BCC Minutes 05/12/2009 R
May 12, 2009
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, May 12, 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:
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
Jim Coletta
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager
Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the 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)
AGENDA
May 12, 2009
9:00 AM
Donna Fiala, BCC Chairman Commissioner, District 1; CRAB Vice-Chairman
Fred W. Coyle, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, BCC Commissioner, District 5; CRAB Chairman
Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, BCC Commissioner, District 3
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL
RECEIVE UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
May 12, 2009
Page 1
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent and
summary agenda.)
B. April 14, 2009 - BCC/Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS: (EMPLOYEE AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS)
A. Advisory Committee Service Awards - 5 Years
1) Sergeant David Estes, Animal Services Advisory Board
2) William Thomas Kepp, Jr., Animal Services Advisory Board
3) Robert Vigliotti, Collier County Planning Commission
4) Murray H. Hendel, Tourist Development Council and Coastal
Advisory Committee
May 12, 2009
Page 2
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating May 25,2009 as National Missing Children's Day.
To be accepted by Amelia Vasquez, Program Manager, National Center for
Missing & Exploited Children/Collier County.
B. Proclamation designating May 17 through May 23,2009 as Emergency
Medical Services Week. To be accepted by Jeff Page, EMS Chief.
c. Proclamation designating May, 2009 as Older American's Month. To be
accepted by Leigh Shield, Executive Director of the Area Agency on Aging
for SW Florida.
D. Proclamation designating May, 2009 as Mental Health Awareness Month in
Collier County. To be accepted by Petra Jones, Executive Director, The
Mental Health Association of Southwest Florida and Brian Follweiler.
E. Proclamation designating May 16 through May 22, 2009 as Safe Boating
Week. To be accepted by Andy Evva, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary.
F. Proclamation designating May 15,2009 as National Bike to Work Day and
the month of May, 2009 as National Bike Month. To be accepted by Joe
Bonness, Collier MPO Pathway Advisory Committee Chairman; David
Buchheit, Collier County Community Traffic Safety Team Chairman; and
Nancy Frye, Collier County Community Traffic Safety Team
Secretary/Coordinator.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation by John Dunnuck, SFWMD, Everglades Restoration Staff
Department Director, on the Proposed A TV Park.
B. Recommendation to recognize Sam Frye, Administrative Assistant,
Information Technology, as Employee of the Month for April, 2009.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public petition request by Randy Johns to discuss off premise sign variance
at the Florida Sports Park.
May 12, 2009
Page 3
B. Public petition request by Dominick Amico, on behalf of St. John Neumann
High School, to discuss deviation from LDC requirements involving
perimeter walls, landscaping and sidewalks.
Item 7 and 8 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 D.m.. unless otherwise noted.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending 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 impact fee study entitled the Collier County Correctional
Facilities Impact Fee Update Study, dated April 21, 2009; amending
Schedule Four to reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact fee study
and providing for a delayed effective date of August 11,2009, in accordance
with the 90-day notice period required by Section 163.31801 (3)( d), Florida
Statutes.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Request that the Board of County Commissioners consider a request by the
Bureau of Emergency Services, Division of Forestry, Collier County Fire
Chiefs Association, and the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enact a
burning ban ordinance and direct staff to publish a Public Notice regarding
the burning ban ordinance to be heard at the May 26, 2009 Meeting. (Dan
Summers, Emergency Services Bureau)
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide staff
direction on whether to defer impact fees for a proposed 140 unit affordable
rental apartment development located in Immokalee, Florida. (Marcy
May 12, 2009
Page 4
Krumbine, Housing & Human Services Director)
C. Recommendation that the Board approve a policy for future landscape
expansion projects initiated by Developers, Municipal Service Taxing Unit
(MSTU), or Homeowner Association (HOA) for inclusion into the Collier
County Landscape Beautification Master Plan. (Michelle Arnold, A TM
Director)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
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 that the Board of County Commissioners (Board)
approve an Easement Use Agreement for the existing drainage
easement at 158 San Rafael Lane.
2) To accept final and unconditional conveyance of the water utility
facility for Waterside Shops.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners rescind
the award of Contract ITB #08-5075, Collection Agency Service for
Collier County to United Adjustment Corporation for failure to
comply with bid requirements.
May 12, 2009
Page 5
4) Recommendation to accept a proposed settlement agreement
providing for Release and Satisfaction of Lien in the Code
Enforcement Action entitled Collier County v. Haldeman Creek
Enterprise, LLC, CEB No. 2003-023, relating to property located at
2891 Bayview Drive, Collier County, Florida.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Recommendation to approve an Easement Agreement for a ten foot
(10) slope easement which is required for the Collier Boulevard
Project. Project No. 68056, Parcel No. 172 (Fiscal Impact: $2,335.00).
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of fee
simple interests necessary for the construction of the interchange
improvements and additional traffic lanes on Immokalee Road to
support the interchange at 1-75. (Capital Improvement Element Nos.
42.2 and 43.1, Project No. 60171). Estimated fiscal impact for right of
way acquisition: $250,000.
3) Recommendation to approve a Conveyance and Maintenance
Agreement providing for the conveyance of county land (Parcels
l32FEE and 1 32FEE2) and the maintenance of a noise attenuation
wall for the Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension Project. (Project No.
60091.) Estimated Fiscal Impact: $100.00.
4) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
a budget amendment to recognize revenue for the Countywide
Pathways Program, TIS Review, PUD Monitoring/Traffic Counts PIL,
and PUD Monitoring/Fair Share Projects within the Transportation
Supported Gas Tax Fund (313) in the amount of $234,959.77.
5) Recommendation to award RFP #08-5130 for Design and Related
Services to be provided by CME Associates, Inc., for the
Development of Accelerated Bridge Construction Standards and Pilot
Bridge Construction (White Boulevard Bridge and 23rd Street
Southwest), in the amount of $395,0 12, Project No. 66066.
6) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to
recognize FY 2008/2009 Federal Transit Administration Section No.
5311 additional revenue in the amount of $242,405.00 to Collier Area
May 12, 2009
Page 6
Transit Fund (426) and approve the necessary budget amendments.
7) Recommendation to execute a Joint Participation Agreement between
the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Collier County
for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Intermodal Transfer facility at the
Government Center, in an estimated amount of $1 ,300,000, allocated
over three fiscal cycles.
8) Recommendation to approve submitting a Section No. 319 Nonpoint
Source Management Program grant application to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in the amount of
$721,737 to construct the Griffin Road Stormwater Improvement
Proj ect.
9) Recommendation to approve a Resolution of the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners (BCC) authorizing the submission of
the Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund Trip/Equipment Grant
Application with the Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged, in the amount of$571,781. (CTD)
c. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Recommendation to approve Amendment A02 to the existing
Agreement No. ML070554 between Collier County and the South
Florida Water Management District for water quality monitoring work
that will modify the scope of work to include newly approved Florida
Department of Environmental Protection quality control criteria.
2) Recommendation to approve AshBritt Environmental, Inc. (Contract
#05-3661) and Solid Resources, Inc. (Contract #05-3831) as the initial
debris removal and monitoring contractors in operational readiness for
the upcoming 2009 Hurricane Season.
3) Recommendation to grant a Deed of Conservation Easement to the
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for the Manatee
Road 6 Million Gallon (MG) above ground water storage tank at a site
located at 1300 Manatee Road in Collier County, Florida and at a cost
not to exceed $61.00, Project No. 70157.
May 12,2009
Page 7
4) Recommendation to approve acquisition of a Utility Easement and a
Right of Entry required for the replacement and rehabilitation of the
water distribution system serving the West Wind Estates
Condominium at an estimated cost not to exceed $37.00, Project
Number 71010.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and authorize the Chairman to sign an Interlocal Agreement for the
Collier County Sherriffs Office (CCSO) to take Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) staff out to artificial reef sites to conduct
monitoring of artificial reef sites in exchange for one (1) permanent
vessel slip at Goodland Park.
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves,
and authorizes the Chairman to sign, four (4) Owner Occupied lien
agreements for deferral of 100% of Collier County impact fees for
owner-occupied affordable housing dwelling units located in Collier
County.
3) 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.
4) Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to approve
the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing Program (HPRP)
amendment to the 2008-09 HUD One Year Action Plan and authorize
the Chairman to sign the necessary certifications and documents for
submission to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by May 18,
2009.
5) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the conceptual plan for replacement of the Vanderbilt Beach
restrooms and authorize staff to proceed with design and permitting.
6) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the after-the-fact submittal of the attached Coastal and Marine Habitat
May 12, 2009
Page 8
Restoration, through the American Recovery And Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) grant application to the US Department of
CommercelNational Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
for marine debris removal on natural and artificial reefs, bridges and
passes throughout the County in the amount of $623,355.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners give after-
the- fact approval for the attached South Florida Coastal Ecosystem
Program grant application that was submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) for $534,900 (of which $258,700 will be
reimbursable) to fund invasive, exotic plant removal within the Pepper
Ranch Preserve S SA - 7.
2) Report and ratify Property, Casualty, Workers Compensation and
Subrogation Claims settled and/or closed by the Risk Management
Director pursuant to Resolution #2004-15 for the second quarter of
FY09.
3) Recommendation to terminate the existing Contract #08-5017 for the
Annual Contract for County Wide Exotic Vegetation Removal and
award ITB #09-5225 for the Annual Contract for County Wide Exotic
Vegetation Removal to the lowest responsive bidders by category, in
an annual estimated amount of $350,000.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides
after-the-fact approval for the attached Water Savings Incentive
Program (SIP) grant applications that were submitted to the South
Florida Water Management District for water conservation projects in
the amount of $450,342.
5) Recommendation to award Bid No. 09-5213, for the construction of
the Administration Building (Bldg. F) Security Lobby Addition,
Project No. 52525.1, in the amount of $453,042 to Boran Craig
Barber Engle Construction Company, Inc. (BCBE).
6) Report and Ratify Staff-Approved Change Orders and Changes to
Work Orders to Board-Approved Contracts.
May 12,2009
Page 9
7) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners awards
RFP #09-5126, Annual Contract for Purchasing, Leasing, Renting
and/or Cleaning All Collier County Uniforms, to various vendors in
the estimated annual amount of $350,000.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the submittal of a Federal Emergency Management Agency
Assistance to Firefighter's Grant in the amount of $223,000 for the
purchase of a Pumper Tanker for the Ochopee Fire Control District
and authorize on-line submittal of the application.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations or insurance proceeds) to the Fiscal
Year 2008-09 Adopted Budget.
3) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approves
and authorizes the Chairman to accept the Volunteer Fire Assistance
Grant awarded to Ochopee Fire Control District in the amount of
$11,716 for the purpose of refurbishing two 6X6 five ton vehicles.
4) Approve budget amendments.
5) Review the first quarter calendar year 2009 report on tourism
activities on behalf of Collier County by the Tourism Department and
the Naples, Marco Island, Everglades Convention & Visitor's Bureau.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Halas requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the dedication of the Kokomis Historic Keewaydin boat on
Friday, April 17,2009, at the Collier County Museum in Naples,
Florida. $15.00 to be paid from Commissioner Halas' travel budget.
May 12, 2009
Page 10
2) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended a Fiddler's Creek Luncheon on April 17, 2009 at the Club &
Spa at Fiddler's Creek in Naples, FL. $17.98 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
3) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Will attend the 7th Annual Paradise Coast Tourism Star Awards
Luncheon on May 13, 2009 at Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine
Bar in Naples, FL. $35.00 to be paid from Commissioner Fiala's travel
budget.
4) Commissioner Fiala requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a Valid Public Purpose.
Attended the Collier County Arts Forum Luncheon on April 24, 2009
at Hamilton Harbor in Naples, FL. $14.00 to be paid from
Commissioner Fiala's travel budget.
5) Commissioner Coletta requests Board approval for reimbursement
regarding attendance at a function serving a valid public purpose.
Attended the Economic Development Council (EDC) Project
Innovation luncheon meeting on Wednesday, April 15, 2009, at the
EDC Offices in Naples, Florida. $7.50 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 April
18, 2009 through April 24, 2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
2) To obtain Board approval for disbursements for the period of April
25,2009 through May 01,2009 and for submission into the official
records of the Board.
May 12, 2009
Page 11
w,',..---", '''''''"~''0"''''''_,'O'''<''''_~';''"~~~'"_''''''~__-<;_'''~_'"'',,_,,_..~.." '" ~ to". 'Ii( ',_"','",_i_,_'_"''''~'_'''_''".''''"''''''_''''~'''''''''''.'~''''''_,_,,,,._",,,,,.,,".,,__..^.,,~_,_~,,,_.~ 0''''''__''''_' '~'~''''-'''''''-'-'''''---''''''''"'-'''-'"''-'~'~---
3) Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners serve as the
Local Coordinating Unit of Government in the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement's Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) Program (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)
and designate the Sheriff as the official applicant, the Sheriffs office
staff as Grant Program and Financial Managers of Sheriffs Office
Applications, and execute the Certificate of Participation.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of$157,000 for Parcel 109 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. Regions Bank, et al., Case No. 07-3641-CA (Collier
Boulevard Project #60001). (Fiscal Impact $9,800.)
2) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners against
Gabriel Leyva, individually and as agent for Compass Auto Transport,
Inc. and Compass Auto Transport, Inc., in County Court, Small
Claims Division in and for Collier County, Florida to recover
damages in the amount of $3,058.84, plus costs of the action.
3) Request that the Board of County Commissioners directs the County
Attorney to advertise five ordinances for the sole purpose of
relocating the advisory board ordinances relating to the Planning
Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Building Board of
Adjustments and Appeals, the Environmental Advisory Council, and
the Historic/ Archaeologic Preservation Board, from the Collier
County Land Development Code to the Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances, and to waive the requirement, if any, to implement
this relocation through a Special LDC Cycle.
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
May 12, 2009
Page 12
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 ex parte disclosure be provided bv Commission
Members. Should a hearin2 be held on this item. all participants are
reQuired to be sworn in. Petition: SNR-2008-AR-14l15, (AC) GBP
Development L TD, represented by Michael Herrera, P.E. ofQ. Grady Minor
& Associates, P.A., is requesting a street name change from Chiasso Bend
Court to Vadala Bend Court. Subject property is located in Fiddler's Creek
Phase 4, Unit 2, Sections 11 and 14, Township 51 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
ordinance declaring a state of local economic emergency; tolling to May 12,
2011 the Planned Unit Development (PUD) time limits and time limit
extension requirements as found in Section 10.02.l3.D of the Collier County
Land Development Code (LDC).
C. This item continued to the June 23. 2009 BCC Meetin2. An Ordinance
amending the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, as
adopted by Ordinance Number 02-49, as amended, The Collier County Fire
Prevention and Protection Code, by amending Chapter 58, "Fire Prevention
and Protection," Article II, "Fire Safety Standards", by amending Section 58-
26, pertaining to adopted standards and codes of the National Fire Codes
published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFP A); Amending
Section 58-27, pertaining to amendments to adopted fire codes, specifically
NFP AI, 2006 edition; Amending Section 58-28, pertaining to amendments
to the adopted life safety code, specifically NFP A 101, 2006 edition;
Providing for the inclusion in the Code of Laws and Ordinances; Providing
for conflict and severability; and providing for an effective date.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
May 12, 2009
Page 13
, ."._,....".,__,~__u_,____~.,...."._,_~_,..____"'"'._.....,_____"";__,""'.',_""""'__"..>"",.......,..,'_.0.;'_'.._"'".___. r "" """,,,,,,_,,,,_,___,,,,__,"'_"'''''"'''"~''_'~~''~_.'''''.~'.'''_''''''~,,,,,,~-,,---,-",,",,-,,""-~"~-"-"'-'"'''-"-~'"^'''-''--.,_._,.,.._-~
May 12,2009
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, you have a hot mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Audience members, would you stand with me while we hear a
prayer, and then after that, I ask you to place your hands over your
hearts while our sheriff, or our previous sheriff, our former sheriff,
Don Hunter, leads us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Come on up, Don.
County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Okay. Heavenly Father, we come to you today as
a community thanking you for the blessings that you have so
generously provided. Today we are especially thankful for the
dedicated elected officials, staff, and members of the public who are
here to help lead this county as it makes the important decisions that
will shape our community's future.
We pray that you will guide and direct decisions made here today
so that your will for our county would always be done.
These things we pray in your holy name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Hunter, it is so good to see you here
today.
MR. HUNTER: Thank you. Good to see you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Welcome, welcome. I hope you're
staying for the whole day.
County Manager?
Item #2A
TODA Y'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA
AS AMENDED - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Page 2
May 12, 2009
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, agenda changes
for the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, May 12, 2009.
Item 4C, this proclamation to be accepted by Angela Fischer,
director of client services for the Area Agency of (sic) Aging for
Southwest Florida, and that correction's at staffs request.
The next item is to continue indefinitely Item 6A. It's a public
petition request by Randy Johns to discuss off-premise sign variation
at the Florida Sports Park. And again, that continuance is at the
petitioner's request.
The next item is 16B7. It's a resolution for this item was omitted
from the agenda packet. Copies of the resolution have been
distributed. Recommendation to execute a joint participation
agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation, FDOT,
and Collier County for the Collier Area Transit, CAT, intermodal
transit (sic) facility at the government center in an estimated amount
of $1,300,000 allocated over three fiscal cycles. That clarification and
the resolution is at staffs request.
The next item is 16B9. The total amount of the grant application
is $635,069 rather than $571,781 as listed on the agenda index for this
item. That clarification's at staffs request.
The next item is to move Item 16E5 to 10D. It's a
recommendation to award bid number 09-5213 for the construction of
the administration building, Building F, security lobby addition,
project number 52525.1 in the amount of $453,042 to Boran Craig
Barber Engle Construction Company, Inc. That item is being moved at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
The next item is a time-certain item, which is Item 8A to be
heard at 10:30 a.m. It's a recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending 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 impact fee study entitled, "The Collier County
Page 3
May 12, 2009
Correction Facilities Impact Fee Update Study" dated April 21, 2009;
amending Schedule 4 to reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact
fee study and providing for a delayed effective date of August 11,
2009, in accordance with the 90-day notice period required by Section
163.31801(3)(d) of the Florida Statutes. And that time-certain item is
at staffs request, and it has to do with the brevity of your agenda
today, and it's rather small scale, so I think Leo's been doing a pretty
good job.
The next item, Madam Chair, you had a concern about the
burning ban.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Okay. I will tell you today, we have the ordinance
and we have the resolution ready to go if that's what the board's
direction is, instead of waiting a week because of the severe drought
and dry period that we're in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me explain to the other
commissioners what my intent is. We have a burning ban on our
agenda here to bring back the ordinance at end of May. And I'm
thinking -- and I contacted the county manager and the assistant
county manager to say that I'm very concerned with waiting a couple
more weeks put it into effect when we're so dry right now. And by the
time we put this into effect, it's already going to be practically rainy
season. And I was going to ask board members if they wouldn't mind
if we had some type of an emergency ordinance to put in effect today.
I asked county manager, or rather I asked Leo Ochs if he would
contact Dan Summers, and then Dan would contact the Sheriffs
Office, just to make sure everybody felt that this was something that
they could do immediately.
And so, if you wouldn't mind, that's my -- that's my thrust today.
Would that be all right with everyone?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Got my vote.
Page 4
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sounds good to me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it legal?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I talked with Jeff Klatzkow, thank
you. I'm glad you mentioned that. Yes, I talked with Jeff Klatzkow,
and it was legal.
Okay, fine. Thank you. We will then discuss that so everybody
knows where to move on that agenda item, Jeff? Great.
Okay, thank you. That's it, sir?
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, ma'am, as far as changes are
concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much. Good to see your
smiling face here, Jim. We love seeing you every day when you come
into this office. I'd tell you how cute you are, but that's not a thing to
say on the record right now, right?
MR. MUDD: I'm having --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ladies can get away with things like that.
MR. MUDD: I'm having trouble with females in my life trying
to move their hands through my curly locks.
MR. DeLONY: I understand the problem, Jim.
MR. MUDD: Just a little bit of levity.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's fun to laugh, isn't it?
And Commissioners, I ask if you have anything to declare on the
consent or the summary agenda or if you have any changes or
corrections to the agenda items.
We'll start with you, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I
have no disclosures on the summary or consent agenda, and I have no
changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no ex parte communique
on today's agenda, and the summary agenda has taken care of my
concerns on consent.
Page 5
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMA.N FIALA: Great. Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have no disclosures for any item
on any portion of the agenda. That's a historic moment. And I have
no further changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Good morning, Chair. I,
myself, do not have any ex parte on either the consent or the summary
agenda, which is really a first since I've been a commissioner, and I
have no changes to today's agenda.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I'll follow it up by
telling everyone, I don't have any ex parte on the summary or the
consent agendas. and no changes to the regular agenda.
So with that, I will entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- we approve today's agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second. Okay, very good.
The motion was made by Commissioner Halas, second by
Commissioner Coyle.
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 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Mav 12. 2009
Item 4C: This proclamation to be accepted by Angela Fischer, Director of Client Services of the
Area Agency on Aging for SW Florida. (Staff's request.)
Continue Indefinitelv Item 6A: Public petition request by Randy Johns to discuss off premise
sign variance at the Florida Sports Park. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 16B7: Resolution for this item was omitted from the agenda packet. Copies of the
Resolution have been distributed. "Recommendation to execute a Joint Participation Agreement
between the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) and Collier County for the Collier Area
Transit (CAT) Intermodal Transfer facility at the Government Center, in an estimated amount of
$1,300,000, allocated over three fiscal cycles." (Staff's request.)
Item 16B9: The total amount of the grant application is $635,069, rather than $571,781 as listed on
the agenda index for this item. (Staff's request.)
Move 16E5 to 100: Recommendation to award Bid No. 09-5213, for the construction of the
Administration Building (Bldg. F) Security Lobby Addition, Project 52525.1, in the amount of
$453,042 to Boran Craig Barber Engle Construction Company, Inc. (Commissioner Coyle's
request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8A to be heard at 10:30 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
adopt an Ordinance amending 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 impact fee study entitled The Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee
Update Study, dated April 21, 2009; amending Schedule Four to reflect the revised rates set forth
in the impact fee study and providing for a delayed effective date of August 11, 2009, in
accordance with the 90-day notice period required by Section 163.31801 (3)(d), Florida Statutes.
(Staff's request.)
5/12/2009 8:39 AM
May 12, 2009
Item #2B
MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 14, 2009 - BCC/REGULAR
MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve the April 14, 2009, BCC regular meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And a second?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, very good.
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: Thank you.
We move on to the service awards.
Item #3A
ADVISORY COMMITTEE SERVICE AWARDS - 5 YEAR
RECIPIENTS - PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we have -- we have four that are
listed on our agenda and three that are on the change sheet. But let's
start out with advisory committee service awards for five years.
The first goes to Sergeant David Estes for five years on the
Animal Services Advisory Board.
Page 7
May 12, 2009
Sergeant Estes, if you could come forward, please.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He's out chasing dogs.
MR. MUDD: Okay. The next five-year awardee is -- goes to
Robert Vigliotti for five years on the Collier County Planning
Commission.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all your service, Bob. We
really appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good morning. Thank you for
your service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Have to record this historic moment.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is Murray H. Hendel for five
years on the Tourist Development Council and the Coastal Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Hendel?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good morning, Murray.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Hi, Murray. Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Here's a pin for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your time.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 25, 2009 AS
NATIONAL MISSING CHILDREN'S DAY. ACCEPTED BY
AMELIA VASQUEZ, PROGRAM MANAGER, NATIONAL
Page 8
May 12,2009
CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN/COLLIER
COUNTY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to proclamations.
Our first proclamation today is 4A. It's a proclamation designating
May 25, 2009, as National Missing Children's Day. To be accepted
by Amelia Vasquez, the Project Manager for the National Center of
Missing and Exploited Children of Collier County.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don, come on up.
MR. HUNTER: I'm just here as a prop.
(Applause.)
MS. VASQUEZ: May I address? I want to thank commissioners
for your ongoing support, County Manager Jim Mudd.
And today I'm here with Sheriff Don Hunter and Sergeant Becker
from Collier County Sheriff's Office.
Today is -- May 25th is very important to us as it commemorates
National Missing Children's Day, and we wanted to make it clear that
we do have missing kids in Collier County, and this is for those
children that are currently missing.
As of today, we have 12 missing children in Collier County.
This is for them. This is a -- we want to make May 25th a national
priority to commemorate those that are still missing. We want to keep
the hope alive for those kids that are missing.
I want to really quickly read the names of those children. Our
biggest mystery is Wendy Hudakoc that went missing in 1998. We
also have Florinda Lopez that went missing in 200 1. We have Neil
Edelman (phonetic) that went missing in 2003. We have Marinzel
Arreaga, missing in 2007.
Then we have Wendy Bariston, missing in 2008, November. We
-- in addition we have Nada Gonzalez Rodriguez missing in 2009 in
February of this year. We, in addition, have his brother, Adrian
Page 9
May 12, 2009
Gonzalez. We have Jamie Batista, missing in 2008. Carmen Batista in
2008. And, of course, everyone has heard, Adji Desir, missing in
January of2009 of this year.
In addition, we have Daniel Garcia, and we have Anna Maria
Jimenez missing in June, 2008.
We want to keep the hope alive and want to make sure that we
tell these parents that we will continue fighting and keep -- bring them
home someday, and that is the hope.
And for all the 800,000 children missing every year, 2,000 a day,
there's still those children out there and the promises that we will bring
them home.
And I want to encourage you all to join us on May 25th. We're
going to be at Dillard, Coastland Center Mall. Also in addition with
the Sheriffs Office, Naples Police Department, and other child
advocates, and together we're going to make child priority issues a
national priority. Join us, and it's from 11 to three.
Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 17 THROUGH MAY
23, 2009 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK.
ACCEPTED BY DAN SUMMERS, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: The next proclamation, Madam Chair, is Item 4B.
It's a proclamation designating May 17th through May 23,2009, as
Emergency Medical Services Week. To be accepted by Dan Summers
or Chief Jeff Page. Dan is the Director of your Emergency Services
Bureau.
(Applause.)
Page 10
May 12,2009
MR. OCHS: Take the proclamation.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioners, thank you. Good morning.
Dan Summers, director of the Bureau of Emergency Services.
Thank you for taking an opportunity to recognize the fine men
and women in emergency medical services in Collier County and to
help us recognize their work that takes place every day and recognize
this effort that's -- gets national attention.
I think it's important that you understand that we share this
proclamation in Emergency Medical Services Week humbly with the
911/Sheriffs Office telecommunicators, our first responders that assist
us in the fire service and law enforcement as we respond to critical
emergency medical care.
Bystander-assisted CPR. We have thousands of people in Collier
County trained in cardiac arrest resuscitation, the program that you've
instituted helping us with the automatic external defibrillators in
Collier County; our aeromedical trauma team that provides that
lifesaving critical care transport to regional trauma centers to the men
and women in Collier County Collier EMS who essentially operate a
mobile emergency room, what I refer to as a mobile intensive care unit
on wheels, and that's what they do, providing stability, comfort, and
reassurance to a patient being transported to the emergency room; and
the emergency room doctors and nurses that are also part of that team,
we humbly share this.
And I might add a bit of last-minute fast-breaking news. I'm very
honored to report to you today that Dr. Robert Tober has been
awarded the State of Florida EMS Director of the Year, and more
information will be forthcoming on that.
So thank you for your continued support and thank you to the
men and women all across this county that make up one of the most
advanced pre-hospital care programs in the country.
Page 11
May 12, 2009
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY, 2009 AS OLDER
AMERICAN'S MONTH. ACCEPTED BY ANGELA FISCHER,
DIRECTOR OF CLIENT SERVICES OF THE AREA AGENCY
ON AGING FOR SW FLORIDA - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, your next proclamation is 4C. It is
a -- it is a proclamation to be accepted by Angela Fischer, the Project
Director of Client Services of the Area Agency on Aging for
Southwest Florida.
Ms. Fischer, if you could come forward, please.
(Applause.)
MS. FISCHER: Good morning. It is my great honor and pride
to accept this proclamation on behalf of older Americans.
This month provides an ideal opportunity to pay tribute to older
Americans, to reflect on all the contributions they have made and
continue to make to our community.
May 29th has been designated as Older Americans Month and is
celebrated nationally, and the theme this year is, "Living today for a
better tomorrow." This theme reflects the administration on aging's
continued focus on prevention programs, of how older adults have
better health as they age, and to avoid risk of chronic disease and
disability.
Older Americans are a valuable member of our society who are
rich with experience and deserving of respect.
Collier County Housing and Human Services has served as the
lead agency for more than 30 years and provides in-home services for
more than 200 frail and elderly to assist them to remain in their home
Page 12
May 12, 2009
for as long as possible.
Collier County Housing and Human Services feeds 155
home-bound elderly with home-delivered meals and 125 more active
seniors in the nutrition services programs in Immokalee, East Naples,
and the newest cite of Golden Gate Community Center.
And these numbers reflect a 50 percent increase in clients served
through the dedication and hard work of Heidi Finestock (phonetic),
nutrition program leader, and other staff, and the Collier County
Housing and Human Services partners and home care agencies, civic
groups, community associations, and other county departments to
identify needs and secure resources for older residents.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express appreciation
to the Collier County Commissioners, Collier County Housing and
Human Services, and the Leadership Council and all of the other
agencies and groups that are part of the aging network who work with
and support older adults on a daily basis.
Thank you, again, on behalf of the older Americans. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY, 2009 AS MENTAL
HEAL TH AWARENESS MONTH IN COLLIER COUNTY.
ACCEPTED BY PETRA JONES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE
MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
AND BRIAN FOLL WEILER - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, that brings us to proclamation 4D,
which is a proclamation designating May, 2009, as Mental Health
Awareness Month in Collier County to be accepted by Petra Jones,
Executive Director, the Mental Health Association of Southwest
Florida, and Brian Follweiler.
Page 13
May 12, 2009
(Applause.)
MS. JONES: I would like to thank you for your continued
support and also remind everyone that mental health is just as
important as physical health. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4 E
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 16 THROUGH MAY
22,2009 AS SAFE BOATING WEEK. ACCEPTED BY ANDY
EVV A~ U.S. COAST GUARD AUXILIARY - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, your next proclamation is 4E. It's
designating May 16th through May 22, 2009 as Safe Boating Week, to
be accepted by Andy Evva, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Mr.
Evva, or should I say Captain Evva?
(Applause.)
CAPTAIN EVV A: Chairwoman, may I briefly address the
county commission? But I would like to do it from here. County
Commissioner, Jim Mudd--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Manager.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You have to do it by microphone though
so we have it on the record. You can each take a separate one if you
want.
MR. MUDD: Hey, Andy.
CAPTAIN EVV A: Colonel Mudd, perhaps both government and
military protocol limit the expression of personal gratitude during an
event such as this; however, Coast Guard Auxiliary District 7
command and guide -- and guidelines regarding the exchange of the
salute between current and former military personnel allow us to
express our gratitude for your 26 years of dedicated military service to
our country and nine years of professional management of the
Page 14
May 12, 2009
business of our Collier County community and to now render our
salute.
(Applause.)
MR. SKAGGS: I just want to do a brief word about what
National Boating Safety Week's all about. It is a national event, not
only three flotillas in Collier County, but our squadron shared a
marine division of the Sheriffs Office, Fish and Wildlife, we're all
involved in this.
And if we want -- one thing we want to tell everybody is wear
your life jackets. That saves, statistically, an awful lot of lives. So
everybody enjoy the water, have fun, but be safe.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my boat's been very safe.
It's been in the backyard for months.
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 15, 2009 AS
NATIONAL BIKE TO WORK DAY AND THE MONTH OF MAY,
2009 AS NATIONAL BIKE MONTH. ACCEPTED BY JOE
BONNESS, COLLIERMPO PATHWAY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN; DAVID BUCHHEIT, COLLIER
COUNTY COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY TEAM
CHAIRMAN; AND NANCY FRYE, COLLIER COUNTY
COMMUNITY TRAFFIC SAFETY TEAM
SECRETARY/COORDINATOR - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, Commissioners, our last
proclamation is designating May 15,2009, as National Bike to Work
Day, and the month of May, 2009, as National Bike Month to be
accepted by Joe Bonness, the Collier MPO Pathways Advisory
Committee chairman; David Buchheit, the Collier County Community
Page 15
May 12, 2009
Safety Team chairman; and Nancy Frye, the Collier County
Community Traffic Safety Team secretary and coordinator.
(Applause.)
MR. BONNESS: I'd very much like to thank you for the
proclamation in support of the Bike to Work Week. It's of great
benefit for all of Collier County to get more people out there, being
able to lead a healthy lifestyle and to be able to relieve traffic
congestion by biking. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Madam Chair, at this time I'd like
to make a motion that we approve all the proclamations that were read
today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have 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.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And we move on to presentations.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY JOHN DUNNUCK, SFWMD,
EVERGLADES RESTORATION STAFF DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR, ON THE PROPOSED ATV PARK - MOTION FOR
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK WITH
AL TERNA TIVES AND COST ANALYSIS - APPROVED
Page 16
May 12, 2009
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. The first presentation is by John
Dunnuck of the South Florida Water Management District, Everglades
Restoration staff department director, on a proposed A TV park.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're losing our audience.
MR. MUDD: Well, they must have heard Mr. Dunnuck speak
before.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I can't understand why they don't want to
stay here for this scintillating meeting.
Okay, John.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, Program Manager for Everglades Restoration
with the South Florida Water Management District.
I was called here today to kind of give an update of where we are
with the A TV issue stemming back to the 2007 agreement, and I have
basically a five-slide presentation, and I can walk you through, from a
District perspective, of where we are, status, and I believe it will
probably open up the interaction of the proposed park that's over in
Miami-Dade County and the District's involvement in that park to
date.
Presently right now under the 2007 agreement the Lake Trafford
site is still the permanent designated location for the A TV site. Under
that 2007 agreement, the District agrees, due to park design, to ensure
the site would be safe for A TV riding. We also committed to provided
an interim location of 150 acres, and we -- the District committed to
provide funding for a boat ramp.
The Lake Trafford -- some of the good news is, the Lake
Trafford dredging, we're remobilized, and we anticipate completion in
early 2011. I believe in the last couple years one of the hold-ups of
that future park site has been the fact that, due to the drought we had
two years -- the last two years, we couldn't get in there and finish the
littoral zone cleaning of the lake, and so we had to delay the final
Page 1 7
May 12, 2009
dredging of the project.
Well, we have subsequently been able to remobilize that, and we
have started the construction of that again, and they should be moving
the dirt out of the lake in the pipes very soon again.
In the interim, we've provided $550,000 for the purchase of a
boat ramp facility down in Port of the Isles. That was one of the
commitments we made and we followed through near the latter part of
this past year. And the District has also requested Department of
Interior authorization to utilize 200 acres at the C-43 reservoir test cell
location in Henry County as an interim A TV site.
To give you a little perspective from the last time we met, we met
with Commissioner Coletta and a commissioner from Hendry County
in utilizing what will be our future reservoir, which is, from a time
standpoint, we put on hold due to funding constraints, but we have a
test cell location in there where we'd already done and impacted the
land, so we've gone forward and we've asked the Department of
Interior to do what's called a land-use change so that we can open up
that site for an interim A TV site.
We've been meeting with Brian McMahon and some of the other
riders who I think were very pleased with the location of that site, and
we think it's got a lot of possibility with it.
We're a little disappointed, frankly, that we haven't gotten a
response yet from the Department of Interior, and we've set up a
conference call that we're trying to get ahold of later this week.
They've never dealt -- it's -- we're actually not dealing with the Vero
Beach office. We're dealing with the Atlanta office, and they've never
dealt with an interim land-use change to an ATV park before, so they
have a few concerns even though we've done all the environment
assessments and so forth to show that we don't see any impact there.
From an opportunity standpoint, we recognize that Lake Trafford
is several years out, so when opportunities have come up, we have --
we've pursued them. We've looked at them.
Page 18
May 12, 2009
We reviewed a site right over the Collier County border in
Hendry County of 640 acres. It was valued at about $2.9 million;
however, they subsequently pulled it off the market, and we're
continuing to lease it for mining operations.
The district participated in meetings with Miami-Dade County
regarding a jetport facility, which I believe will probably be the bulk
of this conversation today, and I believe you have in your backup the
letter we sent to Miami-Dade with the District's, you know, position
with respect to that park site.
While I do think their consultant did a terrific job of putting the
package together, and I think from a standpoint of making every
argument you possibly can that that would be a great facility for an
A TV park, we do believe that there is going to be a lot of controversy
once it goes through the permitting process.
And additionally, we are reviewing other opportunities. We've
kind of expanded our horizon. One of the things I'm hoping to get
from the Collier County Commission today is acknowledgment that
Collier County may not be the only location we need to look at if we
want to accelerate a future site, and so we have been looking at other
sites in Hendry County.
And we really haven't talked to the commission as a whole
whether you'd be willing to acknowledge that or not, but we have been
looking, and we've been talking to the A TV riders about the
possibility of that. We do believe in this market there's opportunities
and we're pursuing everything that becomes available on the
marketplace that we have some potential with.
And at that point I wanted to open it up for discussion because I
believe there's going to be a lot regarding the District's position.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Suggestion, if I may. I think we
got one or more speakers. Could we hear the speakers first and then
go to discussion, as a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we usually have speakers on these?
Page 19
May 12, 2009
MS. FILSON: That's up to you. I do have one speaker
registered.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: One speaker. Well, we'll do that, okay.
MS. FILSON: Rick Varela.
MR. VARELA: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you for
the opportunity to come up here and voice our opinion on this matter.
In 2006 I petitioned the county commissions -- Commissioners,
excuse me, to have this be brought up in front of you. At the time the
assistant county attorney had agreed to give South Florida Water
Management an extension of three years. You guys turned that down
saying that that \vas not permiss- -- was not acceptable in your
opinion.
Well, we're almost up to that three-year deadline and nothing has
happened. And since then my girls have gotten older and three years
have gone -- two-and-a-halfyears have gone by that will never be
replaced.
South Florida Water Management currently owns 300,000 acres
of public land. To me it is inconceivable that they cannot find 640
acres out of those 300,000 that they currently own.
I still believe, and it's our opinion, meaning the ATV -- various
A TV clubs that I represent -- that you guys should cancel that contract
with South Florida Water Management and take back the roads in the
Picayune and allow us to run at least some of those roads in there.
It's just inconceivable that out of 300,000 acres you cannot find
640 acres. We always come back to the same thing, things like
panther habitat or environmentally sensitive land.
I have telemetry data from the parks service showing all the
panther telemetry in Ave Maria. South Florida Water Management
approved a permit to build in Ave Maria, but you can't ride an A TV
anywhere close to there.
It is our opinion that the county needs to rescind on that contract
between yourselves and South Florida Water Management, take back
Page 20
May 12, 2009
the roads, and once South Florida Water Management makes good on
its contractual obligations, then give the roads back.
And thank you again for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mr. Klatzkow, if I may
direct questions to you, sir. When was this contract supposed to be
fulfilled where we were supposed to have the 640 acres up and
running?
MR. KLATZKOW: We're past that. We're past that by a couple
of years now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we've had this discussion
before us numerous times. At this point in time, the reason why, Mr.
Dunnuck, we invited you here today, or at least I initiated the process
that brought you here today, was our concern over our one possibility
out there. And I'll be honest with you, I truly believe in my heart that
the Immokalee site is nothing more than a ruse. It's just a -- it's an
ongoing thing to try to let the clock run out. Everybody loses interest
and goes home.
And when the day comes that they get to that Immokalee site it's
going to be impossible to mitigate it because of the arsenic that's there.
It's going to be an issue of, well, no matter what we do as far as laying
down the trails, people will go off the trails, they'll still have arsenic,
the liability's too great, so we're not going to be able to do it.
I really think that if -- the people that are in the know at Water
Management know this in their heart that that's never going to happen
there. There's too many factors out there that have been leading us
down this road where we're going noplace.
Now, we've finally got something going, and we've had meetings
with everyone from the state to the federal government regarding the
site out in the Everglades, the jetport. Everything's going great for it.
Everything looks like it's going to fall together. There's only one
element that's missing from this equation, and that's a simple little
Page 21
May 12, 2009
element, it's called money, money that this commission should not be
responsible to come up with to be able to do the initial studies.
If you take 640 acres, which is probably worth maybe $30
million, and if you figured the interest on it since 2005, that wouldn't
even come close to covering the costs that we need. I mean, that
would way exceed the money that's needed to be able to cover the cost
to be able to get the site at the jetport up and running.
Meanwhile, we're going to go back and forth, and Water
Management has falled (sic) back on their contractual obligations.
And I would say to you, sir, that I suggest this commission consider
seriously getting down to involving the county attorney and taking
you to court and suing you for the value of 640 acres. Then when we
have the money, we (sic) can be determined where we can buy this
recreational land for the people that have that pursuit in. And, you
know, I don't know where else to go with it.
Mr. Klatzkow, could you please comment on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I'd be happy to come back to the
board with an executive summary laying out the various options for
the board to consider so we can have a broad conversation on that.
They're clearly in breach of the contract. They've been in breach
of the contract close to four years now. It's a political decision what
you want to do. I'd be happy to come back with alternatives.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that would be the
direction I would like to see is what options do we have as far as what
we should pursue, and then have -- be able to take out of that a choice
of two or three items to be able to go forward at that point in time.
But we're going noplace with this now. It's been a continuous
round-robin. Keeps coming back all the time, and we're always in the
pursuit, this is happening, that's happening, we got this lined up, we
got that lined up, nothing ever happened, nothing, in all these years.
So let's take that contractual obligation, take a good look at it,
and maybe go for the money.
Page 22
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I guess I heard so far that
a site out of Collier County is not an option. Didn't -- did we go into
litigation with the District on that agreement or -- in the past?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. We've never commenced litigation on
this agreement. We've had discussions with them and we've had
subsequent agreements with them that, well, haven't been followed.
I don't know what to tell you. It's -- they promised you 640 acres
in Collier County. And from what I'm hearing, you're not going to get
it. So it's up to the board what you want to do about it at this point in
time. They're suggesting Hendry County. That mayor may not be
acceptable.
Commissioner Coletta's, his point is, maybe we should just take
the money and buy it ourselves. That may not be acceptable to the
board. I can give you a number of alternatives.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And John, you made the
statement that the jetport would be a permitting nightmare; is that
what you said?
MR. DUNNUCK: I didn't say nightmare. I said challenge.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Challenge from state
government or federal government, local government?
MR. DUNNUCK: I believe until they actually see the permit
application, they're going to withhold judgment, but I do believe
there's signs out there that there's going to be concerns with permitting
that site. And our concern has been, if we invest money into the
environmental assessment of a site, it could be very costly, and at the
end of the day you could get an answer of no, and we think that would
be irresponsible to the taxpayers' dollar, and that's what we're
concerned about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So your concern is about the
Corps permitting?
MR. DUNNUCK: We're concerned about all steps of the
Page 23
May 12, 2009
permitting from the growth management side all the way throughout.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So Commissioner Coletta, is your
suggestion that we ask Jeff Klatzkow, our county attorney, to put
something together and bring this all back to us for an open discussion
at a future meeting?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's exactly -- in fact, I'll put
it in the form of a motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- so there's no
misunderstanding of our intent.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion as long
as we can get a cost analysis, fiscal impacts.
MR. KLATZKOW: And if the county manager could work with
me on that, we could --
MR. OCHS: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: -- put together something fairly
comprehensive.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor, a second.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. If -- I hope we take in
consideration that if we're going to look at South Florida Water
Management in saying that we'll take the value in money that we also
look at what it's going to take to permit a park of this nature.
So obviously we're going to have to jump through hoops if we
take this on ourselves. So this could be quite an amount of money in
regards to permitting and getting this thing going, not only just buying
the land.
So I think that's part of the equation when we start looking at
what we're going to go after, South Florida Water Management, in
regards to the money.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, did you also want
Page 24
May 12, 2009
them to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree. I would assume that
we're looking at all costs on this because we were promised 640 acres
ready to go, not just 640 acres turned over to us for the permit and
everything.
Commissioner Halas brings up a very good point. There's more
than 640 acres. Just value of that, plus what it would cost to be able to
do the environmental studies, permitting, whatever, the setup of the
park. That should all be taken into consideration on that.
Of course, Mr. Klatzkow will review the contractual agreements
that we made and hold them to it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner, did you also want
them to study, as the suggestion from the speaker, to just take back the
property that we already --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be an option to look
at. I don't know what the possibilities of that might be, but that would
certainly be an option.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'll put that in my executive summary as a
possibility, though it will be lower on the list, I think.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any more discussion on this
subj ect?
(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.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you for your time.
Page 25
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZING SAM FRYE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE
MONTH FOR APRIL~ 2009 - PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, our next item is item 5B. It's a
recommendation to recognize Sam Frye, Administrative Assistant,
Information Technology, as Employee of the Month for April, 2009.
Mr. Frye, come forward, please.
(Applause. )
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, if I may read--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MR. OCHS: Stand over there, Sam. We want to embarrass you
a few more minutes.
Commissioners, Sam Frye has been an employee of the county
for over ten years and has worked in the information technology
department since 2000. Sam's administrative abilities have always
been an asset to the information technology department and their
complex and diverse operations.
She's a team player who completes tasks efficiently and provides
extraordinary customer service. She is a team player. She's
professional and courteous and the development receives frequent
compliments from vendors and customers about her work.
Sam can always be counted on to provide assistance to her
coworkers and is proactive in seeking solutions when difficulties arise.
In 2008, the true value of her skills was highlighted when she
was called upon to take on additional duties due to staffing shortfalls.
With one vacant position and one employee on leave, Sam stepped in
and took over all of the department's purchasing, fiscal, and
Page 26
May 12, 2009
administrative duties without assistance from a temporary employee.
In these difficult economic times, Sam's commitments to take on
additional tasks without temporary assistance resulted in a significant
cost savings and served as an additional example of her outstanding
value to Collier County. She is truly deserving of this award.
Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to present to you
our Employee of the Month for April, 2009, Ms. Sam Frye.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sam, we have a little something for you,
just a little letter from me, and a little check, which will help just a
little bit.
Thank you for all you do for us, Sam.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Sam.
Commissioners, that takes us to Item 6 on your agenda, public
petitions. 6A was continued indefinitely.
Item #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY DOMINICK AMICO, ON BEHALF OF
ST. JOHN NEUMANN HIGH SCHOOL, DISCUSSING
DEVIATION FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS INVOLVING
PERIMETER WALLS, LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS -
DISCUSSED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 6B, public petition request by
Dominic Amico on behalf of St. John Neumann High School to
discuss deviation from Land Development Code requirements
involving perimeter walls, landscaping, and sidewalks.
MR. AMICO: Good morning. For the record, Dominic Amico
with Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage on behalf of St. John Neumann
High School and the Diocese of Venice.
We're here today, we'd like to thank you for taking our request
Page 27
May 12, 2009
under consideration. I will try not to spend too much of your time.
I have several members of the diocese with me and the school,
including the chancellor, the director of construction, the principal of
the school, and several parents. If you have any questions of them, I'll
be more than glad to bring them up and have you answer them (sic).
We're currently preparing Site Development Plan and
architectural plans for improvements at the school. We've handed out
a map that will help us visualize some of the things we're talking about
today. I've got it on the visualizer, and you all should have a hard
copy as well.
The improvements proposed are a new chapel, a student life
center, an athletic training facility, and some support, courtyards,
rather large cross, things of that nature. These are the vertical
elements of the site development that we're currently looking at.
Our request today, however, involves the land development site
work type of things and not the vertical. I just thought it would be a
good idea to layout what it is we're proposing to do.
We've met on various occasions with staff. They've been very
helpful, but it was their conclusion is, that they couldn't grant any of
our requests and that it really needed to be this group of
commissioners that consider and pass judgment on the request.
Specifically, the Land Development Code, Section 5.03.02E,
requires a 6-foot-high masonry wall around the perimeter of this site.
The perimeter of the school site, as indicated on the exhibit we
provided, is roughly a mile. As you can see, all the improvements
we're proposing are clustered central to the school.
This is -- this is a commercial standard, from commercial or
industrial to residential. The school is classified as a commercial use.
Section 4.06.02C4 requires a 20-foot Type D landscape buffer
around the entire perimeter of approximately a mile.
The portions of the site in this area here are essentially the
high-vehicular student-use areas. It's the parking lot, it's the buildings,
Page 28
May 12, 2009
it's the place where kids come and go, teachers come and go. That area
is fairly well buffered currently from the neighborhood. It's the
remainder of the site that the diocese would like your consideration
on.
And then finally, Section 6.06.02A1 requires a 5-foot sidewalk
on the local roads on the perimeter of the site. After meeting with the
transportation division, the diocese has agreed to provide the sidewalk
along 53rd -- 53rd Street Southwest. They're requesting to not be
required to provide any additional sidewalks on the other local roads.
These are essentially the technical definitions and the picture that
goes with it of what we're requesting.
If I might, I'm going to have -- Michelle McFee with me, who's a
parent who's very involved with the school, would like to say a few
words.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And just for the audiences's
knowledge, on a public petition -- I know some people have handed in
their speaker slips. We don't accept speakers on a public petition.
This is something, if the commissioners feel so inclined, they can
-- especially with the subject that maybe has a lot of interest and
maybe a lot of parameters to it, we would ask to bring it back to
another meeting to discuss at a full meeting. There are some petitions
where they just let it die right then and there.
So understand that if I don't call any of the speakers, it's because
this is not protocol here.
MS. McFEE: Is it okay if I speak today?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, because your speaker introduced
you.
MS. McFEE: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you're the last one.
MS. McFEE: Okay. I am Michelle McFee. I've been a parent
with St. John Neumann for the last three years. I have four children;
one currently at the school and three that will be coming through.
Page 29
May 12, 2009
For 29 years, St. John Neumann High School has been an asset to
Collier County, offering an excellent college preparatory education
incorporating gospel values.
Students come not only from Naples but from all areas of Collier
County. The quality of the education at St. John Neumann is
evidenced by the accomplishments of the students and the graduates.
One hundred percent of the graduates go on to college, and this year's
graduating class has already earned over $7 million in scholarships.
The element of the whole student is fostered at St. John Neumann
High School because the school recognizes that athletics, as well as
curricular offerings and spiritual development all contribute to a
student's total education and life skills.
I am here today to affirm that without the improvement of the
school, it will not be able to modernize to continue to adequately
address the total educational needs of its students or to attract future
students to the school.
A deviation from the Land Development Code will permit the
school to use its funding for intended educational facilities for the
betterment of the community. St. John Neumann High School is small
compared to other local schools. While committed to doing ongoing
fundraising for the school in these economic times, the school
community finds it a very difficult challenge.
By accepting this deviation, you will make the continuation of
intellectual excellence and ethical education possible for these
children of Collier County.
Graduates ofSt. John Neumann have gone on to live and work in
Collier County contributing to the betterment of their community.
Students themselves donated over 11,000 hours of volunteer service
last year, furthering the improvement of the Collier County
community. The students, staff, and parents take pride in their school
and their community.
I know that the county takes pride in having such a school to
Page 30
May 12, 2009
boast about. And so, by accepting the deviation, commissioners can
contribute to the ongoing success of the students and thus the
community.
We seek your consideration for the deviations of the Land
Development Code. We ask for the elimination of the perimeter
sidewalk with exception of 53rd Street, the perimeter buffers and the
masonry wall.
Should Collier County accept this deviation, it would enable us
to further contribute to the education and well-being of our children
and our children's children, who will -- who are and will be part of the
future of Collier County.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we'll hear from staff.
MS. ISTENES: Thank you. Sorry. Susan Istenes, Zoning
Director.
Couple things. Just a little bit of background. We've actually
been working on this issue for over a year.
And my records show that the high school came in to put some
modular buildings down, and at that time we worked with them to
develop a phased plan for their landscaping requirements.
They've got quite a bit of landscaping, I think they already stated,
around the main portions of the campus as well as the parking area.
It's very lush and serves as a very nice buffer, because as you'll notice,
they are really embedded into a single-family neighborhood. So it's
really important for schools that have very intense activities from
early morning until late at night, that the required buffering get in
place.
What bothers me a little bit is Dominic stated that the staff told
him that this group of commissioners could decide whether or not they
could have this waiver. Well, actually we had worked this phased
implementation out with them to save them some money and to
address the impacts when they actually occurred because we knew
Page 31
May 12, 2009
after the modular building they were going to be building some more
substantive structures, and then lo and behold, a petition appeared in
front of us on your agenda. So that surprised us a little bit. Like I
said, we did work with them quite a bit to try to work that out within
the areas of the code.
They are not eligible to ask you for a, quote, deviation from the
landscape requirements. They could come through a variance request.
We could look at an alternative plan. They could -- they could ask for
a variance from the buffer width and the separation distance from the
planting requirements, any dimensional requirement, they could ask
for a variance from. That is a duly-noticed public hearing. It goes to
the Planning Commission and then comes to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for a final decision, that would be you sitting as the BZA,
with staffs recommendation.
The wall issue is -- they are eligible to apply for a waiver from
through an application process. That is an administrative review. The
wall in this case is only required to be 4 feet high. Staff and I have
discussed it extensively. We don't see what a wall is going to
accomplish here being that it's only required to be 4 feet high, and
given the current landscaping and the activity level on their site as far
as where the buildings are, we are of the opinion at this point that the
required landscaping would suffice to buffer, given the layout of their
site.
So -- any questions I can answer for you at this point. Our
suggestion is to come back through the variance process with a
detailed plan and a request for a variance and have staff evaluate it and
have the public be noticed -- they're the ones who are impacted -- and
take it from there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, what can the board do?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think Susan's recommendation to the
Page 32
May 12, 2009
board is a very good one. It will go through a process. It will be a
publicly vetted process, and at that point in time, eventually it will
make its way to the board, and the board can take action at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, what can the board do?
MR. KLATZKOW: Right here and now? I don't think you can
do anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we give direction for a
deviation?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. I think it's a public process. Eventually
it will come back to you in a quasijudicial manner, and you should
hear that without any prejudice one way or the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we can't even deviate from
our own rules?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think it's a good idea -- in this
context, without it being publicly heard, all right --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of possible challenges?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm looking at scores and scores of
homeowners who may be coming in saying, wait a second, we don't
want this deviation, and they've got a right to be heard, and they're not
here right now because it's just not this process, which is why I think
Susan's recommendation is a good one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: But right here and now, I don't think you
should do anything other than --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's your advice, but I was
really asking what we are allowed to do.
MR. KLATZKOW: Under the land -- there is no process in the
Land Development Code for you to waive a magic wand, and that's
essentially what they are asking you right here and right now to do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. Okay. Well, I think the
request is very reasonable. Give you an example, First Baptist Church
on Orange Blossom Road and Livingston, they are doing some
Page 33
May 12, 2009
expansion right now, and that's probably in their Site Development
Plan to do so. It would be a shame to wall it off or hide that beautiful
building there and the services that they provide.
How long would a variance process take?
MS. ISTENES: About three months from the time they got their
application in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Dominic, are you willing
to seek a variance?
MR. AMICO: Well, it will be three months from when the
application is in. Those applications don't get prepared overnight.
The school is trying to get their plans and start getting things in
the ground as soon as they possibly can. And I think it behooves us
all to get some construction moving. I'm not sure a three- to
five-month delay is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we let them proceed
contingent on the outcome of --
MS. ISTENES: Yeah. It won't hold up. It's -- you're talking
landscaping. That's not building construction. Obviously, I'm sure
they probably want to do all their site improvements at once, but that's
the last thing you do in the development process, and I'm sure it will
take them well over a year to construct those size buildings. So
honestly, it can go concurrently, Commissioner. That's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Dominic, I don't see
where we have a choice. As least that's what we're being told.
MR. AMICO: We'd agree.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My question has been answered.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I just don't want to open up
a -- set a precedent. I believe that there's some requirements here for
sidewalks. There may be some areas where they don't have to
construct the wall, but I believe that they need to do some landscaping
Page 34
May 12, 2009
to buffer themselves from the residential area.
And I'm hoping that we go in the direction of where this goes to
the Planning Commission before it comes back to us to make sure that
it's well vetted and that the people that live in this community have the
right to state their concerns if there are any concerns.
So I think this is the right direction, and I want to thank the
county attorney for giving us this direction. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I also had a concern with the sidewalks in
that, especially around a school, you would think that --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- with so many people walking around
schools, and especially a high school, and I can't imagine not building
it with sidewalks. It's -- we don't let anything go without sidewalks,
especially a school. So I'm sure that that will be in the discussion.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I just wanted to recognize
all the positive achievements that St. John Neumann's has brought to
the Collier County community. And I think when you bring this --
when this comes back before us, one of the issues is money, money
now, no doubt about it.
I think we've had many people come before us and ask us to
reconsider everything from their commitments to the road programs to
a whole bunch of other things. And in most cases, you know, this
commission's been very understanding.
There's a negative business climate out there. I imagine your
donations are down just as much as the revenue is from the more
profit-type businesses that we have in the area. So when you come
before us, you might also be wanting to look to possibly extend the
date of this -- improvements to the landscape to someplace off in the
future. Just a thought, you know, as we're going into it. And thank
you for being here today.
MR. AMICO: We'll consider that for sure.
Page 35
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a last comment. I believe
my communication might have encouraged the firm to be here. I
thought the board had some more latitude. I understand the concerns
of staff and the County Attorney's Office about public notice, but it
was upon my request.
MS. ISTENES: Thanks for that clarification. They -- also
wanted to clarify something. They can apply for the wall deviation
now. That's an administrative review, and that can be dispensed of
very quickly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it appears to me, you
know, maybe to save money, is just take care of it all at once.
MS. ISTENES: Could do that.
MR. AMICO: Yeah. That was our reason for including it, just
so that everything we were asking for was in one package. We knew
we could have the wall variance administratively, but why not get
everybody to look at it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And, you know,
Commissioner Fiala, I ride around there all the time. It would appear
that next to a school that you'd have a lot of foot traffic. This is a high
school without any buses.
MR. AMICO: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So -- and it's a private high
school and most of the kids drive or their parents bring them, but I
understand your concern. There's just not a lot of foot traffic around
that area. There's not a place for them -- like on the other side where
you have a shopping center, a lot of people walk to that shopping
center.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do they walk from this neighborhood?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, will these sidewalks enable the
neighborhood to have a mode of walking for themselves?
Page 36
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It would allow them to do so,
but I'm just saying I just don't see a lot of foot traffic in that area.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know how you measure
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Well, we'll be bringing this back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, we won't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, no?
MR. OCHS: The applicant will be going through the process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The applicant will bring it back
through the proper channels.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right, I'm sorry. It will be brought back.
Excuse me. Poor choice of words on my part. Thank you,
Commissioner Coyle.
All right. We'll see you back.
MR. AMICO: Thanks for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2009-123: APPOINTING ZETTY YETNY RIVERA
TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that brings us to 9A, Board of
County Commissioners' appointment of a member to the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve Zetty -- I'm going to
put my glasses on --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- Zetty Rivera, and a second.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 37
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
Item #9B
APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL - MOTION TO CONTINUE ITEM AND
APPLICATION PROCESS; COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RETURN
WITH INFORMATION REGARDING REDUCING THE
NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FOR THE CURRENT
COUNCIL TO CONTINUE SERVING UNTIL APPLICATION
PROCESS IS COMPLETED - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Next item is 9B. It's appointment of members to
the Environmental Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Madam Chair, I -- I would like to
make a recommendation here. We have barely enough applicants to
fill the required number of positions in the EAC, and that makes me
think that we need to do something about the size of this organization.
I mean, the Planning Commission doesn't have nine members
plus two alternates. Very few of our other advisory councils have this
many people. And my experience has been, when you broaden --
when you make the committee larger in order to get people who will
be there, you frequently have to look beyond the people who have the
best qualifications.
And so my recommendation would be to let the current
Page 38
May 12, 2009
Environmental Advisory Council members continue to serve while we
discuss the possibility of reducing the size, and by reducing the size of
the committee, we then can focus our attention on getting the
best-qualified members of the committee who don't have conflicts of
interest, to the extent we can do that.
So I would ask that we give some consideration to that before we
start appointing people to this committee just to fill slots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You make that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do, I make that a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I had a question, and then
Commissioner Henning, a question regarding one person on here,
Kaitlyn Bauer Little, who sounded like an extremely qualified person,
by the way, but it said in her resume that she's a teacher. And these
meetings are during the day, and I was just wondering if a teacher
would be able to leave her teaching once a month or sometimes even
twice or three times a month if they're meeting on a really difficult
issue, to attend these meetings.
So -- and she sounded like she was wonderfully qualified, but I
was concerned with that, but --
MS. FILSON: Actually, I think there are two teachers who
applied. The one underneath Kaitlyn Dulcie, I think she also teaches
at a charter school.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, but hers sounded like she -- she just
taught handicapped kids, and so hers sounded a little more flexible,
and I did get sonle calls on her saying that she could attend, but I
didn't know about the other one.
Commissioner Henning, and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. So that's a motion to
continue this item and direct the county attorney to do what?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: To return to us with a
recommendation to reduce the size of the Environmental Advisory
Page 39
May 12, 2009
Council to five members.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Five, yeah. I think that's very
reasonable, and I support the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And that's in your motion as well.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. May I make a suggestion
to your motion, sir? I think it's an excellent motion, but could we also
mention the fact that we do not need to adver- -- readvertise, that the
applicants we have are -- what we have in front of us will be the ones
presented to us at that point in time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, quite frankly, I'd like to get
as broad a selection of applicants as we can possibly get. And if we
can get more people who are more qualified by readvertising it, I think
that would be fine, but I -- there's no reason we couldn't keep these
applicants on the list. But if others wish to volunteer or have their
applications considered, they should have the opportunity to submit
them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're suggesting we open it up
for new applicants, too?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Open it up for new applicants but
keep the existing applicants active so that we can choose among all
the people who wish to serve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. With that clarification, I
can support your motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further comments from board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 40
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(N 0 response.)
MS. FILSON: And the current board will continue serving until
we get the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Continue serving until such time as
we work all this out.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 2009-124: EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
DECLARING A STATE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 2009-23: A REQUEST BY THE
BUREAU OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, DIVISION OF
FORESTRY, COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION,
AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO ENACT
A BURNING BAN ORDINANCE AND DIRECT STAFF TO
PUBLISH A PUBLIC NOTICE REGARDING THE BURNING
BAN ORDINANCE - ADOPTED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to lOA. lOA is a
request that the Board of County Commissioners consider a request by
the Bureau of Emergency Services, Division of Forestry, Collier
County Fire Chiefs Association, and the Collier County Sheriffs
Office, to enact a burning ban ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
MR.OCHS: Based on the board's --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, if I may--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This is the -- this is the one that's the
Page 41
May 12,2009
emergency one.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Sheffield is distributing the revised ordinance
and the enacting resolution that is also attached to that ordinance, and
I believe the county attorney will walk you through this.
MR. KLATZKOW: If I may, as part of your motion, you'll need
to declare that an emergency exists, that there is immediate need to
enact this ordinance and this must -- you must waive the notice
requirements by at least a four-fifths vote.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So now you said -- is that your
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And is that your second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You guys have been motioning on
everything today. They're keeping this thing moving right along.
Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, in the past we've been told
we can't do this unless the governor declares an emergency. So that's
different now?
MR. KLATZKOW: We have an existing ordinance within our
system that allows you to act when the governor declares an
emergency. This new ordinance will give you that power directly.
You won't have to wait for the governor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The other thing is, what
about Boys Scouts and that, camp fires? That's going to be prohibited
under this ordinance; is that correct, the way I'm reading it?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, for the record, Dan Summers,
Director of Emergency Services. We do have open bonfire and
campfire recommended as the prohibition, but they can cook in a
suitable device, so that would take them to a grill, a contained grill or
an appropriate fixture that could do that. But in terms of an open bon
Page 42
May 12, 2009
or campfire, we have recommended no campfire.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So no -- they'll be singing
Kumbaya around the gas grill.
MR. SUMMERS: Or charcoal grill or an oak log grill, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But this is only for a -- only when it's
really dry out like it is presently.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I understand that, but I
would assume that's when they're camping. So right now we're just
putting an emergency, no-burn ban in, and we're going to come back
with an ordinance, advertised ordinance, where we can get public
input; is that what we're doing?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that was the original concept. What
we're doing right now is we're -- if it's up to the board, we're enacting
this as an emergency ordinance which gives you broad latitude as to
what you can prohibit. Mr. Summers has brought with him a
resolution which would then prohibit certain activities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what's different between this
one and the public petition for public input?
MR. KLATZKOW: This is an emergency.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree with that. I just
would like to see some more dialogue on this item so we get it right.
Of course, we can always amend it by advertising it, too, if we do it
wrong, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's your prerogative, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments by board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 43
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it is a 5-0, thank you.
MR. KLATZKOW: That was the ordinance. There's also a
resolution here. Are we going to vote on that separately?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
MR. KLATZKOW: The resolution.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Resolution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. A motion by Commissioner
Coletta to approve the resolution, second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you very much. I
really appreciate all of you guys just jumping on this thing. You
know, we'll never know if we prevented a fire if we don't have to
battle it. Let's just hope this is a safety feature that we have enacted
very quickly that will prevent any further damage. Thank you.
MR. SUMMERS: Ma'am, the interagency cooperation has been
Page 44
May 12,2009
superior. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Look at them all. We
appreciate that. Thank you, fellows.
Item #10B
PROVIDING STAFF DIRECTION ON DEFERING IMPACT FEES
FOR A PROPOSED 140 UNIT AFFORDABLE RENTAL
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN IMMOKALEE,
FLORIDA - MOTION SUPPORTING OPTION #2 - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item lOB. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide
staff direction on whether to defer impact fees for a proposed 140-unit
affordable rental apartment development located in Immokalee,
Florida.
Ms. Marcy Krumbine, your Housing and Human Services
Director, will present. I'm sorry. Buddy Ramsey will present on
behalf of Housing and Human Services.
MR. RAMSEY: Thank you, sir.
For the record, Frank Ramsey, your Housing Manager. I'm here
today, Commissioners, to request direction on whether to defer impact
fees for a proposed 140-unit rental apartment dwelling -- excuse me --
development to be located in Immokalee.
On April 14, 2009, Mr. Barry Goldmeier appeared before you on
public petition requesting a commitment to defer impact fees as part of
a 2009 universal cycle application with the State of Florida.
Mr. Goldmeier's application may receive additional points in the
scoring process if it can be shown that Collier County will provide a
contribution to the proposed development.
A common method that governments, local governments, use to
make this consideration is a deferral or waiver of impact fees.
Page 45
May 12, 2009
Although the actual deferral amount will not be available to be
determined until at time of building permit application. Using today's
numbers, this would be a deferral estimated at $2.1 million for a term
not to exceed ten years.
Developers seeking impact fee deferrals generally come to us at
the time of building permit application or site plan approval. This
allows staff to accurately calculate the amount of the deferral as well
as ensure that the developer is, in fact, ready to proceed with the
building process at that time.
So I just would like to make the board aware that approval of this
item may result in additional developers coming forward to request
the set-aside or commitment of impact fee deferrals.
Following review of the item and the request, I would offer you
two options for your consideration, and then would be happy to
answer any questions.
Option one would be to approve the commitment to defer the
impact fees for the 140-unit rental apartment proposed by Mr.
Goldmeier. In order to receive the credit and the scoring process at
the state level, I would ask that if you should choose to approve this
item, you would authorize the chairman to execute the required form
as part of the universal cycle application.
Option two would to be decline to commit to the deferral at this
time. This would not prevent Mr. Goldmeier from coming back at a
future date to request deferral; however, declining the commitment
today would -- may result in the requester not receiving additional
points in the scoring process.
That concludes my brief presentation. I'd be happy to answer
any questions you may have.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have three speakers, I believe.
MS. FILSON: Two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two speakers. Would the board
like to listen to the public input first? Okay. The first speaker is,
Page 46
May 12, 2009
please?
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Russell Smith. He'll be
followed by Bill Klohn.
MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Russell Smith. I'm with Lennar Homes. We are the developer of the
Heritage Bay community, which includes the 180-unit affordable
housing community, the Vistas of Heritage Bay.
I want to be clear that I'm not here in specific opposition to the
proposed project, to the proposal. Affordable housing continues to be
an issue of concern in Collier County, and we at Lennar encourage
and applaud those who make an investment in addressing that
concern; however, the dollars that are available to support impact fee
deferrals are a limited resource and given that they are set currently at
3 percent of prior year's impact fee collections that are currently a
declining resource, and in the case of owner-occupied dwellings, they
are, from what I am aware of, an exhausted resource at this point.
The county has a number of previously approved projects such as
the Vistas, such as the workforce housing component of Ave Maria,
which serves the Immokalee area, such as the Arrowhead Reserve
community which serves the Immokalee area, and many others in
which the developers have already invested very significant dollars
and each of which relies on the availability of impact fee deferral
dollars to remain viable.
Consequently, I would ask the board to factor into its
decision-making process the previously made commitments to the
existing proj ects, the currently existing inventory of available
affordable housing units in the county, which is significant, and the
prudence in adding additional units to the pool of impact- fee deferred
-- deferral-eligible units in communities at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bill Klohn.
MR. KLOHN: Good morning. For the record, Bill Klohn,
Page 47
May 12, 2009
Arrowhead Reserve in Immokalee.
I, like Russ Smith, I'm not here to comment on the merits of the
project or the developer. But to give you a little bit of background on
the -- about the Arrowhead Reserve.
As you know the community is 1,245 units with a commercial
component. We have inventory out there that's not being absorbed
nearly as rapidly as anticipated. There are 229 single-family homes
left with roads, water, and sewer all constructed. There is also a
multifamily tract for 289 units.
With regard to the rental apartments that were developed by
Carlisle within Arrowhead, we have a 91 percent occupancy in Phase
I, which is 208 units, which would leave 18 units vacant, and they
have a 1 7 percent occupancy in Phase II, which was 96 units, which
would have 79 units vacant.
My point is that we've got lots of lots to sell yet at Arrowhead
and a multifamily tract, and the lease up is rather slow for the Carlisle
Group. My point being that there's plenty of inventory in Immokalee
in my opinion. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. It's all
yours.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Commissioner
Coyle.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I -- we have a situation
here that goes back some years ago when the affordable housing issue
was near and dear to our hearts here as a commission, and we brought
certain pressures on such entities as Ave Maria and Heritage Bay to
come across with affordable housing, and they did it in a great
manner, and they showed up, but who could ever anticipate what was
going to happen out there with the economic market, especially for
homes, and that that element, within their communities, would go
unfulfilled, that commit that they made to us, that they would be
Page 48
May 12, 2009
unable to find people to be able to participate in it.
We have a number of vacancies within Arrowhead, which is very
close to where this other place wants to go. Now, normally projects in
itself, I wouldn't say that we should weigh in and say, you know,
there's an overabundance in the market so we're not going to allow it
to happen, but with that -- however, with that said, we're talking about
a very limited resource of funding that we have available.
At this point in time I don't think it would be in our best interest
to proceed with this and to give this petitioner the money that he's
asking for to be able to build extra inventory that probably won't be
filled either.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to make a motion to that
effect?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion to re--
help me with this, Mr. Klatzkow, so I don't do anything that makes the
county liable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Accept option two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Option two is where you'd come
back at some future time, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it doesn't in any way
obligate the funds that are there?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I make a motion
for option two.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor for
option two by Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner
Henning.
Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 49
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0. Thank you.
We're going to do -- you know what, we're going to take a
ten-minute break right now, and then we'll back for our 10:30 time
certain.
Thank you very much.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #8A (Discussed and continued to later in the meeting)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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 IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED THE COLLIER COUNTY
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY,
DATED APRIL 21,2009; AMENDING SCHEDULE FOUR TO
REFLECT THE REVISED RATES SET FORTH IN THE IMPACT
FEE STUDY AND PROVIDING FOR A DELAYED EFFECTIVE
DATE OF AUGUST 11,2009, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-
DAY NOTICE PERIOD REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.31801
(3)(D), FLORIDA STATUTES - TABLED UNTIL LATER IN
MEETING
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mike.
We're now at our time-certain item. This is a 10:30 a.m.
Page 50
May 12, 2009
time-certain item, 8A. It's advertised public hearing. It's a
recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances known as the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance, providing for the incorporation by reference of the impact
fee study entitled the Collier County Correctional Facilities Impact
Fee Update Study dated April 21, 2009; amending Schedule 4 to
reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact fee study; and providing
for a delayed effective date of August 11, 2009, in accordance with
the 90-day notice period required by Section 163.31801 (3)( d) Florida
Statutes. And Amy Patterson will present.
MS. PATTERSON: Good morning.
MR.OCHS: If you would like a presentation.
MS. PATTERSON: For the record, Amy Patterson. I'm the
Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager at Community
Development.
First a matter of housekeeping from the Development Services
Advisory Committee. Because of the timing of the presentation of
this study, we were unable to include the DSAC recommendation as a
part of the package, but I'm here to present that.
This was heard by the DSAC last Wednesday, the 6th of May.
And the Development Services Advisory Committee voted
unanimously to freeze the impact fees at their current rate. They did
not want to implement the increases. That's the extent of their -- of
their information that was provided.
With that, I can -- I have a presentation up. Mr. Steve Tindale is
here from Tindale Oliver. He can go through a brief presentation on
the impact fee study. This is the required three-year update of the
correctional facilities impact fee, or I can go straight to questions.
Whatever you desire.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the first speaker is
Commissioner Coyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Page 51
May 12, 2009
I'm going to presume that since this impact fee study has been
going on for some time, that it does not incorporate the two-year
moving average. It is still based upon the regression analysis; is that
true or not?
MS. PATTERSON: This is not an -- this is not an indexing.
This is full study, so it incorporates the actual costs. There's no --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: It is not an average involved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then when we're forecasting the
cost for correctional facilities, are we assuming that the costs for
future facilities will be as expensive as the costs for past facilities?
And I'm specifically asking the question, to be more specific is, are we
planning to enlarge or rebuild the Immokalee jail so that we don't have
to buy more land, or are we anticipating that we have to have enough
money in the impact fee fund to purchase land and build a new facility
or additional facilities?
MS. PATTERSON: To answer that question -- actually these
were questions that were brought up by the Productivity Committee.
The land component included in this study is a tiny amount of money.
It was one of the concerns of the Productivity Committee.
So while there is a land component included, it contemplates a
reduced land value because any land that may need to be purchased in
the future likely will be purchased in Eastern Collier County. So
there's a gigantic land component included.
Additionally, as for the cost of the jail that's included as part of
the study, that number was validated through an architect and through
the sheriffs office of what would be a number that they were
comfortable with as to what it will cost today to build the jail. The
number had started fairly high and has come down to the number
that's included in the study. I think it's about $325 a square foot, and it
was somewhere up near $400 a square foot originally. So it's
reflective of what is considered to be current and appropriate costs.
Page 52
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amy, was there a presentation
to the Productivity Committee?
MS. PATTERSON: There was, and that recommendation is on
Page 2 of your executive summary. I don't know what number would
be in your packet. It's the paragraph that starts --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Page 3?
MS. PATTERSON: -- on April 15, 2009, this study was
presented to the Productivity Committee, and the Productivity
Committee voted unanimously to accept the study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We could have a later
implementation date than August, October?
MS. PATTERSON: We could. Ninety days is the statutory
minimum requirement. It could be longer. There are jurisdictions that
elect to stretch an implementation date out longer than 90 days.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Personally I'd be more in
favor to do that. I don't know what it will hurt. It's a huge increase
from what it is today. But the problem is here -- I guess my goal is,
you know, let's try to give a little break until things are really starting
to move in the building industry, and that's when we should
implement it. That's my personal feelings.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is -- I see we have
some staff members here. So Skip, maybe you can help guide me in
coming to a conclusion on this. Are there any plans in the near future
in regards to addressing additional cell -- jail cells, whether it's at
Immokalee or whether it's here?
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp. Yes. Now, I say that a
little with one concern, and that is, we've asked the consultant that was
doing an update of the master plan for correctional to relook at it
based on two important things. One is the current population status of
Page 53
May 12, 2009
the county and the other, more importantly, are the efforts that the
sheriff's putting forward as it relates to reducing the inmate
population.
That, for a long time, was just going up and up and up, and for
the last year they've made incredible strides at reducing inmate
population.
Right now, the last couple of months, it's absolutely stabilized.
They are -- work on a plan to continue that, but there are some
variables that, of course, they would have to address.
There is a plan eventually -- the original plan was to increase the
size of the inmate population in Immokalee perhaps by utilizing -- by
having agreement with the utilities division on purchasing some land
close to the existing stockade, the existing jail.
We're looking at a number of options, but I am pleased to report
with the inmate population has stabled, so the master plan for
correctional probably will be delayed. Weare doing an update, and
we'll let you know as soon as that's done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, when you say it's stabilized,
being the economic environment that's presently out there, I hope that
when they look at releasing people, that we're not jeopardizing people
that should be in jail by just trying to get the population down. And I
know that's not for you to decide but -- or that you don't have anything
to do with that, but I just have some concerns.
And if it's justified for these people not to be incarcerated, then
my -- again, my concern is, how soon do you feel that we are going to
be looking at additional beds or increasing the size of the jails?
MR. CAMP: First of all, I didn't want to confuse anyone. I'm
not speaking on behalf of the sheriff. And I will tell you, they've been
working very, very closely with the coordinating council, of which
Commissioner Coyle is a member. So I want to lay that to rest.
But another thing, until we get the update back and we redo the
population projections and we relook at the stabilization of the inmate
Page 54
May 12, 2009
population, I'm not sure we'll see any requests for at least three years.
But again, until that -- the revision of the master plan is done, I want
to kind of just hold that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may, question
regarding impact fees in general. How many years is it after a person
pays impact fees, those fees are supposed to be expended?
MS. PATTERSON: Seven years they have to be expended or
encumbered from the date of payment. But the other issue with this is
that the impact fees are currently going to payoff the debt on the most
recent jail expansion, and the fully burdened value of that jail was not
incorporated into the 2005 study because of the time -- the proximity
in time that the last jail study was completed to the jail itself -- the jail
expansion itself being completed. So some of the increases you're
seeing in this study represent those costs now being incorporated into
the impact fees. There's two issues here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And God help me, but I'm in
agreement with Commissioner Henning about deferring the date that
we implement this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a couple questions. Would
you like to go first?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, go ahead, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. First of all, I had some of the same
concerns as Commissioner Halas I had written to myself. If they're
reducing the inmate population, hopefully that doesn't mean they're
putting people out early and so then we have more crime on the streets
because they're not keeping them incarcerated long enough, but you
probably wouldn't know that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can answer that question.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm chairman of the Public Safety
Page 55
May 12, 2009
Coordinated Council, which consists of the sheriffs, the prosecutor,
the Public Defender's Office, all the people who are involved in the
process of enforcing the law and prosecuting people, investigating
crimes, and putting them in j ail where they need to be, and the focus
has been specifically on getting the violent criminals in jail and
keeping them there.
The reason that the jail population has actually declined and is
now stabilizing is because of the sheriffs Criminal Alien Task Force.
The sheriff has determined that about 24 percent of all of the criminals
in our jails are self-admitted illegal criminals, and upon investigation,
as many as 42 percent of all of the criminals in our jails are in this
country illegally.
So his task force has been very successful in getting those people
out of the country. And those who are not violent criminals are not
sent out of country but they are -- they remain incarcerated but in state
facilities for longer periods of time because we want to punish them
for their serious crimes rather than just releasing them to their home
country .
So -- but there are other things like the -- other organizations like
David Lawrence Center. They are helping us divert nonviolent
criminals, people who might have mental conditions that can be
managed, and they're helping us divert those to treatment facilities
rather than keeping them in a jail.
So all of these things are working together, and we're developing
diversion programs, we're working on fast-tracking things so that we
don't have people sitting in a jail cell awaiting arraignment, so we get
those people processed much more quickly today than we used to so
that we can manage them.
So the Public Safety Coordinating Council and the sheriffs
agency and the public defender and the state's attorney have all been
working with -- and the judges. We have judges represented on the
council, so we're doing all those things to try to manage the population
Page 56
May 12, 2009
so that we're not turning out violent criminals just to save space in jaiL
And we don't have to do that now because we have excess beds right
now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you so much. I really
appreciate. You give me a great level of comfort.
My second question, Amy, is, why did it go up so high in
single- family from $230 all the way up to 491? I mean, that's a
tremendous leap, 114 percent, and then in the multi-family, from $94
up to $254. I just felt that that was a tremendous leap there, why did it
go up that high?
MS. PATTERSON: I think, if it's okay with you, I'm going to
turn this over to Steve Tindale to explain. It's a methodology issue
that would be better explained by Steve, if that's all right with you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. He's looking at this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, this one right here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the one we're going with.
The bottom one is the suggested one. This is what was proposed, but
this is what they've come up with.
MR. TINDALE: I'll go ahead and try to answer the question.
We -- when we started -- Steve Tindale with Tindale, Oliver and
Associates. When we started this study, we talked with the sheriff,
and the past study was based on bookings. When a person came in,
they tried to figure out where the person came from. Do we charge
this booking to a home or to an office? And the sheriff was extremely
uncomfortable with the method of how it was charged back to the land
uses, and so were we.
We -- 50 percent of the bookings they had no idea when they
looked at the data how to charge it, and the other half, they didn't
know whether if they pick a person up at home that was drinking, do
they charge it to the bar or to the home? I mean, how do you take a
booking and estimate the benefit or the impact? And they felt
extremely uncomfortable from talking to them that that methodology
Page 57
May 12, 2009
made a whole lot of sense in terms of doing -- in terms of using the
method of bookings.
We go to the number of people that are out at each different site
that is either -- the third thing about the bookings was, they didn't
know when you took one site and booked someone whether that
person was going to be in there one day or ten days and, you know,
the number of bed days on the average. If one site has one-fifth the
bookings but on the average it has 20 times the days, then you can't go
with just a booking. You have to go with how often by that land use
they stay in there. They felt there was no relationship between the
bookings and the impact.
They felt very comfortable that the more people that were at a
site, the more activity they had in terms of crime or whatever, which
we call functional population. So we basically went back to
functional population. If you have a development that has five times
more people per square foot than another site, than on the average
they're going to have five times the effect.
The other question is who benefits, the site that's being protected
that's got the people from the person being incarcerated or the site that
created the incarceration. They felt much more comfortable with the
functional population. The functional population has good news and
bad news. It shifts, meaning you look at it in terms of where people
are. It goes back and puts more burden on single-family and takes--
and if you'll look at the fee, I think one of the options was like adopt
the new methodology like at 50 percent.
What you'll see is that the single-family would stay about the
same and the commercial and retail would come down dramatically,
and there was a fairness issue there and an equity issue. And I think
us and the sheriffboth, the Sheriffs Department, feels that the
methodology needs to be changed. Even if you keep the residential
fee constant, you need to change your methodology in terms of the
allocation of the impact.
Page 58
May 12, 2009
It's a somewhat long answer, but it's one of the big issues of the
update. There's money invested here and some time, and one of the
biggest benefits here, I think, is to reshape how you allocate the
demand side and the equity issue. And as a minimum, you might want
to consider maintaining that residential fee but at a discount and
redoing the distribution, because I think you'll find that office and
retail and some of the other ones will come down dramatically if you
kept the single-family at its current rate. So there's an issue there in
terms of --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean today's rate?
MR. TINDALE: If you discounted our calculation back down to
the single-family not changing, I think the office and the retail and
some of the other ones would come down.
MS. PATTERSON: I can explain that a little bit more, if you'd
like. When we started looking at this, because of the gigantic
increases on the residential side, we started looking at scenarios to
adopt this methodology because of the appropriateness and
consistency with our current program but try to mitigate the large,
large increases. And one thing would be to, like Steve said, adopt the
fee at 50 percent.
But what that -- what that will do as -- it is a relatively arbitrary
reduction in the fee, which you have the right to do. You have the
right to adopt a fee at whatever level the board sees fit.
At 50 percent you're still going to see an increase in the
single-family home impact fees, but instead of the $445 impact fee
proposed for a 2,000-square-foot home or -- I'm sorry, for a
1 ,500-square- foot home, the impact fee at 50 percent would be about
$222. So the difference is not as significant from the current fee.
Now, what that will do on the commercial side, it's going to bring
those numbers down and a lot of them are going to go into the
negatives. So in effect you're going to have less of an increase on
residential and a decrease on commercial. But, again, that's adopting
Page 59
May 12,2009
your impact fee at 50 percent of the maximum legal limit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner -- I think it was Commissioner Coy Ie next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I've said everything I needed
to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is -- and you brought
up a point but you didn't really go into a large discussion, and that is
that we're still paying off bonds on the present jail; is that correct?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So if we don't make up the
difference on impact fees, then the end result is, it's going to come out
of ad valorem?
MS. PATTERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's where we're at at this
present time?
MS. PATTERSON: Correct. If you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And we also already know that
we're going to have a shortfall in ad valorem taxes. So what we have
to figure out here is the best way to approach this. And obviously
there are no -- or very little impact fees that are coming in to offset the
commitments that we have already made with the addition of the jails
in the past, and so now we've got to figure out what we're going to do
as far as to offset the ad valorem costs that we're going to have to pay
on these bonds, and we don't have any -- we can't let the bonds go.
We have to pay that to keep our bond rating as low as possible.
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that correct?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Yes? Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I -- Commissioner Halas
Page 60
May 12, 2009
raises a good question, and it's not part of the fiscal analysis here.
Can you tell us what effect delaying this impact fee adjustment
would have on our ability to pay the interest on the bonds?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not get into ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. PATTERSON: It would -- we would have to calculate -- it's
a difficult question now only because of the volatility of the permitting
activity, also because of the delay, gives people the opportunity to
apply for their building permits and come in at the old rates. So we
would need to do a calculation of what we think is going to come in as
far as permitting activity and the money lost relative to the money that
we're already borrowing to make our debt service payments and how
this delay exacerbates that condition.
We already know we're not collecting enough annually to make
the debt service payment, but there is an incremental difference that's
being made up by ad valorem.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. So that is already
happening?
MS. PATTERSON: That's already happening.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I believe that I'm correct by
saying that we cannot adjust impact fees specifically for that purpose;
in other words, we can't adjust -- we can't charge higher impact fees to
service a past debt.
MS. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that could not be a
reason for us to implement a higher impact fee or to cause that to be
effective more earlier than otherwise.
MS. PATTERSON: Earlier than the 90 days?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MS. PATTERSON: The 90 days is statutory, so we have no
discretion there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. What I'm saying is, I need a
Page 61
May 12, 2009
legal interpretation about -- about this one issue. If we were to vote to
postpone the implementation of this increase until January of next
year or even 12 months from now, that would have, in effect, an
impact upon our ability to payoff past debts. If we refuse to extend it,
essentially what we're saying is we need that money to payoff past
debts, which is illegal? You follow me, Steve? No?
MR. TINDALE: Let me explain. Of all the facilities, the
correctional facilities are very lumpy. You don't build -- when you
build a road, you add one-tenth of 1 percent capacity to the system.
When you build a correctional facility, you might double the capacity.
If you can just imagine doubling the roads in this community, it's a
massive thing you do.
So in impact fees, what you have to do and what we've done is,
you're actually at about 3.2 beds per person right now because you had
to build a complete facility. And you ask the question about, do I
need it? We're only charging this rate at 2.7 because it's not paid for.
So everything that's not paid for that you owe debt on we can't put in
the asset, it's not in the fee, but it is legal to take the revenue at 2.7 and
buy capacity that's already built.
So it's kind of a circle we go in. So we are not charging at a rate
of what you've achieved in that capacity, only the existing structure
that's paid for, 2.7 beds per person. So we're legally charging the right
amount. And what the courts have said is you can't charge for, you
know, building capacity or backlog or whatever. That's the one issue.
What the courts have said is, you can pay for capacity with this
bonded capacity or whatever. So it's an interesting circle.
Mainly, the two big ones are -- usually in fees -- are landfills,
which are big, and correctional facilities. Those are very unique fee
schedules.
So what we've got here as a guarantee at the rate we're charging,
if you charge the full amount, we're guaranteeing you over the next
ten or 15 years, you're going to go from 3.2 beds, what you've
Page 62
May 12, 2009
achieved on the ground, down to 2.7.
So we have built in a -- guaranteed reductions in the number of
beds per person because we can't charge for what's built, only what
you've achieved. So this fee, by court, is only allowing us to allow the
system to degrade down to what you've paid for today.
So, yes, debt's important, and there's been a policy decision to
take the revenues, that 2.7 beds, and pay off the debt. And by the time
you get it paid off, you'll have moved back down to 2.7.
So we've not -- we're not charging for what you built that you've
got paid for, but we're going to use the money to pay the debt off.
That's a policy issue.
So it's a little convoluted, and I've not done your landfills, but
those two types -- because if you just remember, you don't build, you
know, one lane mile or three miles of road when you've got 2,000.
You build -- if you've got 500 beds (sic), you build 500 more beds.
Well, that's just a huge lumpy thing we have to deal with.
So in this update, what we've done is charge only for the asset
you've got paid for, which is 2.7 beds, you've achieved, I think, 3.2,
and we're going to allow that degrade, if you don't use anything but
impact fees, downward, and it -- maybe that's okay, from what I'm
hearing. Right now there's a feeling that it's okay. You don't need to
build a lot of beds, so that degradation that we've had to do legally is
probably a pretty good thing to be doing.
But the current rate that we're charging is assuring you that if you
don't come up in the next ten or 15 years with something other than
impact fees, you will move back down to 2.7, which is like a 20 per- --
you know, 20 percent reduction in the current number of beds per
person.
So that's the process. We're using it to pay debt, but we're not
charging for an asset that you haven't paid for in the fee schedule
itself.
And the thing that's made this -- the biggest jumps is, one, it's
Page 63
May 12, 2009
like an '05/06 study that the data was in '03. We're not using the
'06/07 costs, which are very high. We're using '09 costs. But anytime
you take a date, like the study of '05, what are they looking at, '03, '04,
'05 data in '03. So we've got a six-year difference between the costs --
and it's the new costs, not the peak that we didn't go through. That's
happened. And you did build an asset, and you've paid some of it off.
And that part we are allowed to charge for.
So that's the answer. You are paying debt. It's important that you
know you're paying debt because if you don't pay it with impact fees,
as you allow this to go from 3.2 down to 2.7, because it's going to
degrade down to that anyway, but you have decided you're going to
use impact fees while it's degrading down to 2.7, or are you going to
use taxes because the debt's there? I mean, it's done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one clarification. You're
saying that we are basing this on capacity that we have paid for?
MR. TINDALE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what does that really mean?
Does that mean capacity we have built or capacity we have paid for?
MR. TINDALE: It's the -- it's what you've built minus your debt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
MR. TINDALE: Just give you an example. If it cost you 100
million to build it and you've got $30 million worth of debt, I can't
charge the 100 million for that facility. I charge the 70.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's what I want to--
MR. TINDALE: We're only charging for what the existing
people have put cash out for and created that asset, and that debt is not
being charged.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, because we really
haven't paid for that yet.
MR. TINDALE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What we're going to do is take that
revenue and allow the level of service to degrade down to the existing
Page 64
May 12, 2009
paid- for level of service, but we're going to use impact fees while
we're letting it degrade to payoff the debt.
Ifwe don't use that, then they'll degrade -- it's going to degrade
anyway, but you'll be using something else to be paying for the debt
as your level of service degrades.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
I don't understand the argument that if we don't raise the impact
fees it's going to have to come out of ad valorem when last year when
we raised transportation fees, we actually collected less impact fees.
So -- is that a wrong statement Amy?
MS. PATTERSON: No. I'm trying to understand the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, last year we raised the
transportation fees 27, 28, 30 percent, or whatever it was, but didn't
we collect less transportation fees last year?
MS. PATTERSON: The downturn was so significant that it
actually overrode that increase in fees and took us into the -- yeah,
took us into a decrease in collections. But transportation doesn't have
the same debt situation that these other impact fees have.
So the loss of revenue to transportation, while it's not good, is
different than it is for jail because jail's got an -- right now has an
existing bond that they are paying -- that all of the impact fees we
collect are going to pay, which is -- gets back to the seven-year issue
also, that the fees have to be expended or incumbered within seven
years of collection. Those fees are being spent as quickly as they
come in to pay the debt related to the existing jail expansion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. PATTERSON: So we don't have the seven-year issue with
the jail impact fee or many of the others either. Libraries, same
situation. A lot of them have more debt than they have impact fees at
the moment.
Page 65
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's not going to change
whether we raise this or not?
MS. PATTERSON: It's not going to change, but what's going to
happen is you're not recognizing what is the true cost. That's the only
-- that's what's going to happen. If you remain with the current impact
fees, you're essentially collecting less per permit than is the amount
that should be allocated to that permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you get that permit?
MS. PATTERSON: If you -- right. For each permit that comes
in, whether it's one or a thousand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the same thing that
happened with the transportation impact fees.
MS. PATTERSON: Right. It's just the--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reality is, we raised them,
we collected less money. So I don't see any harm in delaying raising
impact fees until we have a demand on permits.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I'll make that a motion.
But, I mean, we have to come up with a date. Mr.-- the county
attorney wants to say something.
MR. KLATZKOW: The only thing I would say is this: Mr.
Tindale's saying that his previous study didn't capture as true a cost as
his present study is, so our present method of collection is unfairly
burdening the commercial interests compared to the residential.
The newest study, according to Mr. Tindale, is a fairer method of
allocation, which puts the burden more on the residential than the
commercial. If we continue collecting under the previous system,
we're collecting on a system where we've been told that the
methodology isn't particularly good.
What we could do, if you want, is we could adopt this study and
simply reduce the amount you take in, whether the number's 50
percent or 40 percent, whatever you want to do, to just drop it down so
Page 66
May 12, 2009
that there's been no change in the actual impact fees for the residential,
but the commercial will see a drop. But I don't really think we can
continue to -- I don't think we can continue to charge people based on
the old system knowing that the old system is not quite as good as the
new one. I think the better way is to just drop the fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a correct statement?
MR. TINDALE: Yes. I would recommend that you -- being that
you've done the study and you've got the document there that there is
some risk involved in people coming in and asking for alternative fee
studies or something based on our study and it gets -- it's going to get
a little -- could be -- get complicated. You're better off to adopt an
across-the-board discount for all uses and adopt some number that
discounts this residential downward close to the current fee, and you'll
see some fairly dramatic reductions in that adoption of the office retail
fees.
Maybe staff could go back and make it -- try to estimate a
revenue-neutral number or something to where you're not collecting
any more money, but you're collecting it from the correct area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can -- can we do
implementation in two phases, like what you're suggesting, and then
also go up to the fee rates at a later date?
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How would you recommend the
motion should be to capture that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, you would implement -- you would
task staff to implement this with a reduction so that the revenues
coming in -- they're revenue neutral at the end of the day, so there's no
change at whether the number's 50 percent or 55 percent or 60 percent,
whatever that number is. So the residential stays the same.
And then the board can always come back a year from now, two
years from now when the economy gets better and change that and go
up to the full 100 percent fee.
Page 67
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's -- that's my motion, also
direct staff to monitor the uptake of permits and come back with those
recommendations of going to a full implementation of the study.
MR. TINDALE: One comment. You have two options. One is
that the single-family be neutral or it be revenue neutral. For it to be
revenue neutral, the single-family could not be brought down quite to
the same level because you're going to lose revenue off the
office/commercial, your current fee.
So revenue neutral may be, rather than -- maybe the residential,
rather than being more increases up 10 or 15 percent because the
commercial is dropping, that's revenue neutral, versus single-family
neutral. We need to know which one of the two the motion is
requesting. Revenue neutral are the single-family fee being kept
constant. Two distinct different calculations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Single-family to be left constant
-- consistent as they are today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And there is a second by Commissioner
Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, a question there. If the
single-family's going to be left constant, can you forecast what the
impact on retail and office will be?
MS. PATTERSON: Just doing the calculation, dropping the fees
50 percent across the board, which doesn't get us to neutral, it's still a
60 percent increase on the residential side. It is a significant decrease
across some of the categories. It's 26 percent to 58 percent down
across the office categories, it's 65 percent to 41 percent down in
retail, and then it varies into some of the specific land uses.
But it's a big increase anywhere from -- I'm sorry -- a big
decrease anywhere from in the 30ish -- 26 to 30 percent all the way to
Page 68
May 12, 2009
about a 94-percent reduction in some of the restaurant categories and
some of the specific uses.
So it's going to be a very -- if we go neutral on the residential, it
is going to be a sizable decrease on the commercial.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we're talking only about
correctional facilities --
MS. PATTERSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- impact fee update. We're not
talking about any others, right?
MS. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so that people don't get too
excited, that's a relatively small number.
MS. PATTERSON: It is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not thousands and thousands of
dollars.
MS. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But at least it's a movement in the
right direction.
Now, let me very briefly comment on one thing. There -- it was
not the increase of impact fees last year that resulted in a reduction of
impact fee revenues.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I knew that was coming.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason for that is that the
reduction in impact fee revenues was because of the economic
downturn. The impact fee increases were based on historical data.
So that's the reason that we had an increase in impact fees and a
decrease in total receipts from impact fees. So let's not get those two
confused. Let's understand the real cause and effect.
But if there was a direct cause and effect there, when we reduce
impact fees, we ought to see the number of permits go up
dramatically. We haven't seen that. So there really isn't that kind of
effect. Thank you.
Page 69
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is going to be the net effect
as far as the load that's going to be put on ad valorem taxes if we go
revenue neutral?
MS. PATTERSON: Revenue neutral-- residential revenue
neutral will be -- it's going to have an effect because we're going to --
ultimately we'll collect less money.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And so the end result is, this is
going to have to come out of ad valorem taxes that we already know
that we've got a 25 percent decrease in?
MS. PATTERSON: The debt has -- to pay the debt, that's
correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't go with this motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right now we're putting a lot of
money into impact fees from ad valorem, but it's a loan.
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. In the current fiscal year, we're putting
approximately $10 million of ad valorem into debt service payments
to backstop impact fees that are not coming in at proj ected levels, and
in FY10 we expect that, sitting here today, to be about $13 million of
ad valorem support.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As a loan?
MR.OCHS: As a loan, yes, sir, to be paid back when impact
fees come back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody can convince me by
raising impact fees that we're going to reduce that. Until the market
picks up -- I think it's better for the community when the market picks
up to make those adjustments.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to make sure that I
understand what's happening here. Can you tell us how much
Page 70
May 12, 2009
additional ad valorem property taxes will be necessary for the
correctional facilities if we make the residential neutral and reduce the
retail and commercial as you've suggested?
MS. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. I don't have the calculation in
front of me. Is it a number that I could come up with? I could get
close. We know that on the current scenario, we are not collecting
enough to cover the debt service payments.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: Ifwe keep the residential the same and
greatly reduce the commercial, it only follows logic that we're going
to need more ad valorem support than less because we're going to be
collecting less money. Whether it's on two permits or 100, they're
going to be permits that, if they're commercial, are going to be pay
significantly less.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. What is your best guess at
the increase in ad valorem taxes to make up the difference?
MS. PATTERSON: I couldn't venture a guess, because the
numbers are -- the numbers are all over the place, so we would have to
-- we would have to go through and try to plug some of the permitting
assumptions that we make into the calculation and try to come up with
a number that way. But we're -- we're grossly behind now just in
annual collections on the current rate schedule. Reducing it will only
exacerbate that condition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're talking only about
correctional facilities right now?
MS . PATTERSON: Correctional facilities right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, do you have any capital
expenditures programmed for correctional facilities within the next
two or three years?
MR.OCHS: No, we don't.
MS. PATTERSON: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. All right. I, quite frankly,
Page 71
May 12, 2009
can't make a decision without that information because I think it's an
important element in deciding whether we should reduce this or not. I
need to know the impact on the property taxpayers.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: How long would it take you to come up
with that information? I mean, should we finish the rest of the things
on our agenda and could you have that figure for us then?
MS. PATTERSON: I could--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: In the next 15, 20 minutes.
MS. PATTERSON: I could go downstairs to the budget office
and work with them quickly and see if I can come up with a number,
if that could be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We could make this time
certain at 5:30 or 6:00?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would that help if they ran down to get
that information?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it would help very much, sure,
thanks, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So County Attorney, could we just --
MR. KLATZKOW: Just table this for now and we'll pick it up
later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Will that be okay with everyone?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Okay. I've got approval on
that. We'll see you in a few minutes.
MS. PATTERSON: All right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Because we're whisking through this. As
soon as -- as soon as Commissioner Halas' phone stops ringing. Okay.
Item #10C
Page 72
May 12, 2009
A POLICY FOR FUTURE LANDSCAPE EXPANSION PROJECTS
INITIATED BY DEVELOPERS, MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT (MSTU), OR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION (HOA) FOR
INCLUSION INTO THE COLLIER COUNTY LANDSCAPE
BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN - APPROVED
MR.OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 10C, which is a
recommendation that the board approve a policy for future landscape
expansion projects initiated by developers, municipal service taxing
unit, or homeowner associations for inclusion into the Collier County
Landscape Beautification Master Plan.
Michelle Arnold, your Director of Alternative Transportation
Modes, is here to present.
MS. ARNOLD: Good morning. Michelle Arnold for the record.
Commissioners, we're bringing this item to you as a proactive
measure to address the, you know, planned or future financial
constraints that we predict will occur in the coming budget years,
coupled with the fact that we continue to get requests from the
community for landscaping when roadways are completed.
I'In here to tell you that in the upcoming budget year we have no
capital projects proposed. And what we're trying to do with this policy
is to provide the community, whether it's developers, MSTUs or
homeowners associations with the ability to make donations or pay for
the capital proj ects for future roadways landscaping.
What we have before you is an executive summary that provides
you some chronological information with how the master plan, the
landscape master plan, has evolved over the years. And what the
recommendation is, is to have the board ratify your existing policy of
base level landscaping at the completion of construction projects,
which is six-lane roadways, and that base level would include
electrical, sleeving of irrigation, clean soil, curbing, and brick pavers
at the end of the median ends so that in the event we get budget dollars
Page 73
May 12, 2009
for future expansion, those roadway medians are ready for that
construction.
The board had also adopted a type B landscaping buffer for those
six -lane roadways, and we would recommend that you continue that
and budget -- you know with budget permitting, those -- that type B
buffering would be installed.
The recommendation also includes a policy to allow MSTUs,
developers, and homeowners associations with the ability to fund
capital projects of six-lane roadways consistent with that type B
buffer, and the county would work with those entities to get the
project completed. It would be reviewed by the county, and at the
approval of the Board of County Commissioners, the maintenance
would be picked up by the county.
Another option is to allow MSTUs, developers, and homeowners
associations with the ability to fund capital projects for four-laned
roadways that are at their maximum lane configuration with no future
plan for expansion. We have a few roadways, and we've identified
those in the executive summary for you, such as, you know, parts of
Airport Road, Pine Ridge, that are at four-lane. There's no future plan
for expansion, but there is a desire to landscape those medians, and
this policy would allow those entities to fund the capital projects and
add a type B buffer and, again, the county would pick up the
maintenance with board approval.
And lastly, the policy also includes the provision for MSTUs,
developers, and homeowners associations to exceed that type B buffer
to include side tree landscaping, which is identified in the type C
landscaping policy.
In that event the entity would be required to enter into a
landscape maintenance agreement with the county, and they would
pick up the responsibilities for maintenance of that portion of the
landscaping that exceeds the type B buffer.
And that's my presentation. If you all have any questions?
Page 74
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, there are a number of lights on. We
start with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Michelle, I think this is
strategically a good idea. I agree with the proposal of staff, but the
landscaping standards are absolutely critical because if we're going to
pick up responsibility for maintaining the landscaping, we have to
make sure that the landscaping standards are such that we're not
having to expend exorbitant amounts of money to maintain it.
So my question is this: Have we looked at the standards from the
standpoint of the costs of ongoing maintenance in order to, perhaps,
amend the standards so that it will be less costly to maintain in the
future?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. We've had to do that with current budget
restraints that we've experienced over the last two or three years. So
our maintenance have been fine tuned, that we have cut back on
certain things like sod. We're not putting as much sod in in our
medians, so that adds to our maintenance costs. So we've adopted that
as a part of our policy type B.
We're looking at various vegetation types that require less
maintenance, less cutting our -- you know, some of our hedging, less
watering. We have also tried to incorporate, when we can, reuse as
well as looking at other things like, you know -- I guess -- I guess
we're looking at solar as well as a cost-saving measure, so we have
been doing that, and I think our maintenance costs have been reduced
as a result.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we have actually revised the
landscaping standards; they have been revised and published and
made part of our Land Development Code so that plants that require
less water and less maintenance are required in these landscaping
standards; is that done already?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. You all at your last meeting adopted the
-- or the right-of-way ordinance and adopted landscape maintenance
Page 75
May 12, 2009
requirements as part of that, as an addendum to that ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And those kinds of plants were
specified in that ordinance?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Then I think
you've got a good plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wonder if we're not going
far enough to prepare for some very lean years down the road, and
also discussing the idea of our budget restraints and how we're going
to be able to address a meaningful budget to this landscaping that we
have that's existing.
I think this is wonderful and it sets a pattern for new landscape.
To be honest with you, it will affect District 5 more than it will any
other place in the county . You remember last year I opted out of
consideration for landscaping. I guess this just puts the final nail in
the casket.
So I -- what I'm asking is that -- some consideration earlier than
later because when we get down to the budget crunch, it's going to be
a contentious issue. And if we could work this into it -- is there any
way that we're addressing present landscaping out there with this or
we're just addressing the new landscaping?
MS. ARNOLD: In that -- you're referring to whether or not we're
looking at the maintenance of our current landscaping and adjusting
accordingly?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes, we are doing that. For example, if we have
some replacements we have to do because of -- you know, something
died or has been hit by a vehicle, we are making those adjustments
when we can.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope we get eventually down
to the point where we offer everyone in the county a basic
Page 76
May 12, 2009
landscaping, and then any communities that want to enhance it, be it
private businesses or homeowners associations or whatever entity out
there, that they would be able to carry it to the next step, and then we
could come up with something that would be economically equal for
everyone throughout the county.
Problem is, I've got a lot of people in District 5 that are far
removed from anything in the way of landscaping, but they still pay
into this MSTU or the general fund for this landscaping. So just as we
go forward, I'd like everybody to keep those thoughts in mind.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'm up next, okay, and that is, I
had a number of concerns. One of them is a unified plan. And I'm
going to give an example on 951 between -- on the way to Marco
Island. We have Fiddler's Creek, and they've done a marvelous job
with their median. And then we have Hammock Bay whose now in
some -- well, WCI is in bankruptcy. Their median does not look as
good at all.
Now, the county's going to come in with a grant that we received
from the state and do one section. So what we have along that
roadway is piecemeal, some look really good, some looking partially
good, some not done at all.
And according to this, if there is no developer, it just doesn't get
done. So now you have a patchwork roadway, which makes me think
now of District 5. I think of Oil Well Road. Oil Well Road by Ave
Maria, well, they've got a developer there and they'll probably do a
wonderful job. Where there is no developer, maybe just single-family
homes, they're not going to be doing that at all. So now you've got a
patchwork effect again.
You've got Golden Gate Boulevard where there's no major
developer along there, but the homeowners are there, but they don't
really have a homeowner association all the way along Golden Gate
Boulevard. As they extend that boulevard and put landscaping in,
how will that affect them?
Page 77
May 12, 2009
Same with Immokalee Road when you get -- when you get out
just a little bit further on the way to the casino, they're going to want
to have landscaping also to look just as nice as the rest and yet there is
no developer there. So I am concerned about those things.
I don't have a problem in my district because we're done, but I
am concerned with District 5 because I don't want them to look
piecemeal. I want it to look just as nice as everything else, is my
concern. Let's see. And I gave you an example.
Oh, Vanderbilt Beach extension. Again, that's another one that
would be, you know, just single-family homes again, no developer.
MS. ARNOLD: Commissioner, this would be an interim policy.
Obviously if there was some more definitive funding for landscaping,
then you wouldn't have, you know, those projects or developments
and -- that are developed would be getting landscaping in those areas
that are without a developer or homeowners association without it.
So -- but I think this is what we feel is something that could at
least address the current requests that we're getting, considering the
financial constraints that we're going to be under.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, in other words, let me just say, it's
kind of like a Band-Aid effect until our economy recovers, and then
we'll fill in with the other things? Because as Commissioner Coletta
said, his district is now going to be the one that's going to be receiving
a lot of this stuff, but they're not going to have the same developer
contribution as other areas, and we want to make sure that everybody
looks beautiful and -- I mean, that's our signature of Collier County.
So in other words, this is just going to make do until such time as
our economy recovers enough so that we can fill in all these gaps?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, okay. Thank you. I just wanted to
understand that.
Commissioner Halas is next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. I think what we need to do is
Page 78
May 12, 2009
we need to change our thinking process here. This county cannot
continue to look at landscaping as a benefit. We've got some huge
concerns that are coming up in regards to shortfall in landscaping
maintenance.
This here is basically to set up, if you want to have landscaping,
then you -- the people in that general area need to set up an MSTU,
and I'm a strong believer that this is the direction that we need to go.
I have constituents that feel that they are entitled to landscaping
on Airport Road north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and they also think
that they need landscaping that's on Vanderbilt Beach Road that's east
of Airport. I've told them time and time again, those are four-lane
highways. If they want it, they need to come forward and set up an
MS TU. This is what this is all about.
And I understand the concerns, but we cannot continue to use ad
valorem tax dollars to set up landscaping. There are other
communities such as Radio Road that has an MSTU, and I believe that
Golden Gate City has an MSTU --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- to set up landscaping, and
probably Bayshore.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: (Nods head.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So the idea of the government's
going to take care of this, if you want landscaping, then those
communities need to step up to the plate and take care of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michelle, the way you have this
outlined, wouldn't it bring consistency and direction for people,
whether it be communities, non-gated or HOAs, to have MSTUs to
create landscaping?
MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. This is similar to what we're practicing
right now, and a couple of the MSTUs have been mentioned, Radio
Road and Golden Gate. So this is providing that vehicle for other
Page 79
May 12, 2009
communities to do the same thing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And have consistency --
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in the median. And actually
during commissioners' comments, I want to ask for direction because I
understand Commissioner Halas' comments about landscaping, but
people still want landscaping. That's the bottom line. And those are
our constituents, so we need to try to provide vehicles for them to do
that.
I understood from two of the -- my colleagues that if you want
landscaping, create an MSTU. I think this is the vehicle for the
residents to do so, and fully in support of staffs executive summary.
And I'm going to make a motion to approve staffs
recommendations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second that motion, and I'll just add
that an MSTU is good when you've got like a whole community like
Island Walk, for instance, and they want to build. But then when you
get out into the Estates and you've got one home every five acres, it's
kind of hard to create an MSTU because you just don't have enough
people, and they could never afford to do that themselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we did that in Golden
Gate City when Max Hasse was a commissioner. I mean, it's not
HOAs, head of civic association. It was the Chamber of Commerce
then and the civic association people working together to make that
happen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Just so that every--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is a way to it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, because I think everybody
deserves a fair shot at it and, you know, a chance to look as beautiful
as their neighbors.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Just wanted to reconfirm.
Page 80
May 12, 2009
I agree with you, there is a tremendous number of people out there
that really do want to see landscaping, and who wants to argue with
them? I mean, that's what makes Collier County unique.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They're on limerock roads, too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, we want them
landscaped, too, but not right down the middle of the road. I'm telling
you right now, it won't be acceptable, Commissioner Coyle. Asphalt's
what we're looking for.
But the truth of the matter is, there's a fairness issue on this whole
thing that we have to keep in mind at all times.
Now, help me with this, Golden Gate City and Immokalee both
have an MSTU for landscaping.
MS. ARNOLD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They also pay into the general
fund for the rest of the county, correct?
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So not only do they pay their
own MSTU, but they pay a general fund for this landscaping. I don't
understand the fairness of this. I really don't. I mean, if you've got an
MSTU in place, you're taking care of your immediate area. And I
mean -- and I'll be honest with you, both Immokalee and Golden Gate
City do a wonderful job with the money they bring in. Why are these
people also paying for everybody's landscaping that doesn't have an
MSTU?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can I jump in and say, they drive on
everybody else's roads and enjoy the landscaping and the calming
effect and the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, forgive me. It don't make
sense.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Vanderbilt Beach has a
landscaping MSTU that we've landscaped the roads in Vanderbilt
Beach area.
Page 81
May 12,2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Now, the way I always
see the thing --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They pay into the thing.
MS. ARNOLD: Can I answer the question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, let me just make a
statement.
MS. ARNOLD: The MSTUs are picking up the capital projects,
and the county is picking up the maintenance.
MR. OCHS: In the future.
MS. ARNOLD: No. They are doing it now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The MSTU, we do the planting,
and the county picks up the maintenance, but we pay the county on
our MSTU. Our MSTU pays for the maintenance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Same with Bayshore.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we're right back to a fairness
issue on it. Sure, it's tranquil and it's lovely to drive in, but why do my
people that live out in Golden Gate Estates -- not Immokalee.
Immokalee's got their own part there. But why does Immokalee have
to pay twice? Why do people that live in Golden Gate Estates that
might never get to the coastal area have to pay for that? You know,
they're willing to live without the MSTU, they're willing to live
without the landscaping. They've made this clear to me many times.
I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle's in agreement, but he wants to
make a statement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll let Commissioner Coyle jump in there,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For the same reason that we all pay
in to a stormwater fund that helps everybody in the county with
stormwater projects, for the same reason that people who don't have
children pay to the school board to benefit all the children in the
community.
Page 82
May 12, 2009
There are many, many examples why that sort of thing happens.
And if we -- you know, to get into a debate -- I mean, why does a
large portion of the property tax revenues from my district along the
coast get spent in Immokalee? And it does. And I don't -- I don't
complain about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's God choosing, I got to
tell you right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's beyond this commission.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I mean, that's what we're all
about. We're about helping everybody in the community. And if we
get into a fight about, where does my money go and why don't I get to
keep all my money, you know, it's not going to lead us anywhere. But
I think we've been able to do quite well throughout the county making
it a beautiful place to live.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No doubt about that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when we create a reputation of
having a county that is a wonderful place to live, we're benefiting all
the residents in that county, and we're impacting --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the property values of all the
people in the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I don't -- that argument gets
a little thin as we go along. But also, too, we're up against a real tight
budget year where we're going to have to look at everything. At some
point in time we're going to have to make choices between the health,
safety, and welfare, and landscaping. And we haven't got there yet,
but we're all aware of the fact that's going to be coming up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is the start.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas will
wind this up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, this is the
Page 83
May 12, 2009
start where we got the MSTU and everybody, and homeowners
association they're going to get back involved in this. That's what
we're doing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. ARNOLD: Ifwe might just have Michelle take one more
minute and --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fifty seconds, thank you.
MR. OCHS: -- clarify what our -- what we are doing right now
with regard to landscape, capital and maintenance.
MS. ARNOLD: And I'll use Golden Gate City as an example
because it's the best example because Golden Gate Parkway, which
meets our six-laning criteria in certain parts, county's taking on the
maintenance, but they have in their MSTU certain roadways like
Sunshine and Coronado and -- that do not meet that criteria, which
exceeds the county's basic landscaping requirements, which they are
paying for, capital as well as maintenance.
So that's similar to the proposal that's being brought to you.
Anything that is in excess of the county's basic landscaping master
plan requirements, the MSTUs or associations would pick up the
maintenance and capital projects. Anything that meets it, upon board's
approval obviously -- it would be a case-by-case basis -- you all would
determine whether or not you would pick up the maintenance on those
roadways.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We have a motion on the
floor from Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 84
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
MS. ARNOLD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0, good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was there limerock roads in
that?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Was there limerock roads in that
one?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I heard them mentioned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was a health, safety, welfare.
MR.OCHS: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
Item #10D
AWARDING BID NO. 09-5213, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (BLDG. F) SECURITY
LOBBY ADDITION, PROJECT NO. 52525.1, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $453,042 TO BORAN CRAIG BARBER ENGLE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY~ INC. - APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Your next item is 10D, and that was moved from
your consent agenda to your regular agenda. It was formerly Item
16E5, and that is a recommendation to award bid number 09-5213 for
the construction -- excuse me -- of the administration building security
lobby addition, project 52525.1 in the amount of $453,042 to Boran
Craig Barber Engle Construction Company, Incorporated.
This item was moved at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Page 85
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe I can --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I can, Madam Chair. I don't
have a problem with improving the lobby or adding to it, but $453,000
for a thousand square feet is just outrageous.
MR. CAMP: Agree.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So maybe there's a reason for it.
But I know there's a lot of people out there who live in homes that are
a lot bigger than a thousand square feet who would be amazed at the
cost of $430 a square foot for construction.
MR. CAMP: Very valid observation. For the record, I'm Skip
Camp, Facilities Management Director.
And I apologize for not making this clear in the executive
summary, Commissioner. If you look on the visualizer, we have a
tendency in the industry to talk about conditioned space. The building
is twice that size, but the conditioned space is about a thousand square
feet.
When you add the other thousand that's outside the conditioned
spaced with the roof, the foundation, it's about $200 a square foot. It's
the last piece of this puzzle to make this campus user friendly.
It will bring -- it will bring the public -- it will make sense to the
public finally. Once they leave the parking lot on either side of the
parking deck or the parking lot on the other side, they will have
covered walkways all the way into their services.
And one of the things we're running into is, we want to get them
away from the side of this building -- it's the old docking area -- for a
number of reasons. First of all, you'll notice we're putting in a
one-megawatt generator. We're replacing the old 40-year-old one.
That's going to have some issues, obviously sound and smell.
We also have the -- wanting the loading dock back, which
interferes with the pedestrian walkway also. And when those trucks
are running, there are some fumes. So we want to get the general
Page 86
May 12, 2009
public out of that area and back into the mainstream where, like I said,
as soon as they leave their vehicle, through new signage that we just
ordered, they will come exactly -- they will know exactly how to get
to their services.
And also, once inside the building -- right now it's a little
confusing. They don't see the elevators. They have to be directed to
the elevators and stairwells. They'll be exactly where they need to be.
The elevators will be right inside there, and the public will be served.
This is the last piece.
And, again, there's a number of reasons also, Commissioner, that
it's $200 a square foot. One of them is that we have to go with the
most restrictive construction there is. It's called type one and it's
because it's attached to a high-rise. That brought the cost up
considerably.
It's a complicated site. The entire footprint has to be hand-dug
because of chiller pipes that run underneath, the fiberoptics, the sewer,
the potable water, all those kind of things. So there's a number of
items that make this $200 a square foot. But I think when it's done,
the campus finally will make sense to the people that use it, the public.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't know that our offices will
ever make sense to the public, but nevertheless.
You're talking about a total of then 2,000 square feet of
construction, only 1,000 square feet is under air. The rest of it is a
portico or something?
MR. CAMP: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is any portion of the entrance and
walkway included in this cost, or is that separate?
MR. CAMP: Yes. We will bring the walkways together here,
and the sidewalk is part of it, too.
I should also remind you that a year-and-a-half ago we budgeted
this at $800,000. At that time that's what the going rate was. The bids
came in at less than -- or around half, I believe, and it was very
Page 87
May 12, 2009
competitive. We had nine bidders. We used to -- we used to beg for
two or three bidders. So it was very competitively bid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I prefer not to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, anybody would
like to make a motion on this?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor,
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any more 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.)
Item #8A (Continued from earlier in the meeting)
ORDINANCE 2009-24: AMENDING 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 IMPACT FEE STUDY ENTITLED THE
COLLIER COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT
FEE UPDATE STUDY, DATED APRIL 21,2009; AMENDING
Page 88
May 12, 2009
SCHEDULE FOUR TO REFLECT THE REVISED RATES SET
FORTH IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY AND PROVIDING FOR A
DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OF AUGUST 11,2009, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE 90-DA Y NOTICE PERIOD
REQUIRED BY SECTION 163.31801 (3)(D), FLORIDA
STATUTES - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I guess now we'll move back to our
impact fees.
MS. PATTERSON: Hello. Amy Patterson again, for the record.
We've made a lot of assumptions in calculating these numbers. I
think the most dangerous assumption is that permitting activity is
going to stay the same. But we had to go there. It's -- they're small
numbers obviously, and if it gets much worse than this, then we have
other predicaments that we're going to be facing.
But this year the shortfall -- just before we changed the fees or
did anything, the shortfall in the jail impact fees to pay the $2 million
worth of debt per year is $1.6 million that we'll be borrowing.
Now, if we went to a scenario where the residential fees stayed
the same and the commercial fees were then adjusted down
accordingly by 50 percent, that constitutes about another $100,000
loss assuming the exact same permitting scenario that we have now.
Of course, any big buildings or things that would come in could
change that, and they could change it dramatically just with one
building permit. But we had to make that assumption that we stayed
the same with the activities, square-footage uses, things like that.
So that $100,000 loss then takes the need to borrow to 1.7
million. And also to mention that if permitting activity does the
opposite and starts to increase, then we're exacerbating this problem of
loss on every building permit and that our period to correct is 90 days.
So if for some reasons permitting activity really picked up, there's
nothing that we can do for 90 days from the date that a change is
Page 89
May 12, 2009
adopted. So you have a three-month period you'll always be dealing
with in order to make a correction to these fees. And that's where I'm
at as far as those numbers go.
We had calculated the difference if we went to implementing the
fee at 75 percent. What that will do is soften the increase a little bit on
the homes and will still provide a decrease to the commercial. It gets
you -- it solves your methodology issue. We move to the new
methodology . We don't implement 100 percent of the fee. We could
take Commissioner Henning's recommendation that we come back in
a year period and look at the scenario. At that time we'd be ready to
look at the indexing, too, and see how all of those factors play out
when you go to implement the full fee.
At this point if you are happy with any of these ideas or if you
would like me to run more scenarios, I can come back at the next
meeting. It's at the board's direction that I proceed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, just to clarify what you told
us. You gave us two sets of figures, a jail impact fee shortfall of 1.6
for debt service and an additional $100,000 for this year if we do
what?
MS. PATTERSON: If you reduce the commercial side by 50
percent and hold the residential side at the current rates --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: -- which I did have an additional concern
about that only because of not applying an adjustment equally across
the two classes. I would caution that if you make a change to one --
you can't make an arbitrary change to one type of construction and
leave the other fee the same.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to clarify this, and then
I'm going to turn this over to Commissioner Halas because he wants to
ask a question about it. But then you gave a 75 percent fee reduction?
MS. PATTERSON: No. Implementation of the fee at 75 --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At 75 percent.
Page 90
May 12, 2009
MS. PATTERSON: -- percent. So a 25 percent reduction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would give you what kind of
shortfall at that level?
MS. PATTERSON: Minimal. It should bring us fairly close to
revenue neutral, of course, throwing in the caveat that if permitting
activity changes, even types of units -- because right now the impact
fees are being assessed on a per-square-foot basis, both residential and
commercial, this methodology's going to change to the tiers. So it's --
there's going to be some leveling out of those numbers just based on
the new methodology, and the same thing with the commercial
activity. If there's different types of commercial activity, less intense,
more intense, you could see those numbers shift. We had to just go
based on what we know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to summarize now, make sure
we all got it right so when we ask a question we know where we're
starting from.
If you keep residential at the current rate and commercial will
reduce, you're going to have an additional $100,000 shortfall that will
have to be covered by the general fund.
If you implement the rates at 75 percent, which is a 25 percent
reduction of the residential rates --
MS. PATTERSON: Across the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- across the board, 25 percent
reduction across the board, it will have minimal general fund impact;
is that what you're saying?
MS. PATTERSON: Minimal general fund impact above the 1.6
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 1.1 (sic), which you're already
committed to?
MS. PATTERSON: We're already committed to borrowing--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: -- the 1.6.
Page 91
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Thank you very
much.
Commissioner Halas, I'm sorry. Madam Chair, it's all yours.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And if we decided to say that we
want to cut the $400 per regular homes, what would that impact the
revenue from the general fund?
MS. PATTERSON: If you wanted to cut the residential fees as
well as even further to the 50 percent? Well, we estimated that if you
look at the $400,000 estimated to be collected this year in jail impact
fees, we attributed about $132,000 of that to residential. So if you cut
that in half -- whatever you cut out is what we have to balance with
general fund.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to amend my motion,
two parts of it. For one thing, if we ask staff to come back to
implement the full impact fee study, you still have to wait 90 days,
and I would rather just give you a day, and if that day doesn't work for
what -- nothing has changed in the market, we can also delay that.
MS. PATTERSON: So if you pick say January 1, 2008, and then
January 1, 2009, is that what -- so you pick two --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I was thinking February
14th.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. Two effective dates, for the first
phase of implementation and the second phase of implementation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second phase would be
February 14th.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First phase, being that we have
more information -- I'm also aware and concerned about our residents
having to pick this up even on an interim basis. So I'm going to
Page 92
May 12, 2009
change my motion to implement a 75 percent of the study; is that
correct?
MS. PATTERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that way we'll try to hit the
target so our taxpayers are not hit by further reductions in some
manner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner
Henning, one more time. You want to phase it in?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the date, if the economy is
worse and we want to deal with it, we can also deal with that, too, at
the time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. My second remains.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only thing -- one thing I'd like
to ask is, is can we use the terminology reduction of25 percent in the
jail impact fee across the board rather than have 75 percent
implementation rate, because it's confusing that way.
MS. PATTERSON: So long as we say it's a 25 percent of the
proposed fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Twenty-five percent reduction of
the proposed fee, across the board?
MS. PATTERSON: Across the board, only because I don't want
to give people the impression we're reducing the current fee by 25
percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, okay. But it's still
going to result in an increase?
MS. PATTERSON: It's still going to result in an increase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. PATTERSON: It's $137.34 on a 2,000-square foot home.
Page 93
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And so we're doing two
things. We are reducing your recommendations by 25 percent across
the board, and we're also delaying the implementation of those new
rates until February 14th; is that -- is that what we're saying?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And on February 14th we can
address it -- address it again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Is that somebody's birthday
or --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's Valentine's Day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's Valentine's Day, okay. I
understand now.
MS. FILSON: That's a Sunday.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sunday?
MS. PATTERSON: If I might clarify -- the new -- the rates, the
25 percent reduction in the proposed will go in effect on February
14th?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. PATTERSON: And then the 100 -- at some future time, if
you choose to implement the 100 percent fee, we'll deal with that on a
going-forward basis?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought it was a date of
October or August.
MS. PATTERSON: That's what I'm trying to clarify is, there is a
-- the recommended date in the executive summary for the 90 days is
August 11 tho
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I apologize. That is the 25
percent reduction.
MS. PATTERSON: Okay. So Phase 1 --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Phase 1.
MS. PATTERSON: -- would go into effect as prescribed only
Page 94
May 12, 2009
with the 25 percent reduction, and then the second, Phase 2, which
would be the full fee, would go into effect on February 14th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Everybody clear on that motion?
Staff? Everybody? Second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a 4-1 vote on that with
Commissioner Halas opposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good to see you again.
Item #11
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, that takes us -- that takes us to public
comment on general topics.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any public comment?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. I have one speaker, Michael
Conway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you have two.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you should have two.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I have two.
Page 95
May 12, 2009
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. He registered under 6B.
MR. CONWAY: Commissioners, Madam Chair, Michael
Conway for the record.
I'm back in front of you again to see if we've gone forward with
something in regards to the nonconforming calls to the Sheriffs
Department and nonessential calls, for fees to be instituted against
those individuals that do that. And you had directed staff and the
county attorney to look into the possibility. That's all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: County Attorney?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I just got an email from Diane Flagg earlier
on this today. I don't really remember where we are, and I directed
staff to pull the transcripts to see where we are on this. I just don't
recollect where we are in the process.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, could you check on that --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and get back to this gentleman?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. He will get back to you, Mr.
Conway.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Conway and I have spoken before.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. CONWAY: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Mallory.
MR. MALLORY: Commissioners, I'm Dave Mallory, First
Assembly Ministries. I wish I had a teleprompter, but since I don't,
I'm going to speak from my heart.
About three-and-a-half years ago we entered into an agreement
with Bill Klohn and Pat McEwen (phonetic) of MDG to sell them 24
acres to construct workforce housing.
About ten months ago, they walked away from a contract, a
Page 96
May 12, 2009
promissory note and a second mortgage and also a verbal commitment
to our bank to give us the payments due. We lost more than $5
million.
We had -- based on their commitment, we had borrowed money
from our bank to construct our family worship center. Everything had
to come to a halt at this point. From the $3.2 million, the county gave
us permission to begin our footers and our slab. We also purchased a
half-million dollars worth of steel which has been sitting on the
ground now for about ten months.
It's been a psychological and a financial hardship to the church,
but recently we had some people come forward that said they would
be willing to help us go vertical with our construction without any
upfront cost to the church.
We approached staff, and staff said we could have what they
called a phased permit. What I'm asking for is if we could pay the
impact fees when we get our permanent permit, our construction
permit, and let us go ahead with the shell, with the steel that's just
sitting on the ground prior to the rainy season. We really would like
to go vertical. So we would pay the impact fees when we obtained our
regular building permit, but to let us go vertical with the shell of the
building just now on this phase permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You wouldn't be utilizing this?
MR. MALLORY: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just to put it up.
MR. MALLORY: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I mean, there's really no
impact until you go further down the line.
MR. MALLORY: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds reasonable to me.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Reverend Mallory, your
dreams, which I endorse 100 percent, have been -- you've been
Page 97
May 12, 2009
through just about everything you could possibly go through, and I'm
sure your parishioners are saying, you know, let's say something.
MR. MALLORY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you were able to construct
this, at least it would be something vertical that, when they drive in to
come to services, they'd be able to see this, and it might inspire them
to go forward with the dream.
MR. MALLORY: I believe it would.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't see any harm. Can you,
County Attorney?
MR. KLA TZKOW: I think the ordinance is silent on this issue.
There's no impact. He's just putting up a shell, so I don't have an issue
with this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we direct from here or do
we have to bring it back?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's no need for a public hearing on this.
It's -- the ordinance is silent, so if you want to direct from here, it's
fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm in agreement with
going ahead.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And this is to build your worship center?
MR. MALLORY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Like your church?
MR. MALLORY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, anything? I have two
nods here, right? Any problems with them going vertical just with the
shell?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm really not sure where this is
leading us to.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, my understanding is he's got steel
beams that are --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
Page 98
May 12, 2009
MR. KLATZKOW: -- rusting away.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But I'm concerned that the next
thing you know, then he's going to come in and want to waive impact
fees or something.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure where we're going on
this thing.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's what we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess I need to have more input.
MR. SCHMITT: I just want to clarify, for the record, and -- for
the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development.
A phase permit is the issuing of an actual building permit. And
Randy and his team will have to apply and go through a phase
permitting process which is basically a full review of a building
permit, and that the building is normally constructed in phases,
whatever the phase they wish to do is, if portions of it were to be
occupied or just phasing.
For example, the hospital we issued in phase permits. As
systems were reviewed and approved, it proceeded through
construction. I'm not sure the phasing, what they're talking about --
understand a phase permit in this case may be just steel and a shell and
a building and -- with no landscaping, architectural embellishments or
anything --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Seats or anything.
MR. SCHMITT: -- like that until the building is final. So I'm
not sure what you're -- what we're talking about in a phased permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No. What are we talking about as
far as impact fees? When are those addressed?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, the question here was that the impact
fees would be issued at the final phase. It's still the issuing of a
building permit. It's just being issued in phases. As they build, they
come in and apply, and they're issued a second phase, a third phase
Page 99
May 12, 2009
and so forth. I'm not -- depending on how they phase it. But they are
-- it is a legal issuing of a building permit. They're just asking to defer
the impact fees, what I understand, until the final phase before they --
prior to occupancy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And do we normally do this?
MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. That's -- oh, do we normally?
We've never, that I'm aware of, have ever deferred impact fees.
Normally impact fees are paid upon the issuing of the initial building
permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As you go up in phases?
MR. SCHMITT: You pay the total impact fees at building
permit, issuing of building permit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Whatever the final design of the building will
be. And then, for the record, maybe if we could just put on the record
what the phasing plan is or at least so we understand what we're
asking, because this is the first -- I know Randy and I talked on the
phone last week about the potential for this, but I was not aware that
you were coming today on the -- for the meeting, so --
MR. MALLORY: It was similar to when the county allowed us
to put in the footers.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. MALLORY: And the slab. It's basically that. It's--
because back then, ten months ago, we wanted to beat the rainy season
then, too, so the footers and everything weren't -- weren't filled in.
MR. SCHMITT: Normally--
MR. MALLORY: It's basically that. The building would be
totally inhabitable, and Randy Johns, Phoenix Construction, could tell
how far we really want to go on this.
MR. SCHMITT: Normally that type of permit is an early work
authorization, which is a little bit different. You're -- we really don't
issue the final permit. We just allow you to proceed to your first
Page 100
May 12, 2009
phase of construction, which is a little bit different process. A phase
permit is the issuing of a final building permit, but it's issued in
phases. Just--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So in other words, a phased permit you
would pay impact fees on, but an early work permit you do not; is that
what you're saying?
MR. SCHMITT: Normally an early work authorization is a -- we
-- through the building director, they're allowed to proceed through the
first point of inspection, which is normally the footers. If we're going
to go beyond the first point of inspection, then it is a phased permit,
and that has to be approved by both the building director and the fire
code official of the county. So it's an application that Phoenix would
come in, or their contractor -- I'm assuming it's going to be Phoenix --
would come in and request through the building director and the fire
official for approval of a phased construction proj ect.
Now, that -- that is separate and distinct from the impact fee
issue. The impact fee issue is, again, normally paid. When you issue
a building permit, you issue -- you pay the impact fees.
So what they're asking here is not to pay the impact fees until --
I'm assuming until prior to either the last phase or prior to occupancy,
and that's your decision. I mean, that's -- that's -- I would have to turn
to the county attorney --
MR. KLATZKOW: You have a building off of Davis Boulevard
that's just basically the steel beams that they put up there.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding is that's basically what
you're looking at, that sort of thing.
MR. SCHMITT: Right, but that building on -- David Benderson
is building the building.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand.
MR. SCHMITT: They paid all the impact fees for that.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I understand that. But the unfortunate
Page 101
May 12, 2009
reality is that the world changed, and our ordinance just doesn't
contemplate this, this present economy that we're in. It's silent on this.
If all he's doing is putting up a building that's going to look like
what's on Davis off of 951, nobody's going to be in there, and it will
have no impact. And when the church moves forward to complete
that building, at that point in time, that next permit, he should pay
impact fees.
But, you know, this is a very unique situation. I've, you know --
I would limit it just to this particular application of it, but I don't have
an issue. There's no impact on this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not sure. There are
health, safety, and welfare issues involved in a construction site, and
having a construction site partially completed for extended periods of
time, I think, creates some liability.
I don't want to make things any harder on you than they already
are, but I'd like to have some comfort in knowing that we're not going
to be sitting here three years, four years from now with a bunch of
steel beams sticking up out of the -- out of the ground and we don't
have a structure and we don't have any hope with having a -- finishing
a structure.
Who's going to pay to tear it all down if ultimately this project
collapses? We have no idea what's going to happen in this economy.
And if you can't pay the impact fees now, can you pay them at the
second phase? I don't know.
You have money problems and you're doing the best you can, but
I think we have obligations, too, and I'm not sure where this is going
to lead us.
MR. MALLORY: We have an ongoing stewardship campaign.
The people have watched that steel sit there for one year. They really
want to see something happening as they give their funds.
This company that came forward that said they would erect this
Page 102
May 12, 2009
steel; no upfront costs. The impact fees, we think, are going to be
about three-quarters of a million dollars. The stewardship campaign is
going to address that. Everybody's aware of it. Our board is aware of
it.
But people are not visionary. I can walk on that pad and see the
choir singing. Most people, they just see steel on the ground. And we
just need help to move forward.
We've been cooperating with the -- with Bill Klohn, MDG, the
county, to get that workforce housing, and it -- we're all, of course,
disappointed. But we're in a dire situation right now. We need to
move forward. We need to show our congregation something, and
we're not going to come back and ask for deferral of impact fees or
anything. We're a church. We're going to go ahead. But we really
need -- we really need to see this happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have the capability to raise
$750,000 in a year or two years?
MR. MALLORY: Yes. We have a commitment from a bond
company based on certain criteria, which they've already done an
assessment that they will issue some bonds to take care of the actual
building costs and the debt owed, and they want to see the
commitments from the congregation. And we believe those
commitments will be there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. And
good luck to you.
MR. MALLORY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had a question also. Are you just
putting up the steel beams or -- but you were talking about them
rusting, so are you going to be putting some kind of a covering and
roof over those steel beams?
MR. JOHNS: I'm Randy Johns with Phoenix Associates. What
we applied for on the phased permit was the erection of the steel and
the exterior block walls so that we could tie it all together and make
Page 103
May 12, 2009
this building so that we could lock it up and close it, so it would --
wouldn't be a problem for the safety or the welfare of the people.
The way it is right now, we've got, you know,
400-some-thousand dollars worth of steel laying out there on the
ground that's going bad. We've got a steel slab -- or a concrete slab
poured with all the steel sticking up. That's just from the weather
deteriorating. And it's going to cost the pastor a lot more in the future
if we don't do something for him now to try to cover this thing up so
we don't lose what he's got.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So actually you're going to be putting in
walls and --
MR. JOHNS: Just the exterior walls.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- roof and windows and doors?
MR. JOHNS: Yes, ma'am, and that's it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we've probably pretty
much exhausted this item. But I can tell you, judging by the past and
money that's come into this church that was questionable and how
they returned it put them in a very disadvantaged situation going
forward.
They have exhibited strong ethic behavior, you know, for church,
for a business, for individuals. And if they say they're not going to be
coming back here to ask for impact fee forgiveness, which we'd never
grant anyway, I believe them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the -- Reverend, what's the
size of your congregation?
MR. MALLORY: Right now we have about 500 people that
meet on a Sunday.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Five hundred people.
MR. MALLORY: Our chapel -- our chapel seats 300 people and
we have two services. We also have a Spanish congregation of 110
Page 104
May 12, 2009
that meets in a lobby building, and we have a Creole congregation that
runs about 35 people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So County Attorney, what do we do on
this?
MR. KLATZKOW: It's your discretion. I'm telling you -- what
I'm saying is that there's no bar for you to do this. There's no
requirement for you to do this either. It's completely your discretion.
Commissioner Coyle raised some interesting points. But, you
know, there were other interesting points raised also. It's policy.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We don't have to go out to the public
though or advertise this?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. There's nobody affected other than the
reverend here. It's just him.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got two that agree with the
pastor. We don't know what the others want to do.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Two of you guys say to move
forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you want to do it in the
form of a motion so that we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, if we don't need, you know--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's just see. How about -- what are you
saying? What are you nodding about, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's give him a chance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, that's three.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You've got the vote, three.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. There you go.
MS. FILSON: So how many was it, three or four?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You need four?
Page 105
May 12, 2009
MS. FILSON: No. I'm asking so I can make a note.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Three already said. The other two did
not.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You only needed three, so that was where
we stopped.
MR. MALLORY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS : Commissioner, that takes us to Item 15, staff and
commission general communications.
I have nothing today, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. How about you, County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: I had nothing, but what I will say, it would
be my recommendation that a type of public comment that we saw
today is really best served in the form of an -- earlier in the meeting
where they come forward on public petition so that we know what's
going on, and staff and I can get together and give the board some
background prior to being presented. That's my only comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I felt the same way. I wished
something this big we would have a known about so we could at least
prepare, yeah. So -- okay.
Any comments from our commissioners? Commissioner Coyle,
we'll start with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'd like to discuss with you
a problem that I see, but I don't have a solution. So all I would ask is
the board's indulgence to have the staff take a look at it.
Page 106
May 12, 2009
The number of proclamations we're getting and the purpose of
the proclamations, I think, is eroding the significance of
proclamations. I mean, to the extent now we can't even take the time
to read them all.
There was a time when proclamations were restricted for certain
things like significant and outstanding service for the health, safety,
and welfare of the community.
And it seems to have evolved into an opportunity for people to
generate some publicity for all sorts of causes. And I'm not going to
criticize the causes because to them they're important causes. But I
believe that proclamations by the Board of County Commissioners
should be really important things, and they deserve recognition and
they deserve the opportunity to be read here.
And I'm just wondering if the staff can come up with any
guidelines that will restore meaning to the Collier County
proclamations. I'm afraid we've just devalued the entire process over
the past couple of years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, I notice that a couple times in
our consent agenda there were some proclamations which we never
read, never handed out, but somehow I guess they were sent to them.
That might be a way to consider it as staff takes a look at this.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Those are for people that have
notified us in advance that they're not going to be able to attend and
accept a proclamation, so in those cases we typically put them on
consent and mail the proclamation to them.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. To be honest with you, I
take a slightly different view. It's one of the few times the public gets
to interact with us. And this recognition, while we might not think it's
of the most worthy nature, to them it's important.
And I know there's a lot of them, but I think that we -- we have to
be realistic about it. I kind of regret the fact that we're not reading
Page 107
May 12, 2009
them, but there doesn't seem to be any public outcry with that. The
fact that they get the proclamation, they're being recognized, they get
to speak, that means a lot to them.
I'm not too excited about trimming back on that, to be honest
with you, and I hate to put staff in the position of trying to make a
decision who's worthy and who isn't.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other comments from
commissioners?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we just continue at what
we're doing. If you've got a proclamation, you get a proclamation, and
we just don't read it. We just hand it to the person who's got the
proclamation, and they can say a few words and be done with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Paula doesn't have
anything to do. She enjoys doing those proclamations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good, good. Okay.
We're now -- it looks like we will continue on with our -- we've
trimmed back really as far as the time allotted, so thank you for your
suggestion anyway, Commissioner Coyle.
Any other comments? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I still have to ask my other
commissioners if they have any comments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, well, I thought you were
looking for a hint.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I've got the motion and the and second.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if the motion fails, I want
you to know I'm going to bring up a substitute motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's your only comment?
Page 108
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my only comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. It's exciting to me to
announce that we extended our family last week. We're a proud
owner of a dog, thanks to -- the reason why I bring this up is Domestic
Animal Service, boy, what a great experience for our family. I mean,
they were so kind and courteous, very knowledgeable. Nan Gerhardt
is a 20-year employee of Collier County and does an outstanding job
out there.
And another thing they did, they wanted to make sure our home
was safe for the pet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I mean actually--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's so nice.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, it's a great service that
we have for Collier County. So anyways -- and another thing I want
to say, one of the -- well, the Radio Road MSTU Advisory Board
approached me about a month ago, maybe more, about expanding
their boundaries to complete Radio Road from it's two terminuses.
I met with some residents, the ones who went to a public
meeting. There seems to be some -- a lot of interest in it, and at this
point I need permission from the Board of Commissioners to work
with staff to bring a potential ordinance change.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sounds good to me. Looks like I've got
some nods going on over here. Move forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And just one question. At our
last meeting in April, we talked about professional contracts, and I
guess it's my understanding you're going to come back in June and tell
us the process the staff has been using to capture local companies in
that process?
MR.OCHS: Yes, sir. I believe we sent the board a memo, but
we can come back and report on that at a board meeting if you'd
Page 109
May 12, 2009
prefer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, you sent a memo?
MR. OCHS: I believe Ms. Price did --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I--
MR. OCHS: -- to the commission that -- to talk about how we
evaluated and factored in local vendors in our competitive negotiating
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you resend it to me and --
MS. PRICE: I'll resend that memo to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MS. PRICE: We are planning on bringing to the board our
progress report on the local vendor preference, so we'll discuss all
those things as well. I will forward you that memo.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR.OCHS: I'm sorry, sir, if you didn't get that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It could have been on my
part or our part. That's all.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And lastly, I just want to invite
everybody to come to the ribbon cutting grand opening for the library
in East Naples. It's this Friday, 10 o'clock, and we'd love to have you
there and celebrate something great that's happening for that whole
surrounding community.
And with that, we have a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there are no books there, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, there's a few. I brought in my
books from home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there staff people there?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not yet.
With that, I have a motion on the floor and a second to adjourn.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 110
May 12, 2009
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: At 12:21.
****Commissioner Halas moved, seconded by Commissioner Coyle
and carried unanimously that the following items under the Consent
and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16Al
EASEMENT USE AGREEMENT FOR THE EXISTING
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT 158 SAN RAFAEL LANE-
ALLOWING THE PROPERTY OWNER CONTINUED USE OF
THE ENCROACHMENT INTO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT OF
AN EXISTING POOL. DECK AND SCREEN ENCLOSURE
Item #16A2
FINAL AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE OF THE
WATER UTILITY FACILITY FOR WATERSIDE SHOPS-
W/RELEASE OF ANY UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A3
RESCINDING THE AWARD OF CONTRACT ITB #08-5075,
COLLECTION AGENCY SERVICE FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO
UNITED ADJUSTMENT CORPORATION FOR FAILURE TO
COMPL Y WITH BID REQUIREMENTS - FOR NOT PROVIDING
Page 111
May 12, 2009
A BOND IN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT
Item #16A4
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING
RELEASE AND SATISFACTION OF LIEN IN THE CODE
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
HALDEMAN CREEK ENTERPRISE, LLC, CEB NO. 2003-023,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2891 BA YVIEW
DRIVE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - FOR AN
ALTERATION, ENLARGEMENT AND ADDITION TO A DECK
AREA WITHOUT RECEIVING THE PROPER PERMITS OR A
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Item #16Bl
EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A TEN FOOT (10) SLOPE
EASEMENT WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE COLLIER
BOULEVARD PROJECT. PROJECT NO. 68056, PARCEL NO.
172 (FISCAL IMPACT: $2,335.00) - FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A STORMW A TER DETENTION AREA ALONG THE EAST
SIDE OF THE CANAL
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2009-118: THE PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE
INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL
TRAFFIC LANES ON IMMOKALEE ROAD TO SUPPORT THE
INTERCHANGE AT I-75. (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT NOS. 42.2 AND 43.1, PROJECT NO. 60171).
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT FOR RIGHT OF WAY
Page 112
May 12, 2009
ACQUISITION: $250,000 - IN ORDER TO MEET THE JUNE 15,
2009 DEADLINE
Item #16B3
THE CONVEYANCE OF COUNTY LAND (PARCELS #132FEE
AND #132FEE2) AND MAINTENANCE OF A NOISE
ATTENUATION WALL FOR THE SANTA BARBARA
BOULEVARD EXTENSION PROJECT. (PROJECT NO. 60091.)
ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: $100.00 - FALLING WATERS
MASTER ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAIN THE WALL
Item #16B4
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING REVENUE FOR THE
COUNTYWIDE PATHWAYS PROGRAM, TIS REVIEW, PUD
MONITORING/TRAFFIC COUNTS PIL, AND PUD
MONITORING/FAIR SHARE PROJECTS WITHIN THE
TRANSPORTATION SUPPORTED GAS TAX FUND (313) IN
THE AMOUNT OF $234,959.77 - FUNDS COLLECTED AS
PAYMENT-IN-LIEU, PROJECT REVIEW FEES AND FAIR
SHARE PAYMENTS FROM THE APPLICATION AND
MONITORING PROCESS
Item #16B5
AWARDING RFP #08-5130 FOR DESIGN AND RELATED
SERVICES TO CME ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ACCELERATED BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND PILOT BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTION (WHITE BOULEVARD BRIDGE AND 23RD
STREET SOUTHWEST), IN THE AMOUNT OF $395,012.
Page 113
May 12, 2009
PROJECT #66066 - TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION TIME,
TRAFFIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, IMPROVE
WORKER AND VEHICLE SAFETY AND ENHANCING THE
QUALITY OF THE CONSTRUCTED BRIDGE BY MINIMIZING
FUTURE REPAIRS
Item #16B6
RECOGNIZING FY 2008/2009 FEDERAL TRANSIT
ADMINISTRATION SECTION 5311 ADDITIONAL REVENUE
IN THE AMOUNT OF $242,405.00 TO COLLIER AREA
TRANSIT FUND (426) AND THE NECESSARY BUDGET
AMENDMENTS - TO OFFSET OPERATIONS OF THE
IMMOKALEE CIRCULATOR
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2009-119: A JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
THE COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT) INTERMODAL
TRANSFER FACILITY AT THE GOVERNMENT CENTER, IN
AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,300,000 (50% MATCH),
ALLOCATED OVER THREE FISCAL CYCLES - FUNDS
AWARDED AND REIMBURSED OVER FY 2008/2009,
2009/2010 AND 2010/2011
Item #16B8
SUBMITTING A SECTION 319 NONPOINT SOURCE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
Page 114
May 12, 2009
PROTECTION (FDEP) IN THE AMOUNT OF $721,737 TO
CONSTRUCT THE GRIFFIN ROAD STORMW A TER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - LOCATED ON THE ROOKERY
BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE
PROPERTY
Item #16B9
RESOLUTION 2009-120: THE SUBMISSION OF THE
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED TRUST FUND
TRIP/EQUIPMENT GRANT APPLICATION WITH THE
FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $571,781. (CTD)-
FUNDS COVER A PORTION OF THE OPERATING COSTS AND
MUST BE APPLIED FOR EACH YEAR AND THE AMOUNT,
$571,781.00 IS A PRELIMINARY NUMBER AND IS SUBJECT
TO CHANGE (AMOUNT IS $635,069 PER AGENDA CHANGE
SHEET)
Item #16Cl
AMENDMENT A02 TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT NO.
ML070554 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR WATER
QUALITY MONITORING WORK THAT WILL MODIFY THE
SCOPE OF WORK TO INCLUDE NEWLY APPROVED
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION QUALITY CONTROL CRITERIA - DUE TO THE
RULE BEING UPDATED ON DECEMBER 3.2008
Item # 16C2
Page 115
May 12, 2009
SELECTION OF ASHBRITT ENVIRONMENTAL INC.
(CONTRACT 05-3661) AND SOLID RESOURCES, INC.
(CONTRACT 05-3831) AS THE INITIAL DEBRIS REMOVAL
AND MONITORING CONTRACTORS IN OPERATIONAL
READINESS FOR THE UPCOMING 2009 HURRICANE SEASON
Item #16C3
A DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) FOR
THE MANATEE ROAD 6 MILLION GALLON (MG) ABOVE
GROUND WATER STORAGE TANK AT A SITE LOCATED AT
1300 MANATEE ROAD IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND
AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $61.00, PROJECT NO. 70157-
REQUIRED TO OFFSET WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH PERMIT
APPLICATION NUMBER 041109-15
Item #16C4
A UTILITY EASEMENT AND A RIGHT OF ENTRY REQUIRED
FOR THE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION OF THE
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVING THE WEST WIND
ESTATES CONDOMINIUM AT AN ESTIMATED COST NOT TO
EXCEED $37.00, PROJECT NUMBER 71010 - IN ORDER TO
MEET CURRENT DISTRICT UTILITY STANDARDS
Item #16D1
AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE (CCSO) TO TAKE COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT (CZM) STAFF OUT TO ARTIFICIAL REEF
Page 116
May 12, 2009
SITES TO CONDUCT MONITORING OF ARTIFICIAL REEF
SITES IN EXCHANGE FOR ONE (1) PERMANENT VESSEL
SLIP AT GOODLAND PARK
Item #16D2
FOUR (4) OWNER OCCUPIED LIEN AGREEMENTS FOR
DEFERRAL OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DWELLING UNITS LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY -
DEFERING $57,403.70 IN IMPACT FEES FOR LOTS #53, #54,
#56 AND #113 IN THE LIBERTY LANDING SUBDIVISION
Item #16D3
A SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL
AGREEMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL IN FY09,
INCLUDING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS
APPROVED, THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT DEFERRED
AND THE BALANCE REMAINING FOR ADDITIONAL
DEFERRALS IN FY09
Item #16D4
THE HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE-HOUSING
PROGRAM (HPRP) AMENDMENT TO THE 2008-09 HUD ONE
YEAR ACTION PLAN AND FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS FOR
SUBMISSION TO HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) BY MAY 18, 2009 - TO DETERMINE THE AGENCIES
THAT WILL BE UTILIZIED TO HELP PROVIDE HPRP
ASSISTANCE
Page 11 7
May 12, 2009
Item #16D5
THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF THE
V ANDERBIL T BEACH RESTROOMS AND TO PROCEED WITH
DESIGN AND PERMITTING - SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC
SUPPORT AND APPROVAL WAS VOICED AT A FEBRUARY
17, 2009 PUBLIC MEETING (PROJECT CURRENTLY
BUDGETED AT $1.070.800.00)
Item #16D6
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE ATTACHED
COASTAL AND MARINE HABITAT RESTORATION,
THROUGH THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT (ARRA) GRANT APPLICATION TO THE
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE/NATIONAL OCEANIC
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) FOR MARINE
DEBRIS REMOVAL ON NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL REEFS,
BRIDGES AND PASSES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $623,355 - FOR THE PARTIAL FUNDING OF 28
CONTRACTUAL POSITIONS FOR ONE YEAR
Item #16El
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA
COASTAL ECOSYSTEM PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION
THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE (USFWS) FOR $534,900 (OF WHICH $258,700 WILL
BE REIMBURSABLE) TO FUND INVASIVE, EXOTIC PLANT
REMOVAL WITHIN THE PEPPER RANCH PRESERVE SSA-7
Page 118
May 12, 2009
Item # 16E2
REPORT AND RATIFY PROPERTY, CASUALTY, WORKERS
COMPENSATION AND SUBROGATION CLAIMS SETTLED
AND/OR CLOSED BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION #2004-15 FOR THE SECOND
QUARTER OF FY 09 - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16E3
TERMINATING THE EXISTING CONTRACT #08-5017 FOR
THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR COUNTY WIDE EXOTIC
VEGETATION REMOVAL AND AWARD ITB #09-5225 FOR
THE ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR COUNTY WIDE EXOTIC
VEGETATION REMOVAL TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE
BIDDERS BY CATEGORY, IN AN ANNUAL ESTIMATED
AMOUNT OF $350,000 - AWARDED TO AQUAGENIX,
DEANGELO BROTHERS AND JOHNSON'S TREE SERVICE
FOR CHEMICAL REMOVAL AND TO ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION CONSULTANTS, LLC AND JOHNSON'S TREE
SERVICE FOR MECHANICAL REMOVAL
Item #16E4
AFTER-THE-FACT SUBMITTAL OF THE WATER SAVINGS
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (SIP) GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT
WERE SUBMITTED TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR WATER CONSERVATION
PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $450,342 - FOR LOW FLOW
TOILET, WATERLESS URINALS AND LAUNDRY RETROFIT
PROJECTS IN PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Page 119
May 12, 2009
Item #16E5 - Moved to Item #10D (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item # 16E6
CHANGE ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO
BOARD-APPROVED CONTRACTS - FOR THE PERIOD OF
MARCH 25.2009 THROUGH APRIL 21.2009
Item #16E7
AWARD RFP #09-5126, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
PURCHASING, LEASING, RENTING AND/OR CLEANING ALL
COLLIER COUNTY UNIFORMS, TO VARIOUS VENDORS IN
THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $350,000-
AWARDED TO UNIFIRST, CINTAS AND SCREEN PRINTING
UNLIMITED
Item #16Fl
SUBMITTAL OF A FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER'S GRANT
APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $223,000 FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A PUMPER TANKER FOR THE OCHOPEE FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING ON-LINE
SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION - THE MATCHING
GRANT IS SPLIT BETWEEN FEMA (95%) AND THE OCHOPEE
FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT (5%)
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2009-121: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
Page 120
May 12, 2009
GRANTS, DONATIONS OR INSURANCE PROCEEDS) TO THE
FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 ADOPTED BUDGET - REVENUE
RECEIVED FROM FEMA SUPPLEMENTAL GRANT, ELDER
AFFAIRS GRANTS, OLDER AMERICANS ACT GRANT AND
COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY FUNDS AND HOME
CARE FOR THE ELDERLY PROGRAM
Item # 16F3
VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE GRANT AWARDED TO
OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$11.716 FOR REFURBISHING TWO 6X6 FIVE TON VEHICLES
Item #16F4
BUDGET AMENDMENTS - TO CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE FREEDOM MEMORIAL (BA#09-282) AND FOR ROCK
CORE TESTING WITHIN THE HALDEMAN CREEK MSTU
Item #16F5
FIRST QUARTER CALENDAR YEAR 2009 REPORT ON
TOURISM ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF COLLIER COUNTY
BY THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT AND THE NAPLES,
MARCO ISLAND, EVERGLADES CONVENTION & VISITORS
BUREAU - RESULTS ARE FOR JANUARY THROUGH MARCH
2009
Item #16Hl
COMMISSIONER HALAS' REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
Page 121
May 12, 2009
PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE DEDICATION OF THE
KOKOMIS HISTORIC KEEW A YDIN BOAT ON FRIDAY, APRIL
17, 2009, AT THE COLLIER COUNTY MUSEUM IN NAPLES,
FLORIDA. $15.00 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER HALAS'
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED ON THE COLLIER COUNTY
GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
Item #16H2
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED A FIDDLER'S CREEK LUNCHEON
ON APRIL 17,2009 AT THE CLUB & SPA AT FIDDLER'S
CREEK IN NAPLES, FL. $17 .98 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET
Item #16H3
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE WILL ATTEND THE 7TH ANNUAL PARADISE
COAST TOURISM STAR AWARDS LUNCHEON ON MAY 13,
2009 AT FLEMING'S PRIME STEAKHOUSE & WINE BAR IN
NAPLES, FL. $35.00 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER FIALA'S
TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 8985 TAMIAMI TRAIL
NORTH
Item #16H4
COMMISSIONER FIALA'S REIMBURSEMENT REGARDING
ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE. SHE ATTENDED THE COLLIER COUNTY ARTS
Page 122
May 12, 2009
FORUM LUNCHEON ON APRIL 24,2009 AT HAMILTON
HARBOR IN NAPLES, FL. $14.00 PAID FROM COMMISSIONER
FIALA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - LOCATED AT 7065 HAMIL TON
AVENUE
Item #16H5
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S REIMBURSEMENT
REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT A FUNCTION SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE ATTENDED THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (EDC) PROJECT INNOVATION
LUNCHEON MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15,2009, AT
THE EDC OFFICES IN NAPLES, FLORIDA. $7 .50 PAID FROM
COMMISSIONER COLETTA'S TRAVEL BUDGET - HELD IN
THE EDC BOARDROOM AT 3050 HORSESHOE DRIVE N,
SUITE 120
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 123
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 12, 2009
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Minutes:
1) Affordable Housing Commission:
Minutes of March 2, 2009.
2) Animal Services Advisory Board:
Minutes of February 17, 2009.
3) Collier County Clam Bay Advisory Committee:
Minutes of January 20,2009; February 19, 2009.
a) Clam Bay Navigational Marker Subcommittee:
Minutes of February 6,2009.
b) Clam Bav Maintenance Dredging and Sand Bvpassing
Subcommittee:
Minutes of March 9, 2009.
c) Clam Bay Water Qualitv. Mixing and Runoff Subcommittee:
March 9, 2009.
4) Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee:
Minutes of January 8, 2009; March 12,2009.
5) Collier County Planning Commission:
Agenda of April 2, 2009.
Minutes of February 19, 2009; February 20,2009 Special Session;
February 26, 2009 Special Session; March 2, 2009 Special Session;
March 5, 2009.
6) Development Services Advisory Committee:
Minutes of March 4, 2009.
7) Environmental Advisory Council:
Minutes of January 29,2009; February 5,2009; February 27,2009;
March 4, 2009.
8) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee:
Agenda of March 10,2009.
Minutes of January 6, 2009.
9) Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee:
Agenda of January 26, 2009; February 3,2009 Special Meeting.
Minutes of January 26,2009; February 3,2009 Special Meeting.
10) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board:
Minutes of FebruarY)26, 2009.
//
11) Pelican Bay Services Division Board:
Minutes of February 4, 2009; February 23, 2009 Special Session;
March 4, 2009.
a) Budget Committee:
Minutes of January 26,2009; February 23, 2009.
b) Management Review Committee:
Minutes of January 26,2009; February 12,2009.
12) Rural Lands Stewardship Area Review Committee:
Minutes of March 12, 2009.
13) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee:
Agenda of February 5,2009; March 5, 2009; March 9, 2009.
Minutes of February 5,2009.
May 12, 2009
Item #16J1
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 18,2009
THROUGH APRIL 24, 2009 AND SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item #16J2
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF APRIL 25, 2009
THROUGH MAY 01,2009 AND SUBMISSION INTO THE
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE BOARD
Item # 16J3
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO SERVE AS
THE LOCAL COORDINATING UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IN
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
(JAG) PROGRAM (AMERICAN RECOVERY AND
REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009) AND DESIGNATING THE
SHERIFF AS THE OFFICIAL APPLICANT, THE SHERIFF'S
OFFICE STAFF AS GRANT PROGRAM AND FINANCIAL
MANAGERS OF SHERIFF'S OFFICE APPLICATIONS, AND
EXECUTE THE CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION - TO
SUPPORT PAYROLL COSTS FOR TWO INVESTIGATOR
POSITIONS. TRAINING AND COMPUTER EQUIPMENT
Item #16K1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$157,000 FOR PARCEL 109 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. REGIONS BANK, ET AL., CASE NO. 07-
Page 124
May 12, 2009
3641-CA (COLLIER BOULEVARD PROJECT #60001) (FISCAL
IMPACT $9,800) - FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (PARCELS 109
AND 709)
Item #16K2
A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGAINST GABRIEL LEYVA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT FOR COMPASS AUTO
TRANSPORT, INC. AND COMPASS AUTO TRANSPORT, INC.,
IN COUNTY COURT, SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO RECOVER DAMAGES IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,058.84, PLUS COSTS OF THE ACTION -
DUE TO A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON MAY 23,2007 THAT
RESULTED IN DAMAGE TO A GUARDRAIL AT THE
INTERSECTION OF SR 29 AND FARM WORKERS WAY
Item #16K3
ADVERTISING FIVE ORDINANCES FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF RELOCATING THE ADVISORY BOARD ORDINANCES
RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS, THE BUILDING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND THE HISTORIC/ARCHAEOLOGIC
PRESERVATION BOARD, FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, AND TO WAIVE THE
REQUIREMENT, IF ANY, TO IMPLEMENT THIS
RELOCATION THROUGH A SPECIAL LDC CYCLE - AS
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 125
May 12, 2009
Item#17A
RESOLUTION 2009-122: SNR-2008-AR-14115, A STREET
NAME CHANGE FROM CHIASSO BEND COURT TO VADALA
BEND COURT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN
FIDDLERS CREEK PHASE 4, UNIT 2, SECTIONS 11 AND 14,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2009-22: DECLARING A STATE OF LOCAL
ECONOMIC EMERGENCY; TOLLING TO MAY 12, 2011 THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TIME LIMITS AND
TIME LIMIT EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS AS FOUND IN
SECTION 10.02.13.D OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC)
Item #17C
THIS ITEM CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 23. 2009 BCC
MEETING. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 02-49, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION AND
PROTECTION CODE, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 58, "FIRE
PREVENTION AND PROTECTION," ARTICLE II, "FIRE
SAFETY STANDARDS", BY AMENDING SECTION 58-26,
PERTAINING TO ADOPTED STANDARDS AND CODES OF
THE NATIONAL FIRE CODES PUBLISHED BY THE
NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA);
Page 126
May 12, 2009
AMENDING SECTION 58-27, PERTAINING TO AMENDMENTS
TO ADOPTED FIRE CODES, SPECIFICALLY NFP AI, 2006
EDITION; AMENDING SECTION 58-28, PERTAINING TO
AMENDMENTS TO THE ADOPTED LIFE SAFETY CODE,
SPECIFICALLY NFPA 101,2006 EDITION; PROVIDING FOR
THE INCLUSION IN THE CODE OF LAWS AND
ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY~ AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:21 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
~d~
DONNA" IALA, Chairman
t;:: ~~
'to. t ,., ~
."- ''',,'''''..
.A TTEST.: -,~
~Bf~gt~
These minutes aJWroved by the Board on to / 9/ tH1 , as presented
V or as corrected
Page 127