BCC Minutes 02/09/1999 R
February 9t 1999
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naplest Florida, February 9t 1999
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissionerst in
and for the County of Colliert and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have 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 Naplest Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Barbara B. Berry
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
James D. Carter
ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~
AGENDA
February 9, 1999
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER
PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ~
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA
MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANA TION TO THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL
BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
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.
'-----
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS
PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION - Reverend Fred Thorn, Golden Gate United Methodist Church
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS
A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.
B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA.
C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. January 12, 1999 - regular meeting.
B. January 13, 1999 - workshop.
C. January 19, 1999 - workshop.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS
1
February 9, 1999
A. PROCLAMATIONS
1) Proclamation recognizing the Collier County Loan Consortium. To be accepted by
Ms. Nancy Merolla, Vice-President/CRA Manager, Come rica Bank and Trust, FSB
and Mr. Brian Hafenbrack, Sr. Vice President/Mortgage Banking, First National
Bank of Naples.
B. SERVICE AWARDS
1) Luis Rosado, Road and Bridge - 25 years
2) Lumpeung Walsh, Wastewater - 15 years
3) Barbara Brown, EMS - 10 years
4) Eloy Rodriguez, Road and Bridge - 10 years
C. PRESENTATIONS
1) Recommendation to recognize Randy Casey, Engineering Inspector, Planning
Services Department, as Employee of the Month for February, 1999.
6. APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT
A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES.
7. PUBLIC PETITIONS
8. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Christian I. Carroll rCllresenting the Ace Groull Classic, rcquesting a waiver of
Temporary Use and Right-of-Way permit fees for a PGA event to be held in
Pelican Marsh from February 22 to February 28,1999, to benefit the YMCA of
Collier County.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1) Cost Proposals for Additional Alignment Evaluation and Traffic Modeling for
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension (project No. 60091}---
2) Recommendation for a temporary Speed Limit Reduction from forty-five miles
per hour to thirty-five miles per hour on Immokalee Road (CR 846) from Oaks
Boulevard easterl)' for a distance of one mile.
3) A Report and Staff Recommendation regarding the Solid Waste Export
Contract Alternatives offered by Waste Management, Inc. of Florida.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Report on the status of beach access and boat launch parks.
2) Report results regarding the Park Impact Fee Study.
2
February 9, 1999
D. SUPPORT SERVICES
1) Authorization to Request Competitive Proposals for the Construction of an
Office Building.
E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1) Discussion regarding water retention ponds.
2) Presentation of Correctional Facilities & Law Enforcement Impact Fee
Summary Reports.
F. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation that the Board approve a proposed Settlement Agreement in the
amount of $28,000.00 for the lawsuit styled Robert P. Richman v. Collier County, Case
No. 97-419-CIV-FTM-18D, now pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Contractors Licensing Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
F. A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
requesting that the Army Corps of Engineers use the duly adopted Comprehensive
Plans as the Land Use Alternative for the Environmental Impact Study for Southwest
Florida; objecting to the use of any land use alternative in the Environmental Impact
Study that does not strictly comply with the existing Comprehensive Plans.
11. OTHER ITEMS
A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
B. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIA TEL Y FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS
12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
3
February 9, 1999
B. ZONING AMENDMENTS
1) CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 12. 1999 MEETING. Petition PUD-98-17
Blair A. Foley, P.E. of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing
James Gorman, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Whittenberg Estates PUD for a
maximum of 114 single family and multi-family dwelling units on property
located on the north side of Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84), east of Whitten Drive, in
Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 37 +/- acres.
2) Petition PUD-98-7 Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development
Incorporated, representing Mastercraft Homes, Ltd., requesting a rezone from
"A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as
--~j)ham Park PUD for single family and multi-family residential land uses,
for property located on the west side of C.R. 951 approximately 0.6 of a mile
south of Immokalee Road, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of +/- 120 acres.
C. OTHER
1) To consider enactment into law an ordinance to amend the Airport Authority
Ordinance (No. 95-67) to eliminate the number of times a member of the
Airport Authority may be re-appointed to membership terms on the Airport
Authority.
13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) Petition CU-98-23, A. Glenn Simpson, requesting Conditional Use "1" ofthe
"A" Rural Agricultural zoning district for earth mining per Section 2.2.2.3 for
property located at 7000 Big Island Ranch Road, in Section 25, Township 47
South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 105.32 +/- acres.
B. OTHER
14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS
15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' 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 discus~on 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) The Board of County Commissioners authorize a 100% impact fee waiver of
road, library system, parl<s and recreational facilities, emergency medical
services system, and educational facilities system impact fees for one house to
be built by Rommy T. Smith at 313 Gaunt Street in Immokalee, Collier County,
said impact fees to be paid from Affordable Housing Trust Fund (191).
4
February 9, 1999
2) Liens Resolutions - Code Enforcement Case Nos. 80331-053 - Mr. Wallace L
Joyce, Mr. Lawrence Joyce, Ms. Joan H Hubbard, Ms. Barbara Showalter,
Ms. Patricia Harowkewicz, Ms. Judith J Corso, Ms. Lauren K Bowers; 80514-
017 - Paul L Riddleberger Jr.; 80527-094 - Sheila Tempelmann; 80803-061 -
Julio Dominguez Estate & John R Dominguez P/R
3) Liens Resolutions - Code Enforcement Case Nos. 80708-117 - Darren S &
Barbara J Filkill; 80713-027 - Michael & Janet Grella; 80713-034 - Varnville
Corp. % Y Braunschweig; 80721-030 - Edwin & Ines Guerrero
4) Liens Resolutions - Code Enforcement Case Nos. 80715-113 - Richard F
McCullough; 80721-062 - Mimon Baron; 80722-023 - John C Garrison Jr &
Virginia Garrison; 80723-072 - Lloyd G Sheehan; 80727-043 - Bruce T & Elsye
K Whitmer
5) Liens Resolutions - Code Enforcement Case Nos. 80409-027 - Mr. Wallace L
Joyce, Mr. Lawrence Joyce, Ms. Joan H Hubbard, Ms. Barbara Showalter,
Ms. Patricia Harowkewicz, Ms. Judith J Corso, Ms. Lauren K Bowers; 80515-
025 - Elena S Grossi; 80619-039 - Palm Foundation, Inc. & Steven H Loveless,
80727-089 - Andrew CHanson; 80821-031 - Jennifer S Brandon
6) Liens Resolutions - Code Enforcement Case Nos. 80706-046 - Mary Johnson,
80708-057 - Bradar & Company, Inc. Darr)'1 J Damico; 80709-062 - Edward J
& Laverda L Pelc; 80723-057 - Eileen Curran
7) Request to approve the finallllat of "Whispering Woods"
8) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Autumn Woods Unit
Three", and approval of the performance security
9) Request to approve the final plat of Immokalee Road Center
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1) Allprove an Access Easement to Twin Eagles Golf & Country Club, Inc. , A
Florida Non-Profit Corporation.
2) Acceptance of a Drainage Easement from Enchanting Shores Co-op, Inc.
3) Approve funding to relocate Water Main for construction of Cocohatchee
Canal Widening, Project 70061.
4) Award a Contract to Allied Trucl<ing of Florida, Inc./C.B.E. Trucking
Company, Inc. for Bid No. 98-2900, Transport and Placement of Beach Fill
Material.
5) Petition TM 99-01 for Raised Crosswalks to calm traffic at locations proposed
under the Safe Ways to Schools initiative in Golden Gate.
6) Approve Tourist Dcvelopment Category "A" Funding Applications for Beach
Maintenance and Inlct Management Projects.
7) Approve final Roadway Typical Scction Designs for Livingston Road as an
Urban Facility between Immolmlee Road and the Lee/Collier County Line.
5
February 9, 1999
8) Approve Change Order with Gulf States, Inc., Bid 97-2734, and Amendment to
Hole Montes and Associates, Inc., Work Order HMA-95-2, related to
Redundant Telemetry, Project 70124.
9) Request approval to use funds from Waste Tire Grant to cosponsor Running
Track at Lely High School.
C. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by gift or purchase of fee
simple title interests for properties adjacent to the existing landfill in Township
49S, Range 26E, Section 25 for public recreational purposes.
2) Authorize the language and confi,'m boundaries for the Goldcn Gate
Neighborhood Park MSTU Survey.
D. SUPPORT SERVICES
1) This item deleted.
2) Authorization to Execute Satisfaction of Lien Documents Filed Against Real
Property for Abatement of Nuisance and Direct the Clerk of Courts to Record
Same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
3) Award Contract for Professional Services to Prepare a Development of
Rcgional Impact Aplllication for Development Approval (DRIlDA) and South
Florida Water Management District Permit for the Main Government
Complex, RFP #98-2856.
4) APllrollriate Carl'y Fonvard and Recognize Revenue for Rctircd and Senior
Volunteer Program Fund (116), RSVP Item #1.
5) Appropriate Carry Fonvard and Recognize Revenuc for Retired and Scnior
Volunteers Program Fund (116), RSVP Item #2.
E. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1) Approval of Budget Amendmcnt Rellort
F. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
G. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
H. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Accept an Article V Trust Fund Grant-In-Aid of $19,496 from the Office of the
Statc Court Administrator, and Authorize Chainvoman to sign the Agreement.
I. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation that thc Board of County Commissioners allllrove the
StillUlated Final Judgmcnt relative to the eascment acquisition on Parcel Nos.
140 and 840 in thc lawsuit entitlcd Collier County v. Ronald G. Bender and
6
February 9, 1999
Michele J. Bender, Trustees Under That Certain Declaration of Trust Dated the
11h day of May, 1991, et al., Case No. 98-1394-CA (Livingston Road Extension,
Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road)
2) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel No.
515 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. David R. Clemens and Lucille C.
Clemens, et aL, Case No. 98-1393-CA (Livingston Road Extension, Golden Gate
Parkway to Radio Road)
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
StillUlated Order of Taking and Final Judgment as to Respondents, John A. 0
Pulling, Jr., Lucy Gail Finch, and John A. Pulling, Sr. relative to the easement
acquisition on Parcel Nos. 111,112,612,711, 712A, 712B, 811A and 8UB in
the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. John A. Pulling, Jr., et aL, Case No. 98-
1674-CA (Airport-Pulling Road 6-Laning Project - Pine Ridge Road to
Vanderbilt Beach Road).
J. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND
MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL
FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM
RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER
AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC
MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO
INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
A. Petition R-98-2, Mario Curiale requesting to change the zoning classification of a property
from "A" agricultural to "C-5" heavy commercial district. The subject property is located
on the north side of Tamiami Trail East al)proximately 2000 fcet east of C.R. 951 in Section
3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This site consists of 3.35
acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
7
February 9, 1999
February 9t 1999
Item #3
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're going to call to order the meeting of
the Collier County for February 9tht 1999. And I'll start with happy
birthday to my brothert and we'll follow that with the invocation this
morning by Reverend Fred Thorn from Golden Gate united Methodist
Church. If you'll stand and after the invocation, join us in the
pledge of allegiance.
REVEREND THORN: Let us pray. Father God, we thank you for this
new morning, to be able to be up and aboutt for the beauty of your
love and care that have been with us and continue to be with us. We
thank you for those who are to receive awards today, and ask your
blessing to be with them. We ask your blessing to be with the
commissioners as they make their deliberations. And help all of us to
be just as involved and impressed with the mundane decisions that we
make as the spectacular ones. We're so grateful for the opportunities
you give uSt for the love that you show us. We do thank yout and we do
pray in your dear name, amen.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What do we have by the way of changes to the
agenda, Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwomant we have two changes. The first
is to add Item 8(A) (2). This is the discussion of the March 5th
workshop on density reductiont clustering, and settlement agreement
with DCA. Staff requests to discuss that date.
And the second one is to move Item 16(C) (2) to 8(C) (3). That's
to authorize the language and confirm boundaries for the Golden Gate
Neighborhood parkt MSTU survey. It's a request from Commissioner
Constantine.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any other changest Commissioner
Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: None, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. I'd like to continue 16(C) (1)
for one meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: One meeting, yeah. And the nature of that
is?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just incomplete information that I
need to put together for my satisfaction.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What is the --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's the acquisition of the gaps in the
landfill property. No problem. Any objection to that?
Commissioner Carter -- anything else, Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, thank you.
Page 2
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have one question, since we have such a
long agenda today. The last item on our agenda is 13(A) (1). I don't
understand why that couldn't go on consent agenda, since it had one
very old objection letter that I understand has been resolved. Is
there a problem moving that to summary?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Mulherel can you speak to that, please?
MR. MULHERE: Madam Chairwoman, no, I don't see a problem with
that. I think it was just that that objection letter existed. But as
you indicatedl that issue had been resolved.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like to move that to the summary agenda
thenl if there is no objection from the other board members.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do you need a motion, or are you doing it?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm going to bring it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we
approve the agenda, including the changes that we have noted on the
consent agenda, summary agendal and regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and second.
All in favorl say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes 5-0.
Page 3
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
FEBRUARY 9. 1999
ADD: ITEM 8(A)(2): DISCUSSION OF MARCH 5TH WORKSHOP ON DENSITY
REDUCTION, CLUSTERING AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DCA.
(STAFF'S REQUEST).
MOVE: ITEM 16(C)(2) TO 8(C) (3): AUTHORIZE THE LANGUAGE AND
CONFIRM BOUNDARIES FOR THE GOLDEN GATE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
MSTU SURVEY. (COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE).
February 9, 1999
Item #4
MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 1999 REGULAR MEETING, JANUARY 13, 1999 WORKSHOP
AND JANUARY 19, 1999 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
How about approval of all these meetings?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: January 12th, 1999 regular meeting, the
January 13th workshopt the January 19th workshop.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and second.
All in favor, say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Item #5A1
PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE COLLIER COUNTY LOAN CONSORTIUM - ADOPTED
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Looks like the first thing we have
today is a proclamation by Commissioner Berry.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, we do. If I can have Nancy Merolla?
Is Nancy here? Would you come up here, please, Nancy? Nancy is the
vice president and the CRA manager of Comerica Bank and Trust.
And also, Mr. Brian Hafenbrackt if you'd come up here in front,
please, and -- clear up front.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All the way up where the TV cameras can --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Turn around and face the people out there
and the cameras will pick you up and you will now be on national TV.
National TV in Collier County.
WHEREAS -- this proclamation:
WHEREAS, the Collier County Loan Consortium and the Cooperative
Extension Servicet Department of the Public Services Division of
Collier County, have entered into a public private partnershipi and
WHEREASt the mission of the Loan Consortium is to help low and
moderate income families achieve home ownershipi and
WHEREASt through the Board of County Commissioners support, the
extension service teaches homebuyers' education and prepares families
for the home-buying processi and
WHEREAS, more than 300 individuals and families have received
home loans through the Loan Consortium Programi and
WHEREAS, homeownership help build stronger communities by
providing groups for families and a more stable work forcei and
WHEREAS, 13 financial institutions have committed 12 million
dollars to loan funds for 1999.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we recognize the
members of the financial institutions of the Collier County Loan
Page 4
February 9, 1999
Consortium for their part in helping to provide homeownership
opportunities for Collier County families.
Done and ordered this 9th day of February, 1999, Board of County
Commissioners, Pamela S. Mac'kiel Chairwoman.
Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to move approval of this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Proclamation passes. Thanks.
(Applause. )
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It really is a wonderful program. If you'd
like to say anything, feel free.
MR. HAFENBRACK: I would just like to say a couple of words,
please. And first thing I'd like to begin by saying that the members
of the Collier County Loan Consortium very much appreciate having
their efforts in the area of homeownership recognized in the way --
this way by the Board of County Commissioners.
I think the key to our program's success has not only been due to
some very dedicated people, but also the relationship that the member
banks have formed with the Collier County Extension Service in the
administration of the program. Through the extension service, not
only are prospective homeowners provided with the unique financing
program, but are actually shown how to realize their dream of
homeownership.
Simply saidl homeownership builds stronger communities. And with
your support, the Consortium has assisted over 300 families achieve
homeownership thus far. I'd like to note that the Consortium Program
serves families with income levels to $47/2801 which represents 80
percent of the current Collier County median income. And in this
income category falls our community school teacher, our hospital
workers 1 our sheriff deputies, our county employees. So there's many 1
many people that can really benefit by this program.
Finally, I'd like to again thank all the consortium member banks
and the Collier County Commission, the Collier County Extension
AgencYI and specifically a couple of quick people: Denise Blanton
(phonetic) 1 Extension Director; Bonnie Falls, Extension Agent and
Program Directorl Marcie Combine and Jeannie Travinol which are
Extension Outreach Coordinators for our program; Tom Olliff and Greg
Mihalic, both from Collier County. Thank you very much.
Page 5
PROCLAMA rrON
WHEREAS, the Collier County Loan Consortium and the Cooperative Extension
Service, a department of the Public Services Division of Collier
County, have entered into a public/private partnership; and,
WHEREAS, the mission of the Loan Consortium is to help very low, low and
moderate income families achieve home ownership,' and,
WHEREAS, through the Board of County Commissioners' support, the Extension
Service teaches Home Buyers Education and prepares families for
the buying process,' and,
WHEREAS, more than 300 individuals and famIlies have received home loans
through the loan consortiu", . ,~~~ram; and,
DONE AND ORDERED
issioners of
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
NOW THER
he member
rtium for their
;"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER UNTY, FLORIDA
ATTEST:
',1
February 9, 1999
Item #5B
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Next, Commissioner Norris, is
our service awards.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I
have three service awards today.
First one is for Barbara Brown for 10 years in the EMS
department.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Our second award is for Eloy Rodriguez,
also from Road and Bridgel also for 10 years.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And our big winner today is Luis Rosado
from Road and Bridge for 25 years.
(Applause. )
Item #5C
RECOMMENDATION TO RECOGNIZE RANDY CASEY, ENGINEERING INSPECTOR,
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY,
1999 - RECOGNIZED
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And now if we could have Randy Casey come
forward. Randy is the Collier County employee of the month. I'm
pleased to announce his selection as employee of the month. And if I
can find this lovely summary, I'm going to tell you a little bit about
him.
Randy has been employed by Collier County since 1984. His
willingness and ability to provide backup assistance to his
supervisor, along with his thorough job knowledge 1 make him a valuable
asset to the Planning Services Department, as well as to Collier
County.
Randy is a dedicated county employee and has been able to
establish a well-respected relationship with developers and
contractors. He exerts great effort to be available for timely
inspections, including blasting inspections, preliminary water
tie-ins, and lift station start-ups.
Randy exceeds the expectations of his job description and is
always willing to extend the necessary time and effort to assure his
job responsibilities are fulfilled.
without reservation, Randy Casey has been chosen as Collier
County's February employee of the month.
And Mr. Casey, I have this plaque for you that we hope you'll
display with some pride, and a check and our thanks. Thank you.
(Applause. )
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As we move on in the agendal I wonder if
there's any interest on the majority of the board of hearing -- well,
Page 6
February 9, 1999
I guess we already approved the order of the agenda 1 but is there any
interest in the board of hearing items that there are people here for?
Obviously, the landfill issue is one. Another one --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Santa Barbara.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- is Santa Barbara.
FYI, I'm working with the county administratorl trying to
organize our agenda so we can do that on a little more regular basis
and not have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: First four itemsl two of them appear
to be 30-second items, and the other two appear to be Santa Barbara
and the landfill. So you may have achieved that without even trying.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Without even knowing it.
Okay. We'll just go ahead with the agenda as it's written, then.
Item 18A1
CHRISTIAN I. CARROLL REPRESENTING THE ACE GROUP CLASSIC, REQUESTING A
WAIVER OF TEMPORARY USE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT FEES FOR A PGA EVENT
TO BE HELD IN PELICAN MARSH FROM FEBRUARY 22 TO FEBRUARY 28, 1999, TO
BENEFIT THE YMCA OF COLLIER COUNTY - APPROVED
The first one is Christian Carroll, representing the Ace Group
Classic, seeking a waiver of a right-of-way permit fee for a PGA
event. Is he here?
MR. MULHERE: Madam Chairwoman 1 I do not see him. Perhaps he's
still looking for a parking space. In any casel this is a standard
request. They are requesting a three-year approval. That does so
benefit -- it does meet the qualifications for a request, because the
proceeds benefits the Collier County YMCA.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a motion on this item?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would move that we waive whatever we have
to do here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
All in favorl please
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It passes five 5-0.
DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE AS OF 11/30/99
Second.
Let's do it.
Any discussion?
say aye.
Item #8A2
DISCUSSION OF MARCH 5TH WORKSHOP ON DENSITY REDUCTION, CLUSTERING AND
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH DCA - WORKSHOP TO BE HELD ON MARCH 19, 1999
The next item is the discussion about the density workshop. If I
could just jump in here and saYI at our long-range planning session,
there was some discussion about a March 5th, I think it is, meeting
Page 7
February 9, 1999
for having the DCA come down and discuss settlement issues and the
density reduction program.
As that has sort of hit the street, I've received an overwhelming
amount of concern about the ability for people to be prepared to
discuss it intelligently that quickly. While I -- I'm obviously
anxious to resolve the problem with the DCA and come to some
settlement, I wanted to hear from staff about what the timing
requirements might be.
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. One of the difficulties that we did run
into, and I wanted to apprise the board of, is that the consultant's
report, which we receivedl required some revisions after we reviewed
it. We received it on this past Friday. Barbara Cacchione and myself
reviewed that over the weekend. There were some requirements for
revisions of that report, so we're sending it back up to the
consultant.
We could have it back probably by Wednesday or Thursday. And of
course, we would have to make copies for distribution, as you can
imagine 1 on a wide interest -- a wide amount of interest in this
issue. That would give us exactly three weeks for review prior to the
5th. So we really wanted to ask the board if there was an interest
for continuing that for two weeks, possibly till the 19th.
Now, the problem that we have is that the consultants are
restricted to Thursday and FridaYI and that Thursday happens to be a
Planning Commission day. So that would bring us to Friday, the 19th.
Of course, another Friday would also be an option. But an additional
two weeks, I think, would provide us time to get those revisions
incorporated by the consultants and get that distributed and perhaps
remove possible criticism. The three weeks was not enough time to
review the document.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My support would certainly be for the 19th
at the earliest. This iSI you know1 changing the face of Collier
County, really, and in a positive way, is the way it looks to me. But
it's unreasonable to think there aren't going to be repercussions and
ripples out in the communitYI people who are affected by itl property
owners and otherwise.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I don't have any objection
if we delay it two weeks. I hope we don't delay it any more than
that, only because -- if you're that concerned about this topic and
you can't review that in five weeks' time, then there's something
terribly wrong. I think the folks who may be in opposition to this
need ample time to review it, but then move on. It's been three and a
half years in the making as it is. This doesn't come to a surprise
with anyone. We've gone through a long, long process with DCA. So to
review the final documents isn't like the first blush anyone has taken
of this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question? One of the concerns
that I've heard is that there's not enough time to analyze the
economic impact of the proposed changes if we don't delay. And I
don't think the two weeks is really what people have in mind. I know
Page 8
February 91 1999
that Commissioner Berry had been a strong advocate of there being
sufficient economic analysis. Is that going to be presented to us?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
information?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, there is a substantial portion of the report
that deals with economic impact.
I'd like to add that in all of my discussions with interested
parties, three to four weeks was presented as sufficient time for them
to review it. Now, I recognize right now we are narrowing that down.
By continuing for two weeksl I think we would be able to get the
document in everyone's hands and at least four weeks for them to
review it, and I think that would be sufficient time, from my
professional perspective.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
transportation?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's a good question. Commissioner Berry, we
did receive the reports from U.R.S. Greiner, and Gavin Jones on Friday
prepared a summary review of thosel which we will include both the
U.R.S. Greiner summary, as well as ourl if you will, English
interpretation of that for your consideration and for distribution to
the public as well.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
MR. MULHERE: Thank
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
So there will be economic impact
Thank you.
No.
I'm
Bob,
Any objection then?
comfortable with that.
were they able to get anything done on
Thank you.
So the 19th is acceptable?
you.
Thank you for bringing this
forward.
Page 9
February 91 1999
Item #aB1
COST PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL ALIGNMENT EVALUATION AND TRAFFIC
MODELING FOR SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION (PROJECT NO. 60091) -
ALIGNMENT nAn AND ncn AS PROPOSED BY STAFF - APPROVED
Next item is the cost proposal for the Santa Barbara extension
modeling.
MR. WILEY: Good morning 1 Commissioners. For the recordl my name
is Robert wiley. I'm with the Public Works Engineering Department.
We're here before you this morning as a follow-up to a meeting
that we had September 22nd, 19981 wherein you gave staff direction to
proceed with this project. And what we have come back to this morning
is with the cost proposal we have received to do the work you have
requested us to do. We have a proposal for the additional work that
you have asked us to do on considering Alignment D, which was to go
around the north end of the Wing South Air Park and down the eastern
side. That cost us total in the amount of $21,776 by the engineering
firm of wilson, Millerl Barton and Peek to do a traffic modeling study
for all of the modeling of the routes that have been presented to
date.
We have proposals from Tindale, Oliver and Associates. Their
proposal is for $41,983.
We also wanted to bring before you, as we were requested to do,
the extra work that we have been having the consultants do to date on
this project. We are up to an amount of $85/370, which would be
inclusive of the hybrid analysis that we presented to you the last
time.
We're coming to you today advising you that we're seeking your
recommendation and approval to authorize the paYment for the
additional work done to date of $85,370. We would like to get your
approval for us to proceed forward with the traffic modeling for
$41/983. But staff's opinion is we do not recommend that we go ahead
with the Alignment D, as we just see a lot of problems; that in the
scoring analysis and matrix we develop, we don't see it as coming out
to be an outstanding route that is going to stand out much better than
the route we've already analyzed.
So our recommendation is that we just go forward and approve the
funding expended to date. Also, to authorize the traffic study and to
not proceed forward with the evaluation of the Alignment D.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. wiley, what I heard you say is
that it's not going to come out a whole lot better than the ones we
already have.
MR. WILEY: That is our opinion as of this time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not my question. That sounds
like it's not going to come out a whole lot worse either. And one of
the concerns that we had expressed with Band C was taking up homes
and minimizing that. And one of the reasons D came about was to try
Page 10
February 9, 1999
to have no impact on existing homes. So if we can come out with a
route that is equal or just a little better, and not do homes, that
still has some interest for me. I need you to address that a little
bit.
MR. WILEY: Okay. One of the concerns that we noted that you had
was the taking of existing homes. The route that is proposed for the
Alignment D does go around the eastern side of the Wing South Air
Park, and it does avoid the taking of those units that were right next
to Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
The possibility of still having a take of one or two units may
exist. We have not done a detailed analysis. As we make the turn to
head over towards the east side of Wing Park South Airport I what we
have identified is that some of the ideas that were discussed on the
purpose of getting there don't really still exist as well as we
thought they would.
When you go down the south end of Wing Park Airfieldl there's a
new development under construction right now, the College Park. It
sits in the way. They are building units there right now. And some
of those, just after walking, stepping it off by footl you may hit the
buildings, you may not. Like I say, we haven't done a detailed
analysis. They're not residentiall as far as no one living in them
yetI but the buildings do sit there.
We don't want to take the homes either. And we are not saying we
-- I think you understand staff's position on that. However, what
we're saying is that from the factors that we've looked at on the
permitability, the cost, the environment, things of that nature I we
don't see there's that much really outstanding other than the issue of
the taking the homes.
We will proceed forward. We just wanted to advise you that we
see some serious concerns that are out there for this Alignment D.
And we're ready to go forward with it. We have presented you with a
proposal to do that. We just want to make a recommendation to you
what we see is the feasibility of the roadway itself.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If what I think you're saying is we'll spend
this money if you want us tOI but our professional opinion is that
you're not going to -- you're going to be spending money to find out
that this is not a realistic scenario. Is that an English language
simply put translation of what you're saying?
MR. WILEY: Couldn't have said it better myself.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chair?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And we are referring to Alignment D?
MR. WILEY: Alignment D, yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Conlo Road.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which is the Conlo Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Rightl I think we pointed that little tidbit
out.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know how that happened.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: WeIll Constantine and Lombardo.
Page 11
February 91 1999
But at any rate, something that I still am looking for that I
have not seen, and I think it was brought up at the September meetingl
this is all well and good, but you're not telling me that once you get
this all hooked up beyond Davis Boulevard and hook it up to Santa
Barbara northbound, where you're going to dump it out on the north
end. Right now, you're going to stop at Vanderbilt Beach Roadl which
the traffic would be coming up Logan Boulevard, which is a two-lane
road after the primary intersection at pine Ridge. It becomes a
two-lane road. And then it dumps -- it finishes up at the current
Vanderbilt Beach Road extension. Where do we go from there?
MR. WILEY: Okay. That is totally outside the project area, but
I will head up there.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand that. But againl I can't
support any of this until you can tell me what the complete plan is
for this roadway.
MR. WILEY: There is a development just north of Vanderbilt Beach
Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm aware.
MR. WILEY: It's Village Walk. And along their western boundarYI
they do have a provision for the road to the north.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Island Walk. Village Walk is the other way.
MR. WILEY: North of that, as far as I'm aware, we do not have
the right-of-way. However I from my understanding, and we can look at
this to give you more specific answer, because I'm not in the Planning
Department on that end, but I believe the road will eventually have a
connection up to Immokalee Road but will not project north of
Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You haven't solved the problem, my opinion.
Just a person who happens to live on Immokalee Road, an overburdened
roadway, currently, even though it is going to be widened at one
point. But what are you going to achieve? Once you bring it up to
Immokalee Road, then what?
MR. WILEY: It will go east or west.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's right. Then the same thing is going
to happen when you get it down to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, then
what's going to happen? It's still going to go east or westl because
you still don't have a full commitment from Grand Lely to put that
roadway in.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
anything.
Other comments from commissioners I or do you have speakers?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct me if I'm wrong on this Grand
Lely issue. The timing of this road -- we are not going to build this
next year. The timing of this road is actually about 10 years away.
MR. WILEY: At the quickest. It is shown as being needed by the
year 2020.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And so we will have every opportunity
to see either Grand Lely is constructed in 20 years or it's not.
Page 12
That's the big question.
That's my whole problem with this.
without thatl I don't visualize doing
February 91 1999
MR. WILEY: That's one of the purposes of this corridor analysis
is to define the corridor. We are not designing the roadways right
now, just selecting the corridors, so for long-range planning
purposes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Proactive novel concept.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What a concept.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner BerrYI I understand your
concern, it's very well founded. However I for the discussion that we
have before us, I think it's more appropriate to separate the two
areas and deal with them on a separate basis. The whole purpose of
this roadway we're discussing is to improve traffic circulation at the
south end.
I understand that they're going to have to work on the north end
as weIll but that is, you know, many miles awaYI and something that we
do need to discuss probably in the fairly near future. But I would
encourage you to separate the two discussions for today.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine?
MR. WILEY: Mr. Kant is here, if you would like him to discuss
it, north of Immokalee Road.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other thing we had given for
direction last time, and I don't see anything about this since it is a
separate related issue, is the first turn when you're coming
north-south on proposed C, where the first turn iSI we had talked
about the possibilities of bumping that a little to the north. And
there are a couple of wetland issues now. But it avoided some of the
homes. We still take, in that scenario, take homes near the southern
end of the road. But it avoided several homes up near that top end.
Have we done anything with thatl or are we still on track for that?
MR. WILEY: That is what we included in the Alignment D, but that
is a very minor shift what we can do with C and D. They can both
shift in that direction.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we can still stay on track of that?
MR. WILEY: We can shift it quicker to the east on the north end.
It just makes a tighter turnl is all it does.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I can understand this, because I'm late
to this party, you really would prefer us or recommending to us that
we consider a hybrid between A and C and then eliminate D?
MR. WILEY: Okay. Let me show you on the graphics here.
Okay. Commissioner Carter, if you will look on your screen, what
you see is -- I tried to color them in and hopefully the colors will
show them up. The alignment due north and south is in green. That is
the A alignment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. WILEY: The C alignment starts off, as you start down A, and
then you see itl veers over in red, comes down along the west side of
the Wing South Airport.
B is in blue, which goes around and comes down the east side.
Page 13
February 9, 1999
We had identified an Alignment B, which roughly is through there,
it was between A and C. And in the Alignment B evaluation, as we
scored itl it came up with almost the very same scoring as Alignment
CI but resulted in splitting the community almost right down the
middle, right through people's backyards.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's not a good idea.
MR. WILEY: C went around to the east. A stayed to the west
side. So we have already evaluated a B alignment; however, they do
come out. Band C end up on Rattlesnake Hammock at the same point.
To come out in this area is not good. It is the deepest water in the
whole area. That is the major slew flowway through there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we're getting down to A and C, if we
drop D.
MR. WILEY: A and C. Or if you want us to evaluate itl we will
evaluate D, also. That's what we are here for is to show you the
proposal. But as we're looking at some of the obstacles D is going to
facel we're saying it is probably not going to score any better than
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Your professional judgment, though, we drop
the evaluation of D.
MR. WILEY: At your direction, we would not do it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But it's your recommendation that we drop D.
MR. WILEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I hear you say that you're still
looking at A, too? Haven't we been through this like three times at
this point?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sirl we have. What you have asked us to do is
to do the traffic analysis including A, is my understanding. That's
why it's shown on here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm also -- it's my understanding that you
have buffered st. Andrews Boulevard in the studies of the traffic
coming off of A would have to go to the right or left and could not
come through.
MR. WILEY: That is correct. We have made the assumption that
there will be an intersection configuration. There's no north-south
traffic.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Help mel if I remembering this wrong,
board members I but wasn't that -- Commissioner Hancock made a
suggestion about what if we just put a two-lane roadway down through
there on Route A, it wasn't actually using Route A as an alternate?
MR. WILEY: That is our evaluation we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That would be in addition to the route
CI not instead of?
MR. WILEY: Right. What we were asked to do is to look at a
traffic evaluation along C, along D, including a two-lane A, attached
to C or D. We also had the ability, if you want us tOI to do an A
standalone within -- those are areas that we brought to you so that
you can begin to tell us what you don't want us to do. But we know
that you wanted A as a two-lane attached to C and/or D.
Page 14
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just so I can stay clearl what I'm
interested in supporting is a two-lane A and C.
MR. WILEY: which is fine. We are set up to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's my personal --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I wonder if we could have the child
removed, please. We're trying to conduct business.
Just for Commissioner Carter's benefit. I know you weren't here
before. The reason why we did not choose Alignment AI which appears
on the map to be the simplest way of doing things, is because if you
do that, our staff has told us that you'll have to make 951 an
expressway with three flyovers. 41 has to be eight-laned at some
point. Rattlesnake Hammock has to be six-laned between that
attachment point and the Grand Lely Boulevard. And even after doing
all those -- all that road network essentially fails in the future.
So --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So by having two lanes therel two-lane C
would alleviate that problem.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: A four-lane C. Four-lane C is what we're
looking at.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A four-lane C and a two-lane A.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which makes the entire road network
function to a much better degree out in the future. But the point of
going to C is while it's politically not going to be as popular a
thing to dOl financiallYI when you consider all the improvements that
have to be done to associated road networks, you're probably talking
in future dollars, 30, 50 million dollars more to make all these
improvements. Nowl you're going to hear people probably say that it's
cheaper to do A. Well, no, it's not.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if all you consider is the
roadway between those twol it may be, but the impacts of doing A cause
so many other reactions.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The dominoes fall.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: After you spend all that extra money I you
still have the favorable roadway.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have one public speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Reverend Peter Lyberg.
REVEREND LYBERG: Good morning.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Good morning.
REVEREND LYBERG: I'm on the losing cause. My advocacy has been
all the way along for Route A. And I think if they were going to
spend some additional time studying costs, I think it would be better
to verify the domino effect. I have lived in that area for 25 years,
and I've seriously questioned whether that is that much of a domino
effect if you move a road connection just a short distance from the
straight alignment to where C connects in, it would have that kind of
disastrous overall network effect. I really question that one.
Route A has been the alignment set for 25 years. It's the oldest
designated alignment all the way through. A lot of money has been
spent on doing studies trying to find another route.
Page 15
February 91 1999
D came about as a last minute sort of thingl the Conlo
designation. And whether you take that route out of the picture
separately and look at it, it is a very winding sort of thing. It's a
strange looking road for that. I guess the Biblical equivalent of
Moses and the wilderness would be Route DI because it goes everywhere
but nowhere I especially when it gets down to where the housing is for
the Edison Community College. So I urge that that would be dismissed,
as the staff is recommending.
I also urge that C be dismissed. The people living behind the
church there, I get calls from them if something can be done. They
are afraid about losing their homes, their property. They bought land
back there to be away from a road and suddenly the road is following
them and is chasing them. So that you end up -- Route C is in an area
that scores poorl all the evaluations that were done before.
A, even though it's the desire to drop it, is the best scoring
route of all of them. It keeps coming up on the best for a number of
reasons that they use in their criteria.
But C would be disruptive for the residents, all the way from the
south end with Sheriff Aubrey Rogers, all the way up to the north end.
There's a lady in a wheelchair that calls me every so often, she's
worried that she's going to lose her house and her property up there
for a road that they try to avoid.
Route A, to me the unique feature with Route A is that it's
equidistant between 41 and 951. It splits the traffic. It doesn't
dump it in anyone direction, but splits it between the two. There
are two left turn lanes going on to 41 to go southbound. They're
already there as a part of the future planning of it. So it has that.
Route A consistently gets the best scores in staff and
engineering evaluation. It's a commonsense route. It's straight from
there to there. You can hardly beat that. And the extra bonus is
that it protects St. Andrews Boulevard, which I think is vitally
important because of the community there. It would be another
attractive and, I thinkl an efficient T-intersection.
We have a number of them in the county that work very well and
function well. And that would be an additional one that can do that,
rather than winding around. It saves taxpayers moneYI because a good
bit of that right-of-way along A already belongs to the county. You
don't have to go out and buy it.
And most of alII it takes -- Route A takes no one's home.
Anybody that's built along there has known for 25 years that that was
going to be a road. There's no surprise. Nothing suddenly sprung
upon them. Like Route C and D and the hybrid and everything else have
been just surprises that have really greatly disturbed people that
live there and I think has been unfair to them.
So I urge Route A be the route to be continued -- to be
considered. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We appreciate your diligence.
Any other speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers, Madam Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What's the will of the board?
Page 16
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're going to go ahead and look,
I assume we're looking at C both with and without the two-lane, right?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. That is what we were looking at; that is,
C is as a standalone, C with a two-lane A coming off of it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: C also includes connection with Grand Lely?
MR. WILEY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any discussion on the motion?
All in favor, please say aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion passes 4-1.
That's what I support.
And I'll make a motion that we do approve
Item #8B2
RESOLUTION 99-112 RE TEMPORARY SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION FROM FORTY-FIVE
MILES PER HOUR TO THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR
846) FROM OAKS BOULEVARD EASTERLY FOR A DISTANCE OF ONE MILE - ADOPTED
Okay, next we have 8(B) (2) I recommendation for a temporary speed
limit reduction on Immokalee Road.
Talk to us about this, Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services Director.
This is a request that is in conjunction with a development
project. The Old Cypress Golf and Country Clubl formerly known as the
Woodlands I is putting in a new structure and some turn lanes, which
temporarily will also function as a construction access for the South
Florida Water Management District's Cocohatchee Canal Improvements.
We been requested to request of the board temporary speed reduction
because of the heavy truck traffic and the construction work in the
area.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve I Mr. Kant.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You've been requested by whom to request?
MR. KANT: By the developer of the Old Cypress, formally known as
the Woodlands Country Club.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can't support the motion for that
very reason that it seems like we are inconveniencing the public for a
private development. And whether there's truck traffic or not coming
-- it's a major thoroughfare I it's a bottleneck as is and
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's already a mess.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- slowing that down is going to just
affect the ability to move traffic on that much more to do that
Page 17
February 9, 1999
because the developer has got a lot of truck traffic going into a
private development.
MR. KANT: Well, that's not entirely true, Commissioner. The
major portion of the truck traffic in the early stages of the
development of the construction are going to be due to the work that's
being done by the Water Management District.
The request originally came from our officel because we felt that
with all that amount of construction, as we typically do on county
projects when we're working within those rights-of-way, we request a
reduction of the speed limit. So while the developer is, in fact, the
catalyst for thisl I think it would be more accurate to say that the
request is a staff request.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this a public safety concern?
MR. KANT: We are accommodating the developer as well as the
Water Development District. Yes, ma'am, it is a safety issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: This will be for what period of time?
MR. KANT: We anticipate at this point that the bridge is just
about complete, the turn lanes. Water Management District tells us
they'll be out of there by April. So I would estimate about 60 to 90
days.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The individual who happens to live next door
to this -- almost next door to this development, I don't think anyone
in that area would not probably support that 30-mile-an-hour speed
limit --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As a safety issue?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- as a safety issue. You have to go 35
miles an hour in the morning anyway because you can't move. So I
don't know that making it legal and just putting up a sign up is going
to make a whole lot of difference. I would support going along with
the 35 miles an hour.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that a second?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's whatever you want to make it. I'll
make it. I'll make the motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like I had misunderstood the
item, that it's a safety issue. Is there any other discussion?
If not, all in favorl please say aye.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion passes 4-1.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Page 18
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 112
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A SPEED LIMIT
REDUCTION TO THIRTY FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35
MPH) ON C.R. 846 (IMMOKALEE ROAD) FROM OAKS
BOULEV ARD EASTERLY FOR A DISTANCE OF ONE-
MILE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, permits the Board of County
Commissioners to alter of establish speed limits on roads under its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, C.R. 846 (Irnrnokalee Road) falls under the jurisdiction of the Board
of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 316, Florida Statutes, the Board of
County Commissioners may alter such existing speed limits as may be appropriate upon the
basis of an engineering and traffic investigation; and
WHEREAS; the results of such engineering and traffic investigations determine
that the reduced speed limit is reasonable and safer under the conditions found to exist and it
conformity to criteria promulgated by the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby establish a thirty five miles
per hour (35 mph) speed limit on C.R. 846 (Irnrnokalee Road) from Oaks
Boulevard easterly for a distance of one mile, and does hereby direct the
County Transportation Services Department to erect appropriate advance
warning "REDUCE SPEED AHEAD" signs and speed limit signs giving
notice thereof.
2. These speed limit reductions shall cease when appropriate at the discretion of
the County's Transportation Services Department.
3. A copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Collier County Sheriffs Office
for proper enforcement of the of the established speed limit for C.R. 846
(Immokalee Road) within the designated segment.
i': !i Jhis resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same this
.~4~yof~ ,1999.
..' ,. . ". ) ',.. ~ ~'-.'. :v',
"~' v~
~ .~
.'
\'. ,~:~\ :~.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE
COLL COUNTY, FLORIDA
"-:,,",,
~ ',ATTEST:
.... DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
..;B~;;,~~:~~..J
DeptitY Clerk
Attest as to Cha1naan's
signature on1".
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
~<-.CS/' -r
y Tomas C. Palmer
o Assistant County Attorney
By:
February 91 1999
Item #8B3
REPORT AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE SOLID WASTE EXPORT
CONTRACT ALTERNATIVES OFFERED BY WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA -
WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT PROPOSAL REJECTED
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Now, the item of the day, a report and a
staff recommendation regarding the solid waste export contract
alternatives.
MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, Madam Chairmanl members of the
Commission. For the record, my name is Ed Ilschnerl Public Works
Administrator for Collier County.
Yes, today we are to bring to you a status report on our trucking
contract negotiations with Waste Management of Florida. Let me give
you just a brief history, for the benefit of the audience and the
record.
This process began on January 6th, 1998 when the board directed
our staff to develop an RFP to investigate the possibility of trucking
waste out of Collier County. We developed the RFP request for proposal
and it was issued on January the 30th, 1998. We received responses in
March and presented to this board on March the 24th, 1998 the results
of that request for proposal. We had two respondents. The first
respondent was Waste Management I Incorporated of Florida. And the
second respondent was Chambers Waste Systems I a subsidiary of U.S.A.
Wastel Incorporated.
At that board meeting, Waste Management was chosen to have
submitted the best response to that request for proposal, and staff
was directed to negotiate a contract with WMI. At that same meeting,
the county attorney suggested that we obtain the services of outside
counsel who had particular expertise in this area of contract
negotiations and make them part of our negotiating team. We
developed, I thinkl a negotiating team that had broad backgrounds in
this particular area of expertise. And they included County Attorney
David Weigell Solid Waste Director David Russell, myself, Mr. David
Dee of Landers and Parsons, Mr. Mark Lawson of Giblin and Nickerson,
and John Haus of David and Griffith Associatesl as well as Mr. Robert
Zachary of the County Attorney's Office sitting in on those
negotiations as well.
The negotiations began with Waste Management, Incorporated of
Florida. And I make the point of stating that, because things changed
as the negotiations progressed. We began negotiating with a team
comprised of Ron Antevy, Susan VerseYI Ron Caplan and Steve Bigelow of
Waste Management I Incorporated of Florida. And then subsequent to
thatl the merger of U.S. Wastel Incorporated and Waste Management
occurred. And a transition -- a transition period associated with
management changes began at that point in time.
We ended up with a final negotiating team by Mr. Steve Bigelow
that hasn't changed from the very beginning, Mr. Ron Kaplan and Mr.
Page 19
February 9, 1999
Randy Holcumb. And those were the people that we completed our
negotiations with.
Early in the process, there were several key issues that were
noted. In section 9 of Waste Management, Incorporated proposal to the
county, they took exception to several concerns that they had and
noted those exceptions. They are: They wanted to have a full CPI
adjusted fuel cost, plus they wanted to be able to adjust that fuel
cost for any extraordinary events that occurred; they wanted an extra
tonnage delivered to the landfill; and should that not take placel
they wanted a sliding scale to ensure that whatever tonnage they
started out with always remained; and then they wanted a full 20-year
term with no termination except for cause for force mazure acts of God
events. We also at the beginning of the negotiation process, just
prior to those negotiation meetings taking placel albeit we did not
include this concern in the RPFP.
After visiting with our expert counsel that we obtained to assist
in this process, talking with the county administrator, we determined
that it was imperative to place the county in a position to avail
itself of future technologies that might be very cost effective in the
future.
And so we felt it imperative that we start an early out clause in
any contract that we negotiated. It is typical in the industry to
have a five, 10, 15-year history. And obviously, there is some
consideration or compensation of each one of those option periods. We
felt that very, very important. So that became a very important -- or
underpinning issue for us to achieve in the county in those
negotiations.
We didn't agree with the consumer price index, for we felt like
the consumer price index handled it completely over time. And so we
took exception to thatl as well as what we felt was a put or pay
provision.
Let me explain what a put or pay provision is. That's where you
guarantee you will provide X amount of garbage I and if you fail, you
agree to it anyway, at an agreed to price. They set up a put or pay
floor of about 4.2 million dollars.
And over that timel as I mentioned, we had the transition from a
management team that put the original proposal together, to a
management team that basically had nothing to do with the original
proposal that was put forth. But we ended negotiations on December
17th with a letter, following a letter from Waste Management on
December 18th setting forth two alternatives and in sort of a take it
or leave it type posture.
Briefly these alternatives were -- and I'll start with
Alternative BI and I've provided you a list with three alternatives.
Alternative C was a hybrid alternative that we put forth to them, but
they rejected that in their letter of December 18th. The two
viability alternatives that they expressed were viable was Alternative
A and B. B included $26.99 per ton for the waste to be processed and
that did not alter in their response for proposal.
Page 20
February 9, 1999
I'm just going to cover the highlights here. Not everything was
in the contract. The main things that we had concerns with were the
fuel adjustment. They wanted in that particular Alternative B a base
for fuel of $1.10. That $1.10 would be adjusted over time with a
consumer price adjustment, plus if there were any events that occurred
-- peculiar problem and fuel jump way high, then the county would be
responsible for the differential between the $1.10 and whatever that
price may end up being, for whatever period of time that price may
exist at that level, before it came back down to the base cost.
They wanted a sliding scale, basicallYI going from 100 percent
where they start and increasing the price per ton up to 117 percentl
or a base price, put or pay pricel of 4.2 million dollars. And they
did not allow any early termination clause whatsoever associated with
Alternative BI which was not palatable to your negotiating team.
That alternative would cost the customer annually an additional
$14.94 per year. And in Attachment 31 we explain to you how we
arrived at that particular cost in Attachment 3.
Alternative A provided the county a lot of things that they
wanted to have. We wanted to have the early out. We only wanted a
CPI adjustment only. So they gave us two things. In order to achieve
thatl they set a price of $34.15 per ton. We were looking for
something less than that, but would have agreed to the CPI adjustment
only in this particular proposal as well. And that is the base rate
put or pay provision.
We don't believe that's in the county's interest and would not
recommend that in either alternative to you. And then they gave us
the 10-year out. But in order to achieve the 10-year outl it's going
to cost us, whether we exercise that 10-year option or not, 21.4
million dollars to exercise that particular option, plus pay for 60
percent of the straight line appreciation cost of the transfer
station.
In alII over a 20-year periodl this particular alternative,
allowing to us have the 10-year outl would cost the county and its
ratepayers for the system 50 million dollars above Alternative C. The
23.60 is what that equates to per customer annually. And again,
Attachment 3 explains how we arrive at that.
Our negotiating team, after much thought, recommends to you that
we reject these alternatives as being not in the best interest of
Collier County. We would recommend to you that you continue landfill
operations under the current landfill operating contract at your
current site.
While at the same time, and I want to emphasize thisl while at
the same time aggressivelYI and I underline the word "aggressively,"
initiate actions to ensure that improvements are put in place that
will eliminate the odor migration from that landfill site. That's our
duty. That's our responsibility. We shouldn't shirk that. We should
accomplish that at whatever cost it's going to take if we are going to
stay at that site.
(Applause.)
Page 21
February 9, 1999
MR. ILSCHNER: We're also recommending to you that you continue
to investigate solid waste disposal or alternatives during the next
two years. We're not in a crisis situation. We have approximately
two years to evaluate a lot of different alternatives that may be
available to us out there. We need to make a decision, however, one
way or another, by the end of the year 2001. That's what I would call
our drop-dead date to make some decisions to move ahead.
Finally, we would recommend that you continue the process to
acquire site L, which we feel, as a staff in our professional
judgment, is essential that you be in the position to control your own
destiny in the future. You can't control outside contractors and what
may happen. You need to place yourself in a position to control that
destiny. We feel that this is certainly something that we would
strongly recommend that you continue to do is acquire Site L.
At this point I'd like to, with your permissionl to call on David
Deel who has been our outside consultantl to ask him to share any
lessons learned and any final comments that he may want to share with
you as our consultant in this process.
David?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. DEE: Good morning. As you heardl I'm David Dee. I work for
the Landers and Parsons firm, in Tallahassee.
I represent a lot of communities around the State of Florida on
solid waste issues. I've been working in this area for nearly 20
years now.
I've had the good fortune to work with your staff on this project
for several months nowl and there are a couple of things that have
become clear to me. with regard to the contract that's in front of
youl that's a relatively easy decision, at least from my perspective,
for this board to make.
The Alternative A that Mr. Ilschner mentioned to you comes with a
price tag that would run approximately 50 million dollars higher than
Alternative B. At that price tag, it simply is not warranted I does
not provide the benefits to the county to warrant the decision to sign
that contract. So I think we can dismiss with that alternative fairly
quickly.
The other alternative may be more difficult to evaluate, but,
again, I think the staff has correctly concluded to reject that
alternative, for the reasons Mr. Ilschner has described.
Most communities in Southeast Florida will tell you that they
would never ever consider a put or pay contract. There are many of
those communities that signed a put or pay contract with Wheelabrator
(phonetic) for the construction of the two waste energy facilities in
Broward County. There the staff and the consultants were all
confident that the communities could easily provide the solid waste
that was needed to satisfy their obligations under the put or pay
provisions of the contract.
As it turned outl they were mistaken. Things happened that
nobody anticipated. They lost their ability to control the flow of
solid waste as a result of a Supreme Court decision that no one
Page 22
February 9, 1999
anticipated. They had a declinel a downturn, in the generation rate
of solid waste in those communities.
For those reasons I the folks in Broward County in particular will
tell you, don't sign a contract with put or pay provision. We've
tried to get around that issue in this instance and we've been
unsuccessful.
In addition, there's a concern about the length, the 20-year term
of the alternativel as Mr. Ilschner indicated. That locks you into a
scenario where you would be precluded from taking advantage of
recycling or composting or other technologies that might come
available and allow you to decrease the amount of solid waste that you
generated; that is to say, if those technologies allows you to reduce
your waste generation to level below those required under the put or
pay provisions of the contract.
SimilarlYI if a better alternative came along, a closer landfilll
maybe an interlocal agreement with another community, you would be
foreclosed from taking advantage of those options.
Nowl I will be the first to admit that the price that is attached
to the alternative of 26.99 is an attractive price for the first part
of the contract. But over timel the profit margin that would be
earned by Waste Management will increase. And over timel it's my
belief and the belief of the consultant we've been working with on
this issue, that price will become non-competitive. But again, that
assumes that you have an alternative and that requires us to speculate
about what those alternatives might be, but it is certainly an issue
to give you cause or concern.
In terms of the big picture, as Mr. Ilschner indicatedl one of
the fundamental lessons that I think we've all learned or we've had
reemphasized through these negotiations is that this community
especially should be concerned about its ability to control its
self-destiny and its ability to control its solid waste cost. Because
the problem that you're facing in this instance is that even if you
sign the 20-year contract, you don't know what's going to happen after
20 years. You don't know what options will be available to you. And
you are going to be subject to whatever is out there in the
marketplace. If there is not a cost-effective alternative, you face
the potential of having ever escalating costs for solid waste
services.
Now, I'm not here to advocate any particular alternative. I
don't know enough about your site selection process or Site L. I
don't know about your existing landfill. But clearly, you do have
some time to pursue both of those alternatives. Clearly, if you do
pursue the ownership of your own landfill, you're in a position to
control your costs better than if you rely on a private facility.
For a couple of reasons: Firstl it's closer to you, so you don't
have the long haul costs that you incur if you were to haul outside
the county. Secondly, you can issue tax exempt bonds. You can raise
the capital that you need to fund the purchase of the land and the
equipment at a lower cost than what a private company would pay.
Page 23
February 9, 1999
ThirdlYI you don't need to make a profit on your ownership of that
facility.
These solid waste companies typically make pretty healthy
profits. In our negotiations, we were told repeatedly that Waste
Management wanted a profit of 20 percent or greater. Well, that's 20
percent that you don't need to earn. That's 20 percent of savings
that you can offer your citizens. So that's another reason why having
the ownership of your own facility is a big advantage in terms of
providing the pUblic with the most cost effective alternative.
And the final thing is that if you own your facilitYI you can
adjust your plans, you can respond to emergencies, you can change your
operations quickly and in a relatively cost-effective manner. It's
much more difficult if you're locked into a contract with a private
operator where you have to come back and negotiate for a change orderl
where you're really not in a good position to evaluate what the cost
ought to be for that change order.
So for all of those reasonsl I would encourage you to think
carefully about your options and how you might take control of your
destiny for in terms of controlling the costs that you experience with
solid waste services.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Otherwise I I'll be here and be available for questions.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any questions, Madam Chairman.
I would move that we reject the Waste Management trucking contract
and we remove that part of our discussion in view of that and come
back to the other issues.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We might have a pUblic speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We do have pUblic speakersl I'm sure. But
this is not a public hearing. We could have a motion and a second on
the floor.
We can vote on that, can't we, Mr. Weigel, before we even hear
public speakers?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, we can.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any reason we wouldn't want
to hear from the public?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, except for that Commissioner Carter's
idea is a good one, I think that I'm suspecting that people who are
here are mostly here on the question of do we move the landfill or do
we not. Not do we truck or do we not. And at least we could get the
trucking question out of the way. Is there an objection?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's the purpose for my motionl to get
the trucking issue out of the way so we can go to the other.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Based on that understanding, there's a
motion and a second. All in favorl please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That motion passes 5-0.
Page 24
February 9, 1999
At this pointl do the commissioners want to make any statements,
or shall we go straight to the public? Goodl straight to the public.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairmanl you have 31 speakers registered
to speak on this issue. I'm going to call them two at a time so that
we can expedite them coming up to the microphone. The first two are
Bruce Packham and Mike Taylor.
MR. PACKHAM: Madam Chairwoman and members of the County Council,
I'm here -- my name is Bruce Packham and I'm here representing myself.
In August of 1997, my wife and I sold all of our possessions up
north and became full-time residents of Florida for all the obvious
reasons. We purchased, in March of 1998, a house at the juncture of
Route 951 and Davis Boulevard known as Naples Heritage Golf and
Country Club. It is a closed community. There are some 40 individual
homes of which we own one. And there are a large number I 700 total
units, housing unitsl most of which are verandas and villas.
By air milesl we're about 1.6 miles from the landfill. And I'm
here to dispel any notion that any of you may have that there's no
stench associated with that landfill. I am hoping that -- although
the situation in truth has improvedl by the way, since the apparently
major offense was perhaps the composition of gypsum board since
January of this year, and it may be only because of the climatic
changes, I'm not -- I don't have a long Floridan history to say. But
it may be that because of the climatic changes or the change in the
management of gypsum board being put in that landfill that the
situation with respect to odor has improved. But on the other handl
this morning when I woke up, 10 and behold, there was that favorite
stench.
I would very much like to see, as a private individual I and I
know I don't have any clout politically, but I would very much like to
see that the present plan for the closure of that landfill be
continued through and, in fact, did close in the year 2003.
The fact that I have to go through four more years of that
doesn't thrill me, nor does it thrill my neighbors I all of whom may
not be here today, but theY're here in spirit at any rate. And I
would very much like to have full speed ahead with any additional
incorporation of technologies which would reduce the landfill smell
that would continue for the next four years.
In the summertime, this past summer, it was really bad. You
couldn't do any outdoor activity at all. You had to -- if you had any
gathering of any kind, you had to have it inside, whether it was nlce
and beautiful and balmy. You had to have it indoors because the air
conditioning was essential to clear the air.
That's about all I have to say. And thank you very much for your
consideration.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank YOUI sir.
I wonder if --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. And I don't know, I
think -- that's fine, sir. Thank you very much.
Page 25
February 9, 1999
This is of staff. I think -- and I just need to know if this is
fact or fiction. If we closed the landfill tomorrow, would there
still be an odor problem there? Who can answer that question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect you want to hear from staff,
but I'll be glad to answer that, too.
MR. RUSSELL: For the record, David Russell, Solid Waste
Director.
If the landfill was closed, a liner material -- a plastic liner
material would be placed over those cells so that your ability to
capture all the gasses being generated would be much greater. Not to
say that you would eliminate them 100 percent. It's a mechanical
system. There are pumps and vacuum devices and so on and so forth.
You would have some occasional maintenance situations where you may
have some odorl but their frequency would be much less than it would
be now.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I also wonder if for the purposes of -- we
closed off the one discussion about trucking to move things along. Is
there anybody on this board who questions whether or not there's an
odor associated with the landfill? I mean, if there are people here
who are trying to convince us of that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It stinks.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- I'll tell you right up front I'm clear
that there's an odor associated with the landfill.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam Chairwoman, I would agree. We all
know there's a problem there. I'm interested in what we do to
eliminate and control that process with the technologies that I've
been researching, reading, that it's therel there are ways to do this.
And my concern is that we move forward and get that thing under
control versus moving the problem.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While I appreciate your aggressive
nature towards thatl that's not a new argument. This isn't as though
no other commissioner has looked at efforts to deal with odor. And
we've had -- over the last six years that I've been on the commission,
it's been due to the gasl it's been due to the cover material used,
it's now the gypsum board, and then it was the water plant. And
there's always an excuse. And every time that particular excuse is
addressed, 10 and behold, the landfill still smells. So a promise
that we're going to get that technology and we're going to make it
stop smelling rings hollow for me.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, I understand where you're coming froml
but what you're saying iSI you're going to move the stink from one
part of the county to another part of the county.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'm not -- and basically what we're going to
do is we're going to pit one group of people in this room against
another group of people in this room, and I'm not in favor of doing
that. And that's not my concern.
Page 26
February 9, 1999
I don't think until we can prove to the residents perhaps where
this might be moved or whateverl I'm not saying it's going to be them,
but whenever we might move thisl until I can prove to them that this
landfill can be a good neighbor -- and we haven't been a good neighbor
to the folks in Golden Gate. We acknowledge that. We haven't been a
good neighbor. And until we can do thatl I'm not going to burden
another group of people with this thing. We have got to get it under
control. And yes, the water department might have been a problem of
it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Part of it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it was part of that odor. But there
certainly is another odor associated. Nobody's denying that. And I
think Waste Management I we know that we have a contract with them.
I believe, Mr. Weigel, it is in the contract. It states that
they are to use all efforts or any technology or whatever it iSI
whatever the wording is, maybe you have that and can say it for us,
please.
MR. WEIGEL: Best management practices.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Best management practices. Well, if we can't
do this -- they do it in other areas. We need to get it under and we
need to get a handle on this problem right now. And it can't go on.
And until I've got a demonstrated time frame where I can say to
the rest of the county, look, we've done it, we've done our jobl come
out therel take a look, smelll give it the sniff test, do whatever,
how can I say to another group of people, well, you're not worth itl
we're just going to bring it in and put it in your backyard? I don't
think that that's fair.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm kind of sorry that I opened this up for
speeches. My only reason for saying anything was I thought it might
save time if there are people here who are here for the purpose of
telling us that the landfill smells bad. You can hear that there are
five people up here who know that and you could just save that amount
of time is what my goal was.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, and I realize you want
to get back to the speaker, I think that's a good idea. We probably
all should save our comments until the end, but I don't want to be
mischaracterized. I'm in no way suggesting that we pit one part of
the community against the other. We can discuss that in discussion
later.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Let's go back to the speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mike Taylor and Fred Thomas.
MS. TAYLOR: Good morning. I'm Mike Taylor. I'm here on behalf
of Collier Enterprises, Agribusiness Division and Consolidated citrus.
I'll be brief and to the pointl because I know we've got 31 speakers
here.
As you may know, we don't think it's a good idea to move the
existing landfill. Moving it would cost a great deal of money and it
would not resolve the odor probleml as we've talked about here briefly
this morning. And it would not benefit the public. The proposed
Page 27
February 9, 1999
landfill site will cause great damage to the land that we might move
it on and any surrounding properties near that landfill.
This property is not needed for landfill. In factI no property
is really needed for a new landfill. I would think that you would
take this under consideration and hope that you make the right
decisions. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for your brevity.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Fred Thomas and Ron Hamel.
MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas I for the record, from Immokalee,
Florida.
My -- you're going to hear about the environmental concerns.
You're going to hear about all these other concerns. I'm going to say
two things to you. My office is 1.2 miles away from the existing
landfill in Immokalee. I never smelled an odor at all. Maybe you need
to have those people train the folks over here on how to run one.
(Applause.)
MR. THOMAS: Number two --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or maybe I Fred, we should just reopen
that one, since it's not a problem.
MR. THOMAS: Number two -- I meanl that's an active landfill that
theY're using on an everyday basis right now.
Number twol that landfill is adequate for the community of
Imrnokalee. It does not make sense for the Immokalee residents to have
to subsidize the operational expense for moving the landfill closer to
us that we don't need. It just does not make sense for that to
happen. Unless you all are going to develop a way to charge more to
get further away from the landfilll we'll end up subsidizing a
landfill that we don't really need that doesn't belong to us. Thank
you all very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ron Hamel and then William Suckow.
MR. HAMEL: Yeah, good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Ron Hamel, and I'm executive vice president of Gulf Citrus
Growers Association, and we represent 34 citrus growers and 35,000
acres of citrus here in Collier County, including the groves that have
been selected in Site L by the county for possible condemnation.
In July, '96, I wrote this commission in opposition to removing
and uprooting up to 1/000 acres of citrus to re-site this landfill. I
stand before you today to respectfully restate our association's
position in opposition to the condemnation of the citrus groves to
build a new county landfill. More specifically, we are certainly
opposed to the continual pursuit of Site L by the county for that
purpose.
One of the reasons that citrus has grown so well and been so
productive in this county is that the lands are conducive to citrus.
They're among the best citrus growing lands in the world and make our
industry very competitive here in Southwest Florida. In fact, our
whole region has gone from just about nothing in the industry up to
representing about 25 percent of production in the state. So each
acre of citrus land is extremely important to the overall health and
well-being of our industry here in Southwest Florida.
Page 28
February 91 1999
Alsol we would like to remind this commission that permitting a
new landfill is probably one of the most difficult things to do,
particularly in a county like Collier, which is extremely
environmentally sensitive. with the land availability as scarce as it
is in the countYI we ask, why is it not in the best interest of this
county to maximize the existing space and keep the landfill and
address the issues surrounding the odor issue?
Again, we certainly do support what has been said here by county
staff regarding the fixation of the odor problem.
IronicallYI I was on the East Coast this past weekend and I was
cutting across trying to get from Indian Town Road over to the main
drag back from West PalmI and I took Jog Road and went right through a
major landfill over there in West Palm. And basicallYI it was an
extensive operation. I couldn't believe how long it was. It was
several miles longl in fact, with all kinds of different recycling
facilities, et cetera. It was massive. It must have beenl I don't
know, 201 30, 40 feet high. But I put the windows down in the car
just to go through itl coincidentally, and I didn't pick up much of
any kind of odor, whatever that landfill -- whatever procedures they
use there.
But we certainly are opposed to the pursuit of site Land
removing citrus for production to site a new landfilll and we
appreciate this commission's interest in support of our industry.
Thank you.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: William Suckow and Arnon Greit.
MR. SUCKOW: Thank you, and good morning. I'm Bill Suckow, as
was mentionedl and I'm president of the homeowner's association at
Orangetreel and I represent our growing community.
Now, we registered with the commission last January our concerns
and our opposition to relocating the landfill within 10 miles of our
growing community, where we believe there are issues of safety and
health, among others.
Now, I'd like to address our views in the context of the staff's
recommendations on how to proceed. The first was to continue landfill
operations and aggressively -- and it was emphasized very strenuously
-- aggressively pursue improvements to eliminate odors. Now, we
believe we shouldn't solve one problem by creating another. We've
heard that manYI many times.
We purchased at Orangetree because of its location. It's out in
the country, so to speak. There was nothing objectionable around us.
We knew, however, eventually growth would catch up to us. Because in
Orangetree alone, we have approximately 5,000 single-family homes I not
to mention the existing community that already exists in the
surrounding area. We now have a new elementary school under
construction on oil Well Road, with construction of a middle school to
startl I understand, right next to it, later this yearl and possibly
even a high school in our area.
Now, Orangetree and the surrounding area is rapidly growing, as
is the whole Immokalee corridor. We are facing ever-increasing
Page 29
February 9, 1999
traffic on an entirely inadequate Immokalee Roadl and oil Well Road as
well. Much of it is heavy traffic from earth mining operations. It's
already deadly. Add school buses and now a daily flow of trucks to
and from a proposed landfill and you have an increased mix of trucks
and buses that can only best be described as a disastrous situation.
It makes no sense to supposedly fix one problem and then create
another.
Our citizens are not only concerned about the traffic problems,
but health problems that may be created as well. The location of a
landfill that is very near a canal system that drains hundreds of
square milesl whose water carrying dangerous materials from the
landfill could adversely affect the 21 working wells in the area,
including Golden Gate City and Naples. We believe the potential for
this contamination should be investigated more thoroughly.
Now, with respect to the second recommendationl we support the
investigation of disposal alternatives, including other export
opportunities that may develop during now and May, 2001 or 2003. We
have the time, so we should take advantage of it and explore the use
of technology.
Now, with respect to the third alternativel we believe the steps
to acquire LI which has been mentioned as very productive landl should
not continue until all efforts to eliminate the odors at the present
site have been completed, and this has already been emphasized by the
commission, and other disposal opportunities investigated. We should
be spending money on fixing the problem, not creating another.
The danger that we see is, if you proceed with acquiring site L
before you've exhausted the elimination of other avenues and export
opportunities, it's too easy to say we've got the land, we spent the
moneYI let's move the landfilll and thus creating another problem
without fully and thoroughly investigating your options.
It's advocated that you can save dollars by purchasing the site.
But you need first to know the impact of that purchase.
My dad used to saYI Bill, keep it simple. Don't eat the elephant
all at once. Eat the elephant a bite at a time. The staff
recommendations, 1 and 2, represent prudent bites. The Alternative 3,
acquiring Site LI represents eating the whole elephant, something we
believe you should not do now. Thank you.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next two speakers are Arnon Greit and Tom Jones.
MR. GREIT: Good morning, Madam Chairwoman I and Committee. My
name is Arnon Greit. I'm the president of Countryside Golf and
Country Clubl which is located between Davis and Radio Road.
We have established this morning that we do have odorsl so I
won't get into that. But we do have a problem, I think, that is
greater than just the odors and that is a landfill that's matured, a
landfill that is producing excessive amount of methane gas. This is
due to age. And I'm also sure it's due to mismanagement. Because I'm
sure if we were starting to develop a landfill over again at Golden
Gatel we'd do it quite differently. So it may be a case that the
Page 30
February 9, 1999
problems that Golden Gate cannot be corrected in a long term as a
landfill.
You also have the issue of state and regulatory agencies that
violate -- cited you for violations, and this is going to increase in
frequency. When they once get you on their listl theY're going to
continue to visit your location.
The other thing is that a community growth is a stress for the
facility. This morning in the paper, it was clear that Collier County
has grown at 30 percent in the last three and a half to four years.
Economic impact is up 10 percent. So that you have a community that
is growing. How long can this landfill you have presently support the
expansion that is going on in Collier County?
The quality of life here in Collier County is very special. We
have one of the finest communities in the State of Florida. And also,
the issue that has helped bring us to this point as far as the quality
of life is the performance of the commissioners over the last several
years. You folks have had long-range planning. You've had sound
decision-making in how you directed the course of the direction of
this county. I'm sure you're going to do the same thing as far as
addressing this landfill issue.
What do we gain by delaying the new location of this facility? I
believe we're going to have more trouble. We're going to have more
difficulty. Federal agencies are going to be more of a hounding issue
for you to deal with. Also, voter unrest is going to be on the
increasing amount of agendas as you visit various communities in the
Collier County area.
Waste Management cannot be put on a holding position. I believe
you're really copping out on the issue if you do not take the action
that's required. There's no question that the present location has
served the county weIll has tried to perform the function that you
designed it to do. But the growth of Collier County has impacted
greatly on the accomplishment of that goal that you had a number of
years ago. It may be time for the location to be placed somewhere
else in Collier County.
We certainly, as a community, need to work together, join
together in solving the management of our waste production. You have
the money, you have a quality site locationl you have voter support to
do something. It's your responsibility to protect the quality of life
in Collier County and to protect the property values that we all have
invested in over the last several years. Your vote for a relocation is
a vote for progress as you enter into the 21st Century. Thank you
very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Tom Jones and then Wesley Roan.
MR. JONES: Good morning. For the record, my name is Tom Jones I
and I'm employed by the Barron Collier partnership. I'm here today
speaking on behalf of myemployerl the company that owns the 1,100
acres citrus grove and sod farm generally referred to as Site L in
county documents. We generally refer to it as south Grove.
Let me state plainly, we have not been a willing seller in the
past with respect to this site, we are not a willing seller today with
Page 31
February 9, 1999
respect to this sitel and we will not be a willing seller in the
future with respect to this site. We are opposed to the development
of a new landfill on agriculture properties in Collier County,
including our properties. I have stated previously that if there is
an odor problem at the existing county facility, the county should do
everything possible to correct the problem. You owe that to everyone.
The solution to the problem must not be to move the problem to
another location within Collier County. We do not see a public
necessity or benefit to moving the landfill to another part of the
county if the reason stated is an odor-related problem that can be
corrected with improved technology and aggressive management.
If the odor cannot be controlled at the existing facility, how
will it be controlled at the new facility? If the odor can't be
effectively controlled as required by permit, we will be back here in
the future talking about odor problems and the only thing that will
have changed is the location of the problem.
The existing facility has a minimum life of 20 years. If the
efficiency of the facility is increased and air space utilization is
enhanced, the life of the facility could be significantly increased.
A previous commission bought 300 acres adjacent to the facility to
expand. Who knows how long this facility could be used if that land
were incorporated into the existing facility. But things change and
new commissions rethink positions of previous commissions.
Alternatives for our trash disposal must be developed and
evaluated that do not involve traditional land filling in our county.
As a community, we need to come together to develop solutions to our
long-term trash disposal needs that go beyond land filling.
I ask the commission today to do the hard thing and the right
thing, and that is to correct the problem. The easy thing to do here
today is to move the problem somewhere else in Collier County. Thank
you.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: Wesley Roan and then patricia Mureebe.
MR. ROAN: Good morning I Commissioners. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak. My name is Wesley Roan. I've been a resident
of Golden Gate for 26 years. I'm also a member of the Agribusiness
community.
I agree with many of the things Mr. Jones just said. If we can't
control the odor problem at the current landfill with new technology,
what is there to make me believe that we're going to control the odor
by moving the landfill to another location? And if we can control the
odor in the current landfilll let's do it and utilize the land that
we've already purchased and is available to manage solid waste for
Collier County for the next 20 years. I find it hard to believe that
we're just willing to move one problem to another.
Commissioner Mac'Kiel you suggested before we got started that
there might not be anybody who's really interested in the trucking
issue. WeIll from a personal nature I I'd be more than happy to spend
$15 a year to not establish another landfill in Collier County.
(Applause. )
Page 32
February 91 1999
MR. ROAN: Againl living close to the landfill, there's obviously
a problem. We all know it. I sure hope that we're not blowing smoke
about the ability to control the problem. If we can, if we can
establish a landfill project, let's cover up the one we've got. If we
can't guarantee that we're going to eliminate the smelll then there's
no waYI regardless of where we go, we're going to solve the problem.
Please don't move one problem to another location.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Patricia Mureebe and then Cheryl Newman.
MS. MUREEBE: Good morningl Madam Commissioner and Commissioners.
I'm -- my name is Patricia Mureebe, and I'm speaking for myself, and
I can see that that probably puts me at a great disadvantage I but I
think so.
I do wish to make a few points on this. First of all, I live off
Davis Boulevard, near Route 951. We are painfully aware of the
problems at the landfill, those of us who live in the stench zone. I
was told that by last Thanksgiving there would be a methane collection
and flame burn solution to the problem. That has not existed. There
has been some diminution to the problem, but only minor. I wish to
say that I would almost challenge any licensed professional engineer
in the State of Florida to guarantee me that short of capping this
landfill with an effective methane collection and flame burn, that a
solution to the odor problem can exist.
I would also question whether a new landfill employing proper
technologies with adequate management would have comparable problems.
I have heard a number of times about moving this landfill. The
landfill is not to be moved. The problem exists here and the solution
has to exist here. A new sited landfill hopefully with proper
management and technology will not generate the problems that those of
us, especially individuals I have to face.
I would ask that the commissioners, as individuals, think of what
individual people in this area are going through, and would weigh and
assess the monetary interests of corporate interests with those of us
who are simply living here. Thank you very much.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: Cheryl Newman and then Ruth DeLate.
MS. NEWMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Cheryl
Newman. I'm the president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association.
First I'd like to say that what I am going to say to you today,
you've probably all heard before several times, except for maybe one
commissioner at the end, Mr. Carter. I don't intend to stand up here
and tell you that I'm going to represent my community with any kind of
legal action if you choose not to move the landfill or close the
landfill. I know that's been done before.
I think it's time for the commission to step up to commitments
they've made in the past. And what you're saying today is that you
need to explore more avenues of technology. I think we've been
hearing that for a lot of years. And it's continued to progress as
far as the amount of days that we do have to endure the smell.
I was hoping that the trucking proposal was going to be a good
one this morning I which would help the citizens that surround Golden
Page 33
February 9, 1999
Gatel not just Golden Gatel as you've heard this morning. There are
other areas that are being affected by it. UnfortunatelYI the
trucking was not a good cost effective way to do it. I think there
may be other companies out there that might be willing to be a little
bit more competitive. Maybe we didn't research enough avenues with
that.
I think it is time that we need to move forward. We talked about
2001 being a drop-dead date. That's just around the corner. I know
it takes time to purchase property. It takes time to permit that
property. If we don't move forward nowl we're going to be talking
about this in 2001.
I do agree that something still needs to be done with the odor.
There's been a lot of people offering innovative ideas. Fans. I'm
not sure that would do anything more than carry it a little further.
But I guess what I'm trying to say is that we need to bring back
the credibility that the people have for the commission and not back
step on some other items that they've already covered before in the
past. And I thank you very much for allowing me to speak this
morning.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez I maybe before we call the next
speaker, I bet our court reporter is going to need a five-minute break
after this next speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ruth DeLate is the next speaker.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MS. DeLATE: Madam Chairman and Commissioners. Nowl this is deja
vu. I've been here before and I know that this has been addressed
many times by a lot of these people.
And you've talked about the odor problems, so I know you don't
want to face it again. But it is terrible. And it's time again for
us to say, move the landfill. We've gone through it. It was okay. I
thought we were coming here today to say yes, it was fine. We're
going to either transport it or we're going to move it. And you've
checked off one, so it has to be the other. We're going to move the
landfill. Let's go ahead with it.
Now, I have checked with an environmental specialist and he said
the same chemicals that come out of the oil refinery are in our air
from the landfill. This includes mercaptans, furems (phonetic),
sulfonated organicsl odorless methane and hydrogen sulfate. These
chemicals are all harmful at a certain level. Must we smell them
every day?
Now, by moving it, I agree, there will certainly be new
innovations and new experiments that people have used in other places
where there aren't smells. Why should we be subject to this day after
day? It doesn't mean that I am every day affected by it, but in this
community, which is in a five-mile radius, somebody is smelling it.
And we're tired of the same old garbage, pardon the pun, that we
keep hearing from this county commission. We are not ignoramuses. We
need you to realize that people's health is more important than
oranges or maybe even tomatoes. And I would like all of you
commissioners to pay attention and move this landfill. Thank you.
Page 34
February 91 1999
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Be back 20 till.
(Recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order.
If you'd go back to your seats. Quiet down, pleasel if you would.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're calling the meeting back to order.
Mr. Fernandez, can you get us back on track?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, the next two speakers are
Robert R. Marvin and Sonya Tuten.
MR. MARVIN: Hello.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Hello.
MR. MARVIN: You know, in the many years I've lived in this
state, which I can't say all my life, because I'm not dead yet --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sirl if you could identify yourself for the
record.
MR. MARVIN: My name is Robert Marvin. I'm a waterman for 50
years in the State of Florida. Ran yachts, ships, shrimp boatsl and
done everything else in the water you can think of. My family has
been here since 1795. We're an old-timer. We work at it. We eat
plenty of the right food.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
MR. MARVIN: Yes.
I live within the area of the landfill,
I've never smelled the landfill. I haven't.
here, there's enough apathy in the community
why there isn't more of them here.
Now, yesterday I had a man in my truck, a federal man, a
gentleman named Nathaniel Reid. He has family members that live on
the East Coast. And we were discussing some other things besides the
landfill. It has something to do with the fishery.
And the thing I don't understand is in time, even if it's a
20-year life expectancy on the landfill, if possibly used the right
way, I think with the development as far as it's moving on withl I
don't think that the 20 years will be enough. I think 10, 121 15
years, I think 90 percent of it is going to be used up anyway I even if
you use the other 300 acres. Because look at the cells as they are
today as they were 17 years ago.
The think that I would like to see, if -- and I hope in time
there's no litigation that comes out of this through the community. I
won't be here. I feel that it's time for the old-timers to move on.
But I feel that you do have a problem. There's a large area being
developed out there now on 951, and you're going to have discussions
from those people. And I think they have the -- hopefully enough
interest to come down here and speak to you folks about it.
Mr. Constantine, I didn't have the pleasure to meet you, but I
received your letter. I know what it is to sit where you are and
making commitments. I was a commissioner north of here for seven
years. It's not easy. They don't know that. It's not easy. I've
been involved with the environmental areas of the State of Florida for
Page 35
We'll take a five-minute break.
Do you have something to say to this board?
about five miles away.
But I feel this way
I live inl I don't see
February 9, 1999
30 yearsl so I know what it is to travel to Washington, travel to
Tallahassee and so on.
I would hope to think that if you make a decision to move this
landfill, with all the new technologies they have, you could do a
better job. It's not your history. Obviously, you weren't here that
time that it was built. We checked into the areas of when it was
started, and we looked at some different decisions. We talked about
it yesterday.
There's three ways to look at it. One, either the City of Naples
packs up their own garbage and moves it elsewhere. Let them deal with
their garbage and any other citYI Marco City or Isle of Capri City. I
don't know whether that's a city or not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, sir.
MR. MARVIN: They can handle their trash the way they want. Let
them truck it to Broward, and that would help to keep the landfill
down to a minimall an area we can work with. And I guarantee you if
that statement goes into the newspaper I you'll have 10,000 of them
down here to speak against it.
So the poor folks that are living with it right now, they're
living with a lot of problems in the middle of, saYI 4:00, 5:00, 6:00
in the morning during the middle of July. You know, it's like the old
outhouse, too far in the winter, too close in the summer. And I lived
with that at one time in my life.
But the point made is that you'd better do something with it. If
it has to be moved. You'd better buy the land now. It's important
that you do this.
Mr. Constantinel thank you for your letter.
And thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sonya Tuten and then Mireya Louviere.
MS. TUTEN: Good morning I Commissioners. My name is Sonya Tuten,
for the record. Most of the commissioners know me, except for
probably Mr. Carter, since he's new on the board. I'm here today on
behalf of the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce and citizens of Immokalee.
First of all, you all know what I'm going to say. All the
citizens and the businesses and the farm workers are opposed to having
a new landfill in Collier County.
Right now, just so we can see who all's herel if anyone here who
is opposed to having a new landfill in Collier County, and especially
the L site, please stand and please have all the people in the back
raise their hands if you're opposed to the new landfill.
(Audience responds.)
MS. TUTEN: Thank you very much.
Last time I was here, about a year ago, I brought you guys 881
signatures on petitions opposed to the landfill in our area. Today
why I have this sign iSI I want to talk about food and farms and
preserving ago lands. We're just having farms and ago lands dropping
like flies left and right. Farmers over the years, between mother
nature, NAFTA, and things like wanting to build landfills. The
Page 36
February 91 1999
gentleman expressed his opinion earlier that Collier County's growing
at a rate of 30 percent over the years. What happens when you run out
of land to build all these houses, are you going to come and try to
take the ago lands? I meanl we got to put a stop here, you guys.
We want to say that if you guys would keep the landfill in the
current locationl and try to fix the odor problem.
One of the things that really irks me is that how these property
owners do not want to sell, have said they do not want to sell, do not
even want to think about selling their property. The county has not
even looked at the proposed areas of like, for instance, the college
property that the owners try to bend over backwards to sell the
property to the county.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sonya, that's not exactly true. We
looked at that in great detail over a two-year period.
MS. TUTEN: Well, then, please consider keeping it where it is
and doing some solutions to help fix the problem and not move it to
our area.
Again, on behalf the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce I we oppose of
the new landfill in our area.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next two speakers are Mireya Louviere and
Harry Romano.
MS. LOUVIERE: Good morning I Commissioners. We have quite a few
people here today, I see that, so I'm going to be very brief. For the
recordl my name is Mireya Louviere. I'm the executive director of the
Immokalee Chamber of Commerce.
We would like to go on record opposing the relocation of the
Collier County landfill to site L.
Further, we would like to urge the County Commissioners to
address this issue, by eliminating the odor migration from the
existing landfill sitel and thereby giving staff time to review
disposal alternatives.
In closing, if you have a probleml you don't move it, you fix it.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Harry Romano and then Sue Law.
MR. ROMANO: Hellol everybody. My name is Harry Romano. I'd
like to state for the record that I live right on Lake Sapphire, which
is directly connected -- I guess you would get a runoff into the lake.
We've noticed over the last few years, myself and all my kids
have gotten sick on such a more frequent level, it was just so
noticeable for us. A lot of the fish in the lake are now dying and
it's washing up on our beach. The stench is horrible. We have a
well, and the water that comes up out of the well now has got a
horrible odor that it never had. So it's obviously draining into our
lake.
You have some facts here that I got in your letter that are
pretty substantial. You're saying that the current landfill is in the
middle of 501000 people, and the new site, there's 484 people.
WeIll I'm an inventor and I design new things. And in looking at
the problem that you have right now, it's too much to overcome. You
would be better off taking the new site, the L site, and using new
Page 37
February 9, 1999
technologies and hybrid technologies I construct a facility there,
using an indoor facility, make a big building to put it all there. It
would make your gas collection easier.
There's a lot of things that can be done, but you should do it in
a new area, because the old area is just so beat up. You've got to do
something about it. My neighbors have gotten sick. I don't know what
else to tell you guys.
You definitely need to move it. And I would be willing to help
out in discussing some of these new ideas that I have to correct this
problem. I feel they have worthl and I have a lot of experience in
the past on fixing problems that nobody else could fix.
Thank you for your time. I sure hope you decide to move this
thing. I'd like to tell my little daughter who's home with the flu
right now that she's not going to keep getting sick like this, and the
people are going to do something about it. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speakers are Sue Law and then Nancy Bisbee.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: While they're coming up, staff should be
ready to respond about whether or not there's health risks associated
with the location of the landfill.
MS. LAW: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Sue Law. I've
been a homeowner on 25th Avenue Southwest in unit 28 for the past 10
years. And I'm a realtor with ERA Fast Realty in Golden Gate Estates,
specializing in closed-in and estate property.
Ever since you last voted on shutting down the current landfilll
I've been assuring buyers in our area that the landfill would no
longer be a problem for the closed-in owners. It's been a lot like
the gold rush to California. All of the closed-in properties off of
Oakes and Logan Boulevard turn over as fast as they hit the market.
units 27 and 28, just east of 951, and Units 3 and 4 off of Webber
have only seven homes listed for sale for under 200,000.
Owning a home is the one investment that an average person can
make especially in this area with hope of a good return on their
money. If the landfill stays where it is, not only are you hurting
the value and the quality of life for the closed-in and estate homes,
but also for all of the new properties being developed south of the
landfill right now up and down 951.
A lot of construction has taken place because of your prior
decision to move the landfill. A lot of construction has been done.
A lot of money has been invested. A lot of human beings will be
affected if it's not moved elsewhere.
As far as what to do with the problem, I don't really agree with
the Oil Well Road problem idea. That's an extremely popular area
right now for people to move out therel for land purchases, new
constructionl because of the convenience of 175, Immokalee Road, the
new school, supposedly a grocery store that's going to be going in
there and all of the golf courses.
All of our property values have gone up in the last year alone,
not to mention what's going to happen. I think the taxpayers could
afford a nominal adjustment to their tax bill, if necessary. I am
sorry that there are so few Golden Gate Estate homeowners here today.
Page 38
February 91 1999
But I believe that they put their trust in the commissioners' earlier
discussion and are at work earning the money to pay for their homes.
Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd like to saYI too, somebody make a
comment about there being few people here from Golden Gate. That is
irrelevant to me. Becausel you knowl people who are at workl it's our
responsibility to represent them and I make no judgment based on that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're opposed to moving it whether
they're here or not.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speakers were Nancy Bisbee and Richard
Woodruff.
MS. BISBEE: Nancy Bisbee. I have lived on White Boulevard for
23 years, so I have smelled that lovely odor.
I am not in favor of the move at all. As you commissioners have
known from mel I think we should go with an incinerator on our present
300 acres. It is very costly to build right now, I know. But in the
long run, the gas can be used for the power companies, the ash has
many, many uses. Our hospital waste that goes to the landfill would
be safe because it is burned at such a high temperature. Waste
Management has raised our rates every year since they've had it. And
one of the big things we need to do is to teach recycling. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am.
(Applause.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: Richard Woodruff and then Russell Tuff.
MR. WOODRUFF: Good morning, honorable members of the County
Commission. I bring greetings from the city Counsel and I also bring
condolences and SYmpathy, because I recognize that when you stand in
front of a group today, it's very difficult to create total winners.
You're dealing with an issue that I have to commend the
commission, and especially Commissioner Constantine, for trying to
find alternatives. I know that when we first stated our opposition to
Tract L, he came forward with a proposal that the city could support
at that time and that was the concept of trucking. So I will tell you
that from the city'S perspective, we were indeed disheartened with the
fact that trucking did not work out.
What you are hearing this morning is what we, as elected
officials and staffl hear quite often. And that iSI nobody wants to
be a loser in a situation. In this situation, what you have obviously
are those who would like to see it moved, but they do not want to put
a burden on someone new. The City Council has expressed their
opposition to the relocation to Site L, because, as you're aware, it
is very close to our well aquifer system, which is out behind North
Golden Gate CitYI as I grew up calling it. So we would discourage you
not to do Site L.
But let me tell you what we would encourage you to do. There's
no question that the people in Golden Gate have a problem. There's no
question that you and your predecessors did a very good job in trying
to find solutions. The City is not of the opinion that you can solve
the present problems with the current rate structure. There is no
Page 39
February 91 1999
question that if you ask people, do they want higher fees for Waste
Management, the answer is no. But you have to ask the right question
in order to get the right answer.
And the right question in this case iSI do we want to eliminate
the odor problems and the neighborhood problems? That answer is not
an answer that pits one neighborhood against another. It's not an
answer that forces a move. But we would encourage you to do is, look
at the long-term technology to determine if we can do things.
Incineration, the lady in front of me just mentioned. I'm sure that
there are other technologies.
But for the record, the City Council has asked me to come out
today and express to you, againl our concern with site L and to wish
you success in this project. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Russell Tuff and then Ty Agoston.
MR. TUFF: Good morning. My name is Russell Tuff, and I'm
representing myself.
And the last time I was before the Commissioners I Burt Saunders
was there and I did my whole spiel. And after I got done I I thought I
did a really good job and he said, "So what are you saying?" So I
don't do such a good job at that.
But the things that I guess I consider iSI we're limited the
commission has shown an aggressive stance toward economic development.
I believe some of the greatest potentials we have are near that
landfill. And I don't believe that we can have any meaningful work
towards that with that landfill right there. And I know that you've
heard it yourself that people are saying theY're not going to be there
because of that.
And I know that all of you are good people and the people that
are in this room have those thoughts, that everybody wants to do
what's right. And I think of -- maybe everybody didn't agree with Tim
Hancock or what he thought I but I guess something that he said before
he was done that meant a lot to me, I guess that made it stand out,
was that he was going to make the right decision, regardless if it
wasn't popularl because he knows that it was the right thing, and he
could hold his head high for a lot of years, no matter what that would
be.
So I had to think to myselfl why is this such a tough decision
when it affects so many people? I can't go off my land. Lots of
nights I get up and I run. I can't run sometimes now. And it's not
just me, it's a whole bunch of people. And I'm a pretty decent
distance from it.
And I got to thinking, well, I believe the people. I know I
believe the people I associate with, I work with on a daily basis.
And as constituentsl we aren't seeing most of you on a regular basis,
so we don't have that confidencel the trust and the belief that
everything that we're saying is true. And the people that are getting
your attentions, I believel are well meaning and well intentioned
people. But they aren't living with what we're living with, so they
can't speak from where I am speaking from. And it affects such a
great number of people.
Page 40
February 9, 1999
And I think you're going to make some people disappointed by a
decision to stay where it is. But at the same timel that will be a
short-lived thing that we have to live with. They may saYI geez, they
make a bad decision. But you can make a decision that affects a
tremendous amount of people in a very deep way and you can hold your
head highl no matter what happens after today. And I would like you
to consider that. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston, and then Sheri Barnett.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty
Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, you know, that less beautiful
Golden Gate Estates. And I'm speaking for the Taxpayers Action Group
of Collier County.
TAG has been monitoring the exploration of various ways to deal
with waste disposal in Collier County. UnfortunatelYI most of that
$800,000 that was spent was primarily spent on selection of a new land
site. I knowl I have attended many of them. It is our belief that
there should be no sacred cows when it comes to dealing with waste
disposal, whichever is the most beneficial to the county.
Today, technology grows leaps and bounds. We should take
advantage of that technology. I spoke to the Lee County director of
environmental services. He told me on the radio that as far as he's
concerned, the Lee County incinerator is the safest environmental
process in Lee County. And he didn't say this to me on the sidel he
said this to me on the radio on the Rich King show.
In terms of you trying to truck the trash out of Collier County
invokes a number of memories to me. Maybe some of you are also from
New York. And I remember a barge leaving New York city traveling up
and down the East Coast trying to find a way to deal -- finally went
to South America and it became an ego problem to the various potential
receiving nations. To make the long story short, it came back, and I
think someone at Pennsylvania finally took it at a great deal of
money.
For us to put this county at a danger of someone else controlling
our destiny in any respect is shameful. This is a wealthy county. We
should be able to deal with all aspects of our living. There
shouldn't be anything that we are at someone else's mercy. And
trucking, as far as I'm concerned, is putting yourself at someone
else's mercy.
There was -- I don't care what kind of a contract, legal document
you sign with anyone. At a community who's receiving your trash, have
the ability to break that contract, and the bottom linel they own the
receiving --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Agoston, you know we've rejected that
proposal by our vote earlier today.
MR. AGOSTON: I'm under the impression that you only rejected the
dollars that's involved, not the concept. And I am arguing against
the concept.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see.
MR. AGOSTON: We still would like you to explore the entire issue
with some experts with a pure analytical process.
Page 41
February 9, 1999
I am -- really feel bad for Mr. Constantine because he's kind of
between a rock and a hard place and there's no -- it's a no-win
situation for him.
On the other hand, I don't think that this should be a political
decision. I was at present meetings when it was stated that
originally there were 17 families next to that landfill. All the rest
of the properties were developed after the landfill. And if we are
now trying to gain a price benefit over a moved landfill as opposed to
sitting next to it, you know, that's not quite right when someone else
is paying the bills for you.
I can reiterate, the Taxpayers Action Group would like you to
approach this again and in a more broad base. Thank you very much.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez, how many more speakers do we
have?
MR. FERNANDEZ: About 20.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Can I correct one thing?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want to correct one point. The current
landfill is in District 5. The proposed site is in District 5. Nowl
let's talk about a rock and a hard spot.
(Applause.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we have 20 --
MR. FERNANDEZ: 15.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have 15 speakers. Okay. Good. Maybe we
will finish before lunch.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sheri Barnett and then Joseph
MS. BARNETT: Good morning. My name is Sheri
record. Most of you know mel I believe I have not
front of Mr. Carter, however.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That was quick.
MS. BARNETT: I'm done.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll get it straight.
MS. BARNETT: I basically feel very sorry for all of
up there, because I think you have a very hard decision.
think has been pondered many times over and over and over
we still have come to no conclusions, to my estimates.
I'm sorry, Pam, that you didn't feel that the trucking issue was
something that we should bring back up, because that's really where my
stance is. I don't want to see landfill re-sited. I want to see the
current landfill closed. I think that solves two problems.
I would also like to see reopening, maybe, the issue of the
truckingl but in a different format. Maybe looking outside the box a
little bit. You have two different contracts with that trucking
option. You could open it up to not only the waste product being
removed I but you could also combine with that the contract of the
disposal of our waste at our home sites; in other words I combine the
whole package. And that might get a few more people interested in the
bidding process, and it might also decrease the cost. I'm speaking on
my own self only because I think that that's an alternative. My other
thought is an incinerator.
Tabbi.
Barnett for the
ever spoken in
you sitting
One that I
againl and
Page 42
February 9, 1999
I don't want to see anything moved to another location, because I
agree with Commissioner Berry and several of you that it's not right
to move a problem. But I've also been studying on the OCC enough to
know that I don't think we are going to fix the odor problems at the
current site. They keep renovating. They keep adding more wells.
And we keep coming up with more problems. They have had several
engineers looking at the system and it doesn't matter what they're
designing I it's not functioning to full capacity to relieve the
problem.
I think maybe in the past with poor managementl not just Waste
Management, but prior to that, the adding of things that we did not
realize contaminated the site, such as the gypsum. I mean, we were
using it for cover. How many years is it part of the cover? That
creates a hydrogen sulfide gas, which is part of the odor that we're
smelling. I believe Mr. Bigelow can give you the rates, but I know
they're like five times the amount of the normal landfill in
emissions.
So I really feel that it's something that -- it's a little bit
more intact that we need to take a different stance to look at. I
don't have an easy solution for you, but I think we need to go back to
the drawing board.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sheri, I appreciate that. And also, the vote
that we took was to reject the trucking contract proposals in front of
uSI not to close off the possibility of trucking ever. So I
appreciate you going ahead and commenting on that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speakers are Joseph Tabbi and Kaydee Tuff.
MR. TABBI: Good morning. My name is Joseph Tabbi. I'm
president of POHA in Golden Gate on 27th Avenue. I am here
representing 500 units in the Fairways Condominium Association.
Somebody made the comment that Golden Gate people are not represented.
WeIll when you look at me, I think you look at 500 families that are
representative.
We are an over-55 community I and as suchl have a lot of people
that are in their retirement ages and have problems in breathing and
living. The landfill -- where it's presently located has given us
such a terrible stench that it is difficult to live.
I'm not here to say that I have any solutions. I don't. I'm
also not here to say that put it in somebody else's backyard, which
seems to be the tendencies, anywhere but in my backyard. And I
understand that you have a problem in coming up with a solution.
If there was a solution for eliminating the odors, I think we
would have known of it by now. Waste Management has many engineers.
They would have made proposals to eliminate these odors.
We are against -- we are for moving the landfill only to give us
-- give the county more time to come up with good solutions and
technologies that will solve the problem permanently. There is no way
to solve them rapidly. I think if there were, we would have done it
by now.
Therefore, I am again saying that we are for the movement of the
landfill, or the changing of it. Closing down the present landfill.
Page 43
February 91 1999
This was promised on many occasions. And I feel that the board should
carry through with their promises. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Kaydee Tuff and then Ed English.
MS. TUFF: Good morning I Commissioners. My name is Kaydee Tuff.
And I'm very nervous.
I prepared a lot of notes here, but first of all, I'd like to
reiterate what my husband says. I think that Collier County can be
proud. We've been through a lot of talk about the ethics, but I think
that all of our commissioners show a high quality of personal
conviction and morality, and I appreciate that. And I'm sure that the
decision you're going to make is going to come out that.
We actually know in Golden Gate how most of the people in this
room feel, because 20 years ago we were sitting where they arel
perhaps not in those exact seats, but we were opposed to siting the
landfill within two miles of our community I which was a residentially
platted community. And we fought that very hardl even to the point of
saying that we would pursue legal action. That was not done.
So I think when you say moving it from one area to another, you
aren't going to be moving what we have here. It's a 20-year facility.
When it was put in 20 years ago, they didn't have the environmental
standards and regulations that theY're going to have to deal with when
they site this new landfill at its new location.
From what we've been told about the LOCC committee, Waste
Management said they inherited some real problems out there. And I
guess they knew that when they pursued that, because they pursued a
contract out there very diligently. Part of that contract, and Pam
knows very well, she was very strong at the timel saying there will be
odors measures in that contract, and if they are not met, there will
be some sort of punitive action. But in the four years that we've had
that landfill openl there has not been, to my knowledge, any punitive
action on the county's part. In fact, it seems until recentlYI until
environmental agencies from the federal government stepped in, that
was the first time we've had some citations out there. I don't know
why. I don't understand that.
As citizensl we were toldl this is the number you call for your
complaints. It was a county number. Now we're wondering if perhaps
we should have been calling the state all along.
Like I saidl the current site, it's old. And I think somebody
else here said that, too. So the new site that's going in won't be
the same thing.
And once again, we just ask you to do the right thing for the
right reasons and to listen to what is best for the community.
The new landfill would have a lot of measures that we don't live
with right now. And so safety concerns, I think, for everything that
people say for a reason not to move it somewhere else, is also a
reason not to leave it where it's at or definitely not expand it where
it's at. Those are all viable safety concerns that we live with, too.
And dealing with such an old landfill.
Page 44
February 9, 1999
So I appreciate your time. And I know that all of YOUI being the
people that you are, will make the right decision.
Mr. Carterl I understand that you've told other residents that
you have great concerns about thinks like blinking neon signs, so I'm
sure you're going to hear concerns when we're talking about our
quality of life in Golden Gate, as well. Thank you very much.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Ed English and then James Jenkins.
MR. ENGLISH: Good morning. For the recordl I'm Ed English. I
represent Pacific Tomato Growers I Collier Brothers. My family and a
good number of these people out here in the audience have showed up
today that work in the agricultural industry.
Many of the points that I have have been coveredl so I'll be very
brief.
MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: We're not hearing him.
MR. ENGLISH: I'm sorry, I'll speak up a little bit.
The points that I mentioned will be very brief. We're not primary
producers of processed foods. We're primary producers of fresh foodsl
and that's vegetables and citrus products. And they're shipped not
only in this country but Canada, Asia and Europe. And having a dump
in Site L immediately next to us is a primary concern.
The next point I want to make is, I don't blame these folks for
being mad about this odor problem. And it's been here for quite a
while. I don't know who can solve it. I know there is landfills that
operate in South Florida, as Ron Hamel has discussed, that do not have
an odor problem. But the county staff and the operator of that
landfill should be instructed to solve the problem. No matter what
you do in the future about the landfill, that problem needs to be
solved. That landfill will never go away, it's going to be there even
if it one day is closed.
You've heard a number of considerations about things that could
be done in the future that deal with the garbage of Collier County.
And all of them probably need to be considered in the future. But I
would like to ask on behalf of those people that I'm involved with and
represent, that this commission remove site L from consideration as
part of that problem. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. English, could I ask you a question? In
Commissioner Constantine's letter he addresses as a myth that no one
will want to purchase citrus grove near a landfill. And I don't know
the answer to this question. And this is not how they taught me to do
it in trial law, but is it true that you have been selling without any
problem the crop immediately abutting the Immokalee landfill? How
would this be --
MR. ENGLISH: The crop that's abutting the landfill in Immokalee,
Pam, is a crop of processed juice oranges. It was planted by a
willing owner after the dump was there. And the fruit is processed
and distributed as juice.
We're selling fresh citrus fruit, whole fruit. We're selling
whole tomatoesl squashl peppers I cucumbers I and it's an entirely
different situation. One does not really relate to the other.
Page 45
February 9, 1999
I notice in this same paper it says there's a few hundred citrus
trees there. We have probably a million. I mean, it's not a small
industry. This is probably one of the biggest primary areas for fresh
fruits and vegetables in the united States for late fall, winter, and
spring. It's very important to this country.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't have that million trees on
the 1/100 acres we're looking at, though, do you?
MR. ENGLISH: NOI I said in proximity. You were relating five
miles, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's actually for smell. I don't
think that you are going to worry about ground seepage at Bears Paw
for the existing lands --
MR. ENGLISH: We heard all kinds of speakers talk about things in
the air, things in the water. We've just gotten through with a major
study by the U.S. Geological Department. Our groundwater out there is
clean. This relates to the city of Naples. We've been good stewards
to the land. The natural systems are all intact. We don't need this
landfill in this location. Thank you.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is James Jenkins and then Barbara
Jenkins.
MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is James
Jenkins, 2600 Jenkins Way.
A lot of this stuff has been covered alreadYI but one of the
things I'd like to bring up is a broken promise. This commission has
also promised us that the land adjacent to the landfill would not be
used for expansion of the landfill. And I just want to reiterate
thatl because that's very important to me. And if you wanted to save
face -- not save face, but to show that you're owning up, I think that
this problem should be extended againl to let the people know that
you're not going to expand this landfill.
There's a couple other things that I'd like to say. The
committee that was established on this -- finding a new site. This
lasted approximately a year, I believe. Two years? OkaYI two years.
And my wife is on that committee. And to take the $800,000 that was
put for it, and then to take two years of, you know I many nights that
she wasn't there and just throw it away, does not seem right. You
know, that's what the whole idea of the committee was for is to find a
site.
And one other thing I'd like to say is if there's a problem with
the orange trees in Site LI then why instead of on both sides of 858,
how come they couldn't just stay on the west side of 858 and go up
that way? Then you wouldn't be into the orange trees. Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Barbara Jenkins and then David
Guggenheim.
MS. JENKINS: Good morning I Commissioners. I'm Barbara Jenkins,
and I'm speaking for myself.
The residents of Golden Gate and surrounding areas have been
assured by the Board of County Commissioners on numerous occasions the
Naples landfill would be closed. Many persons have made plans and
Page 46
February 9, 1999
investments based on these promises. I believe it's important for the
citizens of Collier County to trust what their government leaders have
told them.
Now, not only is there discussion of leaving the landfill where
it is, but there's discussion of expanding into the 300 acres north.
I think the Naples landfill is an appropriate place currently, and
that is due to poor planning by prior commissions. Expanding it would
affect thousands of residents. This is no longer a Golden Gate issue,
in my opinion. The landfill and its problems affect numerous
neighboring neighborhoods.
You have an extremely difficult decision ahead of you.
an emotional issue for many people. And hopefully you will
all the options and find a way that is hopefully acceptable
parties.
One speaker spoke of the impact to growers if Site L is selected.
I would ask you to please consider the existing and future impacts to
people who surround the -- who live in the surrounding landfill if
that landfill stays in operation or is expanded. That's it. Thank
you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: May I ask a question, Barbara? You were on
the landfill, the siting committee?
MS. JENKINS: Yes, I was.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: At the time that you looked at all of the
information regarding that sitel was there any notice given to you at
that time that there would be three schools on oil Well Road?
MS. JENKINS: NOI there was not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Next speaker, please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is David Guggenheim and Wayne Jenkins.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
David Guggenheim, president and CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, and I'm speaking to you on behalf of our 5/500 members and
700 volunteers.
We appreciate the effort and difficulty that this commission
faces on this issue. It's a very difficult problem. We are on record
as stating that it is premature to consider construction of another
landfill. Our position statement is clear about that. I believe
you've all got a copy of that.
It's important to remember that we are not simply moving the
landfill. We are constructing another landfill. The one that exists
will not simply vanish, it must be maintained over time. So we are
indeed creating another landfill.
Our position is based on several factors, including, of course,
environmental issues. But studies show that the potential life of our
landfill is something close to 50 years. This is not an immediate
issue for us right now and technology continues to advance.
However, we are also on record as saying that we should deal with
the odor problem. We owe it to the citizens of Golden Gate. Fixing
the odor problem, we believe, would be far less expensive than
creating an entirely new landfill at this time.
Page 47
This is
explore
to all
February 9, 1999
We believe that the siting process did a satisfactory job of
minimizing environmental impacts based on location. However,
development of any landfill brings serious environmental problems with
it. site L is four miles northeast of the City of Naples, Eastern
Golden Gate well field. That well field provides the majority of
drinking water supply to the City of Naples and a significant portion
of unincorporated Collier County.
In a January 5, 1998 letter from Clarence Tears to the
commission, you may remember that he pointed out -- Clarence Tears
being from the South Florida Water Management Districtl Big Cypress
Basin board, that the northwest direction of groundwater flow
movement, quotel may make this well field significantly vulnerable to
being polluted by the leachates from the proposed location of site L.
So our feeling is, let's explore alternatives more fully.
There's new technology. We haven't begun to really look at increase
in recycling and source reduction. There are many options that are
available to us before we take an unnecessary step that is expensive
and one that threatens our environment. And we, at The Conservancy,
as always offer our technical input and our support to you in
searching for an appropriate solution.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. You're aware that Mr. Tears
at that very podium said that he had absolutely no scientific evidence
whatsoever and was merely raising the question when he brought that
forward?
MR. GUGGENHEIM: Well, it's still something that needs to be
carefully examined.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And has been. And that's actually my
next point. But my point is that that's a great scare tactic;
however, he had no evidence to support that. We asked our hired
consultants that the county paid a great deal of money, to look
specifically at that, and they could find no evidence of any concern
whatsoever. So you're absolutely right that it needed to be looked
atl and the answer iSI it was looked at.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the question is whether or not it was
sufficiently looked at because the City of Naples continues to voice
their objection based on that concern. And I hear The Conservancy
continuing to voice their objection based on that concern.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: And we still have those same concerns.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And againl a concern is fine, but
there's no proof or no evidence of that concern being valid. There is
scientific proof of it being invalid. And so I don't mind you having
the concern. And if the city raises that questionl that's fine. But
raising that question and ignoring the evidence that's been presented
is just not good policy.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wasn't suggesting to ignore it. What I
was suggesting was it might not be thorough enough. There might not
be enough. Let's look at what we do have and see that indications so
far are goodl yet the problems are so serious that it bears further
inquiry.
Page 48
February 91 1999
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would totally agree with that. I think
that in these issues with advanced technology, when everything that we
are finding out, what we thought was safe at one timel we're finding
out is not safe today.
So I would put that in a questionable category at this pointl
Commissioner Constantine I because I don't know, but I would sure look
a lot longer and deeper before I was comfortable with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that is a valid concern, I would be
pretty darned concerned about the Belle Meade aquifer which is
dramatically closer to the existing landfill than the city's well site
is to the proposed site. And so --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is it a flowway question?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it is.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's within the flowway of the current?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. And Kaydee Tuff mentioned, boy,
when you bring up these hypothetical what if'sl you need to plug them
in to where we're at, too. So that's a very real concern. Flowway is
a good point, because that's part of the reason why it's not a concern
in the city issue.
And I realize you want to get through the rest of the speakers,
but I just didn't want to leave that out there as though there was
great evidence from the Water Management District pointing to a
probleml because it doesn't exist.
MR. GUGGENHEIM: I want to make it clear, that in our best
professional judgment, that is an unanswered question.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll be happy to provide you the
report.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: with the data so far.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speakers are Wayne Jenkins and Tom Henning.
MR. JENKINS: Good morning I Commissioners. My name is Wayne
Jenkins. I am a resident in the area of Golden Gate.
First of all, I'd like to say that I'm glad to see the turnout
from Immokalee today. They have a legitimate concern. I'd also like
to remind you about three or four years ago, you had the same kind of
turnout from Golden Gate. Commissioner John and Commissioner Tim
remembers our evening meeting and the overflow out in the lobby.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was there.
MR. JENKINS: Okay. It's still here.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. JENKINS: In my 52 years of living in Collier County, as a
youngster we had a landfill out on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. It was
moved because of growth. When I was a kidl Airport Road was not where
it's at now. We moved the landfill up to the north part of Airport
Road. It developed. We moved it to Golden Gate. Golden Gate is
developing. We've still got it.
ApparentlYI from what I'm hearing nowl we're reversing the trend
of moving to a less populated area. So if this is going to be the
trend, I'd like to make a proposal to you today that hasn't been
Page 49
February 91 1999
considered. Maybe we need to look at regional landfills. We can
share the wealth.
Pelican Bay has a tram. They can take their trash over and dump
it on the beach.
Cambier Park in Naples is being redesigned. Let's set a quarter
of that aside for Naples residents.
Marcol you've got a problem. They are almost all concrete.
Maybe they need to bulldoze a couple of condos.
Lower Naplesl we got plenty of golf courses, let's give one of
them away.
What I just said to you is just about as absurd as what you're
doing to the people of Golden Gate. I am glad to hear the discussion
of correcting the problem at the landfill. Let me tell you, we've
heard this for about four years now. I smell it every day or two.
You had a solution, you opted not for it today to remove the
trash from the area. It's back to you. What is your solution now? I
can tell youl to expand the present site is a broken promise. It's
also not an answer. We need a solution. And you've got a big job
ahead of you, but something needs to be done. It's past time.
In closing, I hope there is some method that you can look at,
maybe an alternative to what you've voted down today about the
trucking. There is a solution somewhere. There is apparently a
landfill large enough to accommodate what we are generating. There's
some details that need to be worked out some way. This could be a
possibility. If not, I think as Nancy Bisbee spoke earlierl years ago
we discussed a need. Eventually it's going to come. We've got to do
something. We don't have the capacity in this county to keep
expanding into bigger landfills. We've got to have an alternativel
whether it's going to be an incinerator or recycling, or something.
But in the meantime, people in Golden Gate need some reliefl too.
In closingl I want to leave you with a prophecy. And I've heard
some things that kind of amused me today, before I get into my
prophecy. Methane gas was discussed. I appeared before you people
about three or four years ago. Our experts at that time told us
methane gas doesn't stink. You can't smell it. We're smelling
something. One of our fellow county commissioners lived within a mile
of the landfill. He couldn't smell it. We could back then. And I'm
talking Max Hess. You all know Max Hess phonetic). But we have a
probleml it's time for a solution.
In closing, my prophesy to YOUI you turned down trucking today.
You listen to the people in Immokalee and they have a legitimate
concern, and you are going to turn down Site L. What's going to
happen? It's going to stay right where it's at. Golden Gate is going
to get another broken promise, we're going to do something about the
other. We're going to continue to suffer. We need a solution. Thank
you.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ:
Sherwood.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Next two speakers are Tom Henning and Naomi
How many more?
Page 50
February 9, 1999
MR. FERNANDEZ: After Mr. Henning, there are four more.
MR. HENNING: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tom Henning, for
the record, a resident of Golden Gate.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's still morning. Just barely.
MR. HENNING: Maybe I'll have time to get some work done and make
a living here.
Over the past eight years dealing with the solid waste problem
myselfl being involved in it, one good thing came out of it is working
with David Russell. David Russell is a true gentleman and definitely
serves this board. So he ought to be commended for that.
YesterdaYI talking to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection about the odor problems that we have in here, in Golden
Gatel it was quite surprising. It's very difficult to find that
number, but I was finally was diligent and did find it. They are the
people who hold the working permit for this landfill. And I didn't
realize that. I did complain to him about the odor, and we had a very
long discussion about the process that DEP is working on. And one of
the possibilities is with that permit. And that would be a sad
scenario to close this landfill because Waste Management can't control
the odors. And I hate to be so diligent about itl but I think I
deserve the quality of life, as everybody else in this room.
As you know, that I was on the site selection committee for
finding a new landfill site in Collier County. Number one priority
was people. And it wasn't our intent to site a landfill in another
community. Our process was -- our criterias was put in. It was a
blind process. And like it was said earlier, there was less than 500
people within a five-mile radius of Site L. I don't want to -- the
people in Immokalee think that we're going to be putting it in their
backyard. It is going to be on agricultural I active agriculture landl
which can be farmed in the life of the landfill. It's not just
closing down the operations on that site.
It wasn't a consideration of moving the landfill because of odor
problems, finding a new site. It was the concern of the ability for
Collier County to have enough land for its future needs. And I think
all the people up here are capable of recognizing our future needs
such as solid waste and roads.
And in closing, I would like to say if there's a concern for the
Naples' well at Site L, why isn't there a concern of Mrs. Jenkins'
well, who lives a lot closer to the present site than what Naples'
well would be to Site L? Thank you.
(Applause. )
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Naomi Sherwood and then Dave
Lesansky.
MS. SHERWOOD: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Naomi Sherwood.
Two years ago, I was in front of you speaking on behalf of my
family, which is here with me todaYI from the independent traditional
Seminole nation about a chickee issue. At that time, it seemed like
everybody on the board was so concerned about our safety and health
Page 51
February 91 1999
that they were so concerned that they wanted us to move out of our
chickees and go into permitted housing.
But what we're finding out now is that your concern for our
well-being and health and safety is going to put a dump a half a mile
away from us.
Nowl I remember that the argument was that we were unhealthy or
unsafe in our living conditions. Then why do you want to put a dump a
half a mile away from us?
When you talk about the population of people and the number of
people that live there that -- the committee that our last speaker was
on was saying that there's only just a little bit of people living
there. Well, there isn't. Pacific employs probably 4,000 people that
come to that site every day. It's not just for a little while, it's
every day. Never mind the surrounding areas, never mind the people
that aren't telling it, never mind the schooling that's going on
there, never mind how big Orangetree has already grown. And they're
coming our way, a place that we thought there was nobody. And the
reason why we have to put siding on the side of our chickees is to
keep those people from looking in, so we could have some privacy.
Because we used to be all alone out there. But theY're coming closer.
And another thing that, from my family and from the people that
live around us, is this other gentleman stood up there and said that
he was worried about and saying how sick his family is. And you want
to talk about safety and health, but you want to make us sick. You
want to make everybody in Immokalee sick.
You want to eat those tomatoes and you want to eat those oranges
that are going to grow beside that landfilll Mr. Constantine? I don't
think so.
But this is where it isn't a matter of finding or putting one
garbage dump onto another. Because for the residents of Golden Gatel
that landfill isn't moving. It's going to stay there. All you're
going to do iSI you're going to cap it and you're going to have to get
those gasses out of there. Somewhere else you're going to wind up
with an even bigger problem than you've already started. You need to
find solutions.
But that's about all I have to say. And I just really hope that
you all just think about it really good and hard. You all got a
couple of years to do this. Don't rush it. It's not a make or break
situation. You don't have to do it right now. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Dave Lesansky and Robert
Frye.
MR. LESANSKY: Good morning I Madam Chairman, members of the
board. For the record, I'm Dave Lesansky. I'm the Director of
Facility Planning and Construction for the School District for Collier
County.
As you made me aware, we are currently constructing Corkscrew
Elementary School on a 60 acre site on Oil Well Road approximately a
half-mile east of Immokalee Roadl adjacent to Waterways Estates. The
school will be ready for students in August of this year. In addition,
Page 52
February 91 1999
in April of this year, we're going to begin construction on the middle
school on the same site adjacent to the elementary school.
The middle school will be open for students in August of 2000.
Together, this joint campus will serve approximately 2,200 students in
grades pre-K through grade eight. In additionl we're in the process
of trying to locate a suitable site for a high school in the same
vicinity.
As you know, the school district strives to provide a safe
environment for its students. On that note, please let me express the
school district's concern regarding the relocation of the landfill to
Site L. The type and amount of heavy traffic, truck traffic, of the
facility of this nature will generate is a concern to us in regards to
the safety of our students. We feel that the current road conditions
may not be adequate to support this truck traffic and also provide a
safe egress for the students. Based on that concernl we respectfully
request that you reconsider an alternate to Site L. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just before you gOI you said it's a
half mile east of Immokalee Road. You realize you'd still be more
than nine miles away from the site?
MR. LESANSKY: There's no problem with the odors that we are
concerned with, it's the traffic that that site will generate along
Oil Well Road.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that differentiation.
Because when we looked at truck traffic as one of our issues in about
23 different categories, Mr. Henning had said, people living around it
was number one. But we did look at truck traffic. And actuallYI the
amount of truck traffic that would be generated would be dwarfed by
the amount of truck traffic that is generated by the agricultural
industry. So there are far more ago trucks -- and that apparently
wasn't a concern when the schools went in there -- than there ever
will be waste trucks.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You mean by eliminating this Site L from
production, you will eliminate more agricultural trips?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. So that's apples and oranges.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it isn't.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very good jokel but mistaken point.
No, the point is that if truck traffic were a concern, you know, it
need not be, because the amount of truck traffic generated by hauling
waste out there is going to be a tiny fraction of the amount of
traffic that already exists and will continue to exist with
agriculture.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But is it an increase or decrease over the
current agriculture traffic, if Site L is developed as a landfill?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know. But the point iSI if
it's a -- the point iSI I think it's about five percent of all the
truck traffic out there, so it's not a market increase. If truck
traffic is the worrYI then the citrus is a much greater worry. I
Page 53
February 9, 1999
don't think that it's a concern but I'm saying that it's a tiny, tiny
percentage.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the final two speakers are Robert
Frye and Kathleen Passidomo.
MR. FRYE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the recordl my name
is Robert Frye. I live in Golden Gate near the CR-951 for over 20
years.
I was at a meeting in Golden Gate Civic Association last night
where two issues were discussed. I don't want to use the word funny or
ironic, but maybe coincident. These pertain to changes that may
affect the areas we live in. Both were attempts to lift the level of
prestige and create a more positive thinking about our community.
This was concerning a suggestion to change the name of the County Road
951 and another adjacent golf course in this suburb by getting rid of
the smell that will always exist near the extension of CR-951. For
the suggested name I Country Club Boulevard in Golden Gate Parkway.
II for one, think that my vote first would be for the removal of
a stench in this environment and would be more favorable to the second
creation, a much needed recreational and public golf course. The
grace and the aesthetics appeal defies imagination and would be
priceless, I believe. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank youl sir.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Kathleen passidomo.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Good morning I Commissioners. My name is Kathleen
Passidomo. I hope this is the last time that I appear before you on
this issue. I represent Barron Collier Company I the owners of site LI
the South Grovel the farm site selected for the relocation of the
landfill. I also represent Friends of Farmers, Save Our Soil, a
not-for-profit corporation, whose members consist of representatives
from growers throughout Collier County.
The organization was formed for the purpose of providing a
vehicle for area farmers to participate in a coordinated effort to
preserve valuable farmland in our community from consideration as a
site for the relocation of the Collier County landfill.
As I indicated to this boardl when this process was first
initiated, my clients had no desire to sell any portion of the South
Grove to Collier County for the relocation of the landfill. This land
is considered the most prime agricultural land in Collier County due
to its proximity to Camp Keais Strand. The bulk of the land has
activel producing and very profitable citrus trees and winter
vegetables. It is extremely valuable farmland.
It is my client's position, a position that we have consistently
and firmly maintained throughout this process, that if the county
takes any action to pursue the acquisition of the South Grovel my
clients will have no choice but to defend their private property
rights against this unauthorized taking, all at the expense of the
taxpayers of Collier County. We estimate that legal fees, expert
witness fees and other costs of such litigation alone for a parcel of
this size could run anywhere from $225,000 to $250,000. I don't need
the work that badly.
Page 54
February 9, 1999
In addition to the acquisition cost of the land itself, which we
estimate could be as much as 30 million to 40 million dollarsl the
courts will also be required to address several ancillary issues such
as the value of mineral rights and any detrimental effect on adjoining
properties. Not only will the county be required to pay full
compensation to the owners of the South Grove, but it may be required
to pay damages to adjoining property owners.
Ironically, our research indicates that the county will
ultimately not prevail in any such condemnation action of the South
Grove. Since we honestly believe that the county will not be able to
meet the two controlling tests promulgated by the Supreme Court of the
State of Floridal which must be met for the county to prevail in an
imminent domain proceeding. They are, private properties may be taken
for pUblic use only, and private property may be taken only when it's
reasonably necessary for such use. The real issue here is whether or
not the taking will be considered to be reasonably necessary.
The engineering firm of Burns and McDonald Waste Consultants,
Inc. performed a study on the potential site of the existing Collier
County landfill. Burns and McDonald have over 25 years of experience
providing professional solid waste management services for
governmental and private facilities I as well as completing over 250
solid waste projects. The results of the study completed last July
concluded that with minor changes in the operation of the landfill and
the use of heavier compactors I the current landfill site can serve the
county waste disposal requirements for another 50 years.
It is clear that it is not necessary that the landfill be
located. It is, however, necessary that the county fix the odor
problem at the current landfill site and not move the problem to
another location in the county.
Look into alternatives. Look into incineration. Talk to Lee
County. Revisit the trucking issue. But if all else fails and you
can't fix the problem and do have to move it, move it to a site that
is willing to accept it.
For all of the reasons I have stated earlier, my clients request
that the county reject the staff's third recommendation to continue
steps to acquire the South Grove for landfill purposes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Questionl Mrs. passidomo. You just
said with minor changes you could expand the life there for 50 years.
Could you outline those minor changes?
MS. PASSMORE: One of theml for example, was to raise the height
a few feet. And againl I'm not --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it was to 150 feetl which is
more than a few.
MS. PASSMORE: WeIll I think what they did was they loaded a
trial balloon over the overpass or something and they couldn't see it.
They really did the study. And you have a copy of it. I'm not an
engineer. I've got Tom Jones that knows it backwards and forwards. If
you want to go over some of the details, I'd be happy to do it with
you.
Page 55
February 91 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That also included, thoughl permitting
and rezoning the property to the north.
MS. PASSMORE: No, not all of it. I think they were talking
about just a few acres of it. Not really that much. And againl I
don't know the exact number of acreage, but it was not a great deal.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Point being, those are hardly minor
changes I if you have to go and rezone your land.
MS. PASSMORE: It's already zoned land.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, could I just ask our
chairman?
MS. PASSMORE: Excuse me, Commissioner. It's already zoned land.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me. We've had -- I appreciate
this is a very emotional issue. Trust me. I've been working on it
myself for seven years. And while we may disagreel I don't dislike
anybody. You may dislike me, but can we not have cheering and moaning
and crying on every single comment?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a reasonable request, please.
That's the end of our public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it looks to me like these people deserve
to know where we're going to go before we take a lunch break. So why
don't we --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I suggest something? We've got four
recommendations in the back. We've already voted on NO.1. Why don't
we vote on No. 41 because it really is a determinate on how you might
vote on 2 or 3.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'd be happy to entertain a motion on
recommendation on No.4.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: WeIll I think they are related. I
need you to humor me a little bit here as we revisit where we have
been on this. And someone, I think one of the Tuffs mentioned, the
siting in Golden Gate in the '70s1 and gosh, there were people in this
room. But the fact is, there weren't very many people in the room at
the time because it was put on as an add-on item of the day. It was
December 16th of that yearl and it was an add-on item. So imagine, if
you will, that we just magically put this item on, regardless which
side of the issue you're on. Imagine that with no advertising, no
advance noticel we just put it on and voted what we were going to do.
No matter which side of the issue you were onl you'd be a little
upset with thatl and that is not the best way to serve the public, and
it certainly wasn't 20 years ago the best way to serve our public
then.
And that's part of the reason we ended up where we werel is you
did not have a room full of people because nobody knew it was going to
be held that day. As a matter of fact, it was advertised for a week
after thatl but it was moved up. So if that was not planned politicsl
I don't know what was. But when we saYI goshl that landfill has been
there, we've been through this, yeah, it was, butl we didn't come from
a completely pure place on that either.
Page 56
February 91 1999
More importantly, though, let's look at the last 10 years and
where we've come with thisl and the original study to go to the
property to the north, when the county started buying that 300 acres
to the north. The study we have for that limited the consultant's
choices to either going to the east but directly adjoining that sitel
or going to the north and directly adjoining that site. Their study
did not look at impact anywhere else in the county. So one of the
things is, golly, we started that process 10 years agol but the
process didn't look at everything.
In January of '93 was the first time that I was on this board
that we dealt with the issue and we were looking at buying things that
-- additional pieces of property in that 300 acres. And we started to
slow down the process then saying maybe this isn't the right place to
be expanding I particularly considering how many people are there and
how much growth is going on, twice before the landfill had been moved
as the community grew around it. So that is not a new idea.
Where I thought our second Mr. Jenkins was going when he said,
goshl if the idea is that we're not going move because more people are
there, I thought he was going to say we should move back to the
original sites which were Coquina Sands and the airport. Clearly
those became inappropriate sites as well.
By May of 1993 we had put a halt to the idea of buying up the
rest of the land in that 300 acres and going up there. And we went
through a series of public hearings. I think it was October of that
year that we had some public hearings in Golden Gate. And we madel
for the first time, a commitment not to expand on that 300 acres then
or at any point. And we still were considering, okay, how can we
maximize the use of the existing landfill, which at the time we
worried only had seven to 10 years life left. We went through a long
process.
I heard several people today say, why don't you look at
alternatives? Why don't you look at incinerators or any number of
other things? And we have. We went through an extended process. We
opened up a request for proposals to literally anybody on the planet
and saidl if you've got a technology that we're not aware ofl bring it
onl we want to see it. And there was nothing that came back that was
any less than three times the cost of what we're paying right now.
And so when a couple of people saidl geel we'd like to look at an
incinerator but cost is also an issue. An incinerator isn't a viable
alternative for a lot or reasonsl but the cost is probably the biggest
of those. If you want to pay 300 bucks a year instead of 1,100 bucks
a year, then maybe we can look further at that. But we did look go
through that processl and I just want to put that in perspectivel that
it's not as though we haven't looked at all the alternatives. And it
was only then that we said, all right, we're in the middle of all
these peoplel that's not appropriate, where can we go to find it.
And one of the things that has been frustrating for me is it has
been portrayed that the site that has been selected is in Immokalee.
And while I understand that anybody that is near anywhere I no matter
if there's one person living within five miles, that person is not
Page 57
February 91 1999
going to like it. So if there's 484 people within five milesl theY're
not going to like it either. But what we did was our number one
priority and a whole lot of other criteria was try to find a spot that
met all of the criteria but wasn't in the midst of a lot of people.
And we are -- the site that is being sited isn't really near Immokalee
at all. The Coastland Malll if you look at a map I is closer to the
existing site than the community of Immokalee is to the proposed site.
It is just not as much of a concern.
So we do get into the citrus issues, and I won't go into all of
those.
But we had a letter from -- we had a ton of letters. We've all
been busy reading. My eyesight has deteriorated in the last week.
And one of the folks said to relocate a new site where less than 500
residents live would certainly be a solution where the greatest good
for the greatest number would be served. And while I'm sure that's
very frustrating for those 484 people, there are 50,000 people that we
can't ignore.
And we saYI weIll we'll deal with the smell issue. We should do
-- and I agree with Commissioner Carter was the first thing out of the
block he said it, we've got to fix that smell. But we said that in
1991 before I was on this board. We've said that in 1993. We've said
that every year. And first it was that we were -- first we were going
to hire Waste Management and George Varnadoe stood at that podium and
said within six months of us taking this overl Waste Management taking
this over, I guarantee there will be odor. And miraculouslYI there
was an odor. And then it was the water plant and we put scrubbers on
the water plants and we still had the odor. And now it's gypsum
board. Now it's been cover materials. We've heard everything year
after year after year.
So it's not that I'm questioning your intent when you say that,
but it's that we have gone down that road and gone through that
process and the vague promise of well, we've got to aggressively
pursue this. I don't know how I would describe what we've been doing
for the last six years other than aggressively pursuing it. And it
hasn't worked.
So I'm asking the board, let's deal with all three of these
togetherl because theY're all three related. When we decide what
we're going to do with site L, then we can't just go back and say,
weIll okaYI we'll do all we can to fix the smell, because we have said
that yearl after year, after year.
I think one of the points from the ago industry was economic
impacts. And we all have a letter dated yesterday from Shaw Arrow
Devices, and we've talked about trying to do economic development in
Collier County. And it says the Shaw Arrow Companies recently
purchased 18 acres of property in the white Lake Corporate Park
located at the corner of 75 and 951. Shaw's decision to purchase this
property and relocate its corporate headquarters to this site was
based in part on the county's representation that the landfill would
be closed by 2003. And they're going to employ about 250 jobs. And
that is the start of what hopefully kick-starts that whole little
Page 58
February 9, 1999
industrial park out there. And has -- if one of those facilities has
250, and you do the math, you come out to about 1,500 jobs could be in
that industrial park alone.
So it's a complex issue. I'm not suggesting for a minute -- I
know we've had the boos and hissesl and it's frustrating for all of
us, but I'm not suggesting that we simply take a problem and give it
to somebody else. But to suggest that starting a brand-new landfill
faces all of the same problems of trying to retrofit a 20-year old
landfill I don't think is a fair characterization either.
So I'm going to ask the board not to rule out Site L today. And
if you have some discomfort with making the final commitment to site L
today, then let's sit down as a board in some workshop format and go
throughout all the facts that we have done from David Russell and from
Ed Ilschner and from our staff. Not from me, because you know where I
stand on the issue, but from our staff, and go through that process so
that we can make that decision based on the facts as they have
unfolded over the last 10 years, instead of simply on some emotional
feeling or some gut, gosh, we'd like to fix the smell.
Regardless of whether we pick a new site or not, we have got to
fix the smell as best we can. But I think virtually everyone in the
field has indicated as long as that's openl you're going to have some
odor. We can try to minimize it, but the sum of that is, I would ask
that we go ahead with the other parts of this.
And if you want to put the Site L, No.4, on holdl I would love
to see us move forward with that. But if you want to see us put it on
hold, I can live with thatl as long as we're going to deal with the
issue in some sort of formal workshop and let our staff run through
that whole 10-year process with us.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I know it's not normal for the chair to get
to speak, but I've been fighting on this issue for so long that I'm
just going to be rude and take my turn.
This -- there is two points here: One is that we have promised
and promised and promised to solve the odor probleml and there has
been no improvement. Thank God, we finally have some datal measurable
scientific data, from Camp Dresher McKee that Mr. Ilschner got for us.
And it is so much appreciated the quantification of the odor problem
in the area. And it's just not true to say that we haven't had a
significant impact on changing the odor problem. Because the maps in
here show and the percentages, it says the combined odor nuisance
frequency has been reduced 86 percent. There has been significant
improvement. There are other significant improvements that can be
made.
I think in the past, people in Golden Gate were tricked and they
were lied to and they were told that we're going to work on the odor
probleml winkl winkl and nobody really did it. Because if they were
really serious about working on it before, this would not be the first
time that we had a quantification of it. And we do have a
quantification of the problem now and some serious efforts to resolve
it. So there's hope there.
Page 59
February 9, 1999
And the second point is on Site L, it's real simple. Three
points for me. We can't pass the public necessity test, so we won't
be able to take the property by imminent domain.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We disagree on that. Your opinion.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My opinion. My moment here is to get to say
you got yours I these are mine.
We can't pass the public necessity test. Even if we did, we
can't get four votes on this board for a rezone to change the zoning
of the property so that it could be permitted. And even if we could,
we can't get -- we can't reasonably expect to get permits from the
state when we have 40 to 50 years of capacity on an existing permitted
site.
So the option there is to spend 30, 50 million dollarsl you pick
a number I 10 million dollarsl 2 million dollars, 10 dollarsl but it's
a lot of money. It's 30 million dollars to go down the drain if we
continue to pursue Site L. We cannot take it by imminent domain, we
won't win. Even if we could, we don't have the votes for a rezone.
Even if we could, we can't get the permit from the state.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I am extremely uncomfortable with site L.
And I have said from the beginning, perhaps we're focusing on the
wrong objective, and that was looking for another site. Perhaps we
should have put our R&D efforts in looking at alternatives, recycling,
source reduction. I can't believe with the modern technology that is
current, that is rapidly exploding, that we can't get this current
site under control. And I've yet to hear from staff today on what are
some concrete plans to bring those odors under control. And until I
hear that, I couldn't make a decision to say, well, we should close
down the existing landfill.
The toughest thing, I thinkl in leadership on all of this in any
policy decisions is sometimes you've got to go back and look at what
you did in the past and say, there's a lot of things that have
developed since then. And we've got to revisit that. So we may have
to reverse a decision. We may have to do something differently. It
doesn't make you popular. But I'm not here to be popular. I'm here
to try to make in the best efforts of everything that is being brought
to me the right decision. And my decision at this point is Site L is
not where I want to go, and I would be willing to compromise and put
it off to a workshop I but I just cannot, cannot go with moving the
problem to another area.
I want to fix the problem where it is. I want to use this
landfill where it is to the best of its capabilities. I'm looking at
other cities that have landfills surrounded by populations and
industrial parks and commercial parks and they all live compatible
together. And why can't we do the same thing here?
So my direction with thisl Madam Chairl is let's get to the R&D
and let's make this thing work and let's not have broken promises. I
want a timetable. I want management reports that is done on a
quarterly basisl so that the citizens in this county know that we're
very proactive in making this thing work.
Page 60
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Other comments?
Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd just like to clarify one or two points.
Number one, I'm not currently interested in expanding the site where
the landfill is located at this time. The second point, I think we do
need to continue to look at technology in terms of taking care of our
garbage.
And I didn't support Site L in the first place, and I haven't
changed my position on that. I don't think that's the direction to
go. And I think there's a lot of other things since that site was
looked on in terms of new locations. I think some things have
happened since that group studied that issue.
So I think that perhaps needs to go back and
first and foremost, among all of this is the odor
current landfill. And I'd like to ask either Mr.
Bigelowl who manages -- is he here?
I would like to have a report back to the board, if it's
possible, Mr. Ilschnerl in the next couple of weeks or month at the
longestl of steps that you see that we can take. And within a
six-month period of time, I would also like to have a report back to
this board on how we're doing. But -- and I don't think that's
unreasonable.
Becausel number one, you're going to be coming in at the
summertime. If there's an odor probleml you're going to experience it
full blown. Now, we are either going to get it under control or we
are not. I'm sure this morning out in that area with the fog being
what it wasl I have an idea that the stench just hung.
So I would hope that -- I would like to hear what we've done and
I'd like to know what's a time period, if he could have a plan of
action within the next month.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just to add to that, if I can. Mrs. Tuff
made a point that I want to emphasize and go public right now with
sayingl Waste Management has a requirement in their contract. I will
bring a motion to find them in default if they don't reduce the
problem. I just want that to be stated publicly. It's got to get
better than it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you answer, because what you
said is important. Because just five minutes ago you said, boy, this
is showing an 85 percent decline in the problem. Which isn't exactly
accurate for the odor we're experiencing. What references -- what
references in here as a decline is the CH2S the odor prone water
plant. This specifically deals with
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Combined.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This specifically deals with the water
plant as opposed to this does not measure the methane gas the way the
-- where the primary odor is coming from. And so the -- if you recall
when we had the discussion whether or not it was the water plant or
the landfill. And I said it's two distinct odors. They are both bad,
but two distinct odors. And I don't think anybody will dispute that
the water plant odor is dramatically better. Unfortunately, the --
Page 61
be revisited.
control at the
Ilschner or Mr.
But
February 9, 1999
and I think that's where that big number decline comes from. So I
appreciate your willingness to work, if the other is not improving.
And a little irony here. The draft of this report came out in
August of last year, literally the same week the draft arrived when
DEP cited our landfill for odor. And the draft was saying how, gee,
the odor has considerably improved.
So -- but when you separate those twol it is a dramatic increase
in effectivity, the scrubber is working at the water plant.
Unfortunately, the separate odor from the landfill on the methane gas
is continuing.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to hear from Mr. Ilschner to see
what our plan of attack is here.
MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairwoman, Ed Ilschner for the record.
We can comply with Commission Berry's request that we prepare a
report and submit that report to this board in that time line that she
has specified. And we will accomplish that for you.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: What would be -- then after that report,
what would be a plan of action? In other words, in that report, are
you going to tell us what you're going to do further or --
MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. We have, in fact, we have Mr. Bigelow
already preparing that plan of action. That's required by his
contract. And we have officially put him on notice in writing that we
expect to have a plan of action developed by Waste Management. He's
now in the process of developing that plan, along with time certains
for certain accomplishments associated with that plan.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In quantifiable measurements for identifying
whether or not there has been success or failure?
MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are we also in this process back to looking
at improvements in recycling? Are we looking at other ways to put in
merks to do any kind of thing to try to expand that operation so that
we can use an existing landfill, we don't have to expand it? What we
do is find a better way to dispose of our trash. Are we doing a broad
based R&D approach to this or are we only focusing on one narrow focus
of odor? And that troubles me a lot. I want a broad base.
MR. ILSCHNER: WeIll at the present time we have been focused on,
of course, operating an existing landfill and trying to control the
odor associated with thatl identify the problems and solve those
existing problems.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
agree with that.
MR. ILSCHNER: That doesn't mean staff isn't charged
our management responsibility to continue to seek out and
forth to this board new technologies, things that we feel
beneficial for you to consider. And we'll continue to do
of our staff responsibility.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which frankly, Commissioner, is their third
recommendation, to continue to investigate alternatives.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I'm just sayingl do we have the staff,
do we have the dollars, and we're not just saying we're going to do
Page 62
Then I would agreel that's short-term.
I
just with
try to bring
could be
that as part
February 9, 1999
this. But I want a time certain on this. I would like management
reports. I would like us to be really aggressive in this. Whatever
it takesl let's do it.
MR. ILSCHNER: We will put a plan together and bring you a
comprehensive approach to this problem and have it to you in no more
than 60 days from today.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Berry made the comment
that she's not interested in expanding to that acreage to the northl
so we apparently have at least a majority on that. What we have I
thenl is a limited time frame for how longl even if we maximize, for
how long we can be at the existing site. There are some state and
federal regulations on what minimum inventory we can have.
And there comes a point where if we're not going to expand I then
we know that -- then we need to know what are we going to do? So
while we're deferring that decision todaYI if we're not sayingl okay,
we're going to pick L and definitely go with that. If we defer thatl
can wel as a commission, make a commitment to set a time certain I as
Jim just said, for when that decision will be made? How are we going
to handle our waste long-term? Can we make that decision by a year
from now? Can we make that decision by whatever time frame?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Keeping in mind that one of the boxes I put
myself in in my very first month on the board was to answer a question
like that with a black-and-white answer. And the mistake that I've
learned there is that as I gather information and as technology
changes and as more and more things become available, it is a moving
target, as much as I would like to say here's the answer.
And I just have to say, I think no matter what happens on this
decision, Commissioner Constantine, you have done your district a
great servicel because you have moved this issue to the very
forefront. And I think you hear all of these commissioners saying,
Golden Gate deserves to have a solution to the probleml they do not
deserve to continue to be treated the way they have been. And you hear
a strong commitment to a change there. And I just want to commend you
for that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that. And I realize it's
a moving target. But at some point, a decision has to be made. And
I'm suggesting this board ought to make the commitment to set a
direction and hold to it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought we had already done that. But as
the board makes up changes I then the decision changes, and that's part
of our problem. I don't think we're going to change our minds any
further today by further discussion.
Does somebody want to make a motion, let's go vote to do the
workshop?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we were to do a workshop I it would be to
discuss what are the other alternatives that are available to -- what
I would like very much to do is to stop the bleeding on the spending
for Site L. If all the costs associated with the acquisition of Site L
Page 63
February 9, 1999
are suspended as of today while we look at workshopping the continuing
problems, that is something I don't think anybody should object to.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a motionl and I'll include
that as part of it. We've already rejected the alternatives for the
export, the trucking. But Item 2, Item 3, and Item 4 we'll keep,
except we will alter 4 to just kind of put that in a holding pattern
and not expend -- and exactly what you saidl not expend further funds
and time and schedule a workshop. We don't need to pick a date, but
perhaps by the next commission meeting have a date in mind where we
schedule a workshop for the next couple of months, and look at what
are the alternatives, how are we going to approach that, is there a
fair time line, look at all those issues we have just talked about.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then I think we can better establish when
we'll have a drop-dead date on this. I'm with YOUI Commissioner
Mac'Kiel I don't want to draw a line in the sand here and then be
trapped. I want us to have a thorough analysis of this. And I know a
lot of work has been done on this. But there's so much happening so
quickly that I think we need to take advantage of that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What I'd like to see included in the
workshop when we get there is how we could, at least to the extent
there are closed cells at the current landfill, how we could begin to
provide some sort of an amenity to the citizens of Golden Gatel
through if it's ATV, or whatever the use is going to be at the site as
it currently exists, how we could begin to do some paying back to the
community of Golden Gate for what theY've been through.
Was there a second for that motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel wants to discuss.
MR. WEIGEL: Just one question. That is, I previously discussed
with this board that the county had encountered a difficultl in fact,
an absolute impossibility to do some mapping and surveying work, which
we believe is a statutory right under two different statutes on the
Site L property. We have filed the writ of assistance of lawsuit in
that regard. It's a minor suit, so to speak. It's set for hearing in
May. And I just wanted to advise you of that. If you have any
direction for me, obviously you don't want to go forward in any way
that you don't want us tOI but that is the facts that we have right
now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would suspect that we can schedule a
workshop before May. And perhaps by that workshop, if we don't need
to go ahead with that, then you can -- that will leave you ample time
to get on with it. I know Commissioner Norris would like to split
this into two or three workshops.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As much as he loves workshops.
MR. WEIGEL: There's no problem with that whatsoever. I
appreciate your comment and thought there. There is plenty of time.
The homework is essentially done.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there anything legally that will happen
between now and Mayas a result of the pending motion?
MR. WEIGEL: Your motion?
Page 64
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorrYI your motion in court.
MR. WEIGEL: The motion in court, no.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nothing will happen? Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: There's a hearing date. We've not even had service
that I'm aware on the --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They're not like depositions. There's
nothing else that happens.
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think it will encounter any of that type of
complication.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any further discussion on the board?
If notl all in favor of the motion, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
Motion passes 5-0.
Let's take a lunch break, what do you say? Come back 1:30.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We'll call the meeting back to order.
Board of County commissioners I February 9th, 1999. still happy
birthday to my brother.
Item #8Cl
REPORT ON THE STATUS OF BEACH ACCESS AND BOAT LAUNCH PARKS - REPORT
PRESENTED
And we are on Item 8(C) (1), report on the status of beach access
and boat launch parks.
MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoonl Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve staff
recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything further? Anybody want to second
the motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- go ahead.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'd like to discuss the idea of
changing something under Growth Management Plan that we've never had
before, putting in something that we've never had before.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you're not ready to second the motion.
You want to hear from staff?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to have --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry for trying to expedite.
I'll withdraw my motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
on our number of citizens
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
service.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Well, we've
before.
Yeah, but we
We did?
We told them
never spaced our parking spots
instructed them to.
to come up with a level of
I didn't support that item.
I see.
Page 65
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's wrong with you?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It just goes back to the same '01 thingl
give DCA a stick and say, please bump me over the head with it.
Item #8C2
REPORT RESULTS REGARDING THE PARK IMPACT FEE STUDY - STAFF TO AMEND
CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE TO REFLECT OPTION #3 WITH TDC MONEY FOR BEACH
PARKING
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marla?
MS. RAMSEY: For the record, Marla Ramsey, Director of Parks and
Recreation.
Actually, the plan I have in front of youl I'm really not asking
for any motion at this time. It's really going be a supplementary
package to the impact fee study, what's going to follow this
presentation. But to give you a brief of what is entailed in the
report that's in front of youl I think I have to start with just a
little bit of history.
In 1989, when the level of service for open space was adopted in
the Growth Management Plan, the county had a land deficit of about 156
acres. Since impact fees can only be used for growth related
purchasesl these deficits would have required the county to use ad
valorem taxes to purchase the additional required lands.
In 1990, the county received permission to include state park
acres into the Growth Management Plan, thus limiting the deficit and
satisfying the need for regional park land acres for about 30 years.
Currently, the Growth Management Plan does not include a level of
service standard for beach parking spaces or boat ramp facilities,
only regional park acres. Even though the Growth Management Plan does
not have a level of service standard for beach parking and boat ramp
facilities I the county has been proactive in increasing the number of
parking spaces.
Since 1986, Collier County has added 631 spaces at Clam Passl
South Marco, North Gulfshore and Barefoot Preserve.
If you turn to Page 9 of your agenda packet I and also going to
refer to something on the overhead, you will see that if we remove the
state lands, which are represented in green
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Get the key where we can see itl because the
one in the book is pretty useless.
MS. RAMSEY: I'm sorry about that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's okay. Can you slide it over? Slide
it over so the key will show. There you go.
MS. RAMSEY: The green linel which represents the state line,
goes off the top of the chart. The blue line that we have here is our
population growth. And then our regional park acres is the other red
line that goes up.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the red line is the real regional parks
without counting the -- what the state allows us to count. That's the
state lands.
Page 66
February 91 1999
MS. RAMSEY: State lands I preserves, and the state parks that are
in Collier County.
You can notice that the gap between the red line and the -- I
guess it's a bluish line has been reduced. Because of the purchase and
-- of the Sugden Regional Park and the recent board's action to
acquire 175 acres for the new regional park land in North Naples.
Given the projected rate of growth in Collier CountYI these two recent
purchases will satisfy regional park land need until the year 2002
without the state lands in that figure.
Because the impact fee study that will follow this report refers
to beach parking and boat launch fee -- not fee, I'm sorry, boat
launch facilities level of service, staff has developed this report I
which will highlight a number of options that are available for
expansion in these areas. If you refer to Page 3 of your beach access
and boat launch report. I can go over some of these briefly with you.
I will caution that staff has not calculated environmental concerns
into the cost associated on these pages.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Ramsey, my concern was really only with
the number of parking spots per capita. Unless the rest of the board
wants to go into these other side issues.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I support taking the state lands out of the
original park calculation and being realistic -- good Godl these mikes
are weird today -- about the measurements.
And that -- that leaves only the question of what the ratio is
going to bel right? 150 to 1?
MS. RAMSEY: That is the recommendation by staff and also by
parks and recreation advisory boardl which was one parking space per
150. We are currently -- if you look on Page 10 of your packetl there
is a current trend population versus available spaces for parking use
in seasonal populations. And you will notice that in the year 1998,
we actually have a ratio of about 1 to 128 currently, and the level of
service that we are looking at is a 1 to 150.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I wondered why not 1 to 1351 which is the
1999 rate. Because the current -- we don't have any extra capacity at
this point, it seems to mel would be planning for deficit if we have a
rate as high as 150 to 1.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- do we get to count the ones that
are in the City of Naples on our counts?
MS. RAMSEY: Yes, this total population numbers, parking space
numbers along the side here include all parking spacesl including
city, county and state parking facilities.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It would be interesting to see a ratio
without counting things within the City of Naples, within the city
limits.
MS. RAMSEY: There is --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You don't want to look there.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it wouldn't be that interesting.
MS. RAMSEY: The closest that I have to that particular remark is
on Page 8 of your packet. You will notice that 46 percent of the
beach front miles is county, and 46 percent is the City of Naples. So
Page 67
February 9, 1999
we're pretty even as far as beach front facilities. The parking
spaces are very similar, as well as 44 percent in the city and 42
percent in the county. Then we get into the boat launch area, which
is another area. But 65 percent of them are county and about 14
percent of them are city.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That 40 -- what is it? 40-something percent
of county beach parking is basically the state park, thoughl right?
It's not including Delnor Wiggins state Park.
MS. RAMSEY: No, the state has 14 percent of the beach parking
spaces.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good. So we have 42 percent. We,
within the county limits -- this is a good number for me to know
have 42 percent of the beach parking spaces outside the incorporated
limits of Naples and 44 percent are within.
So, John, it's not as bad as I thought it would be.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's still pretty bad.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 42 percent? That's not bad. Well,
population ratios, that's pretty bad, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think to answer your question about
changing it to 1351 if you'll look at 2002 on that chartl it shows
that we do go over the 150 that's being proposed. And that's exactly
what my point is, why do we want to give DCA a stick to hit us with
and saYI well, you have to go buy some property and make some parking
spots?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know why? Because sometimes local
government just doesn't have the will to do what it's got to do unless
somebody's got a stick.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
adequately heretofore.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that is certainly subjecting --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me interject a little bit. I
would say if you look in the last, 1'11 saYI the last six years and
three months. But if you lookl saYI since 1990 and look at the parks
projects and, you knowl between Sugden Park and some of the regional
facilities we've done, the work that we have done in Veterans Park.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're only talking beach access at this
moment.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but I'm talking current, when we
talk about park issues in general. One of the complaints when I got
on the board was, we were dealing acres to peoplel park space, and set
some things in placel some of which is required at the state level,
some of which is not. And we've gone ahead and done those things.
I think the board has made a fairly clear commitment that beach
access is a high issue. And I've got to agree with Johnl I think as
long as we really address it and don't just float it out there. But
again, I think it's a priority thing. As I talked before, if you have
an economic downturn in 02 or 03 and that happens to coincide with the
deficit the DCA forces you to come up withl is that the highest
Speak for yourself, please.
Well, we haven't addressed this issue
Page 68
February 9, 1999
priority items over EMS or sheriff's or other things that you are
having to pay for those things?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Marlal this may be a question for Bob
Mulhere instead of for youl but the place where we're talking about
adopting a level of service standard here, like the other parks, it's
in the non-moratorium related -- what is that called, the
non-mandatory or something like that?
Bobl what is that called? It's the section of the compo plan
that's not mandated by the state.
MR. MULHERE: I think you're talking about those that are
concurrency driven and those that are not concurrency driven.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nonconcurrency driven, right. This would
not be a concurrency related level of service.
MR. MULHERE: Unless we identify it as such within our own
comprehensive planl yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting that. And that's where
the state has a real stick. That's where a moratorium can occur or
you can be forced to make funding choices. This is wherel like for
park lands, we set a standard for what's acceptable for our county.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Tell me the functional difference between
doing it this way and just doing it without setting that number down
on paper. I just don't see a functional difference there. And I
don't see it as necessary to put that number down on paper. If it's
the will of the board to increase the number of beach parking spots,
then that's what we should do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If we put it down on paperl John, the reason
is that once it's in there, it takes four votes to get it out. And
then -- you knowl so it has some real staying power.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If it has no effect, it doesn't matter if
it has staying power.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It has some effect but it just doesn't have
moratorium and concurrency driven effect.
MR. MULHERE: Well, let me clarify that statement. Parks and
recreation are Category A. They are Category A. Whether or not you
-- whether or not providing additional parking will always be driven
by the need for more parks, per se, is another issue. But parks and
recreation is a Category A item, andl thereforel would be concurrency
driven.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I was in favor of it when we
started, but when you made the point that you trust Tallahassee more
than you trust the locals essentially, then that really lost me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to hear from Mr. Olliff. I think
he wants to tell us something.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. For the record, Tom Olliff, Public
Services Administrator.
To help clarify this one particular point, the Parks Growth
Management Plan level of service standard is different from probably
any other in that it is a dollar value level of service standard. We
have a whole menu of items that can be included in that.
Page 69
February 9, 1999
Beach parking is one of the things that we're recommending from
your previous discussions that we include. If you establish a
standard of 135 to 1 or 150 to 11 we're not required to have that.
What we are required to do is to have a dollar value of park
improvements out there on the ground that meets the level of service
standard.
What we're trying to say is, that's where ideally we would like
to be, you know, in all these different types of things. There are
volleyball service of standards and there are racquetball and there
are shuffleboard court level of service. But that doesn't mean I can
tell you here that we have the exact number of shuffle boards courts
per population that we have to have. But I can tell you of the dollar
value of the inventory that is out there does meet your level of
service standard requirements.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So this is a goal versus locking us into
any
MR. OLLIFF: Yesl sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: performance standard with the state.
MR. OLLIFF: What it does effect is what you can charge for an
impact fee. If you establish 150 to 1, then obviously you're going to
not generate as much revenue because you don't have to provide as many
parking spaces. If you go to 10 to 1, obviously you are going to need
more money because your goal is to provide more beach parking spaces.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically what this drives is what is the
impact fee for parks? This will affect that more than anything else?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, and that.s the reason this report is herel to
try to give you a preliminary fee to this discussion about park impact
feesl because the decision that you will need to make on that
particular discussion is whether to include beach parking or not.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: So beach parking is one of several items
here that we're looking atl okay, and that is one that we've
identified previously that we do have some concern over.
MS. RAMSEY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have another concernl tOOl it has to do
with boat launch ramps. I haven't heard as much in the coastal --
immediate Naples coastal area, but there has been concern in the
eastern part of the county. But I did speak with Mr. Olliff prior, and
he said there are some facilities down there that perhaps they're not
well known, and that's something that perhaps we can encourage them to
address that issue and let the public know of their whereabouts if
they don't know. So until we get all of that definedl I'm not going
to press that issue, but I would like to know a little more about
that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sort of heads UPI that if you don't, it's
coming.
Other comments from the board?
MS. RAMSEY: Just one clarification that I have oversighted.
When we came to that 1 to 150 ratio, that was based on the direction
that we received at budget time to go ahead and design 150-space
parking facility at Blue Bill. And we took those numbers into that
Page 70
February 91 1999
calculation so they're included in that 150, right or wrong, with the
assumption that we were putting in 150 parking spots at that location.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you -- the action you're asking from --
asking for from us today is just to agree on what the level of service
for beach parking would be, staff and parks and recreation advisory
board recommend 1 to 1501 and if that is what we accept, or whatever
we decidel that will be what is used to calculate impact fees or to
determine what impact fees should be.
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct. And you'll see in the presentation
that's to follow thisl there will be a number of options to choose
from as far as what the impact fee levels will be. And some of those
options include beach parking level of servicesl and others do not.
And for this particular report, I don't need to have an approval at
this point in time. I just brought this here for your information as
a supplement to what's to come after this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In regards to Blue Bill, that does not mean
that it will be there, it just says it was factored inl in your
calculation?
MS. RAMSEY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So do you need a motion from the board today
on this 1 to 1501 or you don't?
MS. RAMSEY: You will probably make that motion when you make the
approval of the impact fees.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have one speaker.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman I we have one speaker. Dick
Lydon.
MR. LYDON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Dick Lydon.
Today I'm here to represent the Second District Association.
And I would like to have you take a look at Page 2 of the
executive summary that Marla has in front of her where you outline
some eight areas. And I have only a few comments.
First of all, delighted to see 75 slots that somebody found up at
Barefoot Beach. And you can -- even at $1,000 apiecel that looks to
me like a slam dunk.
I think we should commend Parks and Rec. for putting together
this program, because those of us who are concerned with beach and
beach parking and beach access have been looking for this for quite a
while.
Beaches are our most valuable asset. We have a real problem with
getting access to those beaches. And that is not going to go away.
It's going to get helped by these recommendations.
I was all set to take off on the Blue Bill parcel, but I
understand that Commissioner Carter has set up a meeting for the 3rd
of March to discuss that and in rather full length.
The one thing that I do want you to know, that the Second
District Association has joined with the Vanderbilt Beach Association
in suggesting that maybe a local MSTU, depending on how you define
local, is not in orderl since that little park over there is going to
be used by everybody in North Naples.
Page 71
February 9, 1999
So the -- and my quick thought on that iSI we have a policy here,
Parks and Rec. has a policy that says, no neighborhood parks. It may
be time to look at that policy again.
Moving on very rapidly --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I couldn't agree with you more.
MR. LYDON: Trading Blue Bill parcel, I don't know what you'd
trade it for. There's not much around to trade it for.
Number C, utilizing revenue from that sale to acquire parcels,
again, where you acquire.
Moving on, the Vanderbilt Beach parking expansion kind of ties in
with NO.8. And if you look at 3 and 8, you'll see that there's a
possibility of you may be getting some land on the north side of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and doing a little horse trading for that on the
south side.
And I would recommend to you that you look at an overall plan
which calls for something like the villages being built in that
particular area. We're looking at a reconnection between Vanderbilt
lagoon and Clam Bay. If we get some shops in therel we need some
parking. And that may be the way to go. Because if we do the
connectionl we may need that real estate that is present that the
parking lot is sitting on.
Clam Pass parking expense, I would ask only one question. At
1/750,000, I question whether you have to have a roof on that
particular parking lot on the second story.
Bonita Beach Road parcel, fine, all well and good. It sounds
like that one would work, if we could find the money.
Bussing, over on Vanderbilt doesn't help as muchl because we only
have two little bitty beach accesses north of Vanderbilt Beachl the
turnaround at Vanderbilt Beach. So you get a little traffic problem
in trying to drop them off at those two little ones. And if we're
going to use those two little onesl they're going to need some
upgrading.
The Perry Access, WCI is using that now for Tarpon Cove over at
Barefoot Beach. Not very well utilized at this point. But again,
with a big beach and a big concentration of people on the north end
and the south end, that iSI the parkl Delnor Wiggins and the
Vanderbilt Beach, you get out on a busy day, you can't find a place to
park. And once you get to the beach in one of those areas, you got to
walk a long ways to find a place to put your chair down.
In adding up all of this up, it looks to me like we could add
about 3,000 more people per day to the beaches with all of the things
imposed. And that's a start. Not goodl but it's a start. When you
stop and think of all the developments on Immokalee Roadl it's a
start.
Much conversation has been used about using tourist tax money to
build some beach parking. And I think that makes a lot of sense. But
my comfort level would be much greater if two of you up there would
kind of join the club and extend the one cent beyond 12-31-99 without
the expense of an anguish of our anguish and expense. Thank you
very much.
Page 72
February 9, 1999
Did you push that button, Tim?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to get me one of those.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other public speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None others.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you don't need a motion from the board
today. This was an information item.
So we can move onl if I can find it, to the next one, has to do
with the impact fees for parks. Here we go. C-2.
MR. OLLIFF: Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. For the record
againl Tom Olliffl Public Services Administrator.
And if someone would have told me that presenting a park impact
fee update study where a proposal of a major increase in the fee was
going to be one of the better items on the agenda today to present, I
never would have believed them.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I was going to compliment you on your
scheduling prowess. Good agenda to get on.
MR. OLLIFF: Comparatively speakingl I'm glad to have this item.
What's in front of you is a long overdue update study to the Park
Impact Fee Ordinance. And without taking a lot of time, I'd just like
to introduce Jane Fitzpatrick. And those of you who have been here
for any length of time will remember that Jane was actually a member
of our staff and cut her teeth doing Growth Management Plan work for
us and is now a member of the Henderson Young and Company firml and
knows more probably about our parks department than anybody on the
outside. And I think she has done a fine job. And I'll let her
explain the details of the four different options that are there in
front of you in your executive summary today.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
I am Jane Fitzpatrick from Henderson Young and Company. Former county
employee.
The report that I've prepared for you today is a summary of three
options for updating the 1991 impact fee study. Staff has prepared a
fourth option which is a spinoff of the third option in my study.
The three options include taking the 1991 impact fees and their
standards and strictly updating those fees for today's costs for 1998
costs. So we're talking about updating for seven years of cost
increases.
We've also added three new facilities to the shopping list, if
you willI of facilities that have been included in the level of
service.
We've added a standard for beach parking spaces. Not for the land
portion, that's still included in the regional park land standard, but
for the cost of putting a parking space on that land.
We've also added a standard and cost for roller hockey and skate
parks, which are new facilities that the department is providing.
There's an option summary in my report, and I'm not sure which
page it is in the agenda package. It lists the three options, plus
the current impact fee rates.
At the top of the chart, YOU'll see the value per capita. This
relates to the standards for level of service. And the standard, as
Page 73
February 9, 1999
it was developed in 1991, as Tom had said earlier, is an inventory
value per capita. How that was developed wasl the county developed a
shopping list of facilities that it would like to provide to the
citizens. We came up with standards for each of those facilities, and
then equated that to an inventory value. That inventory value is your
adopted standard in your comprehensive plan.
The reasoning behind that was to give you flexibility. Since
parks are Category A, are concurrency facilities, you didn't want to
be put in a position of facing concurrency problems because of a
shortage of shuffleboard courts, tennis courts at any given time. And
this gave you the flexibility to go shop. You could be flexible with
the needs of the community without having to go through a
comprehensive plan amendment.
The first column of data which is the current for the 1991 impact
fee shows that standard as it was adopted in 1991 of $231 per capita.
That's the inventory value.
Down below are the impact fees that the county is currently
charging based on that standard. For the unincorporated areal it's
$578 per dwelling unit.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Jane, can you just tell us on your report, I
forget what page it is in ours, what page is it --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Page 6 of --
MR. OLLIFF: Page 6 of yours.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's where I was, but I wanted to make
sure.
MS. FITZPATRICK: The cities right now are being charged $179 per
dwelling unit. This is based on costs to provide the facilities in
1991.
The next column, which is Option 11 takes the same standard and
updates it for 1998 costs. Where the value per capita was $231, today
it would be $578.
In calculating the feesl that would increase your fee from 578
for the unincorporated county to $1/246. And for the cities, from 179
to $778 per dwelling unit. Nowl that's strictly based on updating the
costs to provide those facilities. Plus the addition of those three
facilities. And the addition of those three facilities only amounts
to little over $23 per dwelling unit. So the majority of this is just
bringing you up to today's cost.
Option 2 is looking -- what this represents is what you are
currently providing. This is your current level of service. And that
is actually lower overall than what you've adopted in 1991 updated for
today's cost. The bottom line is that if you were to change your
level of service to the inventory that you have right now on the
ground, or this was as of August 31st, the value per capita standard
would be $528. And the corresponding impact fees are down below.
Option 3 is Option 2 minus the standard for beach access park
land. It does not exclude beached parking land, but just the beach
access parks themselves. So this would allow you to charge an impact
fee to acquire property for beach parking spaces.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Which one would allow that?
Page 74
February 9, 1999
MS. FITZPATRICK: Both -- weIll all options allow it. Option--
all the options in here include the acquisition of land for beach
parking. option 3 does not include the acquisition of beach access
parks, but it allows you to acquire property adjacent or off-site to
build parking spaces on.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So no Lowdermilk.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not just buying parks, you can buy parking
space.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Parking space for beach access parks.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. We don't need to build parks, we just
need to build parking spaces. I got it. Thank you.
MS. FITZPATRICK: And staff has also developed a fourth optionl
which is taking that Option 3 and coming up with a proposed finance
plan to fund the piece that has been taken off the table in Option 3,
which is the beach access park lands. I believe maybe Tom could
explain that a little bit better.
MR. OLLIFF: It just allows -- what we're trying to do is show
you that there are other funding options. If you wanted to plug that
portion of the impact fee study that was here relating to beach parks I
if the board wanted to pursue additional beach parks, you can use
tourist development tax monies to do that, if you choose to do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm not as worried about beach parks as
beach parking.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What would it take to do that, Tom, so we'd
have some numbers? Is that an exhaustive process, or is that a quick
process?
MR. OLLIFF: It's about $300 difference in the fee. If you look
at it -- it's basically the difference between Option 3 and Option 2.
$821 versus the 1/128.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Nowl what I'd like to do is briefly walk you
through the methodology. I'll be using Option 1, which is taking your
existing impact fee rate study and updating it for current costs.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I -- with all due respect, unless that's
something that you need to verbally put in the record, it's in the
record, because we've read itl it's in our agenda packet.
MS. FITZPATRICK: That's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that okay with the rest of the board that
we don't necessarily go through the methodology? Thanks.
MS. FITZPATRICK: That's fine.
MR. OLLIFF: In conclusion, I think what we're looking for is
direction in two cases. We're looking for direction from the board in
terms of what type of impact fee amendments you want to see us pursue.
Because this is not the amendment itself. This is actually direction
from you to go amend the ordinance. The ordinance itself would be
taken through the development services steering committee. Because we
have an obligation to do that for anything that's impact fee related.
Advertise it for 30 days, and it would be back on your agenda
probably within 60 days from now.
Page 75
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just to point out, because I'm going to try
to do this until we get in the habit, anything that goes to
Development Services Advisory should also go to Environmental Services
AdvisorYI because we are going to get those on a par. They may not be
terribly interested, but they need to have that option.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. And the other issue just relates to the beach
parking issue. That's something that you had directed that you wanted
to see to consider including in your level of service standards. This
is where the rubber meets the road, if you will. This is the cost
associated with doing that. So we just need some direction from you
about whether or not you want us to include that as a standard.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Board members?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: John says no. I say yes. There's a pattern
developing here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
21 option 2?
MR. OLLIFF: Yesl sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Why would you recommend that versus Option
It's been around.
You're recommending, Tom, that we go with
4?
MR. OLLIFF: Right nowl your options for providing additional
beach parking are not real good. You have basically built out what you
own. And if the board really wanted to look at every available
option, I think some of those options may include beach front type
properties, where you would want to expand existing beach front parks
that you have. And I think that option allows you to do that.
Whether it's purchasing some additional properties adjacent to Tiger
Tailor additional properties adjacent to any of your existing beach
parks, that's the option that allows you to do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I thought I just heard at least three
members of the board say that wasn't a primary concern right now. The
parking is but the park --
MR. OLLIFF: I was answering his question about why it was our
recommendation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the cost -- give me the Option 2, the
impact fee is what? Option 4, the impact fee is what?
MR. OLLIFF: Option 21 the impact fee is $1,128 per residential
dwelling unit. The Option 4 impact fee is $8211 but you're directing
us to go back and pursue some amendments to tourist development tax
ordinances to allow staff to use that as a funding source for beach
parks.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically it's a $300 per house
difference if we want to pursue beach parks as opposed to just beach
parking?
MR. OLLIFF: Yesl ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. I finally got it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there any reason you can't use TDC funds
under Option 2?
Page 76
February 9, 1999
MR. OLLIFF: None. And if the board wants to direct us to go
look at beach parking using TDC monies -- there's a million different
options, and we didn't want to try and confuse the mix, but you can
have us look at what is the actual beach use mix. It was 70/301 if I
remember several years ago. We could do beach parking improvements
using 70 percent TDC money and 30 percent impact feesl if that was the
board's choice. There are a number of different ways.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the downside, in your mind, of
option 3? By 31 you're saying add on to 31 the opportunity to look at
that other?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The 300 bucks, when we're talking
about millions, doesn't sound like a lot of money. But when I think
of the new homes going up in Commissioner Berry's district or my
district and I'm sure in all the districts, for that matterl but it is
a lot of money. We talked about -- when we're talking about the law
enforcement impact fee five years ago, six years ago, at the time it
was going to be $500 or $600, and I had pulled with one of the Golden
Gate banks out there all their mortgages for $100,0001 or a home total
value $100,000 or less that they had done in the previous 18 months or
a year or something, and that $500 difference made 24.8 percent. One
out of four of those who would not have qualified for their mortgage
if we just add that extra 500 bucks on there. That's what I worry
about when we say it's just an extra $300 is we are making a decision
if we go for the higher fee. That can rule some people out of getting
into a home or certainly delay them getting into their own home. And
that's just one of the things. Obviously we need to take care of the
parking needs and so on, but if we can do that and have $300 less, I'd
much prefer to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Pursuing Commissioner Norris' ideal if we
could role 4 to 2 and do thatl that would be very amenable to me. I
like that idea. So that we would reduce that by $300.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to see us pursue using some of the
TDC money to aid this so it doesn't come down on the property owner.
MR. OLLIFF: In fairnessl I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't
tell the board, tOOl that behind this study, you need to be aware that
there are several impact fee studies currently underway. And there is
an accumulative effect, when Commissioner Constantine is talking about
the cost of these impact fees on that $1001000 house. We just
recently executed a contract to update your library impact fee and
your transportation impact fee as well. We were negligent in this
case. To be honest, this one hasn't been updated in eight years.
That's why you see such massive increases and just straight
inflammation issues. But you do need to keep in mind that there are
other studies coming.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you need a motion for direction?
MR. OLLIFF: I would appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I move that we exercise Option 2 and
incorporate the utilization of Tourist Development Council -- or TDC
dollars.
Page 77
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does Option 2 then mean we are
including the extra $300?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Yes. Except -- weIll what it does
is, if you -- it gives you an opportunity to reduce it by 300.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you can catch it up through TDC money.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is not for the acquisition of parks at
the beachj am I correct? I'm talking about parking.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: parking.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why are we opted for the $1,128
instead of the $821? If we can pursue the TDC and all these other
avenues and still achieve what we've set out as our goals and have
that impact fee $300 less?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Carter, maybe a different way
of saying where I think you're going is that you wanted to pursue 4
plus TDC instead of 2 minus TDC.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. What I'm trying to do is save the
money and use TDC dollars to do that. Maybe I need to correct my
motion, we go with 4 and pursue TDC dollars.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think that's what I heard you supporting.
Is the second okay with that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is this where we're going to --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me see if we got a second.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I want to make sure where we're going here.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Option 4.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Option 4.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're now on to 4.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is to collect based on Option 3
calculations, which is the $821 right?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Correct.
COMMISSION CONSTANTINE: But pursue the TDC.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But use the TDC, yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Now, does this motion -- what does this
motion do in relation to the change in the Growth Management Plan
concerning the number of parking spots per capita?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, Tom?
MR. OLLIFF: This fee is based upon the staff recommended level
of service of one space per 150, if I recall.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But our compo plan is not going to have
that, just like it doesn't have one shuffleboard court per so many
residents. It's still going to have this dollar value of improvements
per. So you're not adding a new measurement for the state to hit you
with.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not the way I see it. I don't know.
MR. OLLIFF: What it will do is increase the dollar value of what
you have to build for parks. Now, you have the flexibility. You can
decide you want to do all of your inventory in bocci courtsl if you
want to. But what it is saying is that, generally speaking, we like a
level of service for beach parking of one space per 150 residents.
Page 78
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
on the bocci courts.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It will be very far out in the future.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think it is too critical to wait.
MR. OLLIFF: But I do think it's important that you include this
in your level of service standards, because that's what you need to
support the Impact Fee Ordinance.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What happens to our Impact Fee Ordinance if
we don't include that?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Excuse mel if you don't include the --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The 1 to 150.
MS. FITZPATRICK: The 1 to 150, you would have a lower inventory
value per capita. And the parking space would not be an eligible
expenditure for impact fees.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much lower?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Ohl probably you're only talking about $5.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good point.
MS. FITZPATRICK: It was $23 total for the addition of those
three facilities, including the parking space.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that makes $5 difference or thereabouts.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I certainly would prefer and request the
motion maker to delete that 1 to 150 requirement out of the motion.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I sure hope you don't. No pressure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would prefer to leave it in and then let
the motion either go or not go.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then I withdraw my second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You don't like having the ratio?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: If we don't have to do it, don't do it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you're going to reduce the impact fee for
five bucks so that we don't have impact fee funds available for beach
parking.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No,
parking.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How can you do that without -- I mean, I cut
her off on not giving you the methodology behind on how we come to set
the fee. But she can't just say, oh, I think about five bucks for
beach parking is a good number. You have to have some ratiol some
basis to rely on to justify the five bucks.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's ask, does eliminating the 1 to 150
ratio from the discussion, does that preclude us from using these
funds to build beach parking spots?
MS. FITZPATRICK: In order to use impact fee money for beach
parkingl you have to have that facility included in the calculation
for the fee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
directly.
MR. OLLIFF:
but every dollar
I suggest we hold off for a workshop
I want impact fees available for beach
I don't think that answers my question
The answer is no, it doesn't preclude you from thatl
that you spend doesn't count then towards your gross
Page 79
February 9, 1999
management inventory. So you're spending money that doesn't give you
any credit on the compo plans side.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that the situation we're in today, that
we have spent money on beach parking spots and that does not count?
MR. OLLIFF: We have included that because we have two separate
categories of regional and community parks. It has counted towards
our regional park inventory. But what we are talking about is
collapsing them into a single ordinance. Then you're going to have
difficulty claiming it in the future if we do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, I'm going to have to get to a
legal question here, but what I heard is that if you don't include the
beach parking impact ratio in the methodology to support the fee, you
can't spend impact fee money on that use?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Let me backtrack on that response. You can, if
the cost per acre for beach access parks includes beach parking as an
amenity. And that was not done in the original study.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it could be done if --
MS. FITZPATRICK: So you have an option of bumping up the cost
per acre for regional park beach access land.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which would be the preferable method, as
far as I'm concerned.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what would that be? I don't understand
that one. I understand the 150 to 1. What's that one? What's that
way?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's essentially saying that we didn't
even mention it in our previous Impact Fee Ordinance, but if we put
the language in correctly, then we would be able to spend these impact
fees on parking spots.
MS. FITZPATRICK: If parking spots were treated as an on-site
improvement to an acre of beach access park land.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we don't have to build a parkl we could
still just build parking spaces, true?
MR. WEIGEL: Connected to a park.
MS. FITZGERALD: Connected to a park, rightl through the
acquisition of beach access parks.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's why we have to have this ratio.
MR. OLLIFF: I understand the board's concern. In the issue about
having -- not giving DCA any more than they have the ability to hold
over our heads. But I think in this particular case, it's probably a
moot point. Once you establish your impact fee, we're obligated to
spend that money. within a certain period of time we have to spend
that money or return it. And as long as we spend that money on what
you direct us to spend the money onl we're going to meet your level of
service standard.
Now, if we don't build a single parking space from now until the
end of the compo plan'S existence, there's nothing DCA can do about
that, as long as we're still building the parks that you want us to at
the level of service that you establish.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that true if we adopt the 1 to 150 ratio
Page 80
February 9, 1999
MR. OLLIFF: Yesl ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- as a basis for the fee? It's really just
the math that's the methodology that she's used to justify the five
bucks that she's estimating.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing is that we've directed our
staff to go ahead and try to get TDC funding into the mix here, and we
can certainly use that to build parking spots, if that's the way we go
about it.
MR. OLLIFF: We can do that. And to short circuit this a little
bit, because you have got bigger and better fish to fry, why don't we
bring you back the actual dollar issues when we come back with the
ordinance amendments that show you the TDC funding support for the
beach parking, show you the impact fee support for that, and then you
can see the actual numbers I what it doesl and whatever commitments
that there mayor may not be when we bring this back in 60 days.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You want to come back and have this
discussion again?
MR. OLLIFF: We have to
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have to, anyway.
MR. OLLIFF: -- for the ordinance amendments.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What do you need from us today?
MR. OLLIFF: I need -- what I heard from the board was direction
that staff go and amend the current level of service standards in the
compo plan and the ordinance to reflect Option 3, with the inclusion
of tourist development tax monies for the beach parking component of
that as weIll to actually lower the $821 feel if at all possible, to
bring you back the ordinances necessary to implement that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You got it. I see lots of shaking head. Is
that the consensus? Does that meet with everybody's approval?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think it would be appropriate to have a motion
to that effect.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: To clarify the record.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion seconded. All in favor, say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that Commissioner Carter's previous
motion?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Did you vote on this motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I did.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Were you in favor?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was in the affirmative.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's 5-0.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry for the confusion.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's okay. I apologize.
Item #8C3
Page 81
February 9, 1999
AUTHORIZE THE LANGUAGE AND CONFIRM THE BOUNDARIES FOR THE GOLDEN GATE
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK MSTU SURVEY- APPROVED
We're going to talk
boundary that got pulled
But, Mr. Fernandez,
out here and when we get
me that --
MR. OLLIFF: They're in the hallway.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, theY're in the hallway. I just want
somebody to let them know that we were getting there.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeahl this is a fairly simple item.
You remember the park thing. I wanted to add a couple pieces on here.
In our packet -- thank you -- in our packet there's a map. That is
not intended to go out -- or that was not intended to go out with the
mailer. And frankly, it just simplifies if you live somewhere -- I
was joking actually with our staff and said it's only taken three or
four short years for John to officially become a bureaucrat. As we
read through the letters, it does hit all of the points we have to
hitj however, it's not an easy road.
And so I've suggested three particular changes. One is just that
we put on the little ballotl a price tag of each beside it where it
says -- and I've handed that out to each one of youl where it says,
passive park or active park, put $12 beside it and then $29 beside it
so you don't have to fish through here and figure out which is which.
Second, I crafted a little letter which needs a couple of minor
corrections. But it just boils it down that these are your choices,
this is what it costs, do you want to do it or not. I would just like
to include that as a cover letter.
But then I thought most importantly, we should probably include
the map as it appears in your agenda packet, because it clearly shows
where it is. And I think that's just a commonsense item. People
ought to know where this spot is if they're looking at.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All of those are good improvements. Any
motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
changes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
All in favorl please
Opposed?
(No response.)
Passes 5-0. Thank you.
next about the Golden Gate Neighborhood MSTU
off with consent.
I don't see anybody from the Sheriff's office
to the support services item, D-1, seems to
I move we accept Commissioner Constantine's
I'll second it.
Motion and second.
say aye.
Item #8D1
AUTHORIZATION TO REQUEST COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN OFFICE BUILDING - STAFF TO REDESIGN BUILDING D AND THIRD FLOOR OF
BUILDING H FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND HAVE DESIGN PLANS READY IN ONE
Page 82
February 91 1999
MONTH; DON ARNOLD TO REDESIGN FOR PUBLIC WORKS WITHIN ONE MONTH AND
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN SIX MONTHS. FINANCIAL
PENALTIES TO BE ENFORCED AND SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN EMERGENCY DECLARED
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
building.
MR. OCHS: Good afternoonl Madam Chairwoman. Members of the
Board. For the recordl Leo Ochsl support services administrator.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hi, Mr. Ochs.
MR. OCHS: As the Chairwoman statedl to
the construction of an office building in or
Commerce to house your public works division
offices that are now leased spaces.
This project is part of Phase I of your long-range facilities
master plan which the Board considered and approved in concept back in
November of 1998. This particular project is being brought forward at
this timel not only to address the growing need for office space in
your public works division, but also in an attempt to accommodate the
continuing request from the Sheriff's agency to relocate the occupants
of his operations division, which are currently occupying the old
courthouse, and which we commonly refer to as building A, into other
temporary quarters.
As you know, we have received several complaints from some of the
occupants in that building over the last few months regarding the
quality of the air in that building. Staff has worked closely with
our indoor air quality consultant to remediate any problems that were
foundl and we have continued to make improvements in that building.
We had the consultant come in after the initial improvements were
made, consult on that issue. He made a final report on January the
18th that concluded that the building is suitable for occupancYI and
also, issued three or four additional recommendations which staff is
pursuing to cost out right now and is planning to proceed with in that
building.
Based on that report I staff is recommending that the Board
proceed with the facilities master plan and proceed with the
construction of the new building as planned in the community
development Horseshoe Drive area.
Concurrent with that planning in RFP processl staff will be
making the additional improvements recommended by the indoor air
quality consultant to building A. And also, staff has developed a
contingency plan to accommodate individual occupants of building A
that may require some earlier relocation. And we would do that on a
case-by-case basis.
Essentially that would involve putting some modular office space
on this main government center during the period of construction of
the new facility. The estimated cost of the proposed 60,000 square
foot facility, including the land design and construction, is
approximately six million dollars. Financing would be provided
through the Florida local government commercial paper program.
Now, 8(D) (1), for construction of an office
proceed to solicit for
around the Collier
and some other ancillary
Page 83
February 9, 1999
We're looking at a 10-year repaYment schedule. A debt service
would be charged through the rents charged the building tenants.
Those rents would primarily take the form of user feesl since they
would be occupied by your enterprise fund department.
Staff has received, I should saYI at least three different
expressions of interest in a potential RFP from developers who own
property either in or around the Collier Park of Commerce at this
time.
In addition to the recommended approachl staff has also looked
and evaluated two lease options that we had discussed previously with
the Board. We have provided a handout to the Board earlier in the day
that provides a cost comparison between those two lease options. You
can see over a three-year period they're fairly close in terms of the
cost.
Staff continues to believe that the recommended option is the
Board's best choice because it is a more cost effective solution, we
believe, than the lease alternatives and, also, more importantly,
creates a tangible asset with return on your investment.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So you're now -- Luria's you're recommending
against. I just want to get this in terms I understand. Luria's
you're recommending against. You're recommending for a lease option
construction, like we've seen from Arnold & ArnoldI but it has to go
out to bid.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. What we're recommending, which is a
similar process we use to construct -- or the Board uses to construct
a service center. That process took nine months, start to finish,
with a turnkey approach.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Comments from Board?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As I understand the recommendation is that
if we take your recommendationl we build a building, we move one group
oncel we own it.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And it meets our 20-year facilities plan.
MR. OCHS: That's correct as well.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The problem -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then what we do is move the sheriff over to
the public works area, and then as we go forward with our 20-year
expansionl then he would be moved into it.
MR. OCHS: Permanent facility.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Permanent compartment.
My question is, will the sheriff be okay in this building for 10
months where they currently are, building A?
MR. OCHS: They indicated that he was obviously anxious to move
his staff out of that building. His initial estimate of our time
frame to make improvements to the Luria's facility, which was our
original short-term lease considerationl would be about 90 days, and
that he polled the people in his office and they would be willing to
wait an additional two months. So we're talking essentially they
would be willing to wait five months to get into space that I believe
they felt was more in meeting with their needs.
Page 84
February 9, 1999
I guess what you may be considering then, commissioners, is the
difference between perhaps the five months or more that it would take
for this one leased facility to come up out of the ground versusl you
know, 10 or 12 months that it would -- our estimate would be to build
the facility that the Board would own and is consistent with your
master plan.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I'm again going to sort of cut through
the bottom line here. What I hear is that the sheriff negotiated with
people in building A that those of you who are at a crisis will find
some special place for you to go. But you've agreed -- you understand
it's going to take three months to get us into the building.
What if we waited five months to get you permanent space instead
of Luria's retrofit? And apparently, the response was okay
reluctantly. But we can go for five months, but that's a far cry from
we can go 10 months. So I think it -- I don't think it would be fair
to say that the Sheriff has said -- and I don't think he did say --
that the Sheriff has said that 10 months is okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make sure I understand part of
this. The suggestion is that the permits can be pulled, the building
can be built and CO'dl 60,000 square feet in five months. Did I
misunderstand any of that?
MR. OCHS: There was a proposal brought forward from Arnold
Development Companies to -- and he's here and I'm sure can speak for
himself. But in a meeting that we had with Mr. Arnold and others from
his firm, and the county administrator and myself and Mr. Camp, there
was an indication that they could build a building in five months.
That building is not currently standing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we had particular -- if that met
our specifications exactly to what's required and we had particular
financial incentives so that if it goes beyond that promised five
months I there's penalties and the taxpayer benefitsl then that's much
more livable. I'm just amazed to think we can do what you've laid out
we need in such a short period of time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: He's telling us it's going to take 10 months
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- 10 or 12.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. I mean, you're not telling me
that, but the Arnolds are telling me that. So I'm just amazed -- I'd
love to hear from the Sheriff's Department to see what they're
comfortable with.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are you finishedl Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes. Only just in quick response to Commissioner
Constantine. I think you made a good point. Part of the explanation
that we've received on why the Arnold property could go up so quickly
was the construction technique that they used was this tilt-up wall
construction. We have not used that typically in our permanent
construction standards, and I would be reluctant to commit to the
Board that we would want to say yes to that just to gain the extra
Page 85
February 9, 1999
couple months and find out at the end that it wasn't meeting our
long-term standards for design and construction.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But Leo, in fact if it works I it cuts the
time in half, and if it meets our code, then it should be okay. And
if it isn't okay, it shouldn't meet our code.
MR. OCHS: I didn't say it didn't meet code. It may not meet the
construction standards.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But since it does meet code, then i~n't it
adequate, or is our code not adequate?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Construction standards for this
particular use may not necessarily be equivalent to code. They may be
a higher --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They'd be higher than code?
MR. OCHS: Right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Also, in this discussionl I would like to
get a health report on building A.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Me, too. I'd like to understand what it is
that the consultant indoor air specialist has recommended to solve the
problem.
MR. OCHS: Okay. You want to hear that nowl or do you --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What does the board want to hear next?
Let's hear the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We need to hear both. It doesn't make any
difference to me.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's hear from the indoor air specialist
what the improvements would be.
MR. OCHS: I'd like to ask Mr. Camp to outline the specifics of
that report for the Board.
MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, your facilities management
director.
They found a number of items. The first thing that they
recommended is that they clean and sanitize the existing HVAC system,
the current air conditioning system.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How do they do that? I meanl do they
literally --
MR. CAMP: They literally go in there with a machine that cleans
it, they sanitize it, and then they paint it with a product called
Porter Set (phonetic) I which is an antimicrobial kind of a Latex
coating, looks like white paint. And in factI we did that two years
ago.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Had they done that --
MR. CAMP: That was done immediately. That has been done twice
nowl two years apart.
The second thingl thoughl that we're following up on now is to
manage the source, and the source is the humidity in the building. It
was, you know, 30 or 40 years ago they had a different standard than
they have today.
In the last 18 months
will manage that humidity.
we've been looking at technologies that
Despite the fact that it's 100 percent
Page 86
February 91 1999
humidity outsidel can we still get 50 percent indoors, and for the
last two years we found out that there is technology. We have
utilized that technology. In fact, you're sitting in it today.
And that was also part of the recommendation, was to utilize this
relatively new technology that maintains a 50 percent RH relative
humidity in the space consistent, and irregardless of what's going on
outside.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is that happening there today?
MR. CAMP: NOI that will take some engineering effect. And that
is included in the price that we gave you.
In factI the post-remediation work and the future remediation
work is all included in there. It will bring in huge amounts of fresh
airl but it will be dry, actually super dry, around 37 percent. And
the space will be like this space, maintained at 45 percent. That
means that molds and those kinds of things will not grow.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How long will it take to get that in place?
MR. CAMP: We're probably looking at 60 to 90 days, at the most.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then we're going to tear that building
down?
MR. CAMP: Eventually that's the recommendation, from all your
consultants and staff.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, we don't have much of a choice because
we can't do anything, you know, faster than 60 to 90 days.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: WeIll yeah, I would say regardless of the
way we gOI because that's what we have to do. Even if you went five
months at one building, or whatever you did, you still have to spend
this money to decrease the humidity.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there any way to make that happen faster?
MR. CAMP: One thing that Leo mentioned that -- one of the things
-- the reason for the demolition of building A is because the type of
building. It was actually built in two different decades. The front
of the building is actually sagging a little bit because it was put on
footings versus precast columns. So it's just not a good structural
facility to retain. That's the reason for it to be --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So is there any way to implement this new
technology to manage the humidity faster than 30, 60 days?
MR. CAMP: Yesl and that is with maybe short-circuiting the
engineering consultant and go right to the technology. And we may be
able to do that, because we -- as the ownerl we're much more -- we
have a better appreciation of what we want and how to get it.
We may not need to go through the engineers; we may in fact hire
the engineer after the fact just to make sure that everything we've
done was proper. But we have a lot of experience when it comes to
managing humidity.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeahl how fast can we do that? Let's say
we took the shortest possible route. What's the time line?
MR. CAMP: Somewhere between, I would thinkl five and eight
weeks.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm real interested in the shortest possible
route on managing the humidity.
Page 87
February 9, 1999
MR. CAMP: Because these units are not on the shelf, we'd have to
have them manufactured, but --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Is there any more questions on that?
You want to hear from the public? We have speakers, I suspect?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have six speakers. The first two are Donald
Arnold and Dean Arnold.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What an amazing coincidence.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thus Arnold & Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoonl commissioners. For the record my
name's Don Arnold, representing Arnold Development Companies.
To just add a couple of items in talking about the type of
constructionl the tilt-up form of construction is not new at all. The
Titon Building up in North Naples was just builtl 70,000 square feet.
We are in for permits for this building, and it's going to be
701000 square feet.
What we've recommended doing is leasing the 501000 square feet on
the first floor to the Sheriff's Office, giving the county the first
right of refusal for leasing the second floorl 20,000 square feet for
expansion.
We've stated that we would make the lease term at any length that
-- at the county's pleasurel with any renewals at the county's
pleasure, and that if they wanted to get into the process of
purchasing itl we would issue to the county a right of an option to
purchase only after they have followed through with the RFP program
or the FRP program, the bidding process -- so that they could qualify
that as going through the bidding process and not going around anyone,
giving anyone the opportunity to purchase.
One of the reasons we can build it in five months, besides the
processl what we are in for right now is our site development plan and
our shell permit. We would do a shell permit. And with the
expediency of the county helping us get the permit through, we would
pull the permit, be building the shelll have the permit on the
interior improvements.
The interior improvements I unlike a lot of the methods, instead
of framing up 50,000 square feet and having a framing inspectionl we
would use a design process where we would be building in 50-foot
increments within the building. And as the framing's done in a 4,000
square foot spacel we would have the county's inspections done on
that. Then they would go on and frame the next 4/000 while our
electricians and our plumbers would be working on the first 4/000;
consequently, we can cut the time frame down by a lot. I've done it
before, in this county and allover the country.
To talk about your process of building the building for the
county for public worksl I think it's probably a three-year process.
You have to advertise for an architect, you have to come up with a
committee to tell the architect what you want to build and so forth.
Not that -- you know, I'd like for it to be faster I but I don't see
how you can do it in 10 months. I mean, I don't see how you can you
can -- I meanl that's -- I can't argue with that, but I can just tell
you, I don't see how you can go through letting the bids for the
Page 88
February 9, 1999
architect, the design and all that and still be done in 10 months.
That's okay, I can't argue with that.
We're here to perform, that's all I can offer. We would pay a
penalty if we weren't done in time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Fernandez. What
Mr. Arnold describes about having an option to purchase -- or maybe
it's Mr. Weigel. Is there some way that that can be structured to
comply with the law on the bidding process?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, yes, and that's why he is -- Mr. Arnold has
stated it the way he did, is that an RFP would need to issuel we would
respond to the RFPi hopefully the RFP would be structured so that it's
not only for leasing but provides the option to purchase that way. We
would have met the competitive selection solicitation process
statutorily imposed and he'd still have the opportunity to lease
and/or sell the building to us.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And my other question is, what's the
difference in size of this building and the one that you're proposingl
Leo? Size.
MR. OCHS: The footprint that we are proposing the Board build is
60,000 square feet total. Mr. Arnold is talking about 70,000 square
feet.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So why aren't these two ideas the samel
except we're 10,000 square feet and a lot faster?
MR. OCHS: Well, a couple of reasons. Number one, Mr. Weigel
talked about it. My understanding in talking with our purchasing
director and the county attorney's office -- and I guess I need to get
some clarification from David. I thought I just heard him say that
Mr. Arnold would still participate in the RFP process?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Okay. WeIll if you're going to go out for an RFPI I
don't know how you're saving any time over what we are proposing to
the Board.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: See, what I understand is he's going to
build the buildingl whether we're in the process or not. And then
when we go out to bid for a building, he will bid his on the block,
which somebody else will build to construct. And his will already be
there. And when the bids are opened, it will be -- you know, he might
lose. We might walk away from his building. But he's building it
anyway, so he doesn't care.
MR. ARNOLD: I'm saying to the county that they can move out, if
they want to make -- if you can build your building in 10 months, I'll
make it a 10-month lease. I don't think you can, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before anybody answers any of thatl
and if that's the case and he's willing to do that, what are we
discussing? If it's going to go on a proposal and he's willing to do
that, why are we --
MR. ARNOLD: Excuse mel Commissioner. The reason we're
discussing it is that if you just go to the FRP and not the leasel
I'll go ahead and build this building and put it up for lease to
Page 89
February 9, 1999
anyone that's out there. In the meantime, you've got the Sheriff's
Office and everyone staying in building A for a two to three-year
period.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So basically what we're doing, what we're
getting today would be the right to lease the building as soon as it's
completed, and then you throw yourself into the mix of the RFP for
whether or not, you know, this is the building that the county buys.
MR. ARNOLD: Be happy to.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that legal, Mr. Weigel? I mean, I don't
understand why --
MR. WEIGEL: I think it is. And what I'm talking -- we want to
be clear about it, but what I'm talking about is that we can't back
door into a lease/purchase arrangement because the purchase
requirement statutorily mean you have to go out in the marketplace in
the solicitation --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no problem with that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Arnold understands he's only getting a
lease from us, and that if we get an option to purchase, it will come
through the RFP process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can't we do that --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But who's moving in here now? I under --
Mr. Ochs was talking about another department moving in there, and Mr.
Arnold's talking about the Sheriff's Department. Now, who's moving in
here?
MR. OCHS: Well, yeah, that's my point. Your long-term
facilities master plan has your public works division moving into a
facility off-site in close proximity to your development services
center.
Under this scenario, if in fact we're talking about relocating
the occupants of building A into a new facility in that area, we
haven't addressed the public works division's need all at all. Also
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then let public works move into this
building and the Sheriff's folks will move into public works, it still
solves the problem faster.
MR. ARNOLD: Commissioner, if I may add one thing to this. We're
talking about complying with the plan that was delivered to you in
November. And I think in Phase I of that plan, you were to provide
some space for the Sheriff's Office, and after 2002, in Phase II, you
were to locate something for public works.
I think the only reason for the staff coming up with this plan is
because using public works, they have a finance method. using anyone
other than public works, they have no finance method so they have no
way to come and say they don't want to put the Sheriff's Office in.
MR. OCHS: That's not true. Your Phase I does include an
additional facility in the area that we're talking about --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For public works?
MR. OCHS: -- and it always has.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For public works?
MR. OCHS: -- in Phase I.
Page 90
February 9, 1999
We didn't specify the occupant at that time. We had considered
public works as the primary occupant.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, but that's what he just said, Leo. I
mean, I think what he just said was the reason --
MR. OCHS: Well, you have another building in that area in Phase
I of your long-range master plan, okay?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't think --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So now we're still talking --
MR. ARNOLD: -- that's the problem any anyway. What I think you
need to decide -- and I'll get out of it. But it's up to you to
decide whether you want to do a facility for the Sheriff's Department,
and we're just offering this to be available.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before we leave this, can I ask just one
question? Why we couldn't do this simultaneously, putting out this
RFP, and doing this -- build the lease thing so you've got two pieces
moving at the same time?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We would be.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that illegal?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wouldn't we be doing that? During a lease is
when the RFP process would begin.
MR. WEIGEL: If that's the question, the answer is yes, you can
do that. The leasing doesn't have the strictures. The county leasing
property does not have the strictures of the county purchasing the
property, statutorily.
MR. OCHS: So what would the Board's intention be in terms of
what commitments are you making for a lease at this point?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't guess we are at this very moment.
We're just looking at what the options are.
why don't we go ahead with the speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Dean Arnold and then Tami Canger.
MR. DEAN ARNOLD: Hello.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great tie.
MR. DEAN ARNOLD: This is Dean Arnold, with -- beach tie -- with
Arnold & Arnold.
I wanted to go through a little bit of a proposal that we had
come up with for the Sheriff's Department. I wanted you to know that
we did not solicit the Sheriff's Department to become our tenant. The
real estate department for the Collier County government came to us
and asked for a building. And we didn't have one at the time. We had
one earlier, but they couldn't move fast enough to get into that
building before we leased it up.
So we offered -- I was in the process of building a 50,400 square
foot building. And the real estate department expressed interest in
that, the Sheriff expressed interest in that. I worked with them and
we worked on design for the building, and we came up with a letter of
intent that was signed by your real estate department that you wanted
to lease our 50,000 square foot building.
At the time we decided we could go ahead and add an addition to
that building, which is 20,000 feet, in case the Sheriff needed to
expand.
Page 91
February 9, 1999
We started that, and that letter was signed on September 2nd,
1998. And since then we basically have been hitting roadblocks along
the way and speed bumps.
And that's basically all I really needed to say. Thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Tami Canger and then Gary Young.
MS. CANGER: Madam Chairwoman, commissioners, for the record, my
name is Tami Canger and I'm representing myself.
I'd like to take this time to inform you on health problems of
people working in building A. I have seen my physician for the
following: Acute chronic rhinitis, acute chronic sinusitis,
persistent constant headaches, drainage, bloody noses and dry, itchy
eyes, sensitivity to light, smells and sounds, a metallic blood taste
in my mouth, sleepless nights, fatigue, et cetera. I even had to have
sinus surgery.
All this started after a year or so in building A. Before that I
had no health problems or concerns.
I see in the executive summary the indoor air quality consultant
certified that building A is suitable for occupancy. This is not
suitable -- to me this is not suitable for occupancy.
I guess my problem is that I do not understand the political
system. We have a very serious issue at hand that does not seem to be
a concern for some of the county.
The last 10 years plus, even before the Sheriff was relocated
into the building, there were reports of mold and smells affecting
people. To the best of my knowledge, it was not until 1995 that Pure
Air came in to do testing.
The 1997 report states that there were elevated levels of
microorganisms in both the air and bulk samples. A concern for
allergic distress does exist in association with the carpet. This
would extend most likely to other non-porous surfaces.
Dust mite antigen was elevated to a high. This represents a
potential for hypersensitization and asthmatic response. An early
response for this condition would be prudent.
The level of dust mites that were found were between 17 and 30.
This by Pure Air report shows a high count and is a risk for acute
asthmatic attack. And that basically is anything over 10 on their
level.
The northeast air handling units contained over 9,500,000 total
microorganisms. The southwest air handling units contained over
990,000 total microorganisms.
It states also that studies to detect volatile organic compounds
failed to demonstrate the existence of any BLC. However, the
potential for periodic production will always exist.
The 1989 test was limited, and the section I mentioned earlier
was only partially tested. There were no tests done on air handling
units. There were tests done on air handling units in different
divisions which showed over 550,000. In this report it clearly states
that this 550,000 is five times the threshold of the fungal growth.
Page 92
February 9, 1999
My question is, why was the known section of the building showing
over 9,500,000 and 990,000 not retested?
There have been several workers' compo files -- compo claims
filed. And I just received a copy of a letter sent to the county that
they're going to pursue reimbursement.
I have several pamphlets from EPA explaining the sick building
syndrome and found it very upsetting to see the long-term effects that
it can cause.
Why this issue has not been addressed. We are talking about
people's lives and health, and I think this is priority one. I think
the logical solution at this point is to take Mr. Arnold's proposal
seriously. This would be the quickest, most effective solution
available at this time.
I would suggest that each of you go into building A and see and
smell for yourselves the working conditions that we have had to put up
with over the past eight or nine years.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to say I really appreciate
that, because sometimes -- and I suppose this happens in business,
too, but particularly in local government we seem to get hung up on
what a study says or what some report tells us, as opposed to real
people who actually are tolerating it.
And whether that's -- we talked this morning about the smell at
the landfill, and whether a report says it's down or not, people still
wake up to it. And whether a report says, gee, there's something
going on there or to what level it is, if you guys are getting sick,
then it doesn't matter much what the report says.
So I very much appreciate you coming and sharing that, because
it's a little dose of real life thrown into the middle of this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you were very polite. Because some of
the stories that I've heard are horrific of people's experiences there
with sinus problems.
MS. CANGER: And it's been something you have to really see to
understand it, so -- but thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Gary Young and then Barbara
Jenkins.
MR. YOUNG: Ms. Mac'Kie, Ms. Berry, gentlemen. My name is Gary
Young, I'm the administrative assistant to the Sheriff. The Sheriff
had a long-standing commitment that he had to honor, and he asked me
to come over and relay some of his thoughts on this very important
issue.
First of all, this clean air report, it -- I think that it has to
do a lot about how you interpret it. Now, I worked with this company
when they came down and took the people around and cleaned it and took
the doctors around that did the inspections and took the samples. And
when he got done, he sent me an arcane report that I couldn't
understand anything at all.
And I said, "What does this mean?" And he said, "Well, we look
essentially for passages that will kill people." He said, "Now,
there's nothing in there that's going to kill you, but if you're one
Page 93
February 9, 1999
of those poor souls that are allergic to spores, fungus, molds and all
the other things that grow in abundance in Florida," he said, "life is
going to be hell working in that building, and there's not a whole lot
you can do about it."
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You won't die, you'll just wish you could.
MR. YOUNG: That's right, you'll wish you were dead.
And that's the story on the report, as best I can understand it.
Incidentally, our workers' compo people have sent down yet
another air quality person to look at it. I took him around the other
day and we still await his opinion.
I can say that when workers' comp., when I brought their
representative through the building, he was there 30 minutes, his eyes
started to tear up and he said, "I've got to leave." He said, "I'm
one of these people that can't take it."
I can't fault Mr. Camp. Mr. Camp has done everything that he can
possibly do to clean this building. But it gets to a point where you
can't do any more. It just happens. This is an old, antiquated
building that the judges in their wisdom saw 10 years ago that they
couldn't keep a jury stored in there long enough and they got out.
The other part is, what would we prefer? The Sheriff did indeed
have a meeting with his people that worked in that building, and 115
of them showed up. He presented the options that were available at
the time, which were the two lease properties, Luria's and the Barnett
-- which Barnett is not really available anYmore, all of it -- for
three months, and then to move into Mr. Arnold's property in five
months.
And they did agree to five months. And this was with some
reluctance, because they didn't want to stay there forever. And they
don't want to stay there for 10 months and they don't want to stay
there for 12 months, and even if it is built in that short period of
time.
We think that the Sheriff thinks that Mr. Arnold's proposal is
the best one. When we were looking for properties to get, builders
came by and said yes, we'll build you a property and lease it to you,
but it was eight to 10 years. Mr. Arnold said I'll do it for three
years or whatever you want. He's the only one that showed any
interest. There were no rental properties. Your real property people
looked everywhere for one that had enough square feet and enough
parking, and they're just not out there.
So that is -- that's what the Sheriff would like me to pass on to
you. And I'm glad you have to make the decision and not me. Thank
you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Barbara Jenkins and then Kara
Krantz.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She's got hands on everything today.
MS. JENKINS: Twice in one day.
I did not plan to speak until I read the executive summary. And
once I read that, I felt like it made it appear that these sick
complaints that have been received are something new. And they aren't
Page 94
February 9, 1999
new. People have been complaining about being sick in building A
since about the time we moved in. And from what I understand, the
people who were there prior were making complaints. So I just wanted
to try to set that record straight.
I personally am not sick, but I do work with people who are sick,
I've worked with people who have had to move down --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's because you've built up a
tolerance living next door to the landfill.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There you go. Hey, there's an advantage
right there.
MS. JENKINS: That's one.
Anyways, but those people are -- I believe they're sick. They
have doctor bills to prove it, they have sYmptoms to prove it. So I
just -- my only complaint personally working in that building is I've
within the last five or six months got contacts. I can hardly wear
them in that building. And I don't know if it's because of the
hydrators that they've put in there or if it's something else. I'm
fine outside of that building, but the minute I go in it, a lot of
times I have to take them out.
Whatever theY're doing to correct the situation sometimes seems
to make it worse. I know they talked about cleaning the air
conditioning system and that they've done it twice. Both times people
have been unable to -- had to leave and take a few sick days before
they could come back into that building and work. They've had
headaches, sinus, eye problems.
So I just wanted to bring that up and say that building has no
fire alarms. As far as I'm aware, I don't think there are fire alarms
in that building. They just put in a new -- they reconstructed a
bathroom and made it handicapped friendly. And someone who's
handicapped told me that it's not even up to code now. So I don't know
why we're doing that if we're even considering moving out of that
building.
But it's just a couple of issues maybe you want to look at. Fire
codes might be another one, because I know Barbara Berry went into the
section where I work. And I don't know if she took a tour of the whole
building, but we're so packed in there, that I don't -- I would
suspect we are not meeting the fire code in that building currently.
And some of the people have been moved out that have had
problems. Their doctors have recommended that they not be in that
building anYmore.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Jenkins, you know, I believe we all
understand there's a problem over at the building. Do you have a
solution in mind for us?
MS. JENKINS: Really, I don't. I hope that either you consider
going into a new facility by Arnold & Arnold or lease a facility like
you looked at. But my point is I really think we need to get out of
there. That's all really I have to say.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you.
MS. JENKINS: Thank you.
Page 95
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that correct about no fire alarms in that
building?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Camp?
MR. CAMP: It does not have a monitored fire alarm system that is
in your proposal. It's relatively inexpensive. There's smoke
detection and that kind of -- but not a monitored fire alarm system.
It's a $15,000 deal, expense, and it's part of that proposal.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Kara Krantz.
MS. KRANTZ: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Kara
Krantz, for the record. I also work in building A. And I was not
going to speak until I read -- also read the executive summary and
became quite angry that the executive summary made it appear that we
were willing to stay in that building.
We did meet with the Sheriff, and three months -- we were looking
at three months to go into Luria's and the Barnett Bank building, and
we were willing to wait an extra two months to get us into a brand new
facility. So we agreed basically that we were willing to wait five
months and that was it. We really don't want to be in there another
day.
All of us have been quite sick. I've had numerous health
problems myself that I won't go into. I just wanted to make it clear
that we were not willing to wait or stay in that building any longer
than what we have been.
And as far as humidity and the things that they've been trying to
do to fix the building, humidity is only one problem in the building.
And as Barbara Jenkins said, it seems that when they do come in to
try to fix problems, that things often get worse. And I don't know if
it's because of the paints that they are spraying over the molds to
try to keep the mold from expanding or growing more, but it seems that
my problems sometimes will become worse when they come in and the
companies come in and try to fix things.
So I would urge you to please, to get us out as quickly as
possible. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. So anything decisions by the
Board?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question for Mr. Ochs. Does it
appear that the Arnold and -- and I understand if we're looking at
long-term use we're going to buy the building or have a building
built. I understand the requirements for bidding and so on. But
setting that aside just for the moment, does it appear that the
proposal by Arnold & Arnold is more expensive than what is normal and
expected in this community?
MR. OCHS: More expensive? No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Significantly less.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- just looking at this, if we were
Art Allen sitting here trying to figure out how he's going to take
care of his employees, what's the down side to doing what's been laid
out?
Page 96
February 9, 1999
MR. OCHS: Only that you need to remember, there is no facility
in the Arnold proposal for a minimum of five months to put anybody
into. So the real decision -- if you want to move people out as
quickly as you can, the only improved space that we have that the
Sheriff has accepted is an existing office building in the Collier
Commerce Park that's only about 10,000 of the 32,000 square feet that
we originally were looking at, combining that site with the Luria's
facility. Luria's would take us 90 days to get ready.
So if you're asking me what's the most expeditious solution to
removing people out of building A, that, frankly, would be the fastest
way. But it's not -- in terms of your long-term expenses, it's not
your best option.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it's money to throwaway.
MR. OCHS: And the Sheriff obviously would prefer to be in one
building instead of two. And I'd certainly understand that from an
operational standpoint.
But again, it depends what your preference is. If you want to get
people out and that's your first and foremost priority, the fastest
way to do that is to go with the Luria's/Barnett option that we talked
about originally.
If you want to wait an additional 60 days or more, then Mr.
Arnold tells you he can build you a building and lease it to you. If
you want to wait for that and go out for an RFP for construction of a
permanent facility for your public works division, you can certainly
do that and perhaps enter into a month-to-month lease with Mr. Arnold,
if he'll agree to that, or a one-year lease with Mr. Arnold, if he'll
agree to that.
Again, I'm just trying to layout the options for the Board. And
as you all know, a one-year lease, the cost of a one-year lease in the
50,000 square feet that Mr. Arnold is proposing, is $730,000. That's
your annual lease cost, one year. Your debt service on the building
that we're proposing that you build and own on an annual basis is
about $720,000.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And how much would we spend to outfit
Luria's so that we could lease it? I mean, what --
MR. OCHS: The cost of those improvements are expensive,
Commissioner; probably about 6 to $700,000 to make all the
improvements required in the Luria's building.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's also a cost just in
productivity as far as moving twice instead of once.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We need to throw those improvements away.
We don't --
MR. OCHS: Frankly, you would have that in any lease option,
including the Arnold facility. If it were to be built and you move
the Sheriff in there five or six months until the public works
facility is ready, then you can move the Sheriff's people back onto
this campus in the space that the public works occupants vacated,
you'd be moving the Sheriff's people twice.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But why is it so important to move public
works from where they are?
Page 97
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, what would happen if you built the
building at 60,000 square feet, it was leased from Arnold & Arnold,
you put the public works in there, move the Sheriff over to the public
works area, and then we threw the RFP process. I guess we're at risk,
but we could buy the building. I mean, it seems like it's up, it's
done, public works is -- has a home, we own it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, and Commissioner Carter, there's
another benefit, too, is that we heard some skepticism about the
quality of the building. That would give us a chance to have a
firsthand look at the building as well before we decide that that was
a legitimate choice under our RFP process.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As these questions are floated, I see
you looking -- I'd love to hear your response there, because I see
some concern.
MR. OCHS: I have no objection to that from an operational or
financial standpoint. My only concern is that I've been told again by
the Attorney's Office that if we're talking about essentially a
lease/purchase scenario, then that requires --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what we're talking about.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're talking about a lease.
MR. OCHS: I just want to lease the building.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then purchase if they win the RFP.
MR. OCHS: Okay. The only risk that Mr. Arnold assumes --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's his.
MR. OCHS: -- is that if the specifications that we use in our
RFP exceed what he builds, it would be difficult to recommend to the
Board that we would, but again, that's just a risk that he seems to be
willing to assume. And I'm not precluding that at all.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm going to just express a whole lot of
frustration about this. I don't understand what we gained in the
two-week delay from looking at this that we couldn't have known two
weeks ago when we wanted to hear this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It wasn't on the agenda. It's a public
petition.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but it was stated on the meeting
before by our county administrator that it would be heard on the 26th.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Bob can answer your question.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And then it didn't show up on the 26th. And
I don't know why we had to wait two weeks, because I'm exactly where I
was four weeks ago, which is ready to do exactly this proposal. What
did we get out of the delay?
MR. FERNANDEZ: At the time we indicated that we had just
received a new facet to Mr. Arnold's proposal that indicated that he
could build the building in five months. That was a new piece of
information that my staff indicated they needed the opportunity to
evaluate that and to put together the kind of information that you
have today, to consider the options that you have.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob, I can only tell you, you need to look
into that, because that was not a new piece of information to the
Page 98
February 9, 1999
whole world. It might have been -- you know, to anybody who was
paying attention, that was not a new piece of information.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, I'm sorry, if I might, there's two other
things that came to light at that period of time. One was the final
report from your indoor air quality consultant. That came out the
18th of January. And then two days later you got a letter from the
Sheriff staying that instead of moving people immediately out of
building A, he would be willing to wait five months to move people out
of building A.
Based on that, you have a long-range master plan. We thought --
at least I did from a staff perspective -- I needed to layout the
options of ownership and the cost of ownership to you as opposed to
simply the lease options, which are, as you know, an expense with no
return. And you essentially have a five-month increment of time
that's being debated here between ownership of a building and a
straight lease.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'm still just disappointed to think
this has been too complicated. But I'll hush about it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can we come back to what I'm suggesting is
we go 60,000 square feet and we lease it and move public works in
there, move the Sheriff over into where public works is and do the
RFP, and if this building meets the specs, we buy it and it becomes
public growth management plan. If it doesn't --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's our public works guy have to
say about that?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How do you feel about that, Mr. Ilschner?
Don't be coming up changing the deal now, Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: I just wanted to clarify, our building, base
building, is 54,400 feet is the design the Sheriff's Office has gone
for. The whole building will be 70. But if we were talking about
doing a lease today, it would be 50,000 -- any amount. You can name
any size you want is what I want to tell you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Up to?
MR. ARNOLD: Up to 70,000.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Up to 70.
MR. ARNOLD: You name what you want.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So what does public works need?
MR. OCHS: 60,000.
MR. ILSCHNER: 60,000.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if we need 60,000, we can have 60?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm going to build 70.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a problem? Commissioner
Carter had just made a discussion to avoid moving everybody at odd
intervals, but that obviously impacts public works. Is there -- is
that good, is that bad, is that indifferent?
MR. ILSCHNER: Well we've had a need for space --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You've got to get on the record, don't you,
Mr. Ilschner?
MR. ILSCHNER: Ed Ilschner, public works administrator.
Page 99
February 9, 1999
We have a need now for moving our transportation people into
additional space. They're very, very cramped. We're cramped where we
are presently. So there is a need for space as soon as we can acquire
space --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It seems to me --
MR. ILSCHNER: -- if that's your question.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if you were to go in five months?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can you be ready?
MR. ILSCHNER: We can certainly be ready in five months, yes,
ma'am.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Excuse me, Commissioner, I'm sorry.
But it's just -- because this building, as we've all seen, has
been -- the interior has been designed for the Sheriff's Department.
What happens now when we say okay, we're going to do this for public
works? Now, what is in there for the Sheriff's Department may not be
what Mr. Ilschner needs for public works. Now--
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So why does public --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- how does that work?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why does public works have to be the entity
to go there, Leo? That's back to you. Why are --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Because it goes back to the Growth
Management Plan.
MR. OCHS: It goes back to your space planning.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Or space planning.
MR. OCHS: Again, the plan for permanent space for the Sheriff's
operations and administrative personnel, as you all know, is the
expansion to the Naples jail. And that's --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's here.
MR. OCHS: -- in the first phase of your master plan. If you're
going to build what amounts to brand new permanent space for the
administration and operations of the Sheriff's agency and locate it
over there, that's certainly your prerogative. But it's not
consistent, and that's all I'm trying to point out, it's not
consistent with the plan that you approved 90 days ago in concept.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I don't see why we have to -- you
know, I think probably Mr. Arnold and the Sheriff that got together
and decided they were going to put the Sheriff over there. I don't
see why we have to go along with that at all. If it works better for
us to put public works over there, then lets put public works over
there and the Sheriff can move -- stay here on campus.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just think we're backing into our space
management plan. It's a little different direction to do it, but
we're going to end up getting there.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, what happens, if I may interrupt, is you've
failed to take care of the needs of removing your -- and it doesn't
make any difference to me if you lease the building from me, but you
do not address the needs to the people in building A, because if you
Page 100
February 9, 1999
have to -- if you move public works into my building, then you have to
remodel for the Sheriff's Office to move into public works which is,
believe me, at least another three to five months down the line. And
it creates a problem. I don't care.
MR. OCHS: Again, we're not talking about improvements that we
would make to Luria's. That's primarily modular furnishes that can be
rearranged in very short order. I don't think it would take near 90,
120 days to get the Sheriff moved out of building A and into the
spaces vacated by public works.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Since we've at least gone this far, let's
say that we would like to have the option to lease up to 60,000 feet
of Mr. Arnold's building, which if it's not going to be built in five
months, we're going to pay him less rent or some financial incentive.
MR. ARNOLD: It's five months until the time you design the
lease. Like I do with the Sheriff's Office.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And so the question then becomes
who's going to occupy that building? Is it going to be public works
or is it going to be Sheriff? And instead of us making this up as we
sit here, why don't we let our staff go look at and let the Sheriff's
Office look at what's the interior configuration of the property where
public works is currently located and see how difficult it would be to
fit it out for the Sheriff's use.
MR. YOUNG: We have --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless you already know.
MR. YOUNG: We worked -- it took us about two months to design
the interior of that building. We were given a footprint of it to
work back and forth. Now, Mr. Arnold is going to have to have that
time added on to the five months to redesign it, because certainly
they're not going to be able to move into what we had was an
interrogation room and things like that. It won't fit their needs.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't know, some of the developers in town
might tell you interrogation --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's just try to stay on track.
MR. YOUNG: The other thing is, I've looked at this -- this space
study has been kicking around here since March or April. And I've
looked at those phases and the number one thing in there says build
the Sheriff a two-story building. They have it broken down so that
even I can understand it.
Phase I, I can't see -- Phase II, demolish building A. I cannot
find anywhere in Phase I where it says anything about public works
having a pressing need. Not that they may and that it's not in there.
I can find it in Phase II, which is 2002 to 2007.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Leo, what is that then? I mean, he just
said Phase I of the plan shows demolition of building A, build a
two-story building for the Sheriff. Phase II of the building plan
says public works. So I mean, this just seems overly complicated.
MR. CAMP: It doesn't have to be. For the record, Skip Camp
again, your facilities management director.
They're talking about gross bulk square feet. And in your
executive summary that you saw in November, it showed an additional
Page 101
February 9, 1999
building on Horseshoe Drive in Phase I. The Sheriff is also in Phase
I. So they're not incompatible with each other. They're both being
looked at in Phase I, both the Sheriff and an additional building on
Horseshoe Drive.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just, as long as you and Leo are
at that podium and you're here, what you'd like to see is we go ahead
and sign a lease with Mr. Arnold, you all can move as soon as the
building's up into that building?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir, that's the best possible thing that could
happen to us right now.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
Your recommendation is what, Leo, and why?
MR. OCHS: Is that you --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 60 seconds or less.
MR. OCHS: You build a building that you own that's an asset for
you, move your public works division in there, as planned in your
master plan, and then relocate the occupants of building A into the
space vacated by your public works staff here on the government
center.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
with them from building A?
MR. OCHS: Yeah, we continue with the improvements recommended in
the consultant's report.
Again, Commissioner, you don't have anywhere to put them right
now, because Mr. Arnold does not have a building.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we'll have a place soon,
MR. OCHS: Okay, the only other thing I wanted to
the Board is that there are other developer owners out
interested in making lease proposals to the Board, and
expression of interest.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
to lease.
MR. OCHS: They can't find one 50,000 square foot facility.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Exactly.
MR. OCHS: If that's the requirement of the Board, then fine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could just continue on. I have
nothing but the utmost respect for you and for our real property
people. However, I think we're making this overly complicated today.
And perhaps that's us five making it over complicated and not you.
But it seems like the most productive thing would be to have all
those folks under one roof with the possibility of them being at that
facility for -- or the county being at that facility for some extended
period of time. So I'm going to -- if there's no other public
speakers, I'm going to --
MR. FERNANDEZ: You do have one.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- make a motion -- was that turned in
at the beginning?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, actually it's late, so --
Page 102
And in the meantime, do we do anything
Leo.
mentioned to
there that are
we've had that
Real property couldn't find any other space
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion that we go
ahead and move forward with the lease for whatever the appropriate
square footage is, whether that's 50,000 square feet for the --
MR. ARNOLD: 50,400.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 50,400 square feet of that property
and take care of the folks over in building A and get them moved out
of there in the short frame, that we include in that some money
incentives so that if for some reason it's not done on -- at the end
of five months then that is taken care of, financially speaking is
taken care of and you pay a penalty for not being able to meet the
schedule you've laid out.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, only one request would be added to the motion
would be the assistance of the development services for building
permits and expediting permits.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Fast-track permitting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely.
And then concurrently, I think we should look at, you know, the
other issues as far as what your needs are going to be, and if that
requires the space we're going to use temporarily, plus another 10,000
or whatever it is, that's great.
And I wondered if in that lease agreement we might look at
including an option so that if we do chose that building to purchase
or to have a longer term, there is some financial incentive to do
that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can't do that because
MR. ARNOLD: After the FRP is --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I mean, if it's a request for
proposal, you have the opportunity to put that in as part of your
proposal, which is certainly an incentive to the county. It's not
something we can necessarily require on the front end. But I would
think that would go a long way toward making that an attractive
property.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're saying -- let me make sure I'm
clear. You're saying take the lease from the building that's ready to
move the Sheriff's people into?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, what are you going to do with them
when you're ready to move the public works people in there? Then
where do the Sheriff's people go?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the new building A.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Huh?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the new and improved building A,
which probably won't be called that then.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So for the next five years public works is
going to be where they are?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Maybe they'll lease 10,000 feet of this
building, because that's their immediate transportation.
Page 103
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're going to split their department? Mr.
Ilschner just said he needed 60,000. He's going to get 10? You're
going to put him 10 there and 50 somewhere else?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I say yes, because we have to address the
building A crisis.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioner, nobody is denying you got a
problem there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I respond to that, Pam?
I understand your concern, Commissioner Berry, and I guess for me
it boils down to we've got to make a choice here, and I don't like the
idea of splitting them. However, there are two factors why I prefer
doing what I've laid out. One is building -- the folks in public
works aren't getting sick by being where they are, and these folks
are. So we need to move them.
The second is a lot of what the Sheriff is doing over there, my
understanding, is of a sensitive nature. And I would rather have those
people together. A lot of the information in public works, while I'm
sure it's easier if they're all together, can be transferred via
E-mail, via fax, via computer, so that if we're split up on a
temporary basis, that's probably less sensitive than the Sheriff's
Department. I don't like it, but of the two, I like it better.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, it seems to me if this building -- and
I -- Mr. Arnold's showed me the plans and the interior plans and so
forth that apparently had been worked on with Mr. Young, or whoever
worked on it. It seems to me that this commission today is making the
decision that this is going to be the location of those people in the
Sheriff's Department.
And it seems absolutely senseless to move them in there, into
this brand new building, and then turn around in "X" number of years
when we go forward down here and move them back down here again. This
doesn't make any sense. It's either that's going to be their location
and let's say we're going forward with that and that's going to be it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we can't say --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And make this green space in the
middle of the campus?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, I don't care what you do with it. But
it just doesn't make any sense to do there and then say okay, when we
get tired of that, we can move them back down here again and we'll put
somebody else in there. That doesn't make any sense. And you've
sidestepped the RFP process.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that doesn't meet our plan requirement
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No,
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
correct?
MR. OCHS: Your long-range plan in your first phase, permanent
location of Sheriff's administration. and operations staff is to be at
building J, in an expanded building J, adjacent to your expanded jail
facility here at the government center. And I believe the Sheriff has
consistently maintained that that's his ultimate objective.
Page 104
it doesn't.
moving the Sheriff out there; is that
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And when do we expect to have building J
complete?
MR. OCHS: It's in your five-year Phase I. That depends on
financing, and something we didn't talk about in terms of the general
fund impact of the lease proposal.
The only other point I want to make, and I won't belabor this, is
the current square footage of building A is about 23,000 usable square
feet. So if we're going to lease 50,000 for the Sheriff, we're
obviously looking to take care of some additional needs there and some
expansion. So again, I think it just again goes back to Commissioner
Berry's point, not that that's a bad idea operationally, but to do all
that, then move them back out in five months or whenever the public
works building would be ready --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You're designing a building to their
specifications. Any way you want to look at it, that's exactly what's
taken place here. Now, you either bite the bullet and say okay, this
is what we're going to do, this is where the Sheriff's Department's
going to go, it's going to house this group of people over there,
you're going to have the jail eventually. Long range, you've got to
look ahead. The jail's going to be down here, this other group of
people's going to be over here. Is that what you want, and is that in
the best interest of the county?
And I'm just -- and all I'm saying is that I understand the
building A problem. I did go over there and yeah, it stinks. But,
you know, it stinks for a lot of reasons. Probably the best thing you
could do is take a hammer and knock out every window over there and
you might get some fresh air in there.
But that still is a concern about the way we're going about doing
this. I don't think we're doing it the right way. And I've got
nothing against what Don has proposed here, but it seems like we have
got this thing all messed up with health conditions in building A,
we've got a building designed by the Sheriff's Department, working
with Mr. Arnold, and yet it's not all meshed into our growth -- into
our space management plan.
MR. ARNOLD: If I may interject, Ms. Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I have a concern about that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Come on, Mr. Arnold, let us deliberate,
would you please?
MR. ARNOLD: I wanted to -- some important information I thought
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've talked more than your time.
MR. ARNOLD: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Jesus.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I just don't like the way we're backing into
this. And I'm not saying that the building isn't a good idea, but I
just -- I don't like the way we're approaching this. We're coming
through this through the back door and I don't like this.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did make a motion. I don't hear a
second floating around, and I'm just wondering what an alternative
would be if there is no second.
Page 105
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me just say that I -- in order to
stay consistent with our space management plan, and recognizing the
fact that building A has been a problem for many, many years, I think
it's not going to be the efficient way to do it, to move the Sheriff
out there knowing that in a short -- fairly short period of time we're
going to move him somewhere else. And in the meantime, we've
constructed a specially designed interior for him. That's just not
what we should be doing.
At the same time, public works department wants to be moved out
near development services so that they can better coordinate their
efforts. And so, you know, why make all the shuffling around --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would you suggest?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- just to save a couple of months?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because people are sick.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they've been sick for 10 years.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What would you suggest? I keep
hearing what --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it just happened this last few months,
is that correct? Is that what you're saying?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, it didn't.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- hear what you do not like. Tell me
what you are suggesting we do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I suggest is that we go ahead with the
lease of Mr. Arnold's building and that we move public works over
there, put the Sheriff in the public works department. That leaves
all the Sheriff's Department right here on campus where they belong.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Except it adds two or three months to the
process because of the interior design issues.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that's the price you have to pay to
make it efficient.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let me ask this --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's too high.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- is there any way to fast-track interior
design into where public works is, that's part of it. The second
thing that's here that I'm hearing is that we have to do something
with A right now in a manner -- if we do this one month from now or 10
months from now, A has got a budget where we are doing things to
improve that building to make it as healthy as possible.
Now, somebody please explain to me that if we're not doing that,
we've got a problem. But if we are doing that, then whether in their
two months, six months or eight months, it seems to me that we've done
anything we can with that building, that any of us could live in that
building. You could move the commissioners over there and we'd live
in that building.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's an idea.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So I'm back to what Commissioner Norris is
saying, can we fast-track the design of the public works area for the
Sheriff so we move him here and keep him on campus? Can we take the
Page 106
February 9, 1999
50, 60,000 feet and move public works down there and instead that we
stay with our growth management or with our facilities management
plan?
Is there
you know, the
building down
them again.
MR. OCHS:
exactly that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, but the issues, here, can we
fast-track the redesign of the public works building to take the
Sheriff quickly if we can get this other building done in five months
and move public works?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner,
weeks, maybe six weeks. Depending
get for it. Again, it's temporary
facility is constructed, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And don't forget, a lot of this can be done
concurrently. I mean, you're not saying do one and then you start on
the other and then you start on the other.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The current plan that takes all the pieces
and the people who are adversely affected by being in A, we get them
out of these, if there's some temporary housing for them. And I
empathize with that. And the people who have spoken about that, I
really can empathize with that. And I don't want them in there. But
at the same time, I'm not sure if we've got a small percentage of
people to deal with we have to change the whole facility site plan to
accommodate that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We're back to our staff recommendation. Our
staff recommendation took into consideration the most immediate means
to get the most critically ill employees out of that building and
provide temporary space for them. It provides a competitive process
for us to ensure that we're getting the best approach.
It also provides a funding source, which is something that Mr.
Ochs mentioned but didn't dwell on, and that is the funding approach
utilizing an existing funding source to construct the building.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: with all due respect, that may be
where you are, but that's not -- I'm not back at staff recommendation.
I think your recommendation is a good one.
What I'd like to hear from the Sheriff's Department is what type
of changes would you have to see in that public works building?
Because if it's a matter of five months and two weeks, then we can
probably live with that if we can actually do it. But if it's a
matter of another three to four months, then we've got a problem.
So what kind of changes? Because it sounds as though some of
those can be done while public works is still actually up there. But
I don't know what it is we're looking for, for retrofit.
some way that we can work all these pieces? Because
other thing that bothers me a great deal, to build a
here, we've got to turn around and we've got to move
I believe that's what we're proposing, that we do
I believe we can. Probably four
how elaborate the Sheriff wants to
office space until its permanent
Page 107
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And keep in mind, though, that Mr. Arnold's
five months to start the dominoes falling doesn't start until we have
the public works' internal floor plan design. So -- okay?
MR. YOUNG: Is it D, Leo, is that the name of the building over
here?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where public works is?
MR. YOUNG: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: There's two facilities essentially that would be
available. All of building D, which is the one-story building next to
your snack bar area. Then the third floor of your health and human
services building, referred to as building H, out on the corner of
your campus.
MR. YOUNG: Okay, building D is made out of what I call modular
walls. They're all bolted together, you take them down and move them.
These could be moved around pretty easily. Then you have to worry
about the data lines, you have to check what you have and those things
and put them in.
The longest time to renovate, presuming that the
there now can't be used for our purposes, would be in
there. And quite frankly, I haven't looked at it. I
they have.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
offices that are
building Hover
don't know what
But it might not be terribly complicated to
get
MR. YOUNG: It might not be.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's what --
MR. YOUNG: I'd like to make one more proposal, after I sneaked
up here again.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you hang on, though, just a
second? I didn't get an answer to my question.
What are the things that you'd have to retrofit? I mean, are we
putting led in the walls, are we --
MR. YOUNG: No.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- putting computer lines in? What is
it we're doing?
MR. YOUNG: No, no, we don't do anything like that. We -- some
of our operations require big open areas, like where the detectives
work, and they're fitted with work stations. And you could fit those
in like building D over here just by taking down a lot of walls.
That's not the problem.
You could -- well, let me put it this way: You could remodel
these two buildings much, much quicker and at a portion of the price
than you could Luria's and this other outfit up there.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a good one. There you go.
MR. YOUNG: Could I mention one other thing?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
MR. YOUNG: If they could build a building or we can build a
building in 10 months, why don't we take the number one -- and we're
not going to take Mr. Arnold's building -- why don't we take the
number one recommendation off this space plan that says build the
Sheriff a two-story building and attach to building J?
Page 108
February 9, 1999
We've already hired the builder, it's Kraft Construction, we've
hired the design team, which is the V Group. We're going to build
permanent space and only move people once, why don't we build that
building?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because you'll have to stay in the building
you're in until that's done, and that will be about a year.
MR. YOUNG: Well, it's only going to be 10 months, though.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, bull.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, these people don't like that.
said it would be a couple extra months, they raised hell about
COMMISSIONER BERRY: They don't want it. They're shaking
heads.
CHAIRWOMAN
MR. OCHS:
CHAIRWOMAN
MR. OCHS:
different.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
a suggestion?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think I have
means adding a month to the process. If
redesign the interior of building D, and
third floor of building H, if you can do
you can have that redesign plan ready in
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then we have Mr. Arnold build his building.
Can we have the interior design for his building reconfigured for
public works within a month?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Ilschner?
MR. ARNOLD: If we have input from them, we can.
MR. OCHS: We can do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that means we have a six-month process
that would get public works permanent -- well, at least in Mr.
Arnold's building, with an RFP to come, on whether or not we purchase
that building. And in six months we have the building A people in
building D and the third floor of building H.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I've been trying to get across.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I like that idea.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is that possible?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move that suggestion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm going to second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to make a suggestion to add to your motion,
and that is, I can't recall when we've attempted to do a lease for
construction that is not in existence and property the county does not
own yet. So that being the case and your desire, I would suggest that
notwithstanding the consultant's report has not been discussed very
Page 109
When I
it.
their
MAC'KIE: And it's not going to be 10 months.
No, ma'am, it will not be 10 months for that building.
MAC'KIE: No, building J
I'm talking about design build project that's very
Would someone on the Board please make
one. That we spend -- it
our facilities people can
to the extent necessary the
that and have it ready -- if
a month. Can you do that?
Can you do that, Mr. Sheriff's Office?
February 9, 1999
much here, we've really largely been discussing the site and
management plan emergency, and I would like you to declare this a site
management plan emergency, because there may be other developers or
entrepreneurs out there that have not had the opportunity to provide a
site and a construction building to lease to us, so --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include that as part of my
motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Second amend.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Motion Maker, is to point out that
Mr. Arnold will receive financial penalties for being late?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Severe.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Severe.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Worse than financial penalties.
Who's the second on this motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It was me.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You'll agree to that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll agree to all those conditions.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. I had one other -- yes, darn it, I had
one other thing I was going to ask. I'm just trying to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Going once, going twice.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
(Recess. )
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, we're going to call the meeting back
to order. Moving right along. Almost done with the morning agenda.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We got all the easy things done now.
Passes 5-0.
We need a break.
Break 15 minutes.
Item #8E1
DISCUSSION REGARDING WATER RETENTION PONDS - SANTA BARBARA BLVD. PONDS
TO BE REDONE AS PILOT PROGRAM, INCORPORATE STANDARDS INTO EVERY NEW
ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, AND DEVELOP LDC LANGUAGE FOR WATER
RETENTION PONDS
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Item 8(E) (1), discussion regarding water
retention ponds. There was nothing on our agenda for backup on that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's me, Madam Chairwoman. I wanted to add
something positive on today's agenda, knowing what your meeting was
going to be like.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And that's what this presentation is all about.
I'm going to bring you some information about something that we're
pretty excited about.
Page 110
February 9, 1999
When I came to this community, I was originally struck by the
fact that there seemed to be a very high standard for design and
landscaping and maintenance throughout the community. It's kind of a
trademark of this community. However, I noticed that there was one
area where that didn't seem to be consistent, and that was in the area
of roadway water management systems.
What I have on the visualizer here is an example of a
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Turn it on. There you go.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. That's an example of a water management
system that we currently have along Santa Barbara. And as you can
see, it's not very attractive. I've got a couple other shots of the
same.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not very attractive would be an
understatement.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Is an understatement.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this where it makes the jog, I believe,
where it becomes -- yeah, it makes the jog around Green Boulevard.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right there around Green. Right there around
Green.
And I asked myself, is there something better that we can do with
this area and still accomplish our purpose. We put together some
cross functional -- a cross functional team, which means county staff
members from different departments that have gotten together. And they
have been waiting around all day today to be introduced. They're all
here except for John Boldt, I understand. But the team was comprised
John Boldt from Stormwater; Joe Dellett (phonetic) from the Parks
Department; Elizabeth Glennon from the Ag. Department, our
horticultural agent for the Ag. Department; and Bill Lorenz from
Natural Resources. Could I ask them to stand up and be recognized.
I'd like to express my appreciation to them for the excellent work
that they've done on this.
(Applause.)
MR. FERNANDEZ: What they've done is taken this situation and
come up with a plan. I have the schematic here on this wall of the
plan. It involves taking out the fences around the retention ponds
and planting some native species around the facility, so it has a much
more of a natural look.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why don't you put one on that visualizer, so
-- there you go. He's got it.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In this way, it looks more like the kind of pond
you'll encounter in nature, rather than the high maintenance, and
really the less appealing aesthetically facilities that we have.
Although we expect that the initial maintenance cost for these
will be a little higher initially, we think, in the long run, not only
will it be more aesthetically pleasing, but it will be less expensive
to maintain because it will be more of a natural system.
What I'd like to ask you to consider today are three
recommendations. First before I do that, one more part of my
presentation. They've also -- the group also took a look at some
other communities that have done this sort of thing, and this is --
Page 111
February 9, 1999
this is Sarasota County and what they've done with it. It's the same
kind of facility. And they've turned it into a real appealing -- a
real aesthetically pleasing facility.
As you see, it looks like a natural system, but it accomplishes
the same function as the ones that I showed you earlier that we have.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is this something that could be
incorporated, for example, in that pond across from Bears Paw on
Golden Gate behind the big, old, ugly fence right now?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, it could.
The recommendation, there are three of them, is that the existing
Santa Barbara Boulevard ponds be redone as a pilot program. We
estimate -- or the team estimates that the cost would be about $15,000
to do this. The money is available in reserves for stormwater, that's
Fund 325.
And the second is to incorporate these standards into every new
road construction project that Collier County undertakes. That way we
can have all of them look like this in the future.
The third is to go the next step and to develop a Land
Development Code language that would require the development of these
plans for water retention ponds alongside county collector and
arterial roadways.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: To retrofit what we presently have?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, and I also hear in the future
MR. FERNANDEZ: To require that for future development.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Retrofit and future.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But both?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know that we can require it for
retrofitting existing on projects.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, no.
MR. FERNANDEZ: On ours, we could.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: On ours we certainly will.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. We could incorporate that as a standard for
our projects. And we can go back and retrofit the ones that exist,
after we follow the pilot of the initial ones that we'll be doing on
Santa Barbara.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I love it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move that we do it.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let's do the pilot, let's do the other
ones, and let's make it a part of the Land Development Code.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate your recognizing it, Mr.
Fernandez, and coming up with a creative solution.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't sound like it's overly expensive
to do these while you're in the middle of a project.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, I think it's pretty cost effective for us to
use this approach in the future.
Also, we'll be writing up this concept for publishing and
government magazines so that others can learn from and benefit from
our experience in this area.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Be sure and copy the Naples Daily News.
Page 112
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: The only question I have is they were fenced
before. Was that -- the fencing done because of a health-safety
issue, or are we -- and are we going to run into any problems because
of children in the area and not having these areas fenced? In other
words, is this an attractive nuisance?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I know that was an issue that was raised
initially, and I know that is something that the group discussed. I
believe part of the solution has to do with the planting of a barrier,
a planted barrier, around the ponds. There may be someone from the
group who'd like to address that, if I didn't cover it completely.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But it really wouldn't be any different
perhaps than a canal kind of thing?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the planted barrier will probably do the
trick.
MR. DELLET: Joe Dellet (phonetic) for the record, from Parks and
Recreation Department.
We proposed as an asthenic thing to remove the fencing, realizing
that it is a risk management concern, but realizing also there's many
waterways around the county that aren't fenced.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, those canals are certainly --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, I understand. I just don't want us
getting into some difficulty. I like the idea. I think it looks
great, and it certainly does improve the appearance, so I'm supporting
it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we had a motion and a second,
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I did.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor,
please say aye.
Motion passes 4-0. Commissioner Constantine is absent.
Thank you. What a great job.
Item #8E2
PRESENTATION OF CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES & LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE
SUMMARY REPORTS - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND BRING BACK A
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES ORDINANCE
We're going to have now Item 8(E) (2), presentation on
correctional facilities and law enforcement impact fee summary
reports.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Correct. For the record, Michael Smykowski, OMB
director.
I would like to reintroduce Jane Fitzpatrick who is here from
Henderson, Young and Company who is the consultant authorized to
prepare these studies. Obviously we're trying to capitalize on the
fact that Ms. Fitzpatrick was in town for the parks study. So in an
effort to kill two birds with one stone, we have multiple impact fee
discussions on the same agenda.
Page 113
February 9, 1999
I'm just going to give a quick overview and then Ms. Fitzpatrick
will outline the recommendations of the draft reports. within the
corrections area, there's one specific area Miss Fitzpatrick will
focus on, in that the ultimate funding source for the jail would
potentially impact on the corrections impact fee, depending on what
the nature of that fee is. And she'll explain it. It involves the
credit portion of the impact fee component.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The cost of the credit will be a factor in
the cost of the fee. Okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. So that's one specific thing
I'd like her to focus on.
And the law enforcement impact fee summary reports, as outlined
in the executive summary, there's a level of service standard issue
that would impact the impact fee and the potential manpower surplus or
deficiency that would have to be made up prior to our being able to
spend those available impact fee dollars.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Fitzpatrick. The
sheriff's staff is here as well to address any questions or comments
in regard to the presentation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And just so we can be focused, what we're
going to want from us at the end of this presentation is what?
Guidance on?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: We're going to want guidance on the level of
service standard for law enforcement that would allow Henderson, Young
to finalize the impact fee calculations, and just for the board to
understand the implications on the corrections -- correctional
facilities impact fee of the funding source ultimately selected for
jail funding.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So in one case it's just informational, on
the other, you need some direction from us.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Just wanted to know my job.
MS. FITZPATRICK: For the record, I'm Jane Fitzpatrick from
Henderson, Young and Company. Good afternoon, again.
I'd like to start with the correctional facilities impact fee
analyses. I've prepared a summary report which consists of six tables
which summarize the draft work we've completed to date. And the
impact fees are based on the standard adopted or approved by the
county of 2.42 beds per 1,000 population.
The -- based on the standard, the county has an existing
deficiency of only six beds.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: How many?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Six.
And there's a need through the year 2005 for a total of 142,
including that six-bed deficiency.
In Table 2 of the -- on Page 3 of the summary report that I've
put together, you can see the cost components that have gone into the
impact fees. And these include the Naples Jail Center expansion, the
240-bed expansion, plus corrections administration space.
Page 114
February 9, 1999
We've also proportioned in portions of the chiller plant
expansion and the parking structure expansion in your campus on
capital improvements project.
We've also included the Immokalee Jail Center replacement and
expansion. That project includes the replacement of your current
172-bed facility, plus it provides for an additional 20 beds, for a
total of 192.
We've also included in here a work restitution center. This is a
new facility which was discussed during the feasibility study. So
what we've done is we've taken the costs for these three facilities,
isolated the non-impact fee costs, which is in Column 3 of Table 2.
The non-impact fee costs are the costs -- the replacement costs
of the Immokalee Jail expansion, the cost for the 172 beds. Those are
not eligible for impact fee expenses.
And we've also taken out the cost of the Naples Jail Center
expansion, which would address the existing deficiency.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It takes $500,000 to solve a six-bed
deficiency?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Based on the cost. That's prorating the cost
out of a 240-bed expansion at a cost of 20.7 million dollars, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 100 grand a bed?
MS. FITZPATRICK: It's about 86,000 a bed, is what you have
there.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's cheaper for education.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we just put them up at the Ritz?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Cheaper than building a room at the Ritz.
Okay. I was just shocked. Okay.
MS. FITZPATRICK: When you look at it that way, it looks a little
different.
Following that on Table 3, we're calculating the cost per
booking. Based on an average cost per jail bed, divided by the useful
life of a jail facility, which we are estimating at 40 years.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why do we care about that?
MS. FITZPATRICK: What we need to do is -- the ultimate
calculation we're trying to come up with here is a cost per booking.
So if we get an annual cost per jail bed and then divide it by the
annual bookings to the jail, we'll get the annual bookings per jail
bed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Like a hotel.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, it is.
MS. FITZPATRICK: The bottom of Table 3 is that the cost per
booking is $91.77.
The next step in calculating the fees is to identify the demand
by type of land use. Table 4 summarizes bookings by arresting agency
within Collier County for 1996. As you can see, the majority of the
bookings are generated by the Sheriff's Office. Naples Police
Department had a little over 13 percent of the bookings. And then
other agencies comprised the rest.
Page 115
February 9, 1999
We then took those bookings, the 13,298 bookings, and assigned
them to a land use, based on an analyses of the Sheriff's records of
the incident which generated the arrest, which generated the booking.
Where the incident took place, which generated -- which the incident
occurred, which resulted in a booking in the jail.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you looked at several years' data or
something to see where these arrests took place?
MS. FITZPATRICK: We looked at 100 percent of the 1996 data.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: '96?
MS. FITZPATRICK: '96 data. That was --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So if I wanted to know where the 13,298
arrests took place, that's that Column 2, right there.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Column 2, yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Interesting.
MS. FITZPATRICK: We divided each of those arrests or bookings by
either the number of dwelling units for 1996 or the square feet of
structures per type of land use that were on the ground during 1996,
to come up with an annual booking rate for each type of land use.
And then in Column 5, we multiplied those times the $91.77 per
booking, to come up with a cost per dwelling unit or nonresidential
square foot.
The final table in Table 6 repeats those annual costs per
dwelling unit and nonresidential square foot. We've multiplied that by
the economic life of that development, paying that impact fee. And we
used this -- we based this on IRS guidelines -- this is consistent
with what we had done for your EMS impact fees -- to come up with a
total correctional cost, the total impact for a dwelling unit or a
square foot of nonresidential development.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that economic life is years?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In mobile homes, the same as a
single-family?
MS. FITZPATRICK: We just took the residential IRS guideline
for residential.
So Column 4 shows the proposed impact fee rate for correctional
facilities. There's no credit calculation included in this impact fee
at this point in time, because no specific funding plan has been
identified to pay for the correctional facilities.
And I know you have been discussing some options. There is an
existing deficiency cost. Turning back to Table 2, Column 3, there's
five million dollars that we've taken off the table as being
ineligible for impact fees. The county would have to come up with
another revenue source to pay for that, for those fees. And then any
other revenues which the county would identify as a funding source for
these correctional projects would impact the final impact fee.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In other words, it's going to actually be
higher than what we see in Column 4, Table 6. And the amount higher
it would be depends on how much interest we're paying to carry the
cost of the borrowing?
Page 116
February 9, 1999
MS. FITZPATRICK: If you were to -- yes, if you had
obligation bond -- well, if you had a general obligation
for a portion of the correctional impact fees, maybe not
there would be -- first of all, you would do two things:
the cost of the bonding to the cost of the fees.
But on the other end, at the tail end of the calculations, if it
were property tax that you were bonding, there would be a credit
calculation for each development, based on their contribution over the
27 and a half years or 31 and a half years for their contribution to
the tax revenue, which pays the general obligation bond.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You'd net it out. Okay.
MS. FITZPATRICK: You'd net it out. At that present value, it
would be a one-time adjustment.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But if, for example, we financed it with the
sales tax, then we would have the cost -- if we bonded a sales tax,
we'd have the cost of borrowing the sales tax, but we wouldn't have
that credit on the other end.
MS. FITZPATRICK: And rather than have a credit at the end of the
calculation, you would take the dollar amount that you're funding with
the sales tax and take it right off the top of the cost. So the
impact fees would be based on whatever is not funded.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: okay. I think I get that.
MS. FITZPATRICK: The difference is an infrastructure sales tax
or sales tax is what I would call a non-allocable revenue. You can't
specifically say that so much of it's coming from a certain type of
development. So you just take that cost off the top and reduce the
impact fee related costs.
A property tax is something you can directly allocate to a type
of development, and you can calculate a credit per type of residential
and nonresidential development.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because of the way it's assessed?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
board members?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Could you outline for the board what would happen
-- let's say they adopted this impact fee after a public hearing,
according to the table on Page 11, you know, $148.78, and then a year
from now let's say the jail were funded with infrastructure sales tax.
Would that -- would we be in a refund situation? Would we --
MS. FITZPATRICK: Okay. If the board wanted to go ahead and
adopt the impact fees, knowing that you were going to probably come up
with a finance plan in the next six months or in the near future,
which would ultimately result in a reduced impact fee, what you could
do is adopt a discounted impact fee at this point, until such time as
you finalized a finance plan.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Why would we even consider funding the jail
with a -- I think I know the answer, but I'll finish it. Why would we
-- how would we consider funding the jail with a sales tax if an
impact fee is available to fund all but five million dollars of the
a general
bond to pay
all of it,
You can add
Questions on that particular aspect,
Page 117
February 9, 1999
giant problem we've got, and if the cost of that is 150 bucks a house?
It seems to me that's preferable to a sales tax.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But then we get back to the impact fees.
This is only one. Remember, we just dealt with the parks one. Now,
we've got -- we're mounting these up now. When we get all done, I'd
like to see on everything that we've adopted how much we have added in
total impact fees.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In response to your question, the other issue is
long-term, if you bonded for 20 or 30 years financing costs of the
jail, your primary pledge would be impact fees, which are not the most
desirable in the financial market.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And not reliable.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: What we may collect in year "X" in a base year
five years -- three to five years out, you may not collect, but it's
anyone's guess what they would be 30 years from now. Obviously, as
you get closer and closer to build-out, those would dwindle over time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it would be hard to place a bond issue
pledging law enforcement impact fees for jail construction.
MR. FERNANDEZ: You need a supplemental pledge.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I see.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the other thing is, too, of course, is
that the tourists participate in the use of our jails from time to
time, so if we had a sales tax, they would also be allowed to
participate in the funding of that jail.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: As opposed to merely our property owners.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Exactly.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Other questions on this aspect, or
shall we go to law enforcement?
Law enforcement.
MS. FITZPATRICK: What Mike is passing out is a revision to Table
8 of the law enforcement summary. This was due to human error, not
technical error. I take full responsibility for this. I copied the
wrong column when I made this table up.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, good, she's human.
MS. FITZPATRICK: And I'll explain it to you when I get to that
table.
For the law enforcement impact fees, you have a series of eight
tables which summarizes work that we have completed to date for a
draft of the law enforcement impact fee rate study.
The fee calculations are based on the Sheriff's recommended level
of service standards for road patrol and criminal investigations.
Those are the two operating components that we've included in the
impact fee.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I've got a question right there. I must be
confused, because I've been trying to get a level of service out of
the Sheriff for road patrol ever since we talked about the Marco
Island issue, and the City of Naples has wanted to know what is the
level of service for road patrol. So you're telling me there is one
after all?
Page 118
February 9, 1999
MS. FITZPATRICK: What we have done is completed a manpower
analyses. It's a 1988 manpower analyses, which is actually an updated
one that Henderson, Young and Company had done in conjunction with the
Sheriff's Office in 1992 when we first discussed law enforcement
impact fees.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the answer, Mr. Fernandez, is there has
been a level of service standard for law enforcement impacts all
along?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the answer is there has been one that
there's more than one. There's one in theory based upon the
information he has submitted to the firm doing the analysis, and
there's one that reflects -- that is reflected in the budget that the
board has adopted.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And how do the two compare, just generally?
The one in the budget is much higher or much lower than this level of
service we're using for the impact fee?
MR. FERNANDEZ: The level of service is lower in the budget than
the one proposed by the Sheriff.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In other words, we're budgeting much less
than what we would be budgeting for the Sheriff if we use this level
of service.
MR. FERNANDEZ: His proposed level of service, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And if I understand this correctly, all the
numbers are coming from the Sheriff for this study.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes, that's correct. We've -- we've used the
Sheriff's data, data base, to come up with average times per call per
service, manpower availability, net hours available per officer, and
the forecast that calls for service, the work load forecast.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm glad to look at, and I want to look at
an impact fee for law enforcement. But I don't want to get into some,
you know, Clinton-esque, it depends on what your definition of "is" is
and stuff and say that this is the level of service for this purpose,
but it's not the level of service for budgeting. Just feels like a
real risky place to be going here. I don't want to later tell the
Sheriff, we were just kidding before about the level of service.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question here on process.
We're just getting a little report here, and if we're going to go
forward with this, we've got to schedule public hearings and go
through this allover again twice, right? Why don't we try to decide
whether we're going to do that or not.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: When I asked him today what's our job, they
said it's informational on corrections, but that they wanted us to
adopt a level of service on law enforcement. They wanted us to --
that's what they told us they wanted from us as they started.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And the reason for that, Madam Chairwoman, if I
may, is that today, hopefully with the presentation, you'll be able to
see the cost implications of adopting various levels of service
options that you may have.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And you'll keep us apprised of what the
budget implications are of those?
Page 119
February 9, 1999
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. That will be very clear, I believe, when
this presentation is completed. There's operating budget
implications.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got to be.
MS. FITZPATRICK: I think I'd like to begin by -- with Table 2,
on Page 4 of my report. Once we completed the 1998 manpower analysis
study, which was the basis for going ahead and calculating the impact
fees, there was a meeting with the Sheriff's Office and the county
administrator -- I'm not sure if you were involved at that time -- and
Randy Young of my firm. And it was decided that we should survey
other comparable agencies, just to see where we were in the ballpark.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Excuse me, we're on Page 13. Ms. Fitzpatrick is
referring to the pagination from her report as opposed to the
executive summary page.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I thought she said Page 15, Table 2.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 15-2 is where I am.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, though.
MS. FITZPATRICK: In this table, there are five scenarios for
level of service standards for road patrol. At this point, I'm just
talking about road patrol.
Column 3 shows where the sheriff is today, or was at the end of
1998 as a workload. Each officer handles 1,511 calls for service per
year. That's where they are today.
Column 4 shows the standard that we came up for originally in the
1992 manpower analyses, and that was less, at 1,146.
The next column, Column 5, is the standard that I've based the
impact fee calculations on. This is an update of the 1992 study. And
with changes in policy and other state requirements for responding to
calls for service, the workload is 1,315 calls for service.
Now, the last two columns show some of the survey results.
Column 6 shows the average. And the average workload per officer of
the agencies surveyed was 565 calls for service per year.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: About a third of what our officers are
doing.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Correct.
Column 7 shows the highest workload reported in the survey, and
that was just under 1,200.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Again, significantly less than what our
officers are doing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We got efficiency.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: By God, they're good.
MS. FITZPATRICK: And what we've highlighted in this table as --
this table shows a forecast of -- it's an accumulative forecast of
officers needed to maintain each of those workload ratios through the
year 2006. So, for instance, in the year 2000, for the Sheriff to
keep doing what he was doing in 1998, he would need 25 additional
officers over the 1998 authorized strength.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's where, Mr. Fernandez, you would
tell us to expect to see in his budget an increase for 25 officers if
Page 120
February 9, 1999
he continues to have them work at three times the average rate of the
surveyed communities.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Correct.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Again, going across the table, I'll go right
over to Column 5, which is what this impact fee calculation is based
on. That cumulative need increases to 58.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So based on what you think they should be
able to do, he's 58 officers short in 2000?
MS. FITZPATRICK: That's correct, based on the results of the
manpower analyses.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, go down to the year 2006.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And the implication is if you adopted that level
of service standard, you're committing, in essence, to add those
positions to the operating budget in theory before you should be
spending the impact fee. That is the existing deficiency you would
have to make up.
(Commissioner Constantine enters the boardroom.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And even if we adopt the current workload as
a level of service, we're acknowledging 25 officers short in the year
2000, and 102 officers short in the year 2006. Even if we adopt less
than -- a higher workload than you recommend.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Correct. Just to keep them where they are.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: But you've got to do this before you can
ever use the impact fee.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I want to be clear, that is not necessarily the
standard Henderson, Young is recommending. That was based on, I
believe, the results of the Sheriff's manpower analysis. And she just
used that as a framework to make the impact fee calculations.
Henderson, Young is not recommending an individual level of service.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How much money do we anticipate that this
impact fee would bring in annually? Where do I find that?
MS. FITZPATRICK: Well, for law enforcements, this would be a
combination of road patrol and criminal investigations. I have a
revenue forecast based on single-family, the single-family rate. I
don't have data available, nor do I think the county does to do a
forecast of the nonresidential revenue.
But assuming all new development is single-family, that would
average it out a little bit more. Based on the 1998 manpower study,
which is what the impact fee rates you're looking at in this study are
based on, it's about 6 million dollars for a six-year period, through
the year 2004.
Based on their current workload, what they're doing today, if you
were to maintain that, that would be no -- that would be 4.3 million
dollars.
If you were to go with the survey average, it would be just under
10 million dollars in revenue.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we could raise a lot of money if we bite
this level of service bullet. I mean, 10 million dollars is a lot of
money.
Page 121
February 9, 1999
MS. FITZPATRICK: But that also
officers by the year 2000. That was
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Figure out
MS. FITZPATRICK: the lowest
highest level of service.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
to his total budget.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the law enforcement impact fee is
similar to other impact fees, in that it can only be spent on capital?
MS. FITZPATRICK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can't be spent on operations?
MS. FITZPATRICK: And for law enforcement, the operating side of
it is high compared to, you know, the -- it's not as capital intensive
as another type of facility.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The impact fee essentially would buy your --
outfitting your vehicle for the most part per officer, but you're
absorbing the cost of over $50,000 per officer in the operating
budget.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For example, I mean, just to get us a
baseline here, what did we spend on law enforcement capital in this
budget year?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Not much.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Law enforcement, in expanded -- the expanded
associated with those new positions was $403,300.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Capital?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Capital.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE:
position, not overall.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: And personal
rounding, you're looking at about
paying more on the operating side
for on the capital side.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm probably going to regret saying this,
but I'm going to say it anyway, and that is, although -- I so
seriously question what the Sheriff chooses to fund for officers.
They buy their own guns. They buy their own bullets. He doesn't
supply them with bullets, did you know that?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They don't get used a lot.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They don't get bullets.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, considering that this would be
another cumulative burden on new home builders, echoed, I think, by
Commissioner Berry and her concerns on getting the cumulative up too
much, I'm going to have probably a hard time supporting the law
enforcement side of this impact fee.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am, too. But I have a question on
the total cost per type of land use. And I'm just -- is this the
actual --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, got a replacement.
Page 122
shows a need for 393 more
the survey that we --
what your budget is going
workload in the surveyor
to be.
the
It's a lot of money, but not in proportion
In association with the expanded
service in operating, you're just
$550,000. So the board would be
than the impact fee would be paying
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, this one?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is just a cost, this isn't
actually what we're looking to charge for a single family, or is it?
MS. FITZPATRICK: This handout?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah.
MS. FITZPATRICK: That is the estimated impact fee in Column 6.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then that leads me to the question,
why if I own a mobile home and my wife and me and two kids are there,
it's 29 bucks, and if I build a 1,200, 1,500 square foot house and my
wife and two kids live there --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You have kids?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I pay 10 times -- no, it's just an
imaginary situation.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Why is it 10 times?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then it's 10 times as much.
MS. FITZPATRICK: This is the way the numbers fell out. When we
did the analyses of where the calls for service went to, who called
for call for service, and the incident rate was much higher at a
single-family home than at a mobile home.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But I mean, when we do -- by
that theory, when we do our other impact fees, we don't look at who
generates more traffic. Every home has roughly the same -- certainly
not 10 times the factor, roughly the same cost regardless of the size
of the home or the type of the home. We do difference between
multi-family and single-family. But it's just a dramatic difference.
It seems unusually high.
I appreciate the fact, and I probably could have
that's the way the numbers fell out. I'm asking why.
as a single-family living in a mobile home generates,
one-tenth the need?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can I just -- because you look at --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just get an answer to that?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Table 4 has that data, but it doesn't explain
Imaginary life. Hypothetical situation.
figured out that
How is it that
in your opinion,
why.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And Table 5.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I have the data, I just don't
follow it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're telling me the actual number of
bookings in 1998 -- '6 was --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: six.
MS. FITZPATRICK: We're talking about calls for service in 1996.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But how many mobile homes are there?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Per capita.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm looking at per capita.
There are considerably fewer mobile homes. So percentage-wise, are
they generating one-tenth?
MS. FITZPATRICK: If you look at Table 4.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is on?
Page 123
February 9, 1999
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Page 19.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Column 2 shows the distribution of the 270,000
calls for service that we analyzed. And you can see there that for
single-family, over 78,000 of those were single-family compared to
just under 3,200 as to mobile homes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, but how many mobile homes are
there in the county?
MS. FITZPATRICK: In the next column, we've got the number of
mobile homes and the single-family dwelling units, and this was for
the same time period, 1996.
So what we did in Column 4 is to calculate the annual demand for
each type of land use as we divided the number of calls for service to
single-family by the number of dwelling units and came up with the
1 . 8 .
And the same thing for mobile home, divided the 3,170 calls for
service to mobile homes by the 11,000 mobile homes and came up with a
much lower demand rate of .2825.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But then shouldn't there be some
proportional, some per capita -- I don't know how to do the math. But
shouldn't there be some -- the ratio of calls for service versus the
per capita number of mobile homes as compared to the per capita number
of single-family dwellings? Shouldn't there be some analysis of the
proportionality of those, of the number of mobile homes? In other
words, you can't just say that there's a whole lot less crime at
mobile homes in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why do we single out mobile homes? I
understand there is a difference between multi-family and
single-family. But if I live in a 8,000 square foot palace or live in
a 2,000 square foot family home or a 900 square foot mobile home, I
could still be the same family.
MS. FITZPATRICK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I don't follow the logic there at
all. It says or square feet. And I'm positive we don't use square
feet in our other impact fee.
MS. FITZPATRICK: Square feet is used for the nonresidential
numbers down below. And that is consistent with the EMS impact fee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've explained that. I didn't
understand nonresidential.
But I'm not comfortable singling out, and if you happen to live
in a mobile home, getting that much of a break. I think if you are
by using the logic we use in transportation and using all our other
impact fees, that you have an impact if you come here. And if you
come here and happen to go into a mobile home or come here and happen
to go into a small home, medium home, giant home, you know, by this
logic, we should probably say, well, the giant homes that are in
Collier's Reserve generate far less calls than the mid-sized ones in
Golden Gate or Naples Manor or somewhere else and where you have a --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You know that's not true.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't want to start breaking it down
that way. I'm not comfortable doing that. And I think you are
Page 124
February 9, 1999
penalizing some people unfairly there and you're rewarding others
without any real rationale other than a one-year history for some
smaller numbers.
MS. FITZPATRICK: We can collapse those. I mean, we can -- you
can have whichever categories you desire on those.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it sounds like there's probably not
going to be support for going forward on a law enforcement impact fee,
period. But for my vote, if we were going to go forward on law
enforcement impact fee, it seems like -- well, I would need you to
tell me that this is the only methodology we're allowed to use, as
opposed to instead of using square foot of homes or -- I'm sorry,
instead of using single, multi, mobile home, maybe this is a case
where more expensive and less expensive homes and larger homes and
smaller homes can be factored in. Maybe--
MS. FITZPATRICK: If you're talking about just collapsing it into
a residential rate, I mean, that's very doable. If you're talking
about categorizing based on values of homes, you're talking a tax, not
an impact fee.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: I could fairly readily come up with some sort of
blended residential rate that would be one uniform as opposed to three
separate categories.
MS. FITZPATRICK: I could do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Before we go further on this, why don't we
just see if there's interest by three members of the board to pursue a
law enforcement impact fee. And then we can talk about whether -- how
we would want to --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My vote would be no.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two noes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's three noes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Four noes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Four noes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's probably five noes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How about The Shadow knows.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Corrections is different.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Corrections is different. I do want to go
forward with the corrections impact fee.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Got one more yes out there?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a table to refer to?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we direct our staff
to come back with an ordinance at the public hearing on the
corrections impact fee.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That motion obviously would be to authorize the
county attorney to prepare said ordinance.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Obviously. Inclusive.
Page 125
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can -- just going with the same
question we raised before, if we pursue that correction impact fee,
can we collapse those residential units in one? Because I think it
just makes it far more affordable for everyone.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the staff should bring back a
sample of that at our hearing, and we could go through it at that time
as well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, real, real quickly, if it collapses,
it's about $152 a unit versus the widespread, if you just took all
three of these and averaged it, if my math is right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Somewhere in that ballpark.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, somewhere in that ballpark.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And this one would probably be 94
bucks or something. I'm doing the math in my head, but --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a detail we could hash out at the
public hearing, but I think that's fine.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we had a motion and a second.
Do we have public speakers?
Do we have a second? I thought Commissioner Carter seconded the
motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was an audio illusion.
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we have no public speakers.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have no public speakers, but we have
Crystal waving at us. We'll be glad to hear from Crystal. I just beg
you to make it quick, because I'm getting brain-dead.
MS. KENZEL: I certainly will, because I sound like Minnie Mouse
today, so I apologize.
The Sheriff was unable to come.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who are you?
MR. KENZEL: Crystal Kenzel, Finance Director for the Sheriff's
Office.
And for the record, I think the Sheriff just wanted to thank the
Commission. I get to come over on a positive on this side. This is
great. We want to thank the Commission for bringing forward these
studies. We want to keep open the discussions, and we realize while
it may not be practical on the law enforcement impact fee because of
the operational costs, that we can use this information as we progress
through the budget process and try to look at the deficiencies that
are in the Sheriff's Office.
And maybe work -- obviously, we don't want to come back and ask
you for 300-plus deputies. But I think that over the course of the
next growth years, we would like to be able to work with board staff
and the impact fee consultant on this manpower formula, massage it,
fine tune it, and come up with a way that we can work from point A to
point B to make sure that the citizens of Collier County are well
protected.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's time to, if he's going to go down that
road, though, to be paying attention to what's the level of service
going to be for incorporated versus unincorporated areas, because the
Page 126
February 9, 1999
City of Naples is only going to want pay for the level of service for
incorporated areas.
MS. KENZEL: I'm sure that will come up in the budget policy
discussions where we're heading with municipalities, but thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you been hanging out in Building A?
MS. KENZEL: No, I actually work at J. But they made fun of me
all day, so I said I sound like Minnie Mouse coming up here.
But it was positive, so I wanted to take the risk. Because I'm
always up here asking for money, so I thought I'd come forward and
give you some appreciation from the Sheriff's Office.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. A motion and a second. All in favor,
please say aye.
Motion passes unanimously.
Item #9A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD APPROVE A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,000.00 FOR THE LAWSUIT STYLED ROBERT P. RICHMAN
V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 97-419-CIV-FTM-18D, NOW PENDING IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA -
APPROVED
The next item on our agenda, 9(A). It's a recommendation that we
settled this Richman case. We've heard this before and said no, and
-- but today we're going to hear something new.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Pettit will address it.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
Assistant County Attorney from the County Attorney's Office.
We're bringing this settlement proposal back to you. It's
different than what we brought in before for a couple reasons. First,
we now have a firm offer from Mr. Richman to settle this case for
$28,000.
The last time we were here, he had reduced his demand from
265,000 odd dollars to 33,500. We were recommending that we settle
for 28,000, approximately 600 dollars. So there is a difference now.
He's actually come below our last recommendation.
On the other hand, since we've been here, the court, we've
received a notice that this case has been transferred to an Orlando
federal judge, and I think this arises from the fact --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Has everybody -- pardon me, but has
everybody on the board already been briefed on this? Because I know
that I have.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there any questions for Mr. Pettit or is
anybody ready to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I would move for the proposed settlement.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and second. All in favor, please say
aye.
Page 127
Passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Page 128
February 9, 1999
FEB 0 9 1999
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE
This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ("Agreement and Release") is entered
a'-f\l r-- '\ L
into and made on this --1...:- day of '\-f)...uAJCLV\ 1-' 1999 by and between Robert P.
Richman ("Richman") on the one hand and Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, Michael McNees, Jerre Salmon, Jim Hehl, Leo Ochs, Skip Camp and George Gulley
(hereafter collectively referred to as the "County") on the other hand with respect to Case No. 97-
419-CIV -FfM-18D, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, as
well as all claims or controversies between Richman and the County or its elected officials,
officers, employees, former employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, predecessors,
successors, insurers, sureties or assigns that could have been asserted in that case or that in any
way relate to or arise directly or indirectly from Richman's employment, termination of
employment or applications for employment with the County through the date of execution of
this Agreement and Release.
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, Richman filed an action against the County in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, and that action was styled Robert P. Richman v. Collier
County. a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Michael McNees, Jerre Salmon, Jim Hehl,
Leo Ochs, Skip Camp and George Gulley, Case No. 97-419-CIV-FTM-18D (hereafter referred to
as the "Lawsuit");
WHEREAS, Richman alleged various claims against the County in the Lawsuit;
WHEREAS, Richman and the County, without admitting any liability or fault by either of
them, nevertheless recognize the cost and uncertainties of litigation and now desire to fully and
finally resolve any and all claims, known or unknown, asserted or that could have been asserted
by Richman in the Lawsuit, including but not limited to all claims for compensatory damages and
attorney's fees and costs, and also desire to resolve fully and finally any and all claims, whether
known or unknown, that relate in any way to or arise directly or indir.ectly from Richman's
employment, termination of employment or applications for employment with the County
through the date of the execution of this Agreement and Release;
1
FEB 0 9 1999
WHEREAS, Richman and the County desire to reduce their compromise of the Lawsuit
and all claims that could have been asserted in the Lawsuit or that relate in any way to or arise
directly or indirectly from Richman's employment, termination of employment or applications for
employment with the County through the date of the execution of this Agreement and Release to
a writing so that it may be binding upon Richman and the County and their respective
predecessors, successors, heirs, assigns, employees, former employees, elected officials, officers,
agents, representatives, attorneys, insurers, sureties;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and
considerations set forth in this Agreement and Release, the sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, and with the intent to be legally bound, Richman and the County mutually agree
to the following:
1. Richman and the County agree to adopt and incorporate the foregoing recitals,
sometimes referred to as "Whereas clauses", by reference into this Agreement and Release.
2. The County agrees to pay the sum of Twenty-Eight Thousand and No Hundred
Dollars ($28,000.00) in full satisfaction of all claims Richman has made or could have made in
the Lawsuit or that relate in any way to or arise directly or indirectly from Richman's
employment, termination of employment or applications for employment with the County
through the date of execution of this Agreement and Release. The County and Richman further
agree that payment of the $28,000.00 shall be allocated and made as follows:
(a) Payment of Twenty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($24,500.00)
shall be by check payable to Robert P. Richman in full satisfaction of his claims
for attorney's fees, costs and compensatory damages.
(b) Payment of Thirty-Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($3,500.00)
shall be by check payable to Toni Home, Esq. in full satisfaction of her attorney's
lien filed with respect to the Lawsuit and all related matters, including without
limitation any claims Ms. Horne has or may have against Richman for attorney's
fees or costs.
The County and Richman also agree that no portion of the $28,000.00 in settlement
proceeds includes or is intended to include payment for backpay or frontpay.
2
FEB 0 9 1999
3. The payment to Richman referred to in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement and
Release includes all amounts allegedly due to Richman from the County for any reason
whatsoever including, but not limited to compensatory damages, costs, taxes, expenses,
attorney's fees and equitable relief that Richman has claimed or could have claimed in the
Lawsuit or that relate in any way to or arise directly or indirectly from Richman's employment,
termination of employment or applications for employment with the County.
4. In further consideration of the mutual covenants, promises and considerations set
forth in this Agreement and Release, the County also agrees to allow Mr. Richman to place a
typed or hand written statement in both his Human Resources personnel file and Department
personnel file.
5. Richman represents and warrants to the County that he has not filed any other
charge, lawsuit, claim or any other action against the County or any entity or natural person that
is or has been associated with, controlled by or under common control with/of the County.
6. Except for any claim to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
Release, Richman, on behalf of himself and any and all heirs, executors, administrators, legal
representatives, attorneys and assigns, shall and hereby does fully and finally unconditionally,
release, acquit, remise, satisfy and forever discharge the County, its elected officials, officers,
employees, former employees, attorneys, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors,
insurers, sureties and assigns from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or causes of
action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, attorney's fees, costs, covenants,
charges, damages, frontpay or backpay, obligations, liabilities, contracts, promises, judgments,
executions, claims, or complaints, whether legal or equitable and whether known or unknown,
which Richman asserted in the Lawsuit, had, or now has or may have against the County, its
elected officials, officers, employees, former employees, attorneys, agents, representatives,
predecessors, successors, insurers, sureties and assigns, whether known or unknown, arising out
of or relating in any way to the claims or allegations in the Lawsuit, or that could have been made
in the Lawsuit or that refer or relate in any way to or arise directly or indirectly from Richman's
employment, termination of employment or applications for employment with the County, up to
and including the date of execution of this Agreement and Release, includIng but not limited to,
claims in any way pertaining to a claim of discrimination or retaliation pursuant to Title vn of
3
FEB 0 9 1999
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, the Florida Civil Rights Act, the U. S. Constitution, the Florida
Constitution, or under any other federal, state or local statute or act, ordinance, regulation
custom, rule, or policy, or any cause of action in contract or tort, including any intentional tort, or
any instruments, agreements or documents entered into by, between, or among the County and
Richman.
7. Richman also agrees to indemnify, defend and to hold the County harmless
against any tax liability, including but not limited to income tax, social security tax, penalties and
interest, in the event that it is ever determined that the payment made by the County constitutes
taxable income to Richman. In this latter regard, Richman acknowledges and agrees upon advice
from his counsel that any tax liabilities including but not limited to income tax, social security
tax, penalties and interest associated with the payment of any monies to Richman under this
settlement are solely his responsibility.
8. Except for any claim to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
Release, including without limitation any claims for indemnification under Paragraph 8 of this
Agreement and Release, the County shall and hereby does fully and finally remise, release,
acquit, satisfy and forever discharge Richman, his attorneys, agents, successors, insurers,
sureties, predecessors, heirs and assigns from any and all manner of action or actions, cause or
causes of action, suits, debts, dues, sums of money, accounts, reckonings, covenants, attorney's
fees, costs, contracts, promises, damages, judgments, executions, claims or demands whatsoever,
whether at law or in equity and whether known or unknown, which the County had or now has
against Richman arising directly or indirectly out of or relating in any way to Richman's
employment, termination of employment or applications for employment with the County or any
claim or allegation that Richman has asserted or could have asserted in the Lawsuit up to and
including the date of the execution of this Agreement and Release.
9. Richman and his attorney and the County and its attorneys agree to waive the right
to seek payment of their respective attorney's fees or costs incurred in the Lawsuit beyond any
payment referred to in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement and Release.
4
FEB 0 9 1999
10. Richman represents and warrants to the County that he is authorized to enter into
and that he has the authority to perform the terms of this Agreement and Release and that he has
not sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or otherwise disposed of all or any portion of the claims
he has released and discharged in this Agreement and Release.
11. This Agreement and Release is the result of a compromise of disputed claims and
it is understood that the execution and performance of this Agreement and Release by the
County does not constitute, nor shall it be construed as, an admission that it has violated any
common law, statute, rule, regulation or ordinance of either the United States or the State of
Florida or breached any duty owed to Richman under federal, state or local law, policy or
practice, with respect to Richman's employment, or in any other matter, or that any of Richman's
claims have any merit whatsoever. The County explicitly denies any such wrongdoing.
12. This Agreement and Release shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida.
13. This Agreement and Release is freely and voluntarily executed by Richman and
the County after they have been apprised of all relevant information concerning this Agreement
and Release and after they have received advice of their respective counsel. In executing this
Agreement and Release, Richman and the County do not rely on any inducements, promises,
representations other than the promises and representations set forth in this Agreement and
Release. In this regard, Richman and the County acknowledge that this Agreement and Release
is the product of mutual negotiation and no doubtful or ambiguous provision in this Agreement
and Release is to be construed against any party based upon a claim that the party drafted or was
intended to benefit from the ambiguous language.
14. This Agreement and Release may be amended only by a written instrument
specifically referring to this Agreement and Release and executed with the same formalities as
this Agreement and Release.
15. Should any provision of this Agreement and Release be declared or be determined
by any Court to be illegal or invalid, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, provisions, shall
not be affected thereby and such an illegal or invalid part, term or provision shall be deemed not
to be part of this Agreement and Release.
16. In the event of an alleged breach of this Agreement and Release, Richman and the
County hereby agree that all underlying causes of action or claims of Richman and the County
5
FEB 0 9 1999
have been extinguished by this Agreement and Release and that the sole remedy for breach of
this Agreement and Release shall be for specific performance of its express terms and conditions.
In this regard, Richman and the County further agree that the sole venues for any such action
shall be the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida in Naples, Florida or the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
17. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement and Release supersedes and replaces
all prior agreements and understandings and that it constitutes the entire agreement between
Richman and the County and that there exist no other agreements, oral or written, between them
relating to any matters covered by this Agreement and Release or any other matter whatsoever.
18. This Agreement and Release may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute on and the
same instrument.
19. Except as expressly provided for herein, Richman and the County represent and
warrant that in executing this Agreement and Release, they do not rely upon and have not relied
upon any oral or written representation, promise, warranty or understanding made by any of the
parties or their representatives with regard to the subject matter, basis or effect of this Agreement
and Release.
20. Richman and the County acknowledge and assume the risk that facts, additional
and different or contrary to the facts which they believe to exist, may now exist or may be
discovered after this Agreement and Release has been entered, and the parties agree that any such
additional, different or contrary facts shall in no way limit, waive, affect or alter this Agreement
and Release.
21. The County agrees that, consistent with the Florida Public Records Law, it shall
store all records concerning Richman (other than his personnel files as maintained in the
County's Human Resources and Facilities Management Departments) with the litigation files in
the Lawsuit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Richman and the County having executed this Agreement
and Release, which consists of 13 pages, on the dates set forth below next to their respective
signatures and as sworn to and acknowledged by Employee.
6
FEB 0 9 1999
DATED:
ATTEST: _
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
I/".~,;#'~tt~.{')~'>::.;,' ~
/./'~' ~~'O 1> e
t r, '':',,,;'f;r' LI, . ·
,:\'" ',' . Attest'lftf,f'Ch&1run's
':.,< ' " ", t,{$.1911a~~~lJ.
":;,,!,:~~J';.:.)f~ :/,~,>'
~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, Chairwoman
By:
Date: 0[- 9 - Cj~
Date:
7- /?50 I
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
Robert P. Richman before me this 13TJ" day of ~u..f ,2001.
JJ,iJuo ~
Signature of Notary Public
Personally Known
or
Produced Identification ~
VG""MIG All"" ~rr<tJIJ6
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Please print, type or stamp)
FL.O.L. Ff( '-rr- "J?S. 5"R'-/7;;J.-Q
Type of Identification Produced
My Commission expires:
CD', Debbie ArmIlroD<<
.~~~l~
~"",Co., ...
7
FEB 0 9 1999
Date:
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
George Gulley before me this :l ~ C!!? day of ! ~, , 200 1.
~A~....v ~ filL;,
Signature of Notary ubhc
Personally Known ~
or
Produced Identification
~I/(C./IW ? ~t-t-I
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Please print, type or stamp)
JJIII
t
Type of Identification Produced
My Commission expires: P f" Jl / "ZPtJ)
MARIAN R. COlLI
NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF flORIDA
COMMISSION" D001382ll
EXPIRES Bl8l2003
BONDED THRU , .888-NOTARY1
8
FEB 0 9 1999
~-/~)
JER W. SALMON
Date: 7.../1 &/
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
Jerre W. Salmon before me this Jf)<U/- day of /4 ,2001.
~~A0 f !AU
Signa ure of Notary ublic
Personally Known X-
or
Produced Identification
JviM-1 Nol f{. &,;t- L I
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Please print, type or stamp)
My Commission expires: ()~J / ~ 3
MARIAN R. COLLI
NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF
COMMISSION II OOOI~~OR.'OA
EXPIRES 81812003
BONoeo THRu 1-888-NOTARVl
9
FEB 0 9 1999
Date:
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FL RIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
Skip Camp before me this 112~ day of ,2001.
~~~~.
Signa ure of Notary P lie
Personally Known L
or
Produced Identification
MAR-tMJ 1{ ~L.l-I
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Please print. type or stamp)
My Commission expires: fJo/OS ) J&>17 3
pili-
Type of Ideritification Produced
MARIAN R. COLLI
NOTARY PUBlIC . STATE OF FlORIDA
COMMISSION # 00013829
EXPIRES 81812003
BONDED THRU 1-888-NOTARY1
10
~i2~
Date: 7/;g-j,;(
I
FEB 0 9 1999
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
Leo Ochs before me this I~ day of '" ~ ' 200 1.
. t/
~~adL- ~ ~
Signature of Notary bile
k.tW? f!pU-1
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Please print, type or stamp)
My Commission expires: iJ~ /~g / ~3
Personally Known :><
or
Produced Identification
IJ /11-
,
Type of Identification Produced
MARIAN R. COLU
PU6UC' STATE Of FLORIDA
NOTARY COMMISSION # 00013829
EXPIRES 81812003
BONOEOTHRU HI88-NOTARY1
11
~~
JAMES HL
Date: 7/ z. -S /t::J I
FEB 0 9 1999
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
James Hehl before me this ~6~ day of j ~ ,2001.
f/
~...u ~Mb
Signature of Notary ubhc
~tbe-I..w f t1u.1
Commissioned Na e of Notary Public
(Please print, type or stamp)
My Commission expires: ~n /_~
Personally Known L
or
Produced Identification
AJ!A-
t'
Type of Identification Produced
MARIAN R. COLLI
NOTARY PUBlIC. STATE OF FLORlOA
COMMISSION II oool382ll
EXPIRES 6Ill/2003
BONoeo THRU 1-8ll8-NOTARY1
12
i~\.1 JJ d . W~\\~
MICHAEL A. MCNEES
Date: 1-1 8 - 0 I
FEB 0 9 1999
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN ROBERT P.
RICHMAN AND COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WAS SWORN TO and subscribed by
Michael A. McNees before me this /8'6J.- day of d ~ ' 200 I.
/
~L- ~ 1d4'
Sign ture of Notary ubhc
Personally Known
~
or
Produced Identification
NfJl2./ITAf ~ ~Lt-I
Commissioned Name of Notary Public
(Please print, type or stamp)
My Commission expires: tJ S /p1 ZG03
tV) II-
Type of Id~ntification Produced
NOTAAV~ R. COLu
~';'~ATEOF FlORIDA
~'OOof~"""
l!XPIRes 8/812003 ..uc.
8CltuO THRu f-a/l8.NoTARYf
Approved and accepted
as to Paragraph 2:
~ Jr;n ~ A, L~tY( 'YL( __
Toni Home, Esq.
Date: 7,J:},~/ () )
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
v1/h! v./ti!
Michael W. Pettit
Assistant County Attorney
h:/PubliclLitigation/Open Cases/Richman/Settlement Agree&Mutual Rel.06130 I
13
February 9, 1999
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 99-113 APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY
COMMITTEE - APPOINTING LOU VLASHO, JOSEPH BAWDUNIAK AND THOMAS BROWN -
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chair, on the next one, I'd like to
move that we appoint Bawduniak, Brown and Salzman.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Do you have a thought on that, Mr. Carter,
since that is your district?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, I do, because there has been some
discussion with the MSTU. Mr. pires has withdrawn, and I was asked to
recommend Mr. Bawduniak, Brown and Vlasho.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bawduniak, Brown and Vlasho.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Vlasho.
Do you have an objection to that, Mr. Norris, or would you amend
your motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll amend my motion to reflect Bawduniak,
Brown and Vlasho.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll amend my second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously.
Page 129
FEB - 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-113
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AND REAPPOINTING
MEMBERS TO THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICES
TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90-111 created the Pelican Bay Municipal
Service Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee and provided that the Committee shall
consist of nine (9) members; and
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 91-22 amended Ordinance No. 90-111,
providing that the Committee shall consist of fifteen (15) members; and
WHEREAS, there are currently three (3) vacancies on this Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice
soliciting applications from interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Joseph A. Bawduniak is hereby appointed to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing
and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee for a four (4) year term, said term expiring on January 29,
2003.
2. Lou Vlasho is hereby appointed to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing and Benefit
Unit Advisory Committee for a four (4) year term, said term expiring on January 29,2003.
3. Thomas C. Brown is hereby reappointed to the Pelican Bay Municipal Service Taxing
and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee for a four (4) year term, said term expiring on January 29,
2003.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and unanimous vote.
DATED:, F,ebruary 9, 1999
.. I'~', -",
. ,)'~r' tY
'/''i'"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA "
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. B:ROG~ Clerk
J' .' ~ r" ,..
I
'.
.,,""
'~4::.~~~~dl.(2
. i,' / ',~ '^] 1": 1,~ \,
Attest as to'Chatrlan'l
signature onlJ.
By:
P
. l ,J
;T", t
:~,~. .
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
-/:::,1 e th.~ ~
avid C. Weigel
County Attorney
DCWIkn
February 9, 1999
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 99-114 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING
BOARD - APPOINTING CAROL PAHL - ADOPTED
Contractor's licensing board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One and one. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Seconded.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Passes unanimously.
Page 130
FED - 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-114
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING CAROL HOLLE
P AHL TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, created the Contractors'
Licensing Board and provides that the Board shall be composed of nine (9) members appointed
by the Board of County Commissioners with a minimum of two (2) members residing within the
corporate city limits of Naples or recommended to the Board by the Naples City Council; and
WHEREAS, effective October 1, 1998, Section 489.131(10), Florida Statutes, requires that
every contractors' licensing board consisting of seven or more members must have at least 3 of
those members qualify as consumer representatives.
WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on this Board for the category of Consumer
Representative; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice
soliciting applications from various interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Carol Holle Pahl meets the
prerequisites for appointment and is hereby appointed as Consumer Representative to the
Contractors' Licensing Board for a three year term, said term to expire on June 30,2002.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATEQ:HRs;:!>~ary 9,1999
~',,: ,,:,r;};'/;i~~(;,
ATtEST" '."'. ",' ;,.. I G."
. ,_ -~ :'lr},:.\'~_'~, ~_ 'I.." ,,~~
,'"DwiGHT ,E:BROCK, Clerk
:~i:" . "i:~ '~~~~;':"~'~'
....~ . " ',), I
,,"2'.,~;;.'#~~( - -1,4~
'~f/,~":I'., ,:.,':,'" '
Att,st 'as,':t:d 1C'ha1rllan' s
signature 0111,.
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
J/1~~ a t1"~i~
David C. Weigel
County Attorney
DCWIkn
February 9, 1999
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 99-115 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE IMMOKALEE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTING DENISE SMITH -
ADOPTED
Immokalee MSTU.
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
Denise Smith.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Passes unanimously.
I'll move for approval of the one person,
Second.
All in favor, please say aye.
Page 131
FEB - 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-115
A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DENISE A. SMITH TO
THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL
SERVICE TAXING UNIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 86-65, as amended, created the Immokalee
Lighting and Beautification District Advisory Committee and provides for five (5) members; and
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 92-40 provides that the Advisory Committee be
retained for the Beautification District only; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on the Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice
soliciting applications from interested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, that Denise A. Smith is hereby reappointed to the
Immokalee Beautification Municipal Services Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory Committee for
a four year term, said term to expire on September 23,2002.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: February 9, 1999
'...:~. f~ l~~! ~/)>>~.:,~\
ATTEST: it;" i. '
,,' , .' . '_~'~~I.,.li
DWIGHT,E;:BROCK~ Clerk
~,..I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
......
...-
.!;'. '.-,.
.,
1," C
:4i]j:.~~--1~ ~
'0" . " i " \'. ~I\,
Atte~t as' t:9..,C,~a intan 'I
s i gnatur-e"On 1J.
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
~~~ .1./;-0/
David C. Weigel
County Attorney
DCWIkn
February 9, 1999
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 99-116 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE GOLDEN GATE
BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - APPOINTING SABINA MUSCI AND BONNER
BACON - ADOPTED
Golden Gate beautification advisory commission.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is a little different. We have two and
two. I'll move approval.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Passes unanimously.
Page 132
RESOLUTION NO. 99-116
FEB - 9 1999
A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE
GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 87-78, as amended, confirmed the creation of
the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee and provides that the committee shall be
composed of five (5) members; and
WHEREAS, there are currently two (2) vacancies on this Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice
soliciting applications from interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Sabina A. Musci is hereby reappointed to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee for a four year term, said term to expire on October 6, 2002.
2. Bonner G. Bacon is hereby reappointed to the Golden Gate Beautification Advisory
Committee for a four year term, said term to expire on October 6, 2002.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: February 9, 1999
. , . '~, "
ATTEST:' ",j .'.:.'../.,
" ,."t'"
DWIGHT E.BRboK" Clerk
, "
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
"" /,
"~.,~.-'.
~ ...' .~,
''','.1.,
~ ,
7.ff~?!>~~~/P.€ DY:p
Att'&st . ar:;t,O..'Cha 1 Mlan · 5
s1gnature'onl,y.
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
David C. Weigel
County Attorney
DCWIkn
February 9, 1999
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 99-117 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY
BOARD - APPOINTING AUDRE LEVY - ADOPTED
Black Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Levy. I'll appoint Audrey Levy.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She's the new provost, right?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second for that?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Passes unanimously.
Page 133
FEB - 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-117
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING AUDRE LEVY
TO THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD.
WHEREAS, Collier County adopted Ordinance No. 91-38 creating the Black Affairs
Advisory Board, which provides that the Advisory Board shall consist of seven (7) members; and
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 91-77 amended Ordinance No. 91-38 by
providing that the Advisory Board shall consist of nine (9) members; and
WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on this Board; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice
soliciting applications from interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Audre Levy is hereby appointed
to the Black Affairs Advisory Board for the remainder of the vacant term, said term to expire on
June 25, 2001.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: leb~ary 9, 1999
. '.
~ ~l~'1
ATTEST: ',t:"
':'~,;DWIGHT E. BROd~~ Clerk
. .J.. ~..I. :
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
t;
-'
~..#. . -'''i~. (
, , -:~;,~{~~.'::'>r; ;. '. ' .~+
io/JJ?~'5d/l~~~ (l
~,1I,l\ '
Attest .sto~tha1n1an's
s 1 gnature~ 'on 1 J .
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
....-fI.,
/
JI~(!~~
David C. Weige
County Attorney
DCWIkn
February 9, 1999
Item #10F
RESOLUTION 99-118 RE THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS USE THE DULY ADOPTED
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AS THE LAND USE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STUDY THAT DOES NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS - ADOPTED
My personal favorite one next, the --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's 10(F).
I strongly disagree with that. I didn't even want it to be on
the agenda. I'll tell you that I sent that item out to does
anybody know which one we're talking about?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: A resolution to the Corps that we use the
compo plan as the EIS map, basically. Which to me seems really stupid,
frankly. Because if we're going to do that, why did we just spend
this zillions of bucks to do the EIS to get the data? Why don't we
get the data and see what it says before we decide what the end result
should be? What a concept.
And I'll tell you that I solicited advice on this from everything
from the Department of Interior to the DEP to local environmentalists
to, you know, just everybody I could think of, and unanimously what I
heard back was please don't prejudge the results. Get the data before
you know -- and know what the data is before you decide what the end
result should be.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, gosh, I just disagree with that whole
concept, because that's not what we're saying in this resolution.
We're saying we don't want the EIS to dictate what's in our compo
plan. If we like what's in the EIS, there's not one thing to stop us
from incorporating that into our Growth Management Plan in the future.
But to have it go as proposed implied at least that the EIS would
control our Growth Management Plan; in other words, have the federal
government control local zoning.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's not the implication.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It is.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It may be the implication you want to draw,
but it's been clearly stated by Colonel Miller that that is not his
intention, and he speaks for the agency.
So, do we have public speakers on this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairwoman, we have two. David
Guggenheim, I believe he's left, and Michael Simonik.
MR. SIMONIK: My name is Michael Simonik. I'm the Director of
Environmental Policy for the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I'm
here on behalf of our 5,500 members and our 700 volunteers.
This resolution is unnecessary, as Chairperson Mac'Kie has said,
because it in effect condemns the EIS before it's even released. In
good words, don't prejudge it before we've seen what's come out. It
misrepresents what the EIS is intended to achieve.
Page 134
February 9, 1999
There is a false statement in the resolution. Which I also
question why we're having a resolution with Lee County as well. We
are Collier County, not Lee County. But in the resolution, it states
that the environmental impact statement for Southwest Florida may be
used to replace the local land use regulations approved by the State
of Florida and the Lee and Collier governments. That's a false
statement.
When, in fact, it's about information. That's what the EIS is
about. It's information to help us make right decisions about our
growth in the future. It looks at secondary and cumulative impacts of
development.
In another statement in the resolution, the county will be
requesting that the Corps use the duly adopted compo plans of Lee and
Collier Counties as the land use alternatives in completing the EIS.
The fact is the compo plans were used. And I don't know how many
times they stated it in our 22 full-day meetings that Collier County
and Lee County prefer their compo plans as the preferred alternative.
That's what we went on the whole time for 22 full days. Everybody knew
that. Your message got across a long time ago.
The whole idea of the EIS was to analyze a suite of alternates
and compare them across a range of criteria, both environmental and
economic. The Corps has been clear and is on record that their intent
is not to usurp the county's role in making land planning decisions,
rather this process gives us a chance to anticipate potential problems
and opportunities in advance and resolve conflicts early on.
The Corps has the responsibility to protect our wetlands,
endangered species, and clean water in the federal acts, those three
acts, under federal laws. If the intent is to ask them to do anything
less on the EIS, you would be asking the impossible. They must do
what the federal laws command them to do.
And just as you don't want the Corps to tell Collier County how
to do your job, we are requesting that you not ask and be respectful
in not asking the Corps to abandon their job. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question. We were just talking
about them interfering with our compo plan, we're not trying to tell
them how to do their job.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yes, we are.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why would you -- excuse me. Why would you
object to us reiterating our position, even though they have verbally
committed to not interfere with it? As you well know, a lot of their
verbal and written comments in the past have somehow fallen by the
wayside, shall we say.
MR. SIMONIK: They have responsibilities under the federal law,
and that's what they're going to be doing.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That wasn't my question.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My question was, why would you object to us
reiterating our position?
MR. SIMONIK: Because you have false statements in this
resolution. They have never said that they may be used to replace
Page 135
February 9, 1999
local land use regulations.
they're going to do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It said exactly the opposite of what --
we're passing a resolution that says the Corps has said A, B, C. The
Corps has said, in fact, we absolutely will not do A, B, C. We just
continue to look back water and stupid, frankly, if we continue to
pass these kind of resolutions.
MR. SIMONIK: You can have a resolution if you disagree with some
of the things in the 45-day comment period when the EIS comes out.
Maybe it will do everything you want it to do. Why condemn it now?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the point that Mr. Simonik was making
that I think is real important, too, and I failed to mention that
other environmental groups brought forward to me was, there is a
difference between what the Corps is doing and what we are charged
with. We're charged with local land use decisions. The Corps is
charged with evaluating cumulative impacts. We don't evaluate
cumulative impacts. Therefore, our compo plan map may not exactly be
what meets the federal law requirements that the Corps' charged to
enforce.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's fine. And they'll use whatever
they want to use.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine has asked us to
wait until he gets out here to vote. Do we have any other speakers?
I'm trying to wait. I sent Sue back there twice to tell him we're
ready to vote.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We have no other speakers, Madam Chairwoman.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
right?
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
I make a motion that
this resolution.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Darn, looks like it
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
vote on it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, and he's here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. I apologize for
that.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
this resolution.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: And just reiterate where this resolution
came from, because I'm not sure that everybody knows how this got to
be on the agenda.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All I know is Hendry County sent it over to
me. I sent it around to all of you. I think Commissioner Constantine
They have constantly said that's not what
We did?
Yeah, you made it and Barbara seconded it,
I didn't do anything.
I didn't make a motion, but I will.
we approve this resolution, that we adopt
Is there a second?
died for lack of one.
Oh, I can make a second.
At least we can
There's a motion on the floor to approve
Page 136
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
planning council.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I asked if we could put this on,
because it's consistent with the discussions we had in the past and
what the RPC had done. And if it looks like we're going, I don't mean
to discuss it.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no, just so everybody knows how it got
to be here, that it didn't just -- we didn't create this document.
This is something that had been proposed.
Commissioner Norris made a motion and I seconded it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are we going adopt the resolution that's in
front of us, even though it says things about Lee County and --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Substituting Collier County where
appropriate, I suppose.
MR. WEIGEL: This resolution addresses both Collier and Lee
Counties, as did the Hendry County model that came before it. You may
alter it as you wish. It's legally sufficient either way.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did you look at this and clean it up before
you put it on the agenda here?
MR. WEIGEL: We made almost no change whatsoever. We just put in
Collier County where Collier County was appropriate. It was a Hendry
County resolution model.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You've looked at it and we're not adopting
something for Lee or Hendry?
MR. WEIGEL: No. It references Lee County.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would the board want to add a whereas, we
don't care what the Corps information actually says, we're going to
prejudge it and condemn it before we see it?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that's not what we're saying.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's exactly what you're saying. It's
exactly what --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
All in favor, please
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Aye.
Passes 4-1. What a shock.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I apologize. I promise that I
will be right back.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're voting on whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, please do. Don't slow down on --
I had conversations in the regional
It is not.
Okay. Motion
say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
and a second on the floor.
Page 137
FES 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 118
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING THAT THE ARMY CORPS
OF ENGINEERS USE THE DULY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AS
THE LAND USE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STUDY FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA; OBJECTING TO THE USE OF ANY
LAND USE ALTERNATIVE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
THAT DOES NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") has undertaken an
Environmental Impact Study for Southwest Florida to study the impacts of the Clean Water Act
Section 404 permitting program on the area; and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida, through the Department of Community Affairs, and Lee
and Collier Counties have requested that the Corps use the Comprehensive Plans Developed for
each County in its environmental Impacts Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the local Comprehensive Plans were developed, adopted and approved
pursuant to the requirements of the "Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act" adopted by the Florida Legislature; and
WHEREAS, the citizens, businesses, and governments of Lee and Collier Counties
expended tens of thousands of hours and millions of dollars in developing the information
needed to support the decisions encapsulated in the Comprehensive Plans and the Future Land
Use Maps for both Counties; and
WHEREAS, the Corps has appointed an Alternatives Development Group which
developed a number of different land use alternatives for the Corps' use in developing the
Environmental Impact Statement for Southwest Florida, most of which conflict with the land
uses designed by the duly adopted Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS, the land use alternatives proposed by the Alternatives Development Group are
significantly more restrictive than the adopted Comprehensive Plans; and
WHEREAS, the documents in the public domain and the public comments made by the Corps
staff and the participants in the Alternatives Development Group indicate that the Environmental
Impact Statement for Southwest Florida may be used to replace the local land use regulations
approved by the State of Florida and the Lee and Collier Counties governments; and
WHEREAS, the Corps has stated that the Environmental Impact Study for Southwest
Florida will. serve as a template for evaluating and regulating other projects in the State of
Florida.
- 1 -
FEB 0 9 1999
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Board requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District, use the duly adopted Comprehensive Plans of Lee and Collier Counties as
the land use alternatives in completing the Environmental Impact Statement for
Southwest Florida or limit the use of the Environmental Impact Statement so that it
will not, either facially or as applied, act as land use or zoning regulations.
2. The Board strongly objects to the Corps' use of any land use alternative in the
Environmental Impact Statement for Southwest Florida that will result in land use or
development controls that are not in strict compliance with the local Comprehensive
Plans developed and adopted in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida.
3. This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption.
This Resolution adopted this /.i:!f day of ...i7'~
. 1999 after motion, second
and majority vote favoring same.
ATTEST: "'W~i, .
DWIGHT E./BROck, Clerk
" .. 'It~:-;.
t' "."
, -~ ;
...........
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
:~: ,;1;.aL."~fi1 ~
/." '.
Attest'_.s to Chai""s
signature onl1~i' '
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
/
~~"- & ~
David C. Weigel
County Attorney
- 2 -
February 9, 1999
Item #11B
DISCUSSION REGARDING MARY WILKOOM AND THE LEASE/PURCHASE SPACE FOR THE
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - ITEM 8D1 TO BE RECONSIDERED IN TWO WEEKS
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have public comment on general topics.
Do we have any speakers?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one speaker, Madam Chairman. Mary S.
Willkomm.
MS. WILLKOMM: My name is Mary S. Willkomm, and I represent
developer Joe Magdilaner. I'm with Kersey, Quade. I apologize, I'm
speaking in reference to the construction of the building for the
county. And I apologize that I did not bring this up earlier, but I
had understood, I had talked to people with the county that this was
going to be put out to public bid and, therefore, it was not
appropriate for me to speak at this time. And therefore, I did not
want to slow the process down by interjecting my thoughts and our
plans, because I thought that was a more appropriate thing to do, to
do it in a timely fashion.
However, considering the Board's vote, obviously it has to be
brought up at this time. I project -- I asked that the county
approves that a developer that we've been working with at great length
to build a building specifically for the county, if they so desire a
60,000 square foot building, as well as a 30,000 square foot building
on the same piece of property, six acres, that would be a compound of
sort for the county. That would be exactly to their specifications.
He has the financial wherewithal and the staff with the building
company that I think everyone in the county would be enormously
pleased with. It's at a rate that's extremely competitive. And I
don't think anyone in the city could build this building as quickly
and with the quality that this particular company could do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Where's the property?
MS. WILLKOMM: It's on Horseshoe Drive.
And I only propose we have the same 30-day period for this
proposal -- I would have had it, as I say, for today's meetingi I just
didn't think that it was supposed to be brought up at today's meeting
-- with which to present this proposal, and it can be fully strictly
for lease, if that's what the county would want. It would have
options to purchase whatever the county desires. But within that
30-day period that Mr. Arnold has, we'd like to present exactly the
same sort of proposal.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, the problem is, you're trying to
get in there and have a bidding war out on the County Commission
floor. Where were you for the last six months? I mean, if you want
to build this building, where have you been?
MS. WILLKOMM: For the last six months, is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we've been talking about this for a
while now.
Page 138
February 9, 1999
MS. WILLKOMM: Well, actually, the fellow in question just bought
the CDS building, and so we have been talking to him and I have been
talking to people at the county about building this building. But I
was told that the first thing on the agenda was going to be to get it
resolved where they were going to put people in the immediate -- that
the immediate problem was getting people out of building A, and that
once that was resolved and that the lease space was resolved -- I also
happen to represent the people who own the CDS building, or leasing
the CDS building, and that was supposed to be leased by the county.
And so that was supposed to be addressed first and then the issue of
building the building was going to be put out to public bid.
As a matter of fact, on the proposal, on the item, it's item
8(D) (1), it is said that the proposal is to put out to public bid the
building of a building for the county. And so I really was trying to
do things through the right channels and not circumvent things and not
try to come in through the back door. And I was waiting because I
thought that was the appropriate thing to do.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who on the staff knew about this?
MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services
administrator.
I want to make sure I understand what you're proposing. You're
proposing to lease office space.
MS. WILLKOMM: No, we're proposing to well, we did have CDS
office space available for lease.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
MS. WILLKOMM: The gentleman that owns that building -- it is not
CDS; CDS is now leasing that building from him -- is proposing to
build two buildings for the county.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The question was, have you spoken to her
about this before, or has someone on your staff spoken to her about
this, or some representative of her --
MR. OCHS: No, we just, as the Board knows, just today made a
proposal to move forward with your space plan and solicit RFP's to
actually build a building that the Board would own. And as I
understand the direction from the Board earlier on that item, we're
still going to move forward with that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I was not aware of this
proposal and I --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for answering the question.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and I have not been informed by my staff that
this particular proposal was there. I am aware that we had received
other contacts. And in fact, I have with me one that came in the mail
yesterday from a Steve Havland (phonetic), a real estate salesman,
who's essentially asking to be considered as well. Mr. Ochs made
reference to that fact during his presentation that there had been
other contacts. I don't know if this is specifically one of those
that we had received.
MS. WILLKOMM: I've been talking with Mr. Michael Dowling about
it for -- not for six months, certainly, but probably for about four
weeks or so.
Page 139
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me ask, is it possible that when is
it possible that during the next 30 days she can be designing her
building and Havland can be designing his building and they can come
in and we'll decide which one to lease in 30 days?
MS. WILLKOMM: Actually, we had already just started the process.
We've already hired --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me
MS. WILLKOMM: Okay.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let me just ask this question.
Can we have a public hearing in 30 days about which space we want
to lease?
MR. OCHS: Yes. That's what we're
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairwoman, my answer is no, because you have
authorized to lease with Arnold & Arnold today, and we have a
commitment, unless the Board should make a change through
reconsideration.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, there you go. So we can't do it.
MS. WILLKOMM: That's why I was trying to speak prior to you
making that vote. And the reason I didn't -- I asked specifically, I
said should I put my name in to speak, and I asked before you all
started.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Who did you ask?
MS. WILLKOMM: I asked Michael Dowling. Apparently that wasn't
the appropriate person to talk. But that's who I've been talking with.
And I thought that was the channel through which I should work,
because he is with the lease -- I understood that he was with the --
he was in charge of leasing space for the county.
I thought to go to the commissioners and talk to the
commissioners directly would be absolutely circumventing the proper
channels, and I thought that was the one thing you shouldn't do. And
therefore, I asked --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: She's right.
MS. WILLKOMM: -- I asked -- I mean, I've been talking to him for
weeks about this. When should I present it, when should I have this
proposal done, when should I have my elevations done? And every time
-- I wanted to do it at the last -- you know, every time I've been
told it's not right now, right now we have an emergency situation
trying to get the people out of building A. Do not do it now. As
soon as that's done, then we'll have your proposal prepared.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And this is exactly what Leo has tried to
warn us about, frankly, by trying making the presentation that he made
to us today.
So my question is, Mr. Weigel, what -- I voted with the majority.
What could I do, if I wanted to be able to hear proposals for a pure
lease of space in 30 days? Because we are going to hear proposals for
purchase whenever the RFP process goes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I think there's a twofold answer here, and
that is you can even now direct and have staff assist to get proposals
conceivably even at the next Board meeting two weeks from today. But
in the meantime, you have made -- the Board has made a commitment with
Page 140
February 9, 1999
Arnold & Arnold in regard to this, and it may be appropriate, without
necessarily changing the status quo, to entertain a motion to
reconsider today, which you can do at the very same meeting, to get
things in motion so that that could come up and be a part of
discussion at the next meeting two weeks hence.
At the same time, based on the discussions that have been -- that
were had with the Arnold concern earlier today and with staff telling
them to do all things forthwith to proceed as best they can, I would
expect it's to the entrepreneur's interest and to the county staff's
interest to continue along that line as if it's not going to be
changed, but to bring you back, you, the Board, back all possibilities
two weeks from now, which would be also entertaining the motion to
reconsider, I would suggest today.
MS. WILLKOMM: I wish I had made a motion to speak ahead of time.
But as I say, I asked several times if I should have. Because I did
see that it said you have to put it in before the agenda item comes
up.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I appreciate that.
MS. WILLKOMM: And I asked over and over, should I put it in,
should I put it in. They said no, it's not going to be an issue for
today. That's for next time.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But your point is that if we lease space to
somebody else, then --
MS. WILLKOMM: It's a done deal.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- you're afraid you don't have a fair shot
at the RFP for purchase? Because you do.
MS. WILLKOMM: Well, because -- but the thing about it is, first
of all, my client is totally willing to lease it to the county. He
would love to lease it to the county. I would have thought that -- my
understanding is, too, the county would rather buy the space, because
they feel that it is more financially --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, but we got to get in faster than that.
MS. WILLKOMM: Right. So that would be -- he would lease it, he
would have it available for purchase, whatever you would desire.
My only point is, once they move into a new building, it's going
to be a lot more difficult. I don't feel in the interest of everybody
who's bidding, that anyone can say it's equitable. It's just not.
And my only feeling is I've done everything I can do to try to go
to the correct channels. Not to come to the commission and circumvent
everybody, you know, and say hey, I want to speak, regardless of what
channels I'm supposed to go through.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there an interest on the Board to
reconsider the earlier action to the extent that in two weeks we have
all of the potential lease proposals presented to us?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's really the fair way to do it. Because
I don't think this went out on the street that we were entertaining
lease proposals. And in my opinion, it is fair. I think she is --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I agree.
Page 141
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- she's tried -- certainly has tried to do
it the right way, and she's been penalized because she didn't barge up
here and make her way to the podium and demand our attention.
So I think she's I think it's a fair representation, I really
do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So we would have, if this --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It should be advertised, in my opinion. I
don't know if we have to, but to me it seems like the fair thing to do
is if we're going to go in this direction of this lease situation,
then we really ought to advertise this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the advertising --
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Maybe it's not required, I don't know. Mr.
Weigel would have to tell us.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The advertising would be -- because the only
way I'm even considering reopening this or, you know, voting to
reconsider would be if in two weeks people can come back in here to
pitch a deal that is at least as good as the Arnold deal, and that is
five months and a month-to-month lease, if that's what we want, et
cetera.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you willing to make a representation
that
MS. WILLKOMM: The only thing
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me.
MS. WILLKOMM: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Jesus.
Are you willing to make a representation that you're can build
that building in five months, like Mr. Arnold?
MS. WILLKOMM: Five months from the time that permits are issued?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh.
MS. WILLKOMM: My fellow had told me that it would probably be
more in the neighborhood of -- if you're talking about Certificate of
Occupancy, where you actually are in with floors and everything else,
that realistically from the time of permitting it would be more like
six and a half months. And my --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's a different deal.
MS. WILLKOMM: Well, my fellow has tremendous staff capabilities.
And I will tell you also, that as far as doing the tilt-up wall
systems, I've been a general contractor for 20 years, and the block
walls are the fastest things to go up. In a matter of a few days they
go up. A tilt-up wall system is not the time-consuming aspects of
building.
And if you've looked around the county right now, there is an
enormous shortness of any kind of subcontractors. And someone without
their own staff to build a 70,000 square foot building in five months
I feel is a pretty amazing accomplishment, if not impossible.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: In 30 days under the vote we already took,
will we be seeing a lease from Mr. Arnold's company?
MR. OCHS: The commitment was that staff would finish the
interior design and program for the public works occupants so that Mr.
Arnold could then go for permit within 30 days.
Page 142
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that would be completed within 30 days?
MR. OCHS: Yes, Commissioner.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So when he goes for permits within 30 days,
we would have a floor plan, we would have a design so than at a lease
could be presented to us in 30 days.
MR. OCHS: Whenever he can present the lease, based on that floor
plan that we give him.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So Mr. Weigel, if he presents us a lease in
30 days and someone else shows up with a better proposal on that day,
can we take the better deal?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you can, but only if you entertain a motion to
reconsider today, which, you know, we don't do those very often.
However, we are in called the luxury, if you will, of a motion to
reconsider being made the very day of the item having been heard,
which puts us into a two-week process rather than a two-meeting
process. Because the motion is heard today rather than at the next
meeting subsequent to a memo --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody want to make that motion?
MR. WEIGEL: -- being submitted.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, why don't I make a motion that we
will reconsider the vote today, only to the extent that we will accept
proposals for leases at the meeting two weeks from today.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That meet or exceed the terms --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we'll consider. If they don't meet
the terms, that's --
MS. WILLKOMM: Right, the square footage -- cost will actually be
to your advantage.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a
minute. Let me withdraw that motion. That's completely unfair,
because she already knows the terms of the other guy's lease.
MS. WILLKOMM: Well, actually, I --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just can't do it. Can't do it.
MS. WILLKOMM: Actually, I don't know the exact terms. I know
what
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's printed in the documents.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Commissioners, I think we have really erred
in this whole process. I think we -- I think the whole thing has been
drummed up as a sympathetic kind of ear to a group of people that no
doubt are experiencing some problems. And I think that we have let
that overtake the judicious way in which we should be approaching this
whole problem.
I fully -- you know, and I'm one of them. I sat up here -- I sat
here with four other people, and I'll certainly take my share of the
blame for it. But I don't think we have exercised very good judgment
today in this whole process. I think this is a jerky turkey kind of
thing that we've done today, frankly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A jerky
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think
situation. I think that we've not been
we should have been in this whole process.
Page 143
turkey.
it's put our staff in a bad
we've not been up front as
If we were interested in
February 9, 1999
getting someone else involved in doing some buildings for Collier
County government, then we should have been putting something out on
the street and letting everybody know about what we were doing.
Whether it's a lease, whether it's -- whatever it is, we should have
been doing that. But we didn't do that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So now what?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, we got a problem. And I think at this
point in time I'd like to vote to reconsider. But at the same time, I
sure would like to know from staff where we can go from it. Because
Commissioner Norris is absolutely right, everything has been laid out
here in terms of what we're going to do. So it really is not fair.
It's not -- frankly isn't fair to Mr. Arnold, it isn't fair to this
lady either, or it isn't fair to people in the public, you know, that
might be interested in getting involved in the process. So we've got
a problem.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I say --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Madam--
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's absolutely no reason why this lady
can't participate in the RFP process.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm clear on that.
Commissioner? Oh. Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, I was just going to say, that's
why we have the public processes that we have. They're cumbersome,
they take longer than we'd like for them to take sometimes, but that's
exactly the reason why we have them. And that's why we recommended
what we did.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So John, let me just say this: Yes, the
financial terms of that lease are on the table. So all we would have
for competition, if we got other pure leases -- again, pure lease, no
promises for option to purchase -- is the financial stability of the
company making the proposal. The ability -- the track record of the
company and the ability -- because the critical piece to me is who can
finish it in five months? Can they really finish it in five months?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, you don't know that, Pam. You don't
even know that from what you did today.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're absolutely right.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay? There's no guarantee on that. You
could have something, some kind of a situation exist that even Mr.
Arnold had not anticipated, and seven, eight months from now you could
still be sitting here wondering when you're going to get into that
building. There is no guarantee in this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I'm willing to look at leases again in
two weeks, understanding that the financial terms of the lease are
bound to be the same, because everybody's seen them. But then we can
at least analyze the ability to produce the desired result.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is your property in the same location,
Horseshoe?
MS. WILLKOMM: It's on Horseshoe Drive, yes, sir.
Page 144
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. And the second thing that was of
concern to me is that we had the option to buy. I mean, that's to go
to RFP, I understand that, but that was our whole intent is that we
would be able to buy that property to meet our space plan.
MS. WILLKOMM: Absolutely. That would be no problem whatsoever.
And it would be exactly the specifications that you would need with
the 60,000 and the 30,000 square feet, with an option for the county
to buy one or both buildings.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And what we're going to want to hear is who
can do it quickly.
MS. WILLKOMM: I would be absolutely delighted to give you a lot
of their track record and their history and their financial
wherewithal, because that to me, I don't think anyone could touch that
there. They have proved themselves over and over and over again.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: God, I hate it when I just yell at the staff
and it turns out they're right.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We hate it, too.
MR. WEIGEL: It doesn't happen often.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay, well, I guess -- well, there's not a
motion on the floor. Does anyone want to make one?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Where does this put us at if we reconsider
this?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, a motion to reconsider today, if approved,
merely puts the item in contention for reconsideration two weeks from
now. It does not mean that you will change the vote from today, that
will be at your discussion two weeks from now, and you conceivably
would have other information to assist you in your determination of
what to do.
If you don't make a motion to reconsider today, you still have
the elective. One commissioner who voted in the majority, I think it
was a 5-0 vote --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- could in the meantime write a memo to the county
administrator requesting to have a motion to reconsider placed on the
agenda, and the motion that you're not making today could conceivably
be placed on the agenda two weeks from now and you lose two weeks if
you wish to go forward.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: We're just wasting time.
I'll make the motion to reconsider. Let's get going, for
goodness sakes.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Motion and a second.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes three to one -- four to one? Four to
one. See you in two weeks.
MS. WILLKOMM: Thank you very much.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairwoman?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, sir.
Is there a second? I'll second it.
All in favor, please say aye.
Page 145
February 9, 1999
MR. WEIGEL: One final comment here with the people in the room
and the staff and the county attorney office, next Monday is a
holiday. There's going to be very little time between now and two
weeks from now to get things into the printed agenda from anyone that
is interested in participating and providing information.
So I would suggest that -- we were going to do this anyway, but I
think it's good to get it on the record, that staff, county attorney
office, county administrator will work diligently to contact those
people, those entrepreneurial concerns that have already solicited the
county in this regard, as well as make solicitation and put out a drum
beat for others that wish to in a very quick businesslike way get back
to us so that you'll have as much information as you can, both in
regard to the ability to provide a project in a short completion
period, as well as the information of a substantiality of the concern
that's offering to do it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Big factor right there, as far as I'm
concerned.
Okay, boy, this has been fun. Let's start on the afternoon
agenda.
Item #12B1
PETITION PUD-98-17 BLAIR A. FOLEY, P.E., OF COASTAL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, INC., REPRESENTING JAMES GORMAN, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM
"A" RURAL AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS
WHITTENBERG ESTATES PUD FOR A MAXIMUM OF 114 SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-
FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD (S.R. 84), EAST OF WHITTEN DRIVE - CONTINUED FOR TWO WEEKS
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We have 12(B) (1), which is a PUD. Would all
persons wishing to be heard on this matter, please stand, raise your
right hand and be sworn by the court reporter.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chair, I'm going to have to abstain
from this vote because I have a conflict of interest. My husband has
a business dealing with this particular individual, so I will not be
involved in this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Appreciate that.
Madam Court Reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody have any disclosure on this
item?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have had contact with a number of
residents in the area on this.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had some contact from residents as
well.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything? I don't have any.
Yes, ma'am.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, Current Planning.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject 38-acre site
from agriculture to PUD in order to develop a single mixed-family and
Page 146
February 9, 1999
multi-family development project for 114 total dwelling units at a
density of three dwelling units per acre. Access to the site
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I stop you right there? 37 divided
into 114 leaves 3 left over. 111 would be three units per acre.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, it's three dwelling units per acre times
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Three times 37 is 111.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 38 acres?
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, I misspoke. It was 38 acres. My
apologies. You're quick.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It said 37 on mine.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Thanks for
catching that.
Access will be provided via an interconnect onto Whitten Drive,
which is located on the Whittenberg PUD to the west of the site.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's actually the objection I have.
I realize that you are probably getting frustrated being interrupted
every sentence, but that's the concern I have is this is --
whittenberg is actually a gated community, and the proposal is to
the access into this new community behind whittenberg's gate, and
community is less than excited about having the additional access
through there.
So I'm wondering if there's not some alternative that the
developer could do at his expense that would not require him to use
what has been sold to these people as their own private access.
MS. MURRAY: That would be up to the petitioner's agent.
But let me just fill you in a little bit, if you don't mind, on
the history of the whittenberg PUD. Because it's important to note
that when that PUD was adopted, there was language in the
transportation section of that document that stated that there would
be an interconnect possibly to the property to the east, and there is
actually a physical tract on that master plan that shows that.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So it might have been an unreasonable
expectation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Actually, I was going to say that
that may be true, the way it was crafted. It would not be impossible
-- as I drive out there to look at it, anyway, it would not be
impossible to still have -- you may have to move where the gates are
right now, but to have the gates existing and allow Whittenberg to
still have their private gates and still have access from that road
over onto this property, and that would solve both problems.
You wouldn't need the extra access onto Davis, but you wouldn't
-- whether that was included in the PUD or not, that's not the bill of
goods that was communicated to those folks who purchased in there,
unfortunately. And they have some reasonable expectation of having a
private gated community.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
have
the
come
Mr. Foley, is it a problem you can solve for
us?
MR. FOLEY: For the record, Blair Foley, representing the
petitioner.
Page 147
February 9, 1999
Mr. Kant is here also. He was involved in the initial PUD
discussions.
But from a practical standpoint, Mr. Constantine, from what you
said, you'd want to move -- perhaps move the gates beyond that
potential tract in access to the other property?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just suggesting that it appears
you might have to in order to comfortably get access over there. If
you can get access with going through those gates and without moving
them, that would be great. I'm just suggesting if they need to be
moved in order to get that access without going through those gates,
that would certainly be an option.
MR. FOLEY: I don't know if that -- the developer, yeah, I'm here
to represent him. It hadn't been a consideration. He did indicate to
me, Mr. Gorman, that he has worked with the community and it had been
an issue with them for some time. However, from a safety standpoint,
there really is limited access to this piece because there is a DOT
retention pond to the front that precludes access directly off Davis
Boulevard in a safe fashion. To put another access point off Davis
Boulevard would put it --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I'm suggesting.
MR. FOLEY: I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Would somebody show me a sketch of what
we're talking about?
MS. MURRAY: Right on your visualizer.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not on here.
MR. FOLEY: There's a map over here.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's a gate about right here.
MR. FOLEY: If I could, Madam Chairwoman, could I get Mr. Kant to
add some of his issues? He's got resources here in setting up the
initial stipulations. I'd appreciate his input as well, just from a
county's standpoint and a staff's standpoint. I'm here to answer any
questions regarding after we hear from him.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we hear from Mr. Kant, are you
suggesting that you're unwilling to do that to try to accommodate the
folks who are already in existing homes?
MR. FOLEY: Yes. Because what I'm hearing from the developers,
he let them know as part of their purchase that this was the issue.
All I can do is speak on what information I'm hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'm hearing from the residents is
contrary to that. Just so you know, you're letting me know you're
unwilling to do that, I'm unwilling to vote for the PUD as it is
currently is suggested without doing that.
MR. FOLEY: Okay. Very good.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Services Director.
There are a couple of factual issues that may be of some
importance to you. One is the -- there is an existing turn lane along
Davis Boulevard in front of this property. If you look on the
visualizer, you'll notice that there are two tennis courts. And this
is roughly where the turn lane is. Everything to the east of those
Page 148
February 9, 1999
tennis courts and the little hut that serves the tennis courts, the
recreational area there --
MR. ARNOLD: Nice game.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Arnold, please.
MR. ARNOLD: Cute.
MR. KANT: -- is part of the --
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's why we have the bailiff.
MR. KANT: -- Florida Department of Transportation pond. This
development effectively has no frontage for additional access point.
I can't be certain of the timing, but it would not be unreasonable to
anticipate that at the time that the Florida Department of
Transportation was negotiating for that pond site that that was a
consideration in allowing that Tract S, which is the little access
tract about six hundredths or so of an acre to serve as the future
access to that property. There is no access to Radio Road, nor is
there any interconnect to any other adjacent property. So for all
practical purposes, the only access to that property would be through
that Tract S.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But all that Commissioner Constantine is
showing me on the visualizer, and maybe we need him to come down there
and point it out to you, is to just move their access a little closer
to Davis, thereby having it ahead of the gates into this Whittenberg
development.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Get a little creative with two acres.
MR. KANT: I'm just trying to answer the question that's posed to
me.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not by any means suggesting that
we should have another cut onto Davis. I'm suggesting there is a way
to use the front of this access, to use this little roadway as it
abuts or as it connects with Davis without having to go through the
gates. And that may require moving the gates a little bit back. But
I would think you'd be able to solve both of those problems.
MR. FOLEY: You say go ahead and continue the development of the
interconnect within the tract that was platted and just, if it's
possible, to soften the turn?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, bring the road forward, if you
need to move the gates back a little bit. That still gives these
people the protection they were sold and the privacy they were sold
but still allows you to have your access over into that PUD.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Kant, do you see a problem with that?
MR. FOLEY: I want to add one other thing, if I could. The tract
that you see that runs along Davis Boulevard, there's a canal system.
This is the last piece of that canal system. That's not been dug.
So that again isn't really the issue here, because you're not asking
for another interconnect on Davis.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. So is it something --
MR. FOLEY: We can visit the opportunity of moving it. But I'd
like to make it clear and on the record that we must stay within the
platted tract as set forth. It's not going to accomplish a whole lot,
Page 149
February 9, 1999
to be honest with you, when you look at the design. I don't know if
it's going to be enough for the residents to agree to this.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They might have to back their gate up.
MR. FOLEY: The gate is not -- I don't think that's a big issue.
I'm representing the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll hear from him. That's all I'm
asking. I don't have any expectation you are going to have to connect
to Davis. I just want to be careful. Somebody sent me earlier today
a separate but similar item where what's in the public documents and
what is advertised and sold to people is different. And that is,
Hideaway Beach and the ad says, you know, private beach. The only
people you will see are your invited friends and neighbors. If I have
a boat or if I can get there, whatever way that I can get there, I can
use that beach. But the people that buy there may not realize that.
And so they have an expectation that, you know, is different than what
they're -- or what they're being told is different than what public
documents may say. And in this case, we have an opportunity, I think,
just to stay consistent with what they're told.
MR. FOLEY: That's fine. I have no knowledge really of what it
said. If Mr. Gorman was here, he could respond on his own behalf,
because I wasn't involved in any of the meetings that they had. But
I'd like an opportunity to rebut.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Of course. We'll go to public speakers.
MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Scott Bonham and then Robert
Hillier.
MR. BONHAM: Good afternoon. My name is Scott Bonham, for the
record. And my wife and I purchased and live in a unit at villas at
Whittenberg, is the name that we bought it under.
I'd like to start out by saying that Jim Gorman fulfilled all
promises that he made at the time of our purchase, our signing the
purchase documents, to our satisfaction, so far as building the
building, the quality of it, what we received for the money we spent.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Nice to hear. Thank you for saying that.
MR. BONHAM: Well, if he would thank me, that would be great, by
doing what we need done.
My wife and I signed our purchase documents on May 2nd, 1997. We
moved in the week before Thanksgiving the same year. What was
proposed at purchase was that the development would encompass 61
residential buildings, which would be 122 units. They're built as
duplexes side by side, one story, a clubhouse and a pool. One
entrance/exit, gated, one street through our development.
Adjacent property on the east side, which then was called Embassy
Woods. Jim Gorman stated that he would like to get that property to
develop it. But also, he felt that Embassy Woods would like to get
that property to put on nine more holes of golf.
There was an update -- let me back up. That was stated at the
time that we signed our documents of purchase. Several weeks ago
there was a meeting called by Jim Gorman in our clubhouse, and quite a
few of us attended. He called it an update meeting on the situation
regarding the adjacent property.
Page 150
February 9, 1999
Jim informed us that he had been able to purchase -- I think that
should be stated, had the option to purchase, and his intention was to
build single-family and/or duplexes much like ours, similar to ours.
And that the county says, quote, unquote, the county says, that we
must give access through our property into our street and through the
gate and out to Davis Boulevard. Now, this is exactly what he said.
And I'm sure that -- I know that some of these folks were at the same
meeting, that I heard it said that the county says that we must give
the access.
So far as we are concerned, there are two properties, two
developments, separate from each other. As a matter of fact, I would
contradict the gentleman in what he understands, in that nothing was
said when we signed our documents to purchase about giving access to
the property next door. Nothing.
PUD 98-17 is not landlocked. On that diagram, if you look at the
tennis courts, that is more than enough access to put another access
into Davis Boulevard. There's more than enough room there, if they
move the tennis courts. Now, I understand there is concern about
making another entrance into Davis Boulevard.
I submit to you that we have one lane to exit through. I'm not
talking about the gates. One lane to exit with 122 units, which will
be completed very shortly, and 114 units on the adjacent property.
We're going to have a traffic jam on Whitten Drive.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Scott, can I just ask a question?
MR. BONHAM: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they were to agree to use the cut
on to Davis, where it is but not back as far as they picture here on
the roadway, not through the gate and not do that, you know, if we can
work out where they enter or exit Davis where you all do, but don't
get into your community, don't get beyond that gateway, is that an
acceptable compromise to you?
MR. BONHAM: I understand what you're talking about, Mr.
Constantine. Frankly, I don't think it's doable because the -- I
would call it the exit -- the exit ramp off of Davis is quite long.
And that comes into our entrance through a double-wide. I'd call it a
double-wide entrance. But the exit, which is there, is only one
vehicle wide. And scant at that. A large truck wouldn't get through
there easily.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Humor me for the moment and pretend
that we can engineer that or they can engineer that, if they are not
getting through the gate and on to that private road way and you could
do so safely and efficiently, can you guys live with that? Not that
it would be your number one preference, but --
MR. BONHAM: I can't give an answer for everyone. I would not
have a problem, as long as it was done sensibly and with good
forethought. I'm very concerned, because it seems obvious to me that
the only reason this access was put into the PUD document is to save
money for the developer or for the person that he sells that property
to with another developer. I don't think that's a good reason to,
pardon the word, bastardize our entrance. If it can be done with good
Page 151
February 9, 1999
thought, good design, and accomplish what you are suggesting, that
they do not come into our street, certainly. I really wouldn't have
much of a problem with that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What does the -- Mr. Kant, what does the
other PUD say relative to this interconnect since we don't have that
particular language up?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. I happen to have that information.
Edward Kant for the record.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just by sheer coincidence.
MR. KANT: Frankly, no, sir, we had a feeling that the issue was
going to come up and we felt it was important to have the facts. This
was originally granted zoning as PUD 92-2, the victoria Landing
Condominium.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ed, hang on a minute.
Commissioner Mac'Kie, I can hear both of you equally loud.
Thanks.
MR. KANT: It then had a PUD amendment and it was 92-2-1. The
original approval was in '92, obviously, and the final approval was in
1996. The first project, the victoria Landing, as my memory serves
me, was never sold. That is, it was only sold after it became the
Whittenberg PUD. In both the -- in the victoria Landing, there was a
development stipulation section -- well, on Page 66, reserving a
right-of-way to permit connection with victoria Landing to the
adjacent street -- to future streets to the adjacent properties to the
east. Originally that was to be an emergency connection.
When it was re-PUD'd or rezoned in 1996, the stipulation
remained; however, there is a wording change. An interconnected road
right-of-way to the adjacent property to the -- there is a type here,
it says west. It's been changed to east -- is proposed to be shown on
the master plan -- PUD Master Plan Tract S. The adjacent property
owner can construct the roadway in accordance with Collier County
development standards. So that's shown on the master plan.
So our -- the answer -- that's the long answer. The short answer
to your question is, yes, it's been there right from the beginning,
sir. And it may be an issue of due diligence and it's certainly in
the documents.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. But it says that an interconnect is
required, I guess, but it doesn't say which side of the gate it has to
be on.
MR. KANT: There's no discussion as to gate.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So the issue is, yeah, legally they have
the right to interconnect and, in fact, must interconnect according to
that language.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it could be where those tennis
courts are, for that matter.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the point I'm getting at. There's
no language. It's completely silent as to taking advantage of
someone's gate that they built. I think maybe a good compromise would
be -- well, there's a couple of things that they could do, is could
Page 152
February 9, 1999
either move it down -- would you put your finger on where that gate
actually is for me on that?
MR. KANT: As best as my memory serves from being out there, it's
right about at the north end of this entry island where I'm wiggling
my pen around there. And it would be just inside the right-of-way --
or I should say, just off the right-of-way line. And this tract that
we've been discussing runs right about there. It's not a very large
piece. And there is a drainage easement that runs all the way down
along the property. You can see there's a dash line there. I'm not
sure. I think that says parking. It's been quite a while since I've
been in there, so I can't tell you for sure. So they're very
constrained as to what they can do right in that particular area. And
then as I pointed out earlier, there is a turn lane that runs along
Davis Boulevard there.
MR. BONHAM: Could I respond?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Scott, I'm going to have you wrap up,
though. We'll give you about 30 seconds because we have time limit on
each speaker. I'm sorry.
MR. BONHAM: Why -- let me point out --
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you can't do that.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Scott, if you want to point something
out, you can come over to where Mr. Kant is, right beside the podium.
MR. BONHAM: He's right. The gate is pretty much right at the
end of the island there where my finger is.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, so?
MR. BONHAM: Excuse me, sir.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you go back up a little bit where Mr.
Kant was pointing, back in there, does that say parking right in
there?
MR. BONHAM: These are all buildings here on this side. There
are no buildings on this side. But this lane, which takes you off of
Davis Boulevard, right here, that is wide enough that the entry could
be widened or another entry put in right here.
Before you say no to that, may I point out that going into Davis
westbound, there is no speed-up lane. You go right into the right-hand
lane of Davis Boulevard from our entrance -- from our exit. There is
a slow-down lane coming here from the east. They could have access --
they move one tennis court, they have access. I really don't see the
need to come into our entryway and use our exit at all. It's putting
cars from, what, 263 units, two cars per unit potentially, through one
exit lane? It doesn't make sense to me.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, one of the reasons that it's legal, I
mean, it's in the other PUD's documents, it's in your PUD's documents,
that you will interconnect with the other parcel. So what we're
trying to do is figure out a way to do that and leave you whole.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Blair, you'll have a chance, but not
after each speaker. When we get all done you can --
Mr. Fernandez, our next speaker?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Robert Hillier and Robert
Monahan.
Page 153
February 9, 1999
MR. MONAHAN: I don't think Mr. Hillier is here.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Monahan is our last speaker.
MR. MONAHAN: Thank you. For the record, County Commissioners,
my name is Robert Monahan. I live at 5274 Whitten Drive.
First of all, I think I'm not going to belabor this point,
because Scott said basically what I wanted to say as well. But I
think this falls into the category of don't ask, don't tell, as far as
that PUD stating that that tract of land was interconnected. We all
bought. 122 units were sold over there. And everybody bought it with
the stipulation that we would have a gated community. If this was, in
fact, in the original PUD, then he shouldn't have sold the gated
community knowing that he would always have to interface with that
other road. That's the way I feel.
Mr. Foley made the statement that Mr. Gorman has worked with the
community. I don't believe that's true for the simple reason the word
on the street was that it's a done deal over here. The community is
going to give this new development access through our gate, and
there's nothing we can do about it. And Mr. Gorman's response was
also at this particular meeting was, if you people don't like it, I'll
build a pig farm over there. So I don't think that's working very
responsibly with the existing community.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a demand for a pig farm
there?
MR. MONAHAN: After two years of construction, I think the
residents of Whittenberg Villa are coming to a point where, you know,
we're going to have a nice community now. The construction is just
about done. And now if they open our gates to this other area, now
we're going to start the construction allover again. Because you
have to remember, we're not going to have a gated community. Because
those gates are probably going to be open from morning until night for
all of the construction vehicles entering. So I just think that we've
lived with this for two years now. We thought that we bought into a
gated community. We're now going to take possession of it. And now
we're going to start allover again, and I don't think it's fair. I
appreciate your time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think Larry's going to say
something. But I don't think what I suggested is unreasonable at all.
And that is, it protects these folks. I understand Scott's concern.
We wish they weren't using this entryway at all, that it cuts on to
Davis at all. It appears they have the legal ability to do that from
the old documents. However, that legal ability doesn't include going
through the gate. And I think if it requires reconfiguring where that
tennis court is, you know, or doing something to accommodate that, and
if it requires moving the gate back slightly to do that, then that
allows you to get access. And if that's a little less convenient, oh,
well. There's no guarantee it was going to be a convenient access
across. But I think that allows you access, as promised, but allows
them to have the privacy that they've been promised.
MR. FOLEY: For the record, Blair Foley again. Opportunity to
rebut.
Page 154
February 9, 1999
What I'm hearing from the residents is they're not getting input
from the developer, which is not exactly what I'm hearing. So I would
like to continue this item and have an opportunity and offer my own
services to be in a meeting with the developer and the community to
try to work out something. I think an access point off Davis isn't a
real viable option. But we can discuss moving the gates, as
Commissioner Constantine mentions, and also reconfiguring that
particular tract. So maybe it will work, but I want to make it clear
and on the record that another access off Davis is not a good design
standpoint. We can't really move in that direction but I would like
to continue, if possible.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see a couple of folks shaking their
heads no and it --
MR. MONAHAN: Can we rebut him?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No.
I see a couple of folks shaking their heads no. And what Mr. Kant
read before, if you follow that, is the 1992 approval allows them to
have some sort of connection east to west. The question is, does that
mean they can go through the gate? It doesn't mean that. It doesn't
say that. And it appears Mr. Foley representing -- and I know Jim,
and I know he can be a little rough around the edges, so I don't doubt
that he did say some of the things about a pig farm or other things
which doesn't do anybody any good.
I also know Mr. Foley, who is pretty good about keeping his word.
So if he's willing to sit down and see if there's a way that they can
make sure that they're not using the gate and not impeding on the
privacy, that is probably time well spent on your part. And while you
may wish nobody went through there, that is allowed by paperwork that
was approved eight years ago, seven years ago. So we want to minimize
that as much as we can. If he's willing to sit down and talk
rationally with you, there's no downside to that. It doesn't
guarantee it's going to happen, but it's certainly worth the effort.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll be happy to talk to you about it
after the meeting, but we can't have rebutting going back and forth.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The point being is that we'd much rather
have you residents work it out with Mr. Foley and Mr. Gorman than to
have us up here work it out for you, which is what is going to happen
if you don't get it worked out.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right.
So, is there any objection to the continuance? Would it be for
two weeks?
MR. FOLEY: Two weeks is sufficient for me. I think that it is
plenty of time.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just as a benefit to you is you
can sit down and you may, as part of that discussion, decide okay, if
we're going to move the gate, where does it get moved to, how does it
get moved. Make sure the expense isn't on your part and so on. If
you come back in two weeks and you haven't -- aren't what you are
Page 155
February 9, 1999
comfortable with, you've haven't lost anything except two
can pick up where we are leaving off now, so probably not
down with them and at least see what they have to offer.
they understand our point at this point.
I make a motion we continue it for two weeks.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes, 4-0.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairwoman, just a procedural clarification
here. This item had been continued from January 12th, the initial
advertising date. I'm looking right now, next week would be five
weeks, two weeks makes it six weeks, which would put us in our
technical readvertisement.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I assume, Mr. Foley, that you are
willing to do that at your expense?
MR. FOLEY: Could we do it in one week?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We don't have a meeting.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll pay for the readvertisement?
MR. FOLEY: We'll pay for it, sure.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There we go. Is that a problem?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if you could meet in two weeks, is that --
Bob, is it 10-day advertisement?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, can we make it or should we continue
it for a month?
MR. WEIGEL: Maybe if he's got a lot of chips with the Naples
Daily News, maybe he can get it in. But I've used mine.
MR. FOLEY: Commissioner Norris, do you have any of those left,
perhaps?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'll put in a good word for you.
MS. MURRAY: We believe we can make that deadline.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Blair, thank you for the brevity. I needed
some.
weeks. We
bad to sit
I think that
Item #12B2
ORDINANCE 99-9 PETITION PUD-98-7 MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF
PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED, REPRESENTING MASTERCRAFT HOMES,
LTD., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM nAn AGRICULTURE TO npUDII PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS WYNDHAM PARK PUD FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF C.R. 951 APPROXIMATELY 0.6 OF A MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD -
ADOPTED
Moving on to the next item, is 12(B) (2), which I believe is an
item we have for reconsideration.
will all persons wiShing to be heard on this matter, please stand
and raise your hands and be sworn in by the court reporter.
Page 156
February 9, 1999
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have some disclosure, having met with the
developer.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have, too.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: As well as I have.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As well as I have.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, can we assume you
have a disclosure that you have met with the developer on this matter?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have indeed.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: This was brought back because we had one
question. It was about access sidewalk to the school.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close.
MS. MURRAY: Madam Chairman, if I may, there was three
There was lack of interconnect with Oak Ridge Middle School
north; project's proposed density, that was brought up; and
over traffic conflicts with the school.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Unless there's something that has to be on
the record that is not already in our packet, which appears to be the
resolution of all three of those items --
Sorry, I will slow down.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Madam Chairman, I know a couple of those
items I raised a question about in terms of access. I have spoken
with Mr. Underhill and he satisfied my concerns. The other one about
the density, or whatever it was, I don't know if I raised that or not.
I didn't think I did, but --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had raised the density issue.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: All right. But my two issues have been
resolved.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have, too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Density has been reduced, access has been
reduced. And I went on the record with him that there is a landfill
in the radius.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I will close the public hearing, in that
event. Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS:
COMMISSIONER BERRY:
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE:
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously.
I apologize for not asking if you waive your right to speak, but
great job.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great speech.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Great job.
issues.
to the
concerns
Motion to approve.
I'll second it.
All in favor, please say aye.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE 99-10 TO CONSIDER ENACTMENT INTO LAW AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY ORDINANCE (NO. 95-67) TO ELIMINATE THE NUMBER OF
Page 157
February 9, 1999
TIMES A MEMBER OF THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY MAY BE RE-APPOINTED TO
MEMBERSHIP TERMS ON THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED
12(C) (1), Airport Authority changes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question on this one for Mr.
Weigel. Right now on most boards we have the ability to waive that, I
think with the unanimous vote. Does that not apply with the Airport
Authority? Why would we create a new ordinance, if it does?
MR. WEIGEL: My thought is that the board's general intent and
its master advisory board ordinance is that it applied essentially
universally. In the -- this is a separate standalone ordinance, the
Airport Authority Ordinance, and the attempt here pursuant to the
Airport Authority request is that it be clearly stated for them that
they either do not have unanimous -- unanimity requirement of this
board pursuant to 86-41 as amended the master ordinance, and that
there could be essentially unlimited reappointments on the authority
based on the expertise and the history that some of these people bring
to the board.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So the answer is, we can do it without the
change or we cannot do it without this change?
MR. WEIGEL: Let me turn to it one split second. You're ahead of
my thought process here. The thought was that my suggestion could be
that
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 30 seconds or less, please.
MR. WEIGEL: -- reappointments follow 86-41 as amended. So if
you change it under 86-41, it just automatically always follows with
this one. That's one way to do it. The other way is to specifically
state here that you want unanimity.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me tell you what I want.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want it in English.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I want is this to be consistent
with all the other boards. Do we need to make a separate vote, or can
the other law apply here?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll tell you what, since I haven't quite turned to
the item yet, if you'll tell me that's what you want and make a vote,
then we'll make sure that it is done, if it has to be done, or if
status quo does what you suggested, it's there.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we make it
consistent with all of our other boards, and that is, that we can
waive it but we do that by unanimous vote.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the public hearing closed?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make that motion.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: All in favor, please say aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously.
Item #14-1
Page 158
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER NORRIS REGARDING DISCUSSION OF GORDON RIVER BRIDGE AND
FOUR LANING OF LIVINGSTON ROAD BETWEEN DAVIS BLVD. AND RADIO BLVD.
And now we are to communications.
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What happened to Glenn?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We added him to the summary agenda.
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Fernandez?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing more.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you.
Ms. Berry?
COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's been a pleasure spending all day today
with you, and this evening.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: wish I should say the same.
Commissioner Norris?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a few quick items that I just want
to broach the subject on. In our joint meeting we were doing some
second bridge conversations. And I just wanted to reiterate to the
board that if that discussion gets serious consideration, we need to
either get into the S-curve to Radio Road, swing out to Livingston, or
oppose the second bridge, because we can't just go T-bone into Airport
Road and go into that road segment.
So the next one, when we do start building Livingston Road north
of Radio, we're going to -- when that gets completed, we're going to
go put a big burden on Foxfire. I propose that we bite the bullet and
build four lanes on the FP&L easement between Radio and Davis. It
requires moving the lines, the power lines, but I think that's what
we've got to do.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wow, big bucks.
Item #14-2
COMMISSIONER NORRIS REGARDING PETITIONING LEGISLATURE TO PUT ALL
AIRPORTS UNDER ONE AUTHORITY AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: These are just to start the discussion.
Second thing, going to Louie Amato's conversation here in this
room. I think we should petition the legislature for a special act to
combine all the county airports under one authority.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I like that idea.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Amen. That was in the key of C.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to see that brought back for
discussion, Mr. Fernandez. Can you do that for us?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure can.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Seems like we have some interest here on
the board.
Page 159
February 9, 1999
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we invite Mr. Saliday to join
Mr. Durrey (phonetic) that day for that discussion?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would be great.
Okay. Here's some environmental improvements that I'm going to
suggest.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Go, John. Go, John.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you have nothing to do last
weekend?
Item #14-3 and #14-4
COMMISSIONER NORRIS REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION TO INVESTIGATE HOOKUP
REUSE SYSTEM TO CITY PLANT, AND STAFF DIRECTION TO INVESTIGATE
EXTRACTING WATER FROM GOLDEN GATE CANAL TO PUMP INTO REUSE SYSTEM
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Listen, we missed our meeting last week, so
I get to do it now.
Environmental improvements to the community. We should -- and
these next two little items are related, and it comes from the fact
that we are not supplying our contracted amount of reuse water in the
north county system to the contractees that we have agreed to.
One thing I would like to see us do is to hook up our reuse
system to the city's wastewater plant. That allows us to take some of
that treated wastewater from them that they're dumping into the bay.
That will improve the quality of Naples Bay. We can use it because we
are short on what we need to distribute. And also, to solve our reuse
problems and our deficit up in that north county area. And also, to
help clean up Naples Bay. We should try to get a permit to extract
water from the Golden Gate canal and pump that into our reuse
irrigation system.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Rather than dumping it into the bay.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Rather than dumping it into the bay and
reducing the salinity to the point where the bay -- there's always
trouble.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: You think they would go for that, Mr.
Ilschner?
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think you have just proved the efficiency
of the every other week meeting system if you got all those great
ideas just because we didn't meet last week.
COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then we ought to only meet once a month.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You got all those great ideas in four
minutes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I told you it was going to be quick. Just
to broach the subject. I'd like to see if we have any interest in
directing Mr. Ilschner to start preparing for those two water items.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would very much like to see him do that.
In fact, we just had a conversation this week in my office on the
same items, John, and I think it would behoove us to move forward and
do that. Whatever direction we give the staff, I would like to see
that happen.
Page 160
February 9, 1999
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sounds like sufficient direction has been
given.
Do you have any items, Mr. Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I don't have anything. John wore me
out.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thanks.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very brief comment, on that
Whittenberg item we had today, right now the developer is scheduled to
turn over the property to the homeowners March 16th, so they would
like very much to have that heard, which we're scheduled in two weeks.
But they would like to have that decision made prior to the 16th so
they don't get stuck with anything they didn't anticipate.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My only communication -- and that's not a
problem, right, because we are scheduled?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right.
Item #14-5
STAFF DIRECTED TO LEAVE BUILDING OPEN AFTER 5 P.M. IN THE FUTURE IF
THE COMMISSION MEETING IS STILL IN SESSION
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My only communication item is to let you
know that the only reason that Mr. Arnold was so upset when he came
back in the room a few minutes ago, well, he didn't like our
reconsideration, but more importantly, Mr. Fernandez, we had an error
in the system here. You know that our doors automatically lock at
5:00 and he was locked out of the building and had wanted to come and
speak on the subject and, frankly, ran up the stairs with a heart
condition that he -- you know, so if we're going to be here after
5:00, God forbid, we cannot let those doors lock. And they did and
the elevators locked down, and that made him --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Out of breath.
CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And unhappy, and understandably so. So I
just wanted to let you know that that was part of the problem and to
ask Mr. Fernandez to address this.
*****Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Berry and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and
Summary Agenda be Approved and/or Adopted with changes*****
Item #16A1
RESOLUTION 99-88 RE A 100% IMPACT FEE WAIVER OF ROAD, LIBRARY SYSTEM,
PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES SYSTEM,
AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR A HOUSE TO BE BUILT
BY ROMMY T. SMITH AT 313 GAUNT STREET IN IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY,
SAID IMPACT FEES TO BE PAID FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND (191)
Page 161
RESOLUTION NO. 99- aa
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING WAIVER OF LIBRARY SYSTEM
IMPACT FEES, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES,
ROAD IMPACT FEES, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES IMPACT FEES
AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES SYSTEM IMPACT FEES FOR ONE HOUSE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY ROMMY T. SMITH AT 313 GAUNT STREET IN
IMMOKALEE, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
FEB 0 9 1999
WHEREAS, Collier County has recognized and attempted to address the lack of adequate and
affordable housing for moderate, low, and very-low income households in the County and the need
for creative and innovative programs to assist in the provision of such housing by including several
provisions in the Collier County Growth Management Plan, including: objective 1.4, policy 1.4.1;
objective 1.5, policy 1.5.2, policy 1.5.3, policy 1.5.4, policy 1.5.5, policy 1.5.6; objective 1.6, policy
1.6.3; objective 2.1, policy 2.1.1, policy 2.1.2, policy 2.1.3, policy 2.1.5, and policy 2.1.6 of the
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, Collier County has received funding pursuant to the State Housing Initiatives
Partnership Program set forth in Section 420.907 et. seq., Florida Statutes and Chapter 91-37, Florida
Administrative Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 93-19, the County is
authorized to use funding from the State Housing Initiatives Partnership [SHIP] Program for waivers
of Collier County impact fees; and
WHEREAS, Rommy T. Smith is seeking a waiver of impact fees; and
WHEREAS, Rommy T. Smith will construct a three (4) bedroom unit (the "Dwelling Unit")
at 313 Gaunt Street, Immokalee in Collier County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Dwelling Unit will be owned by a very low income household, and
WHEREAS, Rommy T. Smith submitted to the office of the Housing and Urban
Improvement Department an Affordable Housing Application dated October 21, 1998 for a waiver of
impact fees for the construction of a house at 313 Gaunt Street in Immokalee, Collier County,
Florida, a copy of said application is on file in the Housing and Urban Improvement Department; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 3.04 of the Library System Impact Fee Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended; Section 4.05 of the Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee
Ordinance, Ordinance No. 88..96, as amended; Section 3.04 of the Road Impact Fee Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended; Section 3.05 of the Emergency Medical Services System Impact
Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended; and Section 3.05 of the Educational Facilities
I
System Impact Fee Ordinance, Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended; an applicant may obtain a waiver
of impact fees by qualifying for a waiver; and
WHEREAS, Rommy T. Smith has qualified for an impact fee waiver based upon the
following representations made by Rommy T. Smith:
- 1 -
~rR tt g fQqq
A. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a first-time home buyer.
B. The Dwelling Unit shall be owned by a household with a very low income level as that
term is defined in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances and the
monthly payment to purchase the writ must be within the affordable housing
guidelines established in the Appendices to the respective Impact Fee Ordinances.
C. The Dwelling Unit shall be the Homestead ofthe owner.
D. The Dwelling Unit shall remain affordable for fifteen (15) years from the date the
certificate of occupancy is issued.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the County Administrator to
issue an Authorization for waiver of impact fees to Rommy T. Smith for one (1) house
which shall be constructed at 313 Gaunt Street, Immokalee, in Collier County, Florida.
2. Upon receipt by the Housing and Urban Improvement Director of an agreement for
waiver signed by Rommy T. Smith, or other documentation acceptable to the County
Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners hereby authorizes the payment by
Collier County of the following impact fees from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund,
Fund (191), in the following amounts for the one (1) house to be built at 313 Gaunt
Street in Immokalee, Collier County, Florida by Rommy T. Smith:
A.
B.
Library Impact Fee
Road Impact Fee
$
180.52
1,379.00
C. Parks and Recreational Facilities
Impact'Fee:
(1) Regional Parks
(2) Community Parks
EMS Impact Fee
179.00
399.00
14.00
D.
E. Educational Facilities System
Impact Fee
Total Impact Fees
$ 1. 778.00
$ 3,929.52
3. The payment of impact fees by Collier County is subject to the execution and
recordation of an Affordable Housing Agreement for payment of Collier County
Impact Fees between the property owner and/or purchaser and the County.
I
-2-
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote favoring same.
DATED:~a"H-Y ~ /77J
I \ \. I I I
ATTEST: '-, t
D~GHT E. B~Oe~, Clerk
"
:"'. .,~
. . "'~ ( c'
-.~,! "p1;~~~~I--...j~e
;t . '.'
Att~st,l$ .-to .ChJ.trian' S
s1gnatur.l.0nlt~ ,.~
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
}1 uL j A Yk ^---
Heidi F. Ashton
As~istant County Attorney
jdlf/reso/rommysmith
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDr;
By: ~
amela S. Mac'Kie, Ch irwoman
- 3 -
FEB 0 9 1999
!=E8 0 9 1999
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ROMMY T. SMITH RESIDENCE
LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 5, MAINLINE SUBDIVISION, 313 GAUNT
STREET, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 1, PAGE 98, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
-4-
MAIN LIliB"Bt1BPIYISION
. Being a subdivisiori:of tne SW-I/4 of the SW-V4 of FEB 0 9 1999
Section~, Twp. 475.- Rg.29E.TaUahossee.Meridian, .
ImmokaJee# Collier County, Florida. .
$c::Jle: I in-100ft. October, 1950
1322.0'
-,-'~'-, ---.--',.-.:-;r...---r'--'-'
oS; C, 'AVENUE 7'--" .....- - - '
... . .. ..' "I'" I ...~. .....
.~.-.;: ~ 4 3 I ,I I":" .-\..
~? II~ ij
t 7
, lis
" 9
~
.,
J. 10
II
12
l' !:3
~ '4
'."0.
J D. AVE.
......-.
. -. ..'
I'
..
. .:. ~
~
.. ....
.. en
34:;. ~
33
32
31
.30
29
0:.0
......
27
26,
14 25
15 24
16 23
17 ..... ....
" Z
21 ; ::>
<{
, . C)
20 ~
40'
'L I.'
{~ ~
. .
. . .
~ :3 ; ~
4
5
. 8
:;
9
. 10 :''-:0
~.
... ...
~
", ,
~ >-
w
z
a::
:I:
<{
u..
~
'1 .
~ '..
~.,ft \ ....JI. ... .~ .
'- - 7" - -
. oo" I '0
!.:~, I "'1 ~
)
C. AVENUE
(1.,7.
Tract ':4"
~..l.tj.
- . 0;'
'AVENUE-'
,.' 7 - - - -' H'
.7 6; 5" 4, 3~ 2~ I ...
:- . ~ .. 5
. .
.. :-. ~ ~ ~ ;; ~
~ ~ , . ... ~
I.' .0' - - - .oo' s.'
-. 37 ~:
. 8
~
, 9 36
I 10 ,35 ,
, II 34
I 12 33 .
. 13 ....5' ~ .
t 14 \::;:.1 ~I
. 15 30 .
. 16 29 .
17 29 ,
: 18 27 ,
. 19 2S
20 25
. 21..._. ___.24 " ..
.. ..
.... , t
~ 22 1 '21 ~
I ~ 1.,-
E. ~VENUE.
)~~i'~;"~ ~<~ ~. .-
. . a .
....~.~.:-...:...:...~. :
"
..~.' ~. ::' .... .
......._f.
. " .-....-
.~~~ ~:.a.:.-. ~'.
.' ".
." . .;" .~._. ..",:,:'. ":' ...
.. ...
. -'"' "..
.'.
..,',.;. -..~ '-". .'
&to " "'I'
.. :.~. .-....
\ .~ :~...~~ ";.. .
~. .
.' .::........
." . ~~. ."'
. ..... ~.;"'''.
~'
. Jo
,"
.............
.~
..&..... --
"'
.,
c;
..
"
"',. ~:] I
. I
.. -....-......... --....
..,.
-' -' .. . .. .." s..'
\
, .,4
5'~ ~,.-
~7~ 6. 4~ 3'1 2'~ I ~
~ I .. " .
'" , .. ~ ~ c' ~ .;
~ ~ ~ '\ ... ~ ~
-' .oo' . . . - I"
. 7JT. .....
~ 8 37 \i "
--
, 9 36 ,
10 ~ I
II 34 ,
. 12 33 .
13 "'6' 32 ,
, 14 ~:.I 31
I 15 30 ,
. 16 29 .
. 11 28 .
. 18 2,7 .
, 19 2,6 ,
: 2C 25
, 2L. ..34 3
..
~ '{ ~.'" '.
.. 22 ~ 23,.JI';'.,,:
..
~
en
I~
~...
~
...
,"
C/'l
W
Z
o
..,
I
6.'
.10'
,.J'
.
~
.'41:.
.".
." .
.. ....
. ,.:~... -,
fEB 0 9 1999
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BIT 1240
2434469 OR: 2512 PG: 2955
33.00
7.00
RBC FEE
RBCORDBD in the OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, PL COPIBS
02/16/99 at 08:02AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
AGREEMENT FOR WAIVER OF 100% OF COLLIER COUNTY IMPACT FEES
This Agreement for the Waiver of Impact Fees entered into this ~ day of
~ ' 1999 by and between the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and Rommy T. Smith, hereinafter
referred to as "OWNER."
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinance No. 88-97, as amended, the Collier County
Library System Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 88-96, as amended, the
Collier County Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County
Ordinance No. 91-71, as amended, the Collier County Emergency Medical Services System
Impact Fee Ordinance; Collier County Ordinance No. 92-22, as amended, the Collier County
Road Impact Fee Ordinance; and Collier County Ordinance No. 92-33, as amended, the Collier
County Educational Facilities System Impact Fee Ordinance; as they may be further amended
from time to time hereinafter collectively referred to as "Impact Fee Ordinance", provide for
waivers of impact fees for new owner-occupied dwelling units qualifying as affordable housing;
and
WHEREAS, OWNER has applied for a waiver of impact fees as required by the Impact
Fee Ordinance, a copy of said application is on file in the office of Housing and Urban
Improvement Department; and
WHEREAS, the County Administrator or his designee has reviewed the OWNER's
application and has found that it complies with the requirements for an affordable housing
waiver of impact fees as established in the Impact Fee Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the impact fee waiver shall be presented in lieu of payment of the requisite
impact fees subject to satisfaction of all criteria in the Impact Fee Ordinance qualifying the
project as eligible for an impact fee waiver and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY approved a waiver of impact fees for OWNER embodied in
Resolution No. 99- J'r at its regular meeting of....;t'~ '1 . 1999; and
, '
"
f E B 0 9 1999' ,
OR: 2512 PG: 2956
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Ordinance reqUIres that the OWNER enter into an
Agreement with the COUNTY.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the parties covenant and
agree as follows:
1. RECITALS INCORPORATED. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and shall
be incorporated by reference herein.
2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The legal description of the dwelling unit (the "Dwelling
Unit") and site plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference
herein.
3. TERM. OWNER agrees that the Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing
and shall be offered for sale in accordance with the standards set forth in the
appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance for a period of fifteen (15) years
commencing from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling
Unit.
4. REPRESENT A TIONS AND WARRANTIES. OWNER represents and warrants the
following:
a. Owner maintains a household with a low income as defined in the
appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the monthly payments to
purchase the Dwelling Unit must be within the affordable housing
guidelines established in the appendices to the Impact Fee Ordinance;
b. Owner is a first-time home buyer;
c. The Dwelling Unit shall be the homestead of owner;
d. The Dwelling Unit shall remain as affordable housing for fifteen (15) years
from the date the certificate of occupancy is issued for the Dwelling Unit;
and
e. OWNER is the owner of record of the Dwelling Unit and owes impact
fees in the total amount of $3,929.52 pursuant to the Impact Fee
l" to 0 9 1999'
~
.;
OR: 2512 PG: 2957
Ordinance. In return for the waiver of the impact fees owed by OWNER,
OWNER covenants and agrees to comply with the affordable housing
impact fee waiver qualification criteria detailed in the Impact Fee
Ordinance.
5. SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER. If OWNER sells the Dwelling Unit subject to the
impact fee waiver to a subsequent purchaser or renter, the Dwelling Unit shall be sold
only to households meeting the criteria set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance.
6. AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENT. The Dwelling Unit must be utilized for affordable
housing for a fifteen (15) year period after the date the certificate of occupancy is
issued; and if the Dwelling Unit ceases to be utilized for that purpose during such
period, the impact fees shall be immediately repaid to the COUNTY, except for
waived impact fees if the dwelling unit has been used for affordable housing for a
continuous period of fifteen years after the date the certificate of occupancy is issued.
7. LIEN. The waived impact fees shall be a lien upon the property which lien may be
foreclosed upon in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of this
Agreement.
8. RELEASE OF LIEN. Upon satisfactory completion of the Agreement requirements
and fifteen (15) years after the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy, or
upon payment of the waived impact fees, the COUNTY shall, at the expense of the
COUNTY, record any necessary documentation evidencing the termination of the
lien, including, but not limited to, a release of lien.
9. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties to this
Agreement and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns. In the case of sale or transfer by gift of the Dwelling Unit, the original
OWNER shall remain liable for the impact fees waived/deferred until said impact fees
are paid in full or until the conditions set forth in the Impact Fee Ordinance are
F ~ 0 0 9 1999
OR: 2512 PG: 2958
satisfied. In addition, this Agreement shall run with the land and shall remain a lien
against the Dwelling Unit until the provisions of Section 8 are satisfied.
10. RECORDING. This Agreement shall be recorded by OWNER at the expense of
OWNER in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within sixty (60) days
after execution of this Agreement by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners.
11. DEFAULT. OWNER shall be in default of this Agreement (1) where OWNER fails
to sell the Dwelling Unit in accordance with the affordable housing standards and
qualification criteria established in the Impact Fee Ordinance and thereafter fails to
pay the impact fees within 30 days of said non-compliance, or (2) where OWNER
violates one of the affordable housing qualification criteria in the Impact Fee
Ordinance for a period ofthirty (30) days after notice ofthe violation.
12. REMEDIES. Should the OWNER of the property fail to comply with the said
qualification criteria at any time during the fifteen (15) year period or should
OWNER violate any provisions of this Agreement, the impact fees waived/deferred
shall be paid in full by OWNER within 30 days of said non-compliance. OWNER
agrees that the impact fees waived shall constitute a lien on the Dwelling Unit
commencing on the effective date of this Agreement and continuing until repaid.
Such lien shall be superior and paramount to the interest in the Dwelling Unit of any
owner, lessee, tenant, mortgagee, or other person except the lien for County taxes and
shall be on parity with the lien of any such County taxes. Should the OWNER be in
default of this Agreement, and the default is not cured within thirty (30) days after
written notice to OWNER, the Board may bring civil action to enforce this
Agreement. In addition, the lien may be foreclosed or otherwise enforced by the
COUNTY by action or suit in equity as for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real
property. This remedy is cumulative with any other right or remedy available to the
COUNTY. The Board shall be entitled to recover all attorney's fees, incurred by the
fEB 0 9 1999
.'
"
'.- ~
OR: 2512 PG: 2959
Board in enforcing this Agreement, plus interest at the statutory rate for judgments
calculated on a calendar day basis until paid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement for Waiver of
Impact Fees on the date and year first above written.
Witnesses: (2)
c"~x?-
Print Name C~ t2.M,I.( bIL(,.:~
~
T~
ommy . Smith ~
jtN~ <' ~
ri~tName ~. . _. "
STATE OF FLORIDA) r
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this "*1 day of ~J"'_""'_
1999, by Rommy T. Smith. She is personally known to me-Qr PWgYG8Q ,?/ r
(
,.;.U ,~.
.;V'" ~ JOANNE DALBEY
~ lU "" MY COMMISSION # CC 739612
~~~~ EXPIRES: 0513012OO2
\.1OO-3.NOTARY Fl. NOIIryServica" Bondin,Co,
a.!!!re ofPersqn Takin& Ac nowledgment
Jp~;")n~ ~Q."1
[N
I?A~Eri:I~~~..'"'r g) 11 J
. " , "1 ',' l:':i'~::'" :~~~~;..
ATTEST: 'p ".IO::;;t
. ' . i,' .,t,.......... ,
., DWIGHT E. BROeK,Clerk
l,',
~~'#;t;~#~~..j~tl
s 1 iIt.tur~ \0,.. ti~ ' ,
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency
~cL f An{/l
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
jdlc/agreementJrommysmith
~. ,
FEB 0 9'1999
OR: 2512 PG: 2960
EXHIBIT "AU
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 6 AND 7, BLOCK 5, MAINLINE SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 98, OF THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
)',
. .
,'f!
1,.."' ,
~', .
. "
. -', ";"
MAIN LINE SUBDIVISION
, Being a subdivision of the SW-I/4 of the SW-V4 of
Section~, Twp. 475.- R9.29E.TallahasseeMeridian,
Immokalee, Collier County, Florida.
Sc:lle' J in = 100 ft. October, 1950
13:'20.
T:;-' - c --yr.;-,;" nluE --;r-:rr,). ---,. --. -'
:'" .,. ~,.,<o< "~~7-- .. -- - ....
I .00.;, r' :' ~\.. . t
I .~. -. I~' ~ ...
! ~ . 4 :3 2 I
:: ::; i I~ J
, tl
.::, 9
If-
W
:w
'0::
if--,'
(f)
10
II
~ <
12 ... ~
'. ..
i!
;~ .
'. ~ ! ~ ~ I'~ ~ J !
, ,~... . ':: '::r;/,,,<i"i___-r:
I ~J I '
.i O. AVE. / <. I -.--
. .- ,
- - - ~:'- - - -
,~
5
60'
oL _ 'l.o
" ~"i:
.
"
~~... ~
,.. 3-
, .
. .
i:
4
"0
t 1.;lll'
.--
(/)
0 8
"
33 9
32 10
31 II
30 12
29 13
'>0 14
~..
27 15
26, 16
25 17
24 18
:23 19
..... .-- 20
c.4 Z
21 '. ::> ;,
<( 21
'Ie " " ,~-..
C> '..
20 ." .. 22
.. 60' ~
,...e ~,.
~ 6-..
: ~~I.)..'"
I~f- ~ 7 ~
(f)'
'0:' 8
ILL ~
I i 9
I . :.,..
~.
I , ,
I: ~
I~ C'j
.... !.f
, <'1.-
.:.::' 14
"r
I .1;
i .~. 15
'-' 16
...
17
. 18
" 'so'
I.!1N!!IQ~
. C:-AVENUE
7!!D'l*l'
Tract itA"
. 0; AVENUE---
.. "0' .10'
5' 4. 3. 2.
I- ~ ~ f,
~ ~ 'i l:,
. , ,
oiIc.i."".
..&..... -.
FEB 0 9 1999,~_
..~
\71301
.,. I
.:-........ I
60' so' ...,. .. - ..
~7 ; 6 '. 5'~ 4-~ 3
... ..
~ , .. ~ ~
~ ~ ~ , ::
- 40' t-=
, 0' (/)
37
36
35
34
33
~~
5
~I
30
29
28
27
26
(f)
25 l&J . 2C
Z
24 . .. 0 ~ 21
... .. '.tI.-
..., ~ ~
23 - 22
" Ii ~
't 60' ...
,.Y 1'...r.o
.__w .f
E. ~VENUE
8
,
9
10
II
12
13 '6'
14 ~;:I
15
16
17
18
19
.0. So.
I ,
, .,4
~,. -
2'~ I ...
"'
~ ~
34 '
33
3Z :
31
30 '
29 .
28 '
27 ,
: J
,.o.~...._.
23 4>. ..
. .~..
"
;Ec:o::o
i'::J....lT1
::J~~8
~ (II -'::0
11l iite,c
g~~lT1
-. .:::tJ
< .
tD .c -t en
p. -. ~ ~
:s _.
~~ ~I
l/Jo9
- Q. ...
g-gl;
c: :!. lJQ
3:li5'
.D g. ::
alJQ~
- .
'"
e,
c;
'"
\'
:>E
:>E
:>E
C>
:;cJ
f'..,.J
LT1
~
f'..,.J
"""0
Q
I'..>
~
0-...
~
:0+
:0+
:0+
February 9, 1999
Item #16A2
RESOLUTIONS 99-89 THROUGH 99-92 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO'S 80331-
053/MR. WALLACE L. JOYCE, MR. LAWRENCE JOYCE, MS. JOAN H. HUBBARD, MS.
BARBARA SHOWALTER, MS. PATRICIA HARWOKEWICZ, MS. JUITH J. CORSO, MS.
LAUREN K. BOWERS, 80514-017/PAUL L. RIDDLEBERGER JR, 80527-094/SHELIA
TEMPELMANN, & 80803-061/JULIO DOMINGUEZ ESTATE & JOHN R. DOMINGUEZ P/R
Page 162
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 89'
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
Mr. Wa11ace L Joyce
506 Quinnipiac Ave
North Haven, CT 06473
Mr. Lawrence Joyce
1268 Commercia1 Ave
Coos Bay, OR 97420
Ms. Joan H Hubbard
110 High St
C1inton, CT 06413
Ms. Barbara Showa1ter
127 Map1e St
East Haven, CT 06512
Ms. Patricia Harowkewicz
389 Ocean Ave
West Haven, CT 06516
Ms. Judith J Corso
128 Robert Dr
East Haven, CT 06512
Ms. Lauren K Bowers
62 Grove St
Branford CT 06405
REFERENCE:
80331-053 #74412200000
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Lot 5, B10ck D, South
Tamiami Heights as recorded
and p1atted in P1at Book 3,
Page 44, Pub1ic records of
Collier County, F1orida.
$245.00
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
fEB () 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
DATE:
Wallace L Joyce, 506 Quinnipiac Ave, North Haven, CT 06473
Lawrence Joyce, 1268 Commercial Ave, Coos Bay, OR 97420
Joan H Hubbard, 110 High St, Clinton, CT 06413
Barbara Showalter, 127 Maple St, East Haven, CT 06512
Patricia Harowkewicz, 389 Ocean Ave, West Haven, CT 06516
Judith J Corso, 128 Robert Dr, East Haven, CT 06512
Lauren K Bowers, 62 Grove St, Branford CT 06405
FEB - 9 1999
REFERENCE 80331-053 #74412200000
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 5, Block D, South Tamiami Heights as recorded and platted in
Plat Book 3, Page 44, Public records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 4/9/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on FEB - 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: fE8 - 9 1999
ATTES'l;" ,
DW,r'GHT r Eo.) .;BROCK, CLERK
, " "'Y "0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
:- ,Jr: ;;~:~;/Y'';:' - ?AlIl
,~','fAt est .."to Cha.fr8an' s
,:,:;:;~_E!1:;9RJ;1-ro FORM
':-~~:i!7k~
~COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BY:
Pa
Attest as to Chairman's
signature only.
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
Paul L Riddleberger JR
652 -94th Ave N
Naples, FL 34108
Lot 11, Block 6, NAPLES $340.00
MANOR EXTENSION, according
to the plat thereof, recorded
in Plat Book3, Page 101,
of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80514-017 #62204520007
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This,I,Rea:S9}.ution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DAT~I;> ~, "FEB., ~',9.j:~~9
r .~ 'T (..~".
T ST .{ /'~
A TE: . __.
DW,];"GHT ,E. BROCK, CLERK
" ,
#; ~~~<!. J~Jl.
Attesft,' .~,' t9\C~A.,..n s
signature onY-"
APPROVED AS TO FORM
AND LE, GAL] SYFfICIENCY'
~(o {d,t ( !ltL/l/''---.-
Af.-.. ~ID WEIGEL
r COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FED 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FEB - 9 1999
Paul L Riddleberqer JR
652 -94th Ave N
Naples, FL 34108
REFERENCE 80514-017 #62204520007
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 11, Block 6, NAPLES MANOR EXTENSION, accordinq to the plat
thereof, recorded in Plat Book3, paqe 101, of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 5/14/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Proh1bited accumulation of non-protected mowable veqetation in
excess of 18" in heiqht in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates. Prohibited dumpinq, accumulation, storaqe or burial of
litter, waste or abandoned property.
Weeds over 18", also veqetative debris of downed trees & branches.
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 140.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 340.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on FEB - 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-~1
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Sheila Tempe~ann
33 University Ave
#1001 Toronto
Ontario Canada MFJ 2S7
Lot 56, Block 591 of Marco $245.00
Beach Unit Twenty-three a
Subdivision according to the
Plat thereof, recorded in
Plat Book 8 Page 81-83, of
the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80527-094 #58772280003
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
~l~J ~~l!w'~--JfiJ.(l BY:
At~Tas /tOCh4~wi\ ~
S19j!~WMnJ1AS' T~nF~RM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
bL c)A' J ;1(1/'/ /L-./'
{V.L-.DAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEB 0 9 _
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
fEB - 9 1999
Sheila Tempelmann
33 University Ave
#1001 Toronto
Ontario Canada MFJ 2S7
REFERENCE 80527-094 #58772280003
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 56, Block 591 of Marco Beach Unit Twenty-three a Subdivision
accordinq to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 8 paqe 81-83,
of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 5/28/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable veqetation in
excess of 18" in heiqht in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on fIB ~ 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
F~R no......,'"
RESOLUTION NO. 99-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Julio Dominquez Est:at:e
John R Dominquez P/R
74 Ashley St:
Bridgeport:, CT 06610
Lot: 8, Block 175, Unit: 5,
Part: - GOLDEN GATE according
t:o plat: t:hereof recorded
in Plat: Book 5 Page 122
of t:he Public Records of
Collier Count:y, Florida.
$245.00
REFERENCE:
80803-061 #36247840000
certified copy of this Resolution shall be
records of Collier County, to constitute a
according to law, unless such direction is
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion,
DATED :fEB .~ 9 1999
ATTEST' :,: ;, iI if I, ,
~ .-:' Ii /
DWIGHT E~ BRO€J<, CLERK
t.W:':c;~j~~4Q
At ~$ , IS toCha 1raian ":$
s1gnatIJre onl]_
'APPROVED'AS TO FORM
AND LSGj' ~prFICmNCY:
bl1 (,~ /\!01 ~
~DAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
recorded in the official
lien against such property
stayed by this Board upon
second and majority vote.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA \
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FE809 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FEB - 9 1999
Julio Dominguez Estate
John R Dominguez P/R
74 Ashley St
Bridgeport, CT 06610
REFERENCE 80803-061 #36247840000
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 8, Block 175, Unit 5, Part - GOLDEN GATE according to plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 5 Page 122 of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 8/7/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
\FEB ~ 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
February 9, 1999
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 99-93 THROUGH 99-96 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO'S 80708-
117/DARREN S << BARBARA J. FILKILL, 80713-027/MICHAEL << JANET GRELLA,
80713-034/VARNVILLE CORP % Y. BRAUNSCHWEIG, << 80721-030/EDWIN << INES
GUERRERO
Page 163
FER 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99 - _,,93
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Darren S & Barbara J Filkill
2201 -44~ Terrace SW
Naples, FL 34116
Lot 7, Block 59, GOLDEN GATE,
UNIT 2, accordinq to the plat
thereof recorded in Plat
Book 5, paqes 65 throuqh 77,
inclusive, Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
$290.00
REFERENCE:
80708-117 #35774240006
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority,vote.
DATED t. u te:'B ~cf'9 ,>1999
ATTEST: \ ,>::>
DWIGHT E. BROCK;:' CLERK
~; h~4?,.-J/fP.fZ BY:
Atte t>as to Cha1r,qn's
Si~~W~~JA~""T~ FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFr~IENCY:
tILl ,~Ll J / lL'G~
(5- DAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
fEB\ 91999
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
IFEB = 9199~
Darren S & Barbara J Filkill
2201 -44~ Terrace SW
Naple., FL 34116
REFERENCE 80708-117 #35774240006
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 7, Block 59, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 2, according to the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 65 through 77, inclusive, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/13/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 90.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 290.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
FEB "q1999
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
fEB 1) 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
Michael & Janet Grella
729 Jane Dr
Franklin Lakes, NJ 04717
Lot 17, Block 326, Marco $245.00
Beach Unit TEN, a subdivision
according to the plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 6,
Pages 74-79, Public Records,
Collier County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80713-027 #57853400004
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal ,..gth ~~,. assessment of the owner.
>'.T,nis ~ef(?~tion adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATEl) :FEB7:9 tt999
ATTE:ST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, ~:CLERK
?' .
r . J..;;;
~;. ):;.I-!.A'#!V;4:-,MIftP.c1
Atte t is ;to ~Cha~rAmn' s
s 1 gnature on Lv
APPROVED A~ TO FORM
AND L,E,GAL rUFF:CIENCY:
Jd.ua" /_ At L1L ~
~f- DAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
---...
-~
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FEB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
I=EB co> 9 1999
Michae1 & Janet Gre11a
729 Jane Dr
Frank1in Lakes, NJ 04717
REFERENCE 80713-027 #57853400004
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 17, B10ck 326, Marco Beach Unit TEN, a subdivision according to
the p1at thereof, recorded in P1at Book 6, Pages 74-79, Pub1ic
Records, Co11ier County, F1orida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/13/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumu1ation of non-protected mowab1e vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Go1den Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
~EB ~, ~ N9(
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Varnville Corp
% Y Braunschweig
Bethust 48
Lausanne Switzerland 1012
Lot 19, Block 787, of a $245.00
REPLAT OF A PORTION OF MARCO
BEACH UNIT TWENT-FIVE,
according to the Plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 12,
Pages 86-89, of the Public
Records of Collier County.
Florida.
REFERENCE:
80713-034 #59023960000
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
Thi~d,Re,s, ?lution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DA TED.J:\~ t'" ~rED.'~ · 9 1999
,':: ' . .,. l '-':" (.-t.~..c-' .
ATTEST: ' l..';'
DWIGHT E. BROCK;; CLERK
S. Mac'Kie, C
~~ "t;~~..J;rP{j
A' est IS to C~.1r.an's
A~~~W~ ~'9f!rjTO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
~ JilT ~..---
,/1 /
~6L---D ID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FER 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
Varnville Corp
% Y Braunschweig
Bethust 48
Lausanne Switzerland 1012
DATE: Fff: - ~ ~999
REFERENCE 80713-034 #59023960000
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 19, Block 787, of a REPLAT OF A PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT
TWENT-FIVE, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 12,
Pages 86-89, of the Public Records of Collier County Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/15/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on FED ~9 n'~
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Edwin & Ines Guerrero
4526 Meadowood Cir Apt. 8
Nap1es, FL 34116
Lot. 19, Block 110, Unit. 3
Part. - Go1den Gat.e according
t.o p1at. t.hereof recorded
in Plat. Book 5, Page 99,
of t.he Pub1ic Records of
Co11ier Count.y, Florida.
$245.00
REFERENCE:
80721-030 #36008840003
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This, ;Kes,qlution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: 'fEB~"9A~~9
't./'
ATTEST: ,
DWI~HT E. BROCK, ~CLERK
....
"~,
4f/~~~/~'_f-1~4 BY:
Attest as,to Cha1~n's
s 1 ~~Yfov~~l11{s 'TO FORM
~ LEG,AL SUtFFICIENCY:
, ~L~d,l l;1tl/L~
~o--nAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE: FF n ~. q 1999
Edwin & Ines Guerrero
4526 Meadowood Cir Apt 8
Naples, FL 34116
REFERENCE 80721-030 *36008840003
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 19, Block 110, Unit 3 Part - Golden Gate accordinq to plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Paqe 99, of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/21/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable veqetation in
excess of 18" in heiqht in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on ~EB ~ 9 199~
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to' the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
February 9, 1999
Item #16A4
RESOLUTIONS 99-97 THROUGH 99-101 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO'S 80715-
113/RICHARD F. MCCULLOUGH, 80721-062/MIMON BARON, 80722-023/JOHN C.
GARRISON JR. << VIRGINIA GARRISON, 80723-072/LLOYD G. SHEEHAN, 80727-
043/BRUCE T. << ELSYE K. WHITMER
Page 164
I='J:" P n Q innl'l
RESOLUTION NO. 99-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Richard F McCullouqh
255 Cocohatchee Dr
Naples, FL 34110
Lot 42 & 43, Block 2, Trail
Acres, Unit No.2, in
accordance with and subject
to the plat recorded in
Plat Book 4, paqe 62, Public
Records of Collier County,
Florida.
$290.00
REFERENCE:
80715-113 #77262280002
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
fE B "- 9 1999
ATTEST: L\IJ 1('
DWI~HT' E. 'BR6cl5' CLERK
At~~a~~~~At'4
signature onlJ. ,",-,
APPR.OVED AS'TO,FORM
t:t~~'f'Atl~~~
/-,,_~AVID WEIGEL
(V COUNTY ATTORNEY
BY:
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
fIB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE :::= f fI 'l~ 199!il
Richard F McCullough
255 Cocohatchee Dr
Naples, FL 34110
REFERENCE 80715-113 #77262280002
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 42 & 43, Block 2, Trail Acres, Unit No.2, in accordance with
and subject to the plat recorded in Plat Book 4, page 62, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/20/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 90.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 290.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on fIB '"" ~,~ 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of tpis assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 98
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Mimon Baron
399 _5th Ave S
Naples, FL 34103
Lot 6, Lely Country Club, $245.00
MURFIELD, according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book
14, Page 75, of the Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80721-062 #55200240000
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
FER 'r 9 1999
ATTEST; ~,' U 'I'
DWIGHT"; E\] gRbP:K, CLERK
.....:;,", ~":". ,v~)'
#: j;~~~tl
Attest a{ tG Chalrun's
',S i~~lffifuBn \l~., TO "FbRM
~tEG, ALS1~fICIENCY'
'~"l "" ,\ 11 c1:.
e ttl "( ,'I L/l.....-
,/' D VID WEIGEL
P~~COUNTY ATTORNEY
COMMISSIONERS
FLORIDA
BY:
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
t=EB - 9 1999
Mimon Baron
399 5th Ave
Naples, FL
S
34103
REFERENCE 80721-062 #55200240000
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6, Lely Country Club, MURFIELD, according to the plat thereof as
recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 75, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/24/98 the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on fEB - 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-qq
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
NAME:
John C Garrison JR &
Virginia Garrison
45878 Cabin Branch Dr
Sterling, VA 20164
Lot 5, Block 199, Unit 6, $245.00
Part GOLDEN GATE, according
to plat thereof recorded
in Plat Book 5, Page131 of
the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida
REFERENCE:
80722-023 #36315760009
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
fEB - 9 1999
ATTEST:
DWIGHT.' E:'~ J ~.oCK, CLERK
BY:
,"
.it.. "V ~
Atfe'ff ;~~ -."-f,<M.
s 1j;fnature oolJ_ .,
APPROVED AS ,TO ."FORM
~'~','l ~EGA, .~ ~w.FICIENCY'
~'rt: :rr,AtVL~
p'L-/DAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~EB 0 9 ,qqq
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
fEB ~ 9 1999
John C Garrison JR &
Virginia Garrison
45878 Cabin Branch Dr
Ster1ing, VA 20164
REFERENCE 80722-023 #36315760009
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 5, B10ck 199, Unit 6, Part GOLDEN GATE, according to p1at
thereof recorded in P1at Book 5, Page 131 of the Pub1ic Records of
Collier County, Florida
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/23/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on fEB ~9 m9~
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 100
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
Lloyd G Sheehan l~
5600 Tamiami Trl N Ste 1
Naples, FL 34108
Lot 9, Block 10, NAPLES $245.00
MANOR ADDITION, accordinq
to the Plat thereof recorded
in Plat Book 5, paqes 67
and 68, of the Public Records
of Collier County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80723-072 #62099080008
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
Tq~s\Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED<,..j.,';;'v v r
· FF P. .it ~qq9
, v
ATTEST: ./ .
'." "
DWIGHT E.' B1~oCK:.f CLERK
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
, FLORIDA
L: J;;~~4-~xP.fZ BY:
Atwr as to Cha 1 rf41in · ~"
$1~~~g~~ l!s',,~~, FORM
AND LEGAL UFFICIENCY:
L i 'I/Z/~
f"z-/go~~Y W~~~~~NEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
fED 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FER ~ 9 1995
Lloyd G Sheehan
5600 Tamiami Trl N Ste 1
Naples, FL 34108
REFERENCE 80723-072 #62099080008
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 9, Block 10, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION, according to the Plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 5, Pages 67 and 68, of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/23/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
FER ~ 9 199~
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 101
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
Bruce T & Elsye K Whitmer
420 Griffith Ave
OWensboro, KY 42301
Lot 27, Block 7, Naples $245.00
Manor Lakes, evidenced by
plat of record in Plat Book
3, page 86,in the Public
Records of Collier County.
REFERENCE:
80727-043 #62256160004
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DAT~~ :'~ uFEB '~~' 9 ,1999
'" > '.. ~
ATTEST: ':,. "'~" COMMISSIONERS...
DWIGHT E. BROCK ,:.: CLERK L D
. '
.,:0. :
4:~~~ /fP.(1
'/ '
AP/ltOYED, ASt,T~" ~ORM Att .
AND -,"--~Ari . SP, 'FFICI ENCY , est IS to Cha Ir.an s
(~~ tAtJ/\-> signature on1,.
{,L/DAVID WEIGEL
If' COUNTY ATTORNEY
BY:
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
fEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FE f}- 9 1999
Bruce T. & Elsye K. Whitmer
420 Griffith Ave
Owensboro, KY 42301
REFERENCE 80727-043 #62256160004
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 27, Block 7, Naples Manor Lakes, evidenced by plat of record in
Plat Book 3, page 86, in the Public Records of Collier County.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/27/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weed over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
fER - 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
February 9, 1999
Item #16A5
RESOLUTIONS 99-102 THROUGH 99-106 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO'S 80409-
027/MR. WALLACE L. JOYCE, MR. LAWRENCE JOYCE, MS. JOAN H. HUBBARD, MS.
BARBARA SHOWALTER, MS. PATRICIA HAROWKEWICZ, MS. JUDITH J. CORSO & MS.
LAUREN K. BOWERS,80515-025/ELMA S. GROSSI,80619-039/PALM FOUNDATION,
INC. & STEVEN H. LOVELESS,80727-089/ANDREW C. HANSON, & 80821-
031/JENNIFER S. BRANDON
Page 165
cC's 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 102
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
Mr. Wallace L Joyce
506 Quinnipiac Ave
North Haven, CT 06473
Mr. Lawrence Joyce
1268 Commercial Ave
Coos Bay, OR 97420
Ms. Joan H Hubbard
110 High St
Clinton, CT 06413
Ms. Barbara Showalter
127 Maple St
East Haven, CT 06512
Ms. Patricia Harowkewicz
389 Ocean Ave
West Haven, CT 06516
Ms. Judith J Corso
128 Robert Dr
East Haven, CT 06512
Ms. Lauren K Bowers
62 Grove St
Branford CT 06405
REFERENCE:
80409-027 #74412240002
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Lot 6, Block 0, South
Tamiami Heights as recorded
and platted in Plat Book 3,
Page 44, Public records of
Collier County, Florida.
$245.00
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FFB 0 9 199t
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
fE A ,~ 9 199!~
DATE:
Mr. Wallace L Joyce, 506 Quinnipiac Ave, North Haven, CT 06473
Mr. Lawrence Joyce, 1268 Commercial Ave, Coos Bay, OR 97420
Ms. Joan H Hubbard, 110 High St, Clinton, CT 06413
Ms. Barbara Showalter, 127 Maple St, East Haven, CT 06512
Ms. Patricia Harowkewicz, 389 Ocean Ave, West Haven, CT 06516
Ms. Judith J Corso, 128 Robert Dr, East Haven, CT 06512
Ms. Lauren K Bowers, 62 Grove St, Branford CT 06405
REFERENCE 80409-027 #74412240002
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 6, Block D, South Tamiami Heights as recorded and platted in
Plat Book 3, Page 44, Public records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 4/9/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on FEB ~. 9 199~
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
~EB 0 9 1999
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
IffB " ~ 1999
BY:
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BRO~K, CLERK
4Y~ ~~~.';4e
~'Cte~~s t~~,ha-irt1ari~ s
Abw~WEfb 02!..!# "TO F,ORM
AND,["LEGAL SVFFJjGIENCY:
t' Ldit! d 1{ rL " /'--
/D VID WEIGEL
(~ COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
!=t"8 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 103
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
El.ena S Grossi
510 S Heathwood Ave
Marco Isl.and, FL 34145
Lot 4, Bl.ock 212, of that $245.00
certain subdivision known
as MARCO BEACH, UNIT SEVEN,
according to the map or pl.at
thereof on fil.e and recorded
in the office of the Cl.erk
of the Circuit Court of COLLIER
County, Fl.orida, in Pl.at Book
6, page(s)55-62.
REFERENCE:
80515-025 #57676400003
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: fEB <~ 9 1999
BY:
ATTEST: ,.. ~ I"
DWIGHT E':'Blibczj<, CLERK
, ,"
, '~
:.~. '~. ~.~ J(J?(/
~erllS to 'Chalr.an-. ·
:J<
signature only. "
APPROVED AS TO F~RM
AND~'~EGAL, U~F,IG!ENC, Y:
J f~ .' \' -, \' \, "1 \..
- "" ! " ' / /'---'
I /
16,).......-ijAVID WEIGEL..
'(-" COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOARD OF
COLLI
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~t:B 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
f'E 80, q iq99
Elena S Grossi
510 S Heathwood Ave
Marco Island, FL 34145
REFERENCE 80515-025 #57676400003
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 4, Block 212, of that certain subdivision known as MARCO BEACH,
UNIT SEVEN, according to the map or plat thereof on file and
recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of COLLIER
County, Florida, in Plat Book 6, page(s) 55-62.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/6/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on FEB -9 mgg
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-104
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parceli and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
Palm Foundation, Inc.
Attn:Steven H Loveless
PO Box 8786
Naples, FL 34101
REFERENCE:
80619-039 #67342200006
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
$315.00
Beginning at the NorthwestRidge corner
of Lot 14, Block 3, Pine Second Extension
as recorded in Plat Book 10, page 86 of
the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida; thence Not 390 53' 10" West95.76
feet along the joint lot line of Lots 13
and 15 of said Block 3 to a point on a
curve; thence 20.58 feet along the arc of a
non-tangential curve concave to the Northwest,
having a radius of 50 feet and subtended by
a chord which bears North380 19' 290 East
for 20.43 feet; thence South 39053' 10" East
113.07 feet, 20 feet Northeasterly and parallel
the common line between Lots13 and 15 of said
Block 3, to the North line of Lot 14 of said Block
3; thence South 830 24'10" West 23.93 feet along
said North line of said Lot 14, to the Point
of Beginning, being a portion of Lot13, Block 3,
Pine Ridge Second Extension as recorded in Plat
Book 10, page 86, of the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FEB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE: FER - 9 199~
Palm Foundation, Inc.
Attn: Steven H Loveless
PO Box 8786
Naples, FL 34101
REFERENCE 80619-039 #67342200006 LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 14, Block 3, Pine Ridge Second
Extension as recorded in Plat Book 10, page 86 of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida; thence Not 390 53' 10" West 95.76 feet along the
joint lot line of Lots 13 and 15 of said Block 3 to a point on a curve;
thence 20.58 feet along the arc of a non-tangential curve concave to the
Northwest, having a radius of 50 feet and sub tended by a chord which bears
North 380 19' 290 East for 20.43 feet; thence South 390 53' 10" East
113.07 feet, 20 feet Northeasterly and parallel the common line between
Lots 13 and 15 of said Block 3, to the North line of Lot 14 of said Block
3; thence South 830 24' 10" West 23.93 feet along said North line of said
Lot 14, to the Point of Beginning, being a portion of Lot 13, Block 3,
Pine Ridge Second Extension as recorded in Plat Book 10, page 86, of the
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the records
maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby advised that the
Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/9/98, order the abatement of a certain
nuisance existing on the above property prohibited by Ordinance 91-47, serving
notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in excess of
18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the expenditure
of public funds at a direct cost of $115.00 and administrative cost of $200.00
for a total of $ 315.00. Such costs, by Resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, have been assessed against the above
property on
fEB c.~ ~ 1999
and shall become a lien on
the property thirty (30) days after such assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to show
cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County under this
Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses should not
constitute a lien against the property. Such request for hearing must be made
to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, Government Center, Naples,
Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this
assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
fEA q 1999
. I '_,I
"
"",'
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
4: 'CL&~~.-j;&(l
Attest --as to Chal tman \ i
s iooature on 11.
APPROVED A~\TO FORM
, ,
AND LEGAL S FFICIENCY:
/ / /l,.~
~tt.-D VID WEIGEL
t COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
"
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 105
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Andres CHanson
785 -109~ Ave N
Naples, FL 34108
Naples Park Unit 1 Blk 15 Lot 3
$245.00
REFERENCE:
80727-089 #62426200008
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
, fEB ~ 9 19991
r-rl" .. " Ii tl ~'t
ATTES.l:' '..
DwiGHT E .:BRqClt, CLERK
~\...
~.
~:,';~"/~4J1.
Atu;ras to Cha1rlllan~.s
s i gri at.1Jre on 1.Y . ,,"
APPB.,9VED AS,Tq,FORM
AND tEGAL'-SUFFICIENCY:
~I{A (L, J A (l-~
~.ottID WEIGEL
Y COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COL~COUNTY, FLORIDA (
~
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FEB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FER ~ , 1999
Andrew CHanson
785 -109th Ave N
Naples, FL 34108
REFERENCE 80727-089 #62426200008
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Naples Park Unit 1 Blk 15 Lot 3
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 07/27/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
~;:E B .' ~i 1991
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
fEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 1nfi
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
Jennifer S Brandon
791 -98th Ave N
Naples, FL 34108
Lot 3, Block 66, NAPLES PARK, $245.00
UNIT 5, according to the Plat
thereof, recorded in Plat Book
3,at page 14, of the Public
Records of Collier County,
Florida.
REFERENCE:
80821-031 #62777640003
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED:
fEB - 9 1999
ATTEST:
D~IGHT',Ei..I.jBROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY
COLLIER COUNTY,
COMMISSIONERS (
FLORIDA ~
"'t''''
;~: ~:r;;~~.,err.. / .4'.<z
::At, est IS to Chairllian',
'~lM~Bn~, TO FORM
~~D, LE, GAIr~F'FICIENCY:
rJ ' d.. . A(1 /L,' '--"
,1 4' t.
~~- AVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
fER - 9 1999
Jennifer S Brandon
791 -98th Ave N
Naples, FL 34108
REFERENCE 80821-031 #62777640003
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 3, Block 66, NAPLES PARK, UNIT 5, accordinq to the Plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Book 3, at paqe 14, of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 8/25/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable veqetation in
excess of 18" in heiqht in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on
FE B "" 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
February 9, 1999
Item #16A6
RESOLUTIONS 99-107 THROUGH 99-110 RE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NO'S 80706-
046/MARY JOHNSON780708-057/BRADAR & COMPANY, INC, & DARRYL J.
DAMIC0780709-062/EDWARD J. & LAVERDA L. PELC7 & 80723-057/EILEEN
CURRAN
Page 166
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99-107
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Mary Johnson
1764 Aquarius CT
Ft Myers, FL 33916
Lot 20, Block 1, South Immokalee $245.00
Heights, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 3,
Page 29, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80706-046
#74030640000
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: '
'., i, \, ~i f~B' q 1999
ATTEST:, OF COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E;' B"ROCK.,. CLERK FLORIDA
4:,.r:;~~p~- ~;<p.fl
Att~st as to Chairman's
s~~k~WB"W3, 'tG' FORM
AND.L'8~AL t'JiFICIENCY'
. J,J(A JI ( -1(L/\,^'----'
tvL/O VID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FEB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
Mary Johnson
1764 Aquarius CT
Ft Myers, FL 33916
DATE:
~E.B ',~ ~ 199~
REFERENCE 80706-046 #74030640000
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 20, Block 1, South Immokalee Heights, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 29, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/6/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $45.00 and administrative
cost of $200.00 for a total of $245.00. Such costs, by Resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, have been
assessed against the above property on
fEB - 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 108
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which ipterest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COST
Bradar & Company, Inc.
Darryl J Damico
1820 J & C Blvd #10
Naples, FL 34109
Lot 19, Block 88, of MARCO $245.00
BEACH UNIT FIVE, a Subdivision
according to the plat thereof,
recorded in Plat Pages 39-46,
of the Public Records of
Collier County, Florida.
REFERENCE:
80708-057 #57191760008
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
DATED: . I" ^
fS '11 9
,'6, .,...." ,.199
, ' " 'D ,;.:~l!..., .
ATTEST: 4' .
DW I GHT E. BROCK ,\:'CLERK
;.'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
0'
4:;z; nl'~fl.~ .AP,rz
Attest,as to Chairman's
Si~o~~l~.'S..'r:o FORM
AN~ LEGA,L SU~F/FIENCY:
r." ({fA III ) I Vt~
f<"~~ DAVID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
, f
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
fEB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FE. H - :, 1999
Bradar & Company, Inc.
Darryl J Damico
1820 J & C Blvd #10
Naples, FL 34109
REFERENCE 80708-057 #57191760008
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 19, Block 88, of MARCO BEACH UNIT FIVE, a Subdivision according
to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Pages 39-46, of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/9/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on fEA '> 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 109
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Edward J & Laverda L Pelc
1307 N Kankakee St
Lincoln, IL 62656
Lot 15, Block 2, Unit 1,
Part 2,GOLDEN GATE, as
recorded in Plat Book 11,
Pages 11 and 12, Public
Records of Collier County,
Florida.
$345.00
REFERENCE:
80709-062
#35690600005
certified copy of this Resolution shall be
records of Collier County, to constitute a
according to law, unless such direction is
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion,
DATED:
ATTEST: fER - q 1999
DWIGHT ~,,\\ ~RP~J<,' CLERK
.;;, ' '-','
Jy; pd.W~r.....{~a
Attes.t ,as to Cha inta" '$'
Sf~"~lAS TO ,FORM
ANn'LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
. t 12" I~ k,~tli\V \ --'
ftr/15 VID WEIGEL
COUNTY ATTORNEY
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
recorded in the official
lien against such property
stayed by this Board upon
second and majority vote.
(
COMMISSIONERS
LORIDA
BY.
"
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FEB 0 9 1999
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
FEB ~ 9 1999
Edward J & Laverda L Pelc
1307 N Kankakee St
Lincoln IL 62656
REFERENCE 80709-062 #35690600005
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot 15, Block 2, Unit 1, Part 2, GOLDEN GATE, as recorded in Plat
Book 11, Pages 11 and 12, Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/13/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Accumulation of prohibited exotics on unimproved land located within
200' of improved, subdivided property.
Brazilian peppers throughout rear yard.
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 145.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 345.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on F~3 _ ~/"'
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 110
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN, FOR THE COST OF
THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ORDINANCE 91-47.
WHEREAS, as provided in Ordinance 91-47, the direct costs of
abatement of certain nuisances, including prescribed administrative
cost incurred by the County, shall be assessed against such property;
and
WHEREAS, the cost thereof to the County as to each parcel shall be
calculated and reported to the Board of County Commissioners, together
with a description of said parcel; and
WHEREAS, such assessment shall be a legal, valid and binding
obligation upon the property against which made until paid; and
WHEREAS, the assessment shall become due and payable thirty (30)
days after the mailing of Notice of Assessment after which interest
shall accrue at a rate of twelve percent (12.0%) per annum on any
unpaid portion thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the property described
as follows, and having been abated of a public nuisance after due and
proper notice thereof to the owner of said property, is hereby assessed
the following costs of such abatement, to wit:
NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
COST
Eileen Curran
1232 Woodridge Ave.
Naples, FL 34103
Naples Manor ADD B1k 12,
Lot 36
$245.00
REFERENCE:
80723-057 62101400000
The Clerk of the Board shall mail a notice of assessment of lien
to the owner or owners of the above described property, and if such
owner fails to pay such assessment within thirty (30) days hereof, a
certified copy of this Resolution shall be recorded in the official
records of Collier County, to constitute a lien against such property
according to law, unless such direction is stayed by this Board upon
appeal of the assessment of the owner.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vo~e.
DATED:
fEB - 9 1999
ATTEST:
DWIGHT' 'E.. )}ROCK, CLERK
. 4: ,~~~~".<j~e.
::' Attest IS to Cha 1 rman · s
:'~lW*B~I9nM- TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Mt, eL~''J .~^1 ~'
f:V D \rID Wl!:IGEL ~
\" COUNTY ATTORNEY
BOARD OF
.......
COL~l
BY!!::
Pamela S.
COMMISSIONERS
FLORIDA
CSce 11 - 1/1/99
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LEGAL NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LIEN
DATE:
fER .~ 4 199~
Eileen Curran
1232 Woodridge Ave.
Naples, FL 34103
REFERENCE 80723-057 #62101400000
LIEN NUMBER:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Naples Manor ADD BLK 12, LOT 36.
You, as the owner of the property above described, as recorded in the
records maintained by the office of the Property Appraiser, are hereby
advised that the Compliance Services Manager, did on 7/23/98, order the
abatement of a certain nuisance existing on the above property prohibited
by Ordinance 91-47, serving notice thereof upon you, such nuisance being:
Prohibited accumulation of non-protected mowable vegetation in
excess of 18" in height in a subdivision other than Golden Gate
Estates.
Weeds over 18".
You failed to abate such nuisance; whereupon, it was abated by the
expenditure of public funds at a direct cost of $ 45.00 and
administrative cost of $200.00 for a total of $ 245.00. Such costs, by
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, have been assessed against the above property on fEB ~ 9 1999
and shall become a lien on the property thirty (30) days after such
assessment.
You may request a hearing before the Board of County Commissioners to
show cause, if any, why the expenses and charges incurred by the County
under this Ordinance are unwarranted or excessive or why such expenses
should not constitute a lien against the property. Such request for
hearing must be made to the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners,
Government Center, Naples, Florida 34112 in writing within thirty (30)
days from the date of this assessment to be valid.
CLERK, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CSce 9- 1/93
February 9, 1999
Item #16A7
FINAL PLAT OF WHISPERING WOODS - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Page 167
FEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
PRIOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT
THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT AGREEMENT entered into this ~
day of - ~4 19~, between Peggy Bradley, Cynthia A. Rodriguez and Angel Rene
Rodriguez, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Flonda, hereinafter referred to as the "Board."
RECITALS:
1. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by
the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: WHISPERING WOODS
2. Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code allows the Developer to construct
the improvements requried by said subdivision regulations prior to recording the final plat.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covanents
hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby convenant and agree as follows:
1. Developer will cause to be constructed: a 14 foot wide Iimerock surface access drive and
retention swale within 12 months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat, said
improvements hereinafter referred to as the required improvements.
2. Developer herewith agrees to construct said improvements prior to recording said subdivision
plat and the Board of County CommiSSioners shall not approve the plat for recording until said
improvements have been completed.
3. Upon completion of said improvements, the Developer shall tender its subdivision
perfonnance security in the amount of $ 684.00. which represents ten percent of the total
contract cost to complete construction. Upon receipt of said subdivision perfonnance security by
the Development Services Director, the developer may request the Board of County
Commissioners to approve the subdivision plat for recording and grant preliminary approval of
said plat.
4. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of substantial
completion by Developers engineer, along with the final project records. have been fumished
to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the
Collier County Land Development Code.
5. The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of
substantial completion, either. a) notify the Developer in writing of his preliminary approval of
the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the
improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the developer must fulfill in order
to obtain the Directors approval of the improvements. However, in no event shall the
Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval of the improvements if they are in
fact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements of this
Agreement.
6 The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year
after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year
maintenance period by the developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the
Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development
Services Director or his assignee shall inspect the improvements and, if found to be still in
compliance with the Collier County Land development Code as reflected by final approval by the
Board, the Board shall release the ten percent subdivision perfonnance security. The
Developers responsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continue unless or
until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for the County.
7. In the event the Developer shall fall or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this agreement,
upon certification of such failure, the County Administrator may call upon the subdivision
perfonnance security to secure satisfactory completion, repair and maintenance of the required
improvements. The Board shall have the right to construct and maintain, or cause to be
constructed and maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt of acceptance of bids,
the improvements required herein. The Developer, as principal under the subdivision
perfonnance security. shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board, upon completion of such
construction, the final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering,
legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the
Board may sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all the provisions of this
agreement.
~r:p 11 0 ~noo
63/62/1995 69:64
19417756465
PORTELLA-ROWE ASSOC
PAGE 83
APPENDIX A -STANDARD LEGAL DOCUMENTS
. All of the terms, convenants and conditions herein contained Ire and shall be biding upon the
Developer Ind the respective successors and assigns of the developer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF; the Board and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be
execut~~helr duly authonzed representatives this 9~ day
of -' 1981
AV41 J,UJ~
l)Cs,~~"'\~. e>>~" e.\.\..A.
.'~:~~~
JI... \. \ .,..,.. ~ '- I .. \ .' r .-.: I.
~, Witnessesro: ~~
~~r~~~~,
~ ' \ '.:, I .
~~u~
~~
t.J J'j if;j
\,,\.' .
,~/r'
A nEST::, ..;'
DWIGHT e~ BF[OCK, CLERK
SOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER U TV. FLORIDA
, "..-.
-~.....
By:_
Pamela S. Mac'Kie
Chairwoman
"'" -' ..
.'" .,- .
",_. l
.-....
::;.~. ..~; M
/';i' " ~ ;J;;~~ ~ r$4 ~Jh~ . ([
! ,,/'1 1( , PPf'O," V~88,j "'T and legal sulIici~
~_ ~f1A-=~
~f-county Attorney
COrd. No.92.73,02; Ont NO.94--S8.03. 1().21.94; Orcl. No. 96-21 ,03)
Attest as to Chatnaan's
signature onl1_
February 9, 1999
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF AUTUMN WOODS UNIT THREE - WITH PERFORMANCE BOND,
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Page 168
fEB 0 9 1999
COLLIER COUNTY lAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS
THIS CON$TRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS entered
into this 3~ day Of_:;;!.#_-A.J).I~~ ' 19,22, between CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General
Partnership authorized to transact business the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "Developer",
and the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Board".
RECITALS:
A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery of this Agreement, applied for the approval by
the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be known as: AUTUMN WOODS UNIT 3.
B. Division 3.2 of the Collier County land Development Code requires the Developer to post
appropriate guarantees for the construction of the improvements required by said subdivision regulations,
said guarantees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of the required
improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set
forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. Developer will cause to be constructed: A certain plat of a subdivision to be known as
"Autumn Woods Unit 3", with all infrastructure improvements, including potable water
system, sanitary sewer system, storm drainage system, roadway system and landscaping
consistent with WMBP Project 0-0532-04, Sheets -L through --16-. The required
improvements will be constructed within eighteen (18) months from the date of approval
of said subdivision plat, said improvements hereinafter referred to as the required
improvements.
2. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof) in the amount of $716.685.00, which
amount represents 110% of the estimated cost to complete the required improvements at
the date of this Agreement.
3. In the event of default by the Developer, or failure of the Developer to complete such
improvements within the time required by the land Development Code, Collier County
may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion of
the required improvements.
4. The required improvements shall not be considered complete until a statement of
substantial completion by Developer's engineer, along with the final project records, have
been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Services Director for
compliance with the Collier County land Development Code.
f :\autwoods\phase3\1anddevcode
Collier County Land Development Code
ct"Q n Q -fOQQ
Page 2.
5. The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the
statement of substantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of his
preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his
refusal to approve improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the
Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval of the improvements.
However, in no event shall the Development Services Director refuse preliminary approval
of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and submitted for approval in
accordance with the requirements of this Agreement.
6. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one (1)
year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one-year
maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the
Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development
Services Director, or his designee, shall inspect the improvements and, if found to be still
in compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final
approval by the Board, the Board shall release the remaining 10% of the subdivision
performance security. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the required
improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility
for and by the County.
7. Six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement and once within every six (6)
months thereafter, the Developer may request the Development Services Director to
reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis of work
complete. Each request for a reduction in the dollar amount of the subdivision
performance security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by
the Developer's engineer, together with the project records necessary for review by the
Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may grant the
request for a reduction in the amount of the subdivision performance security for the
improvements completed as of the date of the request.
8. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this
Agreement, upon certification of such failure, the County Administrator may call upon the
subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory completion, repair and
maintenance of the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to construct
and maintain, or cause to be constructed or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement
and receipt and acceptance of bids, the improvements required herein. The Developer, as
principal under the subdivision performance security, shall be liable to pay and to
indemnify the Board, upon completion of such construction, the final total cost to the
Board thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering, legal and contingent costs,
together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the Board may sustain
on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement.
9. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding upon
the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer.
f :lautwoodslphase31landdevcod
Collier County land Development Code
FEB 0 9 1999 Page 3.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives this ,#, day of ~~~ ,
19~.
SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED IN
:3~
~ {.A_IUz",-,rE....r-
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership
/)?7af.u~ {~
Signature
By:
Centex Real Estate Corporation, a Nevada
~aglng General Partner
TIM HY. lER
Division President
By:
Printed or Typed Name
JvI/J/:/.),4 C'Lt+.s~
Printed or Typed Name
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take acknowledgments,
personally appeared, Timothy J. Ruemler, Division President of Centex Real Estate Corporation, Managing
General Partner of Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership, on behalf of the Partnership. He is
personally known to me and did not take an oath.
WITNESS ::1 hand and official seil, I in the County and State last aforesaid this
j~. 12
,10. n.' '-t.L , 19 .
;{,:z.
day of_
-krYlMl- g 4dw<r
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
l$..I';jW;:~{;:.~ T AMAAA'jo"Ui'DWIG
~i. ):1 MY COMMISSION' CC 672910
\'>~'" 'o~"..~ EXPIRES: December 2 2001
(~ .....9f"I~..... Bonded Thru NotaJy PuIlIIc ik.derwritel!
f:\autwoods\phase3\1anddevcod
Collier Land Development Code
WITNESS:
Signature
Printed or Typed Name
Signature
Printed o~ Typed Name
, t., '~-' '...
, I I
ATT,EST: L, ~.
I~.~, I,
.....:
DWIGHT E.'BROCK, <:.l_ERK
; A,_~: ~"'~~~..)
'~ty'Clerk ,I' ",'
, '
",
A1prfved ~~,t9If rmtnd "legal sufficiency:
dYJAcL( ~, _2JrlL^--
,~county Attorney
f: \autwoods\phase3\landdevcod
Page 4.
FEB 0 9 1999
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: 1k~--6JYJj,u~,c;;;,
(!halrparson ~~o/7
Attest as to Cha1n11R's
signature only-
PERFORMANCE BOND
BOND NO. 5977317
FES 0 9 fClgf1
1_
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership, 6702 Lone Oak Boulevard, Naples, FL 34109,
(hereinafter referred to as "Owner") and SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 1601 Elm
Street, Suite 2100, Dallas, TX 75201 (hereinafter referred to as "Surety'1 are held and firmly bound unto
Collier County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "County"), in the total aggregate sum of Seven
Hundred Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five and no/1 00 ($716,685.00) in the lawful money of
the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Owner
and Surety are used for singular or plural, as the context requires.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas the Owner has submitteed for Approval
by the Board a certain subdivision plat named "Autumn Woods, Unit #3", and that certain subdivision
shall include specific improvements which are required by Collier County Ordinances and Resolutions
(hereinafter referred to as "Land Development Regulations"). This obligation of Surety shall commence
on the date this Bond is executed, and shall continue until the date of final acceptance by the Board of
County Commissioners of the specific improvements described in the Land Development Regulation
("The Guaranty Period").
NOW, THEREFORE. if the Owner shall well, truly and faithfully perform its obligations and duties
in accordance with the land Development ReguJations during the guaranty period established by
the County, and the Owner shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred and shall fully indemnify
and save harmless the County from and against all costs and damages which it may suffer by
reason of Owner's failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the County all outlay and
expense which the County may incur in making good any default. then this obligation shall be void,
otherwise to remain in fun force and effect.
PROVIDED, FURTHER, that the said SuretY. for value received hereby. stipulates and agrees that
no change, extension of time, alteration. addition or deletion to the proposed specific
Improvements shall in any way affect its obligation on this Bond, and It does hereby waive notice
of any such change, extension of time, aJteration, addition or deletion to the proposed specific
improvements .
c:\...\ceI\t'-",,'woo4a,"rform2.bnd
Performance Bond
f'EP 11 0 10QQ
Page 2.
. .
PROVIDED. FURTH(:R, that it Is expressly agreed that the Bond shall be deemed amended
automatically and Immediatelv, without formal and separate amendme(1ts hereto, so as to bind the
Owner and the SuretY to the full and faithful performance In' accordance .....with the land
Development Regulations. The term · Amendment-, wherever, used in this Bond, and whether
referring to this Bond, or other documents shall include any alteration, addition or modification of
any character whatsoever. M "._..,. , ,. .
SIGNED. SEALED AND DELIVERED IN
THE PRESENCE OF:
WITNESS:. r U
~^JJ\-v ~;
(Signature) ()
D~k,J C. lAvL
Jj0Na~
(S~I
</lio/VVt? ~~~
(Print Name)
CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada General Partnership
By: Centex Real Estate Corporation, a Nevada
Corporation, its Managing General Partner
BV: ~~.
TIMOTHY J. RUEMLER
Division President
II
State of Aorida
Collier, 55
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take acknowledgments,
personallv appeared, TImothy J. Ruemler, Division President of Centex Real Estate Corporation, Managing
General Partner of Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership, on behalf of the Partnership. He is personallv
known to me. and did not teke an oath. '
WITNESS my hand and4~ci81 seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 0lJz-H....... day of
19 . '
,"
c:\'..\contlx\aucwOOCl.lpM0flft2.bnd
(1
Performance Bond
B 0 9 1999
Page 3.
.' . J
SIGNED, SEALED AND OeuVERED IN
THE PRESENCE OF:
. ~
~.~
'- (Signa . ,."
Allyson Dean
(Print Name)
Attorney-in-fact
(Title)
..~.:
.... -
By:
.Signature) ,
b. Lo/~ .5A/t-h
(Signature)
Brzl~ WOe}..),
(Print Name)
State of Texas
County of Dallas
On this 26th day of Ja~uary . 19 99 . before me personallv appeared
A llyson Dean . known to me to be the Attornev.in-Fact
of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA . the ~orporation'that executed the within
instrument, and acknowledged to rn.e that such corporation executed the same.
. I.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, at my office in 'the
aforesaid county, the day and year in this cenificate first . i~en abov,...
DEBORAH GRIFFITH
Notary Public. State ofTexas
My Comm. Expires 8-23-99
(Notlrv ruuilcl.
Deborah Griffith
Printed Name
My Commission Expires:
8-23.;.99
,...
~TERSIGNED BY: .
~";)o~~~~~
lIC ED RES DE AGENT
/
CI\...\elMU\lvcwOCHb\fNttornt2.'nd
"
m
SAfECQ<B>
POWER
OF ATTORNEY
SAFECO INSU~A.N~ !b~~~t": AMERICA
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE: SAFECO PLAZA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185
No.
10130
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington
corDoration does each herebv aDDoint
M~MM.M.~M.M...M.....M.~....M.MALLYSON DEAN, Dal las, TaxasM.....MM...M.......M...M...M..M.....MM
its true and lawful attorney(s)-in-fact, with full authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other
documents of a similar character issued in the course of its business. Ind to bind the respective company thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA hIVe each
executed .,d attested these presents
this
19
day of
February
19 98 .
CERTIFICATE
Extract from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA:
"Article V. Section 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS . . . the President. 8l"ly Vice President, the Secretary. and any Assistant Vice
President appointed for thlt purpose by the officer in ch..ge of surety operations, shall elch have authority to appoint individuals as
attorneys-in-fact or under other Ippropriate titles with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and
other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business . . , On any instrument making or evidencing
such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on any bond or undertaking
of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or Iffixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided. however,
that the sell shall not be necessary to the validity of any such instrument or undertaking,"
Extrsct from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28. 1970.
"On any certificate executed by the Secretlry or an assistant secret..y of the Company setting out,
m The provisions of Article V. Section 13 of the By-Llws, and
(jj) A copy of the power-of-attorney appointment. executed pursuant thereto, and
(Iii) Certifying that Slid power-of-attorney Ippointment is in full force and effect.
the signature of the certifying officer may be by fscsimile, and the sell of the Company may be a facsimile thereof."
I, R. A. Pierson. Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Ind of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
do hereby certify that the foregoing extrlcts of the By-Llws Ind of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporltions. and
of a Power of Attorney issued pursuant thereto, ..e true and correct, and that both the By-Laws. the Resolution and the Power of
Attorney ..e still in full force Ind effect
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand 8l'ld affixed the facsimile seal of said corporation
this
2~~
day of
C)~tM'1'
,19ft.
,.: f
"
S-974/EP 1193
<B> Registered trademark of SAFECO Corporation.
February 9, 1999
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF IMMOKALEE ROAD CENTER-WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS
Page 169
FF'Or'l AClt-mL I BARBER BF'lItlDAClE
PHOHE 111J.
JUH. 15 19'38 09:01A~1 P2
FEB 0 9 1999
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT
THIS CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS PRlOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT AGREEMENT e,n.tered into this
~~ day of ~199 'between J.D. Nicewonder, Jay D. Nicewonder, Jr.,
Carolyn Nicewonder, Sheny Nice", onder, and Mark D. Nicewonder, hereinafter referred to as
"Developer", and the Board of COWlt}' Commissioners of Collier COWlty, Florida. hereinafter
referred to as "The Board".
RECITALS:
1. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery offhis Agreement, applied for the
approval by the Board of a certain plat of a subdivision to be: kno\\''11 as: lmmokalee Road Center
PUD.
? Division 3.2 of the Collier County Unified Land Development Code allows the
Developel" to construct the improvements l'equired by said subdivision regulations prior to recording
the final plat.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants
hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as foUows:
1, Developer will cause to be constructed: fire lines and potable water distribution
systems, sanitary sewer collection system, water management system and wetland creation within
18 months from the date of approval of said subdivision plat, said improvements hereinafter referred
to as the required improvements.
2, Developer herewith agrees to construct said improvements prior to recording said
subdivision plat and the Board of County Commissioners shall not approve the plat for recording
until said improvements have been completed.
3. Upon completion of said improvements, the Developer shall tender its subdivision
performance security in the amount of$32,037.00 which represents 10% of the total c(mtract cost
to complete construction. Upon receipt of said subdivision performance security by the
Development Services Director, the Developer may request the Bl)ard of County Commissioners to
approve the subdivision plat for recording and grant preliminary approval of said plat.
4. The required improvements shall not be COllsidered complete until a statement of
substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been
furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Deve,lopment Services Director for compliance with
the Collier County Land Development Code.
5. The Development Services Director shall. within sixty (60) days of receipt of the
statement of substantial compJetionj either: a) notify the Developer in v.riting of his preliminary
approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve the
1
06/15/98 08:53
TX/RX NO.4745
P.002
.
FF'Ot'l
ACitlOL I BARBER ERUtlDACiE
F'Hi]tlE 110.
JUN. 15 1998 09:01AM P3
fEB 0 9 199q
improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to
obtain the Director's approval of the improvements. However, in no event shall the Development
Services Director refuge preliminM)' approval of the improvements if they are in fact constructed and
submitted for approval in accordance with t11C requirements of this Agreement
6. The Developer shaH maintain all required improvements for 4 minimwn period of
one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year
mai.ntenance period by the Developer has tenninated, the Developer shaU petition the Development
Services Director to inSpect the improvements. The Development SeNie-es Director or his designee
shall inspect the improvements and; if found to be still in compliance with the Collier County Land
Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shaH release the ten
percent subdivision perfonnance security. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of the
required improvenlents shall continue unless 01' untiJ the Board accepts maintenance responsibility
fOT the County.
7. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligation rmder tllis
Agreement, upon certification of such failUl'e, the County Administrator may caU upon the
subdivision performance security to secure satisfactory compJetion, repair and maintenance of the
required improvements, The Board shall have the right to construct and maintain, or cause to be
constructed and maintained, pUl'suant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance of bids,. the
improvements required herein. The Developer. as principal under the subdivision performance
security, shall be liable to pay and to indemnify the Board. upon completion of such construction.
the final total cost to the B03I'd thereof, including, but not limited to, engineering;, legal and
contingent costs. together with any damages. either direct or consequential. which the Board may
sustain on account of the failure of the Developer to fulfill out all of the provisions of this
Agreement.
8. All of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be binding
upon the Developer and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this ~greement to be executed
by their duly authorized representatives this 9?f::i,., day of ~ ." , 199 J
2
06/15/98 08:53
TX/RX NO.4 745
P.003
.
FROt'1 ACitmL I BARBER BF:UtlDAGE
F'HOtIE t'ID.
J Ut,j, 1 ':' 1 "=,':;1::: >'::1'~; ~~l;2Hi'i 1'-'-,
fEB 0 9 1999
Witnesses to Carolyn Nicewondel'
IIIIS.
4 /". /r----.
/,' '7 j , ~' \
By, ,. ?,(':;!'~ ,. y .,A/"",,, '/1,' l
$:al'olyn. Nicewonder" owner
Printed Name and Title
.;:::::--:.<",... /7 //j.> ,.. ) '-
~-:~ //'/'<'" /' ./----'-", /,_ L __....'c.... /};',/-"c c/
,
Notary Printed Name
Witnesses to Sherry Nicewonder
~
J 1
By: Jfi j i ILl 1h(~' i. (,lJ-J[fa,,, ,~ )
,II t
Sherry Nic~\V()nd~r" owner
Printed Name and Title
//'! ',. ~ I
State of 1',1,/ -/,/ ~/ .'-
€ounty of ':-~.,,/ s-/ c"-/'
/1/-1..."",
- . I .. -'
, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /' {,,/i day of ., _ ,( I '-C:
1998. by Shet't'Y Nieewonder who personally appeared before me and who is personally kno~
or produced identification Type of identification produced:
~/ / / " J:
<:. "/-,' /'(''- L ../. ~';...,-'~ .,", ./
(Aftix notary seal)
,<I
~_/~, )/i' ".)"'1:
~otary Public l' (
My Commission Expires: .;;z-;: 1/",7 ,( ,'c"<' /
,-;/ /,'
/>// < -- '- ,'-, ,<
Notary Printed Name
/1
'- (t"'",",'/'-')':'tl
/
4
06/15/98 08:53
TX/RX NO.4745
P.005
.
FROt'! AGtl0L I BARBER BF:LNDAGE
PHOtlE t,IO.
Witnesses to 1.0. Niccwonder
JUN. 15 1998 09:02AM P4
~F.B 0 9 199q
;icfE!!~::t.( ~;,/ ~
Printed Name and Title
. / '" I
State of j/ J!,..j&{A// ,,",-
Gemlty-of - >/O!t1 (
(1/"../- ~/
The fore,ioini instrument was acknowledied before me this //~/:~ day of~.Je' ,
1998. by J.D. Nicewonder. who personally appeared before me and who is personally kllO\V11 ~
or produced identification Type of identifIcation produced:
State of j/~ ~~,'<j, I ?---
'''---__..l... . . .
e91Jnty of ?t.:2-n '5 'I' " /
{'"v-I?,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / 'I';.:;.(? day of "',~-;( "'1::'''. ,
1998, by Jay D. Nicewonder, Jr., who personally appeared before me and who is personally known
<fl'.vor produced identification Type of identification produced:
~/ /' j: i
G-;.1 <,-..-(:1~~' /-::~::-t...--/.: -/"-" ~.:e / }----/;7 . :,; )"'~.:
Notary Pu~lic. . ~',._ ~J ( ,
My Commission Expl1'es: ~-(..j "/ ,-,.{ "'>'0 '
~-"I ~
/;::/ /( /''' {J, <' '- ['/" t 1,';'1 )..,.,.., J
/7
(Aft1x notary seal)
Witnesses to Jay D. Nicewonder, Jr.
(Affix notary seal)
// A" /,
~".."" ../-:~.. /,-'/ .-' - -.~ ~ ".
c../~~/,,~ /~d !, c. " c?,'../JL,')1' \
Notary Public " ~
.. . ~ I.,,',
My COmnllSSlOn Expires: .,..h, /,"" ,-1' -;, ,._"",,0.
~~~~;~~'~ "
/', {'{
,~ .~-/,} "".- _.~--1 /.1 t,7 "'),,-{ ./~
/
Notary Printed Name
By:kv..- if '/1;LY?tttt~4/
/,
J'y D. Nicewonder. Jr.. owner
Printed Name and Title
Notary Printed Name
3
06/15/98 08:53
TX/RX NO.4745
.
P.004
FROt1
AC1t'10L i E:HRBER 1::Ir,'Ut-lDHI.11::
r="r;Llj..tc: i ,ti:i.
. .-.-- .....-. .... --.
....-. ....-.-.'- -'- - ---.
fEB 0 9 1999
Witnesses to Mark D. Nicewonder
I
& . dA 'LJ,.... )tAtA~ ,
printe~~f;l; -'A;;v --jji5~J1">
Q o. ~ -;e.. R--u ~~x::::
Printed Name: Cr\ ~ ~b~ l.. 't2..u ~~':)
V:' f
St,ate of ~ ~/ / <'t.
Gowlty-of _ _::::'/ V.... /
c;~/ ~
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /X;.;'{ day of ..z:;, 1"/"2-
1998, by Mark D. Nicewonder who personally appeared before me and who is personally known
-Lor produced identification Type of identification produced:
? ' --;~ //,1
/ / /7/ "'" /
~~~;.; _- /~_____ ,""/~<- ~;'v L"_-:,~-t' .../'./;/(.;'/C.//'"
By: ~ If -1/~
MiUk '0. Ni~<C:!IYQnd.~t. Qwer
Printed Name and Title
(Affix notary seal)
otary Public /'
My Commission Expires: ~~ , t ~f "? {,:<'~ /
L-//<..- ./-;. "~-/4- (/ "':'1->:'1/).,< I
Notary Printed Name /
ATTEST:
DWIGHT, '~": BROCK. CLERK
~~":''i;a~f7;W/,e--14tr~ce ~.. ~__" _ _
," . , .'" , ~'. " " P MELA So NAC I KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
,: :Approve~ ~ iof~~~and Attest IS to Cha1run's
_ ,'lesal ffi~f~,~~ :,' s1nnature 001 v.
,# '~,( v~v 1:"JJ.l FO .J
I" ,',
~. . ~
J:f\r:z-; David B. We~gel
1 u County;A~,omey
03-159j8,due,...pd
5
06/15/98 08:53
TX/RX NO.4745
P.006
.
February 9, 1999
Item #16B1
ACCESS EASEMENT TO TWIN EAGLES GOLF << COUNTRY CLUB, INC., TO CONSTRUCT
AND UTILIZE A BRIDGE AS A CONNECTOR TO IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR-846)
Page 170
FEB 0 9 1999
ACCESS EASEMENT
THIS ACCESS EASEMENT, made and entered into this ~ day of
~~ , 19~, by COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 34112,
its successors and assigns, as Grantor to TWINEAGLES GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB,
INC., a Florida Non-Profit' Corporation, TWINEAGLES LAND GROUP I, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, TWINEAGLES MANAGEMENT, LTD., a Florida Limited
Partnership, its sole manager, TWINEAGLES DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Florida
Corporation, its general partner and TWINEAGLES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
INC., a Florida Non-Profit Corporation whose mailing address is 4099 Tamiami Trail,
North Suite 305, Naples, FL 34103, as Grantee.
(Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to
this instrument and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and
assigns. )
WIT N E SSE T H:
Grantor, for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable
consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, a
perpetual, non-exclusive access easement, license, and privilege for access over,
under, upon and across the following described lands (the "Easement Area") located in
Collier County, Florida, to wit:
See attached Exhibit "A" which is
incorporated herein by reference.
Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee, together with the right to enter
upon said Easement Area for the purposes of constructing a bridge (and related
improvements) across the Cocohatchee Canal and connecting Grantee's road with
Immokalee Road (CR-846), provided that Grantor shall approve Grantee's plans prior to
construction. Twin Eagles Community Association Inc., a Florida Non-Profit
Corporation shall be responsible for the maintenance of improvements constructed or
installed by Grantee, unless otherwise agreed in writing, by Grantor. If Grantor
determines that a safety or operational problem, or both, exists from Grantee's
utilization of the Access Easement, Grantor shall provide Grantee with written notice
that the Access Easement shall terminate within sixty (60) days unless Grantee has
corrected said operational and/or safety problem within said sixty (60) days. In such
event, Grantor shall not be required to compensate Grantee for any improvements
constructed or installed by Grantee in the Easement Area.
Grantor and Grantee are used for singular or plural, as the context requires.
Page 2
FES 0 9 1999
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the
date and year first above written.
," \'"
DATED:Y~<'t/??J
- '
ATTEST:
, ,DWIGHT E. B.ROCK~lerk
By: p~~
, , , Deputy Clerk
Attest IS to Chafnaan's
signature on11_
BY:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO
COLLIE UNTY, FLORIDA
ATJPOV d, as, t,o, f,7' ,'l&,l,€O'1," S,Uf,fidr.!CJ
~ J ,,111,0, ".=-
~L( .... h f' .V'~:..~
t"s~ i;;L.lIiL CVu11c.) hL.L.JIII:':y
I'
I'
,
, '
I
~
1h,'
~~ '
I
"
,
i ~~~il .
b",...........-.
lWINEAGLES GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB
ACCESS EASEMENT
DESCRIPTION
fEB 0 9 1999
A strip of land lying in the southwest quarter of Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of said section 20 run N86000'SStlE along the south line of
the southwest quarter of said section 20 a distance of 609.98 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence run N03059'OS"W 1 00,00 feet to the north line of a 100 foot wide collier county drainage
right of way~ thence run N86000' 55"E along said north line for 100.00 feet; thence leaving said
north line run S03059'OS"E for 100.00 feet to the south line of said section; thence run
S86000'SS"W for 100,00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Said parcel containing 10,000.00 square feet or 0.23 acres more or less, subject to easements,
restrictions and reservations of record.
MeAnly Engineering and Design, Inc.
5101 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 202
Naples, Florida 34113
February 9, 1999
Item #16B2
DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM ENCHANTING SHORES CO-OP, INC. TO IMPROVE FLOOD
CONTROL MEASURES IN AREAS DRAINING INTO HENDERSON CREEK
Page 171
~~p n q ~QQQ
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
THIS EASEMENT, made and entered into this -1- day of ~C'fl.", l" '^ ,19.2.1:., by
ENCHANTING SHORES CO-OP, INC., a Florida corporation, whose mailing address is 17
Turquoise Avenue, Naples, FL 34114, as Grantor, and COLLIER COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples,
Florida 34112, its successors and assigns, as Grantee.
(Wherever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all the parties to this
instrument and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.)
WIT N E SSE T H:
Grantor, for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable
consideration paid by the Grantee, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells unto the Grantee, a perpetual, non-exclusive,
license, and privilege to enter upon and to install and maintain drainage and utility facilities on
the following described lands located in Collier County, Florida, to wit:
See attached Exhibit "A" which is
incorporated herein by reference.
Subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record.
THIS IS NOT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the Grantee together with the right to enter
upon said land, place, excavate, and remove materials for the purpose of constructing,
operating, and maintaining drainage and utility facilities thereon. Grantor and Grantee are used
for singular or plural, as the context requires. The easement granted herein shall constitute
easements running with the land and shall burden the lands described above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the
date and year first above written.
1}1 j: ,/ / / -/-
/J~,~e~U<2/' y1c~<-../Cl~/2., ENCHANTING SHORES CO-OP,
FIRST WITNESS (Signature) INC., a Florida corporation
Jld/or.c 5 <5'c~/C/./J';c 7"2-. t
(Pri t Name) By:
;...,
t/~?~ ,
STATE OF rltJi'l JdC'-
COUNTY OF' ~"",l.tJ ~,.
The foregoing Drainage Easement was acknowledged before me this .., day of
Uec.(u't\. b"'.~ . 1998, by MIcka eL,lH:Htl,,",/~ 'l?'''1Of'1~ L f.w..u.1JbI~Print Name of Officer),
~lakMJr J VIce PH'~lJ~t(Print Title of Officer) on behalf of ENCJ!iANTING SHORES CO-OP,
INC., a F(orida Corporation. He/She is personally known to me or who has produced
L'C<''';c-Jl as identification. ~. .. I~ ~ --9~
(Affix notarial seal) J2!t.Vv ~ _ Lt.l
(Signature Notary~
-11,..,,,- td .r. Co jJ ; r./ ~1 .p.
(Print Name of Notary)
Commission # C C 7 () :2 93 2-
My Commission Expires: IJ/I1-!()OPJ
('1- ,,'~~~rj:;... DONALD J. COUTURE
t:fa" '1:\ MY COMMISSION' CC 702932
~. ",:;J EXPIRES: December 15, 2001
':'!.":..,, ~., BII1ded Tl1IU NoIaty Pubic Undelwrl1lrs
~rCl>llred by:
L.:' '; (~i f II < ,. .. ^
'".., . ,',: ';"1, r:;~,""1"',,,
.:;'~/.r;:' ()[ ';:, " i:'~,:,~ i:" ~',i:~l)rrtCy
" J, I" I ' ,-" I
f" ", , , ',',"
, ,;. ;-1 ':' i d:' ")1:11' ,)
'l _', "', ,} '.'" 1 <
EXHIBIT A
Page---L- of \
-
FEB 0 9 1999
PROJECT NO. Roost Road
PROJECT PARCEL NO.
TAX PARCEL NO.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A strip of land 40 feet wide for drainage purposes abutting and lying north of the following
described line. The sidelines of said strip are to intersect at the property lines.
Commence at the Southwest corner of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; Thence along the west line of said
/
/
fraction of section, NOI043'SOIlE, 995.2 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence S73030'OO"W,
905 feet to the Point of Tennination.
SKETCH OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION ( NOT A SURVEY)
~ West tine of NE 1/4
I of NW 1/4
I
'- Point of Termination
-- Point of Beginning
1
~
r~.
,~
o
It"l
M
'<l"
o
-
~
N
MANATEE ROAD
,Southwest comer of
Northeast 1/4 of
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11
Point of Commencement
..,........,
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DRAWN BY: RSG
CHECKED BY: RSG
BY: DATE RI.I&I.4"Q'18
." .. -- . . . ... ;';'j';\\ ..... *. ~
.,' -.; "t. L .'1',
:' arem sf $1 R':,
j g~~-~St~~~~~,?EYOR AND MAPPER
:. €O~.f)E\lIiLOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
, \. SSRVI'OES')DtmS)t>N:
':'pt~tr.'SI!itVI,QES DEPARTMENT
isoo. N01tttf. HoRsESHOE DRIVE
NAPLE!;;"F1JjRmA 34104
. . ~I
February 9, 1999
Item #16B3
RELOCATE WATER MAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COCOHATCHEE CANAL WIDENING
ALONG IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT 70061
Item #16B4
AWARD BID NO. 98-2900 TO ALLIED TRUCKING OF FLORIDA, INC./c.B.E.
TRUCKING COMPANY, INC. FOR TRANSPORT AND PLACEMENT OF BEACH FILL
MATERIAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $362,500.00
Item #16B5
PETITION TM 99-01 FOR RAISED CROSSWALKS TO CALM TRAFFIC AT LOCATIONS
PROPOSED UNDER THE SAFE WAYS TO SCHOOLS INITIATIVE IN GOLDEN GATE FOR
THE INSTALLATIONS OF FLASHING BEACONS FOR THE SUNSHINE BOULEVARD
SCHOOL CROSSING FOR THE AMOUNT OF $20,090.00 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PROJECT
Item #16B6
GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT-CATEGORY nAil FOR BEACH
MAINTENANCE AND INLET MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,543,007.00
Page 172
FED - 9 1999
DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
AS OF 11/30/99
February 9, 1999
Item #16B7
FINAL ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION DESIGNS FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AS AN URBAN
FACILITY BETWEEN IMMOKALEE ROAD AND THE LEE/COLLIER COUNTY LINE
Item #16B8
CHANGE ORDER WITH GULF STATES, INC., BID 97-2734, AND AMENDMENT TO
HOLE MONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., WORK ORDER HMA-95-2, RELATED TO
REDUNDANT TELEMETRY, PROJECT 70124 IN THE DEDUCT AMOUNT OF $196,570.00
Page 173
FES - 9 1999
DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
AS OF 11/30/99
February 9, 1999
Item #1.6B9
FUNDS FROM SOLID WASTE TIRE GRANT FUNDS TO CO-SPONSER SEVEN LANE
ASPHALT ATHLETIC RUNNING TRACK AT LELY HIGH SCHOOL - IN THE AMOUNT OF
$33,000.00
Item #1.6C1. - CONTINUED TO 2/23/99
RE THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE
INTERESTS FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING LANDFILL IN TOWNSHIP
49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SECTION 25 FOR PUBLIC RECREATIONAL PURPOSES
Item #1.6C2 - Moved to Item #8C3
Item #1.6D1. - This Item has been Deleted
Item #1.6D2
EXECUTE SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF COURTS TO RECORD IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN THE AMOUNT OF $21.0.00 AND
CHARGED TO THE MSTD GENERAL FUND
Page 174
*** 2434489 OR: 2512 PG: 3006 **,
RBCORD!D in omCIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUIITY, !L
02/16/99 at 08:11A!l DIIIGHT J, BROCK, CLBRK
RBC m 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F, Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
IIITEROFFICE 4TH PLOOR
BXT 7H 0
j:' F B fI q ,aOq,
Property Folio No. 63863160001
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Ralph W. Taylor &
N, Jean Taylor & Keith 1. Taylor
3334 McGregor Blvd,
Ft, Myers FL 33901
The Lien was recorded on 01124/91 in Official Record Book 001587, Page 002300, in the
Office of the Clerk ofthe Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien
secures the principal sum of Two Hundred and Seventy. Five Dollars ($275,00), plus accrued
interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property
situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
BLK 39 LOTS 29 . 32 OR 500 PG 753 & OR 1214 PG 646 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this~ay of ...;::;:r~ , 1999.
.i ~.~ "1 t i :~l .
ATTEST: u;.
DWIGHT E,'BRQCi\;,Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
/k.t -liv6;zwl~
PAMELA S. MAC"KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
"
~: ~~.-zI# tl7~~
~
By:
Attest IS to Chalrtlan's
signature on1).
.11~ J A(VL~
FEB 0 9 1999
Xx~ 2434490 OR: 2512 PG: 3007 KX~
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FBB 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BXT 7240
I=l j;l {( ,) .... r.^
Property Folio No. 58119480000
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Don Hutchison ET UX
Karen Hutchison
P.O. Box 428 Gold River, British Columbia
Canada VOP IGO
The Lien was recorded on 06/28/91 in Official Record Book 001628, Page 000721, in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien
secures the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty-Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued
interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property
situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 9, BLOCK 424, MARCO BEACH UNIT THIRTEEN, A SUBDIVISION
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ,?;CC'day of ~~ , 1999.
, \, tl tdW ' "
,.>'> " ,I UI'
ATTEST: : ' " ,
DWIGHT E. BaOe){, Clerk
. ~.~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
fJ,xd C?41141'1~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
By:
..'
~: ~~M/~--;.'&e
.." ' ? "
,,' , . "
Attest' as tc)"Cha1r11411'S
signature onlJ.
, ... (. ',' ; i,' ,~ '; d' f : c-; e :1 C j
1"J1i"'...'.".";',.. ",l', 'l',l".rj{' 'r1' ",:' "'" '
'\-'/' " "~1f1-J ,- /1 ~
I , .' .\.,.: - ,.'" , .
t.- -'" .
;:. 0 'I'';~~'l;t' (Ollnt') ,~ClU~';',j
f'\:>;.J. ".......' J
~*x 2434491 OR: 2512 PG: 300B ***
RHCORDHD in OPPICIAL RHCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, PL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT H. BROCK, CLHRK
RHC PHE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
INTEROPPICH 4TH FLOOR
HXT 1240
fEB 0 9 1999
Property Folio No. 57744520006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
James J Broderick &
Rose Marie Broderick
39 Morris Avenue N
Patchoque, NY 11772
The Lien was recorded on 05/05/94 in Official Record Book 1943, Page 2218, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 13, BLOCK 290, MARCO BEACH UNIT 8, A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this.....~ay of ~ &.. , 1999.
. ,II (. i'
. I~': I' . /'.'. li>
ATTEST: '"
DWIG~T E.'BROCK, Clerk
.......
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.......
kt,: :c.~€~..-d~,~~
I> ' ,. ,
/".~ " ,
Attest a's' to' Cha1rllan' S
signature onlJ.
12t 1
' ,.4 ,,(7411/t A //
By:_ 'If..l4J/(j'' .. r '"'-.- ~
, /
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
Nfr;:'\-:i \':iif';')fj/1'A "'~'
~-I---A+.U7';t--.---_.
Assistant Count] Attoroej
<1
*** 2434492 OR: 2512 PG: 3009 **~
RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FBE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD
INTBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
BXT 7240
, '-'
tHo 9 1999
Property Folio No. 57648760001
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Andi Pearson
Carol Irving
P.O. Box 57-1242
Tarzana, California 91357
The Lien was recorded on 05/06/96 in Official Record Book 2179, Page 0048, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 6, BLOCK 184, OF MARCO BEACH UNIT SEVEN, A SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGES 55 TO 62 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Flo~ida, ~cting t~rough its .Chairman, directs .execution and r~ding of this
SatisfactIOn of LIen, by action of the Board thIS. ~ay of ~ ,1999.
.
; ._.
') '; I ( <I
ATTEST: , I! I'
DWIGHT E. BROCt{,. Clerk
, t---:"' I
. ~,..
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~c;
PAMELA S.- MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
4!J;;~ ..~t.tr-~-/,<P~ ([
" .
Attest, as to Chairman's
slgl1ature OR1Je
Appr v d as to 1(~m;rYt;11 siJffkiency
/1 ,/"\.
L. ~~:'___
Assistant County Attorney
*** 2434493 OR: 2512 PG: 3010 ~~~
RBCORDED in OllICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, lL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
REC lEE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD 16 0
INTBROllICB 4TH !LOOR
EXT 1240
2
Property Folio No. 59026000006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Ursula Haertel
Bomharstr 3
82031 Gruenwald
Germany
The Lien was recorded on 09/04/98 in Official Record Book 2458, Page 1424, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 15, BLOCK 789 OF A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT TWENTY FIVE, A
SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this , ',~~ay of ..;;r'~ , 1999.
.
~"l' ':~<'!:~~"I' ,.
': .~u A i~ lJ, 1",;,j'" .': :
A~ES .,.'/..,", ,..,
.I,~ -.,,' .' ',' " ,. ,.
DWIGHT 'E:''IiR,OGK;:''Clerk
-'4', ~: i',' '. "~.....' \'~':",
. " '", - ,a
:;-. ; '_, ~;"','.. /"" -:, ,:' ~..p1
4-i:;~~~~~~.t
...~ ~'. - .: . . ..,'.
Attest, as' .to. Ch41run S
si9"ature on1,'. '
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~c:;
- , ~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
A1t: a~o r)tl9)(~'
Assistant County Attorney
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
~~x Z4j44~q U~: 'Jl, ~u: jUl1 ^^^
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
REC FEB
Retn: 16 \J
CLBRK TO THB BOARD
INTEROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BIT 7240
6.00
2.\
Property Folio No. 577 44520006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF ,
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
James J Broderick
Rose Marie Broderick
39 Morris Ave N
Patchogue, NY 11772
The Lien was recorded on 03/22/96 in Official Record Book 2161, Page 2130, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 13, BLOCK 290, MARCO BEACH UNIT 8, SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGES 63-68, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and rec~i~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this '~ay of ~~ ,1999.
_ '"i.); ~~:) .
~"":"": '.. '. vii'''' , i
~ . . ,';"'.
r '. "(? "
ATTEST: .' "~,.'
..-", ,
DWIGHT E. BROC~'Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
,.._' ') .... ,..' "'J ~
A',:'. ."
. . '-., . " 'j '". . . '." . .i:;,:
~.~~...~t#...~4.t
I ..-: . :~} -1 \ l"~
Attest as to'Chair-.n's
signature onlJ.
~
By: ~
PAMELA s. MAC'KlE, HAl RWOMAN
d as to!ormj& legal sufficiency
AJX: rk J{M~
~ssistant Count~ Atturn~j
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
xxx 24j44~J U~: LJIL ~u: jUIL ^^^
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FBB 6.00
Retn: 2
CLBRK TO THB BOARD 16 n ,.
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR LJ
BXT 7HO
Property Folio No. 62844240006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF .
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Carol L Goodlad TR
ITF Fischer Family Trust
727 S Halcyon Rd #16
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
The Lien was recorded on 03/16/95 in Official Record Book 2039, Page 1148, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if
any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County,
Florida, described as follows:
LOT 1 BLOCK 76 OF NAPLES PARK SUBDIVISION UNIT NO.6, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, AT PAGE 15, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9 :btday of -Z'...e. , 1999.
, ' '~~ ~'i(LJ iJ .:,
,..' , ;..' I' ;0""
Am-mEST',., " t.'j
.J.:~f. .""...i" '.~.
DWIGHT'E~ BRO~ Clerk
. : ' ...J.
....~ k '. . ,: ;._..\.'.' . -'
4F,#.~~4~~" 1,& l
<;/.'~;.' ,', "'.',
.. , , ,\ - .
Attest 'a~/~ to\'C,hafrun s
signature onlJ.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~
By: ~
PAMELA s. MAC'KIE, AI RWOMAN
/'0.... --'
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434496 OR: 2512 PG: 3013 ~
RBCORDBD in OPPICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, PL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
RBC PBE 6.0(
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD FE B n n "99~
INTBROPFICE 4TH FLOOR > j I.,..
BIT 7240
Property Folio No. 57744520006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
James J Broderick &
Rose Marie Broderick
39 Morris Ave N
Patchogue, NY 11772
The Lien was recorded on 01103/97 in Official Record Book 2268, Page 0128, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 13, BLOCK 290, MARCO BEACH UNIT 8, A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisJ ~ay of~ ,1999.
n ~: J l
ATTEST:-' rll:.~.i .i,l'
DW'~GHT E. BR()@~, Clerk
...
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~'
4:f.~~.i.J4I,t.'--d ,tP.(j
Attest as to'Chain..n's
signature onlJ.
BY:~~
PAMELA S. MAC1KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
~'/frL~
Assistant CountJ Attornej
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434497 OR: 2512 PG: 3014
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, Fl
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT Bo BROCK, CLERK
RBC FBB 6. (
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD \-- E B (} 9 ,999
INTBROPPICB 4TH PLOOR ' ,. " , "
EXT 7240
Property Folio No. 51241360008
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Elianne Francis
317 SE 13 th Street
Immokalee, Florida 33934
The Lien was recorded on 04/08/96 in Official Record Book 2167, Page 1762, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest
and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 17, BLOCK B IMMOKALEE HIGHLANDS, AS PER PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 7, PAGE 1, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and re~g of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this, 9'bday of -. , 1999.
\..l.J hU;1
...:;'\'" . ;.. ",:, - ~ .~i/
ATTEST: ' 'v"
!?'YIGHT E. BRbd*J Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4:~e;,J##."..1 ~d
~ \
A~test as' to Cha 1r11iR' S
Slgrlature on1J.
~~
~
By: . '),rb ~
PAMELA s. MAC'KlE, HAl RWOMAN
Appro'J d as to flt'n41J7;J~i ~'.:!T;i0nC1
~LiLj-'L~~
1\5$ ista.nt County A'i.U:,rn'2j
*** 2434498 OR: 2512 PG: 3015
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, F
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
REC FBB
fEB 091999
6.
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THB BOARD
INTEROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BXT 7240
Property Folio No. 56944760007
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
David Bernd
P.O. Box 460
Marco Island, Florida 33969
The Lien was recorded on 10/04/96 in Official Record Book 2236, Page 0159, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 1, BLOCK 132, MARCO BEACH UNIT FOUR, A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGES 32-37, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and ~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this, ~ay of ,1999.
.
, ',If!::1 ,
AT'rEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
f:;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-
. "
Jr: 't;i'~lP.l
Attest, as to Ch~1r.an's
s 1 gnature oll1].;
By:
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE,
APf'ored a?:11}ld~",~
~tant County AtS0!~2J
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434499 OR: 2512 PG: 3016
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FI
02/16/99 at 08:11AK DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC PEB 6, I
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD i= E B (I 9 1999
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BXT 7240
Property Folio No. 62101520003
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
John A Simeone
325 N State Street
Girard, Ohio 44420
The Lien was recorded on 01103/97 in Official Record Book 2268, Page 0126, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Four Hundred and Seventy Eight Dollars ($478.00) , plus accrued interest
and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 3, BLOCK 13, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board thisJ~ay of ~ ,1999.
, r! .i 'I
'J " h (. iJ"
.1
ATTEST: "
DWIGHT E; BROCK, Clerk
-,.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
.4,; %~~fiP.rl
Attest as tQ Chairman's
signature on1,.
By: Iik/J~l~
PA~LA S. MAC'KIE, C I RWOMAN
~ ;to ',' crrvfJfj'J"l ", "FI.'^,1C)
t--([JJL,Ld~""... .
Assistar;t Cou'nt'j At~Ct~l~:I
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434500 OR: 2512 PG: 3017
RECORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, F
02/16/99 at 09:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FBB 6.
Retn: B
CLERK TO T~B BOARD FE (l 9199~
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
EX! 7240
Property Folio No. 57744520006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
James J. Broderick &
Rose Marie Broderick
39 Morris Ave N
Patchogue,~ 11772
The Lien was recorded on 03/09/95 in Official Record Book 2037, Page 0729, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 13, BLOCK 290, MARCO BEACH UNIT 8, A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this.1a _day of ~~ ,1999.
, ,
L t.~ Lr , r
" <. r
ATTEST: ~ '
DWIGHT E. BROCK; Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, AI RWOMAN
Jy:~;M&(f
", t, ;(;... '
Attest as to Chairman's
signature on1J_
1 ( f' '" 1"1' \I
d ~ t" .t':l'" ?), 1:'~\1, S,~!! 1(1<.I'''J
A~pro','. a:. v I,., M' '. ,
,,0 . / 1 --:::::::::
^~nt County ;..tto';.~
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434501 OR: 2512 PG: 3018
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, F
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
REC FEB 6.
Retn: 0
CLERK TO THB BOARD FE 0 (\ 9 1999
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
ElT 1240
Property Folio No. 62203520008
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Maurice C Rix
3652 Seagrape Ave
Naples, Florida 33942
The Lien was recorded on 03/27/97 in Official Record Book 2299, Page 1008, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of One Thousand Six Hundred And Forty Dollars ($1,640.00), plus accrued
interest and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property
situated in Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 16, BLOCK 5, NAPLES MANOR EXTENSION
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and reco.!9-iIJg of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 't ..tt.day of ~-eA!.c- , 1999.
", f,t \ d,.
, ",,\,'I..~'~:I.:l,Uf /"
",~ '.! :~" . 1"'0 ~:"..l .
ATTEST: ' " ,'(;.~'
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
t
C
~
By: ~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, C AIRWOMAN
,l/~ t;?~~""7tfP.C!.
Att~~t/as to'Chair.an's
signature on1J_
Aft, as to, fjrm!JJ l~al ,stlffiCienC)
~aJ11~L~~
As 5 'j:, lall L (our, t.y ~ t ~(.rnl.i
*** 2434502 OR: 2512 PG: 3019 ~
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FEE
fEB 0 9 1999
6.0(
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTEROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
ElT 1240
Property Folio No. 56945680005
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Eugenio Lopez &
Susana Lopez
505 Gardens Dr Apt 201
Pompano Beach, Florida 33069
The Lien was recorded on 03/27/97 in Official Record Book 2299, Page 0998, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 34, BLOCK 132, MARCO BEACH UNIT FOUR, A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this. 9;,aJ..day of ~-c.A.. , 1999.
, I' 'I'Ll '"
, II \H~ ., ,0/.:
. " " ~".,
ArTEST:' ~. " :;~~.
I?WIGHT E. BRQCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
c"
~:,t;~.1V?"",_-/
'f . ~ "\ ."~ ~ " "
. ;.,
Attest as to Chairman's
signature 0011_
By:
PAMELA S.
13C~ as to /! & )r~, II : SlIfficienq
~- 'L11-L/l~
~,ssistdnt Coun(v Act::;:I:ej
*** 2434503 OR: 2512 PG: 3020
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, F:
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FER 6.\
FEB U 9 1999
Retl!:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
BXT 1240
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Property Folio No. 36003240006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.oF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Thomas Walsh
2348 Pine Street
Naples, Florida 34112
The Lien was recorded on 06/22/98 in Official Record Book 2432, Page 2514, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 17, BLOCK 105, GOLDEN GATE UNIT 3.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ~~day of....?'~ , 1999.
ATTEST: ":(1
DW:1GHT E. BROCK, Clerk
. I ~'t/ ~
." c~~
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jr: ~~~/-1#.i
Attest as t~Ch~1n1an'S
signature onl,r., "
,
By: fj,# t,h~~ic::;,
PlMELA S. -MAC~'KI~, HAl RWOMAN
D ,,''', """J
A:pL\~{~~;t"~:U~t)~i0
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434504 OR: 2512 PG: 3021
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FI
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B, BROCK, CLBRK
REC PBE 6.C
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD FE B (\ 9 1999
INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
EXT 7240
Property Folio No. 62838920002
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Levon R. Roupeman
21 Arlington Street
Brockton, Mass
The Lien was recorded on 01/20/81 in Official Record Book 900, Page 1816, in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the
principal sum of Sixty Dollars ($60.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and
imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida,
described as follows:
NAPLES PARK UNIT 6, BLOCK 46, LOT 25.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this CJ;t:L day of ../~ , 1999.
. ;~ J/ ~'i' .~,~.
ATTEST:' .' UF' .
DWIGHT E. BROpK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
;'
'i .,.'
-4: ~~RI""H;J7.~
Attest/as ~PChaf~an's
signature only.
~ ~
By' . ~ .
'pJ/1 ~d.JK~ OMAN
Ap r 'led 21.,5 to form ~. J;91.1 S.UffiCiencY
nA riA J-lILJ~
Assistant County Attorney
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434505 OR: 2512 PG: 3022 *
RECORDBD in OFPICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FBB 6.00
Retn:
CLERK TO THB BOARD ~ E ~ (\ q 1999
INTBROPFICB 4TH FLOOR
RXT 1240
Property Folio No. 36004160004
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Ram Ventures Inc.
% Facooneer Title & Marble
9853 Tamiami Trl N Ste 106-107
Naples, FI 34108
The Lien was recorded on 06/22/98 in Official Record Book 2432, Page 2545, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Forty Five Dollars.($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 14, BLOCK 106, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT 3 .
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9::t:z, day of ~ , 1999.
'1 *1 I
ATTEST:'" './ "
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
...,~.'" (. ;"
l,.,
~: J;~~~II.J4)(l
Att~,st IS to Cha f" .
S fgnature only.' run s
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
A~P ov d as to fot? t( ~Y1. /L~
ldt tt-.lJl-~._. ---- -.---
AS.s 1$ taii-t County A tt0j'I1~j
*** 2434506 OR: 2512 PG: 3023 ~
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
RBC FU 6.01
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR fE B n 9 i999
BXT 1240
Property Folio No. 62203520008
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Ma urice C Rix
P.O. Box 853
Cedar Key, Florida 32625
The Lien was recorded on 06/15/98 in Official Record Book 2430, Page 1195, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 16, BLOCK 5, NAPLES MANOR EXTENSION
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and reco~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9'...u.day of ~ , 1999.
'.. ;\ :!/.;
ATTEST: ,f :,:,'
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
. )'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
i!J/,,/ /J/!,. ~41
B i: .y'V/) t ," ... /') . f/j
y: , ',' l,,~)V \.
PAMELA S. MAC'KlE,
J.p. ;t;..a'~J~~~(
Attest as, to Chaf~ .
Signature on1J. -an $
An:;r,ii~:' 1';0' &,j'''1 - 'r' .
'ITt f' .'. ",j I'd IIl;ttl,;"",! II . (:nc,y
---J.:)L~~-_____ ~A~
ASSls~ant County Attornej
*** 2434507 OR: 2512 PG: 3024 *
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
REC FBB 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
RXT 1240
,~ t H 'l3 9 :,999
Property Folio No. 36305840007
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Lee D McCaskey &
Joan J McCaske
1200 Lastrada Ln
Naples, FI 33940
The Lien was recorded on 07/27/98 in Official Record Book 2444, Page 2420, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Sixty Five Dollars ($265.00), plus accrued interest
and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 20, BLOCK 189, UNIT 3, GOLDEN GATE.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and reco~~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9~ day of ~ , 1999.
'. \L'.l:~ l)j.l"
~;I.;...li 'U./l
.<~","> ,,:~,:::;.(t:"_,
ATTEST", ";'~i",::, ~(";..
. .;', '.r', ' t . r-::"
D~JGHT E. BRctCKfClerk
.~.. "~ .. <<
J'" ;; ~ . jl -:
J1:t;.aw;;Y~A1
......~~ '-I; '- 'j' 1'';~ ,i', . ,',' '" ,...." :;..
Attest "~s to' bi~ irlllan I s
signature on1,y_
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
)
.'
APrJ~J'")l!l~'C1:CJ
AS';l::1.c'illt COUilty j',i.,,(jl'nq
*** 2434508 OR: 2512 PG: 3025 *
RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
RBC FBE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD
INTEROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
BXT 7240
~ E B lj 9 1999
Property Folio No. 57750200006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Euestolio Leal
Socorro Santillan
2433 S 60Th Court
Cicero, II 60650
The Lien was recorded on 07/27/98 in Official Record Book 2444, Page 2430, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, LOT FOUR (4) , BLOCK TWO HUNDRED-NINETY-
EIGHT (289), OF MARCO BEACH UNIT EIGHT (8), IN A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and rec~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9::t:Lday of~ , 1999.
<)0' ;. ,('.' ,'\, d (~: '/' ~
~i' tt;...~:~
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
, I,
; ,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
4y;,~~~~,." ...<tM
Attes~/as to\Chair.an's
si~ature on1J.
Appl'rJE.; .a~; t fV2n & m;1f[~
( . I n/ ____. ,.__..._
, t _.~-1-. -,
' 't\s'si:t-i.~rl~t Coun'c:{ MJ:)'~:\
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434509 OR: 2512 PG: 3026 *
RBCORDBD in OFPICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
REC PBE 6.00
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD 'r E \3 l] 9 1999
INTEROPPICB 4TH FLOOR
BXT 1240
Property Folio No. 57747040004
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Nivardo Martinez &
Elba Martinez
892 Chancellor Ave
Irvington, NJ 07111
The Lien was recorded on 07/27/98 in Official Record Book 2444, Page 2424, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest
and penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 13 IN BLOCK 294, OF MARCO BEACH UNIT EIGHT OF A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and re~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9~day of__ ,1999.
, I- i:! i,
'. " ,,(.i
ATTEST: ' '<{
DWIGHT E. BROS:&! Clerk
: -' \
4;x~p~.~~4/,1--14~
, '
Attest' as to'\ 'Cha frllan 's
signature only.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APror:d a)~ f:J~~
~tant County Attorney
*** 2434510 OR: 2512 PG: 3027 *
RECORDED in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, PL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FEE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774.8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTEROFPICB 4TH FLOOR
EXT 1240
fEe (l 9 1999
Property Folio No. 82536080004
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Marulanda, Antonio &
Flor
816 Grand Ave.
NORTH BERGEN, NJ 04047
The Lien was recorded on 08/31/98 in Official Record Book 2455, Page 3232, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Eight Hundred And Fifty Dollars($850.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 156, WILLOUGHBY ACRES.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs eXYfution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ~ day of-:;?"'~ , 1999.
',:," .,q"I/I! "
," !, . - fJ'
.' ,
'ATTEST: . ',' t"
, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
~.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1"':<, '
..0(
~~
,~
By: I ~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, C :.z\IRWOMAN
~, ~~-<p'(fd
, ,/ '
,,1'(', " '
~ttest. as to t'i)~ 1 rJlan · $
signature only.
A~P"O' eo ,15 t01' I'm y)1'1I,\,1 sufi i< i 'nCl
~ al!L~
Assistant County P,'dornt'Y
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434511 OR: 2512 PG: 3028 *
RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
RBC FBB 6.00
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD' E B (l 9 1999
INTBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
BXT 7240
Property Folio No. 36447040008
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Lars E= & Ann A Larsson
1001 Murrphy Dr
Joliet,IL 604352837
The Lien was recorded on 09/04/98 in Official Record Book 2458, Page 1430, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if
any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County,
Florida, described as follows:
LOTS 20 BLOCK 250 UNIT 7 PART- GOLDEN GATE.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9;6t, day of-::7~ ,1999.
, Ii-I
. ,. '.1;, (/
'.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jr:M.in1~... .;4{(2
By: ~~l~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, C AIRWOMAN
'.
hLtc~t as to ChaiM1an's
signature on1].
APprO~fr: J as to :~r, tt)11-k1A-Fl.1 S'lffi~
T'.'" t ''''/ __ .._.' .____
~;, k;~;t Ouiltyp,t.l,0rnsy
*** 2434512 OR: 2512 PG: 3029 *
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC PEE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD
INTBROPFICE 4TH FLOOR
BIT 1240
fEB 0 9 1999
Property Folio No. 57681240009
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Raymond Quinlan &
Deborah Quinlan
428 S Country Rd
East Patchoque, NY 11772
The Lien was recorded on 09/04/98 in Official Record Book 2458, Page 1420, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 13, BLOCK 219, OF MARCO BEACH UNIT NO. SEVEN, A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recor~g of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9~ day of~ ,1999.
> \.~\ .~~ \ d/.
j I-~ ~., .;.; ..~ .
, ,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: ~~~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, C AIRWOMAN
ATTEST: "
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
4r:: ~')-/l.(f
, ", ' '
, . ,
Attest as to Chainuan's
signature on1J.
. .L, C 1 . ,,1 s"'1':' ;': i~n:y
Apr)'\'f"" " a<: 'oflmj{'fll-!] ^ ..... ' .
I ,'ll \J \..! .... Il
,. .A
~ss i starit--Coufity AtLo'!:-ney'---- .-
*** 2434513 OR: 2512 PG: 3030 *
RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FEE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
INTEROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BXT 1240
r: E B (i 9j99~j
Property Folio No. 62096080001
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THES PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIOERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien
against:
Klondie Aragon
Jose A Pena
48 Myron St.
Clifton, NY 07014
The Lien was recorded on October 02, 1998 in Official Record Book 2466, page 3004, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal
sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and
imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as
follows:
LOT 11, BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION,
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of
payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official
Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting
through its Chairman, directs executio~<},recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the
Board this 9-;J::1-. day of -..:r~ , 1999.
~. ~, j J
. c. '..) ,
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROC~, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
,.,-
--
".
By: ~~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, HAl RWOMAN
c
4:~~'7Af?rl
, "
Attest as to Cha1r~'s
s1~atur. onlJ.
APP"ovta.s totr~!t1Q, 1':):J~~i-'jN1C~
->-, - ---..-,...--'--
{tL._.~ -.
Assistant County Attorncj
*** 2434514 OR: 2512 PG: 3031 **
RECORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
RBC FBB 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THB BOARD
INTBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
BIT 1240
FEE q 9 iqqil
Property Folio No. 36180440004
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Sunbrella Homes Inc.
9085 Winterview Dr.
Naples, FL 34109
The Lien was recorded on 10/02/98 in Official Record Book 2466, Page 3008, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOTS 3, BLOCK 158 OF UNIT 4, PART 1, GOLDEN GATE.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and reco~ing of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ~ day of .....;r~ , 1999.
" ;IU ./'
, "J/,
ATTEST: .
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
. , -_.~
.'
~'"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
i' 't'
ij::?!~ /p'il
~
By: ~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, AI RWOMAN
Attest as to Chainaan's
s1~ature onlJ.
.. 1ft1' ,j
j~\',"'''U.'''''.'
r"," ~
Ass istant COlll1-t'y'pitorn~:;
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434515 OR: 2512 PG: 3032 *:
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
RBC PEB 6.00
Retn:
CLBRK TO THB BOARD:F ~ fi Q 199~
INTBROFPICB 4TH FLOOR .- ~.. ,.
EIT 7240
Property Folio No. 62096120000
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Klondie Aragon &
Jose A Pena
48 Myron Street
Clifton, NJ 07014
The Lien was recorded on 10/02/98 in Official Record Book 2466, Page 3010, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 12, BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this
Satisfactiqn qfLien, by action of the Board this ~ day of ~ ,1999.
~ 1-. I; ~J;'/;. ,
.
,
'.
"',,
v
ATTEST: '-
p,WIGHT E. BROQJ{; Clerk
~~ . . )J' ~
.i;~~~fi.,.~j ~.rJ.
Attest as to Chair.an's
signature oolJ.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:~~
PAMELA s. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
AJtJ;l;;!Mtin.;"'l
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434516 OR: 2512 PG: 3033 *1
RECORDBD in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
REC PBB 6.00
Retn:
i~~:~O~~I~~E BOA:~H FLOOR FE B 0 q 1999
BIT 1240
Property Folio No. 62096080001
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Klondie Aragon &
Jose A Pena
48 Myron Street
Clifton, NJ 07014
The Lien was recorded on 10/02/98 in Official Record Book 2466, Page 3012, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 11, BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs ex~on and recQ!Jling of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this day of -=:7~ , 1999.
,': . \,,: '.' ";!"~~//;i '
,~i ,'c"~:~(\lJ;
. .' ", i~l,~. .~..' 'r ,',
ATTEST: ,,: '~i::';.~~:
.. . .', ".~'
J+WIGHT E. ,'B}tOCK" Clerk
=:"; ,,', ~_; .,~". ,.'. ,!\~:~:i.'~
i;!:t;.~h~
~:'), . """'~', ; . '.
Attest as to ChairMan's
sjynature on11.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~
By: ~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, C AIRWOMAN
A~;).{to f?rm !J!}}pa~ sufficlenCl
-fl .L1LJL-\..._~
Assistant CountJ Attorney
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434517 OR: 2512 PG: 3034 **
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FEE 6.00
Retn:
i~i:~o~~I~:E BOA:~H FLOOR : E e }g i'199
BIT 1240
Property Folio No. 62096120000
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Klondie Aragon &
Jose A Pena
48 Myron Street
Clifton, NJ 07014
The Lien was recorded on 11/09/98 in Official Record Book 2478, Page 3098, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred and Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 12, BLOCK 8, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and re~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this ~day of _ , 1999.
) '),:~~~~.~..tt~,~~ii).' ". ,
ATTEST ,,/,;,': <~{i:'\~\
:',; ~':.itl~.;~ ;':: '<j..
InVIGHT 'E. BROCKt, Clerk
'," t _"\
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
-
j.~ . .
~,~f.'67fJ?rl
/ .' . .'L ..' .
Attest" as' to "Ch'a frun' s
signature onlj.
APrJ/:1to L"JffuS=
Assistant CountJ Htornsy
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434518 OR: 2512 PG: 3035 **
RBCORDBD in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
RBC FBB 6.00
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD ' ;.. 4 a 9 1999
INTBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
EXT 7240
Property Folio No. 57680760001
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and
holder of a certain Lien against:
Sylvia S Miller
1301 Delaware Ave SW
Apt N -622
Washington, DC 20024
The Lien was recorded on 12/04/98 in Official Record Book 2487, Page 3408, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures
the principal sum of Two Hundred And Foryt Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and
penalties, if any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in
Collier County, Florida, described as follows:
LOT 1 BLOCK 219 OF MARCO BEACH UNIT SEVEN, A SUBDIVISION.
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges
receipt of payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in
the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to
exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, acting through its Chairman, directs execution and reco~ of this
Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the Board this 9~ay of ~ ,1999.
,. \)Y ,~f((J ()I'
ATTEST: ,'.'
DWIGHT E. BROC~ Clerk
~-". : ' ", f;,r,
4{~t?~,+JP.(l
lj ,
"~ '
Attest as/to Chafrian.s
signature on1J.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
~
By: t:;
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CH IRWOMAN
APP~ as to f~JJle,al SUf."fiCiCnCJ
11 d 1 r//J A
l A . t( +-Ul.-~
SSlS ant aunty Attoi'oej
*** 2434519 OR: 2512 PG: 3036 *~
RECORDBD in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
RBC FBB 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
INTBROFFICB 4TH PLOOR ~:F B 0 Cl f99~
BXT 1240
Property Folio No. 62098880005
SA TISF ACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THES PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIOERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien
against:
Magda L. Rodriguez
Registered Agent for
Ernesto Rodriguez
Construction, Inc.
211 N W 27th Ct.
Miami, FI 33125
The Lien was recorded on March 26, 1991 in Official Record Book 1601, page 2305, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal
sum of Four Hundred Forty Dollars ($440.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and
imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as
follows:
LOT 4, BLOCK 10, NAPLES MANOR ADDITION,
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of
payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official
Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting
through its Chairman, directs exec~ol),and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the
Boardthis 9'~ day of ~~ ,1999.
1~~..~ ~':~J i"
... . f... -~ ~'.. 110.I'
ATTEST:: ::'.'" . '~>
. D:VIGHt,:E:B~,O~K(Clerk
""'.. -,
L"'j.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4:~;f:~~ ...~) #. €
. , .. .. j ~ \ '. "
Attest as to Chaina&n's
signature onlJ.
~~
By:
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
API'~vt~ as to f02~1~
~4a~t Qunty f.tl,or fk.'1
*** 2434520 OR: 2512 PG: 3037 **
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, PL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLBRK
REC PEE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THB BOARD
INTEROPPICE 4TH PLOOR
RXT 7240
':: F Pi) q Nqq
Property Folio No. 60605002906
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THES PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIOERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien
against:
Doris Grossman
4051 Ice Castle Way
Naples, FI 33962
The Lien was recorded on April 08, 1996 in Official Record Book 2167, page 1760, in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal
sum of Three Hundred Ninty Eight Dollars ($398.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and
imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as
follows:
LOT 35, BLOCK B, MOON LAKE, UNIT ONE,
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of
payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official
Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting
through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the
Board this 9;1:;1.., day of -.;'~ , 1999.
A TJESf~~;Ah ( ; "
. .' .. ,r ,.~f..., 1
DWIGHT'E:tBROCK, Clerk
, .:'~, " ," '.. {', .,':r :>:::.r::<'~~~~;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
'Jr:,~-~~jMl
""..\ .c' " "
Attest ;af\;tQ~ ~tia1r11111' s
signature on1J_
BY:.~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
1J;.d a~, t too" ffO ~1~ncJ
~Countj Att(\j":lej
--J
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
*** 2434521 OR: 2512 PG: 3038 **
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIBR COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLBRK
REC FBB 6.00
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD ,:; E B 0 9 i9g~
INTBROFFICB 4TH FLOOR
BIT 7240
Property Folio No. 59022200004
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THES PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIOERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien
against:
Fulvio Ava Salvador
A v Filandia, Res Montana
21-A
Alta Florida
Caracas Venezuela
The Lien was recorded on September 16, 1996 in Official Record Book 2228, page 2104, in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the
principal sum of Two Hundred Forty Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if
any, and imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida,
described as follows:
LOT 3, , BLOCK 786, OF A PORTION OF MARCO BEACH UNIT TWENTY -FIVE,
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of
payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official
Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting
through its <:;ltainnan, directs exec~n JIld recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the
Board this ' '1# day of ~ , 1999.
,} :.r : ('LI i i,.:'
A TrEST:,
DWIGHT E: BRo.CK~:flerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-....
'"
"
ly:"t;~ ~"'.'1,<Po r/.
"/ ! ~.,- ,." ~-;, \'. \ <
,I, . t., -.
Attest as to Chairman's
signature onl}.
~
By: ~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, C AIRWOMAN
A~prr 'ed a\ to form & ,1<'9, ~,l, ,<:,,,nff 1 c; rncy
JL1~ 0:. l1J~
As s i s rant COU'!~Lj 1\ li.::' '1 t:";
*** 2434522 OR: 2512 PG: 3039 xxx
RBCORDED in OFPICIAL RBCORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK
REC FEB 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLERK TO THE BOARD
INTRROF~ICE 4TH PLOOR ,; E 8 n 9 1999
EXT 1240
Property Folio No. 56931680006
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THES PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIOERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien
against:
Ivor Kacenberg
4203 Beach 42nd St.
Brooklyn, NY 11224
The Lien was recorded on October 02, 1998 in Official Record Book 2466, page 2958, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal
sum of Two Hundred Forty-Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, if any, and
imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as
follows:
LOT 2, BLOCK 115, MARCO BEACH UNIT FOUR,
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of
payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official
Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting
through its Chairman, directs execution and recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the
Board this 9~ day of .....;;;:r~ , 1999.
, ", !\ 41;' ,-
. -" , 1,), b',/"
ATTEST:,::," , , ,,'0;
.. ,. ...-t;"'f"" "". ,
DWIGHr;~.~.BR{)~Clerk
f,' .<! ""'-, ,",' ,; ":..:-'
. r.,_;'t
...1: .
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
j-f/':f~~p~..d /P.rL
"'i{' , .'.' :\.\"? '
Attest '~s t!o4th~'ifaan' s
signature onlJ.
By:
~~
PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, CHAIRWOMAN
C"~ :
A~~I:J1J:!L~J
Assistant County Attorney
i** 2434523 OR: 2512 PG: 3u4u AAi
RBCORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL
02/16/99 at 08:11AM DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
REC FEE 6.00
This instrument prepared by:
Heidi F. Ashton
Assistant County Attorney
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 34112
(941) 774-8400
Retn:
CLBRK TO THE BOARD
INTBROFFICE 4TH FLOOR
BIT 1240
~,111 (!.nHn
Property Folio No. 35985640000
SATISFACTION OF LIEN
KNOW ALL MEN BY THES PRESENTS: That the BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIOERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA was the owner and holder of a certain Lien
against:
Frank Kirby
Therese Kirby
670 13th St. NW
Naples, Fl 34120028
The Lien was recorded on October 02, 1998 in Official Record Book 2466, page 2974, in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, State of Florida. The Lien secures the principal
sum of Two Hundred Forty-Five Dollars ($245.00), plus accrued interest and penalties, ifany, and
imposes certain obligations against real property situated in Collier County, Florida, described as
follows:
LOT 23, BLOCK 85, GOLDEN GATE, UNIT NO.3,
Collier County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereby acknowledges receipt of
payment in full satisfaction of the Lien and hereby cancels the Lien.
The Clerk of the Circuit Court is hereby directed to record this Satisfaction of Lien in the Official
Records of Collier County, Florida, to acknowledge that the Lien ceases to exist.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, acting
through its Chairman, directs executi:~t recording of this Satisfaction of Lien, by action of the
Board this ~ day of ~ , 1999.
",ti, I
,,\ I 'I' ....1.. t :,,,
," t/it"
A ITEST: ,: ~' '~'" t;~';
I),WIGHT E. BRQCK';;:Clerk
. , ~";.-l
'. .....1'
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
-..... .
~ .
~..
4Lt~,j;}f.'--.~A (l
" ',,1',' :-'": \<" 1~, ".:
Attest as to Chafnlan's
signature on)J.
C'; ,
~
By: ~
PA ELA S. MAC'KIE, C AIRWOMAN
February 9, 1999
Item #16D3
AWARD RFP #98-2856 TO WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PREPARE A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
APPLICATION AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMIT FOR THE
MAIN GOVERNMENT COMPLEX IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $199,500.00
Item #16D4
APPROPRIATE CARRY FORWARD AND RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR THE RETIRED AND
SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM FUND (116), RSVP ITEM #1
Item #16D5
APPROPRIATE CARRY FORWARD AND RECOGNIZE REVENUE FOR THE RETIRED AND
SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM FUND (116), RSVP ITEM #2
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 99-130, 99-139, AND 99-141
Item #16Gl
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
BCC has been directed to the various departments as indicated:
Page 175
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FEBRUARY 9,1999
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
2. Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter
136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
A. January 11 - 15, 1999
B. January 18 - 22, 1999
3. Minutes:
A. City/County Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee - Agenda of January 7,
1999
B. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda of January 7, 1999 and minutes of
November 19 and December 3, 1998 meetings
C. Environmental Advisory Board - Agenda of January 6, 1999
AGENO~EM
No. /
FEB 09 1999
Pg. /
February 9, 1999
Item #16H1
ARTICLE V TRUST FUND GRANT-IN-AID FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $19,496.00
Page 176
"- ..-.--~r---"-
FEB 0 9 1999
Article V Trust Fund Grant-in-Aid Agreement
for Collier County, Florida
This Agreement is made between the Office of the State Courts Administrator (the
"OSCA") and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Grantee"). The parties
agree that:
A. The OSCA will pay the Grantee up to $19.496 as a grant-in-aid pursuant to Specific
Appropriation 2219 of the 1998-99 General Appropriations Act and ~25.402, Fla. Stat.
(1997), for costs incurred under Article V of the Florida Constitution in operating the state
courts system, contingent upon sufficient County Article V Trust Fund collections. Upon
written request for the release of the funds, the OSCA will payout three disbursements
prior to July 31, 1999 to the Grantee.
B. The Grantee has a population of greater than 74,999 and will use grant monies provided
under this Agreement in accordance with ~25.402( I )(d)(2), Fla. Stat. (1997) for expert
witness fees in criminal cases, court reporting and transcribing costs in criminal cases, and
costs associated with the appointment of special public defenders.
I. The Grantee will submit a written requisition to the OSCA for release of grant funds
no later than February 19, 1999.
2. The Grantee, in consultation with the chief judge of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit,
will submit a detailed, written plan for use of grant funds to OSCA no later than
February 19, 1999, for OSCA's use in reporting to the Florida Legislature.
3. The Grantee will not use grant funds for lobbying the Florida Legislature, the judicial
branch, or a state agency.
4. The Grantee will retain grant funds not encumbered by June 30, 1999 for subsequent
use in accordance with Provision B. The Grantee will return grant funds not
encumbered by June 30, 2001, along with interest accrued, to the trust fund for
distribution to all counties in the fund's fourth year.
C. This Agreement is subject to the following terms and conditions:
I. The Grantee will maintain proper documentation of all monies spent in a manner'
sufficient for proper pre- and post-audit. The Grantee will maintain all expenditure
records for a period of 4 years following the conclusion of this Agreement.
2. The Grantee will maintain all records made or received in conjunction with this
Agreement in accordance with the requirements of rule 2.051, Florida Rules of
Judicial Administration.
lof2
FEB 0 9 1999
3. The Grantee will release grant funds in accordance with the requirements of
*215.422, Fla. Stat. (1997), incorporated as Attachment A.
4. (For less than $25,000) Within 30 days after the termination date of this Agreement,
the Grantee will provide a sworn statement to the OSCA and the Auditor General
attesting to the Grantee's compliance with the requirements of this Agreement.
(For $25,000 to $100,000) Within 30 days after the termination date of this
Agreement, the Grantee will provide to the OSCA and the Auditor General an audit
performed in accordance with the Auditor General rules promulgated pursuant to
* 11.45, Fla. Stat. (1997), or a statement prepared by an independent certified public
accountant that attests to Grantee's compliance with the requirements of this
Agreement.
(For more than $100,000) Within 30 days after the termination date of this
Agreement, the Grantee will provide to the OSCA and the Auditor General an audit
performed in accordance with the Auditor General rules promulgated pursuant to
911.45, Fla. Stat. (1997).
5. If, in the judgment of the OSCA, the Grantee for any reason fails to comply with the
terms of this Agreement, the OSCA will have the right to terminate the Agreement on
5 days written notice by certified maiL In the event oftermination, the Grantee will
return all grant funds to the OSCA for reversion to the Article V Trust Fund.
This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding of the parties. All modifications to the
Agreement must be in writing. This Agreement is effective on the date of execution and will
terminate on June 30, 1999.
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, OFFICE OF
THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR
GRANTEE
,
Kenneth R. Palmer
State Courts Administrator
',a_
LL
Date
...
.;~~.. ~""t--2jj"';, .:.:~;';;
D~ . '. . .
),/ Ii..X . ,~. . -'.~~
ATTEST: ' , <f!!J'r ': :5": ~
O~nGHT E. BROCK, CLERK . : '
J.y: .'t;;P1~~~~Ir1.e.
20f2
Attest IS to Cha1r11ft'S
signature onll_
(':\1 )nClllHl.:l1l\Mndcl.hig.\\pd
February 9, 1999
Item #16I1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON
PARCEL NOS. 140 AND 840 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
RONALD G. BENDER AND MICHELE J. BENDER, TRUSTEES UNDER THE CERTAIN
DECLARATION OF TRUST DATED THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 1991, ET AL., CASE NO.
98-1394-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO
ROAD) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $6,156.00 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Page 177
FES - 9 1999
DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
AS OF 11/30/99
---,---_......".,-~,~_.....,
Item #16I2
February 9, 1999
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON
PARCEL NO. 515 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DAVID R.
CLEMENS AND LUCILLE C. CLEMENS, ET AL., CASE NO. 98-1393-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION, GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD) STAFF
TO DEPOSIT $40.00 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Page 178
FEB - 9 1999
DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
AS OF 11/30/99
February 9/ 1999
Item #16I3
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO RESPONDENTS, JOHN
A. PULLING, JR., LUCY GAIL FINCH, AND JOHN A. PULLING, SR. RELATIVE TO
THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 111, 112, 612, 711, 712A,
712B, 811A AND 811B IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN A.
PULLING, JR., ET AL., CASE NO. 98-1674-CA (AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD 6-
LANING PROJECT - PINE RIDGE TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD) - STAFF TO
DEPOSIT $209,085.25 WITH THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Page 179
FEB - 9 1999
DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
AS OF 11/30/99
February 9, 1999
Item #17A
ORDINANCE NO. 99-8 RE PETITION R-98-2, MARIO CURIALE REQUESTING A
ZONING CLASSIFICATION CHANGE FROM DAD AGRICULTURAL TO DC-5D HEAVY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI
TRAIL EAST APPROXIMATELY 2000 FEET EAST OF C.R. 951 IN SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 3.35 ACRES
Item #17B - Moved from Item #13Al
RESOLUTION 99-111 RE PETITION CU-98-23, A. GLENN SIMPSON, REQUESTING
CONDITIONAL USE D1D OF THE DAD RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR
EARTHMINING PER SECTION 2.2.2.3 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7000 BIG
ISLAND RANCH ROAD IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 105.32+/- ACRES
Page 180
, "",---'
FEB 0 9 1999
RESOLUTION 99- 111
A RESOLUTICN PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF EARTHMINING CONDITIONAL USE "1" :::-J THE
"A" RURAL ':;'GRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT
PURSUANT ~8 SECTION 2.2.2.3 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter
67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and
enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the
protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land
Development Code (Ordinance No. 91-102) which includes a
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the
zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which
is the granting of Conditional Uses; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission, being the duly
appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby
affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said
regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of
Conditional Use "1" of Section 2.2.2.3 in an "A" Rural Agricultural
Zone for earthmining on the property hereinafter described, and has
found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision
and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters
required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection
2.7.4.4 of the Land Development Code for the Collier County Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to
be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board
having considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS of
Collier County, Florida that:
-1-
FEB 0 9 1999
The petition filed by A. Glenn Simpson with respect to the
property hereinafter described as:
Exhibit "B" which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein
be and the same is hereby approved for Conditional Use "1" of Section
2.2.2.3 of the "A" Rural Agricultural Zoning District for earthmining
in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C") and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Blasting is not permitted.
2. The excavation is limited to a bottom elevation of -11.0
feet NGVD.
3. A required lake littoral zone planting area of 10% of the
perimeter of the shoreline is required prior to final
acceptance.
4. Prior to final acceptance, a 20 foot maintenance easement
around the perimeter of the lake shall be dedicated to
Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance.
5. Prior to commencement of earth mining operations, an
eastbound turn lane shall be constructed on CR 846. The
Collier County Transportation Services Director shall
determine the time for construction of a westbound turn
lane.
6. Prior to commencement of earth mining operations, a bond of
$25,000 for potential damage to CR 846, shall be posted
with the Collier County Transportation Services Director.
7. The Collier County Transportation Services Director shall
determine Road Impact Fees.
8. The access point to the subject site shall be subject to
the Collier County Access Management Plan.
9. Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development
Code, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation,
or other construction related activity, an historic or
archeological artifact is found, all development within the
minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be
immediately stopped, and the Collier County Code
Enforcement Director shall be contacted.
10. The Planning Services Director is authorized to make minor
changes to the site plan.
11. Hours of operation shall be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through
Friday; no excavation or hauling operation shall be allowed
on Saturday or Sunday, except in instances where contracts
for "public" jobs dictate otherwise.
-2-
FEB 0 9 1999
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the
minutes of this Board.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this
'1~
:UlJ.~'HJd
ATTEST" ..... ,,'.
" , .'... : -'!" ," ,:.:" j,..
DW~GHT E. BROC~~ Clerk
.-=:; ~
.-
-'
~..
. .
, ,
~., , .,'.... ,'-, a.:
~:'rl~.;.~ ~/" '6#J~ (/.
~.";/., ." " \ ',_ I..~, '.
Approved: :~s. ,to Form and
Legal Sufficiency:
~A~~ Jm .y):v..d1Ad
Marj le M. Student
Assistant County Attorney
f/CU-9B-23 RESOLUTION
day of ~~ I 1999.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest 1$ to Cha1naan's
signature onl,.
-3-
FEB 0 9 1999"
..-',
r f,.
FINDING OF FACT
BY
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR
A CONDI,]~IONAL USE PETITION
FOR
CU-98-23
The following factu are found:
1~ Section 2.2.2,3.1 of the Land Development Code authorized
the conditional use.
2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the
public interent and will not adversely affect other property
or uses in the same dif3trict or neighborhood because of:
A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth
Management Plan:
Yes No
B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures
thereon ,~ith particular reference to automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, and accef3S in case of fire or catastrophe:
Adequate ingl::-ess & egress
Yes No
C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise,
glare, e<::onomic or odor effects:
No affect or Affect mitigated by
_____ Affect cannot be mitigated
D. Compatib:llity with adjacent properties and other
property in the district:
Co~?atible use within district
Yes No
Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with
stipulations, (copy attached) (should not) be recommended for
approval ~
DATE: CHAIRMAN:~
f/FINDING OF FACT CHAIRMAN/l:U-98-23
_..._--_._----~-~--~--~------------,
Exhibit "A"
~I
.,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4
SECTION 25, T47&, R27E
EXHIBIT uB"
FEB 0 9 1999. '
~
80
j;!~
~2
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\0 I
~ ,
00:
, I
~I
I
, ,
UI
I
I
I
I
,
N ,
~ :
. 1
i :
:1
<,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
: 0
I
I
I
,
,
~~
" ~~
~,
5:-
will
~: j!
m~ ~
5~ ~
;~i' ~
· a
I ::
18~~i
!FE' · !"
cil <='"
>-
U
r- Z
'"
~ ...
..; 0
..
~ r- f:l~
~r- .
~tJ~ ... ~~
~~ r" ~
o~ ~
;z: ::12 U~
... 6 00"
0
.J ~ ~~
g ~ > 0...
~ ~~
~~ 00 :.c is ><
...
t3!i~ Q
~o~ ~
nj ~ ~~
~!~l 00 g~ ~ 00: P-4~
... ~g
~;~ ~
P-4;;;
-/
/ . ilK ."1.M1~0f'MI.. ,
/1
--~_..._---
&:We Sf'!;
I ;lSBqd
'1"1",
CUo
gj .
~~
P-4
III
CU
'" ~
CU ~
gjO\
~'"
P-4M
-
i
h
~~ .... e
;i j~
g:~ P-4r...:
-
M'.'
U
a~
I h
I1I11
.ltH
_ll_ !!:l
~
~
I
III Ii 111111 i
II!!II!I!!!!
s:weO'9
P ;)S8Qd
CU
M 0
CU tI:S
gj'l"l
~-
P-4~
-
III
CU
NO
CU CI:S
gj....
~\O
P-4l""i
-
1........."'*"
~
i ~ i
i i a
I ;' i
I il~
I 5! I II:
e ~!5 11
R I _I 1111 I
III IIII g
Iii =a I ~
iiU i
J -. i111 ~
[J ~-11
I
5
I
It
~
.
t
I 10
~!
i
I
'I
II
FEB 0 9 1999
! C"H ~
i
~
u
~
...
tJ
~
~ ~ ~
o ~ ~
Z 3 ~
~ ~ ::
;z. OJ:
Z;.: ~
o ~ ~
CI)~~
g ~,<
;> OJ i
< ~ ~
ol ~
<
e
en
~
en
~
t::l
1<