BCC Minutes 10/28/2008 R
October 28, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 28, 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
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
and
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD (CRAB)
'-a~",\1111'
"!/~:'l
. ,.
r. ,
,'"
)t ,,\
AGENDA
October 28, 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
October 28, 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
A. Pastor Mark Koch, Naples First Church of Nazarene
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. September 23, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. September 24, 2008 - BCC/LDC Meeting
D. September 29, 2008 - BCC/Horizon Study Workshop
E. October 7,2008 - BCC/LDC Amendments
F. October 10,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
Page 2
October 28, 2008
A. 20 Year Attendees
1) Victor Philogene, Traffic Operations
2) Kurt Jokela, Facilities Management
3) Toni Mott, Real Property Management
4) Mariam Ocheltree, CDES Operations
B. 25 Year Attendees
1) Wanda Warren, Building Review and Permitting
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation acknowledging United Way of Collier County Agency for
their outstanding contributions to the community and wishing them yet
another year of great success for the 2008/2009 season. To be accepted by
Ernie Bretzmann, Executive Director, United Way of Collier County.
B. Proclamation designating November 15, 2008 as America Recycles Day in
Collier County. To be accepted by Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste
Management Department and Joe Bellone, Revenue Manager for the Utility
Billing and Customer Service Department.
C. Proclamation designating November, 2008 as Smart Growth Awareness
Month. To be accepted by Deb Milsap, Health Promotion Co-Chairwoman,
Kelly Robinson, Health Promotion Coalition Member, Sheila Sheridan,
Health Promotion Coalition Member, David Buchheit, Chairman of CTST
and Ross Muller, Community Traffic Safety Team Member.
D. Proclamation recognizing the 300,000th Habitat House in the world! To be
accepted by Rev. Lisa Lefkow and Mr. Nick Kouloheras, Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Presentation of a check to the Board of
County Commissioners for the unused fees distribution. Presented by Guy
Page 3
October 28, 2008
Carlton, Tax Collector.
B. Contractor Presentation by Kraft Construction, Inc. on the construction
status of the new Emergency Services Center.
C. Presentation by Rita Greenberg, President of the Collier County Fire Chiefs
Association, presenting their final report on consolidation.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by John Barlow to discuss legislating via checkbook.
B. Public petition request by Holly Daye to discuss Correct Work Order for
Permit #200711 1739.
C. Public petition request by Kenny Brown to discuss a resolution supporting
relief for local businesses.
D. Public petition request by Jenny Mitchell to discuss property at 755 27th
Street NW and the impending Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension Project.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 p.m., unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2008-AR-1320l:
VI Ltd, Limited Partnership and Collier County Parks and Recreation,
represented by Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use in the
Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort
Tourist Overlay district (VBRTO) and the RMF-16 Zoning District,
pursuant to Land Development Code Section 2.01.03.G.l.e, to allow for
public facilities (limited to public restroom facilities) that will be constructed
within the public right-of-way and partially within the Moraya Bay Beach
Club property. The subject property is located in Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Page 4
October 28, 2008
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-
AR-l0294 Naples Church of Christ, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold,
AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich,
Esq. of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., is
requesting rezoning from the Rural Agricultural zoning district (A) to the
Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow
development of a maximum of a 1,000 member religious facility, 150
student cumulative enrollment preschool and kindergarten through 8th grade
elementary schools, 2 single-family dwelling units, and 200 assisted living
units, in a project known as the Naples Church of Christ Mixed Use Planned
Unit Development (MPUD). The subject property, consisting of 19.1 acres,
is located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately 0.6 miles south
of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
B. Petition: DRICLO-2008-AR-13 181, John J. Agnelli of Power Corporation
represented by Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, Inc., is requesting a close-out of the
Berkshire Lakes Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The subject
property has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD)
known as the Berkshire Lakes PUD, and is located at the Northwest corner
of Davis Boulevard (SR-84) and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Sections 32
and 33, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Section 5, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
C. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve a resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, which
designates the Close-Out of fifteen (15) approved Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) which have fully completed development pursuant to
their development orders constructing to the authorized density and/or
intensity and have been found by county staff to be compliant with their
specific developer commitments.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Water and Wastewater Authority.
Page 5
October 28, 2008
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
D. Appointment of members to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
F. Appointment of member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
G. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
H. Resolution supporting local camping businesses to compete in the bidding
process with the National Park Service in Big Cypress Preserve National
Park. (Companion with Item #6C: Public Petition for Kenny Brown)
(Commissioner Coletta's request)
I. Discussion regarding findings by Clerk of Court's Office in reference to
John Barlow's public petition from the October 14,2008 BCC meeting.
J. To discuss interlocal agreement between City of Naples and Clerk of Courts
along with Tax Collector regarding interlocal agreement.
K. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Request for Board to discuss ongoing
issues with Vita Tuscana.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider options
pertaining to remedies for past due and expiring impact fee deferrals and
provide direction to the County Manager, or his designee, related to the
impact fee deferral for Brittany Bay Phase I and policy direction to be
applied to similar impact fee deferrals with future expirations. (Amy
Patterson, Impact Fee/EDC Manager, Business Management & Budget
Dept. CDES)
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Locally Funded Agreement between FDOT and Collier County for
Page 6
October 28, 2008
construction of a new bridge over the Cocohatchee River on County Road
901 (Vanderbilt Drive), a Memorandum of Agreement between those parties
and the State Department of Financial Services establishing an escrow
account to deposit funds related to that project, and a Resolution approving
those agreements and authorizing the Chairman to execute both agreements.
(Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
C. Recommendation to review and approve the proposed Collier County 2009
State Legislative Priorities which then will be discussed next at a joint Board
of County Commissioners and Collier County Legislative Delegation Pre-
2009 Legislative Session Workshop scheduled on November 14,2008.
(Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
D. Recommendation to Reject Bid No. 08-5087 for Bridge Repair and
Maintenance. (Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator)
E. Recommendation to consider agenda topics proposed by the Marco Island
City Manager on behalf of the Marco Island City Council for a joint
workshop requested with the Board of County Commissioners scheduled
December 4,2008. (Jim Mudd, County Manager)
F. Recommendation to approve the FY 09 contract between Collier County and
the State of Florida Department of Health for operation of the Collier
County Health Department in the amount of $1 ,445,300. (Marla Ramsey,
Public Services Administrator)
G. Recommendation to approve an amended and restated US4l Developers
consortium (Consortium) Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA),
recorded in O.R. Book 4303, Page 2349. (CTS). Due to the size of Exhibit I
and 2, copies are available at the County Managers office. (Nick
Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 12:00 noon. Notice is herebv l!:iven that
pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Fla. Stat., the Countv Attornev desires
advice from the Board of Countv Commissioners in closed attornev-
client session on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2008, at a time certain of
Page 7
October 28, 2008
12:00 noon in the Commission Conference Room, 3rd Floor, W.
Harmon Turner Buildinl!:, Collier Countv Government Center, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. In addition to Board members,
County Manager James Mudd, County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and
Litigation Section Chief Jacqueline Williams Hubbard will be in attendance.
The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement negotiations and
strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of
Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County, et al., Case No. 08-0066-
CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida.
B. This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. For the Board of County
Commissioners to provide direction to the County Attorney regarding
settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the
pending litigation case of Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County, et
a/., Case No. 08-0066-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in
and for Collier County, Florida.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. Recommendation for the Collier County Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) to reject the Wachovia Bank Bid #07-4177 for a $9,000,000
Line of Credit; to give direction to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA
Executive Director to coordinate with all appropriate entities to secure and
structure a new loan from a commercial lender selected via RFP to purchase
certain real property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA; and to
authorize the Executive Director to negotiate real estate contracts in the
CRA area and return to the CRA Board for approval. (David Jackson,
Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA)
B. Community Redevelopment Agency FY2008 annual performance appraisal
review for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 8
October 28, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided bv
Commission Members. Should a hearinl!: be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Verona Walk Model Center
Replat.
2) Recommendation to accept a settlement offer, providing for release of
a code enforcement lien and dismissal of a pending appeal, in relation
to the code enforcement case, Collier County v. Donald E. Gray, CEB
No. 2004-005, on property located at 267 3rd Street West Collier
County, Florida.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
facilities for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 4 Unit 2.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 5 Unit 1.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
facility for Fiddler's Creek, Phase 4 Unit 1.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for Verona Walk, Phase 3B.
7) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for VeronaWalk South Entrance Water Main Extension.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
facilities for Wildflower Way-Lely High School Boulevard.
Page 9
October 28, 2008
_ .._._._.__,..""__.....___.~~.__._____~_._~_,,__'.~~_._....~~._.,.__,,>.._.."fl_"_'_'_U'__"'_'_______._"~~'__
9) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fiddlers Creek Parkway
Extension, Phase Three with the roadway and drainage improvements
being privately maintained.
10) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Fiddlers Creek Phase
Four, Unit One. The roadway and drainage improvements will be
privately maintained by the Fiddlers Creek Community Development
District.
11) Recommendation to approve a Settlement Agreement and Release
relative to Sapphire Lakes Unit 3C.
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
staff direction related to a proposed assignment agreement vehicle
between the County and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) to allow for issuance of conveyance bonus credit
applications specified by the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use Sub-District of
the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and
Section 2.03.08 of the Land Development Code. (Naples Reserve)
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Transportation
Services Division to assist the Collier County SO Crime Prevention
Programs by providing, without reimbursement, use of the VMS to
alert motorists to crime prevention measures.
2) Recommendation to approve Change Order No.2 to Professional
Service Agreement No. 05-3865 in the amount of $278,420 with
CH2MHILL, Inc., for the design of Collier Boulevard Road
Improvements from Golden Gate Boulevard to Golden Gate Main
Canal, Project No. 68056.
3) Recommendation to approve a Resolution which authorizes the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to enter into a Joint
Project Agreement with FOOT to provide for a coordinated arterial
traffic signal retiming project. ($300,000)
Page 10
October 28, 2008
4) Recommendation to approve the October, 2008 Collier County
Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan Major Update.
5) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
recognize the revenue received for FY09 of a Florida Department of
Transportation Service Development Program Award in the amount of
$95, I 75.00 and to approve a budget amendment.
6) Recommendation to approve and execute the Transportation
Disadvantaged Shirley Conroy Rural Area Capital Assistance Support
Grant Agreement FM#4l0656l840l for a total project cost of
$66,000.00 and approve all necessary budget amendments to purchase
a paratransit vehicle.
7) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
recognize FY08 Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 revenue
in the amount of$204,395.00; authorize the transfer of$6l,160.00 in
currently budgeted grant dollars from the Transportation
Disadvantaged Fund (427) to Collier Area Transit Fund (426) and
approve the necessary budget amendments.
8) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a second amendment to the September 27,2005, Agreement (the
Agreement) entered into between McDonald Transit Associates, Inc.
and Collier County, which provides for consolidated management for
the Collier Area Transit and Paratransit Systems, to amend the
Agreement to incorporate new compensation rates for the final two
years of the Agreement that were negotiated during mediation
between the parties on October 7, 2008.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to approve the Satisfactions of
Lien for Solid Waste residential accounts wherein the County has
received payment and said Liens are satisfied in full for the 1992,
1993, 1994, and 1995 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services
Special Assessment. Fiscal impact is $58.50 to record the
Satisfactions of Lien.
Page 11
October 28, 2008
.~_<"'rn__.,_..__.,".,_n._.','_____'"'_'~__~___'~'_____""-_-"......-~--~.~._,._,<...,_.,._...._.,,~_..,..._'_..._...--..,' . .....-,. ---..--..'- --.---~.-.-.-_.--
2) Recommendation to approve FilterOne USA as the sole source
authorized Parkson Service Center in the State of Florida, as affirmed
by Parkson Corporation and to approve requisition No. 10134495 in
the amount of $98,795.00 to FilterOne USA, LLC, for the
refurbishment of the Parkson Aqua Guard Screen at South County
Water Reclamation Facility, Project #73969.
3) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment to the Fiscal Year
2009 Water Department Budget to correct a budgeting error. This
correction increases personal services by $131,038 to fund two
previously existing Water/Sewer Fund 408 positions.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a sole source Agreement for Officiating
Services with Collier Recreation Baseball/Softball Umpires
Association (CRBSUA) for officials for adult softball games, with an
anticipated Fiscal Year 2009 expenditure of $60,000.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 7 I, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 72, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 73, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Page 12
October 28, 2008
-~-,--,-_._-_. ,,--._~-,._-,...._- ,_.-,-,~.,...,._-_._. ,^,--~.,-",~'~.._p_~",---"
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 74, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 75, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 76, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 77, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
9) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 78, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
10) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 79, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
11) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 80, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
Page 13
October 28, 2008
----'---.-- .--....--.-.--. ..~.,._"-"---_._._---""---,.._-'._---,
12) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 8 I, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
13) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a lien agreement with Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County, Inc. (Developer) for deferral of 100% of
Collier County impact fees for an owner-occupied affordable housing
unit located at Lot 82, Trail Ridge, East Naples.
14) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Boating Improvement
Program (FBIP) Grant Agreement Contract No. 08064 for a
Recreational Boating Characterization Study to the Coastal Zone
Management Department that will provide grant funds in the amount
of $80,000.
15) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the electronic submittal of the attached Picturing
America grant application to the National Endowment for the
Humanities for a collection of historical reproduction posters to be
placed on display in the Estates Branch Library in the amount of $0.
16) Recommendation to accept the Health Information Technology
Special Congressional Initiative earmark from the United States
Department of Health and Human Services in the amount of$323,9ll
and approve the necessary budget amendment to recognize the
revenue.
17) Present to the Board of County Commissioners a summary of the
Impact Fee Deferral Agreements recommended for approval in FY09,
including the total number of Agreements approved, the total dollar
amount deferred and the balance remaining for additional deferrals in
FY09.
18) Recommend Approval to award Bid #08-5115 "Resurfacing of
Parking Lots for Coastal Zone Management" in the total amount of
Page 14
October 28, 2008
______"_.w..._,_<___,,____._..___...____.~.~_..~..._'".____.~
$55,437.50 and award contract to BQ Concrete.
19) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $78,632.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to The Shelter for Abused Women and Children to fund the
Gentlemen Against Domestic Violence Program.
20) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $24,916.00 Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
grant to the Hunger and Homeless Coalition (HHC) to support the
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).
21) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $28,000.00 State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP)
grant to The Empowerment Alliance Corporation of SW Florida
(EASF), to provide Homebuyer Education Counseling and
Foreclosure Prevention Counseling to benefit persons earning less
than 120% of Family Median Income of Collier County.
22) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a subrecipient agreement
providing for a $35,000 State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP)
grant to the Collier County Housing Development Corporation
(CCHDC), to provide Homebuyer Education Counseling and
Foreclosure Prevention Counseling to benefit persons earning less
than 120% of Family Median Income of Collier County.
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to sign an agreement between the Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and the Area Agency on
Aging of Southwest Florida and approve a budget amendment to
recognize the grant revenue in the amount of $43,255.32 for the
Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP).
24) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
$398,238 in revenue from the pre-payment of development expenses
for shared infrastructure for the construction of the Children's
Page 15
October 28, 2008
Museum of Naples.
25) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign a Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Boating Improvement
Program (FBIP) Grant Agreement (contract no. 08079) for Bayview
Park Boat Access Facility for the Coastal Zone Management
Department that will provide grant funds in the amount of $400,000
and approve the necessary budget amendment.
26) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Juan
Barrera (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at Lot 121,
Block D, Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford-Phase Two,
Immokalee.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve the Assumption Agreement under
Contract No. 08-5019, Pires Sprinkler Alarm Test, Inspection,
Maintenance and Installation from Building Systems Evaluation, Inc.
dba Fire Sprinkler Systems Company dba BSE by Cintas Corporation
No.2
2) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
Winchester Head multi-parcel project under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program.
3) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Glenda S. Beardsley for 1.14 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $ 18,700.
4) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with James A. Blake for 2.73 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $44,600.
5) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Frank J. Celsnak and Marlene J. Celsnak, as Trustees of the
Frank J. Celsnak & Marlene J. Celsnak Trust under Agreement dated
Page 16
October 28, 2008
December, 27 1991 for 1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $26,000.
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Jorge Flores for 4.32 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $69,800.
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Allan Jones and Patricia Jones for 2.27 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $36,800.
8) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Allan Jones and Patricia Jones for 1.59 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $30,000.
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Warren N. Kissinger, Jr. for 1.59 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $26,000.
10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Migdalia Rosillo for 5.0 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $80,300.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Kathleen Sheckler for 2.27 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $36,800.
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Milton T. Shryock for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $18,700.
13) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Frank G. Neri and Maria Neri for 4.48 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $71,900.
14) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Bethany Jackson Vondran, formerly known as Bethany A.
Page 17
October 28, 2008
_......._-,~_.,_._,_._--"~....._..,"._"',-~"...."--_._-'--'_..-'-
...._~.....----,-~-~"_.,,,.,-~-~,...__.."_.._._---_.~
Jackson, Amy S. Jackson, Karen Ring, formerly known as Karen E.
Teo, David P. Jackson, Katherine E. Ezis And Jenna Ezis King,
formerly known as Jenna J. Ezis for 1.59 acres under the Conservation
Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $26,000.
15) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with John M. Less and Larry P. Less for 1.14 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $18,700.
16) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Jorge A. Toledo for 3.49 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $56,100.
17) Recommendation to approve the Second Amendment to the
Community Health Partners, Inc. Managed Care Services Agreement
effective October I, 2008 to provide advocacy services to the
Wellness Based Incentives Program.
18) Recommendation to waive formal competition and approve the sole
source purchase of an Auger Monster System for the Naples Jail from
JWC Environmental c/o Heyward Incorporated at a cost of$98,856.
19) Recommendation to approve a Letter of Agreement with Quest
Diagnostics, Inc. effective January 1, 2009 to provide onsite biometric
and laboratory testing services in support of the Wellness Based
Incentives Program.
20) Recommendation to approve an Interim Management Plan for the
Freitas Property under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program.
21) Recommendation to approve an agreement with CS STARS, Inc. for
the lease of Risk Management Information Systems software services
in the amount of$107,060 annually.
22) Recommendation to approve an amendment of the Microsoft
Enterprise Agreement to add telephony integration licensing for
$72,680.76.
Page 18
October 28, 2008
23) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
an Agreement to provide a maximum expenditure of One Hundred
Fifty Thousand and no/1 00 dollars ($150,000.00) from the GAC Land
Trust to the All Kids Play Foundation of Corkscrew Community for
the purchase of equipment and materials to facilitate the construction
of a Boundless Playground to be located at Big Corkscrew Elementary
School and to serve the residents of Golden Gate Estates.
24) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
authorize the Chairman to sign two Florida Division of Forestry
(DOF) Agreements for conducting controlled burning and site
preparation on the Conservation Collier Nancy Payton Preserve
25) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for fourth quarter of FY 08.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation to approve a Florida Emergency Medical Services
County Grant Application, Grant Distribution Form and Resolution
for the Funding of the EMS Portion of the EMS/Fire Consolidation
Study, Training and Medical/Rescue Equipment and Supplies in the
amount of $1 70, I 11.00 and to approve a Budget Amendment.
2) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an Agreement between Collier
County and the Florida Division of Emergency Management
accepting $10 1,573 for Emergency Management Program
Enhancement.
3) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners review and
approve the proposed Tourism Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 09.
4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
Page 19
October 28, 2008
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation that the Collier CRA Board approve application for
an Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) Community-Wide
Brownfields Assessment Grant in the amount of $650,000 to conduct
environmental assesments in economically distressed areas within the
Collier County CRA boundaries; and authorize the CRA Chairman to
sign a support letter as a partner in the Collier County Brownfield's
Coalition.
2) Recommendation for the Collier County CRA to approve a CRA
Resolution amending the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Site
Improvement Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2009; approve the Grant
Application process; and approve the form of the Grant Agreement.
3) To be heard immediatelv before Item #17 A Recommendation for
the CRA Board to recommend the Board of Collier County
Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2002-38,
as amended, The Collier County Redevelopment Grant Program
Ordinance to re-establish two existing grant programs and establish
two new CRA grant programs for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
CRA (Companion Item to 17 A)
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Immokalee Migrant Matrix 5 on October 3, 200; $25.00
to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
2) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner and Awards Ceremony
on October 18, 2008; $65.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
3) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Breakfast August 6,
Page 20
October 28, 2008
2008; $20.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
4) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the League of Women Voters Luncheon on October 20,
2008; $25.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October
04,2008 through October 10, 2008 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of October
11,2008 through October 17,2008 and for submission into the
official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Retention Agreement for legal services on an as needed basis with the
law firm of Young van Assenderp, P.A., to meet County Purchasing
Policy contract update requirements.
2) Recommendation to authorize an Offer of Judgment for Parcels 123 &
823 by Collier County to property owner Rose Somogyi, Individually
and as Trustee, in the lawsuit styled CC v. John J. Yaklich, et aI., Case
No. 03-2259-CA (Golden Gate Parkway Project 60027) (Positive
Fiscal Impact: If accepted, $57,232.65).
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves a
Retention Agreement for legal services on an as needed basis with the
law firm of Carlton Fields, P.A., to meet County Purchasing Policy
contract update requirements.
Page 21
October 28, 2008
4) Recommendation to approve a Second Amended Declaration of
Taking and Stipulated Order of Taking and Final Judgment in the
amount of$3,500.00 for Parcel 130 (to be re-designated as Parcels
l30TSE and l30SW-U-SL-TSMPE) in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Alexander G. Christou, et al., Case No. 07-4923-CA (Santa
Barbara Boulevard Extension Project 60091) (Fiscal Impact
$3,500.00)
5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $32,000.00 for Parcel 151 RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Luz Matlin, et aI., Case No. 07-2850-CA (Oil Well
Road Project No. 60044) (Fiscal Impact $12,900.00)
6) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $238,225.00 for Parcels l20FEE, l20TDRE I, l20TDRE2,
124FEE, l24TDREI, and 1 24TDRE2 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Terry Walsh, et al., Case No. 07-4030-CA (Oil Well Road
Project 60044) (Fiscal Impact $52,625.00)
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE QUASI-
JUDICIAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN IN.
A. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an
ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2002-38, as amended, The Collier
County Redevelopment Grant Program Ordinance to reestablish two existing
grant programs and establish two new CRA grant programs for the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA (Companion Item to Item #1 6G3)
Page 22
October 28, 2008
B. HD-2007-AR-I 1828, The Collier County Historical and Archaeological
Preservation Board, requests a Historical Designation for the existing
specimen plants and trees on Lot 5 ofthe Naples Zoo, and the Caribbean
Gardens Gatehouse/Gift Shop and outhouse on Lot 5, which were part of the
Dr. Nehrling tropical garden located on Collier County property and leased
by the Naples Zoo. The current zoning of the parcel is C-3 and "A" Rural
Agricultural, consisting of 13.35 acre and is located at 1590 Goodlette Road
North, Section 27, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 23
October 28, 2008
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning, everybody. Welcome
to the Board of Commissioners' October 28th, 2008 regular meeting.
Today's invocation will be given by Pastor Mark Koch from the
Naples First Church of the Nazarene.
Would you all rise for the invocation or -- the invocation, then
after that we're going to have the Pledge of Allegiance.
PASTOR KOCH: Let's pray. Our Heavenly Father, we thank
you for the gift of life and the breath of life that you provide for us
each day. It is a gorgeous day here in Southwest Florida, and we are
very blessed people.
We thank you that you love us, you know us by name, you care
about the affairs of this government, of this city, of this county, of our
nation, and of the world,
We thank you that you know us in detail, and every decision we
make can have eternal consequences, and so we pray you guide us that
we'll be wise, we'll be very careful and faithful stewards of what you
have entrusted to us, and may the words of scripture that -- may they
be our guide and our compass.
What does the Lord require of you to act justly, to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with your God?
And again, to you we give thanks. We thank you for this day and
for your guidance in our lives and your love, and we want to give you
all the praise.
In Christ's name we pray, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager, would you walk us
through today's changes -- changes for today's meeting.
Item #2A
Page 2
October 28, 2008
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes, BO<;lrd of County
Commissioners' meeting, October 28th, 2008.
Item 6C continued to the November 18th, 2008, BCC meeting.
This was a public petition request by Kenny Brown to discuss a
resolution supporting relief for local businesses, and that item is being
asked to be continued at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to withdraw Item 6D. It's a public petition
request by Jerry Mitchell, rather than Jenny Mitchell, to discuss
property at 7775 27th Street Northwest and the impending Vanderbilt
Beach Road extension project. That item is being withdrawn at
petitioner's request.
Next item is Item 8B. The following to be included in this item:
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members.
Also, at the bottom of page 5 of the executive summary, change
71,300 to 73,100, and total from 313,349 to 315,149. Also, page 7,
number 3, under review of documents, change from 71,300 to 73,100,
and that clarification's at staffs request.
Next item is Item 9H. It's continued to the November 18th, 2008,
BCC meeting. This was a resolution supporting local camping
businesses to compete in the bidding process with the National Parks
Service in the Big Cypress Preserve National Park. This was a
companion item to 6C, which was a public petition request by Kenny
Brown, and this item is also asked to be continued until November
18th, and this item was at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is Item lOA. Page 3 of the executive summary,
option five, second -- okay. Let's start again. Item lOA, page 3 of the
executive summary, option five, second sentence should read: And
Page 3
October 28, 2008
execute "an" rather than "and" amendment. On page 5 of the
executive summary, second paragraph, third sentence should read, for
a total of67 extra units, and on page 6 of the executive summary, the
paragraph following the table should read that each of the entities
request "an" rather than "and" extension, and these clarifications,
comments, are at Commissioner Fiala's requests.
The next item is Item lOG. It's continued to the November 18th,
2008, BCC meeting. It was a recommendation to approve an amended
and restated u.s. 41 developer's consortium, developer's contribution
agreement, DCA, recorded in OR Book 4303, page 2349. And this
item is at -- being continued at staffs request.
The next item is 17B. The following to be included in this item:
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. Also the resolution
has been revised updating the title to specify qualifying plants and
structures, et cetera, rather than the broader certain portions of the
parcel. Changes were distributed to commission members. This
clarification's at staffs request.
You have a series of time certain items today, Commissioners.
Item 5A to be heard at 9:30. That's a presentation of a check to the
Board of County Commissioners for the unused fee distributions.
This item is being presented by Guy Carlton, your Tax Collector.
The next time certain item is Item 8B to be heard at 2 p.m. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure
be provided by commission members, It's DRICLO-2008-AR-l3183,
John Agnelli of Power Corporation represented by Dwight Nadeau of
RW A, Inc., is requesting a closeout of Berkshire Lakes development
regional impact, DRI.
Subject property is located in the Berkshire Lakes planned unit
development, PUD, in the Berkshire Commons, in Section 32 and 33,
Township 49 south, Range 26 east, and Section 5, Township 50 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida.
Page 4
October 28, 2008
The next time certain item is Item 9K to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a
request for the board to discuss ongoing issues with Vita Tuscana.
The next time certain item are Items 12A and 12B. 12A to be
heard at 12 noon, which is a shade session, and l2B to be heard at 1
p.m.
Now, if! could get the County Attorney to interject right now as
I read these, and he can give you an update on these particular items,
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. I received a telephone call from the
Blockers' counsel yesterday, apprised me of certain information, as
well as they forwarded me some documentation. In the exercise of
caution, in light of what I learned yesterday, I'm going to put off the
shade session both 12A and 12B until the following meeting,
November 18th. So we'll be continuing the shade session for Blocker
until the next meeting, November 18th.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And just to read those particular items.
12A is, notice is hereby given that pursuant to section 286-011 (8),
Florida Statutes, County Attorney desires advice from the Board of
Commissioners in closed attorney-client session on Tuesday, October
28th at a time certain of 12 noon in the commission conference room,
third floor, William Harmer Turner -- William Harmer -- boy, I'm
having a tough time -- W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County
Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
In addition to board members, County Manager James Mudd,
County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and litigation expert,
Jacqueline Williams Hubbard, will be in attendance.
The board, in executive session, will discuss the settlement
negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the
pending litigation case of Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker versus Collier
County, et all, case number 08-0066-CA, now pending in the 20th
Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
That is a companion item with 12B, same subject, and again, the
County Attorney stated he's requesting that those two items be
Page 5
October 28, 2008
continued until the ll/18/2008 BCC meeting.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question. On Item 6B, it's
noted here that that's going to be continued.
MS. FILSON: That was my error, ma'am. I'm sorry. I just put
that on the wrong one. It should have been 6C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you. I'm
sorry. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we go to further changes by the
board members and ex parte communication on today's consent and
summary agenda, starting with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further
changes to the agenda, I have no ex parte disclosure for the consent
agenda, but for the summary agenda I have received emails in
response to Item l7B.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Chairman.
Good morning, board members.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have no changes to today's
agenda, and as far as ex parte on the consent agenda, I have no ex
parte, and on the summary agenda, I also have no ex parte. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. A request -- or a
correspondence from myself and Mr. Barlow, under public petition
6A, he would like to hear that under 9I, I believe it is. Discussion
regarding findings of the Clerk's Office reference John Barlow, public
petition from October 14th.
MR MUDD: Yes, sir. That is 91.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 91. Let's go ahead and do that. That's
the only change I have.
Page 6
October 28, 2008
Ex parte communication, I do have correspondence on 17 -- 17B.
I have correspondence and emails on that one, and that's all I have.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have no further changes to
the agenda, nothing to declare on the consent agenda.
On the summary agenda, ever so long ago I spoke with different
people about the Nehrling property, and we also heard that at a
commission meeting, but nothing recently.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, Chairman
Henning. I have no changes to the regular agenda, nothing on the
consent agenda to report. On the summary agenda, 17B, I have -- I
had a meeting in 2007 with Dr. Nehrling, and correspondence and
emails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. With that, entertain a motion
to approve today's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- regular, consent, and summary
agenda as amended.
Motion by Commissioner Coletta, 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.
Page 7
October 28, 2008
Commissioner Fiala brought to my attention, you know, one of
our long-term advisory board members, that would be the Productivity
Committee and the chairman of the Hispanic Board, passed away
unexpectedly in the recent past, and a request of Commissioner Fiala,
if we can have a moment of silence for recognizing Dr. James van
Fleet, his service and his continuing life in another place. Thank you.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
October 28. 2008
Item 6C continued to the November 18. 2008 BCC meetinq: Public petition request by Kenny
Brown to discuss a resolution supporting relief for local businesses. (Petitioner's request.)
Withdraw Item 60: Public Petition request by Jerry Mitchell (rather than" Jenny" Mitchell) to
discuss property at 775 27th Street NW and the impending Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension
Project. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 8B: The following to be included in this item: "This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members." Also, at the bottom of
page 5 of the executive summary, change 71,300 to 73,100, and total from 313,349 to 315,149.
Also, page 7, #3 under Review of Documents, change from 71,300 to 73,100. (Staff's request.)
Item 9H continued to the November 18. 2008 BCC meetinq: Resolution supporting local camping
businesses to compete in the bidding process with the National Park Service in Big Cypress
Preserve National Park. Companion with Item 6C, Public Petition Request for Kenny Brown.
(Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 10A: Page 3 of the executive summary, Option 5, second sentence should read, " . . . and
execute an (rather than "and") amendment. . .." Page 5 of the executive summary, second
paragraph, 3'd sentence should read, " . . . for a total of 67 "extra" units. .." Page 6 of the
executive summary, the paragraph following the table should read, " . . . that each of the entities
request an (rather than "and") extension. .." (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Item 10G continued to the November 18. 2008 BCC meetinq: Recommendation to approve an
amended and restated US 41 Developers consortium (Consortium) Developer Contribution
Agreement (DCA), recorded in O.R. Book 4303, Page 2349. (CTS). (Staff's request.)
Item 17B: The following to be included in this item: "This item requires that all participants be
sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members." Also, the Resolution
has been revised updating the title to specify qualifying plants and structures, etc., rather than
the broader "certain portions" of the parcel. Changes were distributed to Commission members.
(Staff's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 5A to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Presentation of a check to the Board of County Commissioners
for the unused fees distribution. Presented by Guy Carlton, Tax Collector.
Item 8B to be heard at 2:00 D.m. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. DRICLO-2008-AR-13181, John Agnelli of Power
Corporation represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc., is requesting a closeout of Berkshire
Lakes Development Regional Impact (DRI). Subject property is located in the Berkshire Lakes
Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the Berkshire Commons, in Sections 32 and 33, Township 49
South, Range 26 East and Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Item 9K to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Request for the Board to discuss on-going issues with Vita
Tuscana.
10/28/2008 8:49:15AM
Item 12A to be heard at 12:00 Noon: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 2S6.011(S),
Fla. Stat., the County Attorney desires advice from the Board of County Commissioners in closed
attorney-client session on Tuesday, October 2S, 200S, at a time certain of 12:00 noon in the
Commission conference room, 3'd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Collier County Government
Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. In addition to Board members, County Manager
James Mudd, County Attorney Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, and Litigation Section Chief Jacqueline
Williams Hubbard will be in attendance. The Board in executive session will discuss: Settlement
negotiations and strategy related to litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of Jerry
and Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County, et al., Case No. OS-0066-CA, now pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
Item 12B to be heard at 1 :00 p.m. For the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction to
the County Attorney regarding settlement negotiations and strategy related to litigation
expenditures in the pending litigation case of Jerry and Kimberlea Blocker v. Collier County, et
aI., Case No. OS-0066-CA, now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County,
Florida.
10/28/2008 8:49: 15 AM
October 28, 2008
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E & #2F
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 BCC REGULAR
MEETING, SEPTEMBER 24, 2008 BCC/LDC MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 BCC/HORIZON STUDY WORKSHOP
MEETING, OCTOBER 7, 2008 BCC/LDC AMENDMENTS
MEETING AND THE OCTOBER 10, 2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Entertain a motion to approve the September 23rd, 2008, BCC
regular meeting; September 24th, 2008, BCC/LDC meeting;
September 29th, 2008, BCC horizon study workshop; October 7,
2008, BCC/LDC amendments; and October 10th, 2008, Value
Adjustment Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve the minutes, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of that 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 #3A
SERVICE AWARDS: 20 & 25 YEAR RECIPIENTS-
PRESENTED
Page 9
October 28, 2008
Now we have service awards, if the commissioners will step in
front of the dais and let's recognize the long-term employees.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, it's indeed an honor to present
these service awards. We have four 20-year recipients today and one
25-year recipient, and we'll start at the 20-year recipients first.
The first awardee is Victor Philogene from Traffic Operations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for being here this
mornmg.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for your service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you for your service.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're really moving along, aren't we.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you, Victor.
MR. MUDD: Victor, we're going to get a picture up here in the
middle, okay.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year recipient is Kurt Jokela from
Facilities Management.
(Applause,)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all your service.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for your service. This is
something for your office.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Quite a cheering section you've
got there. You've got to buy them all breakfast afterwards.
MR. JOKELA: That's what they told me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you for your service.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next 20-year recipient is Toni Mott from Real
Property Management.
Page 10
October 28, 2008
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow, this is an honor. Thank you so
much for your dedicated service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank for your years of service.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Toni, congratulations. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next 20-year recipient is Mariam Ocheltree
from Community Development's Environmental Services Operation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Congratulations.
MS. OCHELTREE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for your service.
MS. OCHELTREE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Appreciate all you've done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations, and many, many
more.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: That brings us to our 25-year recipient, and that's
Wanda Warren from Building Review and Permitting.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning. Wow, boy, you've
seen a lot of permits across your desk.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The next 25 will be a lot easier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: That's it, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Page 11
October 28, 2008
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION ACKNOWLEDGING UNITED WAY OF
COLLIER COUNTY AGENCY FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY AND WISHING
THEM YET ANOTHER YEAR OF GREAT SUCCESS FOR THE
2008/2009 SEASON. ACCEPTED BY ERNIE BRETZMANN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED WAY OF COLLIER
COUNTY - ADOPTED
Commissioners, that brings us to proclamations. The first
proclamation today is acknowledging the United Way of Collier
County Agency for their outstanding contributions to the community
and wishing them yet another year of great success for the 2008/2009
season.
To be accepted by Ernie Bretzmann, Executive Director of
United Way of Collier County, and I don't believe Ernie's here by
himself. Bring them up.
MR. BRETZMANN: No. United Way or the agencies, please
come forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As everybody's coming up here,
this is a great organization. When I was in my other realm of work
years ago, I also was involved with United Way, and every year we
had to make sure that the employees contributed their share, and this
goes for a worthy cause in the community. Just about everybody's
here.
Whereas, since 1957 the United Way of Collier County has
sponsored and funded qualified, nonprofit community agencies which
provide essential human health services for our citizens, and,
Whereas, throughout the 51-year history of the United Way of
Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continued growth
and is currently funding 32 community agencies providing services to
Page 12
October 28, 2008
all areas of the county; and,
Whereas, the services of the United Way of Collier County has
resulted in assisting one in three citizens or 100,000 residents of
Collier County each year via the utilization of the funding it provides
members and agencies; and,
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners gratefully
acknowledges and supports the fine work of the United Way of Collier
County and its member agency.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, and the United Way of Collier County Agency is
formally recognized for their outstanding contributions to the
community and wishes them yet another year of great success as they
kick off their 2008/2009 season.
Done and ordered this 28th day of October, 2008, the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman, and Chairman, I move that we -- that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas and
second by Commissioner Coyle to move the proclamation.
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: Congratulation.
MR. BRETZMANN: Jodi, come on up.
(Applause.)
Page 13
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Somebody like to take that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We're going to get a
picture, too. Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, that's a wide lens if I ever saw
one. Thank you for all you're doing for our community.
MR. BRETZMANN: Good morning. I'm Ernie Bretzmann for
the United Way of Collier County, and we want to express our
appreciation to the board for this proclamation this morning, and also
thanks so much for erecting our banner. It looks great.
I think this proclamation symbolizes the collaborative working
relationship between United Way of Collier County and Collier
County Government.
We had our campaign kickoff this year on September 27th at the
North Collier Regional Park. It was our third annual Walk for the
Way, and approximately l,350 people participated. It was a great
turnout.
And one of the highlights of the walk, of course, is the
competition among teams, who can raise the most money. And those
of you who have spent some time around the county complex,
remember a few weeks ago the gauntlets of bake sales, hot dog sales,
book sales, and all those other things.
Well, a little bit here and there adds up to a lot, and I want to
recognize the team that raised the most money for our Walk for the
Way, it's the Collier County Government team. Melissa Blazer, are
you here to accept this?
(Applause.)
MR. BRETZMANN: Thank you again. Jennifer Edwards is
going to have to give Melissa a bigger office if she keeps winning
these because you need more wall space. Thanks so much for your
help and cooperation and spirit with the United Way. We appreciate it
very much, and thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 14
October 28, 2008
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 15,2008 AS
AMERICA RECYCLES DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY DAN RODRIGUEZ, SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AND JOE BELLONE,
REVENUE MANAGER FOR THE UTILITY BILLING AND
CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the next proclamation is
designating November 15th, 2008, America Recycles Day in Collier
County, to be accepted by Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Management
Department, and Joe Bellone, Revenue Manager for Utility Billing,
and Customer Service Department, and there's probably more, right,
Joe?
MR. BELLONE: Yes, sir. We have Rosie today.
MR. MUDD: It's an upgrade. Leo says it's an upgrade.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, that's what I like, a show
stealer. That is so cute. I have to ask this question, do you take that
out to schools and to different events and stuff?
MS. WALTERS: Rosie was actually at the United Way walk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Really.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Didn't walk very far.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ifwe invited you to even like a civic
association to give a speech, Rosie would come?
MS. WALTERS: Sure, she could. I'd have to check her
calendar.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Note that, everyone.
Proclamation: Whereas, Collier County recognizes the
importance of protecting and preserving our natural resources and
works to make the world a better place by adopting conscientious
living habits that will improve our daily lives and bring about a
Page 15
October 28, 2008
cleaner, safer, and healthier environment; and,
Whereas, the National Recycling Coalition launches its 11 th
annual campaign to promote the social, environmental, and economic
benefits of recycling and buying recycled products on American
Recycles Day, November l5th, 2008; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County have the opportunity to
join millions of people across America in making a positive difference
in reducing water and air pollution, conserving natural resources, and
saving energy by recycling and buying recycled products; and,
Whereas, the public utilities solid waste management and utility
building and customer -- billing, I'm sorry -- and customer service
departments, under the direction of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners, have worked diligently to develop a
multi-faceted recycling program as a way to preserve valuable landfill
space and conserve natural resources; and,
Whereas, Collier County Government and the Board of County
Commissioners wish to recognize and commend the citizens of Collier
County for their admirable recycling efforts, their positive
contribution to the preservation of valuable landfill airspace, and for
their contributions to the conservation of our natural resources.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November 15th, 2008,
be designated as America Recycles Day in Collier County, and Collier
County wishes to join the rest of America in maximizing awareness,
celebration of this day.
Done and ordered this 28th day of October, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve this
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala makes a motion
October 28, 2008
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?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You guys have done wonderful
work. I'm just so proud of you. Oh, yes, what a difference. And they
were nice enough -- I put together a little tour, and we actually went to
the recycling plant over at Pebblebrook Pines. What an amazing
informational tour that was. And I just want to thank everybody for
all the work that you've done for our community to make it a better
place. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Goodjob. We have to get a picture.
(Applause,)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We may have to get a shorter can
next year.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER, 2008 AS
SMART GROWTH AWARENESS MONTH. ACCEPTED BY DEB
Page 17
October 28, 2008
MILSAP, HEALTH PROMOTION CO-CHAIRWOMAN, KELLY
ROBINSON, HEALTH PROMOTION COALITION MEMBER,
SHEILA SHERIDAN, HEALTH PROMOTION COALITION
MEMBER, DAVID BUCHHEIT, CHAIRMAN OF CTST AND
ROSS MULLER, COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY TEAM
MEMBER - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next proclamation is a
proclamation designating November 28th as Smart Growth Awareness
Month, to be accepted by Deb Milsap, the Health Promotion
Co-Chairwoman; Kelly Robinson, the Health Promotion Coalition
member; Sheila Sheridan, the Health Promotion Coalition member;
David Buchheit, the Chairman of CTST; and Ross Muller, the
Community Traffic Safety Team member.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great
pleasure to read this proclamation.
Whereas, a lack of physical activity plays a leading role in rising
rates of obesity, diabetes, and other health problems among residents
of Collier County, and being able to walk or bicycle to work, school,
or stores offers an opportunity to build activity into our daily routine;
and,
Whereas, only about one-quarter of Americans get the
recommended amount of exercise, and this lack of inactivity (sic) has
contributed to the obesity epidemic and is a factor in more than
200,000 deaths a year; and,
Whereas, driving private vehicles contributes to traffic
congestion and air pollution; and,
Whereas, due to an inadequate supply of quality affordable
housing located near job centers, low-income citizens are frequently
faced with living in increasingly remote locations with longer
commutes and higher transportation costs; and,
Whereas, by directing growth to communities where people
Page 18
October 28, 2008
already live and work, smart growth limits the amount of farmland
and open space that is developed, makes existing communities more
attractive with a mix of housing, restaurants, parks, cafes, and jobs,
and minimizes the need for new water, sewer, and road infrastructure
that increases taxpayer burdens; and,
Whereas, Collier County will be the first county in the state to
participate in Smart Growth Awareness Month; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Health Promotion Coalition and the
Community Traffic Safety Team have volunteered time and effort to
support Smart Growth Awareness Month.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November 2008 be
designated as Smart Growth Awareness Month and encourages
everyone to consider the safety and health of the community today
and every day.
Done and ordered this 28th day of October, 2008, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle 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.
Congratulations.
Page 19
October 28, 2008
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Deb, nice to see you again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Your service is very much
appreciated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're here because you have a suit?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You have broad shoulders. You can
stand between these three,
MS. MILSAP: Good morning, and thank you, Commissioners.
On behalf of the health promotion coalition and the Community
Traffic Safety Team, we greatly appreciate your support of this month,
and I'll grab that from you. Thank you.
We want to invite everyone in the community, from leaders to
interested citizens, to an event that we're going to host during Smart
Growth Awareness Month, and that is Growing Collier Smarter, as
you can see on the screen,
Basically it's -- the mission of the meeting is to raise awareness
about how implementing smart growth principals can help grow
Collier Smarter to make Collier County a safer and healthier
community for years to come.
So thank you again for your support, and have a nice day.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now without further ado, we're going
to our time --
MR. MUDD: Time certain.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF A CHECK TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE UNUSED FEES DISTRIBUTION.
PRESENTED BY GUY CARLTON, TAX COLLECTOR-
PRESENTED A CHECK FOR $10,083,314.97
Page 20
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- certain presentation, a very worthy
presentation of a check to the Board of Commissioners for the unused
fees distribution presented by our Tax Collector of Collier County,
Guy Carlton.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we get a drum-roll.
(Applause.)
MR. CARLTON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Guy Carlton, the Tax Collector, better known as lame
duck.
The first time I came before you to present any unused fees, it
was $300,000. This morning we're talking big money. Stock market
may have crashed, but your Tax Collector is there for you. I mean, it's
such big money I'm going to have to have my compliance officer help
me with the check.
With tough times I know you're going to appreciate it, because
everybody's budget's hurting. The check for unused fees, the board's
portion, which is about 90 percent, 10 million, 883 -- $10,083,314.97.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's hear it for $lO million.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Take that check out. Grab the check.
COMPLIANCE OFFICER: We are going to have a photo op.
Let's stand behind the check.
MR. CARL TON: I've got to stand behind it because of growth.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, Guy.
MR. CARL TON: When I leave, I'm going to invite you all to
my little place in Argentina. It's only 50 square miles, but we call it
home.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we go back to proclamations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a check here, and I don't would
to hold it, and I think -- I think the finance director can deposit that.
MR. MUDD: We'll get it downstairs.
Page 21
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do I need to endorse that?
MR. MUDD: Not yet, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #4 D
PROCLAMA nON RECOGNIZING THE 300,000TH HABITAT
HOUSE IN THE WORLD! TO BE ACCEPTED BY REV. LISA
LEFKOW AND MR. NICK KOULOHERAS, HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED
Next item we're going to move to -- back to proclamations to
recognize the 300th (sic) Habitat house in the world, to be accepted by
Reverend Lisa Lefkow, and Mr. Nick --
MR. KOULOHERAS: Good luck; Kouloheras.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Kouloheras, for Habitat for
Humanity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's my honor to be able to read
this proclamation. I asked it to be drafted.
As we know, Mary Ann Durso passed away recently, and she's
been a friend of this community, along with her husband Sam, for
over 15 years, and it's an absolute honor to be able to read this today.
Whereas, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County has been the
main provider of single-family owner-occupied affordable housing for
low-wage earners in Collier County since 1978; and,
Whereas, Habitat for Humanity's mission is to eliminate poverty
housing and homelessness from the face of the earth by building
affordable, adequate, and basic housing; and,
Whereas, in 2007, Habitat for Humanity of Collier County broke
ground on its 1 ,000th home; and,
Whereas, in 2008 for -- Habitat of Collier County celebrated its
30th anniversary; and,
Page 22
October 28, 2008
Whereas, Habitat for Humanity will mark a major milestone on
November 13th, 2008, when construction begins on the homebuilding
ministry 300 -- 300,000th home in Naples, Florida; and,
Whereas, 300,000 homes will be built in remembrance of Mary
Ann Durso, former executive project director of Habitat for Humanity
of Collier County; and,
Whereas, Mary Ann Durso, along with her husband, Sam Durso,
spent 15 year as full-time volunteers, built the largest annual
producing Habitat for Humanity affiliate in the United States.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that October 28th, 2008, be
designated to honor the Dursos' leadership and celebrate the Habitat
for Humanity 300,000th home to be build in Mary Ann Durso's honor
for her many years of humanity and service to the community that
helped more than 5,000 people find safe and affordable shelter.
Done and ordered this, the 28th day of October, 2008, signed by
Tom Henning, our Chairman, and I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, thank you.
Sam, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, we're going to need a group
Page 23
October 28, 2008
picture, too. Hold that up.
Would you care to say a couple words.
REVEREND LEFKOW: You know we never miss that
opportunity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope not.
REVEREND LEFKOW: Commissioners, thank you on behalf of
the staff of Habitat for Humanity, our donors, volunteers, but most
importantly, on behalf of the 1,150 families who now live in simple,
decent homes of their own, we're grateful for this recognition.
Indeed, we're excited about the 300,000th Habitat for Humanity
home in the world, and the Habitat for Humanity International has
selected this site to be the home building of this milestone home,
The house, indeed, will be built on November the 13th and
funded and built in memory of Mary Ann Durso who worked so
tirelessly to forge partnerships between individuals in our community,
members of the business community, the faith community and,
indeed, Collier County Government so that we might rid our
community of poverty housing, that we might contribute to the
stability of the workforce through homeownership opportunities for
the very low income, and that we might ensure that every child has at
least a simple, decent place to live.
So thank you, Commissioners, for this proclamation and for your
recognition and for your continued partnership as we work together.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Next?
Item #5B
CONTRACTOR PRESENTATION BY KRAFT CONSTRUCTION,
INC. ON THE CONSTRUCTION STATUS OF THE NEW
EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER - PRESENTED
Page 24
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next presentation is a
contractor presentation by Kraft Construction, Inc., on the
construction status of the new Emergency Service Center.
MR. JONES: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Hank Jones, Department of Facilities Management.
This morning we're just going to bring you up to date on the
status of the new Emergency Service Center, and to make that
presentation we have with us Mr. Pete Tuffo, Vice-president of
Operations for Kraft Construction.
Peter?
MR. TUFFO: Thank you, Hank, and good morning,
Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about the
emergency service center today.
In today's presentation I'm going to take you through the past l2
months of the emergency service center.
As you look up at the picture on the screen, that is actually a
picture that was taken about three days ago. That is the current status
of the picture (sic).
The next slide is going to show our project staff. They've worked
diligently, both Chris Dill, Joe Carchidi, Betty Lounds, Doug Waller,
Steve Smith, Matt Rafferty, and Holly Fox have endless hours out
there at the Emergency Service Center in coordinating with Skip and
Hank and John and county staff to make sure that this project is
moving as smoothly as it is. It's been a very successful effort to date.
The slide up in front of you is now taking you back to last
November, roughly a year ago. We were pouring the fourth floor,
working on the structure. You can still see the tower crane; running
about 130 people a day out at the project moving the structure ahead.
The entire structure took roughly six months, which was a very
fast-paced project and was going along very well.
The next slide is December. As you can see, the structure is
complete. We've poured the parking garage slabs. The second floor
Page 25
October 28, 2008
interior walls are going up. We've started the mechanical, electrical,
and plumbing, in-wall rough-ins. Again, taking countless hours of
coordination to make sure that everything fits in the ceiling space that
was gIven.
In January -- this is actually one of my favorite pictures of the
project. I'm not sure if it shows up very well on the screen, but you
can see the cast panels off to the right-hand side of the property. That
was part of the value engineering effort that saved the project roughly
$1.4 million and also accelerated the completion of the project to
January in lieu of April.
But if you look closely on the panel that's being raised, you can
see the State of Florida map, the imbed on that precast panel. I'd like
to take credit and say that we planned the helicopter flying over at this
time, but that is honestly purely luck, but it's a great picture and it
shows the whole process that's going on.
The next slide you'll see is April. And as you can see, the entire
skin is on the building. Weare roughly dried in, some of the windows
are still in the process of being installed, but the interior build-out,
we've got metal framing going on in the walls, we have the trash shoot
on the back side to keep the property enclosed and -- enclosed from
the elements.
And another key date on the project was the FP&L transformer
be installed to give us permanent power on the project and let us move
ahead.
Now you go to July. You can see the text coat on the building as
well as the painting. The building starts to take place. The site work
is coming together. We have the curbs being installed. The interior
painting is going on, and the monopole in the back, another hundred
and -- what is the height of the structure -- 185- foot structure in the
back. For those of you that visited the site, the concrete foundation for
that structure was very impressive, Again, took a lot of coordination.
I believe there was some 85 anchor bolts that had to fit exactly; went
Page 26
October 28, 2008
together very well.
The next picture is July. You can see the -- actually this is on the
back side of the property showing the pole again, just showing the
process, also showing the central energy plant up and running, as well
as the generators being set.
September is the -- again, this is the last aerial photos that we
have for the project. October should be coming in. But, again, you see
the landscape's installed, the flag poles are installed, the interior of the
building is really starting to come together. The flooring -- you know,
flooring is going down, painting. The building is really starting to
take shape and getting ready for the occupants.
That is the back side through September also. Again, just
showing the progress that's been made. You can see the library up on
the north side. Again, that was also a successful coordination effort
between another contractor and ourselves handled through Hank and
his staff.
The last picture, again, just takes you to where we are today. I
believe many of you have actually seen the property but are more than
welcome to come back out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Questions?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I set up little tours with
different parts of our government to show the community what makes
us great. I say -- I try to say that humbly, but I truly mean it.
Am I allowed to set up a tour before you're finished to show
people how it's coming along?
MR. JONES: I think we'd prefer to have -- we're so close to
having the building substantially complete where the county will take
possession here in January sometime. I think it would be better to
wait to bring the public through till after the county has possession
rather than bring it through a construction site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. But we can take a -- I
Page 27
October 28, 2008
haven't seen it yet.
MR. JONES: You, yourself, you're welcome anytime. Any of
the commissioners, obviously, are welcome anytime.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I've been out there a couple
of times, and I'm really impressed. I think the last time I was out there
was the day that they were erecting the tower there, and I'm amazed
how far it had come along at that point in time. So I'm looking
forward to going back out again.
MR. TUFFO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. TUFFO: Thank you.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY RITA GREENBERG, PRESIDENT OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION,
PRESENTING THEIR FINAL REPORT ON CONSOLIDATION -
BOARD DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH FIRE
DISTRICTS AND TO DRAFT AN RFP FOR AN INDEPENDENT
CONSUL T ANT TO REVIEW CONSOLIDATION - CONSENSUS
MR. MUDD: The next presentation is by Rita Greenberg,
president of the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association presenting
their final report on consolidation.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Good morning, Commissioners. On
behalf of the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association, I would like to
present Chief Bob Metzger with Golden Gate Fire Department. He's
Page 28
October 28, 2008
been instrumental in coordinating this final draft, and I'm going to
give him the honor of doing the full presentation to the board.
CHIEF METZGER: And we'll get the right one up here. No.
Should start with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it ESC? No.
CHIEF METZGER: No. I actually have it on a zip drive here if
that --
Good morning, Commissioners. Sorry for the technical stuff.
For the record, my name is Bob Metzger. I'm the fire chief of the
Golden Gate Fire District and I'm here representing the Collier County
Fire Chiefs Association as we present our summary of the final report
on the study of consolidation.
The purpose of this presentation is threefold. First it's to review
with you the results of this study initiative; also it's to place on the
record this particular PowerPoint presentation which summarizes the
final report, and then finally we're here to make our members
available to answer any questions about this final report.
Now, before I start, I would like to just mention a couple of
things, that this report results from many long hours of work by
numerous members of the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association, All
10 emergency response agencies participated in this initiative in some
manner, but I'd like to give special thanks to Assistant Chief Orly
Stoltz at North Naples and Deputy Chief Chris Burn at Marco for their
leadership and their energy in this initiative.
This is a summary presentation, This is not a substitute for the
full report. The full report contains information that, frankly, it was
not going to be possible to put into this, so it's important that you be
familiar with the full report as well.
This particular PowerPoint was presented to the Fire Service
Steering Committee on August 28th of this year. You are seeing it
without any revisions from that time.
As a public service to the community, the Golden Gate Fire
Page 29
October 28, 2008
District's Board of Fire Commissioners has placed this presentation on
its web site at www.ggfire.com.
And finally, my intention is to move quickly through this because
there's a mess of slides, so let's just get on with it.
We started this thing about a year ago studying initially the
operational consolidation of the entire district. We presented to you
all on February 26th of this year and we received directions to go back
and finish what was then a narrow study just on operations.
So we did that and went back to look at these areas:
Administrative structure, organization, EMS, training, maintenance
and logistics, and prevention.
This slide's important, and I want to cover all four points.
Currently you have fire and rescue services presented by nine entities
in the county, and one countywide emergency medical service that
provides advanced medical response throughout the county and
transport.
A small number of the fire rescue organizations implemented
advanced emergency medical programs of their own recognizing
needs in their own communities, and they did this to support the
efforts of Collier County EMS. But those kinds of enhanced services
do not exist countywide, and this turned out to be one of the key
focuses of this study,
The parameters of the study were essentially, use what you got,
but the second item is a change from the first time that you saw this, in
that in our minimum safe staffing levels, we have increased our EMS
unit staffing from two to three. This is a significant change because of
the capabilities that we believe it provides advanced life support
throughout the county, and I'll get into that in a minute.
There are five separate branches in this study and they
encompass -- in the structure they encompass operations, emergency
medical services, training, prevention, and administration. Each one
of these branches is headed by an assistant chief who will report to the
Page 30
October 28, 2008
overall fire chief of the organization.
We also indicated the organization needed to be created free of
oversight by the Collier County Board of Commissioners. No offense
intended.
We did look in an alternate approach of service and delivery
since the last time you saw this. This approach requires a minimum
daily staffing of l66 people versus the 164 people that we mentioned
the first time through.
Now, you may wonder how two additional people make a
difference. Well, we reshuffled a lot of the ways that we're going to
be providing fire rescue and EMS response throughout the county, and
it's consistent with the second bullet, that implementation of priority
medical dispatch standards will improve the efficient use of available
resources.
What we've done is, this plan calls for a reduction in fire engine
companies from 25 to 22, a reduction of aerial trucks from seven to
six, and a reduction in medic unit transport units from 25 to 2l;
however, all fire engines and aerial trucks will provide advanced life
support, which is going to provide paramedic care on the scene faster
than waiting for a medic unit to respond.
Priority medical dispatch standards and increased medic unit
staffing will reduce the number of response units being dispatched to a
single medical emergency.
What does that means? It means that right now we send at least
two units to every medical emergency. We believe that by
overstaffing the medic units, there will be situations where we can
staff -- or send only a medic unit, and they'll be capable of handling
the situation without additional staffing or we may send simply a fire
response unit to handle a less serious medical emergency.
The whole key is the emergency medical dispatch concept which
will pretty much overhaul how we dispatch units and how many
respond to each situation.
Page 3 1
October 28, 2008
Operations. Operations is responsible for all fire rescue and
emergency medical service activities. That's where the rubber meets
the road and they're on the streets, headed by one assistant chief who
is supported by other chiefs. Between them, they manage three
separate divisions.
We've divided the county into halves, north and south, and that's
commensurate with the current communications divisions throughout
the county. We have a north division and a south division.
In addition, we're adding a special ops division, which covers all
of these specialties. You'll notice that it includes homeland security,
urban search and rescue, disaster management, and emergency
planning.
Essentially, this operations section is going to provide all aspects
for not only handling emergencies but for planning and preparation for
all hazards, as you would expect any agency of this size to have the
capability to do.
This is a brief schematic of the flowchart for the operations
branch. You will note that it has six fire battalion chiefs and four
EMS battalion chiefs. We believe we'll need at least that many to
adequately manage the field personnel.
This is a staffing chart that tells you how we got to the 166
number. And you will note that currently throughout the county we
operate with about 151 people on the road. We're proposing enclosing
that to 166. We believe we can get there through changing how our
units throughout the county are distributed and also through additional
personnel that will be made available to us by the consolidation
process that will result in a pushdown effect that transfers more people
out of administration and onto staff -- or onto street assignments.
This is the administration branch. Administration, obviously, is
responsible for all the professional direction and administers fiscal and
human resource programs throughout this new entity. It's going to be
led by an assistant chief, also reporting to the new fire chief, and
Page 32
October 28, 2008
pretty much, they do everything that administration branch does.
There are three divisions within the administrative section of
administration. The first one is the finance division. Finance covers
all manner of fiscal responsibilities throughout the district. These are
just some of the examples. These four bullet points are just some of
the examples.
The second division within the administrative section is the
human resource division. They're responsible for all personnel
services. In addition, they will have the risk management function in
there as part of their responsibilities.
The third division is the administrative services division itself.
This is comprised of the IT services. They'll do customer relations.
Public information officer will be assigned here, and they have most
of the planning responsibilities for the organization.
This is half of the administration -- the administration branch.
This is the administrative section. There's another half that reports to
the assistant chief, and this is the logistics section.
The logistics section is structured into four of its own groups
covering fleet, communications, facilities and supply. Fleet covers
everything we operate and is responsible for repair and maintenance
of all our apparatus, vehicles, watercraft, and any aircraft.
The consolidation, we believe, will -- may have an issue if we do
not have access to the county's repair facilities that are currently
utilized for repairing all the medic units, Unless we have access to
that, we do foresee an issue providing maintenance and service for the
medic units themselves.
Under logistics section and communications, the communications
section will maintain all of the district's communication equipment
and provide skilled coordination of multiple emergency incidents for
the first time within the dispatch center. What that means is the
communications section will have a NIMS qualified individual on
staff who can assist with managing large-scale for multiple incidents
Page 33
October 28, 2008
throughout the county.
The facilities portion of the logistics section is responsible for all
of the capital construction programs. We believe that this will be a
large enough undertaking that it could allow for us to hire our own
mechanical technicians for HV AC, electrical, plumbing, and so forth,
rather than contracting these services out.
We believe this probably will make sense and that it will see a
cost savings for the overall organization.
Last of the logistics section is supply. Supply will allow us to
establish the centralized receiving center, providing more controlled
inventory process and accountability and, frankly, just the sheer size
of this new organization should provide a certain measure of economy
of scale that will allow us to save additional funds for everything else
that goes into the procurement and supply of an organization this size.
This is a schematic of the flowchart for logistics. Pretty
straightforward.
The emergency medical services branch. This branch is also
headed by an assistant chief, assisted by a number of other chiefs. It is
responsible for the planning and coordination of the district's
Emergency Medical Services programs. This does not supervise
directly paramedic response in the field.
The EMS administration section manages the public information,
education, and relations office which coordinates the public
defibrillator program, CPR and cert. programs. There's also an
infection control officer assigned to this division who oversees all the
exposure control programs.
The organization envisions establishing the office of medical
direction here underneath Emergency Medical Services branch. The
district will contract with a physician who shall act as the medical
director for the district.
This division is responsible for maintaining medical protocol,
developing medical protocol, equipment procurement, and treatment
Page 34
October 28, 2008
standards. They're also responsible for quality medical control and for
quality assurance standards.
Now, this particular flowchart should have a dotted line between
the medical director itself and the deputy chief of the office of medical
direction because we do envision that the office of medical direction
will interact directly with the medical director. That was an oversight
on my part.
Training and safety. They do everything responsible for training
and maintaining the safety of our personnel. It's all educational
programs involving department personnel. That's fire rescue and
EMS.
So we have a division chief of EMS and a division chief of fire
rescue training, This is the very basic or generic flowchart for this.
It's designed to be this way because we envision a number of these
training officers underneath each fire rescue training and EMS
training, being able to flow back and forth to address whatever the
training needs might be for that particular month or that particular
season.
Fire prevention branch provides fire prevention inspection
services throughout the county, also led by an assistant chief.
Various responsibilities throughout the fire inspection -- or fire
prevention branch, including the construction -- the inspection of new
construction and responsibilities related to hydrant flows and building
construction and so forth. They will manage a countywide fire
investigations and public education program, which will be consistent
throughout the county.
The existing building inspection division will cover all existing
buildings, and it's our hope that they will have a program that will
provide for the regular inspection of all existing structures. Most
importantly, the high-hazard structures.
This is a brief schematic of this flowchart headed by an assistant
chief of fire prevention.
Page 35
October 28, 2008
Something you all wanted to now talk about is district funding;
how do we pay for this thing? First of all, let's look at the assumptions.
And every point on this page is important.
When we did this study, we based it on data we had current,
which was fiscal year 2007/2008. This has not been updated in any
way in that respect.
Impact fee incomes and expenditures have been excluded, except
as they might relate to debt service. Weare also not including any
cash reserves that districts might have. And last, the 2007 taxable
property value for Collier County has been utilized as the base for ad
valorem revenue computation. Again, that's something that will have
to be revised.
We've identified three funding mechanisms for this new response
district: Ad valorem, non ad valorem funds, and fees for services.
You could put in a fourth, which would be a combination of any or all
three of those.
We do believe that the ad valorem revenue requirements would
be approximately $90 million to adequately fund this organization as
it existed at the time of this study.
In the process of evaluating whether or not this concept will
work, we did a strategic planning assessment called a SWOT analysis.
SWOT is an acronym standing for strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats, just like we did the first time around. This
is merely an extension of that.
Under strengths, couple things I'd like to point out to you. The
next slides that you see will be a summary of the strengths that are
listed in the report, and these, by no means, include all the strengths
that we identified in the report.
But bullet points three and four, proposal provides for a standard
minimum safe staffing level county-wide which will also increase
service levels in a number of areas.
The thrust of this and the big part of the heart of this proposal is
Page 36
October 28, 2008
that there will be an improvement in service provision throughout the
county. In addition, the elimination of district and political boundaries
will result in a reduction of response time in a number of service areas.
This plan will yield a significant improvement in response time
for ALS care, and it provides for a sensible strategic planning for
future station locations and the provision of service. This translates
into capital savings in the long run.
Additional strengths include an imposition of standardized
training of all skills countywide. We don't have that now, and you'll
have varying capabilities throughout the county both in fire rescue and
in first response medical response. And it will result in a single
advanced life support medical protocol countywide.
The proposal reduces duplication of services, it reduces
bureaucracy, and it provides savings in full use, capital costs, and
other costs throughout the entire district.
It will result in relative parity in the millage rate across the entire
county, and it provides a more standard service throughout the county.
In addition a countywide standard fire code interpretation and code
enforcement will result, which we hope may reduce some of the
confusion among builders and so forth regarding construction
requirements.
Now weaknesses. We've got some weaknesses in this proposal.
First of all, this does not provide standard response times countywide.
People who live closer to the shore, the beach, don't -- have a much
better response time than people who live further east.
The minimum safe staffing levels that are assured in the
consolidated district, in fact, fall short of compliance with the National
Fire Protection Association, standard 1710. On the other hand,
nobody within the county is currently meeting those standards, so that
may not be a significant issue at this point.
More importantly, the funding assumptions for this districts rely
heavily on ad valorem tax revenue, and we've all seen what can
Page 37
October 28, 2008
happen as a result of that reliance.
There are disparities in the collective bargaining agreements
throughout the county that will, in some fashion, have to be
reconciled. Locally, within different districts or cities, there may be a
perception of a loss of control of this service within their community.
And in some aspects, the service area itself raises some concerns over
how we're going to provide adequate training for every employee in
each of the disciplines that will be provided.
Nonetheless, we believe that a consolidated district has the
opportunity to explore a number of opportunities, including alternate
revenue sources potential for creation of a new transport service, a
basic life support transport service, or some sort of nonemergency
transport service which will reduce transport demands on the current
Collier EMS ALS transport units.
Ifwe don't have to transport non life-threatening units or
non-life-threatening medical conditions in these advanced life support
units, it provides them to be available for response in other areas,
Provision of a NIMS qualified supervision of all emergency
dispatchers is important to us, and the creation of a district
communication system is an additional opportunity we see.
Finally, there is -- we would be implementing, as EMS currently
has, a field training officer program throughout the county in all
disciplines.
Threats, or as I like to call them, challenges. There may be a lack
of stakeholder acceptance of this concept for a variety of reasons. The
proposed funding mechanisms may be criticized, and there may be
preexisting misconceptions that consolidation must demonstrate
immediate cost savings.
Frankly, we're not trying to sell this on the basis of cost savings
right now. We believe that cost savings will occur. But if it went into
effect today, we don't believe that you would see them immediately.
Without a unified method for funding this new district, it can't
Page 38
October 28, 2008
move forward. The disparate millage rates across the county create
problems to this initiative. And then, of course, it's further threatened
by any future tax reform initiatives that could come out of the state.
Areas for further study -- and I'm winding down. We have to
determine the political and legal authority to consolidate. Elected
civic leaders must determine whether they want their organizations to
participate in this concept, and once that's determined, legal research
will need to be performed. Specific funding mechanisms associated
with consolidation will need to be identified,
So our conclusions are that consolidation is, in fact, a worthwhile
goal if its intent is to reduce or eliminate wastefulness and promote
better service. Byproducts should include improving public service
while providing better safety to all emergency responders.
The study group believes that in the long run, tens of millions of
dollars can be potentially saved primarily through the cancellation of
redundant or needless pending capital projects which would be
rendered unnecessary by the consolidation itself. More importantly
though, there's serious value just in this concept regardless of any
savings. The markedly improved service provided by a consolidated
district warrants this consideration.
And our conclusion is that the group believes it's necessary to
retain a consultant experienced in studying the specific areas of the
legal exigencies of consolidation and funding of an organization
involving the merging of such diverse groups.
This consultant should clearly be accountable to all of the
affected participant organizations, all 10 of them. And in closing, I'd
just like to say that the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association has
completed this study. We're done with it. And we would like to move
this forward and have some debates started regarding the merits of this
and moving forward with the request for proposal for somebody to
study this further.
That's all I have for you.
Page 39
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
Commissioner Coyle? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much, Chief. I
think it's an excellent presentation and a good study.
There are things that I feel we need to agree upon before we take
the next step, which is to get a consultant to work on this.
There appear to be some elements of the study that anticipate
assuming responsibilities that are currently performed by other
agencies, some of which are not under our control.
For example, the public health agency, the infection control and
analysis responsibilities. I'm concerned about how those might be
overlapping here as well as other homeland security functions.
I need to understand whether you're proposing that we have a
consolidated homeland security activity within the consolidated fire
rescue EMS organization.
Are you prepared to address that issue at the present time or is
that something you'd prefer to put off to further--
CHIEF METZGER: Well, I'm prepared to speak to you about
the intent of some of the things that are included in this report. So to
address the items that you brought up, starting with infection control,
most organizations right now provide an infection control officer or at
least those duties within the organization primarily as an educational
component for its employees.
We're not suggesting that we, in any way, usurp any
responsibility or authority of the health department in the area of
countywide infection control. But an organization of this size,
providing emergency medical response, has to provide this service to
all of its employees, and that's the intent of that.
Now, in terms of emergency management disaster preparedness,
how that might relate to homeland security and so forth, we're talking
about a countywide emergency response organization that, with the
exception of the provision of law enforcement components, we will go
Page 40
October 28, 2008
to everything.
This organization then will be responsible for responding in
every kind of disaster situation you can imagine, and we need a
planning component within that organization to be able to properly
prepare for and respond to those kinds of situations. That was the
intent of putting those positions within the organization.
Weare not assuming that we are taking anything over beyond
just providing that type of an internal service for this organization.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That process gets significantly
more complex. If you take a look at emergency circumstances caused
by downed trees, clogged sewer water drains, stormwater drains,
who's going to clear those out? They create safety hazards. I don't
anticipate that you're going to be doing that.
But -- there are many, many other kinds of activities which could
represent emergency response in -- under hurricane conditions as an
example that I'm not sure that the fire districts are all that well
equipped to handle.
So I wonder if we can maybe get more specific about what the
fire -- the consolidated fire district would do in that respect and how
they would coordinate with other agencies.
I think I could probably make an argument that if the public
health service department is doing the job of reviewing the threat of
infectious diseases in the community and if they are communicating
that to all of the governmental agencies in Collier County and to the
public, that the need of the fire district becomes one of training their
own personnel, as you suggested, rather than studying the infectious
disease threat to the community because that study has already been
accomplished.
So I guess -- these are fine-tuning things. These are not big
impediments to the objectives of the study as far as I'm concerned.
But the reason I'm bringing them up is because if we jointly decide to
fund -- develop a consultant to review these things, I would like to
Page 41
October 28, 2008
give the consultant guidance concerning these issues about what
they're supposed to take a look at and what they shouldn't be taking a
look at so that they're clear that we're not talking about reaching into
the public health service, as an example, and pulling out their
. functions and expecting to reduce personnel there unless it makes
sense to do so.
That's the only reason I'm raising these issues. I don't expect
we'll solve them right now.
CHIEF METZGER: That's well said, Commissioner. Actually,
the issues that you're raising are concepts that we are not reinventing
here. The -- the kind of services provided by an emergency response
agency such as we're contemplating will just be fairly concomitant to
what we are currently doing but on a countywide scale. No, we're not
going to go in and clean out sewers or provide other kinds of response
to the kinds of things that occur in major storms that we aren't
currently providing now.
As far as the health department is concerned, when you talk
about somebody from the health department tracking and researching
health hazards and then communicating those to the different districts,
they have to have a contact point in each of those organizations, and
that contact point then takes that information and disseminates it
through its organizations, and that's really what we contemplate here.
But there needs to be a planning component within this
organization that communicates with and coordinates with every other
entity in the county providing some measure of response in a disaster
so that all those activities are coordinated and efficient. That's really
what we contemplate in this structure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you very much.
Chief, I appreciate the efforts that you put forward and the --
your chiefs' association's to be commended for coming forward with a
Page 42
October 28, 2008
wonderful starting document to be able to take us to the next stop.
A couple of things. I just wanted to clear the air on one thing.
We've heard numerous times -- not today from you -- but we've heard
the issue about EMS, and people have been quoted numerous times
that the reason the Collier County Commission is looking to move
EMS from their side of the house to another entity is because of the
cost, and that's totally incorrect, and I want to make sure that everyone
understands that today.
We're looking to be able to put this into the equation. We want
to see a first-class service, just as we're overseeing at this point in
time, continue on another entity, hopefully will be able to even offer
more amenities to the public with it at a lower cost over a period of
time. That's been the only objection.
As far as the cost of EMS, whether we collect the taxes for it or
we have other entities collect the taxes for it, that makes no difference.
When EMS does move if this all comes together, and I sure hope it
does, we're not going to all of a sudden take that void and start
spending that money. That money is going to move from our side of
the budget to whatever entity that's out there, and that just has to be
made totally clear.
Seven -- about six, seven years ago we originally came up with
this idea and moved it forward. We wanted to make sure that if it did
go forward that we'd be able to make it happen. It was never, never,
never a cost factor on the part of the county. That I wanted to make
clear.
But I do have one thing that you brought up, and I just want to
make sure, and I think I understand it. Free of oversight by the Board
of Collier County Commission, and that I agree with you. The final
entity that's put together, whatever it may be, how many
commissioners they have, how the government authority works with
it, would be free of oversight.
But to -- getting to that point, you're not suggesting that as we're
Page 43
October 28, 2008
moving forward through the process to put this together that the Board
of Collier County Commissioners would not playa role in it?
CHIEF GREENBERG: No, Commissioner. That is not the
intent at all. The intent is the final product. The final district would
be legislatively approved basically as an independent special district
which would have representatives governing from the entire
community representing all areas of the county as their governing
board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that would be the
first entity. And the -- if all the parts of the government, all the
different fire departments play into it in the original concept, Collier
County would still -- government would play --
CHIEF GREENBERG: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- a role in it because of our fire
departments that we do oversee and the EMS itself to that point in
time that they elect five independent or seven independent, or
whatever it may be, commissioners to run it; is that what I understand?
CHIEF GREENBERG: Yes. It depends on the transitional
structure and how it's set up. Each agent would have their current
members or select members of their agency be representing on the
independent special district, and then at a governed time it would
change over and new elected officials from all agencies and areas
would be appointed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That's what I envisioned
in the beginning, Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- before I give it to
Commissioner Halas, I just have a couple questions.
Have you -- are you prepared to introduce legislation to our
delegation for the '09 session?
CHIEF GREENBERG: No, sir, we are not. There is a
document, it's called a shell bill, that is being worked on as we
currently speak. It has not been formally adopted by the chiefs'
Page 44
October 28, 2008
association or many of the respective boards. I believe North Naples
Fire Department has been part of the initiation process on that shell
bill, and I think that might be what you're referring to. But as this
document is concerned, we have no legislative intent at this point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the 2009 session?
CHIEF GREENBERG: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. If it includes language of the
medical director, I would have real concerns about that. In order for --
we definitely want to move forward, so if anybody has any idea of
introducing legislation, you need to work with all the entities involved
including the municipalities and the Board of County Commissioners.
Would there be any consideration to -- I mean, you're talking
about, you know, enhanced services, less duplicative services and so
on and so forth. Is there any thought or did you think about plan
review services, inspection services, building inspection services, to
put it under community development?
So I just would hope that you would kind of take that back and --
as long as we're doing that, that might be something to consider.
Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Chief, I'd like to commend
you and your staff and everybody that was involved in this study.
Obviously you spent a lot of time in this. And I'm only asking these
questions because when I look at the ORC charts that you have, it
looks to me like you're quite top heavy, and maybe my next question
will help give me a comfort zone.
What is the total staffing of all of the fire districts at the present
time? Do you know how many personnel are there at the present
time?
CHIEF METZGER: Actually, I don't think we know that. That
would be easy enough to find out, but standing here I can't tell you
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What is your best guess for
Page 45
October 28, 2008
the type of staffing that you would need for a consolidated fire and
EMS? Do you have some idea?
CHIEF METZGER: If you ask me that in about an hour I could
probably come up with something for you, but it's -- honestly, those
are answers that I don't have for you because we didn't anticipate the
questions.
What we put together was one of what could be a variety of
different ways of putting an organization like this together. And we
all realize there's more than one way to skin that cat. But what we
intended to put together was an organization that would provide the
same level of service but improve the service yet not displace anybody
because we need to start getting everybody's buy-in.
And I'm not certain that the organization is, in fact, top heavy.
But in terms of the overall numbers of staffing throughout the county
versus what we're envisioning here, we're expecting to utilize existing
numbers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. What is the -- do you know
what the combined budgets of all of the fire districts is at the present
time?
CHIEF METZGER: Well, we base the study on 2007 numbers
that approximated 90 -- $90 million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's how you came up
with the $90 million --
CHIEF METZGER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that you would need as a startup.
With the -- you're assuming with the personnel that are presently at
all seven different districts; is that correct?
CHIEF METZGER: All 10.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All 10, okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to address my
remarks to how we go from here to where we would like to go, and I'd
Page 46
October 28, 2008
like to start with the shell bill. The intent of the shell bill was to
provide sufficient flexibility for the fire districts to make decisions as
to when and how they would like to consolidate rather than to
mandate consolidation for everyone at one time.
That has turned out to be a difficult goal to achieve in view of
state statutes, as I understand it. I've asked our County Attorney to
review that bill just in the last day or so. It's -- and he has expressed
some concerns that the shell bill, as it is currently written, will conflict
with state statutes.
So there are problems with respect to structure, how many
commissioners, how you divide the area, how do voters select
commissioners, and things of that nature that mayor may not have an
impact on your organizational structure, your recommended
organizational structure.
So the point of all this is that if we want to give direction to a
consultant to produce a set of very specific recommendations to all of
us, then we need to make sure that we have the legal parameters
defined, that we understand what we should tell the consultant about
the Florida Statutes and what mayor may not be permitted.
And so here's what I would propose. Could we -- could we have
the people who were involved with writing the shell bill work with the
County Attorney for the purpose of sorting out problems with respect
to conflicts of state law, work with our legislative delegation to see if
we can get those ironed out in any way, and once we have a clear
understanding of how we can do it legislatively and organizationally,
then ask a consultant to come in and provide us their
recommendations within the parameters of those considerations?
Did I confuse things or did you understand where I'm going with
it?
CHIEF GREENBERG: I do understand where you're going with
it, Commissioner, but let me start offby saying that the Collier County
Fire Chiefs Association has not had direct involvement in the shell
Page 47
October 28, 2008
bill. We, too, just recently distributed it amongst our agencies.
North Naples Fire District and their attorney, I believe, is where
the initiative began. It was originally presented last year by Broward
County, and it's kind of a spinoff and a possibility that has been
moved forward by their organization. In regards to what you're saying
as far as working with them, I'm sure there would be no objection to
that.
To that end, that is completely two separate items compared to
what we are discussing with what we've done.
What we have done with our study, our next step is what we feel
is the open dialogue, the open discussion between all agencies and all
entities involved to put together the scope of service to put together an
RFP to submit to different consulting agencies for review and
selection.
We don't -- our next process that we've been directed by our
boards and that the chiefs association approved of is that process. We
have not made any initiative to put together any legislative paperwork
at this point as an agency.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, my approach is to try to
make sure that we know what the legal barriers are to creating a
consolidated organization --
CHIEF GREENBERG: Correct. And that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- before we hire a consultant to tell
us what the organization should be like. In other words, if the legal --
if the Florida Statutes require that there be five fire commissioners to
this consolidated board, then an organizational structure that
anticipates 15 is not going to work and there's no point in paying a
consultant for the time and money to work in that direction.
CHIEF GREENBERG: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I'm not suggesting that we try to
get legislation approved. I'm only suggesting that we try to jointly
define whether there are any insurmountable legal obstacles to the
Page 48
October 28, 2008
consolidation as it is envisioned. If they are, let's recognize that fact
before we hire a consultant so we can give the consultant the proper
parameters of the job.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Right. And that is one of the areas that
we said needs further study is the legal avenues with which to pursue,
we intend to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So my proposal is, can we agree
that we would work jointly on trying to answer that question and then
meet and structure an RFP that will achieve our mutual goals?
CHIEF GREENBERG: I have no objection to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHIEF GREENBERG: The meeting part has been challenging,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm sure it has, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that's a, from what I gather, a
direction that you would like to see the board go in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It would be my
recommendation to the board that we provide that direction and
participate jointly with the fire districts in trying to answer those
questions and create an RFP for a consultant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And I would imagine part of
the drafting of the RFP is -- is for the independent/dependent and
EMS, get that draft done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHIEF GREENBERG: All inclusive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
CHIEF GREENBERG: All inclusive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All inclusive. All different agencies.
Is that direction okay with you, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is with me. Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Coletta. Okay. We have a consensus, unanimous
consensus on the board. We want to take a look at the legal
Page 49
October 28, 2008
challenges of the special act, and then also draft the -- once we answer
some of those, draft the RFP. RFP or RFQ? No, we want to do RFP.
CHIEF METZGER: We suggested RFP.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. There's plenty of qualified
people that can take our money, right?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Y es. You had legal oversight
during all ofthese meeting, haven't you? Haven't you had an attorney
working with you on these meetings?
CHIEF GREENBERG: We've addressed different areas with
various attorneys, yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And have they -- have they
advised you any at all about this bill?
MS. LaBUTE: I have not worked on the bill.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a different --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Separate entity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Two other questions. It was
mentioned something about the EMS and the maintenance and so
forth. Is there a plan to include the EMS maintenance and the
transferring over of EMS, maintenance of the vehicles?
CHIEF METZGER: Originally the maintenance of the medic
units themselves, if we -- if the new organization were to accept
responsibility for that without having some additional maintenance
capability transferred into it, it would create a real problem, and what
we are suggesting is, as an interim solution anyways, contracting with
the county to maintain the maintenance responsibilities for the medic
units as one avenue of trying to address that issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How is that moving along?
CHIEF METZGER: This is just a proposal right now. Nothing's
moving along. This is -- this is just conceptual.
Page 50
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. My last question is, do you
have a target date for completion of this whole process? I mean, a
hoped- for date?
CHIEF METZGER: Actually, we do not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you hope to accomplish it within
a year?
CHIEF METZGER: No. I don't think that's realistic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It will be more than a year?
CHIEF METZGER: It will definitely be more than a year.
CHIEF GREENBERG: The reason we state that, Commissioner,
is that no matter how we approach this, we have to go through a
legislative delegation, legislatively, whether it's to dissolve the
existing districts and create a new one. The deadlines are rapidly
approaching for this session, so it's not possible to have it completed
this time.
Even if we are prepared next year at this time to propose
legislation, it would still have to go through the session and go
through a voter approval and referendum.
So if we were ready December 1 st, it would still be
approximately another year and a half before we could move forward.
That would be at posthaste time frame.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, and then I think
we're done with this,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're all done. Direction is clear.
So we're going to take a 10-minute break and be back at 10:50.
Sorry for the delay, Terri.
CHIEF GREENBERG: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
Page 5]
October 28, 2008
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY HOLLY DA YE TO DISCUSS
CORRECT WORK ORDER FOR PERMIT #2007111739-
MOTION TO ALLOW FOR NO FENCE UNTIL ADJACENT
PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, SIDEWALK IS NOT NEEDED
EXCEPT FROM PARKING LOT TO OFFICE - APPROVED
Commissioner, the next item on the agenda is a public petition
and is 6B on your agenda and it's a request by Holly Day (sic) to
discuss correct -- the correct work order for permit number
2007111739.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Day?
MS. DAY-HALL: Good morning. Thank you for this
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name, for the record?
MS. DAY-HALL: No matter what the outcome. My name is
Holly Day-Hall. I am half owner of Auto Village of Naples, an auto
salvage yard located four-and-a-half miles east of 951 and about
three-quarters of a mile back off of 41. There are two concrete
companies before our property on an easement that ends at our
property .
I became a half owner legally in 2006 after my husband's third
heart attack. It was then that I began to realize things weren't what
they should be.
I submitted photos of improvements we've already made, which I
hope you all got to review. Three weeks ago I went to my district's
commissioner with some concerns. He suggested I come before the
board.
Page 52
October 28, 2008
I have two major concerns. Number one is privacy fencing
around the back and side of the property which is vacant and has no
access, and number two is handicapped sidewalk from the easement
which has no parking.
On the privacy fencing, since the adjoining property is vacant,
could I request this improvement be delayed until the surrounding
property is developed? And on item two, the handicapped sidewalk,
we have adequate parking inside the fenced property with
handicapped parking and a ramp right in front of the sales building.
I would like to request a waiver for a handicapped sidewalk from
the easement where there is no parking, It would be a financial
hardship for us to make any more changes due to the current economic
situation. I'm at your mercy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board?
Commissioner Coletta, and then I have a question. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We're hearing this more
and more about our local business community and how they're
surfing. And we're talking about a business that serves a very useful
purpose for many years, a business that employs a number of people, a
business that has done everything they could to comply within the
economic climate that exists today, and I think every commissioner
has received a flier with the different improvements that have been
made which are fairly substantial.
And I think that we should try to do everything possible to try to
mitigate circumstances like this, not to forgive them and say that it's
not going to happen, but to understand what's taking place today.
As far as the issue of the sidewalk, it's totally ridiculous to have
to bring a sidewalk through a rural area like that over limerock and
everything else to connect to a building that's -- most people drive up
to. If they've got to pick up parts for cars, they're not going to be
walking on the sidewalk.
It's an unbelievable expense; however, that's a state issue, and
Page 53
October 28, 2008
that would have to be mitigated by the state. Mr. Schmitt could
probably explain that and how that may work.
The one of the slats in the fence, I can tell you the slats in the
fence is a great idea when you have commercial enterprises butting up
against residential. They do have a tendency to block it. Other than
that, they serve no purpose. After about five, six years, they look
deplorable the way the plastic starts to deteriorate.
And the first heavy wind you get will usually take the fence
down because the slats are in there, and cyclone fences aren't really
made to be able to withstand wind; however, with that said, I'd like to
see us add not six months to this but a couple of years where we can
take a look at what's happening out there as long as the neighbors have
no problem with what's taking place, to be able to extend this some
time off into the future to be reviewed again, and when business
conditions come forward, then the fences could be addressed.
But Mr. Schmitt, could you help us on this?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, your administrator
of community development/environmental services division.
The sidewalks was asked to comply with American Disabilities
Act. That certainly is a bit -- I'm going to put that on the visualizer.
It's a quick drawing. But the auto -- or the salvage yard is well up a
dirt road. There's no way we're going to require that. We will waive
that requirement.
The first I knew of this was last week when it came in. That's a
local zoning. We can approve that as -- and waive it, because
naturally nobody's going to take a wheelchair from 41 and try and go
all the way up that dirt road. Now, there has to be ADA accessibility
from the parking lot or the ADA handicap parking area to the office
that's already been constructed.
My staff was out there last week. We recommending the
contractor come in and ask for a TCO. That TCO was issued, I
believe, Friday with a six-month stipulation. There's some earthwork
Page 54
October 28, 2008
that still needs to be done that will have to be done during the dry
season, and there's some requirements for removing of the exotics.
So we did a six-month stipulation, so that resolves the issue as far
as the Code Enforcement Board. You'll have to attend the Code
Enforcement Board on Friday and ask for a continuance, and they
certainly will grant a continuance for six months for some of the other
requirements that have to be met regarding the -- what we call our
series -- 800 series inspections and the removal of exotics.
The only requirement that I need to point out is during the
resolution 96-15 -- and I'll have to ask the board for a decision on this.
In the resolution that authorized a conditional use, it's clear -- and if
you could zero in on that, Jim, it's clear that there was a fence required
with opacity, an opaque fence, on the perimeter, and that was part of
the conditional use in '96, so that is in the ordinance. So in some
manner of form that will -- that requirement will either have to be
waived -- administratively waived by the board, or resolution
removing that from the conditional use, or if you do, as stated on the
record, if you deem it -- it would only have to be done ifthe adjoining
properties were developed.
There's been a tremendous amount of improvements in this
property, and I think I'll show you a good -- that's the fence line, I
think. Jim, you can back out before and after. It may not show up in
the color photos. Now I look at it. It's a little dark. But there's been a
significant amount of improvement. The fence line, planting of grass,
planting of the landscaping, and it's all done.
So the reality is, the opaque fence, though required --
MS. DAY-HALL: We -- may I interject?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MS. DAY-HALL: We did put a screening over that part here,
which would be if anybody would come up that way, but the back
doesn't have it.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, I'm fine with it. I mean, it's up to you
Page 55
October 28, 2008
all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would prefer that we allow
them to continue --
MR. SCHMITT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- until development takes place
in that area, if we could ever word something that would be legally
sufficient.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think we need to do a
resolution memorializing that direction to where the opaque fence
would be at the time of development of the neighboring property.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's been like this for what 12,13
years? I mean, you can just give directions to staff not to enforce it
until such time as development comes.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm fine with that. And we'll make that noted
to the CEB, just with a stipulation that when the adjoining property is
developed, there will have to be some kind of fence to separate the
auto salvage yard from the other activities, if and when it's developed,
and who knows when that will be.
But certainly we can deal with the sidewalk. When I found out
about that, I realized -- I said, this is just -- just not practical. Though
it's required by American Disabilities Act, I think certainly common
sense says, just not applicable.
And the other issue, TCO has been issued. You just have to
appear, request a six-month continuance, and then we'll reevaluate
there. If you need more time, we'll provide more time.
I think based on the demonstrated improvements, clearly, has
gone well beyond what we anticipated, and then -- and unfortunately
your pictures there, the color pictures really tell the story on how
much this property has improved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the only issue about the opaque
fence?
MR. SCHMITT: Right now the only issue will be the fence.
Page 56
October 28, 2008
Everything else is -- six-month TCO will allow the property owner
time to go in and take care of some of the other requirements,
removing of exotics, and then we can -- we can figure out where we
are at six months, hopefully by then issue a final CO.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta makes a
motion --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that we direct staff not to require
opaquing of the fence until the property, adjacent property, is
developed. That was a motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, can you tell me how far you
are away from development at the present time, the developments to
you in your business?
MS. DAY-HALL: What do you mean?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How far away is development from
where your business is at?
MS. DAY-HALL: You mean the surrounding areas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. DAY-HALL: I don't know. The whole property and
behind, both CMX Concrete and the other concrete company and our
place, that whole area is trees.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So basically what you're -- I
think what you're telling me is that this is near an area of commercial
development?
MS. DAY-HALL: Well, basic -- the Cypress Flea Market--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I know where that's at.
MS. DAY-HALL: -- okay, well, he owns the property in back of
Page 57
October 28, 2008
us, and I have -- I don't know when he's planning to develop it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But it's an open area --
MS. DAY-HALL: It's an open area, undeveloped.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
You've answered my question.
MS. DAY-HALL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Congratulations.
MS. DAY-HALL: Now, that's for the fencing. The sidewalk?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The sidewalk, Mr. Schmitt agrees
with what you said, it's not needed, The only sidewalk is needed from
the parking lot --
MS. DAY-HALL: And I have that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to the office.
MS. DAY-HALL: Great. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right?
Item #9K
REQUEST FOR BOARD TO DISCUSS ONGOING ISSUES WITH
VITA TUSCANA - MOTION TO SLOPE DOWN SIDES OF
Page 58
October 28, 2008
PADS, GRADE PILES AND HYDRO-SEEDING TO START
IMMEDIATELY - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9K. This item to
be heard at 11 a,m. It's a request for the board to discuss ongoing
issues with Vita Tuscana.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's been a very frustrating exercise
and it's been going on for a year now. Early work authority, the
guidelines for early work authority is on Page 5 of 18, 10.01.02. It's a
-- and in J it states that this approval is good for 60 days with the
possibility of two, each 30-day extensions depending on the reason for
the inability to gain proper approval.
Commissioners, the -- because of the financial market, the banks
are not lending, and that's the reason why. But I think more
importantly, at this time with your indulgence, I'll hear from the public
speakers, the residents, some of the residents in Olde Cypress.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have five speakers. The first one
is Adrienne Deluca.
MS. DELUCA: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you
for the opportunity. My name is Adrienne Deluca. I'm a resident of
2766 Olde Cypress Drive. I am also representing Mr. Gene Mayberry
of Treeline Drive within Olde Cypress who is, with his apologies to
the commission, he is away on vacation and has asked me to represent
him also.
With apologies to Mr. Mayberry, I have his comments. I will
present them and hand them in for the commissioners. I do not want
to shortchange him, but I will try to save time from ever -- with
everybody.
We have been faced with a problem for 17 months now that has
negatively impacted the quality of life of residents within Olde
Cypress. Homes abut the area that was cleared and is a sand pit back
in June of'06 -- of'07, I apologize. From June until now, there have
Page 59
October 28, 2008
been a number of questions, a number of people who are far more
qualified than me, and who will follow and will give you some more
information.
I am also a member of a neighborhood board of directors. Our
association is the one that actually backs to the property in question.
Every board meeting we have, constant communications come to us
asking what's happening. We've been told what's happening, and
every time we report that, it changes. It's not happening.
One of the quotes that Mr. Mayberry has is, and I quote, CDES
and transportation are working in agreement to assist this developer,
and if the board approves, the permits will be issued and the staff
concludes the violation will be -- violations will be abated.
The questions that have come up to us are basically, why has
nothing been done? Our community is an active community. They
look, they read the newspaper, they see stories of code violations that
are forcing foreclosures of individual homeowners in the tune of
$300,000 for one person, going to a foreclosure.
We see Halloween decorations taken down because it violates
code. We have no answers for the people within our community
asking, why is this 17 months and counting? Why is it that we have
been told, oh, they're bringing in the money. Don't worry, they're
bringing in all of their monies, and therefore, hydro-seeding, leveling,
will be a moot point.
Well, Commissioners, I tried that with my last MasterCard bill. I
kept telling them, don't worry. I'm bringing in the money, I'm bringing
in the money. And they didn't worry, but I certainly was charged with
fees for not giving money when I was supposed to, We don't
understand why.
We also do not understand why, especially since the particular
development, first and foremost I would -- and I'm sorry if I'm over.
First and foremost, I do not understand how county is working with
going out of its way with a developer where nothing has been done,
Page 60
October 28, 2008
when I would expect one of the first things that should be done --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to wrap it up.
MS. DELUCA: -- is the developer is in with current taxes.
There are arrears of two oh seven taxes. The developer and the
property has not even paid that. Sorry for overgoing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is John Walters. He's giving his
time up to Diane Ebert. Ms. Ebert will be followed by Larry -- or Lee
Berry .
MS. EBERT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Diane Ebert. I'm a resident at Olde Cypress.
Weare here today out of pure frustration turned into anger. We
have tried to work with staff and the County Manager, but here we are
today over a year later, and nothing has been done except the
landscape buffer.
No wonder people look at you and put the blame on you as
commissioners, But this time we know it's not you. We hear
taxpayers say that you are in the hands of the developers and the
attorneys, but guess what? It appears it's not you. It appears that it's
the county staff. We just want the Land Development Code followed.
October 6th, the early work authority expired, and here we are
the 28th of October of2008. We no longer call it CDES. We call is
CY AS. In fact, tomorrow's newspaper should read, County Manager
and his staff refuse to follow the Land Development Code, that's right,
because that's exactly what has happened. He has brought things upon
himself.
If he had wanted to do anything about this problem, he would
have made sure that staff take action, but no, that is why we are in
front of you today.
You're right, Joe keeps saying developer's going to be bringing
the money in, so hydro-seeding is moot. In fact, Joe and Stan have
obstructed this whole thing since the beginning. They have taken your
Page 61
October 28, 2008
Land Development Code and used it like toilet paper.
Staff forgot to get bond fees, and this is not the only
development. There are several other ones. And the County Manager
and his staff have known about this since February.
In the chart that is up there, an EW A shows 60 days with a
possibility of two 30-day extensions. Are the development orders
there? If not, you revoke the EW A, you call the bonds, and the county
does the work.
Even the code enforcement case in May was stripped down to
just dust control. They never mention the lake. They said it was a
judgment call. Well, at this point, we don't trust their judgment. They
do not have any as-built cross-sections of the lake because the lake is
still a mud-hole. What about health, safety, and welfare?
Commissioners, even the code enforcement case, they refer to
section 4.06.04, which clearly states any stockpile in place for more
than six months must be sodded or hydro-seeded. Failure to do so
within 14 calendar days of notification by the county will result in a
fine of$lO per acre per day, which in this case, equals $290, and
they're only going to charge him $180.
The disconnects at this county are unbelievable, and there is
absolutely no accountability under this leadership. This is not a Taj
Mahal project that we're talking about. It is just dirt. Plain, blowing
dirt and a mud-hole of a lake. And if county staff can't fix this small
project, God help us all.
Had county staff followed the EW A procedures, this property
would have been a closed case last November or December. I would
say the buck stops here in front of all five of you commissioners, but
unfortunately, the county staff forgot to get the bucks.
Commissioners, in closing, our community would like to see the
mud-hole lake filled in with the stockpiles of dirt, the balance of the
dirt leveled off and graded smoothly, hydro-seeded and vegetated with
Land Development Code requirements, which is to be 64 trees per
Page 62
October 28, 2008
acre.
Once again, we want to thank each and every one of you for
taking the time to let us vent, and please help us solve this. Don't let
this happen to anyone else again. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lee Berry. He'll be followed
by Paul Schultz.
MR. BERRY: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
this opportunity. My name is Lee Berry and I reside at 7414 Treeline
Drive in Olde Cypress.
The rear of my house and my lanai look out on the barren land of
Vita Tuscana, and that is why I'm here.
My wife and I and our neighbors and the residents, as you've
already heard, are totally frustrated with the manner in which the
county administration has handled this situation.
After expiration of the early work order when it became clear
that work had stalled and bond monies weren't coming in, we began
complaining about the site.
I was at a February 20 meeting at Olde Cypress attended by Mr.
Ochs, Mr. Schmitt, and Mr. Chrzanowski, when they told 150
residents that if Empire did not submit their bond and obtain their
permits by the end of February, that the county would grade and
hydro-seed the -- by the end of March and put a lien on the property to
cover the costs.
Well, the end of March came and went and the county did not do
what they said. Since March there have been multiple emails,
inquiries, meetings, involving either myself and others in our
community to try to get the staff to act and get this job done.
Again and again the developer has allowed it to stall -- or has
caused it to stall and not performed their job, and the staff has allowed
them to do it.
The hydro-seeding isn't done, This is grossly unfair to the
residents of Olde Cypress. It raises a variety of questions as to why
Page 63
October 28, 2008
the developer has been given greater consideration from the staff than
the residents and the county code.
Our residents are unhappy about this and your codes are not
being enforced. This land is an eyesore. It's the first thing you see
when you come into Olde Cypress through the gates. It hurts our club
and the image people have if they are considering purchasing a home
or joining our community.
And when the wind is blowing, the dirt and sand is nasty on our
lanais and to our golfers on the fairway. It's embarrassing when
friends and family come to visit and look out at what we're looking at.
I believe these codes were written in part to protect residents
from hardships associated with land being stripped raw by developers
and then being allowed to sit there to the detriment of the adjoining
neighbors.
F or reasons not understood by me, the codes are being subverted
by lack of enforcement by your staff. Twelve months have passed
since the EW A expired, seven months has expired since the county
said they would do this -- or the staff said they would do this in
March. Why has this happened is the question. I think the residents
and taxpayers and you commissioners deserve an answer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have to wrap it up.
MR. BERRY: And I think the residents ofOlde Cypress deserve
to have this project hydro-seeded and re-vegetated per your codes.
I implore you to correct this situation. We should not have to
suffer this any longer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. BERRY: Thank you for your consideration.
MS. FILSON: Final speaker is Paul Schultz.
MR. SCHULTZ: Not to take up any more time, they've covered
everything that needed to be covered. So I know you people are very
busy, but thank you for the opportunity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The reason I brought this hastily on
Page 64
October 28, 2008
the agenda, County Manager forwarded me an email where code
enforcement and staff agree to appease the complaints, Mr. Farley,
being part of the development group, will smooth out the sides of the
house pads, That isn't what our code says. Our code says to grade off
the site and hydro-seed it.
Now, speaking to the developer this morning, I'm hoping this all
is going to be a moot point. From the evidence that I see, the -- he has
a private lender who's going to loan him money. Of course -- and I
hope that does come through, but I've heard that before over and over
and over again.
But I want to -- I want to demonstrate what -- what was in the file
of this development. And if you could zoom in where the arrows are.
In 2005, a permit was approved as long as there's are-vegetation
and security of 38 -- 308 --
MR. MUDD: Thousand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- thousand dollars, but yet we don't
have a bond for this -- a surety bond in 2006.
I don't know how long this is going on. I know that we have a
financial -- banking financial crisis. I don't know what other areas of
the county -- that we're going to have problems with this, but it is
unfair for the residents next to this development to have to put up with
this for more than a year when our code clearly, clearly states that this
should have been graded and hydro-seeded in October of2007. Ijust
want the staff to enforce our code. That's it.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm confused. Excuse me. It
says here that there's a re-vegetation security of $308,000. Are you
saying this was never paid?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was never collected.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Never collected. And we issued
the permit anyway?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Page 65
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who issued the permit?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager? I can't answer that.
MR. MUDD: Out of community development's environmental
services. Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: No, sir. It was me. I screwed up. I
issued the permit. We had about 60 or 70 EW A's all coming in and
going out. And I was supposed to collect re-vegetation bonds, and a
lot of the re-vegetation bond was actually -- you get the early work
authorization to start construction after you've gone through two
reVIews.
The purpose of it was to let people start construction early
because at the time when this was passed, five years ago, things were
moving rapidly, and our permitting process was taking a little longer,
so they decided that when you hit a certain point in the permitting
process you should be authorized to get an early work authorization to
start work because we've looked at all the main aspects of your
project.
And one of the things that I was supposed to have obtained was
an early work authorization re-vegetation bond. And I don't
understand the 308,000 because it's supposed to be like $5,000 an
acre.
And there's other little things here where you have -- the EW A
covers the infrastructure which is the main roads. Then you have the
VRSFP's, the vegetation rural permit, which is for the lots themselves,
That procedure's been in effect for a lot longer time. But the EW A
was so that they could start on the infrastructure.
On this and a few other projects I did not collect the bonds
because they were coming in and going out so quickly and getting
done. The only one I ever thought -- well, in the end, like I said,
there's 60 or 70 of these I have a problem with. This one, and there's a
few small subdivisions in the back of Reflection Lakes that have been
hydro-seeded. Those are the only ones that went bad.
Page 66
October 28, 2008
It's -- I did it. It's my fault. A year ago I sent an email saying, I
royally screwed up. I got reprimanded. There's something in my
personnel file about it. I got a real bad evaluation. And if somebody
wants to give me a day or a month off without pay, not a problem. If
you want to terminate me, no problem. I screwed up. It's me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the excavation security
for $25,000, Stan?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: That's in place, and we have a permit
from -- we have a letter from them saying we can use that to re-
vegetate if we want to.
One of the things that wasn't brought up was they -- as a result of
these meetings, it was asked, do you want a buffer or would you prefer
hydro-seeding, because it's a very fancy buffer.
The buffer costs more than the hydro-seeding bond would have
cost. The -- they went for the buffer -- the developer paid a lot of
money for the buffer, and he's been -- you know, we've been trying to
work with him with the economy for the hydro-seeding and we've --
the economy's been bad. We've been -- I have been working with
people. Maybe I shouldn't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Stan is correct. There was a meeting
in Olde Cypress, and they agreed to put the buffer in there --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: A couple of them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- but there was a finite time when,
you know, you get your financing, you move forward, or you're going
to have to hydro-seed.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, and we turned it over to code
enforcement and we've -- I think you have a history in there saying
that this has gone, you know, to the Code Enforcement Board and it's
been imposed. And we sent a succession of emails. And like
Commissioner Henning said, they did have some promises that they
were getting funding.
Page 67
October 28, 2008
And it's not like the others where they said you know, we're
belly-up, we're going bankrupt. This developer has been persistent
through the process that he is going to go ahead with the project.
Apparently he's succeeded even though certain people don't think so,
Maybe not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's my understanding, and correct
me if I'm wrong, but -- that the people that live in Olde Cypress were
very concerned, so I believe staff and a commissioner worked with the
developer in trying to establish some type of a buffer, and so they built
a berm and also put in irrigation, if I'm correct --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and did some sodding of that. Is
that correct also?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what -- do you have any idea,
being that you're the engineer, what the cost of this would be related to
the developer prior to him developing this land?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The estimate is $175,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So he stepped forward to address
an additional amount of money that he really didn't have to put up, is
that correct, on this buffer?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. The re-vegetation bonding
would have been 125,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so I understand that
you were in error here, but with the work of the developer, he -- did --
was there meetings with the homeowners association on this issue?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did they agree to this?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It was my understanding that they
preferred to have the buffer put in, but I guess they wanted both.
Page 68
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wanted both what?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The buffer and the hydro-seeding. And
the hydro-seeding was -- it is a requirement for dust control that at a
certain point of the project you have to hydro-seed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why wasn't the hydro-seeding
completed?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Because we told the developer to
hydro-seed and he didn't, so we turned it over to code. We told him a
few times to hydro-seed, he didn't do it, and we turned it over to code,
and it's been proceeding through that process. I think they're still
under some type of --
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt. And certainly I
accept responsibility as well. In fact, it's my organization. They
failed to do what they needed to do. Measures have been put in place
to make sure it never happens again.
That's where that flowchart came from that Ms. Ebert showed.
We went through this thoroughly to make sure this never happens
again regarding EW As and vegetation removal and site filling permits.
That said, this went before the Code Enforcement Board
September 25th, there was a judgment made, the developer was given
till October 10th to do the hydro-seeding. They're still in the
processing of doing that. They've been instructed to level the piles
that are out there. That is yet to be done.
They have a hearing that they are required to attend. That is
November 20th. That's an imposition of fines.
If at that time it's deemed that they have not performed the work
as required by the Code Enforcement Board, a judgment will be made,
and then we can proceed based on a judgment. We can enter that
property. Right now I have no authority to enter that property or go
on that property until I have some kind of judgment either from the
Code Enforcement Board or the Special Magistrate. Then we can use
the $25,000 to make the -- take corrective action.
Page 69
October 28, 2008
Now, ifthe developer picks up his approved plans -- now
understand, his plans were approved. They were approved well over a
year ago. They're sitting waiting for the developer to come in and pay
the impact fees; I believe $407,000 transportation impact fees.
Those plans were approved, which basically is why we issued the
EW A, because the developer was going to come in and pick up those
plans. Obviously -- and the developer's here. Obviously, due to
whatever financial concerns, they were unable to amass the $407,000
in impact fees.
At that time we would also collect all the bonding associated
with the infrastructure upon recording of the final plat.
So to answer your question, they're under a CEB order now.
Fines are amassing at $l80 per day. They have to go to a hearing
November 20th to -- and at that November meeting, we'll determine
whether, one, they pick up their permit. That pretty much then makes
this an active construction project. Of course, they have to pay their
impact fees. Or two, they do not pick up their permit. Then we're
dealing with imposition of fines and hopefully a judgment.
I'll take the $25,000 cash bond, we'll do what we have to to hire a
contractor to go in and correct the work, the work that's been done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, the problem is, is the $25,000
going to cover the hydro-seeding, and if it does, then why didn't the
builder come up with the $25,000 to hydro-seed?
MR. SCHMITT: The builder's out there right now
hydro-seeding. They've been out there for weeks hydro-seeding.
They're in the process of hydro-seeding. They've been hydro-seeding.
THE AUDIENCE: No, not true.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, my problem is, is, you
know, there are pads out there. Even though there's not an approved
plat, I don't know how you call it pads. To smooth off the sides of the
house pads is not what the Land Development Code says. And, you
know, either ask for a waiver of the Land Development Code or
Page 70
October 28, 2008
follow the Land Development Code. The Land Development Code is
clear, you grade it off and hydro-seed it.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, that's an area where it talks
about stockpiling. And what they have there is they have a permit --
they had a permit for excavation as well, which was issued, and that
earthwork was placed and spread over the areas that will soon be
developed, and those are up to three foot high, which are the house
pads, allowing for that soil to settle.
Now, if you want all that plowed in and put back into the lakes,
certainly if this site is abandoned, we're going to have to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 10.01.02.1 says, the approval is good
for 60 days with the possibility of two 30-day extensions, depending
on the reason for the ability to gain the proper approval. After that
time, cleared area must be graded off and hydro-seeded. Can I finish?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, please, go ahead. I just
want to make sure you know I'm here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I know that.
So what is wrong?
MR. SCHMITT: Sir, we've instructed him to do exactly that.
We've instructed him to do it. The work has not been done. It's a
code case. He'll go to the Code Enforcement Board November 20th,
imposition of fines will be judged. At that time we'll take corrective
action.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're not just going to hydro-seed.
We're going to grade it off.
MR. SCHMITT: We instructed him to level the piles that were
out there, to shape the property and hydro-seed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then in 18 months, it would be
re-vegetated.
MR. MUDD: But I want to make sure -- yes, sir, within 18
months to re-vegetate. And Mr. Schmitt, in August, sent the
developer a letter to let him know that he had to have his re-vegetative
Page 71
October 28, 2008
bond put in.
But I want to make sure we've got graded off, okay, before -- we
have an issue here, because it's obvious that what Mr. Schmitt just
talked about and stated -- and Commissioner Henning, what I believe I
heard you say about grading, grading off -- so we need to be able to
clarify the definition of graded off, because if I grade a site, lock,
stock, and barrel, I mean, you don't have an inch difference between
where you are and you've completely leveled the site.
The code doesn't say graded. It says graded off. And I think you
need -- we need to get a definition or at least the perception or the
intent of what that basically says so that we don't miss this.
I want to make sure that staffs got board's intent and what we
read -- the code to be clear so that we'll get this resolved because after
this day, we don't need to be back here going through this thing again.
So I don't want to -- I want it to be clear and I want some
clarification so that we've got this down pat.
MR. SCHMITT: This is the area right here where you see the
actual -- it's probably elevation, what, about three foot--
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Three foot.
MR. SCHMITT: -- where it's graded, it's all level, but it's about
three foot above grade. Now, if you want all that removed and this as
well -- this, of course, are the stockpiles for the next area they were
going to bring up to elevation only three foot high.
So if you say graded off, what we were saying, we wanted these
mounds shaped because this whole area's flat. But if you want that all
gone, I mean, that fill will go back into these lakes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, my only -- and before I go to
Commissioner Coletta.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My concern is the maintenance after
you hydro-seed it, and I think that's what graded off means, so that
you can maintain it in the future.
Page 72
October 28, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: Understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissions Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'm listening to what's
taking place here, and I can understand why you have some level of
discomfort with some of it, but some of the things I think we need to
recognize is that we've got two very competent staff members here in
front of us who did something that's very human. They made an error.
Nothing that they personally gained anything from. They made an
error, they admitted their error; they've been reprimanded for it.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Only one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Only one.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's not him.
MR. SCHMITT: I'm responsible.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the whole thing is, is I don't
see where we're going to gain anything by beating up these two
people. The whole thing that we're out here to hear today is to come
up with a solution, a workable solution that will get us to where we
need to be.
As far as clearing the whole thing out and refilling the lakes. I
mean, talk about, you know, a detriment to someone that has an
investment out there. We've got to do something to protect the
neighbors, but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that we've got a
person in very rough times that has made an investment, they've got
the fill out of the lakes to be able to start a project.
If we can hydro-seed it, if they can block everything off, if they
can maintain the land in a way that will be less of a detriment to the
neighbors that surround it, let's go forward with that premise instead of
this bickering back and forth and pointing the fingers and everything.
Let's look for a solution and get to that solution as quick as possible.
If it takes nothing more than continuing this while staff works on it till
the November meeting, then let's do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know if that's really a solution.
Page 73
October 28, 2008
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Could you show me where the
berm is on this map?
MR. SCHMITT: I'll pull out different drawings, but the berm
was actually constructed along this area here, but this is Olde Cypress.
Of course, this is HD Development, the PUD. Now it's called Vita
Tuscana, but the landscaping buffer and berm was along this area all
the way down to this golf hole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How tall is it?
MR. SCHMITT: I, unfortunately, don't have pictures of the
actual berm, but it started right at the road entryway. The berm was --
and I know that's difficult to see, but the berm was constructed in
accordance with the landscape plans. That's the next picture, and then
all the way down.
This was negotiated. There were areas here where Olde Cypress
encroached actually into the HD Development property, and the two
developers worked out the plan to put in all the landscaping all the
way down -- all the way through the area to buffer.
It's a three-story -- three-story landscape buffer, mid-canopy --
mid-canopy, mid-story, and then ground cover.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So can you see --
MR. SCHMITT: Two- to three-foot berm and probably, Stan,
trees standing eight, 10 feet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So from that road, Treeline Drive,
that this berm runs across, can you see into this property?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, ma'am. You can see through the
buffer. It hasn't grown in yet.
MR. SCHMITT: They have two years -- two years for that to
grow in as, of course --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it pretty well masks it then,
right, is that it? Please don't talk to me from the audience. You need
to -- if you're not there anymore, I'd like to just ask these questions, if
Page 74
October 28, 2008
you don't mind, please.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: The intent of the buffer is to mask it,
but it hasn't grown in yet.
MR. SCHMITT: The landscape buffer was required during the
public hearing process as part of the HD -- HD PUD, HD
Development PUD, as it's legally called. It's now called Vita Tuscana.
But during the public hearing, it was required as a stipulation for the
developer to proceed. And we normally don't require landscaping
between two compatible uses, meaning residential to residential, but in
this case, because of the concerns of this development, the landscaping
was approved during the PUD. It came in, was reviewed as part of the
construction plans and plat, and what was built out there was a -- was
built and inspected in accordance with the approved plans.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So now the hydro-seeding
will then keep the dust down --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and keep any sand from blowing
across there, and are they going to hydro-seed this area first that's
closest to these people in Olde Cypress?
MR. SCHMITT: No, ma'am. They won't -- they will not--
maybe I have a -- they will not -- I don't have a picture. I wish I had a
picture of the berm and I left it. They will not hydro-seed the berm.
Of course, that's all planted and sodded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, right, I meant -- I meant
beyond it.
MR. MUDD: Now, hang on. You have been out there within the
last week or so on the particular diagram that's on the overhead. Can
you kind of at least point to areas that supposedly have been
hydro-seeded and what portions haven't been hydro-seeded yet?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Yes, sir. On the visualizer, if you come
in, this is the entrance, and this pad up here was hydro-seeded a while
back as a test by them to see what would grow out there. It's -- there's
Page 75
October 28, 2008
already green growing all over it.
They have hydro-seeded an area in, and I don't remember I --
how far back they went with the hydro-seeding of this area.
These bases here are going to have to be cut down to a four-to-lO
slope because that's our maximum slope for maintenance. That will
allow mowing of the hydro-seed after it grows, the grass. They were
told to use a field mix, which is more drought resistant than a Floratam
or a Bahai.
And they're hydro-seeding away -- they started here and they're
hydro-seeding away from the project. It will take the hydro-seed a
while to grow.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then I want to
try to wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the developer in the audience in
regard to this project?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can he come forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure can.
State your name for the record.
MR. SLA VICH: Bill Slavich, Empire Developers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Slavich, obviously there's
some very upset neighbors. What is your intent with this project at the
present time? Can you give us any idea what's going on?
MR. SLA VICH: Well, our intention is to continue and to finish
the project. I shared with Commissioner Henning this morning in
preview to this meeting a signed term sheet and loan documents with a
lender to close within the next two to three weeks and to start back
with the construction of all the infrastructure and two models, and that
is our intention.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are these promises that you
made before, sir, or --
MR. SLA VICH: That was brought to my attention, and we have
October 28, 2008
been diligently working to try and get that. There were obviously
quite -- we actually had a commitment, not signed, but then Lehman
Brothers essentially went out of business and we lost part of that
funding.
As I had told Commissioner Henning this morning, I have never
had a signed term sheet or -- and/or agreement from the bank before. I
do have now, and I did share that with him, and we went through that
this morning.
So I see no reason that we would not continue on that path since
we have put money up to obtain that and have a commitment from the
lender also.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Obviously since this is a code
enforcement issue, there's probably going to be some fines involved in
that. Is that going to affect you in regards to further developing this
property, or do you feel that the monies that are coming forward, you
hope, by the lender, are going to also cover not only construction but
the fines that you are incurring of this piece of property?
MR. SLA VICH: Well, I don't -- I know that the $180 a day for
hydro-seeding, we have started hydro-seeding. There is portions out
there that are hydro-seeded. I would say that, I guess, if we're going
to get a fine, would we pay those? The answer to that question would
be yes, and I understand that that meeting is on the 20th of November,
and I guess we'll take that up with code enforcement and the county at
that time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
MR. SLA VICH: I would also just point out -- Commissioner
Fiala had asked this question. The berm actually goes --
MR. MUDD: Show it right here. They can't see it. If you show
it with a pen.
MR. SLA VICH: The berm actually goes from here all the way
down to the end of this, not just the golf hole. So it takes the whole --
that whole property past where that lake is all the way actually into the
Page 77
October 28, 2008
edge of the preserve area there so -- which was agreed at in a meeting
pnor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner, I hope this is a moot point. You know, I mean, I
wish Empire, Vita Tuscana well. The problem is, in my office the
County Manager said to two residents, if the developer doesn't do this,
this will be leveled off and hydro-seeded, and that is not what's being
-- taking place.
Their understanding and my understanding what grading means
is level it off. And, you know, I don't know if we need an official
interpretation, but whatever we tell our residents, we ought to try to
fulfill. Wouldn't you agree with that statement?
MR. MUDD: Well, I agree that whatever we tell the residents,
we should try to accomplish, and that's absolutely correct. And in that
meeting I told them, not to level off. I told them I would take down
the piles and get them leveled off.
And that's exactly what I told Gene Mayberry and that's exactly
what I told Diane Ebert, who was sitting there.
Now, I ran into a complication because I've got to go in front of
the fine board or the Code Enforcement Board after the fines have
been levied when the person didn't -- because we had this meeting
prior to the 10th of October when the developer, Empire Builder, was
supposed to have this done based on a Code Enforcement Board
action, i.e., hydro-seeding.
After the 10th when it didn't get done, I told them that if it didn't
get done within 30 days, we'd get out there. On the 20th of November
we go in front of the -- and oh, by the way, as a result of that meeting,
staff got Mr. Slavich to agree -- and I pronounced it incorrectly, sir--
MR. SLA VICH: It's close. You're right. That's okay.
MR. MUDD: -- to agree that we could use the $25,000
excavation bond in this particular endeavor, so that was in a result of
that meeting also.
Page 78
October 28, 2008
On the 20th, if this isn't hydro-seeded and the piles are not
leveled, then we will, as a county, go out and get a contractor to go out
and level off or grade off those particular piles, exactly what I
promised Ms. Ebert and Mr. Mayberry, and we will hydro-seed the
rest of this project.
Whatever costs are above the $25,000 bond, we will carry as a
lien, along with the fines, on this particular property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It sounds as though what the
residents are expecting -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- through the
information that's been brought forth in this discussion, is that there
are some home -- the pads here that are where the homes are going to
be built, are at an elevation of three feet and that the material for the
home pads came out of the lakes.
So what the residents are saying they want done is everything
leveled out and the lakes filled in. Is that the understanding that I get?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how much did this cost you to
excavate, where are you today?
MR. SLA VICH: Well, the -- some fill was brought in. It was
not all just generated out of those two lakes. Some--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SLA VICH: The amount offill that has been brought in to
date is close to three-quarters of a million dollars.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So this is where the residents want
you to basically go to is the fact that -- to remove that fill, fill in the
lakes and hydro-seed this, is my understanding?
MR. SLA VICH: Grading it level -- that's the first time I have
heard that. I know the code says grading and I know that you have to
have a 4-1 slope because you have to maintain, to quote-unquote be
able to mow the hydro-seed once it grows in.
My understanding was that the stockpiles, which are this area
Page 79
October 28, 2008
right here, would be graded down and the house pads would be --
somebody said rounded earlier -- graded to a 4-1 slope so they could
be maintained.
Now you're saying something different where if you're pushing
the dirt over the entire site filling the lakes in, then hydro-seeding, if
that's where we're going, then we're wasting -- we're wasting our
money hydro-seeding now if we're going to go push the whole thing
down.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that's kind of where I hear
the discussion going, and I'm not sure that we want to go in that
direction.
I -- if I was you and I had this kind of money involved in this
thing, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What -- Mr. Slavich, what kind of
money do you have, Empire Development, have into the landscaping
berm, the company itself?
MR. SLA VICH: About 175- to 180,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So that is what Empire paid for the
landscaping berm?
MR. SLA VICH: That does not count --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Or is that what the cost is?
MR. SLA VICH: That's what the cost is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what the cost is. That isn't what
Empire paid.
MR. SLA VICH: Well, that would be what our cost is. Same--
yes, sir, same thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And see, that's -- the
difference is is what the cost is and what is paid. What is invested in
the property and what is paid. And I understand the financial
difficulties, but you're going to -- it's coming to your neighborhood
soon, so we better get this straight so we don't have the same
discussion over and over again for over a year, and that's the only
Page 80
October 28, 2008
point is whether the board needs to give direction of what grading off
is to the zoning director, that's fine, because, you know, here we are
almost an hour on this discussion. We're not getting anywhere.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Commissioner, could I bring something
up?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If it's getting to closure.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: It's germane to the issue and I'll say it
quickly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You have water management district
permits on a lot of projects out there that have house pads without
houses on them. However you word this, you better word it carefully
because if you tell people to grade down the house pads to original
grade and fill the lakes back in, you'll violate the district permits. Just
something to think about.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But how can you have a house
pad when you don't have an approved plat?
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: These other projects do. What I'm
saying is, when you word -- however you intend doing this, take into
account that these projects have district permits.
MR. SCHMITT: We have an approved plat and plan for this. It
just hasn't been recorded.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: This -- yes. The plat and plans have
been approved. They just haven't been recorded.
MR. SCHMITT: And picked up.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: And he can't record them until he posts
a $408,000 payment to the traffic impact fee, which is, I guess, the
first thing he'll do.
MR. SLA VICH: Well, you don't have to record your plat until
your subdivision improvements --
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Right, yes.
MR. SLA VICH: You do not have to record your plat prior to
Page 81
October 28, 2008
doing subdivision improvements.
MR. CHRZANOWSKI: You could do all the subdivision
improvements up front and not record the plat until -- you have to
record the plat to sell lots. You could post the bond up front and
record the plat or you could do all the improvements and record the
plat and never post the bond.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. All this seems to be derived
from what the people said, it looks so ugly, it looks despicable to
them. I don't see where it's despicable looking, especially when
they've even got a berm there and they've tried to work with them and
they're trying to hydro-seed to -- and we're in tough times. If they -- if
they're continuing to hydro-seed until they start to build, and from the
picture that I'm seeing, it just -- I don't know how that looks so
despicable. I'm just trying --I'm just down to basic reality.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let me ask you a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's probably from a thousand feet
up. Go visit the site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I should, yeah, I will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, it's totally different. So can
we get some direction on this, is -- what is, in 10.01.02.J, the term
grading, grading off; is that reasonable?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think
that's the key here. It does us no good to debate whether or not it
looks terrible. The neighbors seem to think it looks terrible, so let's
assume it looks terrible. The question is, what does grading mean?
And it seems to me that if we wanted to return the site to its
original condition, we would have said that in the Land Development
Code. Ifwe look at the piles of dirt on the right, we can say that's
more unsightly than the graded dirt on the left. So grading the piles of
Page 82
October 28, 2008
dirt down to a level, smooth appearance and beveling the edges to a
4-1 slope so it can be maintained after it's hydro-seeded appears to me
to be a reasonable solution here.
Now, what -- what bothers me -- and look, you know, it's tough
economic times. I know it's difficult to get financing and get money
to do some of these projects. I'm not going to try to beat anybody over
the head about that, but it doesn't take that long to hydro-seed that
property. That couldn't be more than 12 or 15 acres there at that
curved portion on the -- that goes along Treeline Drive. It doesn't take
that long to hydro-seed that much property.
MR. SLA VICH: I would agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's a simple matter. One day
you can get out there and bevel that to a 4-1 slope. You could
hydro-seed it in a couple of days and get this thing done, but I just
cannot bring myself to vote to return the site to its original condition,
because to do that in its -- in its real true essence is to fill in the lakes,
replant the trees that were there as if nothing had ever been done to it,
and that is really ridiculous.
It is a construction site, and I would say to you, let's just get the
4-1 slope, let's get it hydro-seeded, let's get it done quickly. Let's not
wait until a November meeting with the Code Enforcement Board.
Let's just do it. We can make the decision as to what grading is.
And if you'll get out there and do it quickly, then I think the
neighbors are going to have to be reasonably happy with that result
after having waited for so long. But it we're going to wait until a
meeting in November the 20th to decide what you're going to do, I'm
not going to be real happy about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on.
MR. SLA VICH: Yes, sir. My understanding -- I was out of
town last week -- that there was a meeting with vice-president of our
Page 83
October 28, 2008
company on rounding, I guess, was the email, grading the 4-1 slope,
probably is what should have been put in the email, and then
hydro-seeding. We agreed to do that, also knock the piles down.
And I'll make two points for the record. I received a phone call
from Mr. Mayberry, who was mentioned earlier, thanking us for
building the berm and how great it looks. And I also live on the same
street and look across at that property, and, you know, some of the
comments that it's hideous looking and things like that are blown out
of proportion. I mean, that's a great looking berm. It's more than
what's required.
And if what you -- if your direction here is that you want us to go
in there and take the slope which is the part closest to Treeline and
grade that to 4-1 and hydro-seed it, I'll be more than happy to do that,
and knock those piles down that are in the back. More than happy to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And do it now.
MR. SLA VICH: I believe we've already agreed to do it and
should start in the next day or two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. We're not going to wait
until November the 20th --
MR. SLA VICH: We weren't waiting until the 20th. The
walk-through was last weekend -- last week. I was not here, and -- but
that was my understanding of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we all know that
hydro-seeding's going to take some time.
MR. SLA VICH: It will take -- correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I presume that you're going to
be hydro-seeding with a green mixture, so it's going to appear to be
green even if you don't have anything growing.
MR. SLA VICH: It is green, correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, okay. So if you get it
hydro-seeded very quickly, I think people will be reasonably happy
with it, but I don't think anybody's going to be happy if you wait for
Page 84
October 28, 2008
two weeks or three weeks to get this started.
MR. SLA VICH: It was not the intention to wait till November
20th. To be honest with you, that's the first time I've heard that that
was the meeting. I'm sure we have been noticed and people in my
office know that. But that's the first time I personally have heard that
so -- which we will obviously be at, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner Coletta
seconded the motion.
I just want to point out, not requiring the re-vegetation is against
the Land Development Code, okay. So if we do that, we should
probably do that in some sort of resolution because code says, and it's
clear, it's 64 trees per acre and associated mid-story and ground cover.
That is 18 months from now.
MR. SLA VICH: Well, would we get credit --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're not going to have to address
that, Mr. Slavich.
MR. SLA VICH: No, we will not be addressing that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the comment about, I don't want
to see anybody having to put trees back in is against our own
ordinance.
MR. SLA VICH: Well, the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That isn't what the motion is, but
that's what was stated.
MR. SLA VICH: But if it ever got to that point, would the berm
not be considered part of re-vegetation or count for the trees?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm just stating what is says in the
Land Development Code.
MR. SLA VICH: We won't have to get to that. Let's -- we'll agree
to that. We would not have to get to that point. So we'll be more than
happy to grade down to 4-1 slope and hydro-seed at the moment.
Page 85
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta, to slope
the sides of the pads, remove the piles; is that correct?
MR. SLA VICH: Grade down the piles?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Grade down the piles.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Grade down the piles --
MR. SLA VICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- hydro-seed, immediately; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Starting immediately, yes, and --
MR. SLA VICH: We've actually started that, so there are
portions that are already hydro-seeded. They will have to get
rehydro-seeded when we grade down the sides, but yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Did I capture the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think you did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
Aye.
Motion carries 4-1.
It's close enough for lunch, and come back at one o'clock.
(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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to -
Page 86
October 28, 2008
Item #7 A
PETITION: CU-2008-AR-1320l: VI LTD, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP AND COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND
RECREATION, REPRESENTED BY RICHARD D.
YOV ANOVICH OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN, JOHNSON,
YOV ANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A., IS REQUESTING A
CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL TOURIST (RT)
ZONING DISTRICT AND THE VANDERBILT BEACH RESORT
TOURIST OVERLAY DISTRICT (VBRTO) AND THE RMF-16
ZONING DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE SECTION 2.01.03.G.1.E, TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC
FACILITIES (LIMITED TO PUBLIC RESTROOM FACILITIES)
THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PARTIALLY WITHIN THE MORAYA
BAY BEACH CLUB PROPERTY - MOTION TO CONTINUE TO
DECEMBER MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 7 A, sir, Board of Zoning Appeals. This item
requires -- if you could please take your seats. Thank you.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. It's conditional use
2008-AR-13201, VI Limited, limited partnership, and Collier County
Parks and Rec., represented by Richard D. Yovanovich of Goodlette,
Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich, and Koester -- Koester --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Koester.
MR. MUDD: Koester, okay. Thank you very much -- P.A., is
requesting a conditional use in the residential tourist, R T zoning
district, and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort tourist overlay, VBRTO, and
the RMF-16 zoning district pursuant to Land Development Code
section 2.01.03 .G.l.e, to allow for public facilities, limited to public
Page 87
October 28, 2008
rest room facilities, that will be constructed within the public
right-of-way and partially within the Moraya Bay Beach Club
property.
The subject property is located in Section 29, Township 48 south,
Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this item,
please rise and raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court
reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication.
Commissioner Coyle -- Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Chairman
Henning. On the 7 A, I've had meetings, correspondence, and emails,
and it's all in my file.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also have a file. I have had
correspondence and emails on this, and spoke with staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I've had some correspondence from
residents in the area, viewed the Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I've had meetings with the
petitioner, I've also had emails and meetings with staff in regards to
this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received correspondence
and emails concerning this proj ect, and they're all contained in my
folder.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And who wants to start off
first? Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioners.
With me today are Marla Ramsey, Barry Williams, Gary
Page 88
October 28, 2008
McAlpin, and Karen Bishop, to answer any questions you may have
regarding the conditional use.
As the County Manager stated, this is a conditional use to allow
the construction of public rest rooms in the Vanderbilt Beach area.
The rest rooms would be constructed within the county-owned
right-of-way and a small sliver of property owned by Signature
Communities and one of its entities, which is within the Moraya Bay
condominium property.
As you will recall, the rest rooms were part of the settlement
negotiations related to the Vanderbilt Inn Bert Harris case, and in that
settlement agreement the county was paid $500,000 for the
construction of a turnaround as well as public rest rooms in this area.
This conditional use implements the public rest room portion of those
-- of those settlement discussed.
The rest rooms, as I've said, will be adjacent to the public beach
access that has been conveyed to the county as part of those settlement
negotiations. Currently there are no county-owned public rest rooms
near this beach access points.
Due to building code regulations -- and I've got the elevations
here if you'd like to go through them, but due to building code
regulations, the rest rooms need to be elevated, and we use the FEMA
elevation because these are non-habitable structures.
This issue came up as to why we used FEMA for the rest rooms
versus using FEMA for the adjacent, unrelated condominium building,
but -- so we explained that we use FEMA because it's not habitable. If
we had to use the other DEP regulations, the structures would actually
be a little bit taller.
The Planning Commission is recommending a zero approval of
the conditional use application. Your staff report's very thorough into
the details of that application. So with that, that's a brief summary of
the request, and we're obviously requesting that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the conditional use for the public rest rooms,
Page 89
October 28, 2008
and we're available to answer any specific questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question is that in regards to what
the Collier County Planning Commission recommended, they said,
according to the petitioner's agent, the agreement has been scheduled
for September the 9th. This is in regard to some -- a transfer of land.
I believe there was a small segment of land that needed to be
transferred to the county in regards to the agreement for the rest room?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Marla can answer that question for
you or I can, either way, Marla. It's up to you.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, public services
administrator.
We do have an agreement that we're working through the process
with the developer to convey that small triangular portion of land
underneath the rest room facility. We're working through the
attorney's office and the Clerk's office to bring that forward, and we
should have to you, I would say one the two agendas in December.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But this has nothing to do as
far as approving this conditional use without the ability of having that
land transferred over to us at the present time; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: My understanding -- and maybe someone from
CDES can help me with that. But my understanding is that you don't
really need to have that conveyed until you go into the SDP process.
To get that approval, then you would need to have that land conveyed
at that time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe Joe can make two
clarifications of this.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, again, Joe Schmitt. For
clarification, yes, there is no way we can approve a site plan or a
building permit if it's on a property -- two individual owners and it
crosses a property line. There will have to be some sort of adjustment
Page 90
October 28, 2008
made to either a lot line adjustment or some other legal instrument to
deed over a portion of that property so that we can approve the site
plan and the building permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that can certainly be done at submittal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The -- I just want to make
sure and put this on the record that this is no -- this is not being held
up because of the developer. It's being held up on our end through
government entities involved in this.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's true, and I believe the original
version of the agreement has already been executed by the developer,
but there are some requested changes that are being requested on the
government side.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. The executive
summary is very confusing, and I'm sure it must be confusing to some
of the people who are watching or who have read it, because I've
received emails saying that we should not grant them a conditional use
approval for this club, and that's exactly what the executive summary
says. It's requesting a conditional use in the zoning district and for the
Vanderbilt Beach Resort tourist overlay district. But you have to read
on to find out that you're talking about essential services for the
government, which is a public rest room. It has nothing to do with the
club; is that true?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct, that is true. And I think the
confusion started as originally they were going to -- we were going to
collocate within the club building both the public rest rooms and the
club, but the club, which is a totally separate petition, has no longer
collocated with this, and that just may be a carryover. But they're
Page 91
October 28, 2008
totally unrelated petitions, and you would be just approving the
essential services for the rest rooms today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not voting on the club at all?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the upshot of all this is that
you are giving us property so that we can build a public rest room
facility for the public?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's all this is about?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, to the issue of not
having fee simple title to this property at the time of approval. County
Attorney, why can't we -- I mean, if we are going to approve it, if we
approve it, why can't we approve it contingent upon the receipt of the
fee simple title to this property?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's what the executive summary
says you can do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's not what we were just
told.
MR. KLATZKOW: The executive summary says you can
approve the conditional use subject to a stipulation to require the
transfer to occur prior to Site Development Plan, which is what you're
doing here.
So there's a -- there's a -- you're approving this with a condition
that they come back and deed us the rest of the property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who's Site Development Plan?
Our Site Development Plan?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ours, ours.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a convoluted way to do that,
I think.
MR. KLATZKOW: The easiest approach would be to put this
off until we get the --
Page 92
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The land.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- the land done; however, these are public
rest rooms, you know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're -- here's my problem. We're
approving a conditional use right now.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're approving a conditional use for
ourselves --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- at the end of the day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: We're approving public rest rooms which
require a conditional use. We can't build that building until we get the
lot lines adjusted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: So sometime between now and the time of
the Site Development Plan, those lot lines have to get adjusted. We
could either wait until those lot lines get adjusted, then they can come
back and we can approve this, or we can approve this with the
condition that the lot lines get adjusted before a Site Development
Plan gets filed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, I don't see anything in
any of that that imposes a requirement that they do anything. If they
-- if they fail to transfer the property, who's really hurt? We are.
MR. KLATZKOW: We are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. So we have no
guarantee. I'm not suggesting that they would intentionally withhold
it, but we're not saying anything about their Site Development Plan is
not going to get approved; is that right?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's actually your conceptual site plan for
your rest rooms.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly my point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's yours.
Page 93
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And that's what's getting approved today.
We have -- you're right. I mean, it would be nice if we could have
worked our way through the administrative process to have all of this
at the same agenda. We're not your -- as we've pointed out to
Commissioner Halas, we're not your problem. There's no --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is Commissioner Halas.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. I was -- Commissioner Halas --
focus a little bit closer on that. So I mean, I can understand you're
saying to staff, the approval is conditioned upon actually receiving the
property, but there's -- I don't know. There's no real way to hold up
our site plan since it's not our site plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly the point.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly the point. There is
nothing here that obligates you to do anything after we make approval
today, end of story. We could -- we could grant this conditional use,
we could vote on it unanimously, we could all walk out of the room,
and five years from now you haven't transferred it and there's
absolutely nothing anybody can do about it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, that's not true, sir. We've got eminent
domain power. I mean, worse comes to worst, the developer doesn't
live up to what the developer said he would live up to, we can take
that strip.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's not going to -- Commissioner, you
know it's not going to come to that. You know, these are developers
who are in the community, have been in the community, have--
always follow through with what they said they were going to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm just concerned with loose ends.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's a bad way to do
Page 94
October 28, 2008
business. It really is a bad way to do business. And I think it's,
unfortunately, been a waste of the time of this board and everybody
who came here to see this because it could have been done all at one
time and you had tied all the loose ends up and you had gotten the
land transferred properly, and we could have made a decision. It
should have never been on this agenda. But nevertheless.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I see that picture that you
have down there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And also I wanted to hear from
Commissioner Halas. This is his district.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem that I have with this --
and, again, it's the land. It hasn't been dedicated to the county, and I
kind of feel the same way as Commissioner Coyle does, is that this
should have been taken care of prior to this meeting.
I have talked with staff members during this morning's break and
found that -- it's my understanding that the Clerk has a problem with
the -- all of the transfer of this property, and I'm not sure what the
problem is in regards to the transfer of the property totally because to
me it should have been fairly clean as far as dedicating the property
over.
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey. Again, earlier on
September 9th I had on the agenda the developer agreement that
included the conditional use element as well as the conveyance of the
property. And as we were getting ready for that agenda, at the same
time there was some other issues with some development contribution
agreements, and because there's some issues with those, we pulled all
the developer contribution agreements off of the list while we worked
through that process, through the attorney's office, through the Clerk's
office, in order to make sure that the product we bring back to you is
clean, and that's where we got kind of tripped up on it.
Page 95
October 28, 2008
But we did have on the September 9th agenda the conveyance of
this piece of property, and the developer has signed off on that draft
conveyance, and it's just a matter of, you're right, timing. Timing has
just not worked in our favor in this particular element, but all -- all the
conversations that I've had with the owner of the property is that he
fully intends to donate that four-foot triangular strip to the county so
we can build the rest room facilities.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem remains that if the
Clerk feels that this isn't correct for whatever reason, then we may
never get this piece of property; is that correct?
MS. RAMSEY: No. I don't believe it's to that extent. It has to
do with making sure, you know, certain invoices and certain processes
are followed, and that -- this is not just this one. It's all developer
contribution agreements as we move forward. We're changing the
way that we do business with those to make sure that we all have
some consistency involved with them.
And so it's a matter of some due diligence. It's not that -- it
doesn't have anything specifically to do with this particular project
that we're talking about today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there a possibility that we can
continue this on until -- at such time that everything is taken care of,
then vote on this?
MS. RAMSEY: That would be the pleasure of the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think maybe that's the best way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to draw
your attention to something in the executive summary. It says that the
petitioner's agent has assured staff that this agreement to transfer the
land will be signed either at this meeting or prior to this meeting.
That's what I relied upon in the executive summary. I thought you
would come here with a signed agreement or an agreement that could
be signed at this meeting.
Page 96
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which paragraph, what page?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's on Page --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's on Page 4. It starts at 4 and
goes to 5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's bottom of Page 4, and I relied
upon that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Commissioner Coyle, we, the
developer, have signed that agreement, okay. It's -- so we've signed it,
okay. It's now going through -- and Treviso Bay was really the first
project where the Clerk has now said, when someone other than the
county is actually building a project, he, the Clerk, wants us to do A,
Band C, which is fine, and that's what caught up this other agreement
as to -- because we've done the design and a lot of other things.
The Clerk has asked for some additional documentation
regarding those expenses related to the design of this rest room and the
processing of the petition. But we, the developer, have signed it. It's
just now going through the Clerk review and your County Attorney's
review before you can finally bless it. But -- if that helps you any, we,
the developer, have signed it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let's cut to the bottom line.
Who's holding it up?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't want --
MS. RAMSEY: The developer agreement that we were bringing
forward on September 9th, there were clarifications that needed to be
done by the Clerk's office. They asked us for some additional
information, and then the attorney's office, also upon review, after we
already had approval by the attorney's office, is now reviewing it
agam.
And we're trying to come together with a format that we can
bring forward on the Developer Contribution Agreement that can be
utilized as the process moves forward for all future development
contribution agreements, so --
Page 97
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when did you know this?
MS. RAMSEY: I had it on the agenda for the September 9th.
And just prior to that going to the -- to print, it was pulled off so we
could go through the review of it because there were other developer
contribution agreements that were in dispute, and so we wanted to get
all of them in line for the future, so we've got all of them coming
forward at the same time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But a month and a half later --
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. It hasn't been.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and we still haven't sorted out
that issue.
MS. RAMSEY: We're much closer today. Invoices have come
in. We're actually bringing in invoices and things like that to attach to
the contribution -- developer contribution agreement. So it would be
very specific, the document that comes forward to you. It really has
nothing to do with the conveyance of the land. The conveyance of the
land is involved in the developer contribution agreement, but that is
not the holdup.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it keeps getting more and
more complex. It just convinces me that we either need to table this
item or postpone it until we are ready to present a completed
document.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What Commissioner Coyle read --
but the next statement is, if not, this conditional petition will need to
be continued at the board level, or the board could approve the
conditional use subject to stipulation to require the transfer to occur
prior to the Site Development Plan, and I feel that we need to -- this
should have all been taken care of and that before we go forward with
a conditional use, that that needs to be taken care of to make sure that
we have that land.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's no sense of spending a
Page 98
October 28, 2008
whole bunch of time on this. Can we agree by a supermajority vote to
bring this back with the DCA and put it on the summary?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you've already got two no's, so this
isn't going to go forward, so you could agree to just -- at this point in
time just to either continue this item to the next board meeting or
continue it indefinitely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe I didn't make myself clear.
What I stated was, can we vote with a supermajority when it comes
back to just put it on the summary agenda since we already discussed
this thing?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There might be new information
that comes up between now and then. We haven't seen the agreement.
We don't know what the stipulations are in the agreement. I don't
know how we vote now on some future act.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no. I think what Commissioner
Henning is getting at is next time this comes back, assuming all the
loose ends are tied up, this can go on summary, assuming--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Since we already heard it. That's my
point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to have objections
because I've got a stack of objections right here. So somebody's going
to be objecting to it, so how can it go on the summary agenda?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any speakers on this item?
No, there's no speakers on it. So I'm just trying to streamline the
process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. All I'm suggesting is
that we have items on our regular agenda today that received
unanimous approval from the Planning Commission but there were
emails objecting to it and so it couldn't go on the summary agenda.
Page 99
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, here's my point. The
next meeting we're not going to have a full board, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep, yep, that's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then we're getting into December,
and all this stuff is going to back up. That is my point. And unless we
want to commit to, you know, more days than one for our December
meeting -- because we're going to be one commissioner short, and the
petitioners that are on the regular agenda are going to want to continue
that, so I'm just trying to help out the process, that's all. Okay.
Entertain a motion to either continue this or continue it and put it
on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's an either/or motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which one do you want us to vote
on?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm not making a motion. I said, I
entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to continue --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and second, and the understanding
is that the agreement, the DCA, will be on the same agenda or --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Are we continuing to the December
meeting where you'll have five commissioners?
MR. MUDD: You're continuing and -- yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Instead of the November meeting?
MR. MUDD: There's no petitioner that's going to go on the
regular agenda for the 11/18 meeting, because you only have four
commissioners on the dais, that's going to be heard on the regular
agenda. Anybody that was on the regular agenda didn't get unanimous
votes and/or had letters of objection have already continued and
Page 100
October 28, 2008
moved off the thing. The only thing that you have as far as zonings
are concerned are right now on the summary agenda.
If the board pulls anything off the summary agenda on 11/18, I've
already -- the petitioners have already contacted me and said they
want the item continued.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is the motion to continue it to
the December meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The second agree with that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I do have a question though. So
say, for instance, the Clerk decides to, you know, finish this off in the
next week or so, and you discussed putting it on the summary agenda
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, the motion was not to
put it on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, plan on a two-day --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a shame to put it off for two
months. Well, okay, fine.
Page 10 1
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Plan on a two-day meeting or an extra
meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, in could. My
problem is, I don't know how you make a decision today to put it on
the summary agenda in the future. And if it can go on the summary
agenda in November, I would encourage you to do it because -- you
just follow our procedures. Are there any objections to it, it goes on
the summary agenda. You make that decision yourselves. We don't
make that decision.
So I wouldn't want to discourage you from placing it on the
summary agenda ifthere are no objections to it. It will be just like any
other petition that comes in here with no objections.
So if you have no objections, why not put it on the summary
agenda? And you make that call, not us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So then we need to revise the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, no, not at all. You didn't vote
to put the item that's on the summary agenda in here today. There was
no vote for anybody to do that. It was done by the staff because it met
our criteria. It was approved unanimously by the Planning
Commission and there were no objections.
If this one comes back and you've got the title -- fee simple title
to this property and you have no objections to this particular petition,
then you put it on the summary agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, didn't we just vote to put it on
December? I mean, it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We continued it until September,
or December. But if you want to do it earlier, why can't you do it
earlier ifit goes on the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we just didn't vote that
way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We didn't vote that way.
Page 102
October 28, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I make a suggestion? I think -- since
I am the applicant's attorney on this, I'm the county's advocate on this
petition. Since you didn't take an action on the conditional use petition
itself today, I think the objections would still stand and, therefore, we
probably can't go on the summary agenda.
But if we were to take an action that says we approve it
contingent upon a satisfactory conveyance agreement and -- it would
then go on summary agenda, and if any commissioner or public didn't
like the terms of that conveyance agreement, it could then be pulled
off the summary agenda. I think we could go on the November 18th
agenda.
If it got pulled by a commissioner, we would then probably
automatically continue over to December. I think that's what
Commissioner Henning was suggesting to streamline it. Then you
would be taking action today. I think that would make the objections
no longer applicable because we discussed the conditional use.
The conditional use doesn't make sense on this particular piece of
property when you have the necessary property owners in front of you
to make that decision. Then if you don't like any of the conditions
applicable to the conveyance agreement, you could always pull it
again and say, we don't want to do that. That's just a recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what our concern is is that if
we move in that direction, there may be something that may get
changed in the whole summary other than just the conveyance of the
property, and I think that's what our concern is. There might be
something else that will be added to the agenda other than just the
clearing of the title for the property.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then you could pull it from the
summary. But I was just looking to streamline it, if you were trying to
find a way to get to November 18th and still have an opportunity to
Page 103
October 28, 2008
get it on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's move this along. I make a
motion for reconsideration of the last motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can do that because you voted in
the majority --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- minority -- majority. Second by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It passed unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Yes, it did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
a saymg aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Which -- what motion
are you talking about?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion to reconsider.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't get a second though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I did. Forgive me. I didn't
mean to jump in like that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was your second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There was a motion by Commissioner
Coletta to reconsider the item, the last vote, and there was second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 104
October 28, 2008
Is there discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I want to ask the County
Attorney, what guidance do you give us on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: At this point in time, given the discussion,
I'd bring this back whenever the deed gets done and I'd bring it to the
regular agenda and be done with it, I mean, at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: And it should be a very quick discussion
because everything's tied up. And if nobody shows up to object to this
thing, I think we're done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to take the vote on it unless
it's withdrawn.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Unless -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's talk about it now. The
motion we originally put through, does that cover that, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your original motion was to bring this back
in your December meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: And that would have been on a regular
agenda. That's how I understood your motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And that's what you're
recommending?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm recommending you don't bring this back
until the deeds gets for it (sic). I mean, you know, whether that's
November or December or January, whenever it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we left instructions for--
Commissioner Henning was trying to keep everything on track, and I
appreciated that very much, rather than have everything backlogged.
We reconsider the motion and reword it so that they have the option to
bring it back -- well, you're talking about the regular agenda, and
they're not going to touch next month because that's only four. So I
Page 105
October 28, 2008
guess that leaves December, so the original motion probably was
adequate. I withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. There's no sense in discussing
this any further.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're going to move on to the next
one.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2008-62: PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-I0294
NAPLES CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC., REPRESENTED BY D.
WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., AND RICHARD D. YOV ANOVICH, ESQ.
OF GOODLETTE, COLEMAN, JOHNSON, YOV ANOVICH AND
KOESTER, P.A., REQUESTING REZONING FROM A RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL ZONING DISTRICT (A) TO THE MIXED USE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT
TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF A 1,000
MEMBER RELIGIOUS FACILITY, 150 STUDENT
CUMULATIVE ENROLLMENT PRESCHOOL AND
KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 8TH GRADE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS, 2 SINGLE-F AMIL Y DWELLING UNITS, AND 200
ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, IN A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE
NAPLES CHURCH OF CHRIST MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (MPUD). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
CONSISTING OF 19.1 ACRES, IS LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES
SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD, IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. -
ADOPTED W /CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOR THE
SOUTHERN WALL TO GO TO THE 103 FOOT MARKER
Page 106
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8A. This item
requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by commission members. It's petition
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0294, Naples Church of Christ, Inc., represented by
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP ofQ. Grady Minor & Associates, Inc., and
Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson,
Yovanovich, and Koester, okay, P.A., is requesting rezoning from the
rural agricultural zoning district to the mixed-use planned unit
development, MPUD, zoning district to allow development of a
maximum of 1,000-member religious facility, 150 student cumulative
enrollment, preschool and kindergarten through eighth grade
elementary school, two single-family dwelling units, and 200 assisted
living units in a project known as the Naples Church of Christ
mixed-use planned unit development, MPUD.
The subject property consisting of 19.1 acres is located on the
east side of Livingston Road, approximately .6 miles south of Pine
Ridge Road in Section 18, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold. I'm here with Rich
Y ovanovich and Bob Murrell from --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to hang on a minute?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this item,
please rise, raise your right hand, and be sworn at by the court
reporter.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication.
Commissioner -- who wants to go first? You're ready. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I have to talk to Mr.
Arnold for just a second. Mr. Arnold, I'm sorry. I don't indicate that I
Page 107
October 28, 2008
met with you on this.
MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. I don't believe that we met with any of
you on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I thought. No
disclosures on this item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures for me either.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Me neither.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Wayne
Arnold and I'm here with Rich Y ovanovich, and Bob Murrell is here
representing the church. He's one of the church elders and on their
board.
This is an item that is for a church campus and has a component
for assisted living and some of the recreational opportunities
associated with the school and church on the rear parcel.
We've got a color exhibit up on the board that shows you the
yellow parcels are those that are related to the church specifically.
The orange parcel to the east will be an area where we're going to put
some initial, very informal recreational facilities. There's an existing
home back there that would serve as a parsonage for a minister, and
there may be some water management facilities there initially. But it's
also identified as being the future site of an assisted living facility for
the property.
We have met with our neighbors to the north at Pasitano Place,
and they were at the Planning Commission meeting. And one of the
reasons that we didn't come to speak with you all in advance of this
meeting is because we left the Planning Commission hearing with an
Page 108
October 28, 2008
understanding that we had a unanimous approval from the Planning
Commission and that staff was also in support of the project. Since
that time we understood that staff had a concern with the two
deviations that are discussed in your executive summary.
So to the extent I can focus on what I think I understand staffs
concerns to be, I'd like to do that. I mean, I can give you any of the
overview you want, but we left the Planning Commission meeting
with the understanding that our neighbors to the north, we would build
our typical 15-foot wide buffer that would include a concrete wall, and
that would be along the north property line.
And those neighbors also had an objection to a residential
component that we had, and they asked us if we would withdraw it,
and that was a matter of debate with the Planning Commission. And
after some discussion, we decided that it was probably in the best
interest to eliminate the pure residential component. Nobody had a
concern with the assisted living, and we would move on with the
recommendation. So that's how we left that meeting.
As I understand staffs concerns today, it involves two things.
There are two parcels. One is designated community facilities for the
church. The other was designated community facilities/residential, and
that's where we were to have multifamily housing in addition to the
option to have assisted living.
And the Planning Commission, when we left their meeting, said,
you know what, we don't really need a buffer between these two tracts
as long as the church is the developer of both parcels. In the event that
they're not the owner and developer of the rear parcel, then you should
put a buffer to code.
And staffs clarification with that is that buffer shouldn't be based
on ownership. It should be based on use. And I don't disagree with
that, and I don't think that was ever the intent. But they've said that
that buffer should apply if there is a residential use.
The only residential use that we're proposing back there is the
Page 109
October 28, 2008
existing two single-family homes that are on this property, and they
will remain for some period of time until the church really decides
how to develop that parcel.
So I don't know that I have an issue with staffs recommendation
as long as I know I don't have to install a buffer between the minister's
parsonage home and the church property itself. It seems -- it seems
not typical that you would have to buffer your own minister's
residence.
So I don't think I have major disagreement with that, but I do
need to clarify that, and staff can do that on the record.
The second part of this is a little bit more troublesome for us
because, as I understand staffs issue -- and I'll put up an exhibit that I
created. You can pull away from that just a little bit, Mr. Mudd.
I've highlighted them in bold red just so they're visible, but on the
top of the screen you see about a 900-foot long red line that goes from
Livingston Road right-of-way to our preserve, and that was what the
Planning Commission said we should establish a wall in that area for
the protection of the Pasitano Place neighbors to the north.
And to the south I've highlighted the area where there's an
existing wall that is part of the Aviano at Naples project that Toll
Brothers developed.
And as I understand staffs recommendation, they are asking us to
either -- I don't quite understand, and they need to tell you this. Either
they want us to extend on where the existing wall is to the south or
they're asking us to put another wall in. I'm not certain which that is.
But we debated this point with the Planning Commission.
And you can see that where their wall stops, they start with their
preservation area. And I've got dimensions on that exhibit. Hopefully
you can see that. Likewise, to the north where we stopped our wall at
our preserve, we have a 60-foot-wide buffer that's part of the preserve.
Now, one of the things that I hope staff understood is that we've
said that we're going to have a 15-foot-wide type B buffer north and
Page 110
October 28, 2008
south, and that type B buffer, the only difference between -- there are
two options. One is the type B buffer gets a five-foot-high hedge or
you get a wall. And your code says that where you have
nonresidential to residential uses, you need to use a wall.
And we asked for a deviation to not have to put a wall in along
all three sides of our property because we had these preserve areas on
three sides. To the east we have a flow-way. To the south is a
preserve that's part of A viano. And to the north we have our own
preserve.
And we felt like putting in opacity to meeting the hedge
requirement made sense, but it didn't make sense to have a wall and go
to that expense for the church.
And to the south, my example is simply that they're a gated
community, they put in their own facility, but not only do I have their
preserves, I've got a 170-foot-wide Florida Power & Light easement
that separates our development tract from their property line, plus I'm
having my 15-foot-wide buffer with a hedge. We think that's
adequate. We don't think it deserves a wall, and I think that's the
essence of our disagreement.
The Planning Commission agreed with us. It's my understanding
staff does not. That's where I think we are with our disagreement with
staff.
I'm happy to answer other questions or to give you more detail.
I'd like to hear from staff as well so I clearly understand what they're
asking us to do and why they disagree with that deviation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I would point out -- Rich just
reminded me that the residents of Positano, we had members of their
board here, and they supported exactly what the Planning Commission
approved. We had nobody here from Aviano at Naples, and they were
a noticed property owner as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the board members?
Page 111
October 28, 2008
Commissioner Fiala -- Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I talked to staff about this, and I
guess this is kind of the spillover of Stevie Tomato's so that there's
some kind of buffering so that we don't run into a problem with
adjoining neighborhoods later on after this is developed, and
obviously a church grounds is not going to be Stevie Tomato's, but I
think maybe that's what the mindset is here.
And as you said, it would be interesting to hear what staff has to
say on this before we get too far entrenched in this particular item.
MR. ARNOLD: I think one thing I would add, Commissioners,
Rich and I have looked at a lot of different church facilities around the
community, and it's very rare that you find a church facility that has
walled itself off from even its most closer residential neighbors.
I mean, you can go to a community like Port Royal in the City of
Naples and find that the church that's an integral part of that
community isn't walled off from its residential neighbors. I think,
likewise, you can look at almost any of the other more recent churches
that have been built. And the one issue that came up, there was a
church, I guess -- it was somewhere in Golden Gate Estates, there was
a recent case, and that's why the Planning Commission felt so strongly
about a wall to the north because we had such an immediate neighbor
there. And the church agreed that they should put the wall in in that
location.
But where we have a separation that approaches 200 feet across
an FP&L easement with a buffer, to a buffer and a wall, it didn't make
sense for us to have the a church try to go to the extra expense of
building a six-foot-high masonry wall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions? Ms.
Gundlach?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner with Zoning and Land Development
Review.
Page 112
October 28, 2008
And staff is recommending approval of this PUD but it is subject
to stipulations. As Wayne had mentioned, there are two items that we
are not in agreement with and they have to do with the buffering. And
I'll show this on the visualizer. We can use the graphic that's on the
visualizer at the moment.
Staff is requesting that the required minimum code landscape
buffer between -- and I'm going to point to it. Okay. I think
everybody can hear me. It's this area right in here that we're concerned
about the buffer. And we want it to be associated with land use, not
ownership.
Should this be developed with an adult congregate living facility,
you know, obviously it's not compatible with the church.
And the other area that we are not in total agreement on is the
wall requirement. And currently as the PUD is written -- I drew in
where the walls would be. And the -- I don't know if you can see that
heavy kind of greenish-black line. That's where the wall would be as
proposed by the PUD.
And I've been out to the site twice, and the preserve areas that are
processed are pinelands. And if you're familiar with pinelands, they're
very, very thin once we remove the exotics. As a matter of fact, my
next-door neighbor's in the process of doing that with his new home.
There's barely anything left.
It does -- it lacks the opacity to serve as a buffer, and that's what
we're concerned about. This is a proposal for a church of a thousand
members. As you know, as the days get shorter, as they are now,
when we have Wednesday night services, the headlights are an issue
for neighbors. We're concerned about the 150 pre-school to
eighth-grade-age school children. They tend to be a little noisy.
And there's a lot of traffic generated with the mothers picking up
their children, so that's what we're concerned about for the adjacent
residential neighbors, and that is why we are requesting that the
minimum code required wall be provided in those locations where
Page 113
October 28, 2008
they're currently not provided.
Also I wanted to mention to you that during the SDP process
there is an administrative deviation process that they could apply for
should they be able to demonstrate that there is adequate opacity with
the existing pinelands.
And if you have any other questions, it's my pleasure to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I heard what you said, Nancy, and I
wouldn't have thought of that myself as far as the huge 200-foot
expanse that -- you know, I wouldn't have thought that a wall would
be needed, but I heard what you said. But I just can't understand why
the -- if the church is building a retirement community or an ALF right
there on their own property and people would maybe want to walk to
church, why would we have to put a wall there? That's the only one
I'm having a real hard time swallowing.
MS. GUNDLACH: Do you -- Commissioner, do you mean the
area between --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yellow and the orange.
MS. GUNDLACH: Right here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay, understood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That one doesn't seem to make any
sense to me, but I understand the other ones.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you never can tell when
those old people will get sort of wild and start having noisy parties
here.
Now, what I'd like for you to do is to tell me on this diagram
Page 114
October 28, 2008
where you are proposing walls north and south.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Is it okay with the applicant in draw
on your graphic? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh. You don't have to draw. You
can just put a pencil --
MS. GUNDLACH: So it would be -- see where this swirl ends
right here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. GUNDLACH: It would continue along here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How far?
MS. GUNDLACH: All the way to the end, and then -- I drew up
a little graphic if you would like me to show it to you -- and then it
would continue along here and be on the edge of the preserve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean put a wall all the way
around?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. That's the current minimum code
requirement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Without -- you mean that preserve
area to the south there, the lower right-hand corner, is not sufficient
buffering?
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually, when I was out and I did my site
visit, that's what I observed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what are we buffering it from
there? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to jump in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, what are we buffering it from
there?
MS. GUNDLACH: We're buffering the church from the
surrounding residences.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We don't want those trees to
be seen from the church; is that it?
Okay. Wow. How much did you just add to the cost of this
project?
Page 115
October 28, 2008
MR. ARNOLD: Can I answer it?
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: I can't tell you specifically because I haven't
added up the linear square footage, but I think we're thinking that the
cost estimates for the wall are going to be somewhere between 60 to
$80 a linear foot, and we've already got 900 foot shown to the north,
so it's a substantial amount of money to the church.
And I think in hear staffs objection, you know, the -- one of the
reasons that the Positano folks wanted the wall to the north was
because we have a travel isle that's near them, they have homes
nearby. It was going to add some additional noise buffering in
addition to just pure opacity.
And I think it's clear from our plans and the plans that we've
submitted to the county that we intend to have the type B buffer which
has opacity in the form of a hedge. Our disagreement is that we have
to achieve the opacity with a wall, especially when you look at the
expanse of the preserve to the south. We've got a preserve that's over
100 feet wide to the east, and then to the north our minimum preserve
distance is about 60 feet.
And I think we can certainly make it a very attractive project to
add a hedge and other vegetative materials to achieve the opacity
rather than go to the expense of a wall where we don't have a lot of
activity near anybody else.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me suggest a proposal
for you. Suppose you extended the southern wall to the 103-foot
setback marker there, which would provide adequate protection for
those homes, and then have an opaque landscape buffer from that
point on all the way around the property? And then -- did I understand
correctly that you really are -- and I'm talking to the staff now -- you
really are proposing that a wall be built north and south through this
property dividing it into two pieces? Is that what you're suggesting,
too? Or is that a green hedge?
Page 116
October 28, 2008
MS. GUNDLACH: It depends on how that rear property is
developed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: If it's a community facility, there will be no
wall required.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If it's a parsonage?
MS. GUNDLACH: If it's parsonage it would still be required
because it's a residential use.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They want to wall that guy off
there, right?
MS. GUNDLACH: That's the code requirement at the moment,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to have canons there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll lock the gate. Okay, I got it.
All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can hear some frustration up here.
Commissioner Coletta, and then if you don't mind, I'm going to
go after that.
MS. GUNDLACH: Commissioner, I just wanted to bring up a
point with you. You had mentioned earlier, perhaps, extending the
wall to the point that says that 103 and then adding additional
landscaping for opacity. That would be acceptable to staff. It just
hasn't been offered before.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just offered it.
MS. GUNDLACH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now my question deals with the
proposed wall that you were talking about on the back side of the
project, on the far right. Yeah. The thing is is that I have no idea
what's -- as far as residential goes from the right going the distance
where the next residential is, how far away it is.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. I can probably show you that on the
Page 117
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: Okay. Let me zoom it up just a little bit. Get us in
the ballpark. Okay.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
MR. MUDD: He's talking about right here.
MS. GUNDLACH: This is the proposed residential development
here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what we have there
between the two is a green area which isn't too green. It looks like
maybe the trees have been cut down. It's just a, what, prairie, or is it --
MS. GUNDLACH: Flow-way. It's called a flow-way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Flow-way. So that in itself
doesn't offer anything as far as screening goes?
MS. GUNDLACH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They've got about 150 feet on the
other property to the right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A hundred and fifty feet, but --
no, that can't be 150 feet, that little green ribbon of line --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. The property -- on the
property to the right.
MS. GUNDLACH: Here?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right there.
MS. GUNDLACH: Here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. You have about 150 feet,
but you're looking across an expanse and you've got a -- what is that,
about a 60- foot buffer that's there, the green buffer?
MS. GUNDLACH: That--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's about 40 feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty feet.
MR. MUDD: Well, if it's --
Page 118
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forty feet, and it's just --
basically just pines, correct?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah. That's a preserve area of about 40
feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not just pines. Richard's
shaking his head no.
MS. GUNDLACH: Type B buffer there also.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah. I'm kind of curious
of what's going to be there. If it's only 40 feet, what kind of a buffer
can we put in there that will actually act as a screen?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, that's the required hedge
that has to be opaque. It's just -- we're doing it through hedge material
versus through a wall.
And remember, a lot of these issues came up when we were
talking about putting residential back there. The concern was kids and
noise, but when we decided to eliminate residential and put an ALF,
people believe that, other than an occasional older person, it would be
fairly quiet back on that orange piece.
So a lot of the noise concerns, or all the noise concerns, frankly,
went away and the argument for the wall was sound attenuation, and
that's why Positano said, bring the wall to where we agreed to bring it.
That -- the noisy part of the operation would be the church. We'll
have a wall there so that will shield the church. Anything to the east
of that, we don't -- we, Positano, don't believe a wall's necessary. We
can meet the opacity through the screening materials and the hedge.
And frankly, the same thing was on Aviano's side. Ifwe need to
get -- to get four affirmative votes to extend the wall to the 103 portion
of that, we'll agree to do that. That's additional cost. It was felt
unnecessary by the Planning Commission, but we'll do that. We'll
extend the wall and then continue on with the screening from the
hedge, and we'd propose doing the screen from the hedge all the way
around from that point because the noisy portion of the business, the
Page 119
October 28, 2008
church, if you will, if you can call noisy, is all being buffered by a
wall. And then the quieter ALF and parsonage would be -- we don't
think it's necessary to have a wall there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nancy, you mentioned there's exotics
in the preserves.
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Which preserves?
MS. GUNDLACH: All of the preserves that you currently see
there on the Naples Church of Christ's property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Zoom it out.
MS. GUNDLACH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Deputy County Manager will
help you.
MS. GUNDLACH: This area right here is the preserve -- is the
preserve area for Naples Church of Christ.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And it's a -- is it a wetland
preserve?
MS. GUNDLACH: Applicant says no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But you were out there, right?
MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. I didn't see any lakes or water --
standing water out there when I was out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What happens to exotics when you
pull them out? Does it just become -- no more growth will happen in
there?
MS. GUNDLACH: Actually we do have environmental if you'd
like for them to answer that question. I could certainly answer it for
you. What happens is, you remove them and they tend to come back if
you don't maintain it. And they are -- and we are allowed to -- we are
required to maintain our preserve areas.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. So if you -- if you maintain it,
what happens?
Page 120
October 28, 2008
MS. GUNDLACH: In theory, no exotics should come back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What goes in it's place?
MS. GUNDLACH: Hopefully the natives grow back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Why would -- Commissioner
Coyle, if you could help me. Why would you want to buffer, put a
landscape buffer to the south where that large, wide preserve is
existing? Why would that need buffering?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, there -- the one reason that I
thought a hedge would be appropriate there is because, number one,
they've already planned the hedge there. They are planning to do that,
and I assume they had a good reason. But my reason would be that
lower green strip there is dry retention and it is recreational area.
And if you're going to have school children out there playing,
there should be some defined limits to that property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I got it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And so that's what I was
looking to do. And since a staff member had said that the pine trees at
the southern end of this property are sort of thin, it would be good to
have a hedge to define the limits of the property and serve to contain
the students on the church property --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- so they don't go wandering off.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Do we have any public
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I'm okay with
Commissioner Coyle's idea about this conditional use if somebody
wants to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What about the elimination of the
wall in the center of the property that runs north/south?
Page 121
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's a buffer. No, wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. They talked about a wall in
there, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I forgot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The wall that's in -- north and
south. Do we really -- do we need a wall, really need a wall there?
What you've got is two homes in there at the present time, and maybe
if you put a stipulation, if there's any other further development, then a
wall has to go in. But at this point in time, no wall is to go in there.
MS. GUNDLACH: That would be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Remember, you only have to do a wall
when you have residential adjacent to nonresidential. An ALF is not a
residential use, so the code doesn't require a wall between the church,
which is nonresidential, and an ALF, which is also nonresidential.
What's triggering it is the two existing homes that we will be using for
the minister, so --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm saying. Right now
you've got two homes in there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we've agreed to limit those to people
who work at the church. So we are saying, why would you make us
build a wall to separate people who are working at the church from the
church? Now -- and then we've said further, if we end up -- ifit
becomes a non-church-owned ALF, if you want us to put a buffer
between the two, then we'll do that. But if it's a
church-owned-and-operated ALF, why would you ask us to put in a
wall to make it more difficult?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm on your side.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you. I'm just -- we're trying to
convince staff of that. It was more of a rhetorical question actually.
So we -- and the Planning Commission agreed. It's just that staff has
Page 122
October 28, 2008
said, code -- yes, code requires it. We're asking for a deviation from
the code and we think we've given you good reasons to support the
deviation.
And we would ask that you would support the deviation, I guess,
if -- with Commissioner Coyle's change that we would extend the wall
on the south boundary to the 103 marker, and we would have -- which
we already planned on doing -- which is the hedge, connecting the
new end of the wall all the way to the other end -- to the other wall on
the north.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And no wall running north and
south?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And no wall in between.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, sure. I'll make a motion that
the land -- the wall -- the existing wall on the southern end shall be
extended to the 103- foot setback marker and that the remaining of the
perimeter of the property be enclosed by a vegetative buffer and that
there would be no wall -- the northern wall would not have to be
extended beyond its current limits, and that the division between the
residential area and the church area will -- a landscape buffer will be
sufficient. There will be no wall there unless -- unless it becomes a
residential area that is not under the control and ownership of the
church.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me just summarize the
motion, and staff can help me, and Mr. Y ovanovich. You want to
approve the Planning Commission's recommendations with the
addition of the southern wall, would go to 103 feet?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right --
MR. MUDD: The 103-foot--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Marker.
Page 123
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: -- marker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Marker.
MR. MUDD: Okay, that's on this -- on this depiction, and this
depiction is now going to become part of the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's a setback marker. It's
not a wall-length market. It's a setback --
MR. MUDD: No, that's just a -- just between the house and
where the bushes would be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that pretty much summarizing the
motion?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's it. My question was --
because I didn't hear you specifically mention the no requirement for a
wall on the eastern boundary. But when Commissioner Henning
brought that up, that clarified what my concern was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Discussion on the motion? Is the
motion clear, Nancy? Do you need any clarifications?
MS. GUNDLACH: It's -- the motion's clear.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. 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?
Page 124
October 28, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #8B
RESOLUTION 2008-317 A: PETITION DRICLO-2008-AR-13181,
JOHN 1. AGNELLI OF POWER CORPORATION REPRESENTED
BY DWIGHT NADEAU OF RW A, INC., IS REQUESTING A
CLOSE-OUT OF THE BERKSHIRE LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF
REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A
ZONING DESIGNATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) KNOWN AS THE BERKSHIRE LAKES PUD, AND IS
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD (SR-84) AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD,
IN SECTIONS 32 AND 33, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, AND SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - MOTION TO APPROVE
BUILDOUT AGREEMENT W/STIPULATIONS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our 2 p.m. time
certain. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's DRICLO-2008-AR-13 181, John 1. Agnelli of Power
Corporation represented by Dwight Nadeau of R W A, Inc., is
requesting a closeout of the Berkshire Lakes development of regional
impact.
The subject property has a zoning designation of planned unit
development known as the Berkshire Lakes PUD and is located at the
northwest corner of Davis Boulevard, State Road 84 and Santa
Barbara Boulevard in sections 32 and 33, Township 49 south, Range
26 east, and Section 5, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, Collier
County, Florida.
Page 125
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to swear at anybody on
this one, Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: (Nods head.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to participate in this item,
please rise, raise your right hand, and the court reporter will swear you
m.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ex parte communication.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I had meetings with
Dwight Nadeau, and correspondence, and that's about it. Talked to
staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've had meetings, correspon --
meetings, emails and calls, I met with Dwight Nadeau, John Agnelli,
Heidi Ashton, and this gentleman. I'm sorry. I forgot your name.
MR. NADEAU: Lane Wood.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lane Wood. I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I met with the petitioner and
petitioner's agent and counsel, staff, and also received a notebook
from the property owner and met with the property owner.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Met with Marjorie Student
way back in 5/2/06, met with Dwight Nadeau, Wayne (sic) Wood, and
John Agnelli on 10/23/08, and had meetings with staff on this --
questions in regards to this PUD and the DRI.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have met with
Dwight Nadeau, John Agnelli, and Lane Wood. I have received
correspondence concerning this topic, and I've talked with the County
Manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Nadeau?
Page 126
October 28, 2008
MR. NADEAU: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RW A,
representing the petitioner in this DR! closeout 2008-AR-13181.
With me today is Mr. John Agnelli of Power Corporation, Mr.
Lane Wood of Salvatori and Wood, Mr. Ken Metcalf of Greenberg
Traurig, and Mr. Metcalf is the former Department of Community
Affairs regional planning administrator for the southeast region.
The purpose of this petition is to close out the Berkshire Lakes
DR! pursuant to sections 3.80.(3) and 3.80.06(15)(G)4A of the Florida
Statutes and the Collier County's DR! closeout procedures.
This is the first DR! closeout that you will have come before you.
There may be -- staff has indicated that there will be others that will
come before you. You mayor may not want to follow the format that
we have with staff as well as with our presentation.
We've been working on this DR! closeout for three-and-a-half
years, and we're -- effectively what we're looking for is an essentially
built-out agreement for 73,100 square feet of commercial shopping
center land uses.
It would be located in the areas as identified on the aerial photo
exhibit on your visualizer. There are two remaining parcels to be
developed in the commercial component of the Berkshire Lakes DR!.
They are that parcel 1 and parcel 3.
Exactly, Mr. Manager. As is indicated by Mr. Mudd.
The 73,000 square -- 73,100 square feet that is being proposed is
to add 56,000 square feet of retail. That includes the thirty-one
hundred thousand (sic) square feet for the Mobile station expansion as
well as 14,000 square feet of office land uses.
The debate you'll hear today relates to the PUD issues that staff
has associated with the DR! closeout. Your staff in the executive
summary has made two recommendations. We would like you to
close out the DR! following condition number one wherein the board
would recognize by policy that the PUD document for Berkshire
Page 127
October 28, 2008
Lakes PUD was specific in the land use summary such that the
acreage of commercial allocation is 42-and-a-half acres.
There are no outstanding issues related to the DRI closeout, and
staff is recommending an adoption of this.
Now, the procedures of those sections of the statute is a process
of a three-party agreement between the local government, the DCA,
and the developer such that all DRI commitments have been satisfied.
And with that, I'm going to introduce Mr. Ken Metcalf who's
going to go through a little bit about the DRI process, and then we'll
move on to some testimony by Mr. Wood related to the construction
of the PUD ordinance.
MR. METCALF: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Ken Metcalf. I'm the director of planning with Greenberg Traurig in
Tallahassee, 101 East College Avenue.
What I'd like to do this afternoon is just briefly talk about the
EBOA, the essentially built-out agreement process. The legislature
added this as an option for DRIs many years ago, and the reason they
did that is, as these DRIs wind down and we're developing out the
remaining parcels, the statute just wasn't very clear. Well, how do you
finally close out a DRI? What do you do to bring closure to this long
process that's gone on for a couple of decades?
And what the legislature decided is, it's okay to close out a DRI
in a number of different ways. One approach would be to execute an
agreement between DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, the
local government, and the developer. If all the parties agree that the
build-out of the DRI will not result in more impact than originally
allowed by the DRI, DCA's good with it. The statute allows you to
execute an agreement as long as it doesn't result in more impacts.
Now, there's some other options for closing out DRIs, and we
could have availed ourselves of those options.
Two years ago we agreed to go down this path in concert with
your staff to work out an agreement, frankly, that I think is in the
Page 128
October 28, 2008
Lakes PUD was specific in the land use summary such that the
acreage of commercial allocation is 42-and-a-half acres.
There are no outstanding issues related to the DRI closeout, and
staff is recommending an adoption of this.
Now, the procedures of those sections of the statute is a process
of a three-party agreement between the local government, the DCA,
and the developer such that all DRI commitments have been satisfied.
And with that, I'm going to introduce Mr. Ken Metcalf who's
going to go through a little bit about the DRI process, and then we'll
move on to some testimony by Mr. Wood related to the construction
of the PUD ordinance.
MR. METCALF: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is
Ken Metcalf. I'm the director of planning with Greenberg Traurig in
Tallahassee, 101 East College Avenue.
What I'd like to do this afternoon is just briefly talk about the
EBOA, the essentially built-out agreement process. The legislature
added this as an option for DRIs many years ago, and the reason they
did that is, as these DRIs wind down and we're developing out the
remaining parcels, the statute just wasn't very clear. Well, how do you
finally close out a DRI? What do you do to bring closure to this long
process that's gone on for a couple of decades?
And what the legislature decided is, it's okay to close out a DRI
in a number of different ways. One approach would be to execute an
agreement between DCA, the Department of Community Affairs, the
local government, and the developer. If all the parties agree that the
build-out of the DRI will not result in more impact than originally
allowed by the DRI, DCA's good with it. The statute allows you to
execute an agreement as long as it doesn't result in more impacts.
Now, there's some other options for closing out DRIs, and we
could have availed ourselves of those options.
Two years ago we agreed to go down this path in concert with
your staff to work out an agreement, frankly, that I think is in the
Page 128
October 28, 2008
interest, the best interest of the developer as well as the county.
And what I'd like to do is just touch on a few points with the
EBOA and the relationship between the DRI and the PUD. I think it's
important as we talk about the PUD and what's required, that we put
that -- we put that requirement in context.
And most importantly, if you look at the DRI process, the reason
that they've utilized the essentially built-out process is to allow
flexibility for these DRIs, because at the end of the DRI build-out,
you're not quite sure where you may stand on various land uses. They
wanted the flexibility to be able to switch out land uses over time.
And so you see in that second point that one of the key
procedures here is to be able to switch out land uses. And indeed,
that's what's occurred in this process. We've switched out self-storage
that was built some years ago -- it was approved in 1996 -- rather than
commercial.
And it's important to understand -- and sometimes a picture tells a
thousand words better than I can in a narrative the different impacts
between self-storage use and their kind of retail/commercial that was
anticipated by your PUD and by the DRI. So there's a picture of our
self-storage that was built; 129,000 square feet and some change.
As you can see -- and this was a typical -- it was actually last
Saturday, I believe, we took this picture. It's pretty much the typical
self-storage situation now. And then you see a car drive up and
people are dealing with their own personal self-storage. There are no
businesses occurring within any of these bays. And in fact, that's --
Mr. Wood's going to talk about the details of the PUD in a moment.
I'm trying to put it in context in terms of impact or the lack thereof.
Now there's the commercial that was really, really anticipated by
the DRI and by the PUD. And, of course, you can see typical retail
shopping -- that's Berkshire Commons -- generates substantially more
trip generation, water/sewer use than self-storage. Self-storage is
efficiently no-impact use. You deal with your drainage and you've
Page 129
October 28, 2008
dealt with the use.
And so I think that context is very important as we -- as we go
forward and look at -- and we look at the requirements of the PUD. I
think that the PUD is general by intent. In other words, it only limits
commercial to 40 -- what was it -- 42-and-a-half acres rather than
specifying a commercial square footage limit.
Why was that done? Well, you had a DR! that was adopted in
conjunction with the PUD. The DR! had a limitation of375,000
square feet that was anticipated in the application itself. It's not even
in the development order. There's no mention in the development
order, but it is in the application.
So you go back to that original application. Did it anticipate
130,000 square feet of self-storage? No, no. It anticipated 375,000
square feet of retail and office which are high-trip generators.
And so what we've done is switched out these uses that are
allowed -- that's allowed through the DRI process.
So if you look at number four, we have the self-storage. It was
approved with the condition to not allow commercial activity. That's,
in fact, what's occurred.
Number five, it's interesting, in 2006 the legislature and DCA
recognized this lower impact use. They recognized self-storage as, in
fact, not a typical retail/commercial use. And for that reason, they
exempted the use completely from the DR! process.
So if you want to do self-storage, all you have to do in a DR!, in
an existing DR!, is evaluate, show the impact of that self-storage use
and the difference between what you were approved for and what the
impacts would be with that self-storage use added and substituted for
some of the retail.
And that's exactly what we've done. We've provided that traffic
study that I've prepared. FDOT has agreed to it, your own
transportation staff has agreed to it, DCA has agreed to it.
So we've reached a conclusion that, in fact, the essentially
Page 130
October 28, 2008
built-out agreement causes substantially less impact than the original
DR!. The EBOA, the agreement is consistent with the PUD because
it's consistent with the acreage limitation in the PUD.
And finally, if you look at the last statement, the EBOA with the
existing commercial that was built and the additional commercial
that's anticipated in the agreement, result in a total of315,000 square
feet of commercial, and that's versus 375,000 as allowed in the
original DR!.
So what we have here is essentially a 60,000-square-foot
reduction in commercial that could have been built in the DR!. Would
have had a lot more impact, I promise you.
So we're, you know, 60,000-square-foot reduction in retail, and
the exchange for that was 129,000 square feet of self-storage. And
you can see from the pictures, they do more justice to it than my
traffic study in explaining the outcome of that -- of that exchange of
land uses.
And so, you know, Mr. Wood's going to go through the details of
the PUD language. I'd just ask that you keep that context in mind,
recognizing -- and it's not unusual that a PUD, when it's adopted in
conjunction with the DR!, would, in fact, rely on the DR! for the
intensity controls.
It relies on the DR! so that if you go in and you modify the DR!,
you make switch-outs like this, you don't have to go back and change
your PUD every time, and that's the whole purpose in adopting a more
general standard in the PUD.
So we have 42-and-a-half acres in the PUD. The intensity
allowed by the DRI can be adjusted. That's what's occurred. Land
uses can be switched out as long as impact is less. That's what's
occurred. And we're consistent with the PUD.
So that, Mr. Wood will walk you through that language. And I'll
answer questions now or later.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to Mr. Wood, if you
Page 13 1
October 28, 2008
could just -- the first document that you had on the visualizer, that's
the site plan or the aerial.
You know, I don't know of anybody that didn't anticipate the area
in yellow not to be developed. My concern was that with -- there's no
language in the DR! and how much can be built, that we would have a
whole bunch more, like a million acres -- or a million square feet as
we discussed. The essentially the built-out agreement states what the
square foot is going to be.
The next thing is, there are controls, internal controls, in the
acreage because you've got to have your water retention within the
development, you've got to have your landscape buffer. You're going
to have to have a fire lane in the back to continue that on. You're
going to have to have your landscape buffers. More importantly,
you're going to have to have your parking for the commercial use.
So there is controls in place. I never could understand how you
can say, however many square feet is however many you can put in
there, but the controls is the infrastructure that has to go into it, one of
them being the parking, and that's the biggest one.
I -- I mean, you know, I like the recommendation that staff has
done, is number one, that the BCC finds the Berkshire does not have
to provide a cap on the commercial square foot. I don't think they
need to amend the PUD, so I'm going to make a motion that we
approve the essentially built-out agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second your motion. And I'll just
add, I had the same notes on here that you just said. I said -- which is
why -- number one I circled, which is why the parcels are still vacant
because they expected to build on them, and you said the same thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I mean -- and everybody in the
area had, I would assume, the same anticipation. What's going to be
there and when is it going to be there?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This display that we see presently,
Page 132
October 28, 2008
is this the 42 acres of commercial, 42-and-a-half acres, all of this?
MR. NADEAU: Actually no, Commissioner. It -- the 42 acres
would encompass the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Davis
Boulevard and Santa Barbara where the guardian storage is in that
little strip center with balloons and pottery, and then the Countryside
Commons, which is in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of
Radio Road and Santa Barbara. This is the remaining commercial
site, and that's the Berkshire Commons parcel.
So of the total areas, this is, let's just roughly say one-third of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Question I have for staff,
and then I'm going to ask the same question to the County Attorney.
Staff says this is violating our FLUE policy 5.1, okay, and maybe staff
can give me their interpretation of it, and then I'm going to ask the
same question of the County Attorney, because obviously there's a
difference of opinion here.
MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, comprehensive planning manager
in the comprehensive planning development.
Commissioners, the zoning on this property is, of course, PUD.
It includes residential components and commercial components.
The subject property -- the subject commercial tract that you're
seeing, as well as the commercial across the street to the south, is not
located within a mixed-use activity center or any other future land use
map designation that allows commercial development.
And prior to, I think, all of you commissioners coming onto the
board, back in the early 1990s, the county implemented a zoning
re-evaluation program, short and simple. We had a lot of property
zoned commercial and, some cases, high-density residential, and that
zoning was not consistent with the designation on the Future Land Use
Map.
The objective of that program, zoning re-evaluation program,
was to try to change the zoning so that it would be consistent with the
Future Land Use Map. That program included different types of
Page 133
October 28, 2008
applications that allowed the property owner, if they qualified, to keep
their zoning.
This particular DR!, PUD and DR!, was one of those that did
qualify for an exemption so that it was precluded from being down
zoned. That exemption was based on the fact that this is a
development of regional impact.
Policy 5.10, which is listed in your executive summary, provides
that these properties, granted an exemption, are allowed to retain their
zoning and they're allowed to go ahead and be developed.
It also says that -- I'll quote from it -- nothing contained in this
policy shall exempt any development from having to comply with any
other provision of the Growth Management Plan other than the zoning
re-evaluation program.
And the balance of the policy as it's consistently applied since the
early 1990s is that these properties are allowed to developer the
zoning on the property at the time that the exemption was granted, and
if that zoning had any limitations on development, then those would
continue to apply.
The exemption would not allow for any development beyond
what the zoning allowed at the time of the exemption.
Staff believes that the 375,000-square-foot figure in the PUD is,
in fact, a cap on the amount of commercial that can be developed;
therefore, staffs position is that FLUE policy 5.10 allows the 375,000
square feet to be developed but no more.
And because that application is asking for additional square
footage, our opinion is, it is not consistent with policy 5.10.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you're considering that the
self-storage is considered what?
MR. WEEKS: That is commercial development under the
Collier County zoning regulations and the Future Land Use Element.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. County Attorney? Because
obviously your findings are somewhat different.
Page 134
October 28, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: As I read this PUD -- and my opinion's
confined just to this PUD, not to any PUDs.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: DRIs.
MR. KLA TZKOW: No, this PUD, okay, I see that they were
granted 42.5 acres of commercial but there was no maximum square
footage.
If you look at the PUD they have a maximum number of
dwelling units, so that's set at a certain number, but they do not have a
certain number of maximum commercial. What they have is an
estimated absorption schedule.
So over the years, their estimate will be 375,000 square foot.
That's just an estimate. So as I read this, there is no cap of 375-, so
that my reading of this differs from that of Mr. Weeks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When -- because of the way that it
was written, like 375,000 square feet approximate?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. What it says is, when you look at it, it
gives you the maximum number of dwelling units, which I think is
4,200, but it doesn't give you any maximum square footage for
commercial. What it says is, you get 42.5 acres of commercial. Then
there's a chart that gives you an estimated market absorption schedule
so that over the course of 20 years, the estimate was it would be
375,000, but it's just an estimate. It's not a cap.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the 375,000 is just a fictitious
number then?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not fictitious. It was their estimate.
And at the time they did this, they were including, for example, the
storage, the self-storage in that. That got taken out of it through the
legislation. But having said that, it was just an estimate. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Even though the self-storage was
built prior to legislation by Tallahassee saying that the self-storage is
not considered commercial; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
Page 135
October 28, 2008
Now, having said all that, if the county way back when wanted to
cap this at 375-, the county could have said, maximum square footage
commercialof375-. County didn't do that.
All right. All the county said was, your estimated absorption
schedule is 375-, and that's, in Mr. Week's view, he interprets that as
being a cap. I don't see that as being a cap.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a couple of questions, first
for the petitioner. Explain to me why it is important that you have an
early build-out agreement for this property.
MR. WOOD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Lane Wood, and I'm the attorney for the petitioner.
We've discussed this, you know, at length with the staff. One of
the things that we want to do -- and this whole essentially build-out
process, this is the culmination of a two-year attempt to get everything
resolved.
And one of the things that staff had indicated previously that they
would like to do is see some finality to this. The EBOA limits us. It
tells you exactly what future development will occur and within what
period of time.
As we sit here today, until we do this EBOA, you don't have that.
And as other people have ably noted, the PUD document, it has a
section on the land use schedule and that caps it at 42-and-a-half acres.
It doesn't cap the square footage. And in theory, you might say, well,
okay, could you develop an infinite amount? The answer is, no,
because of physical requirements and the other regulations,
development regulations, within the PUD.
So there is some limit. But what is it? Nobody really knows.
With this agreement that we're offering, the one that was included in
your executive summary materials, we specify exactly -- excuse me.
We specify exactly what development will occur and at what time
Page 136
October 28, 2008
frame it will occur in. So this gives you some certainty as to that
process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still don't understand why I can't
do that without an early build-out agreement.
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioner, staffs not going to approve
the development of site three and one, those ones I showed you when
he pointed -- I didn't know which one was three and which one was
one, but I pointed to the two vacant places, and I'm assuming that I
was at least right 50 percent of the time where I was pointing.
Staffs not going to approve development on those sites until the
clarification of the 375,000 square foot of commercial space is
decided.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: In staffs view, they can't permit it because this
would violate their PUD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But we are going to decide
that right now.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're going to decide the
maximum square footage that you can build right now. What does the
early build-out agreement have to do with that?
MR. WOOD: It has those numbers within it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, so will my motion if I make
a motion to approve it. So why do you need an early build-out
agreement?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's already a motion on the
floor.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've already got a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's true. But I would
suggest that that be included in the motion that's on the floor then. But
I don't understand the business about early build-out agreement, but
okay.
Page 13 7
October 28, 2008
MR. WOOD: Well, it's not early. It's called an essentially
built -out agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Essentially built-out agreement.
Yes, I understand. But I still don't see the importance of that.
Now, as I see it, here is the problem that the staffhas. They've
got an absorption schedule that they have traditionally used to
establish the limit of square footage, and they have other absorption
schedules for other existing PUDs and they don't want to establish a
precedent that would have an adverse impact upon the government
when we have to deal with those PUDs.
I am reluctant to see us get into that debate here today when I
believe there's a far better way to the problem, and that is merely for
this Board of County Commissioners to say that we approved 129,000
square feet of commercial space as a self-storage unit and we
specifically said, you cannot use it for commercial purposes, end of
story, okay?
Now, it follows that if the board made that decision some years
in the past, we should uphold that decision and say, you shouldn't be
penalized because we did that. If we had granted you that space as
commercial space without restriction, then I would agree with staffs
position, but we didn't approve it without restriction. We restricted
that to a personal self-storage and it is not commercial. That means
that we have reduced the potential traffic impact from that use.
So I would ask the motion maker with some guidance maybe
from the County Attorney, that rather than getting us into a position
where we are, perhaps, establishing a precedent with respect to the
absorption schedule in other PUDs, that we avoid that issue entirely
and merely agree as a Board of County Commissioners that you are
not to be penalized for that 129,000 square feet of self-storage and it
should not count against your maximum limit on square footage, that
you should be permitted to build this additional, I believe it's 69,000
square feet, maybe 71,300. There's a mistake in the --
Page 138
October 28, 2008
MR. WOOD: 73,100.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 73,100. There's a mistake in the
summary -- in the executive summary. They've reversed the three and
the one. So 73,100 square feet, and that will become the maximum
square footage for this development, end of story.
MR. WOOD: And I'll say this. Your two concerns are both
valid. I think your attorney's office has already addressed one of those
concerns about the precedential effect, and that's written up in the
executive summary. But that aside -- and they have said that you can
make this finding, recommendation number one, at the end of your
executive summary, would avoid any precedential effect.
But number two, we do agree with you that we should not be
penalized for the self-storage that's within our district, because the
PUD in section 5.03.09 does specifically -- excuse me -- specifically
prohibit individual businesses, any commercial transactions, and any
signage which would connect a unit to any kind of commercial
business or transactions.
And for that reason, we agree with you. We agree that that
self-storage is not the kind of self-storage that was referred to earlier.
Somebody had mentioned that self-storage is a commercial use.
Maybe other types and other zones. But in this PUD, you cannot use
the self-storage for commercial purposes, and we don't feel that it
should be counted against the cap.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But I need to correct
something you said. You said that the staff had already addressed this
issue from the standpoint of precedent and that there -- that option
number one would solve that problem. In fact, it doesn't. It has the
greatest impact upon the precedential circumstances. So my --
MR. WOOD: Can I clarify?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- suggested -- don't snatch defeat
from the jaws of victory, okay.
Now, my recommendation would be that we modify the -- I'm
Page 139
October 28, 2008
proposing a friendly modification to the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- motion so that we don't get
ourselves into that kind of a problem and we avoid it.
All I'm saying is, we've already decided that you have 129,000
square feet of commercial space that shouldn't be counted against your
total commercial square footage, and we will permit you to build 79 --
69 -- 73 100 --
,
MR. MUDD: 73,100.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 73,100 additional square feet of
commercial space on that property, end of story.
MR. WOOD: Thank you. We see it that way as well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wouldn't discuss the absorption
schedules, I wouldn't discuss any of that, and that's what I would
recommend for the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it that you want a different
instrument than this EBOA?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I couldn't care less about the
EBOA. I don't know that it serves any interest for anybody, quite
frankly. But if we can get a -- if we can get a close-out on a PUD or
DR! and there is no further density or intensity associated with it, then
that's fine with me. But I just never understood what the motivating
factor was when we could make the same decision otherwise.
MR. WOOD: There is another benefit to the EBOA.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got a different question, so why
don't you answer his question, and then I've got a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually, I think the County Attorney
needs to assist us on what Commissioner Coyle is recommending.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's part of my question, I guess,
here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well--
Page 140
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Originally the build-out of this was
375,000 square feet. If what Commissioner Coletta (sic) is indicating
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coyle, excuse me, Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other C.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we'd end up with 315,000--
315,149 square feet, and yet you're still entitled to really 375,000
square feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they're not going to get that.
MR. WOOD: We're willing to cap that in the EBOA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay.
MR. WOOD: At the 315- number that you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that that's
on the record that you're going to cap it at that amount.
MR. GREENWOOD: Dwight informs me it's actually 318-, but
we're willing to cut it off. That's part of the benefit of the EBOA.
We also have included in this EBOA, we have negotiated
$110,000 payment to the county, so that's another benefit of the
EBOA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. If I -- if you don't mind?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just suggest that we deal
with the figure of73,100 additional square feet and that's it, okay.
That would be my suggestion. That gets to Commissioner Halas'
concern about how do you define when is enough. What we're saying
is you get to build 73,100 square feet more of commercial space, and
then that's it.
MR. WOOD: We're agreeable to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Actually it's 56,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's more than that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And--
Page 141
October 28, 2008
MR. WOOD: It continues on the next page. There is -- he's right,
there's 56-, then 14-, and 3,100.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's nothing simple about these
executive summaries.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioners, the only way you're -- in
understand Mr. Weeks' argument, the only way you're consistent with
the Growth Management Plan is if you find that there's no 375,000
cap on the PUD. It's Mr. Weeks' view that there's a 375,000-foot cap.
Anything above that, at that point in time, puts you contrary to your
Growth Management Plan.
So you're going to have to make a finding that that PUD does not
have a cap, the 375- that was just an estimate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, they just agreed to a cap.
MR. WOOD: Again, I think also though the -- how do you treat
this special self-storage? It's not self-storage like --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're taking the self-storage out.
The self-storage is out.
MR. MUDD: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: You've got--
MR. MUDD: David -- David can't take the self-storage out of
your Growth Management Plan. It's commercial based on your codes
in this county, so if -- David can't tell you that it doesn't violate your
Growth Management Plan unless you, as a board, make a decision that
says that the 375,000 square feet in the PUD was only an estimate, it
was not a cap, and that's a finding.
And I agree with the County Attorney. You've got that decision
as a point in your motion and approve it, or --
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, once you've made that finding, we
can then put down a number of square feet that's going to be out there,
which is in the essentially built-out agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I clarify the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whose?
Page 142
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The only motion that is on --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and the only one that has a second,
and that is, essentially this PUD was confined to an acreage of
commercial, and we are not setting precedence. Each DR! PUD
stands on its own. And the board, through my motion, is accepting the
property owner's offer to cap the square feet in the EBOA and all of
the other conditions in the EBOA.
Does that hit everybody's -- no?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In can speak.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't agree with this
approach at all. I think that we're completely missing the point. If we
say that the 375,000 square feet was not a maximum, then we are
saying that the absorption schedule doesn't mean anything. That
means that for every other PUD we've got with an absorption
schedule, we're saying that doesn't mean anything, and I don't think
that takes us where we want to go.
What I'm saying is that a board of county commissioners at one
point in time approved 129,000 square feet of self-storage space and
they said, it will not be used for commercial purposes, all right?
So I don't care what the Land Development Code says. The
Board of County Commissioners in the past has already said, this is
not a commercial allocation. They put a special restriction on this
self-storage facility.
Now, if you put that restriction on the self-storage facility, it is no
longer considered commercial space. So if you take that out of the
absorption schedule of375,000 and you give them -- give the
petitioner in return 73,100, we've gained almost 50 percent of that
intensity back. We've taken it away from this DR! or PUD.
So I don't understand why we want to get ourselves into a
situation where we are -- we are saying that absorption schedules do
Page 143
October 28, 2008
not indicate maximum square footage unless we're willing to take on
every other PUD that has an absorption schedule in it.
And how many do we have, David?
MR. SCHMITT: Three hundred eighty-six.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Three hundred eighty-six more
PUDs with an absorption schedule in it, and every one of them is now
going to be saying, hey, guys, this is just an estimate. I want another
100,000 square feet here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the staffs overstating this, because
these PUDs have limits in them to square footage, okay. So staffs
overstating when they're saying there's 350 out there like this. There's
not, all right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I mean, the ones that I've seen
always had a cap of commercial.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, there may be a couple of older ones
like this, okay, which is why I'm -- which is why my recommendation
is to limit this board's ruling just to this specific PUD so that as they
come -- as others come in, we can look at them one at a time, and the
board will not be bound by it. But there's not that many of them out
there like this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But let me further put into the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Go ahead, clarify the motion,
but I think at some point in time we have to call the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, yeah, I know, but -- further
clarify motion that the previous board did not accept the storage as
commercial space because they had strict limitations on it.
Is that included in your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is included.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I see you're going down a certain
path, and I would hate to stand in your way. I just feel it important to
get something on the record, a few things.
Page 144
October 28, 2008
First of all, Commissioner Coyle, I have to respectfully disagree
with your assessment of how that PUD was handled. Over the years
an issue the county has had is, it's having retail stores, retail
establishments, operating out of self-storage units. There are still
some existing today right across from where our office is located on
the east side of Airport Road in self-storage units.
This language was put into this PUD and possibly others for the
reason that the county wanted to preclude those commercial
operations, that is businesses operating out of a self-storage unit.
I respectfully disagree that the county was saying the self-storage
use itself is not commercial. That's two totally different
circumstances. And again, I have to stand here and put that on the
record that I disagree.
It's the operation within the unit that was being addressed, not to
say that the self-storage units themselves, that that use is not a
commercial use. That -- I just have to tell you I don't think that was
the case, otherwise those units would allowed -- be allowed to be
located anywhere other than in a commercial zoning district which is
the case, or industrial zoning.
And while I'm here, Commissioner, if you'll, Mr. Chairman,
indulge me. Just a couple more points for the record.
When the reference has been made to meeting with staff and
wanting the DR! closed out and been meeting for a couple years, I just
want to point out that that was transportation staff.
The land use side of this has not been discussed with staff. We
first became aware of it, both comprehensive planning and zoning
departments, when this pre-application meeting for this petition was
held. Minor point, but I think that clarification needed to be made.
The other thing has to do with the 375,000 square foot, which is
certainly a key point of discussion today. The application for
development approval for the DR! itself used that figure of 375,000
square feet. The support data, including traffic impact analysis, was
Page 145
October 28, 2008
based on that figure as well.
And that's primarily where staff is coming from saying this does
have meaning. And historically we have viewed PUDs that have
similar language to this as being a cap. This is not a unique
circumstance. It was typical at that time, back in the '80s and I would
say early '90s, that PUDs were approved without using the word cap,
but they've been applied that way.
At some point during the '90s we did start explicitly stating that
square footages were capped. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Anybody want to call the
motion so we can move on?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Call the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to ask the County
Attorney one quick question, and then we'll vote on it.
And I think I know where Commissioner Coyle is. We just don't
want to set a precedent that's going to carry on with any other DR! or
any PUD, that we're just dealing with this specific DR! and PUD
today. And whatever we set today is only going to be referred to this
particular --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just want to make sure that
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's in the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You don't have to ask that. No, we're
not going to -- that's right. You called the motion. We can't have any
further discussion on it, so I have to call for the vote.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
Page 146
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-1, Commissioner
Coyle dissenting, and we need to give our court reporter a break of 10
minutes, and then we're going to get right into Item 9, or agenda nine.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. WOOD: 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.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2008-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
DESIGNATING THE CLOSE-OUT OF FIFTEEN (15) APPROVED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS) WHICH HA VE
FULLY COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO THEIR
DEVELOPMENT ORDERS CONSTRUCTING TO THE
AUTHORIZED DENSITY AND/OR INTENSITY AND HAVE
BEEN FOUND BY COUNTY STAFF TO BE COMPLIANT WITH
THEIR SPECIFIC DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I apologize for my statement prior to
going on break. We have one more item in 8, and that's 8C.
MR. MUDD: 8C. This item requires that all-- that ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members. Should a hearing be
held on the item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve a resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, which designates the
closeout of 15 approved planned unit developments which have fully
completed development pursuant to their development orders,
Page 147
October 28, 2008
constructing to the authorized density and/or intensity, and have been
found by county staff to be compliant with their specific developer
commitments.
And Ms. MaryAnn Devanas will present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: She has to be sworn in.
MR. MUDD: And I specifically stated this differently because if
you want to get into a hearing on each one of the PUDs and you have
witnesses, then they need to be sworn in. But if you're closing them
out -- and correct me ifI'm wrong, Jeff -- but if you think Ms.
Devanas and staff need to be sworn on this particular item, we do not
have a problem with that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think you need to swear staff in on
this one. But, you know, honest to God, I don't see the harm in it
either.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ifwe don't have to do that then--
MR. KLA TZKOW: You don't have to do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have to give ex parte
communication?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't think that's -- I don't think you
need to, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You're up.
MS. DEV ANAS: For the record, Commissioners, MaryAnn
Devanas, PUD Monitoring Supervisor in Engineering Services CDES
Division.
With 386 adopted PUDs, no one could be happier to be in front
of you today to bring forward the first group of PUDs for your official
authorized closeout.
This petition is staff initiated, and staff will continue to bring
these petitions forward to you to close out the older PUDs, but most of
the future petitions will be at the request of the recorded owners of the
PUDs.
These 15 PUDs were adopted 10 to 15 years ago and half of them
Page 148
October 28, 2008
hold administrative built-out statuses that were determined by staff
and are listed in the PUD records as such, built out.
So why are we petitioning the board for a predetermined status?
Not all of the PUDs that will be presented to you today have been
verified to have clear and final determination as having met their
developer commitments nor will the future petitions for close-outs be
from PUDs that have met the densities or intensities, as the ones that
you will be reviewing today. These have met their intensities and
densities.
And most importantly, staff has been directed by your board to
seek avenues to close out the PUDs and to remove any commitments
from the ordinances that were deemed unnecessary or carry an
open-ended commitment such as the commitments that have a clause
that say, when deemed necessary or when warranted by the -- excuse
me -- when warranted by the county, as most often found.
Following board directive, staff designed an application for
petitioners interested in closing out the PUDs, and the staff designed
review procedures for these applications. Once submitted, the -- once
submitted, the developer commitments and the recorded densities and
intensities are verified by divisional staff reviewers. These reviewers
determine if the PUD commitments have been fulfilled, if the
authorized density and intensity has been met, and they review and
determine if the applicant holds the rights to relinquish any remaining
units or square footage.
Divisional reports for the petitioning PUDs are then reviewed by
each administrator or their designee, and recommendations for
approval or denial of the close-outs are brought forward to you.
Coupled with the application process, staff amended the Land
Development Code section 1 0.02.13.F, PUD monitoring. The
amendment enabled the Board of County Commissioners to release
developer commitments deemed unnecessary during the close-out
petitions.
Page 149
October 28, 2008
Of the 15 PUDs selected that are here before you today, eight
have been verified to be fully developed to their authorized potential
and have fulfilled their development commitments. They are Cheshire
Arms Apartments, Crystal Lake, Emerald Lakes, Huntington Woods,
Keller Entry Level, Lely Barefoot Beach Condo, Marker Lake Villas,
Paradise Pointe R V Resort.
One additional PUD entered this category voluntarily since the
writing of the executive summary, Brighton Garden. They had exotic
maintenance issues that they have resolved and are now considered to
be fully developed and have fulfilled all of their commitments.
Three of the remaining six PUDs have exceptional
circumstances. We discussed these at our workshop that was
conducted October 8th. And if you will recall, those were Moorings
Park, which was annexed to the City of Naples; Naples JC Clubhouse,
condemned by the State of Florida for a road project; and River Bend,
which was sold to the State of Florida.
The last three PUDs have commitments that were discussed in
detail at the workshop, and I'll briefly summarize those issues for you.
Cay Lagoon PUD that was adopted in 1993, their PUD is under the
ownership of the association and has one partially unmet commitment.
A fence was required on the south and the west side of the property.
The fencing requirement was related to the location of the stormwater
ponds that was shown on the master plan. During site development
planning, those ponds were relocated to the interior of the PUD, and
staff found there was no fence along the western property line.
Staff believes that due to the consolidation of the ponds to one
centrally located pond, that the required fencing on the west was
deemed unnecessary during the subsequent approvals. And given
those circumstances, we ask that you, too, consider them to be
unnecessary and release them from the ordinance.
Citrus Gardens, that particular PUD was adopted in 1986,
amended in 1989, and holds three unmet commitments; two roadway
Page 150
October 28, 2008
easements to the east of the property, an interconnection of the loop
road to the east for future development, and arterial level lighting at
their entryway.
This PUD is under the ownership of the association, has received
approvals, and is fully developed, so is the PUD to the east of Citrus
Gardens. The ability to provide easements and the interconnection
have passed.
The existing street-lighting is in close proximity to each side of
the entryway and illuminates the required arterial level lighting.
Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the Citrus Gardens, I believe
there's some undeveloped land that's to the south of Citrus Gardens
that could probably -- there could be future access out onto Orange
Blossom Road if there could be some negotiation with people that
haven't developed those plots of land that are south of Citrus Gardens.
MS. DEV ANAS: You're correct. It is undeveloped to the south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there some way that we could tie
something of that nature to it or not?
MS. DEV ANAS: I would have to defer to the County Attorney.
The specific commitment within that particular PUD read to the east,
and that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand that.
MS. DEV ANAS: Correct, and that's what I'm asking.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No longer available.
MS. DEV ANAS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I speak to that? Commitment was
to the east to Brittany -- Brittany Bay.
MS. DEV ANAS: Oak Grove, which is Bridgewater.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Bridgewater Bay, thank you. That's
what the commitment was in the PUD ordinance. Commissioner
Halas is absolutely right. There is a potential connection to the south
to get to Orange Blossom, and I did state that at the PUD meeting.
Page 151
October 28, 2008
The Growth Management Plan allows for and encourages
interconnection. So if Lake Side wants an inter-connect when this
petition potentially comes to the Board of County Commissioners, that
would be the time to address it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You want to continue?
MS. DEV ANAS: The only thing I could add is that in
processing these particular PUDs, we've noticed all of the current
owners of the PUDs that are here before you, and no one has
instructed me to discuss any of these relinquishments of -- or releases
of the commitments or if they had any opposition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. DEV ANAS: I believe we are now just talking about the last
remaining three of the 15, and we're on the last one. We've talked
about Kay Lagoon, Citrus Gardens, and the last is Green Boulevard.
That particular PUD was adopted in 1983; amended in 1985. It holds
one partially unmet commitment.
We discussed this in detail at the workshop. Just quickly, the
PUD front on Green Boulevard running from Santa Barbara to Collier
Boulevard. There are sidewalks constructed within the PUD except for
one phase identified as the Heritage Gardens Apartment -- excuse me
-- Heritage Apartments.
Staff found that the Site Development Plan for the Heritage
Apartments, when reviewed, showed that there was no sidewalk, yet it
was approved and built and constructed to that Site Development Plan.
At the workshop, as I mentioned, we discussed this in detail.
And in conclusion, the County Attorney stated that the time had
passed to secure this missing section. That brings us to the 15 total.
Your approval, if granted, for the close-out of the PUDs will
eliminate any further demands for commitment contributions or
assessment of commitment compliance by staff. The board's
determination will eliminate any monitoring responsibilities, and the
Page 152
October 28, 2008
PUDs will remain in this closed-out status until subsequent action by
the board is approved as an amendment to each of the PUDs causing
the PUD to be returned to an active status.
If you have any questions --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to talk about
the sidewalks one more time. Is there any way that we could construct
those or have them construct the sidewalks?
It seems a shame that in front of, especially affordable housing
where they mostly walk and ride bikes, that there aren't any sidewalks
and that we have no lever to push to force this developer to meet his
commitments, even though so much time has passed.
MS. DEV ANAS: Maybe transportation could bring us up to date
on any of the conversations they might have had with the owner. I do
know that we did audit this PUD some time ago, and that's where we
had left it at that time, that the staff negotiate with the owner to see if
that was a possibility. So I'll let them speak on that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
with transportation. Transportation services was one of the divisions
that actually denied the request or put a comment on not supporting
this to go to close-out because one of the -- the original owner of the
property, the rental property, was the person who did the Site
Development Plan, and we felt that we should bring this forward to
them as maybe a code action or a PUD compliance action.
And so we thought that they could do something with this
sidewalk, even if it was a prorated payment in lieu or something that,
in effect, we could put that piece in.
So to that extent, we felt we could put something in there. The
developer who did that Site Development Plan runs the property, and
we thought there was a possibility of dealing with them, so we did
have some concerns, as you do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there anything that we can do to
Page 153
October 28, 2008
force them to comply with their original agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the mechanism for that would be a
code enforcement case. I mean, I'd want to go through this before I'd
recommend to the board that we do this. But if there is any question
in your mind, take this one out of the hopper and we can look at it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to do that, really.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I have a problem with that
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, do you?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, because going down there, if
you drive -- I forget which street it is, there is a sidewalk on the back
side of the street that goes to the commercial area. And I don't know
who put that in there. I would imagine the county. Well, that's an
assumption that the county did not put that in there. And you know,
was that the commitment?
Besides, when you have staff review it, including transportation
staff, and okay the Site Development Plan, how can you go back and
say, oops, you need a sidewalk in here? You know what I mean?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, actually.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a six-foot paved shoulder, and
I don't want to call it a real paved shoulder. It looks like there's an
extra strip of pavement in there that's in place, but not a sidewalk
along that property.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is on another street. Not on
Green Boulevard.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is on the back street, a sidewalk
in there. I don't remember when it was built whether it was a part of
this development and was that a part of the commitment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I can tell you I've
received some calls from the path folks, the pathway advisory
committee who live in that area, that they were concerned that the
Page 154
October 28, 2008
sidewalk should have been put in place and commented on it through
the site development process. I said they're welcome to speak at this
hearing if they would like to. I don't know if any of them attended at
all.
But, you know, the recommendation the County Attorney made,
I think, is reasonable. Maybe if you pull it out we can talk to them
again and see if we can come back at a different time. But if you
would prefer to keep it on, that's your call.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And payment in lieu of doesn't
build a sidewalk. That's just a way to get more money out of people.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, sir, we take the payment in lieu
program pretty seriously, and we fund those missing links with that
money. That's what we do. I mean, there are many projects that come
in where they don't make any sense and we take that and we do
projects with them. We put them out in the street.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maryann, you mentioned early in
your presentation when you went through the process of reviewing
these, you determine if the PUD is going to retrain -- retain or
relinquish any unused density.
MS. DEV ANAS: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Am I to understand that all of the
PUDs here have relinquished any density that they might have?
MS. DEV ANAS: No. They have built to the authorized density
or intensity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of them, all of them?
MS. DEV ANAS: Spot on, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. DEV ANAS: In fact, these were the ones that we -- staffhad
determined should be brought forward to you. They were,
quote-unquote, the easiest to review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we're not eliminating
Page 155
October 28, 2008
any phantom units at all with this set?
MS. DEV ANAS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then I make a motion that we
accept staffs recommendation concerning these 15 PUDs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second the motion.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a -- motion carries 3-2,
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas dissenting in the
affirmative.
Thank you.
MS. DEV ANAS: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to put on the record that
I feel strongly about sidewalks also, so that's why I voted in opposition
to this motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think Commissioner Fiala
could say the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. That's exactly why I voted
against is.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2008-319: APPOINTING SHERWIN H. RITTER
Page 156
October 28, 2008
TO THE WATER AND W ASTEW A TER AUTHORITY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9A, which is
appointment of a member to the Water and Wastewater Authority.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One doesn't qualify. The only one
that qualifies is Sherwin Ritter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Mr. Ritter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to the motion? 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2008-320: APPOINTING/CONFIRMING MARCO
ISLAND'S REPRESENTATIVE LARRY N. MAGEL TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9B, appointment
of a member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to confirm the
Page 157
October 28, 2008
representative for Marco Island, Larry Magel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve Larry Magel, 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2008-321: APPOINTING SUSAN TAKACS TO
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY
COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9C, appointment of a
member to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Susan Takacs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve Susan Takacs,
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: Opposed?
Page 158
October 28, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2008-322: APPOINTING DAVID ROELLIG
(TECHNICAL), KATHY B. WORLEY (TECHNICAL),
T AHLMAN KRUMM, JR. (PELICAN BA Y), JAMES A.
CARROLL (PELICAN BAY), ROBERT ROGERS (SEAGATE)
AND READVERTISING FOR DISTRICTS 1,3,5 AND SEAGATE
TO THE CLAM BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9D, appointment of
members to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to make a --
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker on this one, sir. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd like to make a motion
for Mr. Krumm and Mr. Carroll, and as an advisory person, David
Roellig -- as a technical person, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: James Carroll and Tahlman
Krumm, and as advisory -- these people all live in Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And David Roellig.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And David Roellig.
MS. FILSON: As a technical.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As a technical.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Halas --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Henning, thank you, District 1,
District 5, and Seagate all -- Seagate needs another person. I'll motion
to approve Robert Rogers from Seagate, but it said we needed two
from that area. So I would like to re-advertise for District 1, 5 and
Page 159
October 28, 2008
Seagate, if that would be okay with everybody. Okay.
MS. FILSON: We still need to appoint--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to nominate Kathy Worely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For District 3.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: District 3, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Not technical, but District 3.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No -- well, I was going to say
technical --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Technical.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but it would be District 3,
whichever way you want.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Technical is great. She is -- that's
right. I looked at hers, and she has -- qualifies as a technical.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'd like to nominate Cloe
Waterfield as technical. We have two technical positions, right?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. And they've already been nominated.
MR. MUDD: Nominate a third.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who was the second one?
MS. FILSON: The second one is David Roellig.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who was the first one?
MS. FILSON: And then Commissioner Fiala just nominated
Kathy W orely. If she nominated her to represent District 3 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay.
MS. FILSON: -- then the other technical could be appointed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be fine with me as long
as it's fine with Commissioner Henning, because we'd have to re-
advertise for District 3 anyway if we don't approve her.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ifwe don't approve her as a
technical?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I mean, if we don't appoint her
Page 160
October 28, 2008
as District 3, then we'd have to re-advertise for District 3. But if we
take her off the technical and use Cloe Waterfield, as Commissioner
Coyle suggested, then we could use her from District 3.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Commissioner Henning, I
don't feel strongly about this. If you would prefer to have Kathy
W orely there as your representative or as technical, that's okay with
me, but we do need one more member from Seagate/Naples Cay area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Absolutely.
MS. FILSON: And I have advertised that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're going to re-advertise
that one. So as long as we can do that, I would be satisfied that my
district was adequately represented.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're going to leave her as
technical.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And I have a speaker, sir. Marcia Cravens.
MS. CRAVENS: I'll pass. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So the motion is to appoint David
Roellig as technical.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Kathy Worely as technical, James
Carroll as Pelican Bay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Tahlman Krumm--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Tahlman Krumm -- Krumm.
MS. FILSON: -- as Pelican Bay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, there he is. Tahlman Krumm as
Pelican Bay. And re-advertise the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Robert Rogers from Seagate.
MS. FILSON: And Robert Rogers for Seagate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Robert Rogers from Seagate,
yes.
Page 161
October 28, 2008
MS. FILSON: And I'm currently advertising for those positions
that we didn't get.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And so you're currently advertising
for District 1, 4 --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Five--
MS. FILSON: One, 3, 5--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: --1,5 and 3.
MS. FILSON: -- and Naples Cay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Seagate, right?
MR. MUDD: That's Naples Cay, Seagate, yep.
MS. FILSON: It's the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Seagate and Naples Cay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So that's a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion on the motion? Motion clear?
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.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2008-323: APPOINTING REID SCHERMER TO
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
Page 162
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is appointment of a
member to the Development Services Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion to appoint Reid
Schermer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2008-324: APPOINTING JAMES W. SIMMONS
TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is appointment of a
member to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Recommend James Simmons.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
recommend James Simmons -- or appoint James Simmons, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 163
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2008-325: APPOINTING NINON L. RYNERSON
AND TO RE-ADVERTISE FOR TECHNICAL POSITION TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 9G, appointment of
members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question on this one.
Somebody has to -- I mean, I know and love Pam Mac'Kai, but I don't
know how she becomes technical when she has just the background of
selling real estate for the South Florida Water Management.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with that.
MS. FILSON: And I get that from staff, so I cannot answer that
question for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we put it out for re-
advertisement?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And let's see. What about the
alternate? You need a -- we need to appoint an alternate?
MS. FILSON: Well, the alternate in this case has to be technical,
which is what they labeled Pam Mac'Kai as.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And the regular member has to be non-technical,
so that would leave you with --
Page 164
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ninon Rynerson.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MS. FILSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve Ninon
Rynerson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And re-advertise for a technical
person.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
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.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is -- was 9H, and it's
continued until 11/18/08. We discussed that at the change sheet.
Item #91
DISCUSSION REGARDING FINDINGS BY CLERK OF COURT'S
OFFICE IN REFERENCE TO JOHN BARLOW'S PUBLIC
PETITION FROM THE OCTOBER 14,2008 BCC MEETING-
COUNTY MANAGER TO BRING BACK A POST DATED SUB-
Page 165
October 28, 2008
RECIPIENT REHAB AGREEMENT FOR MR. BARLOW'S
PROJECT AND BCC TO REVIEW - CONSENSUS
So the next item is 91. It's a discussion regarding the findings by
the Clerk of Courts Office reference John Barlow's public petition
from the October 14th, 2008, BCC Meeting. The board decided this
morning that they would also link this particular item with a public
petition 6A request by Mr. John Barlow to discuss legislating via
checkbook.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The executive summary is not quite
right, and that's my fault, but Crystal Kinzel from -- the Finance
Director of the Clerk of Court asked me a question through a letter. I
couldn't answer the question. And I thought, the best thing to do is try
to resolve this thing and bring it to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. Barlow was kind enough to join these together. If you want
to make your presentation.
MR. BARLOW: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BARLOW: Right now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You bet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He waited long enough.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a microphone, portable, over
there if you need it.
MR. BARLOW: Okay. Thanks a lot for listening to me. I
appreciate it.
Since our last week -- last meeting two weeks ago I have felt like
I personally have been on a merry-go-round here, and I'll describe that
to you in a few minutes.
I'm here to -- today really to talk about two significant problems
for the county, one is the need for decent affordable homes for
families earning less than 80 percent of our AMI, which is about
Page 166
October 28, 2008
55,600, specifically houses in the range of about $175,000.
Two, the negative impact of foreclosed houses in Collier County.
Naples Daily News recently reported that the county, our county,
ranks 12th nationwide in foreclosures and 7th statewide. Each month
Collier County is setting a record of foreclosures.
What does that mean to Collier County? It reduces the value of
all of our homes, all homes, not just the value of foreclosed homes
because the neighborhoods they surround are affected by these. And
thousands of neglected and empty houses invite crime.
HOME is a nonprofit organization that was formed in May of
this year that's attempting to abate both of those problems here in
Collier County.
Here's our first home. It was purchased from foreclosure in July
of2008. We actually closed on this house on the first day of July.
It's been completely rehabbed and stands ready to receive an
eligible family. The sales price of this home, 175-. With SHIP
funding, the mortgage will be 125-. Fits into the 80 percent and below
AMI for the county.
In about six weeks we were able to turn this property from an
eyesore to our highly valuable home within this price range. That's
the kitchen. We open this, sell and close this house by November the
20th. I got the application last night for an income-qualified family
that's been qualified by Lisa Carr over at the housing department.
We're anxious to turn the keys over to a deserving family and
equally we're anxious to get started on another house.
This is a picture of the house next door. When we started
working on our project, this property was occupied. Two or three
weeks ago it suddenly became empty. Within a few short weeks, the
property is becoming increasingly derelict and neglected. The
swimming pool in the rear has got mold on it; it's just green.
I don't have to tell you how quickly the elements take over in
Florida that affects both the interior and exterior of properties.
Page 167
October 28, 2008
I shot this from the front doorway. I didn't want to go in because
it's still in the name of the owner of the home. Today this house
stands unlocked, and the day that I was there, the door was wide open.
There's no one living in this house. It's been heavily vandalized and it
continues to deteriorate right before my eyes, and I'm there every day
at this house.
I know the law enforcement officials are busy trying to get a
handle on the almost 6,000 foreclosed properties here in Collier
County. They're working with the Property Appraiser to form IT links
and get us maps and all that but, you know, all you've got to do is get
in the car and drive around.
There's two zip codes in this county that are the biggest. There's
the one, 34120 over in the Estates, and -116 in Golden Gate City that
have the largest number of foreclosures in this county.
It's going to take a lot of effort to even organize ourselves around
this, much less fix them, and I don't know if we have the resources to
put all -- this project on top of everything else that we do. You have
to answer that. That's why we all need to act quickly to rid ourselves
of these neighborhoods of this blight.
We don't need just HOME or Habitat. We need a lot of people
working on this problem. It's a one-house-at-a-time problem, and
we've got to buy them, rehab them, and get them occupied as fast as
we can. You can't cut the grass fast enough to keep this house from
being -- deteriorating as fast as it is.
There's a lot of statistics that are emerging. Unfortunately none of
them from here in Collier County. Weare just now beginning to
crack the crime around foreclosed properties, but there are several
other studies that have come out that basically says (sic) that for every
percentage point increase in foreclosure rate, the violent crime goes up
2.3. And in Chicago, roughly the same numbers are there, so you've
got a pretty linear progression here of about two-and-a-half times
. .
more cnme commg up.
Page 168
October 28, 2008
The best deterrent for these crimes is to get these homes fixed up,
sold, and occupied. We'll help provide affordable housing for
deserving housing also in the mix here and relieve the neighborhood
of a potential hit for a criminally-minded person.
HOME's objective, or our objective in life, is to step up to the
plate and help provide affordable housing here in Collier County.
We've never had an opportunity of buying a home at $60 a square foot
like we purchased our first home, and rehabilitating it and putting it
back on the marketplace.
In doing so, we may just help deter crime and make our
neighborhoods safer and more desirable, and I'm asking you, please,
let's don't bog down this process.
You know HOME didn't take on our mission without constant
input from your county staff. We have involved county housing at
every stage of this project. Without -- with direction of the county
staff, we've crossed every "I" and dot -- we've dotted every "I" and
crossed every "T".
Our nonprofit organization continues to strive to provide
complete transparency and accountability for our actions.
Most of you have visited our project and can attest to the benefit
of it. We need to wrap this house up so we can move on to another
one. The sooner the better.
The following facts have not been challenged by anyone, that
HOME has complied with all Collier County Housing and Human
Services requirements that are responsible for executing your housing
programs, and they comply with SHIP and the regulations that you've
established.
HOME has executed all agreements in a timely and professional
manner, and our actions are completely transparent and are
accountable.
Today, as Commissioner Henning mentioned a minute ago, he
received a letter from Crystal that's in the package indicating he
Page 169
October 28, 2008
wanted guidance on whether to pay HOME's invoices or not as they
come back. There's only been one submitted for $400. But the rest of
them, since the rehab has been completed, invoices are being received
now by the subcontractor, so we're getting -- we're ready to go to
Frank Ramsey for payment.
There are a couple of suggestions that HOME is not the end user
of this rehabilitated house and that some new program requirements
are required. I've brought along -- I'm getting to know too much about
too little here on Florida State Statutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You need to have the microphone.
MR. BARLOW: Thank you. The SHIP statutes are very clear
on this, and I wanted to bring -- I've read every word of this thing
many times, but the most important part to me, and I think to you,
should be the fact that an eligible sponsor means a private -- means a
person, an individual, or a private or public non-for-profit entity that
applies for an award under the local housing assistance program,
which we've done, and for the purpose of providing eligible housing
for eligible persons, which we have done.
There's also been a suggestion that HOME did not sign a new
agreement. That still does not exist today, by the way. We -- I have a
draft and a sample of one that was created September the 24th, 2008,
and now we're October 28th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Barlow, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I suggest something, Mr.
Barlow? You're obviously going to be asking us to solve a problem.
MR. BARLOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's going to be a lot easier for us to
understand it and anybody who's listening to understand it if you'll tell
us who the people are who are saying that you have to have certain
things that you say don't exist. We need to know who those people
are. Is that not acceptable to you?
Page 170
October 28, 2008
MR. BARLOW: It's not something that I wanted to do. I was
prepared to do. I got an email that says, in the body of your email is
correspondence from Darlene Raker (phonetic) which -- Florida
Housing, that was linked to a statute, and FD -- Florida Administrative
Code governing the monies you're requesting. I've read the Florida
Statutes, the Florida Code. It's very clear, since the county's not
dealing with the end user and you're not the end user, a sub-recipient
agreement's needed.
Furthermore, under the Florida Statutes -- my concern is the
agreement, needs a sub-recipient agreement. After the BCC approves
the new agreement, all prior work to this home will not be allowable
for payment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is this person?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's my email, Commissioner.
MR. BARLOW: This was sent to me by Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it's -- it shares a concern. Mr.
Barlow did not read it all. You know, I read the statutes, and I think
you have partial statutes up there that contain in there that you must,
must comply to 4.02 --
MR. BARLOW: 907, and we do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's -- well, what does it -- the
underlined part up here say, what does it has to apply to?
MR. BARLOW: This is -- under the first section is called
definitions. This defines the eligible sponsor throughout the rest of the
document through 9079, and there is not one differentiation between a
person or a corporation. There is no program requirements that SHIP
sets forward to do that in that whole agreement.
And I have the entire agreement here. I'm not hiding from
anything, trust me.
Secondarily, and I think as a corollary, there's also been reference
to a Florida Administrative Code. Thank God for the Internet, and I
Page 171
October 28,2008
have patience and time to find it. I never heard of such a thing until I
got involved in this one.
This comes from the Florida Administrative Code under 6737,
which was identified in the email that Ms. Raker sent to me from
SHIP. The term sub-recipient, in my judgment, is being loosely used.
Sub-recipient means a person or non-state organization contracted by
a SHIP eligible local government and compensated with SHIP funds
to provide administrative (sic) of any portion of the SHIP program.
Again, sub-recipient is nothing but a definition for a contract, and
we've used it as it represents a new process, different from the one that
we currently have.
My concern is that our nonprofit has signed multiple contracts
with our county, and everyone that we've provided by (sic) have been
provided by the housing staff.
This is the first one. It's called Application for SHIP
Acquisition/Rehabilitation, which conforms to the amendment that
you passed on July the 22nd for the LHAP which allows nonprofits to
purchase these homes instead of owner-occupied, which was approved
in July.
This document was signed on August the 19th, three weeks
before rehab started. It also identifies that we commit to doing a
low-income, single-family home, purchase price of the house, the
square foot of the house, and that we comply with the program.
Secondly, there is an eight-page bid specification requirement
that we've signed that you have a Collier County rehabilitation
specialist called Rick Torres, extremely professional young man, has
gone to the house. This contract identifies that we must conform to all
of these building codes from Florida National Electrical Code. In the
Building Construction Administrative Code, it identifies our
contractor, total bid amount, which was limited to 50,000, and down
here it says, the contractor's responsible to get the proper permits and
make available inspection to the authorities; and furthermore, the
Page 172
October 28, 2008
owner and contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
Collier County, its officers, employees.
And there are eight pages between -- six pages between that one
and this end which identifies, you put in appliances, you put in doors,
you put in windows. Every single item that we've done to rehab that
we want to claim reimbursement for is identified by a specialist from
Collier County. We signed this document on August the 28th before
rehabilitation began.
Now, I will tell you, prior to this rehabilitation effort here, there
were two obvious code violations that were on this property when we
purchased it in July, and I did make the decision to have those code
violations eliminated before we got this document done because I
didn't want anyone to claim that our organization would support code
violations; the fourth bedroom and a storage shed out there that was
huge.
And in addition to that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: How much longer do you need, Mr.
Barlow?
MR. BARLOW: Not very long. I mean, we're down to the last
contracts that I signed.
SHIP requires a Promissory Note for $50,000, and we have yet to
receive a nickel. I had signed this document on September the 6th
when it was given to me. There's also a second mortgage that we have
signed without receiving a nickel, and as soon as we get paid for our
invoices, I assume the county should execute this second mortgage,
and this forms one of the major components of the SHIP program is--
the recapture provision, because if this house is not occupied by an
income-qualified family, the money comes back. It's just that simple.
And these are the two documents that get us there. Have all been
signed, and we're good to go.
What am I really asking for today is, rather than get involved in a
discussion about a new agreement versus old agreement -- because
Page 173
October 28, 2008
that's your decision, not mine. I can tell you that I complied with
everything that was in place when it was in place, and I'm going to ask
you to commit to paying me -- what's that word they use for that, Mr.
Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not sure what you're getting at.
MR. BARLOW: Reaffirm.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ratify?
MR. BARLOW: Reaffirm the prior process. And then if you
choose to work out a new one, that's certainly your choice. I mean,
we're going to comply with it, too, assuming we can, although the new
agreement that we have, the sample of it, I could not, in all honestly,
recommend you sign this today. It's a sample and it's a draft.
Nothing; a heck of a lot wrong with it, but it's just not ready for prime
time.
I'm ready to sell a house. My board has authorized the purchase
of four more houses. I'm nervous about buying anything until we find
out if we're going to be eligible for not only the past one, but the
future homes that we purchase to try to reduce our problem.
So I'm asking the board to re-affirm where we've been, direct the
payment for my invoices that have been approved -- and we've already
gotten a Certificate of Occupancy from two of them. We're waiting
for the last one -- and get this behind us.
And I think the housing staff and the attorney and the Clerk
probably are the ones that probably ought to craft the new agreement
for you if that's what you need, although, I think I'm not -- I'm not
convinced that you need anything more than you have.
There's been 35 of them done this year, and not a one of them
that I know of has been stopped for anything.
John boy comes in the front door and, boom, you know, as Mr.
Klatzkow, you know, the pioneer of this thing, takes dearly (sic). I'm
up for it because I am so committed to doing what I can and our
HOME can for the affordable housing and correcting foreclosed
Page 174
October 28, 2008
properties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Barlow?
MR. BARLOW: How long is it going to take for us to have a
property at $6 a square foot again?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Barlow, we need to move on,
okay? Are you complete so we can see if the board members have
any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any questions? Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, by all means. First I see
Ms. Filson having her one finger up. I'm not too sure what it means.
MS. FILSON: I'm just letting you know I have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I need to talk with our affordable
housing people to try to figure out what's going on. I have talked with
Mr. Barlow. I thought I understood the problem. I'm now more
confused than I've ever been. I have no idea what's going on here,
absolutely no idea.
I don't know what you're asking us to approve I don't know who
is telling you that you need another agreement. I don't know what
offices you've been to, what offices are refusing to uphold agreements
or refusing to reimburse you. I have no understanding of that
whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want that from --
MR. BARLOW: We submitted one invoice. It has been
processed and passed to the Clerk. The Clerk has written a letter to
Commissioner Henning that says, I want guidance on whether you
want me to pay this invoice or not without a new agreement. That's the
essence of the reason that it's a 91.
And I would ask you to reaffirm the old agreement, make
payments to what we've done so I can sell the house, and then if I can
Page 175
October 28, 2008
add any value to constructing a new agreement to you -- but I want
you to know that the rehabilitation process takes six to eight weeks,
and we're asking for a megillah of a --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you want that from our staff'?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to have Marcy tell us what
is going on and what has been approved and why, and why is this a
problem?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For trying to save time, is there any
questions of Mr. Barlow before he sits down?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There's a question from somebody.
Did we approve this new agreement? I mean, this seems to have come
out of no place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's give Marcy a chance to
answer that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I just feel that this issue
is going to go on and on and on, and we need to have some direction,
some conversation and a motion and move on from it.
So as long as we can get that commitment from Mr. Barlow, I'd
be happy to proceed and try to get an answer for Commissioner
Coyle's question from our staff.
MS. KRUMBINE: For the record, Marcy Krumbine, Director of
Housing and Human Services.
Commissioners, if you remember in April when we were
presenting to you our HUD one-year action plan, John Barlow and
some other members of the public came forward and suggested that
we start pursuing the rehabilitation and the use of foreclosed
properties for affordable housing.
You all thought that that was a fabulous idea, and I was directed,
through the County Manager, to come back with programs and
possible financing to pursue this.
We came back in July with our SHIP program to amend what's
called the Local Housing Assistance Plan to create a strategy to allow
Page 176
October 28, 2008
non-profit organizations to acquire, for the purpose of rehabilitation,
foreclosed properties with SHIP money, and you approved that. It
went to the state; it was approved.
And then in September we also came before you with a
reprogramming of HUD dollars, our CDBG dollars, and two new
contracts with Habitat and HOME to buy and to acquire, rehab and
then resell foreclosed properties. So we've moved forward under your
direction to do that.
The program that Mr. Barlow is referring to, we modeled it after
our single-family rehab program, which we do on a daily basis in our
office. We just pared it down. Instead of doing it for the individual
homeowner, we're going to do it for the -- with the nonprofit, who is
then going to sell it to an individual homeowner because an individual
homeowner cannot go in and buy these homes because they need too
much rehabilitation and the banks won't finance it.
So that's how we set the whole program up. We set up a very
simple application process, first-come, first-served, and it is -- it is
secured by a mortgage and a Promissory Note like we do our
single- family rehab program, and that is what Mr. Barlow applied for
and that is what we have done.
And it came to the point where he wanted to be reimbursed and
we processed it just as we process all the others, and it went forward,
and then the Clerk's Office had suggested that there might be other
documentation that's needed, an agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you --
MS. KRUMBINE: Now you're at the same place we're at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, you believe Mr.
Barlow has followed the proper procedures, he has gotten the right
approvals, he has filled out the right forms, or otherwise you wouldn't
have forwarded it to the Clerk's Office for payment; is that true?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now I can ask a question of the
Page 177
October 28, 2008
County Attorney. Are you aware of any problems with respect to the
contractual relationships or obligations of HOME and Mr. Barlow
with respect to this program?
MR. KLATZKOW: I believe that the Clerk raised some issues
that were valid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And what is the resolution
for those problems?
MR. KLATZKOW: The resolution of those problems is that my
staffs been working with Crystal to resolve those problems, and I
believe we're just about there based on my conversation with her this
mornmg.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when -- is it likely that that's
going to be presented to us or -- do we have to do anything, or is it
something that the staff has to do?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. You have to approve these contracts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And the contracts have
never been presented to us for approval before?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is all agreements go to
this board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The what?
MR. KLA TZKOW: My understanding, sir, is that all agreements
go to this board, pretty much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. These apparently were --
did not, otherwise they would have already been approved by us; is
that true or not?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think this agreement went to the
board, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Marcy, what's your
understanding of the agreement, that we should approve them or not?
MS. KRUMBINE: My understanding is that, again, we parallel
this with our single-family rehab program, and we do all of those
in-house, Commissioner.
Page 178
October 28, 2008
And, you know, just kind of a little sidetrack, just on a personal
note, what I would like to say to you is that I believe that since I've
become the director of housing and human services, you've seen more,
heard more, and we've had more transparency about what's gone on in
this office than you ever have before. So there was never any intent
on us to sideswipe the commissioners in any way.
Again, this is a program that needs to move very quickly. We
need to -- you know, it doesn't -- it can't take a very long time to buy,
rehab, and then sell a house. We need to get forward, just like our
other in-house programs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. KRUMBINE: So that's why we did it that way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So right now what we have to do or
what we should do is take a look at these contracts, get it on our
agenda, we can review it, you can make a presentation, we can
approve it or reject it; is that correct?
MS. KRUMBINE: You could do it that way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there another way, County
Attorney, or is that it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your problem with this program is this:
The LHAP that we're currently living under requires that this
particular form of contract be competitively selected. It's not
first-come, first-served under the LHAP, so there's some discretion
involved with staff.
If you had a program that there was no discretion by staff
whatsoever, that everyone who was eligible got paid on a first-come,
first-served basis using board-approved agreements, then that wouldn't
have to come to you.
The problem here is the LHAP that was approved, all right, has
this one particular program as being competitively selected so that
staff has the discretion of saying, you get to go with that program, you
don't get to go with this program. Those type of agreements require
Page 179
October 28, 2008
them to go to the board.
So what I'm getting at is if it's purely ministerial where staff has
no discretion whatsoever, then yes, staff can get it to an agreement,
and they do these things every day. But as soon as you take out the
issue of no discretion, as soon as staff now gets to pick and choose
who gets the money, that's your decision ultimately, not staffs. And
the way this one was structured is, it's competitively selected.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So how do we resolve the
problem with Mr. Barlow who has already expended money, signed
agreements with the county, rehabbed the property? How do we ratify
that and legalize it?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, ifI can get Crystal up here. It is my
understanding that the Clerk will be amenable that we will have a new
form contract very, very shortly, we can date the contract prior in time
to Mr. Barlow's commencing work, contract can be signed, it can
come to this board, this board can ratify the work done, approve the
payment, and the Clerk would be satisfied with that approach.
Now, if Crystal can comment if I've got that right.
MS. KINZEL: For the record, Crystal Kinzel. Commissioners,
our -- we need to see the final agreement and go through those things,
but I think that's where Jeff and I are. If we could get to the point
where we have an agreeable agreement that then can come to the
Clerk's Office and we can review that agreement, then remember, after
that we do need to look at the invoices and the processing.
The only claims or requests for reimbursement that have come
from Mr. Barlow's organization is the $409 I have before you. We
have not seen any documentation or information supporting the other
costs that would make up the 50,000 reimbursement.
So the first step is absolutely to get the agreement finalized.
We've been working with county housing and the County Attorney's
Office to prepare an agreement that I think will meet all our needs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And how far away are we from
Page 180
October 28, 2008
having that agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: From my perspective, we're just about there.
I can't talk about the Clerk. I mean --
MS. KINZEL: We received that today. Colleen gave me her
final draft or the draft that is most recent. I've obviously been here
today. We will definitely look at that. I've seen the draft before. We
did have some comments to that, so -- but we need the opportunity to
obviously look at the agreement that's been given to us today.
But we were almost there, I think, on the draft, so I don't see that
it should be an extended period. We just need to finalize an
agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would it speed things along for
Mr. Barlow if he were to give you the rest of the invoices so that you
can begin to take a look at those and be ready to either approve or
disapprove them whenever --
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner, I think we could look at the
backup and the invoices if they're submitted, if they're approved by
housing and housing's reviewed them and they're satisfied with them
from a program. But remember, a part of our due diligence is to
compare those invoices to the agreement and make sure that the work
performed is in compliance with the agreement, which is why the
agreement is so important.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
MS. KRUMBINE: Commissioner, can I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
MS. KRUMBINE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just going to ask, why did the
agreement change from what we've always been using and what has
been so successful for us?
MS. KRUMBINE: It didn't change. What Mr. Barlow signed is
a very short application and then a bid specification that outlines --
Page 181
October 28, 2008
and I don't know if he has it here.
Our rehab specialist went out to the house just like he does for
individual homeowners and outlined what can be done, what can be
done within the program specifications and we could pay for, what the
costs should be around, very professional, very thorough document,
and that's what we're functioning under, and the invoices will match
up to that document.
And so -- so I believe that we actually have provided all the
necessary information that is suitable for payment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then is it -- do we -- have the
rules changed along the way or -- I mean, we haven't had this
problem. Since you've taken over, things have worked smoothly,
people have gotten paid, we've rehabbed houses. I know that this is a
new program, but you're operating it in the same way. I don't know
what all of a sudden has changed.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, in may?
MS. KRUMBINE: Good question. I don't know either.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, in may. The Clerk has
tightened up its review process on several different issues, including
some of our developer contribution agreements. I don't think it's
necessarily a bad thing, I mean, to have higher standards on these
things, because the one thing you don't want is for the state or federal
government to audit you and find problems.
So that if the Clerk is going to be tightening up the procedures
and requesting more, I really don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta and
then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I never got a chance to
ask Mr. Barlow a question, a statement that was made that I really
need to have more details on.
Mr. Barlow, would you please step back up, please. When you
showed us that particular letter that was Commissioner Henning
Page 182
October 28, 2008
offering a legal opinion on what took place, you mentioned the fact
that the Clerk asked Commissioner Henning how to proceed. I'm
totally lost on that. I probably misunderstood what you said.
MR. BARLOW: Crystal wrote a letter to Commissioner
Henning that -- received sometime last week, and he used that -- and
the letter said, I need guidance relative to paying our invoices.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Who said that, sir?
MR. BARLOW: Sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Who said that?
MR. BARLOW: Crystal wanted guidance from the BCC today
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BARLOW: -- whether you should direct her to pay our
invoice. Now, it's true, there's one invoice there. As I mentioned, we
completed the rehab two weeks ago.
As you know, subcontractors get their stuff together. We have
got almost all of them, $50,000 them ready to go forward in the next
five days --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But the thing was, it wasn't the
Clerk asking Commissioner Henning to do something. He was asking
the BCC what to do?
MR. BARLOW: The $400. That's the only one submitted.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, fine. I just wanted to
clarify that. I didn't want it left out there that Commissioner Henning
was taking it upon himself to take direction, and that wasn't the case.
The Clerk was asking him to bring it to the commission.
MR. BARLOW: The purpose of my comments earlier was to
say that the statements that were made in that I don't agree with and I
don't believe the Florida State Statute agrees with or the administrative
code.
Now, if we want to find other reasons to put that -- together an
agreement that asks it to come to you -- I mean, the rehab takes six
Page 183
October 28, 2008
weeks, and how long does it take to come before the board to get it
scheduled for you to take a look at it? And we're keeping -- or we're
paying interest on the house, we're paying electricity on the house, I'm
keeping income-qualified people from not closing on the house, and
the bank takes another 30 days, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. BARLOW: But right now I can't close on this house until
I'm confident --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I heard the same frustration
from other elements out there in the affordable housing part of this
whole thing. We need to be able to direct the County Attorney to be
able to possibly bring a little bit more underneath this department so
we can move this forward. I don't want to make you uncomfortable.
But the whole important thing is, it's the end product that counts.
Anything else is just relative to it. And I'm not worried about hurting
anybody's feelings. I just want to see these things happen in a legally
sufficient way with the least amount of turmoil for anyone.
And if it requires a new look at it from another part of our county
government, maybe the County Attorney's Office, for a short time at
least, could be able to oversee this whole process to work directly with
the people that are able to be able to accomplish it; let's do it.
Because if we're getting bogged down in moving paperwork back
and forth between different parts of this government, let's see what we
can do. I think you're much more capable to deal with the Clerk's
Office than anyone else in this room.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, you have two issues here.
Your first issue is that of timing, all right, because it does take four,
five, six weeks to get to the board, and during the summer it can take
longer, all right, but you can't get around that if staffs going to have
discretion.
So if staff wants to be able to set up a procedure where these
things are approved administratively, we have to change the Local
Page 184
October 28, 2008
Housing Action Plan. We just do, all right.
The second thing is the Clerk's Office. Now, I have no control of
whether the Clerk signs off a check. I can only work with the Clerk. I
happen to think the Clerk has raised some good points on this, and
we're tightening this procedure up and we're tightening other
procedures up. And I think we're very, very close on this one. We're
very, very, very close on the DCA issues.
And, you know, I fully expect on your next meeting on your
consent agenda will be Mr. Barlow's agreement for you to ratify and
we'll be done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, in may, too. We're still
not quite there. I just want to make sure that we keep moving this
thing forward.
You mentioned about administratively. I would like to hear more
about it at another meeting where we might be able to have it on the
agenda for discussion. This whole process takes so darn long, and
meanwhile we have people out there that are paying interest on loans,
that are just trying their darndest to make things work, and it's not
because of the fact that we have that bottleneck, but we can set the
parameters for something to take place and be able to make sure that
staff follows it. I'm for going back and looking at that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where my problem lies in
here is that you're the County Attorney, you have people working for
you, so you should be able to write the agreement up and make sure
that it conforms to the rules and regulations and to the statutes within
the Florida law, and the Clerk is just that. He's the Clerk.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He pays -- he pays the bills, and
that's it.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, I understand that, but when
I'm writing an ordinance that requires the sheriff to enforce it, I get the
Page 185
October 28, 2008
sheriffs commitment to that ordinance because there's no point on this
board passing an ordinance the sheriff doesn't like.
The Clerk -- the Clerk, sir, is a check and balance against the
county. And if the Clerk's not comfortable with a county procedure--
I don't have any issue with working with the Clerk until the Clerk gets
comfortable. Now, ifthere comes a point in time where the Clerk is
not going to say yes to anything -- and that time has never come, to
my knowledge -- then at that point in time I would come to this board
and we would have a discussion.
But it's -- it's working with another -- it's working with a
constitutional officer, whether it's the Sheriffs Office or the Clerk.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I guess what we need to do
is then -- is find a way that we can streamline it and still be within the
confines of legality.
MR. KLATZKOW: I agree with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think we're all saying the same
thing is -- is streamline it, take away the discretionary, the ordinance --
or the resolution that we passed in '05/'06 referring to this payment
sheet, we had discretionary (sic), had the ability for staff to change the
agreement. That's discretionary. We can't do that.
And the next thing, Commissioner Coletta, that's not my legal
opinion because I didn't say, in my legal opinion this is what I think.
So I just want to correct a statement that you made.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's just the way it's
written, and it shows a certain amount of legalese that I didn't know
you possessed. And it's still an opinion, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's an opinion, but you said legal
opinion, and I didn't want anybody to think that I was giving legal
opinions out there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was an illegal opinion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It was an opinion -- it was a response
to Mr. Barlow's email to me. If had nothing -- if you look at the date,
Page 186
October 28, 2008
you were sent the same email.
The second thing, the payment request, to try to get this on the
agenda, Crystal Kinzel, in my opinion, is trying to resolve this issue,
that's why she asked me, and there's no way that I can say, well, yeah,
go ahead and pay it. This needs to be a board decision.
I thought I was doing Mr. Barlow a favor by doing this. That's
why I wanted to put it on the agenda because I think we're going to
see Mr. Barlow here until he's satisfied, and I think we're trying to
satisfy him.
And what I understand is we're going to have an agreement on
the agenda between HOME, Mr. Barlow, and the Board of
Commissioners. I think that's what I said in my email, too, the
response.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My concern right now is we are
addressing this problem globally as -- we're changing the way we do
things. We're tightening things up, and you say that you agree with
the Clerk's Office. They're trying to just make sure that they meet all
of the requirements. Our housing and human services department is
trying to work with them, but we only meet once in November.
There's only going to be four of us here in November. Then we don't
have another meeting til December.
How -- what is happening to these people? And he isn't the only
one. What is happening to all of the people who are waiting to be
paid? Even though we all know that they legally should be paid, are
we going to be driving people out of business because we have to
tighten things up?
In the end they're all going to be meeting all of those
requirements but yet now, right now, we're putting people at a
tremendous hardship at this very economically tough time for all of
us. And I'm very concerned with how much time is going to be used
in getting to the final result administratively.
Page 187
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're all saying the same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I just said I'm worried about
time, is what I'm saying, and getting these people paid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well-- and we all said the same
thing, we're concerned about time. How can we take away the
discretion and be administrative so that we can speed it up for these
people to get paid?
And we have a public speaker?
MS. FILSON: It was Crystal Kinzel.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, she answered the question. I
don't know if she addressed what she wanted to speak on. She waives.
Okay.
MR. BARLOW: May I request one minute?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concern is, how much
time does this gentleman have before he can close on this property so
that the bills are taken care of, he pays off the people who have done
the work, and this person that he just got qualified can move into the
property?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, if we can change the LHAP
and take out all discretion of the program, then this can move very
quickly.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when you say quickly, how
-- what is quickly?
MR. KLATZKOW: As fast as Marcy can get to it. I mean, to be
blunt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's an LHAP?
MR. KLATZKOW: Local Housing Assistance Plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I really want to hear
what John has to say in closing notes. He heard the discussion here.
Have we missed anything or do you think we've got a grasp on this
Page 188
October 28, 2008
problem?
MR. BARLOW: I think you have a clear grasp. The only
comment I wanted to make is I have been dealing with direct
conversations with Crystal since August -- September the 3rd. This is
a booklet of the emails that we have passed back and forth. I've had a
couple meetings with the County Attorney, and today is the first time
anyone has mentioned to me that the discretion element in the LHAP
is the trigger to the new agreement or an important factor, today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever it takes, John.
MR. BARLOW: And this is two months of work researching
because Dwight Brock -- I've had two meetings with him. You know
what he told me? Follow the law. The first time, two months. Now,
Venetia Harvey, who I have the application of -- there are two more
coming that are being income qualified. We will wait until November
the 18th because she doesn't qualify for 175,000. It has to be 125,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're not talking about that
$400 bill. We're talking about your other bills too, between now and
our meeting in November. That's my understanding. I don't want to
forward you a check for $400 at the end of --
MR. BARLOW: We're going to have to -- we're going to have to
reimburse the subcontractors before your next meeting out of our
treasury because we're not going to go delinquent with them because I
get -- you know, they've already done the work. They've got to pay
their workers.
Remember the 60,000 I put up here? We put that money out
there. We're going to have to put -- pay these subcontractors $50,000
from our pockets unless you can find some way to circumvent this
item that appeared today for -- to me for the first time. It's not even in
the new agreement, to be quite frank with you, the reference to it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MR. BARLOW: I'm passionate about this issue. You might
could tell.
Page 189
October 28, 2008
MS. KINZEL: Commissioners, since my name was used yet
again, could I please say something just very quickly?
Mr. Barlow's exactly right. I've been meeting with him for a long
time, and from the very first time that I met with him, I indicated to
him that I believed he needed an agreement. I showed him areas
within the requirements that he needed an agreement.
I called and verified my understanding with the State Finance
Corporation. They said we needed an agreement. I have consistently
indicated that to him and asked him to go back to housing.
We have sat down with housing and the County Attorney's
Office to work this out. He keeps indicating that it's something with
our office. I've only received the $400 payment. Unfortunately, I've
tried to assist him throughout the process in getting an appropriate
agreement that meets all the legal requirements.
We're not the attorney. We rely on the attorney's office. We are
working with them, and that's where we'd like to get. But since the
first time I met with him, I've indicated that he needed that agreement.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I had the privilege of going down
there and visiting the house and had a camera and shared those with
my wife, and she asked me to ask Marcy how she can get government
funds for granite countertops, so expect a call from my wife.
MS. KRUMBINE: Well, for the record, I'd like to answer that,
and county funds do not -- government funds do not pay for those
granite countertops. Those granite countertops come from the
phenomenal board and connections of housing opportunities made for
everyone, that this is not just government money going into that but
that of business people and community members that are contributing
things as well, including granite countertops which, by the way, I don't
have in my house either, Commissioner, and I just redid my kitchen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to figure that out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it time for a break?
Page 190
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I just ask a question, and
maybe we can get some finality on this one. I believe -- I believe Mr.
Barlow would like to get paid because he signed the agreements, he
did everything he thought he had to do in order to get into this
program and to have a viable -- and have a viable program. He has a
house that's done, for all practical purposes, and I, too, went to the
house and took a look at it.
So he has, let's say, $50,000 worth of vouchers that are
outstanding. He will sign -- okay, I have no doubt, he will sign an
agreement with this board and have it for you at the next meeting so
that it's there.
The question remains, you have an agreement that's going to be
consummated on the 18th of November and you have a house that's
been renovated from August, the end of August, until the end of
September that has vouchers out. Is this board going to honor those
vouchers and direct the Clerk to pay those vouchers, those bills?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have an LDC meeting on
Thursday, if we could get the agreement on there. We also have an
AUIR Meeting November 3rd, if we can get the agreement on there.
So what's the big deal? So, you know, work with your staff and get
that agreement on the agenda.
MR. MUDD: The agreement will be at a point in time. The
question still remains, is the board going to -- are you going to have us
postdate that agreement so that it honors it, or are you going to honor
the vouchers? That's the question. What does the board feel
comfortable with this agreement? Because this agreement will be for
this house.
Is signing the agreement after the fact going to get the payments
to those vouchers for the work that was done from rehab from the end
of August through the end of September? That's the real question that
remams.
Mr. Klatzkow, I turn to you as a legal opinion.
Page 191
October 28, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: And as I spoke with Crystal, we're going to
predate the agreement to before the time Mr. Barlow commenced the
work, and the board is going to ratify the work and direct that the
Clerk make payments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we support that legally?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, he did the work pursuant to staff
direction. It was kind of hard for us to say no to him at this point in
time, I think. I mean, you've got a quantum meruit claim to begin
with. So, quite frankly, it's not only the right thing to do; I think it's
the legal thing to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I agree it's the right thing.
MR. KLATZKOW: We ratify prior actions, you know, all the
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The next item?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we need a motion on this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. They're bringing an agreement
whenever you can get it. If you can get in earlier before our next
meeting --
MR. MUDD: I will get it -- I will get it on an agenda here as fast
as I can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does it have to be advertised if we
hear it this coming Thursday?
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am. You're basically giving me direction
to come forward with an agreement --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thursday.
MR. MUDD: -- for Mr. Barlow that's going to be predated,
postdated, whatever -- predated for this board's consideration so that
we can get solved. And I will get it to you either -- either during your
Land Development Code briefing or during your AUI (sic) briefing
next week.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we take a break before we
Page 192
October 28, 2008
continue this discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we going to stay with the
discussion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, I think we've beat it up
enough, but we can continue it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's finished it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, just one thing we got into
a discussion about and we never gave direction, was administratively.
We were talking about administratively, but what do you understand
was the directions from this commission, if any, regarding going to
administratively to be able to move this forward in the future?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what we will do, based on -- based
on what I heard, we will come up with an agreement that has no
discretion for staff anywhere in it that's totally ministerial in nature,
and we will bring that back to the board as a blank form and get you to
approve it so you can delegate that particular issue so that there's no
confusion that it -- that it is a valid delegation and it's ministerial in
nature to the staff, and I believe that will solve that particular issue.
MR. KLATZKOW: And we will have to amend the LHAP,
which we do all the time.
MR. MUDD: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Take a lO-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'll please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike. Which
item would you like to go to, sir?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 10D.
Page 193
October 28, 2008
Item #10D
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT BID NO. 08-5087 FOR
BRIDGE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 10D is a recommendation to reject bid number
08-5087 for bridge repair and maintenance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Steve Carnell, your Purchasing Director, will
present.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Carnell?
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, briefly. Mr. Carnell, Purchasing
Director, for the record.
This is a bid solicitation that we put out in an effort to try to
strategically consolidate how we contract for bridge maintenance
repairs. We have nearly 100 bridges in Collier County.
And we went through the bidding progress, contacted almost 500
vendor sources, had a pre-bid conference that was fairly well attended
and then we, frankly, were just disappointed with the outcome. We
only had two bidders submit. One of them was not qualified and the
other, while they were generally qualified, there was some confusion
about parts of the bid submission.
So simply, staffs recommending that we rebid the contract, and
with an effort to get more competition and better responses, and also
we need to reformat the contract to make it more workable.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have one public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Michael Thompson.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, good afternoon. For the record, my
name is Michael Thompson, and I'm the president of Design Build
Engineers and Contractors. I want to thank the board for giving me
the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon regarding this bid
solicitation, bid results.
Page 194
October 28, 2008
The reason I'm standing here before you is to ask you to
reconsider the recommendation by staff to reject this bid. This bid--
and just for your information, the scope of this bid was basically for
repair and bridge maintenance. And there are certain elements of the
bid criteria that limits the amount of contractors that could bid on this
project, and one of the criteria was safety certification that were
required.
There are 189 items on the bid. Staff had an issue with one of the
items, which is immobilization. There was some confusion prior to
the bid regarding mobilization. As you bid this job, you didn't know
how many bridges that you were going to mobilize for. But an
addendum was issued, addendum or two was issued in July, and the
addendum states that there were 97 bridges, and also give the various
locations where they are over water and the various crossings.
With that in mind, we came up with a mobilization fee of
$40,000. The question was asked of us in the past from staff, if you
did one bridge for us, for the county, would we -- would the county
have to pay us $40,000? I said no.
For clarification, if you, again, go back to the addendum number
two, it clearly states that there were 97 bridges, which is basically the
40,000 robotics, 97 works. So that's about $412 per bridge.
So for each bridge, all the mobilization fee would be about 400
and change. So we do two bridges for $800 and change. We think we
clearly -- we've clearly answered that question, and that was the issue
that was hand for this bridge to have this contract -- the primary
reason why this contract, to be rej ected.
Other bidders may not take the time out to look at the addendum,
but we surely took the time to look at the addendum. We have also
made preparations for this job when we realized that -- we're going in
the direction of awarding, county being -- staff asking us for our
insurance information.
So we figured that we are going in the right direction. Then we
Page 195
October 28, 2008
get an email saying we're thinking about -- we're not too happy with
the outcome of this bid. We want to reform it to a different format and
solicit it again on a bridge -- on a project that we think we are
responsIve.
We're just looking -- basically looking for the -- as
commissioners, to reconsider the staff recommendation. It is
responsive bid. Not only that -- I'm not sure if my name is up here--
but not only that -- one quick step. Not only that -- and I'll just take
one more minute of your time.
This bid is identical to the Collier -- to Broward County big-time
item. It's identical. To be using this big-time item for eight years and
just re-awarding it. It's going to be 12 years. It's not a problem that
they have perceived using this same. And Collier County has adopted
the same big-time -- big-time item. And we think we have addressed
the mobilization issue. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Carnell? Is it, in
your opinion, because one wasn't qualified that we need to re-bid this
item?
MR. CARNELL: In part, because it was our desire to have two
contractors, a primary and a secondary. We only have one available
who's qualified who fully responded to the bid schedule.
But the bigger issue, from our point of view -- and there's two.
One would be that there are eight to 10 small bridge repair contractors
certified by the FDOT. We contacted them and we contacted several
other people who are potentially capable of doing the work.
We had a very well attended pre-bid conference with, I would
say, at least ten firms attending, and we thought it was all systems go,
if you will. And this happens sometimes. You get to the bid opening
process and you only have two people at the altar, if you will.
And we believe in talking to people who didn't bid and in talking
to Broward County, talking to some other government locations, that
we could do better in a re-bid situation. People had complained about
Page 196
October 28, 2008
the specifications being vague. People have complained that -- what
we really did was, we priced out a number of standard unit items that
he was talking about, 189, and some of the contractors said that they
were based on standard lengths and in their experience, that you don't
necessarily sell or install at these standard lengths, and that really we
might be better off to redo this process and prequalify people
consistent with what Mr. Thompson said about, pre-qualify them
based on their safety, FDOT capability, get the board to award a pool
of one, two contractors, perhaps, three, in that scenario, and then take
prices from them job by job, and that way you could price the exact
length job by job of the materials, of the units, of the equipment that
you need.
The other issue is that we've had some issues with the Clerk's
Office regarding some other similar contracts, not involving bridges,
but involving road repair and maintenance, where we've had a similar
set-up to the way this original solicitation occurred, where we tried to
get a number of unit prices in advance, and then we had trouble when
we went to the implementation where the price proposals didn't -- the
estimate that the contractor provided to actually do the work didn't
match the contract.
So we were trying to instead -- we're now looking at a direction
where we would price the jobs as we go. Again, for the same reasons
I said, and also because then you wouldn't have a contract schedule
that's potentially in conflict with the actual proposal for the job, if you
follow what I'm saying, job by job, as we do the work.
So that's, right now, what we're looking at. We think if we re-bid
it, we can make it more attractive to contractors. We think in this
economy we should be able to get more than two people to bid. And
particularly with the show of interest that we had prior to bidding it,
we just think we can do a better job if we take another stab at this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve staff
Page 197
October 28, 2008
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
Discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But now this gentleman can re-bid
again, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He can just submit his package
again, right? Okay.
Item #9 J
DISCUSSION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF NAPLES, CLERK OF COURTS AND THE TAX
COLLECTOR REGARDING THE AGREEMENT - MOTION TO
CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9J --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- okay, which is to discuss an interlocal
Page 198
October 28, 2008
agreement between the City of Naples and the Clerk of Courts, along
with the Tax Collector, regarding interlocal -- regarding an interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning. I thought that Guy Carlton would have got to you. He
asked me this morning if we would be able to continue this to the next
meeting. He'd be more prepared to be able to address it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, but I actually -- talking to staff
on -- or actually deputy County Manager, he's seen no reason for these
to go on the Consent Agenda. Am I speaking out oftum?
MR. OCHS: No, sir, you're correct. In talking with the County
Manager, when he sent his memo out to the constitutionals asking for
this information, our intent was to make sure that all of the
constitutional officers were complying with the Florida Statutes with
regard to coming back to the board and getting the board to approve
any arrangements or contracts that had been entered into for leased
office space since that is, as I understand it from Mr. Klatzkow's legal
opinion, the purview of the Board of County Commissioners and not
anybody else.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. I agree with that. So do you
want me to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm just passing that
information on to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want me to continue this and
put it on the consent agenda for the next meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think out of respect for Guy
Carlton, I would leave that decision up to this commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, what would
you like me to do? Do you want me to bring it back and put it on the
Consent Agenda?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It would be good if I
understood why Guy Carlton didn't want it to be heard today, but it's
Page 199
October 28, 2008
not going to make a big difference to me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, because he couldn't be here this
afternoon, I guess.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see, okay. I don't have a
problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope we're all on the same page.
Are we basically addressing the issues that the County Attorney, in his
findings, is that what we're --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're trying to rectify the County
Attorney's findings by memorializing--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then it is the Board of County
Commissioners as a legislative and governing body of the county that
has the sole responsibility of leasing, allocating, assigning, and
maintaining space in the county courthouse or any other county
building; is that correct? That's what we're going to be discussing?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And what would happen on these
particular issues or items.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They have to come before the
board --
MR. MUDD: Brought to the attention of -- the Clerk of Courts
on his particular item would have an Executive Summary with the
agreement and layout, rationale the conditions why he needed the
space, da-ta, da-ta, da-ta, and ask the board to ratify the agreement
which he basically executed back in January or February.
I believe there's another issue that, ifhe collect fees outside of the
county seat -- and this is the seat -- this is the county seat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The city.
MR. MUDD: And ifhe's doing those things at the City of
Naples, there also has to be a resolution to that particular item, an
agreement by the board that that's okay, and in the Tax Collector's
particular case, in Executive Summary and the agreement that he has
Page 200
October 28, 2008
or any other agreements that he has that haven't been ratified by the
board as far as space is concerned, lease space someplace else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have one other question. Would
it be also left up to, let's say in this case, Facilities Management to go
out and determine whether the areas that are going to be rented is at
our best -- best cost? Because we have to -- we're the ones that
actually pay the bills.
MR. MUDD: I understand that, sir, and I would say to you that
in the future, as these particular items come up or need from a
constitutional officer for space that's off site, come up, that that be
something that the board would examine prior to their approval. But
in these particular cases, we have executed documents that need to be
ratified by the board in order to keep them in concert with the Florida
Statutes.
I would hope that during their consideration and their Executive
Summary, they would layout the rationale for their need for that
particular document to be ratified at this time, and in the future that
would also be the case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That answers it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, you want me to put
this on the Consent Agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to continue this
item to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And I'll get -- make contact with the
constitutional officers so we break it out and have it on the Consent
Agenda under their particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you don't want me to bring
it back?
Page 201
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: No. We'll bring it back. We'll make contact with
them and we'll take those items and bring them back so they can be
each individually approved because the Clerk's item's got two pieces
to it, and the tax collector only has one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The Clerk has one agreement?
MR. MUDD: One agreement, but it has -- with the agreement
and the ability to take -- and being able to record and collect fees
outside of the county seat. That's the other piece that you've got to get
ratification on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So you don't want me to work
on that. You're going to take care of that?
MR. MUDD: We've got it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. So I need a motion, I guess, to
deny this item because I put it --
MR. MUDD: Let's just continue it, and it will take care of itself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 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: Carries unanimously.
Item #10A
Page 202
October 28, 2008
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER OPTIONS PERTAINING TO
REMEDIES FOR PAST DUE AND EXPIRING IMP ACT FEE
DEFERRALS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, RELATED TO THE IMPACT
FEE DEFERRAL FOR BRITT ANY BAY PHASE I AND POLICY
DIRECTION TO BE APPLIED TO SIMILAR IMP ACT FEE
DEFERRALS WITH FUTURE EXPIRATIONS - MOTION TO
ACCEPT OPTION #4 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item lOA, and
that's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
consider options pertaining to remedies for past due and expiring
impact fee deferrals and provide direction to the County Manager or
his designee related to the impact fee referral for Brittany Bay Phase 1
and policy direction to be applied to similar impact fee deferrals for
future -- at future expirations.
Ms. Amy Patterson, your impact fee EDC Manager of Business
Management, Budget Department, Community and Development's
Environmental Services. I'd just liked it better when you were the
director, okay, of impact fees. That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I -- I like option four.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do, too. I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta
(sic), second by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's Commissioner Coyle over
there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did I say Coyle (sic)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Remember, Coletta is always on
the left.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My name just sticks on the end
Page 203
October 28, 2008
of his tongue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
approve staffs recommendation, second by Commissioner Henning.
Discussion? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I have discussion. And too
bad the petitioner isn't here or the owner of this. Do you know what
his game plan is in regards to meeting the requirements for February
3rd?
MS. PATTERSON: No. We did send him a letter notifying him
of the due date. I'm sorry, Amy Patterson, for the record.
We did send him another letter notifying him of the due date of
the February -- coming due February, and we have not received any
calls or any correspondence. I also did put in a call to him ahead of
this board meeting to let him know that I prepared an executive
summary with options that would address both his past due impact fee
deferral as well as possibly those coming forward. And I, again, did
not receive any feedback or a return call.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think option four basically
says that we're going to let this continue on for 10 years. And I have a
concern -- 10 years from the time that it was enacted, right?
MS. PATTERSON: Ten years from the -- right, from the
original term.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifhe hasn't put together a business
plan to set aside monies to address this impact when times were good,
how do we know he's going to address this later on? And it's like
kicking the can down the road.
MR. MUDD: I want to make sure that I correct what Amy just
said on the record real quick. This is 10 years inclusive of the original
six years, nine months.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at 16 years?
MR. MUDD: You're only -- no. Inclusive. Didn't say exclusive.
The way you said it, it almost sounded like you said exclusive. And I
Page 204
October 28, 2008
want to make sure that's correct. So let's make sure we've got the
timing down.
Right now the rule is six years, nine months, you owe the impact
fees. Option four says, fine, we -- if the applicant comes forward and
asks the board to extend it to a term of 10 years instead of six years,
nine months, at that time he or she pays 60 percent of the impact fees
that were deferred.
The remaining balance, the remaining balance, the other 40
percent can be extended to the final term at end of that 10-year period.
Now, that means that the extension is only three years, three months.
Three and three, yeah. Yeah, three years, three months. I got it.
And so during that period of time, that 40 percent, if they are for
profit, they will pay interest on the impact fees that are due. If they
are nonprofit, they will pay no interest on the fees that are due.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. What teeth are we going to
have in here, being that they have not even offered the courtesy of a
reply with any of our letters or phone calls, what makes us think we're
going to get the 60 percent anyway? So how long do we give him to
pay the 60 percent, and then what do we do if they haven't?
MS. PATTERSON: Well, we have two different issues.
Brittany Bay, that's Phase 1, was due a year ago. So that one they
would need to come forward with immediately. I'm looking to the
County Attorney if he wants to --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll make it simple, Commissioner. Amy's
going to make this offer to these folks. If these folks don't take the
offer, I will be coming to you on an item requesting your permission
to commence suit for collection. It's one or the other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is, is that I don't want
to keep pushing this down the road because if this is for profit, this
person is going to maximize everything and let the property basically
Page 205
October 28, 2008
deteriorate to a point where it's not beneficial for anybody then. That's
my concern.
MR. KLATZKOW: I share that concern.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you repeat the motion,
please?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion is to accept staffs
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Number four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Option four.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 2008-326: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVE A
LOCALLY FUNDED AGREEMENT BETWEEN FDOT AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BRIDGE
Page 206
,_",__"._,-0,_ ..___.__.".C"'...
October 28, 2008
OVER THE COCOHA TCHEE RIVER ON COUNTY ROAD 901
(V ANDERBIL T DRIVE), A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ESTABLISHING AN ESCROW
ACCOUNT TO DEPOSIT FUNDS RELATED TO THAT
PROJECT, AND A RESOLUTION APPROVING THOSE
AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE BOTH AGREEMENTS - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is lOB. It's a
recommendation the Board of County Commissioners approve a
locally funded agreement between FDOT and Collier County for
construction of a new bridge over the Cocohatchee River on County
Road 901, Vanderbilt Drive, the Memorandum of Agreement between
those parties and the state Department of Finance Services
establishing an escrow account to deposit funds related to that project,
and a resolution approving those agreements and authorizing the
chairman to execute both agreements.
And Norm Feder, your Transportation Services Administrator
will present.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
approve staffs recommendations, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. I also want to
note that in addition to what you see here of about 1,761,811 that's
looked to come out of the 3 million from the developer agreement, this
approximately 700,000 also that will come out of that 3 million in a
utility agreement will be coming to you in a little while.
When we relocate utilities when they're not expanded, that's paid
for out of the transportation funding program as well. So that will be a
Page 207
October 28, 2008
subsequent one to come to 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 4-0.
Next item?
Item # lOC
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE
PROPOSED COLLIER COUNTY 2009 STATE LEGISLATIVE
PRIORITIES WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED AT A JOINT
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND COLLIER
COUNTY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PRE-2009
LEGISLATIVE SESSION WORKSHOP SCHEDULED ON
NOVEMBER 14, 2008 - MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF TAX INCREASE ITEMS - APPROVED;
MOTION TO REQUEST A CHANGE TO FLORIDA STATUTE
TO ELECT RATHER THAN APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING
BOARD - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10C. That's a
recommendation to review and approve the proposed Collier County
2009 state legislative priorities, which then will be discussed next at a
joint Board of County Commissioners and Collier County Legislative
Page 208
October 28, 2008
Delegation Pre-2009 Legislative Session Workshop scheduled on
November 14th, 2008.
Ms. Debbie Wight, Assistant to County Manager, will present.
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon. Deb Wight, for the record.
Would you like to go down one by one the priorities on the
executive summary?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't need that. I have a couple
concerns, that's all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Me too.
MS. WIGHT: Just so you know, also I have Lieutenant -- or
Commander Mike Williams with the Sheriffs Office is here if you
have any questions about the immigration. We have the Criminal
Alien Task Force. He is subject matter expert on that, if you have
questions; and also, Jamie French. He is the staff subject matter
expert on the Florida Governmental Utility Authority.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas has
questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. There's one item that I'd like
to find out if there's support here on the Board of County
Commissioners and that is to request a change in the Florida Statutes
to elect rather than appoint Florida Water Management District's
governing boards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that, because I was
going to bring it up if you didn't.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay. I think that should be on
our legislative agenda and I think also we need to approach F AC on it
to see if we still have support from F AC in that regard also.
MS. WIGHT: Okay. That was on our 2007 list, and I think I
showed you, that was a -- there was a resolution that the board did in
2006.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, 2006, exactly.
Page 209
October 28, 2008
MR. MUDD: But Deb, it's going to go -- if the board decides
when we get done talking with the workshop -- because right now it's
2-2, so we have no choice sitting -- we need to add it. But if we -- if
after the workshop the legislators are comfortable with it, then we're
going to have to do another resolution with the present chairman's
signature on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One thing I don't care for -- I
don't know how my other fellow commissioners feel about it, was -- is
the real estate transfer fee. I think that these -- with these economic
times as they are, I'm just happy somebody's going to buy some of
these derelict houses that are sitting on the market. I hate to charge
them a fee to do that. That's my own personal opinion.
And the other thing was, I was -- I was amazed. I did not realize
with the immigration laws that immigration is not a Florida law. It
was -- and I thought, oh, my goodness, we really need to do something
to help our Sheriffs Office fight the problems.
They say we have a bigger problem here than in most areas
around the country right here in Collier County, and so we need to
support their efforts on this.
MS. WIGHT: Sheriffs Office is very anxious to work with the
Board of County Commissioners in moving this forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
MS. WIGHT: I don't know if you wanted to ask him any
questions or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love to hear what he has to say, if
that would be all right with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's your time.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I don't have
anything in particular to say, but I'd be more than happy to answer any
of your questions about the proposed legislation or the program in
general if you'd like. I mean, it's pretty -- the issue -- the only issues
Page 210
October 28, 2008
right now with our 287G, our Criminal Alien Task Force Program, our
authority to make these immigration arrests is delegated from the
federal government.
Our concern is that there's other counties that can't, budgetary
reasons or they're just -- the class isn't there for them to participate in
this program, and they may want to, at times, make immigration
arrests.
It's not going to be wide-scale because ultimately the proposed
legislation change will only give them the statutory authority to make
an arrest. They won't give them the authority to process and detain for
long periods of time in transport. They'll still have to go through ICE.
But there's been a lot of circumstances where you come across
somebody who needs to be arrested on those immigration charges
because of the threat that they pose outside the immigration issue, the
criminal threat they pose to the community.
Our concern is that with change in Washington Administration,
regardless of who comes in, there may be a change of the 287G
Program. They may remove that authority, they may decide not to
expand that authority. And we want to assure that law enforcement
communities in Florida still have the ability to make these
immigration arrests, should they need to, at the discretion of their own
agency. Obviously they can limit it with their policies.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for telling us that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a question of the
lieutenant?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, not so much a question, but
maybe just a comment of support. Well, let me turn it into a question.
How are we going to get other counties in Florida interested in
doing what we're doing? I know that in Southwest Florida, Collier
County seems to be the only county that believes that illegal
Page 211
u_____..._~"._ M_"" ....---.-"
October 28, 2008
immigration is a problem. Charlotte County, Lee County, Hendry
County all say they're not really interested. In fact, they don't even
collect statistics on that sort of stuff.
It would be really good if we could have the state legislature
mandate task forces such as the one that the sheriffs agency has
established here, but I don't have a good feel for the sheriffs in other
counties getting on board to do this. What do you feel we can do?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there's -- I mean, there's mainly two
reasons why a certain municipality or county won't get on board. It's
either budgetary or it's political. Sometimes it's just not a political
reality to get on this program, and I understand that. And they're
elected officials. They have to do what they have to do.
Budgetary, a lot of it's reimbursed by the federal government,
some of it's not. It's a staffing issue. You do have to take people from
their normal j ail duties and put them into this duty. I have myself and
two full-time sheriff deputies outside the jail that do this full time.
That limits what we can do elsewhere with the Sheriffs Office.
Now, I think you get a lot of bang for your buck in this program
when it comes to the kind of criminals that you're removing from your
community. But the fact remains that it still can be a staffing issue.
I know the sheriff is pursuing with the state some type of state
task force using the same authority, the 287G task force. I don't know
how successful that's going to be. Now, the only issue with the state,
that I could see with state mandating involved, the municipalities
create this type of program, is ultimately the issue's going to be the
class for -- with the federal government. The federal government's
only going to put so many people through this class to give them the
certification.
And, you know, we can mandate whatever we want, but if they
say we're only running one class and we only have 34 seats, it doesn't
really matter. So that's where the bottleneck's going to occur, which is
why we like this change in legislation.
Page 212
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two more very quick questions.
One is, is there anything that the Collier County sheriffs agency can
do to help train people in other counties? Is there any way we can
share resources with neighboring counties who might wish to do this?
MR. WILLIAMS: We have at times assisted ICE in Lee County.
We've notified Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott that we would be there
assisting them.
As far as providing training, at this point we'd be reluctant to do
that for liability reasons, if something were to happen up in Lee
County and we were the ones that ultimately trained their personnel
on immigration law, and I think that the federal government would not
look upon that very kindly, and we might lose our certification. So I
would just be hesitant to do that.
However, if the 287G Program goes by the wayside in the future,
the next Department of Homeland Security, you know, they decide
they're not going to do it, if we had a -- if we were just relying on our
own legislation, if this proposed legislation were to take effect, then at
that point we might go through the state legislature and design some
kind of state training program that would utilize some ICE personnel
to help us train in state, which that might be something feasible we
could do then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then the final recommendation
that I would have is that we seize upon the budget shortages as a
reason for implementing these kinds of programs.
I'm just in the process of updating the cost of illegal immigration
for Collier County. It now costs the residents of Collier County $77
million every single year because of illegal immigration. That's just
Collier County.
Now, if you were to offer someone a $77 million windfall on a
countywide basis, it seems to me that would be fairly attractive. And I
think we can -- we can show fairly definitively how the program that
you're participating in can save taxpayer money in Collier County, and
Page 213
October 28, 2008
if we can get that same message to some of the other counties that are
having fiscal problems, we might get some more support.
MR. WILLIAMS: I would agree with that. And look at our
current jail population, the decline in our average daily jail population.
We're close to reaching a thousand detentions. I think we were 800
and something for the year, and in particular, I mean, they're
averaging approximately five misdemeanor and three felony arrests
apiece. So these people -- monetary costs are one thing, but what is it
__ you know, how much are you saving the community removing a
child molester or a gang member who would normally be in that
community and residing and departing them. I mean, there's savings
beyond that criminal Clerk of Courts. You know, how many times is
this guy going to recidivate and return to the court system, and you're
saving money. So I would agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Getting back to Commissioner Fiala's
statement about real estate transfer fees, and I truly agree with that.
That would be looked at as a tax increase, and there's some other
things in here about tax increases that, you know, I'm not in support
of, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere with our legislators.
I know that the speaker of the house is not going to hear anything
that even smells like a tax increase. So, personally, I would like to
remove all those items, including Commissioner Fiala's real estate --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Real estate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- transfer fees.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, on the other hand, it might
be a balancing act, because I understand there's a good possibility
we're going to have to deal with impact fees in general with the state
legislative body, and this might be a balancing thing for compromise
somewhere down the road. That's the only thing I could think of at
this point in time.
Page 214
October 28, 2008
You're probably right, but I feel a little more comfortable with
what's there. Florida Association of Counties, if they don't get behind
it, we're not going to get anyplace with it. We know that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're just trying to give
directions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the other one is interstate sales
tax collection -- Internet sales tax collection, clearly a tax increase.
Partial year assessment, I don't see the board doing that.
I think that was -- do you know of anything else in here that
might look like a tax increase?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Indexing of local gas tax.
MS. WIGHT: The indexing -- under transportation, the indexing
of local option gas tax.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Those are the concerns that I have. I
don't see the legislation taking that up.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if! may. There's one thing
I was going to suggest, but I may be a little premature, but if
somebody else has an interest, we could consider it this year. I was
going to put together a task force of individuals to look at the
possibilities of coming up with an alternative for our impact fees.
And what I was thinking of is something like a CDD bond that
might be able to be approved, giving people a choice of paying an
impact fee upfront rather than paying a bond out against the price of
the land for a 30-year period.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Can we get back to that
thought?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, sure, anytime.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, I don't know if -- I don't think
that has anything to do with --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It probably doesn't, but I just
Page 215
October 28, 2008
wanted to throw that at you to see if there was some level of support to
even look at it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we do that under commissioners'
comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be more than happy to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, are you in
agreement to move the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I'm not. My concern is, like
Internet sales tax, I think the state is in a DRI straight here to try to
balance the budget, and I think that any loopholes that are available
through the state, they need to address those.
And as far as the real estate transfer fee, I think that's one way of
eliminating impact fees, because I think that's going to be a big issue
that's going to be front and center this particular year. And I really
think the state needs to get after how they're going to make sure that
they're going to balance the budget. And they've got some severe
deficits, and they can't continue, because the end result is, if they can't
balance the budget, then all of that is pushed down to us as an
unfunded mandate one way or the other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's some very difficult
problems here, and you're right that a lot of them are going to increase
taxes on people.
Let's take the Internet sales tax thing. On the one hand I say,
look, if people don't have a lot of money to buy things, isn't it nice if
they can order it over the Internet and save 6 percent? And that way
you're helping taxpayers. You might be hurting businesses.
But if you do tax the Internet sales, the taxpayers are having to
pay more money for the product, so they're not likely to buy as many
products from the businesses, so the businesses are going to get hurt
anyway. So it's a difficult call.
And, quite frankly, when you get right down to it, I think I would
Page 216
October 28, 2008
prefer to give the taxpayer an option of either buying locally or
ordering something over the Internet. If we remove that incentive for
them, then they mayor may not buy it from local businesses. But it's
a tough problem.
But let me -- we're dealing with this issue much the same way
that the legislature has dealt with some of these problems on a
piecemeal basis. I would like to see us continue to try to agitate for
comprehensive tax reform in Florida.
Our tax system stinks. It doesn't provide the funds necessary to
support the state, and I don't see anybody working on a comprehensive
tax reform process.
And that's right, Commissioner Halas says they're not going to do
it, and I don't think they will do it unless we start focusing attention on
these things. They'll do things piece-meal that will have unintended
consequences and we won't get to where we need to go.
So I sympathize with the idea that we not impose any more taxes
on our people, but at the same time, with the legislature removing tax
revenue raising opportunities, we might have to seize upon any
opportunity we have to get money, so it really is a tossup for me. I
don't know which way to go on it, and I'll go with the majority of the
board.
But I really would like to see us try to get people interested in
comprehensive tax reform for the State of Florida. That's the only
way we're going to ever solve these problems.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But we don't have a majority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For taking these tax increases off the
legislation agenda. We don't have a majority.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do we have a majority for
asking that the legislators begin to look at things comprehensively,
Page 217
October 28, 2008
like tax reform?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the budget and tax
commission was supposed to have done --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- last year and the year before it,
but they didn't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So, wait another decade, or we get
the legislature to start trying to do something. I don't know.
MS. WIGHT: I came forward with the Taber (phonetic), which
I've got a priority on here to support opposing something like that, the
cap on revenues and spending. You don't want that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, but the comprehensive tax
reform is a program which is designed to collect the taxes one needs in
order to meet the commitments of the citizens, and we really haven't,
that is the legislature, has not given much thought to anything like
that, but anyway. Okay.
I just think it doesn't make any difference what we put down
here, quite frankly. It really makes no difference at all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's encouraging.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We spent five minutes saying
it's not going to make a difference.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know what, I'm going to make a
motion, let's see if we can move it. I'm going to make a motion that
we approve everything except for the items that will result in an
increase of government funding.
MS. WIGHT: Commissioner, what about the Florida
Governmental Utility Authority, to bring that under --
MR. MUDD: He basically said, approve everything on the list
except for the tax increase items which have to do with real estate
Page 218
October 28, 2008
transfer fee. In this particular case it was -- has a substitute for impact
fees if they decide to cut impact fees, Internet sales tax collection,
partial year assessment, and the indexing of local option gas tax.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The indexing the gas tax, I don't --
MS. WIGHT: I just thought maybe you needed to hear if that
could be done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and a second
on the floor.
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.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed by Commissioner Coletta
and Commissioner Halas. The motion did pass.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I wanted to hear what she had to
say about that gas tax.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Indexing. I can tell you what it is.
The --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to hear that before I voted,
as a matter of fact.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You did vote though?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did, but I did that tongue and
cheek, and maybe I shouldn't have.
Page 219
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What it is is the prices -- the price of
doing business, maintenance and construction, roads are going up, but
yet the allocation of sales tax does not go up. The federal government
has indexed their gas tax for awhile, and Norm will say the same
thing.
MR. FEDER: If! could, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. I think the Chairman basically has it.
In answer to your question, Commissioner, the state, back in 1990,
indexed their portion of the gas tax. And what you have right now is
you have all 11 cents of local option gas tax that's authorized by
statute, but that that 11 cents is -- no matter what the price of gasoline
is, it's 11 cents per gallon. Unlike the states, it's now indexed based on
the price, or the consumer price index, predominantly petroleum
products. And what that does is it leaves yours at a fixed level. Right
now our gas taxes are going down as people go into more fuel
efficiency, about 24 million a year. It's down to about 22 million, and
costs go up as well.
But right now we don't have what the state gave itself. It didn't
provide to the local option gas tax, is what this is about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So -- but Debbie said something
about legally, and that was what -- and Frank wants to ask something
too. But Debbie said, can we legally do that. Is that what you said,
Deb?
MR. FEDER: You cannot legally do indexing unless the
legislature passes it, and they haven't seen fit to do so. It's been an
issue that's been raised many times as sort of a fairness issue and as a
revenue generator. It doesn't generate that much revenue relative to
other things brought up, but it would generate additional revenue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we had a motion on the
floor when I brought up the water districts where Commissioner
Coletta said he'd second it. So we have a motion on the floor on that
particular item. So I think we ought to bring that forward and get a
Page 220
October 28, 2008
vote on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep, you're absolutely right.
MR. MUDD: You're absolutely right, the motion and second.
Because there were two people in favor of it and there were only four
commissioners on the dais at the time, I just put it down as a thing, as
something to be added. But if the board would like clarity now that
there's five commissioners on the dais, that would be good to have a
vote on that particular item, too.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I did, and then --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carries unanimously.
MR. MUDD: We'll get that list -- we'll get that list updated and
we'll get the read-aheads out so that we can have that workshop with
our legislators so we can talk about those particular items.
Item #10E
RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER AGENDA TOPICS
PROPOSED BY THE MARCO ISLAND CITY MANAGER ON
BEHALF OF THE MARCO ISLAND CITY COUNCIL FOR A
JOINT WORKSHOP REQUESTED WITH THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 4,
Page 221
October 28, 2008
2008 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is recommending to
consider agenda topic proposed by the Marco Island City Manager on
behalf of Marco Island City Council in a joint workshop requested for
the Board of Commissioners to schedule December 4th, 2008.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is in response to a letter that I
received on the 8th of September that was dated 4 September from the
city manager, Steven Thompson from Marco, asking -- based on a
decision by his counsel to ask for a joint workshop.
So I looked at what he had in the letter, and I said, woo, this is
going to be an interesting workshop. But I went down and had lunch
with him and said, okay, what really do you have in mind for this
workshop?
And I had -- I had talked to the commissioner from the district in
which Marco resides and said, what are some issues that you had, so I
had them in my mind's eye as I had the lunch. And I'm not saying that
she was speaking for the Board of County Commissioners. She was __
just had some local issues that were hot on her list.
And so, went down there, had lunch with Mr. Thompson, and he
had four items that were on his list that covered two of the three items
that basically Commissioner Fiala had -- had alluded to.
And I said, I don't have a problem with what you're asking in
order to have a workshop. I said, they sound like good discussion
items for the board and for your council.
I would -- I would refrain from having more than four items for
discussion because if you have public comment in any of those, you
could take your three-hour workshop and make it 10. And I said, you
-- probably for the first time for the first workshop, at least that's not
from County Manager, stick to anywhere from three to four and let's
try to get some things resolved.
The things that are on the agenda have to do with -- they're
Page 222
October 28, 2008
thinking about designating a CRA area on Marco Island. There's a
blighted area. It would be interesting to see how it's being designated
and where it is because I don't know where that is yet.
The second was to talk about affordable housing, and I know this
board has talked about affordable housing and the lack of affordable
housing as far as Marco Island is concerned. It would be interesting to
figure out what they wanted to talk about on the affordable housing
pIece.
Another was to talk about the county parks and potentially for
them to take over the county parks on Marco Island. I thought that
was a novel idea. I didn't agree with it, but I thought it was novel for
discussion. It would be interesting to see what they wanted to do,
what the conditions would be, what kind of availability those
particular facilities have under the municipality's control and how that
would affect other residents of Collier County that aren't city
residents. And that was an interesting concept.
And the other, they wanted to talk about EMS that had probably
a whole lot to do with the presentation that you received today from
Chief Metzger and Chief Rita Greenberg this morning. So that would
be an interesting piece.
Those are the four items that he had. I thought they were all
relevant and timely and current and up to the board if you wanted to
add any other ones or whatever, but I needed to make sure that I
cleared those with you before I sent a return letter back to him based
on the board's direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything else,
Commissioner Fiala, to put on the agenda?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion that the Board of
Commissioners consider the agenda topic proposed by Marco Island
Page 223
October 28, 2008
City Manager on behalf of the City Council Joint Workshop requested
that the Board of Commissioners schedule December 4th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #lOF
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FY 09 CONTRACT
BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR OPERATION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEAL TH DEPARTMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $1,445,300 - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is lOF, and that's a
recommendation to approve the FY-'09 contract between Collier
County and the State of Florida Department of Health for operation of
the Collier County Health Department in the amount of$1,445,300.
Ms. Marla Ramsey, your Public Services Administrator, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
Page 224
October 28, 2008
approve staffs recommendation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
MS. RAMSEY: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you've continued item lOG this
morning during the change sheet. Same thing on 12A and 12B.
This brings --
MS. FILSON: You skipped one.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. I skipped one.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
So right now we're at public comments on general topics.
Thanks, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker, Jim Burke.
MR. BURKE: Mr. Chair, my name is Jim Burke. I currently
serve on the -- I'm in my eighth year on the Pelican Bay Service
Division Board of Directors, and my second year on the county
Coastal Advisory Committee. Both of those I serve because you
appointed me.
Page 225
October 28, 2008
I'm also running for the North Naples Fire District Commission
Board, and the race I'm in -- I'm opposed. And in response to an
inquiry from someone or somebody in Pelican Bay, the County
Attorney's Office looked into the ordinance that would govern my
situation, and they contacted that if Mr. Burke were running
unopposed, there would not be a potential conflict; however, due to
this position and based on the above ordinance, Mr. Burke is deemed
to have resigned from both the service division and the CAe.
So -- and they notified me of that, and it kind of stirred up my
interest because I said to myself, if that's the case, why did I do this or
why didn't I know it?
So I went back to April of '07 when I made an inquiry about
running for an elective office, and was told in a letter from the County
Attorney's Office that section 5E of ordinance number 2001-55, as
amended, governs Collier County advisory boards.
It reads -- and let me just read the first sentence. Quote, no
member of any county board shall become a candidate for an elective
political office and continue to serve on such board during his or her
candidacy unless such board member candidate is running unopposed
for a non-remunerative elected position or, or, an elected position
receiving nominal remuneration such as the Mosquito Control District
Board or a fire district board.
So the County Attorney concluded that a review of this provision
indicates that the Pelican Bay Service Division Board is required to
advise the Board of County Commissioners in writing of a tender of
resignation if three conditions are met.
One, any of its board members runs for an elected political
office; two, the board member is running opposed; and three, the
compensation for the elective political office is not nominal.
Well, mine's 6,000 a year. It's nominal. It was defined as
nominal in the ordinance. So I had concluded a year ago that I could
run even if I ran opposed. I was also -- I've also been told by the
Page 226
October 28, 2008
County Attorney that the day after -- based on their opinion, the day
after the election, win or lose, I can re-apply for the two boards.
So I just wanted to go on the public record that my understanding
was entirely different than the opinion I was just given.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I ask you a question?
MR. BURKE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not going to receive the health
packet that offered (sic) North Naples fire commissioners?
MR. BURKE: Pardon me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The healthcare packet, you're not
going to take that?
MR. BURKE: I don't know anything about it. I'm not running
for the salary or health packets.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think that's where you get into
the nominal thing.
MR. BURKE: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not going to receive it?
MR. BURKE: No. But I was told that it's in here that the fire
district board is nominal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think that's before the
understanding when they were given a 500 salary, $500 a month, but
now, you know -- that was then, but now what they're doing is giving
them all health insurance policies. It's comparable to, you know, the
staff and administration, which is a heck of a good deal.
So I was just --
MR. BURKE: Yeah. The reason for my answer to you is, I
haven't even inquired about any of that. It's not why I'm doing it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta and
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I'll let Commissioner
Halas go first. That's his commission district.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
Page 227
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are there any other races where
people are serving on boards and are being contested? Do we know
any more other ones?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure, yeah, by all means.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mosquito Control.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There's -- it's contested.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's being contested and Linda
Hartman, who serves on Mosquito Control, is also a member of the
Avatar Land Trust.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think so anymore.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Maybe I got that wrong. I
thought for sure she was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there anybody out in
Immokalee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, the whole thing
started, if! may, with Ski Olesky who came before us. And at that
point in time, I didn't realize he was running unopposed or even that
part was in there. But we brought that up and this commission hashed
it out, and we allowed him to continue with his position on the fire
department. The fire department still serves us (sic) on parks and rec.
and on the Tourist Development Board.
I don't know. I guess the definition of nominal is -- has to be
discussed by that group. I mean, I think it's absolutely wonderful we
get people that are willing to serve on our voluntary boards. And I
don't see where it's a tremendous asset for a person running for public
office. I mean, to have to drop off to come back on again and be
willing to do that is remarkable in itself, and I appreciate the fact that
you're here today to bring it to our attention.
I would like to define this as nominal and just be done with it.
You haven't resigned yet?
Page 228
October 28, 2008
MR. BURKE: No. I didn't know I had to til I received this. But
I think it was explained to me that the very fact that I was running
opposed is a resignation, but --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Define nominal, Jeff, please.
MS. FILSON: Linda Hartman serves on the Golden Gate Estates
Land Trust Committee and the East of951 Horizon Master Planning
Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And she wasn't asked to resign
either one?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But theoretically she would have to
resign, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: She didn't get paid for either
one. So I guess that would be -- well, wait. The only thing she was
running for was Mosquito Control. She does get paid for it.
MR. BURKE: Yeah. The ordinance defines the fire district as
nominal, but I wasn't aware of an insurance package, so I -- but that __
MR. KLATZKOW: What was the ordinance number, sir?
MR. BURKE: Ordinance 2001-55.
MS. FILSON: As amended.
MR. BURKE: As amended.
MS. FILSON: It's -- I'll look it up for you.
MR. KLATZKOW: What the ordinance says is that no member
of a county board can become a candidate for an elected position,
continue to serve on the board during the candidacy unless they're
running unopposed for a non-remunerative elected position. This is a
remunerative position.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now, if we want to amend this ordinance,
I'm fine with that. It's just the board's ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to see it amended. I
want to try to encourage people to stay connected as much as possible.
MR. MUDD: Well, I think when the -- I wasn't here when the
Page 229
October 28,2008
ordinance was done. Maybe I was. The intent of the ordinance was to
make sure that somebody that's on one of your committees doesn't use
your committee, okay, as a pulpit, okay, to basically run for an
election for a different office that's outside of that particular
committee. And that was the intent of the ordinance at the time that it
was drafted.
Now, the verbiage that finally came out -- but I can tell you the
intent was, is to keep -- and just -- is to keep the business of the
advisory board or the committee that way and leave politics outside
during the election season.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think also it was so that you
don't use these different committees on your resume or your political
literature to further your cause.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So ifMr. Burke has to resign, then
obviously there's some other ones that have to resign. But then the
day after the election, can they then submit their application to get
back on this board?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It wasn't that long ago that -- I believe
his name was Mr. Lefevbre on your Code Enforcement Board, he ran
for state legislature.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: Didn't get elected. He had resigned from
the Code Enforcement Board and he came back, was appointed back
to the Code Enforcement Board thereafter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we're going to uphold it, then
the other people that are running opposed, then they have to also
relinquish their assignments to their committees?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. BURKE: Just for the public record -- and I'll close this out
-- I would have resigned except this April 17th, two oh seven,
Page 230
October 28, 2008
indicated to me that I didn't have to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Nobody's, you know, pointing
a finger at you, Mr. Burke.
MR. BURKE: Okay. I realize that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would encourage all the
commissioners to be careful and not underestimate the damage that
can be done by people who want to get on committees just to show
their face on television so they can run for office.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've had them in this room time
after time after time that would come here with insignificant issues
just so they can talk on television for a while. I've seen the process
abused, and that's exactly what these ordinances are designed to
prohibit, and I -- for someone like Mr. Burke, I think it is unfortunate
that he cannot continue to serve, but there are many people, Mr.
Burke, who don't have your same level of professionalism --
MR. BURKE: I realize that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and respect for the offices, and
I'm afraid that the ordinance is important, and hopefully the
inconvenience will be -- will not be so great it will discourage you
from continuing to serve.
MR. BURKE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One last note. We can't leave
this thing right where it is. We need to direct Sue Filson to make a
quick inquiry as to who's running for office and serving on boards to
let them know that the way the present law is set up that they are __
they have to -- their resignation has been accepted, but also, too, that
we hope that they'll reapply for that position after November 4th.
Page 23 1
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't have much time, do they.
MS. FILSON: I probably won't even advertise it until after
November 4th.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But -- I mean -- okay. So in
other words -- but, I mean, still, some sort of notification has to get out
to these people so they know and they don't continue to attend the
meetings because --
MS. FILSON: I'll go on the website tomorrow and check out
everyone who's registered.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd hate to think that all of a
sudden their votes and everything wouldn't count going back some
period of time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, okay. That's a great
suggestion. Now I think we're in County Attorney's --
MR. MUDD: County Attorney, both those items have been
continued until the 18th of November, and that you voted on this
morning when we had the change sheet.
Item #14A
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) TO REJECT
THE W ACHOVIA BANK BID #07-4177 FOR A $9,000,000 LINE
OF CREDIT; TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE BA YSHORE
GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO
COORDINATE WITH ALL APPROPRIATE ENTITIES TO
SECURE AND STRUCTURE A NEW LOAN FROM A
COMMERCIAL LENDER SELECTED VIA RFP TO PURCHASE
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BA YSHORE
GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE REAL ESTATE
CONTRACTS IN THE CRA AREA AND RETURN TO THE CRA
Page 232
October 28, 2008
BOARD FOR APPROVAL - APPROVED
That brings us to paragraph 14, 14A. It's a recommendation for
the Board of County Commissioners Redevelopment Agency to reject
the Wachovia Bank bid number 07-4177 for a $9 million credit to give
direction to the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director
to coordinate with all appropriate entities to secure and structure a new
loan from a commercial lender selected via RFP to purchase certain
real property within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA; to
authorize the executive director to negotiate real estate contracts in the
CRA area and return to the CRA Board for approval.
Mr. David Jackson, your executive director of the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA, will present.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
approve staffs recommendations, 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.
MR. MUDD: Doing really good, David.
Item #14B
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FY2008 ANNUAL
Page 233
October 28, 2008
PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REVIEW FOR THE BA YSHORE
GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE CRA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-
APPROVED
Brings us to 14B. It is a Community Redevelopment Agency,
FY-2008 annual performance appraisal review for the Bayshore
Gateway Triangle CRA Executive Director.
In this particular item, he put it on the consent agenda and I
pulled it on the regular agenda. He's basically saying that the COLA
the board is going to give is sufficient and he's not asking for any kind
of merit raise because of the financial situation in the budget
reductions that we've basically done. But I did want to give this board
an opportunity to at least tell him what a good job he did last year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, please forgive -- I
had such low scores, but it wasn't really low scores. I thought you
were doing outstanding, I just don't grade very high. And so please
forgive me. It wasn't you.
I want to tell you, you've done an outstanding job, and better than
we could have ever hoped for, and I appreciate all of the help that
you've given to the Immokalee CRA as well. You've helped then,
guided me. Penny has said that she's really depended on you to help
her through this learning phase.
Everything that you've done -- David, I don't have an objection or
a complaint about anything, and I think that all you've asked for is
COLA. But, boy, we sure owe you a lot more. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. I don't know why she
didn't rate you higher. She rates -- most of her other ratings that she
does on people are a lot higher than that. I think what she did, she got
three and one mixed up. She didn't know which was the highest.
But nevertheless, you do a good job. We've struggled with that
Page 234
October 28, 2008
redevelopment for a long, long time, and it has been so much better
since you've come aboard, and we appreciate your efforts, and we
hope you keep at it.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And thank you for the good words.
The only thing I would like to do is invite each of the commissioners
to come down to the area and take a tour. We've only had one
commissioner come down and visit with us. I think it's worth your
time to put --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I go to Del's all the time.
MR. JACKSON: Stop in the office, sir. We'd like to talk to you.
But you're more than welcome to. The area is improving, and it is
going to get a lot better. And now with the approval of the previous
item, we'll be coming back to you with some more items to talk about
with board discussion, so it looks like things are going to be getting
better here shortly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And now, where is that place
you're talking about?
MR. JACKSON: We've -- the new office that we've located in is
on 4069 Bayshore Drive. It's just north of the East Naples Fire Station
on Bayshore Drive and almost diagonal from Windstar and Morehead
Manor. Those two residential projects that were across the street.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So anybody who wants to find out
what's happening in the Bayshore area or the mini-triangle area should
stop in there and talk with you.
MR. JACKSON: They do all the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or call Donna Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'd rather them to get accurate
information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Buddy. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve the
recommendation by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner
Page 235
October 28, 2008
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: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Before you go, Mr. Jackson.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't know why -- personally why
we're grading you. I think -- I mean, I had to really stretch to
understand and -- what's going on down there. I don't have time to do
that. And we don't do it for the airport director, who is under contract.
We don't do it for the CRA director for Immokalee. I don't want to
have to grade it anymore. I just want to see what my other colleagues
think.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Good point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why -- you know, there's a
couple ways of handling that. One is to let the commissioner in the
district grade him, and that would mean that Commissioner Coletta
would do the grading for the Immokalee CRA.
But it is good, I think, for the employee to get some feedback and
to determine how he or she is doing. But I also understand the
difficulty; if there are commissioners who don't have a CRA in their
district, they don't have an opportunity to participate to a large degree.
How do they have a basis for evaluating except for just the few times
you come and appear before us?
I think everybody here is happy with what you've done, but how
Page 236
October 28, 2008
many of us could really say -- could really recite all of the
accomplishments that you've had over the time you've been here?
So Commissioner Henning's concerns, I think, are well-founded.
But if you wanted to have Commissioner Fiala and I do this, I mean,
she's been involved in this area for such a long time, before I was, and
she's stayed active in it, and I have no problem with that either.
But it is in my district, and I think if we're going to do the
evaluating and if the other commissioners feel that they don't have the
time or the information to do it, I think the two of us could do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. And I think what we would
want to really do is hear from the advisory committee who works with
them all the time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. Get their recommendations.
That's important.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I -- just to task the County Attorney
to take a look at those agreements and see if we can do that. Ifthere's
-- ifthere's a problem or ifthere's something that we need to
memorialize through a resolution, let's go ahead and do that, the
commissioner of the district, to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA; There's actually two of us, because
I've got the triangle. He's got Bayshore, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Commissioner Henning, could
I ask a question about that? Now, we -- I'm not suggesting that the
board delegate responsibility to Commissioner Fiala and me to adjust
the salary or anything of that nature with respect to Mr. Jackson. That
is a function of the entire board and should be decided by the majority
of the board.
But if we're talking about recurring evaluations and direct
feedback to Mr. Jackson, then I don't have a problem sharing that with
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And Jeff, if you could just
send us an email.
Page 237
October 28, 2008
MR. KLATZKOW: I've just written that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I mean, I sat there with
your -- I went through your evaluation, I think, four times, and
figuring out, how can I give you good feedback, you know, positive or
constructive feedback. It was very difficult.
MR. JACKSON: Correct. When you're not totally involved with
the area and real familiar to it -- I have no problem with
recommendations with the two commissioners that -- whose district I
work inside of. They can work up an evaluation and bring it back to
the board.
And then the -- if there is an annual merit award, if there ever
gets around to that again, the economy does recover, then the board
can approve that based on their recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. JACKSON: It's easily done, and I think I can work with the
County Attorney, and it's a simple amendment, ifneeded.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I say one other thing? Can you
work with the two commissioners and set out some goals for the next
year, maybe two years? I mean, you might have projects even last
longer and kind of lay that out. Maybe you can do a performance
evaluation of that.
MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like the same opportunity to
work with Penny Phillippi, Immokalee CRA, also through their board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And develop a performance
evaluation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, be happy to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I -- I'm sorry. I didn't
mean to interrupt, but may I -- possibly to get some assistance from
Page 238
October 28, 2008
personnel with the county to make sure that we're heading in the right
direction with our evaluation procedure?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can ask the County Manager.
MR. MUDD: No. Well, you've just asked the County Attorney
in a previous issue to take a look at agreements and see if he could
find some way to take a look and ifhe could get some consistency
between the two.
It's always better to have an odd number of people -- and I'm not
talking about odd in a different sense. I'm talking about, you know,
three, five, seven, nine, that kind of odd, to rate somebody, because if
you get one person that has an extreme dislike and then you have
another one that has an extreme like, then you're coming back to the
Board of County Commissioners with, I like this person or I really
don't like this person, now what do you do? And it's always good to
maybe have a third.
So if you're talking about, you have a subcommittee and the
subcommittee, I believe, has a chairman to it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean the advisory board?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, they do.
MR. MUDD: You might want to include that chairperson for
that year as somebody that letter inputs or maybe rates, and this way it
would give you the odd. You'd have three instead of two. I'm not
saying that two commissioners can't do it, but you can't do it talking to
each other. That's my -- that's the particular issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good point.
MR. MUDD: It might be something to think about to add some
consistency.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would mean Commissioner
Fiala would be the odd person.
Page 239
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, you are already odd.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Number one is an odd number.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We say that only because we like
one other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we go into staffs
communications.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, do we have to vote on that or
did we?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, it's just direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Klatzkow's going to come back and--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we vote --
MR. MUDD: Yeah, you voted on that, yes, ma'am. It went 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. I forgot already.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. MUDD: The only thing I have on communications, number
one, based on board direction, as far as the pro forma and things like
that, the marina and Port of the Isles. Staffhas done a good job
collecting that information, and now I'm, in the next week or so, I'm
going to be in negotiations with the owners to try to get an agreement,
something that is within current prices of what's going on out there to
bring something back to the Board of County Commissioners.
The next item is -- I had Mr. Sheffield write you a memo on the
20th of October to talk about impact fee indexing discussions with the
Productivity Committee. I don't know if you had an opportunity to
read that, but I wanted to make sure that you knew about it and to get
some direction from the board.
You've got a requirement in your ordinances that we come back
Page 240
October 28, 2008
on an annual basis, okay, for indexing. You have a committee, very
important committee, oh, by the way, that looks at every fee that you
-- comes in front of the board for updates or whatever, and they're
basically saying, hey, we want to continue and not have the indexing
come to the board until they have an opportunity to examine the
methodology, and we'll get Mr. Tindale and associates down in order
to see that. But that means we're going to be outside of your
ordinance as far as the annual update for indexing, and I just want to
make sure that's okay with the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's okay with me. Is that okay
with you, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
MR. MUDD: I have five nods.
That's all I have, Commissioner. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I don't know whether I
should be bringing this up or not. I don't know if any of the other
commissioners have been approached about this issue. I hope you
have.
You will -- you mayor may not be aware of the fact that some of
the fire districts have expressed concern about Dr. Tober's recent
pronouncement about ALS training and certification. There is the
feeling that they cannot implement his policies without violating the
interlocal agreement that they have with us.
So it's my belief that we need to have a workshop as quickly as
possible to address that issue and to cover things like the way in which
Page 241
October 28, 2008
policies are formulated and disseminated, and in order to do that, we
need to get all of the parties in the same room and talk about this and
see where we're going.
And it is quite separate from the consolidation issue. It has
nothing -- in my mind, nothing to do with consolidation, but it
certainly could reshape some attitudes about the consolidation. It
might either support consolidation or it might detract from
consolidation, but it's something that has to be worked out and we
have to resolve it fairly quickly.
And so I would ask that we set up a workshop very, very soon,
within the next week or so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or 10 days.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wow.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll -- it depends on when it's
scheduled, but through next week is not a problem for me. But I think
that it's an issue.
On the one hand, Dr. Tober feels that there is a safety issue, and
on the other hand, the fire departments feel that there is an issue of
violation of the agreement they have with us. So it's serious enough
for them to be interested in getting together to talk about it. And I
think we ought to make the time available.
I do not believe this is something that should take that long. I'd
be surprised if we couldn't get it out of the way in two to three hours.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ifwe could hone it down to one or
two issues, I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, here's the issue as I
understand it. Dr. Tober feels that the fire department people are not
getting sufficient exposure to advanced life support treatment to
maintain proficiency, and that means that they -- he doesn't -- he feels
uneasy that some of the medications they have, which can cause great
harm if they're improperly administered, some of the medications they
October 28, 2008
have, perhaps, should be withdrawn until such time as they could get
all of the people trained and certified to an acceptable level or,
alternatively, just stop trying to train fire people to advanced level--
advanced life support and have them perform basic life support only,
and that is the issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's other issues that I understood.
They want -- well, the fire districts, at least North Naples, want to
have their people train the paramedics, EMTs, whatever. Is that going
to be on the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's the same thing. And
here's the problem. If you train someone to perform advanced life
support functions and to administer the sophisticated drugs that are
available and they don't have an opportunity to utilize that training
except, perhaps, one or two times a year, they can't maintain the level
of proficiency that you need, that Dr. Tober needs, to feel confident
that they're going to be able to do the job properly.
The Collier County EMS people frequently encounter those
situations, so their proficiency is maintained --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That isn't what I was saying.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. Well, tell me
what you were saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: North Naples feels that they don't
need Dr. Tober to train. They have, you know, for instance, George
Aguilera used to work for EMS that he trained. He did train the
paramedics when he was with Collier County. That is what I'm
talking about. They want their own trainer for that certification.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then let me try to answer
that question. That's a nonstarter, as far as I'm concerned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So that's off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is as far as I'm concerned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It is as far as I'm concerned, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have been very clear with North
Page 243
October 28, 2008
Naples and with George that Bob Tober is the medical director. He
sets the standards of training and care. It is his license under which
we -- they operate, and as far as I am concerned, Bob Tober is going
to remain the medical director. So if somebody wants to sit down and
talk about that, now is the wrong time to talk about that, in my
opmlOn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree with that.
Now, as far as scheduling, we have a two-day AUIR.
MR. MUDD: And I would suggest that we try to schedule it the
second day starting at one o'clock.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That would be the 4th.
MR. MUDD: That would be the 4th, and that's election day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. And it does raise a
problem with the boy at the this end of the dais.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. And I made a commitment
that day, too. I don't know if the AUIR is going to take --
MR. MUDD: No. I don't think your -- your AUIR will take one
day.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Less than a day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. I think -- if we can't
get the AUIR done in five hours, then we're doing something wrong.
MR. MUDD: I will make sure that Mr. Feder is the last one that
presents.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe just give us an executive
summary for his area, we'll read it before we come here, and he won't
even have to attend.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we'll bring a timer for those
who want to speak a little bit long.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we schedule the A --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: She's talking about this guy down
here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
Page 244
October 28, 2008
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- AUIR in the morning, and in the
afternoon the --
MR. MUDD: The workshop, unless --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- the workshop.
MR. MUDD: Let's work the workshop at 2 o'clock just in case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two o'clock.
MR. MUDD: Who do you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What day?
MR. MUDD: Monday.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Monday. Okay. But you've got
other people involved, so you've got to coordinate this.
MR. MUDD: Before I go -- before I go any farther on this one, I
want to know who you're going to workshop with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We want representatives from
every fire -- independent fire department, we want our own EMS
people there --
MR. MUDD: You only have -- you only have agreements with
five fire departments. You have the City of Naples, you have Marco
Island, you have North Naples, you have East Naples, and you have
the Isles of Capri, so you only have five agreements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those are the only people who are
receiving ALS certification and training?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So those are the only people that
we're interested in.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Would you like -- would you like the
invitations to go to the chair of the elected board and/or--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Both.
MR. MUDD: -- the Isles of Capri. You have an appointed
board, and the fire chief.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd said both.
MR. MUDD: Both. You don't want -- I'm trying to -- you want
Page 245
October 28, 2008
their chief and their chair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whoever they want to send, yes.
Well, you can limit it to that, their chief and their chair, as far as I'm
concerned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's elected officials.
MR. MUDD: It's elected officials. I think you go way -- it's
elected to elected. I think you really get yourself in a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The chairman or their designee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you need to have Bob Tober
here because he's involved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: We've got some coordination to work out, and
we'll start working on it right after this meeting if that's the board's
desire.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can assure you that under
public comments, that part of the meeting, you're going to have a lot
more than the chief and the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I don't doubt that, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- elected officials.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We'll put it at the end of the day,
and then if we want to leave, we'll just leave. They can keep talking.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can't leave because you put this
thing together.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I didn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It was your idea.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It was your idea, buddy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can't let (sic) us holding a bag of
candy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're not running out on this one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I can be here.
Page 246
October 28, 2008
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well-- you're not running out on
this one. I'll get a chain and put it to your leg.
MS. FILSON: So Mr. Mudd, are you working on Monday
afternoon?
MR. MUDD: Am I who?
MS. FILSON: Working on Monday afternoon at 2; is that what
you said.
MR. MUDD: Am I working? I'm always working.
MS. FILSON: Working on setting up a workshop.
MR. MUDD: Yes. It's 2 p.m. on the 3rd of November, a
two-hour workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you okay with that,
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. I'll make it work.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I know Commissioner Fiala is
and I am.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I am.
MS. FILSON: So we can take the 4th off the calendars?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's bringing the leg irons for
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, and the timer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any other topic,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, not from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I received a letter from the
Clerk of circuit and the county courts from Miami-Dade, Florida, on
October the 20th, and it was signed by Kay Sullivan, who is the
director of Clerk of board -- board of the division, and it's in support
of our leasing of Alligator Alley, that they are on our page to oppose
Page 247
October 28, 2008
it, to opposed the sale of Alligator Alley.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean we have a Clerk of
Courts who's actually supporting us?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's through their -- it's
through their commission. In fact, it was unanimous. There was two
people that didn't vote aye because they were absent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a good reason.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I just wanted to bring that
forward that we've gained additional support from Miami-Dade and
the Board of County Commissioners there opposing the sale of
Alligator Alley.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I get a copy of that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You can have this copy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's public record, your public records.
Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The board asked me to talk to the
chairman in Lee County about the situation, political situation,
whatever, with Fort Myers Beach. I did not get the opportunity to do
that. I did talk to Commissioner Jaynes, and he says, you know, it's a
-- you know, they don't have a problem with it, from what he
understands. It's an issue that they take too long to get the permits or
it costs too much.
Being the fact of the discussion on the earmark of -- the Coconut
Road earmark, I think it would be very difficult at this time to
communicate with other commissioners in Lee County. So that kind
of answers the question about that issue. Right? That's all I got.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I watched your program the other
day, the Jeff Lytle Show--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I didn't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and he mentioned on there Port of
Page 248
October 28, 2008
the Islands and Manatee Park, and I was thinking about that after that,
I thought about it a lot, and I thought, you know, one of the things that
we're trying to do is we want -- we definitely want to buy Port of the
Islands, and we do not -- you said it beautifully -- we don't want to
lose this opportunity to have a marina like that. This is a great
opportunity. We're trying to find out how to fund it.
My suggestion would be, instead of negating the Manatee Park,
we're talking -- we've put money aside for Goodland. They already
have -- on that tiny little island, they already have two full-blown
marinas that store 400 boats in the one place, and I'm going to say --
and we're just enlarging 951. We've got the money there, and we're
enlarging Bayview Park. So we're working on all those things.
Why not take that money from Goodland and buy Port of the
Islands and let us go forward with Manatee Park? I mean, as long as
-- we're building for the future now. Do we really need that -- the park
in Goodland for --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even more than --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even more than Port of the Islands?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're going to need all these
facilities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't need Manatee Park.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know -- yeah, we do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you put a boat ramp in
there?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can we just hold this conversation
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: -- until I have negotiations and finish them up,
okay, instead of offering up more money than I'm willing to offer?
Page 249
October 28, 2008
And I promise I will come back to you with whatever they can agree
to, and I will give you several funding options, of which -- none of
which you just talked about are even on the table, okay, and we can
pay cash for it.
So bear with me and I will talk to you outside of this thing. But
let's not do this any more -- and I've got to have some kind of
negotiating tool, and you're basically putting more money the table
than I'm willing to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I didn't -- I didn't state any
figures. I was just worried about losing the park that we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Won't happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you know, we don't have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the Goodland Park?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hmm?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the Goodland Park?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, we're going to do that yet.
You're going to just -- you're going to move forward with that. But if
that's two years down the road rather than this year, to move -- it's just
two years down. We've still got all the other stuff coming on line.
Can't we put that off two years instead of putting off Manatee for two
years?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, there is. I also want to talk
about landscaping. We've all been getting lots of letters about the
landscaping -- landscaping medians and the lack of it. And I just
wanted to talk a little bit about the MSTU that we put in place -- what
is that, 111 -- for the landscaping and the maintenance of the
landscaping, and I'm wondering where that went.
And I'm concerned about that, yes. All of our districts have been
talking about that, and I just want to see what's happening with that.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the part of Norm Feder's recitation in the
AUIR on the 3rd of November, he is going to talk about that
Page 250
"~-,_._,.--_...__.- _."._~_..
October 28, 2008
landscaping issue. You basically told us to do that, and my
recommendation was to do the AUIR, and that's where we're going to
do it at. That's why I'll hold Norman till the end, and this way you'll
be able to get all those discussions and we'll be able to knock the other
ones out, because there is a contentious issue, ma'am, that's there, and
that has to do with your landscaping program.
Did I answer your question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not really, but that's okay. We'll
wait till the AUIR and we'll hear about it. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree. That doesn't address it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. Two things.
First, I think we need to put Commissioner Coyle on decaf coffee
during these meetings.
Number two, I mentioned before and you suggested bringing it
back under comments, is impact fees. At a poi,nt in time, you know,
when our situation in Collier County, throughout the United States, I
guess the world, economic conditions have been deteriorating.
Weare going to go through a recession. I have no doubts about
that. And there is going to be a time of recovery. At the time of
recovery, I think we need to have in place something that will be an
alternative to present-day impact fee schedule that we have set up.
There's going to be adjustments made, I have no doubts about it,
when we get into the AUIR and we find that our needs are being
pushed off into the future, some of our costs will come down. But
still, it's not going to be a substantial amount of money.
And on the other hand, we're not going to take and undermine
impact fees yet -- when it comes down to making a choice between the
impact fees or ad valorem.
What I'm proposing is that I'm going to be looking independently
with a number of people that have the same interests at another
mechanism to be able to collect impact fees and be able to collect
Page 251
October 28,2008
them upfront. You'd have a choice between collecting them the
traditional way where you pay them at the time of permitting, or the
second way would be to have it bonded out, something like a
community development bond. It would stay with the land and be
paid yearly and, of course, there would be a finance charge that would
be charged by whatever agency is willing to put the money up.
And I'm going to be pursuing that with a number of people, and
sometime in the future I'd be bringing you forward with a report of
what I found. That's it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I think your idea will work,
Commissioner Coletta, in certain areas, like the special districts or
even in the fringe. Some of those big properties would work, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And not only that, but it would
enable us to, when we start the recovery, to be able to move a little bit
faster and be a little more competitive with the rest of the world.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion made.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
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?
Page 252
October 28, 2008
(No response.)
****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF VERONA WALK MODEL
CENTER REPLA T - DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item # 16A2
A SETTLEMENT OFFER, PROVIDING FOR RELEASE OF A
CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN AND DISMISSAL OF A PENDING
APPEAL, IN RELATION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
CASE, COLLIER COUNTY V. DONALD E. GRAY, CEB NO.
2004-005, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 267 3RD STREET
WEST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - SETTLEMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $6,000
Item # 16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITIES FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 4 UNIT 2 -
W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item #16A4
Page 253
October 28, 2008
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 5 UNIT 1 -
W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITY FOR FIDDLER'S CREEK, PHASE 4 UNIT 1 -
W /RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
(UPS)
Item # 16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR VERONAWALK, PHASE 3B - W/RELEASE
OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item #16A7
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR VERONA WALK SOUTH
ENTRANCE WATER MAIN EXTENSION - W/RELEASE OF
ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Item # 16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER
FACILITIES FOR WILDFLOWER WAY-LELYHIGH SCHOOL
BOULEVARD - W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES
PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS)
Page 254
October 28, 2008
Item # 16A9
REOLUTION 2008-309: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLERS CREEK P ARKW A Y EXTENSION,
PHASE THREE WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED-
W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A10
RESOLUTION 2008-310: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE) AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE FOUR,
UNIT ONE. THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED BY
THE FIDDLERS CREEK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT - W /RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A11
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE RELATIVE TO
SAPPHIRE LAKES UNIT 3C - REGARDING UNFINISHED
IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE MAINTENANCE RELATED
Item #16A12
STAFF DIRECTION RELATED TO A PROPOSED
ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT VEHICLE BETWEEN THE
COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP), ALLOWING FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF CONVEYANCE BONUS CREDIT
Page 255
October 28, 2008
APPLICATIONS SPECIFIED BY THE RURAL FRINGE MIXED-
USE SUB-DISTRICT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SECTION
2.03.08 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (NAPLES
RESERVE) - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 2008-311: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
DIVISION ASSISTANCE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS BY
PROVIDING, WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT, USE OF THE
VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS (VMS) ALERTING MOTORISTS
TO CRIME PREVENTION MEASURES - TO PROVIDE
MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC (MOT) INFORMATION TO
MOTORISTS APPROACHING AND WITHIN WORK ZONES
Item #16B2
CHANGE ORDER NO.2 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
AGREEMENT NO. 05-3865 IN THE AMOUNT OF $278,420
WITH CH2MHILL, INC., FOR THE DESIGN OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL, PROJECT
NO. 68056 - TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ACCESS
MANAGEMENT, DRAINAGE AND PERMITTING
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2008-312: A JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT
WITH FDOT PROVIDING FOR A COORDINATED ARTERIAL
TRAFFIC SIGNAL RETIMING PROJECT - COST IS
Page 256
October 28, 2008
PROGRAMMED AT A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $300,000
Item # 16B4
THE OCTOBER 2008 COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
DISADV ANT AGED SERVICE PLAN MAJOR UPDATE - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B5
RECOGNIZING THE REVENUE RECEIVED FOR FY09 OF A
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM A WARD IN THE AMOUNT OF
$95,175.00 AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT - FOR THE
OPERATION OF INCREASED FREQUENCY ON CAT'S RED
ROUTE 1, WHICH RUNS IN A LOOP ON US 41 AND AIRPORT
ROAD FROM THE GOVERNMENT CENTER TO THE NAPLES
COMMINUTY HOSPITAL ON IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16B6
THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED SHIRLEY
CONROY RURAL AREA CAPITAL ASSISTANCE SUPPORT
GRANT AGREEMENT FM#41065618401 FOR A TOTAL
PROJECT COST OF $66,000.00 AND ALL NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO PURCHASE A PARA TRANSIT
VEHICLE - TO REPLACE A HIGH MILEAGE VEHICLE
Item #16B7
FY08 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $204,395.00; THE
TRANSFERING OF $61,160.00 IN CURRENTLY BUDGETED
Page 257
October 28, 2008
GRANT DOLLARS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED FUND (427) TO COLLIER AREA TRANSIT
FUND (426) AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
- FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN NON-URBANIZED
AREAS (IMMOKALEE CIRCULAR ROUTE 8A & ROUTE 8B)
Item #16B8
A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SEPTEMBER 27,2005,
AGREEMENT (THE AGREEMENT) ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
MCDONALD TRANSIT ASSOCIATES, INC. AND COLLIER
COUNTY, PROVIDING FOR CONSOLIDATED MANAGEMENT
FOR THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT AND PARATRANSIT
SYSTEMS, AMENDING THE AGREEMENT TO INCORPORATE
NEW COMPENSATION RATES FOR THE FINAL TWO YEARS
OF THE AGREEMENT THAT WERE NEGOTIATED DURING
MEDIATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON OCTOBER 7,2008-
AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2008-313: SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL
FOR 1992,1993,1994, AND 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. FISCAL
IMPACT IS $58.50 TO RECORD THE SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN
Item # 16C2
FIL TERONE USA AS THE SOLE SOURCE AUTHORIZED
PARKS ON SERVICE CENTER IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AS
Page 258
October 28, 2008
AFFIRMED BY P ARKSON CORPORATION AND REQUISITION
NO. 10134495 IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,795.00 TO FILTERONE
USA, LLC, FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF THE P ARKS ON
AQUA GUARD SCREEN AT SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECT 73969 - TO MAINTAIN
COMPLIANCE WITH FDEP PERMIT CONDITIONS,
ESPECIALL Y DURING HEAVY RAIN AND/OR STORM
EVENTS
Item # 16C3
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2009
WATER DEPARTMENT BUDGET TO CORRECT A
BUDGETING ERROR. THIS CORRECTION INCREASES
PERSONAL SERVICES BY $131,038 TO FUND TWO
PREVIOUSLY EXISTING WATER/SEWER FUND 408
POSITIONS
Item #16D1
A SOLE SOURCE AGREEMENT FOR OFFICIATING SERVICES
WITH COLLIER RECREATION BASEBALL/SOFTBALL
UMPIRES ASSOCIATION (CRBSUA) FOR OFFICIALS FOR
ADUL T SOFTBALL GAMES, WITH AN ANTICIPATED FISCAL
YEAR 2009 EXPENDITURE OF $60,000 - FOR A 3 YEAR TERM
WITH THE OPTION OF A ONE (1) YEAR RENEWAL WITH AN
INCREMENTAL RATE INCREASE
Item # 16D2
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT AT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
Page 259
October 28, 2008
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
71, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D3
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
72, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item # 16D4
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT AT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
73, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D5
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
74, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Page 260
October 28, 2008
Item # 16D6
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
75, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item # 16D7
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
76, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D8
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
77, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item # 16D9
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
Page 261
October 28, 2008
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
78, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D10
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
79, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D11
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
80, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D12
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
81, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Page 262
October 28, 2008
Item #16D13
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH HABIT A T FOR HUMANITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY, INC. (DEVELOPER) FOR DEFERRAL OF
100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR AN OWNER-
OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT
82, TRAIL RIDGE, EAST NAPLES - IMP ACT FEE DEFERRAL
IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,325.96
Item #16D14
A FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION (FWC), BOATING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(FBIP) GRANT AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. 08064 FOR A
RECREATIONAL BOATING CHARACTERIZATION STUDY TO
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT THAT
WILL PROVIDE GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000
- TO HELP ADDRESS SEVERAL BOATING ISSUES; SUCH AS
ACCESS POINTS, ACCESS HOT SPOTS, PROTECTION
MEASURES, USER CONFLICTS AND EDUCATIONAL
PROGRAMS
Item #16D15
THE ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED
PICTURING AMERICA GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES FOR A
COLLECTION OF HISTORICAL REPRODUCTION POSTERS
TO BE PLACED ON DISPLAY IN THE ESTATES BRANCH
LIBRARY IN THE AMOUNT OF $0 - ON DISPLAY FOR THE
2009-2010 SCHOOL YEAR
Page 263
October 28, 2008
Item #16D16
ACCEPTING THE HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
SPECIAL CONGRESSIONAL INITIATIVE EARMARK FROM
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $323,911 AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING THE
REVENUE - FOR THE COMMUNITY-BASED REFERRAL
NETWORK THAT COORDINATES VOLUNTEER MEDICAL
CARE FOR ELIGIBLE LOW-INCOME, UNINSURED ADULTS
Item #16D17
A SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY09,
INCLUDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS
APPROVED, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED
AND THE BALANCE REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL
DEFERRALS IN FY09
Item #16D18
BID #08-5115 "RESURFACING OF PARKING LOTS FOR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT" IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT
OF $55,437.50 AND AWARD CONTRACT TO BQ CONCRETE-
AT BAREFOOT BEACH AND TIGERTAIL PARK ON MARCO
ISLAND
Item #16D19
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A
$78,632.00 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
Page 264
October 28, 2008
GRANT TO THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN AND
CHILDREN TO FUND THE GENTLEMEN AGAINST
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM - TO EDUCATE YOUNG
MEN AND BOYS ON THE EFFECTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENC
Item #16D20
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A
$24,916.00 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
GRANT TO THE HUNGER AND HOMELESS COALITION
(HHC) SUPPORTING THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEM (HMIS) - TO PAY FOR EQUIPMENT,
SOFTWARE, SERVICES, PERSONNEL SALARIES AND
BENEFITS, UTILITIES, RENT, TRAVEL AND EDUCATIONAL
EXPENSES
Item #16D21
A SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A
$28,000.00 STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM (SHIP)
GRANT TO THE EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE CORPORATION
OF SW FLORIDA (EASF), PROVIDING HOMEBUYER
EDUCATION COUNSELING AND FORECLOSURE
PREVENTION COUNSELING TO BENEFIT PERSONS
EARNING LESS THAN 120% OF F AMIL Y MEDIAN INCOME
OF COLLIER COUNTY - TO ASSIST CLIENTS WITH CREDIT
COUNSELING, FORECLOSURE PREVENTION COUNSELING,
DEVELOPING A PERSONAL BUDGET AND ASSIST THEM
WITH WORKING WITH THEIR LENDER
Item # 16D22
Page 265
October 28, 2008
SUB RECIPIENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $35,000
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PROGRAM (SHIP) GRANT TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (CCHDC), PROVIDING HOMEBUYER
EDUCA TION COUNSELING AND FORECLOSURE
PREVENTION COUNSELING TO BENEFIT PERSONS
EARNING LESS THAN 120% OF F AMIL Y MEDIAN INCOME
OF COLLIER COUNTY - TO ASSIST CLIENTS WITH CREDIT
COUNSELING, FORECLOSURE PREVENTION COUNSELING,
DEVELOPING A PERSONAL BUDGET AND ASSIST THEM
WITH WORKING WITH THEIR LENDER
Item #16D23
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE AREA AGENCY ON
AGING OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND A BUDGET
AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING GRANT REVENUE IN THE
AMOUNT OF $43,255.32 FOR THE NUTRITION SERVICES
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (NSIP) - TO ASSIST TWO
CONGREGATE MEALS SITES: EAST NAPLES COMMUNITY
CENTER AND THE ROBERTS CENTER IN IMMOKALEE
Item #16D24
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $398,238 IN
REVENUE FROM THE PRE-PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
EXPENSES FOR SHARED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE CHILDRENS MUSEUM OF NAPLES
- FOR LEASING 2 ACRES LOCATED AT NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK FOR $100.00 ANNUALLY
Page 266
October 28, 2008
Item #16D25
A FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION (FWC), FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (FBIP) GRANT AGREEMENT (CONTRACT NO.
08079) FOR BA YVIEW PARK BOAT ACCESS FACILITY FOR
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT THAT
WILL PROVIDE GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000
AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT - ONCE
IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETE THE BOAT RAMP WILL
BE DEDICATED FOR A MINIMUM OF 20 YEARS AS A SITE
FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC
Item #16D26
A LIEN AGREEMENT WITH JUAN BARRERA (OWNER) FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT
LOCATED AT LOT 121, BLOCK D, ARROWHEAD RESERVE
AT LAKE TRAFFORD-PHASE TWO, IMMOKALEE - IMPACT
FEE DEFERRAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,413.05
Item #16E1
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT UNDER CONTRACT NO. 08-
5019, FIRES SPRINKLER ALARM TEST, INSPECTION,
MAINTENANCE AND INST ALLA TION FROM BUILDING
SYSTEMS EVALUATION, INC. DBA FIRE SPRINKLER
SYSTEMS COMPANY DBA BSE BY CINTAS CORPORATION
NO.2 - DUE TO THE PURCHASE OF BUILDING SYSTEMS
EVALUATION, INC. BY CINTAS CORPORATION
Page 267
October 28, 2008
Item # 16E2
AN INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE WINCHESTER
HEAD MUL TI-P ARCEL PROJECT UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM-
FOR 158.67 ACRES LOCATED IN NORTH GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES BETWEEN 35TH AND 41sT AVENUE N.E.
Item # 16E3
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH GLENDA
S. BEARDSLEY FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18,700 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item # 16E4
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JAMES
A. BLAKE FOR 2.73 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $44,600 - LOCATED WITHIN THE RED MAPLE
SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E5
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH FRANK
1. CELSNAK AND MARLENE 1. CELSNAK, AS TRUSTEES OF
THE FRANK J. CELSNAK & MARLENE J. CELSNAK TRUST
UNDER AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 27, 1991 FOR 1.59
ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
Page 268
October 28, 2008
ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$26,000 - LOCATED WITHIN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP
PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item # 16E6
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JORGE
FLORES FOR 4.32 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $69,800 - LOCATED WITHIN THE RED MAPLE
SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E7
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ALLAN
JONES AND PATRICIA JONES FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $36,800 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item # 16E8
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH ALLAN
JONES AND PATRICIA JONES FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $30,000 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE WINCHESTER HEAD PROJECT, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 65
Item #16E9
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
Page 269
October 28, 2008
WARREN N. KISSINGER, JR. FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSER V A TION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $26,000 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E10
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
MIGDALIA ROSILLO FOR 5.0 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $80,300 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E11
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
KATHLEEN SHECKLER FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $36,800 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E12
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MIL TON
T. SHRYOCK FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $18,700 - LOCATED WITHIN THE RED MAPLE
SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53
Page 270
October 28, 2008
Item #16E13
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH FRANK
G. NERI AND MARIA NERI FOR 4.48 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $71,900 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E14
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH
BETHANY JACKSON VONDRAN, FORMERLY KNOWN AS
BETHANY A. JACKSON, AMY S. JACKSON, KAREN RING,
FORMERL Y KNOWN AS KAREN E. TEO, DAVID P. JACKSON,
KATHERINE E. EZIS AND JENNA EZIS KING, FORMERLY
KNOWN AS JENNA 1. EZIS FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $26,000 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E15
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JOHN M.
LESS AND LARRY P. LESS FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $18,700 - LOCATED WITHIN
THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E16
Page 271
October 28, 2008
AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JORGE
A. TOLEDO FOR 3.49 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $56,100 - LOCATED WITHIN THE RED MAPLE
SWAMP PRESERVE, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 53
Item #16E17
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY HEALTH
PARTNERS, INC. MANAGED CARE SERVICES AGREEMENT
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2008 PROVIDING ADVOCACY
SERVICES TO THE WELLNESS BASED INCENTIVES
PROGRAM - AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $344,353.92,
BASED UPON AN A VERAGE ENROLLMENT OF 2,200
EMPLOYEES
Item #16E18
WAIVING FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVING THE
SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF AN AUGER MONSTER
SYSTEM FOR THE NAPLES JAIL FROM JWC
ENVIRONMENTAL C/O HEYWARD INCORPORA TED AT A
COST OF $98,856 - TO SHRED BLANKETS, CLOTHES,
PILLOWS AND SHOES COMING INTO THE JAIL THAT ARE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
Item #16E19
A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH QUEST DIAGNOSTICS,
INC. EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009, PROVIDING ONSITE
BIOMETRIC AND LABORATORY TESTING SERVICES IN
Page 272
October 28, 2008
SUPPORT OF THE WELLNESS BASED INCENTIVES
PROGRAM - FOR EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN
VARIOUS WELLNESS RELATED ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT
ILLNESS AND MANAGE CHRONIC DISEASE
Item #16E20
AN INTERIM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE FREITAS
PROPERTY UNDER THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND
ACQUISITION PROGRAM - FOR 2.27 ACRES LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF 62ND AVE NE IN GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES
Item #16E21
AN AGREEMENT WITH CS STARS, INC. FOR THE LEASE OF
RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS SOFTWARE
SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,060 ANNUALLY - AS
DETAILED IN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16E22
AN AMENDMENT TO THE MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE
AGREEMENT TO ADD TELEPHONY INTEGRATION
LICENSING FOR $72,680.76 - ADDITIONAL LICENSING
REQUIRED FROM MICROSOFT THAT IS NEEDED TO
ACTIVATE NEW FEATURES
Item # 16E23
A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THOUSAND AND NO/lOO DOLLARS ($150,000.00) FROM THE
GAC LAND TRUST TO THE ALL KIDS PLAY FOUNDATION
Page 273
October 28, 2008
OF CORKSCREW COMMUNITY FOR THE PURCHASE OF
EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TO F ACILIT A TE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BOUNDLESS PLAYGROUND TO BE
LOCATED AT BIG CORKSCREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
AND SERVING THE RESIDENTS OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item # 16E24
TWO FLORIDA DIVISION OF FORESTRY (DOF)
AGREEMENTS FOR CONDUCTING CONTROLLED BURNING
AND SITE PREPARATION ON THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER NANCY PAYTON PRESERVE - TO MITIGATE THE
RISK OF HOMES AND PROPERTY BEING DAMAGED OR
DESTROYED BY WILDFIRE
Item #16E25
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE FOURTH
QUARTER OF FY 08
Item #16F1
RESOLUTION 2008-314: A FLORIDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION, GRANT
DISTRIBUTION FORM AND RESOLUTION FOR THE
FUNDING OF THE EMS PORTION OF THE EMS/FIRE
CONSOLIDATION STUDY, TRAINING AND
MEDICAL/RESCUE EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES IN THE
AMOUNT OF $170,111.00 AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT
Page 274
October 28, 2008
Item # 16F2
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACCEPTING $101,573 FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT - FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE AS A
RESUL T OF $2.00 SURCHARGE FOR EACH RESIDENTIAL
INSURANCE POLICY AND $4.00 FOR EACH BUSINESS
INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED IN FLORIDA
Item #16F3
THE PROPOSED TOURISM STRATEGIC PLAN FOR FISCAL
YEAR 09 - TO PROMOTE COLLIER COUNTY AS A TOURISM
DESTINATION .
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2008-315: A RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item #16G1
AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EP A)
COMMUNITY - WIDE BROWNFIELDS ASSESSMENT GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $650,000 TO CONDUCT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENTS IN ECONOMICALLY
DISTRESSED AREAS WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY CRA
BOUNDARIES; AND AUTHORIZING THE CRA CHAIRMAN
Page 275
October 28, 2008
TO SIGN A SUPPORT LETTER AS A PARTNER IN THE
COLLIER COUNTY BROWNFIELDS COALITION - TO
ESTABLISH HOW FUNDS ARE DISTRIBUTED AMONG
MEMBERS AS WELL AS HOW SITES WILL BE SELECTED
FOR ASSESSMENT
Item #16G2
CRA RESOLUTION 2008-316: AMENDING THE BA YSHORE
GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT
PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009; APPROVING THE
GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS; AND APPROVING THE
FORM OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT - TO BETTER SERVE
THE COMMUNITY BY CLARIFYING QUALIFIED
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, ELIMINATING COMMERCIAL
PROJECTS AND CLEARLY SPECIFYING ELIGIBLE GRANT
PARTICIPANTS
Item #16G3
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-38, THE COLLIER
COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM
ORDINANCE TO RE-ESTABLISH TWO EXISTING GRANT
PROGRAMS AND ESTABLISH TWO NEW CRA GRANT
PROGRAMS FOR THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
CRA (COMPANION ITEM TO 17A) - RE-ESTABLISHING THE
SWEAT EQUITY GRANT PROGRAM, SHORELINE
STABILIZATION IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM,
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM AND
COMMERCIAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT GRANT
PROGRAM
Page 276
October 28, 2008
Item #16H1
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDED THE
IMMOKALEE MIGRANT MATRIX 5 ON OCTOBER 3,2008.
$25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT BETHEL ASSEMBLY CHURCH,
IMMOKALEE
Item # 16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDED THE
NAACP FREEDOM FUND DINNER AND AWARDS
CEREMONY ON OCTOBER 18, 2008. $65.00 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET-
HELD AT THE NAPLES HILTON & TOWERS, 5111 T AMIAMI
TRAIL NORTH
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDED THE
IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BREAKFAST ON
AUGUST 6, 2008. $20.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE SEMINOLE
CASINO RESTAURANT, 506 SOUTH FIRST STREET,
IMMOKALEE
Page 277
October 28, 2008
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT FOR
ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA ATTENDED THE
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS LUNCHEON ON OCTOBER 20,
2008. $25.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD AT THE COLLIER ATHLETIC
CLUB, LOCATED IN THE COMMONS OF GOODLETTE-
FRANK AND 7TH AVE N, NAPLES
Item #16I1
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
departments as indicated:
Page 278
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 28, 2008
L MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1) Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control & Rescue District:
Five Year Plan; Bond Service Statement; District Map/Registered
Agent Statement; FY 08-09 Meeting Schedule.
2) Big Cvpress Stewardship District:
Meeting schedule statement.
3) South Florida Water Management District:
FY 08-09 Adopted Budget.
4) Verona Walk Community Development District:
FY 08-09 Regular Board Meeting Schedule.
B. Minutes:
1) Animal Services Advisorv Board:
Minutes ofJuly 15,2008.
2) Bavshore Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of July 9, 2008; September 10,2008.
Minutes of May 14,2008; July 9, 2008.
3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of August 22, 2008.
4) Collier Countv Planning Commission:
Agenda of October 2, 2008 REVISED.
Minutes of August 7, 2007; August 13,2008.
5) Countv Govemment Productivitv Committee:
Agenda of September 19, 2007; October 31, 2007;
November 14, 2007.
Minutes of September 19, 2007; October 31, 2007;
November 14, 2007; December 12, 2007.
6) Emergencv Medical Services Advisorv Council:
Minutes of July 30. 2008.
7) Golden Gate Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of February 13, 2008; March 11,2008; April 8, 2008;
June 10,2008; July 8, 2008; August 12, 2008.
Minutes of January 8, 2008; February 13,2008; March 11, 2008;
April 8, 2008; May 13,2008; June 10, 2008; July 8, 2008;
August 12,2008.
8) Haldeman Creek Maintenance Dredging Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of December 13, 2007; March 13,2008.
Minutes of October 25,2007.
9) Hispanic Affairs Advisorv Board:
Minutes of June 26, 2008.
10) Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board:
Agenda of September 17, 2008.
Minutes of July 16,2008.
11) Immokalee Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of November 28, 2007; February 27, 2008; April 23, 2008;
May 28, 2008; June 25, 2008; September 24, 2008.
Minutes of October 24, 2007; November 28, 2007 no quorum;
January 23,2008; March 26, 2008; April 23, 2008 no quorum;
May 28, 2008; August 27, 2008;
12) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agencv:
Agenda of September 17, 2008.
Minutes of August 11, 2008 special meeting workshop;
August 20, 2008; August 29, 2008 special meeting workshop.
13) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board:
Agenda of September 17, 2008; September 17,2008 joint w/ Master
Plan and Visioning Comm.
Minutes of August 20, 2008; August 20, 2008 joint w/ Master Plan
and Visioning Comm.
14) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of September 10, 2008.
Minutes of September 10,2008.
15) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of October 13, 2008.
16) Lelv Golf Estates Beautification Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of April 17, 2008; May 15, 2008; June 19, 2008;
September 18, 2008.
Minutes of March 20, 2008; April 17, 2008; May 15,2008;
August 21,2008.
17) Pelican Bav Services Division Board:
Agenda of October 1, 2008.
18) Public Vehicle Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of September 8, 2008.
19) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of September 16, 2008; September 23,2008.
20) Utility Authoritv (Water and Wastewater Authority):
Minutes of August 25, 2008.
21) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of February 7, 2008; April 3, 2008.
Minutes of January 3, 2008; March 6,2008; April 3, 2008 no
quorum; April 17, 2008; May 1, 2008.
C. Other:
1) Emergency Medical Services Advisorv Council Sub-Committee and
Productivity Committee Sub-Committee:
Minutes of September 3, 2008.
2) Public Safety Coordinating Council Regional Task Force:
Agenda of June 12,2008.
Minutes of June 12, 2008.
3) Collier Countv Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of September 19, 2008.
4) Public Safety Coordinating Council:
Agenda of June 12,2008.
Minutes of June 12,2008.
5) Annexation of Senior Care Development Site:
Minutes of July 14,2008; September 5,2008.
October 28, 2008
Item #1611
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 04, 2008
THROUGH OCTOBER 10, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #1612
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 11, 2008
THROUGH OCTOBER 17, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16K1
RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN AS
NEEDED BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM OF YOUNG VAN
ASSENDERP, P.A., TO MEET COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY
CONTRACT UPDATE REQUIREMENTS - PROVIDING
SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES
Item # 16K2
OFFER OF JUDGMENT FOR PARCELS 123 & 823 BY COLLIER
COUNTY TO PROPERTY OWNER ROSE SOMOGYI,
INDIVIDUALL Y AND AS TRUSTEE, IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V JOHN J. YAKLICH, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 03-2259-CA (GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY PROJECT
60027) (POSITIVE FISCAL IMPACT: IF ACCEPTED, $57,232.65)
- COMPENSATION FOR PARCEL AND ATTORNEY FEES
Page 279
October 28, 2008
Item #16K3
RETENTION AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES ON AN AS
NEEDED BASIS WITH THE LAW FIRM CARLTON FIELDS,
P.A., TO MEET COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY CONTRACT
UPDATE REQUIREMENTS - PROVIDING SPECIALIZED
LEGAL SERVICES
Item #16K4
SECOND AMENDED DECLARATION OF TAKING AND
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,500.00 FOR PARCEL 130 (TO BE
REDESIGNATED AS PARCELS 130TSE AND 130SW-U-SL-
TSMPE) IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V
ALEXANDER G. CHRISTOU, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-4923-CA
(SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT
60091) (FISCAL IMPACT $3,500.00) - FOR A TEN-FOOT
TEMPORARY SLOPE EASEMENT AND A TEN-FOOT NON-
EXCLUSIVE SIDEWALK, UTILITY, STREET LIGHT AND
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAST POLE EASEMENT
Item # 16K5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN AN AMOUNT OF
$32,000.00 FOR PARCEL 151RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V LUZ MATLIN, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-2850-
CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT NO. 60044). (FISCAL IMPACT
$12,900.00) - FOR A .052 ACRE PARCEL NEEDED FOR RIGHT-
OF-WAY, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES EASEMENT
Page 280
October 28, 2008
Item #16K6
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$238,225.00 FOR PARCELS 120FEE, 120TDRE1, 120TDRE2,
124FEE, 124TDRE1, AND 124TDRE2 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V TERRY WALSH, ET AL., CASE
NO. 07-4030-CA (OIL WELL ROAD PROJECT 60044) (FISCAL
IMPACT $52,625.00) - FOR.477 ACRES FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION
EASEMENTS
Item # 17 A
ORDINANCE 2008-61: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2002-38,
COLLIER COUNTY'S REDEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM
ORDINANCE TO REESTABLISH TWO EXISTING GRANT
PROGRAMS AND ESTABLISH TWO NEW CRA GRANT
PROGRAMS FOR THE BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE
CRA (COMPANION ITEM TO 16G3)
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2008-317: HD-2007-AR-11828, COLLIER
COUNTY HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PRESERVATION BOARD, A HISTORICAL DESIGNATION FOR
EXISTING SPECIMEN PLANTS AND TREES ON LOT 5 OF THE
NAPLES ZOO, CARIBBEAN GARDENS GA TEHOUSE/GIFT
SHOP AND AN OUTHOUSE ON LOT 5, PART OF THE DR.
NEHRLING TROPICAL GARDEN ON COLLIER COUNTY
PROPERTY AND LEASED BY THE NAPLES ZOO. CURRENT
ZONING OF THE PARCEL IS C-3 AND "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL, CONSISTING OF 13.35 ACRE, LOCATED AT
Page 281
October 28,2008
1590 GOODLETTE ROAD NORTH, SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
DESIGNATING THE 13.35+/- TRACT AS A HISTORIC SITE
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL D STRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~
, Chairman
"
, '
A TTESif > .c'"
DWI6H1:E~ $..QCK, CLERK
~~V~~{LS>L
~ttest utctclIa \,..... ,
$ \ Qnature on I .
These minutes approveq,by the Board on );2/ ~Di , as
presented ~ - or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 282