscape buffer strip, which --
MS. BISHOP: Well, if you read this first sentence, it's really
referencing the A, B, and C above it, because it says, here's what the
buffers are; they're to separate, they're to separate, they're to separate.
And then that sentence takes those separations and puts it together and
says, for your separation, here's how you're going to accomplish that
separation.
Then it goes on to say, the buffers -- that buffers next to
preserves are going to be whatever the agencies say. So that's what --
that's really what that sentence says.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you familiar with Carlton Lakes?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, I am. That's one of my projects, and
that's one of the ones that is an issue. I worked on that one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that in 1999?
MS. BISHOP: To be honest with you, I don't remember exactly
the date of it, but I did the -- the zoning was already in place when I
got into the project, and some of the platting was already completed,
and then I worked on other plats in the middle of the projects. I'm not
sure exactly what date I was there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it -- do you know if there is a plat,
a 25-foot platted buffer next to the preserves in Carlton Lakes?
MS. BISHOP: I need to refer to the plans I have. I don't believe
that it's -- that shows it platted. I believe the lot lines are off that
preserve line 25 feet. So that -- in other words, it's not platted in the
lots. The lots are moved outside of that buffer area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely right.
MS. BISHOP: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is a -- the lots are platted
separately than the preserve and the buffer.
Page 310
September 9-10,2008
MS. BISHOP: Correct. That's typical of pretty much all of the
ones that were done in those days, the same way. Every project I've
worked on up until recently, they were done the same way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it required? Then the requirement
is true, because 2.4 on your landscaping buffers, you've got to show
them on your plat.
MS. BISHOP: Yes. The landscape buffers -- there's a difference
between landscape buffers and buffers to preserves. They're not one
in the same. There is that difference. And landscape buffers were
requested to be platted because what was happening in a lot of
single- family lots, once you got in there, those landscape buffers
disappeared because people would put fences up and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's why you plat them.
MS. BISHOP: That's exactly right. And so that's why they
became platted because the honor system in single-family homes were
-- was lacking quite a bit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's why Carlton Lakes has a
platted buffer against the preserves.
MS. BISHOP: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But Olde Cypress doesn't?
MS. BISHOP: It has it included. It is included adjacent to the
preserve. 0 Ide Cypress has a buffer that goes all the way around the
preserve line itself, and the same as Carlton Lakes. If you look at the
Carlton Lakes/South Florida Water Management plans, it clearly
delineates the jurisdictional line and the 25-foot buffer and then the lot
line outside of that, and that is a part of those permits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did -- did the 25 percent rule apply in
ninety -- when Olde Cypress was platted?
MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir, but if you read the rules, if you have
more than 25 percent -- I mean, in this case there was a lot more than
25 percent. That was the minimum at that point, but Olde Cypress has
more than 25 percent of native vegetation retention, so it was applied.
Page 311
September 9-10,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm confused on how many
acres really is in Olde Cypress.
MS. BISHOP: I want to say it's like 500, but, yeah, let me look.
MS. COOPER: It's in the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tab 7 gives the breakout and it gives
the total acreages of 538 acres.
MS. BISHOP: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But if you add up all the different
components of it, it comes out to 514.27.
MS. BISHOP: Okay. And so 25 percent of that would have
been 500, what, 100 acres would have been the 25 percent. Right.
So you have -- but they have more than the minimum because in
their -- at least in their -- now, I'm not familiar with all the specifics of
Olde Cypress preserves, but in their PUD the 25 percent is identified,
and it says it's satisfied by the 176 acres worth of wetland preserve,
park and wildlife sanctuary that they are putting aside, so it clearly
complies with the 25 percent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the park a conservation?
MS. BISHOP: Well, it depends on what kind of park it is, you
know, but -- which we've had these passive parks. You can have a
passive park that's something you just look at, and that would be a part
of it as long as it complies with the agency regulations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BISHOP: Thank you. That's it. Who's next? It's -- Susan
Istenes is next.
MS. COOPER: So I'm off for right now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MS. COOPER: Are we on questions or am I to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm done. None of the other board's
recognized or gave any indication they have any questions. Oh, I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, Chairman. I reserve the
Page 312
September 9-10, 2008
questioning until I hear the other side of the story.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, we're at the point now
where zoning director can question the appealing party.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And I have 10 minutes written down.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Ten minutes.
MS. ISTENES: Good morning. Susan Istenes. I'm the zoning
director. I didn't really intend to question the other party as much as
just reiterate a few points and maybe clarify some points that the other
parties put on the record.
It appears that we're just sort of here putting our opinions on the
record and then you will be able to ask us questions as you see fit,
determining on whatever you think is relevant, and I'll just leave it at
that, so I'm really not going to question anything.
One thing, to start out with, the introduction, I would just caution
you that the statement that decisions made today will affect hundreds
of thousands of people, that's a little blown out of proportion. Please
keep in mind that every PUD is a unique zoning district. There are
many examples of PUDs that have language in there pertaining to
preserves and preserve setbacks and upland buffers and district
permits and everything else.
So every PUD is a unique zoning district. Your ruling today is
related to Olde Cypress. It's not related to other PUDs that directly.
So I would just mention that to you.
I have notes here. Bear with me, I'm just going to kind go
through them because Commissioner Henning asked some questions
that covered some things that made it clear that he had an
understanding of notes I had.
One thing I'd like to point out just so you're aware, I don't think it
was brought forward, is we're talking about wetlands and we're talking
about preserves. Your Coastal Conservation Management Element
Page 313
September 9-10,2008
defers to the permitting agencies to regulate wetlands, that being
South Florida Water Management District, Army Corps, and anybody
else but Collier County that may have an interest in permitting
wetlands, so you have deferred to those agencies.
The upland buffer requirements that we keep talking about, that
is an agency requirement. That is not a county specific requirement
per se other than the fact that the county has agreed to defer to the
permitting agencies. They have the standards for the buffer; they set
the dimensions of the buffer. It's in accordance with the wetlands on
each individual site, so everyone is unique. My understanding is the
buffer width is an average of 25 and a minimum of 15.
So I would just caution you not to mix those up. That buffer
requirement is an agency buffer, not a county buffer. County
buffering requirements are generally referred to the landscape
buffering section in the quote, old code, 91-102. That was in division
2.4. And Commissioner Henning, you were honing in on that, so I'll
just leave that and go on to my next point I wanted to make since I
don't have that much time.
Another point to keep in mind is the Land Development Code
allows developers to commingle preserves and conservation areas. So
the county has its own native preservation requirement, and then in the
case of 0 Ide Cypress, you've got the South Florida Water
Management District requiring wetlands conservation, and the county
rules say you can put those two together in the same area, meaning
you can have your preservation area and your wetlands conservation
area in the same area and it's going to be platted and a conservation
easement is going to be placed over it.
If you didn't do that, then you would have separate preserve
tracts -- it would almost be like double dipping. You would require
somebody to conserve all these wetlands, and then you would turn
around and say, oh, and by the way, we have this preserve
requirement that you have to do somewhere else and you have to set
Page 314
September 9-10, 2008
aside additional acreage that you can't development on.
So the county rules allow you to commingle those, and when you
commingle those, there is nothing in the county rules that say that
there's a line that says, here's the preserve boundary and here's the
conservation boundary and this is -- we're going to measure the
required setbacks to preserve from the preserve boundary only. They
become one, they become a preserve, and that is where the regulations
are set or are applied to is that boundary.
MR. SCHMITT: Wetlands and uplands.
MS. ISTENES: Wetlands and uplands, thank you. Thank you,
Joe.
So I think we're mixing terminology, and I just want you all to
understand that there is nowhere in the Land Development Code that
allows, when you commingle them, does -- says that the rules only
apply if it's a designated preserve area because preserve and
conservation get melded together, and then the preserve rules apply to
that designated area, and that includes the setbacks.
One thing I want to make clear also and concede on, is I think my
interpretation was not entirely clear with respect to the 91-102 code
when it talks about the setbacks of lots to a preserve. And the
statement in there -- and I don't have it in front of me, but it basically
says, this has been in the code since 1991 and this is how we've
always applied it, and that is a setback to a structure.
Setbacks are to structures. Setbacks and buffers are not the same.
They're regulated differently.
And one thing I would point out, too, is, Mrs. Cooper isn't
reading the entire section of the 91-102 code when it talks about
setbacks to lots because if you continue to read that -- and I can pull it
out later if you want -- it talks about the restriction of principal
structures in that area, and then it later goes on to limit any activity
including accessory structures within 10 feet.
That is the language that the code has been taking to -- or the
Page 315
September 9-10,2008
staff has been taking to mean that requires a 25-foot setback and a
10- foot setback for accessories to preserves or protected areas, and
they're lumped together, like I said, in the code, and that is what my
interpretation is saying, and it didn't come across that way and I will
concede on that point. That is what the code says.
And then you had a 2003 code change that incorporated some
more specific language in there, and it ended up in the preserve
section of the code. And in the preserve section of the code you see
that the language then speaks to structures, setbacks to structures.
So again, I don't want to dwell on that. I just want to bring it up
as a point that you may want to look at a little bit more closely. I'm
speaking very quickly because I have three whole minutes left, and I
have a lot of points I'd like to make.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, no. Wait a minute. Wait a
minute.
MS. ISTENES: I can slow down?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can slow down a lot. The 10
minutes is for questioning Ms. Cooper. You have an hour to present.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, okay. I'm sorry I didn't hear that at the
beginning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we might take a lunch.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, let me just slow down then,
because I don't -- I can -- I have documents all over the place. I could
take an hour to pull out citations of code and put them on there. I'm
not going to do that.
I think Mrs. Cooper kind of set the tone for the discussion. I
think it's the way you want it to go. I will bring out points that I think
are important, and if you want to question me about them, feel free to
do so later, because I think -- I'm not sure who's next, but I'll leave it at
that if that's okay with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have an hour.
MS. ISTENES: Right now you want me to take an hour? You
Page 316
September 9-10, 2008
just told me I had 10 minutes, that's why.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: During the process, Susan, you have 10
minutes now to question the appealing party. After that the Griders
have 10 minutes, after -- not the Griders -- the affected property owner
has 10 minutes, then after that you have your full hour.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, okay. I'm very sorry. Then I'd like to
reserve my time and expand upon my comments a little bit. Only
thing I would -- and I -- as I said earlier, I do not want to -- well, I do.
I'm sorry. I do want to question Wayne Arnold, if that's okay, because
I think it's important.
Wayne was the director, I guess, from '94 to '98. I started here in
'96. Wayne was the director when I was here. I did want to ask
Wayne if during the time he was a director if he ever issued an official
interpretation on preserve setbacks. Is Wayne here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He's not here.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Then that's something you might want to
think about. I don't know how you handle a person that leaves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I mean, he wasn't a witness.
MS. COOPER: We'll concede that. There was no--
MS. ISTENES: None? You know --
MS. COOPER: This is his first official interpretation.
MS. ISTENES: Actually, it's not, but I was asking if Wayne had
ever done one as a director. So you say no, that's fine.
MS. COOPER: He interpreted it, but he didn't do an--
MS. ISTENES: But he didn't do an official interpretation is what
you're saying?
MS. COOPER: Not a formal process.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Okay. Then that answers my questions.
I did do an official interpretation in 2003 on a very similar issue.
I have that information if you want to see it. Nobody ever challenged
it. It was never appealed. It is, again, for a different PUD. And as I
Page 317
September 9-10,2008
said earlier, all PUDs are different. But it is essentially almost exactly
along this same question that you asked me to interpret here. So I will
reserve my hour then for more detail if that's okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The property owner that
agrees with the interpretation may question the appealing party or any
experts. Is there anybody here today that fits that criteria; Mr.
Brooker?
MR. BROOKER: Clay Brooker, for the record. There's some
confusion. Is this my hour or is this my 10 minutes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is your 10 minutes.
MR. BROOKER: I have no questions. But I do want my hour.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunkleberger?
MR. DUNKLEBERGER: I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're getting close to
lunch. What does the board want to do? Do you want to take an hour?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to continue at least until 12.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, go to 12.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Susan, you have an hour, and
we're going to take a break in that hour.
MS. ISTENES: Again, Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. I'm not
going to reiterate my official interpretation. You have that in your
backup. I'm going to just go ahead and hone in on some points that I
think you should consider.
And I'm going to -- I am going to talk slowly, so I hope you don't
get too bored up there because I need to make sure I make my points
c I ear.
Again, the earlier point I made was it's important to note that
your own Growth Management Plan defers to agencies, other agencies
for wetland permitting. County does not permit wetlands. There are
criteria in the Land Development Code that deal with preserve areas
and conservation easements and whatnot, but I'm not going to get into
that. It's just important to note that we don't regulate wetlands, that we
Page 318
September 9-10, 2008
rely on agency permits and the requirements of the agencies.
Earlier, again, I stated it seems like we're commingling preserves
and conservation areas. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
And let me just focus. I'm focused here on Olde Cypress. It's in
the urban area. My comments are going to be directed to that. We
have -- Joe mentioned, we have different requirements for rural fringe,
eastern lands, things like that.
This is in the urban area. My comments are directed to the urban
area and the rules that apply to the urban area.
One thing I'd like to point out too is the rule change in 2003 that
keeps coming up. My understanding of that rule change was the
grandfathering provision only applied to the, quote, new rules that
were adopted. And the new rules, as staff understood them, was a
minimum size or minimum width on preservation or conservation
areas -- I think it was preservation -- and things like that.
Again I'm going to go back to staffs application and
understanding of the preserve setback requirements has been in place
since 1991. I understand that in 2003 there was a code change and the
code change explicitly talked about setbacks to structures and it put it
in the preserve section and, in fact, the amendment even describes
what the staff was doing. And they were -- essentially what they were
doing was putting all the preserve area requirements in the preserve
section of the code because, as Mrs. Cooper pointed out, originally in
'91 they were in the subdivision section of the code.
So that's what the amendment in 2003 did. It did introduce some
new language. My understanding of the new language is that is sets
some minimum width requirements for preserves, and that's what got
grandfathered, not the setbacks. The setbacks continued to be applied
by staff to the preserve as they had been interpreting and applying
them since 1991.
I have documentations of PUDs that talk about preserve setbacks,
reductions to preserve setbacks prior to 2003. I, myself, did an
Page 3 19
September 9-10, 2008
interpretation on the Donovan PUD that talks about buffers, structural
buffers, and -- I'm sorry. I mentioned Donovan. It's not Donovan. It
is just a general interpretation, and I'm going to just put it up on the
visualizer.
And this was issued in March 26, 2003. That was before the June
amendment change to the Land Development Code that Mrs. Cooper
keeps referencing grandfathered things in. And the question that was
asked to me was, regarding PUD development standards prevailing
over the LDC code and the interpretation regarding buffering
requirements of PUD ordinance 01. 5 9 prevailing over the buffering
requirements of 02.30.
And I've highlighted the important things here, and there was one
in particular I wanted to point out to you and I'm going to just hone in
on that. And that is, all development regulations including overlay
districts or special development standards for specific land use types
or the like, supplemental regulations and other applicable provisions
of all county ordinances such as, but not limited to, all provisions of
the Collier County Land Development Code as may be amended shall
apply unless specifically modified by the approved PUD document
and the PUD master plan.
Where the application for a PUD proposes to modify any of the
regulations set forth in the Land Development Code, the application,
the PUD document, and the PUD master plan shall specifically
identify the code section number, the specific regulation, and the
proposed modification to such regulation in a standard format
established by the planning services director.
So to say that this is a new interpretation is not correct. I
interpreted on a very same issue in 2003, before the code was
amended in 2003, if that's an issue, and this was not appealed;
therefore, it is upheld per our Land Development Code.
It's important that you understand -- again, I hope I'm not being
repetitive -- but that the state and the county have different rules
Page 320
September 9-10, 2008
regarding setbacks to preserves and different rules regarding
buffering. I just can't stress that enough.
The state regulations don't usurp the county regulation unless
there's something specific in the PUD that says that, and in this case I
don't believe that is the case for Olde Cypress.
Another interesting point -- and Mrs. Cooper brought it up, and
she's exactly right. If you take the 91-102, the original language that
she says -- and I think this is really the crux of her argument -- what
she is saying is that language requires that the lot line be set back from
the preserve for 25 feet, not the structure, and that in 2003 we included
the structure requirement. And as I've said, that is not how the staff
has been applying it since '91.
But if you take that, that would mean today that not only would
your lot have to be set back, but that your -- you then have an
additional setback for your structure. And, I mean, there's two sides to
that argument. She could certainly say, well, that means, you know,
perhaps my development is even more set back from the preserve.
To me that's extreme, that's absurd. You don't apply -- we don't
-- and we don't apply it that way. The setbacks -- setbacks are to
structures. Setbacks are measured from structures to property lines,
and in this case the property line and the preserve line are the same --
for the conservation easement line are the same, and that's where the
setback is measured.
If you were to apply both regulations, both the '91 regulation that
she pointed out and the '03 regulation that she says changed and was
the new regulation that then required a setback for a structure, then
you would have -- not only would the lot have to be set back 25 feet
from the boundary of the preserve, so you'd shift your lot 25 feet back,
but then you take the structure -- structure on your lot and shift that.
That has to be another 25 feet from the lot line.
So in a sense, in addition to the agency buffer, which could be a
minimum of 15 feet, you would then have 50 feet plus 15 feet for the
Page 321
September 9-10, 2008
agency buffer if you wanted to include that, which we don't. That's
absurd. That's not the way we apply the code. That is extreme.
I will also tell you as an employee here from 1996 who reviewed
plats, we have never required anybody to demonstrate that their lot sits
back 25 feet from a preserve. We've not required surveys,
documentation. To my knowledge I have never reviewed a plat and
asked that question.
I do have documentation of the staffs review checklist. I also
have some documentations on some of the PUDs that were listed in
Mr. Houldsworth's list that show that, upon plat review, the county
made statements that the required setbacks to preserve for principal
structures was to be 25 feet. And to my knowledge, none of those
were ever challenged. And in fact, Carlton -- I have letters regarding
Carlton Lakes as well.
Commissioners, as well, I have PUD language as early as 1992
that clearly states a deviation from the preserve setback requirements,
and it clearly states that because they are substituting another
regulation -- and I can pull that out if you want -- that the county
preserve setback requirements don't apply.
So my point is, we were applying it. That was the '92 ordinance
that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. It was later
repealed because the PUD was amended. But as early as '92 that was
__ there would have been no reason to reduce the setbacks or to call it
__ call it as a deviation if the rule wasn't in place and being applied that
way at the time.
So I have that information if you want to see it. Again, I'm just
leading more towards, if you want to question me, whatever you think
is important, that's fine, as soon as I'm done.
I'll put that up in a second.
Let me just kind of get my head back here. Okay. I'll go to that
now. I think we need to flip it. That's probably good. Thanks, Leo.
You probably can't read the writing, but I'll point to the lines.
Page 322
September 9-10, 2008
This is actually Lone Pine Lane, and these are the lots platted off Lone
Pine Lane. This is at the cul-de-sac.
All I want to point out, just so you have a perspective of what the
district does and what we accept is, this would be your preserve area
right in here, and this is considered the jurisdictional wetland line
that's determined by South Florida. And, Joe, if I'm misspeaking,
please let me know, because this -- I don't deal with these permits that
much.
And then this interior line here would be your upland buffer.
And you can see how it meanders. Again, like I stated earlier, it ranges
from 25 feet to a minimum of 15, and that's determined by the district,
and then that's identified.
And then here -- so all of this is under conservation easement,
and then your lot lines abut that, and this is considered an upland
preserve area as well. And so I just wanted to give you a perspective
on how the lots layout and their relationship to the upland buffers and
the upland buffer relationships to the preserve and the lot line
relationships to the conservation easement.
Setbacks -- setbacks are measured from a structure on the lot to
the property line. And in this case the property line and the
conservation line are the same, and so a principal structure would have
to be set back 25 feet inward to the lot from this line, which we
consider the preserve line.
Other -- another point I wanted to make. Hang on just a quick
second. I'm going to go back to that. One thing I wanted to point out,
I had in my notes, just didn't point it out when I was up here. If you
remember earlier how I told you that the jurisdiction line meanders
depending on the wetland vegetation there, and then that, in turn,
meanders the upland buffer.
Our code requirement is 25-foot setback from that buffer. So to
rely on the district requirements, which could range from 25 to 15
feet, doesn't meet our code if you -- you know, if you accepted that as
Page 323
September 9-10, 2008
the argument.
My point in the official interpretation was, there was no
exception to that 25-foot setback from the preserve. And the language
that was in the PUD simply reiterated the district permit requirements.
That's all it is.
I don't know why staff at the time chose to be repetitive of the
district requirements because our code requires that they comply with
the district requirements, but I think, in fact, they thought it was going
to be missed, and that's all that language says. It's not a deferment
from the county setback regulations. It's simply a reiteration of what
the district requires in their permit, and it pertains to the district
permit, not to the county Land Development Code.
I think -- again, back to the application of the code, I can't stress
that enough, the staff has continuously applied the 25-foot setback
from preserve areas. I think if you question any of the staff -- John
Houldsworth, who wrote the memo, if you wish -- he would tell you
that we did not add 25 feet to the lot line. We simply took the setback
from a structure to the lot line, and that was our 25 feet. We then did
not take an additional 25 feet out from the back of the lot line to the
preserve.
Commissioner Henning, you hit -- you were talking about
3.2.8.3.4. I think you hit the nail right on the head. That is referring
to our county landscape buffer requirements. And I think -- there is a
statement. The last sentence in that regulation talks about agency
buffers. I read that as simply a statement. I believe that whole
paragraph talks and refers simply to our own landscape buffers, which
were in section 2.4 of91-102 at the time. So I wouldn't confuse the
two.
That was regulating per our landscape code, not per the -- it was
not referring to the agency buffers as far as its reference back to 2.4. I
think that's an important distinction to make.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll ask you about that later.
Page 324
September 9-10, 2008
MS. ISTENES: Okay. And I have one more point I think I want
to make, and then I'm finished. Let me just go back through my notes
really quickly.
I had asked Joe Schmitt earlier -- I know in one of Mrs. Cooper's
corr -- pieces of correspondence she -- although she didn't discuss it --
she did talk about a single-family exemption. There is a provision in
the Land Development Code when the -- it was either the '03 or '04 --
I think it was the '04 amendments -- were adopted, that exempts
single- family, and it implies that it exempts single-family from the
setback requirements.
And I -- if that is a point of discussion or something you want to
get into, I will discuss that in detail and I will find that section of the
code and just ask that you bear with me because there's a lot of
paperwork here, and it will take me a while to find it, but I'm happy to
do it. I hopefully have everything marked.
But our intent in our application of that code was the exemption
to single-family was strictly for the purposes of calculating vegetation
retention requirements, not to exempt single-family from the
requirements of the setback.
And if you think about it in reality, why would you do that?
Preserves are an amenity in many, many developments. I'm sure
people pay premiums for lots on preserves. And if your intent -- if the
intent of the code, which is what I understand it to be is to protect the
preserves, you probably have more single-family than any other type
of development adjacent to preserves. Why would you exempt them
from a setback requirement if the setback is intended to protect the
preserves?
So I -- Bill Lorenz is here, and he can speak to that detail. That
was adopted as part of the EAR-based amendments, I believe, in '04,
and he's got all the details on that. I think it was just an unfortunate
placement of language and an unfortunate statement. We have not
applied it that way. We have applied it in the context that it exempts
Page 325
September 9-10, 2008
single- family -- individual single-family lots from your preserve, that
-- your vegetation preservation requirement calculation.
MR. SCHMITT: Additional.
MS. ISTENES: Additional. And, again, I would defer to Bill
Lorenz on that and -- if that is a question that you have.
I believe those are the points I wanted to make. I'm available if
you have questions or want me to expand on any of those or bring up
any documentation related to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We're going to go to lunch first.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one question to ask her
when we get back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: When we get back, yeah, I have
questions, too.
Do you want to just kind of --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I could make it short, short lunch,
if you wanted to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Short lunch. Be back at one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Be back at 12:45.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One? Yeah, one is fine with me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good.
MS. ISTENES: Commissioner, before you close, I do need to
enter this wetland map into the record per the County Attorney's
Office, so I'd like to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Ms. Cooper, you need to also
enter yours. We'll do that when we get back.
MS. COOPER: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Page 326
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Ms. Istenes,
Commissioner Halas has a question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. My -- I guess my question on
this whole thing is, why we're here today, and has there been a
variance put in for this piece of property at all?
MS. ISTENES: For the Grider property?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: No. There has been a pre-application meeting
for a neighboring property, but they are pending the outcome of this
hearing as to whether they'll proceed.
Also, I do want to point out to you that there is a provision in the
PUD that allows for some administrative reduction to the development
standards that is also a possibility to address. There is criteria that
have to be met, but there is language in the PUD that would allow
possibly an administrative reduction with a common architectural
theme finding. And I know those have been difficult in the past, but
that's an opportunity. I just wanted to mention that to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It just seems that if we haven't gone
through the process of a variance, why are we going through this
portion of this?
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure. That would be a question really of
the applicant because it's their choice as to how to handle this
situation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody else? Ms. Istenes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'd like to ask a
question before Ms. Istenes leaves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can I do that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Go ahead and do that, then I
have some questions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll wait for you.
Page 327
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, the reference of3.2.8 -- I
forget which one that Ms. Cooper and I were conversing on. Is that
relevant? It's -- I think I lost -- I think I gave my copy away.
MR. MUDD: Yes, you did, sir. You gave it here and it became
part of the public record, but I do have it here so I will get it up on the
screen, sir, and we'll be in good shape.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: In your opinion, is there any
relevance to the one that county manager just talked -- yeah, that one
right there.
MS. ISTENES: When you say relevance, could I ask for a
clarification on exactly what you're --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You were discussing it earlier when
you were up there, and can you just tell -- say it again.
MS. ISTENES: Sure. If I recall-- I'm trying to recall exactly
Mrs. Cooper's arguments, but I won't do that. I guess I'll just go ahead
and say, I think the point you were trying to make, Commissioner,
was, I believe she was referencing 3.2.8.3.4 --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. IS TENES: -- of 91-102, and she noted the last sentence in
that section, buffers adjacent to protected preserve areas shall conform
to the requirements established by the agency requiring such buffer.
But I think the point -- I believe what she was, perhaps, implying is
that this division regarding buffer areas controls or is related to the
buffer for the preserve, and my point was, this section speaks to
division 2.4, which is the landscape buffer requirements.
We have landscape buffering requirements. The district has what
they call buffers to their preserves, and they're two different things.
And in my opinion this section is simply regulating our landscape
buffer requirements.
The statement, buffers adjacent to protected preserve areas, it
probably relates to our own landscape buffers if there were to be any
conflict between -- or any perception on behalf -- I can't speak for the
Page 328
September 9-10,2008
district -- that our landscape regulations interfered with the protection
of wetlands, but I really haven't contemplated that. I've never been
asked to apply that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does section three in what we see on
the visualizer, does that -- does that apply to this situation, any of it?
Actually what is outlined in the first statement -- actually it's got the
borders around it, and then it says, any buildable lot or parcel subject
to abutting protected preserves. Does that pertain to this issue?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. And the comment I made before we took a
lunch break, I believe, was that when this section was pointed out to
you, it was not read in total. You have to read the entire thing. I think
it was selectively read.
And what I think I was trying to explain was -- and this is from, I
believe, 91-102 -- protected preserve area and easements, a
nonexclusive easement or tract in favor of Collier County without
maintenance obligation shall be provided for all protected preserve
areas. Again, this speaks to both the preserve requirement and any
protected areas, in my opinion, which would be a conservation
easement, for example, required to be designated on the preliminary
and final subdivision plat shall have a minimal 25- foot setback from
the boundary of such protected preserve areas.
Okay. Let me make sure. Any buildable lot or parcel subject to
or abutting a protected preserve area shall be -- it should be shall be --
required to be designated on the preliminary and subdivision plat shall
have a minimum 25-foot setback -- I'll stop there -- from the boundary
of such protected preserve area. I'll stop there for a second.
This is where I mentioned earlier, yes, it does have relevance
because, I think as Mrs. Cooper argued, that this says that the lot itself
has to be set back from the protected preserve area.
And I agree that's what it says. What I'm telling you is if you
continue reading on there -- and this is where you need to read it in
totality -- that in which -- then if you continue, in which no principal
Page 329
September 9-10, 2008
structure may be constructed. That tells your staff that that is a setback
regulation, and that's -- so that is how, since '91, they have been
applying that regulation as a setback regulation, not as a lot boundary
or lot setback. We don't really have lot setbacks.
And then if you go further in there, you talk about within 10 feet
-- another setback area within 10 feet where certain activities are
prohibited unless -- and then it goes on to say, unless the above
setbacks are accomplished through buffering. And I won't go into that.
But that in total has been interpreted to mean, it's a setback of25
feet for a principal structure and 10 feet for an accessory.
I think when -- what I might point out is, when the individuals
that Mrs. Cooper called gave testimony and said something to the
contrary, this is how we used to design our proj ects, so to speak, or
this is how we do design our projects, a couple things to point out.
First of all, they are people that work in the private sector. They don't
work for government. They don't interpret.
Mr. Nino was at one time my supervisor. I was also Mr. Nino's
supervisor at one time. I was also the supervisor of the environmental
staff at one time and during this time period. So I wanted to make that
clear for the record.
But I think the point is, the change in 2003 essentially clarified
how the staff had been applying that section, and that's where you get
the distinction between this section, which talks about the lot setback,
and 3. -- hopefully I have this right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I want to stay on this paragraph.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. To answer your question, I think you
were asking if it has relevance; is that correct?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you did.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you answered my question.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But reading the whole paragraph,
Page 330
September 9-10, 2008
how do you take the -- it would be the last sentence, further
preliminary plat, final subdivision plat, shall require no authorization
including accessory structures, fill, yada, yada, yada, without the prior
written consent of the development services director.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you find anything in the Olde
Cypress file where a development services director gave written
consent --
MS. ISTENES: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- from the deviations for the setbacks
of the preserves?
MS. ISTENES: No, Commissioner, I did not. I do believe there
might be an email floating around where I even asked some other
staff, could the -- are you aware if this possibility existed or some
prior approval was given, and I could not find anything and nor could
they.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But that's the first step of
going down, provided -- in no event shall there be any activities
permitted in such setback area within 10 feet of a protected preserve
boundary, area boundary, unless setbacks are accomplished through
buffer pursuant to section 3.2.8.3.4.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. And that is the reference just to our
own landscaping code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. There is a reference to the
landscaping code, but you have to really go to that section to see what
it says.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But my point is, somebody -- we need
to see if there are -- any development services director provided a
consent to go beyond those setbacks. I think -- that's how I'm reading
it. That's number one. But then it has to go by this -- by this provision
of the code, 3.2.8.3.4.
Page 331
September 9-10, 2008
MS. ISTENES: Right. So I think what you're saying is, if the
director had not given permission, there's two options here?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know. I'm trying to
understand it myself. What I see -- and you could -- anybody can
correct me if I'm wrong -- what I'm reading is, you've got to be 25 feet
back from the preserve.
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Unless the development
services director gave an exemption, a written consent from the
development director, and you have to comply to 3.2.8.3.4. That's
how I read that.
MS. ISTENES: I read it to say that there's a 10-foot setback limit
unless you've achieved setbacks through our landscape buffering.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. So if you go--
MS. ISTENES: Could I put an illustration up that might help?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MR. SCHMITT: It's expertly drawn.
MS. ISTENES: And Joe just gave this to me, and this is -- I
mean, this is a replication of, I think, what I'm trying to say to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Exactly.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I read in that, and it says
in 3.2.8.3.4, it shows you how to do it. And in division 2.4, it says
that all landscaping buffers shall be platted.
MR. KLATZKOW: Before we go away with that, Susan, could
you mark that, because that's an important exhibit for the record.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MR. MUDD: You could give it to me.
MR. SCHMITT: Rip out the page.
MR. KLATZKOW: You may want a clean piece of paper, by
the way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's what I'm trying to find out
Page 332
.~"_,..,.....-"" i/ -11:"'....... '._'"~'-'~'
September 9-10, 2008
from somebody, you know, during the platting process, from Hole
Montes, did they provide a landscaping buffer across the preserves?
And if so -- well, the first step is, you've got to get a written consent
from the planning director and then you've got to go by these
provisions, and I haven't seen that yet, so I'm hoping somebody will
show that to me.
MS. ISTENES: Well, I do have the plats for Olde Cypress and--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not asking you to provide that to
me.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will. I need them, but not right
now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: After you've finished.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I have several questions, but
Commissioner Coyle has questions and Commissioner Coletta has
questions, and it might have some relevance to what I was asking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps. And I have only maybe
four questions, and I hope I can get through them fairly quickly. Can
you show us the entire subdivision plat showing the preserve area?
MS. ISTENES: I can show you the entire subdivision plat that's
broken out into sheets, but when it gets into the detail, it goes sheet by
sheet, and there's 11 sheets.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't show me all the sheets,
okay.
MS. ISTENES: No. I could give you a map, a colored map
that's not a plat that gives you an idea of how the preservation lays
throughout the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you show -- put that on
the visualizer, and then I'm going to ask you a question about it.
MS. ISTENES: If I can find it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, by the way, this -- this line of
Page 333
September 9-10,2008
questioning is going to have relevance to that drawing that was just
submitted into evidence because I am confused by that drawing and I
think it needs to be clarified.
MS. ISTENES: Christine's going to look for that for me. Could
we continue with your question, or do you still want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be hard.
MS. ISTENES: Let me see if I can give you an idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Without establishing the
background for the questions, it will be a little difficult to continue
with them. If the chairman would prefer, I can just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We could do some other business.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You think you're ready?
MS. ISTENES: I'll put this -- I'll put this up, and if this helps -- if
not, we can wait for the colored drawing. This is actually the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why don't we wait until the
drawing. Mr. Chairman, if you would, I'll just deal with this later; is
that okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Susan, help me with this
just a little bit now.
Now, when a person is building a house, the first thing they do is
they pour the slab. At that point in time don't they come out and do a
survey, show them how everything lies in relation to all the
boundaries?
MS. IS TENES: I may defer to our building director on that.
That is more getting into the building permitting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the reason I'm bringing
this up is, is if that's the case, why wouldn't they catch this problem at
that time?
MS. ISTENES: They do -- they do require a spot survey, I
believe, after the slab is poured, yes. And I think, again, this kind of
goes back to the presentation that Joe gave quite a while ago. I'm
Page 334
September 9-10, 2008
losing track of time here.
But when we brought the issue of the encroachments into the
preserve for these 17, 18 properties here. And part of -- again, part of
that problem was, the plat -- the replat of unit three did not show the
preserve on -- as bordering the single-family lots. And the
permit-issuing folks from the building department did not realize there
was a preserve there; hence, they just applied the setbacks in the table
and not the preserve setback, which is required when there's a preserve
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the reason it wasn't on
there, was that maps that we drew or the builder -- or the developer
drew?
MS. ISTENES: Those were submitted by the developer of the
property as part of the permitting process. You know, you'd rezone
and then you do your plats and site plans and then you pull your
permits for single-family.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If the preserves did -- were
shown on the map at that time, most likely it would have been caught
and corrected?
MS. ISTENES: I would hope so, yes, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan--
MS. ISTENES: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You made a statement that I'm
running out of time. You took your time to make your presentation,
and now we're asking you questions, so there's no time on that, okay.
MS. ISTENES: Okay, thank you.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just as a note, I know that Susan wanted to
call at least one witness to further testify on this.
MS. ISTENES: Oh, thank you, Jeff, I'm sorry. I know it was
suggested that Bill Lorenz would come up and maybe give you some
background on the permitting and preserves and the LDC
Page 335
September 9-10, 2008
amendments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I believe you started about 11 :20, if
nobody has any objections.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're still timing. She still has 18 minutes
left, including all the questions we've had.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Please, let's--
MS. ISTENES: Ready for Bill Lorenz? And I also have the
color drawing too, whenever.
Bill, you ready?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, Engineering
Environmental Services Director.
Susan Istenes wanted me to address the 2004 amendments.
Those amendments were -- resulted from the Growth Management
Plan revisions, those wholesale revisions, as a result of the governor's
final order and -- that we accomplished in the plan in 2002, and then
the final land development -- implementing land development
regulations, the LDC was adopted in 2004.
The Growth Management Plan was clear that in the urban area
the single-family residences were exempt from the provisions in the
Growth Management Plan. The provisions that we were adopting new
in the Growth Management Plan at that time dealt with the vegetation
retention standards, dealt with what kinds of vegetation that needed to
be set aside, the fact that they would have to be put aside in a preserve,
then we had some preserve management plan language and things of
that nature. So the 2004 amendments to the Land Development Code
were to implement the Growth Management Plan.
The policy -- as I said, the policy was clear that single-family
homes were exempt from those GMP provisions. The policy did not
address setbacks to preserves. There is no place in the Growth
Management Plan that specifies preserve setbacks.
So when we went through the Land Development Code
amendments and brought to the board, we wanted to make sure that
Page 336
September 9-10, 2008
we were exempting the single-family residence from the Growth
Management Plan requirements with regard to how to set aside
vegetation, put it in preserves, put it in conservation easements, et
cetera, and what we -- what happened was, when we put those (sic)
exemption language into the Land Development Code for
single- family lots, at that point we also had the preserve -- the setback
standards in that same section.
So when we put the single-family exception into those Land
Development Code, it was too broad a section that we exempted
single- family residences from the Land Development Code
regulations that were adopted in 2004 to -- because what the language
says, it's exempted from the preserve standards. But that was not the
intent of the staff.
That -- those setback -- the setback standards that were currently
in the Land Development Code were not to be modified through the
GMP. So that was -- we wanted to keep the status quo with regard to
setbacks to preserves, and we were looking at that on a
project-by-project basis, so that's the -- that's the -- that's the
understanding of staff bringing that forward to the board, we wanted
to be clear that we were not applying the Growth Management Plan
regulations that were recently adopted to single-family residences but
we, quite frankly, just had a misplaced section of that exemption
because then it exempted the single-family -- it exempts that whole
section, which is -- includes the preserve setbacks, and that's what I
simply want to be able to provide the explanation of how that came to
be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody have any questions for
Mr. Lorenz?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have a question per se to
Mr. Lorenz. I just have a question that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coyle needs to
get back.
Page 337
September 9-10,2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm in no hurry, but I'll -- if you've
got the information, Susan, let's try to do that. Hopefully it will
contribute to a better understanding of the problem here.
So let's start out with the visual of the entire PUD. Now, can you
identify the lots that are -- the lot that we are actually talking about
now?
MS. ISTENES: There we go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And is that lot 28?
MS. ISTENES: Lot -- I'm reading up-side down, but -- right
here. That's lot 28.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: And let me just say, this is not part of the -- this
is the da Vinci Estates, yeah, even though it's shown as green. But
generally -- and you see it says preserves here. Your dark green areas
are going to be preserve areas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we -- I presume that we have
in the PUD a total acreage requirement for the preserve or total
percentage for requirement for the preserve?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have an example of a plat
that shows how that preserve is identified, whether it is for this lot or
for any other lots?
MS. ISTENES: Let me make sure I understand your question.
You want to know if I have an example of a plat that shows where the
preserve is?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: In relationship to the lot or --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. Let me see. I will pull the plat sheet for
the sub -- the lot that's the subject of the discussion. Hold on.
MR. SCHMITT: It's tract A.
Page 338
September 9-10, 2008
MS. ISTENES: This is the replat.
MR. SCHMITT: It's only tract A. Then it notes it, then notes
and references. It references tract A.
MS. ISTENES: Okay. This is the first page, okay.
I'll do two things here. First this is when the project -- I will
describe it as when the project was first platted. This is the sheet that
shows --
MR. SCHMITT: Preliminary.
MS. ISTENES: Preliminary, well-- it's the first -- it's really the
original plat, and then it came in and was subsequent -- each tract.
You'll see this is tract five, then I'll show you what it looks like after
it's replatted.
This is tract five original plat. The original plat shows tract A,
conservation -- I hate pointing with my finger.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Before we leave that, that
means that conservation land goes up to the boundary of the lot lines;
is that correct? Is that what this is showing?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I have the details of the replat -- to answer
your question, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So now let's go to the next
rep lat.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: This is all in the record already, so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those are the property lines.
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And everything outside of those
property lines is preserve; is that true?
MS. ISTENES: I'll use lot 26 or 28, whichever one, as an
example. There's the property lines and then there's a 10-foot golf
course easement that falls inside the property line that's bounded at the
same line the property line shares with the preserve, the property line,
and the outside edge of the golf course easement.
Page 339
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, on this replat, the
conservation area is not identified; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: The word conservation is not used. It's just
identified as tract A. So in order to figure out if this is a conservation
area, you actually have to go back to the original plat.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: Which I showed you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let me -- let me go to
ordinance 91-102. It says that a nonexclusive easement -- leave that
there. A nonexclusive easement or tract in favor of Collier County
without any maintenance obligation shall be provided for all protected
preserve areas, okay.
Now, the designation for protected preserve areas was not
included on this replat. The regulation -- the ordinance further goes
on to say that the boundaries of all required easements shall be
dimensioned on the final subdivision plat. Required, protected
preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts or easements. Does
that appear anywhere on this replat?
MS. ISTENES: No, other than a reference to tract A.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, okay.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, my recollections with respect
to plats is that there's a certification that is provided by the person
preparing it that certifies that it is accurate and complete, and it is
signed and stamped by an engineer.
One of the problems, as I have heard you say, is that the replat
did not identify the preserve area so that staff had no way of knowing
that it was a preserve area and that's what led to the initial problem in
interpretation here. Is that a correct statement?
MS. ISTENES: That's correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's go to the more
detailed diagram that shows the wetlands designation, the upland
Page 340
September 9-10, 2008
buffer, and the lots that you had earlier. Could we take a look at that?
I think that was the one we put into evidence.
MR. MUDD: That one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's the one.
MR. SCHMITT: You want it on the wall?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd rather have it on the visualizer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Visualizer.
MR. SCHMITT: Same area.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now -- if you will help
identify the area adjacent to lot 28, which designates the -- the
conservation wetland area. Can you just indicate -- okay.
MS. ISTENES: It would be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, the wetland area.
MS. ISTENES: Well, this is the jurisdictional line --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wetland, right.
MS. ISTENES: -- that the jurisdiction, you know, agency
establishes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the next line to the left is the
lot line; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: That is the lot line that shares the same boundary
with the upland preserve and that golf course easement that I
mentioned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the contention has
been made that the 25-foot setback really goes from the jurisdictional
wetlands boundary; is that what I heard earlier today?
Okay. I think that's what I heard earlier today. That the 25-foot
setback goes from the jurisdictional wetlands line, and the petitioner is
suggesting that the owner of lot 28 meets that requirement because
they are -- their lot line is 28 feet from -- or 25 feet from the
jurisdictional wetland line.
Now, our -- our ordinance says that in addition to the 25-foot
setback, it says further, the preliminary and final subdivision plat shall
Page 341
September 9-10, 2008
require that no alteration, including accessory structures, fill
placement grading, plant alteration, removal, or similar activity shall
be permitted within such setback area without the prior written
consent of the development services director.
Do you have the authority to approve an accessory structure in
the upland area between the lot line and a jurisdictional wetlands line?
MS. ISTENES: I want to get back to that page so I can kind of
re-read it. Could you give me --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's 91-102.
MS. ISTENES: Which section?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's section 3.2.8.4.7, (sic)
subparagraph three, I believe.
MR. MUDD: This one?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. You go to the first sentence
of the second paragraph there, right in the middle of the page. No, I'm
sorry. Not the first one, the last one. Where it says further -- right in
the middle of that paragraph -- the preliminary and final subdivision
plat shall require that no alteration, including accessory structures, fill
placement grading, plant, et cetera, et cetera, shall be permitted within
such setback area.
Now, if we accept the petitioner's position that the setback area is
that area from the jurisdictional wetlands to the lot line, my question
to you is, do you have any authority whatsoever to approve any of
these activities in the area outside of the lot line?
MS. ISTENES: I'm going to ask you to repeat just because I'm
not quite sure -- I want to make sure I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're best to go back to the other
map then. And let me -- this is very important.
MS. ISTENES: It is. That's why I want to make sure I
understand it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, what you're calling
the upland preserve --
Page 342
September 9-10, 2008
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- do you have authority to approve
an accessory structure in the upland preserve?
MS. ISTENES: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Right, that actually is
part of the district -- as I said earlier, that's the district's upland buffer
requirement, and that's part of the district permit and part of the
conservation easement, and I don't believe this gives me the authority
to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you cannot approve any fill
placement grading, plant alteration removal or similar activity within
that upland preserve area, can you?
MS. ISTENES: Right. Again, that would be the district's upland
area. And again, we weren't applying it that -- the way the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: -- appellant contends, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then my conclusion -- and I'm
going to make this statement now so that the petitioner can address it
later if they wish.
But that, in my opinion, proves that the setback is a building
setback from the lot line. It is not a setback from the preserve area
because it is totally inconsistent under those circumstances. If this
were a setback, if the 25-foot was a setback from the jurisdictional
wetlands, then the rest of this paragraph is totally inconsistent because
it makes no sense. You have no way of making the decisions that this
setback says you can make within that 25- foot area, okay.
MS. ISTENES: Not administratively. I don't want to let you
think it could never be done because they could certainly go in and
attempt to modify the district's permit. But I think what you're saying
is, does the code unilaterally give me permission to do it, and I would
say no, not under these circumstances.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then the only conclusion in
my mind that can be drawn from that is that when you're talking about
Page 343
September 9-10,2008
setbacks in this paragraph, the setbacks clearly are building setbacks
from the property line and not setbacks from the preserve.
MS. ISTENES: And that's the way staff has consistently applied
it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I thought.
I also emphasize, again, that the ordinance requires that the
boundaries of all the required easements shall be dimensional on the
final subdivision plat, and they are not. There are no dimensions here.
They should have -- there should have been dimensions to eliminate a
lot of this confusion, and the upland -- or the preserve area should
have been clearly identified by the owner at the time this thing was
replatted.
Now, let's -- let's go to another question.
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. I don't want there to be -- we were
talking -- you were making a statement when this was on -- illustration
was on the record, and that's not actually the plat. I had the plat up
there earlier.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the plat did not have it
identified, nor did it have the dimensions.
MS. ISTENES: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just for the record, we're talking about
declaring dimensions and the layout plan?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm talking about the plat or replat
of the -- the dimensions of the preserve area.
MR. KLATZKOW: I understand. But your question to Susan
before -- because the transcript's not going to show this, sir. Your
question to Susan before was not referring to the plat but was referring
to the -- what's the title of that, Joe?
MS. ISTENES: Clearing dimensional -- dimensioning and
layout plan.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I just want the record to be very
Page 344
September 9-10, 2008
clear on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I understand that. And the
reason we had to do that is that the replat did not have an
identification for the preserve area. That's the only reason we went
back to that other document. But yes, that is correct.
Now, with respect to single-family exemptions, if we provided
single- family exemptions from these setback requirements, is it not
true that every PUD, residential PUD, in Collier County would not
have setback provisions from preserves?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. If the assertion is that the single-family
exemption applied to single-family homes for setback purposes,
however you want to interpret them, they -- correct. Yes, you are
correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So does that make sense to you that
that would be the case?
MS. ISTENES: No. As I stated earlier, you know, preserves are
an amenity in a lot of our communities here, and I'm sure people pay a
premium to live on them. And if the intent is to protect the preserves,
which is why we have the setback requirements to preserves, it
wouldn't make a lot of sense to exempt single-family, which is
probably the largest amount of development that abuts preserves
because they are the most valuable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, generally when we
defer to some other agency on the approval and our -- our
requirements are more stringent than theirs, do we not have the
authority to apply our more stringent procedures?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. That's my understanding, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And then this is probably
my last question, Mr. Chairman, and it is a question that would best be
answered by an attorney. Can I question our own attorneys here?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can try.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are prior interpretations and
Page 345
September 9-10, 2008
actions of staff binding upon the Board of County Commissioners if
they are not in accordance with our Land Development Codes as we
interpret them?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, they are not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: May I clarify one thing for the record while
you're mentioning the interpretation? And I did mention earlier before
lunch that -- and I think I implied I did an official interpretation. There
was one done. I did write it. I wasn't the director at the time. The
director signed it. It doesn't really matter, you know, who did it as
long as the person who did it had the authority to do so, and that was
the director at the time. So I just want to clarify that for the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you know what you were
doing when you did it?
MS. ISTENES: I thought -- yes, I think so. That's why I did it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was that an official interpretation--
MS. ISTENES: Yes, it was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- just to make it clear.
MS. ISTENES: Before we go to Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Fiala caught me first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then after you, I'd like to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mine are pretty simple. I just
wanted to go back. And you had said something about, when there are
jurisdictional preserve -- or district jurisdictional regulations and then
our regulations, that they then become commingled, is that -- would
you say that again just so I hear it?
MS. ISTENES: Sure. What I described was the Land
Development Code where you have -- and let me just use this as an
example -- where you have wetlands that are regulated by the South
Florida Water Management District, which we in our own Growth
Management Plan say we aren't going to regulate wetlands, we're
Page 346
September 9-10,2008
going to defer to the agencies. They handle the wetlands, but we have
a native preservation requirement as well. That's our own regulation.
What our code allows you to do is to put both the preservation
and the wetlands regulated by the other agencies together
commingling them. So in other words, we don't say, well, here's your
wetland tract over here and then the county's going to come in and
require these preserves somewhere else.
As long as you meet -- you still have a minimum amount of
preserves to meet but you can meet them within that wetland area if it
qualifies under the criteria for preserves.
So when they become commingled like that, there's no
distinction within the wetlands as to what section's preserves or what
section's wetlands. They become subject to the preserve requirements,
and we -- the staff tends to say, preserves, conservation areas,
preservation areas, wetlands, and they sort of all mean the same thing
in just speaking terms. But in terms of the regulations, when you
commingle them together, then they essentially become where your
preservation are -- preservation area is, and they're subject to the
preservation standards.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought that's what you said, but I
just wanted to hear it again.
MS. ISTENES: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The last question I have is, you've
mentioned or you've refer to a golf course easement a couple times;
it's on his property. There is no golf course there. I don't understand
that.
MS. ISTENES: Correct. There is no golf course within the Olde
Cypress development. Like some of the houses -- or some of the
development fronts on a -- or has golf course to the rear and some has
preservation to the rear. But for some reason a golf course easement
was platted. And this is another reason why I think the permitting
staff missed the conservation -- first of all, because there was no
Page 347
September 9-10, 2008
conservation designation on the replat, but you also had this 10- foot
golf course easement, and why would a golf course easement be
adjacent to a preserve area?
Our guess is, maybe at one time it was -- before they went
through the permitting process with the district they were trying to lay
out and figure out where their golf course would be. I don't -- I don't
know, but it was platted that way. And then I -- I believe in some
cases some people have removed it, vacated it. But yes, the easement
still is there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. ISTENES: I don't know -- I can't answer why it is there, but
there's no golf course there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those are all my questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question that either you can
answer or Joe Schmitt can answer. There was some discussion about
the new Land Development Code that took place in 2003/2002 era. I
believe we also were doing some work in regards to cleaning up the
Land Development Code also.
And can you tell me if there were things that -- when it was
basically cleaned up? I think the terminology was formatting,
changes. Was there verbiage that was changed that would throw
people off that they wouldn't realize that it was the same Land
Development Code without changing anything that interpreted
something different that took place in the 1999 era, 1996 era?
MS. ISTENES: It wasn't intended to change any of the
regulations; however, to answer your question as I think I understand
it, information was left out of the code. So that might be one instance,
for example, of somebody just picking up the code after the '04 -- and
we call it a recodification. It essentially just changed the structure
without changing the regulations. That was the intent. But
information was left out.
Page 348
September 9-10, 2008
So to answer your question, I mean, directly yes, I suppose if
somebody picked up the code and the information that was supposed
to be carried over when we did the recodification was left out, they
could possibly miss something.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Was the rewriting, was it
more stringent than what was originally in the code?
MS. ISTENES: When you say rewriting, are you speaking of the
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Reformatting.
MS. ISTENES: -- reformatting? It was -- I hope I'm
understanding your question. It was more of a reorganization of the
code to relocate and group topics together in a more logical manner so
that it -- and it was intended to be easier for the user to find like or
similar regulations or regulatory language or topics of the same nature.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we basically did,
everything was pretty much intact. All we did is set it in different
chapters of the Land Development Code to make it more -- easier,
more user friendly; is that correct?
MS. ISTENES: I would describe it that way, yes. And I would
also point out, just for your information -- and I know you probably
know this already, but just to put it on the record -- we did even adopt
a provision in there that said -- that stated the intent of the
recodification and clearly stated that, understanding going through this
process, things might be modified or left out or changed, and that was
not the intent of the recodification process. So that was actually
adopted along with the pre-codified document.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's a very important
statement there, to make sure that when we did the -- because this is --
we're only human and there is a possibility that something could have
been left out or a word changed around, which makes a difference in
the meaning, but the overall intent is that the code, back in the 1990s
and the code that -- when we went through this recodification process
Page 349
September 9-10, 2008
basically remained the same, only different chapters were basically
comprised to make things easier, more user friendly for the individuals
that were trying to figure out how to administer the code; is that
correct?
MS. ISTENES: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, Patrick White, who was the
attorney in charge of that re-org of the Land Development Code stated
to the Board of Commissioners that things were missing but staffs
going to still go by the code. It's not a change of the code.
MS. ISTENES: That was stated multiple times on the record
throughout our whole public hearing process which we went through
when we did that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, you mentioned about letters to
Carlton Lakes?
MS. ISTENES: Did you want to -- did you want me to expand
upon that, I take it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, please.
MS. ISTENES: The comment I had to the Carlton Lakes PUD
was, in my notes, just as a basis of comparison between this and Olde
Cypress and the language dealing with environmental was that it had
similar environmental stipulations or content as Olde Cypress but that
the PSP document, when it went through staff review, has the
requirement or -- you know, the setback requirement was reviewed
and was stipulated in the -- let me make sure I'm quoting the correct
thing. It says it was -- I'll just -- for the record I'll put it on. It was
AR-482 Carlton Lakes unit 3-B. The date on this letter is April 16,
2001.
This notes, the following comments were received and mayor
may not include stipulations. This is the environmental planner who
reviewed this, Steve Lenberger. The wording in all capitals is our
checklist entry, so when we review plats and plans and PUDs. This is
Page 350
September 9-10, 2008
the checklist heading. We have a checklist.
So the checklist heading for this is, check for required setbacks
from wetland preserves, and it quotes the LDC requirement. And then
the staff comment is, principal structures are required to have a
25-foot setback from wetland preserves.
I guess my point is, that was -- I mean, that was a very standard
comment and that's how we were applying the code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Have you looked at the
Carlton Lakes plat?
MS. ISTENES: No.
MS. COOPER: Could we make that document part of the
record?
MS. ISTENES: Sure. I have looked at the Carlton Lakes plats,
not personally. Christine, did you pull the Carlton Lakes plats?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, while she's looking for that, I
have another question. There is a correspondence between John
Houldsworth and Stan Chrzanowski about other communities that
have potential setback preserve problems. Do you know how they
determined that?
MS. ISTENES: My understanding is that John Houldsworth,
who reviews all of our plats, engineering and engineering review, had
knowledge of those developments that have these large
preserve/wetland areas. And, quite frankly, if you just pull up the
aerial on the clerk's website or the Property Appraiser's website, you
can look at houses and see where they are close.
So did he do a scientific measurement? No. But I even could tell
when I went on 0 Ide Cypress without knowing exactly which
properties encroached, which ones probably did, and then we
confirmed that when we pulled the building permits and the spot
surveys.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're talking about the property
appraiser's GIS?
Page 351
September 9-10, 2008
MS. ISTENES: Correct, the Property Appraiser's GIS, the aerial.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Property Appraiser has lines on
there showing the boundary lines of a lot?
MS. ISTENES: I'll blame Stan Chrzanowski for this. First of all
I don't rely -- I don't rely on those lines because they're -- you're
looking at an aerial photograph and there's distortion depending on
how far away you are from the ground and where you're snapping a
picture, and then the lines are overlaid on that. So I would not rely on
the lot lines; however, you can see the clear distinction between where
the preserve area starts generally because people have cleared their
back yard, and then your preserve area is woods or wetland vegetation
or what have you.
So, again, it's one of those, you kind of do preliminary research,
say, ooh, that house looks a bit close -- pretty close to the lot line.
Then we pull the building permits and look at the information spot
surveys to make a final determination.
So my understanding is John knew of the projects that had
preserves and put that list together by doing that type of exercise.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So he went to the GIS first?
MS. ISTENES: That's my understanding. I don't know what his
exact steps -- or whatever. But my understanding is he didn't do a
whole lot of scientific research. He believed that these were areas
where -- that might have a problem, and we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it a problem that I ask Mr.
Houldsworth up?
MR. KLATZKOW: Call him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it okay?
MR. KLATZKOW: Call him.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No objections?
I would like to know how it's -- how it was done.
MR. HOULDSWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. John
Houldsworth with your Engineering and Environmental Section.
Page 352
September 9-10, 2008
Susan's correct. We went through the GIS aerials of projects
developed around the same time that had preserve areas to see kind of
if we had a big problem. I kind of anticipated the board might want to
know the -- is this an isolated incident here or is this throughout the
county .
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you used the Property
Appraiser's website?
MR. HOULDSWORTH: Yes, sir. Didn't pull PUDs or building
permits. I think in the memo I said these appear to have a problem,
that further investigation would be required.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
MR. HOULDSWORTH: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I ask Mr. Schmitt something?
MR. SCHMITT: Sure. Every right to. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did the county manager forward you
an email, I think it was this weekend, I sent him about a house that I
seen on the GIS that the property lines --
MR. MUDD: No, I haven't sent that to him yet.
MR. SCHMITT: No. No, sir. I did not see that email.
MR. MUDD: No. You did send me one. There was no address
on it. I was going to get with you when we had some time if you
could tell me where the address was so we can go out and measure it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll give it to you right now. Did you
look at that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you see where the roof line was
right on that --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- GIS property line?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And again, staff doesn't go by the
property line that's sitting on the GIS maps for the Property Appraiser.
If there's a problem in the particular issue, we go out there andI
Page 353
September 9-10, 2008
visually inspect.
MR. SCHMITT: I will do two things. We will pull the record of
the PUD. We'll pull the spot.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what your engineer just said
was he used the GIS --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to make that determination.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. And what I sent the county
manager, I thought for sure he'd forward it to you, was a house, and
one side of the house the side yard setbacks, it was right on the roof
line. And I believe the side yard setbacks was seven feet that I got out
of the PUD --
MR. MUDD: Seven feet, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- out of the Fiddler's Creek PUD? It
was Joe Schmitt's house.
MR. SCHMITT: There you go.
MR. MUDD: Well, I'll have Joe go out there and measure it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you might get a letter from your
engineering department saying you might have a problem.
MR. SCHMITT: I have a problem. I know for sure my spot
surveys are correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know that?
MR. SCHMITT: I do know that because I had it resurveyed
when the house next to me on both sides of me were rebuilt, and to
make sure that the lines were correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that the proper way to check
setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: Setbacks, through a land surveyor, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it the proper way to do it on the
GIS?
MR. SCHMITT: GIS is incor -- the GIS is not accurate. It's a
visual representation. It's an overlay of lot lines on an aerial
Page 354
September 9-10, 2008
photograph. It's not orthographically registered, it's not an
orthographic representation. It's nothing more than an aerial
representation, and it's just an initial investigation.
And I'll put on the record, when this first came up, I directed my
staff to do an assessment of where the other areas were and where
there were other potential problems in the county.
We have since taken this list -- because John works with the
platting and subdivision approvals. I asked engineering to do an
analysis so we could at least get an estimate of, were there problems.
Susan's staff has gone much further into evaluating PUDs, PUD
language.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- my only point is, your staff did an
analysis --
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- using a tool but not the correct tool.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, but the correct tool just for an initial
observation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Observation--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- yes. But you wouldn't send code
enforcement out or call this person up and say, hey, you've got a
problem here on your setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely not. No way would we -- the next
thing we do is --
MR. MUDD: Except in Mr. Schmitt's case.
MR. SCHMITT: In my case maybe, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're a professional engineer,
correct?
MR. SCHMITT: I am not a registered professional engineer. I
have a master's degree in civil engineering, construction management,
Page 355
September 9-10, 2008
but I am not a register professional engineer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But you know setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: I know setbacks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Especially in Olde Cypress.
The Carlton Lakes plat, do we have a copy of that?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know which portion you want. I can
start right from the cover page.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The preserve.
MR. MUDD: Preserve.
MR. SCHMITT: I need to get my glasses. There's several
different areas.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's that in yellow? Scoot over.
MR. SCHMITT: That's open space.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There is a preserve -- I think
we need to go to the next one.
MR. MUDD: Go to the next one.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to ask John to come up. These -- I
haven't even looked at these, so --
MR. HOULDSWORTH: John Houldsworth again. I just got
these during our lunch break, the three that came up this morning.
What you're looking at, the circle indicates wetland conservation
area. The two lots in blue are, you know, 35-foot lots or something
adjacent to the wetland conservation area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. HOULDSWORTH: Again, looking at this on the Property
Appraiser's website, all the lots appear to meet setbacks in the rear.
It's when you get to these end Dunkleberger lots that seem to have the
problems.
MR. SCHMITT: We would have to determine if the PUD
language allowed for some relief from the setbacks. I don't know.
Susan's not here. Christine, we have done that.
We haven't pulled that project yet. We would have to determine
Page 356
September 9-10, 2008
if there's some kind of relief in the PUD, PUD language. We have
PUDs that go to zero setback for preserves. It's in the language.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. In fact, my assistant, my aide,
who's not a certified aide, went through Mr. Houldsworth's list and
found many of them that spelled out deviations from the setbacks.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and we're well aware of that. We've done
all that on most of the analysis. That em ail was an initial assessment,
and that's all it was meant to be.
And Susan's staff has done a pretty extensive evaluation of
whether the setbacks -- or there's some sort of relief from the setback
requirements.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm just curious, this line of
questioning -- I'm sure there's a good reason for it -- how does it relate
back to the problem at hand?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's what was mentioned. And,
you know, I recognize that we have some problems out there, but
more so -- and we'll have to figure that out together is, what was the
intent of the code?
And I guess we need to do that at a later point. But I'm just
recognizing that we have some problems out there, if the -- if we
uphold the interpretation by the zoning director, and we'll have to deal
with those one at a time.
And the point is, the official interpretation is on Olde Cypress. It
is not on other ones. I don't know what the Carlton Lake PUD says or
-- I know what some of them do say, and they are deviating from the
25- foot setback. But we'll have to take one issue at a time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm done with questions. Does
anybody else have any questions?
You have --
Page 357
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: I have some questions. Is this the time or do I
wait?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, this is the--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This is your time.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is the time if you'd like to
.
cross-examIne.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and you have 10 minutes to do
so.
MS. ASHTON: Do you want to take a break?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We've got -- 2:30 is the break
time.
MS. ASHTON: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It just feels later.
MS. COOPER: Might be easier if you use that microphone and
I'll use this one.
MS. ISTENES: Okay.
MS. COOPER: Ms. Istenes, I just want to clarify and make sure
I heard what you said correctly. I want to -- first I want to distinguish
between what Commissioner Halas was talking about. There are
essentially three code modifications. One was ordinance 03-27, one
was ordinance 04-08, and then the third one was when you revamped
everything, correct?
MS. ISTENES: That's correct. That would be 04-41.
MS. COOPER: Right. So the ordinance that Commissioner
Halas is talking about, the revamping and recodification, are different
from the two amendments that we addressed earlier, correct?
MS. ISTENES: Correct.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And those were substantive changes,
correct?
MS. ISTENES: They were changes to the language of the LDC.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Great.
And if I understood you correctly, you said that the exemption
Page 358
September 9-10, 2008
for previously platted areas dealt with those changes that were in
ordinance 03-27 and 04-08, correct?
MS. ISTENES: I believe I was specifically referring to 03-27.
I'm not sure about 04-08. We didn't really talk about it.
MS. COOPER: Okay. All right. So what -- if I understand you
correctly then, what you're saying is, we go back to the standards that
existed in 1991, and that's what we're interpreting. It's not the changes
that came about in ordinance 03-27.
MS. ISTENES: I am not sure I understand your question.
MS. COOPER: Okay. If ordinance 03-27 exempted out
previously platted subdivisions, what we're talking about is the
standards that existed before that, the 1991 code. That's what your
interpretation is really about; isn't that correct? That's what I thought I
heard you say. I just want to clarify.
MS. ISTENES: I guess I'm understand -- distinguish between the
differences. I certainly know what an amendment is to the code, but
not sure where you're trying to distinguish between the interpretation
and that amendment to the code.
MS. COOPER: I'll put it up on the visualizer, the ones that I had.
MR. MUDD: Okay, sure. Yours are easy.
MS. ISTENES: Is this --
MS. COOPER: Here's the amendment. The -- the amendment
that came about in '03 that added --
MR. MUDD: Hang on. I'll get it big for you, get it so it's
readable.
MS. COOPER: All right. It added this language, all principal
structures shall have a minimum 25 setback ( sic) from the boundary of
any preserve. Added that language. And then it had an exemption,
and it said -- it said, any final subdivision plat is exempt from that
change, correct?
MS. ISTENES: That's correct.
MS. COOPER: And if I understood it, you said anything that
Page 359
September 9-10, 2008
came of any changes that occurred in that '03 amendment didn't apply;
we weren't interpreting those changes?
MS. ISTENES: I'm -- again, I apologize. I'm still not following.
What the -- what I said was, 91-102 had the language you were
referring to with respect to the lot setbacks.
MS. COOPER: Right.
MS. ISTENES: 03-27 then added that preserve language __
MS. COOPER: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: -- that talked about required setbacks to
preserves --
MS. COOPER: Correct.
MS. ISTENES: -- and referenced principal structures.
MS. COOPER: Right. And you said that's -- that was
exempted?
MS. ISTENES: No. What I said was exempt was the new
language that was added.
MS. COOPER: Well, that -- isn't the underlining new language?
MS. ISTENES: The -- well, yes and no. And it has -- and I've
actually highlighted what I would define as the new language. And
my explanation was --
MS. COOPER: Well, my question is, isn't (sic) underlining
mean that's new language; it's added in the code?
MS. ISTENES: Not necessarily. It could have been moved.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just to clarify. Sometimes when we change
section numbers, okay, we'll -- when we're putting it from one end of
the code to the other, we will strike through one, then we will
underline the other. So what appears to be new really isn't new. It's
just being relocated through the LDC.
MS. COOPER: No, I understand that, but it wasn't removed
from the other section. The other section has lot line setbacks. This
all of a sudden says principal structures shall have a minimal 25- foot
setback.
Page 360
September 9-10, 2008
MS. ISTENES: I would describe that as is described in this
statement of the change that went before the board as an incorporation
of some of our native vegetation preservation requirements that
currently exist in the LDC and GMPs or have been policy and
procedures for the past five years or greater into one easily accessible
section regarding preserves.
This amendment also clarifies language to better reflect how staff
currently applies existing code provisions and provides details that
have been requested by the development community to provide
needed guidance.
The intent of the proposed amendments is to provide minimum
criteria for on-site preserves. My explanation would be, is it
technically new language like the word structure didn't exist? The
word structure existed, maybe not in the same context, but it does
exist, and as is stated in the description of the change, it was
essentially to clarify how staff had been applying the language since
1991.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Now, you're saying how -- you're saying
it's a clarification how staff consistently applied it since 1991, but you
heard Mr. Arnold say that that's not the way he applied it, Mr. Nino
say that's not the way he applied it, and all of these people who have
dealt with the county through all these years saying that's not the way
they applied it. You heard all those people testify, correct?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Now, isn't it true also that -- Ms. Istenes,
that you gave the Board of County Commissioners a supplemental
memo in addition to your official interpretation?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MS. COOPER: And in your supplemental memo you
acknowledge that the prior -- that your predecessors in office did not
apply it or interpret it the same way you did, correct?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
Page 361
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: Okay. And as a matter of fact, you stated in
your memo to them, I also believe that my opinion as zoning director
today may not have been uniformly shared by a number of the former
since 1991 planning managers or directors. That's what you said,
correct? And that's true? That testifies.
MS. ISTENES: There is no official interpretation done on this
subject until 2003.
MS. COOPER: I'm not talking about official interpretation. I'm
talking about how the county did business day in, day out, day in, day
out. Your predecessors did business differently than you are doing
business, correct?
MS. ISTENES: I believe they did.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And Olde Cypress was platted in the
manner and was approved in the manner in which the county used to
do business, correct?
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure I would agree with that only
because I don't know the details of the Olde Cypress platting to that
degree.
MS. COOPER: Okay. But you don't have any reason to dispute
Mr. Cole's testimony that that's the way it happened or Mr. Nino's
testimony that it was approved under the old rules, correct? You just
don't know one way or the other way?
MS. ISTENES: No. I -- I do know. It's -- sometimes the way
individuals did business in the county wasn't lawful and that was part
of what the memo was intending to imply without coming out directly
and stating it. That's not the only reason, but that is one of the
reasons.
MS. COOPER: Okay. They did things differently than the way
that you're interpreting; their interpretation was different than yours,
correct?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Now, I have the platting rules. This is
Page 362
September 9-10, 2008
the amendment that changed the platting rules, and the way that the
platting rules used to read was that any buildable lot or parcel abutting
a preserve, any buildable lot, the lot line shall have a minimum
setback from the boundary of the preserve in which no principal
structure may be constructed at 25 feet.
Then it goes down at the bottom and the language that was
stricken out, that was taken out in the '03/'04 amendments says, unless
the setbacks are accomplished through buffering pursuant to section,
et cetera.
Now, you've heard that -- your predecessors get up here and say
that the way that they interpreted that language and the way they
applied it was that they would take the upland buffer that would count
instead of a setback, that would set the lot line, and that's end of
discussion. Then you just go to the construction setback schedule in
the PUD document itself. You heard them all testify to that, correct?
MS. ISTENES: I believe that's what they said, yeah.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And you acknowledge that, in your
supplemental memo to the board, that that's the way the county did
business back then?
MS. ISTENES: I wouldn't describe it as that way. I would just
describe it as, I believe some of my predecessors applied things
differently. It was just a general statement.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Now, I -- in my preparation for today, I
asked the county if you had ever initiated a memorandum or had a
meeting and advised or did any training in that you were going to do
interpretations differently before the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Cooper?
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your time has ran out, so you're
going to have to try to wrap up, please.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Well, the response I got back -- and I'll
put it into evidence -- from the county was, there's not a memo or
Page 363
September 9-10, 2008
other documentation that advises of any change in training in the
interpretation in advance of your official interpretation.
To our knowledge we're not aware of anyone in Olde Cypress
who was turned down construction plans for a home in violation of the
new interpretation.
Isn't it true you didn't have a staff meeting to say, okay, I know
all the people before me interpreted or applied it differently, but we're
going to change it?
MS. ISTENES: That's because there was no change. I told you
we were consistently applying the 25-foot setback since --
MS. COOPER: Since you became --
MS. ISTENES: -- since I was -- since '96 when I was first
employed with the county.
MS. COOPER: Well, that's not what these other people are
saying, and that's not what you said a minute ago.
MS. ISTENES: I signed off on my staff reports that had
language in there that talked about setbacks to preserves.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great.
Mr. Brooker, do you -- you wish to inquire?
MS. COOPER: Mr. Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Could I address one other minor point on a
totally different subject that I haven't touched upon with Ms. Istenes?
It's very -- I'll be very brief.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Was it --
MR. MUDD: I think, Commissioner, they all have, at the end,
they have 10 minutes to wrap up or whatever, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you're going to be brief, I think it's
appropriate to finish up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I was going to ask --
MS. COOPER: It's on the--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- what is brief?
Page 364
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: It's on the single-family exception, and I do have
just a couple questions about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Mrs. Istenes, all right, the -- you end up
with an interpretation when things -- when your code is ambiguous;
isn't that correct?
MS. ISTENES: I'm not sure what you're asking me. Could you
repeat it?
MS. COOPER: Well, if the language is clear, there's no need to
interpret. It's only if there's an ambiguity that there's a need to
interpret, that people can read things two different ways; isn't that
correct?
MS. ISTENES: That would be one reason for an interpretation,
sure.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And that's what they teach us in law
school, you need to interpret when you have two different meanings.
Okay. And I read the single-family exemption language, and you
talked about, that there was an unfortunate placement, that we didn't
really mean what the words say; isn't that correct?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MS. COOPER: But the words say what they say and the words
say that single-family residences are exempt from all of these
requirements, including that setback. That's what the words say; isn't
that true? I know that wasn't your intent.
MS. ISTENES: Let me qualify -- well, that wasn't my intent,
you're correct, and that is why Mr. Lorenz came up.
You may want to question him on that because he's got the
background that has to do with the GMP amendments and the
implementation of the GMP and the LDC.
MS. COOPER: Okay. But -- I understand what you talked
about, unfortunate placement of language and you didn't think that
was the intent. But you would agree, would you not, that the language
Page 365
September 9-10,2008
in here clearly says single-family residences are exempt from the
requirements of section 3.08.07H; and we go to H, and that's where
the minimum 25-foot setback is found, correct?
MS. ISTENES: That's one place, yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And would you not agree with me that if
there's no ambiguity in this language and the words say what they say
and they're not going to jump around on that piece of paper, there's no
need to interpret?
MS. ISTENES: No, I wouldn't agree with you, because there's
ambiguity in other parts of the code, and that's why we're here.
MS. COOPER: Well, would -- you do agree with me that the
words in 3.05.07 are clear, single-family residences are exempt from
these requirements?
MS. ISTENES: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Why don't we -- if -- Mr.
Brooker, do you have any questions from Mrs. Istenes? No. So we
got rid of that.
Mr. Dunkleberger, do you have any questions?
MR. DUNKLEBERGER: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the only affected party.
MR. KLATZKOW: Next up is Mr. Brooker, ifhe wants time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. KLATZKOW: Next up would be Mr. Brooker, ifhe wants
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's break time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He told me he didn't want to say
anything.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm hoping.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take a 10-minute
break.
Page 366
September 9-10, 2008
(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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Brooker, I believe you're on deck
and you have one hour.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Holy!
MR. BROOKER: For the record, Clay Brooker with the law
firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, & Johnson. I don't intend to use
my full hour; hopefully I can get through this very quickly. I can
guarantee you I won't be as long as Ms. Cooper has been.
I represent the owners of the home next door to the Grider home.
Those owners are Melissa Showalter and Carol Kolflat as trustees.
We are not a party to this appeal, but we are the homeowner most
affected by the Grider home because we are immediately next door.
Our official position is we agree with the official interpretation.
We ask that you vote to affirm it.
I have -- I have a notebook that I'm going to go through, just has
a few little things in it. Trust me, we won't be looking at every page.
It's just select pages. But I have made courtesy copies for each of the
commissioners. Commissioners' discretion, if you'd like to follow
along in the notebook, that's fine; otherwise, I can show you on the
illustrator as I go through. That's up to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we use the illustrator,
please.
MR. BROOKER: Perfect.
Just for record purposes, I do have a copy of this notebook that I
will ask to be made part of the record once I'm finished with it. That
will be my request.
On the illustrator already, this is an aerial survey that shows both
the Grider home and, to the left there, the -- what I'll call the
Showalter home.
Page 367
September 9-10, 2008
You will see here what I've done with the Grider home is I've
shown in yellow those areas of the home that, in fact, do extend
beyond the 25- foot preserve setback line if, in fact, the official
interpretation is upheld, as Susan has opined.
The blue area is the pool. As you can see, that extends further
beyond even the 10- foot accessory line. That gets to within about --
and don't hold me to this -- but about five feet from their property line.
So on this -- on this exhibit, this line here is dashed. I know the
people in the audience can't really see it. But this dash line represents
the 25-foot setback line for principal structures; this dash line
represents that 10- foot setback line for accessory structures.
What I'd also like to point out is --
MR. MUDD: I'm going to blow this up a little bit so everybody
can see what you're pointing at.
MR. BROOKER: That's very helpful. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And use a pen that's got a tip on it, okay, to point.
MR. BROOKER: In terms of the Showalter home next door, I'd
like to point out that she is in 100 percent compliance with both of
those setbacks. Her principal structure ends here and here, and this is a
25- foot line.
Her accessory structure, her patio, ends here, and here's the
10- foot line. So Melissa Showalter is, in fact, in full compliance with
the 25- foot and 10- foot setbacks respectively.
As a final note, I won't point out all the dimensions, but the --
these portions of the Grider home encroach anywhere from 10 feet to
14 feet into the 25-foot setback area.
That was by way of introduction to the -- to basically give you a
little bit of context.
A couple of housekeeping corrections to the appeal documents.
Some of these might be deemed minor details, but they are part of the
record submitted by the Griders' attorney, and so I have to correct
them so that the record is correct.
Page 368
September 9-10, 2008
First she complains about Planning Commissioner Tor Kolflat's
involvement in this matter. She's alleged, quote, four private meetings
behind closed doors, end quote, with staff members and quote, ex
parte communication, end quote, with commissioners.
As I mentioned, Mr. Kolflat is a planning commissioner, and he
is a stepfather of Melissa Showalter. He is not an owner of the home
nor do I represent him; however, I'm compelled to respond to this
complaint because I feel this is nothing but an attempt to manufacture
an unfounded procedural due process complaint if this goes to the next
level.
Mr. Kolflat, like every citizen in Collier County, has the right to
meet with staff people and his elected officials, just like I did and just
like many members of the Grider team have done.
Mr. Grider himself has emailed staff numerous times, probably
hundreds of times. So we don't believe there's been any procedural
due process violation by Commissioner Kolflat's involvement in this
matter.
And at tab 2, you may recall -- again, it's not in front of you, but
tab 2 is a letter that Commissioner Kolflat sent to each of you in
January of this year because he was personally upset that he was being
accused of doing something improper.
And he sent this letter to you. I included it as part of the record
today, but it's already part of the public record because each of you
received a copy of it, and it lays out exactly what he did and details
exactly how the accusations against him are false.
Number two housekeeping matter: In the appeal there's a
comment about the size of the Grider home and accuses us of a
misnomer regarding the size of the Grider home and then states that
it's 3,800 square feet under air.
We, in previous meetings before this board, have represented that
it is 5,500 square feet, the home. We never qualified it being under
air. I don't know if 3,800 square feet under air is correct or not, but we
Page 369
September 9-10, 2008
stand by our 5,500 square feet of home statement, and here's why.
MS. COOPER: For the record, I just would like to raise an
objection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please -- on the mike, please. You
can go that way, too.
MS. COOPER: I'd like to raise an objection. The size of the
home's not an issue on the setback to preserve, which is the issue
being discussed today, and I don't think it has any relevance, and we'd
object to any discussion of it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I agree with that.
MR. BROOKER: Very brief response. It's footnote one to her
appeal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You're responding to her
appeal?
MR. BROOKER: Yes. On the screen today right now in front of
you is the Property Appraiser's description of the size of the house,
and you'll see at the bottom 5,270 square feet.
And then in addition I'll show you Mr. Grider's own
representation of how big his home is. That's the building permit.
This number, 5,585 is where we got that number. That is the building
permit that Mr. Grider's consultants applied for. That's Mr. Grider's
own number.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is not a relevant official
interpretation.
MR. BROOKER: I'm moving on, moving on.
Housekeeping matter -- this is a final housekeeping matter --
number three. One of the letters made part of the record by Ms.
Cooper claims that Melissa Showalter -- this is a quote. Melissa
Showalter claims to have complied with the alleged 25- foot setback;
however, she fails to show that she ever asked for less and was
refused. To the contrary, her house placement was her choice. She
opted for a bigger back yard, end quote. That's Ms. Cooper's letter
Page 370
September 9-10, 2008
February 29, 2008, made part of the record, page 13 of that letter.
It is true that her house complies with the preserve setback;
however, the remainder of Ms. Cooper's statement is untrue. On
October 23, 2007, when this matter first appeared before the board,
Melissa Showalter got up and told each of you exactly what had
happened to her. She asked to have her patio extended further back.
She wanted a smaller back yard or a bigger patio. And what was she
told? No. And why? You have a preserve setback you have to honor.
So I wanted to make that clear that, in fact, she complies and this
was not her choice. She wanted something bigger and was refused
because the regulations required it and she dropped the issue.
And that will lead to -- that's a good segue into my next tab 4 of
my notebook, which will become part of the record hopefully, and that
is the transcript of October 23,2007, before you.
If you recall, that was when this first issue -- this issue first came
before each of you, and at that point in time, the commission decided
that administrative variances should be granted out. There's 17 homes
that were in discussion, 15 of them could be cured by administrative.
That left just two.
All of that discussion, I guess not surprisingly, was left out of the
record by Ms. Cooper and I want to make sure it's in the record
because that shows the issue came before the BCC, the BCC made a
determination that the preserve setback does, in fact, apply, but then
subsequently they wanted to make sure -- you guys wanted to make
sure, and asked Susan to render an official interpretation, and she has
done so, and that's why we're here today.
My next tab -- and now we'll get to the meat. My next tab is the
PUD ordinance for Olde Cypress. That's just a title page to show you
that it is ordinance 2000-37 we're working off of, and now I just want
to flash a couple of pages up from that ordinance.
This first section basically, probably unnecessary at this point. It
just stands for the proposition that if the PUD is silent as to any
Page 371
September 9-10, 2008
particular regulation but the LDC calls for something else, the LDC
governs, and that's what this particular provision stands for. The
provisions of those other applicable regulations not otherwise
provided for in this PUD remain in full force and effect.
And the next page, this is section 7, page 1 or section 7.03 of the
PUD. It references division 3.2. I just want to -- just for clarification
purposes, everyone was clear, division 3.2 back then was a
subdivision section of the LDC. The subdivision section you'll see in
a minute is the section that includes the 25-foot language that we've all
been talking about here today. But I just wanted to put this page up so
you know the PUD, the intent was to make sure division 3.2, the
subdivision regulations applied.
Section 7, page 4 of the PUD. Here is the dimensions table.
You'll notice there's nothing highlighted, and that's on purpose
because there is no preserve setback set out in that dimensions table.
As a matter of fact, if you searched throughout the entire PUD,
are you going to find the words preserve setback? You won't. And
what does that mean? According to the previous section, according to
the LDC, according to an official interpretation, referenced by Susan
earlier, the LDC governs when the PUD is silent. The LDC
provisions not overridden by the PUD remain in full force and effect.
Finally, page -- section 9, page 6, or section 9.09 of the PUD is
entitled, substitutions to be county's subdivision regulations. Here's a
section specifically designated that if you don't want a particular
section of the LDC division 3.2 to apply to your project, you spell it
out. There's eight of them. I think there's eight -- eight, A through H.
You don't find in there an exception to the 25-foot rule that we'll see in
a minute that's in the subdivision regulations.
Again, there was no intent at least expressed here to exempt 0 Ide
Cypress from the subdivision regulations and the 25-foot setback
contained therein.
Tab 6. And this is going to be a little bit redundant because I
Page 372
September 9-10, 2008
think Commissioner Coyle may have stole some of my thunder. This
is from ordinance 91-102. It is section 3.2.8.4.7.3 of the old -- of the
old LDC. And I'm not going to bother going through this again.
We've been through it backwards and forwards, I think, four times
today.
But I think it's clear in the beginning it talks about a 25-foot
setback, the portion that's highlighted, and I know we've talked about
other portions that aren't highlighted and they've all been valid points,
but 25- foot setback in which no principal structure may be
constructed. Then we go on and it says, if you're going to go less than
that, you need prior consent of the development services director.
There's been no evidence of that.
And then -- then we get into the 10- foot provisions that have
been interpreted as the accessory structure setback, and then that last
phrase, and I quote, unless the above setbacks are accomplished
through buffering pursuant to section 3.2.8.3.4.
So I'd like to stop right there for a second. This is a section of
division 3.2 of the old LDC. This section was not exempted from the
PUD; therefore, this section applies. There's no question.
And the PUD is silent. If the PUD wanted to state something
different, not that difficult to do. It could have easily stated exactly
what the petitioners are arguing that they want you to assume was the
case now, but it's not in there.
Now, what is Mr. Grider's attorney's response? They rely on that
phrase, unless the above setbacks are accomplished through buffering
pursuant to section 3.2.8.3.4.
What I'm showing before you was the provision of 3.2.8.3.4 that
was in effect at the time 0 Ide Cypress was platted and approved.
Comes out of ordinance 93-89. Just for the record to be clear, I think
there might have been one other amendment, but essentially this is
what it read. This is what applied.
If you read that, this is the section that, according to the previous
Page 373
September 9-10, 2008
section we just read, those setbacks are accomplished through this
section, buffering, are accomplished; 25 feet and 10 feet are
accomplished through buffering. Doesn't say you can do less than 25
feet. Doesn't say you can do less than 10 feet unless you have the
development service director's consent, which we know doesn't exist,
at least not to this point in time, but they must be accomplished.
That's point number one.
Point number two is, at the very bottom there, the highlighting --
and again, we've seen this before -- separation shall be created with a
landscape buffer strip, landscape buffer strip, which are designed and
constructed in compliance with the provisions of division 2.4. We've
heard division 2.4 is a landscaping and buffering section of the old
code.
And then, importantly, it said, such buffer strip shall be shown
and designated on the final plat as a tract or easement and shall not be
located with any public or private right-of-way.
So this is what the petitioners are relying on, so it's got to be on
the plat, right? There's the plat. Here's where Commissioner Coyle
stole my thunder. It's not there. So I think this house of cards that
they've set up starts to crumble.
They go to section after section after section to try to, after the
fact, justify these encroachments and argue that the preserve setback
never was intended to apply, but you run into problem after problem.
And on that plat, again, no landscape buffer strip shown
anywhere on the plat. And you may remember earlier, at the first time
I had seen it in this case, policy 6.2.6 of the Growth Management Plan
was flashed up there. I don't even know where that is in the Growth
Management Plan, if it was in effect at the time that we're talking
about now.
But it occurred to me to that language -- and that was -- that was
used by Ms. Cooper to argue, buffers are separate from preserve, if
you remember that, because it delineated those words in sequence.
Page 374
September 9-10, 2008
But then it said, all of those must be identified separately, a plat.
Well, I don't have it. I didn't even know it existed. I don't even
know if it applies, but they brought it up, and it's not on the plat. So
even the Growth Management Plan is brought into question in terms
of their argument.
But then they argue, it's just the way it was done back then.
You've heard that time and time again.
Ms. Cooper, I wrote down in my notes, said, you can't spell out a
different setback in the PUD. You can't call it out any differently
because a setback didn't exist back then.
I think Mrs. -- Ms. Bishop stated, there are no PUD in the '90s
that called out for a specific setback. And then when Wayne Arnold
testified first thing this morning, he said, why don't you look at other
PUDs back around this same time, and his testimony was, you're not
going to see anything called our separately, distinctly for a preserve
setback because it didn't exist. That's not the way we did things. We
just relied on the South Florida Water Management District. Is it? Is
it the way we did things?
Ordinance 99-90, Pelican Marsh PUD. This was adopted
December 14, 1999. If you remember Olde Cypress was the
1999/2000 time frame. Right around the same time -- and let me show
you what the Pelican Marsh PUD says about preserve setbacks.
Dimensions table looks very similar to the one we just saw on
Olde Cypress, but look at that highlighting. Rear yard, special.
Footnote or asterisk one. You go down to asterisk one, and that's real
small, but I'll read it for the record. With approval from PMDRC,
which I assume means something Pelican March Development
Review Committee or something like that, rear yards for principal
structures on lots which abut golf course, lake, open space or reserve
areas, and then you have a special category for it.
You can't tell me that everyone didn't know that this setback rule
applied because here you have -- I mean, within months of Olde
Page 375
September 9-10, 2008
Cypress, and it specifically calls it out. 0 Ide Cypress doesn't.
Coincidentally, this particular PUD, adopted on Ron Nino's
watch, and more importantly, this PUD was adopted on the very same
day that 0 Ide Cypress PUD was amended. They were literally next to
each other in the agendas. So on the 0 Ide Cypress -- and Ron Nino
was in charge of Olde Cypress, too.
So in one case you have silence with the rule that the LDC
governs when you have silence in a PUD, and the very next case you
have a specific exemption called out in the PUD when you want
something other than 25 feet to apply.
Ordinance 99-69. This was in the October, 1999 time frame.
This is the Forest Glen PUD. You see I highlighted Karen Bishop's
name. I think it's enlightening. No offense to her, but she was the
petitioner's agent.
Again, the same time that the 0 Ide Cypress PUD is being
adopted, at the same time they claim, no one applied the 25-foot
setback rule. We just relied on South Florida Water Management
District.
Very similar to the last two we've seen. Rear yard, asterisk one.
Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts
which abut golf course, lake, open space or preserve areas, five feet
for a single-family detached home.
If you wanted something different than 25 feet, don't tell me we
just relied on South Florida Water Management District or we could
be silent. Everyone knew what to do. Karen Bishop knew. This was
months before Olde Cypress.
Same PUD section 5.4A.
MR. MUDD: Same PUD.
MR. BROOKER: Same PUD, Forest Glen, is that right? Forest
Glen. Setback requirements for all structures shall be in accordance
with section 3.2.8.4.7.3. She even cites to the very provision yet they
claim it didn't exist, and it goes on.
Page 376
September 9-10, 2008
Now, you may be thinking, well, that's all nice, but we don't see
South Florida Water Management District involved in any of this. My
only copy, so I'm going to have to look.
Ordinance 95-5. The Wilshire Lakes PUD. Do you remember
Mr. Westendorf up here referring to the Wilshire Lakes PUD? I was
shocked. Page Roman numeral XXX-IV, ordinance 95-5, the
Wilshire likes PUD, contains an asterisks after the rear yards, and then
it says, rear yard, a parcel or lot boundary which abuts a natural area
designated for preservation: Zero feet provided buffering required
South Florida Water Management District is accommodated.
What does that tell you? Yeah, maybe there was some reliance
on South Florida Water Management District for their buffers, but
when you wanted a specific setback that was less than 25 feet, you
called for it in the PUD itself. This is the way things were done back
then.
By the way, this was on Wayne Arnold's watch.
MR. MUDD: Hang on. I'll get it. Bear with me.
MR. BROOKER: I'm going to take full credit. This was all me.
I had no idea what I was doing on this with the word processor. But
what I'd like to -- I'd like to look at this in a different way.
If they are correct, wouldn't you expect everyone to be right up to
that -- to whatever their -- the applicable setback is and not to the
25-foot setback? No one -- or not many people would be honoring the
preserve setback; again, if it doesn't exist, as they claim.
The area in the green there, or to the left, those are the homes in
Olde Cypress which abut a preserve and honor a preserve setback; 67
percent of the homes honor the setback.
In yellow, those are the homes that have an encroachment, and
this is what we talked about back in October of '07 when the BCC first
saw this. That represents -- the yellow represents 15 of the lot owners
that are less than five feet. All of those in yellow have been granted or
are in the process of being granted an administrative variance.
Page 377
September 9-10, 2008
In the red are two homes, the most egregious, the ones that went
beyond that administrative threshold of 25 percent or six-and-a-quarter
feet. I know that's a lot of numbers. But those are the two homes that
are left.
Can 67 percent of the builders and homeowners out there be
wrong? They honor the preserve setback. That's what the petitioner
wants you to believe. And remember, Melissa Showalter asked her
own builder for more, and she was told no because of the preserve
setback.
I think this also -- this diagram also is helpful, it's illustrative of
this argument you've heard that there are hundreds and hundreds of
people, 1,000 to 2,000 people, according to Ms. Cooper, in Collier
County that would be affected if you uphold Susan's opinion. You've
heard various responses to that. Each PUD relies on its own. I don't
think so because X, Y, Z.
But in this case, you have 52 homes abutting a preserve in Olde
Cypress. Two of them have a problem where they need to seek a
variance, two. If those numbers are representative of other PUDs that
may have issues -- and I've already showed you some that are on Ms.
Cooper's list. Everything that I showed you, Forest Glen, Wilshire
Lakes, Pelican Marsh is listed by Ms. Cooper as the ones that you're
going to get in all sorts of trouble about. Those PUDs call out for
something completely different. They stand on their own. But in this
case, two.
So I suggest to you that the hundreds and hundreds or thousand
or two thousand people that you're going to be affecting is nothing
more than a scare tactic.
Remember when Mr. Grider's attorney stated that his house is 30
to 60 feet from the preserve and they were drawing this distinction
between the wetland jurisdiction line and then the conservation
easement line and they're trying to say that you actually measure from
the wetland jurisdiction line and that is the actual preserve? Not
Page 378
September 9-10,2008
according to the county.
MR. MUDD: Do you need any of the title in here?
MR. BROOKER: I'll tell you, this is the PUD master plan for
Olde Cypress in 1999, 99-27. And that's good, about right there.
That's fine.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Zooming in.
MR. BROOKER: Here's the section, I've been working on it. I
call it the horse's head. That's the section we're dealing with.
Everything around it is preserve. Is there anything on here that says,
conservation easement lands versus preserve lands? No. What did the
county call it? If you could blow up that table.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
MR. BROOKER: Down, down to the other table. There, right
there.
Wetland preserve. There's no conservation easement that's
distinguished from that. The county considers this preserve. This is a
MR. MUDD: I always have a backup. I knew you were coming.
MR. BROOKER: That is not the first time that's happened to
me.
This is a document -- if I could just slide it up. See there at the
bottom? That's Stock Development's own document. What do they
call it? Preserve. That's where the preserve is. That's what Mr.
Grider's client, Stock Development, calls it, and that's who sold Mr.
Grider the lot.
Finally, I'd like to end with some photographs. Each of those
photographs speaks a thousand words. I don't need to say anything to
describe it.
This is the back yard or the back side, the lot line, of the Griders'
home. These pictures were taken two weeks ago. For the record, this
was after Tropical Storm Fay before what we're dealing with now with
Ike. And at that point in time I checked the rainfall because I didn't
Page 379
September 9-10, 2008
want to misrepresent to you that this was just an -- a deluge and this is
what just happens once in a while.
According to South Florida Water Management District, of all
people, according to their records, as of two weeks ago we were in an
average rainfall year. Last year we were in a drought. We had
received at least half of the rainfall we had this year. This is what it
looks like. And yes, that is a retaining wall behind the Griders' home
to hold in the fill and the pool from falling into the preserve.
Here's another picture. The opposite side of Griders' back yard
or looking down his back yard. And I like this picture because it gives
you the perspective. Look how close the two-story structure is to that
preserve. This is wetlands. You call it upland buffer, you call it what
you want. That's wet.
And that's just a closeup of the retaining wall at Mr. Grider's back
yard. And I should comment that one of the witnesses, Mr. Cole,
stated that no structural buffer was required by the South Florida
Water Management District. I don't know if he was referring -- if a
structural buffer is that or not, but that structural buffer is there at the
back of their yard to keep everything from falling into the preserve.
In the end, I think this case is simply trying to cram too much
house on a preserve lot. This home pushes and exceeds the envelope.
Every time you turn the page there's another issue. There are more
issues out there. You're going to be hearing about them in the near
future.
But when they ran out of land to build on but they still wanted
more, that's not a problem to get more land.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does this have to -- pertain to the
official interpretation?
MR. BROOKER: Yes. If you want more back yard, that's the
way you do it. You fill in the preserve until the South Florida Water
Management District caught them and told them to get all of that fill
out of our preserve.
Page 380
September 9-10,2008
MS. COOPER: I have the same objection. I sent a letter to the
commissioners. That's not an issue that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to get it on the record?
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you'll have to get to the
microphone. And you can go that way. Oh, yeah. That table is really
close.
Ms. Cooper?
MS. COOPER: Yes. I'm going to object to this. It has nothing
to do -- it's irrelevant to the issue of the interpretation of the LDC, and
I'd like to move it to be stricken.
MR. BROOKER: I'm done, Commissioners. Thank you for
your time. That's the fill they pulled out that they put into the
preserve.
We request that you affirm the official interpretation and request
that all documents I've shown to you here today be made part of the
official record of this proceeding. Most of them are in a notebook that
I have here and I will give to the county manager to make part of the
record. A couple of other ones were documents that not -- that are not
in the notebook, but that I will give him copies of. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
MS. COOPER: Couple questions, Mr. Brooker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, most definitely. You have 10
minutes. Do you need the visualizer?
MS. COOPER: Probably, yes. Mr. Brooker, could you put back
up your document on the Wilshire PUD?
MR. MUDD: Okay, hang on. Could you find --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You'll have to get to the mike.
MR. MUDD: Let's see if it will work for you.
MS. COOPER: Okay. I was looking for the page that you said
called out a deviation. Here it is.
MR. MUDD: I'll blow it up for you.
Page 381
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: Okay. The only deviation that it calls out here,
it says, in rear yards that abut a natural area designated for
preservation, we're going to have zero feet provided that they have the
buffering required by South Florida Water Management District,
correct?
MR. BROOKER: That's what it says.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Doesn't say anything about side yard
deviations, does it?
MR. BROOKER: No.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And isn't it true that the plat we looked at
had side yards that were abutting?
MR. BROOKER: You'd have to show me that plat.
MS. COOPER: Okay . Well, I'll be happy -- we'll get it. I only
have 10 minutes, so -- but I believe what Mr. Westendorf showed was
side yard issues, and there's no deviation but there are encroachments
on the side yards, if that's what the record shows.
MR. BROOKER: I believe his testimony was something to that
regard. My point in showing this to you was to illustrate the point that
if someone wanted something different than 25 feet, I don't care if it's
rear, side, front, whatever it means, you expressly call for it in the
PUD. Everyone knew it back then.
MS. COOK: Okay. But you heard all of the testimony of
everybody that -- we'll get to the language. This was the amendment
but it has both the language today and the language the way it was
when Olde Cypress was approved. And you heard the testimony from
everybody that said, a buildable lot has to be set back 25 feet from the
boundary of a protected preserve area. And then it said, unless the
setbacks are accomplished through buffering, right?
And you heard all of our witnesses testify that that means the
agency buffering that's mentioned in subsection 4, and you heard Mrs.
Istenes says no, that buffering means subdivision buffering. You
heard those two lines of testimony?
Page 382
September 9-10, 2008
MR. BROOKER: That's not what I heard, no.
MS. COOPER: Okay. You didn't hear Ms. Istenes say buffering
referred to -- unless the setbacks are accomplished through buffering
pursuant to section 3.2.8.3.4, you didn't hear Ms. Istenes say that
means subdivision buffering?
MR. BROOKER: No, I didn't hear that.
MS. COOPER: Okay . You didn't hear Commissioner Henning
say that's what he thought it might mean, subdivision buffering?
MR. BROOKER: No, I didn't hear that.
MS. COOPER: Okay. And did you hear Ms. Bishop and Mr.
Nino and Mr. Cole and Mr. Westendorf and Mr. Arnold all testify,
unless the setbacks are accomplished through buffering pursuant to
this section, referred to agency buffering? Do you recall them all
saying that?
MR. BROOKER: Yes, and the distinction there is -- yes. To
answer your question, the distinction is, those are your witnesses, and
the PUDs I showed you discredits it, in my opinion.
MS. COOPER: Okay.
MR. BROOKER: All of their testimony. When they were on the
watch, when they were petitioner's agent, when they were planner in
charge, if you wanted something other than 25 feet, you spelled it out.
MS. COOPER: Okay. All right. Now you weren't here then,
were you? You were working for me back in West Palm Beach then,
weren't you?
MR. BROOKER: Unfortunately.
MS. COOPER: You weren't here when that was going on, were
you?
MR. BROOKER: Which is why I'm here now.
MS. COOPER: I think the record will reflect it wasn't me. You
liked working for me. It might have been some of my partners. But I
think you and I got along all right, didn't we?
MR. MUDD: Until now?
Page 383
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: But anyway, okay. So what we have is the
difference in interpretation as to what -- unless the setbacks are
accomplished through buffering. Ms. Istenes is saying, I think that
means subdivision, buffering; and everybody else said, hey, the way it
was back then was that meant agency buffering. That's the way we
applied the code, and that's the issue we're here to talk about today,
isn't it?
MR. BROOKER: If you're summarizing what other people may
have said, I'll take your word for it. I gave you my position, my
opinion on what I think it means. If you don't agree with it, I disagree
with you.
MS. COOPER: Okay. Now, I have no doubt that there are some
that say -- that spell out a specific -- that say on preserves, this is what
our setbacks are going to be. Our setbacks are going to be a 20-yard
rear, unless you're on a preserve we're going to make it shorter than a
20-yard rear. That's what they say; isn't that right?
MR. BROOKER: Are you referring to the PUDs that I showed
you --
MS. COOPER: Yeah.
MR. BROOKER: -- that are on your list?
MS. COOPER: Right.
MR. BROOKER: Yeah.
MS. COOPER: Not my list, Mr. Houldsworth's list. Not my list.
I just copied his memo. And I'll be happy to show you his memo.
That list --
MR. BROOKER: I'm reading page 5 of the April 21 st appeal,
and it's a list --
MS. COOPER: Right.
MR. BROOKER: -- ofPUDs.
MS. COOPER: It's a list Mr. Houldsworth compiled.
MR. BROOKER: It doesn't say that here.
MS. COOPER: I just -- well, maybe I didn't -- maybe I didn't
Page 384
September 9-10, 2008
mention in my letter that it was Mr. Houldsworth's list.
MR. BROOKER: Okay.
MS. COOPER: But I think everybody here has seen Mr.
Houldsworth's list, and I'll represent to you that those are the same
ones that Mr. Houldsworth came up with.
Now, have you checked those to see whether those 25 -- have
you checked them all, Clay, to make sure that the way you're
interpreting is right and the way that everybody else who got up here
is interpreting it as wrong?
MR. BROOKER: If you're asking me if I went through and
pulled the PUDs for each of those -- and I don't know if there's 25 or
30 of them here.
MS. COOPER: There's thirty of them.
MR. BROOKER: The answer is no. What I did though is I went
to those PUDs that were adopted at the same time the 0 Ide Cypress
was and just randomly pulled up three of them, and those are the three
that I show you here today which distinguish differently than what
your witnesses testify to.
MS. COOPER: All right. Okay . Well, I guess maybe I'll just --
I guess the point is, neither you nor I were here when this was all
being applied back in the day. Those people were. You and I were
over in West Palm Beach, right?
MR. BROOKER: Yes.
MS. COOPER: Okay, thank you.
MR. MUDD: I've got all kinds of stuff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I forgot my colleagues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have anything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything for Mr.
Brooker?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. Clear as mud.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Brooker?
MR. BROOKER: Sorry, apologize.
Page 385
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You said -- no, that's fine. You said
the master plan, the county's own master plan refers to it as a preserve.
MR. BROOKER: In the 19 -- I want to be very clear. The 1999
master plan, PUD master plan for 0 Ide Cypress, shows it as a, quote,
wetland preserve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But wouldn't it be fair to say
that the Board of Commissioners adopted it and it really wasn't the
original county master plan; it was a development master plan? It's in
the PUD document. The county accepted it, so it's --
MR. BROOKER: That's fair to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. So the developer at that time?
MR. BROOKER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's all I have.
Mr. Dunkleberger, do you have anything for Mr. Brooker? You
may take --
MR. DUNKLEBERGER: Right here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no, no. Mr. -- you have to get on
the mike. There's people out there that want to hear you.
MR. MUDD: While Mr. Dunkleberger's coming forward, Mr.
Brooker just gave me this notebook, which you told him you weren't
going to accept and he could take it by the visualizer. Do you want to
accept this for the record?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
MR. MUDD: Okay. State your name for the record.
MR. DUNKLEBERGER: My name is James L. Dunkleberger,
and I live at 2968 Lone Pine Lane in Olde Cypress. I have maybe one
question for you in regards to the PUDs that you showed. You said
both Olde Cypress and another community, PUDs were done almost at
the same time. Who physically did or signed off on those two PUDs
that they didn't talk to each other or they didn't know one had
limitations on setback? Can you tell me who did this?
MR. BROOKER: There was more than two PUDs that I've
Page 386
September 9-10, 2008
referenced to, first of all. Secondly, Ron Nino, I think I explained,
was in charge of two of them at the same time on the same day. So
there -- I just can't -- I can't personally get over the fact that on the
same day two PUDs are approved. One calls for specific deviation
from a 25-foot setback; the other one doesn't. There's -- that's a
difference.
MR. DUNKLEBERGER: That's my point, being that the same
person okayed two PUDs but, however, they didn't come out the same
way as far as setbacks.
Now, what's amiss as far as somebody doing that? If I was
reviewing two PUDs on the same day, I would have to review it
knowing that one is different than the other, at least that's my ability to
do that. Maybe this guy didn't have that ability.
MR. BROOKER: Okay.
MR. DUNKLEBERGER: I've been in the service for a long
time, 42 years, and I did a lot of reviewing of a lot of things. I don't
think much went by me that I didn't catch.
Commissioners, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dunkleberger.
Now we -- let's see -- Ms. Istenes, do you have any questions for Mr.
Brooker?
MS. ISTENES: No. I just have closing comments when you're
ready.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, when do we take the public
speakers?
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Call up the public speakers.
State your name for the record, and you have three minutes to deliver
your message. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Carol Wilsey. She'll be
followed by Clay Brooker. And you're not going to be a speaker.
MR. BROOKER: I signed up just to be careful because I'm not a
Page 387
September 9-10, 2008
party .
MS. FILSON: The next speaker will be Chuck Slot.
MS. WILSEY: For the record, I'm Carol Wilsey. I'm here today
-- hello, everyone. I think you know me. I've been a resident of Olde
Cypress since 2000. My husband and I were the fourth family to
move into Olde Cypress, and I actually live on the same street as the
Grider residence.
I live about eight streets (sic) down from the corner. That
particular -- I also -- for the record, it impacts how I look at this
particular situation. I'm a real estate broker in Naples. I own my own
company. I have agents who work for me, and I look at this particular
case from -- through a real estate broker's eyes and how it would
impact our industry, whatever the decision made -- ends up being.
I'm also the professional standards chair for the Board of
Realtors, and I have been seven, 10 years, something like that, and
preside over a lot of different hearing panels. I sit on the -- I teach
ethics for the Real Estate Commission for National Association of
Realtors.
I had a whole prepared outline of what I was going to say today
but it really has -- I have to kind of throw it out, because I -- what I see
and what I hear today, I'm appalled, frankly, at -- that we are in a
situation like we're in.
I think a lot of misinformation has been given out by the press as
well as promulgated by other residents in Olde Cypress. I'm here on
behalf of the Griders because, frankly, as a real estate broker, they got
their approvals. They went through the procedure they're supposed to
go through. I rely on those procedures as a broker when I'm checking
to see how my client's building process is proceeding. And they went
through all of this. No one said a word until they were, you know,
days away from their final CO.
Residents on the street that I talked to -- and I definitely talk to a
lot of people -- had nothing but really good things to say, to me
Page 388
September 9-10, 2008
anyway, about this house, that it was going to be really big and
beautiful and, gee, no one thought that you could build on this site,
and that may be what is the cause of all of this to begin with, because
a lot of us just assumed you couldn't do anything on this site.
And I have to say, if you look at the house, it does nothing but
improve the values of all of our homes on that street. So we really
shouldn't be against this. We should be applauding it.
I'm not defending whether or not there are -- whose interpretation
is right. Both -- I think everybody's made very good arguments here
today; however, 16 -- 15 or 16 residents have been granted
administrative variances, and because I look at things from a fairness
perspective, I'm just asking that you be fair.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MS. WILSEY: If these two people have not got administrative
variances, that's not fair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Chuck Slot.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I believe he's not here.
MS. FILSON: Okay. James Kres.
MS. WILSEY: I think he left.
MS. FILSON: Diane Ebert?
MS. EBERT: I will waive.
MS. FILSON: Sharon Todd.
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ms. Cooper, do you want to
have some closing remarks? It's 10 minutes.
MS. COOPER: Yes, sir. I still haven't put all of my exhibits in
that I've mentioned. Before I start my 10 minutes, could I just
housekeep on those exhibits?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is those the ones that were a part of
the -- your packet that you submitted?
Page 389
September 9-10, 2008
MS. COOPER: The later packet? Some of them were part of the
earlier packet, some of them I supplemented in the later packet. I'll
tell you what. Let me just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, do you really have to submit
them if we already have them?
MS. COOPER: The ones --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not trying to deny you anything. I
mean, it's just a -- it's about maybe a cypress -- not cutting down a
cypress tree or so.
MS. COOPER: I'll tell you what, let me just -- very quickly I
would submit the clearing -- actually, this one's been mentioned by
Mr. Schmitt. It's the clearing dimension and layout plan that went
along with the plat that delineates between the wetland preserve and
the upland buffer. This was a document approved by the county and it
shows you right here -- you couldn't really see it very well on his plan,
but this is a county-approved drawing and it delineates exactly where
the wetland preserve is versus the upland buffer.
Next I have a page out of the district's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you need the remote microphone?
MR. MUDD: Yes. Hang on, ma'am. I gave it to you.
MS. COOPER: The next document is a page out of the district's
permit that specifically references wetland conservation areas, upland
buffers being distinguished from that, and upland preservation areas,
the three different areas. And this is pulled from their permit and it
talks -- it says that wetland preservation, upland buffers, and upland
preservation shall be dedicated as a conservation -- conservation area.
That's right from the district's permit. They delineate between the
three. And that was explained a little more thoroughly also in the
affidavit that we got from the South Florida Water Management
District, but this comes right out of their permit.
MR. MUDD: And just so, to get the top of the page, the permit
number is annotated at the top of the page.
Page 390
September 9-10,2008
MS. COOPER: The next document is the master plan. This one
was a blow-up. But for the record, this also is part of the district
permit and it was also a master plan that was initially attached to the
PUD document and -- okay. This also shows the distinction between
the wetland preserve and the upland buffer and then upland preserve,
and on the code it talks about buffer areas as well and that they're
treated differently, and all of them are under the conservation
easement. That document is attached to the PUD. It's also attached to
the -- to the district permit that was given to the county when they
approved the plat.
And I think that's it for housekeeping, so I'll switch to my closing
argument, if I could.
First, I really want to thank you for your attention. This is my
first time actually appearing in front of you, although I've had a lot of
dealings with the county, and I want to say it's a pleasure, that you
really, Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Henning, you paid a lot of attention and you really have given it a
really, really good shot.
These are very technical matters. There have been a lot of people
coming up. We've had to cram a whole lot into a very short period of
time.
And one of the things that I think about -- couple of things that I
like to think about when I appear in front of a body like you is sort of
the American way, and the American way is that we are a nation of
laws, not of men. It's not a personality contest. What you're charged
to do is to determine what is -- what is a correct interpretation here.
And you've been very good about trying to keep to the issue,
Commissioner Henning. I commend you for that, and I think that was
the appropriate thing to do and what we've asked you to do, and that's
all I'm going to ask you to do today is to go by what the law tells you,
what you should do.
And I'm glad for that. I know I'm not the most popular person to
Page 391
September 9-10, 2008
step into Collier County, but, you know, I'm just trying to do my job
like anybody else.
I think we really got to the crux of it. This -- I put up on the
visualizer the rules that were in effect at the time that 0 Ide Cypress
came on line. And one of the things in interpreting -- one of the things
that I like to do when I'm practicing law and one of the things that I
always come back to and it's always held me in good stead, is use my
common sense.
Before I go and research the law, I say, what ought the law to be?
What should the law be here? What makes sense? Because that's what
the law is and that's what these -- that's usually what these code things,
when you put them together, what makes good common sense.
And Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala, that's what you
really should be doing here today is using your common sense.
You've had a lot of testimony, and I'm going to try to sum it up, but
always go back, and what makes sense here? What makes sense?
What's the right thing to do that just makes sense in your gut because
that's usually the right answer.
All right. What we have today is this is the rule. We saw where
they put another 25- foot setback in a different part of the code that
exempts out prior approved developments. We go back to what the
rule was back in the day when this development came on. And the
rule said, a buildable lot or a parcel abutting a preserve shall have a
minimum 25- foot setback from the boundary of such protected
preserve in which no principal -- this is where the lot line is on the
plat, and that's what everybody has told you, where the lot line needs
to be located on the plat.
There were three types of situations that could come up. One is,
less than 40 acres without -- that the district -- it could have wetlands
on it but the district doesn't pay any attention to it; county jurisdiction.
Greater than 40 acres, just uplands, and the district doesn't have
anything to do with it; county. That's where the county says your lot
Page 392
September 9-10, 2008
line has to be 25 feet back from the preserve, your lot line on your
plat.
Now, let's go to the third one. The third one was agency
jurisdiction, and that's where the last sentence in here that has now
been removed -- the new rule is different. But under the old rule it
said, unless the above setbacks are accomplished through buffering
pursuant to this other section.
You've had a bunch of witnesses. I couldn't pay them enough
money to come in and take my side to this. We -- they're not here as
paid experts. These are people who lived it, administered it, dealt with
the county officials. That is clearly -- even Ms. Istenes admitted in a
memo to you, business was done differently. I have a different
interpretation of this.
So her predecessors said, that means agency buffering, exactly
the way Olde Cypress was done. You look at a conservation easement
that has the uplands buffer and then has the uplands preserve.
After you locate the lot on the plat, you don't think about
preserves anymore. The only thing you do is go to the PUD document
for setbacks. That's the way it was done. That's the way it was
approved. That's the way the Grider house was approved. That's -- it
wasn't a mistake at all.
We can all do all these suppositions and whatnot, but the people
who were actually involved in everything have come up and have
testified, that's the way it was done.
Okay. Ms. Istenes says, well, I remember preserves. I remember
that. And there's a lot, a lot, a lot of different developments involved.
Some of them involved just uplands, in which case they would put
preserve setbacks on the plats. All different things.
But what does your gut tell you to do? If she is changing the
interpretation by this official interpretation -- which is what she's
doing. She's admitted it -- do you apply that on a forward-going basis
or do you go and apply it on a backward-looking basis? That is the
Page 393
September 9-10, 2008
real issue.
Commissioner Coletta, what does your gut tell you the right thing
to do here?
Commissioner Fiala, what does your gut tell you the right thing
to do here? What have you always done in the past when you
changed the rules?
Commissioner Halas, what happens if you change the rules after
the fact? It creates a huge problem for everybody, and I don't care --
all the picking apart of Mr. Houldsworth's memo. There are about 30
other PUDs, and when you get into their site plans and you start
preparing those site plans, it's a lot of work to do them.
But he -- before all this started, Joe Schmitt said, how many other
subdivisions do we have that there's a problem? There are 30 of them
that he came up with right off the bat.
The other witnesses, Karen Bishop, everybody else, came up and
said, I took these through, and if you apply the same thinking to the
ones -- I know my documents inside out. If you apply the same
thinking to -- the same changed interpretation, it's going to be a big,
bad problem. It's a huge problem for the county.
Now, I'm not telling you you need to tell Mrs. Istenes, your
interpretation is 100 percent wrong. Actually it was changed. The
code was changed in '03 to take out, unless you can accomplish it
through buffering, and it says now, additional requirements for
buffering are required. So that's fine. I have no problem on a
forward-going basis. I have no problem with anything this county
wants to do on a forward-going basis. But to take it and apply it
retrospectively to a subdivision that's approved that's going to set a
precedent for 30 others or possibly a lot more -- and it's a tremendous
amount of work. I asked for that information. The county really
hadn't done the work to identify the specific lots.
But remember, there were 17 involved in Olde Cypress in this
one little area. And there's other areas of Olde Cypress, and there's a
Page 394
September 9-10, 2008
lot of other things.
The whole problem goes away. You don't have to do
administrative variances, you don't have to do actual variances. You
don't have to do this, that, or the third thing. The only thing that this
commission needs to do is to say, Ms. Istenes, your interpretation's
fine on a forward-going basis but we're not going to apply it
retroactively to Olde Cypress and we're not going to apply it
retroactively to the Griders, and that -- then the problem goes away
countywide. Countywide there is no more problem. So that's what I
say to you is the right answer.
Now, the reasons why I gave you the four things when we started
this, the four reasons why I believe that it should be overturned,
number one reason, 0 Ide Cypress PUD was approved, platted, and
grandfathered under the old rules. She's admitted that her
predecessors interpreted differently than she did. All right.
Number two, I think that if they want to interpret it that we're
going to measure it from the conservation line, that's fine on a
forward-going basis, but that's not the way it was done back then. If it
was the number three situation where it wasn't county jurisdiction of
preserves but agency jurisdiction of preserves, that once you set the
plat, which is right up on the conservation line, it wouldn't make any
sense that you -- it makes no sense. It becomes totally illogical. I'm
getting off track.
But this house really is 20 -- almost 60 feet from the actual
wetlands preserve; 30 to 60 feet from the actual wetlands preserve,
okay.
Number three, it was properly permitted. When -- one of the
documents in my notebook that hasn't gone in yet are the exactly --
Commissioner Coletta, I believe it was you that asked, don't you have
to have a site plan approved? Don't you get it surveyed? And I -- in
the documents I have, that was done three times, three times here. No
mistake. Three separate times. The numbers are circled, and the
Page 395
September 9-10, 2008
actual document -- and I'll put it on the -- I've got too many pieces of
paper here.
The actual document itself has a stamp on it that says setbacks
okay on the Grider house. No mistake was made. Three times it
passed inspection.
I'm going to sum up. I've prepared a proposed motion that we
would like you to do, and I'll hand it up, if -- could we just hand it
out? I'll just hand up copies, if somebody wants to make a motion,
this is the motion that I think that does it. This essentially says, for --
I'm going to try to be real simple because I have a short period of time,
but this essentially, on a forward-going basis, fine, but you can't
change it on a backward-looking basis. Whether you do it in this
hearing, at a variance hearing, at a -- whatever other type of
administrative way you want to go about it, you get to the same place.
You can do it right now. We don't have to come back another day for
this, and that's what I think you ought to do.
And by George, that's what my gut tells me is the right thing to
do here.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Ms. Istenes?
Do I have to give Clay any -- 10 minutes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Excuse me, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does Mr. Brooker get 10 minutes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ifhe needs them.
MR. BROOKER: I waive.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ms. Istenes may want to say something, too.
I don't know.
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I -- just very briefly. I won't be 10
minutes. Susan Istenes, Zoning Director. I want to do a couple of
housekeeping matters just for the record purposes.
I introduced a number of exhibits which I believe Mr. Mudd has
Page 396
September 9-10,2008
collected first, was the wetland delineation, declaring dimensional and
layout plan, the second was the color map of Olde Cypress, the third
was the checklist for the review for Carlton Lakes. That was Steve
Lenberger's checklist. Next was the explanation of the language in the
03-27 -- ordinance number 03-27 LDC staff report, that amendment.
And final housekeeping matter, I would like to introduce now to
the record the LDC section 1 0.02.02F, which is the legal -- or the
regulations pertaining to requests for interpretation, who may interpret
them, and appeals and whatnot. And for the record, I'd just like to
introduce that now.
In closing, I believe my official interpretation is correct, largely
that was based on the fact that the PUD document did not specifically
modify the preserve setback requirements of our Land Development
Code that the staff has applied since 1991.
In my opinion, the right thing to do here is not what's easiest, it's
not what causes people less grief, although I truly regret that people do
have issues with their property. But what the law says -- and I have
told you that this setback has been applied since '91.
I have been here since '96. In 1996 I was a principal planner. I
drafted many of these PUD documents and the language in them -- not
drafted, but reviewed and approved them, as did my predecessors.
The right thing to do here is, in my opinion, is to uphold my
official interpretation because it is correct, and not to acquiesce to
what's easiest, because it may not be easiest, but it is the right thing to
do, in my opinion.
I also believe my interpretation is correct because, as I stated
earlier, the county measures setbacks from the property line and they
do not take from the jurisdictional wetland lines, as I showed you on
that map, and we have done that regularly since '91.
Second, the legislative history, Mr. Lorenz's testimony makes it
clear that the single-family homes are not exempt from the 25-foot
setback. That exemption was for the native vegetation preservation
Page 397
September 9-10, 2008
calculation requirements and not the setback.
And last, the only official interpretation of the LDC regarding the
Olde Cypress preserve setbacks has been done by me. That's what
we're here discussing today, and all other oral or written opinions are
unofficial.
And thank you very much for your time and attention.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Attorney, now is the time to close the public hearing and
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- deliberate?
MR. KLATZKOW: And I've asked Mr. Mudd to put down the
parameters which dictate what your discussion is, and they're on the
viewer. Simply -- simple majority is required, and whether or not you
believe Susan's interpretation meets with the LDC is the decision here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just a note for the record, it is 3:54 at this
point in time, so I apologize to Commissioner Halas. I thought this
was going to go a whole lot quicker than it did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I had appointments this
afternoon.
I think it's an -- appropriate at this time for the board to accept all
the evidence and place it into the official record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does it need to be done by a vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did you close the public hearing?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. For one, to accept all the
documents submitted and put it into the official record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I make that motion to accept
all the documents submitted during this meeting and put them into the
Page 398
September 9-10, 2008
official record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Coyle.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
.
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Now, we don't need a vote to close the public hearing for
deliberation by the board?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are closed. We're not taking any
more testimony, and who wants to speak first? I think I caught
something out of my eye that you had your hand up, or am I wrong?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was so long ago I forgot
what it was, Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I apologize.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's okay. That's okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there somebody you want to ask a
question to?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there was. But if you
closed the public hearing, would I be able to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. We can open it back up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The gentleman that worked for
Page 399
September 9-10, 2008
the -- on the 0 Ide Cypress PUD, the engineer, what was it, Mr. --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Olde Cypress. Cole?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Cole, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
Ms. Cooper, you don't have any objections, do you?
MS. COOPER: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Cole, I appreciate you
staying here as long as you have today when we went through this
process and being available for questions at this point in time.
There's some questions being raised as far as the maps that they
used to be able to -- for staff to be able to make their determinations
from as far as where the lines were.
The maps that you submitted, did they show the preserve on it for
the determination that had to be made?
MR. COLE: Yes. In relation to Olde Cypress unit three, which
was this plat that established lot 28, we did specifically have
construction plans; and one of the pages was actually referenced, the
clearing and dimension plan, I believe. I may be getting the title
wrong, but that was one of the items admitted. It showed the wetland
line and also the buffer as well as tract line.
In addition to that, the South Florida Water Management
District's were submitted -- excuse me. The South Florida Water
Management District permits were submitted as part of the application
package, and one of the exhibits that I showed on the board earlier
showed the distinction as well between the wetland preserve line and
the buffer and the lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And sir, during the
testimony we heard today, and when we heard from the public, a
reference was made at one point by a Realtor saying she was surprised
that that was -- lot was developed, that the neighbors and everyone
thought it was an undevelopable lot.
You being the person that laid out the whole thing, was that an
Page 400
September 9-10, 2008
undevelopable lot or was that just a misunderstanding on the part of
the person who spoke and the neighbors?
MR. COLE: I believe that was just a misunderstanding because
obviously a building permit was issued for a building on that lot.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. But when you designed
it, you designed it with the idea that was a buildable lot?
MR. COLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I
appreciate your time.
MR. COLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing.
I do want to say something. I feel awful that Ron Nino is not
here. I did a little research on his Lely Barefoot Beach. Actually
there's two of them. There's Lely Barefoot Condo that was done in the
'80s. There was no preserve setbacks in the '80s. But the other one
that was done, it clearly stated in the PUD what the setbacks were for
preserves.
So I'm not sure -- I can't really ask him which one he was
referring to, but it's obvious that preserve setbacks are in some PUDs
and there are some PUDs that do not have preserve setbacks.
I find it odd that we would just say, well, you know, on these
preserves where you deviate to the -- and defer to the agency on these
upland buffers that suffices to setbacks, there wouldn't be something
in the PUD folder as stated in our Land Development Code with
written consent from the development -- the zoning director.
And I think it was, that's the way it was done back there (sic).
They didn't enforce our code. I think that's the real issue is the
enforcement of the code. Now we have somebody that is enforcing
the board's code.
So I think preserve setbacks do apply in this case and they apply
Page 401
September 9-10, 2008
the way that Ms. Istenes has written the official interpretation.
That's all I have. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion. Based
upon the evidence submitted, I make a motion that we affirm the
official interpretation 2008-AR-12880.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle to uphold the official interpretation, second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Discussion?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I'll be honest with you. I
heard too much discussion that came up today that gave me serious
doubts about the interpretation. I think that it was made in good faith;
however, I don't think that it really applies. I think there's extenuating
circumstances, so I won't be able to support the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to add that I
think both sides gave very good testimony, and it was -- this has not
been an easy day nor an easy decision. It's really tough.
But when we saw -- Clay Brooker brought out all of these
different PUDs that were then approved right at the same time but
they all had deviations in their PUDs to accommodate for lesser
setbacks, that made me realize that -- that possibly there was an error
on this particular PUD and yet at the same time, it wasn't -- it wasn't
written in there.
So I uphold what Susan Istenes has said because there was no
deviation in this particular one but there were in others. And that's a
tough decision. You don't want to -- you don't want to vote against
anybody. And I know we're all having that same problem, but that's
why I support this motion.
Page 402
September 9-10,2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, I just want to thank
everyone that was involved in this hearing today. I think that there
was an awful lot of time by each party that spoke in regards to the
research that went on with this hearing. I want to applaud everyone
that put information forward.
But I have to go along with Ms. Istenes. I believe that from the
information that was brought forth to me today, that as I go through
and listen to all of this information, I have to figure out in my own
heart what I feel is right and is by the law, and I'm going to probably
support this motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying eye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1, Commissioner
Coletta dissenting in the motion.
Now, there's -- there is an appeal to this lot line adjustment, and
that was almost a year ago, if not a year. I don't want that to sit there
lingering. I think if the person is going to appeal it, you need to bring
it to the Board of County Commissioners so we can go on.
MR. MUDD: Is it Mr. Brooker that's appealing?
MS. ISTENES: Yes. I believe that would be Clay Brooker's
applications, and the last time I spoke to him he asked me to withhold
processing and forwarding those until this matter was decided because
it might impact whether or not he wanted to go forward. And actually,
there's another one filed, too, that was waiting on the outcome of this.
Page 403
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Another appeal of --
MS. ISTENES: Olde Cypress.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Olde Cypress, what the --
MS. ISTENES: My interpretation, I'm sorry; the interpretation
itself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. ASHTON: Was it the setback?
MS. ISTENES: What's that?
MS. ASHTON: Was is the setback or--
MS. ISTENES: I apologize. I may have -- let me just
double-check on the exact topic of it. It's related to this. I don't want
to tell you wrong. It's been a while since I've had it.
MR. MUDD: So you have two appeals pending?
MS. ISTENES: I have an appeal -- two appeals from Clay,
correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One appeal.
MR. MUDD: Come on, Mr. Brooker.
MR. BROOKER: Clay Brooker, for the record. There are other
issues as I referenced with the house that we have appealed relating to
a determination of whether this lot is a corner lot, that's how it was
actually permitted, and a front yard setback measurement technique.
Those are the two appeals I think Susan was referring to. They're both
mine. They both come from my client. And Mr. Chairman, we will be
bringing them to you on short notice.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As long as it's advertised.
MR. BROOKER: Of course. Whatever the advertising
requirements are.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we take a 15-minute break.
We're not done from our regular meeting.
MR. MUDD: That's right. We're not done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're only done with 7A.
Page 404
September 9-10, 2008
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We still have to do public comment and
(A brief recess was had, and Commissioner Coyle is absent for
the remainder of the meeting.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Sue, do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then we go to staffs
communications.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're on deck.
MR. MUDD: I only have one thing, sir. I think we've been
visualizerred out here today.
But I received a letter that I received on the 8th of September. I
received it from Mr. Thompson, the City Manager of Marco Island,
and he's requesting a joint meeting with the Board of County
Commissioners and his city council.
So with the board's permission or direction, I will start to set that
up for a time that's convenient for both bodies, and I'll work with the
chairman and the -- the city manager and their chairman to come up
Page 405
September 9-10, 2008
with a list of topics that everybody can agree to discuss.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Is that okay? Board direction, do I get another
nod?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager -- or County
Attorney.
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing, sir, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala? Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. Actually I don't
have anything today. I do have, but I can't get my head straight. I'll
have to wait for two weeks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then age before beauty.
Commissioner Coyle -- Coletta? Coyle's gone.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I know you get us
two mixed up, but he's a lot older than I am.
If I could, I'd like to bring Joe Schmitt up for just a minute and he
can help explain the situation we're up against. Port of the Isles, we
have the necessary funding in place to be able to put an EMS unit and
a fire unit there to be able to meet the needs of the residents there.
Some time ago we agreed that it was a matter of safe-- safety,
health, and welfare, and we budgeted it, we got some money there, the
only thing that's slowing us down from going to the next step is the
lack of the variance.
The variance -- it could be a problem in the fact that it could take
nine months to a year or longer to be able to get it in place. And I was
wondering if we might be able to get it back at another meeting to talk
about something to be able to put in place to be able to bridge the gap
between the fire department being in place, they're going to be staying
at the hotel while they're running the engines or the EMS unit, and the
Page 406
September 9-10, 2008
time that they'll actually be able to build the physical structure or get
the variance for them to be there. Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, this -- for the record, Joe Schmitt,
community development/environmental services division
administrator.
This came about as a result of Dan Summers and the staff getting
the budget passed, which you all approved, to allow for an engine out
there and an EMS support, I believe, but --
MR. MUDD: Let's -- for clarification, real quick -- because I
don't want the commissioners to get confused because they have some
-- they have a decision to make. You sent -- you've asked for a joint
meeting of your EMSAC and your Productivity Committee to
determine your staffing and your requirements for EMS units. They
have got a draft report that hasn't been finished yet. They will come
through their committees, and then it will come back and be presented
to the Board of County Commissioners.
There is an interim measure that's out there whereby the Ochopee
Fire Department, they have some EMTs that are -- that are trained in
an ALS-type effort. The board, over a series of actions in this last
year, have procured an ALS engine as a replacement for a very old
one, and they are in the process, based on zoning, to try to use a hotel
room in a hotel across the street from 41 that sits there and the board --
we talked about that, for less than $20,000, if memory serves me right.
And don't quote me on the figure, okay, because it's right off the top of
my head.
That -- all it had to be is zoned and they would park the apparatus
there to respond to calls, okay, and they would have a 24-hour
presence and they would use that room as an operating base.
And it's the zoning issue of using that hotel room as an interim
solution that I believe that Commissioner Coletta is talking about.
MR. SCHMITT: The zoning does not allow the use under the
existing use. I think what Commissioner Coletta's going to ask is for
Page 407
September 9-10,2008
the board to deem it an essential public service, health, safety, welfare
issue, to station the truck out there. That deals with the immediate
.
Issue.
We'll be coming back -- and I've asked Dan. We would come
back with a conditional use to allow for the board to make that
decision under a conditional use with a provision of adding a
stipulation of time, whatever that may be, because Dan then is
working on a permanent structure to be built out there if and when that
ever happens.
So the conditional use is for another day. What the issue here and
the matter is, we'll -- between the county attorney and the zoning staff
and myself, we'll determine, can we craft some kind of a resolution,
you deem it an essential public service. And I think that's what you're
asking, for a health, safety, welfare.
And you can get the details from Dan, but the response time
certainly would warrant that being deemed as an essential service and
certainly a health, safety, welfare issue for the Port of the Isles.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree, especially because it's
so far out, and they really -- and it's getting more and more populated
in that area.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I had a question. I just was
asked by a reporter during one of our breaks here today, she said
something about they're going to take the ambulance off of Isles of
Capri, or they're talking about taking the ambulance off Isles of Capri
and out of another place, too, I don't remember --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ave Maria's the name of the
place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, Ave Maria is the other one.
And I didn't know anything at all about that. And she's saying to save
a million dollars. And I said, well, I don't know anything about it. I
Page 408
September 9-10, 2008
hadn't heard anything about it.
And so, then I -- and then she said, well, what do you think of the
idea? And I said, well, you know, I haven't even researched anything.
I don't even know how many -- I said, do they use an ambulance once
a year or once a day? How do you know? She said they use it three
times a week. And I said, you know -- so they're asking these
questions and I'm wondering why they're taking two off and --
MR. MUDD: You asked -- I started my statement by saying that
you haven't seen a report --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you did say.
MR. MUDD: -- from the two committees that you as a board
directed to review the staffing and the planning and the operational
protocols of your -- of your EMS section to see if all the units were
validated and/or if there were prudent cuts that could be made.
They have got a draft report, and I believe that reporter has read
the draft report and come to you to try to get your opinions, and that's
why I said, while she was trying to get opinions of three
commissioners on the dais right now, I said, you're about ready to
violate the sunshine. If you would like to take them individually and
talk to them, fine, but don't address your questions right now with
commissioners on the dais. And she backed away from the dais.
So she's trying to get you to do -- to get your opinions before you
ever get an opportunity to listen to the particular investigation, the
study that you asked as a board to get from EMSAC and the
Productivity Committee, and that's what that was all about, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see.
MR. MUDD: And it's a draft report and it hasn't been finalized,
nor has it gone through the full EMSAC, nor has it gone through the
full Productivity Committee yet, and then it will come to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'm in favor of taking the EMS
unit at Ave Maria and putting it out at Port of the Isles.
Page 409
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't start that, Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Let's put something on the
agenda for a -- deem it health, safety, and welfare.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. We would probably have to, Jeff, do a
resolution of some sort?
MR. MUDD: We'll get it on the next agenda if we can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, you okay with
that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you okay with
that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for your
help on that. I have one other item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We get some great service from
our advisory committees. I'm very, very proud of what they do. They
make our job considerably easier, especially the Planning
Commission.
And we do have a little bit of a problem. There's certain members
of the Planning Commission, and I'm sure some of the other advisory
groups, who are having difficulty covering not only the time they have
to spend here, which they've been doing quite willingly, but the cost of
gas, especially for those people living in the far reaches of the county.
What I'd like to do is have it opened up for discussion at one of
the meetings where we give consideration to coming up with
something in the way of a small reimbursement we could give them
for anyone that travels like over 15 miles round trip. They'd be able to
get some reimbursement for fuel to make it work.
I know one person in particular who's having an extremely rough
Page 410
September 9-10, 2008
time. He enjoys his position on the board, but he is having a hard time
covering the cost, so I thought I'd bring this forward and see if it might
be something you'd like to take under consideration at another
meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I'd be in favor of putting --
you're going to put something on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I wouldn't do it unless I
had some support from the commissioners to do so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. But I don't know how you
distinguish giving something to somebody that lives 15 miles round
trip versus somebody that lives five miles round trip. You know what
I mean? It's something that you might want to consider.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's true. And I'll be honest
with you, this hasn't been thought out fully. But I'd like to be able to
see if maybe we could bring -- have staff bring back some sort of a
draft of some different proposals, give us some idea what the cost may
be if people take advantage of it, and then we could make a decision
from there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have an issue that I'd like to
bring up or see if I have the support from the board.
I've had a constituent call me in regards to the way the -- our
present ordinance is written in regards to the length of time that you
Page 411
September 9-10, 2008
can either bring home a boat, RV, or a camper whereby you can bring
it home for a period of six hours and then you're in violation. And, of
course, if you have some neighborhood Gestapos, they are out there to
make sure that this -- they put a stopwatch on someone when they
bring a boat trailer, whatever, to get ready to travel.
In a boat -- this is a boating community, and I think the concern
is somebody will bring home a boat on Friday evening and spend
some time cleaning it up and then take it and leave and go fishing all
day Saturday, come home late and leave the boat parked there, and
then Sunday morning is -- he spends time cleaning it up. Well,
obviously he's violated the seven hours.
So one of the ideas that I had is that if we could maybe review
that ordinance, bring it back to the board and either discuss the
time line of either 24 hours or 48 hours where somebody could bring
back -- bring an R V to their residence, and what they could do then is
go on line and request a permit from code enforcement and then be
able to also print that out and put it on their boat or RV, the date that--
the inception of that variance to have the boat there for 24 hours or 48
hours and the time line it would be ended; so that way if there was a
concern and a neighbor called, code enforcement could immediately
go and -- on line and see if the person has, first of all, requested the
variance, and then secondly, code enforcement happens to be out in
the area and they see something in the window, they can figure out if
the person is in compliance with that variance of 24 hours, 48 hours.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What a great idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's absolutely wonderful. I
think that's in the Land Development Code as far as --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't know if it's Land
Development Code or ordinance.
MR. MUDD: We'll take a look, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
Page 412
September 9-10, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Looks like you've got full
cooperation on that one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let's hope so, because it would
eliminate a lot of problems and I think it will eliminate a lot of running
back and forth by code enforcement, saves a lot of time and shoe
leather and gasoline and everything else.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And aggravation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aggravation, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aggravation, yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I only have one thing, and it has
nothing to do with the Board of Commissioners or the county
government, but it does have something to do with government.
I -- a few weeks ago I listened to a lady on the radio that I really
got excited about, and she's been in government for just a short period
of time, and she talked about, you know, giving money back to the
taxpayers, she talked about making government accountable, and I am
just so excited about this governor from Alaska. What a neat lady.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sarah Palin, yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With that, entertain a motion to
adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 413
September 9-10, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're adjourned.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coletta and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item # 16A 1 - Moved to Item # 1 01
Item #16A2
THE RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF CODE
ENFORCEMENT LIENS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED - AT A
COST OF $10.00 PER RELEASE. TOTALING $150.00
Item #16A3
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER
COUNTY FOR CONTINUATION OF THE ECONOMIC
DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM BY PROVIDING A
CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC OF UP TO $400,000 FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2009, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SIGN THE
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY - TO
CONTINUE TO CREATE HIGH- WAGE VALUE-ADDED JOBS
AND IMPROVING THE DIVERSITY AND ECONOMIC
STABILITY OF COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
Page 414
September 9-10, 2008
FACILITIES FOR TIB BANK - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A5
A QUIT CLAIM DEED AS SA TISF ACTION FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS FOR VARIOUS PROJECTS DEVELOPED BY
LEL Y ESTATES AND LEL Y DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
- FOR THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISIONS: LEL Y BAREFOOT
BEACH, LEL Y PALMETTO DUNES, TORREY PINES,
TIMBERCREEK I AND II, T ANGLEWOOD I AND II AND
MUIRFIELD WOODS
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2008-241: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A,
UNIT ONE. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED BY
THE FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT
Item #16A7
RESOLUTION 2008-242: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF MUSTANG ISLAND II (LEL Y
RESORT PUD) AND THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A8
Page 415
September 9-10, 2008
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR AVELLINO ISLES -
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2008-243: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 2A,
UNIT THREE. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2008-244: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF QUARRY PHASE lA (HERITAGE
BAY PUD) WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
Item #16A11
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR DA VINCI ESTATES - W/RELEASE OF ANY
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2008-245: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Page 416
September 9-10, 2008
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 3, UNIT
TWO. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED BY THE FIDDLER'S
CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2008-246: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CEDAR HAMMOCK - UNIT 3 WITH
THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED
Item #16A14
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR BELLAGIO AT FIDDLER'S CREEK-
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item #16A15
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR MAJORCA AT FIDDLER'S CREEK-
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item #16A16 - Moved to Item #10L
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2008-247: AMENDING THE COLLIER COUNTY
Page 417
September 9-10, 2008
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FEE SCHEDULE OF
DEVELOPMENT-RELATED REVIEW AND PROCESSING FEES
AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES, SECTION 2-11 - LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF
PAST DUE FEES TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE YEARS
RELATING TO CONTRACTORS TRYING TO REINSTATE A
DELINQUIENT LICENSE
Item #16A18
A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR
COMPROMISE AND RELEASE OF LIEN IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOSEPH HAMIL TON, CEB NO. 2004-76, RELATING TO
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 20610 TAMIAMI TRAIL E.,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - TOTAL AMOUNT ACCEPTED
IS $5.683.40. INCLUDING OPERATIONAL COSTS
Item #16B1
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A
PERPETUAL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, DRAINAGE, AND
UTILITY EASEMENT WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 60168, PHASE II (FISCAL IMPACT: PURCHASE
PRICE OF $64,680 PLUS RECORDING AND TITLE
INSURANCE FEES NOT TO EXCEED $500) - LOCATED AT
THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF 1071 16TH STREET NE
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2008-248: A LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
Page 418
September 9-10, 2008
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) IN WHICH COLLIER COUNTY
WILL BE REIMBURSED UP TO $448,100 FOR LANDSCAPING
AND IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS ON STATE ROAD 951,
BETWEEN THE JOLLY BRIDGE AND MCIL V ANE BAY.
(FM#414534-1)
Item # 16B3
THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF EIGHT (8) ADDITIONAL
W A VETRONIX SS 125 HF COUNT STATIONS, AS WELL AS
UPGRADING NINE (9) EXISTING W A VETRONIX SS 105
COUNT STATIONS TO WAVETRONIX SS125 HF COUNT
ST A TIONS FROM W A VETRONIX IN THE AMOUNT OF
$154,864.00 FROM THE PUD MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNTS
PROJECT NO. 691242 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16B4
A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE MERCATO LLP, FOR
LANDSCAPING WITHIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON US 41 NORTH
AND V ANDERBIL T BEACH ROAD - MERCA TO LLP WILL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO
IMPROVEMENTS AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE
Item # 16B5
RESOLUTION 2008-249: A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION QUITCLAIM
TO COLLIER COUNTY ALL THAT PORTION OF STATE ROAD
Page 419
September 9-10, 2008
S-953 (BALD EAGLE DRIVE), FORMER STATE ROAD 951,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING BETWEEN FORMER
STATE ROAD 92 (SAN MARCO DRIVE) ON THE SOUTH, AND
MARCO PASS ON THE NORTH, PER STATE OF FLORIDA
ROAD DEPARTMENT RIGHT OF WAY MAP SECTION NO.
(0303) 0351-250 FOR ROAD NO. S-951, AND AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND TRANSFERRING JURISDICTION OF
SAID PUBLIC ROAD TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND.
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: APPROXIMATELY $35.50-
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES AND CONSTRUCT
IMPROVEMENTS BY THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND
Item #16B6
ACCEPTANCE OF REVENUE FOR COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
BUS SHELTERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,000 AND
APPROVING NEEDED BUDGET AMENDMENTS - FOR A
FUTURE BUS SHEL TER AT THE WILSON BOULEVARD
CENTER CPUD
Item # 16B7
THE SUBMISSION OF THE ATTACHED FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) INTERMODAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR FY2012/2013
AND 2013/2014 - TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
TRANSFER FACILITY AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER
Item #16B8
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO REALLOCATE AND CORRECT
Page 420
September 9-10, 2008
FUNDING ISSUES WITH PATHWAYS PROJECT - TO
ELIMINATE ANY SHORTFALL ON FUNDS FOR THIS
PROJECT
Item #16B9
AN EASEMENT INSTRUMENT WITH THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL TRUST FUND OF THE STATE
OF FLORIDA (HEREAFTER, THE STATE), FOR THE EXISTING
ROADWAY BRIDGES CROSSING THE COCOHA TCHEE
RIVER AND ONE OF ITS TRIBUTARIES ON V ANDERBIL T
DRIVE WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT -OF - WAY - FOR
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES CURRENTLY UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
Item #16BIO
RESOLUTION 2008-250: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT),
RELATING TO THE INTERSTATE 75/GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY INTERCHANGE
Item #16C1
AMENDMENT ONE (1) TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND
LOAN AGREEMENT (DWl111 040) THROUGH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP)
FOR THE SCRWTP 20 MGD RO WELLFIELD EXPANSION,
PROJECT 708921 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Page 421
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16C2
SUBMISSION OF THE DRINKING WATER STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOW-INTEREST CONSTRUCTION LOAN
AGREEMENT DWll11 010 TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
.
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF WELLS #34 AND #37 AND PIPELINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT 701582 - FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
TWO NEW T AMI AMI WELLS IN THE EXISTING GOLDEN
GA TE WELLFIELD
Item #16C3
BID #08-5099 TO AEREX INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR THE
PURCHASE OF REVERSE OSMOSIS HARDWARE
COMPONENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $162,065.00 FOR USE AT
THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT, PROJECT NUMBERS 70094 AND 70095 - TO REPLACE
J-BENDS, COUPLINGS AND SADDLES DUE TO NORMAL
CORROSION
Item #16C4
SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENT ONE (1) TO THE STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN AGREEMENT (DWllll 030)
THROUGH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR THE SCRWTP
12 MGD RO PLANT EXPANSION. PROJECT 700971
Item #16D1
Page 422
September 9-10, 2008
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH BERJEAN AUGUSTIN AND
MARIE CLAIRE AUGUSTIN (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
6, BLOCK 9, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $26.204.83 IN IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D2
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HYPPOLITE JOSEPH AND
MERTHA JOSEPH (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
32, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D3
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ROSELINE NICOLAS (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 130, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH REMY CHERY AND GINETTE
GABRIEL (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 137, TRAIL
RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT
FEES
Page 423
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LUIS G. PAYERO MADERA
(OWNER) FOR DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER COUNTY
IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 167, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST
NAPLES - DEFERRING $19.372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D6
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE FERNANDO CRUZ LEON
AND MARINA AGUILAR SANCHEZ (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 22, BLOCK 6, NAPLES MANOR UNIT 1,
EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $26.204.83 IN IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D7
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH AGUSTIN D. CHAVEZ CRUZ
AND MARIA G. RAMIREZ DE CHAVEZ (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 7, BLOCK 9, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION,
EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $26.204.83 IN IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D8
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE M. PANTOJA AND
YUSLEIDYS PENA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
Page 424
September 9-10, 2008
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
134, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D9
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH NORBERTO CHAVARRIA
LEZAMA AND BEA TRIS ADRIANA IBARRA (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 46, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D10
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH P ASCUAL MATEO SIMON AND
JUANA VASQUEZ LOPEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
44, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D11
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RUBEN MANDUJANO AND
CAMILA MARTINEZ DE MANDUJANO (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 43, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D12
Page 425
September 9-10,2008
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH CUAUHTEMOC GARCIA
LAUREL AND JENNIFER ELIZONDO (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 45, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D13
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LUCCE S. EXINOR AND KETTL Y
JEAN CHARLES (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
131, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D14
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LURDES A. BARAJAZ (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 42, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $19.372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D15
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH IRETTE AUGUSTIN (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 104, LIBERTY LANDING,
IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Page 426
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16D16
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH NIELIDA JAIMES (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 101, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D17
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH MARC RAYMOND CAL V AIRE
AND ORGETTE ODETTE CAL V AIRE (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 28, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D18
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH RIGOBERTO MARTINEZ AND
MARIA CRISTINA MARTINEZ (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
1000/0 OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
98, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D19
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH EDGAR M. GAL VAN AND
JAQUELINE RAMIREZ MENDOZA (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES
Page 427
September 9-10, 2008
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 115, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D20
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH LEUNIQUE EXANTUS (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 166, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES-
DEFERRING $19.372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D2l
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH AMABLE MAS PONCE DE LEON
AND ELAINE R. ALVAREZ T AULER (OWNERS) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 132, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $19.372.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D22
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DJENIE REGIS (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 103, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE-
DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # l6D23
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ALEON D'HAITI AND AMALISE
Page 428
~.~--~~"."'.,._"_._..,.".__.'"-""""._-".__~_~~_....._" ,c.",_'" ,~",. '_~_'__~..__
September 9-10, 2008
AURICE (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 156, TRAIL
RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT
FEES
Item #16D24
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH PEDRO RIVERA AND LISET
CISNERO (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 6, BLOCK
10, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, EAST NAPLES -
DEFERRING $26.204.83 IN IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D25
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JOSE LAZARO DIAZ AND
MARILE P AJON (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
133, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D26
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,260.00
RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE
COLLECTION OF CO-PAYMENTS FROM THE COLLIER
COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAM
Item #16D27
Page 429
September 9-10, 2008
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING A COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,336
TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS ON MARCO ISLAND -
LOCATED ON BOTH SIDES OF MARCO LAKE DRIVE,
BETWEEN 1 ST A VENUE AND 6TH AVENUE
Item #16D28
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE
GRANT AGREEMENT #08DB-D3-09-2l-0l-A03 BETWEEN THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (DCA)
AND COLLIER COUNTY - FOR THE PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF ONE GENERATOR FOR A SECOND
SEWAGE LIFT STATION IN COPELAND
Item #16D29
A GRANT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FROM THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) EXTENDING THE CONTRACT PERIOD FOR A 2006
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AGREEMENT (FL14B50-6002, ID #
FL14066) FOR ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE - TO FUND
OPERATIONS FOR ST. MATTHEW'S HOUSE, WOLFE
AP AR TMENTS
Item #16D30
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING
SUPPLEMENTAL DISASTER RECOVERY INITIATIVE (DRI)
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000.00 TO IMMOKALEE
Page 430
September 9-10, 2008
HELPING OUR PEOPLE IN EMERGENCIES, INC. (I HOPE), TO
FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO OWNER-OCCUPIED,
SINGLE-F AMIL Y HOMES TO REPLACE HOMES SEVERELY
DAMAGED BY HURRICANE WILMA
Item #16D3l
A FLORIDA RECREATION DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM (FRDAP) GRANT AGREEMENT NO. A09048 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $135,611 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX AND APPROVING ALL
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO RENOVATE THE
SOCCER FIELD, DIVING BOARDS, BATHHOUSE AND
LOCKER ROOMS. TO BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 30. 2011
Item #16D32
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL-AGE
RECREATION PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS - FOR AFTER
SCHOOL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
Item #16D33
APPLICATION FOR A FLORIDA RECREATION
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $200,000 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO VINEYARDS
COMMUNITY PARK - FOR INTERACTIVE WATER FEATURE
IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING A NEW SHADE STRUCTURE,
WALKING PATH AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16D34
Page 431
September 9-10,2008
AMENDING PREVIOUS YEARS' ACTION PLANS;
AUTHORIZING THE REPROGRAMMING OF DEPARTMENT
OF THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
FUNDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE
NOTIFICATION TO HUD OF THE USE OF REPROGRAMMED
FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE, REHABILITATION
AND RESALE OF FORECLOSED HOMES TO INCOME
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALSIF AMILIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16D35
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY
HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION (CCHHC) FOR
$102,154 IN CONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING TO SUPPORT
THEIR HOMELESS COMPUTER SYSTEM KNOWN AS
HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS)
Item #16D36
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID CRUZ AND CLAUDIA V.
CORRALES (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF
COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT
VISTAS III AT HERITAGE BAY, UNIT 1306, NORTH NAPLES-
DEFERRING $19.411.94 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D37
AN AGREEMENT WITH HEART OF ADOPTIONS ALLIANCE,
INC. AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
Page 432
September 9-10, 2008
RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF CHOOSE LIFE LICENSE
PLATES AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT - FOR DISTRIBUTION AMONGST
AGENCIES WHOSE SERVICES INVOLVE COUNSELING AND
MEETING THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT WOMEN PLACING
THEIR CHILDREN UP FOR ADOPTION
Item #16D38 - Withdrawn
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND VI
LTD., LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REGARDING PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES THAT VI LTD. WILL PROVIDE TO COLLIER
COUNTY FOR COLLIER COUNTY BEACH AMENITIES ON
. BLUEBILL AVENUE
Item #16D39
A MODIFICATION TO DISASTER RECOVERY GRANT
INITIATIVE AGREEMENT #07DB-3V-09-2l-01-Z01 BETWEEN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
(DCA) AND COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16D40
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) ENTITLEMENT FUNDING
AGREEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS
(HOME), AMERICAN DREAM DOWNP A YMENT INITIATIVE
(ADDI) AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDS
FOR FY 2008-2009 - THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE THREE
GRANTS TOTALS $3.089.415.00
Page 433
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16D41
RESOLUTION 2008-251: A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE
COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES FEE
POLICY AS OF OCTOBER 1,2008 AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTIONS 95-107, 95-106, 93-404, AND ALL OTHER
RESOLUTIONS ESTABLISHING ANIMAL SERVICES-
RELATED FEES
Item #16D42
BID #08-5058 IN THE AMOUNT OF $66,350, TO MARINE
CONTRACTING GROUP, REPLACING THE DECK AND
PILINGS AT COCOHA TCHEE RIVER PARK MARINA
Item #16D43
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JEAN NAPOLEON AND
CLAIRGIMENE NAPOLEON (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
37, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN
IMPACT FEES
Item #16D44
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH PEDRO ULLOA AND MERCEDES
ULLOA (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER
COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 40, TRAIL
RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - DEFERRING $19,372.46 IN IMPACT
Page 434
September 9-10, 2008
FEES
Item #16D45
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT LUNA JR. AND ANA
LAURA GALVAN-FRIAS (OWNERS) FOR DEFERRAL OF 100%
OF COLLIER COUNTY IMP ACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
116, LIBERTY LANDING, IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING
$12.442.46 IN IMPACT FEES
Item #16D46
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH VELMA VASQUEZ (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNIT LOCATED AT LOT 100, LIBERTY LANDING,
IMMOKALEE - DEFERRING $12.442.46 IN IMP ACT FEES
Item #16D47
A SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS LEASE RENEWAL
AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AT AN INCREASED FIRST
YEAR'S RENT OF $1,168.11 - FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A CONCRETE BOAT RAMP, A FOUR-SLIP
DOCK FACILITY AND A MARGINAL DOCK AT CAXAMBUS
PARK
Item # l6D48
Page 435
September 9-10, 2008
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
Item #16El
AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT NO. 07-4151, "ANNUAL
CONTRACT FOR SALE OF BALED CORRUGATED AND
WHITE GOODS" WITH MIKE ANDERSON HAULING INC.,
INCREASING THE TONNAGE PRICE THAT THE COUNTY
RECEIVES FOR THE HAULING OF WHITE GOODS FROM
$67.00 PER TON TO $200.00 PER TON AND ADDING A PRICE
ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE - FOR THE HAULING OF 165 TONS
OF CARDBOARD AND APPLIANCES/METALS PER MONTH,
FOR RECYCLING. REUSE AND RESALE
Item # l6E2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
HORSESHOE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT, L.C., CIO
PELCONCEPTS, INC., FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE
SPACE BY EMS ADMINISTRATION AT A FIRST YEAR'S
RENEWAL RENT OF $142,605.70 - FOR 9,568 SQUARE FEET
OF OFFICE SPACE NEEDED UNITL EMS IS RELOCATED TO
THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER
Item #16E3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT INCREASING THE FY08 FLEET
MANAGEMENT FUND (521) AND RECOGNIZING REVENUES
Page 436
September 9-10, 2008
FROM SCRAP METAL SALES IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 -
TO COVER PARTS AND SERVICES THAT WERE
UNDERESTIMA TED DUE TO UNEXPECTED PRICE
INCREASES
Item #16E4
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS'
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
ANDIOR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION # 2004-15 FOR THE THIRD
QUARTER OF FY 08
Item #16E5
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AND
APPROPRIATING BUILDING MAINTENANCE SPECIAL
SERVICE REVENUES TOTALING $201,267 FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF PERSONNEL AND OPERATING
EXPENSES IN FISCAL YEAR 2008 - FOR SERVICES, SUCH AS
LOCKSMITH, CABIT MAKING AND SPECIAL EVENTS
SETUP, THAT ARE CHARGED BACK TO INDIVIDUAL
DEP ARTMENTS FOR REIMBURSMENT
Item # 16E6
REJECT BID #08-5002 "PRESSURE CLEANING" - STAFF
BELIEVES BETTER PRICING CAN BE OBTAINED THROUGH
PRICE QUOTING
Item # 16E7
Page 437
September 9-10, 2008
THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PLAN - TO ENSURE FULL
AND EQUAL PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKFORCE
Item #16E8
MODIFICATION NO.3 TO U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 401815J021
FUNDING HABITAT RESTORATION AT THE RAILHEAD
SCRUB PRESERVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000 - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16E9
RESOLUTION-2008-252: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
2009 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN,
PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT
EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1, 2008 (THE FIRST DAY IN
FISCAL YEAR 2009) AND ALSO TO CONTINUE
AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF NEW CLASSIFICATIONS,
MODIFICATION ANDIOR DELETION OF CLASSIFICATIONS
AND ASSIGNMENT OF PAY RANGES FROM THE PROPOSED
2009 FISCAL YEAR PAY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN,
USING THE EXISTING "ARCHER" POINT -F ACTOR JOB
EVALUATION SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO QUARTERLY
RATIFICATION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - APPLIES TO ALL EMPLOYEES UNDER
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COUNTY MANAGER
EXCEPT EMPLOYEES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO A
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
Page 438
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16EI0
CHANGE ORDER #3 TO WORK ORDER PBS-FT-3971-07-16
WITH PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS (PBS) FOR THE
PRIMARY DATA CENTER PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$28,762 - DUE TO CHANGES IN THE HV AC CHILLED WATER
PIPING, ADDITIONAL FIRE PROTECTION PER FIRE CODE
AND ELECTRICAL CHANGES NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE CAPACITY OF BUILDING F
Item #16E11
AUGUST CHANGES TO CONTRACTS AND CHANGES TO
WORK ORDERS REPORT - FOR A PERIOD COVERING JULY
22.2008 THROUGH AUGUST 19.2008
Item #16E12
A BUDGET AMENDMENT INCREASING FY08
APPROPRIATIONS FOR MOTOR FUEL AND ASSOCIATED
REVENUES IN FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND (521) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $150,000 - DUE TO THE RAPID RISE IN FUEL
NA TIONWIDE
Item #16E13
RESOLUTION 2008-253: THE PARTICIPATION OF TWO
FORMER PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION EMPLOYEES
IN THE VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PROGRAM,
AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE ENABLING
RESOLUTION, AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MANAGER
TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM - SUFFICIENT BUDGET
Page 439
September 9-10, 2008
EXISTS WITH THE PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION
MSTBU OPERATING APPROPRIATION UNITS TO FUND THIS
EXPENSE
Item #16Fl
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS.
(IN ABSENTIA MEETING DATED AUGUST 12)
Item #16FI-A
A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR $124,000 TO INCREASE
BUDGETED REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE SALE
AND PURCHASE OF AVIATION FUEL AT IMMOKALEE
REGIONAL AIRPORT - DUE TO THE INCREASED COST OF
FUEL
Item #16FI-B
THE FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,163.75 TO
SUNSHINE PHARMACY FOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION
TO MEDICALLY NEEDY CLIENTS IN THE SOCIAL SERVICES
PROGRAM - FOR EXPENSES INCURRED DURING APRIL 1,
2008 THROUGH APRIL 13.2008
Item #16FI-C
AUTHORIZING THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS TO
ACCEPT FEDERAL ELECTION ACTIVITIES FUNDS SUBJECT
TO A 15% MATCHING CONTRIBUTION FROM THE COUNTY
Page 440
September 9-10, 2008
- THE MATCHING FUNDS ARE INCLUDED IN THE
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BUDGET
Item #16FI-D
RESOLUTION 2008-229: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16FI-E
RESOLUTION 2008-230: ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING"
ZONE ALONG THE RIGHT -OF - WAY ON BOTH SIDES OF
SPANISH OAKS LANE BETWEEN OAKES BOULEVARD AND
TARPON BAY BOULEVARD - DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS
FOR PEDES TRAINS AND BICYCLISTS IN THE AREA
Item #16FI-F
BID NO. 08-5105 TO HOWARD TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF POWERED COMPUTER
MOUNTING SYSTEMS, INCLUDING DOCKING STATIONS
PROVIDING MOBILE DATA TERMINAL CAP ABILITY IN
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES' AMBULANCES AND
COMMAND VEHICLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $50.692.00
Item #16FI-G
RECOGNIZING F AREBOX REVENUES COLLECTED FROM
APRIL 11, 2008 THROUGH AUGUST 4, 2008 FOR COLLIER
AREA TRANSIT AND APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Page 441
4_."_,__,~,....__,_,,,._. ~._..."__.."",....___
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16FI-H
AN AMENDED FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR AN
ADDITIONAL FUNDING AMOUNT OF $108,700 PROVIDING
ASSISTANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE FREEDOM
PARK (AKA GORDON RIVER WATER QUALITY PARK)
Item #16FI-I
APPROPRIATION OF $865,121.00 OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FY08 5307 GRANT FUNDS FOR
PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AND ADA
PARA TRANSITIPLANNING
Item #16FI-J
REPORT AND RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS
AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2008 THROUGH
JULY 21. 2008
Item #16FI-K
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF AUGUST
25TH THROUGH AUGUST 31ST, 2008 AS COLLIER COUNTY
FIREFIGHTER APPRECIATION WEEK. TO BE ACCEPTED BY
ALISON MORSE OF THE MDA IN BCC OFFICE;
PRESENTATION BY CHAIRMAN HENNING - ADOPTED
Item # 16F2
Page 442
September 9-10,2008
BOARD RATIFICATION OF SUMMARY, CONSENT AND
EMERGENCY AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY
MANAGER DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESS.
(IN ABSENTIA MEETING DATED AUGUST 26. 2008)
Item #16F2-A
RFP NO. 08-5022 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR RIGHT-OF - WAY
ACQUISITION AND REAL ESTATE RELATED SERVICES" TO
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE - FOR
PROJECTS THA T MAY BE BEYONG THE CAPACITY OR
EXPERTISE OF THE EXISTING STAFF
Item #16F2-B
A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND OTHER
SITE MODIFICATIONS NECESSITATED FOR CLOSURE OF
ONE DRIVEWAY AND THE MODIFICATION TO ANOTHER
DRIVEWAY AT MA VRICK HOUSE RELATED TO THE
EXPANSION OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD FROM
DAVIS BOULEVARD TO NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY. PROJECT NO. 62081. ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMPACT: $27,957.00 - LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF 29TH PLACE SW AND SANTA BARBARA BLVD
Item # 16F2-C
CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR AGREEMENT WITH DIA MONDE
INCREASING INTERNATIONAL TOURISM MARKETING
EXPENDITURES BY $16,000 FOR THE BALANCE OF FY08
AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CHANGE
Page 443
September 9-10,2008
ORDER #1 - FOR REPRESENTATION ON A FULL-TIME BASIS
FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY08 AND FY09
Item #16F2-D
THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S APPROVAL
OF THE ATTACHED AIRPORT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION
NO. 08-34 ON AUGUST 11,2008 REQUIRED BY THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) TO
APPLY FOR AND RECEIVE A RURAL BUSINESS
ENTERPRISE GRANT (RBEG)
Item #16F2-E
A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $38,115 TO
FUND ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND ECOLOGICAL
CONSUL TING SERVICES FOR THE EXTENSION OF RUNWAY
9/27 AT THE IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - TO
PRESERVE THE NECESSARY LAND TO ALLOW THE
EXTENSION
Item #16F2-F
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH SHELTER FOR
ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN, INC., FOR $113,000 IN
CONTINUUM OF CARE FUNDING, SUPPORTING THE
SHEL TER OPERATIONS AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
Item # 16F2-G
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $66,000 OF
GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE OTHER GENERAL
Page 444
September 9-10, 2008
ADMINISTRATION COST CENTER
Item #16F2-H
HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT AGREEMENT 09HM-6G-09-21-
01-019 (75/25) FOR $58,750 FROM THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SHORELINE PRESERVATION AT THE ISLES OF CAPRI FIRE
ST A TION AND TO APPROVE THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET
AMENDMENT
Item #16F2-I
GRANT AGREEMENTS ACCEPTING TWO CONTINUUM OF
CARE HOMELESS ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARDS FROM
THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) TOTALING $217,645; AND APPROVE
THE ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS OF $113,000 AND
$104,645 RECOGNIZING THE FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH
THE TWO GRANT AWARDS
Item # 16F2-J (Same as Item # 16F I-E)
"NO PARKING" SIGNS ON SPANISH OAKES LANE AT OAKES
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
Item #16F2-K - Moved to Item #10K
Item # 16F3
RESOLUTION 2008-254: A JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
Page 445
September 9-10, 2008
TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER COUNTY TO FUND THE
PURCHASE OF OPTICOM RECEIVERSITRANSMITTERS FOR
USE IN COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
VEHICLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000, TOGETHER WITH A
RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING SUCH APPROVAL
Item #16F4
AMEND ORDINANCE 98-114 IN ORDER TO ACCURATELY
REFLECT CHANGES TO THE GOODLAND/HORR'S ISLAND
FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT
Item # 16F5
PREPAYMENT OF THE CARIBBEAN GARDENS
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1.100.000.00
Item #16F6
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PREP A YMENTS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4.121.000.00
Item #16F7
RESOLUTION 2008-255: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16F8
Page 446
September 9-10,2008
BID #08-5085 IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,660 FOR PELICAN
BAY STREETSCAPE OAKMONT PARKWAY IRRIGATION TO
STAHLMAN-ENGLAND IRRIGATION. INC
Item #16F9
AN ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT AGREEMENT
FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY FOR THE PURCHASE OF 30 STAIR CHAIRS FOR
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR A TOTAL PROJECT
COST OF $62,850.00 AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE THE
FUNDS FROM FEMA
Item #16G 1
A STATUTORY DEED BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY
SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT AND THE COLLIER COUNTY
AIRPORT AUTHORITY FOR 1.01 ACRES FOR THE MARCO
ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$25
Item #16G2
AN EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL POLICY FOR COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA)
EMPLOYEES WORKING UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE
CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
Page 447
September 9-10, 2008
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDING A RETIREMENT CELEBRATION FOR
SHERIFF DON HUNTER ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2008,
AT THE NAPLES HILTON. $45.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT
5111 T AMIAMI TRAIL N
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE EAST NAPLES CIVIC
ASSOCIATION LUNCHEON ON JULY 17, 2008 AT
CARRABBA'S IN NAPLES, FL. $37.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. ATTENDED THE GRAND OPENING OF THE CITY
FURNITURE AND ASHLEY FURNITURE HOMES TORE
SHOWROOMS ON JULY 18, 2008. $34.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER HALAS' TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED.
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
Page 448
departments as indicated:
September 9-10, 2008
Page 449
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 9,2008
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
8)
I)
Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of June 2, 2008; July 7, 2008.
2)
Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of January 16,2007; May 15,2007; October 16,2007; May
20,2008; June 17,2008.
3)
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of March 6, 2007; August 7,2007; March 4,2008; April I,
2008; April I, 2008 Workshop; May 6,2008; May 6, 2008
Workshop; June 3, 2008.
Minutes of March 6, 2007; August 7, 2007; March 4,2008; April I,
2008; May 6,2008; June 3, 2008.
Minutes of April I, 2008 Corridor Concept Plan Workshop;
May 6, 2008 FY -09 Budget Workshop.
4)
Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of April 16, 2008; May 21,2008; June 18,2008.
Minutes of April 16, 2008; May 21, 2008; June 18,2008.
5)
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of September 13, 2007; December 13,2007; February 14,
2008; March 13, 2008; May 8, 2008.
6)
Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of May 22,2008.
7)
Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of July 3, 2008; July 17,2008 REVISED; August 7, 2008
REVISED II.
Minutes of April 17, 2008; May 1,2008; May 15,2008; June 5,
2008; June 27, 2008.
County Government Productivity Committee:
Agenda of January 23,2008; February 6, 2008; March 19,2008;
April 16, 2008; May 21, 2008.
Minutes of January 23, 2008; February 6, 2008; March 19, 2008;
April 16, 2008; May 21,2008.
9) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of September 5, 2007; December 5, 2007; April 2, 2008;
June 11,2008
10) East of 951 Infrastructure and Services Horizon Study Public
Participation Master Plan Committee:
Minutes of June 16, 2008.
11) Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council:
Minutes of June 25, 2008.
A. EMSAC Sub-Committee and Productivity Committee Sub-
Committee:
Minutes of April 18, 2008; May 2, 2008; June 4, 2008.
12) Environmental Advisory Council:
Agenda of May 7, 2008; June 4, 2008.
Minutes of May 7; 2008; June 4, 2008.
13) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee:
Minutes of April 17, 2008 Interview Process for Supervisor; April
22, 2008.
14) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of May 27,2008.
Minutes of May 27,2008.
15) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency:
Agenda of July 16,2008.
Minutes of June 18, 2008.
16) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board:
Agenda of July 16,2008; July 16,2008 Joint meeting with Master
Plan and Visioning Committee.
Minutes of May 30, 2008 Joint meeting with EZDA and Master Plan
and Visioning Committee; June 18,2008; June 18 Joint meeting with
Master Plan and Visioning Committee.
A. Certification of Minutes Approval Form.
17) Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Agenda of June 5, 2008.
Minutes of June 5, 2008.
18) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee:
Minutes of June 9, 2008.
19) Library Advisory Board:
Minutes of March 21, 2007.
20) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Minutes of December 19, 2007; March 19,2008; May 21,2008.
21) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Agenda of August 12, 2008.
Minutes of June 4, 2008.
22) Public. Vehicle Advisory Committee:
Agenda of July 14,2008; August 4, 2008.
23) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of November 20,2007; December 4,2007; January 22,
2008; February 5, 2008; March 4, 2008; April 1 , 2008; May 6, 2008;
June 3, 2008.; June 17,2008; July 1,2008; July 15,2008.
24) Tourist Development Council:
Minutes of November 26,2007; February 19,2008; March 24,2008;
April 28, 2008; May 19,2008.
25) Utility Authority (Water and Wastewater Authority):
Minutes of January 22,2007; March 26,2007.
B. Other:
1) Collier Mosquito Control District:
Disposition of Surplus Property: Asset #1998-014 and Asset #1984-
035.
2) Special Magistrate of the Code Enforcement:
Minutes of July 18, 2008.
September 9-10, 2008
Item #16Jl
THE CASH PAYMENT OPTION FOR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
RELATING TO COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY IN THE WEST
WINTERBERRY ASSESSMENT AREA
Item #16J2
THE EXTENSION OF THE TAX ROLL BEFORE COMPLETION
OF THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD HEARINGS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.323, F.S., AND TAX
COLLECTOR'S REQUEST
Item #16J3
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS
THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
FISCAL YEAR 2009 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL, JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AND DESIGNATE
THE SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT, SHERIFF'S
OFFICE STAFF AS GRANT FINANCIAL AND PROGRAM
MANAGERS, RATIFY THE APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE
OF PARTICIPATION FOR 20TH YEAR FUNDING AND THE
2009 JAG GRANT APPLICATION AS "AFTER-THE-FACT",
AND AUTHORIZE ACCEPTANCE OF AWARDS AND
ASSOCIATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 12, 2008
THROUGH JULY 18, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
Page 450
September 9-10, 2008
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J5
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 19,2008
THROUGH JULY 25, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J6
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 26, 2008
THROUGH AUGUST 01,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J7
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 2, 2008
THROUGH AUGUST 8, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J8
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 9, 2008
THROUGH AUGUST 15,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J9
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 16, 2008
THROUGH AUGUST 22, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Page 451
September 9-10,2008
Item #16JI0
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF AUGUST 23, 2008
THROUGH AUGUST 29, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
AN EXCEPTION TO THE CURRENT HIRING FREEZE POLICY
FOR GENERAL FUND POSITIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ADVERTISE FOR AND REPLACE A
NEWL Y - V ACA TED ESSENTIAL ASSISTANT COUNTY
ATTORNEY (LITIGATION) POSITION
Item #16K2
RESOLUTION 2008-256: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FISCAL YEAR 2009 PAY AND
CLASSIFICATION PLAN, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE
CURRENT APPROVED PLAN, AND TO PROVIDE FOR A
GENERAL WAGE ADJUSTMENT (COST-OF-LIVING),
EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 1,2008, THE FIRST DAY OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2009
Item #16K3
A RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN
"AS NEEDED" BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF NABORS,
GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A., TO MEET COUNTY
PURCHASING POLICY CONTRACT UPDATE
REQUIREMENTS
Page 452
September 9-10,2008
Item #16K4
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $1,900.00 FOR PARCEL NO. 149 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V.VIRGINIA FETCH TITUS, ET AL., CASE
NO. 95-2863-CA (RADIO ROAD PHASE II STORMW A TER
OUTFALL SW ALE PROJECT NO. 65033). (FISCAL IMPACT
$1.000.00.)
Item # 16K5
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT AND STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $ 32,420.50 FOR
PARCEL 150 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY
V. T.E.C.H. FOUNDATION, INC., CASE NO. 03-2499-CA
(GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y ROAD PROJECT #60027).
(FISCAL IMPACT $8.820.50)
Item #16K6
THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $85,520.00 FOR PARCEL 1 98RDUE IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSE MUNOZ,
ET AL., CASE NO. 07-2823-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO.
60044). (FISCAL IMPACT $29.220.00)
Item #16K7
THE PAYMENT OF COSTS OF $5,000 TO BE INCLUDED IN A
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT FOR PARCEL 214FEE IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSE MUNOZ,
ETAL., CASE NO. 07-2823-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO.
Page 453
September 9-10, 2008
60044). (FISCAL IMPACT $5.000.00)
Item #16K8
JOINT MOTION FOR AGREED ORDER T AXING ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND COSTS RELATING TO THE DISMISSAL OF
PARCELS 102FEE AND 102SE IN THE CONDEMNATION
ACTION STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MERIDIAN
BROADCASTING, INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 08-1253-CA, TREE
FARM ROAD PROJECT #60171. (FISCAL IMPACT: $6.131.50)
Item #16K9
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $44,000.00 FOR PARCEL 188RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ARMANDO B. YZAGUIRRE,
ET AL., CASE NO. 07-2746-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT
#60044). (FISCAL IMPACT $17.200.00)
Item #16KI0
THE RELEASE OF LIEN IN RELATION TO THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY VS.
JAIME GUTIERREZ, SPECIAL MASTER CASE NO. 2005-
010437, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1369
HILLTOP DRIVE. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #16K11
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT SUBSTITUTING THE LAW
FIRM OF HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP FOR THE LAW FIRM
OF GARVIN & TRIPP, P.A., IN THE RETENTION AGREEMENT
Page 454
September 9-10, 2008
DATED OCTOBER 27, 2004, AS AMENDED AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CONSENT TO
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL IN THE CASES WHERE
THEODORE L. TRIPP. JR.. IS COUNSEL OF RECORD
Item #16K12
THE FILING OF A DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION WITH
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT RELATING TO THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE
BERT HARRIS ACT CLAIM SERVED ON THE COUNTY BY
THE OWNERS OF THE HUSSEY PROPERTY
Item #16K13
A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST JESSIE C.
CERVANTEZ, JR. AND HIZARITH TORRES IN COUNTY
COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3.407.16
Item #16K14
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$67,500.00 FOR PARCEL NO. 190RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. PABLO SARDINAS, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 07-2824-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044).
(FISCAL IMPACT $19.000.00)
Item #16K15
Page 455
September 9-10,2008
A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST JOHN SWASEY IN
COUNTY COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2.908.60
Item #16K16
A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST ALINA M. DIAZ IN
COUNTY COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3.522.45
Item #16K17
A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST THE ENTITY
KNOWN AS NAPLES SUNRISE, INC. IN COUNTY COURT
SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.102.03
Item #16K18
A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AGAINST PAUL VESCIO IN
COUNTY COURT SMALL CLAIMS IN AND FOR COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $8.625.60
Item #17A
Page 456
September 9-10,2008
RESOLUTION 2008-257 (DISTRICT 1) AND RESOLUTION
2008-258 (DISTRICT 2): THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
ROLLS AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND ADOPTING
SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLLS
FOR PURPOSES OF UTILIZING THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 197.3632, FLORIDA
STATUTES, FOR SOLID WASTE MUNICIPAL SERVICE
BENEFIT UNITS, SERVICE DISTRICT NO. I AND SERVICE
DISTRICT NO. II, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST
CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, THE CITY
OF MARCO ISLAND AND THE CITY OF EVERGLADES CITY
PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 2005-54, AS
AMENDED. REVENUES ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE
$17.787.100
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2008-43: PUDA-2007-AR-11283 WING SOUTH,
INC., REPRESENTED BY HEIDI WILLIAMS, AICP OF Q.
GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT OF THE SHADOWWOOD PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE NO. 82-49 TO INCREASE
THE NUMBER OF SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING UNITS FROM
11 UNITS TO A MAXIMUM OF 16 UNITS BY DELETING ALL
OF 10.3 ACRES FROM COMMERCIAL (TRACT D) AND
ADDING IT TO PRIVATE AIR PARK DISTRICT (TRACT C).
1.98 ACRES FROM THE PRIVATE AIR PARK DISTRICT
(TRACT C) SHALL BE ADDED TO SINGLE-F AMIL Y
RESIDENTIAL (TRACT B). THE ADDITIONAL 5 UNITS
WOULD INCREASE THE OVERALL MAXIMUM NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS IN THE PUD FROM 569 TO 574 UNITS.
Page 457
September 9-10, 2008
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH
SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD,
APPROXIMA TEL Y ONE MILE WEST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951), NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION
OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AND SKYWAY
DRIVE, IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2008-44: RZ-2008-AR-13209, MICHAEL CORDER
REPRESENTED BY MICHAEL FERNANDEZ OF PLANNING
DEVELOPMENT INC., IS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM THE
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE COMMERCIAL
INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN SECTION 04, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH. RANGE 27 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2008-45: PUDA-2008-AR-12861, KEVIN
RATTERREE OF G.L. HOMES OF NAPLES II CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ROBERT DUANE, AICP OF HOLE
MONTES, INC., REQUESTING A PUD AMENDMENT TO THE
TERAFINA PUD TO MAKE A MINOR CHANGE TO SECTION
6.5, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, OF THE PUD ORDINANCE
TO CHANGE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE TERAFINA PUD, SECTION
16. TOWNSHIP 48. RANGE 26. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17E
Page 458
September 9-10, 2008
RESOLUTION 2008-259: AR-2008-CU-12996, BOB ANNIBALE
OF AVIS BUDGET GROUP REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE
TO PERMIT TRUCK RENTALS WITHIN THE C-4 ZONING
DISTRICT. THE +0.98-ACRE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 1965 TAMIAMI TRAIL, IN SECTION 11,
TOWNSHIP 50. RANGE 25. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2008-46: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER
49 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES IN ORDER TO EXTEND THE SUNSET DATE OF
THE FEE PAYMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE
PROPERTY TAX STIMULUS PROGRAM, THE JOB CREATION
INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE ADVANCED
BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
FROM THE CURRENT DATE OF OCTOBER 1,2008 TO
OCTOBER 1,2013 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUEST BY
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF COLLIER
COUNTY AND PRIOR DIRECTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2008-260: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 459
September 9-10, 2008
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:37 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL..LnRI rrs ~ER ITS CONTROL
'~
TOM HENNING, Chairma
,:GHT. E~~~8~, ,CLERK
... ..., .,.,... ~ w
~ i~~atur. ~ III
These minute..s--approved by the Board on I 0/ I ~ loQ , as presented
./ . or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 460