BCC Minutes 01/13/2009 R
January 13, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 13, 2009
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:
VICE-CHAIR:
Tom Henning/Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
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)
O~~\ 11//.
~ ~~':: I
r '
( 'f \. """
)/ ,,\
AGENDA
January 13,2009
9:00 AM
Tom Henning, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 3
Donna Fiala, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Chairman
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENT A TION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
Page 1
January 13,2009
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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. December 2-3, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. December 4,2008 - BCC/Special Joint Meeting with City Council of Marco
Island
D. December 5, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Meeting
E. December 8, 2008 - BCC/ALS Engine Workshop
F. December 8, 2008 - BCC/Transportation Workshop
G. December 11,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Pelletier
Page 2
January 13, 2009
H. December IS, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board Hearing Meeting with
Special Magistrate Scott Watson.
I. December 16, 2008 - BCC/Regular Meeting
J. December 19,2008 - Value Adjustment Board Special Magistrate Pelletier
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
Advisory Committee Service Awards
A. 5-Year Awards:
1) Andrew H. Reiss - Library Advisory Board
2) Loretta Murray - Library Advisory Board
3) Betty R. Schudel - Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee
B. 10-Year Award:
1) Janet Vasey - County Government Productivity Committee
2) Floyd Crews - Immokalee EZDA
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating January 13,2009 as Seymour Taffet, M.D. Day.
To be received by Dr. Seymour Taffet, MD.
B. Proclamation designating January 27, 2009 as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day. To be accepted by Murray Hendel.
C. Proclamation recognizing five Collier County Government employees on
active duty in the military: Kevin Anderson, Malinda Busher, Tracy
Edmondson, Christian Grieve and Hermes Oliva. To be accepted by Dan
Summers and Jim DeLony.
D. Proclamation designating the week of January 18 - 24, 2009 as Hazardous
Materials Awareness Week. To be accepted by Dan Summers.
Page 3
January 13, 2009
E. Proclamation recognizing citizens for their dedication to the betterment of
government and community life. To be accepted by Patricia Brennan, Mary
Jane Cary, Paul Granroos, Betty Hughes, Chuck Kabis, Patricia Southorn
and Patricia Bates.
F. Proclamation remembering Dr. Martin Luther King's dream and to celebrate
the centennial of the NAACP. To be accepted by County employee Rhonda
Cummings, Co-Chair of the MLK Day Parade Committee, County employee
Dianna Perryman, Co-Chair of the MLK Day Parade, and Harold Weeks,
Collier County NAACP.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the Advisory Committee Volunteer of the Year Award for
2008 to Willis P. Kriz.
B. Recommendation to recognize Susan Usher, Senior Budget Analyst, Office
of Management and Budget, as Employee of the Year for 2008.
C. Presentation of Productivity Committees Impact Fee recommendations by
Mr. Larry Baytos.
D. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. This item to be heard no sooner than 2:00 p.m. Public petition request by
Demetria Chadbourne to discuss water bill charges for 6432 Autumn Woods
Boulevard.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 f).m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopts an
Ordinance creating the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy
Page 4
.January 13,2009
Advisory Board for the purpose of assisting the Board of County
Commissioners with all issues affecting pre-hospital emergency medical
services within all of Collier County, and once established, abolishing the
current Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council by repealing its
establishing Ordinance 1980-80, as amended.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning
Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the County Government Productivity
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to review and approve the projects proposed for Collier
County's Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Legislative Agenda which will be
presented to the Congressional Delegation in Washington, D.C. for federal
funding consideration. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
B. Recommendation to deny the petitioners request for a reduction of the
storage for the two northbound left turn lanes to Business Circle South in
order to provide storage for a single left turn lane southbound for access into
the main gate of Forest Glen, Project 60001. (Norman Feder, Transportation
Services Administrator)
C. This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Request that the Board of County
Commissioners accepts the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee
Update Study (Study) dated December 2008 and directs staff to bring back
an Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing for the incorporation by
reference of the Study to either implement the corresponding Road Impact
Page 5
January 13, 2009
Fee Rate Schedule or consider an option to delay the adoption of the
corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule for a period of one (I) year
and consider an economic incentive by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate
Schedule to reflect the rates in effect as of June 30, 2006 with staff direction
to prepare measures to reduce trip lengths. (Nick Casalanguida,
Transportation Planning Director)
D. This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Recommend approval by the Board of
County Commissioners to award Bid #09-5148 to Subaqueous Services,
LLC in the total amount of$1 ,555,419.29 for 2008 Dredging of Doctors and
Wiggins Passes and approve all necessary budget amendments. (Gary
McAlpin, Coastal Zone Management Director)
E. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. Recommendation to
deny the Alternative Impact Fee Appeal submitted by Tamiami Square of
Naples, LLC (Developer) and authorize the Chairman to execute a notice to
the Developer for the collection of the Collier County Water-Sewer District
(CCWSD) Alternative Impact Fee calculation of $120,904 for the existing
tenants of Building 300, with Developers concurrence, or the original
amount of$196,873 without Developers concurrence. (Tom Wides, Director
Fiscal Operations, Public Utilities)
F. Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to correct an
apparent scrivener's error within Section XI.(S) of the County's purchasing
policy regarding local preference reciprocal agreements with other counties.
(Steve Carnell, Director, Purchasing)
G. Recommendation to defer approval of two invoices totaling $707,317.95
from the Clerk of Courts for "Services per statutory charges" provided to the
Board of County Commissioners during the Months of October and
November 2008. (John Yonkosky, Director, Office of Management and
Budget)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Request that the Board of County Commissioners provide direction with
respect to whether the County should close on the Pepper Ranch transaction,
Page 6
January 13, 2009
in light of a claim made by an adjacent property owner that they are entitled
to access their property through the Pepper Ranch.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway (private) and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Chase Preserve First
Replat (Lely Resort PUD) and the roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Job Creation Investment Program Agreement with Anchor Health
Centers, P.A. and Naples Investment Group, LLC consistent with the
provisions of the Job Creation Investment Program and the company's
approved incentive application.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
an Advanced Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program
Agreement with Anchor Health Centers, P.A. and Naples Investment
Group, LLC, consistent with the provisions of the Advanced
Broadband Infrastructure Investment Program and the entity's
approved incentive application.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water and sewer
utility facilities for White Lake Corporate Park, Phase 4.
Page 7
January 13,2009
5) Recommendation that the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) review the Collier County Planning
Commissions (CCPC) December 9,2008 recommendations on the
East of CR951 Horizon Study Infrastructure and Services Phase II
report, along with the Horizon Study Master Committee and Staff
recommendations; and accept the Horizon Study Committee and Staff
recommendations provided for within this executive summary.
6) Recommendation to grant final approval of the roadway and drainage
improvements for the final plat of Preserve Commons (Olde Cypress
PUD), roadway and drainage improvements will be privately
maintained.
7) 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. This is a recommendation
to approve for recording the final plat of Esperanza Place, approval of
the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the performance security.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
approve the reduction ofthe study area of the Wilson Boulevard
Extension/Benfield Road Corridor Study to allow for the conveyance
of land to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) located within the current study area for the purpose of
generating bonus conveyance credits.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
make a motion finding that the curb-and-gutter urban roadway cross-
section constructed on Southwest Boulevard meets the commitment
listed under Paragraph P, of Sub-section 7.5 Transportation of the
Wentworth Estates Ordinance No. 2003-51, adopted by the Board on
September 23, 2003.
3) Request that the Board direct staff to bring back an amendment to
Ordinance No. 2003-37, as amended, clarifying the purpose section of
that ordinance to state that the Collier County Land Development
Code, as amended, does not apply to County Transportation Road
Page 8
January 13, 2009
projects within road right of way, to separate the Construction
Standards Handbook into two separate handbooks consisting of the
2008 version of the Construction Standards Handbook for Work
within the Public Right-of-Way, Collier County, Florida and a new
2008 Collier County Landscape and Irrigation Specifications for
Beautification Improvements within the Public Right-of-Way
Handbook, and to authorize future revisions to each Handbook to be
made separately and by resolution approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to sign an
easement instrument with the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida (the State), for the
existing roadway bridge (No. 034176) crossing the Cocohatchee River
on Vanderbilt Drive (C.R. 901) within the existing right-of-way.
5) Recommendation to approve a change order to a work order in the
amount of $65,000.00 to Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
(PBS&J) for contract #06-3987 Professional Contract for
Construction, Engineering and Inspection services for the Freedom
Park (Project No. 51085).
6) Recommendation to approve award of contract #09-5127 to URS
Corporation Southern for Professional Design and Related Services
for Dynamic Message Signs.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment to appropriate
$75,000 to fund the commissioning of Master Pump Station 104;
Project #73132; Santa Barbara Sewer Force Main.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, as Ex-Officio Board of the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, approve a work order to Mitchell & Stark
Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $290,650 for
construction of the water main replacement to accommodate the
replacement of the Vanderbilt Drive Bridge over the Cocohatchee
Page 9
January 13, 2009
River, Project #70045.
3) Recommendation to award Bid No. 08-5137, Annual Contract for the
Purchasing and Repair of Pumps and Motors to various companies in
the estimated annual amount of $350,000.00.
4) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners reject RFP
#08-5093 to Cliff Berry Inc. (CBI)
5) Recommendation to approve and execute documents necessary for the
conveyance of the required utility facilities located within the site of
the Emergency Services Center and South Regional Library on Lely
Cultural Parkway in Collier County, Florida to the Collier County
Water-Sewer District at a cost not to exceed $78.50, Projects #52160
& #54003.
6) Recommendation to Award Bid Number 08-5123 for purchase of
hauling and disposal of lime sludge services to Pro-Lime Corporation
in the estimated amount of $150,000 annually.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve a Third Amendment to Lease Agreement
with Collier Model Aeronautic Club, Inc., for the continued use of
vacant County-owned land at an annual income of $1 O.
2) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an agreement with Physician Led
Access Network (PLAN) of Collier County to provide a shared
information network for PLAN participants in Collier County.
Services will be paid on behalf of the PLAN program through a grant
awarded by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, Health Resources and Services Administration.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, a lien agreement with Khaled
Mahgoub (Owner) for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees
for an owner-occupied affordable housing unit located at the west half
of Lot 147 and all of Lot 148, Gulf Harbor, North Naples.
Page 10
January 13, 2009
.... -. ___'.'_."'._'_"_'_~'_""__<_~'.'__~___~o,,~.."__",.._"..~...__.__I_~____.~._.._"_~_~,~.~_._,~_.~...,_,,.__,,_
4) Recommendation to award Bid #08-5109 in the amount of
$146,786.16 to Hannula Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc., for the
Landscape and Fence work at Palm Springs and Rita Eaton Parks and
to approve the necessary budget amendment.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an Amendment to the Habitat for
Humanitys (Habitat) Acquisition/Rehabilitation/Resale Subrecipient
Agreement approved on September 23,2008 (Item !OK) for
$1, I 04,000. This Amendment will allow reimbursement of Habitats
expenses for all eligible costs associated with the Agreement and
allows direct payment to be made to contractors and vendors for
goods and services provided in support of this Agreement.
6) 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.
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an Amendment to the Housing
Opportunities Made for Everyone (H.O.M.E.) Acquisition/
Rehabilitation/Resale Subrecipient Agreement approved on
September 23,2008 (Item l6D6) for $427,472.42. This Amendment
will allow reimbursement ofH.O.M.E.s expenses for all eligible costs
associated with the Agreement and allows direct payment to be made
to contractors and vendors in support of this Agreement.
8) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, an Agreement providing for a
$150,000 State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) grant to
Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone, Inc. (HOME) for the
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of at least three (3) residential
dwelling units to benefit households earning less than 120% of the
Area Median Income.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Page 11
.January 13,2009
1) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
2) Recommendation to approve chiller maintenance services to the
respective manufacturers: Trane, McQuay Services, and Carrier
Commercial Services, as the sole source providers for the
maintenance, repair, and installation of associated parts, proprietary
software, and other auxiliary components of such County-owned and
maintained chillers.
3) Recommendation that the BCC recognize the receipt of a check for
$501.25 from Nationwide Retirement Solutions and authorize HR to
include the $501.25 in its budget for FY 2009.
4) Recommendation to award Bid No. 09-5143, "Electrical Parts and
Supplies" to Graybar Electric, Mayer Electrical Supplies and World
Electric Supply for the purchase of electrical parts and supplies for an
estimated annual amount of $11 0,000.
5) Recommendation to approve a Release and to accept payment in the
amount of$155.55 resulting from the voluntary settlement between
Willis Group Holdings, Inc. and the Office ofthe Attorney General.
6) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Richard F. Berman for 1.14 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $18,700.
7) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Charles David Hinz 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 Nelson Canales and Yanelys Canales for 5.0 acres under the
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to
exceed $80,300
9) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Krystyna Balinski for 1.59 acres under the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $26,750.
Page 12
January 13, 2009
10) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Joseph L. Perrone as Trustee of the Yvonne A. Perrone and
Joseph L. Perrone Revocable Trust Dated July 6, 2000 for 1.14 acres
under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost
not to exceed $19,300.
11) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Michael Zell for 5.0 acres under the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $82,800.
12) Recommendation to approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase
with Judith Walsh f/k/a Judith Sorensen and Jane Dinda f/k/a Jane
Sorensen for 5 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition
Program, at a cost not to exceed $13,100.
13) Recommendation to authorize the conveyance of an Easement to
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) for the installation of
electric facilities to provide electric service for the Collier County
Fleet Facility which is located at 2897 County Barn Road, at a cost
not to exceed $27.00, Project #52009.
14) Recommendation to approve a resolution supporting full funding of
the Florida Forever Successor Program within the 2009-2010 State
budget.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Approve budget amendments.
2) Request that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) direct the
County Manager or his designee and the County Attorney to proceed
with the preparation of an ordinance(s); all related enabling
documents and the prerequisite statutory notice requirements
necessary to dissolve up to twenty three (23) inactive Taxing
Authorities which are currently found on the Property Appraisers Ad
Valorem Property Tax Roll.
3) Recommendation to approve the after-the- fact submittal of a grant
application for the U. S. Smokeless Tobacco Polaris Ranger Donation
Page 13
January 13, 2009
Program for Emergency Medical Services.
4) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign Grant Agreement #08DS-5l-09-
21-0 I between Collier County and the Florida Division of Emergency
Management accepting $103,500.00 for Emergency Management
Program Enhancements and approve a budget amendment to
recognize and appropriate the grant funds.
5) 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 the Citizen Corps Grant award totaling $7,000 and approve
a budget amendment to recognize and appropriate the grant funds.
6) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions and insurance
proceeds) to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
7) Authorization of a budget amendment transferring appropriations
from Reserves in the General Fund (001) to the Other General and
Administrative Services budget. The appropriation will be used to pay
for attorney fees and court reporting charges for an employee appeal.
($20,368.80)
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) For the CRA Board to correct a scriveners error on the July 25, 2006,
Agenda Item 14B executive summary from $10,147 to $10,197 and to
approve the return of a pro-rata share of collected private donations to
those who contributed to the Hallendale Subdivision road paving
project based on the corrected amount of $1 0, 197.00.
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 EDC Pre-Legislative Luncheon at the Naples Sailing and
Yacht Club on December 10, 2008. $40 to be paid from
Page 14
January 13, 2009
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 Farm City BBQ in Immokalee on November 26, 2008.
$20 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 Foundation and Future Builders of America
(FBOA) Luncheon on August 9, 2008. $20 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 Big Cypress Sportsmen's Alliance Addition Lands
Meeting on September 3, 2008. $56.20 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Greater Naples Leadership Luncheon on October 29,
2008. $25 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
6) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Senior Provider Workshop and Breakfast on September
19,2008. $4 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
7) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
advertised contact information and meeting notifications to
constituents in the Everglades City Directory and Mullet Rapper. $25
to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
8) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Collier Citizen of the Year Banquet on November 21,
2008. $35 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
Page 15
January 13, 2009
9) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the NMSS Holiday Party on December 11,2008. $17.45 to
be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
10) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to an
organization that serves a valid public purpose as it relates to Collier
County business. Commissioner Coletta Immokalee Chamber of
Commerce Dues for 2009. $150.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
11) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to an
organization that serves a valid public purpose as it relates to Collier
County business. Commissioner Coletta Leadership Collier Dues for
2009. $100.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
12) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to an
organization that serves a valid public purpose as it relates to Collier
County business. Commissioner Coletta East Naples Civic
Association Dues for 2009. $60.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget.
13) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attended the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Silent Auction on
November 1,2008. $50.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's
travel budget.
14) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta
attending the Leadership Collier Retreat on January 23, 2009. $100.00
to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
15) Commissioner Henning requests Board approval to attend a function
serving a valid public purpose to attend the EDC Project Innovation
Events on 1-15-09,2-19-09,3-19-09,4-16-09 and 5-20-09 in the
amount of $200 to be paid from Commissioner Henning's travel
budget.
Page 16
January 13, 2009
16) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta to
attend the EDC Project Innovation Series - January 8, 2009; January
15,2009; February 19,2009; March 19,2009; April 16, 2009; and
May 20, 2009. $200.00 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget.
17) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta is
attending the 2009 Everglades Coalition Conference, January 8-11,
2009. $290.00 for Registration Fee and $597.00 for Accommodations
for a total of $887.00 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
December 6, 2008 through December 12, 2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 13,2008 through December 19,2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
3) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 20, 2008 through December 26, 2008 and for submission
into the official records of the Board.
4) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of
December 27,2008 through January 2, 2009 and for submission into
the official records of the Board.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to sign a release oflien
as part of Board-approved settlement in the matter of Collier County
Page 17
January 13, 2009
v. Donald E. Gray, CEB Case No. 2004-005.
2) Recommendation to ratify the approved Stipulated Final Judgment in
the amount of$33,500.00 for Parcel 151RDUE in the lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Luz Matlin, et aI., Case No. 07-2850-CA (Oil Well
Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $14,400.00)
3) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $31 ,000.00 for Parcel I 13FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Luz Matlin, et aI., Case No. 07-2850-CA (Oil Well Road
Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $17,700.00)
4) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $31 ,000.00 for Parcel 127FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Carlos Alvarez, et aI., Case No. 07-2882-CA (Oil Well
Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $17,900.00)
5) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of $31 ,000.00 for Parcel 119FEE in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Carlos Alvarez, et aI., Case No. 07-2882-CA (Oil Well
Road Project No. 60044). (Fiscal Impact $17,700.00)
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. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. V A-2008-AR-13568:
Robert Oster, Trustee, represented by Clay Brooker, Esquire, is requesting a
14-foot 1.25 inch variance from the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet
Page 18
January 13, 2009
as specified in the Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD (Ordinance No. 81-61)
to allow a rear yard accessory structure setback of 10.75 inches to allow
construction of a screen enclosure over an existing pool and patio. The
subject 0.32-acre parcel is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road
(CR 31) and approximately mile south of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896). More
specifically the property is located at 540 Bald Eagle Drive, in Section 14,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2008-AR-13060
Naples Baptist Church, Inc. represented by Laura DeJohn, AICP, of Johnson
Engineering, Inc., requests a Conditional Use in the Mobile Home Overlay
within the Agricultural zoning district (A-MHO) pursuant to 2.03.0 I.A.l.c. 7
of the Land Development Code (LDC). The 4.96 acre A-MHO zoned site is
proposed to permit a Church with a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor
area. The subject property is located at 2140 Moulder Drive, Section 30,
Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (CTS)
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
January 13, 2009
January 13, 2009
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, good morning. Welcome to the
first regular meeting of the new year of the Board of Commissioners on
this lucky day of 13.
Today's invocation will be given by Jim Mudd, and as we go to
Lord and prayer, we want to ask for the safe return of Adji Desir from
Immokalee, a six-year-old boy who is missing. So we want to ask the
Lord to keep him safe and we want to ask the Lord to -- for the people
who are searching for him, to reach out to those volunteers to find him
and bring him home safe to his parents.
Would you all rise, please.
MR. MUDD: Let us pray.
Oh Heavenly Father, we ask your blessings on these proceedings
and all who are gathered here. We ask a special blessing on this Board
of County Commissioners, guide them in their deliberations, grant
them, grant them the wisdom and vision to meet the trials of this day
and the days to come.
Lord, in your hands and within your -- as you are a shepherd of all
of us, we ask your special indulgence today to help us find Adji Desir,
to reunite him with his family. Lord, watch him. He's a special gift to
us. He's a special gift to you.
This community is united in his search and for his safe return we
all pray.
Bless us now as we undertake the business of Collier County and
its citizens, that our actions will serve the greater good of all citizens
and be acceptable in your sight. Your will be done. Amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, would you lead us
in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I certainly will.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 2
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, County Manager. That was
very touching.
Now, we're going to go through the changes to today's regular,
consent, and summary, and county manager will walk us through the
change list.
I tern #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Item 10D should read December 5, 2008, Value
Adjustment Board with Special Magistrate Pelletier. That clarification's
at staffs request.
The next item is to withdraw Item 6A. It's a public petition request
by Demetria Chadbourne to discuss water bill charges for 6432
Autumn Woods Boulevard. That withdrawal is at petitioner's request.
The next item is 10C. Under the considerations section on the
second page of the executive summary, the second sentence should
read, the 2006 rate schedule would represent a rollback of29.7 percent
across-the-board increase that generated the current rate. Also, the
attachment labeled "road rate comparisons," the last column of the rate
should be labeled, rate was effective on 6/30/06, which is June 30,
2006, and that's an add even to your change sheet, and represents a
rollback of the 29.7 percent increase of January 1,2008.
Also under considerations, third paragraph, the word exasperate to
be replaced by the word exacerbate, and that clarification or
clarifications are at staffs request.
The next item is Item JOE, continued to the January 27, 2009,
BCC meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members.
Page 3
January 13,2009
Recommendation to deny the alternative impact fee appeal
submitted by Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC, who's the developer,
and authorize the chairman to execute a notice to the development for
the collection of the Collier water/sewer district alternative impact fee
calculation of 120,904 for the existing tenants of building 300 with
developer's concurrence, or the original amount of $196,873 without
the developer's concurrence. That item is being -- is being asked to be
continued at the petitioner's request.
The next item is Item 1 OF. In the executive summary under legal
considerations, the second sentence should read, this item is not
quasijudicial and as such, rather than "a ssuch". Ex parte disclosure is
not required. That clarification is at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is an add-on, 10H. It's a recommendation that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman
to sign Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, SF 424
application for federal assistance and HUD form 2991, Certificate of
Consistency for the Continuum of Care projects submitted as part of
the 2008 Continuum of Care grant. HUD SF 424 is the cover form for
the grant application and outlines the federal funds requested and
match funds being provided by the participating -- by the participating
sub-recipient.
HUD form 2991 confirms the projects included in the application
are consistent with the county's consolidated plan. That item being
carried on is at staffs request.
The next item is 16D6. The executive summary under
considerations, second paragraph, should read a summary of impact fee
deferral agreements on the January 13, 2009, agenda rather than the
December 16, 2008. That clarification's at staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw Item 16E14. It's a recommendation to
approve a resolution supporting full funding of the Florida Forever
Successor Program within the 2009-2010 state budget, and that
withdrawal's at staffs request.
Page 4
January 13, 2009
Next item is Item 16F2. The draft ordinance should read, number
4, Naples Production Park Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit,
ordinance number 85-39 as amended, and number 6 should read,
Naples Production Park Streetlighting Multiple Services taxes --
Taxing Unit, ordinance number 91-07 as amended. That clarification's
at Commissioner Fiala's request.
The next item is to withdraw Item 1 OH 1 O. Commissioner Coletta's
request, board approval for payment to an organization that serves a
valid public purpose as it relates to the Collier County business. And
this had to do with $150 to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel
budget for the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce dues.
The next item is to withdraw Item 16H 11. It is of a similar note,
and this had to do with withdrawal for payment of a $100 for -- out of
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget for the Collier County
Leadership dues.
Next item is of similar note. It's 16H12. It's a withdrawal from an
item to -- from -- to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget,
and this had to do with the East Naples Civic Association dues. Again,
that's a withdrawal on 16H 10, ] 1, and 12.
Item 16H 13 should read, Commissioner Coletta requests board
approval for payment to attend a function serving a valid public
purpose. Commissioner Coletta attended the Immokalee Chamber of
Commerce Annual Banquet and Silent Auction on November 1, 2008.
Fifty dollars to be paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget.
And that clarification is Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is to continue Item 16H 17 to the January 27, 2009,
BCC meeting. Commissioner Coletta requests board approval for
payment to attend a function serving a valid public. Commissioner
Coletta's attending the 2009 Everglades Coalition Conference January
8th through 11th, 2009. This continuance is to make sure that the fees
and costs are accurate in this executive summary now that all the bills
Page 5
January 13, 2009
are in. Again, this item, 16H17, continued to January 27, 2009.
You have two time-certain items today, Commissioners. Item lOC
to be heard at 11 a.m. It's a request that the BCC accept the Collier
County transportation impact fee update study, which we will call
study later on in this title, dated December, 2008, and direct staff to
bring back an ordinance amending Schedule 1 of Appendix A of
Chapter 74 of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the
incorporation by reference of the study to either implement the
corresponding Road Impact Fee Schedule or consider an option to
delay the adoption of the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate
Schedule for a period of one year and consider an economic initiative
by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the rates in
effect as of June 30, 2006, with staff direction to prepare measures to
reduce trip lengths.
The next time-certain item is Item 10D to be heard at 2 p.m. It's to
recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners to award
bid number 09-5148 to Subaqueous Services, LLC, in the total amount
of 1,555,419.29 for 2008 dredging of Doctors and Wiggins Pass -- of
Doctors and Wiggins Passes and approve all necessary budget
amendments.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Attorney, do you have any changes to today's agenda?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have any
ex parte communications on today's summary or consent agenda or any
further changes?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's not here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, he's left.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep, thank you very much.
Page 6
January 13,2009
As far as the consent agenda, I have no items to -- for disclosure.
On the summary agenda, the only item that I have is on 17B, I've had
correspondence in regards to this particular item.
As far as any -- anything to be pulled from either the consent or
the summary agenda, I have none. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have any ex parte communication
on today's summary or consent agenda or any further changes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have changes. I would like to
withdraw, or move to the main agenda, items number 16K2, -3, -4, and
-5. I merely want to ask some questions about those items.
I would also like to inform the board that I have no disclosures for
the summary agenda or the consent agenda.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just for some clarifications.
Commissioner Coyle is asking to pull Item 16K2, 16K3, 16K4, 16K5;
is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is correct.
MR. MUDD: Because you said withdraw. I just wanted to make
sure that we understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioners, that would bring 16K2 to be
12B; 16K3 would be 12C; 16K4 would be 12D; 16K5 would be 12E.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Any further changes?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no ex parte communications on
today's consent or summary agenda or no changes to today's consent or
summary.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no changes to the agenda
nor do I have any ex parte on anything on the consent or summary
agenda.
Page 7
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, good morning, Chairman
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no changes to the consent
or summary agenda, and I have no declarations to make.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers on
today's agenda?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve today's
agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala to move the agenda as amended.
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.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Januarv 13. 2009
Item 20 should read: "December 5, 2008 - Value Adjustment Board with special Magistrate
Pelletier." (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 6A: Public petition request by Demetria Chadbourne to discuss water bill charges
for 6432 Autumn Woods Boulevard. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 10C: Under the Considerations section on the second page of the Executive Summary, the
second sentence should read: "The 2006 rate schedule would represent a rollback of the 29.7%
across the board increase that generated the current rate." Also, the attachment labeled "Road
Rate Comparisons," the last column of the chart should be labeled, "Rate was effective and
represents a rollback of the 29.7% increase of January 1, 2008". Also, Under Considerations,
third paragraph, the word "exasperate" is to be replaced with the word "exacerbate." (Staff's
request.)
Item 10E continued to the January 27. 2009 BCC meeting: This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to
deny the Alternative Impact Fee Appeal submitted by Tamiami Square of Naples, LLC (Developer)
and authorize the Chairman to execute a notice to the Developer for the collection of the Collier
Water-Sewer District (CCWSD) Alternative Impact Fee calculation of $120,904 for the existing
tenants of Building 300, with Developers concurrence, or the original amount of $196,873 without
Developers concurrence. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 10F: In the executive summary under Legal Considerations, the second sentence should
read, "This item is not quasi judicial and as such (rather than a ssuch) ex parte disclosure is not
required." (Commissioner Fiala's request.)
Add on Item 10H: Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and
authorize the Chairman to sign Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) SF424,
Application for Federal Assistance and HUD Form 2991, Certificate of Consistency for the
Continuum of Care (CoC) projects submitted as part of the 2008 CoC Grant application. HUD SF
424 is the cover form for the grant application and outlines the federal funds requested and match
funds being provided by the participating sub-recipients. HUD Form 2991 confirms the projects
included in the application are consistent with the County's Consolidated Plan. (Staff's request.)
Item 1606: The Executive Summary under Considerations, second paragraph, should read, "A
Summary of Impact Fee Deferral Agreements on the January 13, 2009 Agenda" (rather than
December 16, 2008". (Staff's request.)
Withdraw Item 16E14: Recommendation to approve a resolution supporting full funding of the
Florida Forever Successor Program within the 2009-2010 State budget. (Staff's request.)
Item 16F2: The draft ordinance should read: "(4) Naples Production Park Municipal Service
Taxing and Benefit Unit (Ordinance No. 85-39, as amended.) (6) Naples Production Park Street
Lighting Municipal Service Taxing Unit (Ordinance No. 91-07, as amended)." (Commissioner
Fiala's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H10: Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to an
organization that serves a valid public purpose as it relates to Collier County business.
Commissioner Coletta Immokalee Chamber of Commerce Dues for 2009. $150.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
1/13/2009837 AM
Withdraw Item 16H11: Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to an
organization that serves a valid public purpose as it relates to Collier County business.
Commissioner Coletta Leadership Collier Dues for 2009. $100 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Withdraw Item 16H12: Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to an
organization that serves a valid purpose as it relates to Collier County business. Commissioner
Coletta East Naples Civic Association Dues for 2009. $60.00 to be paid from Commissioner
Coletta's travel budget. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Item 16H13 should read: "Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for payment to attend
a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner Coletta attended the Immokalee
Chamber of Commerce Annual Banquet and Silent Auction on November 1,2008. $50.00 to be
paid from Commissioner Coletta's travel budget". (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Continue Item 16H17 to the January 27. 2009 BCC meetina: Commissioner Coletta requests
Board approval for payment to attend a function serving a valid public purpose. Commissioner
Coletta is attending the 2009 Everglades Coalition Conference, January 8-11,2009. $290 for
registration fee and $597.00 for accommodations for a total of $887.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Coletta's travel budget. (Commissioner Coletta's request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 10C to be heard at 11 :00 a.m. Request that the BCC accepts the Collier County
Transportation Impact Fee Update Study (Study) dated December 2008 and directs staff to bring
back an Ordinance amending Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) providing
for the incorporation by reference of the Study to either implement the corresponding Road
Impact Fee Rate Schedule or consider an option to delay the adoption of the corresponding Road
Impact Fee Rate Schedule for a period of one (1) year and consider an economic incentive by
adjusting the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule to reflect the rates in effect as of June 30, 2006 with
staff direction to prepare measures to reduce trip lengths.
Item 10D to be heard at 2:00 p.m. Recommend approval by the Board of County Commissioners
to award Bid #09-5148 to Subaqueous Services, LLC in the total amount of $1,555,419.29 for 2008
dredging of Doctors and Wiggins Passes and approve all necessary budget amendments.
1/13/20098:37 AM
January 13, 2009
Item #2B, #2C, #2D, #2E, #2F, #2G, #2H, #21, #2J
MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 2-3, 2008 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING; DECEMBER 4, 2008 BCC/SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
WITH CITY COUNCIL OF MARCO ISLAND; DECEMBER 5, 2008
VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
PELLETIER; DECEMBER 8, 2008, BCC/ALS ENGINE
WORKSHOP; DECEMBER 8, 2008 BCC/TRANSPORTATION
WORKSHOP; DECEMBER 11, 2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT
BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER; DECEMBER 15,
2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
SCOTT WATSON; DECEMBER 16,2008 BCC/REGULAR
MEETING; DECEMBER 19, 2008 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PELLETIER
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the
December 2nd and 3rd, 2008, regular BCC regular meeting; December
4, 2008, BCC/special joint meeting with City of Marco Island;
December 5, 2008, Value Adjustment Board meeting with Special
Master Pelletier; December 8, 2008, BCCI ALS engine workshop;
December 8, 2008, BCC transportation workshop; December 11, 2008,
Value Adjustment Board, Special Master Pelletier; December 15th
Value Adjustment Board meeting, Special Master Scott Watson;
December 16, 2008, BCC regular meeting; and December 19, 2008,
Value Adjustment Board with Special Master Pelletier.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas,
second by Commissioner Fiala to move -- approve these minutes.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 9
January 13,2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Item #3A
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE AWARDS: 5-YEAR
AWARDS; ANDREW H. REISS, LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD;
LORETTA MURRAY, LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD; BETTYR.
SCHUDEL, RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Now we have service awards. Commissioners, I
think it's appropriate that we step down from the dais and recognize our
-- the members of our community for their outstanding contributions. If
you would join me.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's indeed an honor to reward the
years of service for the following recipients.
The first recipient is a five-year awardee, and it's Andrew H. Rice,
and he works for the library -- or he worked for five years for the
Library Advisory Board, and I believe he still does.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll see you again. Congratulations.
Thanks for your service.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hi, Andrew. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much for your
servIce.
Page 10
January 13,2009
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Our next five-year awardee is Loretta Murray for
the -- she's worked for five dedicated years to the Library Advisory
Board.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for your service.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for
everything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Your next five-year awardee is Betty R. Schudel,
and she's worked for five years on the Radio Road Beautification
Advisory Committee.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you (inaudible).
MS. MURRAY: We're not done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's been more than five years, hasn't it?
MS. MURRAY: No. It's only been five now, really, but it flew by.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It just seems longer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for all your work.
(Applause.)
Item #3B
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE A WARDS: 10-YEAR
AWARDS; JANET VASEY, COUNTY GOVERNMENT
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE; FLOYD CREWS, IMMOKALEE
EZDA (NOT PRESENT) - PRESENTED
Page 11
January 13, 2009
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our ten-year
awardees. Our first ten-year awardee is Janet Vasey for the County
Government Productivity Committee. We've all known Janet to be kind
of bionic when it talks about her analysis of costs and whatnot. But
through some recent operations, she is really starting to be the Bionic
Woman.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: And she's doing quite well after her surgery. She's
moving quite well, so that's good news.
Our next ten-year awardee is Floyd Crews for the Immokalee
EZDA, which is the enterprise zone out in Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Crews is not here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: IfMr. Crews was here, we'd
know about it.
MR. MUDD: That completes our awardees for today,
Commissioners.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 13,2009 AS
SEYMOUR T AFFET, M.D. DAY RECEIVED BY DR. SEYMOUR
T AFFET, M.D - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that would bring us to our
proclamation section, paragraph four. The first proclamation is
designating January 13, 2009, as Seymour Taffet, M.D. Day, to be
received by Dr. Seymour Taffet.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Doctor, you can just come right up here
in front of the dais and face the audience. I believe Commissioner
Coyle's going to read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I'm going to read the
Page 12
January 13, 2009
proclamation. It gives me great pleasure to recognize Dr. Taffet.
Whereas, Dr. Seymour Taffet joined the military reserve while
still a medical student at the University of Michigan. His class was the
first class that was escalated to fulfill the Army's need for doctors; and,
Whereas, at graduation, Dr. Taffet was assigned to a special
front-line military attack unit that consisted of 500 highly trained
specialists, one battalion surgeon, and 14 medics;
Whereas, this unit was under direct command of General
Eisenhower during the entire war, and Dr. Taffet was one of only six
battlefront doctors in the American Army. This special unit was the
point of attack for every important European battle of WWII, including
the Normandy Landing, all the way to the Czech border by way of
France, Belgium, Holland, and Germany; and,
Whereas, Dr. Taffet captured German General JodI, second in
command of the Western Front, and liberated the satellite of Dachou.
He won the Silver Star for bravery in action and is the only physician
in the European campaign to receive this honor; and,
Whereas, Dr. Taffet was the first Docent of the Holocaust
Museum and has been -- has made presentations to over 3,000 school
children, as well as civic and religious organizations;
Whereas, he is a retired family physician who practiced medicine
for over 40 years in New Jersey; and,
Whereas, we would like to wish him a belated happy birthday as
he celebrated his 90th birthday on December the 1 st.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 13,2009, be
designated as Seymour Taffet, M.D. Day.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 2009, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
I should add that Dr. Taffet has authored a very interesting book
Page 13
January 13, 2009
of his life and experiences during World War II, and he would be
happy to autograph a copy probably at the Holocaust Museum, if any
of you would like to drop by and get it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion 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 a saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Doctor, if you would like to say a few
words, you can. Go to the microphone.
DR. T AFFET: I want to thank the commissioners for having me
as an honored guest today. This was never expected when we landed
on Omaha Beach in 1944. I just happen to be picked to be with a very
unusual organization. We were the attack battalion of every campaign
in the European Theater. We never came out of the line. Even when
they said we were going to get a rest, we didn't get that rest. We were
shifted to Gramogin (phonetic) Bridges to cross the bridge and be the
first ones over.
It is an honor, but it belongs to -- belongs to 500 fighting men of
the U.S. Army. And we thank you for all the applause. If you ever see
this bar on a person, you'll know that that's a Silver Star for bravery in
action. And I'm lucky to be here, and I thank you.
(Applause.)
Page 14
January 13, 2009
Item #4 B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 27, 2009 AS
INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
ACCEPTED BY MURRAY HENDEL - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, our next proclamation is designating
January 27, 2009, as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. To be
accept by Murray Hendel, and I believe a group of others.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there are others; Bob
Cahners, the new president; Jack Nortman, the former co-president;
and Godfrey Levy, and the -- oh.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And the founding president.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, wonderful. Thank you very
much. I'm going to read it. That's right.
Whereas, in a resolution co-sponsored by the 104 member states,
the United Nations General Assembly has designated January 27th as
International Holocaust Remembrance Day in an effort to keep the
memory of the Holocaust alive and to reaffirm unfaltering resolve to
prevent the recurrence of such crimes and future acts of genocide; and,
Whereas, January 27, 1945, is currently recognized as the official
day of remembrance for Holocaust victims in many countries and
marks the day when an advancing Soviet army liberated the largest
Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenou in Poland; and,
Whereas, Collier County encourages all its citizens to recognize
the grievous crimes committed during the Holocaust and to remember
the suffering of the II million humans who perished; and,
Whereas, the Holocaust Museum of Southwest Florida promotes
tolerance and understanding by teaching the history lessons of the
Holocaust through its educational programs.
Page 15
January 13,2009
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 27, 2009, be
designated as International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 2009, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we accept this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala 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: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to get a picture, Murray.
MR. HENDEL: Oh. I thought I could make my speech first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For an additional $15, we'll
autograph it for you.
(Applause.)
MR. HENDEL: Commissioners, it's a pleasure to accept this
proclamation on behalf of the Holocaust Museum. Fortunately we have
all of the past presidents of the museum with us today. Ann Jacobson is
our founder, we have Godfrey, Jack Nortman, and Bob Cahners. I want
to thank the commissioner for their support of our museum, and I want
to invite you to our International Holocaust Remembrance Day event.
Page 16
January 13, 2009
Remembrance Day event. It's going to be on January 25th at the Unity
Church.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING FIVE COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE
MILITARY: KEVIN ANDERSON, MALINDA BUSHER, TRACY
EDMONDSON, CHRISTIAN GRIEVE AND HERMES OLIVA.
ACCEPTED BY DAN SUMMERS AND JIM DELONY -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next proclamation is
recognizing five Collier County Government employees on active duty
in the military. The first is Kevin Anderson, followed by Melinda
Busher, followed by Tracy Edmondson, followed by Christian Grieve,
followed by Hermes Oliva. And this recognition is to be accepted by
Dan Summers and Jim DeLony, and we will get those recognitions out
to those five individuals as fast as we can at this point.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Marching like a soldier. Look at him.
MR. DeLONY: Can't help it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Whereas, Collier County Government
provides military leave of absence for employees who are recalled to
activity military duty in support of their community and their country
in time of need; and,
Whereas, Collier County Government has five employees
currently on active duty within the military, including Kevin Anderson,
utility technician, recalled in July, 2008; Melinda Busher, an EMS
paramedic recalled in October, 2008; Tracy Edmondson, a MedFlight
Page 1 7
January 13, 2009
MedFlight pilot recalled March, 2008; Christian Grieves (sic), a utility
technician recalled in August, 2005; and Hermans (sic) Oliva from--
an EMS paramedic, recalled April of 2008; and,
Whereas, in the highest American tradition, the patriotic men and
women of the Guard and Reserves serve voluntary (sic) and in the
honorable and vital professional -- profession; and,
Whereas, these employees, as well as other members of the Guard
and Reserves, are charged with the responsibility to preserve our
freedom and nation's security; and,
Whereas, the residents of Collier County send our best wishes
through -- thoughts, and prayers to these men and women in uniform
who are protecting our great country during these perilous times.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, we enthusiastically extend our support to all
of our valiant military men and women.
Done in this order, 13th day of January, 2009.
I'll make a motion to move the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You guys are standing kind of close.
MR. DeLONY: Yeah, we are. Last time today.
Page 18
January 13,2009
(Applause.)
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, for the record, Jim DeLony,
public utilities administrator. Thank you for this proclamation today on
behalf of these five wonderful citizens of our county who are making
that extra mile on behalf of all of us.
It's quite moving that today we see The Greatest Generation
honored, and we see America's next greatest generation honored at the
same time. And for that, I thank each of you for taking the time to do
this. And Happy New Year and God bless each and every one of us,
and God bless America.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: God bless America.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. DeLony, Commissioner Fiala has a
question.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a fast question or maybe a
statement. How many other of our employees have been recalled and
been there and come back? I'm just so proud of all of our employees.
We can name them over and over again, and they come back with some
very interesting stories.
So it's too bad we can't name everybody, but let everybody know
there's a lot of our employees out there fighting for our freedom.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #4 D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 18
- 24, 2009 AS HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AWARENESS WEEK.
ACCEPTED BY DAN SUMMERS ~ ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation, which is designating the week of January 18th through
Page 19
January 13, 2009
24th, 2009, as Hazardous Materials Awareness Week, to be accepted
by Dan Summers. You thought you were getting away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Dan.
MR. SUMMERS: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It gives me great please to read this
proclamation.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll wait till you get up here.
Whereas, the safe use of hazardous material is essential to
business, industry, and local governments to maintain economic
stability and to protect the citizens of Florida; and,
Whereas, it is essential to plan and prepare for the accidental
release of hazardous materials to protect the well-being of all citizens
and visitors of Florida; and,
Whereas, in order to respond safely, response teams such as fire,
police, and Emergency Medical Service must know the types of
hazardous material and chemicals that are being used and stored in the
event of an incident; and --
Whereas, all citizens have the right to know the types of
hazardous material and chemicals in their communities and the right to
know the proper procedures to take in case of an accident or
emergency.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January
18th through the 24th, 2009, be designated as Hazardous Material
Awareness Week.
Done and ordered this 13th day of January, 2009, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, Chair.
And Chairman, I move that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Halas to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 20
January 13,2009
All in favor of the motion, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once more, good morning.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
Commissioners, thank you very much for taking the opportunity
to recognize this effort. A lot of folks know emergency management as
just dealing with Mother Nature, but we have a lot of technological
hazards that we address as well.
I'm real pleased to also tell you that one of our planners, Richard
Zyvoloski, also won an award for some of his planning efforts just
recognized late -- early last -- early this week, rather, yesterday, at
Tallahassee, for some of his innovative planning efforts, and we'll bring
that information forward to you at a later date.
But this effort goes all the way to the industry who helps with us
their reporting. It goes to the state, EP A, we work with public utilities
division, pollution control, our emergency responders, and hazardous
materials material teams, again, to make sure that we have that safety
net in place in the unlikely event of a hazardous materials event.
So we promote it within the industry, it's part of doing business in
an environmentally conscious environment, and we also make sure and
ask our homeowners as well to address their household hazardous
waste appropriately.
Thank you for this recognition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 21
January 13,2009
(Applause.)
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING CITIZENS FOR THEIR
DEDICATION TO THE BETTERMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND
COMMUNITY LIFE. ACCEPTED BY PATRICIA BRENNAN,
MARY JANE CARY, PAUL GRANROOS, BETTY HUGHES,
CHUCK KABIS, PATRICIA SOUTHORN AND PATRICIA BATES
- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next proclamation is
recognizing citizens for their dedication to the betterment of
government and community life. To be accepted by Patricia Brennan,
Mary Jane Cary, Paul Granroos, Betty Hughes, Chuck Kabis, Patricia
Southorn, and Patricia Bates. If you'd all please come forward.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you'd please come forward, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I have the privilege of reading
this proclamation.
Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
recognized the need to extend services through the outreach program
and publicly requested volunteers with experience and knowledge
related to community government and management; and,
Whereas, the response of citizens to this call was immediate and
continues to this present day; and,
Whereas, individuals who have held leadership roles in their
communities at one time and others who have and hold professional
and technical expertise have come forward to contribute their
knowledge and time as volunteer staff; and,
Whereas, the volunteers of Collier County Government Outreach
Program assist a large number of homeowner associations with
turnover issues, best practice programs, and general awareness of
Page 22
January 13, 2009
association responsibilities; and,
Whereas, these same volunteers have dedicated themselves to
assist in a variety of other programs within the PUD monitoring section
of the engineering and environmental services department within the
community development and environmental services division of the
county.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 13,2009, be
designated as Community Outreach Volunteer Day and recognizes the
following exceptional citizens as individuals who have repeatedly
demonstrated their dedication to the betterment of government and
community life.
Patricia Brennan. Would you raise your hand, so -- when I name
you, please. Patricia Brennan, Mary Jane Cary, Paul Granroos, Betty
Hughes, Chuck Kabis, Patricia Southorn, and Patricia Bates.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our community development people
are standing back there so pleased with these wonderful volunteers.
This proclamation was done and ordered this 13th day ofJanuary,
2009, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
And Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala to
move the proclamation, 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?
Page 23
January 13, 2009
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Congratulations. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Also, what a great experience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, our department really
appreciates everything you've done for us.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You could probably teach us a whole
bunch of things.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As we see these smiling faces, Jim
Coletta just reminded me, we might mention to everyone in the
audience, they might like to volunteer as well.
(Applause.)
MR. KABIS: I'd like to take just a second and say a word.
I volunteered for kind of selfish reasons, as I suspect most
volunteers do. I wanted to find a way to use my 34 years executive
level experience in real estate and banking and real estate lending. I
didn't know how that was going to happen, but I thought it would make
me feel good.
And I was fortunate enough to get assigned to Maryann Devaness'
department which fit very well within my background.
I thought that was the epitome of success for me at this point. And
then to find out that this illustrious board was willing to provide us with
recognition, what better county could there be?
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was Chuck Kabis, for the record.
MR. KABlS: No. That's pronounced Kabis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Kabis?
MR. KABIS: Kabis.
Page 24
January 13, 2009
Item #4 F
PROCLAMATION REMEMBERING DR. MARTIN LUTHER
KING'S DREAM AND TO CELEBRATE THE CENTENNIAL OF
THE NAACP. ACCEPTED BY COUNTY EMPLOYEE RHONDA
CUMMINGS, CO-CHAIR OF THE MLK DAY PARADE
COMMITTEE, COUNTY EMPLOYEE DIANNA PERRYMAN,
CO-CHAIR OF THE MLK DAY PARADE, AND HAROLD
WEEKS, COLLIER COUNTY NAACP - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next
proclamation which is remembering Dr. Martin Luther King's dream
and to celebrate the centennial NAACP to be accepted by county
employee Rhonda Cummings, co-chair of the Martin Luther King Day
Parade Committee; county employee Dianna Perryman, co-chair of the
Martin Luther King Day Parade; and Harold Weeks, the Collier County
-- from the Collier County NAACP. If you'd please come forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's, indeed, my honor to be able
to read this proclamation today.
Whereas, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., spoke passionately of his dreams of America where all the
citizens would be judged by the contents of their character and not by
the color of their skin, where all Americans would enjoy the riches of
freedom and the security of justice, where the doors of opportunity
would be open for all; and,
Whereas, the celebration of Dr. King's birthday is intended as a
time for all Americans to reaffirm their commitment to a basic
principle that underlies our Declaration of Independence and our
constitution, equality and justice for all; and,
Whereas, on January 19, 2009, the people of Collier County will
remember Dr. King's dream and renew our commitment to bringing
Page 25
January 13, 2009
forth positive change throughout our nation; and,
Whereas, 2009 marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the
NAACP, the organization that's played the leading role in the fight for
civil rights and social justice; and,
Whereas, the Collier County branch of the NAACP will help us
all to remember Dr. King's dream by presenting the 12th annual Dr.
King Luther -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Parade celebration theme,
Crossroads of the Dreams, to be held in the City of Naples on January
19,2009.
Therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that January 19, 2009, be
designated as a Day to Remember Dr. King's Dream and celebrate the
centennial of NAACP.
Done and ordered this, the 13th day of January, 2009, signed by
our chairman, Tom Henning.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
move the proclamation, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, significant by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries unanimously.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
Page 26
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the opportunity to
be in the parade again.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, don't fight over the mike.
MS. PERRYMAN: Dianna Perryman, Collier County
Government purchasing -- contract specialist for purchasing.
I'd just like to thank everyone for this proclamation. I'm sure our
illustrious president is going to say something here momentarily. But
we are inviting everyone to come on this day. We have community
involvement. We also have a special treat this year. Colin Powell will
be coming to us via satellite there at Cambier Park. So we're inviting
everyone to come down and enjoy the festivities.
We have a lot of different community organizations that have
come aboard to help us celebrate this day. Commissioner Coletta will
be there, the mayor of Naples will also be there, and we have a lot of
local leaders that are going to come out and help us.
I'm hoping I'm not missing anyone, but I'm sure our president of
the NAAC (sic), Mr. Weeks, will follow up behind me. But I just want
to say thank you, and we appreciate all that you do for the NAACP.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Dianna. I see -- I'm glad I came today.
I see some friends here in the audience. I'd like to introduce myself as
the newly elected president of the NAACP this year.
As some of you know, or don't know, NAACP stands for National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People. But I liken it to
the fact -- I flip the script on it a little bit and I think of it as -- to myself
as the National Association for the Advancement of All People.
And at this point I'd like to thank my commissioners for their
support in the past, and they've been great for all our endeavors. I'd like
to thank them for the support today and tomorrow. Hopefully we'll be
able to work together. If any problems arise, I'm at your beck and call.
I'll be in touch with all of you for a face-to-face meeting.
Page 27
January 13, 2009
And then I only have one last question that's been bothering me,
and it's of great concern. For the photographer, what do you do with all
the pictures?
Thanks again. Hopefully you folks will get out for the parade, as
Dianna mentioned, on the 19th at 11 o'clock, Broad and 3rd. Come on
out. Well, you guys like 5th Avenue, so stand on 5th Avenue.
Afterwards come by the park. Colin Powell will be speaking via
satellite. It's going to be a very, very interested day. Thank you very
much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If I could just make a point.
Government banks, schools and the like will be celebrating Martin
Luther King's birthday on January 20th. That is the day that our
president will be sworn into office, and our first black president of the
United States. And I must say that I haven't heard anybody,
Republican, Independent or otherwise, wish that man the best. We all
want him to exceed (sic) to lift up this country, and it's a great -- it's a --
must be a great honor for any black person to have a first president in
this tough times.
If you want to say something.
MS. CUMMINGS: Please, yes. I'm glad you mentioned that.
We kind of tread very softly because we are a nonpartisan
organization. But we are going to have a -- an inauguration celebration
to celebrate the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama, at the
Hilton Towers.
And we invite everybody to come out. It's $35. We're going to
have a celebration. The attire is dressy. So please come out, 6:30 p.m.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
Page 28
January 13, 2009
PRESENT A nON OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
VOLUNTEER OF THE YEAR AWARD FOR 2008 TO WILLIS P.
KRIZ - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our presentations
section of our agenda, which is Paragraph 5. The first presentation is a
great honor, and it's for the Advisory Committee Volunteer of the Year
Award for 2008. And that awardee is Willis P. Kriz. Willis, Will, could
you come forward, please.
Will has served as the chairman of the Ordinance and Policy
Subcommittee in the Conservation Collier for a number of years. His
leadership and experience has guided our committee in creating draft
resolutions for purchase policies for Conservation Collier, draft
resolutions for the disposition of properties with TDRs, and recently a
revision of the Conservation Collier main ordinance correcting some
inherent flaws discovered in the course of doing business and
smoothing out procedures.
Will chaired the OPR subcommittee through the most important
task of the program, revising the ordinance and purchase policy. The
ordinance revision was dedic- -- was delicate because only those things
not related to goals and criteria can be amended without a public
referendum.
Additionally, there were many stakeholders closely watching the
process to make sure changes were not made that would negatively
affect the program.
The purchase policy is critical and helps the program to be fair to
all. He attended every meeting, many times with others -- when others
were not able to be there, bringing his wealth of experience at the
federal level to the table. He also brings an ironic humor to the process,
helping to make difficult work fun and a cooperative spirit that
encourages wide participation.
Recently Conservation Collier discussed the purchase of the
Page 29
January 13, 2009
Starnes property -- which we successfully did -- a large property
adjacent to the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem marsh. The property
included land leases for mineral rights. Will Kriz, with his land-buying
experience from years with the National Park Service, helped lead the
committee on this issue. The result was the committee elected to
purchase the property only if the property owners would remove the
right to mine minerals from the property, thus ensuring the citizens of
Collier County will have an untouched Conservation Preserve for
generations to come without the threat of service mining.
As a member of Conservation Collier and the Ordinance and
Policy Subcommittee, Will helped create guidelines for the purchase of
lands that is fair and equitable for our willing seller program and kept
Collier County from being put into a position of negotiating prices.
Our appraised price policy states clearly, we will pay the
appraised value of the site and no more, and no exceptions. Although
we have lost a few opportunities to purchase land as a result of this
policy, public trust in our program continues to be very high, and the
nominations for conservation land keep increasing annually.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Mr. Willis A.
Kriz, Outstanding Advisory Board Member for year 2008.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So proud that you're in my district.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Congratulations. Thanks for your
service. It's such a well-funded program.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations. Thank you so
much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations.
MR. KRIZ: Thank you. Could I say a few words?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ifwe could get a picture of you first.
MR. KRIZ: I don't want to stand in front of Donna.
Page 30
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. KRIZ: I'd like to say that it's been a privilege to be a member
of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. It's
an outstanding committee whose members are knowledgeable and
experienced, and I -- and I think we have an excellent relationship with
the staff of Conservation Collier under the leadership of Alex Sulecki,
and you all are lucky to have her.
And the committee, I know, appreciates the support, it always has,
from the commissioners. Thank you very much for that.
I'd like to say also that working on the committee is an excellent
way to learn the county and to learn the county government and for --
so I would encourage people who might have an interest in applying
for membership on a committee to do so. It's fun, it's interesting, and
it's a great experience.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING SUSAN USHER, SENIOR BUDGET ANALYST,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, AS EMPLOYEE OF
THE YEAR FOR 2008 - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, our next presentation is to rec -- is
a recommendation to recognize Susan Usher, the senior budget analyst
for the office of management and budget as Employee of the Year for
2008. Ms. Usher, if you could come forward, please.
Susan Usher, senior budget analyst, has been nominated as the
Employee of the Year for 2008. Susan's dedication to accuracy,
honesty, and customer service are evident in the high quality of work
she routinely produces.
Page 31
January 13,2009
Amid changing technologies and financial environments, Susan
works to ensure that all transitions are as smooth and seamless as
possible. She maintains an excellent rapport with her customers in each
of the divisions, as well as the constitutional officer agencies.
Susan manages the county capital project budgets and also serves
as the key representative from the county manager's agency on many of
the financial and information systems changes implemented by the
organization.
As the office of management and budget tends to be a centralized
location for many of the county's functions, Susan has the highly
valuable skill of seeing the big picture. Not only does Susan retain a
vast amount of institutional knowledge regarding the county, her
detail-oriented nature provides a check and balance for the work done
by the department.
In addition to the immense time Susan works -- that Susan puts
into her work, she also serves the community in a variety of volunteer
capacities. Susan is a true public servant dedicating her time, talents,
and resources to the benefit of the employees and citizens of Collier
County. She is truly deserving of this award.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you Susan Usher, the
Employee of the Year for 2008.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Susan, on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners, we congratulate you for the dedicated service to the
employees and our constituents here in Collier County, and
congratulations on your nomination as employee for 2008.
I want to present to you a letter on behalf of the Board of
Commissioners signed by myself and also a small token of
apprec iati on.
MS. USHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Also, Susan, it's an honor to present
this plaque to you as the Employee of the Year for 2008. And, boy,
Page 32
January 13,2009
keep up the good work.
MS. USHER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. USHER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you going to say a few words?
(No response.)
Item #5C
PRESENTATION OF PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE'S IMPACT
FEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MR. LARRY BAYTOS-
MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT FROM THE
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next presentation is a -- Productivity
Committee's impact fee recommendations to the Board of County
Commissioners by Mr. Larry Baytos, the chairman of the Productivity
Committee.
MR. BA YTOS: You got some AlV instruction here?
MR. MUDD: We'll work it.
MR. BA YTOS: While we're waiting, I would also like to
recognize the ten-year service award for Janet Vasey. Janet is held in
the highest regard by all the members of the Productivity Committee.
In fact, I must confess that the only reason I'm serving as chairperson
this year is that a year ago she refused to let me put her name in
nomination, and so I became the default chairperson, and I'll never
forgive her for leaving me with that burden, but she is our superstar.
Thank you for the opportunity to -- oh, for the record, my name is
Larry Baytos, chairman of the County Government Productivity
Committee. Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to address
this issue.
The illustration there is an -- a metaphor of the kind of effort we
Page 33
January 13,2009
have invested in this subject over the past six months. Our liaison,
Commissioner Fiala, will testify that we've had some very lively debate
on the subject within the committee.
Because there's been some confusion in media reports, I think,
perhaps, because there is a related but separate proposal by the roads
department, I hope you'll indulge me to spend a little more time going
through than unusual and also because we have so many visitors today,
it's a bit complicated. I'll move as quickly as I can.
First of all, let's start with the why or the what of the matter; what
are we recommending? We're proposing that the produc- -- or excuse
me -- that the impact fees be reduced from the current levels, for
example, in residences, single-family home, 13 percent reduction to
about $31,000. Multifamily home, a thousand square foot, 14 percent
reduction for the numbers shown.
For commercial fees -- and we've used an example here of 10,000
square feet for all these. Draw your attention to the two columns on the
left. The retail fee would be reduced about 18 percent to 202,000. The
office example shown in the middle, similar level of reduction, similar
level of fee, and then also on the right, the industrial applications.
Now, these -- the other part of our proposal is that this fee
reduction would be in place for a period of two years, and we'll talk
more about that later.
We got started on this subject some months ago. And I'm looking
at some benchmark data. This is a survey that is done every year by an
impact fee consulting company, Duncan & Associates. Staff regards
this as probably the most reliable survey. It's done by people who know
what they're doing.
I direct your attention to the left column. Top line is the Collier
County fee for a home that size, back in 2004, about $10,000. It stayed
at that level for a number of years, then it was kicked up to $24,000 in
2006, then $29,000 effective January 1 of2008.
Page 34
January 13, 2009
I also mention that we've excluded water and sewer fees from
these to make it comparable to the way the survey data was reported.
Next line shows Lee County for the same size structure. You can
see how those fees track. Recently Lee County rejected a proposal for
-- to increase their fees.
And to put it in perspective, Lee County ranks fifth in the state in
terms of their home impact fees. Fifth from the highest.
Then the bottom group there is the -- just for perspective, is the
all-Florida average for all the counties that have fees. About 15
counties don't have fees.
Again, perspective, the Florida average is the second highest in
the country. Well under California's and slightly ahead of Virginia.
And for our house fees, we have a dozen fees that apply, which is
more than anyone else, and most of those are the highest in their
category .
The next slide, again, following on, there's a commercial example.
Using that 1O,000-square-foot office fee in 2004, was 101,000. It
jumped up there at 102- (sic) to 147- in 2006 and so forth.
So that one's just to give a little variety. We've given an average of
the three highest Florida counties excluding Collier just to give you a
point of comparison.
Now, the reasons -- there are two reasons, different reasons for
those two bumps in the fees in 2006 and 2007. First one, in 2006, came
about because of the projections for population. The Bureau of
Business and Economic Research were projecting a 2025 population of
1,066,000. And at the time, of course, we were -- year-round
population was only slightly above 300,000. So this looked liked an
enormous growth wave that we were going to have to be dealing with.
And because the county is required by the state to keep our roads and
parks and water and sewer concurrent with growth, of course, we had
some huge capital plans that were put into place. For roads alone, that
capital plan was $630 million for a five-year period.
Page 35
January 13, 2009
So that was the reason for the big kick in 2006. They hadn't been
changed in a number of years, and we also saw this huge growth.
At the same time we recommended that instead of waiting every
three or four years and make a big boost, that we should apply an
indexing methodology so that we have modest boosts year by year,
avoid these big changes.
Our consultant came up with an approach for that, and we advised
the -- recommended to the commissioners that they accept it, and they
did. And then we applied it for the first time in 2007.
Now, the fee, as it turns out, or the recommendation, ended up in a
31 (sic) percent, I believe, increase in the transportation fees. And that
21 percent was brought about by a formula which assumed that land
prices had increased 21 percent, which, of course, they hadn't; assumed
our construction costs had gone up when actually we were getting
better prices.
So the purpose -- we had a good purpose in mind, but it didn't
work out the way we expected, and the effect was especially heavy on
the commercial side -- again, if you look at -- this would be, again, a
general office road fee for 10,000 square feet. About 80 percent of their
fees are for roads. They don't pay fees for schools or for parks. So that
30-percent increase for roads really hit the commercial sector harder.
Bringing it forward, just the last month, we met with the
transportation staff and our consultant and we took a look at the new
transportation study. As you know, every three years we do a complete
restudy of each of the fees, and this was the time for transportation.
The new numbers have come down. Now, the staff said that our
costs for road mile are as indicated, construction costs, 3,100 --
3,100,000. 1 think that's per lane mile, is probably the way it should be.
You add all those pieces up, preciates (sic) of right-of-way,
Page 36
January 13,2009
design, financing, and we come up with 5,086,000 as our cost per lane
mile. I call that the standard because this is what most counties would
include in their transportation fee; however, our policy is to really
make growth pay for growth. That's really been a hard-core policy
which the Productivity Committee has supported in practice and spirit.
And as a result of that, staff tells us that it's really necessary to have the
highest fees legally defensible if we're going to come anywhere near
approaching our standard, and even then we'll fall short.
But as a result of that policy, we have some additional things that
get factored into our road fee. For example, a couple policy-related
additions, staff believes that because of the projected traffic increases,
by the year 2030 we'll need to upgrade two major interchanges, put in
fly overs and overpasses and so forth. And they've estimated a cost of
213 million for that.
And also, whenever you build a road or move anything, of course
there's a very high utility relocation cost. We put that into our road cost
per lane mile. We're up to $6 million.
So because we have this need to make growth pay for growth,
we've increased that basic growth fee by a million dollars or by 15
percent. And the policy additions, staff tells me, those are not used in
other counties.
The other thing that the staff looks at -- and these -- you've seen
the -- transportation's study. It's about 80 pages, dense information, the
studies, and there's probably a stack of back-up material that goes with
it.
The other staff -- thing they look at, this is the cost component.
They look at the demand component. Say all right, if we put it in the
business, how much traffic is it going to generate so we can charge that
business or that home for a fair share of the cost of the roads?
Because of that, the -- there's a big difference in the way fees are
charged. A high-traffic business pays proportionately for the privilege.
I'll draw your attention to the two blocks on the left-hand side of the
Page 37
January 13, 2009
screen. This illustration is for a bank of 10,000 square feet.
In Lee County, the road fee -- and we're only talking road fee
now. The road fee is $256,000. In Collier County if it has a drive-up
window, the road fee is a million 85 for that size bank.
Now, if it doesn't have that drive-up window, the road fee cuts in
half. But this is, you know, the structures we often see, so I wanted to
show just what the range is.
Fast food here, I assumed 3,500 square feet. You can see the fee in
Lee County, 157,000. Collier, if it has a drive-up window, 599,000.
Now, if it's a high turnover sit-down restaurant, that fee drops in half.
Last illustration is a convenience store. If you don't have gas
pumps, in Collier County that store would require 408,000 impact fee.
Now, over this past weekend I watched a recording of an
interview I saw. On the Jeff Lytle show there was an interview, was
with a developer, I think -- Todd Gates, I believe, was his name. He
was complaining about the fees and gave an example of a medical
office that he wanted to build, and -- which would cost $50 a square
foot to build a shell. And he was complaining that the impact fee was
also $50 a square foot. That sounded like overreach.
I decided to check it out, and he was right. And I thought, well,
that's an interesting way to look at impact fees. For example, in the
bank example here, the impact fee per square foot for roads would be
108 per square feet; fast food, 171; and $116 per square foot impact fee
for the convenience store for the road fee. The recommendation that
we've made would reduce those by about 30 percent.
Now, I just put this slide together a couple days ago, so our
committee has not looked at it. So I will offer no further comment
because they haven't seen it. Just for information.
So, in looking at the transportation report -- in fact, the
Productivity Committee did give our advisory support on a 9-2 vote for
that report because it was technically correct. It seemed to follow the
mandate, which the staff believes they have from the commissioners, to
Page 38
January 13, 2009
commissioners, to provide that growth pays for growth and the highest
fees.
At the same time, we began to wonder because the Productivity
Committee has looked at these fees a number of times. In fact, 2006 I
chaired several of the subcommittees that recommended these fees or
supported the staff recommendation.
So if I look at who did it, I have to look at myself in the mirror as
a contributor, and Janet Vasey was also probably the one most heavily
involved.
So we said, okay, we have all these sound building blocks, which
makes sense, but we began to get concerned. Have we built a structure
that could topple the -- of its own weight?
The other thing that I think added urgency to the issue was the --
of course, what's happening on the local -- national -- the local
economy, we looked at the way that impact -- the impact fee rate has
changed over the years, and then also looked at what's happened with
construction activity. And, of course, the new housing starts is reduced
as well.
Now, we certainly had a lot of heated debate about what effect
would impact fees have on this. I think we all believe that the major
source here is a market correction from -- that was long overdue. At the
same time, as we look at the unemployment line going there and the
human cost of that and also looking to say, all right, if we do something
to this, it's not going to make any more concrete be poured next month
-- but if we're to position our community for a turnaround, maybe we
need to think about loosening some of the impediments that might be
there for growth.
Other considerations we talked about that we never had before is
the hidden opportunity costs. Of course, we have a county to our north
that also has a lot of sunshine and nice beaches and amenities too. Do
we need to worry about it? Not that we want to ever think about
reducing our fees anywhere near Lee County. They have a
Page 39
January 13, 2009
different-type growth philosophy, but it does serve as a realty check if
they're -- if somebody's at X and -- X or 2X and you're at 4X, it just
gives you reason to check further, not to do what they're doing.
Here's an example of a bank. It's actually on the county line of
Lee County and Collier. If this bank were being built in Collier County
drawing a permit today, their total fee, as I calculate it, would be a little
over a million dollars. For Lee County it would be about a quarter of a
million dollars. This is actually in Bonita Springs, and for a variety of
reasons their figures are even lower.
So I think some of our debate in our group was that impact fees
really don't affect behavior. People locate in Collier County because
they want to be here. But I'd have to leave it to the businessmen to
judge whether that's accurate or not.
The other thing that drew my attention, coming from an employee
relations background, is the issue of labor supply; where do our people
come from? According to the Naples Daily News, we've got 14,000
people coming from Lee County. Those people could have been Collier
residents. And what has happened is that over the last five years there's
been major lanes added, widening at Route 41, Livingston Road, or
whatever they call it in Lee County and, of course, 1-75. So the
commuting in the future will become even more -- more -- easier for
our employees.
Is there a cost if we miss on growth that we might have had?
Example, for the general office building, we lose the up-front impact
fee. For a home, the lost impact fee would be $36,000 for all elements,
including school.
In addition, you lose the future ad valorem taxes, which in these
days would be nice to have. Furthermore, because those people either
drive our roads to get out of town or drive them to get in town, we're
still providing the roads for them to go on.
The other issue that we said -- because we certainly have been 100
percent behind the fee program that we've had. The other thing that we
Page 40
January 13,2009
that we said, all right, have conditions changed since we first made that
first big kick? Instead of a population now of a million people, now
Bureau of Economic Research is projecting 500,000. I'm always
suspect of their projections. I believe the next projection will be lower,
but certainly the dynamics have changed.
As also has changed is the capital plan. This is the roads AUIR.
AUIR is the jargon for the capital improvement program. It's dropped
dramatically. Also because we have spent a couple hundred-million
dollars for new government buildings, and the last several years a new
courthouse, and fleet facilities and so forth, we caught up on that
backlog and moved people out of the rented space.
As I understand it, for the next seven years there are no new
government buildings planned. Now, it's good news for the taxpayers.
It's more bad news for the construction industry, unfortunately.
So that takes us then to the summary of what our recommendation
is. I will try to help. I have accurately recorded what the transportation
will be talking about earlier (sic). Productivity Committee is
recommending that 11 fees be cut. The one we haven't included is the
independent fire districts as -- for the benefit of the audience, their fees
are directed by their own boards. The county commissioners don't
control it. We're also recommending that the school fee be cut, if we
understand it correctly, that enrollment is falling, not growing
helter-skelter. So, the -- they may like that idea as well.
Giving -- the examples we give are the size of the cuts. You saw
earlier residential fees would be cut 15 percent or so for our proposal;
19 percent for commercial applications.
The road study, it's a little more complex because -- and I'll let
them tell you why. But as I understand it, the road fees might actually
go up slightly on homes and condos. The commercial reductions, some
of them are more extreme than what we proposed. Actually plus six --
pIus 44 percent. I just eyeballed it and it looked like it might be
Page 41
January 13, 2009
somewhere -- the median might be around 25 percent, but Nick will
talk about that later.
The other important distinction, we're suggesting that this rollback
-- basically it's a rollback of the indexing that you approved in January
of2008. We're recommending that that rollback be in effect for a
two-year period for a couple reasons. One is that everything that --
we're not economists on the committee, but certainly everything we
read suggests that 2009 is going to be another very tough year. I'm not
sure what it would take to encourage people to begin building again.
The other issue is that with the -- as we understand it, with
developers who have any sizable project, it takes quite a while to get
this in place and get your approval. So if you just have their rollback
for one year, it may not really achieve the purpose for which we had
intended it.
This is a piece here that needs a little more work, what is the cost
of this. It certainly comes at a difficult time. The roads budget for
impact fees this year, the revenue budget, as I understand, is 35 million.
And if the cut is 29 percent, that would be a $10.4 million cut;
however, in the first two months of this year, the road fees are actually
coming in at an annualized rate of only 23 million. So that, as a
percentage cut, would be somewhat less.
Also, the transportation report which will be presented which, if
adopted by the board, will be your standard policy, also would result in
significant cuts. Now, because I was trailing, I really didn't have the
time to get together with that department, but they can talk about what
that number is. Whether -- it has to be some millions, but that needs to
be looked at.
The other fees for the other issues would be about a $750,000
reduction. And we don't have any idea what the school fee reduction
would be, but that wouldn't be part of your budgeting responsibility in
any event.
Thank you for giving me as much time as you did. I thought it was
Page 42
January 13, 2009
was worthwhile. This is a major change of policy that we've asked you
to consider. I can only say that we've given it a great deal of serious
thought.
I will give recognition -- we do have -- the vote on this issue was
8-3. We have a -- three members who feel very strongly in opposition.
We attached their comments to the memorandum that the
commissioners received.
And I'm not sure what -- where you want to go from here, but I
really appreciate your giving me the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Baytos, if you could just
stand for questions by the board --
MR. BA YTOS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- if you don't mind. Any questions? Is
there any direction?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, you have a question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. Baytos, you, early on,
indicated that there was some data that had not been presented and
reviewed by the Productivity Committee, in particular, your
comparisons of impact fees with Lee County. Are those just your
opinion, or are you representing those as the opinion and
recommendation of the Productivity Committee?
MR. SA YTOS: I'm not sure I understand the point. Everything
that has been presented here has been reviewed with the committee
with the exception of that one slide, which I identified and offered no
opmlOn on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was a slide comparing Collier
County with --
MR. BA YTOS: For the high traffic applications.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And comparing the impact fees for
residential and commercial?
MR. SA YTOS: Oh, those, yeah. Those are all-- it's a study that
Page 43
January 13, 2009
just became available, at least to me, last year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that hasn't been analyzed
by the Productivity Committee, I presume?
MR. SA YTOS: Oh, yes, it has. They've seen all that data.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BA YTOS: Yeah. The slides that you've seen, the information
in the memorandum that you received, all that data's been --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was there any assessment by the
committee concerning the speci fic impact of the reduction of impact
fees on the rate of construction and growth of employment?
MR. BA YTOS: I don't believe that we are -- you know, have the
wherewithal to make those kind of judgments, Commissioner Coyle.
Again, there was some debate on that. And largely, you know, of
course, it's going to be also driven by what happens in the economy
and financing as well.
We did not try to estimate. Now, one of the issues in looking at,
how much is this going to cost is the issue of whether you use static
analysis, the example being when the federal government reduced fees
for capital gains, or reduced capital gains taxes, supposedly the revenue
was going to fall, but people change their behavior because of the
reduction in taxes, and the revenues actually increased as a result of a
reduce (sic) in the rate.
Now, that would be our hope that, in fact, we generate more
income. Maybe not this year, but if we began to get into a recovery,
that it really will help us long term.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Was there any consideration given to
the fact that those builders who have already paid a portion of their
impact fees up front are about to lose their vesting because they haven't
completed -- they haven't begun construction? Was there any
consideration given to some sort of wai ver on that sunsetting of their
vesting?
Page 44
January 13, 2009
MR. BA YTOS: We did not get into that. And actually that's
something that I was not aware of, so we did not discuss that issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And how about the timing of
impact fee payments, say, paying impact fees at time of permitting
rather than at time of Site Development Plan. Did they discuss any
ideas concerning that?
MR. BA YTOS: We did not get into that. We talked a little about,
you know, the deferral program. But since, you know, revenue is a big
issue, we didn't get into any --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is -- can you -- one of the things we
always have to balance is the cost of building the infrastructure and the
amount we cho- -- we charge the people, the developers, builders, for
building the infrastructure.
Are you suggesting that we -- we no longer use a
growth-pays-for-growth policy, or are you talking about just a
temporary easing of that concept?
MR. SA YTOS: We have not tried to think beyond this two-year
period given the uncertainty. Our crystal ball is not all that good right
now. So we said, really, let's not even think about that. Address that
issue later.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And with respect to the fiscal impact
of a re- -- further reduction in revenues, would it be your position, or
the committee's position, that the fiscal impact will not result in a loss
of capability to provide infrastructure?
MR. BA YTOS: Well, I think you're going to have to ask the staff
for that kind of analysis, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
MR. BA YTOS: I don't want to dodge it, but, you know, it's
beyond our capability.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those are the kinds of questions we
have to answer, of course, when you're evaluating this
recommendation.
Page 45
January 13,2009
Do you have anything that can help us understand the impact of
this recommendation upon our ability to meet our infrastructure
obligations?
And let me just make a statement briefly so -- those people who
maybe are not all that familiar with impact fees. The primary
components of impact fees are the costs that the government has to pay
to build the infrastructure. For example, build a lane mile of roads. You
have to buy right-of-way, you have to buy materials and pay for
materials, steel, gravel, concrete, asphalt. You have to hire a contractor
who charges you the cost of building these things. Those are the fundal
costs.
And so when those costs are high, impact fees are naturally high.
When those costs are lower, they should come down. Let's face it, fair
is fair. When we increase impact fees during periods of high costs to
us, when we're having a period of lower costs, as has been pointed out
in this presentation, it is fair that we reduce impact fees. There is
absolutely no argument of that at all. That's the way the system is
supposed to work.
But there are certain adjustments that go into that process, but
most of them are -- tend to be reductions of the impact fee because of
credits that can be applied. So I'll leave that to the impact fee
calculators.
But I just want to -- want to express a preliminary opinion that we
have to reduce impact fees because our costs for getting the job done is
increasing, but it just happens to lag just like property taxes do.
Property taxes we pay this year will be based on the appraised property
values oflast year. Well, impact fees calculations this year will be
based upon the costs we paid last year. So everything lags by a year.
But anyway, can you give us some insight into what the impact
might be on our ability to meet our obligations concerning
infrastructure and why the rates are so different between Collier
Page 46
January 13,2009
County and Lee County?
MR. MUDD: Okay. I'll try to do that.
And this by no way, stret- -- you know, I've always appreciated
what the Productivity Committee does. I was a little taken back by the
lack of analysis as far as what's the impact of the decision upon the
present system and what the board has, obligations, debts, and things
like that. And I don't know if it had to do with time or anything else,
but I'll try to fill in that gap for you.
First, let's talk about Collier versus Lee County. Commissioners,
you've seen this slide before. I provided this slide to you in June of
2008 to give you an idea between Lee and Collier County, because Lee
is one of those counties that we benchmark against. And you'll notice
that the adopted budget Lee County -- and I'm trying to do apples to
apples here so we don't get off.
You've got a general fund for Lee is 3.65; Collier's, 3.14. Lee also
has a libraries assessment. Our libraries come out of our general fund.
They also have an all-hazards protection fund of .06 mills. Our comes
out of -- our emergency management comes out of our general fund,
that 3.14. And then they have a conservation program as we have a
conservation program.
The total millage rate between counties based on an
apples-to-apples comparison is Lee is 4.49 mills versus our 3.37 mills.
Our unincorporated municipal services taxing district, Lee County
has one and we have one. Theirs is .83 mills; ours is .69 mills.
They also have a utility franchise fee revenue of 3 percent, and
this part is on electricity. Our estimate at the time was 9,928,000. And
I'm going to give you some more information, but I wanted to show
you what I showed you in June because it hasn't changed a whole heck
of a lot. What I've been able to do based on their budget, approved
budget -- and I'm going to lock this injust a tad for you -- and we got
this from the Lee County budget office, this information.
Their ad valorem, as I stated before, their library, their all-hazard,
Page 47
January 13,2009
their conservation, 4.591. I talked about that previous.
You also have their adopted budget is 4.5043. Again, our millage
with conservation is 3.37. You did not raise the millage rates.
They have a franchise fee, 3 percent on electric. That brings in
about nine-point -- anywhere from 9.9 million to 9.5 million,
depending on what you want to do on the unaudited actuals in '08 and
of the adopted budget, and they also have a solid waste fee that brings
in almost $2 million for that particular item, of which you don't have
either one.
They have three bridges they collect tolls on. It brings in
anywhere from -- the '08 adopted budget unaudited came in at 37
million. This year their budget's at 38 million. You don't have a toll
road.
Now, those tolls become a credit in their impact fee calculation for
roads. If it's a credit, they can't charge the impact fee for it. So what
you've got on this piece of paper is, you've got a higher millage rate,
you have franchise fees, which you don't have, and you have tolls,
which you don't have. So they've got some outside sources that they're
using to offset the costs of their impact fees, and that gives you the
other piece.
And that's something that Duncan doesn't analyze when he takes a
look at the national comparisons on impact fees in counties that --
counties and communities that charge them. They don't get into the
basis of why one fee is lower than the other fee. That they don't do.
Now, I think I've covered the Lee County perspective,
Commissioner Coyle. If I haven't, you let me know if I've missed,
okay.
That brings you to the cost to you as a Board of County
Commissioners -- of county commissioners for the recommendation by
the Productivity Committee, and I'm talking about the immediate cost.
Our budget -- and this talks about debt service. Our actuals in '08 are
listed in this column, then our budget for '09 is the second, and the
Page 48
January 13, 2009
reduction to the 2007 rates.
Our budget for 2009 -- and Mr. Baytos hits about -- hit about it a
little bit -- he said 5 million on a slide, and had a lot of question marks,
but it's really 5.8 million. And the reduction, going back to -- and going
back to the 2007 rates, not the ones that were approved and went into --
into effect on 1 January, 2008. The reduction based on those 2007 rates
for the budget would be $3.9 million. That is a difference of $1.8
million.
Now, part of that will be mid year so it will be reduced a little bit,
but I'm trying to -- to try to give the ramifications of that particular item
for you.
Next year, based on that reduced-rate structure of2007, we would
have a shortage of$1.7 million in the debt service. In other words,
what I'm saying is, in order to go back to the 2007 based on our
analysis, we would need $1.8 million from ad valorem to make up the
debt service from those funds that are listed that I have debt service for.
Now, I'm going to flip the slide. I also -- something else you have
to consider. I have more stickies than I really want to. I asked staff, I
said, okay, when you talk about an impact fee decrease, you also have
to tell me how many permits have been pulled, impact fees have been
paid but the buildings haven't been built yet; and what happens if those
permits get canceled, impact fees get refunded, and then they come
back in a rush, okay, to get the permit issued again with a lower impact
fee? What's our delta? That is a $1.1 million delta if that phenomena
does happen, okay.
One of the things that says to me that it won't happen -- it could
happen in some instances if the difference is really great for a
commercial property, and Mr. Baytos hit upon that, banks and things
like that that might have some impact fees that are rather large.
One of the things that have transpired from the time that these
permits have been issued, okay, and what's transpired right now is you
Page 49
January 13, 2009
have a new fire code, and you have fire code changes. So if they come
in with a new permit, then they have to go through a fire code review,
okay.
And that -- and a building -- excuse me. I'm getting a lot of
background. And one of the other issues that are happening is, you're in
the -- on the verge, on the cusp, of having a new Florida Building Code
come online, too. So depending upon when that reapplication comes in,
if it does, that that could happen.
So worst case, if everybody canceled their permits and came in for
new ones, you're looking for 1.1 million on top of the 1.8 from the
previous. This could be a $3 million ad valorem reserve decision that
the board could make if you're on and in -- and you follow the
recommendation of the Productivity Committee, and that's just for this
year.
The other piece that you've got to be cognizant of -- and Mr. Feder
will discuss this in about 17 or 18 minutes, and it will get with the
transportation piece -- the change to the transportation impact fee. And
on this email it says $6 million for the first year difference.
Norman doesn't have a debt service on a construction piece at all.
I'm talking about the transportation division doesn't have debt service.
They will have debt service when they go out and get that commercial
paper that the board approved for some $50 million, and that will be
paid back by impact fees. Ifhis impact fee revenue stream is less, it's
going to be harder for him to pay that $50 million back in a five-year
period of time. So it will have some consequences the second and third,
fourth, and fifth years once he draws because he'll have less monies,
and he's going to have to scale back or push out his capital
improvement. And I'll let Norman and Mr. Casalanguida, his planner,
discuss that particular issue with you.
And I think I've talked about what the particular issues are. I also
want to make sure that the board realizes -- and right now I know all
eyes are on the board, and even Mr. Lytle from the Naples Daily News
Page 50
January 13,2009
News today in his editorial knows and said and, I quote, if you have
this reduction, it has to be made up with ad valorem tax money. He said
that today, and I was -- I was amazed that he said that. But he's figured
it out, and I want you to know that.
I have a series of -- and I want to make sure that the board isn't
blamed --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We need to move on from this
discussion, or we're going to take a break.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Last, but not least. There was a series of
articles that were in the paper over the summer, and it talked about
different townhomes, and it talked about original prices for particular
properties, what the new sales price was and what the reductions were.
And in the reductions -- and this is after the impact fees have
already been paid on those particular homes. And I have -- and I
clipped them out this summer just to make sure that everybody
understood.
It isn't impact fees that got us in this mess. It wasn't Collier
County's impact fees that got the country in the mess that it's in. I think
it has a lot to do with people that overreached themselves; it has a lot to
do with greed.
And so, if anybody's interested in those particular paper issues --
so it's not all the board's fault. The board is in the process of trying to
figure out how -- a way to help, and I believe that's what the
Productivity Committee was trying to do at the same time.
That's all I have to offer, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are you complete, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to wrap it up with a
recommendation, maybe a motion, if you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I have other commissioners--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, you do, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that have questions or comments.
And I think at this time we need to take a ten-minute break. But before
Page 51
January 13, 2009
we go to the impact -- transportation impact fees, we need to finish up
presentations.
Okay. Let's take a ten-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Again, ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. The board -- the board can't take
any official action on this item. It would have to come back either in an
ordinance or resolution change. It's just discussion and possible
guidance to the county staff.
So with that, I'll go to Commissioner Frank Halas for questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. Where is Larry? Larry Baytos.
Oh.
MR. BA YTOS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Larry, in your study of the impact
fees, was there anything taken into account of the amount of permits
that are -- already been pulled, and those homes have not come out of
the ground, and those permits were pulled at 2000 -- in 2006/2007
under the old impact fee?
MR. BA YTOS: We did not look at that. I believe the data -- I
hadn't seen it before, but I believe that's what Mr. Mudd was -- the
numbers he was showing you, if I'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'm sure there's been a lot of
permits that were pulled that were supposed to be ready to build, and,
of course, then we had the economic problem.
So I'm -- asked staff to get me that information, how many homes
are still out there that need to be built under the old impact fee level
that was approved prior to we (sic) increasing the impact fees this past
January.
The other question that I have for you, did any of your data look
at the amount of homes that are presently being foreclosed upon or are
Page 52
January 13,2009
foreclosed that are owned by the bank that need to be sold? Because
those impact fees have already been paid for.
MR. BA YTOS: Right. The only data we had there, you know,
what was generally available in the media, but we didn't talk about it
as, you know, a reason not to do it, and that was part of the reason for
those who voted against it, that said --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I have some real concerns that
some of the data -- when you came up with comparing Lee County
with Collier County and not understanding the whole tax structure
between one county and the other, that leads me to believe that -- I
have some real concerns in the objectivity of this whole study that was
done by the Productivity Committee. And I have some concerns in the
direction that the Productivity is going, and I hope it's not being
influenced by outside interference and not looking at the whole general
populous of the county here.
MR. BA YTOS: Commissioner, I'd like to address that directly,
because I understand staff has questioned the basis for my motivation. I
think I'd like to make clear, number one, that I have no -- other than my
own home, I have no investments in real estate in Collier County that
might benefit from any of these recommendations.
Secondly, I have no contacts with any developers. Unlike the
situation in Collier (sic) County, I don't have a daughter married to a
developer either. The -- another issue -- in fact, first developers I met
were in Productivity Committee meetings last month or two months
ago.
Another issue that Commissioner Coyle pointed on a couple
months ago, he expressed his concern that members of these advisory
committees, not necessarily the Productivity Committee, but any
committee member might try to use this as a springboard for elective
office, and I can assure you that I am not now, will -- nor will I ever be
a candidate for elective office. My interest in this is just one from a
concerned citizen, a curious citizen.
Page 53
January 13,2009
With regard to the issue of looking at the overall revenue,
certainly we understood that there is a different revenue stream in Lee
County, and that's one of the reasons I say every time I give a
presentation like this, is we're not saying drop your fees to what Lee
County has, but -- if! could finish that point, sir -- the revenue that
they're talking about is paid by thousands and thousands or hundreds of
thousands of people, but impact fees are paid by, you know, maybe 5-,
10,000 people.
So it's an issue of how the county leadership wants to balance the
burden that's going to be carried.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The end result is, the impact fee is
tacked onto the home in this case, and that's for the residents that want
to come in here and live in Collier County. And if you look at our tax
rate, it's one of the lowest in the State of Florida, and think that's where
a lot of people are.
A few years ago we had a referendum on the ballot in regards to a
half-cent sales tax, and it was turned down overwhelmingly, and that
half-cent sales tax was to address growth here in Collier County.
The citizens said no, growth has to pay for growth, and I that's
where we're at. Although, some of the data that came out today, I think
you have an understanding that not all of it's paid for by impact fees.
There are some ad valorem taxes that are added into paying for growth.
But the overall-- when you make a study, you want to make sure
that we have an understanding of what the tax rate is here in Collier
County, and that's all taxes, versus other counties. And if you look at
counties that don't have impact fees, I think you're going to find that
those counties are at or near ten mills.
So it's one way or another. Either the citizens that live there are
going to pay for the growth, or the growth comes in and is a burden,
then the growth should pay for -- take care of itself and be paid for by
development.
Page 54
January 13,2009
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coletta, then I'm going to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
I know I sat in on the Productivity Committee, and everybody's
interpretation, I guess, is different. And I didn't -- I didn't hear the same
things as Larry heard, but I guess each person's impression is different.
When comparing impact fees with other counties, have we also
compared it to their rate of growth? Now, from what I've read in the
newspapers and what I've seen here in Collier County, our rate of
growth has been exponential. We've had a larger rate of growth than
any other county in the entire State of Florida. Our impact fees have
also been the highest, which hasn't stopped that rate of growth.
And by the way, our taxes are the lowest as far as our -- as far as
our millage rate goes, the lowest in the State of Florida. So it seems
like that has been a component that has worked for us all along.
Maybe that's because we -- right now we're a
residential-retirement-resort community, and that has really helped us a
lot in our growth.
Impact fees have also -- and you mentioned -- you alluded to this.
Impact fees. Yes, we've collected high impact fees. It's also allowed us
to build the infrastructure vital to continue the building of the
development -- developments around the county, as well as the
businesses.
Ifwe didn't have our infrastructure in place, no matter how
anybody wanted to build, they couldn't build because there is no
infrastructure to support that, and that's very important.
And -- let's see. Lastly, one of the things you mentioned, some of
the government buildings that we've been building, thank heavens we
had those impact fees in place and set aside and the plans in place to
build. So, yes, we've been building. We've built a library and EOC, this
-- many roads, this courthouse right now. And actually, it's kept our
Page 55
January 13,2009
our employment -- unemployment rate down because we've kept the
construction industry working just because of those impact fees, and
these things were all paid by impact fees?
MR. SA YTOS: Can I respond to the first question. I believe --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Baytos?
MR. BA YTOS: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There was a question there? Did you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't really have a question.
MR. BA YTOS: She asked if we considered the rate of growth.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I did.
MR. BA YTOS: Actually, we did do some analysis, or I did some
analysis. I looked at the rate of population growth correlated to impact
fees, also we looked at population density, looked at real estate prices
versus impact fees, and there wasn't a lot of correlation. Whatever way
you looked at Collier County was a step above -- a big step above
everybody else, which I believe, you know, is the policy component.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Larry, I want you to know
that I appreciate what you and the Productivity have given to this
county. If it wasn't for your research and everything, we wouldn't be
looking at many other options out there. And every once in a while,
you have to pull our chain to be able to get our attention, and you're
doing a good job of it; however, unlike you, I do have a vested interest
in the -- as far as my family goes, and what takes place out there in the
building industry.
I have three offspring that are directly connected to it. My
son-in-law, my daughter, and my -- one of my other sons. My
son-in-law was a big builder in LaBelle, built many, many homes. Of
course, the economy, being the way it is -- and my son, Chris, had a
screen enclosure business. When I say had, he had 33 employees, and
today my son and my son-in-law, together, are working in Louisiana
Page 56
'-..'.c.____..,. .^.,_.,__~___..,___ .~,,____.__,_,_.
January 13, 2009
commercial fishing until the economy picks up again where it can take
off.
Most of the -- I wouldn't say most, but I'd say probably a vast
majority of the residents of the -- District 5 that I represent have, in
some way, ties to it, either directly to the building industry or to the
commercial establishments and vendors that serve the building
industry .
So I'm very much concerned over where we're going, but I want to
make sure that what we do is always going to be the right decision.
And I keep looking at this, and I look at it from a little bit different
perspective, too. One of the biggest problems we have now is
foreclosed and abandoned homes all through my district. Not only
homes, but there's a lot of commercial out there that's standing idle.
So I was wondering if your committee ever looked at what the --
at what point impact fees would have to be lowered to be able to
compete with existing residential and commercial structures that are
remaining empty out there.
MR. BA YTOS: Well, I don't think there's any way you could.
Really, impact fees are just for those people who have an interest in
some -- you know, something new.
Just like the Habitat for Humanity has found out, it's much
cheaper to buy a home and rehab it than it is to, you know, go from the
ground up and pay the impact fees. So I don't think there will ever be
competition for what's out there now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So getting to the second part of
my question, there is some counties out there that stepped forth and
reduced their impact fees, or in the case of Hendry County, eliminated
their impact fees, the structure they had in place. Charlotte County cut
theirs in half, if I'm not mistaken.
Did your committee, by any chance, take the time to be able to see
what the net results of that was in the new construction?
MR. BA YTOS: Well, you know, the effect was short-term
Page 57
January 13, 2009
because those changes, I think, were within the last year, number one.
Secondly, their fees in most cases were so low to begin with that, you
know, if you have a 10,000 fee for a home, you cut it by 20 percent, it's
$2,000. It's not enough, you know, to change behavior.
So many counties have discussed it. But being at a somewhat
lower fee level, it's not going to provide, you know, much of an impact,
other than send a message to the community that, you know, we
understand the issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, and I'll be honest with you.
I kind of wonder what the net gain would be by our action. Now, I do
agree with Commissioner Coyle on one thing, very, very strongly agree
with him, and it may even result in impact fee cuts that surpass what
you have recommended, and that would be to do an analysis over what
it costs, one, the cost differential over what it was when we last figured
it, and do it at a timely basis rather than time things out for one year,
and also how we're moving everything forward into the future of when
it's going to be built.
And I think if we do that, we'd be able to come up with something
that would be balanced and fair for all. But I really have concerns with
just taking a percentage cut right across the board or rolling back to the
level of'07, I believe was the recommendation.
MR. BA YTOS: It's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I mean, just right out of the --
right out of the box. I wouldn't have had any problem if we froze it for
one year and got a chance to talk about it, but now we have a fee
structure set up. We have projected out incomes coming in to be able to
make the infrastructure go into place.
And here's one of my concerns. And I might sound farfetched at
this day and age when the economy is in the -- is really in the
depressing mode. But what's going to happen -- because everything
works way off into the future. But if we start rolling back on roads,
start rolling back on other amenities out there that we need to be able to
Page 58
January 13, 2009
to support growth that's going to happen, my fear is that the next step
would be is that this commission might suddenly find themselves in a
box, because you don't turn their ship around in five minutes. It takes a
lot of planning, and a lot of time to do it, and that would result down
the road, a couple years, maybe four, five years, in a moratorium
because we can't keep up with it.
We have a growth plan that has to be satisfied. And, you know, all
these things -- of course, I'll be honest with you. Your committee
would be better at deciphering these kind of ideas and questions than I
ever could be, but in the meantime, I just wanted to tell you, I do
appreciate what you're doing.
MR. BA YTOS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to go, and then give it back
to Commissioner Coyle.
Mr. Baytos, I recognize what the Productivity -- their goals was. It
wasn't about trying to benefit anybody. It was all about the economics
in Collier County, and I commend you for that.
Although, from the comments of my colleagues, I don't see this
going forward, and it's somewhat of a disappointment for myself. I'm
not sure the net effects by rolling it back to 2007 would actually spur
the economy. I know that raising impact fees, the last increases actually
we collected less impact fees.
But, you know, my feeling about going back to 2007 levels,
there's not going to be a net gain or even a net loss, but it does give
hope that elected officials, county government, is -- wants to be a
partner in this. I'm very disappointed. At least what we should be doing
is sending a message about government building impact fees.
I was one of the commissioners that voted against that. I think it
sends a wrong message to the public is, we're charging a fee to grow
government. If the analysis was wrong, I must say, at least what we
should be doing, if the analysis is wrong about the projected growth,
what impacts -- how much we collect in impact fees, that's the least we
Page 59
January 13, 2009
we should be doing is doing that, to make sure that we have a fair and
honest fee if the majority of them -- of the board is not going to vote to
go to the 2007 level.
So with that, I'll go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
I wouldn't despair. None of my questions have been designed to
discourage the reduction of impact fees. I think it is only fair that we
reduce impact fees. I mean, that's the way our system is set up. When
our costs go down, the impact fees should go down. But I think we can
do better. And all I need is some additional discussion and data on
some of the other issues, and that would be more relevant for this next
item that is time certain at 11 o'clock.
So Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we recognize the
work that the Productivity Committee has done, that we thank them,
we accept the report, recognizing that there's additional information we
need, and some of that information I suspect we will obtain in this next
discussion for the time certain item in the review of the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle --let
me see if I can capture it -- to accept the report from the Productivity
Committee on impact fees. And where are we going to get this data?
Our next --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we'll get it from
Tindale-Oliver, I think we'll get it from the public speakers, I think
we'll get it from the staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And hopefully we'll have some
questions. And some of the questions we've asked Mr. Baytos might be
answered by some of those people and -- so I think we can very easily
transition right on into the next item.
Page 60
January 13,2009
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second to the motion by
Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure
I understood. We're talking about directing Productivity and staff to go
back and look at the whole structure for impact fees to be able to justify
where this -- I'm sorry Commissioner Coyle. Help me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I wouldn't do that. I would wait
until we get through this item at 11 o'clock, which is the impact fee
study.
See, what we're talking about right now is merely the
recommendations of the Productivity Committee. As soon as we finish
with this one, we go right into a discussion of the impact fee study, and
I believe that we can sort out a lot of those things there and give some
direction to staff at that point in time.
But with respect to the recommendations of the impact -- or the
Productivity Committee, I'm merely saying that we should take that
information, move into the next discussion item, use all the information
we get to try to make a decision with respect to the item number--
what is it, 10 --
MS. FILSON: C.
MR. MUDD: C.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- C? Item number 10C, which is--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you're looking to direct staff
after Item 10C?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Well, I don't want to go to IOC.
I've been chairman long enough.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. How about 5D?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Coyle definitely
agrees with that. So after the motion, I would like to go to 5D, after we
Page 61
January 13, 2009
vote on the motion.
Is there any 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.
Item #5D
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN:
COMMISSIONER FIALA NOMINATED AS CHAIRMAN -
APPROVED; COMMISSIONER COYLE NOMINATED AS VICE
CHAIRMAN - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: 5D is selection of a chair and a vice chair. Entertain
a motion for a chairman.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Commissioner
Fiala for chair.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Coletta for Commissioner Fiala to be
the '09 chair, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the motion,
Page 62
January 13, 2009
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.
Entertain a motion for vice-chair for 2009.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for Commissioner Halas
to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is Commissioner Halas next or
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. What's the Coyle--
Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta to
appoint --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Coyle for vice-chair,
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.
Page 63
January 13, 2009
Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, kind sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, would you --
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Want to switch chairs, or do you
want to do it after lunch?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, let's just do it after lunch.
Let me just say that -- I really want to thank my fellow
commissioners for this honor. It's a joy working with every single one
of you. You have shown integrity like nobody else can, and I'm so
proud of that. And I just hope I can bring to this chairmanship this year
the wit and humor that Commissioner Coletta always displays, the
strength and courage from Commissioner Henning, the wisdom from
Commissioner Coyle, and the fortitude from Commissioner Halas. If I
can even get a little bit of all of those things for myself, that would be
just wonderful.
But luckily they're all here. All I need to do is guide them and
direct them, and so I really thank you for this opportunity. Thank you.
Okay.
Item # lOC
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACCEPTS THE COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
IMP ACT FEE UPDATE STUDY (STUDY) DATED DECEMBER
2008 AND DIRECTS STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER
74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES (THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE) PROVIDING FOR THE
INCORPORA nON BY REFERENCE OF THE STUDY TO
EITHER IMPLEMENT THE CORRESPONDING ROAD IMP ACT
Page 64
January 13, 2009
FEE RATE SCHEDULE OR CONSIDER AN OPTION TO DELAY
THE ADOPTION OF THE CORRESPONDING ROAD IMP ACT
FEE RATE SCHEDULE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR AND
CONSIDER AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE BY ADJUSTING THE
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE
RATES IN EFFECT AS OF JUNE 30, 2006 WITH STAFF
DIRECTION TO PREPARE MEASURES TO REDUCE TRIP
LENGTHS - MOTION TO CONTINUE UNTIL STAFF CAN
BRING AN ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 10C, which is
a time-certain item. It's a request that the Board of County
Commissioners accepts the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee
Update Study, the study dated December, 2008, and direct staff to
bring back an ordinance amending Schedule 1 of Appendix A of
Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, the
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, providing for the
incorporation by reference of the study to either implement the
corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule or consider an option to
delay the adoption of the corresponding Road Impact Fee Rate
Schedule for a period of one year, and consider an economic incentive
by adjusting the Road Impact Fee Schedule to reflect the rates in effect
as of June 30, 2006, with the staff direction to prepare measures to
reduce trip lengths.
Mr. Nick Casalanguida, your transportation planning director, will
present.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, County Manager.
Good morning, Commissioners. Nick Casalanguida with
transportation planning.
I want to tell you that it's an arduous task to go through an impact
fee study, a full one, and I couldn't do it without a real competent
consultant, Steve Tindale, Oliver & Associates, and Amy Patterson
Page 65
January 13,2009
from our impact fee office. It's a lot of work.
It takes about a year to go through a complete study, and we get--
look at every detail of the costs and the credits that's included in there,
such as construction land, design and mitigation, we look at the credits
that are available, gas tax, ad valorem, tolls sales tax. As you know, we
have none.
One of the interesting notes with the county manager presentation
was that Lee County collects more in toll revenues than we collect in
impact fees, just in toll revenues alone. And that was kind of a neat
tidbit to kind of catch --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Say that one more time.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Lee County collects more in toll
revenues than we collect in impact fees. So that's a big offset to your
impact fee as well.
We took our last financial snapshot in November. As you know,
you prepare over a year when you keep looking at numbers, costs, and
at some point in time you say, okay, this is where we're at. Let's stop.
And we haven't let any projects since then, so we had a good time
frame to kind of look back to that year.
As Commissioner Coyle pointed out, you look back for a year and
see what you've done. You take your highs and lows and you figure out
why they were, and you balance them all together.
The impact fee is your primary revenue source for your capital
improvement element. We're, right now, in the process of going in
front of the Planning Commission on Friday for your five-year CIE.
And your revenue stream has been adjusted again since the AUIR,
down to about 25 million.
And if you did an apples-to-apples comparison of your impact fee
that's proposed by the study and the one that's being proposed by the
Productivity Committee, the rollback, you're looking at a $6 million
delta or change.
Your first year, maybe you manage that out. You start pulling
Page 66
January 13, 2009
projects out. You can't maintain that capital element for that five-year
program.
The impact fee study -- you know, the comment that it's staffs
direction to maintain the highest impact fee, I kind of take exception to
that. That's not what we're directed to do. We're directed to find out
what the actual cost of capacity is based on everything else that we
have. And if you give a credit to that, we lower the impact fee.
One of the things we've found out going through the study is we
did a trip length study. And I want to put a little slide up and talk about
that a little bit.
Your trip length study -- let me explain a little bit what trip length
is. In this area here is your urban area, and all your studies in the past
have been done in the urban area. And what that says is when a
resident goes out to services such as hospital, government,
employment, retail shopping, how far they drive.
And so in the urban area, you know, from a development such as
Island Walk or Lely or Pelican Bay, most of the services are within two
to five miles of everything that they need.
When you start looking east -- and that total dimension is seven
miles to 951. From the coast to Everglades Boulevard is 17 miles. And
from the coast all the way to the eastern county line is 35 miles. From
1-75 to the north county line is 25 miles.
Your trip length study for the first time -- because we want to use
local data when we do our studies -- started looking at different areas.
We looked at Olde Cypress right on the urban boundary, Boyne South
on U.S. 41, we sampled Golden Gate Estates east of Wilson, and we
sampled Arrowhead.
And what we found -- what we found -- and it was intuitive -- that
people [rom the eastern part of the county drive farther than people in
the urban area and -- because there's no services out there. And we've
been talking about services coming online with Ave Maria, potentially
Big Cypress, and Immokalee developing at that point in time.
Page 67
January 13, 2009
time.
It was such a high discrepancy that working with our consultant,
we said, we want to probably keep it at the state average because we
were higher than the state average.
And Commissioner Coyle pointed out a good point. He said, well,
why wasn't this looked at four years ago when the growth was
happening? Because we kind of went with our road program. The
program was primarily in the urban area, and we said, let's focus our
trip length studies there.
But as the growth in the next five years, your capital
improvement, starts to move to the east, we wanted to sample that area.
Now, there was only four sample points, and so maybe one of the
questions is, maybe we need more data or we want to wait till there's
additional data from commercial development development out there.
But we do want to emphasize that that trip length is a key component
of your impact fee. And if you can find the balance between services
and residential, that trip length will get shorter.
The Productivity Committee recommended two years. Obviously
we have a problem with that as well, too. Any recommendation, we
always want to take a snapshot and look at it in small increments
because things are so volatile. The delta is about $6 million, as I
discussed. And that's concerning, because after a year, it starts to really
get into your capital improvement element and it starts to push out
projects, and we're really concerned about that.
We talked about, with the AUIR, your vacancy rates, because
some of the comments we received at both the Productivity Committee
and DSAC -- DSAC voted against the study -- was that there's plenty
of roadway capacity out there. These roads are coming online, we're
starting to feel comfortable.
We're in a down economy. When we sample the urban area, you
have 20 to 50 percent vacancy rates in multifamily units; in the Estates,
Page 68
January 13, 2009
Estates, 20 to 30 percent in some of the side streets.
So there's a lot of demand that we're not going to be able to
control coming back on. And when that comes back on, there is no --
there is no permitting process. There's just someone buying that vacant
unit and coming online. So our capital program is consistent with
maintaining the level of service.
Another point, level of service in Collier County. We asked at one
of the conferences, what is growth management? Deciding what you
want to be when you grow up and establishing a level of service for the
community.
Our neighboring community has a different level of service. You
expect a certain roadway capacity and level of service, and that impact
fee pays for that.
I could go on, but I'll ask Steve to come up and touch on any
questions you have as far as a detailed study or ask any -- answer any
questions before Steve comes up that you may have of staff. If you
have none, I'll have Steve come up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I see no questions. Thank you.
MR. TINDALE: Good afternoon. Steve Tindale with
Tindale-Oliver. I guess my main purpose here is to answer some
questions, but I could go through just four or five slides to kind of give
an overview, I think, of -- kind of matches what you've been talking
about, and we tried to put together kind of a summary of what actually
occurred.
How do I move this down? I got a page down somewhere?
All right. I could -- brief verbal overview of kind of what
happened with this update. And now this discussion is from your
current adopted number, not where you were a couple years ago, which
had been indexed. And this, in our mind, is what occurred.
One is, this is the variables and what -- their effect on the impact
fee. Your costs came down dramatically, so the first reaction was,
wow, if the cost is down 20,25 percent and you don't adjust credits, it
Page 69
January 13, 2009
-- really the fee comes down 30,35 percent. So that's where we began.
Our mental state was, hey, we're going to produce a report, and
we've got a 25,30 percent reduction in the final fee. That's where we
started.
The capacity. As you urbanize and you put more signals and more
developer (sic) come in, you get less capacity every time you build a
lane mile. If you've got one signal every five miles versus one signal
every quarter-mile, you don't have as much capacity, and you're
urbanizing.
So your capacity came down a little bit; not much. But that would
make the fee go up. So over the -- when we do the update, the costs -- I
mean, the impact fee would go up a little bit because of your capacity.
And I can tell you, as you urbanize, that's going to become more and
more of a problem.
As you build roads, you're not going to add that five miles of rural
roadway with no signals, but -- not a major adjustment.
Interstate toll adjustment. One thing we're seeing all over the state
in the urban areas is tremendous construction and private partnerships
and discussion about tolls and beefing up interstates. Now, the state
doesn't like to talk about that. But I can tell you, in the urban
communities that are urbanizing, the interstates and the toll facilities
are playing a major role.
We're looking out 25 years in Collier County. We say, no tolls and
no major changes in the amount of travel in and out of your community
on the interstate.
That factor then is increasing the fee. What we're telling you is
over time, if you don't go to toll facilities and you don't do some of
those other things, in general, the county's responsibility to provide
transportation is going to be more expensive and you're going to playa
major role -- a bigger role.
So over the last three to five years, we're seeing that trend. Well,
that cuts that 30 percent now down a little bit more because we're
Page 70
January 13, 2009
recognizing that you've got more and more traffic percentage-wise on
local roads than you do the interstate or any toll facilities.
I've got one community that 40 percent of the travel into the
community or out is not on a county or a state road. It's on a toll road or
an interstate, almost half the travel, and that's -- they've chosen. Now,
who's paying it? You know, the community's paying it through toll
facilities.
That -- we're looking at where you are and where you're going,
and we're not seeing that transition, you know, in terms of -- you're
basically changing who pays. That's not occurring. So that -- all of a
sudden our 25,35 percent reduction gets lowered a little bit more.
Then we looked at the revenue credits. That's the amount of
money that you're spending. I've got communities that are looking at
taking one full mill and spending it on transportation. It takes an
$11,000 fee and it drops it down to like $4,000.
They're making adjustments to the -- to the -- who's paying.
They're just saying, you know -- and that's your choice of what you're
doing.
We looked at your revenue credits. When the fee was indexed, we
made the assumption that the costs were going up, and we indexed
upward, and we assumed that you would have a corresponding increase
in taxes when we -- to be conservative. We didn't want to index upward
and say, well, we're not going to have a little bit more taxes going--
whether it was reallocation of gas tax or whatever.
So when we did the indexing, we were really conservative, and we
had that credit up there. Well, you didn't increase your taxes. It didn't
happen.
Now, when we do update, we're losing more of that 30 percent.
You can see this trend. Toll facilities are starting to not show up, the --
you're urbanizing, getting a little more expensive in terms of capacity,
and now as the costs go up, you're not -- your credit mechanism is
becoming less of a role in it.
Page 71
January 13, 2009
What do we end up with? Rather than that 25, 30 percent
reduction in fees with the costs going down, we're at 14 percent now. If
we don't do anything else, the fees across the board would have went
down 14 percent.
But it's been three years since we've adjusted any of the demand
side. And as part of the update, we were supposed to update the
demand side. So now it becomes an additional. And believe me, we
weren't really excited about having to go through this and to not get
that 30 percent in terms of just where we started off.
So we said, well, let's update the demand side. Now -- and I'll
caution you. We have collected a lot of data in the last three years all
over the state, and you've got things like banks that we've got a lot
more samples and we're using a different type of curve, and the bank
fees need to come down. Whether you -- you know, and I think you
can pick and choose. You can say, well, the residential stuff is still not
a good sample size, and we can adjust the demand side. But you really
do have some uses that we've got data on that you do need to adjust if
you don't do anything else, and I think the banks was one of them. It's
-- clearly we've got a lot more data and there's some information there.
So the overall change would have been 14 percent.
The single -- what really happened with the single-family home --
and you heard the conversation. We collected another four, five sites
from the county and we've collected another 10 or 15 studies statewide.
And because we changed that demand side, the residential didn't get
that 14 percent. It actually got an almost even 2 percent. Now, again,
whether we use the updated study or whatever, I think you have some
choices there.
The office with the updated data not only received the 14 percent,
but the office data is showing that the offices in general are -- the trip,
trip lengths and whatever, are another couple, 3 percent minor
adjustment, so they get 17 percent.
Now, let's go to the shopping centers and the retail, because I
Page 72
January 13, 2009
think that was the one you heard about, and what happened with the
shopping centers. Lee County charges twice the dollar per square foot
for shopping center as office. Now, I'm not talking about banks and gas
stations and service stations, et cetera. Lee County charges twice per
square foot for retail as they do an office. You only charge about 20
percent more for the general retail than office.
And [ can't find the source of the data of why Lee County's
charging twice for retail they're charging for office. There are several
studies the that Productivity Committee brought to me. It's not
transparent. I can't check other people's work. I can't go through their
data and find it. [ can tell you, we've done many, many shopping
centers, and yours is correct.
And your shopping centers don't need to be paying twice the fee
that we're recommending, the general retail.
Now, what we've done beside the general retail is we went out and
got a lot of details on the very high turnover ones. Because I can tell
you when we first did them, with a six-mile trip length on a
convenience store, the impact fees were like $200 a square foot. They
don't travel six miles. It's a couple miles, and they have a high capture
rate, but they still generate a lot of demand.
So the difference in my mind between and you and Lee County is
Lee County overcharging about 80 percent of their retail -- that's the
shopping centers and general retail -- and they're totally undercharging
about 15 percent of their retail, way undercharging.
Now, I can't figure out what they did, but it looked like maybe
they took all retail and put it in one big basket and computed an
average, and the average is too high for the general retail. So they're
overcharging 80 percent and they're way undercharging very high-use
retail. I can't figure it out, to be honest with you, but that's what's --
that's what they're doing. They're overcharging retail and they're
undercharging high-use retai I. You're not doing that.
It's data. It's been collected. It's been collected statewide. We've
Page 73
January 13,2009
collected here. You're charging the correct amount of retail, which is
well below the Lee County rate, and you're really hitting some of the
very, very intense uses.
Now, I'll tell you one quick story, and I think you'll enjoy it. The
senior vice-president of Wendy's called me up, just raised cane about
their fee. This was two or three years ago. I told him ifhe would give
me the transactions and the revenue per square foot ofa fast-food
restaurant and I could just compare that, take a 30-year period in
transactions and revenues and compare that to the fee, I'd love to do
that because the impact fee is supposed to charge for use.
And my sense, when I go look at a fast-food restaurant, is there's a
lot of traffic. And he said, no. You made your point, I'm fine. And that
was the end of Wendy's. No way, you know.
Now, I've proposed this in meetings with McDonald's and some of
the other ones, and we have never received data related to revenues and
transactions per square foot. And legally, you're supposed to be -- if
you know that you're different, you should charge it different.
Now, I think you might n in Florida right now the laws are pretty
loose in terms of what you have the right to do. You could group them
all as a group and charge an average. I wouldn't recommend that. I
think you're doing the right thing. So that's the answer on the retail.
Again, I've got graphics. And rather than going through this, I just
verbalized. Costs went down dramatically. Capacity went down, which
would change the fee. The cost to provide one vehicle traveling one
mile is fairly significant in this county. The interstate and toll facility
factors are not there for you, brings the fee up. Your credits, you're not
putting more and more taxes in the system to reduce the fee, so it's
adjusting it.
And there's a daily traffic issue. And I can tell you, I think we still
could have some conversations about getting a bigger sample size and
being very careful with the residential. And the demand component to
me could be the one you most talk about in terms of doing it. And,
Page 74
January 13, 2009
doing it. And, again, I have the comparison of the fees.
And my last statement is this, I'm working in counties all over the
State of Florida. In my mind, there's three of them, of all the ones in
Florida, there's three of them that have taken growth management and
what's going on seriously. You, Polk County and Pasco County. And
you have the highest fees in the state, most commitment to taxes in the
state, and the best program in the state.
And comparing yourself to anyone else, you know, statewide that
aren't dealing with level of service, not serious about what they're
doing, I think, is a big mistake because I think you are one of the top
three in your -- of those three, you're probably the top of the three of
what you're doing. And all other ones I pretty well ignore because
they're pretty well ignoring what they're trying to accomplish in their
plans.
So those are my comments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions? Yes, Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was noticing cost per lane mile.
You used two roads in this study -- and correct me if I'm wrong --
Santa Barbara Boulevard and Collier Boulevard?
MR. TlNDALE: I'll tell you what we used. We have every district
for the last seven years, every road that's been built in every district,
including your district, and we compare the district -- every district, all
those projects for the last three years, last two years and one year, and
we check that whatever projects we're using, counties don't build a lot
of roads.
And this is the whole issue about local data. I can go into a
county, and in one year, if I use two projects, the fee would double, and
two years later if I use two projects, the fee could be cut in half. It
makes no sense. But what we do is we check whatever you are doing
and we discuss it and go over it and over and over what those two or
three projects are doing, do they include utilities, did you have the
Page 75
January 13,2009
average number of parcels being constructed in terms of the
right-of-way estimate, and then we make a decision about the
construction costs.
So, yes, we used a couple, three of your projects, because that's all
you build in any period of time, but that is just one small component of
making a very logical decision about what roads are going to cost you
in the next five years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is it true then you used Santa
Barbara and --
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Collier Boulevard only?
MR. TINDALE: As two -- well, those two -- yes, two from
Collier.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: Two from Collier. That doesn't mean we used
two. We used two projects that you're involved in to make our decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And those were 2007. I
noticed in the same table -- actually it's -- anybody want to follow me?
It's Page 51. It's Table 2B. To be.
Other counties, it looks like you used a lot of data from 2008. We
have awarded projects for -- from last year. Is there any reason why
you didn't use those projects as far as lane-mile costs?
MR. TINDALE: Well, I have to get Neil, again, up here in terms
of the projects we use or did not use, to be honest with you. I'm not
going to answer a question. And maybe Nick could make a comment.
I briefly would like to show you this, I guess, in response to that.
These are the counties we're active in. The -- in the costs per lane mile
we're using -- and you can see where what I do -- and I'll let Neil get
into the details. You were way above the state average. That's where
you were before we did this update, way above the state average.
We looked at your two projects and had hours of conversation
Page 76
January 13,2009
with your staff and decided that those numbers needed to come down
dramatically. And now we've got you a little bit above the state average
and we can answer why you're above the state average.
We know what components that you have to make you above the
state average and we can talk about those two projects. But I can tell
you where you are on your average, and I can tell you what
components are different than all the other construction going on in the
state, but it's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I have several questions, so
MR. TINDALE: All right, go ahead. Yes, we used those two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So with that statement, do we
calculate impact fees upon the true cost of construction, or do we use
state average?
MR. TINDALE: We use the -- your cost for a small sample of
projects as long as those costs are not out ofline. If those costs were
three times higher than the state average, I would not have used them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great. So is there any --
Nick, is there any reason why we didn't use 2008 construction --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- projects?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well-- now, there's a couple
components to costs. I'm looking at some of the tables. I don't know ifl
have the same format you do. For right-of-way costs, we have Santa
Barbara, Collier, Vanderbilt, Golden Gate, and those were taken as of
November, what Kevin Hendricks was actually spending.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I wasn't -- that's another
question that I have. But it wasn't right-of-way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: With construction costs, you wouldn't
take necessarily Santa Barbara. As Steve pointed out, Mr. Tindale,
when you look at projects, and ifthere's a project that says this is
unreasonably cheap or unreasonably expensive, you don't use it, and
Page 77
January 13, 2009
this is the reason why. You have very few utilities, no maintenance of
traffic, and it's a balance job on Santa Barbara extension. That would
not be representative of your next four roads. If we --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If Mr. Tindale said, we looked at your
next three road projects, will they be the same characteristics and we
would say no, and he says, okay, then you can't use that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's why.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, as far as the cost for
right-of-way acquisition, I mean, we always know about cost for acre
for acquisition. What's in here is cost per lane mile.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of effects did that
have, the cost to purchase that land, to do our future roads? Where are
we at?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we did is -- and we took that
snapshot at the very end of November. At that time we went through
and saw what our -- Kevin Hendricks, our right-of-way manager,
actually paid for right-of-way through the last six months, and then we
calculated with that the lane-mile cost. We took the most recent
snapshot, and in that table we had Collier Boulevard, Vanderbilt Beach
Road extension, Golden Gate Boulevard. So we took some real-time
samples of what was there, and that's how it was calculated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Vanderbilt Beach
extension, you're buying structures, but we're not -- that's not even in
our five-year program.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But it gives you a real-time sample of
your costs for right-of-way. So it's representative of what you're
actually paying today. And if! didn't use that, I'd get in trouble because
people would say, you're not taking a real-time sample of cost.
Page 78
January 13, 2009
MR. TINDALE: I have the right-of-way. The right-of-way was
one eight. Staff came in, gave us a list of things, and it looked like it
was going to stay at one eight. We went and checked and rechecked,
and it said, we don't think one eight's right. Checked and rechecked and
checked. The percentage that you're really buying, how many parcels
you're actually buying, what you're going to buy in the future, we
moved the one eight down to one three.
We think the right-of-way, using just a very basic, here's some
projects, would have come out one eight. We think that was wrong. We
moved it down to one three, and we had some lengthy conversations
where we said, we do not want to put one eight into this. We don't feel
comfortable with one eight. Looking at what you're really doing and
what's happened the last six months, the last year and a half versus your
projects, one eight is too high, and we moved the right-of-way from
one eight down to one three.
And believe me, we had some lengthy conversations about the
staff feeling they may be underestimating right-of-way. But we could
not get comfortable looking at all the data, what was going on, the
change in land values, et cetera, to leave it at one eight, and we reduced
right-of-way to one three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My last question, Mr. Tindale, is,
you mention about banks. That actually is a correction. It was a
miscalculation from the previous update.
MR. TINDALE: Yeah. I don't know how -- yeah, use the correct
word. We had a certain number -- a certain sample size, and we used a
certain regression technique for those number of points. We then like
doubled the number of points, and it was obvious, versus linear, versus
nonlinear regression. We changed the curve, change the method.
Okay, excuse me. Well, then the banks is just a number of -- the
sample. The sample data we had in banks was two things. Retail we
brought down fairly dramatically. Banks we just increased the number
of banks that we've collected the information on substantially.
Page 79
January 13, 2009
What was the two numbers on ITE? Do you know what they
were, the change?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just know that ITE changed the
sample.
MR. TINDALE: Yeah. And I think they're going to do this with
residential. Now she's reminding me. What ITE did is they took all the
banks since like 1970, and they've taken the banks during the last four
or five years, and they dropped everything that was in the sample
before the last four or five years and dropped the trip generation rate
dramatically.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: And the concept is that technology's changed in
the last five years. Let's do away with 70 percent of the data that
probably doesn't make sense there, and the generation rate on the banks
went down dramatically.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. One more question.
Now, you said the board can pick and choose, like we can say, lower
single-family homes?
MR. TINDALE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But keep the rates? I'm trying to
understand.
MR. TlNDALE: No, I didn't -- I didn't -- if I said that -- if it
sounded like I said that -- we have a set of data we've collected, and it's
related to the nontrip generation rate but the overall VMT for different
uses. And you clearly can take and say, hey, I've added just three more
to this sample and it seems to be fairly dramatic, you know, in terms of
the statistical methodology, and question it, and then we can go back
and look at using the different -- the other set of data.
And for the single-family homes with the trip length and what we
did and seeing such a dramatic difference, I think it's reasonable to ask
that question.
Page 80
January 13, 2009
But I wouldn't -- I wouldn't pick and choose any use. It's a use that
we need to go back and recheck the data on in terms of the number of
samples we did in your county and the effect it has. I think you can
revisit that. You don't want to go discount anyone use over another
use. I think that's -- would be found totally illegal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me interrupt here for a moment.
I'm going to call on Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Halas.
We have 20 speakers out there. We're never going to get them in before
noon. At three minutes each that's at least an hour, so at noon we'll
break for lunch. Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Yes, if! may. Probably Nick would be best able to answer this
question. First off, the trip length. When we went and took into
consideration the community east of 951 that I represent, when we
started figuring that into the equation, that's one of the reasons why the
impact fees for roads could not be lowered even further; is that correct,
if I understood this right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, your single-family study -- for
single-family study, there's a rate group -- I saw the county manager
looking at the email I'd sent yesterday. For that group, it would be
lowered if you didn't accept the trip length study.
And what I had said to Steve Tindall -- we had four sample areas
that we had done. A lot of the comments from both the Productivity
Committee and the people at large have been, you haven't let
commercial develop out there. And if it starts to develop, you should
see that trip length come down. And if more commercial is encouraged
out there, you should see that.
So the thought was, we took a sample size of four. If you wanted
to wait or increase that sample size, you could. You would be accepting
the study and just saying -- deferring the trip length study to a later
Page 81
January 13, 2009
a later time, and that would give you an opportunity to see if that begun
-- if that begins to change a little.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Defer the trip study?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The trip study.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and it makes sense. Now,
when you figure impact fees, impact fees are collected against future
growth, not past growth.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you take into consideration
the fact that they have retail and commercial going into Orangetree and
Ave Maria and parts of Immokalee that didn't exist before? Can this be
taken into consideration even though the -- these buildings aren't being
presently occupied or they're not even built?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You make an assumption, so we
wouldn't do that. Because for a study to be valid, you have to take a
real sample. But what you could say is, we're going to give that an
opportunity to happen and then resample again before we make a
change. That's a viable choice that you can make.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, knowing what you
do know as far as where commercial is planned and already been
approved, if these entities do come aboard, like they're planning to, is
there some holes in the doughnut that are still going to affect the length
of trips that would work in your equations?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I know what you're asking, and yes. I
mean, if you look at the Estates as a whole, that map I had up there --
and it's still on the viewer right now -- if you look at the nodes, your
major intersections, say Golden Gate and Wilson or Golden Gate and
Everglades, those are the -- kind of the holes because your
nonresidential is still on the periphery.
So if you try and start filling in some of those to reduce that trip
length, that helps a lot as well, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, a question on the
Page 82
January 13, 2009
recommendations that are here. It says to delay it by one year before
implementing these cuts. Why?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our recommendation as staff is to take
the study, accept is as Productivity accepted it, and to implement it
today, to adopt it today. As an option, because it was discussed that we
present the findings of what the Productivity recommended as an
option, we have that, don't do it for a year if you want to and
implement the Productivity's recommendation for a year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. The committee's -- the
Productivity Committee's recommendation was to --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Two years, roll back to the 2007 rates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This rollback here is pretty
substantial. How does that compare with two years ago what we're
talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't recommend -- my opinion for
-- as your department of transportation planning director, I don't
recommend the rollback. I recommend adopting this study as is
presented to you right now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if we adopt the study as is
and we don't give directions to follow it, then we're -- we've got an
imbalance out there that people are going to be paying fees over and
above what are justified; am I wrong?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. They're -- you'll be paying the
exact current fee right now. You'd still get a reduction in certain
categories. And if you didn't accept the trip length study, the residential
rates would drop about 10 percent. So they would see that reduction
right away.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right away?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right away.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you, Nick.
Page 83
January 13, 2009
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either, Nick, you, or maybe Mr.
Tidwell (sic). When you look at the cost oflane-miles, do you also take
in the other revenue sources in trying to lower the amount of impact
fees, let's say, state, county, and federal gas taxes that could possibly
come back to the county? Does that enter into the equation as far as
lowering the lane-miles construction?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Your credit would go up, not the
lane-mile cost, but you're right. Ifthere was another revenue source,
whether it be state or federal, that came in to help build the county
roads, that would offset the cost as a credit, and we don't have that
currently.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern on this is
obviously the mileage of the vehicles that are being produced
worldwide, the mileage rate, miles per gallon is going up.
Three years ago the average vehicle was probably getting -- we're
talking city miles, urban -- probably talking around 12 to 15 miles a
gallon. Now we're getting closer to 20 miles to the gallon.
We also know that the state is not giving us the revenues that we
had before for road building. We also know that the state has looked at
a whole different prospect of doling out funds. They're looking at
strategic intermodal systems and not just regular road services. So there
again, we run into problems. And, of course, the economic downturn,
how we're not getting the gas tax revenues.
In the past when you looked at the gas tax revenues, what
percentage of those gas tax revenues were used to build roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll let Steve answer that. But I can tell
you our gas tax revenues are projecting down about four million from
the high of about 22 million into the $18 million range. So I can give
you an idea. You're losing two to four million dollars in gas tax
revenues right now.
Page 84
January 13, 2009
Now, in talking to my boss, Norman, we'd like to use our gas tax
revenues for maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that was going to be my next
question, because if we can't use -- if we don't have the revenues
coming in from either the county, which we have a five-cent-per-gallon
gas tax here, or the state or federal, if we're not getting those monies or
adequate money for road building, we use that strictly for maintenance.
So how does that equate to what it costs us to build a road per lane-mile
taking out -- factoring out those -- that money for gas tax?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wouldn't affect your cost. It's always
affected as a credit. How much -- it's alw- -- that gas tax revenue, if
applied towards capital construction, is a credit.
And since it's going down and since you're trying to use a bulk of
that to do maintenance, you'd lose that credit against the cost per lane
mile.
So the revenue is never -- would never affect cost. It affects that
credit calculation. And it's going in the wrong direction. Hopefully that
answers your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It does.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I really thank everybody for being
here, and I'm sorry that I have to prolong this till this afternoon, but
we're going to break for lunch right now. We'll be back at one o'clock,
and at that time we'll hear all of our speakers. Thank you.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. First of all, before we begin our
meeting again, we have the people from Forest Glen and their
commissioner, Commissioner Coletta, has requested that, so that they
know when to be here and when they can leave and come back, he
Page 85
January 13, 2009
requested a time certain, which is fine with me, at 3:30. So I just
wanted to put that on our schedule. I know it's a little late in the day,
but we can do that, I'm sure. We can work with them. So thank you for
being so patient, gentlemen.
And then the second thing is, Commissioners, if you don't mind,
see these little buttons we have here, if you don't mind, let's push them
again, because that way then I'll know who --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- who wants to talk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mine works.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, my goodness. They're already pushed.
Not now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That was your instructions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Okay. So, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was just checking out the light.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just checking the button.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, gosh. You guys are so funny. Okay,
fine.
We have finished with all of our presentations now; is that
correct? Okay, fine. Let's go on to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: We're down to 16 speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Sheila Jackson. She'll be followed
by Murray Hendle.
MS. JACKSON: Hi. I'm Sheila Jackson. I'm here representing
Representative Matt Hudson. And I just want to read to you the letter
that he's provided for all of you, and it has some attachments.
Commissioners, I apologize for not being able to be with you in
person today, as I am in special session in Tallahassee balancing the
budget; however, when I was reviewing the agenda for your meeting
today, I was compelled to make sure that my office was represented
Page 86
January 13, 2009
and the constituents of District 101 had their voices heard.
The nation, the state, and our county are facing tremendous
economic challenges, and I believe that in order to solve those
challenges, it will take a unified approached.
I look forward to crafting solutions for our state while serving on
the Economic Development Policy Committee.
Our county is faced with an 8 percent unemployment rate, many
loans at or near foreclosure, and a construction industry at or near a
stand-still.
The 101 st district has the highest percentage of at or near
foreclosed loans as well as the highest unemployment rate in the
county. That's the attachments.
The combination has provided a blueprint for economic
development. There is never a better time to identify the needs of the
economy when the times are challenging. This is clearly one of those
times.
I would like to offer my fullest support for the proposal --
proposals before you today that will roll back impact fee rates. It is not
coincidental that the construction and housing are leading economic
indicators at the national and state levels. Stimulating that industry will
put people to work, encourage local spending, drive venture capital,
and create opportunity.
I hope you will do everything possible to support the measures
before you today as well as many exciting programs and initiatives
being developed by the Economic Development Council of Collier
County .
I look forward to working with you to craft creative solutions for
the citizens we represent.
Best regards, Representative Matt Hudson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have somebody that has a question for
you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sheila, do you know if the
Page 87
January 13, 2009
representative has drafted a bill to put Florida Government Utility
Authority under the auspice of the Public Service Commission?
MS. JACKSON: You know, I don't have that information right
now, but I would be happy to get that for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then you'll share it with us?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, sure. That was the board's
priority for the delegation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Representative Hudson, that's part
of his district, I thought. I'd see ifthere's any movement on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Murray Hendle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like he's not back yet. We'll go back
to him.
MS. FILSON: CJ Hueston.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like she's not here.
MS. FILSON: William O'Neill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
MS. FILSON: Tom Buckley. He'll be followed by Kevin
Fitzgerald.
MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me to
speak before you today.
What I would like to do is talk to you about the impact fees as I
see them and the impact that they have on the economy that we have
here in Collier County.
I am the CEO of Naples Day Surgery. We have three offices in
Collier County. We have two surgery centers, we have a business
office that supports those surgery centers, and we have 117 employees,
about two-thirds of which are registered nurses.
Page 88
January 13, 2009
As far as our employees are concerned and our business is
concerned, we're seeing more and more people in our business office
saying that they cannot afford their deductibles or their coinsurances
because of such items as either they've lost their job or the spouses lost
their job or they've had their hours cut back.
What we've tried to do to assist these folks that call is tell them
that we will do whatever we can as far as payment plans to help them
get the healthcare that they need. If you have a rotator cuff injury or an
Achilles tendon injury, you need to get that taken care of, and you can't
wait until the economy gets better.
Listening to what Mr. Coletta said earlier about the number of
people in his family that were in a business with about 30 employees
that went under, I think most of us in this room have seen business after
business either contract or actually close their doors. And I'm very
concerned about that. And I think by adjusting the impact fees, by
actually lowering the impact fees, as a CPA, I believe there's a price
point for any product service, or in this case impact fees, and that by
lowering the impact fees, you will actually increase revenue to the
county.
And I know -- I think Commissioner Henning indicated that by
increasing the impact fees, you will not get any additional revenue.
And I believe the inverse is true, by decreasing the impact fees, you
will actually get additional revenue.
And as someone in healthcare, I can just give two examples.
Thank you very much. I think that was my three-minute --
MS. FILSON: No. That was your one-minute warning.
MR. BUCKLEY: Oh, one-minute warning, okay. I can give you
two examples of issues where we have a number of surgeons that were
looking at doing a 50,000-square-foot medical building in North
Naples, and the cost of the building was 10 million. And when we
received the proformas on the building, the cost was in excess of $12
million due to the impact fees. And as a result, that really made it dead
Page 89
January 13, 2009
on arrival as soon as receiving those proformas. And I truly believe that
a 50,000-square-foot building would add higher paying wages and
really add substantially to the community.
Number of our surgeons were also looking at renting or becoming
owners in a recent building that was built in North Naples, and when
they looked at the numbers and the cost of the rents that you would
have to charge based on the impact fees, it really made it cost
prohibitive.
So I would ask that we all work together in trying to get our
construction industry working again. And I appreciate anything the
commission can do on that behalf.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have two commissioners. Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. That was just on from before.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Okay. Just Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. What kind of feedback have
you gotten back from the banking industry? That seems to be one of
the big hold-ups at the present time with the influx of federal dollars to
the banking industry.
There doesn't seem to be any movement in that direction to loosen
up money to get buildings started, whether it's an impact fee or not.
Because I look at what's happening in the whole State of Florida, and I
don't see any real movement in building.
So have you had any dialogue with the banking industry?
MR. BUCKLEY: Well, as far as the local banking industry, we
have talked to the local bank, bankers, about possible projects here in
Collier County. And as far as -- as long as the projects make financial
sense and can show a payback to the banks, we've had banks willing to
loan us money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because some of the -- my
constituents said that they were trying to either buy a home or sell their
home and that in a lot of cases, when the -- when the estimate of the
Page 90
January 13, 2009
the home came in, or the appraisal of the home, the bank says, no way
am I going to give you that because we feel that the appraisal's way out
of whack compared to what it was a few years ago when anybody went
in with an appraisal and they automatically got a loan. So that's what
some of my concerns are is that maybe the banks have clamped down,
too far down, and it's making it more difficult for the people here to get
the money necessary, whether it's construction or whatever else, or to
buy existing property.
MR. BUCKLEY: Yes. I think there is certainly some truth to that
on the residential side, particularly if people have bought a house
within the last two years, and the banks are, no doubt, gun shy about
that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BUCKLEY: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kevin Fitzgerald. He'll be
followed by Dr. Joe -- it looks like G-A-U-T-U.
MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Chair, Mr. Vice-Chair,
Commissioners. Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Fitzgerald. I'm a resident
of Collier County. I live on Marco Island. I have a business in Naples,
Ft. Myers, and Arcadia.
I'm here today to speak to you as the president of the National
Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Southwest Florida
Chapter, of which I am the president.
NAIOP is a national trade organization of some 18,000 business
professionals. I also sit as the vice-president of the government affairs
for the State of Florida NAIOP.
Our members are made up of real estate brokers, developers,
attorneys, accountants, other business professionals.
What we have found is that any opportunity to roll back or table
further taxes stimulates economic growth.
In my day job as an international commercial Realtor, I have
found that businesses are not coming to Collier County because of the
Page 91
January 13, 2009
amount of fees being charged.
Time and time again our brokers and our members ofNAIOP
have said, let's go to Lee, let's go to Charlotte. Our friends in Charlotte
County today, I hope, are voting to continue the reduction of their
impact fees through the summer. They have seen some good growth.
They have seen some new business. And we are hoping that Southwest
Florida will be put back on the map, if you will.
Our international offices, we have 8,000 brokers in 55 countries,
and we tried, as the Real Estate Advisory Board of the EDC in Collier
County, to send out a positive message to bring your business to Collier
County, but when proformas were done and finances were looked at, it
made it economically impossible for an international business to
relocate to Collier County. They like the idea of the warm climate in
Southwest Florida, but just not the exorbitant fees, their perception.
So we're here to support the rollback. We appreciate the tough
spot that you all are in. It's not easy sitting where you sat, or seat. I did
the same thing in the midwest for a number of years, so I feel your
frustration as well.
But I do thank you for the opportunity, and the NAIOP Chapter of
Southwest Florida stands behind the EDC of Collier County and all
their initiatives to bring new high-paying jobs to our wonderful county.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Sue, I notice that CJ Hueston
and Bill O'Neill walked in. We can --
MS. FILSON: I have their names. I put them in the bottom. You
want me to take them --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, might as -- Commissioner Coyle, did
you want to say something to this gentleman?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to point out that
there should be no reason that any high-paying wage job should refuse
Page 92
January 13, 2009
to move to Collier County because of impact fees. We waive impact
fees for those companies.
MR. FITZGERALD: For those companies, but not for all
companIes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We waive fees for any company that
is bringing high-wage, clean-technology jobs to Collier County. So that
program is administered by the EDC.
We also provide an alternative to a waiver of taxes for ten to 15
years. I'm concerned that this idea that impact fees have driven away so
many people is not based upon fact.
MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I'd be happy to visit with you off-line
and share my experiences.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, don't visit with me. Visit with
Tammie Nemecek of EDC because --
MR. FITZGERALD: As I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that money has been there for a
long time and it hasn't been used. So either the people are not applying
for those waivers or there's another reason why they're not coming. So
it would be good if you were to try to explore that with her.
MR. FITZGERALD: I will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dr. Joe Gauta. I'm sure I got
that wrong. He'll be followed by Murray Hendle. Did he come back?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. I haven't seen him.
MS. FILSON: Okay. He'll be followed by CJ Hueston.
DR. GAUT A: May I give them -- may I give the copies of --
MS. FILSON: Sure. Or you can hand it to me and I'll give it to
them, sir.
DR. GAUTA: Okay. Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing me
to speak. My name is Joseph Gauta, and I'm a private practicing
physician in Naples and have been for ten years. I'm also the president
Page 93
January 13,2009
of the Collier County Medical Society.
Before you is an American Medical Association study showing
the impact of physician practices on local economies and communities.
And though it was done in larger cities, like Kansas City and in the
entire state of Georgia, it's reflective of our current position here.
We, as physicians, understand that lowering impact fees is only a
piece in the puzzle of our economic problems, but that's what we're
here for today.
Statistically there are about 600 physicians or slightly more in
Collier County, each of which employ approximately four to five
high-wage employees, full-time employees. In the Georgia study,
approximately 13 employees per physician are employed over there. So
these are all high-wage -- high-wage earning employees, and these are
the types of employees and jobs we've been trying to actually attract to
the community.
Also, happily, the medical industry is somewhat less -- less
volatile in terms of economic upturns and downturns than some other
unfortunate businesses, like the building industry or the real estate
industry. So this may be another industry we may want to -- we want to
have flourish in this community.
If you look at that study, a single family practice physician in
Kansas brings in 750 to 1.5 million dollars to the local economy. That's
per physician. And in Florida it's predicted that the physicians bring in
almost a million dollars per year per family practice physician. Other
specialties bring in more. That's what the -- that's what we bring to the
community as far as monetary value.
As far as in-kind services, one group in town here, the Physician
Led Access Network run by over 300 physicians has already supplied
four-and-a-half million dollars -- four-and-a-half million dollars of
uncompensated care to the community. These are the kinds of
industries that we want to flourish within the community, and these are
Page 94
January 13,2009
are also the kinds of industries that help attract other people to move to
our community.
Because of the aging baby boomer population, we're going to
have to concentrate on -- just like the EDC said, on the healthcare
industry. And this study, I hope, will help shed some light on that.
So since we know that approximately 40 percent of physicians are
above the age of 55 and will be retiring in the next ten years, we need
to find ways, lowering impact fees being one of them, in attracting new
physicians to the community so that we can bring in high-wage
employees to the community and we can create some stabilization in
downturns in the economy like this.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Before you leave, there's two of us that
want to say something.
Go ahead, Commissioner Halas. You first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
It's interesting, about four years ago we had a similar situation
where home prices here were running an average of $500,000, and we
had people from the community saying we have to do something, the
government has to do something in order to attract people here because
they can't afford housing here.
And so what we did is we tried to make sure that we increased
density for affordable housing and everything. And all of a sudden the
bubble broke, and homes that were running $500,000 are now on the
marketplace for 200,000 or less. And now everybody's saying, we've
got a problem here with impact fees. This is what's causing the
problem. And again, it's government's responsibility.
I have a concern about that. When the housing prices ramped up
to the point where only the super wealthy could live -- in fact, a lot of
doctors couldn't come to the community because they couldn't afford
housing. Now we've got the housing. We're probably a little bit on the
lean side because of what the values have fallen to. But the end result
Page 95
January 13,2009
is, it's not -- now it's not -- the impact fees are going to -- because we
have over 8,500 homes and probably more coming online, and a lot of
these are going to be newer homes that have only been lived in for two
or three years, if that, and there's no impact fees on that. They've
already been paid for.
So I encourage your colleagues and the medical profession to
come to Collier County and look for some great buys.
DR. GAUT A: May I state -- say something to that point?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me -- let me add to that. You are asking
how can you attract the people. I think instead of continuing to
lambaste impact fees, there's so many good selling points. Like, for
instance, it's cheaper to move to Collier than it is to Lee when you
consider the taxes that they collect in Lee that we do not collect here.
They have a higher tax rate. They collect tolls there that we don't
collect. They charge franchise fees on electric, on water. We don't do
that. So actually your people, they have to pay a higher impact fee, but
then they have all of the savings of those other things.
And I think that, you know, you're not really kind of looking at
the whole picture. You're just targeting the one thing.
And I just wanted to mention that there's always a way to sell the
place because there are way too many positives. But if you only
concentrate on one aspect, we would never have our infrastructure in
place so we could continue to build these things.
Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
DR. GAUT A: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I just wanted to mention that people
have handed in their speaking slips after this subject started. It's been
our policy not to accept speaker slips once we're full-blown into the
subject. And so anybody who's handed them in late, I'm sorry. We
would love to have you, but we've got 16 speakers anyway, so I'm sure
that they will voice your opinion.
Hi, CJ.
Page 96
January 13,2009
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is CJ Hueston. She'll be followed
by William O'Neill.
MS. HUESTON: Thank you. Thank you so much for redirecting.
The traffic out there was very challenging. So thank you so much,
Donna. I appreciate that.
I'm CJ Hueston, and I am the chair of the Greater Naples Chamber
of Commerce Board of Directors. I think most of you may know that
we've got over 2,000 members, which really represents about
60,000-plus employees in our community for our chamber, and we've
had many people here this morning as well as for this afternoon,
officers and members, but from many multiple industries, banking,
medical, the hospitality, as well as the construction arena, because we
do understand that this is just one piece of the puzzle, that this is just
one piece.
I think we all feel that there are challenges that we're facing, of
course, but there are also great opportunities that we're facing. We are
seeing -- in our community and businesses, we're seeing unemployment
rise. We're seeing building permits fall, and that was a discussion
earlier this morning. We're seeing our housing values decline.
Those are the challenging things. None of us need to be reminded
of those -- but some of the opportunities. Your great workshop this
week with the EDC on project innovation in working with the county
to have a long-range growth plan so that we can bring high-wage jobs
to the area is absolutely vital for our community, but it's also vital for
retaining our current businesses, which are really struggling out there
right now.
We would recommend that you put together a well-rounded
delegation of community leaders and real out-of-the-box thinkers to
actually review the county's current revenue streams and develop
recommendations that are fiscally responsible, practical, provide
reasonable payback that will stimulate our local economy, but at the
Page 97
January 13, 2009
same time remembering that we have to maintain our government
services because we know that's important.
In the short term we recommend that the rollback impact fees to
the 2006 levels are passed and do not increase for the next two years;
however, monitor those to see what's happening in our economy.
We need your bold leadership at this point in time, and we realize
that these impact fees in transportation are just one small piece, but it is
sending a large signal to our community that you're in touch with
what's going on out there.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William O'Neill. He'll be
followed by Bob Guididas.
MR. O'NEILL: Thank you. I am William O'Neill. I'm a local
attorney with Roetzel & Andress and a proud 20-year resident of
Collier County, and I'm here in my capacity as chairman of the
Economic Development Council of Collier County.
The economic -- I'll be very brief. The Economic Development
Council does support the recommendation of the Productivity
Committee or however close we can come to that. Our vision is to
encourage businesses to locate and expand in Collier County. You
don't have economic development without commercial development.
We have received the message, and I can tell you that we have on
numerous occasions, that our high impact fees are an impediment to
those activities. I can't address all the questions in detail, but I know
that in spite of the incentives that are available, they don't apply to 100
percent of impact fees for 100 percent of companies that might want to
do business here, and I've heard many stories about expansion issues
where this has been a problem.
Commercial development more than pays for itself, we believe, in
terms of ad valorem taxes. Commercial development is a net
contributor to -- in other words, that the taxes more than cover the cost
of providing services. And so we think that in the long -- in the long
Page 98
January 13, 2009
term, thinking longterm, there's a benefit to that -- to commercial
development in a specific development in taking some of the pressure
off residential ad valorem taxes.
And, again, we do support the recommendation as the right
message, as has been said here today.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Guididas. He'll be
followed by Jim Hoppensteadt.
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: Neither one? Betty Hull?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, Jim's here.
MS. FILSON: Oh.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't see Bob Guididas.
MS. FILSON: Jim Hoppensteadt. He'll be followed by Betty Hull.
Oh, she's going to -- I have three speakers, Commissioner Fiala, that
are going to cede their time to Gina Downs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And she'll be next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is
Jim Hoppensteadt. I'm a member of the chamber board of -- Chamber
of Commerce, as well as the president of the Pelican Bay Foundation.
As such, obviously I represent a community that is built out and
doesn't look to have a lot of impact fees; however, it is a community
that benefits greatly both in its quality of life and its levels of service
by businesses that are able to come to Collier County.
We've talked a lot about -- I've heard a lot about the highest level
of impact fees in the states and the lowest ad valorem tax, and we've
talked, you know, about balance and how to attain that balance. I can
tell you that as somebody who runs a community, we have our element
of impact fees which are our resale fees. That's the cost of the entry.
That's the initiation fee. That provides a revenue stream.
Page 99
January 13, 2009
But the most important revenue stream is our dues or our ad
valorem taxes, if I was to make an equation. And what's important to
our community is levels of service.
And I think if you look at what our community values, as well as
Collier, we have some recent examples of that. We just -- we just
elected a sheriff who represents a continuation of what was done, and
that's the continuing reduction of crime rates. We need to be able to
provide the revenue streams that support that.
Good schools. Even though it was non -- it was tax neutral, a
school referendum, which many people didn't think would pass passed
resoundingly.
When you talked about your budgets, the hottest topic that you
heard from the community was on landscaping and the roads and
keeping those up to quality. Those are the community values that we
have. And I would submit to you that if we look for a structure that
created more of a balance between impact fees and ad valorem taxes,
we would be more prepared to do that.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next three speakers, Betty Hull, Jack Pointer,
and Jim Burke, will cede their time to Gina Downs. I believe she says
she needs ten minutes.
MS. DOWNS: And one minute to get the computer going.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I'll wait to turn you on.
MS. DOWNS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, is that okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, it certainly is.
MR. MUDD: Fine.
MS. DOWNS: Thank you, Commissioners.
When the impact fee -- I'm sorry. When the economy was strong
and growth was rampant, impact fees were not an overwhelming
concern. Land costs, road costs, building costs, in general, were all
high in Collier County; higher than most other counties in Florida.
Page 100
January 13, 2009
Consequently, Collier County had and continues to have impact fees
higher than other Florida counties.
Collier experienced double-digit growth. That growth occurred
regardless of impact fee levels. Welcome to the recession. Now the
focus by some is on an allegedly undue burden, impact fees imposed
upon potential growth.
The implication, if not for the level of impact fees, businesses and
people would be moving into Collier County. History, as well as
economic -- as well as academic analysis, do not validate that point.
An appointed task force was put together in 2005; elected officials
from Pinellas, Sarasota, Duvall, throw in a senator and a representative
for good luck, 15 members from across the state, the two on the
bottom, one from Bonita Bay Group and another a local builder. They
produced their report early in 2006.
The top three highlights from their executive summary:
Number one, they report that impact fees are a growing source of
revenue. Absolutely. The alternative is a property tax. Property tax is
less efficient revenue. Increasing property taxes does not guarantee that
the funds will be spent on infrastructure. There is no guarantee it will
be used for that; on the other hand, impact fees must be spent, can only
be spent, on capital items for which they are collected. It's the one tax
that guarantees a benefit to the payee.
Number two on their list, local governments do not have adequate
revenue. Yeah. That was determined back in 2005. Despite that fact,
statewide property tax reductions were imposing revenue decreases on
all counties. At the same time, the worldwide recession set in, causing
county revenues to plunge further.
Number three on their list I'd say applies now more than ever.
That was one impact fee study. Here's another generated by the
Brookings Institute, a think tank I think most people will be familiar
with. Their published paper is called, Paying for Prosperity: Impact
Fees and Job Growth. They addressed the relationship between impact
Page 101
January 13, 2009
fees and the economy in general. They also looked at the impact fee
effect on job growth.
Here are some quotes from their executive summary. Impact fees
do not slow job growth. Impact fees are not a drag on local economies.
And they go on to say that impact fees are the grease that helps sustain
job growth in a local economy.
Look at the variances in impact fees across the country. All are
from the Duncan Associates' National Impact Fee survey in 2007. They
are all based on a single-family, three-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot
home.
The first one, for schools. Does Stafford, Virginia, lower their
school impact fee because it's the highest in the country? Don't think
so.
Does Palo Alto, California, worry that their impact fee is ten times
higher than Collier County's park impact fee? I doubt it. Does El
Dorado, California, panic because their road impact fee is steep? They
shouldn't, not if it's fairly arrived at.
Impact fees should be determined using straightforward,
up-to-date, and legally defensible methodology. Once that meticulous
process is in place, the accuracy should follow. Regular reviews, such
as this one today, ensure that reliability.
Some area of this country will always have the highest fees. Some
other areas will always have the lowest fees. Proper impact fees are
based upon costs; nothing more, nothing less. Land costs, building
costs, costs of materials, and labor costs. They are not and should not
be driven by rankings within the nation nor should they be driven by
rankings within the state.
If impact fees truly are the drivers for business growth, let's look
at Florida. The four counties for an industrial fee of less than $1,500
total: Hardy, Highlands, Santa Rosa, and Desota, they should all be
booming economies, shouldn't they? But they're not.
Collier's impact fee for industrial, by the way, is 11,000 and
Page 102
January 13, 2009
change.
Commissioner Coyle hit it on the head. Similar to property
assessment, their lowering property tax, there is a lag also in lowering
impact fees. Reduction in land costs, building costs, and lawyer costs
will lower the fees. But it has a smoothing factor. You agreed to apply
the smoothing factor to keep the rapid escalation in prices from causing
deep spikes, high spikes, a few years ago. The same applies now. You
can't go into a deep drop immediately if you want the smoothing factor.
This chart shows the value per person of impact fees collected in
2006. I chose all of these counties because -- I think I have 12. Five are
lower population than Collier, five are higher. They're the closest in
population to our county.
In Collier County, had you not collected impact fees in 2006,
every man, woman, and child would have to have bellied up $218.78 to
make up for the lost revenue.
When impact fees are lowered, waived, or deferred, the burden of
that loss always falls on the taxpayer. It's not too unlike a homeowners
association. When an owner stops paying association fees for whatever
reason, the rest of the residents have to make up for that lost revenue.
They either make up the loss -- they watch as their services, their
improvements, and their maintenance diminish within their community.
Those of us who have already paid our share of impact fees will
be asked to pay yet again to build roads, schools, parks, libraries. We
will be paying for infrastructure that is needed only because of growth.
The only unfair burden occurs when taxpayers are asked to pay
twice. In my book that is both disproportionate and an unfair share. I
thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bob Murray. He'll be followed
by Janet Vasey.
Page 103
January 13, 2009
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Well, one can
try to prepare for this type of meeting as best one can and still never be
able to relate all of the information that one would like. I compliment
the previous speaker for putting together a lot of statistical information.
But I'm going to say with respect that a rollback is appropriate. It
may be painful to apply, but it is needed. And, quite frankly, I'm not
going to try to cite statistics. I didn't prepare for that.
But I think it's obvious that if we have a whole lot of empty
homes, commercial properties will not be able to sustain, and then
they'll go empty and it will continue. People will be reluctant to buy in
those places, and we will not have a tax base that will support anything.
Now, I know that can be construed as hyperbole. I'm not trying to
offer that to you. And I don't think you folks in particular need to be on
notice. You already quite well know the facts. But it occurred to me the
number of notes that I took while I was sitting here.
The fees, by law, are intended to support or offset costs, and it has
been said that anything in excess of that equals an unauthorized tax. It
becomes a de facto tax. Now, one of the problems we have with this,
this calculation, this fee, is that it's brought about by averaging, and it's
hard to get the arms around even one arm of the gorilla, let alone the
gorilla. But maybe methodology needs to be looked at.
At least the Productivity Committee went to the extent of trying to
get what it could to make you realize that, let's be honest, 100 percent
of nothing is equivalent of 70 percent of nothing. That is to say that if
you're not collecting any money of consequence now, you can do
nothing and the same effect would occur.
However, by your leadership if you were to make a token change
-- and that's what it would constitute, a token -- you might initiate
change in the mood. You might, as I am working with lawyers who are
trying to stop or slow down the process of foreclosure -- you might be
Page 104
January 13, 2009
be able to get a turnaround come about sooner rather than later.
Can we all do it together? Eventually, yes. Immediately, no. But
we must try to do something. There are folks in this room who are not
simply looking for concession. They're looking for your leadership to
say, yes, we realize you have ajob. Yes, there are problems with
money, but you need to help us.
And I represent a community that is put upon very much if they
lose jobs. And I know Commissioner Fiala is concerned for that very
much as well.
Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey. She'll be followed
by Tom Lykos.
MS. VASEY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Janet Vasey, for
the record.
As a member of the Productivity Committee, I reviewed the Road
Impact Fee Study, and I think it's reasonable, consistent with -- with
prior studies, and defensible. Tindale-Oliver did a fine job, as usual.
If you're considering reducing road impact fees, or any impact
fees, your first concern should be, where will the replacement money
come from. The costs related to new growth still exist. Impact fees
studies show you the legitimate charge for the new infrastructure. And
if you don't collect the required impact fees, where will you get the
money to build the roads?
Right now road construction is paid by a combination of gas taxes,
road impact fees, and $24 million in annual property taxes.
The property tax funding was approved a few years ago to help
pay the debt service on the major road construction program that was
needed to catch up for private deficiencies.
The original debt service requirement is much less than $24
million now. And with the expected general revenue -- general fund
revenue shortfalls in 2010, a large portion of this 24 million will need
Page 105
January 13, 2009
to be removed from road program -- from the road program and used to
avoid serious reductions in the level of service for other high-priority
county programs.
Twenty-four million dollars represents 10 percent of property tax
revenue collections, and current residents need our property taxes to
pay for important services from county government in this tight
economic environment.
If gas tax revenues are static or even down, if you don't collect
impact fees for the true cost of the growth, and property tax support is
appropriately reduced, where will the money for new roads come
from?
Residents voted to reduce property taxes a year ago, and a couple
of years ago they rejected a sales tax increase for roads. So what's the
answer? Without money, you don't build any more new roads until
impact fees collections are sufficient to cover construction costs and
debt service.
Personally I've always thought substantial impact fees and the
resulting rapid construction of new road infrastructure have contributed
immensely to the robust development and construction industry in
Collier County in past years.
In conclusion, high impact fees didn't stop construction during the
strong economy, and lower road impact fees are certainly not sufficient
to jump start construction in a weak economy. Sending a message can
be costly.
As you can tell, I'm part of the Productivity Committee minority
that does not want legitimate impact fees reduced.
One quick comment on impact fees other than roads. With impact
fee collections already down because of the weak economy, about $14
million of property taxes are temporarily replacing impact fees in
making the debt payment annually for parks, libraries, EMS, jail, law
enforcement, and government buildings.
Reducing impact fee collections for these facilities would only
Page 106
January 13, 2009
exacerbate the funding problem, and the reduction in impact fees will
not be enough to stimulate construction anyway.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Lykos. Murray Hendel?
Bob Guididas?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: (No response.)
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Okay, Commissioners. Where to from here? Commissioner Coyle.
Commissioner Henning next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, Ms. Chairman, I have to admit
to a very high degree of disappointment. It appears we're back into the
same argument that we've been involved in for the past several years,
that impact fees are guilty or responsible for doing everything that's
bad for this community, and that the only way to solve the problem is
to dramatically reduce them or eliminate them.
I'm surprised at the lack of understanding of the issues related to
this problem. I am amazed that there's no one here to talk about giving
relief to those developers who have already paid 50 percent of their
impact fees but have not been able to begin construction.
If you'll -- this is a -- this is a more serious issue than impact fees,
way more serious issue. I just got a report -- I hope it's not accurate --
that says there are $11 million in impact fees that have been paid by
developers, builders, in order to get a Certificate of Public Facility
Availability so they can proceed, and that vesting has expired, and they
either will lose their $11 million, or we should do something to extend
the vesting period.
Now, if you really want to do something to get construction going,
the last thing you want to do is to see those people lose all of that
money that they've paid merely because their vesting time has expired.
They are the people who are most likely to build. They've already paid
half of their impact fees. The problem is demand. They don't want to
Page 1 07
January 13, 2009
don't want to build something they can't sell.
So what's the alternative? Well, I think we should extend the
vesting period, quite frankly. Doesn't cost us any money, I don't think.
Maybe it does, but I doubt it. They aren't responsible for the fact that
there's no demand. We aren't either.
But, you know, why isn't somebody concerned about that? I'm
amazed that there's nobody here who's interested in talking about that.
You remember -- for those of you who don't know how this works
-- is that we worked out an arrangement with the Collier Building
Industries Association where if the builders would pay 50 percent of
their impact fees at time of site development approval, we could have
money then to start building the infrastructure for them so that by the
time they got to the point of building things, the infrastructure would be
there. So it gave the builders the certainty that they would have the
facilities to permit them to do their development. It was a good deal for
everybody.
So we did that, and those people paid their fees. Three years ago,
maybe some time -- maybe a lot of them earlier than that, and then they
got caught in this economic crunch. We should take that money away
from them? I don't think so. I don't think so.
I think we need to extend the vesting period for that so that those
people who are the most likely people to begin building because
they've got their Site Development Plans in, they've got paid half their
impact fees. If anybody is going to start building in Collier County, it
will be those people.
So lowering an impact fee some -- well, a couple of thousand
dollars is not going to prompt somebody else to jump into this market
and start building, but those people who have already paid 50 percent
of their impact fees have a good incentive to proceed, and we ought to
extend the vesting period for them so they don't lose that money.
There's another thing that I think we should consider, and that is a
variation in that policy. Rather than asking someone now to pay 50
Page 108
January 13,2009
percent up front, there are road segments in Collier County where we
know capacity exists. Anybody who wants to build on those road
segments where we know capacity exists should be permitted to do so
without paying 50 percent up front. We could allow them to pay that at
time of permitting so that they don't have to up-front millions of dollars
and carry that all through the construction process because we've
already built the capacity.
You know, those are the solutions to rejuvenating the building
industry here. It's not shaving off 2- or $3,000 off of an impact fee. You
know, that's a feel-good kind of thing, and it's not something that's
going to produce the desired result.
So those are the things I'm concerned about. Although, I will say,
in all honesty, that we always have said we should be fair about impact
fees, and when impact -- when the costs of building the infrastructure
go down, then the impact fee should go down. It's as simple as that.
Now, there are a lot of things that go into making the final
calculation, some of which, to me, are not intuitive. And I do not want
to apply the increased trip lengths for the impact fee calculation, and
that will trim impact fees several thousands of dollars more, and I think
we should do that.
But you see, the problem that we have -- and I'm almost finished
up, Madam Chair. The problem that we have is we have to balance all
this stuff together, and we have to come together with an economic
analysis that says, if we do all these things, what impact is it going to
have on us? Do we have to move out our capital development program
even further? Will the state permit us to move it out even further?
Okay. We're not even sure they will.
And we've just been handed a copy of Senate Bill 630, which is
supported by our good friend Senator Bennett, and it says,
notwithstanding any law, ordinance, or resolution to the contrary, a
county or a municipality may not impose or collect any impact fee for
Page 109
January 13, 2009
any purpose from October the 1st, 2009, through September the 30th,
2012.
That is the death nail for construction in Collier County. That is
the end of it. And I don't know how you expect a Board of County
Commissioners to make reductions in impact fee collections when we
have this hanging over our heads, which is supported by a lot of the
people in this room.
And I would say to those people who want to see this market
rejuvenated, I would be happy to vote for the things that I just
described in a way to solve the building problem if I could see the
CBIA and the Chamber of Commerce send a letter to Tallahassee
telling Senator Bennett that they do not support this bill.
Do I have any takers?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't think so. Didn't think so.
Okay.
All right. Thank you very much. I'm sorry --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I took so long.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, another discussion another
day about extending vesting. But the issue at hand, ifthere is a motion
and a second to give direction to roll back all impact fees, I could
support that. If there's a motion and second on the schedule for
transportation impact fees to roll it back to 2007, I could support that,
or I can support -- if that's not going to happen, I can support
Commissioner Coyle's suggestion to adopt these impact fees except for
the trip length study. Just trying to move it along.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Fred, I think, hit the nail on the
head, and I want to thank you for taking the time to be very poignant in
Page 110
January 13, 2009
in regards to what's happening.
All of us know that this economy has been very volatile the last
year and a half, and I don't foresee anything changing on the horizon.
Yes, when we look at the price of gasoline, in the summertime when,
back in July, we were running over $4 a gallon, now it's down to $1.89,
$1.91 a gallon, all ofa sudden we've been deluged by people coming in
and saying, well, you've got to lower impact fees because gasoline is
cheaper, also the fact that we're not collecting the tax dollars that we
were also.
I have some concerns. I think that we need to look at impact fees
over a three-year period. There's nothing to say that another six, seven
months that the price of fuel is not going to be again $4 is gallon,
depending upon what those people up in Wall Street want to do, sitting
there and manipulating the price of fuel and manipulating everything
else. The cost of petroleum products has a big influence on the whole
economy.
So I -- I'm not for rolling back impact fees. I think that when we
find out what the county has got to work with as far as tax dollars,
revenue that's coming into the county, because of the fact that the price
of home values have dropped here, we're going to have some real
challenges as a Board of County Commissioners to make that
determination of what we're -- where are the areas we're going to have
to cut. And obviously we're charged with health, safety, and welfare.
Those are the point areas that we're going to really address the concerns
at.
We sure don't need to have an additional cost put on our shoulders
or on our plates in regards to rolling back impact fees when we find
that the shenanigans that are going on up in Tallahassee of robbing the
transportation funds and robbing other funds up there, the housing act,
and also Medicaid, raiding that fund, the end result is, all that comes
back and -- to home, to this county, and it -- it's put on the shoulders of
the citizens here.
Page 111
January 13, 2009
One way or another the bills have got to be paid, and I am very
concerned, and I'm going to be stingy, because I'm not going to go in
the direction of rolling back impact fees at this point in time until I find
out -- to where this economy is more stable.
I'm hoping that the people up in Washington can get the attention
of the bankers in this country and realize that they can't just grab the
money, taxpayers' money, your money, my money, and sit on it and
not do anything with it as far as trying to relieve the pressure of people
who are losing their homes and other people who would like to buy,
whether it's automobiles or television sets or whatever else, to loosen
up the credit market. And until that happens, I'm going to tell you, I'm
going to be very stingy with the amount of money that we're getting
here in Collier County to make sure that we meet the needs here of the
citizens. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to frame my
comments into some kind of motion, but I would like to say that I
understand that we need to get a fiscal impact on these. We were -- we
were somewhat critical earlier today of the Productivity Committee
because they didn't deliver a fiscal impact on their recommendations,
so I'm reluctant to tell you that I want to implement the things I just
talked about.
So I want to investigate them, and I want staff to come back to us
with fiscal impacts of, number one, extending the vesting period for
those people who have paid 50 percent of their impact fees, consider--
and their vesting period has expired, consider extending the vesting
period for people who are approaching the expiration date to see if we
can extend that, to evaluate the effect of permitting builders to build on
those road segments where capacity exists and pay impact fees only at
the time of permitting, no 50 percent will be required up front, and to
give us a report on the effect of accepting the staffs recommended
impact fee update less the trip -- new trip distance adjustment.
Page 112
January 13, 2009
adjustment.
And then I think if we can get those three or four things done, if
you can come back to us with a fiscal impact analysis, then we should
be in a position to make a decision and to proceed.
And I would like to have the building industry contribute to that --
that analysis. I want to understand from them whether it is of great
value or no value at all to have the vesting period extended for those
people who have paid 50 percent, okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, just for the record --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me just one second.
So I have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to deal with the issue --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- issue before us.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I've got a second from
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As has been stated in regards to the
impact fees where if we have the capacity on the roads that the
developers don't have to come forward and pay up front 50 percent,
that they do that at the time of permitting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll go along with that, and I'll also
go along with the idea of looking at the possibility of extending the
impact fees that have already been paid so that they're not sunset. What
was the other thing that you had? Oh, getting with the developers in
regards to looking into this to see if it's going to be beneficial in that
factor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I have the motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coy Ie and a second by Commissioner.
Nick, you had something to say?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Yeah, I'd like to add to that if!
Page 113
January 13, 2009
could. We've had one meeting almost exactly as Commissioner Coyle
described with the developers. We met with Bonita Bay and a few of
the transportation engineers, because we started sending these bills our
for the second half, and they would call up and say, hey, Nick. I can't
afford to pay the second half. What can I do with you?
And so we ran some scenarios already. And I'm not ready to
present them at all because they need to be vetted, as you said, with
DSAC and the development community. What can we do?
We had some ideas about doing a five-year payment plan about
different things, and they liked those ideas. So let us go back and do
that and come up with some good numbers, some fiscal analysis for
that.
For the roadway capacity question about not paying your 50
percent up front, let us look at that. We can give you some scenarios. If
a roadway has 25 percent capacity, 50 percent capacity, we can
identify some roadways and say, potentially in the next three years, this
is the amount of dollar value that you would be impacted by doing that.
Not accepting the trip-length study I emailed last night -- if you
want, I can put it on the viewer what it does for you.
And if you don't accept the trip-length study, you're going to have
a reduction of 7 percent in single-family less than 1,500 square feet; 10
percent above that, 9 percent, 2 percent. And then there's some other
nonresidential uses that residential trip lengths are used as a proxy.
Those would go down as well, too.
So we have that data, and it's here for you to look at. So you can
see the reduction would be going from 8,000 down to 7,600 -- 8,200;
from 11 thousand five down to 10,400 on single-family; 12 thousand
eight down to 11 thousand six. So you have the numbers here.
What I want -- am concerned about is, if you don't want to include
the trip-length study, we have the numbers here that you can adopt
today, this study, and move forward, and let us work on those other two
Page 114
January 13, 2009
other two issues, because I think what you're going to find is, the other
two issues that you want us to work on is going to be a back-and-forth
dialogue with some -- a workshop with the development community,
and we can bring proposals to you to get some guidance and come
back.
I can tell you from the first workshop we held, it's not going to be
easy, because there's the issues of, when they put the first 50 percent
down, who owns that money when a development's been split up? Is it
placed on each individual lot? Does the original developer own it? And
we've run into all sorts of problems with that, how to figure it out, but
we'll get past that.
So if your motion is to not accept the trip-length study, you would
be applying those rates for the single-family and the proxy ones, as
well as the study as presented to you. We would go through that period
of bringing back the ordinance with that updated rate and then come
back and workshop these other issues with the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning? Oh, I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to leave that to
Commissioner Coyle because it will make a difference whether I stay
with my second or I don't in regards to the trip.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning was before
me, so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it was just a point of order.
I think we opened up with this 10C, but I didn't hear in the motion a
dealing with 10C. I think the discussion on the motion is worthy.
But just point of order for the county attorney. What do we need
to do first?
MR. KLA TZKOW: My understanding from the motion that's on
the floor is that you're essentially putting it off, the decision, until staff
would come back with you with these reports. That was my
Page 115
January 13, 2009
understanding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So the motion is not to
accept, or -- okay, continue it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Continue it, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if! could just explain that. We
don't have a fiscal impact of this, okay. So I'm looking for an analysis
of the impact. The impact will depend upon all of the things that we do
with respect to impact fees, I would presume.
So why lock ourselves into one impact fee approval at this point in
time if we find out in our analysis of fiscal impact that we should have
done something different? Okay.
I believe that impact fees should be lowered, okay. I don't know
how much, and I need that information and that fiscal impact to do that.
I'm willing going to go to the next step.
Commissioner Halas, when we get to the next step, might say,
well, no, I'm not willing to go there, and then we can -- we can
negotiate the issue and see where we could go from there. I'm just
saying, let's bring all of the facts together. Let's get some other people
involved. Let's reach some conclusions, come back with
recommendations and a fiscal impact, and then we can make a final
decision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Coyle, for point of
clarity. I want to make sure I get this right because this has a lot of
ramifications. The two questions you asked me to go forward and seek
and get answers for you don't have anything to do with a rate. They
have more to do with how it's collected and how it's applied fiscally. So
that would come back and we'd say, if you extend vesting on certain
projects, our revenues would change based over time.
But I'm not being told to look at the rate categories again --
because we've done the study -- just to look at different options for rate
collection and extending of vesting.
Page 116
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And take out the trip study.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. We have that information, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So do that, and then it's finished.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then once we gather the other
information, if we would like to make modifications to it and if the
majority of the board agrees, we can do so.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Fair enough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta,
Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I would also like, when this
comes back, to be able to know what the ramifications are on our
five-year plan. Undoubtedly if we're going to be talking about a
reduction of revenue, it's going to have a cause and effect, and I'd like
to know where that cause and effect's going to be applied.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm kind of confused on the
motion. You're -- the motion is to adopt the recommendations except
for the trip length, and naturally they'll have to come back with an
ordinance, but also you want a fiscal impact on the other stuff; is that
my understanding?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, yeah. What I'm trying to do is
consider this thing in its entirety rather than piecemealing it. We need
to know the total impact upon our financial resources and our five-year
plan so that we can make an intelligent decision, and that decision is
impacted by an extension of a vesting period. It's impacted by a change
in the timing of collecting future impact fees, and it's changed by our
approval of stripping out the trip length effects to reduce impact fees.
We need to put all that together and say, okay, if you did all of
this, here is the impact. Is that what you want to do? And then we'll
look at it. And maybe there's something we've failed to consider, and
Page 117
January 13,2009
we'd say, wow, we can't do it that way.
But if we piecemeal it and we approve one thing now and one
thing next -- something else later on, we will have not had the
opportunity to evaluate it all together and understand the relative
effects between these various options.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If! could just stay on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the question for the county
attorney, since we have the information on this, is there any
recommendations when it -- at least this piece comes back to us?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Fast.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Now I'm confused as exactly what the motion
IS.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Commissioner, are we continuing this item to
get back the additional information, or are we approving the study with
the exception of the increased fees, increased trip lengths?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would prefer to have the staff go
back and take a look at the effect of the elimination of trip length on
impact fee levels. They apparently already have that here, okay. Now I
want them to take a look at the effect of the other things on our
financial ability to meet our obligations under the capital improvement
program.
And when they get all of that together, we come back and we take
a look at the calculated impact fee less the trip length effect and the
other two or three things that we're going to be talking about and say to
us, here is the impact of this entire package.
MR. KLA TZKOW: So that we are continuing this item to get
back -- for staff to get back to the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be my preference, yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
Page 118
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have -- Commissioner Coyle, I
think you've got some great ideas here, but I'm a little concerned about
taking out the new trip-length data because I'm hoping that when we
look at the total fiscal impact of the county and the residents, that we
also add into that what the fallout of ad valorem taxes that we may not
collect, because I think this is also part of the picture. That's going to
have an effect on our five-year work plan here.
So let's be honest with everybody, and let's make sure that -- let's
leave that information in for the new trip lengths that are calculated,
and then we can -- after we get the whole picture, and even with that
included, then we can get a better idea if we still want to go back. Then
I will basically be in concurrence with probably the wishes of
everybody else, that when we get all the data on what our revenue
shortfalls are going to be on everything, that then we can -- if we have
a shortfall. Ifwe don't have a shortfall, then fine. I'm going to go along
with getting rid of the trip-length data. But I think that we should leave
that in -- in the equation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that essentially is what I'm
saying. I'm not saying you lock this in concrete.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, that -- your motion has that in
there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Commissioner Henning wanted
to do that, and I said I would prefer to wait and bring all these things
together and make a final decision once we understood the relative
effects of all these proposals.
And so actually, as the county attorney has suggested, it is a
continuation of this discussion but with my preference that the trip
lengths be pulled out. Give us an analysis of that.
We haven't approved this. So with the trip lengths pulled out, we
can have an analysis of that, you can put the trip lengths back in and
have an analysis of that.
Page 119
- ------ .,.- - _.._.._---~_..~.
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But just bring us the data and filter
out the recommendations, and then let's make a decision as quickly as
we possibly can.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I got to -- since you had that
clarification, and I believe the court reporter got all that information, I
can go along and leave my second in place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then just to -- just to clarify. Will this
also -- will this analysis always tell us how it will affect Mr. and Mrs.
Taxpayer?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I sort of hope so, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because our taxpayers voted 81 percent
that they wanted their taxes reduced. And if we're going to have to
increase their taxes by lowering the impact fees, they ought to know
that, and they ought to know who to thank for that, too. So I think we --
that's an important thing to add into their equation.
Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That passes. Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you very much, I think.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're going to -- and 10C -- and I
know you just did what youjust did. I'm going to try to push staff to
Page 120
January 13,2009
have that to you in two weeks, but no more -- no more than 30 days. So
I just want to make sure that -- the reason I'm trying to get to this,
because you have a statutory requirement to give 90 days notice before
you adjust any impact fee before it becomes effective.
So the longer you -- if there's a reduction in the works, then you've
got 90 days from the time that you decide that in order to get it done.
So I just want to make sure that you're aware. So we're going to push
that as hard as we can so we can get back to the board as fast as we can.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2009-01: AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE
COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
POLICY ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE PURPOSE OF
ASSISTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WITH
ALL ISSUES AFFECTING PRE-HOSPITAL EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES WITHIN ALL OF COLLIER COUNTY,
AND ONCE ESTABLISHED, ABOLISHING THE CURRENT
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL BY
REPEALING ITS ESTABLISHING ORDINANCE 1980-80, AS
AMENDED - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- that brings us to
8A. It's a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopts an ordinance creating the Collier County Emergency Medical
Services Policy Advisory Board for the purpose of assisting the Board
of County Commissioners with all issues affecting pre-hospital
emergency medical service within all of Collier County, and once
established, abolishing the current Emergency Medical Services
Advisory Council by repealing it's established ordinance, 1980-80 as
Page 121
__.m_~_..___._.._.,_._.>_,_.__,_. _ _ _........,..__..____.___.
January 13,2009
amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor and a second --
MS. FILSON: You have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to approve. We have one speaker. Shall
we just hear the speaker then, Commissioners?
Okay . Would you call the speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The speaker is Robert Metzger.
CHIEF METZGER: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you
for the time to speak on this. My name, for the record, is Robert
Metzger. I'm the fire chief with the Golden Gate Fire District. I'm also
currently the president of the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association,
and I'm also currently a member of the current EMSAC.
The proposal in front of you, this new board includes, of the five
people that are going to be appointed, a representative from one of the
Collier County independent or municipal fire control districts operating
under Collier County's COPCN.
I have two concerns with this language I'd like to share with you.
First of all, within the body of the entire document, there is no
appointing mechanism identified concerning this particular stipulation,
and second, limiting the appointment of this representative to
departments operating only under Collier County COPCN
inappropriately restricts input to you all that you'll need to fulfill the
purposes of this specific appointment.
The purpose of this new board -- and I'm going to quote this from
the ordinance -- is to assist the Board of County Commissioners with
all issues affecting pre-hospital Emergency Medical Services within
Collier County, closed quotes.
It's also, quote, to work to improve and enhance pre-hospital
emergency medical care, closed quotes, and finally, it cites the, quote,
Page 122
'--'--""'-'--~"---_.._--".",.._----~~-~-_._,-~...._---
January 13, 2009
special knowledge and expertise available to the Board of County
Commissioners, closed quotes.
Three of the appointments to this board, including the emergency
room physician, the emergency room nurse, and the pharmacist, shall
be recommended by the respective professional representatives in the
Collier County Medical Society.
The fire service representative -- there are four -- must originate
within its professional association, the Collier County Fire Chiefs
Associations; however, limiting eligibility for the appointment only to
fire services operating under Collier County COPCN overemphasizes
the importance of ALS response in pre-hospital emergency medical
care.
Dr. Robert Tober, your medical director, repeatedly has
emphasized his beliefthat BLS care is what saves lives 99 percent of
the time. Dr. Tober certainly recognizes the value of competent BLS
pre-hospital care, and this value must be reflected by the makeup of
this board to provide you all with the best possible advice.
Given Dr. Tober's intractable position on the value of BLS
response, there should be no requirement for the fire department
representing this for COPCN involvement.
The appointment should be stipulated also to be a professional
emergency responder to assure participation by someone well-versed
with current first response best practices.
Commissioners, my strong recommendation: That you amend the
language of this ordinance to reflect that the specific representative
from one of the Collier County fire services be selected by the Collier
County Fire Chiefs Association from among its uniform members with
you all confirming the final appointment.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner Henning,
and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chief Metzger, did the chiefs
Page 123
January 13, 2009
association take any official action on recommendations for number
four?
CHIEF METZGER: Sir, they took no official action on this issue.
In fact, we only got our hands on a copy of this document about a week
ago.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did you speak to the members of
the --
CHIEF METZGER: I spoke with a number of members. I did not
speak with all of the members, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what was the sentiment of
the --
CHIEF METZGER: The sentiment of the members that I spoke
with supported, in general, that the appointment needs to come from
the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, would you,
in your motion, amend it to number four, that -- the representative of
the independent fire districts and the recommendations of the chiefs
association?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It wasn't my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was your motion, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I made the motion, but I will change
my motion to reflect the changes that we just discussed, and that is to
have a representative be picked by the Collier County Fire Association,
okay?
Is that in your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I need to ask a question, okay.
The terminology -- Mr. Klatzkow, the terminology that was quoted by
Chief Metzger must have been drafted by your office as far as the
COPN (sic) qualification and --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The idea was to get at the districts who
are -- we have interlocals with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 124
January 13,2009
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's what the idea was.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so Chief Metzger's
recommendation is that it shouldn't -- it should include districts for
which we do not have an interlocal agreement; is that true?
MR. KLATZKOW: I--
CHIEF METZGER: May I speak to that, sir? The
recommendation is that it be not restricted to just the four fire services
with whom you currently have interlocal agreements. There are five
others with whom you do not have such agreements who provide basic
life support response.
The rationale behind this is that you will have substantial
advanced life support representation on this committee by virtue of
your representative from Collier EMS. If you load the committee with
only a fire representative who also is working under Collier's COPCN,
you will have an advance life support heavy weighed community -- or
committee, and based on that, you will be, for the most part,
overlooking some of the value of the basic life support responses
provided by other fire departments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So are you suggesting that you have
two appointments on this committee?
CHIEF METZGER: No, sir, I am not. I am suggesting that the
sole appointment be made only by the Collier County Fire Chiefs
Association and that they be allowed to suggest to you for your
confirmation the representative they feel best represents the interests of
fire services and their first responders in pre-hospital care.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It could be a person who had either
basic life support or advanced live qualifications.
CHIEF METZGER: Yes, sir, it could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have a problem with that. I
Page 125
January 13, 2009
made the motion. That's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Your second still stands?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It still stands.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
MS. FILSON: Who made the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A question. In other words,
it would be just limited to uniform personnel? It couldn't be a fire
commissioner?
CHIEF METZGER: That would be our expectation that it would
be a uniform person who's involved in response.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, no offense but I'd feel more
comfortable dealing with a fellow elected official, I mean, just from my
own perspective.
CHIEF METZGER: I would ask you what level of expertise then
that we can be sure they bring to the table. If they're actually supposed
to be advising you on best practices regarding basic life support
response or even advanced life support response, can they speak with
authority on the best practices? That's why we recommend you have a
uniform person who's engaged in this, the provision of this service.
And no offense taken, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, no offense meant. It's just I
just feel more comfortable with an elected official. My own personal
preference.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree with your position, Chief.
We're looking for technical expertise, not political expertise here, and
-- but in any event, are those qualifications specified here, Mr.
Klatzkow?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, what I'll do then -- let me see if!
understand it. I will amend this so that number four will now read, as
Page 126
January 13,2009
one of your members, a representative from one of the Collier County
independent or municipal fire control districts, period. To the extent it's
possible, candidates for this position shall be recommended by the
Collier County Fire Chiefs Association.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they shall possess qualifications
in the area of basic life support or advanced life support; is that fair?
CHIEF METZGER: That's fine. I think it's unnecessary, but I
think that would be fine if you felt --
MR. KLA TZKOW: It will be their recommendation, whoever
they want to recommend to you. It's their seat, I guess, is really what
they're getting at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: But -- Madam Chair, if! could -- but I think it's
important that it's the independent or the municipal because there are
dependent fire chiefs that belong to your association, too, I believe.
CHIEF METZGER: Yes, sir, there are.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. No, it's independent or municipal.
MR. MUDD: Independent or municipal. And I want to make sure
that you know that. It's not everybody that's in his association, okay. So
your dependents are out because they work for Summers along with
EMS, so you don't want to stack the deck either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
CHIEF METZGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Ijust wanted to ask -- or Ijust
wanted to clarify. And I talked to Jim Mudd about this already. If!
remember correctly, it was the county commission that encouraged the
fire departments to get into ALS in the first place, right? You aren't
even in it? You didn't want to get into -- in fact, nobody did. We kind
of pushed them into getting into ALS, right?
CHIEF METZGER: Well, I'm probably the wrong person to ask
Page 127
January 13, 2009
that because I don't have the history here that a lot of folks do. Where I
come from it didn't work that way.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. Well, that's what happened here.
But anyway, I just wanted to just -- a lot of people think that it was the
fire departments that forced their way into ALS and it wasn't.
Anyway, I wanted to get to two other things. This is for the county
attorney. Under one of these paragraphs it said, recommended by the
Collier County Medical Society or its successor. Who's a successor for
the medical society?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I just drafted this so that if they change their
organization's title or whatever, that we wouldn't have to change the
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then it says, or similar local or
regional organization. What's that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: If they refuse to participate, for example, and
not give you recommendations, it would give the board the option to
look for somebody else's expertise. So that the first -- you would be
looking for the Collier County Medical Society, provided that they
continue to exist. If they stop existing, you'd be looking at their
successor, or if they don't want to participate, you can look for another
professional organization.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: They can't pass it off to somebody else
though, right?
MR. KLA TZKOW: They don't have to participate, ma'am. This is
just giving the board options if they don't participate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. That made me a little bit nervous
because I figured, well, you know -- I was wondering if they would be
passing it down the line and who would it go to, and then where would
it eventually end up.
MR. KLATZKOW: We would be asking for recommendations by
the Collier County Medical Society.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Commissioner Coletta?
Page 128
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
In that same light, I'm surprised that we only have one speaker.
After all the interest that was shown in this, it's -- possibly the agenda
wasn't written that poorly (sic) so it could be accepted.
But a couple people came in and expressed some misgivings with
the medical society making appointments because of the relationship to
Dr. Tober, which I didn't have a problem with. I think they're ethically
above that.
But one of the things I did do, just for your information, is I took
the time to contact Lee Memorial Hospital through some friends of
mine, and there is an interest on their part, if we can't get somebody
locally or ifthere's some sort of complications for the physician, the
nurse, the pharmacist from the Lee County system to be able to come
m.
Just wanted to share that bit of information with you. I expected
somebody to bring that issue up today, but they didn't. But I didn't want
to go through all that trouble and not share it with somebody.
MS. FILSON: I do have two applications to date for this
committee and they're both RNs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And both are what?
MS. FILSON: RNs, registered nurses, and they're from the
medical society.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have any further comments
from the Board of County Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 129
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
CHIEF METZGER: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for adding that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Item 9A.
Appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a --
MS. FILSON: Mr. Mudd, didn't we have a two o'clock time
certain?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. We moved it out.
MR. MUDD: Yeah, we did -- we did the--
MS. FILSON: The IOD.
MR. MUDD: Excuse me. You're absolutely correct. We do have a
two o'clock time certain, and it's 10D.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's time for a break now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was just going to say, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Let's have a break.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's -- okay. Let's just take a break first.
We'll take a ten-minute, and we'll be back, and then we'll hit IOD,
okay. Very good, thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chairman, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #IOD
AWARD BID #09-5148 TO SUBAQUEOUS SERVICES, LLC IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,555,419.29 FOR 2008 DREDGING
OF DOCTORS AND WIGGINS PASSES AND APPROVE ALL
Page 130
January 13, 2009
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this brings us to 10D. You had a
time certain item at 2 p.m. This is to recommend approval by the Board
of County Commissioners to award bid number 09-5148 to Subaqueous
Services, LLC, in the total amount of $1 ,555,419.29 for 2008, now
2009 dredging of Doctors and Wiggins Passes and approve all
necessary budget amendments.
Mr. Gary McAlpin, your coastal zone management director, will
present.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin,
coastal zone management.
Madam Chair, we received four bids. Staff has evaluated the bids
and is recommending award to Subaqueous, LLC. They are the only
bidder that has the record, knowledge, and experience necessary to
complete with the scope -- with the complexity of Doctors and Wiggins
Passes.
The county has past experience with dredgers with inadequate
equipment and experience not completing on time.
We have a permit condition that Wiggins Pass will be dredged
before the beginning of turtle nesting season. And Wiggins Pass has
had a notice to mariners posted for over -- for inadequate depths for the
past six months, and we are asking for your approval of this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gary, I think you brought up a good
point here that when you went through all of the people that put in a
bid on this, that staff looked at this very closely and decided that bid --
yeah, the Subaqueous, I guess you call it, Services, LLC, was the firm
that could get this job done, and they could get it done in a timely
manner and also, I believe, to meet the deadline so that they didn't
interfere with the turtle season; is that correct?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, that is correct.
Page 13 1
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. At that, I'll make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I'll second the motion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. McAlpin, I understand the
timeliness of this item, and I appreciate it. But my concern is, they
discounted their bid by $200,000. And the investigation by the FBI is
about change orders with this company.
How are we going to manage it so that we can reduce change
orders to this bid?
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Commissioner Henning, this is a unit
price bid, so typically what we do is we survey the pass right before
construction will begin. They do their dredging, and then we survey it
right after so we know exactly how much quantity has been removed
out of this.
The only lump sum items then would be the mobilization cost,
and it's a mobilization and a demobilization cost and the monitoring
costs associated with that, and those are fixed prices, and those are
relatively low in terms of dollar volume.
So our exposure is relatively low because of the way we
structured the contract by unit price.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the mobilization, do you feel
that the bid really reflected what needs to be mobilized?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, absolutely. We're mobilizing a cutterhead
dredge and the work equipment associated with that, and their
mobilization prices were in line with everybody else's mobilization
costs. A little bit higher because they have a bigger piece of equipment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we -- I'm trying to go by
memory. The RFP versus a bid for services. Do we pay for their stay?
MR. McALPIN: No. We pay for -- we pay for quantities removed.
Page 132
January 13,2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's it?
MR. McALPIN: And that's it. We pay for -- we pay them to
mobilize and demobilize, we pay for them when they remove a cubic
yard of sand; that's what we pay for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I -- you know, I do have
some concerns about it, but I'm going to have to trust. And every other
year we're doing Wiggins Pass, dredging it out, and this is really not
the answer to this, and we need to come with a long-term solution,
because you're going to have monitoring costs.
MR. McALPIN: They will have monitoring costs with turbidity
monitoring associated with this. But as an independent item, we are
looking at a modeling program to develop and we have a draft proposal
ready to come to the board, which we will -- we will give community --
we have to have community hearings for, which is long-term master
plan for Wiggins Pass, and that should come back to the board
sometime by early -- early summer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. I understand there's a
motion on the floor, but you have cited several reasons for choosing
Subaqueous for this contract, and those are, they have a record of
knowledge and experience with projects similar in scope and
complexity; they have the ebb shoal dredging experience with winter
wave conditions in unprotected open Gulf waters; they have
deep-dredge experience. Were these criteria spelled out in the request
for proposal?
MR. McALPIN: Yes, they were.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they were scored in accordance
to the relative experience in each of these areas; is that true?
MR. McALPIN: We evaluated each one of the proposals based on
the experience with -- we specified a minimum of a 14-inch dredge,
and we evaluated the proposals based on the experience using a 14-inch
Page 133
January 13, 2009
a 14-inch dredge. None of the other -- none of the other vendors had
actual 14-inch dredge experience. Most of the other vendors were in
the process or were going to subcontract out the dredge operations and
subcontract our a number of portions of that.
So with that, the only one who really had the experience with the
-- with the equipment and the type of conditions was Subaqueous,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have six speakers.
Oh, you know what, feeding on that for just one more moment.
You were talking about the experience. I'm trying to find it in here.
Someplace it says something about they have substantially changed
their employees, and I was just wondering if that experience still
applies being that they've changed quite a bit of their employees and
changed their name to Hog Enterprises.
MR. McALPIN: Yes, we've -- the Subaqueous, Inc., who we have
done work with in the past, who dredged Doctors Pass and Caxambas
Pass and Wiggins Pass for us in the past, was sold to the Orion Group,
and the assets were sold, the equipment was sold, and the personnel
went with it. Subsequent to that, they have augmented their personnel,
and we've -- in our analysis and investigation with that, we are very
confident and -- with the people that they are proposing for this project.
So -- and the equipment that they're using, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, six speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first speak speaker is Marcia Cravens. She'll be
followed by Joe Moreland.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak on this.
I'm speaking to just bring up the issue of the conservation areas
that are adjacent to Wiggins Pass on either side. There are regional
areas as well as state areas.
Page 134
January 13, 2009
What has happened with Wiggins Pass was that in 1995 CP&E
created an inlet management study, recommended increasing the Gulf
channel width that had been maintained by another hundred feet, and to
increase the depth from 8 feet to 13 feet along with shifting the channel
to the north.
The purpose of that modification was to provide advanced
maintenance. That was a concept they had. And they opined that this
would also create a basin that would accumulate sand at a longer period
of time and that the shoaling would take longer to do and, therefore,
would lengthen the interval between dredging events.
That ended up being a critically erroneous assumption on their
part, because what's happened is that it has not lengthened the interval
of dredging events. It has, in fact, shortened them, because the
modification of the dredge design contributed to a faster rate of
shoaling.
Beyond that, additionally a very negative impact from it has been
the loss of shoreline at Barefoot Beach. There has been tremendous
loss of that shoreline. And I've got a few things to just kind of share
with you that support that.
So what I am here to do is to ask that -- not to ask you not to
dredge that pass, but to please direct staff to limit the amount of dredge.
Go back more closely to the 1980 Corps design template or the 1990
FDER template. I'm just going to show you a couple of things on the
overhead.
First item is from Google Earth Maps. That's showing you the
area of Wiggins Pass. If you'll look, the upper area of shoreline there,
you can see how far that shoreline is receding into the mangrove area
there. They've had a tremendous loss, and that's even supported by a
letter I -- an email I received from Jan Bacharach, president of Friends
of Barefoot Beach. In response to an email I wrote her inquiring about
this she said, yes, the Friends of Barefoot Beach have read the
Humiston Report, and we are quite aware of the erosion at the
Page 135
January 13,2009
southeast section of Barefoot Beach.
We have a one-and-a-halfmile long trail that we have had to
reroute several times due to large sections of the dune that has calved
off into the Gulf. This situation has gotten much worse after the 13-foot
dredging that the county did a few years ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Ms. Cravens. I'm sorry to cut
you off, but that's the three minutes.
MS. CRAVENS: You got the gist of my request. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Moreland. He'll be
followed by Doug Fee.
MR. MORELAND: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Joe
Moreland, president of the Estuary Conservation Association, here to
really speak in behalf of the imminent need to have the pass dredged,
the awarding of the contract to start work.
Our organization is advocating this under our charter, which has
to do with the quality of life, anytime you're talking about the
environment, to have a balance.
Quality of life is really the correct thing to put -- label to put on
this. The current condition of that pass without dredging does put in
jeopardy public safety, public safety of the boaters. It is dangerous.
And the county has in the past undertaken to maintain that, having
done so legally. The county continues to be responsible for doing that.
And I don't think -- I'm happy to hear there's not an issue now on
whether to dredge it or not.
The current dredge depths and all are now with precedent. The
lady was quite right in testifying that dredging has contributed to the
problem, but perhaps is unaware that there is a major effort that has
been underway, started when ECA held a public workshop for two
days with the involved people to study the options for a dredge, which
would expand the time between necessary dredgings.
The county commissioners, Commissioner Halas, I believe it was,
Page 136
January 13, 2009
was, made a great initiative in encouraging the development of a
county-appointed board which consisted of many of the same people
that we had on -- with the original examination.
Gary has made mention of the results of that study coming out. It
involved soft engineering. It involves all of the pictures and portraits of
the current condition and the past condition, all. It is in the process of
being fixed. That process, once approved by you, will probably take
another year or more to go through the licensing and permitting
processes that it must go through, which would almost bring it up to the
next -- not this coming -- not the current cycle here, but the next dredge
would be in conformity with that and would be a very different kind of
dredge in all probability.
My time is up, but I say it is imperative that this dredge be
undertaken, and it is a matter of public safety, and the consequences of
somebody having a serious accident out there is very -- not only the
likelihood is real, but the consequences would be rather tumultuous.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doug Fee. He'll be followed by
Bob Nagel.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee.
I'll try to be as brief as possible.
I'm going to put on the visualizer a Future Land Use Element map.
And what I want to point out here is, you have conservation lands
along Wiggins Pass to the north and to the south, including Barefoot
Beach as well as Delnor Wiggins.
The second page that I handed out to you commissioners is the
zoning map from the county. And as you can see, again, it is designated
conservation land.
The third page that I handed out is from your Land Development
Code, and it is concerning the conservation district. And it reads, the
purpose and intent of the conservation district is to conserve, protect,
and maintain vital natural resource lands within unincorporated Collier
Page 13 7
January 13, 2009
County that are owned primarily by the public. All native habitats
possess ecological and physical characteristics that justify attempts to
maintain these important natural resources.
Barrier islands, coastal bays, wetlands and habitat for listed
species deserve particular attention because of their ecological value
and their sensitivity to perturbation.
All proposals for development in the CON district must be subject
to rigorous review to ensure that the impacts of the development do not
destroy or unacceptably degrade the inherent functional values.
The CON district standard includes -- and I will not read the
whole list, but you will notice that it does mention Delnor- Wiggins
State Park. And then the last sentence says, it is the intent of the CON
district to require review of all development proposed within the CON
district to ensure that the inherent value of the county's natural resource
is not destroyed or unacceptably altered.
My point is, I am supporting dredging Wiggins Pass and the
every-other-year cycle. I'd like to suggest, however, that with this in
mind, that we try a modified dredge. The last time we dredged, we
went out from zero to three at a depth of eight and a half, and then we
went to 13 and a half.
I'm wondering if we shouldn't go another station or two and try
that to see how that would work before you then come back to the
Wiggins Pass modeling group, which has some other suggestions.
That's for another day. But is there a possibility of modifying it,
making it a little less so that the erosion on Barefoot Beach, possibly
that would change? That's my comment.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Bob Nagel. Did you wish to speak on the
legislation?
MR. NAGEL: Yes. I wanted lOA.
MS. FILSON: Oh, okay. Because it says 100. I'm sorry.
Page 138
January 13, 2009
So your next speaker will be ten -- or Dick Lydon, ten. He'll be
followed by Bill Pittman.
MR. LYDON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Dick
Lydon. I live in Vanderbilt Beach. And I'd like to, first of all,
congratulate you all and Mr. Mudd for the staff that we have now
involved in the dredging and beach renourishment, and Mr. McAlpin,
Pamela Keys. I've been around, as most of you know, about 22 years in
this particular ball game of beach renourishment and Wiggins Pass
opening, and they've done a super job.
I think Mr. Moreland covered the safety factor. I'd like to take one
quick look at the history, if you don't mind.
We look at these dollars, and we think we're spending a bunch.
But one of the things that we tried to do back in the old days of the
city/county committee was to try and get what we're doing on this one,
a combination of dredging, Wiggins and Doctors, with the same
equipment at the same time in order to save money. Fortunately, we've
now accomplished that.
I know a little bit about the plans for the future. I know a lot about
the bad experience that we have had in the past, picking the wrong guy
to do this job. It has been very, very disastrous and at an occasion,
almost death -- brought about some deaths in the whole thing.
But seriously, we want to go ahead with the pass. We want to go
ahead with getting it straightened away the way some of us who have
been around a long time think it should have been straightened away a
long time ago, and I would urge you to move forward and get this
underway so that we don't get involved with the turtles.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Bill Pittman.
MR. PITTMAN: Hi. My name is Bill Pittman, and I'm a boater. I
have a modest-size boat. It's a 26 footer. And I just wanted to relate an
experience I had on New Year's Day at Wiggins.
Page 139
January 13,2009
I had my child -- a couple of my children, and one of the
grandchildren on the boat, and the pass was like a zoo. There were big
boats -- not really big boats. The pass was too shallow for any
good-sized boat, but kayaks and jet skis and whatever.
And I -- although I draw less than 2 feet of water I stored -- stirred
up mud because I had to get out of the way of another boat coming that
was trying to get out of -- stay in the channel to stay deep enough. I'm
absolutely surprised there was no accidents there. Maybe there were,
certainly not when I was there.
But I really am concerned about the safety hazard of it and want to
reinforce that, the need for the dredging. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
We have a motion on the floor and a second.
MS. FILSON: Who made the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I seconded it.
Any further comments from the board member members or
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 5-0.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Item #9 A
Page 140
January 13,2009
RESOLUTION 2009-07: APPOINTMENT OF DORIS LEWIS
(W/WAIVING TERM LIMIT) AND ROCHELLE Z. LIEB TO THE
LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, now we go to 9A, which is
appointment of members to the Library Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Make a motion to adopted the
committee's recommendations and waive section B of ordinance
200 I-55 for Doris Lewis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Brings us to 9B, appointment--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no. We have a second one. He just said
Doris Lewis, but actually it says to appoint two members to serve
four-year terms.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, my motion was to accept
the committee's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And then waive that section.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, excuse me. I did wash my ears
this morning, honest.
Item #9B
Page 141
January 13, 2009
RESOLUTION 2009-08: APPOINTING NOAH STANDRIDGE,
RON GLAH, JOHN ARCERI TO THE CLAM BAY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 9B, appointment of
members to the Clam Bay Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a concern under this one
with Noah Standridge. I don't believe he's late, being that we appointed
a District 3. That was October 28th. Doesn't give -- you know, that
would be 17 days for advertisement. Our normal policy is three weeks.
So I would like to appoint Noah Standridge from District 3.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Ron Glah from District 4,
and John Arceri from District 1.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second, or do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And I have a second from
Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if! may.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. It didn't seem like we're
getting any response from District 5. I think they were planning to
advertise it again. I think that we should just open it up if we're going
to advertise it again for District 5 or anyone else that's interested.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I had somebody
Page 142
January 13, 2009
contact me from District 5 interested on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I wish they applied.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I said -- yeah. And I think --
I told them, I says -- it was just the other day. I says, I think it's still
open, so I looked at the advertisement. And sure enough it is, so I think
you're going to see one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. May I make a suggestion
though? I don't want to hold up this committee any longer. What we'd
do is, if we can get a member from District 5 that's agreeable to the
commission, fine; if we can't, that we select somebody else.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we can do is have this
group convene and still have that open for District 5, and hopefully we
can get moving on this because it's something that needs to be
addressed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just don't want to hold it up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifwe can convene it and move it
forward, that would be wonderful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, could we have a motion -- or
could we include that in the motion that we can begin this committee to
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we'd have to amend the
ordinance to do so.
Mr. Klatzkow, need some help on that.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. It would be my preference if you found
somebody from District 5, but if we're not getting anybody, sooner or
later we're going to have to move that direction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But it looks like there's one --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but we would like to start this committee
to meeting right now.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can start it now.
Page 143
January 13,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We can start it now.
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have a quorum.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we need to include that in a motion or
can it just -- in other words, what we want to do -- we've chosen three
here. We've heard that there's another one, a person who wants to
apply, this one from District 5, but to go out and readvertise and
everything would hold this committee up any longer. What we'd like to
do is get this committee to start to function; meanwhile, readvertise for
District 5 only and let the committee begin to assemble.
MS. FILSON: I do an ongoing advertisement if I don't get
someone, and I just advertised on Friday for District 5 again.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Okay, fine. So your motion--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It stands, and it's going to work
out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good. And there was a second.
I didn't -- I don't remember who.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, okay, fine.
So I have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
I tern #9C
Page 144
January 13, 2009
RESOLUTION 2009-09: APPOINTING JAMES E. LA VINSKI
(FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE VACANT TERM, EXPIRING
ON FEBRUARY 14,2010) AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 9C, appointment of
a member to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I appoint -- make a
motion to appoint James Lavinski as an alternate for the Code
Enforcement Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #90
RESOLUTION 2009-10: APPOINTING ESTIL NULL TO THE
IMMOKALEE PLAN AND VISIONING COMMITTEE -
ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 90, appointment of
a member to the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Madam Chair, I'd like to go with
the committee's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 145
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Estil Null.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9 E
RESOLUTION 2009-11: APPOINTING LARRY MAGEL, JAMES
HOPPENSTEADT, AND RE-APPOINTING GINA DOWNS TO
THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED; STAFF
DIRECTED TO READVERTISE
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, before we move on to item -- or
rather, as we move on to Item 9E, Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Halas have some comments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I would just like to make some
motions on 9E, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to nominate John
Barlow, Gina Downs, James Hoppensteadt, Larry Magel, and Sydney
Blum for membership on the Productivity Committee.
MS. FILSON: Who was the fourth one, sir? I didn't hear that one.
Magel?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Larry Magel.
MR. MUDD: James Hoppensteadt, Sydney Blum, John Barlow,
and Gina Downs.
Page 146
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And James Hoppensteadt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second for the
five people just named.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. It might be too late, but I
wanted to bring up discussion here in regards to -- as I said earlier in
the presentation that was put on by the Productivity Committee, I was
concerned about the complexion of the Productivity Committee and
where it's going.
I also have concerns about wondering if it should be more in the
sunshine and that -- that the people on the Productivity Committee use
this dais or something whereby the proceedings of the Productivity can
be televised so that people have a better understanding of what's going
on.
The other motion -- or the other idea that I had but obviously it's
too late, and that is to downsize the Productivity Committee from I I
people possibly to nine people, and making sure that the Productivity
Committee stays focused for all people here in Collier County so that
we don't end up with special interest groups that are controlling it, and I
have some concerns on that.
If you go back to the history of the Productivity Committee,
basically it was all retirees that were involved in Fortune 500
companies or thereabouts, and they moved down here to Collier
County because of the ambiance and the quality of life, and they
basically got involved to make sure that all aspects of government were
being addressed, that we were running an efficient operation here,
which I think we are. And I just hope that we don't lose the direction
that we've had for a number of years. That's my -- that's my two cents
worth.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That was worth 50 cents if you ask me.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 147
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Fiala's (sic) light was
on before mine. Does that make any difference?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Commissioner Henning, and then you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this -- our community
is made up more of -- than retirees. And the last time we had some
appointments on the Productivity Committee, we said that we wanted a
diverse committee.
And looking at the motion, most of them are retirees, and I think
that we need a lot younger blood on the Productivity Committee
besides retirees. So there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- Commissioner Halas, I agree
with your assessment that we ought to look for a smaller committee.
Sometimes big committees tend to get unwieldy, and I don't think it's
too late. I think on subsequent appointments as we go forward, we
might want to consider modifying the number of people on that
committee and letting some of those terms expire. But that's for another
day, I guess, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe we should check with the county
attorney and see if we need to put that into some kind of motion or
something.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, no. If one day you decide to reduce the
number of members, you'll need to amend the ordinance, but I don't
think you're there yet. I haven't heard that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. They don't want to do it yet but they
are talking about, you know, moving forward with that idea; is that
correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would certainly be open to a future
discussion on this, and we could schedule it for another meeting if you
wished and have it properly advertised.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And same with you, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure. I think it's something --
Page 148
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that needs to be addressed. I think
it needs to be addressed that we have it televised, too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time. Would you read
off the members that the motion's for?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Right now we're just asking if --
they're suggesting that maybe we would want to amend the ordinance
to reduce the number on this committee from II to nine people.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd be willing to consider it, but
I'd like to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Also to hold their meetings in the sunshine,
for instance, in here being televised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that would be an excellent
idea.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I've got three members that say
yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got my vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So we could begin to move
forward on that. Maybe you can schedule it at another meeting.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, let me just -- you're appointing five
members here. That will give you a full committee. So the question is,
if you want to reduce it to nine or to seven, whatever number the board
wishes, you'll either have to remove people from the committee or we'll
have to wait until their terms expire.
MS. FILSON: I have terms expiring in ten, 2010.
MR. KLA TZKOW: So if you want to reduce it now, what I would
suggest you do is you not appoint five members.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I offer something?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's just deal with this issue now,
Page 149
January 13,2009
and then we'll schedule another discussion about this, or else we could
give guidance to the staff to come back to us with recommendations
about when and how we would proceed with televising this and
reducing the size of the committee, and the county attorney could
certainly have some input into that to tell us when and how we should
do it.
MR. KLA TZKOW: You can start televising, and it's up to the
county manager, really, you know, to get this done fairly soon.
The issue is, what do you want to do about the number of
members you have on this committee? If you want to reduce them now,
I'd suggest you do that now; otherwise, you're going to have to wait a
year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm happy to wait a while longer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And as -- regards to
televising, I'd like the county manager to come back and tell us if --
how much it would cost to put this -- to have it televised. Hopefully it
will be nominal.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it doesn't cost anything. If you want
to take 13 people and put -- excuse me -- 11 people and televise them,
I'm going to do it in Room 610 over at community developments.
They've got a bigger room and we've televised meetings from there
before, and you can -- and we can do that particular issue. We just need
to tell the Productivity Committee they're always invited to go into a
conference room off the county manager's suite, but their meetings will
be down at community developments. That's not a problem. If that's
what the board desires, that's what we'll do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm all for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have three nods there, and I'll make
a fourth. So -- okay, fine.
We have a motion on the floor to nominate these five people:
Larry Magel, Sydney Blum, John Barlow, and Gina Downs, and James
Page 150
January 13, 2009
James Hoppensteadt. I have a motion and a second.
All those in favor --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I removed my second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought he seconded it. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So the motion was made by--
MR. MUDD: Before you go --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You made the motion for these people?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I did. Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you seconded it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I thought he did, but I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He did -- he just said he removed his
second. So -- okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we remove that second and we replace
it with Commissioner Halas' second; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson, you have two members in this
nomination, Mr. Barlow and Mr. Blum, that need some kind of special
consideration because of time periods?
MS. FILSON: Oh, yes. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion includes waiving the
requirement for the time period.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For those two members?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 151
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 4-1 vote.
MR. MUDD: Now, does the waivers of the time period need a
unanimous vote by the Board of County Commissioners?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I'm sorry, they do.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Waivers for -- who would it be, John
Barlow?
MR. MUDD: And Mr. Sydney Blum.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Sydney Blum.
MR. MUDD: So based on vote, Mr.--
MS. FILSON: Actually -- actually it's three. It's Mr. Baytos, Mr.
Barlow, and Mr. Blum.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Baytos is not -- wasn't in that nomination.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So the other two have to have a unanimous
vote.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that was in his motion though.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but Commissioner Henning --
MS. FILSON: Unanimous vote, and the vote was 4-1.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're going to change the
ordinance, I'd like to see that we have a balanced board to have at least
a third of it representing younger than retirement age so we have a
balance of people on this committee representing the true part of the
community. So that's what I'll be looking for when it comes back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have still Mr. Barlow -- Mr.
Barlow and Mr. Blum that need to have a waiver to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're beyond that.
Page 152
January 13, 2009
MR. MUDD: We're beyond that. The motion failed.
MR. KLATZKOW: I guess the question is, do you want to
nominate anybody else; otherwise, you've just put three people on this
board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't -- I don't see anybody else I
would feel comfortable nominating to this board. Ifwe can't get
unanimous approval to waive the requirements, the term requirements,
for Mr. Barlow and Sydney Blum, then I would be happy to go forward
with a nomination for Gina Downs, James Hoppensteadt and Larry
Magel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could we --
MR. KLA TZKOW: We've already approved those.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- add Phil Brougham on there?
MR. KLA TZKOW: They're good. They're on. They didn't require
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then I don't have any other
recommendations. I would suggest we advertise, readvertise.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So are you telling me that in order to
approve the two people that were -- that were nominated, because we
didn't get a 5-0 vote, they're no longer are on the Productivity
Committee?
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Interesting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Opens up an entirely new dynamic,
doesn't it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe drop the committee down to nine
now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Even further when some of the other
people get ready to get nominated.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to nominate Phil Brougham. He
would be wonderful on that committee.
Page 153
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, on your motion, if
you would accept Shannon Holland, a financial adviser, BS
administration, information analysis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just wanted to nominate Phil Brougham.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. There's a -- you have a
motion and a second on the floor.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion and a second on the
floor for Phil Brougham.
Any discussion? Oh, there's a couple discussions. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not going to vote for the
motion. It's not that I'm opposed to those two, but I would feel much
more comfortable readvertising it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nope. That's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Question I have. When you
readvertise it and if the -- these two people that we didn't approve, are
they out of the running or can they reapply?
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless there's a motion to reconsider, we've
made that decision here today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: How long do they have to be off the committee
before they can reapply?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can they be off one meeting and then
reapply?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the intent here would be that you'd
have to go through an entire cycle of terms. I mean, I'll check -- I'll
Page 154
January 13,2009
check the ordinance again on this. But I think you need to go through a
cycle.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But then what is a cycle? Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if I could. I'm a little bit
disturbed. Our most -- our two most experienced people, it looks like
they're headed to pasture on one vote, but it's the way it is. That's the
way the ordinance is set up.
What would it take to amend that ordinance so it would only
require a supermajority rather than a complete -- everyone voting in the
same direction? How difficult would that be?
MR. KLATZKOW: Your policy is -- or not just policy, that when
you require more than a majority on any issue, you're going to have to
use more than that on this. I think for that issue you'd have to be
unanimous. I don't think -- I don't think three of you could change that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm not -- what I'm asking
is, is it an ordinance or just a policy?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is not a policy. This is your
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And what will it take to
change the ordinance so that we might want to reconsider it? Because I
see very big dangers in the future with our more experienced
volunteers.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, let me take a -- let me take a closer look
at this, and I will send you all the same memorandum on this as to what
you can and cannot do on this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. May I just talk to the Board of
County Commissioners for a second. I have a motion the floor and a
second for Phil Brougham, but would you like me to wait to make that
motion until our county attorney comes back and gives us advice on
this?
Page 155
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll pull that motion for now.
MS. FILSON: These appointments actually don't take effect until
February the 4th, so we could -- I don't know if you could come back
on January 27th.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We hate to lose these two vital people on
this committee.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you'll get a quick answer from me. But
the other question is, if you want to reduce the membership, this is one
way to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we were -- we were
thinking about -- a couple reasons why to reduce it, and I think one of it
was the seating arrangement for this room for how many people it
would hold. But if we're moving it to another location, that doesn't
present a problem, and we could do it through attrition if we were
interested in doing it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's not going to be a
problem. All you've got to do it wait until one of the other people's
term comes up and then just one person on this board not vote in favor
of extending their term, and you've just reduced the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That works. More than one way
to skin a cat.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or committee member.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. But now we're waiting till the county
attorney comes back with some direction, for us to vote on anybody
else. Do we -- do we now -- like, for instance, I'd like to see Phil on
here because I've worked with him on my advisory committee, and I
know he's a great guy, and he's really a strong leader. And we don't
Page 156
January 13, 2009
don't want to lose John Barlow.
So shall we just wait and bring all ofthese things back again?
How do we do that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think at the present time--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We've never had this mess before.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- Madam Chair, is the fact that
we've got three people on there. I think that we need to have direction
from the county attorney in regards to the other people that were
nominated by -- by this board. But obviously we didn't get a unanimous
vote of five.
So I think what we need to do at this point in time is maybe hold
off on electing Phil E. Brougham until such time as we get direction
from the county attorney, and then we could probably bring this back
to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good, okay. Yeah, and I'd like to
know if you would give me a definition of what is young people?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, like I said, not as retirement
age, you know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, I just find it very odd that
we would want just retired people on this committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I don't think James Hoppensteadt is
retired. Is he one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: James Hoppensteadt is seated.
You know, the Productivity Committee in the last two appointments
have -- of course, they always are political appointments and ideologies
for those political appointments. That's fine. If that's what the majority
of the commissioners want, I'm fine with those decisions. I just find it
an opportunity to say, we have a diverse community, and I want
diverse input.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So that I'm clear, we're going to Gina
Downs, James Hoppensteadt, Larry Megal, and then I'm going to bring
Page 157
January 13,2009
bring everyone else back at the next agenda?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Is that the way all of the
. .
commiSSIOners --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to wait until such time
MR. KLATZKOW: You'll have that tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KLA TZKOW: So you can do it next agenda.
MS. FILSON: So I'll continue this to the next agenda with the
exception of those three, and you'll have your answer from the county
attorney; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's not the way I'd like to see it.
I'd like to see it advertised.
MS. FILSON: Readvertised?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to get some more applicants
here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners? Let's give them direction.
We can't leave it hanging.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what Commissioner Coyle
brought up -- I mean, in this case I think we're in a deadlock, and we
need to readvertise this and hopefully get some more applicants in here.
And I would encourage that other people that -- in the community to
get actively involved in what's going on here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Okay. So that includes the position for Phil
Brougham; advertise that too?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. We only have two. One-third of the
appointees from today, which is good, one-third qualifies under
Commissioner Henning's suggestion of younger than retirement, so
that's something, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a start.
Page 158
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we have plenty more on there, by the
way. I was just at the meeting the other day.
Any comments? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I couldn't let it go without
making a comment. You know, we have different structures within the
county and we recognize certain expertise that are out there for certain
things. I mean, in some cases you have to be a contractor to belong and
you have to be an engineer to be able to fill a certain position.
You know, the Productivity Committee has generally been a
committee that's not been political. Occasionally they do rise to that
level, but for the most part they've been free of it. They've been people
that have been experienced business people that have been through
quite a bit of life's experiences.
It's not a training ground for young people to be able to come
aboard. A 20-year-old or a 30-year-old person could be lacking in the
expertises that we're looking for. That's just something I had to throw
back out.
I just wanted to say that I have no problem with retirees being
members of this committee, and I don't see a disproportionate balance
by the number of people that are in their upper 50s, let's say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. We voted on this, and we
shall move on.
Now we have -
Item #IOB
RECOMMENDA nON TO DENY THE PETITIONERS REQUEST
FOR A REDUCTION OF THE STORAGE FOR THE TWO
NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANES TO BUSINESS CIRCLE
SOUTH IN ORDER TO PROVIDE STORAGE FOR A SINGLE
LEFT TURN LANE SOUTHBOUND FOR ACCESS INTO THE
MAIN GATE OF FOREST GLEN, PROJECT #60001- MOTION
Page 159
January 13, 2009
TO CONTINUE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Brings us to a --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 3 :30 time certain.
MR. MUDD: -- 3:30 time certain, and that is lOB. It's a
recommendation to deny the petitioner's request for reduction of
storage for the two northbound left-turn lanes to business circle south
in order to provide stronger -- no, excuse me -- in order to provide
storage for a single left-turn lane southbound for access into the main
gate of Forest Glen, project number 6,00 I.
And Mr. Norman Feder, your transportation service administrator,
will present.
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, this was presented to you as a
public petition item. You requested us to go back, work with the
petitioners. We have done that. We've looked at a number of
alternatives as we discussed at the time of petition.
Effectively, what we're looking at is we've got a northbound dual
left into the area where the W al * Mart is just south of Davis Boulevard
some 600 feet just to the north of the entrance to Forest Glen. That dual
left-turn lane is set for the overall development that's going to occur in
that area, but initially will primarily be used as a bypass of the
problems that you have at the intersection of Davis, Beck, and 951.
ft's much akin to what you've experienced already in the past here
in the county with Naples Boulevard, which was a bypass of the
intersection of Airport and Pine Ridge until it started to develop; and to
the point where it's developed now, it is -- we had to expand all of our
turn lanes and issues into it. But nonetheless, it is now used, primarily
used to just meet the trip purposes of that development within it, no
longer serving as an effective bypass.
Weare getting ready to do the work on Davis Boulevard. That
project will include a signal that will be set up during construction as a
temporary signal. And then once the study's done -- once that signal's
Page 160
January 13, 2009
on Davis and the construction's underway, not only the intersection at
951/Davis, problems we have today, but then with the construction we
anticipate that that use of that as a bypass, well before even the area
develops fully out, will increase even more.
The request to reduce some of that dual left-turn lane takes away
and adds to the green time demand if we were to do it for northbound
left turns and, therefore, delaying the southbound movements on an
area that we're adding capacity to specifically because of those needs.
There are and we have agreed, working with them, that we would
not close off that opening that they have in front of the main entrance
today until, in fact, the U-turn to the south of them is fully in place.
Also, that we would drop the curb in that area for any emergency
vehicle access into their main gate.
But their primary access would be northbound, right-in, right-out.
Trucks will restructure their routing to get there, the three to four a day
that they've noted. Also they have options off of Beck where they do
have an access point. Today it is only an exit. It would require a card
reader to make that a full access point for them.
They do have a consultant that we worked with. They are
proposing that for a period of time when we possibly don't have as high
a demand for those turning movements and the growth in the area, that
they be allowed to pay to have that left turn storage in and that they
offer, once we prove later on that it needs to be closed off, that they
would close it off.
I can't tell you exact estimate of time. I believe it's shorter than
some because I believe that the bypass activity, once we get the
construction underway on Davis and a new signal comes in there, will
be much quicker as to that full demand for the full two northbound
left-turn lanes. Others are looking at the general development in that
area, and it will take a little bit longer before that demand would come
about.
So there is a short period of time; however, I'd also caution you
Page 161
January 13, 2009
that if you set up 600 feet south of a signalized intersection such as this,
that the Good Samaritan concerns are there. You're having people
coming up to what will now be a shortened storage area on the
northbound lefts with an access across that for this left turn in that
they're requesting, 600 feet south. Some people are going to stop. Some
people won't stop for them. And so that's some of our concern as well.
I do know that as I said, they have their consultant here. We've
worked with them. They've been good to work with. We haven't
necessarily agreed on this issue, but I do want to give them the
opportunity to present their issues, and we're available for any
questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do we have speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have seven speakers. Jim Banks. He'll be
followed by Jim Dishinger.
MR. BANKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Jim Banks, and I'm a registered professional engineer in
the State of Florida. I have over 20 years of experience in the field of
traffic and transportation engineering, and I've been recognized as an
expert within these fields on past numerous occasion.
I'm here on behalf -- I'm here speaking on behalf of the residents
of Forest Glen regarding their express concerns of the proposed
modification of their access onto County Road 951.
As the board is well aware and as Mr. Feder reiterated, DOT is
proposing to construct a dual northbound left, dual northbound to
westbound left-turn lane at the intersection of Business Circle South at
County Road 951. These turn lanes have a combined length of 1,200
feet which will eliminate the median opening which provides access to
Forest Glen.
The residents, in response to the county's proposal, the residents
asked that I provide a review of the county's plan in order to establish
whether the elimination of their median opening for the purpose of
Page 162
._-----^--~-_....,,_.----..~-_.,
January 13, 2009
constructing the dual left-turn lanes is warranted.
My first effort regarding this matter was to contact Mr.
Casalanguida to obtain the support documentation that was used by the
engineer of record in determining that design. Now, what I mean by
support documentation is the engineer's computation book. In other
words, as an engineer, one of the first things that we do is we perform
computations and calculations in order to determine what the design
looks like.
What I received was not the engineer of record's computation
book. But what I did -- but what I was provided was basically a
two-page memorandum dated January 7th.
Can I interrupt just for a minute? I'm going to be speaking as an
expert for the community as a whole, and I hope that the time limit of
three minutes won't apply to me necessarily. I will try and be as -- I'll
try and make my presentation go as quickly as I can.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll extend it a little bit more just because
our staff had some time, but I would like you to --
MR. BANKS: Speed it up, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- keep it at the minimum.
MR. BANKS: No problem.
The memo that was produced -- the memo produced was actually
dated January 7th of this year. So we had a design that occurred
sometime, I don't know, a year ago, six months ago. And then when I
requested the engineer's computation manual so I could review to see
how they actually determined the needs that they're showing need to be
met, I was provided a memo that was dated just a couple days ago. The
memo that was produced was by a gentleman that is not the engineer of
record for the project.
Because I was not provided the information that I believe needed
to support the county's position, I decided that it would be prudent to
meet with Mr. Casalanguida to discuss this matter in further detail.
I met with Nick, middle of last week. When I questioned Nick as
Page 163
.,....,"_.~...~--,- ." '---'-~'_._.'"._,,_..-.~.
January 13,2009
to the lack of credible information that was provided in response to my
request, he provided a verbal -- his -- a verbal response as to his
perceived -- what he perceives as the justification as to why a Forest
Glen median opening needs to be closed.
His reasoning consisted of several points, which I'll touch very
quickly. He said the two points of intersection, that for the Forest Glen
folks and that for Business Circle South, were too close.
He also stated that the zoning that was put in place for the
Business Circle development was at a level that would -- at an intensity
level that would generate traffic that would be at a magnitude that
would also require a heavy traffic demand on that dual left-turn lane.
He also opined that there would be a redirection of traffic from the
busy intersection of Davis Road (sic) at County Road 951 that would
use Business Circle as a bypass for the intersection to bypass the
intersection at Davis and County Road 951.
He further went on to say that he recognized the fact that the
residents of Forest Glen actually have another access out onto Beck
Road, and that could be used for their point of ingress versus using the
-- for the -- instead of using a left-in at that location, that they could use
the access over on Beck Road.
I'd like to quickly rebut those points as it relates to the justification
as to why the median opening for Forest Glen needs to be closed. First
and foremost, there was no analysis of the safety issues that would be
created as a result of their, what I consider, a conservative approach.
They want to put in very -- a significant amount of turn-lane storage for
a movement that they're projecting future vol- -- a future demand in the
future, but yet there was no -- there was no information provided and,
as far as I know, no analysis performed on the safety issues that are
going to be created by moving the residents further south to perform a
U-turn on a six-lane facility.
There is no disputing the fact that motorists performing a U-turn
Page 164
-,- __',_.__~'___._.', _....m.__'__.__.____~__~...~.._...
January 13, 2009
on a six-lane facility with a significant volume of conflicting traffic,
that's that northbound approach in the p.m., that would create a more
unsafe condition than providing the direct left-in directly into the
development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Banks, I'm going to have to ask you to
wind up.
MR. BANKS: Did you -- did you -- I submitted a letter to Nick
regarding the proposal that the Forest Glen folks -- I don't know if you
had a chances to review that or not. It sounds like you did not. Can we
submit that to the record for the board -- the proposal that the Forest
Glen people have put together regarding their -- what we consider a
compromise to this issue?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Could you tell us what the
compromise is?
MR. BANKS: Yes. I'll read it into the record very quickly. Then
I'm going to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because we can't listen to you and read,
too.
MR. BANKS : Yeah. As stated in this letter -- this should only
take about a minute to read in -- Forest Glen residents share --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all you have left.
MR. BANKS: Forest Glen residents share in the county's desire to
protect the public's long-term interest and agree that every effort should
be maintained to -- made to maintain public safety.
Forest Glen requests that Collier County Government consider an
alternative design that they believe will preserve the public's long-term
needs without compromising safety.
In addition, the Forest Glen folks have set forth a condition of the
proposal that will ensure that no current or future costs will be incurred
by the taxpayers of Collier County if this proposal is accepted.
The conditions of installing a temporary directional left-in for the
Page 165
January 13, 2009
Forest Glen folks, we have -- we have proposed six conditions that
Forest Glen is willing to abide by.
First, the Forest Glen directional left median opening will be a
temporary access which may be removed or modified for just cause at
any time in the future.
Two, justification for its removal will be defined as a reoccurring
safety issue due to inadequate deceleration and storage capacity for the
northbound to westbound dual left-turn lanes at the intersection of
Business Circle South at 951.
More specifically, if Collier County Government determines that
the dual left-turn lanes need to be extended for public safety, then the
Forest Glen directional left-median opening will be removed.
Three, if there is a reoccurring clear and present threat to public
safety as a result of the temporary directional left-median opening, then
the Forest Glen community will not pursue any legal action to prevent
its closure. Not suggesting that we would, but just wanted to make that
clear.
Number four, Forest Glen will be responsible for the costs
associated with the design and the construction of the temporary
directional left-median openings. In talking with representatives of
DOT, we're estimating it would not exceed $10,000. But the Forest
Glen folks are willing to pay that cost. Not asking the taxpayers to
absorb that cost.
Five, if or when the temporary directional left-median opening
needs to be removed for just cause, then Forest Glen will pay the costs
associated with its removal and for the extension of the dual left-turn
lanes. It goes on to say they'll be extended pursuant to the current
design. I won't read that into the record.
Number six, the only thing -- the only item that we're asking
Collier County to do would be to determine the appropriate dimensions
of the Forest Glen directional left-turn lane if you guys accept this
agreement, and to design and construct this temporary directional
Page 166
January 13, 2009
directional left-median opening in a manner that will minimize the cost
and its -- of its installation and possible removal at another date.
If we're going to pay to install it and take it out later, we'd like to
be -- it done in a manner which would be most cost effective.
And finally, I'll just close by saying, the dual left-turn lanes can be
extended in the future at no cost to the county, and I believe that the
public's interest is served.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Banks. Okay.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And everybody else is going to be limited
to three minutes. That's our normal, three minutes, time limit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, before you go to
the next speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you don't mind. I think that we
need to continue this item. Here's why. The community hired a traffic
expert engineer who requested public records and did not receive it;
therefore, his analysis could not be conducted. And this agreement is
not in the right form. It needs to be an official agreement. We can't
accept it the way it is.
But my real concern is not getting enough information -- the
residents didn't get enough information to make a proper presentation
to the Board of County Commissioners, so therefore, I make a motion
to continue this item and ask that information through -- well, it's still a
public record, so whoever you ask needs to provide it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I had my light on there,
too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to second his motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not yet. I want to ask some
questions first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your motion's still standing until -- I'll
Page 167
--____.___.__... "'__"_~'''.._.,__,._M'~~__,,_ ,,_,.
January 13, 2009
second it for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can it stand for a moment? Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second it for discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't mind seconded it, I just
want to make sure that everybody knows what they're doing here, you
know. I'm seeing a commitment being made that's open ended that
could be put in and then taken out within a period -- a short period of
time, and an investment of $1 0,000 that's going to disappear. I mean, if
you want an agreement -- I mean, maybe it's not put on the right form
-- that overly commits a community, this one seems to do it to me.
I'd like to hear from transportation. Have you had a chance to
review this agreement, and do you have some comments on this? I'm
not too sure exactly what we're looking to buy here in the way of time.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, we will go as the board requests, but
what is being offered here is basically to put it in and then see what
happens. What we're telling you is, first of all, Kimley-Horn did the
initial traffic data. We asked for that information. But when they did it,
you did not have Wal*Mart in. That's why we asked the designer of
record and their senior engineer to do an analysis of it now that
Wal*Mart's in and provided that to the community. We felt they're
providing them even more up-to-date data and figures.
The issue at hand is, is that you've got -- it was noted that, gee, if I
put in dual lanes at 1,200 feet, that that's why I'm blocking their
entrance. Reality is, if I don't have dual-turn lanes, my demand for a
single turn lane will be much longer. And the reason you put in duals is
the projection -- and we have the traffic engineer here on this that's
looked at it -- is there will be over 500 cars in the left turn. Three
hundred is when you usually go to dual; otherwise, it takes too long a
phasing process to move from it.
The period of time that you put this in, then you come back and
Page 168
"'--~__'____.."""_'_".__._,.~_..'H .' "_~___'_
January 13, 2009
you disrupt traffic again to develop it -- and we still haven't heard why
we can't do anything at the entrance off of Beck.
So it's up there. It's an offer made to the board. Could it possibly
work for a short period of time? Yes. Does it present the possibility of
Good Samaritan accidents and other issues of concern? To us, yes, it
does. But we will go as the board wants to go with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's been -- what's been
implied is the fact that you did not supply the records that were
requested; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: The original workup that was done on this, the
traffic analysis was done by Kimley-Horn for the design work. It's very
general when you're doing a lot of your turning movements. It was
understood that a Wal * Mart was going in here.
What ought to be interesting is the state does not allow the signals
usually to go ahead of time to anything but a Wal*Mart before you
show the traffic is there. But the real genesis here is not just the
Wal*Mart. The real genesis, and particularly based on the movement
from the south, is the Radio Road that provides relief from a very
problematic intersection, and it will provide more, from our feeling,
when you have a signal on Davis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand everything you're
saying, but here's the whole thing. There's a point in time that
everything needs to come online.
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The point in time is not today. I
know you offered to keep that open until you had no other choice but to
close it.
MR. FEDER: Well, we actually offered to keep it open until we
established the opportunity for a U-turn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, the turn, that's right; the
Page 169
January 13,2009
U-turn up above.
MR. FEDER: To keep it actually drop curb for emergency
vehicles as well. Both of those we're doing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So -- what would be the
downside of going along with an agreement like this?
MR. FEDER: The downside is when the decision is made that, in
fact, your left-turning movement needs that to be closed, how quickly
is that going to be closed? What disruption does that make to the
public? And do we have the problem with the Good Samaritan issues
of somebody letting them across when you're only 600 feet south?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do -- you have a diagram, I
believe, on the visualizer. Maybe you might be able to enlighten
everyone.
MR. FEDER: Basically what you've got here is, this is the
Wal*Mart, the beginning of their parking lot. The entrance is here. This
is the signal. This is the entrance that we're talking about. This is set on
a dual left. Again, you're adding six-laning to this to establish capacity
on this roadway.
This is one of your controlled accesses. This and Livingston are
the two you established in that manner. You're trying to maintain that
capacity. That's why you go into a dual left rather than an even longer
-- which would, by the way, would also block off their entrance signal
because then it takes longer to do your phasing movements at the signal
cycle.
The issue today is, how far are you backing up? Right now, today,
you don't have a signal at Davis, which you'll have when you start your
construction. There's a temporary signal. But you do have movements
there and at the Wal*Mart today. You'll have more as the area grows
out.
Question is timing on the full development of that. The Davis is
about a year or so away. So the question is, do you try to make this
modification, do we evaluate it and look at potential accidents? And the
Page 170
January 13, 2009
the action I was raising is, if you modified this to cut off this turn lane
to come in and give storage here for this left, it's here as people are
coming up three lanes and trying to move into a turn lane, which is
now shortened. Then if somebody stops for them, the other two lanes
may still be going as they try to get into that.
So that's our concerns. Is it plausible today -- and I think we even
mentioned that to their engineer, the short period of time. You could try
to work with it. The question is the cost initially, and then the timing of
trying to make a change when that demand is fully there, which
probably, first, will come with the signal on Davis.
Today I think you can get away with just the Wal*Mart traffic
level, as we discussed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, there's a
possibly this could be extended out if certain conditions were put into
place; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: What I'm saying is, if they wanted to pay to modify
it today as they recommended to you, there's probably a short period of
time where you can utilize that. You'd need to constantly evaluate it,
and then the question is when it changes, and I don't think they'd
disagree with that. That's what their agreement is identifying. The
question is a matter of timing. Then what would it take and how would
we get it modified back to the dual left, and is that neighborhood going
to really feel comfortable with this agreement when that time comes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm sure they wouldn't, but
I mean, if the agreement and -- the understanding of the agreement
itself -- and I don't know. Mr. Klatzkow, maybe you might be able to
enlighten us. Probably the first time you've seen that agreement.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Still haven't seen it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Still haven't seen it. Okay.
Yeah. You know, everyone has to play this game right. You might
not have received all the records you want, but it would be great if this
Page 171
January 13, 2009
if this could have been supplied ahead of time to try to move things
along.
I'm going to go along with the motion to continue this and bring it
back just for the fact that there's too many unanswered questions;
however, you really need to talk to staff, you need to talk to our county
attorney. I don't want you to put yourself in a predicament where it's
only a matter of months or something before they -- I don't have any
idea what the timeline's going to be.
But the way this agreement's set up at this point in time, the way
I'm looking at it, you got yourself painted into a little bit of a corner,
what's going to happen. I want to make sure you're not taken advantage
of.
So if we do decide to continue it -- and hopefully we've got the
votes to do it, you really need to do some research with Mr. Feder and
with our county attorney and with your representative, the traffic guru
for your community, to make sure everybody knows what they're
doing, okay? That's my own feeling.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. When it comes back, just
put the agreement in the proper form for consideration. But I think,
having a second opinion when somebody has all the documents to
make a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, I don't think
that's half bad.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Norm, now that I get a bigger
idea of the big picture here, there was a left turn-in lane in my area, and
that was on U.S. 41 going into Waterside Shops, and I believe there
was a number of accidents in that area, and the Sheriffs Department
was -- periodically had gotten ahold of me and said, Commissioner,
you've got to do something about this. And that's when I got with your
department, and we sat down and figured out the best way, and event
Waterside Shops says, yes, that's got to be closed. So now that I see the
Page 1 72
January 13,2009
now that I see the big picture here, we've almost got a similar
circumstance here.
So I'm concerned when people make a left-hand turn and
somebody stops, and then in the middle lane nobody stops and
some body's trying to sneak across, that poses a real serious problem for
the people trying to ingress into that -- into that entrance there, so --
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner, and that's the problem we have
when we come that close to intersections. Waterside's an example of
that. Also I need to note to the board that we will follow your direction,
your guidance, if this motion goes.
We're in construction now. We're not going to close off and we
are going to set it for emergency, but I can't get the contractor to stop
while we do this. That's why they are talking about the dollars to
restructure it, so we'd have to come back. So we'd be constructing three
times here if we do that. But I just wanted to make sure you understood
that, and we'll go as you please.
We also need to note that we've got an interesting precedent that
we're talking about here. This is an issue all over the county we're
going to be dealing with, and wanted to make sure you're aware of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A couple of the comments I had to make.
You're right about that problematic intersection. That is about the worst
intersection we have, Davis Boulevard/951, and you're going to be
working on it for a couple years now, which even makes it more
problematic.
Meanwhile, we want to put them out onto Beck, but yet we want
to open up Everglades Boulevard as it is. I'm concerned -- because we
all want to open up Everglades Boulevard. I'm concerned if that is even
driving more traffic into that area, will we even be allowed to open it?
I mean, we're going to just keep funneling traffic into that area
Page 1 73
January 13, 2009
which might -- which might really just cut our nose off to spite our
face. And Everglades Boulevard is so important. So I'm hoping that
you'll look at that while you're doing this.
And lastly, it looks so much like the intersection at 951 by the
Wal*Mart where we wanted to just move that light over a little bit so
that Wal*Mart would change their entrance, it'd be across the street
from Eagle Creek, and it would have been fine.
As yet in these couple years since they've built it, there's never
been any stacked up traffic, maybe four cars. And meanwhile, the
Eagle Creek people have to try and get across all of those lanes of
traffic to get over to the light, which they can't do most of the time
because there's too short of a distance, so then they have to drive down
the street quite a considerable amount in order to get to a U-turn.
And I say when we do something, we hold firm. We're not going
to let them do it, and then -- you know, we haven't helped anybody. So
I hope we're taking that into consideration, too.
MR. FEDER: We are, Madam Chairman. And I'll point out also
that we've got a difference here in that we're dealing with a Radio Road
situation more like Naples Boulevard than we are necessarily with the
other Wal*Mart down on 951, but I understand your concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's really a tough area. Maybe it'd be better
if these people were getting out early rather than all funneling into an
area that's going to be under construction for a couple of years.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Madam Chair, it looks like
there's enough votes for -- to support the motion. You might want to
ask the members of the community if they wish to waive knowing this
is going to come back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have six more speakers. Would you
like to waive and come back when we bring this -- thank you very
much for -- this subject back to us?
Y ''J
es, sir.
Page 174
January 13, 2009
MR. BERG: I would like to make a statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BERG: I've sat here for about four hours today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Don't say anymore now. We'll call
you up. Would you call the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Jim Dishinger. He'll be
followed Tim Kragh.
MR. DISHINGER: I just have a couple of questions. One, if we
delay this, will our expert that we hired, who knows a lot more than we
do, get more than three minutes to make our presentation? Can we give
him our three minutes?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, sure, you can.
MR. DISHINGER: Because we will do that next time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, great. Yes. That's why I gave him--
I gave him 15, 15 minutes actually. He didn't just have three minutes.
Normally speakers have three minutes, but this --I felt that he should
have the opportunity to rebut, so we will do that.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Kragh. He'll be followed
by Jack Anderson.
MR. KRAGH: Okay. Hello. I'm the general manager for Forest
Glen Golf and Country Club. And I just -- I am concerned for our
residents. If you move the slide down where our U-turn's going to be,
you're basically just moving the problematic part just further south.
And like you said, the residents are going to be sitting there being very
anxious to cross the three lanes of traffic with cars going 50 miles an
hour coming at them having to accelerate to that speed instead of
literally going straight across the three lanes into our development.
They have to accelerate to that speed, merge over to the far right-hand
lane, and then decelerate at the same time.
And when I speak of this, I'm talking of -- we have 799 units at
the club. That could translate into nearly 1,400 cars that are in and out
of our community. And if I can put this into perspective, the average --
Page 175
January 13,2009
the ages of these people are between probably 65 and 90.
Now, what I just mentioned seems very dangerous to me in
opposition to just having our U-turn right in front of our community.
Also, front entrances to communities are the thing. That's what
sells your community. That's what makes you who you are before you
actually enter the community. All the up-scale communities have these
beautiful entrances. And to actually turn a U-turn situation down the
road when someone comes to look at property at the club -- iff were to
buy a house, I wouldn't have to -- want to like to have to go down the
road to make a U-turn and make this dangerous situation.
So I think it directly affects the property value for these people,
and that's a shame because the people that live at Forest Glen have
been there for many, many, many years, and Wal*Martjust moved in.
And there's a lot of different things, I believe, that can be done,
not only with Wal*Mart, but with all the businesses back behind
Wal*Mart on Business Circle South, to keep them -- to regulate them
so that the community can live as one.
Thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Jack Anderson. He'll be followed by John Berg.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I may change my mind.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, thank you. I want to readdress the safety
issue. When they started the construction on Collier, they closed off the
crossing at the shopping mall at Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier, and
now the people that want to go north have to make a U-turn at the
intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Collier.
And on January 7th was a near fatal crash, one of three recently,
where the occupant of the crashed car had to be removed from the car
by the Jaws of Life, almost died.
And the officer that arrived on the scene told the local TV that that
was becoming one of the most dangerous intersections in the county
because of that very action, because people cannot see the oncoming
traffic when they go to take a U-turn.
Page 176
January 13, 2009
And as Timjust said, if you force our residents to make a U-turn
into an open stretch of 951 with speeds up to 60 miles an hour down
there and try to cross over, I think you're asking for a recipe for
disaster. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: John Berg. He'll be followed by Gregory Lefakis.
MR. BERG: He is not here.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Frank--
MR. LUISTRO: I will pass.
MS. FILSON: Okay. John Berg is your final speaker.
MR. BERG: Okay. I'm John Berg. I'm a former registered civil
engineer from Minnesota, and I worked for MINN-DOT and an RCM
consulting firm, and now I'm a resident of Forest Glen.
I recently arrived from Minnesota and am not aware of the
previous discussions; therefore, my comments may be a little bit
repetitious.
I believe it is -- would be safer to make a left turn onto Forest
Glen rather than attempting the more cumbersome U-turn proposed.
The left turn can be made quicker and safer than a U-turn. The left turn
would require less gap in space to cross the northbound lanes that the
U-turn.
It is also difficult for a U-turner to merge with northbound and
then look over his right shoulder to cross over into -- in a short distance
to the right-turn lane for making a right turn into Forest Glen.
Collier County has set a precedent in providing left-turn lanes to
numerous other golf courses and developments. It is, therefore, binding
on them to provide Forest Glen a left-turn lane.
I am not an attorney, but I believe Forest Glen could get an
injunction to stop any construction not providing a left-turn lane or
would receive a court order for ordering the county to provide a
left-turn lane.
I understand that providing space for future double left turn for
Wal*Mart by year 2003 is planned.
Page 177
January 13,2009
I feel that we could possibly shorten our left-turn lane for Forest
Glen. I didn't have the benefit to review the layouts or know the
distances, but now I see the proposal. But I think the county should
consider an alternate proposal. Forest Glen was there first before the
Wal*Mart, and I think it is fair to provide Forest Glen a left-turn lane.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor to
continue this, and a second, while the community and our
transportation department continue to work on this. Is that the way I
understand -- yes, Commiss- -- yes, Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Please don't confuse me there. The -- I just need to
let you know that Mr. Banks is not a registered lobbyist, okay. So the
next time he comes in, he has to register with the Clerk of Courts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. BANKS: Does it expire at the end of -- December 31 st?
MR. MUDD: Uh-huh.
MR. BANKS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a late fee, too.
MR. BANKS: I'll make sure to pay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Five thousand dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Plus interest.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 3-2 vote.
THE COURT REPORTER: Who else said aye, opposed?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, Halas and Coyle.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
Page 178
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE
PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR COLLIER COUNTY'S FISCAL
YEAR 2010 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA WHICH WILL
BE PRESENTED TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. FOR FEDERAL FUNDING
CONSIDERATION - MOTION TO APPROVE THE COUNTY'S
PROJECT LIST - APPROVED; COMMISSIONER HALAS TO
REPRESENT THE BCC - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Moving on to lOA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's break time.
MR. MUDD: lOA is a recommendation to review and approve the
projects proposed for the Collier County fiscal year 2010, federal
legislative agenda, which will be presented to the congressional
delegation in Washington D.C., for federal funding considerations.
Ms. Debbie Wight, assistant to the county manager, will present.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can I second as the chairman?
MS. WIGHT: Commissioners, just a few clarifications. I just
wanted to make note that you've got three projects with fiscal year
2009 pending allocations, and they -- that is Gordon Pass dredging, the
technology for the emergency services center, as well as the heaIthcare
access for the uninsured, the plan project, and those are expected, once
the economic stimulus bill in -- comes forward in January/February,
they expect an omnibus appropriations bill as well as for the FY-'09,
the nine remaining bills that haven't been completed yet. So we're
Page 179
January 13,2009
yet. So we're hopeful that those three will come through.
There was one other thing I wanted to clarifY. The three WRDA
projects that -- there's the nine projects in this federal agenda. The
WRDA projects were before you and approved this last April. They
were requested as part of a 2008 WRDA bill that never happened, and
they are optimistic there will be a 2009 WRDA bill.
Just for the sake of questions that have come in, the -- those
requests for Clam Bay, for Hideaway Beach and for the aquifers
storage and recovery wells, those three projects, the first year it's an
authorization request. The second year is for the appropriation.
So I don't know if there's any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. I have Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Halas on deck.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Would you clarifY that the
$250,000 is not going to Clam Bay, but this is going to go to the
Vanderbilt Beach lagoon for cleanup, and it's been on the agenda -- or
agenda to the federal government in regards to trying to get a study
done to clean up that lagoon?
There seems to be a misunderstanding by citizens that live in
Pelican Bay that this is to disrupt Clam Bay, and in no way it's there to
disrupt Clam Bay. And maybe Gary McAlpin can add a few words to
this, just to make sure that people understand that the 250,000 has been
on the agenda for a number of years. We're trying to figure out how to
clean the lagoon up back there.
MS. WIGHT: Sure. I'll defer to Gary.
MR. McALPIN: Thank you. For the record, Gary McAlpin,
coastal zone manager. The -- we have -- the Clam Bay authorization
was last year, and that was for $250,000, and that was for water quality
studies to allow us to get a better handling -- handle on what was
happening in the bay.
This year we have the Vanderbilt Lagoon. It's a similar issue. It's
water quality studies that we're looking for to do the same thing at
Page 180
January 13,2009
Vanderbilt Lagoon, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the money that we've been
trying to allocate for the Vanderbilt Lagoon has been on the agenda for
a couple of years now.
MR. McALPIN: That is correct.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. But it's important to know -- and Debbie
was dead on when she talked about authorizations and appropriations.
Your authorization for Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, we've been asking
for the study as a section 2.06 from the Corps of Engineers, which is an
environmental study. It doesn't get authorized by Congress until
WRDA 2008.
So you have the authorization. Now it's time to go for the
appropriation and get the money in order to do the study, and that's
why it's on your list, because there's a good chance that you'll get those
dollars this year.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, thank you for
bringing that up and making that very clear. I don't think -- I know I
wasn't clear on it. Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Deb?
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it -- a part of the action today is
asking for the appropriation for Clam Bay study?
MS. WIGHT: No.
MR. MUDD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Will that come back to the Board
of Commissioners for the appropriations for this board to take actions?
MS. WIGHT: You will come back -- it will come back -- if we
could get -- if we get an organization in WRDA 2009, then we will
come back as another -- as a successive project to go forward
requesting the appropriations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 181
January 13, 2009
MS. WIGHT: Is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir -- she said it correctly. In -- for the 2009
WRDA, we got a short suspense in order to put projects forward. We
came to the Board of County Commissioners last year and we asked
them -- we asked you to authorize us to go and ask Congress to put
those three projects -- and Deb listed them -- in the WRDA 2009
process.
We asked our lobbyist if they're going to open up -- since 2009,
for the WRDA perspective, is over. They're looking at 2010. Congress
is always a little ahead, behind, as far as the process. They're in
different years than we are -- if they were going to open a 2010 and add
the 2009 projects that were submitted -- no, they're not.
So they're going to -- they're going to act on what was submitted
last year for WRDA 2009, and that's the three projects, of which Clam
Pass was one of those projects.
MS. WIGHT: Right, correct.
MR. MUDD: And we don't know if Congress is going to approve
that authorization or not. And if they don't, it won't be authorized;
therefore, we won't come forward with this board asking for any
federal money because you don't have an authorization to do it.
MS. WIGHT: And that's how we did Vanderbilt Lagoon, was a
WRDA authorization in 2007. That was the last WRDA bill was 2007.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Deb, your voice is changing. Are
you feeling okay?
MS. WIGHT: Yeah. Has it changed? Maybe I need a drink of
water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's getting a little deeper, a little
remote.
Now, when the appropriation comes back for these three projects,
do we have to accept the appropriations for those three projects, or can
we delete one of them?
In other words, the emails that we received is about Clam Pass --
Page 182
January 13,2009
or Clam Bay, Clam Bay, Clam Bay. It comes back, the appropriation,
can the board say, we don't want to do any studies on Clam Bay? Can
we do that?
MS. WIGHT: You can always say no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If you get the authorization and you never ask for an
appropriation. That's appropriate.
MS. WIGHT: Right. Again, this is an authorization the first year.
Next year we'll ask for the money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thanks for that clarification.
And I guess the concern that I hear, and there probably is something to
it, is this Tomasko study that made Clam Bay much larger than what I
know that it is. That's the only question I have.
MS. WIGHT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you're not looking for an answer to that
right now, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I just want to share my
concerns.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. When is it that you're
planning your yearly trip to Washington D.C., and I assume
Commissioner Halas will be joining you again.
MR. MUDD: That's up to the -- that's the second part of this
particular issue. Once you approve --
MS. WIGHT: He's my front man.
MR. MUDD: -- the -- we are planning right now the trip to
transpire. We'll leave late on the 3rd, visit our congressmen, senators,
and the State of Florida representatives and catch a flight out late on the
4th. So it's the 3rd of February and the 4th of February. It will be a
one-nighter. We'll get in real late and then start early in the morning
and come back real late. But -- to try to minimize costs and whatnot.
Page 183
January 13,2009
And, again, it's up to the board who the board wants to represent
them on that particular trip.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So the motion on the floor right now
is to approve the prioritized list of nine projects proposed for the
Collier County Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Legislative Agenda, which
will be presented to the congressional delegation in Washington D.C.,
for federal funding appropriation consideration.
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Oh,
we have a speaker. I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three speakers, okay.
MS. FILSON: James Hoppensteadt. He'll be followed by Marcia
Cravens. She'll be followed by Bob Naegele.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Thank you, Commissioners. James
Hoppensteadt.
Commissioner Halas, thank you for your clarification. Certainly
Pelican Bay is supportive of trying to get federal money and recognize
that there's a body -- a number of bodies of water that need some help.
I will -- our only objection -- and you've heard it before, so I -- at
the risk of being redundant, is on Page 11 of 13 of your executive
summary. Again, the continued reference to alarming increases in
nutrient loadings taking place in Clam Bay estuary.
So we do have an -- problems, I guess, for lack of a better
description, with that reference. But other than that, that's it.
And thank you for your appointment.
MS. FILSON: Marcia Cravens. She'll be followed by Bob
Naegele.
MS. CRAVENS: Good afternoon. Thank you again for allowing
me to speak on this topic. As you know, I'm very passionate about the
Clam Bay system, the mangrove estuary, of which we have very few
left, and that it is not an impaired system. As a matter of fact, it's one of
Page 184
January 13,2009
of the more healthy systems on the coast.
This whole issue of this WRDA project comes about essentially
from the Tomasko seagrass -- Clam Bay seagrass assessment in which
he did try and redefine the boundaries of Clam Bay.
I don't know if you can blow that up a little bit or anything.
MR. MUDD: Sure can.
MS. CRAVENS: Essentially what he did was he described all of
-- our bays, he renamed those coastal areas. And what is familiar to us
as Clam Bay he calls outer mangrove Clam Bay. And then he calls the
Venetian and Moorings Bay, I believe he calls them mid Clam Bay,
and then he calls areas even further south of that south Clam Bay.
Those are all within the boundaries of the City of Naples, and I do
understand that there are some water qualities there. But if you look at
the actual data that was compiled in the Tomasko report, it actually
indicates that the Clam Bay, outer mangrove Clam Bay, is actually the
-- a very healthy system, including for seagrass.
This slide here shows they did, I believe, 40 sample sites for
seagrass. Of those 40 sites for seagrasses, I believe 43 percent of them
-- in 43 percent of them they found an occurrence of seagrass. Of the
25 sites that are south of the boardwalk for outer Clam Bay, they found
seagrass in 12 of those sites, for an occurrence of nearly half.
The last item here has to do with all the different subsections of
what was called Clam Bay in whole. And I don't know if you can see
that there. But the familiar Clam Bay known in this report as outer
Clam Bay mangrove contributes the very least amount of runoff, the
very least amount of phosphates, the very least amount of nitrogen,
essentially the very least amount of nutrient loading.
That makes the basis of that WRDA proposal erroneous. It's a
false statement that there is an alarming increase of nutrient loading in
Clam Bay as defined here as the mangrove-lined estuary, our NRP A.
And so I'm here today to ask you to please take the Clam Bay
aspect, the Clam Bay project, out of the WRDA requirements. If the
Page 185
January 13, 2009
intent is for Venetian Bay and Moorings Bay, please clarifY that and
ask for those areas to be addressed what Dr. Tomasko called mid Clam
Bay. That is not the familiar mangrove Clam Bay area. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Bob Nagly (sic).
MR. NAEGELE: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
commission. I would like to just reiterate what Commissioner Halas
mentioned, that the Vanderbilt Beach lagoon project, we think is great.
And I'm only speaking for myself today, although I wear another hat,
which is called chairman of the Pelican Bay Foundation. But the
Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon project is -- I would certainly heartily
endorse that. And then the Naples Bay restoration, certainly heartily
re-endorse -- endorse that.
And on -- but on Page 2 of 13, the -- there are only two pieces, the
$450,000 piece and the $250,000 piece. Now -- but if you go to Page
11 of the report, you will find at the bottom of the page, Page 11 of 13,
at the Clam Bay estuary water quality improvements there is the
disputed language, and another $250,000 piece at the bottom.
So I'm trying to say, is it 250-, 250-, and 400,000, for clarification
purposes?
And then secondly, my comment would be, the -- just the wording
itself is not representative of the situation. I'm not sure where this
wording appeared. But when we pointed it out to Commissioner Halas,
he said it seems to be an unfortunate geographical description.
And we would like to have the assurance that this will be worked
on to really represent what the true situation is.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: To answer his question, there's three different
projects. Two hundred fifty thousand dollars for Vanderbilt Beach,
$400,000 for Naples Bay -- or is it $500,000 for Naples Bay -- and an
organization for Clam Bay in a WRDA bill to be looked at by congress,
Page 186
January 13, 2009
congress, which hasn't come up for them yet.
So we're looking at two projects for appropriations, okay. That's
Naples Bay and that's Vanderbilt Beach Lagoon, and we're looking for
one authorization, okay, with an appropriation sometime in the future
for Clam Bay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that clarifY it, Mr. Naegele?
MR. MUDD: Three different projects.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does the Clam Bay encompass not
just Clam Bay, but all of the issues of different names of Clam Bay that
was brought up by the Tomasko report? Is that where that money is
probably going to go? Like in the City of Naples --
MR. MUDD: Yeah. If the City of Naples touches Clam Bay and it
has -- and it has issues, then it will be one of those things to take a look
at the study. And I believe --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so we're not directing this
totally to Clam Bay that's located in Pelican Bay?
MR. MUDD: (Shakes head.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. This is part of the --
MR. MUDD: Even Tomasko's report talked about nutrient loading
coming in from the Naples side of this thing from the Seagate
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that's part of the Clam Bay
study, right?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now that -- we've clarified all of
these things to -- in response to our speakers. And so may I -- I have a
motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
Page 187
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Debbie.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now don't go though because I think now
we need to talk about the trip, yeah, a representative.
MS. WIGHT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, everybody's hitting the buttons. Okay,
Commissioner Henning.
MS. WIGHT: I'll defer to the commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the chair doesn't mind, I'd like
to see the chairperson go to give opportunities for all the
commissioners to go to Washington D.C., to lobby our delegation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll tell you, I'd love to go, but I really
would like Commissioner Halas to go. He's been going up there each
year, and he's familiar with the people already. He's got an open-door
policy. And as much as I'd love to go, and maybe I can join you, I just
feel he's been a great spokesman, and I don't want to change -- don't
change something that ain't broken.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I'll make a motion that
Commissioner Halas represents the Board of Commissioners in
Washington D.C.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I second that motion.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to travel with him
representing also the board?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I think it would be great. I don't
know that that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it would be an excellent
Page 188
January 13, 2009
idea.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I would love to go.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Gotta have your running shoes on.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you consider including
that in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as we get a written memo
from the county it wouldn't violate any Sunshine Law.
MR. KLA TZKOW: It's not like you're violating the Sunshine
Law, it's that you're giving the appearance that you might be violating
Sunshine Law. It's always preferable just to have one of you at any
activity. I mean, you could both go. And you know -- I know you know
enough not to talk about any business that could foreseeably come
before you. But it is the appearance of impropriety that's always the
concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And, you know, I would love to go and see
a few of these legislators that actually I know, and I would love to sit in
on, but I certainly don't want to get any tongues wagging or cast any
kind of a shadow on our commissioners. And so I'm going to decline,
as much as I would like to go, just to make sure that there's not even the
slightest appearance that there could be any kind of violation of the
Sunshine Law, okay.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second? And we haven't
voted on that yet, have we?
Okay. All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle reminds me it's
Page 189
January 13,2009
breaktime.
MS. WIGHT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll take a I3-minute break. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mike.
Item #IOF
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO CORRECT AN APPARENT SCRIVENER'S
ERROR WITHIN SECTION XI.(5) OF THE COUNTY'S
PURCHASING POLICY REGARDING LOCAL PREFERENCE
RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTIES -
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to Item 10F. It's a recommendation
for the Board of County Commissioners to correct an apparent
scrivener's error within Section 11(5) of the county's purchasing policy
regarding local preference reciprocal agreements with other counties.
Mr. Steve Carnell, your director of purchasing --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
MR. MUDD: -- will present.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor, by the
way, from Commissioner Coletta, and a second from Commissioner
Henning, to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Staffs recommendation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Staffs recommendations, which is approve
the correction of the scrivener's error in the fourth sentence of Collier
Page 190
January 13, 2009
Collier County local vendor preference policy.
I had a couple questions. Could -- if nobody else has any
questions. Do you mind?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let me just get to them here. On
Page 4 of 4 it talks about other local governments and it says that the
other business, the company that's bidding, even though they don't
operate in here, pay taxes in here, employ anybody in here, our -- as
long as they support and increase their local government and pay taxes
in their local government and have a residency or employees and
principals in -- located in their area, they can be considered local to us,
even though they have nothing to do with us, but just want our
business, right?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, but one other big consideration. That
would only apply if this board has entered into an agreement with that
vendor's jurisdiction. In other words, that vendor's county, an interlocal
agreement similar to what you did with Lee County. If you haven't
done that, then people in other counties have no local presence in this
ordinance, or resolution.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And how do we verifY that they do all of
those things in that particular government?
MR. CARNELL: It would be the same way that we do for the
Collier County bidders. They'll sign or execute an affidavit with their
bid representing that they have complied with all those things, as you
do with your Collier County vendors.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And lastly, do those governments then say
the same thing, that our people, our local people, even though they
don't pay taxes there, they don't hire their employees, and they don't
offer anything into their government, they only do that here, that
they're still eligible for work in that government?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am. They're eligible as long as they
meet the requirements of that county or jurisdiction's local preference
Page 191
January 13, 2009
ordinance, which may be different than ours.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which may be different than ours.
MR. CARNELL: Yes. We have the specific requirements about
an occupational license, about verifiable measurable impact on the
economic, and a physical business address. The other counties mayor
may not have that identical requirement.
Well, whatever their rule is that they apply to their in-county
vendors, they extend them to Collier County vendors if we're in
interlocal with that particular county or jurisdiction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just want to make sure our vendors --
MR. CARNELL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- get a fair shake and that it's an
apples-to-apples thing because -- now we're going to be accepting all of
these other contractors from another county, but how do we know that
county will accept our vendors being that their agreements might be
different?
MR. CARNELL: Well, there's only -- remember, we're -- this
only applies to county, and that's Lee County, in relationship to us
because we've entered into a special agreement with Lee County that
this part of the procedure authorizes, and we know that because Lee
County's committed to extend their preference to Collier County
vendors much the way we extend ours to Lee County vendors. With
whatever their particular rules are for their county, we apply our rules
to our county for their venders; they do the same for our vendors.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So you feel that we're actually playing ball
fairly here and it's going to be more or less an apples-to-apples, and our
vendors will get a fair shake in Lee County?
MR. CARNELL: Yes, ma'am. You had approved this in
November. What it essentially does is it just says that if you're -- if
you're a Collier County business competing for business elsewhere --
and in this case, Lee County's the only one in play at the moment. If
you're competing for business in Lee County, you compete by exactly
Page 192
January 13,2009
the same rules as somebody who is housed in Lee County.
And, likewise, if you're in Lee County and you compete for
business in Collier, you compete by the exact same rules that the
Collier County businesses do for Collier County contracts.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any questions from any of the other
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
No further discussion, all those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. CARNELL: Thank you.
Item #10G
RECOMMENDA TION TO DEFER APPROVAL OF TWO
INVOICES TOTALING $707,317.95 FROM THE CLERK OF
COURTS FOR "SERVICES PER STATUTORY CHARGES"
PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DURING THE MONTHS OF OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2008 -
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS-
APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to our next item,
which is a recommendation to defer approval of two invoices totaling
$707,317.95 from the Clerk of Courts for services per statutory charges
Page 193
January 13, 2009
charges provided to the Board of County Commissioners during the
months of October and November, 2008.
Mr. John Y onkosky, your director of office and management and
budget, will present.
MR. YONKOSKY: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, good
afternoon. Agenda Item lOG is, as the county manager said, a
presentation of two invoices from the Clerk of Courts, and with the
staff recommendation to defer those invoices subject to some actions
that the executive summary requests that the board take.
There's two primary reasons for the request for -- to defer these
two. They're both financial in nature.
Number one, there is no budget or appropriation to fund these two
invoices for the first two months of this fiscal year, and they will
probably turn into several million dollars at the end of the fiscal period.
Number two, there's a significant lack of detail in the invoices and
documentation to -- for your staff to take a look at them. The first one,
the Clerk has not participated with the Sheriff or the Supervisor of
Elections in funding appropriations, did not participant in your budget
process for the last two years; therefore, the board has not appropriated
any funds for the Clerk's office except those funds that are statutorily
required under Article V funding.
Number two is the lack of detail. The last year, through a public
records request, your staff determined that they were being -- that you
were being charged at least -- but not presented with invoices, of $6 a
transaction.
These two invoices reflect $7 a transaction, which is a 17 percent
increase, and there is no detail within the -- the summary of the
invoices that was presented.
Some of these items are complex items and would probably cost
more than $7. Some of them are not. But the $7 charge is universal
except for three sections of this, as explained in the executive
Page 194
January 13, 2009
summary.
You've been charged $7 for a telephone call, $7 for an email, and
$7 for -- in some of the items there's a duplicity that you're being
charged $7 for one step, $7 for the next step. It appears that that's
what's happening, and it appears that it's a 17 percent increase.
So staffs recommendation to you is to, as it said in the executive
summary, to defer payment of these invoices, direct the Clerk to
provide significant preaudit detail. That's what we provide to him;
that's his function is to preaudit payments for you. So we're
recommending that you direct the Clerk to provide preaudit detail.
And number three, to task your Productivity Committee to take a
look at this from a business perspective to look at the methodology and
the fairness and reliability of the charges.
And number four in the staff recommendation is, after the
Productivity Committee looks at it, to have staff come back to you with
the Productivity Committee's recommendation.
And I'm available for questions ifthere are any.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have Commissioner Henning on
deck -- first, then Commissioner Halas, then Commissioner Coyle, and
then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Y onkosky, the prior year we
didn't budget for the Clerk's operation. That's my recollection; is that
correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: Yes, sir, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we pay for -- did we pay any
of those invoices for that year?
MR. YONKOSKY: The turnback -- the Clerk deducted the value
of those invoices from the turnback.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The turnback from interest?
MR. YONKOSKY: Of the interest turnback that was due to the
Board of County Commissioners -- and I'll say it in round numbers,
was approximately $28 million -- the Clerk turned back 24, deducting
Page 195
January 13, 2009
the $4,009,000 that these invoices accumulated last year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's still in contest in the
courts about the interest monies, right; is that correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if the judge rules that that
interest money is to come back to the Board of County Commissioners
per the amended resolution, how would the Clerk get paid for -- what
monies would you recommend that he use for the services rendered to
the Board of Commissioners?
MR. YONKOSKY: Commissioner, I think that's a legal question,
and I think that's -- I would ask the county attorney to help respond to
that.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think he'd have to come to this board, as do
the other constitutionals, with a budget, which you would review and
eventually approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You mean like the sheriff
and the Supervisor of Elections or the Property Appraiser and the Tax
Collector?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, which is the way this functioned for
many years, the relationship with the Clerk.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, he come -- he could come, declare
that he's the budget officer, and then come with a budget, and that
would be more like the Sheriff or the Supervisor of Elections. He
could, in an interchange with the Board of County Commissioners,
come up with a memorandum of agreement to basically layout the
charges and the monies that the board is going to pay for those
particular services. That's another way to get it done, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As a fee officer?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. There is some debate, though, ifhe does
that, if he still remains fee officer. And, again, I'm not going to get into
the legalese of that particular question.
There are -- there are clerks in this state that have memorandums
Page 196
January 13, 2009
of understanding with their boards as far as their charges are concerned
and how they get funded.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's a good idea for
the Productivity Committee to get involved and hit both sides of the
story .
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm hoping staff can answer this
question. What do we charge the people that request information from
the county manager's side of the ledger? Do we charge them $6 a copy
or $7 a copy?
MR. YONKOSKY: 1 believe you charge them the statutory
charge in your resolution charge, which, I believe, is 15 cents a page,
and Jeff can --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's 15 cents per page.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ifwe cut a check to somebody--
well, I guess, again, that's the Clerk, so that's not us. But isn't it
amazing that -- obviously we must be undercharging or something
here. Fifteen cents a page is what we're getting, and what the Clerk is
getting from us is -- was $6 and now it's gone up to $7 when we request
information; is that the understanding I get?
And ifhe cuts a check for us commissioners or for one of the staff
members, their paycheck, he charges $7 per check; is that right?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's the way that it appears, Commissioner,
that every transaction has a $7 charge. If it's cutting a check to the
commissioners for reimbursement, there's a $7 cost to that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It seems to me that I don't even
know why this has to go before the Productivity Committee. It seems
to me that we could go out on the outside and figure out what kind of a
value we could get from the private sector. I can't believe the
government's charging the people here -- or charging us $7 for a page
of information or $7 for a check, a payroll check. I got a real problem
Page 197
January 13, 2009
with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion that we approve the
staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And that is?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll just read it into the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The four -- yeah, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. It's -- the motion on the floor and a
second, motion by Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner
Coletta, to defer approval of the invoices received from the Clerk,
direct the Clerk to provide preaudit level supporting documentation for
the invoices, task the county Productivity Committee to review the
methodology used in the development of these charges from a business
perspective, and to evaluate the reasonableness and competitiveness of
these proposed charges, and have staff bring back to the board upon
successful review by the county Productivity Committee.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second.
Okay. May I ask a question before we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're the chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah, that's right. I'm the chair. I'm the
chair. I can do this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're running the ship.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just had a couple simple questions. What
is a fund binder? He's charging us $7 each for 1,737 fund binders, but I
don't know what a fund binder is.
MR. YONKOSKY: As I understand it, Commissioner, the fund
binder is a binder that they keep by fund for the audit and they put
papers in there so that when the auditors come through they can --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean like one of these?
Page 198
January 13, 2009
MR. YONKOSKY: It's a folder, a binder.
MR. MUDD: Like this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I see. Like a notebook, okay.
I, too -- I had so many problems, because they usually like so
much detail when we submit things to the Clerk's office, and there's so
little detail on this. When you have so many things -- like advices and
checks it says, and there's 3,806 of these, whatever it is, charging us
$26,642, what is that?
MR. YONKOSKY: I'll give you what I believe it is. I believe that
deals with payroll. The advice is the -- if you have your payroll
deposited directly into your bank account or your paycheck, you get an
advice slip. So I believe that's what that is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Seven bucks.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- $26,000 to write out our payroll checks;
is that correct?
MR. YONKOSKY: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: For that month, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For that period.
MR. MUDD: For that month.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For that month, okay.
MR. YONKOSKY: That is two pay periods.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I just had -- third-party live -- there
were just so many things here that weren't clear, so I'm very glad that
this motion is in effect because I would like to understand better what
we're being billed.
And I'll just make a little comment. It was so much easier when he
was a budget officer. He'd just submit his budget, we'd approve it, and
we were all done with this. We didn't have any of this stuff. I'm so
sorry he isn't a budget officer anymore. But anyway, that's my
comments.
I have a motion on the floor and a second.
Page 199
January 13, 2009
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. YONKOSKY: Thank you.
Item #lOH
RECOMMENDA TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FORM SF424, APPLICATION
FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE AND HUD FORM 2991,
CERTIFICATE OF CONSISTENCY FOR THE CONTINUUM OF
CARE (COC) PROJECTS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE 2008
COC GRANT APPLICATION. HUD SF424 IS THE COVER FORM
FOR THE GRANT APPLICATION AND OUTLINES THE
FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED AND MATCH FUNDS BEING
PROVIDED BY THE PARTICIPATING SUB-RECIPIENTS. HUD
FORM 2991 CONFIRMS THE PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE
APPLICATION ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S
CONSOLIDATED PLAN - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10H, and that was a
walk-on item, and it's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign Department
of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, SF 424, application for
federal assistance and HUD form 2991, Certificate of Consistency for
Page 200
January 13,2009
Consistency for the Continuum of Care Project submitted as part of the
2008 Continuum of Care grant application. HUD SF 424 is the cover
form for the grant application and outlines the federal funds requested
-- requested and match funds being provided by the participant -- by
the participating sub-recipients.
HUD form 2991 confirms the projects included in the application
are consistent with the county's consolidated plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Henning.
I don't quite understand this thing myself. But is it just for these
forms and we're approving just these forms?
MS. KRUMBINE: That's correct. The -- you actually approved
the application in November, and these forms were not in the
application. And it's Marcy Krumbine for the record.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. MUDD: You're approving that you sign those forms as the
chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you. Thank you for clarifYing
that.
MR. MUDD: The forms -- the forms the federal agencies have
already figured out. It's your signature that we need.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion from board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 201
January 13,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Marcy.
MS. KRUMBINE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I wish they were all that simple.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. MUDD: This brings us to public comments on general
topics. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: I have one speaker under public comment. Tim
Hancock.
MR. HANCOCK: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
For the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering appearing
today on behalf of Youth Haven. I'll do my absolute best to keep this
brief and concise.
Youth Haven has been in review for a Site Development Plan for
their facility, which has been in existence for more than 30 years, for
the last eight months. The SOP is sitting at development services with
all of the reviews complete, ready to be issued.
Your staff is requesting direction from this body in order to issue
that SOP as follows. Youth Haven was created before we even had the
district reviewing water management plans. You have a LASIP plan
that is coming online and funded for year 2010. What we've done is we
have designed the product to be what we call post LASIP. In other
words, it's being designed so that it will integrate seamlessly with
LASIP once LASIP is done.
In the meantime, the design that we've provided will cause it to
Page 202
January 13, 2009
function better than it does now. But the site, in the interim, will still be
subject to some periodic inundation.
Staff has asked that we put before you some language that they
can include with the SOP approval that would make that recognition.
MR. MUDD: This is part of your letter, right?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. That language was provided to each of
you. Staff has reviewed it, county staff has reviewed it, and they're
comfortable with it. And I'll just summarize it by -- it says that Youth
Haven is going to hold the county harmless, in other words, we're not
going to blame the county or come after the county if the site gets
inundated between now and the time the LASIP project is done. That's
what it says in a nutshell.
And we're asking you to give direction to county staff to allow
them to approve the SOP with this language.
The second aspect of our request for you today is that your
County Attorney's Office -- and in their defense, this was dropped on
their doorstep very late -- would like to see an indemnification that is
agreed to between this board and Youth Haven that indemnifies the
county from any claims that may arise from the operation of this water
management system.
Because of the late hour, that particular language has not been
agreed upon. We're confident we can reach that agreement, but it
would have to be approved by the board of Youth Haven. We're asking
that in addition to the language before you, that you authorize staff to
issue the SDP under the following condition, that prior to any site
construction, Youth Haven will enter into an indemnification or
hold-harmless agreement with Collier County to address the potential
for impacts resulting from the operation of the project stormwater
management system. This agreement will be brought back to the BCC
for approval.
The reason we're asking for all this at a late hour is because of the
agreement that the county previously had with the district to review
Page 203
January 13, 2009
these water management systems; it terminates tomorrow. Ifwe don't
receive this direction today and allow staff to issue the SDP today, then
starting tomorrow we have to do the entire water management review
all over again with the district, taking several months and tens of
thousands of dollars, and we're simply trying to avoid that. The review
would be the same criteria, bit it will be done by a different agency.
That's the nature of the request, and I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Robert Wiley, could you come
forward, if you could?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Robert, do you see where there's any
kind of a problem if we okay this?
MR. WILEY: Well, I'm the one that raised the issue because, as
proposed right now, it technically does not meet two criteria that the
water management district would have us require them to do were this
a totally new development. It is not able to get rid of its water off site
fast enough, and the water stacks up on site too high.
In speaking to the Water Management District when all this is
going on, because it's existing, all they really would do when they go
through review is have the applicant demonstrate that existing
conditions are not worsened. They're able to demonstrate to us. But
because we're doing the review for the district, we have said, we want
to make sure it's very clear that everybody up front understands LASIP
is not built yet, and if it rains before LASIP gets built and is
implemented and you flood, don't come crying to the county. We did
Page 204
January 13, 2009
not create this situation. You knew going in ahead of time what you
were doing.
I don't really have a problem with it. It will not really affect
off-site properties. This property is an exporter, meaning there's more
water that would leave the site than what would come onto the site. So
it's existing. All I'm going to be doing is putting a berm around it to
create a storm water management containment system so it all goes to a
discharge structure. That will not increase water levels off site at all, so
it won't affect -- it's not like a new development coming in filling in the
low land. The fill is already there.
I don't have any other problems with it. I just want to make sure
everyone understands up front that this is not going to function as a
typical SOP would function until the LASIP is in.
When we originally go into it, my first stipulation came back to
me and I said, okay, I can agree to sign off on this, but a condition says
you don't build until LASIP is constructed. Well, that's not a good
position for them to want to accept, and I understood it.
So we've talked it through. And if the board is in agreement to this
language they're putting forward and if the county attorney's in
agreement with the language putting forward, I don't have an issue with
it because they're acknowledging up front they understand the situation
that they are in.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
County attorney, do you have a problem with the language?
MR. WILEY: Let me follow up here real quickly, one thing, as
Mr. Schmitt asked me to do. The -- and by the way, I'm Robert Wiley
with the county's engineering department.
The one issue that we want to make sure everybody understands
is, this will not make conditions worse than they already are. What the
engineer's calculations show, he's not going to make it worse for them.
It just won't meet what you would have to do with the new
developments. So your understanding, he's not hurting himself. He's
Page 205
January 13,2009
just not really meeting all of the new-type criteria.
MS. ASHTON: I'm assistant county attorney Heidi Ashton. And I
reviewed the disclaimer language, and I've also prepared a draft hold
harmless and indemnification agreement, which I delivered to the
applicant. They don't believe they have the authority at this time to
execute the agreement, and they wanted to tweak some of the language.
So I -- I can recommend that you go forward if we can reach an
agreement on the indemnification and hold harmless agreement, which
will be brought -- which will be, excuse me, brought back to the board
at a subsequent meeting; however, if we are unable to reach an
agreement on the language, then I would recommend that the South
Florida Water Management District be the permitting agency, because
as Mr. Wiley explained, you are reviewing on behalf of the South
Florida Water Management District. And as Mr. Wiley explained, you
do not meet the criteria of the South Florida Water Management
District.
My understanding is, to be able to meet the criteria would be
rather burdensome on the owner. So I believe that staff is in favor, and
with the indemnification language, if we can agree on it, then I can
recommend that you proceed forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Have you agreed on the language
before we make the vote, I guess?
MR. HANCOCK: The language in the letter I provided to you --
and I have copies of that for Exhibit A -- we have agreed to. The
indemnification or hold harmless agreement, we're asking for you to
allow us to work that out with the county attorney and bring it back to
you, but we cannot commence construction until that agreement is
approved by this board.
MS. ASHTON: And that's acceptable.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's acceptable, okay.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 206
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle was next.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question has been answered.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just a statement. The good
thing is a few months ago, last year, the board approved a contract for
Santa Barbara extension with the LASIP being constructed, which is
right by that property, and the contractor is moving forward. So it
might all align at the same time.
MR. WILEY: That's right.
If I could just clarify that. While Santa Barbara does have a
portion, the actual discharge point for this one comes in is the west end,
would be the northwest corner of Royal Wood, not the northeast
corner, which is Santa Barbara. But still, it is within their 2010
schedule for construction, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. WILEY: Just to clarifY to make sure we know where the
water's going to flow out there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do they still have dirt roads out there in
front of --
MR. WILEY: Whitaker is paved at that point. It's further to the
east of Whitaker is still unpaved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine. Thank you.
Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a second.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Page 207
January 13,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, everybody, for all of your help,
Robert and Heidi and everyone. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to -- well, first of all,
let's make sure that what just happened under 11 isn't an abnormality. It
was -- it was a matter of urgency that the board took on. Normally it's
the public petition process that transpires. Because of the urgency and
the time period that we're in, the board handled that particular item
under public comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we were all informed in advance, we
had meetings in our office, and we saw the paperwork. So it's not like
this came just at this very moment. We were all prepared.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Item #12A
REQUEST THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDE DIRECTION WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THE
COUNTY SHOULD CLOSE ON THE PEPPER RANCH
TRANSACTION, IN LIGHT OF A CLAIM MADE BY AN
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED
TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH THE PEPPER
RANCH - MOTION TO ACCEPT OPTION #3 AND MOVE
FORWARD W/STIPULATIONS AND TO BRING BACK THE
RESUL TS AT THE NEXT BCC MEETING - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is county attorney's report. It's Paragraph
12. First item is 12A, a request that the Board of County
Commissioners provide direction with respect to whether the county
should close on the Pepper Ranch transaction in light of a claim made
by an adjacent property owner that they are entitled to access their
property through the Pepper Ranch.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I'll be brief because Alex is going to
Page 208
January 13, 2009
present the -- on behalf of the staff, the primary issues here.
Just before Christmas we received that notice, which is up on the
monitor, that an adjacent property owner was claiming rights of access
through the Pepper Ranch to access their property.
We hastily arranged a meeting, Alex and I, with the property
owner, to discuss this. We told them we could not close on this with
that condition, asked them to work it out with the adjacent property
owner. They were not able to do so by the close of the calendar year.
And so it was decided that we would take the matter to the
CCLAC, which met yesterday, so that the CCLAC could have a
recommendation to you as to what the board wished to do with this
existing claim. And I'll turn it on to Alex.
MS. SULECKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Madam
Chairman. For the record, Alex Sulecki, coordinator of your
Conservation Collier program. And I did not expect to be back so soon
before you on this item.
This is an overview map of the Pepper Ranch. You may be
familiar with it. I did some research. I have some maps and information
to share with you.
And -- so the first one is a map showing the location of the
requested easement. It's highlighted in yellow here. The easement that's
being requested is 30 feet wide. This yellow is not to scale. It's just to
highlight the location.
And I have some photos on the left to show you the condition of
the roads and where they are.
The main ranch road. This is -- I think this is around this location.
So you can see it is fairly wide, and it's not paved, but it's in very good
condition.
There is a gate that separates Pepper Road from Trafford Oaks
Road, which is a private road, and this is a photograph of the gate. Its
location is right there.
The next photograph is the Trafford Oaks Road and its condition.
Page 209
January 13, 2009
It's a paved road; private, as I mentioned. And then the final picture
here is a picture of the condition of the trail or road that's -- was the --
of the main question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could I just interrupt you for a moment?
MS. SULECKI: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: When you say private road, who owns the
private road?
MS. SULECKI: Well, there is a development that goes right in
through here over Trafford Oaks, and it -- that's one of the gray areas
because many of the deeds show an easement of30 feet for road
purposes. Other deeds just say easements of records. It's not clear at
this moment who owns the underlying roadway.
Okay. When this first came up, I wondered, BCI, Barron Collier
Investments, Limited -- I'll just call them BCI -- owns quite a bit of
land here. So I wonder why they couldn't access it from the south. And
so I overlaid the wetlands map onto it, and I saw immediately why they
do not want -- or cannot access this area, which is right here. All the
BCI lands -- and it may not even be all of them -- are outlined in the
teal color here, and Pepper Ranch is in the red. So you can see that the
access from here is problematic, costly, perhaps not possible.
These lands are part of the rural land stewardship area, the RLSA.
So I wondered how that affects the situation. And on the left you see a
map of the approved stewardship sending areas, the SSAs. And you'll
note there's kind of a missing piece up here in the puzzle. The map on
the right is Pepper Ranch in blue, and the BCI lands are to the south of
it.
These colors are the stewardship sending areas, the habitat
sending area, and the flowway sending area, the pink is the flowway
and -- in there. And then the very pale green is the habitat stewardship
areas, and white are open lands, which can be developed. And you'll
note that the lands that abut Pepper Ranch just to the south are white
lands, and these are the -- this is the cattle pasture that BCI needs the
Page 21 0
January 13, 2009
access to.
So I wonder what kind of development could be done in open
lands. And my understanding is that many things can be done,
residential, mobile homes, earth mining with the conditional use, golf
courses, care facilities, collection of resource recovery stations, zoos,
air strips, cemeteries, camps, and what is currently being used for
agriculture, cattle, forestry, and hunting.
We looked at the BCI lands and found that there is an application
pending for a stewardship sending area, number 13, over its lands for
7,414 acres. This should come to you in four months. It's in the process.
This is the missing piece in that stewardship sending area puzzle that
you saw before.
Note that there are some areas left out of it, and this is one of
them. And if you look, this is a close-up of that area, and you will see
that here is the pasture, here's the trail that comes down. And this is left
out, it's still open, and also a small strip that connects to Trafford Oaks
Road is left out of that.
So my question was, what are the long-range plans for the cattle
pastures left out of the application, and is Trafford Oaks Road also
being considered as access? That may be so. The reality is that access
would be more difficult through Trafford Oaks Road because BCI
would have to deal with more owners, and the ownership of the
underlying lands is really not clear at this time. So it would be more
difficult and costly for them to access that way.
Then I thought about -- you know, I heard that there was some
meetings with Rural Lands Stewardship Committee and they were
talking about where towns would go and those sort of things, and there
was a conceptual plan. So this is that plan on the left, and it shows --
these red dots are the conceptual towns. This is the area that we're
talking about, so there's no red dot there. Didn't see anything there.
I was curious to see if that cattle pasture was proposed for
anything. Also wanted to see if there was -- what kind of access
Page 211
January 13, 2009
road-wise was planned for the future.
So on the right you see the Collier 2030 long-range transportation
plan which is currently being revised to 2035, but it's not prepared yet.
This is -- the inset is the Immokalee area. Sorry it's so small. But you
can see the red are four-lane roads. Here's really where we're talking
about, so that's kind of the closest that that -- new roads came to this
area.
Then I took a close-up. This is a 2007 aerial view, and I wanted to
look at -- because I spoke to BCI, and they advised that in addition to
the fact that Trafford Lakes Road is private, there is a canal there and
some wetland issues, and access would not be practical.
So I looked at the property appraiser's website. These lines could
be off. They often are. But it appeared to me -- and I did measure this
on the GIS -- that there's 30 feet on the north side connecting directly
with Trafford Oaks Road.
And finally, we looked at the historical aerials to see how long a
trail's been in existence. The earliest aerials we could find were in 1953
for this area. And it could have been there even earlier. But these lands
were used for some kind of access since at least then.
And finally, the question was taken to the Conservation Collier
Committee yesterday for their review and recommendation to you, and
their recommendation is on the top here. On your executive summary
there were some numbered recommendations on the third page. They
recommend option number three, which basically says that we --
Barron Collier should agree to purchase an access easement and that
access would have to be limited and they would not seek expansion of
access rights.
In addition, they said that if three is not possible, they would
proceed with option two. And option two is very legal. And I'm not
sure I could explain it right, but they wanted that pursued, perhaps
concurrently with option three and add the following: They wanted an
indemnification, hold harmless from the seller; they wanted us
Page 212
January 13, 2009
involved in all negotiations; and they don't want any utilities on that
easement and no trail hardening or road building there.
Staff was also asked to make a recommendation, and our
recommendation would be that if the access is for current and historic
uses, cattle ranching -- and there would be no further expansion of
uses. We don't really see a terrible problem. In fact, it could be
beneficial for eyes to be in a remote part of the ranch regularly that we
couldn't be at, but we would not want any future expansion of the uses
there.
We have concerns about U.S. Fish and Wildlife because we're
going to have a conservation easement placed on that for the panther
habitat units, and we don't want anything interfering with that. And we
prefer if that access would be temporary to allow BCI the time to
develop an alternate access.
And with that, I'll turn it over to questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Who was first? I'm sorry.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could we have the Barron Collier
legal representatives up here, please.
MR. SOLIS: Good afternoon. Andrew Solis on behalf of Barron
Collier Investments. Be glad to answer some questions, if I can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you asserting possession for this
access?
MR. SOLIS: The issue, Commissioner, is that the access there can
be one of two ways. One is by prescriptive rights. It's been used,
obviously from the aerial photographs, for at least 40 or 50 years.
And the other issue would be related to a statutory way of
necessity, which would arise -- it arises by statute when there's no unity
of title so that an implied easement can be obtained. The law presumes
that all land should be reachable and usable, so it grants by statute
access rights.
So the letter that was sent, in essence, raised both issues, because
Page 213
January 13,2009
at this point neither one of those issues has been conclusively
determined one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you haven't ruled out either one?
You essentially are saying that you can use either the statutory right or
prescriptive easement to establish access to your property?
MR. SOLIS: Commissioner, the whole purpose of the letter was
just to raise the fact that Barron Collier has been using these lands for
access for cattle grazing. It's a very limited use now, and the only
purpose was -- or intent is that we be able to maintain the use of those
lands for access to the Collier lands, which have no other access. I
mean, that's really the purpose of --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I -- so that you
understand, I'm not arguing that you don't have some right of access to
your land. Of course you do. The question is, you know, what right are
you going to assert in order to obtain an appropriate access to your
land?
MR. SOLIS: If access was to be established judicially, you would
obviously assert both. In discussions with staff and the seller of the
property, it's clear that there's no common title dating back to the State
of Florida. So essentially, the most probably means of establishing
access would be a statutory way of necessity. It's landlocked.
Everything to the south and on all their sides is swampland, and that
would be the most likely way of establishing access, if we had to do
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. But if you had to do that,
there's -- there's no assurance that a statutory access would be granted
through this particular property. It could be granted through other
property?
MR. SOLIS: That would be the purpose -- that would be what the
court would have to determine, whether the most practical route under
the act of the statute is through the Pepper Ranch or some other road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So can you put that aerial photo back
Page 214
January 13,2009
back up there, Alex? And, by the way, so I don't forget, those red dots
on that other map are not towns. They're not intended to be towns.
Unfortunately they were labeled as town nodes, which is really a
transportation term. They identified certain nodes to measure traffic so
that it doesn't imply a town. People get upset when you see 22 of those
dots out there.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you for the correction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, why wouldn't Trafford
Oaks Road be an acceptable access to your property?
MR. SOLIS: Right now there's never been any permission to use
it. There is the question, as indicated on the diagram, of a canal, and
there is the issue of whether or not there's wetlands in there. So
permitting a road through there would be -- is questionable. It's never
been used that I'm aware of. Traditionally since the '50s, access has
been through Pepper Ranch.
I don't think that it's an issue that's ever been raised because the
access has always been through the Pepper Ranch property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I wouldn't want to
stand in your way of getting access to your property. I mean, we're
going to lose that battle. Somebody's going to grant you access to your
property somewhere. But I really don't have any interest in establishing
access through the Pepper Ranch.
What I would like to do is explore some other ways of resolving
this, and I just don't -- unless it were for very, very limited purpose for
a specified period of time. But as I see it, I think our only option is to
be in -- if we're going to proceed along these -- this direction, would be
to seek an indemnification from the seller and apply certain limitations
to the use of this road.
And I would really like for somebody to take a look at access
through Trafford Oaks Road to see if it's not possible to do that. Let's
face it, both those roads are private roads, okay.
MR. SOLIS: Correct.
Page 215
January 13,2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if you're -- if somebody is going
to grant you statutory rights to a road, then it's a matter of, you know,
how much is it going to cost to do Trafford Oaks Road or the road
through Pepper Ranch? And Trafford Oaks Road is more direct, it's
shorter by at least two-thirds, it's in better condition. It might cost more,
but in any event.
Has there been any discussion at all about the possibility of using
Trafford Oaks Road?
MR. SOLIS: There has been discussions. We're investigating that
now. Obviously this issue came up somewhat at the last minute, so
those avenues are being looked at now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why did it come up at the last
minute? You know, we've been talking about buying this property for a
long, long time. It's been very public. And, you know, this has sort of
blind-sided us.
MR. SOLIS: Well, the issue of access to this property has been
raised with the owner of the property going back, I think, at the
CCLAC meeting at least until 2004. In 2005 there was -- even an
easement been provided to them. From BCl's standpoint, this is always
-- it's always been there. They've always been using it.
The concern was that when the board, I think, approved the
contract in November, that it should be clarified because the access has
always been used. Nothing other than just wanting to clarifY that
Barron Collier Investments would continue to use that road.
It has a lease on the property, and there is a rancher that runs cattle
that needs to continue, obviously, to traverse the road through Pepper
Ranch to maintain its cattle and do what he needs to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And would there be a problem
specifYing the nature of use of the road and the frequency of use of the
road?
MR. SOLIS: I think the concern from my client's standpoint is
that if they're limiting -- if the use of the easement in the future is
Page 216
January 13, 2009
limited to what it is now, they're obviously giving up property rights.
The lands that we're talking about, as Alex had said, is -- has some
other uses potentially.
So to give up those property rights is obviously the issue, although
at this point there are no plans to do anything other than run rattle on it
in the foreseeable future, but there are property rights that need to be
protected, and that's what we're trying to resolve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, are you about
finished?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think maybe I'm about finished. I
just am not interested in opening up this property for use by someone
who is going to develop the Barron Collier property at some future
point in time and use the Pepper Ranch as access to it.
I'm just -- you know, I don't want to get into an argument or a
fight with either parties here. You've all contributed a lot to this county
and to the people here. But when we're talking about using a substantial
amount of taxpayer funds for this property and trying to preserve it, it's
very difficult for me to agree to provide open-ended unspecified use of
a road through property that we're expecting to preserve.
I would do whatever I could to try to get you access through
Trafford Oaks Road, but I, quite frankly, can't support anything that
would permit you unrestricted use of that road through Pepper Ranch.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have the same concerns that
Commissioner Coyle has just stated, and I would hope that possibly
between the county and you, Barron Collier Enterprises, that we could
work up some kind of an agreement or some kind of a way of getting
access to that property other than what you presently have through the
Pepper Ranch area.
I -- as Commissioner Coyle stated, I also have concerns that all of
a sudden this came up at the 11 th hour, the 59th minute, of getting this
Page 217
January 13, 2009
deal finished.
I would hope that we can find an amicable way of addressing
these concerns without going through the Pepper Ranch. I understand
where you're coming from, but -- I could probably come up with an
agreement if it was just to move cattle. But from what was presented to
us here by staff, it sounds as though there's the potential that there
could be some amount of development in this area and, therefore, we'd
end up probably with a four-lane highway going through there, and
that's not really the intent that I think we, as commissioners, nor the
citizens of the county, that taxed ourselves to buy a piece of land of this
nature.
So I'm -- I really would like to work with you seeing if we can use
Trafford Oaks Road as an access point to your piece of property,
because you are entitled to access. But I would hope that we could
work around something so that it's favorable not only to you but also to
the taxpayers that put up the money to buy this piece of land.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, fine. Where do you begin?
With this particular easement that's going through the property,
especially the -- I guess we never established the fact that it was going
to be limited just to cattle. That's -- from what I hear you saying, that
you want to leave your options open, that you're not canceling anything
else; is that correct?
I mean, let me put it to you another way. Would you be agreeable
if we were to come up with some agreement that we would allow you
reasonable access for cattle grazing, beginning and end of the story, or
is your company looking for something much more elaborate?
MR. SOLIS: Well, right now, Commissioner, Barron Collier
Investments has the right to use it for what it wants to use it for.
Currently it's using it for cattle grazing. The issue is that there are uses
for the property.
Now, in the foreseeable future, there's no plan to do that, but there
Page 218
January 13, 2009
there are other rights that they have to use it -- it could be farming, it
could be --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mining.
MR. SOLIS: -- everything that Alex had mentioned, and it's
provided for under the statute for -- statutory ways of necessity,
utilities. There are property rights that my client's interested in
protecting.
I think that we're trying to work through these issues and see what
we can do. But there are rights to be protected, and Mr. Boaz might --
MR. BOAZ: For the record, I'm Brad Boaz. I'm the CFO with
Barron Collier Investments and agent for the company.
We're certainly very respectful of what the county wishes to do
with the property. I think we're looking to try to find a solution to that.
I think as far as whether we wish to retain the ability to develop
that in the future, our issue is really trying to retain the value that we
have in the property. I mean, it's an issue that a lot of farmlands have, is
trying to make sure that whatever rights that you have are protected and
we can get that out.
We're trying to work on something with the seller. We would also,
if the -- you know, if we can work with the county to be cooperative,
we would love to do that. We certainly would look at Trafford Oaks
Road as an alternative to do that.
Some of this property that -- we already showed that some of the
property is in an SSA on the property. The portion that's not is because
it's designated as uplands. So there are, you know, other conservation
values for that, but it's not something that's going to be worked out in a
couple weeks.
And our concern is just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand what you're saying,
but the answer to my question is, is you want to leave your options
open.
Page 219
January 13,2009
MR. BOAZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's one of the things you
want to be able to discuss with the party and possibly with the county,
and I have no problem with that. But I, too, am very concerned about
the lateness of this coming up after so much time and effort's been put
into where we're trying to go.
Let me ask you a question, Alex. One of the attractive ideas of this
land was that it served many, many purposes, you know, I mean, for
ourselves. I mean, it all has to do with conservation and protection of
the environment. One of them is for panther credits.
Would a road going through this property and those kind of uses
remove the ability for us to be able to claim panther credits?
MS. SULECKI: The short answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. SULECKI: I spoke to U.S. Fish and Wildlife and discussed
this. And while they can't give us a definitive answer until they see
something in writing in front of them, what he told me was that access
easements are not uncommon, and that for the purposes of cattle
grazing, they probably could live with that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we're not -- we're not limiting
ourselves to cattle grazing here.
MS. SULECKI: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're definitely someplace else
with it. Where do we get our panther credits now?
MS. SULECKI: We get them from Hendry County, from the -- I
forget the name of the -- there's one --
MR. MUDD: You get it from mitigation banks. Right now you're
using as much as you can out of the Starnes property. Once that's
exhausted, you go back to mitigation banks again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So right away there's a
cloud put on the whole idea of being able to use panther credits that we
might be able to save the taxpayers of Collier County some money
Page 220
January 13, 2009
with. Is that -- that's the way I understand it.
MR. MUDD: This was -- this was anywhere from 10 to $15
million worth of the panther credits.
MS. SULECKI: That's right.
MR. MUDD: And if that's jeopardized, then this property isn't
worth what it -- what you're paying for it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is -- once again, no idea where
we're going with this. When I talked to you earlier -- on the phone
earlier this week, I though we just about had this thing sewed up. I
didn't realize that this thing was so deep.
MR. BOAZ: I think it's something that we've been working with
the seller trying to find a solution. I think there are several solutions out
there, but the other issue is the timeframe. I think your interest is to
close this transaction, and what we're really trying to do is -- the
recommendation from the board was to try to find a solution in two
weeks, and that's -- you know, we don't have a solution today but we're
still working towards that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Once again, I wish that you came
forward with this a year ago whenever we started this whole process,
that we would probably be running things parallel to be able come up
with a solution. Much time, energy, and money, a lot of effort, and the
wishes and the hopes of many people have been on this particular
project. And it's just so disappointing to find ourselves in this particular
position.
So where do we go from here? I mean, do we reject the whole
thing and throw out the baby with the bathwater, or do we give
everybody -- to be reasonable about it and go forward and try to come
up with some amenable way to make this work, and possibly even the
possibility of Collier offering that land up for Conservation Collier. I
don't know. That might be another avenue to look at.
MR. BOAZ: We would love to discuss that and -- or even just a
reduction of those property rights. Again, I think all options are open.
Page 221
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I suppose at this point in
time, rather than just say, well, that's the end of it, and walking away
from it, we tell the parties to sit down and try to talk it out; what do you
think?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Option three.
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Brad, is that in the rural stan (sic)
-- rural --
MR. BOAZ: Land stewardship.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. BOAZ: Yes, and I think that's --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is.
MR. BOAZ: You know, I think there's current initiatives going on
on the panther credits, there's current initiatives going on in the Rural
Land Stewardship Program, all of which impact the value of this.
Depending on how those go, you know, certainly conservation is one
of the potential uses of this property.
The trouble is, I think as you've seen, there's a lot of questions out
there that -- on panther credits and the rural land stewardship credits,
it's a moving target. And I think that's -- you know, we've been focused
on that, and that's kind of the timing. It really came up when we saw
the closing was imminent, that we had cattle ranching, and then it was
-- you know, when we actually got into talking about the easement, it
became clear that what was being asked, we may lose any other rights
that we have on the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How big is that piece that is --
that parcel that's not going to be put under stewardship credits?
MR. BOAZ: The portion that is actually designated as a receiving
area that's outside the SSA that was applied for is -- and these are rough
estimates. I haven't had it surveyed. But just looking at the maps --
probably about 300 acres or so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
Page 222
January 13,2009
MR. BOAZ: There's about a hundred acres in the center of that
that is primarily forested, and then there is old farm fields that are
around it for a couple hundred acres.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it wouldn't be out ofline to
assume that a village or hamlet could be there?
MR. BOAZ: I think, technically speaking, those type things are
allowed in some manner. There are certainly restrictions on it, but it is
possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, right. And, you know --
you know, I don't know why we're looking at Barron Collier as why
didn't you tell us, when what -- why should you tell us? It wasn't your
purpose. Obviously the landowner knew that road was there, obviously
that landowner knew that you were going -- been using that. Some of
the commissioners has been on that land committee members and staff
and so on and so forth.
So, you know, I'm glad you raised it now before it was executed,
but it's not up to the -- I don't feel, up to the county, the county staff to
fix it. It's up to the seller to fix this problem.
And like other concerns of my colleagues, without limiting the use
-- I don't want to force limiting the use on any property owner if he has
a right to -- to that. But it's a deal breaker for me. And it's -- again, it's
not up to us to fix it. Let the seller fix it.
It's another one of those, oh, I didn't know. And the seller needs to
come up here and tell us how he's going to fix it.
And what is the cost for us for delaying this project or delaying
this purchase?
MR. MUDD: It's $50,000 a month in interest payment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has to be considered by the
seller because it's, oops -- one of those, oops, I-forgot-type things. It's
not the BCC's fault or the staff.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Does the seller want to come up in
Page 223
January 13, 2009
response to Commissioner Henning's request?
MR. GRANT: For the record, I'm Dick Grant, counsel to Lake
Trafford Ranch, LLP, the LLLP, the owner of the property.
The seller certainly was aware that Barron Collier's rancher was
making use of the property. It was permissive. It's been allowed. I don't
think there's an issue between the parties as to whether it's been
permissive. There's a long history to that, which it's my understanding
there was a point in time when the Pepper Ranch owners in the past
actually were themselves leasing the Collier property and grazing, and
so there was never an issue that was raised. It's also been permissive, is
my understanding.
I can have Tim Hains, who is my colleague with the Quarles &
Brady firm, also counsel to Lake Trafford Ranch, who's been involved
in this longer than I have, give you the history of what, I guess, you
would call issues.
It is my understanding -- because I wasn't involved then. It's my
understanding that in 2004, BCI did make a contention that it had
similar rights to what's been contended now and requested an
easement. It was my understanding that that was analyzed carefully, it
was rejected, and BCI was told why the ranch did not believe it was
correct and did not believe that BCI had any rights other than those that
had been given.
And other than -- and was invited, frankly, to come back and
explain why it thought Mr. Hains was incorrect. And from what I
understand, that never happened.
There was one follow-up, I believe, in early 2006, requesting the
easement but no explanation for why Mr. Hains' reasoning was
incorrect.
And subsequent to that, I believe it's the fact that BCI did request
permission to make use of the road in the summer of 2007 for
removing some sabal palms, and that permission was given.
So the ranch believed that BCI did not intend to pursue or
Page 224
January 13, 2009
believed that the claims it had made in 2004 were still outstanding and
felt that any use of the property had been permissive, as it always
believed. So that's -- those are the facts, and that's why it's not ever
been brought up until now.
And so that's why it did come as a surprise, that's correct. And the
minute it was made -- timing being what it is, sometimes life is what it
is -- the letter was dated the 17th of December from Mr. Treadwell in
BCI. That wasn't the best timing. Unfortunately, Tom Taylor, to whom
it was addressed, one of the two general partners of Lake Trafford
Ranch, was out of town that day and for five days thereafter. He didn't
see the letter until the 23rd of December, two days before Christmas,
and we gave it to the county that day. So those are the facts.
In terms of responsibility, clearly from the point of view of Lake
Trafford Ranch, we can only be a facilitator here in trying to find a
solution that is A, acceptable to BCI, acceptable to the county, and
certainly acceptable to Lake Trafford Ranch.
We understand the county worked hard on this. We worked hard
on it. We understand the county has borrowed funds. We understand
there is a cost. And we understand that there will have to be some
recognition ofthat as a part of any solution if that solution involves
giving BCI rights over the property.
We also understand that the law would require BCI to pay
compensation for a statutory way of necessity. And hopefully out of
that process, some solution can be fashioned over the course of the next
couple of weeks, as the CCLAC has recommended, that would be
acceptable to everybody.
So that is -- we basically think that the recommendation to you
from the CCLAC is a good solution. The staff, I think, believes it is.
The CCLAC recommended that you consider option three first. I think
anybody would agree option three is the best solution if it can be made
to work; but that if it couldn't be made to work, that option two, which,
Page 225
January 13, 2009
which, I think, is the one involving the seller indemnifYing the county,
also be considered on a parallel track so that at the end of a two-week
period both of those options can be considered, explored, ideally
something fashioned that can be acceptable.
So that -- I think we support the CLAC's recommendation. I don't
know if that's completely responsive or not. I've done my best. If -- I
can have Mr. Hains come up here if you'd like, to get into more detail.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just -- I would like to ask a couple
questions, if I may.
MR. GRANT: Sure, sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you say before, Alex, that if they had
this road through here, then we wouldn't be able to claim panther
credits, and that would run us between 10 and $15 million?
MS. SULECKI: Actually, if it's expand -- if the uses are
expanded, there may be problems, and I believe it's more than that.
And the county manager showed me it's quite a bit more. I don't recall
the actual number.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Okay, fine. And right now you're--
the other side, BCI, is saying they're not sure what they want to use
with it, but you said that they're in for permitting on something or
another, right?
MS. SULECKI: That's the SSA 13.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Would you be willing to investigate,
and with an open mind, using Trafford -- Trafford Oaks Road, as
Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas also mentioned?
MR. BOAZ: Yes. I think we'd -- both of our groups have started
getting information on that. We've had some just preliminary
discussions. There are, I think, about 40 different landowners out there
that we might have to deal with, but we are getting some information
on that. And certainly --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because you can see what predicament
Page 226
January 13,2009
we're in.
MR. BOAZ: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, if -- a road to run occasionally,
through permission, that's one thing; but if you're going to go mine
down there and you're going to have dump trucks going through all day
long or you build a village down there and so you've got people coming
through, all -- all of a sudden our preserve isn't a preserve and we lose
all of the panther credits that we've had and some of the reasons that
we're buying this land.
And so, if you would then discuss another avenue for entrance
into your property, or better yet, gift it to the county and take a nice
healthy tax deduction -- that might be nice also -- then I would be in
favor of making a motion to accept option number three as the
recommendation and ask you to go forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. Oh, I have how -- many
speakers do you have there?
MS. FILSON: Well, you have three and -- you have four speakers,
and three of them have already spoke. I don't know if they wish to
speak again. I have Andrew Solis.
MR. SOLIS: Already spoke.
MS. FILSON: Brad Boaz?
MR. BOAZ: Already spoke.
MS. FILSON: Richard Grant?
MR. GRANT: Yes. Can I just state a comment?
MS. FILSON: And he'll be followed by Amber Crooks.
MR. GRANT: Can I just follow since my name was called?
Commissioner Fiala, the recommendation to you from the
CCLAC was to consider option three, but also option two or perhaps
some combination of two and three together, I believe. I think that's
what they recommended. And I think it might serve everybody's
purposes to at least allow the discussion to include both options two
Page 227
January 13, 2009
and three, option three clearly being the primary one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Alex, is that correct, option -- first
three, but then as an alternative, option two?
MS. SULECKI: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll include that in my motion, that
we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Since I seconded.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're the second. Would you include that
in your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I will, and the reason for
that is that option two is much more open-ended than the restrictions on
option three, and I'm not sure I want to get into option two.
I would like to try option three and see where it leads us, and let's
reevaluate at the end of that discussion. I don't want anybody to get
into option two and start talking about option two, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And you were my second, so I'll
bow to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, and then
Jim Mudd.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would the motion makers
consider that the seller pays for all our carrying costs for this
mortgage? We don't -- we don't have utilized -- utilization to this
property but yet we are paying interest for this loan, and it's not due to
the county's fault.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I would agree to that. And my
second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we can include that into our motion.
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think you're going to need the seller to agree
to that.
Page 228
January 13,2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. I guess we would.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we don't have an
agreement, right?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, if the seller won't agree to it, then we
may have another issue to talk about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We just -- it just continues as the
present owner. That's the way I look at it, is to let the owner keep it,
and the county take other means with those monies or legal action.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I offer a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It looks like the seller's attorney's going to
come up, but would you like to offer it first?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, go ahead.
MR. GRANT: I'm sorry. I was talking to Mr. Tinner. I didn't hear
what was said, if it was something -- what I last heard was -- the
question was, is the seller willing to bear the carrying costs?
I think the seller feels that it would be best if you give us the two
weeks to see if we can come up with a solution. Quite frankly, the
seller has some issues with BCI for having raised this. I really, myself,
am not in a position to come on too strong about that.
And if the seller has to bear those costs, I think it's going to feel
that BCI needs to reimburse it for those costs. And --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner--
MR. GRANT: -- I think the -- I mean, we're talking, I think, a
couple weeks' worth of interest, and I think if --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But that could be $50,000.
MR. GRANT: No. I understand it's a lot of money,
Commissioner. And I'm not trying to minimize.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. GRANT: And I think if something can be worked out and the
transaction closes, then I think it ideally becomes somewhat of a moot
subject. If it doesn't, then obviously it's an issue that has to be resolved.
Page 229
January 13,2009
resolved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just a question. The funds
that we have and that we're holding, which -- I understand that, you
know, they're parked there and the money costs money. Is there any
way that we might be able to put that into some short-term investment
for some return to underwrite some of the costs we've got?
MS. SULECKI: That's not a question I can answer. I think that's a
John Y onkosky question perhaps.
MR. MUDD: Depends on the -- depends on the terms of the loan
and what it was to be used for. From what I get out of my guys and
ladies is the fact that ifthere's going to be a change in purpose, we
would have to go back to the bank and ask them if that was okay, and
there's -- there is a penalty, and the bank could come back and say, you
owe us $2 million dollars if you're not going to use it as far as what --
the interest payments are concerned.
So this isn't -- this isn't simple by any stretch of the imagination.
And the only clarification -- now that I'm talking, the only clarification,
I want to make sure, no matter what the board decides to tell staff to do,
we're coming back to the board with what we find out or can agree to
or whatever before we purchase this property at all, and I want to make
sure that's on the record and that's perfectly clear.
We don't come up with some easement thing that's minimal and
then all of a sudden we're closing on the property without the board's
concurrence with that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right.
MR. MUDD: That's not going to happen. We have an issue that's
outstanding. It needs to be resolved. It needs to come back to the Board
of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I'm sorry I didn't get back
to you right away. Please, please forgive.
Okay. So, Commissioners, we have a motion on the floor. Oh, and
Page 230
January 13,2009
and I'm sorry, we have one more speaker, excuse me.
MS. FILSON: Amber Crooks.
MS. CROOKS: Thank you. Amber Crooks, representing the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida and our over 6,000 members.
We're here to request the commission's continued support for the
acquisition of the environmentally exceptional Pepper Ranch property.
Although we're disappointed after a year and a half of this property
being publicly pursued for acquisition by the county, that an issue be
raised the week of closing causing delay, we believe that the easement
issue can be readily resolved by the following -- by following
Conservation Collier's Land Acquisition Advisory Committee and
county staff recommendation.
The recommendation to pursue option number three while
concurrently pursuing a hold harmless agreement alleviates the legal
and fiscal implications of resolving the easement issue while allowing
closing on the property to proceed in a timely fashion, while
concurrently doing the hold-harmless agreement could alleviate some
of the cumulative -- alleviate some of the cumulative carrying costs by
the county.
We support Conservation Collier staff and their recommendation
as well that the access granted should be conditional, should be
temporary in nature and be consistent with uses and policies of the
Conservation Collier program; therefore, we respectfully request that
you express your strong continued support for the acquisition of Pepper
Ranch and directing staff to resolve the issue per Conservation Collier's
recommendation in order to ensure that we are successful in publicly
acquiring and preserving this critically important property for the
benefit of current and future Collier County citizens.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Actually that's what we just did.
Okay. So Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a comment. I think if Barron
Collier agrees to use it as its present use and Collier County gives them
Page 231
January 13, 2009
them an easement across Pepper Ranch, it's a better deal for the
purpose of Conservation Collier than for Barron Collier to go and use
another route to have a much heavier use on their property -- that's my
only opinion -- such as a village, a hamlet, a mining operation, or
whatever. It would be a best scenario.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm not sure what you just said. So you said
if we allow them to use the use as -- just for cattle ranching, that's fine?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you say --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be a better -- under
the Conservation Collier program, it would be enhancing the Pepper
Ranch property.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. But they don't want to just agree to
just that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, they said they're open to
that. But if they use Pepper Oaks Lane (sic) or highway or whatever it
is and have a much intenser use, that, in my opinion, would devalue the
property. Maybe not financially, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. You're about saying the same thing
we are then, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. Okay, fine. It sounds like we're all
pretty much in agreement.
Do we have any other comments? Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I did, but I don't anymore.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So it sounds like we're all in
agreement. We have a motion on the floor and a second. We haven't --
we haven't come up with a conclusion of the other suggestion, so those
in favor of the motion as it stands, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 232
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a 5-0 to move forward with
option three between the seller and BCI and, of course, Alex Sulecki
will be a part of that as well, right?
MS. SULECKI: I'm assuming so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And probably our attorneys.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And come back with the results to the
Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I hope that all parties -- that we
can come up with Trafford Oaks as probably the direction. I think the
citizens in Collier --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: For more intensive use than the cattle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. KLA TZKOW: And at $50,000 a month, we will be back at
the next board to give you an update.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Okay.
MS. SULECKI: Thank you, Board.
Item #12B
RATIFYING THE APPROVED STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,500.00 FOR PARCEL
151 RDUE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
LUZ MATLIN, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-2850-CA - APPROVED;
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK ANAL YSIS OF
EXCESSIVE LEGAL COSTS IN ACQUISITIONS - CONSENSUS
Page 233
January 13, 2009
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 12B, which is --
Commissioner Coyle, are all these four things linked or are they all
individual?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They are all linked, but they have all
been taken care of. The County Attorney's Office has informed me that
they have taken care of that.
I would only ask that we do one thing and ask the county attorney
to take a look at our -- at the acquisitions of property that have resulted
in excessive attorney fees and to provide us a report on those that we
might be able to use with our legislative delegation to demonstrate to
them how their policies result in waste of taxpayer money. And so we
don't need to deal with these issues right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. But we do have to vote on it, right,
because we didn't vote on this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just guidance, yeah. We could vote
to approve them because they were pulled off the consent agenda. So I
would make a motion that we approve those -- all of those items.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. MUDD: Let's do one at a time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. First item is 12B, used to be--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion--
MR. MUDD: -- I6K2.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion on the floor to approve, all
those in favor, aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Absent.)
Page 234
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Carries 4-0.
Item #12C
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$31,000.00 FOR PARCEL 113FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. LUZ MATLIN, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-
2850-CA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 12C, used to be 16K3.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0.
Item #12D
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$31,000.00 FOR PARCEL 127FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. CARLOS ALVAREZ, ET AL., CASE NO.
07-2882-CA - APPROVED
Page 235
January 13,2009
MR. MUDD: Next item is I2D, used to be 16D4.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0.
Item #12E
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$31,000.00 FOR PARCEL lI9FEE IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. CARLOS ALVAREZ, ET AL., CASE NO.
07-2882-CA - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 12E, used to be 16K5.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to staff and --
Page 236
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait, hold on. There was a -- there
was a request that we provide guidance to the county attorney to bring
back to us an analysis of property acquisition efforts that appear to
result in excessive payments to -- for legal purposes, okay. All we need
is three nods.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yep, you've got them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
(RESOLUTION 2009-12 WAS ADOPTED DURING
COMMUNICA TIONS)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to Paragraph 15 of
your agenda, which is staff and commissioner general communications.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Did you want to lead that off, Jim
Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Do I have any items, ma'am? Yes, ma'am, I do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, no.
MR. MUDD: First, yesterday I received, and so did you, a copy of
a memo that was given -- sent to me by Commissioner Henning that
had to do with one of our favorite pet projects, which is called Vita
Toscana. If you would have told me we'd be doing this again, I would
have said, no, this can't happen.
What happened, they wrote a check for some $400,000, and the
check bounced. The Clerk has sent a memo to Empire Developers
Group and told them that they have 30 days from the date of the letter
which was sent, which was December 23rd, for them to pay a 5 percent
Page 237
January 13, 2009
percent penalty on face amount plus a $30 service charge and to have
that check by certified check or money order back to the Clerk of
Courts 30 days after the date, 23 December.
There's 31 days in December, which happens to be good, and it
coincides with the next Code Enforcement Board, which meets on the
22nd ofJanuary. The Vita Toscana item was scheduled to be heard
January 22nd to talk about fine abatements.
In this particular case, because the checks bounced, staff is
recommending that we go to the Code Enforcement Board on the 22nd,
advise them of the nonpayment, and then get them to direct abatement
thereabouts on the code enforcement case, and there's two of them. The
last four on the first is 7919, and the last four on the second is 4496.
I've talked to Mr. Klatzkow about this particular item. We believe
the work that remains to bring it into code compliance is more than the
monies that have been deposited, some $25,000. This would give us the
able to do the work and also put a lien on the property by the proper
way in going in front of the Code Enforcement Board.
I have received some communications on the 7th of January from
Empire Builders that basically says the payment to the bank got
stopped offshore by the Department of Homeland Security.
I received an email this morning in my stack, and this one happens
to be from Mr. Slavish to Mr. Chrzanowski, your staff member, and
basically he states that he was told last night that Homeland Security
has released a hold on the monies. And if that's the case, the monies
will be wired to the county this week.
But that's our plan at this particular juncture, and I just wanted to
talk about it because you received it, and I wanted to make sure you're
aware of what's going on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've received so much crap
information from this, I'm going to bring my pickup truck so I have
Page 238
January 13, 2009
enough capacity to take it with me.
And what I understand what you just said is, this is a health,
safety, and welfare issue. There is sand blowing around there. It is --
you know, people can't walk across that sidewalk because it's like
getting sandblasted.
So you're saying that you're going to go out there, your staff is
going to go out there, or a contractor, grade it, hydro-seed it, and bill
the owner; is that what I heard you say?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We're going to put a lien on the property, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: And the code enforcement--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all I ever wanted --
MR. MUDD: And the Code Enforcement Board gives us--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a year ago.
MR. MUDD: -- gives us the authority to do so.
Next item -- the next two items have to do with property
purchases or potential property purchases. We've been -- staff at -- on
the 30th of December, Ms. Ramsey writes me on an email that
basically says she's been approached by the Brookside Marina and the
landowner that's to the east, which is a vacant property of some five
acres, and that's the Mr. Caradi property. They would like to sell their
marina to the county. Now, that property's been on the market for a
while.
We're into the -- you could be anywhere from 15 to $18 million
on this particular marina property if that's what the board directs. I will
tell you the marina has some work to do, especially on the covered boat
parking; and the marina warehouse, place where they fix boats,
whatever, there are some issues with that.
But I want to make sure that the board is aware that we've been
approached. And I can come back and bring that back to the board at
Page 239
January 13,2009
another meeting and talk about the particular issue, but it's a steep
price, but it is a marina that's within the urban area.
So I guess the Port of the Isles sale has got some people's
attention.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, you know what, we were all worried
about where we were going to put boats and everything. I'm thankful
that some of these things, because of this economy, have come before
us, some opportunities that we would -- might never have been blessed
with. It's too bad -- I still lament that I didn't vote with Commissioner
Halas a while back on his Wiggins Pass. I could kick myself for that,
but anyway.
MR. MUDD: I have asked Mr. Jackson, since it's close to the
CRA, ifthere's any particular interest on his particular part on the
thing.
Staffs analysis at this juncture is, the whole marina complex
would probably have to be leveled and redone in order to do it. It's
going to be a substantial cost. I'm not jumping on this one, nor am I
recommending that we go down this road. The price is awful high still.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is it direct Gulf access or under-the-bridge
access?
MR. MUDD: It's under the bridge, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I think that ought to be on the record,
too. That's why I asked that question.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, thank you.
The next item is, there are several facilities that are -- that are out
there that I've become aware of that could replace our rental agreement
with the property -- Property Appraiser's Office that's across the way.
We -- that is a rental property. We, the board, and the county are
paying some $620,000 annual rent for that particular property.
There's been several attempts to try to buy the property with the
owner, and he hasn't been very responsive to a reasonable offer from
Page 240
January 13, 2009
the county.
I'm asking the board's permission to go on out there and look at
these two or so properties that have availed themselves to see if I can
determine if we can get a reasonable substitute -- pay a reasonable
amount of money, get something that's suitable for the property
appraiser and get out of this -- this very expensive rental agreement that
we're in.
At the time we did the rental agreement we didn't have any other
-- we didn't have any other options. We were basically -- we were
captive as far as that agreement is concerned. Well, things have
changed with the community and that thing.
So I'd just like the board's permission. I'd like to get three nods to
go on out there and do that. Again, I won't commit the county to
anything until I get the board's -- come back to the board and get that
resolved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Looks like you've got everybody nodding.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Next issue -- and I'm sorry I'm talking too long, but I've got
to get some things resolved here real quick.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, these are important.
MR. MUDD: First of all is Pelican Bay Services Division. And
let's go down the talking points real quick. This is -- I want to say this
is pretty much a no-brainer, but I've got to bring it to the board's
attention because it's different than what the ordinance lays out.
First of all, we advertised for the Pelican Bay Services Division
Board on December 9th. The deadline for the applications were
January 6th. Vacancies, four residential, one commercial. We received
five residential, one commercial. One of the residentials have dropped.
So you now have four residentials and one commercial.
The cost for balloting to go on out there is over $6,000, and that's
basically an estimate by Mr. Jay Cross from the Clerk's office, as far as
the balloting process is concerned.
Page 241
January 13,2009
If the balloting process were to go forth, all five members would
be appointed even if they only receive one vote each from the folks in
Pelican Bay based on the ordinance that you have.
There is currently no provision in the ordinance to waive the
balloting process if we receive only the amount of applicants for the
vacanCIes.
Our recommendation is we request the county attorney to amend
the ordinance to include a provision to waive this section of the
ordinance if the applicants do not exceed the vacancies. We could send
the applicants to the Pelican Bay Services Division Board for a
recommendation for appointment.
And this is just to save $6,000 for something that's not going to
mean much. You've got the exact number of applicants as you have for
the vacancies that you have.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that we -- hopefully we'll get
approval by the board, but I think that's what we need to do is send this
to the county attorney to change the ordinance whereby ifthere is the
same amount of applicants as there are positions, then there's no sense
wasting taxpayers' money of$6,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, does the Pelican Bay Services
Division know of the recommendation?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, they do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: If that's what the board desires, the county attorney
to amend the ordinance in order to give us that provision so that we
don't get ourselves in this Catch 22 in the future.
What normally goes is you ballot if you've got more candidates
than you've got positions to fill. In this particular case you've got the
exact number of people that have applied for the vacancies that are out
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes, Commissioner Henning?
Page 242
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't I just make a
motion that we direct the county attorney to amend the ordinance for
this particular example and declare -- declare that there's not enough
applicants and there's no need to go to ballot?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the motion.
MR. MUDD: And we bring it back to the -- it will come back to
the board and it will be advertised --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have a second on it?
MR. MUDD: -- and everything else.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure, whatever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I've got a second also.
Okay. All those in favor--
MS. FILSON: Who made the motion, Commissioner Halas?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning made the motion,
Commissioner Halas seconded the motion.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item I need to talk about--
and again, I don't mean to be a Grinch -- and this will be the last thing
unless Commissioner Henning wants to talk about sawfish, okay? If
you're not going to do it, I'll do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll do it.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you, sir.
This has to do with Immokalee sign violations. I got a call from
Fred Thomas just before Christmas and said, hey, your sign guy's out
Page 243
January 13, 2009
here, and he's doing what he's supposed to do. He's looking at signs and
violations of signs, and there seems to be quite a few.
Now, we have one sign guy, and he's been going through the
county, and he's done most of the urban area, and he's doing the right
thing. He's out into Immokalee. And what I've got, I've got 60
violations of signs out in the Immokalee area.
And I told staff when I got the phone call from Mr. Thomas that I
would come to the board -- and I told staff not to prosecute until I got
to talk to you. And I understand the time that we're in.
Now, this particular item I could bring back and put it on the
agenda for the next meeting, but I just wanted to make sure -- I just told
Joe Schmitt and crew, I said, get the violations, list them, let people
know, but don't -- but don't prosecute them at this particular juncture
for the violation. Let me get the board's touch on this particular one.
You've got -- you've got Land Development Codes, you've got
overlay issues that are out there right now on Immokalee, and I just
didn't know what the board wanted to do, and I didn't want to stir up
the whole community during this particular time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if you would, let it coast. I
mean, the sign ordinance is a coastal thing, and it's so repressive to
Immokalee. Let's let it go until they get their master plan in place and
their Land Development Codes.
And -- they're trying to -- they're trying to do the right thing. And
to force this upon them at this point in time and then have a rollback
later would be an unnecessary cost to the people that are running
businesses in Immokalee.
That's my feeling.
MR. MUDD: I just -- I don't feel comfortable as the county
manager saying I'm tolling -- I'm tolling code enforcement violations
presently without the board's concurrence on that particular process.
Page 244
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, I don't mind doing
that, but they -- the Immokalee Master Plan Committee has been
working on this visioning, LDC, Growth Management Plan for a long
time. And I think it's about time that the chairman, chairperson, chair
lady, chairwoman, send a letter to the Master Plan Visioning
Committee, or whatever, and say, hey, don't keep coming to us and
asking us for forgiveness when you're in the driving seat and you
should bring these things through for the Board of Commissioners to
approve or not approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: IfI could. IfI'm not mistaken --
tell me if I'm wrong. The master plan's completed and staff has it now;
am I correct?
MR. MUDD: I'm going to have to defer to Mr. Schmitt to tell you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we're talking about is an
LDC issue, and I don't even know if they've started on it, and it's
probably going to be lightyears away before it gets approved.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. Mr. Mulhere was supposed to bring
something back as far as this Land Development Code cycle that had to
do with Immokalee.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For the record, Joe Schmitt. The
Immokalee Master Plan Visioning Committee amendment to the GMP
was submitted just before the holidays. It's undergoing staff review
now. It will be a while before it gets to you because you also have 15
private petitions to deal with on the '07/'08 combined GMP cycle, and
also you're dealing with the RLSA amendments as well.
And we're going to come back to you with a schedule, because it's
the availability of you and this room and the hearing dates and all those
kind of things. I don't have time nor do you want hear about that now,
but --
Page 245
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, Mr. Schmitt -- yeah,
but the thing is, one, it's in the works.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two -- and I'm glad you brought
this up because I was going to bring it up under comments. When it
comes to the cycles and what we're up against and the lack of staff to
be able to proceed, is there a possibility we could have the Regional
Planning Council staff work on some of these things to move them
forward?
MR. SCHMITT: Legally, no. I mean, you're the board. You have
to -- it comes to you for your review and approval, and it's your
schedule, it's the schedule of this room, it's the schedule of the petition
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we're talking all the way to
20 I 0 before we get something.
MR. SCHMITT: That should be before that. Now, what may take
a back burner is your LSA amendments from the RLSA committee.
And I believe they probably should because I've already got -- I've
been -- the submittal is already in for the Immokalee Area Master Plan
amendment to the GMP, and we're currently -- it's undergoing staff
review right now.
I suspect that will be available for -- to this board. But what you
have to deal with before that are the 15 petitions that are in the queue
on the -- for the GMP cycle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're getting back to the issue at
hand. Do you see any harm, safety, health, and welfare, as far as these
signs in Immokalee being put on hold as far as enforcement goes until
this master plan and Land Development Code changes take place?
MR. SCHMITT: There are none. I mean, the health, safety,
welfare issue -- if the sign's going to fall, we're going to deal with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course.
MR. SCHMITT: The issue here is the esthetics and the
Page 246
January 13,2009
compliance with the LDC, as Commissioner Henning stated,
understanding the GMP will set the groundwork. Then it will be
another year before the LDC is amended to bring the LDC in
compliance with the GMP. That's just the way it is, the way -- and you
know the way the building blocks fall in place.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ifmy commissioners aren't
comfortable with it now, we could bring it back for more discussion,
bit I don't think it's an issue that really should be that troublesome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it -- you're right. There
probably are some sign violation issues that are sort of nit-picking, and
I don't want to hassle people about that when they're in the midst of
trying to develop an overall plan, but there could be some that are
really egregious violations. And I just don't think it's good policy to just
carve Immokalee out and say that you can do anything you want to
because, you know, you're separate, you're different.
The point is, I think we're all trying to work toward a quality
community out in Immokalee, and we don't want them to evolve over
this process into a junky Las Vegas kind of situation, because then it's
more difficult to correct it because people have already erected these
signs and they've spent money on them.
Can we have somebody just apply some common sense, and if
these things are not egregious violations, do as Commissioner Coletta
is suggesting, just let it -- let it slide for a little while? But if these
things really -- well, you've got a lot of signs without required permits.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And that's just one page, but the second
page, which I'm going to put up, there's a total of 60 offenses on this
particular -- on these particular pages. Let me go by it for just a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Let me make a suggestion
to you. It seems clear to me that there's just no control. People are just
plopping up signs anywhere they want to put up signs, right?
Page 247
January 13, 2009
MR. SCHMITT: Pretty much so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's not good for Immokalee.
It's not good for people who want to improve the community.
Can you issue warnings about these things and tell them, if you're
not going to get these -- apply for a sign permit, you're going to get
fined?
MR. SCHMITT: I would imagine, Commissioner, most of them
are not permitted because they either exceed the height or size
limitation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And they were probably put up at
a point in time when, one, there was no rules and regulations or, two,
the rules and regulations allowed it. You've got to remember,
Immokalee's been around for a long, long time.
MR. SCHMITT: Some are even probably hand painted and other
type of signs that just appeared.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let's cut to the chase. Those are
the kinds of signs that are not good for Immokalee. They don't create a
good impression for Immokalee. When people come there and want to
buy some property, it's not the kind of environment you want to really
create. It's not an inappropriate intrusion on people's rights to expect
them to have signs that are in reasonable compliance with our code. It
just isn't necessary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: IfI may reply. You've got to
remember that situations in Immokalee are different. And I understand,
too. I mean, it's concerning that they're not permitted. They've been up
for just about forever. The business community of Immokalee, just like
the rest of Collier County and the State of Florida and the United States
of America and probably the world, is suffering from a recession.
Every little thing can make a difference.
To suddenly come down on them like gangbusters and force them
to remove signs at this point in time and replace them will cause many
businesses to go out of business.
Page 248
January 13,2009
Possibly we can come up with something to be able to give
everybody a reprieve for a couple years until this -- we can work
towards the situation. The new master plan, Land Development Codes
will be in place that will address a different kind of sign ordinance than
we have here. They won't require a sign anything as elaborate as you
require in coastal Collier County.
This is more in tunes -- and God, I sound like Fred Thomas now --
more in tune with central Florida where they represent. I can't believe
it, but I -- that's Fred Thomas.
But in any case, Fred is right on this. I mean, now don't -- please
don't hold it against the business owners in Immokalee because the
master plan's taking so long. They've been aiming for a little bit of
perfection. The truth of the matter is, it's done.
MR. MUDD: I want to make sure --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There he is.
MR. MUDD: -- you know where Fred is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, there he is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There he is. And that's
Commissioner Coletta sitting right beside him, just on the left there, in
the left side of that picture.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I don't have a drink in my
hand.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to chime in here.
Commissioner Coletta, I understand exactly where you're coming from
in a sense, but our sign ordinance has been in effect for over six years,
and there hasn't seemed to be anything that's been initiated out there in
Immokalee in regards to addressing those signs. All the six years that
we've had good -- it's been good for the -- you know, good
environment for business, and they haven't made any attempt.
And when I look at all of those 60 or so signs that had no permits
whatsoever, they are part of Collier County, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They very much are. And I'd
Page 249
January 13, 2009
liked to have the respect of the fact that they are a little different
community than the rest of Collier County, medium (sic) income that's
about one-third of the rest of Collier County, businesses that are
struggling to survive.
When the new ordinance -- when the new Land Development
Code goes into place, it will not resemble anything like the current
Collier County one. Am I right on that, Mr. Schmitt, as far as the signs
go?
MR. SCHMITT: I know they want pretty much to be allowed to
put any type of sign up, but whether that gets through the public vetting
process is another matter.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I mean, anything's up for
grabs.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But meanwhile, we have unusual
situations, a terrible economy in a -- in a community that's truly
challenged. What I'm saying is, let's give them a two-year reprieve on
this with, once again, the most grievous situations addressed, anything
that has to do with health, safety, and welfare, and everybody put on
notice with a warning that there will be something done. So that forces
us to go forward and try to get the LDC changes, the overlays and
everything else taking place for Immokalee.
And when they do have to make the corrections, they'll be making
it according to a code that they came up with themselves, rather than
have to come up with -- yes, I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. If you could, if you could direct staff to
come back to you on this issue, because I really hate having a blanket,
let's not enforce our ordinance. [ mean, I understand we have like a
situation of one individual and there's special circumstances. This is an
entire community here that we're saying we're not going to enforce an
entire ordinance on.
And if staff would come back with recommendations as to how to
Page 250
January 13,2009
to proceed on this, I think --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we do that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: -- it might surface.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's fine with me.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Now that we've picked on
Commissioner Coletta enough, I think we need to direct staff to bring it
back -- bring some recommendations. But he did bring out one good
point is, we have tough economic times.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought I brought up more than
one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you could have, but I was
not in the room.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, you weren't in the room.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just think of -- there's -- a sign maker could
begin an office right there at Immokalee to make all these new signs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nice new business.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Contributing to their economy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm in favor of bringing it back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. I think we all are nodding with
bringing it back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With pictures.
MR. MUDD: Oh. Sir, I plan to have this thing locked with
pictures that go down every one so that you know exactly what the
infractions are and you can see them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Fred Thomas, too.
MR. MUDD: Oh, he's coming. If you bring this back, he'll be
here, no doubt in my mind.
Thank you very much, Commissioners. And I'm sorry I've taken
Page 251
January 13, 2009
so long.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: County attorney?
MR. KLA TZKOW: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How smart.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to say to you
that many years ago Bayshore Drive was a lot like Immokalee, okay.
Now, we could have taken the position that, well, they're different and
they're lower income, poor neighborhood, and we shouldn't do
anything about it. And if we had done that, Bayshore Drive would have
been the same today as it was 20 years ago.
And I think you make a big mistake when you decide that
somebody is going to be exempt from moving forward and improving
their community. It's amazing what people can and will do if you
encourage them to clean it up and make it a nicer place to live.
That's all I've got.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I believe that the Board of
County Commissioners asked staff to get a report from the Clerk of
Courts in regards to our investments, and -- have we gotten anything
back from the Clerk of Courts yet in regards to if we've --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the chairman -- Commissioner
Henning wrote a letter to the Clerk requesting that he present and even
-- and with a time certain to either this meeting or next meeting, and I
don't believe Commissioner Henning -- and I haven't received a reply
yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I seen something, but I
didn't read it. I just scanned it. And what I understand the Clerk needs
is he needs exact information of what you want him to present. In other
words --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, are we losing -- are we gaining
-- are we earning money or are we losing money on our investments?
Page 252
'~"~---~-'-~"'~'~--'-'-"'~-- . '~-_._",,~-_.',,"'.-
January 13, 2009
investments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that what you want?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I want to know where we
stand and how much --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Want me to respond to it, the
board wants to know that -- are we gaining money or losing money?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the amount.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the amount. Well, let's see.
You're chairperson.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You want to work on it together?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I don't know ifI would be capable.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How can you work on it together?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, yeah. We can't do that together, can
we?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Write a letter?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sunshine Law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let the county manager prepare a
letter to outline -- to tell the clerk what it is to give a financial report.
MR. MUDD: You have a policy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do it in fairly simple terms.
MR. MUDD: You have an investment policy, and we can do it
along those lines and get at the information that you want?
Commissioner Halas, is there anything else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, wow. I'm getting ahead of
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
Page 253
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest with you. I think
we've probably vetted more today than we should have.
Thank you very much. It's wonderful having you for the chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the past year,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just two very concerning things. I
received a phone call at home recently from a constituent. Actually he
was quite embarrassed for a code violation. But he called me mainly to
commend the Board of County Commissioners for this employee. I
don't remember the name. You know, he's very kind and courteous.
Said, you know, just correct the violation. You can do it this way, this
way, and so many ways. It was just very helpful.
I spoke to Diane Flagg yesterday, last night, and she said, by a
new philosophy of compliance she has a 95 percent success rate. In
other words, she's working with our constituent and the response is 95
percent. And, of course, you're always going to have these ones that
just don't want to do that. But, wow. My hat's off for what Diane Flagg
is doing over there. It's absolutely wonderful.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's great.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the second thing,
Commissioners, is, of course, there's a couple things that federal
government is going to be doing. One is the -- expanding the
boundaries of the manatee protection areas, and that will be coming up
in the future. But one thing that has been going on for a couple years,
and I wasn't aware of it, is the small-tooth sawfish designating areas the
10,000 Islands and Everglades National Park.
So I've been -- I went to this meeting, and I've been asking for
information. And it's quite concerning. On the face of what they're
telling you, it shouldn't be a concern. But the information that I'm
Page 254
January 13, 2009
finding out, it should be a real concern, because part of their overall
plan is to petition the federal government and the state government to
have areas of no contact.
Now, the 10,000 Islands is Goodland, a little bit of Rookery Bay
and, of course, all of, you know, Everglades and south.
What is funny -- Mac Hatcher was at this meeting, too. They
would not -- there's a stenographer there taking public comments, but
they stated they will not answer any questions on the record. That is
quite concerning.
And I mentioned it to Mario Diaz-Balart's office, and they're
going to check in on that. They just find that absolutely absurd. County
manager's, too, and in his dealings with the Corps of Engineers in
public hearings.
I asked if the Board of Commissioners can enter into an
agreement with the agency, that we would support, we would educate
the residents and visitors in fishing in the 10,000 Islands and
Everglades National Park to help them in their endeavor. They said,
well, no. We've never entered into an agreement.
And my purpose was, is to do -- for them not to do what their
overall plan is, is to have what is called the no-contact area. That means
areas of no boating.
I emailed that information to my contact person in NOAA
fisheries, and she says, oh, no. We're just going to petition the federal
government to have areas of no boating. Well, that affects the 10,000 --
well, that affects Everglades City and south.
It's a huge area. She would not provide me the data. She extracted
the data and provided me a number of235 juvenile sawfish that they
have caught in this area in the Everglades National Park and the 10,000
Islands.
So the public comment period ends November -- no, I'm sorry,
January 20th.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 255
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is the day that the board
has a workshop, the TDC workshop. So I'm asking my colleagues to
support a resolution opposing the designation of this area in Collier
County as small-tooth sawfish habitat.
MR. MUDD: You're basically -- you're opposing the designation
of critical habitat under the endangered species list for this small-tooth
sawfish.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
MR. MUDD: And the area they're talking, the commissioner's
dead on. It's this area in black and it's this area that's in a gray area that
sits here. The black area is open -- as it says right here in the legend, it's
open water critical habitat, and the gray area is inland water critical
habitat, and it -- and it consumes a lot of the southern portion. If they
cordon it off, you're not going to go there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So that would be the end of boating, really,
in that area?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It doesn't mean the end of
boating by the designation. It's what their overall plan is going to be
later on is create an area where there's no boating. Of course, we don't
know what that is.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we've got a motion on the floor and a
second to send out -- what is it, a resolution?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Resolution. Now, I don't know if
we can just adopt a blank resolution.
MR. MUDD: You could -- no. You could adopt a resolution. And
the county attorney and Max (sic) Hatcher and Bill Lorenz can help us
draft it real quick so we can make the January 20th deadline that
basically Collier County is opposed to the designation of critical habitat
under the Endangered Species Act for this small-tooth sawfish, and
hopefully at that juncture you'll -- Commissioner, it's a pretty big fish.
When they're small, they're smaller, but --
Page 256
January 13,2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You should see the big-tooth
sawfish. Now, that's a big fish.
MR. MUDD: Okay. But we get the resolution -- if you approve
this, we'll get it for the chairman's signature so we can get it in. And it's
a resolution that's basically opposing this particular item. We really
don't have a lot of data. And the information came to us, it was very
sporadic at best, and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Probably by design.
MR. MUDD: -- the dots weren't connected, and they weren't
willing to negotiate, talk, or anything with the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Probably by design. You know, if you need
us to vote on anything, we'll be back together again on Friday, if you
want to put this thing together, or if we can just vote it right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understood the county --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I guess we're prepared.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: County manager said --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sit down, Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- we could vote on it now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can't leave.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman?
(Commissioner Coyle left the hearing room.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I go with you?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle -- Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I'm a little reluctant to vote on
something if I don't have additional data, and I'm concerned where --
what's going on here. So I wish I had more data to make a
determination, okay?
MR. MUDD: Well, Commissioners, I -- the problem is, they're
not giving you a lot of time in order to get there. And I will tell you, if
you don't disagree with what they want to do right now, then your lack
of communication with them is agreement with their plan, and they will
go with it in that particular regard. And I don't believe that's a good
Page 257
January 13, 2009
good thing for Collier County.
You need to -- you need to tell them that you don't agree with it,
then the dialogue will start. If you say nothing, it's as if you affirm of
their plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I don't know if you heard him. If you
say nothing, it's like you approve of their plan; whereas, if we submit
something, at least it begins a dialogue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I have a motion on the floor and a
second.
All those in favor, signifY by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle has left, so we have a
4-0.
Okay. Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll wind this thing up then. Sorry
that we've taken so long. Poor Terri. She's really a trooper; so is
everybody else sitting around here. I really appreciate that.
Thank you, Commissioners, all of you, for bestowing on me the
honor of being your chairman. I'll do my best to make --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chairwoman.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, chairman is good with me. I'll do my
best to do a good job for all of you this coming year. I thought maybe I
would address something that might help our meetings go faster. We
might experiment a little bit, and that is that when we have speakers --
or when we have any issue, whatever it is, especially one that's
Page 258
January 13,2009
contentious, we get out presentations from staff, and then if you have
any questions, fine. But I'd prefer to get right into our speakers, let
everybody speak, and then we move forward.
And as far as the dialogue goes, commentary, so forth, we can do
that once we have a motion on the floor, and we'll experiment. I got
that idea from -- actually I was picking Leo's brain, to be honest with
you. I hate to take idea -- you know, credit for an idea that isn't mine. I
was saying, what can I do to move this along, and so he offered that
one. And I thought we could experiment a little with that. So we'll try
that next meeting.
Also I've asked Sue Filson to see if she could come up with a little
bit of a different button method here so that I know who's next.
Something just simple if it could be where when you push a button and
it's green instead of something else. Yes?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I offer something? The
school system -- and I don't think it would be that involved -- has it set
up on their computers where it shows who chimed in when, even the
county manager, the county attorney. Just for the heck of it, you might
want to look into that. That's always been a little bit of a grievance for
me is, you know, you know that you pushed the button before
somebody else, and then you're standing there while they go up and
down the line because you can't be watching that every single minute
to see what light goes off.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And I look this way and you can't
see what's happening on the lights.
Well, Troy Miller is actually looking at something just like, as a
matter of fact, that exact one that you're talking about, I believe, that it
will be reflected on a computer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Chairman, I think that's a great idea.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, good. And with that, folks, the
meeting is adjourned.
MR. MUDD: No.
Page 259
January 13, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, sir?
MR. OCHS: Need a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, you need a motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I need a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They made me do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'll make a motion to adjourn and I
have --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- second from Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're adjourned.
*****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 2009-01: GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF
THE ROADWAY (PRIV ATE) AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF CHASE
PRESERVE FIRST REPLAT (LEL Y RESORT PUD) AND THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
PRIV ATEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A2
Page 260
January 13, 2009
JOB CREATION INVESTMENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WITH ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS, P.A. AND NAPLES
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC CONSISTENT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE JOB CREATION INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AND THE COMPANY'S APPROVED INCENTIVE
APPLICATION - WITH THE REMAINING INCENTIVE
PAYMENTS SCHEDULED FOR DISBURSEMENT IN FY 2010
Item #16A3
ADVANCED BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH ANCHOR HEALTH CENTERS,
P.A. AND NAPLES INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, CONSISTENT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ADVANCED BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM AND THE
ENTITY'S APPROVED INCENTIVE APPLICATION - WITH
THE REMAINING INCENTIVE PAYMENTS SCHEDULED FOR
DISBURSEMENT IN FY 2010
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK, PHASE 4
- W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A5
REVIEW THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S
(CCPC) DECEMBER 9, 2008 RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
EAST OF CR951 HORIZON STUDY INFRASTRUCTURE AND
SERVICES PHASE II REPORT, ALONG WITH THE HORIZON
Page 261
January 13, 2009
STUDY MASTER COMMITTEE AND STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS; AND ACCEPT THE HORIZON STUDY
COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED
FOR WITHIN THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16A6
RESOLUTION 2009-02: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF PRESERVE COMMONS (OLDE CYPRESS
PUD), ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL
BE PRIV A TEL Y MAINTAINED - W/RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF ESPERANZA PLACE,
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY -
W /STIPULA TIONS
Item #16B1
REDUCTION OF THE STUDY AREA OF THE WILSON
BOULEVARD EXTENSION/BENFIELD ROAD CORRIDOR
STUDY TO ALLOW FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION (FDEP) LOCATED WITHIN THE CURRENT
STUDY AREA FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING BONUS
CONVEYANCE CREDITS - ALLOWING THE OWNERS TO
CONTINUE FORWARD WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS
Page 262
January 13, 2009
Item #16B2
CURB-AND-GUTTER URBAN ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION
CONSTRUCTED ON SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD MEETS THE
COMMITMENT LISTED UNDER PARAGRAPH P, OF SUB-
SECTION 7.5 "TRANSPORTATION" OF THE WENTWORTH
ESTATES ORDINANCE NO. 2003-51, ADOPTED BY THE
BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2003 - WHICH HAS BEEN
CONSTRUCTED, PERMITTED, AND HAS BEEN IN
OPERATION FOR A YEAR AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS
TREVISO BAY
Item #16B3
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2003-37, AS AMENDED,
CLARIFYING THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THAT ORDINANCE
TO STATE THAT THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS AMENDED, DOES NOT APPLY TO
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ROAD PROJECTS WITHIN
ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, TO SEPARATE THE CONSTRUCTION
STANDARDS HANDBOOK INTO TWO SEPARATE
HANDBOOKS CONSISTING OF THE 2008 VERSION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK FOR WORK
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND A NEW 2008 COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE
AND IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS FOR BEAUTIFICATION
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY
HANDBOOK, AND TO AUTHORIZE FUTURE REVISIONS TO
EACH HANDBOOK TO BE MADE SEP ARATEL Y AND BY
RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
Page 263
January 13, 2009
SUMMARY
Item #16B4
EASEMENT INSTRUMENT WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE
STATE OF FLORIDA (THE STATE), FOR THE EXISTING
ROADWAY BRIDGE (NO. 034176) CROSSING THE
COCOHATCHEE RIVER ON VANDERBILT DRIVE (C.R. 901)
WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT -OF- WAY - ALLOWING THE
STATE TO RECONSTRUCT THE EXISTING ROADWAY
BRIDGE CROSSING THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER ON
V ANDERBIL T DRIVE
Item #16B5
CHANGE ORDER TO A WORK ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$65,000.00 TO POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH & JERNIGAN, INC.
(PBS&J) FOR CONTRACT #06-3987 PROFESSIONAL
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE FREEDOM PARK (PROJECT
NO. 51085) - CREATING AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING
PASSIVE EDUCATIONAL/RECREATION PARK FACILITY
THAT WILL NOT ONLY MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, BUT HELP CREATE NATURAL HABITAT WHERE
FLORA AND FAUNA CAN FLOURISH. THE AMENITIES WILL
INCLUDE WETLANDS~ BOARDW ALKS~ AND PAVILIONS
Item #16B6
AWARD OF CONTRACT #09-5127 TO URS CORPORATION
SOUTHERN FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND RELATED
Page 264
January 13, 2009
SERVICES FOR DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS - FOR THE
DESIGN, SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND FIBER OPTIC
COMMUNICATION PLANS FOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS IN
COLLIER COUNTY
Item #16C1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE $75,000 TO FUND
THE COMMISSIONING OF MASTER PUMP STATION 104;
PROJECT #73132; SANTA BARBARA SEWER FORCE MAIN -
TO TEST ALL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND CONTROL
SYSTEMS AND HYDRAULICALLY TEST THE CONNECTING
LINES ENSURING SAFE AND RELIABLE OPERATION FOR
THE MASTER PUMP STATION (MPS)
Item #16C2
WORK ORDER TO MITCHELL & STARK CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $290,650 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT TO
ACCOMMODATE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE
VANDERBILT DRIVE BRIDGE OVER THE COCOHATCHEE
RIVER, PROJECT #70045 - PROVIDING POTABLE WATER TO
CUSTOMERS IN THE NORTHWESTERN PART OF THE
WATER SERVICE AREA BY REPLACING A 12-INCH WATER
MAIN
Item #16C3
AWARD BID NO. 08-5137, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE
PURCHASING AND REPAIR OF PUMPS AND MOTORS TO
VARIOUS COMPANIES IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
Page 265
January 13, 2009
AMOUNT OF $350,000.00 - JOHN MADER ENTERPRISES INC.,
DBA: MADER ELECTRIC MOTORS, AS THE PRIMARY
VENDOR FOR 1 TO 100 HP PUMPS AND MOTORS:
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY, DBA: REXEL, AS THE
PRIMARY VENDOR FOR 100 HP AND UP PUMPS AND
MOTORS; AND BOB DEAN SUPPLY, INC. AS THE
SECONDARY VENDOR AND TAW ORLANDO SERVICE
CENTER INC. AS THE TERTIARY VENDOR
Item #16C4
REJECT RFP 08-5093 TO CLIFF BERRY INC. (CBI) - CLEANUP
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE; IN THE EVENT OF AN
EMERGENCY SOUTHERN WASTE SERVICES, INC. WILL
PROVIDE SERVICES UNDER FDEP CONTRACT #LE401
Item #16C5
CONVEYANCE OF THE REQUIRED UTILITY FACILITIES
LOCATED WITHIN THE SITE OF THE EMERGENCY
SERVICES CENTER AND SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY ON
LEL Y CULTURAL P ARKW A Y IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $78.50, PROJECT
#52160 & #54003 - PROVIDING WATER AND WASTEWATER
UTILITY SERVICE TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICES CENTER
AND THE SOUTH REGIONAL LIBRARY ON LEL Y
CUL TURAL P ARKW A Y
Item #16C6
AWARD BID NUMBER 08-5123 FOR PURCHASE OF HAULING
Page 266
January 13,2009
AND DISPOSAL OF LIME SLUDGE SERVICES TO PRO-LIME
CORPORATION IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $150,000
ANNUALL Y - FOR HAULING AND DISPOSAL OF LIME
SLUDGE
Item #16D1
THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
COLLIER MODEL AERONAUTIC CLUB, INC., FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF VACANT COUNTY-OWNED LAND AT
AN ANNUAL INCOME OF $10 - FOR PROPERTY ADJACENT
TO MANATEE ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS FOR
OPERATING A MODEL AIRPLANE FLYING CLUB
Item #16D2
AGREEMENT WITH PHYSICIAN LED ACCESS NETWORK
(PLAN) OF COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE A SHARED
INFORMA TION NETWORK FOR PLAN P ARTICIP ANTS IN
COLLIER COUNTY. SERVICES WILL BE PAID ON BEHALF
OF THE PLAN PROGRAM THROUGH A GRANT A WARDED
BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION - PROVIDING AN EFFICIENT METHOD
OF HEALTH CARE SERVICE FOR OUR UNINSURED
POPULATION
Item #16D3
LIEN AGREEMENT WITH KHALED MAHGOUB (OWNER)
FOR DEFERRAL OF 1000/0 OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT
FEES FOR AN OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Page 267
January 13, 2009
UNIT LOCATED AT THE WEST HALF OF LOT 147 AND ALL
OF LOT 148, GULF HARBOR, NORTH NAPLES - DEFERRING
$34~573.36 IN IMPACT FEES
Item # 16D4
AWARD BID #08-5109 IN THE AMOUNT OF $146,786.16 TO
HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION, INC., FOR THE
LANDSCAPE AND FENCE WORK AT PALM SPRINGS AND
RITA EATON PARKS AND TO APPROVE THE NECESSARY
BUDGET AMENDMENT
Item # 16D5
AMENDMENT TO THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY'S
(HABITAT) ACQUISITION/REHABILITATION/RESALE
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER
23, 2008 (ITEM 1 OK) FOR $1,104,000. THIS AMENDMENT
WILL ALLOW REIMBURSEMENT OF HABITAT'S EXPENSES
FOR ALL ELIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
AGREEMENT AND ALLOWS DIRECT PAYMENT TO BE
MADE TO CONTRACTORS AND VENDORS FOR GOODS AND
SERVICES PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THIS AGREEMENT-
FOR THE PURCHASE AND/OR REHABILITATION AND/OR
RESALE OF FORECLOSED HOMES
Item # 16D6
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
Page 268
January 13, 2009
REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL DEFERRALS IN FY09
Item #16D7
AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES MADE
FOR EVERYONE (H.O.M.E.) ACQUISITION/
REHABILITATION/RESALE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 23,2008 (ITEM 16D6) FOR
$427,472.42. THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALLOW
REIMBURSEMENT OF H.O.M.E.'S EXPENSES FOR ALL
ELIGIBLE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AGREEMENT
AND ALLOWS DIRECT PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO
CONTRACTORS AND VENDORS IN SUPPORT OF THIS
AGREEMENT
Item #16D8
AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A $150,000 STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) GRANT TO HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES MADE FOR EVERYONE, INC. (HOME) FOR
THE ACQUISITION AND/OR REHABILITATION OF AT LEAST
THREE (3) RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS TO BENEFIT
HOUSEHOLDS EARNING LESS THAN 120% OF THE AREA
MEDIAN INCOME
Item #16E1
RATIFY STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE ORDERS AND
CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-APPROVED
CONTRACTS - FROM NOVEMBER 21,2008 THROUGH
DECEMBER 12~ 2008
Page 269
January 13,2009
Item # 16E2
CHILLER MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO THE RESPECTIVE
MANUFACTURERS: TRANE, MCQUAY SERVICES, AND
CARRIER COMMERCIAL SERVICES, AS THE SOLE SOURCE
PROVIDERS FOR THE MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND
INSTALLATION OF ASSOCIATED PARTS, PROPRIETARY
SOFTWARE, AND OTHER AUXILIARY COMPONENTS OF
SUCH COUNTY-OWNED AND MAINTAINED CHILLERS
ESTIMATED ANNUALLY AT $100~000
Item #16E3
RECEIPT OF A CHECK FOR $501.25 FROM NATIONWIDE
RETIREMENT SOLUTIONS AND AUTHORIZE HR TO
INCLUDE THE $501.25 IN ITS BUDGET FOR FY 2009 - TO BE
USED TO OFFSET SOME OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR
THE RETIREMENT AND SAVINGS FAIR HELD ON
NOVEMBER 20~ 2008
Item #16E4
AWARD BID NO. 09-5143, "ELECTRICAL PARTS AND
SUPPLIES" TO GRA YBAR ELECTRIC, MAYER ELECTRICAL
SUPPLIES AND WORLD ELECTRIC SUPPLY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ELECTRICAL PARTS AND SUPPLIES FOR AN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $110,000
Item # 16E5
RELEASE AND TO ACCEPT PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$155.55 RESULTING FROM THE VOLUNTARY SETTLEMENT
Page 270
January 13, 2009
BETWEEN WILLIS GROUP HOLDINGS, INC. AND THE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Item #16E6
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH RICHARD F.
BERMAN FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $18,700 - LOCATED IN THE RED MAPLE
SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI PURPOSE PROJECT, UNIT 53
Item #16E7
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH CHARLES
DAVID HINZ FOR 2.27 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $36,800 - LOCATED IN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP
PRESERVE MULTI PURPOSE PROJECT, UNIT 53
Item #16E8
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH NELSON
CANALES AND Y ANEL YS CANALES FOR 5.0 ACRES UNDER
THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $80,300 - LOCATED
IN THE RED MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE MULTI PURPOSE
PROJECT, UNIT 53
Item #16E9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH KRYSTYNA
BALINSKI FOR 1.59 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
Page 271
January 13, 2009
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $26,750 - LOCATED IN THE WINCHESTER HEAD
MUL TI PARCEL PROJECT ~ UNIT 65
Item #16E10
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JOSEPH L.
PERRONE AS TRUSTEE OF THE YVONNE A. PERRONE AND
JOSEPH L. PERRONE REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 6,
2000 FOR 1.14 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $19,300 - LOCATED IN THE WINCHESTER HEAD
MULTI PARCEL PROJECT~ UNIT 65
Item #16E11
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH MICHAEL
ZELL FOR 5.0 ACRES UNDER THE CONSERVATION
COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $82,800 - LOCATED IN THE WINCHESTER HEAD
MULTI PARCEL PROJECT~ UNIT 62
Item #16E12
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH JUDITH
WALSH F/K/A JUDITH SORENSEN AND JANE DINDA F/K/A
JANE SORENSEN FOR 5 ACRES UNDER THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM,
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $13,100 - LOCATED WITHIN
SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST KNOWN
AS THE CAMP KEAIS STRAND
Page 272
January 13, 2009
Item #16E13
CONVEYANCE OF AN EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY (FPL) FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO PROVIDE ELECTRIC SERVICE
FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY FLEET FACILITY WHICH IS
LOCATED AT 2897 COUNTY BARN ROAD, AT A COST NOT
TO EXCEED $27.00, PROJECT #52009
Item # 16E 14 - Withdrawn
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FULL FUNDING OF THE
FLORIDA FOREVER SUCCESSOR PROGRAM WITHIN THE
2009-2010 STATE BUDGET - FOR ACQUISITIONS WITHIN
THE CORKSCREW REGIONAL ECOSYSTEM WATERSHED
PROJECT AND MCLL VANE MARSH PROJECT
Item #16F1
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO PAY FOR HEALTH
REINSURANCE FOR FY 2009 (BA #09-122)
Item #16F2
PROCEED WITH THE PREPARATION OF AN ORDINANCE(S);
ALL RELATED ENABLING DOCUMENTS AND THE
PREREQUISITE STATUTORY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
NECESSARY TO DISSOLVE UP TO TWENTY THREE (23)
INACTIVE TAXING AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE CURRENTLY
FOUND ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS AD VALOREM
PROPERTY TAX ROLL AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Page 273
January 13, 2009
Item # 16F3
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION
FOR THE U. S. SMOKELESS TOBACCO POLARIS RANGER
DONATION PROGRAM FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES - TO BE USED FOR SEARCH AND RESCUE,
EMERGENCY RESPONSE DURING PUBLIC EVENTS AND AS
A SUPPORT VEHICLE FOR REHAB DURING WILDFIRES AND
OTHER OCCURRENCES REQUIRING EMERGENT CARE
Item #16F4
GRANT AGREEMENT #08DS-51-09-21-01 BETWEEN COLLIER
COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ACCEPTING $103,500.00 FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS AND
APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE AND
APPROPRIATE THE GRANT FUNDS - TO BE USED TO
SUPPORT TRAINING, PLANNING AND EXERCISE THE
CAPABILITIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEIR COUNTY
PARTNERS
Item #16F5
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
ACCEPTING THE CITIZEN CORPS GRANT A WARD
TOTALING $7,000 AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
TO RECOGNIZE AND APPROPRIATE THE GRANT FUNDS -
ALLOWING THE COMMITTEE TO BETTER SUPPORT LOCAL
Page 274
January 13,2009
CERT TEAMS INVOLVE COMMUNITY MEMBER IN ALL-
HAZARDS, EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS, PLANNING,
MITIGATION~ RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY
Item #16F6
RESOLUTION 2009-03: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING GRANTS, DONATIONS,
CONTRIBUTIONS AND INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET
Item # 16F7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS
FROM RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND (001) TO THE
OTHER GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
BUDGET. THE APPROPRIATION WILL BE USED TO PAY FOR
ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT REPORTING CHARGES FOR
AN EMPLOYEE APPEAL ($20,368.80)
Item #16G1
CORRECT A CRA BOARD SCRIVENERS ERROR ON THE
JULY 25,2006, AGENDA ITEM 14B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FROM $10,147 TO $10,197 AND TO APPROVE THE RETURN
OF A PRO-RATA SHARE OF COLLECTED PRIVATE
DONATIONS TO THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE
HALLENDALE SUBDIVISION ROAD PAVING PROJECT
BASED ON THE CORRECTED AMOUNT OF $10,197.00
DISCOVERED BY THE CLERK'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Item #16H1
Page 275
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE EDC PRE-LEGISLATIVE LUNCHEON AT
THE NAPLES SAILING AND YACHT CLUB ON DECEMBER
10,2008. $40 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCA TED AT 896 RIVER POINT DRIVE,
NAPLES
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE FARM CITY BBQ IN IMMOKALEE ON
NOVEMBER 26, 2008. $20 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 212 JEROME DRIVE, IMMOKALEE
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE FOUNDATION AND FUTURE
BUILDERS OF AMERICA (FBOA) LUNCHEON ON AUGUST 9,
2008. $20 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT THE PACE CENTER, 160N.
1 ST STREET, IMMOKALEE
Item #16H4
Page 276
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE BIG CYPRESS SPORTSMEN'S ALLIANCE
ADDITION LANDS MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2008. $56.20
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT 400 1 SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD, NAPLES
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE GREATER NAPLES LEADERSHIP
LUNCHEON ON OCTOBER 29,2008. $25 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT 1100 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 201, NAPLES
Item #16H6
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE SENIOR PROVIDER WORKSHOP AND
BREAKFAST ON SEPTEMBER 19,2008. $4 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, TELFORD
AUDITORIUM, 350 7TH STREET NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H7
Page 277
January 13, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ADVERTISING WHICH SERVED A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ADVERTISED CONTACT INFORMATION AND MEETING
NOTIFICATIONS TO CONSTITUENTS IN THE EVERGLADES
CITY DIRECTORY AND MULLET RAPPER. $25 TO BE PAID
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H8
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
A TTENDED THE COLLIER CITIZEN OF THE YEAR BANQUET
ON NOVEMBER 21,2008. $35 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT NAPLES ELKS LODGE, 3950 RADIO ROAD, NAPLES
Item #16H9
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE NMSS HOLIDAY PARTY ON DECEMBER 11,
2008. $17.45 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT GLADES COUNTRY CLUB,
174 TERYL ROAD, NAPLES
Item #16H10 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
Page 278
January 13, 2009
REIMBURSEMENT TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT SERVES A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AS IT RELATES TO COLLIER
COUNTY BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S DUES
FOR THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR 2009.
$150.00 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H 11 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT SERVES A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AS IT RELATES TO COLLIER
COUNTY BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S DUES TO
LEADERSHIP COLLIER FOR 2009. $100.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item # 16H 12 - Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT SERVES A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AS IT RELATES TO COLLIER
COUNTY BUSINESS. COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S DUES TO
EAST NAPLES CIVIC ASSOCIATION FOR 2009. $60.00 TO BE
PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H13
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDED THE IMMOKALEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
SILENT AUCTION ON NOVEMBER 1, 2008. $50.00 TO BE PAID
Page 279
January 13, 2009
FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET -
LOCATED AT ROBERTS SENIOR CENTER, 905 ROBERTS
ROAD, IMMOKALEE
Item #16H14
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA
ATTENDING THE LEADERSHIP COLLIER RETREAT ON
JANUARY 23,2009. $100.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT NAPLES BEACH CLUB HOTEL, MANGROVE BALLROOM,
851 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH~ NAPLES
Item #16H15
COMMISSIONER HENNING'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER HENNING
WILL BE ATTENDING THE EDC PROJECT INNOVATION
EVENTS ON 1-15-09 2-19-09 3-19-09 4-16-09 AND 5-20-09 IN
, , ,
THE AMOUNT OF $200 TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
HENNING'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT NAPLES
BEACH CLUB HOTEL, 851 GULF SHORE BOULEVARD
NORTH, NAPLES
Item #16H16
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO
Page 280
January 13, 2009
ATTEND THE EDC PROJECT INNOVATION SERIES -
JANUARY 8, 2009; JANUARY 15,2009; FEBRUARY 19,2009;
MARCH 19,2009; APRIL 16, 2009; AND MAY 20, 2009. $200.00
TO BE PAID FROM COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL
BUDGET - LOCATED AT NAPLES BEACH CLUB HOTEL, 851
GULF SHORE BOULEVARD NORTH~ NAPLES
Item #16H17 - Continued to the January 27, 2009 BCC Meeting
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REQUEST FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR ATTENDING A FUNCTION SERVING
A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. COMMISSIONER COLETTA IS
ATTENDING THE 2009 EVERGLADES COALITION
CONFERENCE, JANUARY 8-11, 2009. $290.00 FOR
REGISTRATION FEE AND $597.00 FOR ACCOMMODATIONS
FOR A TOTAL OF $887.00 TO BE PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED
AT MIAMI HILTON, DOWNTOWN OVERTURE FOYER, 1601
BISCA YNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH
ACTION AS DIRECTED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 281
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 13, 2009
I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
I) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of November 10, 2008;
2) Collier County Citizens Corps:
Agenda of October 15, 2008.
Minutes of October 15, 2008.
3) Collier County Code Enforcement Board:
Minutes of October 31. 2008.
4) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of December 4, 2008 REVISED II; December 18, 2008.
Minutes of October 7, 2008 LDC; October 16,2008.
5) Development Services Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of November 5, 2008.
6) Emergency Medical Services Advisorv Council:
Minutes of October 17, 2008.
7) Enviromnental Advisory Council:
Minutes of November 5,2008.
8) Golden Gate Community Center Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of October 6, 2008/informal, no quorum;
November 3, 2008.
9) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of July 21, 2008; September 22, 2008.
Minutes of July 21, 2008; September 22, 2008.
10) Historical! Archaeological Preservation Board:
Minutes of October 29,2008.
II) Isles of Capri Fire Control District Advisorv Committee:
Agenda of November 13,2008.
Minutes of November 13,2008.
12) Land Acquisition Advisorv Committee:
Minutes of November 10. 2008.
13) Librarv Advisory Board:
Agenda of December 9, 2008.
Minutes of October 21, 2008.
14) Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee:
Minutes of November 17, 2008.
15) Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Agenda of December I, 2008.
16) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of November 10, 2008.
B. Other:
I) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate:
Minutes of November 7,2008; November 21,2008.
2) Collier County Public Safety Coordinating Council:
Minutes of September 18, 2008.
January 13, 2009
Item #16Jl
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 6, 2008
THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 13,2008
THROUGH DECEMBER 19,2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 20, 2008
THROUGH DECEMBER 26, 2008 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J4
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF DECEMBER 27, 2008
THROUGH JANUARY 2, 2009 AND FOR SUBMISSION INTO
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16Kl
RELEASE OF LIEN AS PART OF BOARD-APPROVED
SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF COLLIER COUNTY V
DONALD E. GRAY, CEB CASE NO. 2004-005
Item #16K2 - Moved to Item #12B
Page 282
January 13, 2009
Item #16K3 - Moved to Item #12C
Item #16K4 - Moved to Item #12D
Item #16K5 - Moved to Item #12E
Item #17 A
RESOLUTION 2009-04: V A-2008-AR-13568, ROBERT OSTER,
TRUSTEE, REPRESENTED BY CLAY BROOKER, ESQUIRE, IS
REQUESTING A 14-FOOT 1.25 INCH VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF FIFTEEN FEET AS
SPECIFIED IN THE NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD
(ORDINANCE NO. 81-61) TO ALLOW A REAR YARD
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 10.75 INCHES TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREEN ENCLOSURE OVER
AN EXISTING POOL AND PATIO. THE SUBJECT 0.32-ACRE
PARCEL IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT-
PULLING ROAD (CR 31) AND APPROXIMATELY MILE
SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR 896). MORE
SPECIFICALLY THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 540 BALD
EAGLE DRIVE, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (CTS)
Item #17B
RESOLUTION 2009-05: CU-2008-AR-13060, NAPLES BAPTIST
CHURCH, INC. REPRESENTED BY LAURA DEJOHN, AICP, OF
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL
USE IN THE MOBILE HOME OVERLAY WITHIN THE
AGRICUL TURAL ZONING DISTRICT (A-MHO) PURSUANT
TO 2.03.01.A.1.C.7 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
Page 283
January 13,2009
(LDC). THE 4.96 ACRE A-MHO ZONED SITE IS PROPOSED TO
PERMIT A CHURCH WITH A MAXIMUM OF 12,000 SQUARE
FEET OF FLOOR AREA. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS
LOCATED AT 2140 MOULDER DRIVE, SECTION 30,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA (CTS)
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2008-06: RESOLUTION APPROVING
AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING CARRY FORWARD,
TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET
Page 284
RECEIVED
JAN 3 0 2009
January 13,2009
t\udf(l ,}f Gounry Comrnissloner~
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting
was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:47 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL ~C1:DER ITS CONTROL
DONNA FI LA, ChaIrman
ATTEST ,
DWIGHTE.BROCK,.CLERK
II te CM:~I. .
, ...... 0/1'" c, .
These minutes approved by the Board on ~bYVa)rY Iq ~9 , as
presented ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 285