BCC Minutes 03/24/2015 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
March 24, 2015
March 24, 2015
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida March 24, 2015
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the
Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special
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 Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Tim Nance
Donna Fiala
Penny Taylor
Georgia Hiller
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Office of the Clerk of Courts
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
off.
r ftralso.
ril
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
March 24, 2015
9:00 AM
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 — BCC Chair
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Vice-Chair; CRA Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 - Community & Economic Dev. Chair
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Chair
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 — TDC Chair; CRA Vice-Chair
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
Page 1
March 24, 2015
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Jim Thomas — East Naples United Methodist Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
B. February 24, 2015 - BCC/Regular Meeting
C. March 3, 2015 — BCC/Affordable Housing Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Page 2
March 24, 2015
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation designating April 2015 as Children's Advocacy Center month.
To be accepted by representatives from the Children's Advocacy Center of
Collier County: Jackie Stephens, CEO; Kerry Geroy, Board Chair; Bryan
Lee, Director of Development; and Beth Sterchi, staff member.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request from Alyssa Cameron, on behalf of the Ave Maria
Stewardship Community District, requesting that the Board designates
District roadways for golf cart use.
Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Items #8 and#9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. This item requires that ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be
held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number
2000-88, the Cocohatchee Bay Residential Planned Unit Development, as
amended by settlement agreement dated June 9, 2008, by increasing the
permissible number of dwelling units from 590 to 652; by increasing the
development area; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier
County Land Development Code, to amend the appropriate zoning atlas map
or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 93.52+ acres
of land zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-3) and Residential Single
Family with a Special Treatment Overlay (RSF-3-ST) to the Cocohatchee
Bay RPUD, being added thereto as preservation lands; by removing the Golf
Page 3
March 24, 2015
Course "GC" tract and replacing with Residential "R2" tract; by changing
the residential development area to Residential "R1" and "R2" development
tracts to allow high-rise, low-rise and single-story multi-family dwellings in
"R1" and single family detached dwellings in "R2"; by creating an
Amenity/Recreation "AR" tract; by allowing recreational amenities to be
available to residents, club members and their guests; by adding deviations;
by restricting placement of docks to within the water management lakes
located within the RPUD; by adding a private road cross section; by adding
a Sidewalk Master Plan; by revising the Development Standards; by
amending the Master Plan; by revising Developer Commitments; and by
providing an effective date. The property is located on the northwest and
northeast corners of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive in Sections 8,
16, 17 and 20, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 625.61± acres. [Petition PUDZ-PL20130001813] (This is a
companion to Item #12A and is to be heard concurrently with that item.)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to reconstitute the Collier County Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board and direct the County Attorney to bring back an enabling
ordinance. (Commissioner Fiala)
B. Recommendation to approve the proposed Capital Investment for
Diversification Incentive (CID) Program. (Commissioner Hiller)
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to approve the purchase of property insurance effective
April 1, 2015 in the estimated amount of$3,027,599, a reduction of
$281,449. (Jeff Walker, Risk Management Division Director)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item to be heard at 9:30 a.m. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners consider the amendment to Settlement Agreement
and Release proposed by Lodge/Abbott Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott
Investments Associates LLC (owners of the Cocohatchee Bay Planned Unit
Development) to allow the Cocohatchee Planned Unit Development to be
amended. (This is a companion to Item #9A and is to be heard concurrently
with that item.)
Page 4
March 24, 2015
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) Recommendation to comply with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and Community and Human Services
Division (CHS) determinations to reimburse federal funds in the
amount of$268,901.37 for Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) projects sub-awarded to support the work of the Immokalee
Business Development Center (IBDC), authorize the transfer of
necessary funds with the requisite budget amendments, and to waive
Resolution 2013-228.
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the water utility
facility for Culvers Naples Airport Road, PL20130001819, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Utilities
Performance Security (UPS) and Final Obligation Bond in the total
amount of$7,650.38 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release
Performance Bond No. 40094491 in the amount of$97,500 which
was posted as a guaranty for Excavation Permit Number 60.081,
(PL20120000747) for work associated with Camden Lakes.
Page 5
March 24, 2015
3) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of$12,030 which was posted as a development
guaranty for work associated with Freedom Suites Site Development
Plan, Early Work Authorization (EWA) PL20130000663.
4) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Parklands - Plat One,
(Application Number PL20140001253) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
5) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Golf Club of the Everglades
Phase 1, (Application Number PL20140001653) approval of the
standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the performance security.
6) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Tuscany Pointe 2, (Application
Number PL20140001338) approval of the standard form Construction
and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
7) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid (ITB) #15-6369, Airport
Road (US41 East to Cougar Drive) Maintenance to Florida Land
Maintenance, Inc.
8) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
to execute a revised Local Agency Program Agreement with Florida
Department of Transportation in place of a prior version originally
approved by the Board on May 27, 2014, wherein Collier County will
be reimbursed up to $400,000 for the installation of advance
intersection signs at various urban county sites.
Page 6
March 24, 2015
9) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute
a funding assistance letter to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) for shoreline protection within Collier County.
10) Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to an Interlocal
Agreement between the District School Board of Collier County
and Collier County, to extend the deadline for a traffic study for
Elementary School L within Collier County.
11) Recommendation to award ITB #15-6394 for the Traffic Signal
Upgrade at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and 44th Street
SW to OnPower Services, LLC, in the amount of$297,391.85 for
Project #60172.
12) Recommendation to award ITB #15-6393 for the Traffic Signal
Upgrade at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Tropicana
Boulevard to Highway Safety Devices, Inc., in the amount of
$479,967.30 for Project #60172.
13) Recommendation to approve the release of a Code Enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$66,977.18, for payment of$677.18, in the
Code Enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Ebed Guadarrama and Irma Guadarrama, Special Magistrate Case No.
CESD20130004682, relating to property located at 831 Everglades
Blvd. N., Collier County, Florida.
14) Recommendation to approve partial release of 55 Code Enforcement
liens with a combined accrued value of$10,108.85 for payment of
$1,091.21, in the Code Enforcement actions entitled Board of County
Commissioners vs. Capri International, Inc., Special Magistrate Case
Nos. CENA20120012920, CENA20120012922, CENA20120012918,
CENA20130003493, CENA20130003492, CENA20130003495,
CENA20130007036, CENA20130007231, CENA20130007218 and
CENA20130007230, relating to property known as 1410 Marion
Lane, Collier County, Florida.
15) Recommendation to approve three releases of Code Enforcement liens
with a combined accrued value of$531,150 for payment of$450, in
Code Enforcement actions entitled Board of County Commissioners
v. Palm Lake, LLC., Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Case No.
Page 7
March 24, 2015
CEPM20090017229 and Code Enforcement Board Case Nos.
CENA20100002928 and CEV20100003082, relating to property
located at 3131 Tamiami Trail East, Collier County, Florida.
16) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign a
Second Amendment to the Joint Participation Agreement between
the Florida Department of Transportation and Collier County to
receive reimbursement for construction services on the FDOT
resurfacing project on SR951 from Fiddler's Creek Parkway to South
of SR90, along with the County's US-41 and SR/CR-951 intersection
project; to execute a Resolution memorializing the Board's action;
and, to authorize the necessary budget amendment; Project No. 60116.
17) Recommendation to approve a Resolution authorizing the Chairman
to execute a revised Local Agency Program Agreement with Florida
Department of Transportation, in place of the prior version originally
approved by the Board on September 9, 2014, wherein Collier County
will be reimbursed up to $491,322 for the construction of various
sidewalks in Golden Gate City (20th Ct. SW, 46th Ten. SW and 48th
St. SW). The primary revision changes the gran expiration and
construction completion date from December 31, 2017 to November
22, 2016, with no change in the amount of the grant award.
18) Recommendation to enter into a "Deposit Account Agreement"
with the Collier County Clerk of Courts (Clerk) to establish and
maintain a deposit account used for payment to record Notices of
Commencement by the Clerk that have been electronically forwarded
by Collier County Growth Management Department staff as a
convenience to its building permit customers.
19) Recommendation to approve an amendment to a Promotional Fund
Grant Award Agreement, modifying completion date to October 31,
2015 for the County's construction of artificial reefs and authorize the
Chairman to sign the amended Agreement.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a $340,537 work order to Quality
Page 8
March 24, 2015
Enterprises USA, Inc., under Request for Quotation #14-6213-21
for Underground Utility Contracting Services for the Wastewater
Pump Station 104.05 Rehabilitation Project, Project Number 70046.
2) Recommendation to approve a $468,196 work order to Douglas N.
Higgins, Inc., under Request for Quotation #14-6213-22 for
Underground Utility Contracting Services for the Wastewater Pump
Station 151.00 Rehabilitation Project, Project Number 70046; and,
authorize the necessary budget amendment.
3) Recommendation to approve a $495,140.95 work order to Quality
Enterprises USA, Inc., under Request for Quotation #14-6213-23 for
Underground Utility Contracting Services for the Wastewater Pump
Station 147.00 Rehabilitation Project, Project Number 70046; and,
authorize the necessary budget amendment.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment recognizing
recovery of County funds in connection with a claim involving a
Collier Area Transit bus shelter.
2) Recommendation to authorize the Chairman to execute a revised
Federal Transit Administration Section 5339 FY2013/2014
application for Federal Assistance and transmittal to the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT).
3) Recommendation to authorize execution of the 2013/2014 Federal
Highway Administration Flexible Funds grant award for the purchase
and installation of bus shelters in the amount of$294,000 and
appropriate a budget amendment.
4) Recommendation to authorize execution of the 2014/2015 Federal
Highway Administration Flexible Funds grant award for the purchase
and installation of bus shelters in the amount of$287,124 and
appropriate a budget amendment.
5) Recommendation to approve a standard Donation Agreement that
allows Marco A. Espinar to donate a 2.26 acre parcel along with a
management endowment of$8,802.70 to the Conservation Collier
Page 9
March 24, 2015
Land Acquisition Program under the offsite vegetation retention
provision of the Land Development Code LDC Sec 3.05.07H.1.f.iii.
(b), at no cost to the County, and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Donation Agreement and staff to take all necessary actions to close.
6) Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment recognizing
$29,128.43 of State Housing Initiative Partnership Program (SHIP)
program income for Fiscal Year 2013/2014.
7) Recommendation to approve a substantial amendment to the
FY2013-2014 and FY2014-2015 U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development Annual Action Plans authorizing Community
and Human Services staff to administer a rental assistance program
to prevent homelessness using Emergency Solutions Grant funds in
the amount of$96,226 and approve necessary budget amendments
8) This item continued from the March 10, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve a resolution authorizing the submittal of
an after-the-fact grant application for $516,816 to fund the expansion
of the Immokalee Sports Complex Fitness Center through the
FY2015-2016 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG).
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION
1) Recommendation to correct a scrivener's error for requesting the first
year tax levy for the Fiddler's Creek Municipal Rescue and Fire
Services MSTU, which should have read "2015 tax year" rather than
"2016 tax year".
2) Recommendation to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Collier
County and the Sheriff of Broward County, Department of Fire
Rescue and Emergency Services for mutual aid services.
3) Recommendation to award RFP #14-6307, "Annual Contract for
General Contractors Services" to the following firms: Bradanna, Inc.,
Surety Construction Company, Wright Construction Group, Inc.,
PBS Contractors, and Compass Construction, Inc.
4) Recommendation to remove the Goodland Fire District MSTU from
Page 10
March 24, 2015
consideration for alternative provision of fire service.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) This item continued from the March 10, 2015 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Category "B"
funding to support the Pro Watercross World Championships
September 19-28, 2015, authorize the Chairman to execute the
agreement and make a finding that this expenditure promotes tourism.
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution amending and restating
Resolution No. 2015-36 in support of Prospect #15-011, as a
Qualified Applicant to Florida's Qualified Target Industries (QTI)
Tax Refund Program, providing up to $48,000 of local financial
support for an expansion of an existing business management firm
in Collier County that will create 40 new quality jobs, and approve
any budget amendments necessary to process this transaction.
3) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
4) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment transferring
$200,000 from Pelican Bay Services Division MSTBU Fund 109
Reserves to the Beautification Cost Center for additional tree
trimming services.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Recommendation to approve and execute a First Amendment to a
Commercial Aviation Operations License Agreement between the
Collier County Airport Authority and Career Flight Training and
Aircraft Rental, Inc., at the Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Recommendation to appoint one member to the Collier County Public
Safety Authority.
2) Recommendation to appoint one member to the Forest Lakes
Page 11
March 24, 2015
Roadway and Drainage Advisory Committee.
3) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Industrial
Development Authority.
4) Recommendation to appoint seven members to the Immokalee
Enterprise Zone Development Agency.
5) Recommendation to approve a Resolution for the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners to request that the Florida
Legislature support the funding request for the University of Florida
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Extension Services and
Research and Education Centers, in support of local, regional, and
statewide economic development and agribusiness industry, and to
deliver the resolution to the Collier County Legislative Delegation and
other elected state officials.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose
and approval of disbursements for the period of March 5 through
March 11, 2015.
2) Board declaration of expenditures serving a valid public purpose
and approval of disbursements for the period of March 12 through
March 18, 2015.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to approve a Stipulated Final Judgment in the
amount of$14,000 for Parcel 232DAME in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. John Lespade, et al., Case No. 14-CA-2316 (LASIP Project
No. 51101 — Crews Road, Cope Lane and Sandy Lane/Wing South
Interconnect). (Fiscal Impact: $7,270.)
2) Recommendation to approve tentative Settlement Agreements, in the
case styled Collier County v. Vineyards Development Corporation,
Debra Lee Gogan, Amelia Sosa, and Astrid Ramirez, which require
Page 12
March 24, 2015
Defendants to collectively reimburse the County for the full amount of
damages, plus administrative costs, totaling $26,800.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-
PL20140002643 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public
interest in a portion of the 20-foot utility and drainage easement running
through the back yard of Lot 10, Riviera Colony Golf Estates, Unit IV, as
recorded in Plat Book 17, pages 88 and 89 of the public records of Collier
County, Florida, located in Section 18, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
B. Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 89-11,
adding criteria specifically for "Key Island" to provide for consistency in
activities allowable by local law and Florida Administrative Code.
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2014-15 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 13
March 24, 2015
March 24, 2015
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chair --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners regular meeting of
March 24th.
I would ask you in order to allow us to have a nice orderly
meeting, that you silence all your cell phones at this time and other
electronic devices so we don't have a cascade of various music and
jingles.
The invocation this morning is going to be presented by Pastor
Jim Thomas of the East Naples United Methodist Church. At this time
I would ask you to please rise and remain standing for the pledge,
which will be led this morning by Commissioner Henning.
Item #1A
INVOCATION BY PASTOR JIM THOMAS FROM EAST NAPLES
UNITED METHODIST CHURCH — INVOCATION GIVEN
MR. THOMAS: May we pray.
Dear Heavenly Father: We come this morning asking for help
from the Spirit as we offer our prayer. Father, we pray as we come
here together for personal issues, personal disagreements to be put
aside so that what is good for the people can be done.
We pray, Lord, for vision, to allow us to see where it is you
would have us to go. So often, Father, we want to headlight down the
highway, but what you've promised us is a lamp unto our feet and a
light unto our path so that we can find -- see the next step that we need
to take in order to do your will. Guide and direct us in this as we ask
your guidance and direction in all things, Lord. We pray this humbly
in your name, amen.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Page 2
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Before I ask Mr. Ochs to carry us through the agenda and any
changes there might be this morning, I would like to remind you that if
you plan on speaking on any item, and if you plan on speaking on
Items 9.A or 12.A, that you need to fill out a speaker slip in order to be
able to give your testimony and comments and present them to Mr.
Miller over here. So please do that. That must be completed before
the agenda item starts, which is, of course, a time certain at 9:30 this
morning.
At this time, I'll ask Mr. Ochs to lead us through the agenda, sir,
please.
Item #2A
APPROVAL OF TODAY'S REGULAR, CONSENT AND
SUMMARY AGENDA AS AMENDED (EX PARTE
DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR
CONSENT AGENDA) — APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Sir, good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
These are your proposed agenda changes for the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of March 24th, 2015.
The first proposed change relates to Item 16.E.3 on your consent
agenda. This is a recommendation to continue the award of that RFP
for annual contract for general contractor services; extend the current
contract through June 30th, 2015, or sooner, if we can get to the Board
with a new award prior to that date. And that is made at staffs request.
We have one agenda note this morning, Commissioners, with
respect to Item 16.A.5 on your growth management consent agenda.
This is a recording of a final plat for the Club of the Everglades. In
Page 3
March 24, 2015
light of the recent merger of the East Naples and Golden Gate Fire
Control districts, we are asking to authorize the County Manager to
administratively update Dedication No. 4, or the plat which had the old
reference to East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District and amend
that to read: The Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, prior to
recording of that plat.
We have, as the chairman stated, two time certain items on
today's agenda, Commissioners. Item 9.A and Item 12.A will be heard
concurrently at 9:30 a.m. And Item 10.A will be heard at 1 :00 p.m.
Just a reminder for the Commission and the audience, we have
scheduled court reporter breaks at 10:30 and again in the afternoon if
necessary.
Those are all the changes I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. We'll proceed to staff and
Board additional changes.
Mr. Klatzkow, I believe you indicated you had a change, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. Just a couple of minutes ago I received
a resignation from one of your members at the Immokalee Enterprise
Zone Agency. She was listed as a re-appointee on Item 16.H.4.
Accordingly, I would ask that her name be struck from this executive
summary.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
At this time, we will go to board members for any additional
changes that they might have and their ex parte disclosure on today's
agenda.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No changes to the agenda.
Under 9.A I have had numerous meetings, numerous
correspondence, both written and with email, emails and calls
regarding this item.
I believe that's all I have. No other disclosures at all under ex
Page 4
March 24, 2015
parte.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much. And
good morning, everyone.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner -- excuse me. Ma'am, could you
bring your microphone a little closer?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. You'd think my voice was
loud enough.
Okay. For this morning I have no changes, no corrections, no
additions to our regular or consent agenda.
On the consent agenda, I'm not going to read anything under 9.A,
because we'll be discussing our ex parte at that time, but on the consent
agenda, I have 16.A.5, which is Golf Club of the Everglades, and I've
had some meetings on that. And on -- oh, my goodness, that is it for
me.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
I have no further changes to today's agenda as far as ex parte on
today's public hearing. I've had numerous meetings, correspondence,
multiple letters, emails, phone calls and discussions with staff on this
item. I would like to make two comments on items on today's consent
agenda, because I think they're very, very good.
One of them is a supplemental resolution supporting the
University of Florida and IFAS's budget, which if the resolution passes
today as I expect it to it will be presented to Commissioners Fiala and
Hiller to carry with them. This is really an item that's in support of Dr.
Payne and Dr. Place at the University of Florida for their recent
engagement in their economic development efforts and all the supports
that we're getting and synergy we're building with the University of
Florida.
And second is Item 16.A.16, which is additional monies which
Page 5
March 24, 2015
we have been granted from the Florida Department of Transportation
for some of our transportation needs and requests, which we're very
thankful for to Secretary Hattaway in that regards.
Other than that, I have nothing further.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
On Item 9.A, I have had meetings, correspondence, emails and
calls, and I've also reviewed the staff report.
With respect to 9.A, and I believe it's 12.A, Commissioner Nance,
what order are we going to take those in, since you're making a
determination, and I think that should be said now?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If it pleases the Board, I believe we
should discuss these items concurrently. I do not believe that there's
any necessity to vote on 12.A unless there is a -- since it's a
supermajority item under 9.A, unless there is an agreement. I think we
should discuss the proposal thoroughly and take public comment at
that time. But I don't think there's any reason to proceed ahead with
12.A unless there is reason under 9.A to do that.
So the public has been requested to register to speak on the item
concurrently, and if it pleases the Board, I propose that we discuss
these items concurrently, as suggested by the County Manager.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So if I understand what you're
saying, you want to hear 9.A ahead of 12.A and vote on 9.A first and
then address 12.A?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I would suggest that there's
probably no reason to simply open -- to open the settlement agreement
unless we have a supermaj ority of board members that can -- that can
reach comfort under the different proposals and considerations that
we're going to hear today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That makes sense. So is that part of
how this agenda will be approved this morning? Are you going to
Page 6
March 24, 2015
make that --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If it pleases this Board, since we're
discussing it now, if I see nods from Board members that agree that
this is the way we should proceed, then that's, I believe --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it would make sense to do
that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Does everybody feel comfortable with
that approach this morning?
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did I hear you say that we're
going to discuss concurrently, but we're going to discuss the PUD
amendments, and if there isn't a -- aren't a supermajority, to go ahead
then --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There certainly is no reason to open the
settlement agreement if there's not a reason to consider something
under the proposed amendment.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That makes sense.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I -- I would say that the decision
to open the PUD amendment would be separate and apart from the
merits of the PUD.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, it is. But, I mean, there's no reason
to proceed and open the settlement agreement and then discuss the
elements that we might consider. If there's not a supermajority of
members that would consider something, why would we open the
settlement agreement?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, are you in
agreement with that methodology?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Very methodical.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, anything further?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have no further changes and no
Page 7
March 24, 2015
further disclosures.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks. Ex parte
communication on 16.E.3, I spoke to the new Deputy County Manager
on that item.
10.A, I would like to have it say: To be heard at one -- no later
than 1 :00 p.m.
And that way, if we're -- we're done, we're not wasting staffs time
having to come back, and they can get to work.
I do have a question on 16.F.4. Recommendations to approve
amended budget and transfer 200,000 from Pelican Bay MSTBU Fund
109 reserves for additional tree trimming service.
Is that tree trimming service on -- on a public right-of-way?
MR. OCHS: Commissioner, my understanding is that the
services division board had several areas inside of the MSTBU that
they wanted to conduct clear -- tree-clearing operations to clear
obstructions away from streetlights and also from power lines in
various areas in the community of Pelican Bay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Including Pelican Bay
Boulevard?
MR. OCHS: That's my understanding, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, shouldn't the County be
picking that up? I guess that's the new norm, that we're picking up
maintenance on MSTUs.
Maybe we should pull that and put it to the regular agenda.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. OCHS: All right. Mr. Chairman, that would become then
Item 11.B. That's 16.F.4 moved to 11.B on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Anything additional,
Commissioner Henning?
Page 8
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's it. Looking for a great
meeting.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
All right. All those in favor of the agenda as amended, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right.
Page 9
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
March 24,2015
Item 16E3: Recommendation to continue award of RFP-14-6307 Annual Contract for General
Contractors Services and extend current contract 10-5510 Annual Contract for General Contractor
Services through June 30,2015 or until the Board approves the award of RFP 14-6307. (Staff s
request)
Note:
Item 16A5 Golf Club of the Everglades Final Plat Recording: Authorize the County Manager to
administratively update Dedication#4 on the plat from East Naples Fire Control and Rescue
District to Greater Naples Fire Rescue District prior to the recording of the plat. (Staffs request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 9A to be heard at 9:30 a.m.and heard concurrently with Item 12A
Item 10A to be heard at 1:00 p.m.
4/10/2015 8:42 AM
March 24, 2015
Item #2B
BCC REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 24, 2015
— APPROVED AS PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a motion to approve the minutes
of the February 24th regular meeting?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
Item #2C
BCC AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP MEETING
MINUTES FOR MARCH 3, 2015 — APPROVED AS PRESENTED
And also the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
workshop of March the 3rd on affordable workforce housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amen.
Page 10
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning makes a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala is a second again.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
All right. Mr. Ochs?
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 2015 AS CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY CENTER MONTH — ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 4 on your
agenda this morning. Item 4.A is a proclamation designating April
14th, 2015 as Children's Advocacy Center Month, to be accepted by a
representative by the Children's Advocacy Center of Collier County,
Jackie Stephens, CEO, Kerry Geroy, Board Chair, Bryan Lee, Director
of Development, and Beth Sterchi, staff member. If you'd please step
forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. Please make a couple of
remarks, if you'd like.
MS. STEPHENS: Good morning. Thank you for having me here
-- or having us here. We're very pleased to be here this morning.
Page 11
March 24, 2015
Many people aren't aware of the Children's Advocacy Center and what
we do here in Collier County, but we serve the most vulnerable
children in our community and the most seriously abused children in
Collier County. We serve approximately 2,000 children and their
families every year; children who are victims of physical abuse, sexual
abuse, neglect, medical neglect, newborn babies who are born addicted
to drugs and who are neglected, and many different things, it's just
hard to believe, happen.
A lot of times we hear about things in the news, like stranger
danger, but in reality that's very -- very few of the children that we see.
Most of the kids that come through our doors are victims of a crime or
abused by people that they know, love and are supposed to be the
people who are protecting them. The average age child that we see is
between the age of 6 and 7.
About 30 percent of our kids are victims of sexual abuse, another
30 percent are victims of physical abuse. And the rest, like I said,
medical neglect and other types of maltreatment. These children really
can't protect themselves. It is up to us, as adults, as members of our
community, to look after our children and to help them and to protect
them because they really just can't take care of themselves.
These children come from every walk of life. They don't come
just from Immokalee or Golden Gate City, they come from every
single neighborhood. I have referrals from every neighborhood in our
community, so it's up to all of us to be responsible citizens and to take
care of these kids.
Thank you very much for having me here this morning and
recognizing the Children's Advocacy Center. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you very much for
Page 12
March 24, 2015
explaining to the community what you do.
The Child Advocacy Center is a private non-profit; it is not a
governmental agency. The County supports Child Advocacy through
grants from all different sources, and they are part of our Victim
Advocacy Coalition. But I would encourage the community to
recognize that because they are a self-supporting agency, when you
consider making donations, help them out, because they are helping
the most vulnerable in our community. You're doing a phenomenal
job. Outstanding.
MS. STEPHENS: Appreciate the kind words. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I may get a motion to approve
today's proclamation?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, I will move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I will second that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala seconds.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST FROM ALYSSA CAMERON, ON
BEHALF OF THE AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY
DISTRICT, REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD DESIGNATES
DISTRICT ROADWAYS FOR GOLF CART USE — MOTION
DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK WITH PETITIONERS AND
Page 13
March 24, 2015
COME BACK WITH THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, that takes us to Item 6.A this
morning. It is a public petition request from Alyssa Cameron on
behalf of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District, requesting
that the Board designates golf-- excuse me -- designates district
roadways for golf cart use.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. It is -- under communications to
me it's my understanding that the developer and the Ave Maria
community out there is very much in favor of allowing golf cart use in
that community, which has been focused on as very much of a
walkable community and a bike/pet friendly community. So I would
like to approve -- I would like to make a motion to approve this item at
this time, unless there's discussion, or you'd like to hear a brief
presentation from the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I would second that motion,
but --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner -- Leo, would you put that up
on the viewer, please.
Florida Statute requires that you make certain findings which
require staff to do a traffic study on this. I would recommend that you
direct staff to come back with a traffic study and bring this item into
consideration.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Absolutely. Thank you, sir. I will
withdraw my motion and make an alternate motion to allow staff to
work together with the petitioner to work out the details on that.
But ma'am, if you would like to make some general comments for
the Board, I would -- I would think that if Board members would like
to hear anything from you -- is there any -- all right.
Page 14
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there anything you'd like to say?
We haven't heard her voice yet.
MS. CAMERON: No, I just wanted to be here in case you had
any questions on the request. But we -- we just look to move forward
to work with the County staff to come up with this designation.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who -- who was first this morning,
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was before. You just ignored
me, so I was going to guilt you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the district going to pay for
the study?
MS. CAMERON: We're prepared to assume costs for pursuing
this designation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: While staff is looking at that, could
they consider looking at allowing the same in Pine Ridge Estates?
That's a community that is -- is very similar, very low traffic, and
people drive golf carts around there all the time as well. And if-- if
that could be evaluated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are you petitioning the Board?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm petitioning the Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a golf cart?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I wish I did. I don't even know
how to play golf. I wish I knew how to do that too.
But if you could take a look at that, it would be -- since you're
going to be analyzing it for that community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my street too.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What -- what street do you live on?
That's what I want to know.
Page 15
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't determined that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Once you do, we'll make that
motion. Would that be okay? Because we have the same issue in Pine
Ridge Estates. I mean, everybody drives golf carts there and --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I certainly think staff is now going
to identify what the elements are, and I think it would be appropriate to
bring it back independently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep, as it obviously is a second
subject matter, but the same issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Hiller will pay
for the study.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. I --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll donate my paycheck to you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: When staff is looking at this, and
I think you know this, the City of Naples authorizes golf carts on their
streets, on their neighborhood streets. So look to them for some
guidance in terms of what the -- the golf carts can't be normal golf
carts. You can't drive them from the golf-- golf course to the street.
They're kind of futuristic golf carts that need to be done. But it's legal,
and it works. It's -- it's a wonderful, wonderful transportation.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. I've made a motion to direct
staff to go and consider that and work together with the petitioner,
which I'm certain Mr. Klatzkow is going to be participating in to the
extent the Sheriffs Office needs to, and so on and so forth.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second the motion as long as we --
you know, we address just this one right now. Because we don't know
who would pay for all of these other ones, but they said they'd be
willing to pay --
Page 16
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller indicated she's
going to take care of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm donating my annual paycheck,
because that's probably how much the study would cost.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, ma'am, very much.
MS. CAMERON: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, do we have consensus from the
Board on the Pine Ridge evaluation or no?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: First of all, how complicated is
such a study?
MR. OCHS: I'll -- I'll ask the Deputy County Manager to
comment on that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, you look at the characteristics
of the road, so when you say "complicated," we look at the speed of
the road, if there's sidewalks on there with the pavement, average
speed of the car. So we'd have to look at all of the streets in Pine
Ridge and document that with other uses.
So when you say how complicated, it would probably be about
$10,000 of staff time or less to put something together.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: $10,000?
Page 17
March 24, 2015
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Or less, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The only people that go fast in
Pine Ridge are the cyclists.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've got to put down speed bumps
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I've seen you drive, ma'am. That's not
accurate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Take that back. Strike that from the
record.
What's that, $10,000?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately. You would put speed
tables up or speed monitoring up and traffic counters to see the volume
and speed on each one of those roads.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On each one of the roads?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's let staff come back with different
defined elements, and then we -- I think we can address --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's very important -- if a
neighborhood as small as Pine Ridge, which only has 600 homes,
would cost $10,000, I think it's very important to let Ave Maria know
how much it's going to cost to do a study for them. If analyzing the
few roads we have is 10,000, I mean you could be looking at a
$100,000-plus study for Ave to do that kind of work.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're going to fund the counters and
they'll fund the speed study, and then that will be up to them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I mean, but you need -- I
think you need to give them a preliminary estimate before you do
anything like that, even though we've approved you moving forward
because, you know, there shouldn't be any surprises.
MR. OCHS: We'll do that. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 18
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. There's a -- there's a -- I think
we already voted. We already voted on it. We're ready for the next
item. I don't know if we can do anything in three minutes.
Item #1 l A
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF
PROPERTY INSURANCE EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2015 IN THE
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $3,027,599, A REDUCTION OF
$281,449 — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest perhaps we
could do Item 11.A. This is an annual routine renewal of your
property insurance.
Mr. Walker, your Risk Management Director, is available to
answer questions.
This is, frankly, on your agenda at a regular agenda because it
exceeds the $1 million expenditure threshold the Board had
established. Otherwise, the premium is actually reduced by $281,000
from the prior year's premium.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well done. Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion to approve and a
second by Commissioner Taylor.
Discussion on this item?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just well done. Well done. It's
nice to see a quarter of a million dollars or more saved.
MR. WALKER: Thank you, ma'am.
Page 19
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Further comments by Board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, it passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure there's
anything else that we can accomplish in two minutes except --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16.F.4.
MR. OCHS: I'm not sure the representatives from the services
division are here right now, sir, unless you'd like to take it up anyway.
I'm not sure we can answer all the questions the Board has on that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Hold on.
10.A?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why don't you give the court
reporter a two-minute break, because this is --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What we're going to do here is, I think
Commissioner Hiller has a great idea. We're going to give the court
reporter a two-minute break to limber up her fingers for the next item,
to allow you to clear your throats and get a drink of water, if you want
to in the next two minutes, and then we're going to attack this item. So
you may discuss amongst yourselves quietly, if you like, and we'll take
this item up in about a minute and a half.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
Page 20
March 24, 2015
Item #9A (Discussed; tabled to later in meeting)
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2000-88, THE COCOHATCHEE BAY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED BY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 9, 2008, BY INCREASING THE
PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 590
TO 652; BY INCREASING THE DEVELOPMENT AREA; BY
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO AMEND THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL 93.52± ACRES OF LAND ZONED RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-3) AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (RSF-3-ST) TO
COCOHATCHEE BAY RPUD, BEING ADDED THERETO AS
PRESERVATION LAND; BY REMOVING THE GOLF COURSE
"GC" TRACT AND REPLACING WITH RESIDENTIAL "R2"
TRACT; BY CHANGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AREAS TO RESIDENTIAL "R1" AND "R2" DEVELOPMENT
TRACTS TO ALLOW HIGH-RISE, LOW-RISE AND SINGLE-
STORY MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN "R1" AND SINGLE
FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN "R2"; BY CREATING AN
AMENITY/RECREATION "AR" TRACT; BY ALLOWING
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES BE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS,
CLUB MEMBERS AND THEIR GUESTS; BY ADDING
DEVIATIONS; BY RESTRICTING PLACEMENT OF DOCKS TO
WITHIN WATER MANAGEMENT LAKES LOCATED WITHIN
Page 21
March 24, 2015
THE RPUD; BY ADDING A PRIVATE ROAD CROSS SECTION;
BY ADDING A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN; BY REVISING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER
PLAN; BY REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST
CORNERS OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND VANDERBILT
DRIVE IN SECTIONS 8, 16, 17 AND 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 625.61± ACRES — TABLED TO LATER IN THE MEETING —
CONSENSUS
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to
open the public hearing on Item 9.A, which will be discussed
concurrently with Item 12.A at this time.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, these items are -- 9.A does require
ex parte disclosure be provided by commission members and all
participants are required to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. At this time I will ask for ex
parte. I believe Commissioner Fiala is the only commissioner that
didn't give her ex parte on this item.
Ma'am, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
Yes, I have quite -- quite a few items to turn over. They're all
there for public viewing, and I will make them available.
I've had meetings and correspondence, emails, calls. A lot of
people -- I mean, there -- we have had so many, so many emails.
And I've read the newspaper accounts, the different letters to the editor.
I was also invited to a meeting with -- within Glen Eden, I think it's
called. And there were -- I can't tell you all the people that were there,
but anyway -- and they wanted me there just to -- they wanted all of us
Page 22
March 24, 2015
there. They actually invited each one of us. So I went separately and
listened to everybody and their concerns and so forth.
So I've had a lot of-- I've had a lot of ex parte to declare. I
couldn't tell you all the people that wrote and called, but they're all
here.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going
to remind you, this is a public hearing. I'm going to ask you to help me
maintain a very respectful environment. We want each of you to be
able to provide your testimony. We want everyone to be able to hear
the testimony, and we certainly want the Board members and the
County Commissioners to be able to hear what everyone has to say,
and we want you to be able to hear those remarks also.
So I would ask you to please be very respectful of one another
and grant everyone the courtesy that you wish to be extended to
yourself.
Item 9.A, of course, as most of you may know or may not know,
requires a supermajority vote, which means for anything to happen
under Item 9.A, which is an amendment to the Cocohatchee Bay
residential PUD, will require four votes. And Item No. 12.A, which
will be discussed concurrently requires three votes.
So at this time, everyone that wishes to testify must rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter, so please do so.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did not give my ex parte
communication on this item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would include but not
Page 23
March 24, 2015
limited to discussions with the petitioner's representative and staff,
voluminous letters and emails, petitions, multiple phone calls. And
anybody wishing to review my record on this item is welcome to do
so.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I should have said,
mention -- I also had a few meetings with the petitioner's agents as
well.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes. And -- and all -- all the public in
attendance today realize that all of these ex parte records are public
record and, of course, available for anybody's inspection at any time
they wish to do so.
All right. Based on comments earlier, on the order of discussion
on this item, I believe that we're going to begin with item -- general
discussion on Item 9.A, and I guess we should -- we should hear at this
time from the petitioner.
MR. GRANT: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Dick
Grant. I'm an attorney with the Grant Fridkin Pearson law firm here in
Naples, and our firm represents the petitioners, Lodge/Abbott
Associates, LLC and Lodge/Abbott Investments Associates LLC, who
are the respective owners of different parts of the Cocohatchee PUD.
I'm going to talk initially. Following me, Wayne Arnold of Grady
Minor & Associates, who is the co-agent with me, is going to run
through the particulars of what is being proposed here.
We have other members of our team here who I don't believe
we're going to have speak as a part of our presentation, but they are
available to the extent there are questions, and we may want to use
them in rebuttal, were that to become necessary.
And their names are John Muster and Jay Westendorf, who are
civil engineers; Norman Trebilcock, who's our traffic engineer; Tim
Hall, who is the environmental consultant; my associate Charles
Page 24
March 24, 2015
Whittington might help me, but probably I will handle this all by
myself. I just might need some help passing out papers.
And what I'd like to do is run through briefly the history of the
Cocohatchee PUD. I'm going to be very quick about that, and I'm
going to explain the history and the background to this application
which was initiated in December of 2013, how we got to today, point
out some things. There's some things I want to explain that the
applicant is prepared to do that are not part of the record that have been
decided in the past several days. And then I'll turn it over to Wayne
Arnold, who will run through a presentation on what is actually being
proposed. And he will use some graphics that I think are very useful to
your understanding of this.
The Cocohatchee PUD was first approved in the year 2000, so ifs
15 years old. It was amended in the year 2008, growing out of a
petition that actually had been filed in 2005 to amend it. That led to
some controversy. It was disapproved. There were challenges to it. It
resolved itself with a settlement agreement in 2008, which is why there
is both a settlement agreement that embodies in and of itself the PUD
document that is currently the zoning for the property. So the zoning is
actually embodied in the settlement agreement that was entered into in
the year 2008.
The pending application was initiated in the year -- in December
of 2013. It proposed -- and the significant change that it proposed was
to propose that the east parcel, as it's called, which is the part of the
property located east of Vanderbilt Drive no longer be a golf course,
but it could be developed with housing.
The application proposed a good bit more density than is
currently pending before you. It was, we believe, completely consistent
with the comprehensive land use plan.
In any event -- and it also proposed the addition of 93 additional
acres to the PUD, which is quite a significant amount of land, located
Page 25
March 24, 2015
along its northwestern border that would all be designated as future
preserves. That application was considered at a neighborhood
information meeting, as is required to be held, in March of 2014.
So just about a year ago -- literally a couple days ago, March the 19th.
The meeting was very well attended. It was actually
over-attended. The room was inadequate in terms of size. The room
was plenty big, but the attendance was quite large, and the meeting,
suffice it to say, there were a lot of people that spoke and people were
not very happy.
And growing out of that, and the reason you have these meetings,
is to educate the neighborhood, but also to let the applicant listen. And
the applicant listened.
And following that meeting in March of 2014, over the course of
the month of April and May, a number of meetings were held by the
applicant with neighborhood groups, and the proposal for the
amendment was scaled back considerably.
And over the course of that period of time and then through the
summer of last year, the proposal was modified. It took some time to
retool the documents, and it was resubmitted in August or September
of last year, further amending the December, 2013 petition.
And it reduced the requested changes down to basically make the
east parcel limited to 62 single-family lots. It had a specific master
plan layout that would show the location of where those lots would go,
where the spine of the road would go. They're all so-called
single-loaded lots, meaning they're not -- it's not a road with two lots
on either side but only on one side. And it was required to fit around
some required preserve areas.
The revised application was considered by staff. The staff has
recommended approval. The staff has determined that it believes the
application as consistent with the Comprehensive Growth
Management Plan and its Future Land Use Element is compatible with
Page 26
March 24, 2015
surrounding land use patterns.
It was considered by the Planning Commission in September of
2014. The Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-to-1, voted to
recommend it to you, and its recommendation to that effect is in the
record.
Following that there were some more discussions, and the
applicant determined because the time frame was getting very tight --
because you're required to have the Board decide something within a
year after a neighborhood information meeting or you have to have
another one, we decided to have another neighborhood information
meeting because the project obviously is something of high
community interest. There are a lot of people that are concerned about
it; witness the room today.
So a second neighborhood information meeting was held on
February 26th this year, a month ago. The meeting was well attended.
There were not as many people there as there had been in March 2014.
We had had some audio/visual and audio difficulties. The first one we
did not have those problems in February, I assure you that. The
meeting went quite well, and the revised proposal was presented at that
time and questions were answered.
There were many people that were not happy with the proposal,
but I would say to you that the tenor of it was different. The significant
difference was that there were people who were supportive of the
application as it was explained, and as it had been revised in the
February of 2015 meeting.
And I believe you'll want to hear from a number of those people
today. And many of them occupy leadership positions in some of the
neighborhood community property owners associations that surround
Cocohatchee Bay. And I'm not going to pretend to suggest that there
were more people speaking favorably than there were speaking
against, because that's not true; but rather the significance of their
Page 27
March 24, 2015
positions and the fact that there was a change. And some of the people
that spoke favorably clearly had been against it in March of 2014.
One of the things that came out in that meeting, and it wasn't
anything that we were unaware of or surprised, was the notion of trust.
And you've heard that and you will hear that. It's been in letters to the
editor, it's been in emails, there are stickers that people are wearing
speaking of the public trust. And we understand that. And people don't
like to feel that they have to worry about changes. And I think we all
understand that.
So we've had conversations, the applicant has, and we've
considered that. And the applicant has determined that it's willing to
do something here if this petition is approved that I believe is quite
significant. And that is, the applicant is prepared to enter into a
declaration of covenants that will encumber the Cocohatchee property
that will run in favor of identified surrounding property owners
associations that will commit that the key parts of this PUD are
enforceable covenants by those associations.
It would not be part of the rezoning. It's a private document,
enforceable by them. It -- it exists and it is enforceable and would be
enforceable by them no matter what the zoning is. So if in the future --
not that I'm suggesting anybody's seeking to try to change it again, but
if in the future you were to approve this petition today, and if in the
future 5, 10 years from now, whatever, whomever then owns the
property were to seek further changes, even if they were approved, it
would not vitiate the effect of these covenants.
There is much property in this community that exists in both
realms, where there is zoning that applies that restricts its use and
private deed restrictions where covenants apply. And the owner must
comply with the more restrictive of the two. There's a big sign at the
development services office, at least there used to be the last time I was
there, that warns people seeking approvals in this community that they
Page 28
March 24, 2015
may have to comply with private restrictive covenants that affect their
property over and above and separate from the zoning and that the
county has nothing to do with those restrictive covenants.
So this is something which the applicant is prepared to do. It will
help, we think, give the community enforceable legal protection that
will cause them to not have to feel they have to worry about the trust
factor.
Copies of it have been given to as many of the different civic
association representatives as the client has been able to get them to.
I sent a letter to you all last Friday afternoon, I've handed the County
Attorney a copy of it as executed.
We've actually decided yesterday to improve it further, and the
improvements are that the version we had Friday only restricted the
east parcel to 62 lots. It didn't restrict the west parcel because that
hadn't, per se, been in controversy. We decided to restrict that to the
590 units that exist now.
It will restrict the so-called western preserves. There was concern
expressed at the neighborhood information meeting by some
individuals that, well, how do we know that in the future somebody
won't try to develop the preserves, even though the preserves are
restricted as zoned preserve parcels? How do we know that you won't
come back in the future and try to develop them?
The answer to that is, it's probably going to be very difficult, but
the applicant is prepared to restrict them with deed restrictions.
And Wayne Arnold is going to graphically illustrate for you on
some graphics what surrounding associations we have identified that
this declaration of covenant would run in favor of.
There are two other things that the applicant is prepared to do that
would constitute amendments to the application. And they both relate
to the -- well, actually one relates to the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement in 2008 required two monetary
Page 29
March 24, 2015
contributions, one of which has been funded, three and a half million
dollars for transportation improvements. The other was a required $3
million contribution for affordable housing to be funded, $600,000
each time one of the five approved towers on the west parcel was
completed and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
We had requested as a part of the application that the applicants
be relieved of the requirement to fund that. And the reason was
because there is a provision in the Land Development Code today,
enacted I think a couple of years ago, that sets a process and a
procedure for property owners who have been required to in the past or
who have agreed to make such commitments to be relieved from them,
because as I understand it the County no longer has a program for
affordable housing. And so that was the reason that the applicant
requested to be relieved from that.
The applicant has decided to change its mind and not ask to be
relieved from that. You may not have an affordable housing program
today. And to the extent that the funds could be used for some
affordable housing program that might be adopted in the future, they're
available to the extent that there is no program for that in the future.
The applicant is prepared to still commit to funding that, assuming this
petition is approved. And it can be used for some civic or public
betterment or good, something that perhaps would make improvements
in transportation areas in the surrounding area or some other purpose
that you, as the County Commission, determine.
The applicant would like to have some ability to comment on how
it's used, but other than that, the request to be relieved from that will be
withdrawn as a part of this application, assuming the petition is
approved.
The second thing that the applicant has determined to change is
that the PUD has as a part of it an eagle management plan. It no longer
has to be part of the PUD, so it's being removed from the PUD as a
Page 30
March 24, 2015
part of this.
But one of the facets of the eagle management plan as adopted
and revised in 2008 was a requirement to seek applicable permits, to
the extent they could be obtained, to construct an artificial tree for a
nest for an eagle. It would be located in the western preserve areas.
Nobody is sure it can be permitted. The Federal Fish & Wildlife
Service doesn't require it, but it was a requirement in the eagle
management plan that was approved by this Board in 2008.
The reason -- and so the petition actually asked to be relieved
of the requirement to construct the artificial tree because the applicant
believes that there's no science to support that it would work. But the
applicants decided to withdraw their request.
So the eagle management plan can stand as it is, with the
continued requirement to seek permits and, if obtained, construct the
artificial nest. Whether it works, nobody knows, but it is -- was
intended as experiment to see if it would work, and so that's a good
thing. So that request to eliminate that is withdrawn.
The -- at this point, I think I want to turn this over to Wayne
Arnold. As I say, we have the rest of our team here. They can answer
questions if you have them. I'd like to have them available for rebuttal.
If they speak, I would like to have them qualified as experts. We have
their CV's. Charles Whittington has got them. I'd like to hand them to
the County Manager, if I could, and if they are asked to testify have
them accepted as experts in their area of respective expertise.
One of them is Wayne Arnold, who's going to talk. I know you
see Wayne quite often, but I would like to have Wayne accepted as a
planning expert too. And we have his CV as well.
And with that, I'm going to ask Wayne to come up.
There's one other thing I want to do as a procedural matter, and --
because I think this is important -- and that is, I would like to make
sure that the record before you is identified in terms of the applicable
Page 31
March 24, 2015
documents. And I'm going to read just a list of what those documents
are that are in the record already, so that as a part of my presentation
that's known.
And the first is the petition that was filed in December of 2013,
as it's been revised and supplemented and amended with all the
accompanying materials.
The proposed amended PUD document; the environmental
supplement; the environmental -- the amended Bald Eagle
Management Plan, which I've explained we're prepared to change; the
Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinions; the traffic impact
statements submitted by Norman Trebilcock, our traffic engineer.
The -- we have drawn up -- there is a proposed amendment to the
settlement agreement and release which we'll be considering after you
consider this first part, I know. The 2008 settlement agreement; the
original PUD in 2000; the staff report of the county staff
recommending approval; the CCP staff report in December of 2014;
the March 19 neighborhood information meeting transcript; the
February 26th neighborhood information transcript.
I'm getting done. I'm sorry. The CCPC transcript from
December 18 and January 15 of 2015 and the applicable notices of
compliance with a publication of notice and signage.
And with that, I'm going to ask Wayne Arnold to come up here,
and Charles can provide the County Manager with a CV --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Before we move to Mr. Arnold, I have
lights on from Commissioner Hiller and Commissioner Henning.
If they have comments about your introductory remarks, sir, I'd like
to hear from them at this time. If not, I'd like to really let Mr. Arnold
make his opening remarks.
Commissioner Hiller, do you have anything specific from --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Henning was first.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, I'm sorry.
Page 32
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, I do.
Mr. Grant, you were talking in past tense. However, I think -- and
I just want to clarify and correct -- you're talking about what the
petition is all about. You want to remove the golf course from the
eastern property.
MR. GRANT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you want to allow -- you're
asking the Board to allow 63 homes?
MR. GRANT: 62, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 62 homes --
MR. GRANT: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: With a spine road in place of the
golf course?
MR. GRANT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any pictorial --
MR. GRANT: Yeah, Wayne Arnold is going to show you that.
It's quite -- quite graphic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Now, you wanted -- are
you saying you want to enter some documents into the record?
MR. GRANT: I was identifying documents that I believe are
already part of the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the question of documents, are
all the documents that you listed as part of the backup that was
provided to us? And the only reason is because you might have a
different label than, you know, how I may label that particular
document, just to make sure we have all the evidence on the record for
purposes of this hearing.
Leo, we need to make sure that all the documents that he listed
are in fact part of the backup to this agenda, that they're part of the
Page 33
March 24, 2015
official record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if they're not, and you want
to introduce them, I want to take a break to read them. Because if I'm
considering anything, any documents on decisions I make on land use,
I want to take my time to read them.
MR. GRANT: I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It may take a day or two, but
we'll get through it.
MR. GRANT: I believe that they all are part of what has been
submitted in connection with the applicant's petition transmission. I
don't know exactly what things are provided to each one of you, but I
summarize them because they are part of the record before you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They should have been provided
by staff then.
MR. GRANT: Yep.
MR. OCHS: Ms. Deselem, our planner on this project, can
address that issue of documentation, Mr. Chair.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, Kay Deselem.
Everything that he mentioned, as far as I know, is in there, except
I don't know that there is a transcript from the Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, there's not.
MS. DESELEM: I think all the NIMs are both there, the
application material, the environment material, the transportation
material. All the affidavits for notices are all there.
MR. GRANT: If you don't have the complete transcript of the
Planning Commission meeting, that's fine. I think you have their
recommendation, which grew out of the second so-called hearing
where they confirmed what they did the first time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask you a couple of
questions.
You said that you were going to in-- voluntarily self-impose deed
Page 34
March 24, 2015
restrictions --
MR. GRANT: Yep.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and that you have, you know,
included now the western property, and that you will put a cap on the
density allowable on that western property equal to what has been
approved -- what was approved in 2008 and is now vested.
The first issue I have is I want to make absolutely sure that it is
unequivocal that all the associations would have to agree 100 percent
that if one association disagreed that nothing changes. That it isn't, you
know, a majority vote of the associations or even a supermajority vote,
but that it would have to be absolute.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're -- we're speaking on conservation
easements?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we're not. I'm talking about
everything. I mean, and please let me finish my discussion with Mr.
Grant, because this is a very serious issue.
And furthermore, the docks. The docks have to be included.
There has to be an absolute commitment that these docks will never
come back. Because while I appreciate your offering -- and these deed
-- you know, deed restrictions -- a deed restriction to the extent that
you have to have unanimity of the associations are very different than
just a deed restriction where, you know, there is a majority or even a
supermajority that changes the character of what you are offering.
But I have concerns not only about the density, I have concerns
about the density, about the preserve and the docks. And I didn't hear
you say a word about the docks.
MR. GRANT: I didn't say anything about the docks because it
isn't in the declaration of covenants, but I think it could be included.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it has to be included. I
mean, I don't think that can be excluded.
MR. GRANT: I don't think there's any problem.
Page 35
March 24, 2015
And in answer to your first question, Commissioner, the draft of
the declaration of covenants did provide -- first of all, it did not restrict
the western parcel to 590 units, because that hadn't been the subject of
controversy. But in considering it with the applicant, we decided
yesterday to go ahead and restrict that too --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I know there are a number
of people in the audience right now who have a concern about that
western project. And their concern is if anything changes now with
respect to the east, why couldn't the west change. And I could not
support this if there is no assurance that that western project stays
exactly the way it is without one more unit added.
MR. GRANT: We get it. The document that as we revised it
yesterday, and I'm prepared to pass out copies, restricts the western
parcel to 590 units, the eastern parcel to 62 single-family lots. It does
not mention the docks, but we can add that. And it does restrict those
western preserves so that they must remain preserves, endorsable as
such by the surrounding community, no matter how the zoning in the
future might change.
And the other change we made is that the version I sent you on
Friday did provide that it could be amended by a majority of the
association. It now requires every association to approve a
modification. So it's unanimity. It's not supermajority, it's unanimity.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's the only way I could accept
it.
MR. GRANT: It's everybody, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And every one of the surrounding
associations would be a part of this deed restriction.
MR. GRANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And every single one would have
to approve if ever a change were to come forward?
MR. GRANT: If one of them said no, it wouldn't be changed.
Page 36
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And Jeff, that would be binding on
this Board, that if they have these deed restrictions that the Board
could not entertain a PUD amendment to change the density or bring
back the docks or reverse the preserve?
MR. GRANT: Could I answer that?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
MR. GRANT: Commissioner, it is a covenant running with the
land in favor of the associations that restricts density, restricts the
preserves, and would restrict prohibiting docks enforceable by them. It
is independent. And it is not a covenant to not ever seek to change the
zoning, okay. It is a covenant that those things will stand, and they are
enforceable by those associations privately, in court. Has nothing to
do with --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So they basically would have those
-- that property right as against you --
MR. GRANT: It gives them control. It gives them what they do
not have right now, which is a right to say we don't care what the
commission might decide in the future to change the zoning to be, our
rights are protected by these documents.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's extremely important.
And with respect to these deed restrictions, how would they be --
how would they have the assurances that they are recorded and in
place ahead of your ability to move forward with any decision we
might make today?
MR. GRANT: The document, I don't have the executed original.
It was signed yesterday. It will be down here today. I have a copy of it
as executed. I'm going to show you that in a minute. And Wayne can
probably do a better job than I can to show the associations that are
benefited.
The answer is, it can be recorded the minute we get the original
document. It does provide that it is contingent upon the Board
Page 37
March 24, 2015
approving the petition, okay, and it sets a time frame for that to occur
by not later than May the 31st.
So it could be recorded to give the Board comfort of knowing it's
recorded and there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So like, for example, you could
record it tomorrow?
MR. GRANT: It has a contingency.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. But -- and if that
contingency is satisfied, then it would be effective immediately, but
what you're saying is you would be willing to record it today or
tomorrow.
MR. GRANT: I think so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. GRANT: As soon as we have the signed original to record
it, yeah. Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: With the modification of the docks
and -- and the requirement of unanimity --
MR. GRANT: Yeah, we'd have to make --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of all associations.
And which are the associations that would get the benefit of this?
MR. GRANT: I'll read the names of them, and -- if you want to
pass that to the County Manager here.
I'll read the names that we have included in the document into the
record. And Wayne can identify them on the graphic here.
The Villages of Emerald Bay Condominium Association, Inc.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you point to each one so we
can see? I want to see each one pointed to, so I know that everybody is
included, because there are a number of communities around there.
MR. GRANT: Let Wayne try to highlight them on the graphic. It
may not be that easy to see.
Yeah. The first one is The Villages of Emerald Bay
Page 38
March 24, 2015
Condominium Association, Inc.
And that's -- that's on the west side, right?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
MR. GRANT: All right. The next one is Eden on the Bay
Homeowner Association, Inc. It's just below that.
The next one is -- that -- it's labeled Glen Eden on this diagram.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But it's -- Eden on the Bay is the
homeowners association?
MR. GRANT: Well, the problem is that what -- the graphic
shows the PUDs and what I've identified is not PUDs, but legal
entities, associations.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. That's fine.
MR. GRANT: All right. Next one is Tower Point at Arbor Trace
Condominium Association, Inc. That's way out on the west of there.
The next one is Arbor Trace Condominium Association, Inc.
The next one is Glen Eden Homeowners Association, Inc. That's
all along on the north of the east parcel.
The next one is Falling Waters North Preserve, Inc. That's way
over on the east.
The next one is Tarpon Cove Community Association, Inc.
The next one is Wiggins Bay Foundation, Inc.
The next one is Bay Forest Homeowners Association, Inc. I think
Bay Forest is up --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. Bay Forest is --
MR. GRANT: Bay Forest is up there on the north.
The next is Aqua at Pelican Isle Condominium Association, Inc.
Next one is Marina Bay Club of Naples Condominium
Association, Inc.
The next one is Anchorage of Naples Condominium Association,
Inc.
Page 39
March 24, 2015
And the last one is Audubon Country Club Foundation, Inc.,
which is up to the north.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about the Pelican Isle Yacht
Club?
MR. GRANT: We did not include the Pelican Isle Yacht Club.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We should.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That absolutely has to be included.
And is -- there's Wiggins Bay and Wiggins Lake. You've
identified the two separate homeowners associations?
MR. GRANT: Yeah. There are a lot of different associations in
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What about Audubon?
MR. GRANT: I -- I read Audubon.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I missed that.
MR. GRANT: The Wiggins Bay Foundation I believe is the
master association for the Wiggins Bay area that is south of Wiggins
Pass Road, along the river.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I think it should be labeled
Wiggins Bay Master Association and all Associations that fall under it.
MR. GRANT: We can do that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So Mr. Grant, these are basically all
adjacent properties inclusive?
MR. GRANT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. GRANT: That's the intention.
And with that I'm going to let Wayne Arnold run through --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me -- let me ask one question.
What about the Cocohatchee, when that gets turned over by the
developer to a homeowner's association in the future?
MR. GRANT: What about it?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, shouldn't they have the same
Page 40
March 24, 2015
deed restriction? I mean, not -- right now obviously not, because the
developer is in control. But once the developer is gone --
MR. GRANT: You're talking about the homeowner's association
for this project when ifs developed?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no. For -- for that one and
the one across the street after the developer is gone.
MR. GRANT: In other words, our project, the association --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But when it's not -- when it's no
longer yours.
MR. GRANT: Right. Well, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. GRANT: We can do that. I mean, they're sort of restricting
themselves but, I mean, they're the ones being restricted. This
restriction is going to survive the developer being long gone.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. GRANT: I mean, it runs -- it runs with the land. It's going
to bind every property owner that buys real estate in Cocohatchee, it's
going to bind the associations.
Now, what we could do I guess is we could have a provision that
says if there ever were two different associations within Cocohatchee,
one for the east side, one for the west, that they each have reciprocal
rights against the other. We could do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I think you should.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, the restrictions are going to travel
with the land.
MR. GRANT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And they're going to be -- and that is
going to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the issue.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's going to allow any successor,
owner or owner of any of these properties or any of these associations
Page 41
March 24, 2015
or their successors to be protected. Because it comes with the land.
MR. GRANT: Successors are bound and successors are
benefited.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But I -- I want to make sure that
the people on the west side wouldn't want to see the east side
developed and have the ability to vote no.
MR. GRANT: A reversal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. GRANT: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you would have to have full
unanimity. Every single one of those associations.
MR. GRANT: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. Mr. Arnold, for your introductory
remarks, and then I propose that we'll have --
MR. GRANT: Can I come back up after Mr. Arnold?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure. You and staff and Mr. Arnold are
going to continue to make remarks, then we'll have general comments
from Commissioners, to make sure that all your questions have been
answered, and then we'll -- we'll try to proceed to public comment.
Mr. Arnold?
MR. ARNOLD: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Wayne
Arnold, a certified planner with Grady Minor & Associates,
representing the applicant.
On the visualizer I've placed an aerial exhibit much like what you
just saw, but this outlines the existing PUD that's approved. And it
reflects the proposed 93-point-something acres to the northwest corner
that says: Proposed 94 plus or minus acres on it. That is being
proposed to be added as preserve to this project.
The project itself is about 625 total acres, inclusive of the new
parcel that's being added. You can see that it's located on the north
Page 42
March 24, 2015
side of Wiggins Pass Road, west side of Vanderbilt Drive, also east
side of Vanderbilt Drive.
What's been previously approved was the 590-unit project with
the golf course component on the eastern parcel. There's a parcel that
is referred to as the finger. I say that only because it's a narrow finger
of land that extends north of Tarpon Cove.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you point to it?
MR. ARNOLD: And that's important as we move through to
some of the discussion more specifically about the project.
So in lieu of a golf course, we're proposing to have 62
single-family residences on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive. And
those would be restricted to large lots. 20,000 square foot is our
minimum lot size that's been proposed. You're going to get
estate-sized lots. Our overall density for the project, including the
added land we have is still less than 1.5 units per acre, well below and
within your density threshold for properties that are located west of
U.S. 41 and within the coastal high hazard area.
This project, because of the prior zoning approvals when it was
rezoned to PUD, had a variety of zoning on it, many of which were
residential. The entitlement for those various densities would get you
over 1,000 units quite easily. And it would still qualify for that, even
given the current project acreage.
So what we're asking for is a density that's very low and well
within your density range of three units per acre today.
We submitted this, as Mr. Grant said, with a proposal to add a
significant --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Excuse me, did you say you're
asking -- you're not asking for three units per acre.
MR. ARNOLD: No, ma'am. Your Growth Management Plan
would permit us to seek three units per acre. Our density is about 1.4
units per acre that we're proposing.
Page 43
March 24, 2015
Okay. The -- so we changed the request significantly after
attending our first neighborhood information meeting. And, you know,
like Dick Grant says, and my wife might disagree, but we're pretty
good listeners. We've had two pretty good successful neighborhood
information meetings, and we heard a lot of comments. We heard a lot
of good feedback from immediate neighbors, and we've made several
adjustments to the project to deal with that.
And I know there's the issue that's out there of amending the
settlement agreement, but from a land use and zoning standpoint what
we've done is I think pretty extraordinary, and we've brought forth a
project that, if not for the project history here I think would be a very
well-received request by you and probably one that wouldn't be on a
regular agenda. We might find ourselves on a summary agenda.
Some of the concessions, as I said, we limited ourselves to
62 lots. And let me show you a couple of exhibits.
This reflects the eastern parcel of land, and this is from our
zoning master plan. And what we did was show the definition of
where the lots would be. And I have those highlighted in yellow.
That's -- that's the area that's the recipient of 62 home sites.
After discussions with neighbors, we also committed to some
extensive buffers in two areas on our project. Along the northern
boundary against Glen Eden we said that we would provide a
minimum 100-foot-wide vegetative buffer where we were adjacent
to home sites. And you can see on our eastern boundary where we're
adjacent to Tarpon Cove, we have made the pledge for the
100-foot-wide minimum buffer.
It was asked at our neighborhood information meeting and by
others why that 100-foot strip doesn't continue all the way north.
And that's because, if you go back to the aerial, they have a
several-hundred-foot wide preserve area that separates them from us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you show that to us?
Page 44
March 24, 2015
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I sure can.
On the aerial photograph, the area just west of the northernmost
homes at Tarpon Cove is part of their recorded preserve. And I believe
the relationship from our nearest home to their nearest home is
somewhere around 400 feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can you indicate on that aerial
where your buffer is for the lower homes at Tarpon Cove? And that's
-- how wide is that buffer? That's gonna be --
MR. ARNOLD: 100 feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 100 feet.
MR. ARNOLD: And keep in mind that the County, your Land
Development Code for single-family to single-family projects requires
a 10-foot wide buffer. I think providing a buffer that's tenfold what's
minimally required I think shows pretty good neighborliness.
One of the other comments you had, Commissioner Hiller, we
agreed to remove the docks. This was our -- part of our zoning plan
where we were going to have docks over by the Aqua and Pelican Isle
Yacht Club, and we have removed that from the request.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I have a real problem with
the docks. And then I think removing them is -- I mean, that is critical.
MR. ARNOLD: One of the other significant things we did, in the
area that I've highlighted -- and that's part of the finger -- we agreed at
the Planning Commission that we would have no residential structures
in that.
And going back, a little bit of history, originally that was
designated to be 100-foot-wide future road corridor, and our neighbors
at Glen Eden currently have a 67-and-a-half-foot wide preservation on
their property that would be a future county road. It's since been taken
off your long-range transportation plan. It was removed from our
zoning plan in favor of having what's now going to be no access to
U.S. 41 and no residential development there.
Page 45
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There will be no development of
any sort there. No development of any sort?
MR. ARNOLD: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not just residential. So you're
going to eliminate the storage, the maintenance, recreation, and
amenity, both from the parcel and from that strip?
MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. None of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that there won't be any like
storage bins or sheds or --
MR. ARNOLD: That's not to say that somebody might not walk
their dog through there if there's a approved trail, but there are no
structures to be built there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. ARNOLD: One of the other large commitments that we
made -- and because of scale I'm not able to show it on this graphic --
but we agreed to build a six-foot-wide sidewalk on Wiggins Pass
Road, the north side of the road, extending from our project,
connecting to the sidewalk that exists at the commercial project at U.S.
41 and Wiggins Pass Road. And that was a significant commitment on
the developer's part, but -- but one that the neighbors talked about
vehicles and safety and felt that this was the right thing to do. So we
have made that commitment, and it's part of our PUD.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, Mr. Arnold, would
you be so kind to show on the map what you're -- where this new
sidewalk is going to be placed?
MR. ARNOLD: Sure.
What I'll do, I'll point from our existing -- Nick, if you don't --
would you mind?
If you'll point from the existing sidewalk that's down at Wiggins
Pass and U.S. 41. It would be constructed along the north side of
Wiggins Pass Road, all the way to Vanderbilt Drive.
Page 46
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: So those were I think some very significant
changes that we made for getting rid of the golf course component and
adding 62 homes.
Getting rid of the golf course isn't something that's an idea that
Lodge/Abbott had. I mean, you as a county commission have approved
a few others in the fairly recent past and more to come, from what I
understand. Winding Cypress was a recent example. Sable Bay is not
building a golf course as part of their project, and Naples Reserve was
another one that came through the process.
You know, things have changed. Golf is not the recreational
pastime that it was. And things change, people recreate differently.
The golf course is obviously another use that -- it's green space, but it
uses a lot of water. It requires a lot of fertilizer and pesticides that
keep it that green space. And for the green space that some of the
neighbors talk about, you know, unfortunately, there's no guarantee
that you see any of it.
You know, we all drive up Goodlette-Frank Road, and if you
didn't know it, you wouldn't know that there are three golf courses on
the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road. You just don't see them. So
there's no guarantee that you get this view of a well-manicured golf
course.
What we've proposed is consistent with your Growth
Management Plan. We -- we made that finding as part of our
application. Your staff made that finding as part of its staff report and
recommendation to the Planning Commission, and then the Planning
Commission affirmed that what we're asking for was consistent with
your Future Land Use Element. Our density is very low, the pattern of
development we've proposed is very consistent with what's around us.
We have infrastructure in place to support the project. We're
consistent with your Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
Page 47
March 24, 2015
We have lots of preserve areas, and we're adding more. So we are
consistent and we're compatible.
And I think when you look at the benefits that the neighbors gain
from the commitments that are part of our PUD, and now the
commitments that are being made with the deed restrictions, you have
a really, really good project, and one that's to me a very benign change
for the community.
I mentioned the 100-foot-wide road reservation that's being
removed from our property but, you know, that does benefit Glen
Eden. And I know that a lot of the letter writers have been Glen Eden
residents, and they don't want things to change. I did happen to do the
amendment to the Glen Eden PUD back in the year 2000, so I know
things do change, and sometimes they have to change, but they have a
commitment in there to designate 67-and-a-half feet for right-of-way.
We had a 100-foot-wide commitment that's being removed. So
they've effectively gained their 67-and-a-half feet back as a buffer, if
they want to leave it as a buffer. So the separation between us and
them is going to be 167-and-a-half feet.
I think one of the things that, you know, has been said --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question? What was
the change to Glen Eden when you did a PUD amendment for them?
MR. ARNOLD: We made some setback changes for them, for
the residential component.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And were any -- you said some of
those affected this property?
MR. ARNOLD: The PUD --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The setback change?
MR. ARNOLD: Well, the setback change wouldn't have affected
certain buildings in Glen Eden. I'm -- I'm using it as an example that
things do change.
One of the things --
Page 48
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are they gaining more setbacks as
a result of what you're proposing?
MR. ARNOLD: Effectively, yes, they are. Because otherwise
they could have had a county road running within 10 feet of some of
the homes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But that's being eliminated.
MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's being eliminated from our proposal.
It's still a commitment in their PUD. But it has language that says they
don't have to give that until the County asks. And I'm pretty sure the
County is not going to ask for that right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What -- can you speak to that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. It's not planned to be
constructed, not in the short term or in the long-range plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it has been eliminated from our
County plan?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It has been eliminated from our
County plan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Short and long term?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, do you have a
comment -- or, I'm sorry, a question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Since Commissioner
Hiller wants to do away with any future docks, is there any room in
this PUD for parking of boat trailers and vehicles?
MR. ARNOLD: It would have to be probably somewhere in our
recreation tract, unless an individual homeowner had a trailer or boat
that they would keep in their garage, subject to whatever other
standards the County has for keeping your boat. But we're not
providing for a boat parking lot or something.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that right across from the
Page 49
March 24, 2015
Cocohatchee -- or the Wiggins Pass public boat launch?
MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is.
One of the things too that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That would be a great place for a
shuttle, a shuttle for people to get to the beaches of South Barefoot
Beach and North Wiggins Pass Park; my opinion. There's -- I mean,
Vanderbilt Beach is a disaster trying to get to the state park, people
blocking the road for emergency vehicles getting through there and --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's terrible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- police officers and stuff like
that. If we can distribute the load in that area a little bit more widely,
like provide a shuttle, boat shuttle from the park, which I talked to the
County Manager about, you would relieve that problem you have on
Vanderbilt Beach -- no, North Gulf Shore.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Are you thinking of a County boat
shuttle, like if we had --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, a private vendor, maybe.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I understand, but something
operated by the County as a shuttle, like a waterway shuttle to take
people from there to the Wiggins Beach?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. There's a private
enterprise doing that for Key Island, or Keewaydin, as everybody
knows it, that does that for Marco Island. It works out very well. You
know, they pay a fee, they get in the boat --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you saying like --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- with their grill and fishing
poles and things like that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you suggesting keeping like
one dock for a public launch?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, we already have the docks.
We need vehicle parking for people to, you know, unload their kids
Page 50
March 24, 2015
and fishing poles and grills and coolers of beer and stuff like that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Are you asking the petitioner,
Commissioner Henning, for that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just an open idea.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Arnold, please.
MR. ARNOLD: I just have a couple more visuals to state.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have anything against
docks.
MR. ARNOLD: A history of these docks, I understand after
talking to our neighbors the concern they have. You know, the docks
are off the table from our perspective.
Some of the neighbors seem to think that a golf course somehow
is going to be, you know, this critical wildlife habitat. And I'm not
trying to throw anything in anybody's face, but this is a representation
of the clearing plan that occurs for a golf course. And the other
development.
To build a golf course you clear, you fill, you build lakes, you
replant grass. And then you fertilize it and water it and it grows into
something green. But it's not going to stay that if the golf course -- if
this amendment doesn't go through, the golf course, the use we have
for two houses, that's what happens when you build a golf course.
But what we're proposing results in something like that. And
what we've done is taking the illustrative plan that's been prepared for
Kalea Bay and inserted the 62 residences on each parcel and you can
see I think very visually that we can retain more open space than we
can by building a golf course.
So with that, again, I remind you we're consistent with your
Comp. Plan. We think we brought forward a very good plan, one that
makes sense for the neighborhood. Probably better for the
environment than a golf course when you look at all the pieces. But
with that, I'll close and be happy to answer any questions.
Page 51
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have not heard from Commissioner
Taylor or Commissioner Fiala. So Commissioner Taylor, please,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Arnold, let's just fast forward
a little bit in assuming this PUD amendment is not approved and
therefore the agreement is not open. Is there any plan to build the golf
course?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe there's an immediate plan. There
is a site plan approved to construct it that's active. But I don't think
there's an immediate construction schedule.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. And so would there be
any plans to perhaps start the golf course and raze the property and
leave it bare?
MR. ARNOLD: I'd have to check with our engineer, but I think
we have the site plan approval. Site plan is approved which would
allow us to move forward to get the clearing plan approved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do you know how long you have,
time of-- I mean, this is speculation, but the time frame you have from
razing the land and leaving it bare to building of the golf course, what
is that time frame? Do we have any ordinances governing that?
MR. ARNOLD: I'm not aware of a specific time frame. I know
that for building permits there's specific time frames. And I think
under certain other construction standards there are time frames, but I
don't know what they are, Ms. Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Maybe we could find that
out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, any comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I've just been listening
intently. And I do want to hear what the audience has to say before I
say too much more. But I do want you to tell me just a little bit about
the eagle management plan, if you would, please. That's staying in
Page 52
March 24, 2015
now; is that correct? And what will that mean to this property?
MR. ARNOLD: The project -- and I am certainly not the best
person to talk about the eagle management plan; Tim Hall is certainly
our eagle expert in the room. But the plan that's been approved allows
for construction phasing for five towers. It requires that we start on the
south and build north. It allows us to build within a certain distance
from the current eagle nest, or should that eagle nest move, that's a
different story.
But the lands that are being added as preserve would benefit
potentially the eagle having more habitat in which to construct the nest.
I don't know how much detail you want, but we're offering -- part
of the proposal initially was to take out the requirement to construct an
artificial tree or try to permit an artificial tree to construct, and we're
not going to make that request to be relieved of that requirement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you cannot -- I mean, when
you've gotten most of your towers finished but you still have that one
area with the tree with the eagles, who seem to really like that tree. I
have a funny feeling they're not going to prefer an artificial tree. But
anyway, that's my own personal opinion.
What are you going to do about it when it gets too close to the
tree? Do you plan on not building, or what?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't know the answer to that. I might have to
have -- I mean, we have a permit, and I'm sure Tim Hall can tell you
what our permit allows us to do, if you don't mind.
MR. HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall with
Turrell, Hall and Associates.
Commissioner Fiala, the project right now has a current biological
opinion from the Fish & Wildlife Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, that actually accounts for the take of that nest, as if the eagles
are -- they took into account the fact that they are -- that the possibility
exists that the eagles will abandon the nest as the towers encroach or
Page 53
March 24, 2015
get closer to it.
So that was part of the review and requirements that went on
under the original permitting, and that biological opinion does actually
allow for the take of that nest.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. I would like to make just a few
general comments.
I have looked at this whole issue in perhaps a little different way
than others might have, just because of my professional experiences.
And I will tell you, the things that I think are important to me in my
decision-making and things that I would like to have openly discussed
when we consider this item, with the addition -- I'm going to try not to
give Mr. Miller and Mr. Klatzkow a cataract removal with my laser but
I just want to eliminate this for the public.
With the addition of this little parcel right here which is being
added to the Cocohatchee PUD, there is an ecological conservation
overlay that extends from part of the Audubon PUD to the north all the
way down south through Wiggins Pass and actually down in this area
down here. There's a conservation element associated with The Dunes
PUD.
In my estimation, this marine and estuarian preserve and the park
that includes the Barefoot Beach Preserve, which was an effort of both
the county and the state, is our most significant marine conservation
effort in all of Collier County on the north end. It's certainly -- only
thing that compares to it on the south would be Rookery Bay, or
similar areas down well south in the county.
As a lifelong resident of Florida, I can tell you that I have been on
this beach in this area here when it was divided up into little tiny strip
lots that were for sale. And but for a lack of utilities, you'd probably
see an entire line of homes along that area. So the conservation that
started in the early seventies is the only salvation we have. And all of
us bear the burden for the loss of habitat in some of the areas. But that
Page 54
March 24, 2015
battle and that commitment for development along our coast was
fought and determined a long time ago.
One thing that we have, though, here is we have many PUDs that
have a great deal of density in footprints. And footprints are only one
element when you start talking about environmental conservation.
But one thing that has a tremendous impact on conservation is
golf courses. I work professionally with golf courses. I was a
professional horticulturist all my life and a manager with Gargiulo
Companies that had many diverse holdings, including developments.
I held a restricted use pesticide license for most of my professional
career.
And what we have are different intensities of input into this area
that does affect our environment. To the north up in the Audubon
PUD and in Bentley Village over here has a small golf course, but the
Audubon PUD has very large golf course entities and is a golf course
community.
Down to the south just below the Wiggins Bay PUD is the golf
course which is the Olde Collier Golf Club. At golf courses there is a
tremendous input to be able to maintain them.
How many of you have lived in Florida for more than 20 years?
A few. How many have always lived in Florida? How many are
within the last 10? Most of you. Okay.
Golf courses, in my professional opinion, and I've been involved
with developing a number of them, are very good green space if you're
in an urban environment. They're not really good green space if you're
in a natural environment because of the inputs that are required.
Naturally Florida in the winter is very dry and very brown. But
people that have moved to Florida for its beautiful winter weather have
made great efforts to change Florida into something that is green and
lush during the winter. This comes at a tremendous cost of inputs that
requires extensive irrigation, it requires a tremendous amount of
Page 55
March 24, 2015
fertilization to make plants grow out of their normal cycle, and it
requires a tremendous amount of pesticides, including herbicides,
insecticides and fungicides to keep them looking to a very high
standard that people demand on golf courses.
I am very, very concerned about this entity we have at Barefoot
Beach Preserve and this whole environmental preservation effort that
we have across numerous PUDs and the impact long-term from golf
courses.
I am particularly concerned when a golf course isn't part of a
community. And a larger area helps buffer a golf course. When
they're inland and they're out in the greater uplands communities, I
think -- I'm not anti golf course is what I'm telling you. Golf courses
have best management practices and they do the very best they can.
But when we're considering a standalone golf course on a 175-acre
parcel, everybody knows that within the useful life of that golf course,
at least I'm here to testify and tell you, that there will be hundreds of
tons of fertilizer applied to that facility in its useful life and it will
travel south and west as the water flow does in all of Florida and all the
coastal communities that we're talking about, and it will add a
tremendous load and a tremendous impact over time to this
preservation and natural area, which is the best northern Collier
County has to offer, and coincidentally has been identified as one of
the finest natural beaches remaining in the United States, second only
to some in Hawaii. That is high praise for this preserve here.
And I have a great deal of agony and I have a great deal of--
actually, I'm very surprised that very few comments that I've received,
and I've received an extraordinary amount of comments from people
talking about the value of the environment here, and no one has spoken
to me, including the environmental advocacy groups, about the
potential impact of having a golf course right in the center between
two other golf courses on this coast. And I'm very, very concerned
Page 56
March 24, 2015
about that specter.
I personally would rather see a low density, low impact use of
that property than I would a golf course.
And I'm going to say one other thing about standalone golf
courses. Standalone golf courses, as the Cocohatchee PUD includes as
a use, are many times not permanent. And down the road past the
purview of all of us on this board and past the purview of the citizens
in Collier County living today, you could see a standalone golf course
here redeveloped in the future by another board and by another group
of citizens as coastal Florida is redeveloped. And I really hope that we
can come out of this today with the lowest impact, the most preserve
on this parcel itself, and even more importantly, the very minimal
impact to the greater environmental area.
And I'll stop now and I'll go to Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you. I think what you said,
Commissioner Nance, is very true. In fact, it's my understanding that
the EPA has ranked golf courses as the number one source of
groundwater contamination second to -- first actually, with as I
understand, cemeteries being second. And I am very, very concerned
about a golf course. I have been very concerned about all the
chemicals that leach from golf courses. I can't believe that the
previous board would even have considered a golf course. I'm even
more concerned with the possibility of open space with like a total
clearing of that land, which is what would be permitted because it's
allowed as open space. I mean, that is another major concern of mine.
But I really thank you for bringing that forward, because it is a concern
of mine.
Whether it's completely cleared or whether it's converted into a
golf course, both are very negative.
But one point I had not considered that you raised is the issue that
it could be converted down the road without any development there
Page 57
March 24, 2015
now into high-rises, as was proposed.
And one of the things I would like to see is what staff has
evaluated. And I want a full evaluation of all the densities. And I'd
like to know -- I'd like to have staff speak before the public speaks. I'd
like their full presentation, and I want them also to include a summary
of the findings of the Planning Commission.
One of the things I asked for is a density map. And I received
that from staff, and I want to make sure everybody has it. I think all
the other Commissioners have it, but I want to show it on the record.
Because what you say is a big concern. For example, the development
immediately to the north of the -- of this particular proposed project,
which is the Village Place PUD -- what's the name of that
homeowner's association?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Glen Eden.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Glen -- has a density of four
units per acre. Tarpon Cove has a density of four units per acre.
Wiggins Lake PUD has a density of 4.91. And these are just --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, can I ask your
indulgence? Can we put this on the overhead? And I've been
prompted kindly by Commissioner Fiala that our court reporter is in
need of a break.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Sure, let's take a break. And
maybe --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And then Commissioner Taylor, your
comments, ma'am, immediately thereafter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can we please have staff give
a full presentation before we go to public comment?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure, absolutely. Let's include that. We
will take a 15-minute break and we will return at -- well, a little more,
we'll return at 11:00.
(Recess.)
Page 58
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I want to give everybody a couple of
minutes to take your seats, please, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. Ladies and
gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller is going to return
directly. I think we have a little map to put on the overhead; is that not
correct, Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It will help facilitate discussion. And I
think we can proceed with Commissioner Taylor's thoughts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just in -- I'm sorry Commissioner
Hiller is not here, but it's my understanding, Mr. Attorney, that there's
nothing that can be built on this property, this golf course property,
unless we agree that, and take a vote, I believe of three votes to open
the whole settlement agreement; is that correct?
AUDIENCE: Four votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, essentially correct. You could vote not
to reopen the settlement agreement on three votes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On three votes.
And therefore going forward, this will -- whatever commission
sits up here, nothing but a golf course or to leave it like that will be --
or leave it as an open space could be built or managed or changed on
this property; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: If I understand your question, if this
application is turned down today, there would be nothing preventing a
future application to do something else with this property.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's correct. But with -- before
anything is decided, anything else but a golf course on this property,
there has to be a vote to open up the settlement agreement.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So what I'm saying is a
Page 59
March 24, 2015
future commission, anyone can bring any plans for anything to go on
this golf course, but until that settlement agreement by a vote of three
is opened, it stays the way it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
And Mr. Casalanguida, I asked you a specific question technically
about the golf course and what could be done going forward, assuming
that a golf course is planned and started here. Could you please give
me the time line?
(At which time, Commissioner Hiller returns to the dais.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. They have 36 months
once they start construction, and they could apply for two 2-year
extensions.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Three years plus two plus two.
That's seven years.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's from the date it's started, the
construction has started?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Site plan is approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do they have a limitation as to when
the construction must begin?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, they could begin, they
could wait for the full three years before they start construction and
seek an extension.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, thank you.
MR. OCHS: Sir, would you like to hear the staff presentation?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, please, sir.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning, again. For the record, Kay
Deselem. I am with the zoning department. And I would ask that I
along with any other staff persons that speak to you today be accepted
Page 60
March 24, 2015
as experts in our particular field, whether it be water, stormwater and
drainage or environmental or in my case planning and zoning.
In the packet of information you had, you received a copy of the
staff report from the Planning Commission which was rather detailed
and went into all the changes that were proposed, both in the original
submittal and in the subsequent information submittals. And you have
before you the executive summary that summarizes the positions of
staff. And we have provided to you the Growth Management Plan
impacts.
And in the staff report there are the findings and conclusions of
law to support staffs recommendation. And our recommendation is
that if you decide to open the settlement agreement and proceed with
the rezoning, that staff does concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation. We find that this is both consistent with the Growth
Management Plan and is compatible and we do recommend approval.
In the executive summary, in answer to Commissioner Hiller's
question, there is a summary of the issues that were raised by the
Planning Commission and those have been resolved and included in
the PUD document.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Kay, thank you for your presentation. I would like to specifically
address two issues that have been raised as concerns by constituents,
and I want your response, or whichever staff member is the expert in
the matter, to respond on the record.
And the first issue is I want assurances that if these homes were to
be developed, these 62 homes were to be developed, that there is no
adverse impact on Tarpon Cove with respect to water, that it wouldn't
displace water and that there wouldn't be any type of flooding or any
other sort of adverse water flow related impact on the properties.
And if you'd put the overhead -- if you would put on the overhead
Page 61
March 24, 2015
-- I'm not sure which is the appropriate picture. But there is between
the property -- if you would point to, Kay, if you could please take
your pointer and highlight where Tarpon Cove is? Is it -- is it Tarpon
Cove? That's the proper name of the --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's just east.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, it's just east of the property.
Right. I want to make sure that there is no water that will flow as a
result from this development into Tarpon Cove.
MS. DESELEM: For that purpose we have Jerry Kurtz who is
with the Stormwater and Drainage Department. And he can help
address your question.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MR. KURTZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Jerry Kurtz for
the record, your Stormwater Management Planning Manager.
We've looked at the plans repeatedly with the designer and we
have no concern about runoff from the proposed development
adversely impacting Tarpon Cove at all whatsoever.
And I can handle more questions, if you want to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, and just for the benefit of the
members of the public, I actually went out physically to that location
with our staff and with residents of Tarpon Cove that live on those
properties immediately abutting that border. And you have inspected
that area in particular, subsequent to that visit?
MR. KURTZ: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you have concluded that there
is no drainage or water flow issue that could in any way impact those
homes or that Tarpon Cove development.
MR. KURTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So that's my first question. And
you may be called upon later, but I just want to make sure that that was
addressed, because that was a concern of mine.
Page 62
March 24, 2015
The other -- I don't have any further questions for you, Mr. Kurtz.
MR. KURTZ: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Kay, the other concern that I have
had and that residents have expressed, and I want to be absolutely sure
of this, the first thing is I want to be absolutely sure that at no time will
there be any access road onto -- well, there's only going to be -- let me
restate that. I want to make sure that there will be no other ingress or
egress from this development other than on Wiggins.
MS. DESELEM: As I understand it, this is what the master plan
shows. And without a public hearing of some sort to address it, they
couldn't add another access point, whether it is a PDI or a PUD
amendment or something, but action required of a public hearing
would be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: On the flip side of that with only
one ingress/egress point for this project, I want assurances that if these
homes were approved that there would be no evacuation issue in the
event of a hurricane that having 60 homes, that they could readily exit
through that and that there wouldn't be any sort of stoppage, that that
one access point is sufficient for hurricane evacuation or some other
sort of emergency evacuation purpose.
MS. DESELEM: I admit that I am not an expert in hurricane
evacuation issues. I will say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or emergency evacuation.
Anything related to where, you know, a large number of people would
have to exit that --
MS. DESELEM: Noting that this is a very low density parcel, I
don't anticipate as a planning issue that that would be a problem.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick, could you address that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, ma'am. At 61 units that would
far exceed any issues in terms of safety. There would be plenty of
capacity for a two-lane road access on the local collector at Wiggins
Page 63
March 24, 2015
Pass.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you state your name for the
record.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what your position was when
you reviewed this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was the Transportation Director at
one time and when I reviewed it I was the Growth Management
Division Administrator.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I have a concern, because --
and I raise it because we have had problems with developments where
we only have one ingress/egress point, and I don't want to see that
happen with bigger developments in the future. It's a big problem.
But this one, if you say that this is low enough density that it's not
an issue, I just want assurances that there will never be any other
ingress/egress out of that project, and that would be used as an excuse.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am, no access to 41 would be
recommended for a 61-unit development. It would always be a local
road which is Wiggins Pass --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- which has adequate capacity to carry
61 residential units.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Now, the other issue that I want to
address with respect to transportation, and again, I'd like you to
confirm this, there was a certain volume of transportation -- there was
a certain volume of trips that would have come off of this property
were it to be developed as a golf course, and it would have been a
public golf course. But privately owned, not a county golf course, just
to clarify that, when I say public.
Did you confirm that the trips that would be generated by this
number of homes would be equivalent to the other? Because I don't
Page 64
March 24, 2015
want to see additional traffic that would burden this corridor beyond
what was previously approved and what was expected.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I reviewed what Mr. Trebilcock, a
professional engineer, provided, and I agree with his analysis that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you speak into the mic? I
can't hear you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sony, ma'am.
Mr. Trebilcock, their engineer, provided a traffic comparison
study between a golf course and a residential development, and it is not
more impactive as a residential development than a golf course is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So there's not going to be any more
traffic impact on these roads.
Now, the other thing I want to make sure, and this is -- we've
talked about the buffer to the north and to the east. I want to make sure
there's an adequate buffer to the west. What is the buffer to the west?
MS. DESELEM: I do not see -- for the record again Kay
Deselem.
It is a 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is that what is required in the Land
Development Code for this type of project at this location?
MS. DESELEM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is a Type D buffer?
MS. DESELEM: A Type D buffer -- as you can see from the
exhibit that's shown, the Type D buffer includes a double row of
hedges and trees 30 foot on center. And that's typically what's required
of a county road of this capacity.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how high would the hedge
be?
MS. DESELEM: 24 inches at time of planting.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's at the time of planting.
But I want to know what the ultimate height would be. In other words,
Page 65
March 24, 2015
what would the minimum be when these plants grow?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 36 inches.
MS. DESELEM: I'm sorry, I couldn't read it, I had to go over
here.
It's to be maintained at 36 inches.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I would like to see it higher.
MS. DESELEM: If that is your recommendation, that can be
included in the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, what do we typically do?
Because, you know, I think it's very important that anything done
along that corridor continues to maintain it -- you know, to visually
keep it looking green.
MS. DESELEM: We get into issues with line of sight as well at
corners, so that's typically why you maintain them at 36 inches, so that
cars can see as they make turning movements.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Can you go back to -- and
maybe I didn't -- how far are the houses from these trees?
MS. DESELEM: In the PUD document that I have, it's not really
to the point that you could scale it, because it doesn't show enough
detail. But if it's at a scale of one-inch equals 800, I'm going to -- it's a
guess at like 300 feet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: 300 feet?
MS. DESELEM: But perhaps the applicant can address that
because he has more detailed plans than I do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want to make sure that it's as
green as possible along the west side.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, I think that's
greatly influenced by the relocation of Vanderbilt Drive, which kind of
impacts the edge of that property there. Because there's an area where
the road was relocated. So some of that is going to have to be
managed by the applicant.
Page 66
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Nick, can you explain that? I'm
missing something here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, if you're asking to make this
more opaque and increase the buffer, you could go to a Type C or
Type B and increase the tree and not impact sight distance at the
corner, if that's what you're asking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, that's what I'm asking. I
want to make sure that it's --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And that's got to be desired also by the
developer.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What's that?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's certainly going to be desired on the
part of the developer as well on the back of that project. There's going
to have to be significant restoration along that because of the relocation
of the road. And I think maybe the aerial will --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what would be -- so Nick, what
would be --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- demonstrate that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, how can you make it more
opaque? What would be --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, ma'am, I'm certainly not the
landscape expert, but looking at the diagram that's on the viewer, the
Type C buffer, the trees are staggered and it's 60 inches high at
planting, four inches on center. And obviously with trees being
staggered the way they are you would have a more opaque canopy
between the road and the development. And I don't think the developer
may have heartburn with that, but that's up to them.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think maybe we should ask them,
because I think it's important for it to be opaque.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, can you put the aerial back up
there just for a moment?
Page 67
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I must be -- am I missing
something, Commissioner Nance?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's an overlay. Just can we have the
overlay of the existing property as it exists today without the overlay
on top of it? I believe we might have one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A lot of native vegetation is
there now.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You see, Commissioner, right here
where this road was relocated?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Where?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Right here. The road was relocated.
That's going to require some restoration on the part of the applicant to
make it look the way everybody wants it. Because that Vanderbilt
Drive was relocated.
If you've been by there recently, you know --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- what it looks like. And I'm sure that
that restoration and mitigation would be part of what is desired by
everyone.
MS. DESELEM: If I might augment that, in reading an excerpt
from the Land Development Code, when it describes Type C, it says
that it's a 25-foot wide opaque within one year landscape buffer. So
that might help address your concern more.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh. I don't know that -- it's
just something that I think -- I mean, we want to keep that corridor as
green looking as possible.
MS. DESELEM: It's whatever direction you give us and what
goes in the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could we hear from the
developer's representative as to whether, you know, making it more
opaque would be an option?
Page 68
March 24, 2015
MS. DESELEM: Sure.
MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold.
And your request is whether or not we can make the buffer taller
and more dense, typical of a Type C?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Uh-huh.
MR. ARNOLD: And I think the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. I think that's important.
Kay, can you go back to the Planning Commission and tell me --
for the benefit of the record and the benefit of those who have not
heard what the Planning Commission decided, they did approve it, but
I would like the -- their conditions listed, and I would like again
reaffirmation that everything that they requested was done and
included in this petition before us.
MS. DESELEM: Certainly. On Page 4 of the executive
summary it tells you that the Planning Commission heard this petition
on December 18th. And by a vote of 4-1 supported the motion with
the following recommended stipulations:
One: The guest suites are limited to a maximum of 30 for the
entire PUD.
In the AR tract, principal and accessory uses shall be set back a
minimum of 100 feet from the north property line.
Number three: The maximum amount of preserves that can be
used for passive recreation use is five percent.
Four: Lights in the tennis court shall be flat panel, full cut-off
shields.
Five: Tennis courts shall only be used during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Six: Guest suites and cabanas shall only be listed as accessory
uses throughout the PUD.
Number seven: The eagles nest location plan shall be added to
the Bald Eagle Management Plan.
Page 69
March 24, 2015
Number eight: Remove item B-2, Roman numeral I, II, III, and
Section 3.4 regarding outdoor recreation facilities.
Number nine: Delete the accessory height reference in the
development standards code.
Number 10: In Section 6.7, transportation, delete Item 10
regarding noise mitigation.
Number 11: In Section 6.7, transportation, Item F, change
reference to C.O. at building to C.O. at unit.
Number 12: In section 6.8, utilities, delete section A, B, C and D.
Number 13: Delete section 6.10 through 6.12.
Number 14: The owner shall obtain private utility company
letters of no objection for use of the utility easements for the CUE
purposes.
And finally, number 15: The owner shall modify off-site
discharges from existing basin to redirect to southwest corner near
intersection of Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road.
And I can attest that I along with several other staff members,
including a representative from the County Attorney's Office, has
reviewed the PUD documents that's proposed for you today, and we
have confirmed that those changes have indeed been made.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: If I may add one other thing to my presentation.
In the process of going through this particular petition, there's been
numerous emails and petitions submitted, and it is my hope that I got
all of them loaded into the information for the Board. But in the off
chance there may have been some that were admittedly not provided to
you, for that I do apologize, but I've tried to include them all. At one
time we had 62 different attachments to this item in the Sire system, so
then we tried to combine them all into one. So I hope in that effort that
we did get everything, just so you know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Page 70
March 24, 2015
Have you answered all questions of the public on any technical
issues that they raised?
MS. DESELEM: I've certainly tried to. I think I did.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, Commissioners, seeing no
other interest in commenting at this time, would you like to proceed,
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I have one question of our
County Attorney.
As it takes a vote of three to open the settlement agreement and a
vote of four to approve this particular plan, once this settlement
agreement is opened, if it's opened, does that weaken it for future
commissioners saying it was opened once, it can be opened again, and
it doesn't have as much weight as it would if it was not opened going
forward?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No? All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If not, Mr. Miller, let us -- let's begin
with public comment. How many do you have, sir?
MR. MILLER: I had a little bit drop out and additions, you
know, with some of the petitioners listed. As near I can tell, we have
48 speakers today, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have 48 speakers. Traditionally the
Board of County Commissioners has allowed each speaker three
minutes to make their comments, and we'll be taking comments at this
time on both items, any comments that you wish to make on what
we've discussed so far. And also 12.A.
You may cede your time if you have an individual that you think
can present your opinions and you would like to cede them your time,
Page 71
March 24, 2015
you may do so. You must be in attendance at this time to cede time to
someone else.
You -- also in the process, we certainly want to receive everyone's
comments, but if you have -- if you hear a number of comments made
by others and you agree with them and you would just like to state
your name for the record and the fact that you agree with them,
obviously you don't have to restate those comments over and over and
over, because we're going to have a very ambitious period of time for
comments.
So is there anyone that would like to cede their time to another at
this time so Mr. Miller can organize the public comments?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have several who have already
done that in advance. And if it comes up during this, certainly they can
let us know.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, sir, then let's begin.
MR. MILLER: We'll remind everyone, we'll be asking speakers
to use both podiums. I will call the current speaker and the next
speaker in line.
Please state your name for the court reporter when you begin.
Our first speaker is Carl Stendahl, and he'll be followed by Anna
Duncan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Nance, can I just
make one point of clarification? That the speakers speak -- since we're
still part of this hearing, that we are speaking now to what is being
proposed, not to the settlement agreement, that we're going to have a
separate public comment period for the settlement agreement.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, ma'am, we are not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, we're having it all now?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: These items are being heard
concurrently. They're speaking to either -- if they want to make a
comment on one or the other --
Page 72
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we're going to have one vote
and then we're going to have the next vote.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, but we're speaking on it
concurrently as a board and as a public.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so you're going to have --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're not going to recycle around and
comment again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, you're only going to let them
speak once?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, I thought you were going to
let them speak twice.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: All right. Well, I guess you're only
going to get -- so just everybody needs to understand, you're only
going to get to speak once, so make sure you say everything you want
to say that one time. I thought you were going to get to speak twice,
but the Chair has said no.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Stendahl?
MR. STENDAHL: For the record, Carl Stendahl.
Why open the PUD? Collier County Commissioners are about to
vote to open the Cocohatchee Bay planned urban development, the
PUD. Why would they want to open it and who will benefit? The
PUD is sealed by a 2008 court settlement. In 2005 Lodge/Abbott's
plan to build on 600 plus acres of native Florida wetland on Vanderbilt
Drive and Wiggins Pass Road in North Naples was not approved by
the Collier County Commissioners.
Lodge/Abbott sued in 2005, and after a two-plus year court battle
costing Collier County millions, a legal settlement was reached to end
that lawsuit. The settlement gave the developer more than originally
asked for, including rezoning about one-third of the land as golf
Page 73
March 24, 2015
course. In the settlement terms, a golf course is built but the land
remains green forever. The developer cannot sue the county as long as
the PUD remains in place.
In May of 2014 plans were to build 285 housing units on the golf
course land. Residents of North Naples voiced strong concerns over
this plan. Current plans are to build 62 houses on the golf course land.
If the PUD is reopened, the developer is free to submit any new
plans, and if the plans are not approved, the developer would be free to
sue again.
The December 18th, 2014 Collier County Planning Commission
meeting opened with County Attorney Klatzkow saying any changes
must benefit the people of Collier County. During that meeting I
listened for the benefits for the people, but I never heard any
articulated.
The question remains: Who benefits if this PUD is opened?
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Anna Duncan. She'll be
followed by David Cressy.
MS. DUNCAN: Again, my name is Anna Duncan, and I live at
Glen Eden on the Lakes.
Three words stood out at me as I looked at the mission statement
and guiding principles for the Collier County Commissioners. Those
words are knowledge, stewardship and accountability.
Regarding knowledge: Viewing in person the east parcel of the
Cocohatchee Bay PUD on Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road
rather than deciding its future from looking at a diagram or drawing is
knowledge critical to determining its future.
Kalea Bay, currently under development on the west parcel of the
PUD, looked much the same as the eastern parcel. Now it is mostly
barren in preparation for 10 or more years of construction on five
high-rise condo buildings that will add 590 luxury waterfront units to
this coastal high hazard flood zone.
Page 74
March 24, 2015
Regarding stewardship: The east parcel is one of the few
remaining natural habitats and preserves in this area. Careful and
responsible management of this natural resource is entrusted to your
care. Our hope is for it to remain a natural resource.
Regarding accountability: Please hold Lodge/Abbott accountable
to the terms of the 2008 court settlement agreeing to leave the east
parcel of the PUD forever as green open space, if the then proposed
golf course is not built on that land.
In exchange, extra units were allowed to be added to the high-rise
buildings on the west parcel of the PUD. Now the developer proposes
to build an additional 62 units on the east parcel. Those units have
already been added to the west parcel in the 2008 settlement
agreement.
Commissioners, as the elected chief legislators of Collier County
and our representatives, the fate of this land depends on your
commitment to the values of knowledge, stewardship and
accountability. Please do not betray the public trust. Vote no to
reopening the 2008 settlement. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Cressy, who was
ceded three additional minutes from William Noyes.
Mr. Noyes, can you indicate your attendance, please?
MR. NOYSE: Yes, right here.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
He will be followed by Joe Wood.
MR. CRESSY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
David Cressy and I reside with my wife Elizabeth at 14664 Glen Eden
Drive. I've lived in the North Naples area for the last six years.
Very recently I had something of a personal epiphany related to
the issue of Lodge/Abbott's request to reopen the 2008 Cocohatchee
Bay settlement agreement, to receive further concessions from the
county, to renege on past agreements and to build some 62 additional
Page 75
March 24, 2015
luxury homes on the eastern side of the development site.
I moved from a sense of resigned acceptance to his proposals to
complete and absolute opposition to the reopening of the settlement.
And here's my story. On May 2nd, 2014, about six weeks after
the developer's first disastrous neighborhood information meeting held
to explain his request for the 280 new dwelling units and other
concessions on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive, I and about 20 other
so-called community leaders were invited to attend a meeting at the
North Naples government center that was hosted by Commissioner
Hiller. At that meeting the developer unveiled his revised proposal
that you see before you today.
In addition to the developer, Commissioner Hiller and
representatives of the planning department commented on the
proposal. I left the meeting with a sense of resigned relief, believing
that this new proposal, though still flawed, was a significant
improvement over the earlier one.
When I returned to Naples in September, I witnessed firsthand the
initial phases of the development on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive.
It was massive in scale and it was distressing to watch as this large
swath of natural vegetation was clear-cut down to the mangrove
swamp that borders Cocohatchee Bay itself. It provided me with a
different and very distressing vision of the future.
I decided to read the actual 2008 settlement agreement. I studied
its history, I listened to present and former members of the county
commission. I wrote to each of you asking that you obtain a solid
ironclad agreement that this development would end with this last 62
homes. I heard from the County Attorney that there are no guaranties,
that every developer has the right to return and to request
modifications to his proposals without limit. And I became
increasingly alarmed.
I looked for those guaranties. I asked for them at the most recent
Page 76
March 24, 2015
neighborhood information meeting. I even met with the developer and
he provided us with his carefully drafted proposed declaration of
covenants as his evidence of good intent about this project. And I
heard a little bit more about further modifications to that today.
I asked that it be reviewed by legal counsel. And in the end I
determined that as a deed restriction it would not be enforced by the
county.
What I was seeking and what I had asked for you to obtain was an
accommodation with the developer that was guaranteed to end here.
Unfortunately it was not to be.
All of this effort brought me to my epiphany; that is, my complete
change of heart. It turns out that the history of this development in
Collier County is large on the face of his previous projects, the
developer's previous projects. I have learned that we must now live
with his five new west side towers, and with the deal that was made in
2008 to increase the height of the northernmost tower by some two
stories, the result of his trading away and removing all density
excepting two estate homes from the eastern portion of this project.
So now you and I will shortly be living with that deal, no matter
what we do here today. And with a half a mile long wall of bricks and
glass that it will create, five buildings, four of which will be the height
of a typical 23-story structure with setbacks about half of which are
normally allowed, giving our neighborhood the unfortunate look of
Miami Beach.
(Applause.)
MR. CRESSY: Those 590 dwellings will bring even more traffic
to our already heavily impacted neighborhood roads. To me the
developer's past actions do not instill either trust or confidence in his
word.
I implore you to make him live up to his side of the 2008 bargain.
It was a hard fought agreement, and like all agreements it included
Page 77
March 24, 2015
concessions from both sides. Why change it now? Why further
appeasement? How many bites of the apple does he get before you say
enough is enough?
For each of you Commissioners it is a matter of both public trust
and the integrity of county government. I urge you to vote no on this
proposal. Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Your next public speaker is Joe Wood.
He'll be followed by Elizabeth Cressy.
MR. WOOD: My name is Joe Wood, and I've lived at 669
Mainsail Place in Tarpon Cove for 11 years. I'm the president of the
Cayman Homeowners Association, which is a Tarpon Cove
neighborhood closest to the planned Kalea Bay development.
We are separated by a drainage canal that is our focus of concern,
should this project move forward. The way things exist now, when
tropical storms occur the canal brings massive amounts of water from
the Lee County -- from Lee County in a ditch system along old
Highway 41 through Tarpon Cove with insufficient opportunity for the
water to exit past Wiggins Pass Road.
The excess water then flows across the Kalea Bay property
toward Vanderbilt Drive. This has been witnessed by many, including
myself, and is documented in writing by former Commissioner Frank
Halas and Collier County Engineer Robert Wiley. They've seen it,
they saw it, it's been there, ifs not even a question. There's no question
about it, there are some people from Tarpon Cove who have just not
lived here long enough to see it.
Now the plans for Kalea Bay call for a berm to be built along the
west side of the canal. That will prevent overflow water from going
there. That's understandable.
We have a specific solution and request of the Board of
Commissioners and the developer. Our solution and specific request is
this: Install a 48-inch culvert on the north side of Wiggins Pass from
Page 78
March 24, 2015
the canal down to the corner of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive
where Lodge/Abbott is planning to install a 70-inch culvert to the
Cocohatchee Bay. This should be paid for by Lodge/Abbott and
installed under the sidewalk that they are installing.
Now, while I was initially opposed to reopening the 2008
settlement, like a lot of people are, I was on that side for a long time, I
have asked the County Commissioners to do something through
Tarpon Cove to enhance the whole community, and I am asking that
this be done as our final request. And if you do this, this will gain my
support and many in the Tarpon Cove Cayman neighborhood of
people. And thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you. I'm going to --
MR. WOOD: I wanted to say one thing. I disagree with the
Engineer Kurtz who said that there is no water problem. There is a
water problem. I've lived there a long time, I've seen it, and it is there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Just stand by, sir, one moment. I did not
notice that Commissioner Taylor wanted to make a comment, so I'm
going to take her comments and then I'm going to go to Commissioner
Hiller.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The time's passed. It's fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I apologize, ma'am.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I would like to address your comments, and thank you very much
for taking the time to speak and for all the work you have done in
researching this matter.
Unfortunately during the course of the study of the impact of this
development something came to light which is adverse to Tarpon
Cove. And what was determined -- and Mr. Kurtz, would you come
up here? Where are you? If you would.
What was found is that unfortunately WCI improperly filled in
Page 79
March 24, 2015
the canal on Tarpon Cove's side and basically built out the
embankment beyond what was permitted by the Water District. And it
was done illegally without a permit.
So what happened was when WCI turned over Tarpon Cove to
the homeowners association, the homeowners association inherited this
issue, notwithstanding the fact that Tarpon Cove illegally built up their
side of that canal that runs between the Kalea property and the Tarpon
Cove property.
Mr. Kurtz has determined that there would be no adverse impact
with the development of these homes. Now, unfortunately -- Mr.
Kurtz, could you come to the podium? The issue now is what are we
going to do about Tarpon Cove, given that we have the knowledge that
Tarpon Cove illegally without a permit built up their side of the canal?
Mr. Kurtz, what are we going to do about that? And also, I would
like you to address whether -- it's Mr. Wood, right?
MR. WOOD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Wood or Woods?
MR. WOOD: Wood.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to make sure it's correct for
the record. It's Wood, not Woods.
I need you to -- you know, Mr. Wood has a suggestion. Is that
suggestion of building under the sidewalk -- and this is the first I've
heard of this proposal in the context of this information that we have
about the canal being illegally built up on the Tarpon Cove side.
Is it necessary -- I guess let me restate that. First question is now
that we are aware, do we have a duty to report this information? Do
they have a duty to go and pull a permit after the fact and have it
inspected to make a determination whether there's any adverse impact?
And then the second question I have is, is the recommendation
Mr. Wood has presented of adding a culvert underneath the sidewalk
necessary in light of your findings? I'd like all of that on the record.
Page 80
March 24, 2015
MR. WOOD: Ma'am, could I add one thing?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. WOOD: I'd like to answer your first --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let Mr. Kurtz. Because remember,
he is deemed an expert, and he is the water -- he's our stormwater
engineer for the entire county. And this is a legal hearing. So we have
to allow him to speak as the expert first and then go ahead and
comment on what he says after he speaks, if you don't mind.
MR. KURTZ: Jerry Kurtz, for the record.
The filling in of the eastern side of the FDOT ditch definitely
reduced the conveyance capacity of the ditch. Fortunately the ditch is
overdesigned, over-sized or designed adequately to handle a design
storm of a huge capacity.
When it happened, we watched it, and since then subsequently
we've been observing how it's performed. And it's performing fine. So
our current recommendation is to just leave it alone, leave it as is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That would be great.
MR. KURTZ: And it's been working fine over the years. I've
personally been watching it for over 15 years, so -- as well as the
downstream conveyance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we need to get approval of that
from FDOT or the Water Management District or any other regulatory
body? Who permitted that canal in the first place? Was it FDOT?
MR. KURTZ: It was FDOT. It was originally constructed by
FDOT. It's the county's ditch today, and so we're regulating it, we're
maintaining it, along with Tarpon Cove I believe maintains a small
piece of it. But we're watching it. And it's fine. We understand the
reduction and capacity, but like I said, it hasn't resulted in any backups.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And with the -- if these homes
were to be approved, there wouldn't be any problem?
MR. KURTZ: The proposed plan is very robust. It actually is
Page 81
March 24, 2015
diverting one-third of the watershed away from the ditch. So there's a
diversion. The plan is solid; we've evaluated it over and over. It was
originally planned to intercept all the water, or a big portion of the
water coming from the north that may currently be dropping into the
ditch and divert it to the west, southwest.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Tarpon Cove will not find itself
in a regulatory problem?
MR. KURTZ: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it will not find itself with
water issues?
MR. KURTZ: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And what about part two,
which is the request by Mr. Wood to have some sort of a culvert?
MR. KURTZ: The diversion, the plan for the project as it sits
without the culvert will handle all the flows necessary. The additional
48-inch pipe is not necessary.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in your professional opinion,
the Tarpon Cove Homeowners Association will not have to incur any
expense to push the canal embankment on its side of its property back
to where it was originally permitted?
MR. KURTZ: No, not -- based on my observations, no.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that no culvert will be needed,
notwithstanding that the canal has been narrowed.
MR. KURTZ: Correct, no culvert will be needed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So there should be no water
issues facing Tarpon Cove.
MR. KURTZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's your professional
opinion?
MR. KURTZ: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because water trespass is a big
Page 82
March 24, 2015
concern of mine always. And you know that.
MR. KURTZ: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because I have had a lot of debates
with you over that.
Okay. Now, Mr. Wood?
MR. WOOD: I disagree with the idea that the 48-inch pipe is not
needed. But he has the letters PE behind his name and I do not. I
understand that. But I have lived there, I have seen it, I have witnessed
it, and time will tell.
But I will say one more thing: I've researched the rebuilding of
the canal bank. Goes way back to when it was done. And I'll make it
very brief,.because I know I'm way beyond my time. But WCI did not
build the canal properly according to the PUD when they built it.
Collier County Code Enforcement did not make them correct it before
they turned the land over. Five years later, because the bank was very
vertical, it was eroding the houses, we hired an engineering firm, a
professional engineering firm, who made a report, they told us that was
a problem. We took it back to WCI. I'm working backwards on this.
People in Collier County said, they never got a permit. They
didn't get a permit because all they did is put the fill on the side of the
ditch to bring it back to the original PUD. So they felt they didn't need
another permit, and that's what happened.
And what there is now is the slope of the bank, exactly what the
original PUD called for. And that's why -- it's a moot point. The
houses are protected, there's been no further problem with the houses.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm glad to hear that. I'm glad the
houses continue to be protected. And I'm glad we don't have to do
anything. And it's important that we got all of this on the record for
future reference.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you gentlemen very much.
Mr. Miller?
Page 83
March 24, 2015
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Elizabeth Cressy. She'll be
followed by Patricia Bonser.
MS. CRESSY: Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Cressy and I thank
you for this opportunity to speak with you this morning.
Integrity: The quality or state of being of sound moral principle,
uprightness, honesty and sincerity.
Integrity: Being consistent and clear about ethical standards,
challenging any system that encourages dishonesty or unethical
behavior and does not condone self-serving behavior.
Integrity: Provides facts and not smokescreens.
Integrity: What the citizens of Collier County expect from the
signed 2008 settlement agreement.
What does not demonstrate integrity? Lodge/Abbott is
deliberately reneging on a legally signed document. Lodge/Abbott is
using a bait and switch tactic to acquire one set of concessions and
then asking for those same concessions in an additional building
project. That's double dipping.
Lodge/Abbott is approaching the present County Commissioners
and asking them to invalidate the 2008 agreement that was diligently
and thoughtfully compiled by former county commissioners.
Lodge/Abbott is blatantly reversing their word in the signed 2008
agreement to build a golf course or leave the green space in perpetuity
as a green space preserve.
As a resident of Collier County I respectfully implore you to
uphold the integrity of the 2008 settlement agreement, to uphold what
is morally right, and to validate the trust that the citizens of Collier
County place in you, our County Commissioners. Thank you very
much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is a Patricia Bonser. She'll be
followed by Ralf Brookes.
MS. BONSER: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank you
Page 84
March 24, 2015
for your time. And Mr. Miller, you did get my name right. It's Patricia
Bonser. I live in the Glen Eden community.
I relocated from Boston, Massachusetts with my husband six
years ago. After several months, we found property in Glen Eden as
the ideal place. It's now been our home for five and a half years.
When we purchased our home we understood that the land
abutting the community would remain green, as there was an
agreement in place between County and Lodge/Abbott, the developer.
It deeply saddened me that the developer feels it their right to
overturn a legally binding contract, as they have realized there's no
financial gain in developing the golf course.
Putting the ecological issues aside of putting a golf course in
there, I more recently discovered that the number of housing units in
the five towers now being built on the west side, which everybody's
been talking about already, was increased as part of the agreement to --
the land east of Vanderbilt Drive would remain undeveloped, either as
a golf course or, as stated in the agreement, remain forever green.
I'm firmly of the opinion that a deal is a deal and the county
should not reopen the PUD settlement for the developer to get the land
rezoned for housing, which could mean building 62 homes that they
propose today, 280 that they proposed last year, or who knows
however many housing units once it gets rezoned to be residential.
Now, I totally understand that owning 175 acres of land in a
highly desirable location and not building on it is far from a good or
even viable business proposition. But that is exactly what
Lodge/Abbott agreed to in the settlement of 2008. And no doubt with
a long-term plan to turn that settlement around as they cannot stand --
they can't make money from a standalone golf course.
As a homeowner in Collier County, I place my trust in you, the
Commissioners, and have every expectation that our Board of County
Commissioners represent the residents and uphold the decision
Page 85
March 24, 2015
previously agreed by the Commission to not reopen the PUD. Thank
you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ralf Brookes.
Mr. Brookes, if I might, I have three slips from you, but I'm not
sure why they're different.
MR. BROOKES: They're all the same. I wasn't sure if I needed
to put in a different slip for 9 and 12.
MR. MILLER: No, I just wanted to clear that up, thank you.
And Mr. Brookes will be followed by Jim Schultz.
MR. BROOKES: Good morning. My name is Ralf Brookes. I'm
an attorney and I'm board certified in city, county and local
governmental law. I've represented Sarasota County and Monroe
County, which is the Florida Keys, and I've been the city attorney for
St. Pete Beach and Pinellas County and Bradenton Beach in Manatee
County.
The uses -- the residential uses on the east side of Vanderbilt
Drive have already been transferred and clustered into the five towers
on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive.
In 2000 you approved 90 multi-family units in the R-2 area and
20 on the golf course area. Those were all shifted over and those were
all put in the five towers where they became very expensive water
view condos, millions of dollars. You went from 480 units in those
towers or in the project towers on the east side, in 2008 you let them go
to 590 units in those towers. You let the fifth tower go from 15 stories
to 17 stories.
And in exchange you got a preserve area and a golf course area
that totaled a number of 91 percent open space for the entire project.
That was the deal that was struck in 2008.
Now they're trying to double dip. They're coming back, they
want the residential project where they already took the units and
transferred them off They agreed to move the residential units to the
Page 86
March 24, 2015
east side parcels. They agreed to place a restrictive covenant already on
the golf course parcel. And it says that if it can't be a golf course -- and
they started a golf course, they did not continue it, doesn't look like it's
going to be a golf course -- it does say in paragraph eight of the
existing settlement agreement to provide restrictive covenants that
shall provide that if the golf course development area or golf course
use is ever discontinued or abandoned, that all of the GC parcel,
including without limitation the entire GC area except for two units
shall remain forever as green open space and be limited in perpetuity
to the uses expressly allowed in the preserve parcel, which is 5.3.
So if they don't use it as a golf course, they can use it for the
passive recreation uses, bicycle paths, boardwalks, those kinds of
things that are allowed in the preserve.
There's a new standard for the review of rezoning, should you
review the rezoning. You first have to find the developer has to prove
it's consistent with the Comp. Plan and complies with all the
procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance.
But even if they do, the burden then shifts to the governing board
and you can still vote to deny a rezoning, which a PUD is, with respect
to the property if it accomplishes a legitimate public purpose. So if
there's a legitimate public purpose to upholding the settlement
agreement that provides for 91 percent open space on the project as a
whole, you can deny.
There's a case Palm Beach Polo versus Wellington, 918 So.2d
988 --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. BROOKES: -- 2006 that's directly on point.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sir.
MR. BROOKES: I would like for the record --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you for your comments.
MR. BROOKES: -- to note that I am alleging a violation of
Page 87
March 24, 2015
procedural due process. I represent many of the neighbors. I have a
case out of Miami, Pepper versus Miami that says eight minutes is
insufficient for a quasi judicial hearing on a PD. I'd ask for three more
minutes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So noted, sir. No, I'm sorry, we're going
to have to move forward. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would like to ask a question,
please.
AUDIENCE: I cede my three minutes. Thomas Lynch.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, so there's someone
ceding. Thomas Lynch is ceding his three minutes.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Do you want to speak to this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, please, I do.
Yeah --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Excuse me, I was asking the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's the third time today.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm sorry, I thought you were --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, and then a gentleman stood
up from the back --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But you know what?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- ceding his three minutes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor, your light's
not coming on. I think there's something --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Try your light again.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I don't think it's working.
Now it is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's just put it this way: It was
twice this morning and the Chair ignored it so I decided to speak up.
Page 88
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm not ignoring you, ma'am. I may be
addled, but --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm at the end of the road, I know.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, no, I don't want to do that.
Now, now, we have a gentleman that's agreed --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sit over here next to us.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to cede time.
Do you have an additional comment other than have the request
to have the speaker continue?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No. Oh, no, I was going to ask
him some questions to proceed. I was very curious about this case he
cited. So I would like him to explain it, please.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can I not ask him?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, you may be next.
Commissioner Hiller, then Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just understand. Are you
here, sir, representing a number of individuals here? And are you
suggesting that you are going to bring suit against Collier County?
MR. BROOKES: That's two different questions. The first
question is I represent individual unit owners that are located within
the HOAs that surround this project. In the proposed restrictive
covenant the developer's attorney brought to you today, and in
paragraph three says in no event may any of the individual members of
the HOAs be considered benefited parties that can sue to enforce the
restrictive covenants that are being proposed to you today.
So I'm not representing the HOAs, I'm representing individuals.
Diane Rudnow, Judith Palay, many of the other 48, some of who have
spoken already and some who will speak. And we're seeking to
Page 89
March 24, 2015
enforce the existing settlement agreement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you registered as a lobbyist?
MR. BROOKES: I don't believe I have to be to speak at this dais.
At this time I have not met with any of you or talked with any of you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, does he have to register as a
lobbyist to be able to speak with us?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, thank you.
So you're here -- and I'm just -- that's a point of order because
normally nobody --
MR. BROOKES: Second question you asked --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you don't mind, sir, I'm
speaking.
For the benefit of the public, anyone who addresses the dais, and
the County Attorney just clarified, because this is a public hearing and
it's a quasi judicial hearing, you're addressing as an attorney rather than
a lobbyist, and that needs to be clarified for the record.
You are representing how many individuals?
MR. BROOKES: Diane Rudnow, Judith Palay, and we have a
whole other list. But there's approximately 20, 25 people. There's
going to be 48 speakers today.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you have --
MR. BROOKES: They'll get up and most of them have legal
standing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so let me ask you a couple of
questions. Are you taking the position that the petitioner does not have
the legal right to come forward and petition this board to amend the
PUD?
MR. BROOKES: My position is in paragraph 21 of the existing
settlement agreement. It states that any amendments to the settlement
agreement must follow the same formalities as the original settlement
Page 90
March 24, 2015
agreement which was required to be approved by a supermajority vote.
In addition, paragraph eight says that any removal of the
restrictive covenant on the golf course area would require a
supermajority vote of this board. That's in paragraph A.
I think the intent was clear that if you were going to require a
restrictive covenant and cause the golf course to be either a golf course
or a preserve area and have a restrictive covenant placed on that land,
that to remove that requirement or remove that condition should also
require a supermajority vote. As well, as your County Attorney has
pointed out, that there's a law of Florida, 67-1246 that requires a
supermaj ority vote of this Board for any rezonings, which is also then
picked up in Ordinance No. 07-02 of Collier County which states that a
supermajority vote is required if ifs required on any special law.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I understand. And I believe that
this Board has decided that we are going to vote as a supermajority on
this matter if we are to approve this.
So let me ask you another question.
MR. BROOKES: If I could answer first the second question you
already asked --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead.
MR. BROOKES: -- are we going to sue. And perhaps that was
raised by bringing up this case Palm Beach Polo versus Wellington. In
that case the developer was denied the amendment to the PUD. Even
though the PUD met all the Comp. Plan requirements and the LDC
requirements, the Village of Wellington denied the amendment to the
PUD. That amendment to the PUD sought to take an open space area
called big glue blue and put units on it. And they said no, even though
you're allowed some density, you're allowed to do that under the
Comp. Plan, you have a PUD that was already there and they can deny
that and there's a legitimate public purpose for denying that if they're
no Burt Harris claim and there's no taking claim. And you can't be
Page 91
March 24, 2015
sued by the developer.
So today, at least two of you vote down the rezoning and the
developer sues you, they will not be able to win. They agreed. And
also in paragraph 15 they agreed to waive and forever discharge the
county from any lawsuits arising from or in reference or relate or refer
to in any way directly or indirectly the Cocohatchee Bay PUD. And
they did that in 2008. Why you would want to open up that ironclad
legal defense against a lawsuit by a developer is beyond me. You have
that now, you should keep it.
There was an agreement already to keep this area of the GC
parcel for golf course or preserve passive recreation uses. So you have
a legitimate public purpose to deny that. And that is found in the case
that sets the new standard also for rezoning, Snyder versus Brevard
County.
You could still vote to deny an amended PUD if there's a
legitimate public purpose for doing so, and that's preservation of this
open space that's in the 2008 agreement where they took the residential
units from the east side of Vanderbilt Drive and transferred them to
these high-rise five towers and increased the height of the towers and
put more units in those towers. They went from 480 to 590 in those
towers --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right, by transferring the units
from one to the other.
MR. BROOKES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And in this application they're also
agreeing to give up the docks, which -- some 90 docks. And they're
also agreeing to add land as a preserve, among other improvements.
But that's not really the issue. I mean, the issue that's of interest to me
is your --
MR. BROOKES: The land --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Excuse me, sir.
Page 92
March 24, 2015
What's of interest to me is your reference to the contract and your
reference to all these zoning agreements pursuant to this contract that
you say is ironclad. Can you explain to me how that works?
MR. BROOKES: I'm not sure I really understand your question.
If your question --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think you do.
MR. BROOKES: If your question says that the settlement
agreement is a contract, I believe the Circuit Court would enforce that
settlement agreement as a contract.
The waiver and release in paragraph 15 is solid. You have
something to rely on there, you have the Palm Beach Polo versus
Wellington case to rely on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So --
MR. BROOKES: You're on good solid legal grounds. Your
County Attorney can defend a denial if you don't get -- if they --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not the issue. We're not
talking about a denial, because there are two separate issues here. The
one issue is how we would vote on a PUD amendment by
supermajority and whether we would or wouldn't. And that is separate
and apart from this agreement that you constantly are referring to that
you say creates a watertight zoning arrangement between the developer
and the county.
MR. BROOKES: Yes, the settlement agreement, as Attorney
Richard Clark explained, this settlement agreement encompasses the
PUD. In fact, in every paragraph of this settlement agreement it refers
expressly by reference to the PUD except for the $3 million donation,
if you will, that they're going to give you in lieu of providing
affordable housing or affordable workplace housing.
Now, the $3 million, I don't care if you waive that money or take
that money. I mean, if they're willing to give you the money --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Stay focused on the contract,
Page 93
March 24, 2015
because you made reference to the issue. And this is obviously a very
important issue. You make reference to this contract as approving the
zoning for this PUD; is that correct?
MR. BROOKES: The settlement agreement and release approves
the amended PUD. And it speaks for itself.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So basically you've got a contract
between the county and the developer that approves the zoning for this
PUD, and you deem that this contract for the zoning of this PUD is
ironclad; that's your conclusion?
MR. BROOKES: Your attorney found this agreement --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I'm asking you, that's your
position?
MR. BROOKES: I also agree with the County Attorney that this
was legally sufficient in 2008 at the time it was signed and it contains
all the requirements. And this is a valid settlement agreement and
amended PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you believe this is a valid
contract to approve and secure the zoning of this property as it stands
today?
MR. BROOKES: It speaks for itself. It's a settlement --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not asking for you to speak --
I'm asking you -- I need to know what his position is. It's very
important.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller --
MR. BROOKES: The settlement agreement is binding --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And do you understand --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, everybody. Let me make one
statement, please.
I do not want to engage in debate on the opinion of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need to ask this question.
Page 94
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I do not wish to engage in debate --
(applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a second, wait a second. We are
not going to debate the opinions of each of the speakers. If there's a
legal issue here, I think we should rightfully refer it to the County
Attorney.
I am going to take some questions from Commissioner Taylor,
and then we're going to have to deal with a break here so we can move
forward in a structured fashion. So let's --
MR. BROOKES: I would --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you for your comments, sir. I
would appreciate it -- you're on the record. If there's a legal issue here,
we will discuss it with the County Attorney.
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, I would just like the speaker,
which is what I wanted before, to finish your comments please,
because I was very interested specifically in that one case that you
mentioned, but you did elude to it. The first case when your time was
up.
MR. BROOKES: Palm Beach Polo versus Wellington.
And if you really want to get into it, and I point this out for your
County Attorney, I can send a copy, the Circuit Court case below is
voluminous, it's a 50-page opinion, it's written by Judge Gerber in
Palm Beach, and he did a really good job explaining PUDs, rezonings,
the history of that project and how they had agreed to preserve this big
blue as open space and it did not give any rise to any cause of action or
liability to the county for denial of a request to open that PUD up and
turn that open space into housing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Klatzkow, do you have any
Page 95
March 24, 2015
comments at this time?
MR. KLATZKOW: I would just ask the Board to focus on the
criteria. That's what you're here to listen to. It's set forth in the
executive summary. Arguments as to legality is not something that is
really before you at this point in time. You're to listen to the evidence.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The former speaker did reference
numerous occasions where the PUD was immersed or enmeshed into
the settlement agreement. And I believe it was his position that it
would take four votes to open that agreement. Can you explain the
position that it would only take three?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, essentially what they're asking for in
their settlement agreement ties into their PUD changes. So the
settlement agreement essentially requires four votes to change because
the PUD requires four votes to change.
If the Board did not wish to reopen the settlement agreement, by
majority vote they could say we're satisfied with the status quo and end
this, all right? If that's what the Board's wish was, all right? So it's in
essence three votes to reopen the settlement agreement.
But what they're asking for, most of it's going to require four
votes with the exception of the affordable housing payment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I may be incorrect, and I'm
not going to sit here and debate this, I'm not going to do that, but I just
want to be very sure. My understanding was that the former speaker
said that because the reference to the PUD document was intertwined
into the settlement agreement, that because of that, it's four votes, no
matter what. There's no three votes here.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is my opinion -- it's my name on that
settlement agreement, not his, all right. It is my opinion that the
settlement agreement requires three votes to reopen. All right? If a
majority do not want to reopen the settlement agreement, we're
Page 96
March 24, 2015
essentially done here. But what the settlement agreement asks for is
certain modifications to it that require you to amend the PUD. That
takes four votes. All right? The only thing that they're asking for as far
as the settlement goes that would require three votes is the affordable
housing commitment that they would formally wish to be done with.
All right?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, this is a bunch of
smoke. If there's four votes to amend the PUD, who cares how many
votes it takes to open up the settlement? The same four or the same
three or the same two or the same one is going to vote to amend the
agreement. So it's a waste of time to continue this conversation on
how many votes it takes. If-- once there's a motion and a second and a
vote on the PUD, we're going to know what the vote is going to be on
the settlement agreement.
And I'm hungry, I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, just a quick question, Mr.
Klatzkow.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're talking about three and four
votes. With the settlement agreement right now as it stands, and if we
do not open the settlement agreement, we'll never be held to any
lawsuits because right now as it stands we're clear because of the
previous settlement. Once opening it up, does that then make us liable
and open to lawsuits if we don't then vote the four?
MR. KLATZKOW: There's a different criteria between the
settlement agreement and the PUD, all right? The PUD, a denial must
be founded on substantial competent evidence presented to you. I
Page 97
March 24, 2015
would note that your staff report is a recommendation of approval.
So you'd have to find something in the record that you could say and
point to the criteria as saying that I find that it doesn't meet this
particular criteria and there needs to be evidence here. That's standard.
The settlement agreement does not have that standard, all right.
You have to voluntarily choose to reopen it. That's majority vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But then once if that is opened, then
you cannot use that settlement as a reason to vote against, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't follow you, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. So if the settlement is
reopened, from what I'm gathering, anyway, is then we can be held
liable or for a lawsuit, rather, and so you can't use that settlement being
that you've just now reopened it, you can't use that as criteria to vote
against.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's going to depend upon the motions that
are being made by this Board, all right? At the end of this hearing
there will be motions made. At that point in time, you know, I would
ask that you ask me that question, okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we have
many speakers to go. I'm going to propose a schedule going forward
to the Board members and see if everyone will agree or develop some
methodology. We need to break from between 12: 15 and 1 : 15 for
lunch. After that, we have a couple of time certain and housekeeping
items I would like your indulgence for 30 minutes to engage, which
would take us to 1 :45, which means that this issue would begin again
at 1:45.
Is that acceptable to the group? And we can continue on until
everybody is satisfied on this -- on this item.
What does the Board think on that methodology?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's -- that's very good.
Page 98
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds great.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. If there are nods, then we are
going to recess for lunch until 1: 15. We will start with a couple other
housekeeping items, and we will make it our best effort to return to this
item at 1 :45.
Thank you very much. We're in adjournment.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your
seats. We're waiting for a couple other board members to return.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Henning was just -- Penny was just
here. Oh, there you are.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We are -- we're going to take care of a
couple of items. Mr. Ochs, I believe we have two -- Mr. Miller
indicates to me that we have two items for comment not on the
agenda?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. And you also have a --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: A time certain.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Item #7
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE
CURRENT OR FUTURE AGENDA
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Why don't we take our public comment
for items not on the agenda, and I think we can conclude those rapidly,
and then we can move to our time certain.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker under public comment is
Garret Beyrent, and he'll be followed by Caitlin Weber.
MR. BEYRENT: Good afternoon. I'm Garrett Beyrent.
Page 99
March 24, 2015
I don't think I'm going to speak, because I think I've got a conflict
of interest with myself. Actually, what it says here --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a challenge flag coming on that
one I think somehow, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Attorney, will you please
define that?
MR. BEYRENT: It says right here: Public comments on general
topics not on the current or future agenda.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: What do you want to comment on?
MR. BEYRENT: I was going to comment on what you said the
last time I was here, and it was relative to gas stations.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, that's coming back, now, you
know that.
MR. BEYRENT: Yeah, I know. That's what I thought, maybe I
got a problem. But I started to harken back to when I brought in my
first gas station in 1979. And since what's transpired over those years,
it's kind of interesting, might give you some insight into it. And it was
-- Commissioner Hiller also made a comment about gas -- gas fumes.
But since there's a lot of people waiting here, I'll aggravate you a
different day, okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir, you're very kind. I
appreciate it. You know you're welcome at any time, Mr. Beyrent.
MR. BEYRENT: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker for public comment is Caitlin
Weber.
MS. WEBER: Good afternoon. Caitlin Weber, here on behalf of
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
I actually have a handout for the Board, if you all would be
willing to accept that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, we can't read it now, so you
Page 100
March 24, 2015
can just have somebody hand it out afterwards.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We'll distribute it, ma'am.
MS. WEBER: Okay, thank you. Okay.
So The Conservancy has been working very hard to advocate for
stronger oil and gas laws to prevent irresponsible drilling that leaves
public safety and water supplies at risk. We'd like to update you on
current legislative proposals which lack many of the priorities that this
Commission previously stated it would be seeking to advance this
legislative session.
We are providing you with a table that outlines which of the
County priorities are or are not being addressed, based on our review
of the bills.
Between the current Senate and the House regulatory packages,
House Bills 1205 and 1209 are more comprehensive and, therefore,
make up the better package for strengthening oil legislation at this
time. However, both the Senate and House versions restrict the well
stimulation treatments to be regulated to only those using
high-pressure fluid injection and those using over 100,000 gallons of
fluid.
The original December, 2013 Hogan work-over notice proposed
to use approximately 90,000 gallons. So under such a definition it
would not be regulated in either bill.
County staff identified this as a key issue that needs to be
rectified, as well as The Conservancy, if DEP is to have the legal
authority to regulate all oil production methods that involve the
injection of toxic fluids underground to enhance oil production.
This community anticipated the County would push for the most
effective regulatory package possible. We understand that the County
intended to work with DEP and has done so. While continuing to talk
with DEP, we recommend the county also directly engage the
legislature at this point, since DEP draft language has already been
Page 101
March 24, 2015
incorporated in the bills filed, and those bills still do not encompass
many of the County's previously stated objectives.
This session presents a limited opportunity for the political
interests to address this issue. In order for the County to maximize its
effectiveness the County should directly engage its lobbyists to
communicate with all of the legislators on the various committees
hearing these bills to provide the approved County recommendations
and legislative objectives to strengthen the bill language.
Thank you for your consideration of our input, and we look
forward to hearing an update on the County's progress in obtaining its
oil legislative objectives.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
And just for those that are watching interested in that item,
everyone needs to be aware that Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Hiller are traveling to Tallahassee tomorrow to work
together with our legislative delegation and our two lobbying firms.
And I think we're heading in a very good direction. County Manager
has communicated with all the board members and active
communication is taking place with Florida DEP. And I think
everyone is engaged in a very, very active and productive direction on
this issue.
So we look forward to getting the report from Commissioner
Fiala and Commissioner Hiller when they return.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might add that we aren't just
traveling up there by ourselves, we do have the County Attorney
traveling with us, as well as our legislative aides. So this is not a
violation of Sunshine Law.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I received a called from The
Conservancy yesterday, Jennifer Hecker, who was on her way up to
Tallahassee, and she indicated that despite promises by FDEP, the
Page 102
March 24, 2015
monitoring well to monitor water quality, which was supposed to be in
place as of-- or at least dug and probably in place by now as of the end
of January has not even been started.
And the second issue is that the Hogan Well, which was promised
to be plugged, has not been plugged. So I'm not sure what's going on.
But it does appear that the communications have broken down.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, if I may?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner Taylor was kind enough to indicate
to me that she was going to raise that today.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: I reached out to my contact at FDEP, the Deputy
Secretary Ms. Cobb, and asked her to -- if she could comment on a few
of the concerns that Commissioner Taylor had outlined. She was kind
enough to send a brief email. And I'd like to distribute that and share it
with the Board.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. OCHS: I've also attached a copy of your stipulated
agreement with FDEP so you can compare that against some of the
statements that were communicated to Commissioner Taylor on this
item.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You might also get the information
that the previous speaker wanted to pass out, same subject.
MR. MILLER: I've got that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We'll get that distributed. And everyone
needs to realize that the issue is going to be directed in two different
ways. One of them is an active legislation which will be in bills that
will be passed. And the other one, the other element, which is just as
important, is in FDEP rule-making, which won't be finally stipulated,
but will be counted on to engage a lot of issues that aren't specifically
Page 103
March 24, 2015
spelled out in legislation.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank you very much. I was
listening when I was in the back before I came in. I heard all the
comments that were made.
And I'd like to ask the Conservancy about whether or not -- where
is the speaker? Would you mind coming back up?
The Obama administration -- let me just wait 'til you come up and
have the opportunity to address this.
Are you aware that the Obama administration just enacted new
standards for fracking?
MS. WEBER: My understanding is that's for public lands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is. However, the issue is the
same. Whether it's publicly owned land or private lands, the issue is
how that fracking is done.
Have you reviewed any of what's in that regulation?
MS. WEBER: We've been focusing our efforts primarily on
looking at the state proposals to the Senate and House Bills that are
being proposed currently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Have you looked at any of the
regulation that has been enacted by the few states in the country that
have passed such regulation, like Texas for example?
MS. WEBER: Yes, we have reviewed what's going on in other
states.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And have you pulled from the
other states what you think is beneficial for Florida? And have you
made those suggestions to DEP and --
MS. WEBER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to your lobbyists?
MS. WEBER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So could you please go back and
Page 104
March 24, 2015
visit what the feds are proposing and see if there's anything beneficial
in there?
MS. WEBER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There obviously has to be a
balance between property interest and what we are looking to achieve,
which is the protection of the environment and the public safety.
Can you get back to us while we're up there? I mean, you have
our contact information. If you would contact Debby Wight and let
her know what your opinion is of that, I'd be interested.
MS. WEBER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
MS. WEBER: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: By way of summary, with respect to the two items
that were raised, you can see from this report from the Deputy
Secretary that the six shallow groundwater monitoring wells have been
in place for quite some time. The additional commitment for the deep
well has been underway for a few months. They've hit some snags in
terms of trying to get to the level that they want to. They may need to
find a nearby site to try a different drilling technique, but any
suggestion that they haven't attempted to do that I think is inaccurate
based on this communication from the Deputy Secretary.
Also, I'm not -- I don't find anything in the stipulated agreement
that the Board signed that requires something to be done in January
with regard to that well.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think it was FDEP's promise to
do it by the end of January, not the other way around. This is not at all
reflecting on the Board.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I just -- I don't see that in either the
stipulated agreement or the letter from former Secretary Vineyard that
was part of the stipulated agreement.
Page 105
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think it's extremely important to
-- Leo, if you could share what Commissioner Taylor was told by the
Conservancy with Collier Resources and have them apprised of it so
they can provide any information to the contrary.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I thought it was very
germane to do this, as you were going up to Tallahassee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. No, I think it's great.
But I think that they need to be apprised of our discussion here today
and give them the opportunity to be responsive.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I think the high pressure
issue that was put forth by The Conservancy just now, I think that is
related to the last legislative update, other high pressure well
stimulation technique. And it's always met with these issues, high
pressure, but how much high pressure and what does it -- what does it
cover?
And according to the information I received yesterday, what is
being proposed now would have -- if it passed, it would have allowed
the Hogan Well to be fractured.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So just FYI.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, thank you very much.
Mr. County Manager, I think that might bring us to our time
certain, 1:00. We're within 28 minutes of it.
Item #10A
RECOMMENDATION TO RECONSTITUTE THE COLLIER
COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD AND
DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK AN
Page 106
March 24, 2015
ENABLING ORDINANCE — MOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO
WORK IN AN OPEN MANNER, IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS,
ESTABLISH A MISSION STATEMENT, STRUCTURE, A FORM
OF COMMUNICATION AND BRING BACK TO THE BOARD —
APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. That is Item 10.A. That's a
recommendation to reconstitute the Collier County Hispanic Affairs
Advisory Board and direct the County Attorney to bring back an
enabling ordinance. And this item was brought forward by
Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
I had received a call recently from Victor Valdez, and he said he
had heard some messages from other people within the Hispanic
community that they would like to see this advisory board reinstated or
renewed. I spoke to him, and I told him the first time it had happened,
we got to a point where nobody was coming to meetings and so that's
why we abolished it, because it didn't seem there was interest.
But he suggested maybe there would be renewed interest. So I
said, I'll bring that up to the Board. You know, as far as I'm concerned,
I'm always here to see whatever anybody has to talk to us. I don't want
it established, some thing, where all they're there to do is complain.
Where they want to make something happen and they want to
encourage their community and get good lines of communication
between the Board. And that sounds great to me.
And Mr. Valdez also noted that they felt it was good that they had
a County liaison to go to that could get the word to us then, the County
Commissioners. That's fine with me. I don't remember getting much
or any information before. So that would be a good thing.
Meanwhile, I got some comments from some of the people within
Page 107
March 24, 2015
the Hispanic business community saying well, you know, it seems to
be working the way it is. Got others from other people within the
community who said, well, see, we can't belong to the business
organization, because we're just fresh out of college, or we don't own a
business or, you know, well, we would like to be a part of two-way
communication as well.
Well, that sounded good to me. One of the things -- one of the
points that they made in all of this communications is we need to have
a purpose for this new advisory board, if it is established, and we have
to have some goals set, and we need to put together a whole new
committee of people who are interested in furthering the efforts of the
Hispanic community, which I think is a good idea too.
So with that, I wanted to propose to you -- now, do we have some
speakers?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We've got Commissioner Henning,
ma'am.
MR. MILLER: Yes, we -- we do have speakers, six.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's -- all right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are -- usually, I like to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Have you started your --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, usually I like to hear the
speakers first and then to comment, but you're the chairman here. You
just do whatever you --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, let's -- let's hear some additional
early comments from Commissioner Henning, and then we'll go to
public speakers. I'm interested as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, are you
proposing these members on this proposed ordinance be electorate
from the County? In other words, registered voters?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I haven't even gotten that
Page 108
March 24, 2015
far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's how we do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I really wanted to do, if you --
if the other Commissioners agree to have it move forward, I thought it
would be nice if maybe I personally, at a separate time, not even in
front of the County Commission, got together a few of the people who
want to put this together to see what they need to do, how they wanted
to do it, what their purposes were, what they wanted to accomplish,
and then come back with you -- come back to you with an agenda to
present to you.
And that could be one of the things. Do they -- are they a
registered voter or are they at least a citizen? That could be one of the
things we discuss. That's a very good point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's how we do it with
our other advisory board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So next question. This is really a
reconsideration of a previous item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you reconsider it this late after
-- I mean, gosh, it's been a couple years -- a year at least, right? I don't
know --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reading the ordinance, I don't
think so. However, if it comes back in a different form, it can be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, that's -- that's what I'd like to
do. I think -- I think maybe -- I don't know if they had --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let me make a suggestion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Instead of a Hispanic Advisory
Board, have a minority advisory board advising the Board on issues
affecting the minorities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What does that do, then, to the Black
Page 109
March 24, 2015
Advisory Board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that will be -- you know,
minorities can be senior citizens, can be -- are you a senior now?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think --
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're not a minority yet.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Not in Collier County, Commissioner.
Not in Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think right now I would like it just
to be pointed to the entire Hispanic community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Huh?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, unless, as you say, we're
putting it back together. But I don't know what the purpose was
before. We would want a purpose this time. We would want an
agenda. We would want some goals and so forth and, I mean, rehash
the whole thing. Because it wasn't working before, is what I'm saying.
If you want to call that a reconsideration, I don't care. I would
just like you to consider us getting together.
And by the way, this isn't a final thing. Before we can even
present you with an idea that represents everybody in that community,
I would want to get together with them, I mean, if you allow me to do
that, to give you then a proposal as to what they need and what they're
looking for and go from there.
And if there are some people that are objecting to it, I want to
hear from them too. I don't feel this is the time or place before we
hammer that out amongst ourselves.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry, I just was read --
going by the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm just telling you what I feel.
Page 110
March 24, 2015
But, yeah, I don't blame you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor, then
Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And not to -- not to negate what
you want to do, but my thoughts were -- and I've heard from some of
the Hispanic business community -- is that we've got a liaison right
now, which is the Hispanic business community. And perhaps we
could -- and again this is something to consider. This is -- I don't mean
to direct this. But that we would ask them -- I think some of the
members have actually sat on the Hispanic Advisory Board so they
have that ground experience. You know, they've gotten their feet wet
with it, and they know the pros and the cons and what it -- you know,
what it morphed into, what they would like it to be.
And perhaps ask them to be consultants in this, to develop not
only a mission statement, but criteria for the membership and clear
guidance of what to be discussed, which would go far beyond code
violations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's exactly what I was
trying to say, because I've already spoken to them, and they've already
communicated with me. And so you can't put that all together at an
open meeting --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- until you get to hear from
everybody.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what I'm saying is, if you would
allow me to move forward with this effort, I'll talk to everybody and
see what they can do. Now, people who -- but this is not going to be a
gripe session and it's not going to be attacking -- or code violations.
They have Code Enforcement already to whom they can turn. That
Page 111
March 24, 2015
isn't what this is for. It's for the betterment of the relationship between
the Hispanic community and us.
And although the business community, I think we have a great
relationship with them. They're really good, and they communicate
with us a lot. I don't have any problems, you know, ever -- ever
hearing from anybody. They always do, and always respectfully.
But there's part of the community, like the soccer teams, Miguel
over there and his son. I communicate with them. Whenever we need
to, we're there together. But maybe they don't feel the same about
going through the Hispanic Advisory Board, Hispanic Business
Advisory Board. Maybe they want to be a part of a separate group that
feels that they're not in the business community, but they're an active
part of the vibrant community. But until we meet, we won't really
know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I'm just asking you to allow me
to go on and meet with them and see what we can propose to you at a
later date.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have no problem with that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I don't think you need the
Board's permission to research that issue. I think you or any other
commissioner can address that independently, and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I wanted to know that you
would allow me to move forward with the understanding that it might
become a Hispanic Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, it wouldn't become anything
until you brought a proposal back to the Board that would be reviewed
by the Board, you know, with public participation and then voted on
by the Board.
So you can -- you have the ability to go out and speak to
Page 112
March 24, 2015
whomever you want. You have the ability to come back with an
executive summary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if you --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: My point is, I would hate -- and the
reason I say this is for a reason. I would hate to see someone say no to
you. And I don't believe that the issue of no should even be something
that the Board would contemplate.
And so my point is, I don't think there's any vote required. I think
there's no support required. It's nice that you've informed us. I think
you should go do it. And I don't think any member of this Board
should ever be in a position where something that they would like to
research and bring forward as an executive summary should ever be
turned down.
That's the whole point of us being representative. So I think it's
great that you're bringing -- it's polite. It's very courteous.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The reason I brought it up is just to
see if-- you know, if everybody would have said, no, we've done that
before, we're never doing it again, then there's no reason to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I understand. And for
discussion purposes, I just don't want to see anyone oppose -- I would
hate to see any commissioner oppose any other commissioner's effort
to research a community issue and bring it back independently by way
of right to the Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that's the only reason why I
hesitate that we should even take a vote on this. I think -- I applaud
you for researching it. I think you should just go do it. And if you
think there's merit, bring it back. Or if there's any other commissioner
that has an opinion, you know, based on their working with the
community can bring back a proposal.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hear our speakers.
Page 113
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will -- I will make a comment, and then
I'm going to go to Commissioner Taylor.
I certainly support putting a group together, but I think that there
should be some significant discussion among all the active
stakeholders in the Hispanic community.
Let me tell you one of the hurdles that I've found as
Commissioner with District 5. In communities -- small communities
like Immokalee, Golden Gate, Everglades City and Ave Maria, you
typically have a fairly small number of people who are -- who are
continuously active. In other words, people that are engaged in issues
on a regular basis.
And I think if you restrict yourself just to forming an advisory
board to the Board of County Commissioners, which is governed by
the Sunshine Law, what you do is, you put your most active and
people you feel are best engaged with the issues on an advisory board
together. Then under the rules of the Sunshine Law they can't even
discuss those issues amongst themselves.
It's actually very crippling and something that you need to
imagine. If the six or eight most vigorous among you get on the same
board, you're not going to have a way to legally talk about your
recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. And I think
you're going to find that stifling.
So what I would -- what I would recommend, and what I would --
I would -- I'm not trying to take Commissioner Fiala's issue, but I
would ask her to consider engaging staff to reach out to all the
stakeholders and have the community, Hispanic active community
now, identify the stakeholders and figure out how to put together a
group that can best advise the Board. And perhaps a formal advisory
board is not the best methodology. And I don't have on the top -- on
the tip of my tongue what it would be. But I believe that -- I'm going
to spill it, aren't I? Yeah, I'm talking with my hands.
Page 114
March 24, 2015
But I think if you have some time with staff, if staff that's worked
with the advisory boards perhaps could meet with as many people as
want -- as want to get engaged with it -- and I would certainly hope
that Commissioner Fiala would be there during that activity -- that you
could come back and work on the items as she's -- as she's said, and
come back and decide what you think would be the best for the
community.
I would certainly support that if that's a motion that you would
like to make. And I don't want to co-opt your agenda item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we're giving staff the task,
right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Rather than me?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Just -- I'll put the burden on you, ma'am.
Let them help you engage all the stakeholders. And I certainly endorse
you being central to that effort if--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I feel the same.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I don't know how Mr. Ochs feels about it
or Mr. Casalanguida. Maybe he'll get handed this prickly --
MR. OCHS: We work at the pleasure of the Board, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I know that, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's why we like you so much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very politically correct answer.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So Commissioner Fiala, why don't you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me hear from the people.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, that's a great idea. Let's go to the
public speakers.
How many do we have, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: We have six.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've still got Commissioner
Taylor.
Page 115
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I've got Commissioner Taylor.
Commissioner Taylor, I'm sorry.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: My hand is up in the corner.
I think you make a very good point. And I don't -- you know, it's
just the way we do government. Do -- if you have a committee, do
you want to be able to speak to each other and talk outside of that
meeting? If you do, you don't need an Hispanic Affairs Council. But
in order -- going back to Commissioner Henning's question about the
reconsideration, why couldn't we have this item as an item to discuss
Commissioner Fiala establishing a conduit to the commission board
without naming it Hispanic Affairs Committee? That might satisfy the
reconsideration issue. Just frame it a little bit differently.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And can I comment on that,
Chairman Nance?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Fine by me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's -- one of the things
would be for staff-- and what we really need is a staff liaison, so we
would have one designated person on the County staff side, and that
would be part of the direction in researching what you would do. One
option is a person dedicated to being the staff liaison with the
community, and then you could look at the issue and decide is this a
staff issue that we can resolve and help this citizen, or is this an issue
that's policy related? And then you could bring an executive summary
to the Board on that matter, as one option. Which is what
Commissioner Taylor is suggesting. That would obviate the problem
with what Commissioner Nance proposed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Let's just --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was hoping to just talk to
everybody and see what they wanted.
Page 116
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But you can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Decide what they want.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, but just throwing out these
suggestions. But having Commissioner Fiala right now being the
liaison and however it morphs -- whatever form it takes, we could --
we could just frame it that way so that it doesn't cross into that
reconsideration issue.
So let's not call it an Hispanic Affairs Council, but you're in
charge of--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Figuring out --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: -- bringing this up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's hear from the audience. We've
only got a minute left.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Your first public speaker is Valerie Maxwell.
She'll be followed by Victor Valdez.
MS. MAXWELL: Good afternoon, everyone, Chairman Nance,
Board.
I was on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board for almost five
years, and I will tell you, it is absolutely true, we were not allowed to
converse privately about anything that we discussed at all, or we would
be in a violation of the Sunshine Laws.
Furthermore, we had no representation. We couldn't make a
decision, we couldn't endorse anybody, we couldn't do anything. And
that was very frustrating to come here every month, sit up there and
people come to us begging for help, but we couldn't help them unless
we helped them privately, which I did on several occasions at my
school.
And the only thing that we had on the agenda that was new is we
had a little thing that we could comment to the Commissioners. That
was it. And luckily we had Marlene Serrano that was working with us
Page 117
March 24, 2015
towards the end, because we did have some code problems with a
trailer park that was really in desperate need of help and, you know, we
couldn't get any help, you know, there. So we kind of had to
circumvent over here and go behind and help these people. You know,
go to the managers, petition, work with them.
Many of them were scared they were going to get kicked out of
their homes because they were illegal or didn't have their papers, but
they were paying rent. And they were taking advantage of them by
charging too much water. Whatever they wanted. One month it was
400, the next month it was 200. They never knew what they were
going to be hit with. It was pretty frustrating.
So for five years I would come no matter what. And I will tell
you that there was -- in five years, I know for a fact there was only two
times where we didn't have a quorum. I know that for a fact. I was
there. There was only two times when I was not there, and that's when
I was getting a new hip. Other than that, I was there every single
month.
And we had a lot of people come before us and, you know, a lot
of different things, but we never could do anything. And that's why I
would like to see whatever we come up with, give us a little, you
know, leeway to you guys, something that we can work with, if we're
going to do something in the future. You know, don't just let us be
here just for the heck of it. Give us something, you know, some
leeway, some way to work with you so when these people come to us
we can say, you know, well, let's see what we can do. We'll try to get
with Commissioners and see what they can do to help, okay?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: One of the goals, ma'am, will be to
identify how you should be engaged and how you can best advise the
Board.
MS. MAXWELL: Well, I know that some of us that were there
were so frustrated -- I know of two of them -- they went off and did
Page 118
March 24, 2015
their own thing where they didn't have to answer to anybody. I ran
State of the Naples Hispanic Chamber, you know, so -- because I had
so many people come up to me during the farmer's market deal saying
we don't have an Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, where do we go?
They're calling me.
And I said, all right, well, I'm going to reinstate it to bring it back
so we have at least something to do.
So maybe there's a combination of things that we can do. It is
very frustrating when you're, you know, Latino and -- you're using
your hands, so am I -- you know, when you're trying to get something
done, it does take a lot of communication. It really does. And it's hard
when we cannot speak.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MS. MAXWELL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes, ma'am, thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Victor Valdez. He'll be
followed by Evelyn Perez.
MR. VALDEZ: Good afternoon. For the record, I am Victor
Valdez, host of the Program in Spanish: Grabbing the Bull by the
Horn, agarrar el toro por los cuernos, that you can see on Saturday and
Sunday in Aztec America.
Also, I am the president of Valdez Foundation, Human and
(unintelligible) Right Foundation established in the State of Florida.
For the 24 years, we work together to try to convince the Board of
Commission to listen to us. Through my newspaper, Las Naciones, 24
years ago I asked the Board of Commissioners to establish, and it was
established in May, 1991, 24 years ago.
We believe at this time that we are close to good communication
between government and people. But the first two years of meeting
we have attendance of 40 people, 30 people, 20, 45 people. But after
people was looking that the Board of Commission don't pay attention
Page 119
March 24, 2015
to our problems we're asking, people go away, and nobody came to
hear the meeting of the Hispanic Board. Because was, as I publish in
my newspaper, a puppet of the Board of Commissioners.
Today, this last month, I was with a hope that now we can fix the
bridge between government and our community. One of the areas that
we need this is the market of Golden Gate. Today I am here. When I
come here, I was happy. My wife told me, Victor, you are wrong.
Those people are the same as last year and the other year and the other
year and the other year. And she was right.
Today I feel bad because Commissioner Henning, the same
people that is always against us for years, that you know that I am
telling the truth, too many times I have told you, you are a racist.
You don't like us. You don't love us. In the morning I believe maybe
we will have five votes. Maybe Henning will understand that we can
work together in peace. No, we have an enemy of the Hispanic
community in Tom Henning. He hates us. You hear him when he has
spoke about us.
We need an Hispanic Affairs Board. If you don't do, it is your
right, but we will continue saying we have a Board of racists trying to
put the boots over our back.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. VALDEZ: And we will continue fighting for our rights.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Valdez.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Evelyn Perez.
MR. VALDEZ: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: She'll be followed by Guillermo Perez.
MS. PEREZ: Good afternoon. I want to address you today in
support of establish -- reestablishing the Hispanic Advisory
Commission.
As a Collier County taxpayer, I find we need this to be approved
to bridge our growing diverse Hispanic community here in Collier
Page 120
March 24, 2015
County, and address the issues that arise in certain types of situations.
Without proper representation we will have the repeat incidents
with grave consequences, like that of which occurred in the Golden
Gate farmer's market. It was quite obvious that there was no due
diligence done, performed prior to taking that decision. And there was
a grave mistake that was made, including the comments that were very
inappropriate which were used against the Hispanic community.
Being denied the opportunity to be properly represented prior to --
prior to making that big mistake was a mistake upon the Commission
-- the County Commissioners. Having an advisory committee for the
Hispanic community would benefit and represent those voices that
obviously are not being heard.
After seeing Mr. Valdez on the news last night and listening to
Valerie Maxwell and having knowledge of the work that he's
committed himself for the past 24 years in this community, defending
the rights of minorities in Collier County, the Board should be in
agreement that he is part of this history in the first advisory committee.
And today, 24 years later, here we are again, doing the same thing.
That in itself convinces me that there's still a need for this committee to
be reinstated. And I see no reason for the Commissioners not to be in
unanimous agreement in doing so, unless they have another agenda.
I thought it was quite interesting that you were trying to comment
on the executive order. I don't know if you do that with the other
minority community -- committees that you have established, but it's
quite odd that you would do it with the Hispanic. I don't know why it
would offend you or even bother you to reestablish it.
What are your motives and what are your agenda? Why would it
even influence you in a way to be so negative in it being reestablished
again? I would think that everything that happened in January and
February, with all the media attention that you received that was so
negative, you'd want to bridge, open your hands and receive us and let
Page 121
March 24, 2015
us have a committee.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Guillermo Perez, and he'll
be followed by Jacqueline Perez.
GUILLERMO PEREZ: (Through Interpreter Luis Bernal.)
My name is Guillermo Perez. It's an honor for me to be in front
of you and knowing you. Through the years I have worked as a labor
activist, and I have fought for the rights of the community. And today
I want to tell you that it is kind of strange that there is not a Hispanic
committee able to address you in their problems and the way they are
growing.
We all know that there is a high level of discrimination and
racism against the Hispanic in the City of Naples. I have suffered
many times.
We the activists are moving to Naples, and we'll be here until you
understand that the community needs representation and you to
understand that.
And I hope you understand that and take that into consideration
for the future to come so we have good relations.
Commissioner Nance, neither you or your assistant have wanted
to -- spoke to me in Spanish language, and they have been told by the
County that they should do it, and I wanted to talk to you about tax
issues.
We all here are Hispanic but also American, and we want to
assure you that we are interested in you to establish the Hispanic
Outreach Advisory Board.
Thank you for your attention.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jacqueline Perez. I hope --
MS. PEREZ: I spoke already.
MR. MILLER: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
Then your final speaker is Andrew Solis.
Page 122
March 24, 2015
MR. SOLIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Andrew Solis, President of the Hispanic Council.
And it's wonderful to hear the comments today. We really only
have two issues that I would like to bring up on behalf of the Council.
And really it relates to what the function of the advisory board would
be. And there's really two questions.
One is, is it needed? And I think one of the issues that was -- that
was raised by the Chairman as to the application of the Sunshine Laws
and really whether or not that would tie the hands of, you know, the
stakeholders in the community and tie their hands as to how much they
could interact with each other and in relation to the community is an
issue that, frankly, had not even occurred to me and I think is
something that needs to be thought through very, very carefully.
Secondly is, what will it do? I think one of the issues in the past
has been that it hasn't had very clearly defined parameters as to what it
would advise the commission on. If it's an advisory board, it has to be
providing some kind of advice, information. And defining that, if
there's going to be another advisory board, I think is essential.
Because I think that in the past has been one of the issues. It's just kind
of been a board out there without very specific duties and goals and
issues that it should be receiving information on and providing to the
Board.
I would point out, I think the issue with the farmer's market
showed that the system is working. I think the community came, many
speakers spoke about the farmer's market and the Commissioners
heard that and I think acted accordingly.
So we would -- we would just suggest that if the Board wants to
move forward with creating another advisory board, that before it does
that, you know, that there's some time with staff, Commissioner Fiala,
to really quantify what this board will do, what it's going to advise on.
Is it going to be advising on policy issues, or is it really going to be
Page 123
March 24, 2015
dealing with individual issues that arise to residents in the County; one
or the other or both? But at least define that so that it has a set task that
it's going to accomplish.
And then figure out the best way to really make that happen.
How can it be of the most value to the County Commissioners in the
decisions that they're making every day?
So -- and as far as the council goes, we'd be very happy to be
involved in that process and help that process in any way we can.
So thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Solis, thank you very much. You
know, I agree. And what I've heard different speakers say, sir, is --
really to me is three -- three elements.
Number one, what's the mission? What do you want to
accomplish? Number two, what's the best structure for the
stakeholders to work through? And then what is the -- thirdly, what is
the mechanism to get that information to the Board of County
Commissioners? So, you know, if-- Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: Yeah, I'm sorry. I just wanted to alert you, I was
handed one additional slip on this.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. We will hear that person.
But, you know, I think we've got three things to address. And if
Commissioner Fiala can gather together, together with staff the
stakeholders to work on those three items, I think -- I think I certainly
can support it, and I -- you know, if the other Commissioners think
that's a methodology, I --
MR. SOLIS: I would just like to make one more comment.
Based upon a conversation that Ms. Maxwell and I have had and
some of the comments that were made earlier, that having a specific
liaison, a county staff person that's the liaison to the community may
be, I think, the best option. Because then we don't run into the issues
with the Sunshine Law and not being able to get together as a group to
Page 124
March 24, 2015
discuss -- you know, there's lots of organizations. These organizations
can get together. The Hispanic Council, the Hispanic Chamber that's
been reinstated. You know, we should be able to get together and then
bring these issues to the Board through a liaison.
I think that would be a much more efficient way of accomplishing
what needs to be accomplished.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is a great idea. I know we had
Haley Alonso when I -- when I met with Victor, Haley Alonso went
with me. And she was a great interpreter. And of course she being
Hispanic background anyway, but yet working for County
government. She seemed to be a good liaison.
I don't know if that's something that we would want to do or not,
but I think that might be an answer to all of this. And then you're not
encumbered by the Sunshine Law at all, and yet people will have more
or less an advocate.
If there are Code Enforcement issues, they've -- you know, they
can always go to Code Enforcement or Haley can steer them that way.
If it's something else that we need to be made aware of, she can always
contact all of us via email, one-way communication and let us know.
So those are things.
But I think those are things that we can talk about and establish if
we -- even if we get a few people here together to just sit down and
talk, and including maybe the County Manager or somebody he would
designate to sit down with us and give us ideas. I'm sure this can be
resolved to -- to the betterment of all of our communities.
Because let's face it, you're a growing community, you're a
vibrant community, and you have a lot of businesses here in town
whom I deal with. And we want to -- we all want to work together.
I don't like this line in the sand. I want everybody to be working
Page 125
March 24, 2015
together as a team, because we're all -- we're all in it together.
And so I think maybe if you would let me, I would just like to call
a few instrumental people to meet with me, and we'll kind of form a
goal and possibly even consider your suggestion, along with the
County Manager, to see if that would be all right with him.
MR. SOLIS: I would be glad to participate in anything the
Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Might even work out better, uh-huh.
MR. SOLIS: -- would like to suggest.
And I would suggest that that may be the most efficient way as
well, not only from the county's standpoint but also the community's
standpoint and the people that are involved. As Commissioner Nance
had said, the active players need to be able to be active. And that may
be the best way to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And one of the things about
meetings with the county is usually they're during the day, and nobody
could get away during the day anyway. This way you would be able to
have somebody available to talk with you where you can pick up a
phone or something. You know, that just might be.
But if you don't mind, we'll sit down and talk about that after, you
know. And I -- if you don't mind, I'll just designate a date and time
and we'll make sure Victor is there and we'll make sure all of the
speakers are there and anybody else who's interested. I don't want to
eliminate anyone.
MR. SOLIS: Well, again, the Hispanic Council is here to assist
the County Commission in whatever way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you're stuck, Andy. You're
going to be there as part of it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from Commissioner Henning.
Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The young lady that was on the
Page 126
March 24, 2015
advisory board really succinctly stated what the problem was when it
was enacted. Sunshine Law violations, things that they could not
perform because of their duties. And those things are the day-to-day
government that prohibits to resolve issues. And a staff liaison for the
community for essential clearinghouse for the Hispanic community I
think would be less frustrating for the communities, or what's being
proposed as an advisory board; things of Code Enforcement,
water/sewer bills, and the list keeps on going on, zoning issues.
There's a great need for soccer fields for the Hispanic community,
and I don't think that's really being heard.
As far as the market goes, you know, that's being resolved, okay.
That's coming back in a future agenda, to allow it in certain areas. And
I think there's going to be a couple of actions on there.
You know, we heard from the community. So that is the
clearinghouse that's coming to the Board of Commissioners meeting.
Mr. Chairman, I'm in favor of having a staff liaison for the -- for
the community, get that out in the community, such as our website and
other vehicles to say look, this person is the go-between person. We
have several Hispanic people on our staff that speak fluent Spanish that
can then relay their problems or concerns or needs to the right
department.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from our final speaker, Mr.
Miller, please.
MR. MILLER: Christian Nino.
MR. NINO: Hi, how are you? My name is Christian Nino.
Me and my father represent the mixed soccer league in East Naples.
We're pretty much a soccer nonprofit organization that's been working
in the county for over 18 years.
We -- initially, when we formed we had a lot of issues to try to
get fields, or trying to be able to use the fields that the County had at
the time. Back then Mr. Valdez help us out to have meetings with the
Page 127
March 24, 2015
Commissioners at the time, to be able to -- to use the fields, because
we used to just pretty much jump over the fence at some of the schools
and be able to play there.
That didn't take long for us to get kicked out of there, obviously,
because we were trespassing. But we were able to work with the
County Parks and Recreation Department, and we're playing in East
Naples now.
Just like a lot of other groups that participate in the sports venues
in the county, North Collier, East Naples Community Park, or even
Eagle Lakes where we play most of our games, we try to participate in
the community in doing a lot of things, to try and make sure that
everybody forms part of a group, but also to be able to give kids -- in
our case, give kids an opportunity to develop, to grow.
And we've been doing that for quite a bit. We're just -- we were
told by Mr. Valdez to come today to address this issue.
We understand, just like a lot of other people that came up here to
speak, that there are some issues within the community, within the
Hispanic community, and also some issues with county government
that sometimes need to be resolved. And the way it is right now,
there's no clear path as to how we can address this with you. And I
think that the board that was before maybe had some issues. But what
we're asking today is just to come up with an idea, or maybe a new
way. Like you said, maybe a liaison is the way that it's going to be.
But from our perspective from being a nonprofit group working
with the Hispanic community, we can tell you, there's a lot of issues
that need to be talked to, need to be addressed. And we'll be -- we'll be
glad to form part of that if that's -- if that's the case, or maybe just give
our input in it.
And I appreciate the offer of, you know, coming up here and
talking to you guys. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about if I --
Page 128
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear from Commissioner Hiller.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And then we'll --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I think, Commissioner Nance, you laid it out correctly. There are
the three issues as you identified. I think the liaison suggestion that
several members of this board have brought up and that several of the
speakers have brought up is really an outstanding one, worthy of you
working with staff on, Commissioner Fiala.
One thing that I think is really important to understand when
you're making -- when you're having the discussion with the
community, or for the community to understand when you're meeting
with them, is that we cannot delegate discretionary decision-making to
any advisory board, that their role is strictly advisory, as a matter of
law. And I heard one of the speakers comment that, you know, their
hands were tied. And that's just because legally we're not permitted to
delegate decision making.
So the key is, you know, again, establishing that conduit of
information to the right staff person who will make the decision, is this
something that County staff can address right away because it's an
administrative matter whether -- or whether it's something that's policy
related that needs to come to the Board.
And then the second issue that's extremely important to address
when you're working with a community is that we can only address
issues from a policy standpoint, the non-administrative issues that
would be staff handled that are within our jurisdiction.
So, for example, we can't do anything with respect to law
enforcement. And so if the community has a concern about law
enforcement, they have to deal with the law enforcement agency that's
bringing up the issue, and we cannot get involved, because legally
that's not within our jurisdiction.
Page 129
March 24, 2015
If there's an issue with immigration, again, that's not within our
jurisdiction. They would have to deal with whichever, you know, state
or federal agency deals with that particular issue.
So it's very important to narrowly define, if any group is put
together, if that decision is made to invoke a Sunshine governed group,
that the -- what the group does has to be -- that they have to advise us
within our jurisdiction and not beyond it. And any matters that are not
within our jurisdiction, we cannot because -- and it's going to be very
frustrating for them, because we can't act on it. We can't legally, you
know, make decisions about law enforcement, for example.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what I was going to suggest is
right after Easter I will plan a meeting, actually soon, but it will be
after Easter, but first conferring with our County Manager to see if this
is -- if he would designate a person, if that be the case.
And my two -- my two people that I will communicate with are
Victor and with Andy. And you can get ahold of all of the people on
your list, anybody who wants to come, but you understand that what
we're going to do is figure out how we can make this work in probably
the simplest way possible and yet let the community be heard. And
you've heard what all of the comments are here.
So I would say to you, right after Easter I'll plan another meeting,
and I hope that maybe in the afternoon at say 4:00 or something like
that would be good for everybody, but it could be sooner, 3:00. But I
will get back to you, let you know. I've got the two of your numbers,
so you guys are going to be my go-to people, okay?
And I thank you very much for everybody being here.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to try to put a little structure to
this, because I'm going to make a motion, Commissioner, and then see
if--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we have one more? Oh, we
heard from Chris, okay.
Page 130
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a motion to direct
staff to work to -- work in an open manner on this issue to identify the
stakeholders and work together with Commissioner Fiala as a
facilitator, and to identify all the stakeholders and engage them to
identify a mission, a suitable structure and a communication method
for the Hispanic community that's at their -- of their own arrangement,
together with staff, and to bring back to the Board options and a
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second that. Tie.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Tie.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to give the tie to
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's just because her red button
didn't come on.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It is unanimous. Thank you very much.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen for coming.
Item #9A (Tabled earlier in the meeting)
Page 131
March 24, 2015
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER
2000-88, THE COCOHATCHEE BAY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED BY SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 9, 2008, BY INCREASING THE
PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 590
TO 652; BY INCREASING THE DEVELOPMENT AREA; BY
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TO AMEND THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN
ADDITIONAL 93.52+ ACRES OF LAND ZONED RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY (RSF-3) AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY
WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (RSF-3-ST) TO
COCOHATCHEE BAY RPUD, BEING ADDED THERETO AS
PRESERVATION LAND; BY REMOVING THE GOLF COURSE
"GC" TRACT AND REPLACING WITH RESIDENTIAL "R2"
TRACT; BY CHANGING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AREAS TO RESIDENTIAL "R1" AND "R2" DEVELOPMENT
TRACTS TO ALLOW HIGH-RISE, LOW-RISE AND SINGLE-
STORY MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN "R1" AND SINGLE
FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS IN "R2"; BY CREATING AN
AMENITY/RECREATION "AR" TRACT; BY ALLOWING
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES BE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS,
CLUB MEMBERS AND THEIR GUESTS; BY ADDING
DEVIATIONS; BY RESTRICTING PLACEMENT OF DOCKS TO
WITHIN WATER MANAGEMENT LAKES LOCATED WITHIN
THE RPUD; BY ADDING A PRIVATE ROAD CROSS SECTION;
BY ADDING A SIDEWALK MASTER PLAN; BY REVISING
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER
Page 132
March 24, 2015
PLAN; BY REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST
CORNERS OF WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND VANDERBILT
DRIVE IN SECTIONS 8, 16, 17 AND 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 625.61± ACRES — MOTION TO APPROVE W/CCPC AND
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, TO REFERENCE COVENANTS
FOR DEED RESTRICTIONS AND OTHER VETTED OFFERINGS
BY THE PETITIONER (DEVELOPER) — MOTION FAILED DUE
TO LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY;
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2015-65 PREPARED BY THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. County Manager, I think that takes us
back to 9.A, 12.A.
MR. OCHS: You're correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And Mr. Miller, I believe we're -- thank
you. Let's give everybody a -- you want to take a -- does the Court
Reporter want to take a little break before we reengage?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We should, because she's going to
be going long.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's take a little 15-minute break, and
then we'll really -- we'll engage.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your
seats. And if you have not silenced your phones from our lunch break
and extended break, please do so again at this time.
I certainly want to thank everybody for your consideration and
courtesy in allowing us to have that last discussion and time certain.
Thank you very much.
Page 133
March 24, 2015
At this time, we're going to reopen the public hearing on Item 9.A
and 9.B, regarding the Cocohatchee Bay Residential Planned Unit
Development.
MR. OCHS: Excuse me, sir, 9 -- 9.A.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 9.A and 12.A.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And I believe, Mr. Miller, we were
continuing with public comment.
MR. MILLER: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Your next
speaker would be Jim Schultz, and he will be followed by Geraldine
Noyes.
CHIEF SCHULTZ: Good afternoon, and thank you for the
opportunity to speak. My name is Jim Schultz. I live at -- in Emerald
Bay in North Naples, and I obviously have my position pasted to my
shirt.
I'm asking you to not amend the settlement. I think the only
difference between the settlement and the proposals are the 60 homes.
The settlement spoke to how the land could or should be used. The
settlement gave the developer more options for greater numbers on the
west side and left the option of two estate homes on the east side. Now
they've come back a few years later and say they want 60 more homes.
My hope would be that you'd think about the value of having that
land as green space. They said they're not going to build a golf course.
So what's left? Green space.
We don't open the settlement, we just say, no, thank you. We go
our own way. I wish you would consider that. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Geraldine Noyes. She'll be
followed by Graham Ellison.
MS. NOYES: As our elected officials, you represent us, the
residents of Naples. We trust that our wishes will have the weight with
you and that our opinions will be respected. We trust that you will
Page 134
March 24, 2015
sacrifice your interest to the people you represent, and we believe that
you will work towards the betterment of our community.
A quote by Adlai Stevenson. No matter what your political views
are, it's pertinent to our situation. Quote: We believe above all else
that those who hold in their hands the power of government must
themselves be independent. And this kind of independence means the
wisdom, the experience, the courage to identify the special interests
and the pressures that are always at work; to see the public interest
steadily, to resist its subordinations no matter what the political
hazards.
In 2008 many of us thought Lodge/Abbott received too many
concessions. We deplored the loss of that beautiful, large, open space
on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive. We presumed that the smaller
open space on the east side would remain as it was or be a golf course,
because we believed that the agreement was binding.
One of the principal reasons that many residents bought property
in this area was due to its proximity to open spaces that we were
guaranteed in that agreement. We've lost so much wonderful land in
Naples. I've been told that we even lost sand dunes on Vanderbilt
Drive. How beautiful that must have been. All that precious land is
what made Naples a magnificent beachside community. We can't
afford to lose any more of it. We have nothing to gain by reopening
negotiations.
The integrity of future agreements is threatened if developers are
allowed to get away with disregarding them in order to reap more
profits. Trust is like a piece of paper: Once it's crumpled, you can
never get it back to its original state.
I do not trust a new agreement, and I do not trust Lodge/Abbott,
but I still trust you, our representatives, to make the right decision and
vote no to hold Lodge/Abbott to its promise. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Graham Ellison. He'll be
Page 135
March 24, 2015
followed by Julia Beyer.
MR. ELLISON: Thank you for hearing me. My name is Graham
Ellison. My home actually abuts the property designated as golf
course, or green open space in the 2008 settlement.
We bought the house in 2012, and at that time we had full
knowledge of the settlement terms. We felt assured by the settlement
terms because they seemed so clear cut and specific. They used
language like in perpetuity, supermajority, another language seemed
designed to protect the county and we felt protect us. So we were very
happy about that.
If the developer chooses to build a golf course, that seems to me
to be fine, because he's specifically allowed to do so in the settlement
agreement. If he chooses to build two estate houses, that's fine,
because he's specifically allowed to do so in the settlement agreement.
However, if he chooses not to do either of these two things, he
has agreed to leave the land as green open space in perpetuity. And
that is also fine, because he's required by the settlement agreement he
so willingly signed.
Incidentally here, Commissioner Nance, in your discussion of the
environmental impact that I found very compelling, I note you didn't
address my own preferred alternative: Green open space forever. I
believe leaving the land which is intact is the most environmentally
friendly outcome.
Now, because a heavily traveled thoroughfare splits the PUD into
two parcels, there is a tendency to view them as separate. This point of
view ignores the history of the settlement agreement. Significant
concessions were made to the developer, permitting him to expand the
towers on the western side of the PUD in exchange for his
commitment not to develop on the eastern tract except as set forth in
the settlement agreement.
The developer does not intend to give back any of these
Page 136
March 24, 2015
negotiated concessions in order to be permitted to develop the eastern
tract. In fact, the developer isn't negotiating for additional valuable
concessions. He is unilaterally requesting them in exchange for
nothing on his part. He's putting out, hey, this is better than a golf
course, but that's not really the choice. The choice is between what
would happen if the golf course isn't there and what he's proposing. So
he's not putting up anything, in fact.
Commissioners, you have no obligation to cede to his request,
and I hope you don't. I see no reason for you to amend the 28 -- 2008
settlement agreement, because any of the things the developer
promised to do in it are fine. If you Commissioners agree to amend the
settlement in accordance with the developer's wish, my faith in
government would be significantly degraded.
The 2008 Commissioners signed the agreement after protracted
litigation and extensive input from the local citizenry. I believe that
effort should be respected as a reflection of the will of the people.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Julia Beyer, and she'll be
followed by Gary Eidson. Is it Bayer or Beyer?
MS. BEYER: Beyer. B-E-Y-E-R.
I have owned my home in the Vanderbilt coastal area for 21
years. I am a resident of Florida, a taxpayer, and a voter. And I do
remember the eagle's nest that brought about this settlement, this PUD
agreement. In 2005 when they moved their heavy equipment onto the
property and asked -- didn't ask, but they moved the construction
equipment too close to an eagle's nest which caused visible stress to
the eagles. There was a cease and desist order.
And then in 2006 there was an article in the Naples Press, and it
was the high-rise developer -- this is the heading: The high-rise
developer offers a plan to settle with county over the Bald Eagles rules.
And if the county accepts the settlement, the Lodge/Abbott would
Page 137
March 24, 2015
release the county from Burt Harris claims as long as the settlement is
not challenged or overturned. This was their proposal.
And here we are today. And so they negotiated and it wasn't until
2008, it took years to -- and it was an expensive (sic) to the taxpayers.
And they negotiated the PUD settlement. The eagles did not gain a
thing. They lost the protective -- from the county, the protection for the
eagles in that settlement.
So you could say that this PUD settlement was basically on the
wings of eagles. That is why we are -- that is why I am here today,
because of the quality. If we can't coexist with our wildlife that is
around us, and they -- that we have to reopen that PUD agreement, and
if we do, it will be opening pandora's box. Because it is protected now,
that green area, with the wildlife. Whether we'll ever get those eagles
back again, we'll never know.
It was the first time that I had ever seen eagles in the wild in my
life. And we were very proud of our national emblem being in that
area. I had friends that would come down from Lee County and say
we saw, we saw an eagle in a tree on our way down here. They
couldn't believe it. I said, those are our residence eagles. And we were
all very proud of them. You could drive up Vanderbilt Drive and
there'd be people out with their cameras, they would be standing by the
side of the road --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, very much.
MS. BEYER: -- looking at the eagles.
I ask you to vote no on reopening the PUD.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Gary Eidson. He'll be
followed by Patricia Massey.
MR. EIDSON: Hi. My name's Gary Eidson. I'm formerly of
Glen Eden. I currently live in Ft. Myers. And it's a pleasure to speak
once again to this Commission.
Page 138
March 24, 2015
I have a deep fondness for Collier County. During the eight years
I lived here I served on the Glen Eden board, the District 2 advisory
board and numerous other committees and worked in the community.
To be so involved in this vibrant community was an honor that I'll long
remember.
Nine years ago in 2006, I along with several others, met with
Jerry Griffen of Lodge/Abbott. We negotiated the key elements of
what would become the 2008 settlement agreement. So I have kind of
a vested interest in this agreement.
I'm here today because I'm shocked and disappointed to hear that
this effort is being made to dismantle a binding agreement. It was an
agreement that was crafted to help the county avoid Burt Harris claims
and to protect the green space of North Naples. And it even was
designed to help the developer protect his investment. We thought we
were being very fair. Maybe too fair.
Now I question the motivation behind tampering with this
agreement. It appears to me, and so much has been said and I don't
want to duplicate it, so I'm changing some of my comments, but what
it really appears to me is that if you're only putting in 62 homes and
they're going for a couple million bucks apiece, that's going to work
out to on a good day maybe $50 million worth of profit. On a good
day. And I just don't think that's enough to motivate these guys. I
think what's really going on here is it's a setup to create an environment
where the thing can be sold, then you've got a whole other bunch of
people involved, pretty soon it's not 62 homes, it's 100, I can't afford it,
we're back to Burt Harris and everything is -- we're back to where we
started.
You've got a nice beautiful agreement here. It's very clear,
everyone has stated it. I can't begin to imagine why you want to mess
with it. It was carefully crafted. And while it wasn't all things for all
people, it did give something to everyone connected, and that's a great
Page 139
March 24, 2015
deal.
Most important is the fact that this was accepted in good faith by
those of us who were a part of the initial negotiation. It was accepted
in good faith by the people of District 2, by the Collier County
Commissioners, two of which are still sitting today, and by Lodge,
who agreed to work in good faith to accomplish the intent of this
agreement as clearly stated in Article 19.
It is truly a sad day when a document that uses language such as
in perpetuity can later be interpreted to mean unless a commissioner or
developer decides we should change the deal. It would be a great
disappointment to see this Commission take action that would break
this binding agreement and thereby compromise the public trust.
I sincerely hope that you will vote no on this matter. And thank
you so much for the opportunity to speak.
(Applause.)
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please respect the
public hearing.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Patricia Massey. She'll be
followed by Richard Corace, Corale. I'm having trouble with the
spelling here.
MS. MASSEY: My name is Patricia Massey. My husband and I
are full-time homeowners at 14668 Glen Eden Drive. Our front door
faces the preserve, the green space that our Glen Eden contractor
referred to as a would-be golf course in 2001. We bought the property
knowing that.
In the years that followed, we attended many discussions and
meetings concerning building towers on the west side of Vanderbilt
Drive. It never occurred to us that there could be clear cutting of the
land or a proposed golf course across from our home.
In the 2008 settlement Lodge/Abbott was given additional
Page 140
March 24, 2015
housing units in the towers in return for either a golf course or keeping
the land as green space forever. The cost of that settlement to
taxpayers was $2 million. Now in 2015 Lodge/Abbott wants more
housing units, more profits than a golf course will bring.
We expect the Commissioners to hold Lodge/Abbott to the 2008
settlement that he signed. It was a good deal then, it's still a good deal.
When is enough enough? What will Lodge/Abbott want next?
It's important for public trust that Commissioners hold Lodge/Abbott
to the 2008 settlement. Please vote no to reopen the PUD. Thank you
for this opportunity to speak.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker will be Phil Fitzpatrick, and
he'll be followed by Donna Reed Caron.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Phil's gone.
MR. MILLER: I understand Mr. Fitzpatrick is gone.
Donna Reed Caron will be followed by Susan Snyder.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What happened to Richard Corace
that was supposed --
MR. MILLER: He waived.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's the developer.
MS. CARON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Donna Reed Caron and I live at 790 Wiggins Bay Drive.
I served on your Planning Commission during the settlement
negotiation, so I'm really well aware of all the commitments.
It's the intent today of Lodge/Abbott to essentially gut the 2008
settlement agreement by removing in entirety several key paragraphs.
Now, the first was number five, which despite the obvious
transparency, I would like to thank the petitioner for returning to you
all the $3 million for workforce housing. It is desperately needed in
this county, and it never should have been in question to begin with.
Paragraph 8 commits the eastern portion of the development to
the golf course or green open space in perpetuity.
Page 141
March 24, 2015
Number 11 states that the maximum dwelling units will be
limited to 590 units.
Number 11 restricts development standards to certain things on
the east side and certain things on the west side.
At the time of the 2008 settlement, it was established by the
petitioner and citizens that the highest and best use of the property was
to cluster the development on the western parcel. And as a result 110
units were moved from the east to the west. With that came the clear
understanding in strong settlement language that with this density shift
the eastern parcel would remain as either golf course or green open
space with specific uses.
Treating this request as merely asking to convert a no longer
sought after golf course project into residential is a straw-man issue.
Because the abandonment of the golf course was also anticipated and
negotiated in the settlement. Specifically, and I'll quote: These
restrictive covenants shall each provide that if the golf course
development area or golf course use is ever discontinued or abandoned
for any reason, then all of the golf course parcel, including without
limitation the entire golf course development area, except for those
portions allowed for two residential units shall remain forever as green
open space and be limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly stated in
the PUD.
Further, let me quote the petitioner's agent at the February 25th
special meeting of the Planning Commission. Quote: And keep in
mind in exchange for this we've given up doing the deed restrictions.
and things like that, we're giving up the ability to come back later. Say
the high-rise market is a bad move. We can't come back and amend to
put our units on the east side --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- end quote.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I'll cede you three minutes.
Page 142
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Please continue, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
Negotiated settlements between government, development
interests and the residents of Collier County have to date been an
effective method of approaching the goal of highest and best use for
our scarce resources. If such good faith settlements become dissoluble
upon simple claim of unilateral displeasure, as is displayed here,
county officials will be left with few options other than the courts to
establish and preserve balance between competing visions, needs and
the ideals of land use processes.
This should be of great concern to the Board. In your
deliberations, please remember our statutes, ordinances, regulations,
procedures, policies and agreements contain both permissions and
protections. If permissions are to be considered sacrosanct, then it
follows that no less legal weight can be accorded to protections.
However, all too often the protections are challenged and
abrogated. You must not give added weight to the requested changes
over the properly negotiated and enacted set of assurances in the 2008
settlement agreement.
A couple of other things have come up. One is this deed
restriction that the petitioner has offered. I can tell you right now that
that actually takes rights away from individuals. And I can also tell
you that no association has had it reviewed by their legal counsel. It is
right now an imaginary alliance of homeowners associations, and it
doesn't do a thing for the people at this point.
One thing that was mentioned, Commissioner Hiller, you were
talking about the density in other properties around. Most of that
density was determined far -- long before we had even four units an
acre in the coastal high hazard area, never mind three as we have now
in that area.
As to the property that's being added, the 94 acres, I believe that's
Page 143
March 24, 2015
part of mitigation for the eagle. Now the petitioner can correct me if
I'm wrong about that, but I think we actually are not getting a lot for
that. It's not developable land to begin with, according to our LDC.
And so -- and you're also allowing protections that are in place
right now for 200 feet around the entire perimeter of that eastern
property before structures can be built, and that's going away if they
get their way.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Susan Snyder. She'll be
followed by Bonnie Michaels.
MS. SNYDER: For the record, my name is Susan Snyder. I'm a
Florida resident. I live at Baker Carroll Point, which is Vanderbilt
Beach.
I'm a research associate with the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services. And my research involves the
diversity of living organisms and a Gofer Tortoise preserve.
I attended the neighborhood informational meeting on February
26th and I asked several questions about the developer's land
management of the property in question. I asked if they intend to
clear-cut land on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive the way they did on
the west side. At first I was told by Mr. Grant that they didn't clear-
cut. When I said the only native vegetation left were the government
protected mangroves in the river, I was told they had to remove a lot of
invasives, and that was told to me by one of the developers.
Then I was assured that they did not intend to treat the right side
of Vanderbilt Drive in the same way, and in fact they would be leaving
it preserve. After looking at the architect's rendition of development
on the 175 acres east of Vanderbilt, I asked where the spoils from the
five lakes would go. The attorney said he didn't know. I thought that
was a pretty significant question that needs to be answered.
Commissioners, anyone who's familiar with the area on the west
Page 144
March 24, 2015
side of Vanderbilt Drive knows that that land used to be the habitat for
eagles because of slash pines. It was habitat for Gopher Tortoises and
many other native species because it was a scrub. Once the
development company got its many concessions from the county in the
2008 agreement, the land was mismanaged from the standpoint of
protection of the natural environment.
Now let's consider land on the east side of Vanderbilt Drive.
It has many different habitats, including a marsh with wildflowers, a
cypress swamp, slash pines -- again, that's habitat for the eagles -- and
Saw Palmettos. The more diverse the habitats are, the more diverse the
group of organisms that live there.
In the 175 acres, there are animal created pathways of all sizes
winding through much of the property: Native plants growing there
provide us with oxygen, butterflies and bees are pollenating the plants,
animals living there are part of the food web that involves threatened
and engaged species. On that piece of property there are organisms
ranging in size from microscopic to large mammals. Many may be
species completely unknown to mankind, as I've been discovering in
my own study of a Gopher Tortoise preserve.
Most of those vacationing that move to Collier County do so
because they don't take the environment for granted. Green space of
the natural environment is the asset in the county that many other areas
do not have. Collier County is very unique.
It is the ethical obligation of the County Commission, as stated in
its own growth management mission, to improve quality of life for
county residents by protecting natural environments. These 175 acres
will be protected by simply not amending the PUD.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MS. SNYDER: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bonnie Michaels. She'll be
followed by Nicole Johnson.
Page 145
March 24, 2015
MS. MICHAELS: Bonnie Michaels, representing Collier
Citizens for Sustainability. Thank you.
I don't live in any of the communities that were mentioned, but I
do care what happens, because it really sets a precedence. You know,
Collier is being developed like crazy, and we're all looking to make
sure that agreements are being kept. You know, Susan just talked
about the land. And quality of life is something that's very difficult to
quantify. However, it's the reason that most of us came here. And
every time you, you know, pull down trees and lose wildlife, lose
green space, the quality of life is diminished. Not just for us, but
people that are moving here, tourists, people are really paying attention
to what is going on now in Collier.
And I think that this is a big deal. The decision that is being made
is going to be looked at very, very carefully, not by only current
residents, but by people who are planning to live here. That green
space is precious, and we have so little left in Collier, in our urban
area. And there seems to me no benefit at all in opening this up again.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Nicole Johnson. She'll be
followed by Doug Fee.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Nicole
Johnson here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and
speaking on behalf of The Conservancy's over 6,000 supporting
families.
The Conservancy asks that you deny the petitioner's request for a
rezone and that you not reopen this settlement agreement. We very
much appreciate the fact that you are hearing both of these issues
concurrently, because you cannot separate the rezone request from the
settlement itself.
At the heart of it, this isn't about whether or not the rezone request
is consistent with the growth plan or the Land Development Code or
Page 146
March 24, 2015
even if the density requested is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhoods. Lodge/Abbott chose to settle the Burt Harris suit by
including land use restrictions as part of the settlement itself. They
didn't have to do this. The suit itself was over the eagle. So settlement
could have technically been just by addressing the eagles. But the
parties chose to put more into that settlement agreement.
Therefore, from the Conservancy's perspective it really comes
down to the issue of integrity in the process. Is there potential for
erosion of public trust or a negative precedent set by renegotiating a
settlement because one party wants out of commitments made within
it.
And the Conservancy understands settlement agreements.
We are a signatory to many settlements. We do understand that there
is a clause in the settlement that does allow for amendment where
appropriate. Yet we are extremely cautious when evaluating the
appropriateness of such amendments because a dangerous precedent
could be set if others that we have settlements with decide they too
would like to renegotiate their agreements. Or, equally concerning, if
our renegotiation could diminish the community's trust in our
organization to uphold the principles for which we say we stand.
And we believe similar considerations are also part of the
county's requirements. The Conservancy does not believe that the
minimal amount of additional preserve that would be part of the
redesignation from golf course to residential warrants opening the
settlement. The 92, 93-acre parcel that is being proposed to add to the
PUD already has a deed restriction on it that says residential can't
happen.
There have been some other I guess concessions that have been
brought up today, and I just want to touch on those very briefly.
First of all, they won't remove the $3 million commitment for
affordable housing; I think that's good. But you'll still get the $3
Page 147
March 24, 2015
million if you keep the settlement.
The idea of putting the fake tree or the disney tree within the
preserve, the Conservancy does not believe that taking an active eagles
nest and replacing it by a fake tree should allow the settlement to be
reopened.
And very briefly, this idea of the deed restriction, it's a moving
target. It's been renegotiated even today.
So we believe that what provides the most assurance is the
settlement that's currently in place. We ask that you deny the rezone
and not open the settlement. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Nicole?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have one question for you.
MS. JOHNSON: Sure.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I would like to ask you on the record, the
Conservancy would endorse building a golf course on this property
rather than adding 60 additional homes?
MS. JOHNSON: Well, first of all --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen.
MS. JOHNSON: The Conservancy didn't support the settlement
agreement. We were supportive of the eagles and the eagles got --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's good. I just want to know your
position on a golf course there versus 60 additional homes.
MS. JOHNSON: If we're concerned about golf courses and
pollution, I think we need to look at a meaningful fertilizer ordinance
that deals with --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I agree. I agree. So what's your position
at this moment?
MS. JOHNSON: Our position is the settlement is there, it was
negotiated, and we don't believe that changing it from golf course to
residential, regardless of-- and I don't know what the additional
Page 148
March 24, 2015
pollution load may or may not be, but we don't believe that it's worth
impacting the public trust and erosion of the public integrity in order to
renegotiate the settlement. Let's look at meaningful fertilizer
ordinances to deal with the --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You don't have an objection to a golf
course?
MS. JOHNSON: We're supporting the settlement because the
settlement was negotiated.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I understand. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Doug Fee. He's been ceded
three additional minutes from Bruce Burkhard. Mr. Burkhard, can you
acknowledge your presence here?
MR. BURKHARD: (Indicating.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
And he'll be followed by Ellie Richman.
Do you need help?
MR. FEE: Well, let me see here. I don't have the link.
Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug Fee. I
appreciate you allowing me to speak today.
I live in the area of Wiggins Pass. I've been a resident of that area
for about 17 years. I was involved in the original 2008 (sic) rezone.
At that point when the developer came forward with his plan, we
had formed an organization called North Bay Civic, of which it's an
umbrella group that many of the homeowners in that area were
members of
Recently when the developer came forward on this project, there
was a neighborhood information meeting and there were over 700
people from the area that attended that meeting. I went to the meeting,
and walked away from it not very happy with the proposal.
So immediately thereafter we formed this petition in front of you.
I want to give credit to a woman who lives in Wisconsin, her name is
Page 149
March 24, 2015
Emily Kearns, as well as a neighbor here, Diane Rupnow. They
worked very hard on this petition. We collected approximately 750
signatures through the first go-around. And many in the neighborhood
were opposed to the original proposal.
We went to the Planning Commission and showed these petitions,
and basically were told that because there were two proposals that the
petitions that we signed earlier may or may not apply to. So what we
did was we launched a second petition. Each one of you were
delivered the petitions, and they represent to date somewhere around
1,400 names.
I'm very proud of our area and the involvement of the citizens that
you represent. And many of them are my friends.
We don't want you to open the settlement. We feel that what got
solved in 2008 was the deal. There's so many things that if you open
this the public, if you're able to read some of the petition comments,
they were asking you please, do not open this settlement. Okay. It's
quite obvious that with 1,500 people the area has spoken, and please
listen to these people.
Again, I just want to reiterate that we did our homework and that
these 1,500 people that have signed this petition are actually in this
room with us right now. Many of them are at an age where they can't
sit for four or five hours. And we understand that, you understand that.
And that is some of the comments.
When I talk to the residents that live around that area: Please tell
them I'm against this, but I'm unable to go because I'm older and I
cannot sit for that length of time.
So I want to move on. We used a website called change.org.
Over the last couple of days we've actually had 200 people sign this
petition. Since yesterday morning there were around 150 people.
Since last evening at midnight, there have been 45 people. It goes on
and on and on. And we will continue to do this to tell you, our (sic)
Page 150
March 24, 2015
elected officials, just how important a matter this is. I encourage you
to read some of the comments which I know you have in your hands.
I'm very thankful for Diane and Emily.
I'll sit down soon, but I have one issue I wanted to raise and that
has to do with the Burt Harris Section 70 Florida Statute. In the
settlement itself, number 25, you have a statement that says that the
county and Lodge shall request that the court in case number
05967-CA approve this agreement and release its terms.
I know about that case. However, I do not believe the county and
the landowner have ever delivered this settlement to the court. I know
that in the statute itself under 4.D.2 it says: Whenever a governmental
entity enters into a settlement agreement under this section, Burt Harris
section, which would have the effect of contravening the application of
a statute as it would otherwise apply to the subject real property, the
governmental entity and the property owner shall jointly file an action
in circuit court where the real property is located for approval of the
settlement agreement by the court to ensure that the relief granted
protects the public interest served by the statute at issue.
I won't read the rest.
The issue is the settlement incorporates the rezone. And it's a
very, very important document. It's a court document. Or it should be.
That process never got -- it was never entered. And here we are.
There is some language in the settlement that says it must be done in
the same formality. So my question would be, if you open up the
settlement and close the settlement are you then going to allow us the
citizens an opportunity so that this settlement is in the courts? Because
I don't know what our entry point is as residents. I do not know what
the entry point of anybody who sits around the property -- I'll leave it
at that and I appreciate all your time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ellie Richman. She'll be
Page 151
March 24, 2015
followed by Joe LaBella.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Ellie Richman is not here.
MR. MILLER: Joe LaBella. He'll be followed by Bruce Allen.
MR. LaBELLA: My name is Joe LaBella. I live in the Bay
Forest community.
I agree with you that golf courses have a large impact on the
environment, but I haven't heard the developer state that he is going to
build a golf course. But that's not what I'm here to discuss.
Imagine for a moment that someone sues you for millions of
dollars. And you settle. And then some years go by and the person
who sued you asks you to reopen the settlement because they want to
get more from you. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think I
would like that too much.
This developer sued the taxpayers of Collier County for millions
of dollars. There was a settlement. And now he wants more. Please,
vote no to reopen this. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Allen had to leave, so your next speaker will
be Eleanor Trevison. She'll be followed by George Malloy.
Eleanor Trevison, am I saying that properly? T-R-E-V-I-S-O-N?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I think she had to leave.
MR. MILLER: All right, George Malloy.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He's left.
MR. MILLER: Dick Wilson.
Mr. Wilson will be followed by David Galloway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure David is still here.
Why don't we -- I don't see Mr. Galloway.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So why don't we continue going
on with the speakers list.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Are you Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: My name is Dick Wilson, I'm the president --
Page 152
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or not.
MR. WILSON: -- of Tower Point Condominium in Arbor Trace.
And we support the developer's proposal to build 62 high-end homes
on their 175-acre property.
This property is not developed. It will, as it has in the past, attract
trash of all kinds and homeless people.
I think the covenant that runs with the land that Attorney Dick
Grant mentioned this morning is very meaningful. If it's going to
require all of the associations that he listed to agree to any further
change, I think that's a great protection for Collier County and for our
neighborhoods that the developer will make no further changes,
because you'll never get all of those people to agree.
I think if we compare a vacant lot with a golf course -- and we
heard a good deal about golf courses this morning, about the water
problems and the fertilizing and the contamination of our water system
-- if you compare the vacant lot and the golf course with 62 fine homes
in the $2 million range and the tax revenue that that brings us in the
county, and also those adjacent properties are going to be influenced
with higher taxes also, because their values are going to be increased
also, I think that the decision is clear that the 62 homes is a good
alternate. And I hope that the Collier County Commissioners will do
what's right for Collier County and for our neighborhood. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Galloway. I don't
believe he --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I told you.
MR. MILLER: Yes, sir, sorry, I wasn't understanding.
Sharon Heidrich. To be followed by John Kindsvater.
MS. HEIDRICH: Hello. My name is Sharon Heidrich, and I am
a homeowner in the Wiggins Bay Foundation community.
Most of my concerns have already been addressed here by many
of the previous speakers.
Page 153
March 24, 2015
My one main remaining issue does rely -- or does refer to this
proposed covenant that was discussed this morning. And although the
full force and effect of it would be somewhat debatable, I still would
like to urge the Board to make this a condition -- if the proposed
amendment to the PUD is approved, to make this a condition to have it
signed and recorded to incorporate the changes that were discussed this
morning between Commissioner Hiller and Mr. Grant.
And furthermore, I would just point out that some of the master
associations that were referred to this morning, there were some
inaccuracies there, and I would just hope that that would be cleared up.
I don't know who would oversee the final process, but of course this all
hinges on whether or not the amendment to the PUD will be opened.
It could be a moot issue. Those are my concerns, and I appreciate your
time.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is John Kindsvater. He'll be
followed by Raymond Parker.
MR. KINDSVATER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and
dedicated staff, for the record my name is Jack or John Kindsvater. In
the interest of full disclosure I'm a member and former officer and
director of the Estuary Conservation Association, which as you know
encourages balanced stewardship of the Cocohatchee Estuary which
serves both man and nature.
I'm also an equity member and past commodore of the adjacent
Pelican Isle Yacht Club. And my 95-year-old mother-in-law is a unit
owner and resident of the adjacent Tower Pointe at Arbor Trace.
I want to focus my comments on Item 12.A. Because this is the
one as you well know that has to really come first. Because if you
don't allow the opening and the reconsideration and the amendment of
the agreement, all the rest of this is moot. And I point directly to Page
12 of your staff report where they say, note: The proposed PUD
Page 154
March 24, 2015
amendment is inconsistent with the settlement agreement. And the
staff is recommending approval of this PUD agreement on its own
merits only if the BCC wishes to amend the settlement agreement.
Without agreeing to that, it's a moot point.
Okay, now, let's go get to four questions that I'd like to propose
briefly that you take a look at. The first one is: Why would the
Commissioners agree to reopen a hard fought settlement, made under
threat of an approximately $300 million lawsuit and at great expense to
the taxpayers of Collier County which the developer agreed to never
reopen? What is it in there for the residents and for the county to
reopen it?
And there's also been some questions brought out about what
additional liabilities the Commission may tack on itself if they do
reopen it.
The second one, why would the Commissioners allow the
developers to abandoned a designated golf course and then build 62
homes on that land when the agreement mandated if the golf course is
not developed then the land will be used for open green space.
Now, Commissioner Nance, I totally agree with the point, I would
prefer 62 homes to a golf course. But I suggest that's not really the
issue. Because the issue here is that golf courses are not economically
viable and all of the projections that I read show them to be less
economically viable going forward than they are today.
I think a case in point here with the same developer can be made.
If you look at The Dunes docks. The Dunes docks were fought for
over a long period of time. And the developer finally won permission
to build them. You might ask, have they been built? The answer is no.
And the reason is they're still not economically viable.
Okay, the issue of the additional 93-acre parcel, as Nicole
Johnson said, it's already been restricted in development. And again, I
totally agree with you, that area along there from north to south is
Page 155
March 24, 2015
beautiful, but the current agreement protects that. You don't need to
reopen it to get to that.
And finally, the only benefit is to the developers, which is a
foreign corporation based on our friends in Michigan. And thank you
very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker, Raymond Parker. He'll be
followed by Katherine Shaw.
MR. PARKER: Hello. My name's Ray Parker, and I stand to
speak against opening the settlement agreement. And basically just for
a couple of reasons. I think I'm fairly informed about all the
parameters that have been written about in the paper and all that. I
was, as I sat here this morning, surprised to hear these other kind of
incentives that have come about recently in order to encourage I think
the Commissioners to vote in a certain way.
I have no doubt that the developers would have bought those
soccer fields for the East Naples group had they known that that would
get this thing to pass.
And we all know that the incentives that they articulated are just
vapor in the air. Because they're not in any kind of written agreement.
And because we all know that even written agreements, you know,
aren't worth that much for very long, if they can be so easily
compromised within five or six or seven years.
The other point I want to make is that there's absolutely a
supermajority of citizens who do not want the settlement agreement
reopened. And the universal imperative of government is to follow the
will of the people. The will of the people is very clear here. Out of
everyone who's spoken today, there was one gentleman that supported
opening the agreement and several who have spoken against it. So if
you're going to really reinforce the concept in the citizenry that we live
in a democracy made up of people who you represent, then don't
reopen that agreement. And that's all I want to say. Thank you.
Page 156
March 24, 2015
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Katherine Shaw. She'll be
followed by James Shaw.
MS. SHAW: Thank you for letting me speak. I'll pull it down,
I'm not used to this stuff. I hate this.
I'm speaking now for my husband and myself. We're asking you
to please vote no. Obviously I'm wearing it. Do not open the 2008
settlement in order to expand the approved Clam Bay development by
adding 62 homes on the east PUD property.
We have listened to and agree with the various concerns voiced
by surrounding communities' environmental conservancy groups. We
have been residents of the Barbados Seven neighborhood in the Tarpon
Cove community for five years. We own one of 22 homes which
currently enjoy an expansive preserve view that looks westward
toward the projected PUD development of 62 homes. Many of us
purchased our homes because of this view and were confident based
on the 2008 settlement agreement that the view would change little as
a golf course or green space.
We were told there would be 100 -- recently we were told there
would be 100-foot vegetative buffers for Tarpon Cove. We discovered
to our surprise at the February 26th meeting that the 100-foot buffer
between the development and the residences of Tarpon Cove the
would not extend to the Barbados 7 neighborhood or northward. The
developer felt that since there was already a Tarpon Cove preserve
there greater than 100 feet in depth, he need not add anymore. What
he overlooked was that the area of the preserve is composed of tall
slash pines, low scrub, cypress tree domes, small ones, and some open
clearings. We can see through the PUD land year-round, but from
December through March when the cypress and other deciduous trees
shed their leaves, there's a view of the PUD minimally obstructed by
tall narrow tree trunks. Furthermore, there is an ongoing county
mandated invasive removal, invasive plant removal, that our
Page 157
March 24, 2015
community has to comply with, and it's in progress in the Tarpon Cove
preserves, that will further reduce the vegetative cover. We will be
able to see these beautiful new homes and they will be able to see most
of our 22 homes there in their corner.
Now, there will be sound and light pollution, because the streets
are on the outside of the homes. Fine, maybe you can shroud the
lights. It will impact the serenity and beauty of our preserve.
The proposed berm on the east boundary of the development
raises another concern for that area of our preserve, that the natural
flow of surface water to our north preserves and cypress trees, there
(sic) will be blocked by the berm.
Now, I'd like to just try to race through this if I can. Tarpon Cove
has an increase for potential flooding in the special -- and especially in
the Cayman communities. And residents have observed this, so we're
just mentioning it. We support their concerns.
We're also confirmed for TC and the surrounding communities
because of the water quality and the Cocohatchee Estuary. It will be
further degraded by this increased development. Data collected since
2002 says the water is degraded, impacts the fisheries --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. SHAW: But please don't open this. The only beneficiary is
the developer.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is James Shaw. He'll be
followed by Kathleen Gallagher.
MR. SHAW: I'm Jim Shaw and I reside in Barbados 7
community of Tarpon Cove. And in the event the PUD is reopened,
we all have concerns, and now we're in damage control mode.
We've communicated some of these concerns to the planners and
we've also spoken with the county engineer. We are several of-- one
of several homeowners that look directly across the PUD toward the
Page 158
March 24, 2015
PUD in the western direction, and we really treasure the preserve view
and we purchased it expressly for this view. As my wife said, we are
going to be able to look right through this preserve. Even though it's
deep, it's very thin.
So what we're asking for is several things: First for the developer
to reconsider extending that 100-foot buffer to protect this northwest
section. We ask him to work closely with Collier County, this is going
to be a joint effort, to come up with an implement of buffer
landscaping standard that provides year-round visual block and
provides sound deadening and prevention of light pollution.
This is not just for our local community, but putting this in all of
these areas where the new buildings are very, very close to existing
neighborhoods, providing this light sound and visual barrier would be
very beneficial to even the 62 homes.
We also ask the developer and the county engineers to work
closely not to change the hydrology in such a way that it would be
detrimental to the existing cypress trees that we treasure. This is a very
delicate balance here.
We are pleased with the developer offering this declaration of
covenants. We hope the Commissioners and the developer continue to
work together to sew up all the loose ends so that it provides all of the
protection that it's intended to.
In closing, I'd like to thank you for hearing our concerns and
considering them. And to paraphrase Robert Frost, good buffers make
good neighbors. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Gallagher. She'll
be followed by Sal -- sorry, Sal, I cannot make out your last name.
Arrici (sic), I think.
MS. GALLAGHER: Hi. Yeah, Kathleen Gallagher. I live at
Tarpon Cove. My home abuts this property that we're speaking about.
First of all, I wanted to say that I don't support this. I don't want
Page 159
March 24, 2015
you to open the PUD. I think it was an agreement that was entered
into in 2008 and how we got to that was because of feasibility, it wasn't
financially feasible for them then. And it seems to me we're back at
the same place. After they made this agreement, we gave them 108
units, which probably is a $300 million windfall for them, because
they're already building those buildings. And here we're back here
again.
But I also -- you know, I find it unconscionable that any of our
Commissioners would support opening and subjecting the county and
taxpayers to lawsuits which are clearly waived under the 2008
settlement agreement, which this -- you know, what could happen.
Also, so we're back here on that issue again. Now they're telling
us it's not financially feasible to have a golf course. Which, you know,
that's exactly what happened before. But there are concessions. There
are -- in this agreement it says it will be open space. So then that's
what it should be if it's not feasible for them. It would be passive
recreation.
Also, somebody talked earlier, I don't know who it was, about this
golf course thing and it not being good. I don't agree with that at all. I
don't agree that 62 homes wouldn't be worse for the environment. If
you're going to have multi-million dollar homes and they're going to
have three bathrooms each and whatever, the chemicals we're using,
the EPA is regulating a lot of our chemicals now. It's not anywhere
near as bad as it was 20 years ago with golf courses. I think whoever
testified, the person was saying something about they worked on golf
courses. Well, that could have been 20, 25 years ago, I don't know.
But I don't agree with that either.
So anyway, I just think that we should -- I just can't imagine why
you would open anything up that would subject the taxpayers and
Collier County to any kind of lawsuits again. And it's clearly stated in
that 2008 agreement that they cannot ever sue. And we already gave
Page 160
March 24, 2015
them 108 houses and a windfall. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: You're next speaker is Sal Baricci (sic). Since
you did not respond, I'm going to assume he's not here.
Thomas Lynch. Is Thomas Lynch here?
MR. LYNCH: Yes, but I ceded my minutes to the attorney. But
if you have time, I'll also speak.
MR. MILLER: I did not cede your minutes to anyone, sir, so
you'll have time to speak.
And he'll be followed by Len Rober. Is Mr. Rober here?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
MR. MILLER: Judy Palay will be after Mr. Lynch.
MR. LYNCH: Commissioners, I'm pleased to be here. My name
is Thomas A. Lynch. I live at Glen Eden on the Lakes and we've been
homeowners here for about 13 years.
My -- the issue of trust is highly on my mind. I know we keep on
talking about these 62 houses on the eastern side. But under my
understanding, that once the settlement is opened, the PUD is opened,
the builder will really have a lot more power and will -- cannot be
restricted by his statements. My understanding is that once he has the
agreement open and he is free to wheel and deal again, that he may
build 100 houses or 200 houses. And so I really don't trust the builder
and I hope you don't trust him either. Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Judy Palay. She's been
ceded six additional minutes, three from Diane Allen -- Ms. Allen, can
you indicate your presence?
MS. PALAY: She had to leave. And I won't need them.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Well, then, Patsy Abbett.
MS. PALAY: I think she may have also left.
MR. MILLER: We'll start you with three minutes, how does that
sound?
MS. PALAY: Thank you. I'm Judy Palay.
Page 161
March 24, 2015
As you are aware, when limits were placed upon Lodge/Abbott's
proposed development and it did not get what it wanted, it filed suit
against the Board of County Commissioners, resulting in litigation and
expenditure of public funds. The matter was resolved in the June 9th,
2008 written settlement agreement. It placed reasonable limits on
construction and design in this area. The developer signed the
agreement, transferring 108 units from the east side of Vanderbilt
Drive to the towers on the west side where extra floors were added to
accommodate this change.
Lodge/Abbott now seeks to double dip by adding 62 units back
into the area east of Vanderbilt Drive. That was to remain as green
space per the settlement.
When the 2008 agreement with the company was reached, we
citizens believed that we were working with the corporation.
Lodge/Abbott was satisfied to receive additional density on the west
side of the road in compensation for any density it did not receive on
the east side. It was permitted to move those 90 units that were to be
affordable housing and 18 units from the golf course parcel onto the
five towers, adding extra height and, by the way, blocking views,
creating a wall effect.
It also received permission to develop two estate homes on the
east side. A clear, lengthy and tightly negotiated written settlement
agreement perpetuated the resulting compromise. It mandated
alternative use for the proposed golf course area, a recreation area with
green open space in perpetuity by deed restriction. In fact, this was the
consideration for allowing the development Lodge/Abbott sought in
2008.
Yes, Lodge/Abbott just changed its mind. Having clearcut the
land on the west side, it is back at the table seeking to rest further profit
and more density from the eastern lands that were specifically set aside
as open green space. The extra density was put into the towers.
Page 162
March 24, 2015
To the representatives of Lodge/Abbott, be true to your word.
Comply with your written agreement and leave this green space to
remain a haven for our animals and plants. The Lodge/Abbott
preserve is a legacy left in perpetuity.
And finally, we ask you, why open a court approved settlement if
not for the compelling interest? What is the public benefit for setting
aside this agreed agreement? What do we gain from the increased
density, the loss of open space? And worse, what do we, your
constituents, gain by the loss of our ability to rely on our local
government to uphold its own decisions and protect our investments
and property. You made the settlement agreement; it is your
obligation to uphold it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MS. PALAY: We thank you for hearing our plea. Please support
us and vote no.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Diane Rupnow. She's been
ceded additional time from Ellen Wright. Can you indicate your
presence?
MS. WRIGHT: (Indicating.)
MR. MILLER: Thank you. And also from Allen Massey.
MR. MASSEY: Yeah, right here.
MR. MILLER: She will have a total of nine minutes of time.
And she'll be followed by Graham Wright.
MR. WRIGHT: That's not correct, I don't think. I ceded my
time.
MR. RUPNOW: No, Graham ceded his time.
MR. MILLER: To you?
MR. RUPNOW: To Ralf Brookes, who left.
MR. MILLER: Then this is your final speaker on this matter.
MS. RUPNOW: Thank you.
The language in the settlement agreement is strong and direct. In
Page 163
March 24, 2015
paragraph eight it states: If the golf course development area or golf
course use is ever discontinued or abandoned for any reason, then all
of the golf course parcel including without limitation the entire golf
course development area, except for those portions allowed for the two
residential units, shall remain forever as green open space and be
limited in perpetuity to the uses expressly allowed in paragraph 5.3 of
the amended PUD preserve parcel.
Now, look at those words. The people who negotiated that
settlement put those words in there for a reason. They thought today
would come. They thought that this developer would be back wanting
more. So they put in those terms: if the golf course is abandoned for
any reason. It didn't say if golf courses are no longer profitable. It said
for any reason. And it does say forever as green open space. And
perpetuity does have a meaning. It means a long time, not six years. It
means a lifetime.
And they did put in a clause about supermajority. And that's
where you come in. According to the dictionary, perpetuity means time
without end. And time hasn't ended yet. The uses of that land are
limited to those that you see up there. In Section 5.3, and it's listed in
the preserve parcel part of the settlement, those are the uses for that
land. Passive parks, boardwalks, biking, hiking, nature trails. Look at
them, all passive park things. Nowhere does it say in there that
building 62 homes would be compatible with those uses that you just
saw. That is not compatible.
Paragraph eight says: Any revisions to these restrictive covenants
will require a supermajority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners.
That clearly states that today four of you would have to vote yes
in order to amend this. I think four of you should have to vote yes to
open it. This should not open with just a simple majority. Because
this matters. This is of significant importance to the public.
Page 164
March 24, 2015
We had a lot of people here this morning, and we had a time
certain on the agenda. And a lot of people have had to leave because
they have health issues. It's really too bad that this has had to drag on
so long.
But the County Commissioners put such clear strong language
into that settlement agreement in 2008 to prevent today from
happening, and yet here we are.
When my husband and I bought our home in Glen Eden on the
Lakes three years ago, we looked into the future use of this land
adjacent to us. And we were assured by this settlement agreement
filed in the court that that land would be a golf course or forever is
green open space. And having 62 homes built next to us is not
compatible with what we envisioned would be in this land that was
going to be a golf course or green open space in perpetuity.
Last fall the developer dug lakes on the west side of Vanderbilt,
right where three holes of the golf course were supposed to be. So I
think that means that the golf course has maybe been abandoned. And
if the golf course is abandoned, there's only one option left for this land
and that is green open space forever with uses limited to those in the
PUD preserve parcel that are listed right up there now.
Mr. Corace himself is quoted as saying that golf courses are a
liability. So I don't think he's going to build one. I hope he doesn't
build one.
When we came back to our home December 27th, I had a black
bear in the tree in my front yard. There's only one house between me
and this preserve. I put in a stealth camera, and I have multiple photos
of bobcats and large mammals. We have bear there, we have deer, we
have bobcats. We've seen a panther. We didn't get a photo. We really
wanted one, but we didn't get a photo of the panther. But he does
travel through our -- as a corridor once in a while.
When that land across the road was clear-cut, many, many
Page 165
March 24, 2015
animals moved into the land adjacent to us. That 175 acres is the last
large parcel for large mammals like these to live. So if he goes in there
and he cuts a major portion of this land down, where are those animals
going to go? They're going to come into our neighborhood. Can you
guarantee us in Glen Eden on the Lakes that we won't have a human
wildlife negative interaction?
We go out to walk our dogs at night, we carry mace. Just saying.
You are in a position where you have said you will uphold our quality
of life and our safety. And I think those things need to be remembered
when you decide how you're going to vote.
Anyway, I'm asking you to protect the investments of the people
in Glen Eden on the Lakes. We invested in our home. Our
investment's important to us too. It isn't just the developer who needs
to make a profit on his investment. We've made an investment too.
So in summary I would like to say that the settlement is a legal
binding agreement that was negotiated in good faith with
considerations for both the county and the developer. The settlement
was overwhelmingly approved by the commissioners in 2008 after
significant expert and citizen input. The language in the settlement
was carefully crafted and extremely specific, indicating that both
parties intended to protect their own respective interest.
The developer negotiated significant benefits which permitted
him to move 110 dwelling units into the lucrative towers. In exchange
he committed to leaving the east parcel as golf course or preserve
passive recreational use land in perpetuity.
To quote Nicole Johnson of The Conservancy of Southwest
Florida, amending settlements based on the fact that one party has
decided that a currently prohibited use would be more economically
viable is a dangerous reason to open a legally binding document.
Please, respect the terms of the 2008 settlement. It would be a breach
in the trust local citizens place in Collier County Commissioners. This
Page 166
March 24, 2015
is clearly a matter of our trust in you. We ask you to maintain our trust
by voting no. Don't open the settlement to allow more units. He got
them in 2008. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We are going to -- there are no more
public speakers, Mr. Miller?
MR. MILLER: That is correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: After a vigorous period of time, we are
going to take a --
MS. RUPNOW: Excuse me, I forgot something. Am I allowed
to finish?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ma'am, I appreciate your comments, but
we're going to move forward.
MS. RUPNOW: I forgot to mention about all the public
comments. I brought you a folder of these a couple weeks ago and I
wanted to make sure you had them.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We received them all, ma'am, yes, thank
you.
MS. RUPNOW: And I have all the change.org comments and all
the letters to the editor.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're in receipt, ma'am. We appreciate
your comments, we have to move forward.
I am going to take a 15-minute break for the court reporter who is
doing double duty for us today. I'm not going to close the public
hearing, we're going to come back and we're going to make a few more
comments during the public hearing, and then we are going to go
forward from there. So we will come back at 3:58.
(Recess.)
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your
Page 167
March 24, 2015
seats. We're going to continue for a short period of time with the
public hearing.
And the first one to buzz in was Commissioner Henning --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- following the public speakers.
Sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Jeff, I'm confused. I'm looking at
the settlement agreement, 21. This agreement in release may be
amended only by written instrument specifically reference to the
agreement and release executed in the same formalities at (sic) this
agreement and release.
And I'm reading that as, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that
specifically says it can be amended. But I'm hearing that a deal's a
deal. Uphold the agreement. Does this section allow us to amend the
agreement?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're going to uphold
the agreement and listen of(sic) the merits of the proposed
amendment. And my understanding is of the amendment, and correct
me if I'm wrong, it fits our Growth Management Plan, or it adheres to
our Growth Management Plan and our Land Development Code.
That's what this is, is a PUD amendment to add -- remove golf courses
-- or golf course, which is not green space or preserves, and allow for
64 resident-- 62 residential units. And that fits our Growth
Management Plan, Land Development Code; is that correct, Kay?
You can just nod yes or no. And she nodded yes.
Other than that, I think that Commissioner Hiller has spent a lot
of time on this issue, so I'll be listening to her comments and base my
vote accordingly.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala was next, then
Commissioner Hiller.
Page 168
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Well, I was here as one
of the two of us that voted that day in the 2008 issue. We were very,
very concerned because we had a Bert Harris Act lawsuit holding over
-- being held over our heads. We knew we had to vote on something,
and so we -- as much as I -- I disliked it immensely. I felt that they
gave us enough of a compromise saying that they would give us this
land, they wanted to build more on the other side. We hated to have
them build any higher. We wanted to limit that. But with the Bert
Harris Act hanging over our heads as well, and with the promise that in
perpetuity we would never, ever, ever see other than two homes being
built on that land. I myself didn't want to see even a golf course.
And one thing about a preserve, you don't have to spend any
money. I mean, you don't have to worry about water, you don't have to
worry about nutrients, you don't have to worry about traffic being
generated, nothing. It's a preserve. And that to me was a
compensation that I could go forward with. That's the only reason I
voted yes back in 2008.
And I expected them to stick to that promise. Because that was
the only reason I voted for it, because they offered us this, what do I
want to say, compromise. And so that was the first thing.
And then the second thing is as we listened to it all day long -- I
made a bunch of notes. I don't usually talk too much during the
speeches beforehand and so forth, I want to hear what everybody has
to say before I comment. So if you will indulge me.
I wondered if this developer has ever built single-family homes
before. I've never heard of it. And so what worries me is we've
already seen -- now, I've been on here a little over 14 years, and I've
never seen them build any single-family homes. Not only that, but I
saw them renege on a couple other promises, like The Dunes for
instance, and they were always going to have the white sands there
forever, and they're gone. I saw them with the Vanderbilt Inn, and the
Page 169
March 24, 2015
beach was going to be ours, and some of that stuff has gone away.
So I'm afraid to believe anything they have to say, because if they say
they only want to build 62 homes in there, they've got a right to build
two, if they want to just build 62 homes, what's say they don't bring
that back and say well, you know what, we really want to build them
on a high-rise and all of a sudden it changes once again. And so I'll tell
you, I have some deep feelings about this.
Let's see. And the traffic. Now, the time that I was there just
recently, man, there's a lot of traffic out there. These are tiny little
roads. And Nick Casalanguida has been kind of giving us a little
lecture about traffic. And, you know, we have to just watch how much
we can pile on any single road before you break the back of the road.
And in this case I don't see why we would want to build anymore
homes and add anymore traffic to that existing road.
Let's see. Some of the other things. Well, I mentioned about
perpetuity. You know something else, and this we can't change. In
order for the people living across the street from what is about to be
built now, and these are these high-rises, you'll never see that water
again. It will be gone. Because not only do they build the high-rises,
you can't see through them, because then they build fences so you can't
get to the water with lots of lush landscaping. So they're not only -- if
this is voted -- if they're allowed to do this and open that PUD back up
and then build 62 homes which could be anything when they're
finished, these people not only have lost that, they've lost the vision
forever of the water that they bought there in the first place for. So
they're going to be losing double. And that concerns me as well.
So let's see, I think I've said about everything I wanted to say as
clearly as I can say it. And as you can see, I voted for this way back in
2008. And to turn my back on my own vote and say well now it's
okay, I can't do that. So I have to stay with a no vote.
(Applause.)
Page 170
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm going to make a few comments,
because I want to make a few comments, and I think maybe Mr. Grant
wants to make a few comments.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't forget about me.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I have not forgotten about Commissioner
Hiller.
Mr. Ochs, could you please put the map of the -- generally the
map of the PUDs up on the overhead for everybody to take a look at?
This is basically a map of the PUDs that surround the PUD in
question. Extends from Audubon Country Club, this which is the
biggest one to the north. They include a pretty good golf course
buildup on both of those parcels down to where Bentley Village is.
And there's a -- as I mentioned before, there's another golf course
down in that area down there that says Olde Collier Golf Club.
Out of the 12 PUDs here, somebody mentioned a precedent.
What you see before you in PUDs along our coast, that is the precedent
for the development in Florida. For those of you that have lived here a
while, and some of you haven't lived here a great length of time, but
I've lived here long enough to have lived in Florida when none of those
were in existence. That is the precedence for the development in
Florida.
Out of the 12 PUDs that are there, there are only three that have a
significant conservation element attached to them. One of them is this
leg of Audubon. And then there's a conservation element which is the
largest with Cocohatchee. And then there's a conservation element
down here in The Dunes.
It's not accidental that the latest developer to the party has the
largest amount of preservation area. Because that has been the trend
over time. When these intense developments were created in here,
there's not a lot of preservation associated with it.
Mr. Ochs, could you flip over to the aerial? This will just give
Page 171
March 24, 2015
you an aerial view of actually what the coastline -- zoom it out a little
-- that's what the coastline along our coast looks like. This is the
Barefoot Beach Preserve in here, this is Wiggins Pass State Park, this
is the greater Cocohatchee Bay, this is the Cocohatchee River in here.
This is the last riverine system in the north part of the county, as I
mentioned before. But this is the precedence of development in
Florida, between U.S. 41 and the areas where you're just about built
out as far as you could.
From my perspective going forward in perpetuity, which is past
the lifetime of everyone in this room, myself included, we share the
burden for the environmental impact of what we see here. From my
perspective big picture on into perpetuity, adding 66 homes within that
block right there is not going to have a very big influence on what you
see here. It's just not going to.
However, putting an incredibly major source of pollution in here,
just the specter that a golf course is going to be built there and impact
this area here is to me amazing. People talk about a deal's a deal and
what a great deal the settlement agreement was. And I'm going to tell
you something: Wherever you live, I don't care what PUD you live in
and where you live now, but the developer that developed your
community went in there to make a profit. The developer that you
bought your home from was no more or less honorable than any other
developer or anybody else that participated in this. If you're looking
for honor in development, you're simply not going to have it. I'm not
against --
(Background noise.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me, let me speak. I'm not against
developers, okay, but I've watched in my lifetime, and I'm not a very
old person, but I'm 62. And I've watched people move to Florida, and
they always want the tree in their yard where their home is built to be
the last tree that was cut down. It's happened over and over and over.
Page 172
March 24, 2015
The settlement agreement that we're talking about that happened
in 2008 included a golf course that was originally permitted in the year
2000. So that golf course has been permitted there for 15 years. And
guess what? When the settlement agreement was contemplated, there
was no discussion in the settlement agreement about what the
environment got out of the settlement. Guess what? The environment
didn't get anything. The developer got some concessions and some
people that were criticizing the developer got some concessions, but
the environment got nothing. It was never a good deal for the
environment.
We don't -- we don't have to do anything as a board on this, and
this situation will sit there and it will continue. It can go on and on and
on. But what concerns me is the unintended consequences that were
never considered of a golf course being located where that parcel was.
I don't think that was ever genuinely considered. The risk we run in
providing that opportunity for that to happen will have consequences
vastly exceed building 62 more homes in this community. There is
absolutely no comparison between the potential -- ma'am, if you
cannot be courteous, I'm going to have to ask you to go to the hall. Is
that okay? Thank you.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
The potential downside risk of having that occur, and I know that
some of you think that that's not going to occur, and it might not occur
in your lifetime, but honestly, I'm not here just worried about what's
going to happen in my lifetime or your lifetime. And I apologize to
you for that. But it's not about you and me. Everybody wants to talk
about perpetuity. The perpetuity is in this resource in the Gulf of
Mexico that we have here, not what's right outside your particular
window. I'm sorry to tell you that. But that's not been the history of
Florida. And I know that might sound like a harsh message, but it's not
Page 173
March 24, 2015
just about you and me. It's about a long, long time and me watching
what's happened to these waters.
Building a golf course at the water's edge is a nightmare. And I
know that every one of you intends -- your intention is good. You
want to protect the environment. I understand that. But you know
what? A famous person says, we judge ourselves by our intent and
others by their actions. This board has a sacred responsibility to do
what's right for the environment here that extends beyond any one of
our personal interests. We have to protect this environmental situation
first and foremost. And I don't think there has been a consideration of
it whatsoever.
Back in 2000 that's the way things were done, golf courses were
built everywhere and nobody thought much about it. Because there
wasn't anything there. In 2000, you know, these sorts of things were
just getting going. Back in the seventies when this was wilderness
down in here and the state bought that back, there wasn't any of that in
there. The same eagles that everybody is proud of today and that got
fought over in the settlement agreement were all over that area. There
were otters in there, there were deer in there, there were all sorts of
animals in there, on the property in which you live. And together we
bear the burden of that loss. And it's not a happy thing. I am not proud
of it, I'm not responsible for it and you're not responsible for it either.
But we are honor-bound to make the good decisions every day.
We cannot be honor-bound to maintain a bad decision just because it
was made earlier. We have to consider everything today. And I think
if we don't tie this land up with 62 additional homes, that history is
going to judge us very, very harshly for what we did and the decision
that we did not make.
Is it a hard decision for me? Yes, because I know it's not popular.
I know all of you are looking at me and saying hey, where are you
coming from? I've lived in Florida all my life. I've watched it
Page 174
March 24, 2015
incrementally go down the hill. And I'm telling you, putting a source
of pollution in there, if there's an opportunity for that to happen, I
absolutely cannot support it. I will not attach my name to it, I am
sorry.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
There are a lot of issues that I feel I need to address as part of this
hearing. And I'm not really quite sure where to start. So I just want to
confirm, and Jeff, this settlement agreement as approved -- provided
could be amended, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I'm asking you to reconfirm
this. And I would ask the public not to comment, because public
comment is over and it's very important that during the course of this
hearing that we as Commissioners concentrate very carefully on this
discussion so that we come to the right conclusion.
Since this agreement can be amended, and it would be by mutual
agreement of the Board and the developer, I feel that this agreement
that was entered into in 2008, notwithstanding the good intentions of
the Board, does nothing to protect the public's interest. Because at any
point in time it can be amended, as was just confirmed by the County
Attorney.
Secondly, Jeff, can we deny the developer or the owner of this
parcel, whoever that may be, today or in the future from coming
forward and as a matter of law asking to amend the PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: Can you as a Board deny? No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we cannot deny this developer
or any future owner coming before this Board and applying to amend
the PUD. That means given that we have a settlement agreement that
is as written subject to modification and a law that doesn't allow us to
deny the owner of this property, whoever that may be, from coming
Page 175
March 24, 2015
forward and asking for change, I feel that the public is not protected.
Jeff, if we are to deny this, having heard the evidence at this
hearing, and I am very concerned as to what is evidence that we can
consider versus what is commentary and opinion that we can take into
this consideration, what is the basis for our ability to deny the
petitioner's legal request to amend this PUD?
MR. KLATZKOW: You have two ways to deny this request.
The first way to do it would be to vote not to reopen the settlement
agreement. That would end it.
The second way to do this would be the initial burden is on the
applicant to demonstrate that they're entitled to what they're asking for.
And I believe they've done that.
At that point in time you as a Board have certain criteria. If you
go into your executive summary, the criteria, the PUD amendments are
set forth. You have evidence in the record that you can look at it. And
I know it's an extensive record. These include documents both from
this item as well as Item 12.A. You have the testimony. You've heard
today from the applicant, from the public and from everyone else here.
Based on the record that exists, both in written form and which
you've heard, if you believe that there is sufficient reason on one of--
on these criteria that you could deny it, then yes, you can vote to deny
it. But you have to have that evidence before you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that evidence would have to
be presented as part of this hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: It is part of the public hearing. It is why we
do what we do here, where we have a published agenda with a
published --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what is the evidentiary
standard?
MR. KLATZKOW: You need substantial competent evidence.
You need something in the record that you can hang your hat on
Page 176
March 24, 2015
saying --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So any --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- did not meet this criteria.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Commissioner that votes no on
this has to present the evidence on which that Commissioner is relying
to turn this application down.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, you need not have to state that on the
record. As long as there's something in the record that would support a
denial, it's sufficient.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that -- and what has to be on
the record has to be sufficient competent evidence.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Not opinion.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it can't be anything that isn't on
the record.
MR. KLATZKOW: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: As presented here today.
As to turning down reopening that settlement agreement, if you
use that as a basis to deny this petitioner his statutory right to be heard
on this, isn't that denying him his legal right?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why is that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Because we have an agreement, all right.
And it takes both parties of the agreement to amend the agreement, all
right? Now, obviously the developer is amenable to amending the
settlement agreement. But if you are not, then we're done.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So I don't believe that this
agreement that sits before us today protects the public at all.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: I do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And one of-- it doesn't. And one
Page 177
March 24, 2015
of the reasons I don't feel it does is because there is a provision in here
that allows for modification. And so if the Board chooses to modify
this agreement, it can. And there are no deed restrictions in place on
this golf course property, because those deed restrictions only come
into play after the five buildings are built. So they don't even exist.
Which means they could be eliminated if this agreement were to be
modified by a future board. So you don't have a protection in here.
While it may seem like there are protections in place, there in fact
are none. In fact, that provision with respect to the deed restriction on
that particular parcel that's the subject of this hearing is so weak that
the Board could unilaterally waive it. It's that weak.
This is a terrible agreement. It doesn't protect the public at all,
and it leaves me very concerned. The Board cannot force this
developer to give you deed restrictions. And the majority of people
here in opposition today, from what I have heard, are from Glen Eden.
I have not heard opposition from all other developments surrounding.
It seems that this one particular neighborhood has very serious
concerns. And I respect everything you say. However, I have to deal
with protecting everybody, not just you. And I can't turn to this
developer and tell this developer to give us the deed restrictions that he
is offering as of the beginning of this hearing, which I feel are essential
to protect your interest. And I feel getting those deed restrictions that
are between you and that developer are so important with respect to
what is being considered here today.
I really think we have got to get them. And not only do I think we
have to get them, I think we have to get those deed restrictions to
include not only the density and not only the preserve and not only the
docks, but also the location of these buildings. Because I know there
are people out there who are not here today who want to make sure
that this developer doesn't come in and change the location of a
building so that it would block the view of an existing building. And
Page 178
March 24, 2015
this agreement doesn't protect you against that. At all. And I have real
concerns.
I think that if we're going to do anything, we have to get these
deed restrictions that benefit each and every community out there and
that nothing can change unless there is 100 percent agreement with all
the communities, including The Dunes, which Mr. Grant, you did not
include The Dunes. The Dunes would have to be included. And I
have -- and again, I am concerned, because the fact that this can be
modified, the fact that there are no deed restrictions leaves everybody
vulnerable.
So I have a real problem here. Because as I have studied this at
length, this deal is not a good deal. And the fact of the matter is I want
a better deal. I want a better deal for the people on all levels. And I
want security and protection for them on all levels. And the issue
before us isn't just a golf course for 62 homes, it's ensuring that
whatever we agree to here today really can't be changed in the future,
because this agreement does not do that.
And while I understand Commissioner Fiala had all the best
intentions when she voted the way she did, and I understand we had a
different County Attorney at the time, if I was sitting here back then, I
will tell you it would have been very different.
So I can't sit here and not see this agreement modified. And in
fact, I can't sit here and not see the provisions which are in this
agreement not incorporated into the PUD. I want these provisions in
the PUD. Because then for sure it has to be a supermajority vote. And
the fact that we can open this agreement with only three votes gives the
public even less protection. So I don't feel comfortable about this at
all.
I did not sit on this Board at this time, but I was a constituent who
was concerned when all of this was going on. And I had many
discussions with Doug Fee -- where are you Doug -- back then.
Page 179
March 24, 2015
Remember we used to talk on the phone for hours? My poor husband
was jealous, but that's a different story.
MR. FEE: Yeah, but a deal is a deal.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But here's the deal. This deal is not
a good deal. And you and I agreed back then that this is not a good
deal. And I feel very strongly we need more protection than we've got,
and I feel very strongly that we need those deed restrictions, and I
think that has to be a condition.
And with respect to those homes, the biggest concern I have is
number one, I don't see based on all the evidence that we've heard
today, that there is a basis that we can legally deny this without a
challenge. But the bigger concern I have is that if we don't change this
to literally tie it down by these deed restrictions and by incorporating
everything in the PUD, then my big fear is that if there is another
developer or even if this developer were to come forward and there is a
different board, a board that doesn't include people like me or people
like Donna, then you know what you're going to have? You're going
to have high-rises there. And I am more concerned that they could
come in at a future date and modify this without the protections and
put in the type of development that that developer proposed at the
beginning of this whole process, which I will tell you and I can tell you
now, because I've always said I don't tell anybody what I think, you
know, ahead of the hearing because that's what I'm bound to by law.
But I will tell you, had this developer come in with the initial
proposal that they had, I will absolutely unequivocally I would vote no.
I mean, absolutely unequivocally. I find it unacceptable to even
consider high-rises on that.
I'm really torn. I don't see a legal basis to turn down what is being
asked of us, but given that we are in a position to modify this
agreement, then I really want to take this opportunity to lock it down
so nothing can change after today. Nothing at all. Which can be
Page 180
March 24, 2015
legally done. And hasn't been secured by this agreement. And I need
your help to get that done.
MR. KLATZKOW: The only way you're going to lock this down
is through private covenants between the developer and the community
okay. Because this Board can't tie a future board's hands.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, how can we -- can we
condition our vote today on the drafting of these covenants for the
benefit of all the associations? Not just one association. Because we
really have one association here today. But for the benefit of all --
AUDIENCE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How many?
What other?
AUDIENCE: Palm Cove. Pelican Isle. Towers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, that's great. And some are
for and some are against. So we have more than I thought.
But the majority of the people who spoke today --
AUDIENCE: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The majority of people who spoke
today are Glen Eden.
AUDIENCE: No, no, no. Tarpon Cove --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There are 12 PUDs that surround --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no, the majority of people I
heard -- go ahead.
MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Grant, would you mind?
MR. GRANT: I'm sorry, I was talking. Was there a question?
MR. KLATZKOW: Would you have any heartburn as it were
requiring that the PUD would require that the developer give the
homeowner associations certain covenants?
MR. GRANT: No, we've offered that. That's what we offered.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but you didn't offer as much
Page 181
March 24, 2015
as I would think we need to see. I mean, we need to include more
associations.
MR. GRANT: Fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it has to be 100 percent of all
of them.
MR. GRANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to include the associations
under the master associations.
MR. GRANT: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to include The Dunes.
MR. GRANT: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has to also include that the
location of these buildings as it currently sits in the SDP is preserved
and none of them will move. And, you know, you won't shift, you
won't like create more space between the buildings and spread it so it
blocks the view of a certain building or, you know, somehow impedes
the view of, you know, the -- for example, Tarpon Cove.
MR. GRANT: Well, but I mean, the building locations are a
function of the Land Development Code in compliance with all the
parameters in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But we have a Site Development
Plan.
MR. GRANT: You have one now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. GRANT: I don't know that that means there couldn't be
some tweaking to the location of those buildings.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: There you go.
AUDIENCE: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner, why don't we let Mr.
Grant --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
Page 182
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Grant, let us have you make some
comments, sir, based on concerns that you've heard on the Board and
the testimony that you've heard before you today. Would you do that
for us, please, sir?
MR. GRANT: I'd be happy to do it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you.
MR. GRANT: Dick Grant for the record, counsel to the
applicant.
I'm not going to say everything I was going to say because I think
it's been said very well by others. But I want to make some points that
I think are very important.
Public trust has clearly been raised as an issue, and that's a very,
very legitimate issue and nobody is asking you to deviate from the
public trust. But the public trust kind of works both ways. Property
owners do have rights. The people that are opposed to this are
property owners and they currently have rights and they voice what
they believe their opinions are and what they believe they deserve to
have protected.
And look, there was a settlement agreement, and the settlement
agreement embodies the zoning. And that is the law and that is the
rule, and nobody is going to tell you, including me, that that isn't
binding. But it can be changed if this Board is willing to decide to
change that. Mr. Klatzkow has told you that.
I would disagree with Mr. Klatzkow in this respect. We have
filed a petition seeking to amend the zoning. I think we're entitled to a
vote on that. And I believe from what I heard this morning that that's
going to occur. I don't really quite get the idea of opening the
settlement agreement. The settlement agreement embodies the zoning.
It creates the zoning. That was the vehicle and the mechanics by which
the zoning came about.
But what I heard this morning was a vote on the PUD amendment
Page 183
March 24, 2015
followed by a vote on the settlement agreement. And presumably if
the first one carries, the second would too, so maybe it's not a practical
issue.
But public trust, let me get back to that. There's a framework for
this, okay. And I would submit in due respect that the framework for
what is appropriate is not necessarily just this settlement agreement.
This settlement agreement came about because a developer sought to
make an amendment to the PUD. It didn't get approved. It challenged
it. It got settled. The settlement agreement embodied this.
People have a right to ask to change their zoning. They don't
necessarily have a right to get it approved. They have a right to ask.
They have a right to petition government for that. And there's a
framework within which those decisions are supposed to be made.
And that's our Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and its
Future Land Use Element. That's what sets the criteria for what land
uses are appropriate.
I think you've heard overwhelmingly from us, from your staff,
from the Planning Commission, that this petition complies with the
Growth Management Plan of the Future Land Use Element. And the
substantial competent evidence shows that. So we have met the
burden of showing that.
Now, if that plans allows something more intense than what the
settlement agreement does, and it does, because as you've seen on the
charts -- it's not up here, and I'm not real good at the charts -- the
density is quite low compared to what the Comp. Plan might permit,
and indeed quite below what many of the communities around it have
already. So that's the framework for making decisions.
Yes, there were lots of statements made on the public record
when that settlement agreement was made about we'll never change it.
Well, you know, people said what they said. I can't deny it. It is what
it is. But I would submit to you that decision-making by a public body
Page 184
March 24, 2015
on zoning matters shouldn't be based on people saying I promise to
never ask again in the future forever to change it. It should be based
upon rational criteria and whether what is being proposed makes sense
and whether you believe it is something that you should vote on. And
so that's the framework within which I believe you need to make these
decisions.
I understand the history of this. The history of this is long, it's
tedious, it's controversial. There are a lot of unhappy people. And I
appreciate the fact that the applicant has now sought twice to amend
the zoning. And the natural question is how many more times are you
going to keep coming back and doing it again.
PUDs in this county get amended quite often. Maybe not with as
much controversy, but they do get amended.
The settlement agreement which embodies the zoning does
require a restrictive covenant. It's been described many times this
morning. One-fifth of the property gets restricted every time a high-
rise you see -- but who can enforce that? The County Commission can
enforce that. And it can be amended by a four to five (sic)
supermaj ority vote.
What we proposed, which is a private declaration of covenant
running in favor of all the neighboring associations, would give them
control. You now have control. They don't. We're proposing to give
them something that gives them legal control. It doesn't matter what
you or a future board might decide to do. We need their approval too.
And not just a majority of them, we need them all. And I think that
ought to give considerably more comfort to the surrounding
community associations than what they have now.
Now, obviously to get that we'd like to have the petition
approved. And so that -- now the other things I mentioned this
morning that we are prepared to withdraw from the request, the
removal of the request to be relieved of the $3 million affordable
Page 185
March 24, 2015
housing commitment, the agreement to remove the request to be
removed from having to try to seek permits to build an artificial eagle
nest, we're willing to do that. And the declaration of covenants, I think
the additions that Commissioner Hiller has suggested are all fine. I
think that it should not go into such detail as to lock down locations of
buildings. I think that is a matter of site plan approval, just as is the
matter of approving of the specific location of the single-family lots on
the east parcel, were that to be approved.
But the basics, the density, the heights, the protection of the
preserves so that they couldn't be rezoned to do something different in
the future on the west side, the buffers on the east parcel, and the
protection against buildings where structure in the finger that extends
out to U.S. 41, those all could be in there. I think they're perfectly
reasonable, I think they provide significant community protection to
the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If I may interrupt just on the
location of the buildings. You know, my concern is is that we have all
these towers that are built to the south of where the last building for the
current -- on the current site plan is. And I would hate to see all of a
sudden that all these buildings -- I mean, I understand reasonable
tweaking because of, you know, the way the land is -- the land lies, but
not where it would materially shift one building so as to for example
block the view of an existing building that has an unencumbered view
and based on the current site plan never expected to have a building in
front of it.
MR. GRANT: Well, I think self interest would probably keep the
developer from doing that because it wouldn't really help the values of
the one that got blocked.
But what I'm suggest-- look, the PUD document right now, and as
it's proposed to be amended, has a detailed specification and table of
parameters on height, setback and that sort of thing. That's what's
Page 186
March 24, 2015
going to drive how site development plans get approved. And --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've got three site development
plans that have already been approved. Is there any reason for you to
believe that the building immediately to the south would move any
further south?
MR. GRANT: I don't think it's a matter of moving forth north or
south, Commissioner. There might be some tweaking of the
configuration of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I don't have a problem with
something like that. What I have a problem with is that there would be
a material shift in the location of any of these buildings other than as
has been approved now where it would, like I say, obstruct the view of
an existing building.
MR. GRANT: Well, you know, if you're talking about something
broad stroke like that, perhaps, but I really don't believe the applicant is
in a position to agree that yes, there are approved SDPs. But that
doesn't mean that they couldn't seek to tweak the locations of those
buildings a little bit. Or the shape of them a little bit.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Like I said, it's not a question of
the shape or immaterial shifts. My concern is, again, if it were to result
in the SDP moving a building -- if it was -- let me put it this way,
where the movement of the building would not be viewed as
administrative.
Nick?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we talking about this subject on
our agenda --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or have we moved to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, because I want to -- this goes
to the restrictive covenants, like what will be in the restrictive
covenants.
Page 187
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you talking about the five
buildings on the other side of the street?
MR. GRANT: I think that's what she's talking about.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Because the restrictive
covenants is about everything. It's not only about the 62, it's to lock
down the entire project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't realize we were changing the
buildings on the other side of the street.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're not. We're not doing
anything to them. What I'm --
MR. GRANT: The location of the buildings isn't even part of this
petition.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I thought, so I'm not
sure why we're talking about that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, I just want to make sure that
if we're going to do anything that we do -- that we come up with
restrictions in these covenants, these private covenants, to make sure
that this is a done deal. Because right now we have a contract that says
it can be modified. They have deed restrictions, that can't happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't --
MR. GRANT: Commissioner, the reason I'm hesitating is
because there are five buildings. It's going to take years before they're
all going to get built. The market drives when people build buildings.
They have to sell them. There have to be buyers.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
MR. GRANT: The first one is being marketed right now. And at
some point that will be under construction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And we're not here --
MR. GRANT: It may be 10 years before the other four will get
built.
Page 188
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So in this --
MR. GRANT: The way -- people may want to tweak -- the
design of those things could change in that time period. I don't think
it's appropriate to lock it down. And it's not ever been part of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, so --
MR. GRANT: That's why you have a table of parameters.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what are you including in the
deed restrictions?
MR. GRANT: It's what I've indicated, which is 590 units on the
west parcel would be restricted, 62 lots on the east parcel. The
100-foot buffers that have been proposed on the east parcel. No
structures -- I said no residential development, but I will say no
structures on the east finger parcel. And the preserves west of
Vanderbilt Drive will be restricted to those preserve activities. And we
talked this morning about adding in no docks.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that would all be in the
restrictive covenants, and those restrictive covenants would run to the
benefit of all the associations?
MR. GRANT: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you would have to have
unanimity.
MR. GRANT: Yes, yes.
And we agreed this morning that we would also make it
reciprocal within the Cocohatchee, so that if you were to have different
associations for the east side and the west parcel, they would each have
reciprocity with the other.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, what can we put in the PUD,
because -- and that way we're ensured always of a four-person vote?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, assuming there is a four-person vote
here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not talking about this, I'm
Page 189
March 24, 2015
talking about in general. What can we incorporate as a requirement in
the PUD to ensure that in the future you have a supermajority vote and
we're not limited to three votes on a contract.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not following you. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything -- instead of putting --
if we accept these changes, if we put all of these changes in the PUD
as opposed to in the contract, then nothing can change without a
four-person vote. If you modify the contract, then that can be changed
with three votes. But if it's incorporated in the PUD then it has to be
four votes and there's no question about it. Because we have less
security with the settlement agreement than we do with a PUD that has
to go through this evidentiary hearing and requires four votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Now I understand.
As we are currently constructed it takes four votes basically to
change the zoning maps of this county. Three votes to change
everything else.
So as we're currently constructed, if you put everything into the
PUD it would take a supermajority vote of a future Board of County
Commissioners to change it. That's not to say that that four-vote
requirement is always going to be here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But for right now based on state
statute on the special act it has to be four votes.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So there is -- whatever we
do, if we put it in the PUD there's far more protection than if we put it
in the settlement agreement, because the settlement agreement only
requires three votes, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
MR. GRANT: Could I make a suggestion? Why don't we just
eliminate the settlement agreement going forward. Put everything in
the PUD.
Page 190
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything that's in the settlement
agreement --
MR. GRANT: Everything that would continue in the settlement
agreement goes into the PUD document.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can you do that?
AUDIENCE: No, no.
MR. GRANT: And you have the private declarations of
covenants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, the public
hearing is closed.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We haven't closed the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, we haven't closed it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We haven't closed the public
hearing?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: But we can.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I don't think we should 'til we
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have public comments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We're done with public comment,
but the public hearing is --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't follow when we're having
different discussions --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, why don't we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to make sure --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- go to Commissioner Fiala a moment
and then let's come back and let's discuss amongst ourselves if the
Board -- if there are four board members that are willing to consider
some proposal.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. I was just going
back, quite a ways back in our conversation and we were talking about
Page 191
March 24, 2015
the golf course. And I just wanted to -- and how good or not good it
was for this area. But the developer had already said he was taking
that off the table, so I don't think the golf course was an issue. I think
MR. GRANT: No, I don't --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- keeping it as a preserve doesn't --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, he didn't --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's not off the table.
MR. GRANT: It's not off the table.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, just the proposal was --
MR. GRANT: There's no current plan to build it, but --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Because the golf course,
you know, if it isn't there, the preserve doesn't cost anybody anything.
And we were talking also about green space, you pointed out all
the green space that's gone. And you do want to try and preserve some
green space in there, because it's going away so rapidly and there's
hardly any in that whole area anymore that people can just have free
access to.
And of course The Conservancy always thinks about things like
the animals and the birds and so forth anyway. I would think that that's
not such a bad thing to have the preserve there.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, if this developer agrees that they
do not want to develop that piece of property and they want to leave it
in a preserve in perpetuity, that will be the first one I've ever met.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: If you've ever seen a developer that's
walked away from a piece of property within that many feet of the
Gulf that's walked away and said, oh, okay, I'm going to leave it --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, he did in 2008.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- to a preserve --
Page 192
March 24, 2015
AUDIENCE: Why did they agree to that?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They said they were going to build a golf
course, and I take them at their word. And let me tell you why --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir, they didn't say they're going
to build a golf course. They said either a golf course or it will remain
green forever in a preserve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And that means in developer speak --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That means in developer speak we're
going to build a golf course. It --
AUDIENCE: (It doesn't mean that.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Wait a second, excuse me, excuse me,
excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, at a certain point,
if this continues I would recommend you clear the room so we can --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will. Because ladies and gentlemen,
I'm going to ask you to be courteous one last time. Nobody interrupted
the public speakers. I do not expect you to interrupt this Board. It is
discourteous and rude. And I know you all are nicer than that. So
please let us have this difficult deliberation. It's very difficult for us.
And shouting out and over-speaking the speakers is simply not helpful
and it's discourteous.
If it happens again, I'm going to ask the ones that are identified as
doing it to be removed to the hall.
I've lost my train of thought. The golf course element of it is the
one thing that concerned me the most as an option. Because it will
have an extended and continuous negative impact on the natural areas
that do exist for as long as it's there.
Let's take the worst case scenario. The developer -- the staff
members have told us that they basically have seven years to develop
that golf course. They could conceivably, under circumstances -- and
Page 193
March 24, 2015
you don't know if this PUD is going to be sold or what the ownership
is going to be, they could start on the golf course, they could clear-cut
the majority of that, with the exception of the preserves that they have
to secure by law. It could go into foreclosure in the next downturn, it
could sit there as an undeveloped golf course forever, or we could do
nothing. This Board could do absolutely nothing and when we walk
out of here today the specter and the uncertainty about that
development is going to be exactly as it was two, three months ago
before this discussion ever took place.
And I would hate for this to go on and on and on down the road
as the economy builds out and as this area builds out until one day
somebody comes back to a future board and does stick some high-rises
on that property. Because it's a distinct possibility. If it can be
changed today, it can be changed in the future.
So my hope is that we eliminate all the bad possibilities and lock
down some that are acceptable in most ways. That would be the very
best thing for everything is if we could leave this hearing today with
certainty so that everybody knows what's going to be built there and
you don't have to worry about it anymore. If we leave here today,
you're never going to know. You're not going to know until the next
time comes up, or the next time. Some of us may not be here.
I do not -- I sincerely hope that we can come to some finality that
makes accommodations for everybody in a reasonable way. Or the
uncertainty will just continue.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Grant, it's my understanding
from my experience on City Council with deed restrictions that deed
restrictions are only as good as when you plat the land. Specifically
the Haldeman House -- well, it was really the -- it's not the Haldeman
House we were concerned about, it was the former Mayor's house.
And we witnessed in the city house after house being razed in the old
Page 194
March 24, 2015
town. And we were worried about how to do it. But unless you plat
the land, which means every time the structure is sold it runs with the
land, it's no good. It's a wonderful idea, but it's kind of the Emperor
has no clothes.
MR. GRANT: Commissioner Taylor, I don't believe that's the
case. I honestly have never heard that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not how it works here.
MR. GRANT: It may be something unique about the way
something was being done in the City of Naples with restrictions being
built into a plat or something.
This county and the State of Florida and the better part of the
developed United States in post World War II era in planned
communities is replete with declarations of covenants that create
private covenants that are beneficial to the property owners because
they create restrictions on other people's properties, so they're mutually
both a burden and a benefit. And they are perfectly enforceable.
I will give you an example. Marco Island. It's an incorporated
city. Before that it was part of Collier County. It has zoning. Marco
Island is replete with deed restrictions that Deltona imposed years ago.
And they are enforceable by private property owners and they are
enforceable by the Marco Island Civic Association. And they quite
frequently bring suit to enforce them privately outside the scope of the
City of Marco Island.
So these are enforceable, and I think to the extent that it's
important to the Board to believe that, you need to hear from
somebody other than me. I do think I know what I'm talking about.
I don't think Mr. Klatzkow's going to disagree with me, but I think he
may feel that it's not his place to get into it because the proposal is to
have them run in favor of the adjoining property owners associations.
But I believe they would be enforceable.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
Page 195
March 24, 2015
MR. GRANT: And that's the reason they were being offered.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right. Board members, let us --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I just want -- Mr. Klatzkow, do
you agree or disagree with Mr. Grant?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the better course would be if we
decide to go down this road to give the homeowner associations
sufficient time to have their counsel review these covenants to make
sure that the covenants are enforceable and they're comfortable with
that. That would be my recommendation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean delay this action?
MR. KLATZKOW: You're going to have to -- if there's
supermajority support on this, I have some ideas on how to structure
this. But part of this would have to come back. You could get rid of
most of this, but put a condition on with the covenants and limit it to
just the covenants coming back to make sure everybody is comfortable
with that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there currently four commissioners on
this board that would consider engaging staff to look at the issues that
have been discussed today, work together with the County Attorney
and come back with a proposal for a consideration of the board? I
don't think we can go much farther than to say we've listened to so
many things --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what he's saying. He's
saying that -- what the County Attorney is saying, we've listened to all
the evidence. The hearing -- you've closed the hearing, right?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, the hearing is still open.
So you've listened to all the evidence. And the question is before
us, are there four Commissioners here willing to support the PUD
amendment as before us, based on the evidence that was presented
Page 196
March 24, 2015
here today. With one caveat, and that is that these deed restrictions
prepared by the petitioner are given to the homeowner association so
their homeowner association attorneys can review them and deem
them acceptable and adequately protective. So basically, you know, it
would be -- is that what you're saying?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, we would come back on that limited
issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We would come back on the
limited issue. So we would approve --
MR. KLATZKOW: Unless you also wanted to in essence merge
the settlement agreement into the PUD, in which case we'd come back
with two issues.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If we merge the settlement
agreement into the PUD, does that provide more protection for the
public or less protection for the public?
MR. KLATZKOW: It requires four votes rather than three to
change it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it would require a public
hearing --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to change it as opposed to a mere
discussion.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, everything here is done by public
hearing, but it would require an advertised public hearing, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, because for example if all we
were looking at was to deal with a non land use issue --
MR. KLATZKOW: It would be --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- disagreement, we wouldn't have
to have a public hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: You do everything on public hearings. But
you --
Page 197
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't mean that kind of public
hearing, I mean a quasi judicial --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- public hearing.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we would have more protection
if it was incorporated into the PUD.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's hear some guidance from
Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I don't think we can take a straw
vote. I think we need to get on with this. I think what we have to do is
decide whether number one we're going to open the PUD -- or the
agreement and then take a vote on the PUD.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there any circumstances which the
Commissioners here would agree to a PUD amendment by this
petitioner?
Commissioner Henning?
MR. KLATZKOW: You need to make a motion, sir.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You have to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You need to --
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't do a straw vote, unfortunately.
You can make --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Who wants to close the public hearing?
You want to close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We've heard the evidence.
Is there anymore evidence that you'd like to present?
MR. GRANT: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We're going to close the public hearing.
Okay, the public hearing is closed. Now we're just into general
Page 198
March 24, 2015
discussion. So --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You going to make a motion?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, what do you
think? How would you recommend we proceed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve the
PUD amendment based upon the competent evidence of the Planning
Commission's recommendations and staffs recommendations.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'll second it for discussion.
Is there any discussion? Is there anything any Commissioner
would like to add to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think we need to add the evidence
based at the hearing, the sufficient competent evidence based at the
hearing, because all -- there was -- with respect to this particular PUD
amendment, and this is not with respect to the discussions on the
contract, on the settlement agreement, there was no sufficient
competent evidence brought forward by any experts in opposition to
what was presented by the petitioner and by staff at the hearing. So I
think you have to incorporate the evidence that was presented at the
hearing as well, not just the evidence presented. I'm just telling you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you modify your motion,
Commissioner Henning? And I'll modify my second.
Any further comments?
MR. KLATZKOW: Are we including the covenants or not?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The covenants is a part of the
PUD amendment?
MR. KLATZKOW: My understanding with Commissioner
Hiller's discussions, we would have a clause there referencing the
covenants, and then we would come back at a future hearing with the
covenants to make sure that they meet the satisfaction of the issues.
Page 199
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I further amend my motion to
reference the covenants deed restriction offered by the developer.
What do you want?
MR. OCHS: I just want to chime in, if I might, sir. There was
some discussion early this morning about perhaps using culling out a
Type C buffer --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes.
MR. OCHS: -- instead of a Type D buffer. Is that in or out of the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's in the motion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: The embedded offers by -- all the offers
presented and offered by the petitioner.
All right, I'll modify my second.
Additional comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, the motion fails 3-2.
Is there a supplementary motion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor, what was
the basis for your no vote?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, on number 20, will the
proposed change constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner, as contrasted with the public welfare.
Page 200
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What does that mean?
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there any provision, ma'am, or
circumstance that would answer any of your concerns regarding this
issue?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm not sure what you mean by
that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Under what different circumstances
would you be willing to support an application by the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask -- let me ask a question.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Excuse me.
Is there any circumstances or issues that can be addressed to your
satisfaction that would allow you to support a motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You know, in -- as a government
official I have power, and that power has responsibility. But also as a
government official I have to discern independently, and that's that
wonderful word, independently, what is public welfare or public
interest and special interest.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Without a doubt.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And in this case I think it's special
interest. I have -- I'm listening to this room full of people that are still
here at 5:00. I'm quite impressed with your involvement and the caring
you have for your neighborhood.
And it is a question of public trust. This -- I remember listening to
that neighborhood meeting at the -- what is it called today, The
Registry, the Waldorf, whatever ifs called. And --
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Grand Beach Hotel.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah. And I remember one
woman stood at the microphone and, what is in it for us? What's for us
here? And there wasn't an answer. And it stuck in my mind. So I
struggled with it. Why? Why is this? And it's right here before me.
Page 201
March 24, 2015
This is a grant of special privilege to an individual owner.
Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot reasonably
be used in accordance with existing zoning, which means open space
or a golf course? No, there's no reason.
Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs -- with the
needs, not zoning, the needs -- of the neighborhood? Or the county?
Well, yeah, I think it is. We already heard, you got 60 some odd cars
or houses with maybe two or three cars on a road that's already
impacted. There's a problem with traffic.
But also is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood? The neighborhood needs to depend on an agreement.
The neighborhood needs to depend on its government officials. The
neighborhood needs to know that there's a voice sitting up here for
common people, for people like you and me who sit in the public and
hope that their elected officials have their best interest in mind. And so
for those reasons, I'm voting no.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? Further
comments?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You know, I'm left really
concerned, because this agreement does not protect the public. And
you've made a really nice political speech, but you haven't made a
speech that states that there is sufficient competent evidence to deny
this. And what leaves me concerned is we have an agreement here that
is subject to modification and a parcel which, based on the surrounding
density, can be developed at a very high density, subject to
modification by three votes of the Board in the future. And we had an
opportunity here today to lock this parcel down and to lock this entire
project down to protect all the surrounding communities and you have
denied that opportunity to this community by not allowing this
agreement to be modified and to be incorporated into the PUD so that
in perpetuity, and that would be irreversible, that there would be four
Page 202
March 24, 2015
votes required, and that nothing could change unless all these people
here agreed.
Because right now these people are forever going to be subject to
three votes of the Board to modification.
And again, secondly, you haven't presented any evidence to show
a legal basis for denial of what was proposed. My bigger concern, but
that's between -- you know, that's a completely different legal issue.
The bigger issue for me is that this settlement agreement does not
protect the public. And by not opening it and by not incorporating it in
the PUD and by not getting these deed restrictions which we are not
going to get as a result of this vote, we are absolutely exposing this
public to ultimate risk.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to comment on something
that she said before about subject to modification; does not mean that
we must vote the way they want to modify it, that just means if we
wanted to open it.
And quite frankly, I just heard that Commissioner Taylor nor I
want to open it back up for modification.
And I feel that another comment that was made --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We haven't voted on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We actually didn't vote on that.
We voted strictly on the denial of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We voted on the PUD, I understand
that. But you said something about subject to modification. This is
subject to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, because --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- you were mentioning that, so I'm
just commenting on what you've mentioned.
Page 203
March 24, 2015
And I'll leave it go at that. I feel that we were talking about -- you
made a comment and I can't remember the words you used but
something about the developer. He already got his due. He already
got 108 units. He was able to include that in his -- actually much
closer to the water and in his high-rises, so he really benefited by that.
And now that he wants to open this other piece of property, why
should he be allowed to do that when he already gave it really -- gave
it away. And we can keep it in preservation forever and maybe add
green space, that would be a benefit to the whole neighborhood and to
that whole community.
(Applause.)
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT TO
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE PROPOSED BY
LODGE/ABBOTT ASSOCIATES, LLC AND LODGE/ABBOTT
INVESTMENTS ASSOCIATES LLC (OWNERS OF THE
COCOHATCHEE BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) TO
ALLOW COCOHATCHEE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
BE AMENDED — MOTION TO NOT OPEN THE AGREEMENT —
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we move on to 12.A?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yes.
Commissioner Taylor, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a pontification at this point.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, and just to respond to
Commissioner Hiller and her concerns, and I'm just following what our
Page 204
March 24, 2015
County Attorney has written, that the burden falls upon the applicant
for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all the
criteria set forth below.
Then the burden shifts to the Board of County Commissioners,
should it consider denial, that such a denial is not arbitrary,
discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by
finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed
criteria.
Now, we have over 20 criteria here. I think total of 26. And I
found that three didn't match. I think I meet that.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And Commissioner Taylor, I think that's
sufficient.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's move on to 12.A, sir. We're going
to now take a vote on 12.A. This is the recommendation to open the
settlement agreement.
I'm going to make -- under the realization that there's no four
Commissioners that will support a modification of the PUD, I'm going
to make a recommendation that we do not open the settlement
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask you a question. Why
are we even addressing it? Why do you even have to vote on it?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Because it's in the agenda, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You don't have to vote on it if it's
on the agenda if it's a moot point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already did.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any Discussion?
Page 205
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Discussion. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I was really hoping that we can
address, you know, a safety issue in the surrounding area and that is
Gulf Shore Drive and people trying to access the beach. There was an
opportunity to create some parking adjacent to the
Cocohatchee/Wiggins Pass launch, and relieve that. But we're not
going to do that today.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have to modify the settlement
agreement because the Board at a previous hearing before
Commissioner Taylor was elected said that every PUD that
incorporated an affordable housing fee and every settlement agreement
that got one as they came forward, that would be eliminated. And we
have to do that, because that's how we voted and we can't
discriminatorily pick, you know, on one developer over another. And
so we have to open the settlement agreement to eliminate that
affordable housing requirement in it because that's what we said we
would do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jeff?
MR. KLATZKOW: I am comfortable with you doing that. I am
comfortable with you simply making a motion. Whatever the will of
the Board is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: A motion not to open it, you're
comfortable with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So it's up to us.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second not to
open it. Is there any other further comment?
Page 206
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So are you suggesting, Jeff, that
what we are doing for all the other developers and with all other
settlement agreements we're not going to do with this one?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, we can handle this issue at a later date,
ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think it needs to be -- it has to
be handled now. I mean, we said that when a settlement agreement
came forward, it had to be -- it would be addressed.
MR. KLATZKOW: You have an LDC provision with an LDC
process to do this. This is not that process. If they want to come back
and go through that process, it's a very quick process, it's usually done
on consent. You can handle it that way.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. But it can be done.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's done administratively?
There's no discretion in that? Because that's how we voted.
MR. KLATZKOW: We generally put it on the consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay, got it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, there's a motion and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Seeing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Passes unanimously.
Page 207
March 24, 2015
All right, Mr. County Manager, where are we? Is everybody
going to leave? If everybody's going to leave, we're going to take a
five-minute break.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs, let's see if we can bring it on
home, sir.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Thank you, Mr. Ochs.
Item #10B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED CAPITAL
INVESTMENT FOR DIVERSIFICATION INCENTIVE (CID)
PROGRAM — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, I think we're now moving to Item
10.B on the agenda, Board of County Commissioners recommendation
to approve the proposed Capital Investment for Diversification
Incentive Program. Commissioner Hiller brought this forward in
conjunction with your Economic Development staff.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And a second.
I think it's wonderful.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And maybe in the future we can
package all those incentives up and bring it back to the Board and have
a complete understanding of what we're doing.
MR. OCHS: I'd be happy to do that, sir. I think this one fills the
gap that we had and we'll put it all together as a packet and bring it
forward again.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'm really supportive of these capital
Page 208
March 24, 2015
investments, and I appreciate Commissioner Hiller bringing it forward.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just have a little bit of a
question and that is on one portion of the Capital Investments for
Diversification Incentive Program, and it talks specifically about new
buildings or buildings that don't yet have their C.O., buildings that
have been sitting there but the C.O. hasn't been granted yet. And I'm
wondering -- my concern is we have so many existing buildings that
aren't in use. Is there a way that we can use those buildings? I hate to
see those things -- a lot of people complaining, they say why are you
encouraging new building when you're not even using the ones that are
existing? Especially in shopping centers where maybe somebody had
gone bankrupt and they're --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's a capital investments, I --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me finish.
So maybe in the shopping centers where they have already had a
C.O. and the company went bankrupt and so the thing is sitting there
empty. And I'm concerned that they can't use those.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We do. We already have a
program in place for that. We have a program in place that waives the
incremental impact fees on developing -- you know, improving
increasing the intensity of existing buildings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because we already have the no
impact fees on buildings --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's what I meant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- that were in existence.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. And that's what you're
talking about. So we have a program to incentivize development of
existing buildings. And this is to incentivize new.
And the problem we're having is that there's a lot out there that is
not fitting the new companies. Like that Felix who came before us?
Page 209
March 24, 2015
The reason he was going to go to Bonita is because nothing that was in
existence worked for him. And then ultimately what we found for him
was within an existing building that hadn't yet been C.O.'d, the
opportunity for him to make that capital investment and finish that
building out. So we have two programs --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you tying any of that right in
with your capital investment diversification, or is that something else
on the side --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's all part of the
diversification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You are promoting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- using existing buildings?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes. Oh, yes. Oh, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was my biggest concern.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely. No, and I agree with
you, because we want -- you know, obviously we want absorption of
what exists as well as -- but we want to -- what we don't want to have
happen is that if something is out -- if there's nothing out there that
exists that fits, we don't want them to leave and put the capital
investment in some other jurisdiction. So it's to retain those people
who don't fit what's already built.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the last question is completely
different, but right now we're having a lot of problems finding
qualified employees from any of the businesses already here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And they're seeking employees from
other areas trying to fill those. Usually skilled and college graduates --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and so forth, and they're really
having a problem. And we're only encouraging more. And I'm
Page 210
March 24, 2015
wondering where we're going to get all these employees.
And the second thing that goes with it, where are we going to get
the housing for skilled workers? We have plenty of low income
housing, but we sure don't have any for that middle income young
college professional. And I think we need to address that at some
point.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. And we are looking at that.
One of the things that's so exciting is that as eastern Collier is
developing, not only with respect to commercial but with also respect
to residential, you're going to see that go hand-in-hand. And because
the land in eastern Collier is so much less expensive, they can build
much more houses that would qualify as gap housing at that price.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's pretty far down the road, you
know.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it's not. The projections are
like scarily close.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just think we should be addressing
them so as we get people in here, we have housing for them right now,
you know.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I really like your proposal,
Commissioner Hiller. I was concerned initially because I wasn't sure
that we were waiving impact fees, but I understand that the impact fees
are a measure. And I think this is a wonderful, wonderful idea.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Motion and a second. Any further
comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 211
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Unanimous approval.
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT
TRANSFERRING $200,000 FROM PELICAN BAY SERVICES
DIVISION MSTBU FUND 109 RESERVES TO THE
BEAUTIFICATION COST CENTER FOR ADDITIONAL TREE
TRIMMING SERVICES — MOTION TO DENY AND BRING
BACK WITH INFORMATION TO SEE IF THIS IS A SAFETY OR
BEAUTIFICATION ISSUE — APPROVED; MOTION FOR STAFF
TO DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
CHARGES — APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Takes us to Item 11.B, which was previously Item
16.F.4, and that's a recommendation to approve a budget amendment
transferring $200,000 from the Pelican Bay Services Division MSTBU
Fund 109 reserves to the Beautification Cost Center for additional tree
trimming services. And that item was moved to the regular agenda at
Commissioner Henning's request.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, there's not a lot of detail
in the executive summary. However, I know that this is a longstanding
PUD that does many things within the Pelican Bay community,
including new (sic) that performs improvements on public property,
such as Pelican Bay Boulevard.
Page 212
March 24, 2015
So the question is, and I know the new norm is to, you know, take
up the maintenance on public property or private soon to become
public property. So if we're going to do it for one, we should do it for
all.
So are these maintenance improvements being done on Pelican
Bay Boulevard?
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. My understanding is some of the work in
this tree trimming program is done on public rights-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Then we should kick in
our fair share, if it's on Pelican Bay Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think we should eliminate all
maintenance of landscape in the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And actually I'm going to bring -- before
you say no, I'm going to bring an agenda item forward that's going to
show you examples where planting in the right-of-way are detrimental
to the community and detrimental to business and costing us a lot of
money for absolutely no benefit to the public. Because they're
redundant, they block signs, they pose safety hazards. Not all of them.
And I'm not talking about the medians, I'm talking about on the sides
of the road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're going to trim them
in Pelican Bay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sounds like they're going to trim them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, we need to be equal to
all. And we had an MSTU here, you know, no different than Rock
Road. Except for Rock Road is a private road.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's going to become public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's going to become public.
It has no proper stormwater on it. Pelican Bay does. They decided to
Page 213
March 24, 2015
tax themselves to make the improvements on Pelican Bay Boulevard.
They have maintained it over the years. And now we need to kick in
our fair share and pony up and do for Pelican Bay like we're doing for
people on Rock Road and maintain it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So may I ask a little bit about that?
So now Pelican Bay -- and I look at it as though they really want
to make sure that their community looks far better than others. They
want it to look like they want and they've put their money where their
mouth is to do that.
Now, Bayshore, for instance, does the same thing, but not to that
-- not at all to that quality. But they also pay for their maintenance and
their trees and whatever they're going to be doing.
Do you feel -- and same with Radio Road. Do you feel that that
should all stop?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah -- well, no, I think that the
county, since we're doing it for one, we need to systematically -- and
that was my plan, bring it forward for the Board's consideration to take
over the maintenance of these MSTUs that are on public property. So
the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: MSTUs on public property. So like
on Radio Road, for instance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and like on Bayshore
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, there's a lot of them. We have
Lely Resort. We've got a bunch of them -- or Old Lely, Lely Resort,
all of those things. Well, okay.
MR. OCHS: Chairman, would it be possible for the Board to
consider approval of this item pending both Commissioner Henning
and Commissioner Nance's work to bring back --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, I think there's some issue -- I think
there's some agenda items that are coming back. I mean, I would be --
Page 214
March 24, 2015
I have no trouble with approving this item, and I'll make a motion for
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Subject to it coming back -- or
subject to, what would you say, reimbursement if--
MR. OCHS: I would say subject to, you know, a pending board
policy decision on how --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We already set policy. We set
policy on Rock Road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, we need to treat
everybody fair. I don't know how different than I can say it. I can't
support the motion because that's not being fair.
MR. OCHS: I apologize, I thought --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bring it back --
MR. OCHS: -- you said you were getting ready to bring
something that would --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're going to bring it back
one-on-one -- one and one. Unless somebody wants to reconsider, you
know, the actions that we have taken that is going to create this
snowball. I think that we should pony up and not vote for the motion.
And therefore we will take up some of the responsibility like we're
doing on Rock Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think it's apples to apples.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure it is.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, it isn't. Their roads and amenities
are different things. And the county accepts the maintenance of roads
that are public roads that are paved and built by developers all the time.
The developer builds the road, it becomes part of the county network
and the county takes it over. There are numerous examples. And staff
Page 215
March 24, 2015
has been asked to bring a full spectrum of the examples on how this
works, what's been done, what hasn't been done. And is there
consistency on that? Absolutely not. So we are going to need board
policy. But I don't think that you can put landscape maintenance and
road building in the same sort of a policy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, and I disagree. The
people who purchased on a (sic) Rock Road knew it when they moved
on it, okay?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the people in Pelican Bay,
when they bought in there, they knew there was an MSTU that was
going to take care of the maintenance. So it is apples to apples.
You know, a gravel road is sufficient to drive on. Now you pave
it, that's a luxury. I don't see how you can say that's a necessity. That is
just totally absurd, in my opinion.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So you're suggesting that the county
never take over another road that's built, and maintenance --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- for all roads that are built should be
strictly taken on by the developer?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that's how it works.
However, we have a lot of lime rock roads here. I wasn't opposed and
never will be opposed to paving Rock Road. However, we set
precedence by maintaining that pavement in perpetuity, even though
that we have MSTUs throughout all of Collier County that is making
improvements and taxing themselves to maintain those roads.
One example is there's an agreement on Radio Road that this was
in the downturn of the county, they wanted landscaping on -- in the
public right-of-way. And the agreement was that they will -- we will
get a loan, and it's actually a bank note, and through the course of that
loan that MSTU will maintain the landscaping on Radio Road.
Page 216
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's one significant difference. The
cost of the capital infrastructure for putting in landscaping is dwarfed
by the maintenance cost. The maintenance cost can be hundreds of
times in perpetuity what the infrastructure cost is. That's not the case
with a paved road. A paved road that's paid for by somebody else and
the maintenance is then taken on by the county generates much more
in taxes than it's going to require to maintain the road. That's not the
case with perpetual landscape maintenance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Nance, I think we're
talking about two difference things here.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, I am. I'm just trying to find a way
to get Pelican Bay to be able to trim their trees here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, and that's landscaping. But
what you're talking about like Rock Road, there are other roads yet,
that's safety. Landscaping is not safety. So that's what I'm talking
about, we have two different things here.
And so with roads, I think -- you know, they started out many,
many, many years ago as being just gravel roads, and over the time and
we've built other roads, we've done a great job, but we have to catch up
on our road building to those smaller roads too in order to bring them
up to safe quality.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And I agree, there's currently no
mechanism to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And maybe the county should then
maintain them afterwards because they are a safety feature, just as
we're doing with Rock Road. Once we get all of these things paved so
we'll have a community full of paved roads rather than places where
they have gullies and everything.
But I think that's a total different issue altogether than
landscaping.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I clearly agree with Commissioner
Page 217
March 24, 2015
Henning that we need to work out how we handle MSTUs. But I'm
not willing to give up on them because I think that people paying for
what they want is a great thing if we can do something. And I have no
idea where we are in the discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can get me off
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Get you off
Who's next, Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Me.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Me, I'm next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Commissioner Taylor opened her
mouth, now you pick her over me every single time.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no, no, my light was on. My
light was on.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You must cede a lot of talking time to all
the other commissioners here.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, I was just suggesting that this
is a very -- for me a very interesting topic. This is a brand new topic
for me. Not that it's a new issue, but it's a new topic, and I think we
would do well to bring it back as an agenda item, asking staff to talk
about -- give us the delineation, when we pay, when we don't pay, that
kind of thing. But I think Commissioner Henning is correct, I think it
needs to be done. There's enough gray matter here, let's bring it back.
But I don't think today's the day to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, I don't think so either. But staff is
bringing back an item, as you requested and as I requested, to deal -- to
get our head around the roads. If Commissioner Henning would like
to also extend it to all MSTUs or landscaping, I would be happy to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I think that would be great.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- engage that item as well.
Commissioner Hiller?
Page 218
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yay. Thank you.
I have a real concern. And the concern is about these -- I do have
to bring up this issue of lime rock road, because the distinguishing
matter in this discussion is the claim that somehow lime rock roads are
unsafe and that the county is putting the public safety at issue by not
paving these roads, or not allowing them to be paved. Is that true?
Are lime rock roads unsafe?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. All county owned public
rights-of-way, whether they're lime rock or paved, are maintained by
the county to a safe level. Public owned rights-of-ways, that's the
distinction you need to understand.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And these private roads --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have no maintenance on them, so
we've done --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Do we have any safety -- do we
have any -- what's the safety issue with the private roads?
MR. OCHS: Well, the Board adopted a policy a couple years ago
that if the Board deemed that for public health, safety and welfare
reasons an improvement needed to be made on a private road, that you
would ask the private owners to repay you for your cost. If they didn't
do that, you would impose an MSTU on that -- on those homeowners
to recoup the county's actual cost of repair and maintenance.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not my question. I
understand all that. My question is what -- help me out with the public
safety issues with respect to lime rock roads versus a paved road.
What -- not versus a paved road, just what is the public safety issue
with a lime rock road? And I'm just -- I just -- and I'm asking that
sincerely, because I don't know anything about --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, if you're county-owned roads,
there are no safety issues. They're maintained at safe levels. All
publicly owned rights-of-ways are graded or paved.
Page 219
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: But if someone owns a private
road, where does it become the county's obligation to maintain a -- or
to see that a private road is made safe to public standards? Is there a
code? I mean, is there something in our code that says, you know,
these roads are in code violation and therefore they must be improved
and so we'll do it at the county's cost? I mean, because if you're -- no,
let me finish, please. If there is an issue and you are sitting here and
telling me that private roads are not safe, then that has to be in our
code, and code enforcement needs to be going out there and tagging
roads that are private roads that are not up to code standards, whatever
those standards may be, and ensure that they get brought up to
whatever is deemed a safe standard. I mean, you're talking -- if you're
going to get into health, safety, welfare discussions, you're talking
about the code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We already have that on the books.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, wait, let -- I want to --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Ladies and gentlemen --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I want to talk to Leo.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- this is not on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It is, because I need to understand
this.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's not on the agenda today, ma'am, I'm
sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need to understand it. Because
we're bringing in the distinguishing factor as public safety. And so if
you're telling me that's public safety, I need to understand how that is
public safety.
MR. OCHS: Ma'am the policy that the Board enacted a few years
ago in this regard essentially said that if a fire chief or a fire marshal
Page 220
March 24, 2015
came forward to this Board and told you that they could not get an
emergency vehicle down a private road and it therefore was
endangering — potentially endangering the health, safety and welfare of
the people that live on that road or their property, that that was the
trigger that would allow the Board to direct those roads be brought up
to at least a passable standard by those emergency vehicles and thereby
allowing public expenditure for improvements on a private road.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So we need to get that in the code.
MR. OCHS: Well, it's in your ordinance that you adopted on --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's actually in --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, I didn't realize that we passed
that as an ordinance. I thought that was just a policy.
MR. OCHS: No, it's an ordinance. I'll get you a copy of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Does fire know that they
have the ability to do this? Did you send this out to all fire?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: They came in front of you as a petition. And that's
how this all got initiated the first time.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Forgive me, I just don't remember
that history.
So I think you periodically need to circulate this ordinance to all
the fire chiefs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Stop that. I don't want to spend
any more money.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We have a public safety issue.
And if I can't remember it, I can't see how they would.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let's get back to the agenda item. I
made a motion. I don't even know if we have a second at this point --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, you do.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a second by whom?
Page 221
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala. There's a motion
and a second.
Commissioner Henning does not support it. Is there any further
discussion? Commissioner Hen--
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I do have one
registered public speaker.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Oh, holy mackerel, a public speaker. Go
ahead, sir.
MR. MILLER: Dr. Joseph Doyle.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Dr. Doyle.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: The public? Who are they, after
this?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Dr. Doyle, I admire your perseverance.
DR. DOYLE: Yes. We went out for breakfast, then we went out
for lunch.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You've had a birthday since then, sir.
Thank you for your perseverance. Please go ahead.
DR. DOYLE: Yes, good evening, Commissioners. Dr. Joseph
Doyle, Naples. I'm here on behalf of my mother, Sandra Doyle, who is
the property owner in Pelican Bay.
I provided you all with an e-mail yesterday afternoon. When I
saw this on the consent agenda over the weekend, I did reach out to
one of the board members of the Pelican Bay Services Division.
My issue is that, this kind of goes back to when I was here last
fall when the budget was adopted, this is an amendment, that there is
no paper trail. There's no supporting documentation in the executive
summary, to Commissioner Henning's point. And I do thank
Commissioner Henning for bringing this off the consent agenda.
I found out the $200,000 is not just for pruning. So if you were to
support this amendment right now as it's written, it's inaccurate. It's
Page 222
March 24, 2015
$100,000 for pruning and $100,000 for temporary labor.
At the January 7th meeting of the Pelican Bay Services Division
they were told that we wouldn't really need much more temporary
labor this year, so I don't know how they got to $100,000 in the
temporary labor.
As far as the $100,000 in pruning, to Commissioner Taylor's
point, we don't know which streets are involved, which are really a
safety issue. This did come forward from the safety committee.
However, they didn't prioritize. Does all that work have to be done
right now in the next three or four months? Could some of it be done
this year, some of it done next year? So we don't have any of that in--
we don't have any supporting detail from the safety committee or from
the board.
And, you know, they had the January 7th meeting, they had the
February meeting, they've now had the March meeting and we still
don't have the supporting documentation to substantiate this request.
And I'm just saying that they need to put it in proper order. As I
said at the original budget, there's no paper trail. So -- and to take
$200,000 out of reserve on a two and a half million dollar operating
budget, that's eight percent. And they increased our capital reserves
last year by $200,000 for beach renourishment for the future; they're
going to do $200,000 a year for the next several years.
So it's just sloppy. And I feel that they should come back with
supporting documentation for what they want to do.
And to Commissioner Henning's point of some of this is going to
be done on Pelican Bay Boulevard and other public rights-of-way from
a safety issue, if the county's going to put in some money, fine. But I
just feel that in its present form it shouldn't be approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I agree.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
Page 223
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, thank.
Thank you for raising all those points. And the most significant
point you raise, that this trimming is for safety. And so if it is for
safety, then it should be a general expense, not a PBSD expense. So
let's get the evidence, let's pull it together. And if we're dealing with
public health, safety and welfare and this is not about beautification,
which based on what you're saying it seems to be the case, then
definitely it should not be coming out of that budget. And we should
find out exactly where these -- this vegetation is going to be trimmed
and what the safety element is.
And if you could work with Commissioner Henning, only
because he's working on, you know, a general policy which is
addressing these type of issues, I would really appreciate it.
Notwithstanding that it's in my district, he has a better understanding
of, you know, the maintenance versus non-maintenance, the safety
versus the beautification questions with respect to MSTUs.
But I can't support it because I think what you say is right.
DR. DOYLE: That little bit of documentation is there, the fact
that it came from the safety committee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's very significant. But again,
if that's the case, it goes to the issue of it should not be part of the
MSTU which is for enhanced beautification, not for safety
maintenance. Like the issue with the road. If there's a safety issue,
then it's very different than if we're doing it because it looks pretty.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just wonder, does everybody
in Pelican Bay feel as you do or do they want to have the beauty of
these trees trimmed and cleaned and looking good? I think that that's
really -- they're all paying into it. And so I'm just -- have you brought
this up to the Pelican Bay Services Division?
DR. DOYLE: I'll give it to you this way, this has been an issue
Page 224
March 24, 2015
that's been going on for probably the last six, nine months regarding
the issue, the line of sight at a lot of the corners. And they've been
working even with the Foundation as who's responsible to cut it back.
Is it going to be the Services Division? Is it going to be Foundation to
enforce the covenants?
We actually had one property at the corner of Oakmont and
Greentree that turned over the last couple of months. The homeowner,
the new homeowner took out all the vegetation so now you can see the
corner and the line of sight is fine and it's not a problem.
So the question really is, is who's responsible for some of this?
I do believe that some of it are the property owners. I do believe that --
and that will probably be where their property is on the road and their
trees are overhanging. But in the medians, which we pay to beautify,
some of those are overgrown, but we've been trimming those with the
MSTBU money and that's appropriate. And we've had other places
where we don't know if the Foundation has really been enforcing the
covenants. It's been an ongoing battle. So I think you have a little bit
of all this going on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let the county take care of it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay, I'm going to withdraw my motion.
You can make a motion to deny, ma'am, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to
deny, to bring this matter back with the information that's submitted to
show whether this is for safety or for beatification, to show which
streets are going to be improved and to show what the need for the
temporary labor is. And to ask that Commissioner Henning work with
my constituent on this issue to come up with, you know, what the
proper recommendation would be for this matter, and then have staff
bring it forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to.
DR. DOYLE: Thank you.
Page 225
March 24, 2015
MR. OCHS: Just for the record, sir --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Don't give me that look, Leo.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order.
MR. OCHS: This action was recommended at an advertised
meeting of the Pelican Bay Services Division. It's specifically to clean
up line of sight issues and keep streetlights from being obstructed
within the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll work with them also.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Is there a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Discussion. Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order. I'm not sure we
can deny it. I think we can continue it but I'm not sure we can deny it.
County Attorney?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sure we can.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: But that means that it can't come
before us again, correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: You can deny it. My understanding is the
reason is that there's insufficient backup.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it just comes back with more
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It will come back.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. All right.
MR. OCHS: We'll bring it back --
MR. KLATZKOW: -- sufficient backup.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: -- with more information.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Would the motion maker also
consider amending the motion to include staff to make us a
Page 226
March 24, 2015
presentation so that we develop criteria for neighborhood generated
MSTBUs?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm not going to make that as part
of my motion, because Commissioner Henning is going to
independently come back with an executive summary for proposing
how these issues will be handled from a policy perspective. And that's
not part of this particular agenda item, because he's already committed
to do it at a future meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's not true, I heard him say
that. It's not true.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's totally true. Don't play these
games.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All right, we have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's teasing you, don't listen to
him.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion, a
follow-up motion that we ask staff to come back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It didn't pass, though.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It was denied 3-2.
Page 227
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, but I'd like to make a
follow-up motion pertaining to this, which is not to negate what
Commissioner Henning is going to do in his spare time, between
fishing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, getting baby food. That's
what I need to do, I need to leave and get some baby food.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I know, I know, I need to go. I've
got child care over at 6:30.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Henning, you're the one
that started the fight on this. You're not seeing it to the end?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right, so let's make a motion
quickly, that we ask staff to come back and give us a developed criteria
going forward about how we determine who pays for what and when
MSTBUs are brought to us.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I will second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It kind of feels like government
overreach again. These people establish their MSTUs --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, we just --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- with 50 percent plus.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We just have to have an understanding
on who's responsible for what.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, I mean, just --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I'll support a workup on that. That's not
doing anything to them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I help?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It's just an understanding.
Making policy.
MR. OCHS: Appreciate the opportunity, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Nick needs work.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, Nick needs work.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I felt you cooking underneath here.
Page 228
March 24, 2015
CHAIRMAN NANCE: So we have a motion and a second.
Is there any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Passes unan-- oh, any opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: 4-1, Commissioner Fiala dissents.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Can we do commissioners
comments so I can leave? Because I have to go too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good night.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We do have 14.B, right?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have one more very significant issue.
Item #14B1
RECOMMENDATION TO COMPLY WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) AND
COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION (CHS)
DETERMINATIONS TO REIMBURSE FEDERAL FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $268,901.37 FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROJECTS SUB-AWARDED TO
SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE IMMOKALEE BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTER (IBDC), AUTHORIZE TRANSFER OF
NECESSARY FUNDS WITH THE REQUISITE BUDGET
AMENDMENTS, AND TO WAIVE RESOLUTION 2013-228 —
APPROVED
Page 229
March 24, 2015
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir, that's Item 14.B.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, yeah.
MR. OCHS: And that's a recommendation to comply with HUD
and Community Services Division determination to reimburse federal
funds in the amount of$268,901 .37 for Community Development
Block Grant projects sub-awarded to support the Immokalee Business
Development Center.
Mr. Durham will present.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I want to make just a couple comments,
and I'm going to make a recommendation to -- a motion to approve.
I think this is a very unfortunate situation. We had a
circumstance that predates the current management team at the CRA in
Immokalee where the CRA, apparently ill-advisedly got involved with
economic development as part of their activities. And the CRA was
not able to meet its responsibilities under the grant and necessitates the
paying back of the grant.
And I guess, Mr. Durham, that there is a recommendation
included in the executive summary for a methodology to repay this
back over time.
MR. DURHAM: Tim Durham for the record, County Manager's
Office.
That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Did you make a motion?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's very -- yeah, I made a motion
to approve the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I think it's very unfortunate.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think there are questions that
need to be answered first.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: There's a motion and a second.
Page 230
March 24, 2015
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. Leo, I asked you some
questions about this. Can you help with the answers?
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I'll ask our staff representative from
Community Housing Services to step forward.
MR. MAGON: For the record, Jeffrey Magon, Compliance
Supervisor for Community and Human Services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you work for the county?
MR. MAGON: Jeffrey Magon.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You look too young to work for
the county.
MR. MAGON: I'll be 28 next week.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, my goodness.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Really? Well, happy birthday.
MR. OCHS: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You never told me I look too
young to work for the county.
Okay, so the concern I have is how could this have all been
disbursed without the conditions of the grant being satisfied? Because
in government we reimburse based on performance, we don't advance
funds. So I don't understand how there could have been disbursements
made by the Clerk to the -- who are the disbursements made to
directly? I mean, they were made to the IBDC, correct?
MR. MAGON: Correct. In CDBG, there are a number of
different criteria that need to be met. As the grant progresses, national
objectives and eligibility activities need to be met.
While the payments were being made, they were being paid on
eligible activities and allowable costs. However, for the job creation,
that was not intended to come until the end which is the final criteria
that needs to be met for that national objective.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So the job creation portion was
Page 231
March 24, 2015
$268,000. What were the disbursements related to the other satisfied
steps?
MR. MAGON: The disbursements were related to the salary of
the person doing the activities for the IBDC. The goal of the
agreements were to assist businesses in developing and creating jobs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Whose salary was being paid?
MR. MAGON: That was the IBDC business manager.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And who was that?
MR. MAGON: That was Marie Capita.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So the salary all went to
Marie. And was Marie the one responsible for generating these jobs?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She generated her job.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's one.
So was she being paid the salary in order to generate these jobs in
the end?
MR. MAGON: She was being paid the salary in order to assist
these businesses in developing the capacity to create jobs. The funds
that were given for the grant were also for the operation and activities,
the classes and so forth.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So how much money was paid
towards Marie's salary and towards the operations above the 268?
MR. MAGON: In the 2012 agreement, approximately $57,000
was paid for her salary and $7,000 for her benefits. I can get the exact
numbers, I have it on my laptop for --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that was on top of this 268.
MR. MAGON: That was part of it.
MR. OCHS: Inclusive.
MR. MAGON: Yes, correct, that was inclusive.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that doesn't make sense. I
mean, she did work, didn't she?
MR. MAGON: Correct.
Page 232
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why are we paying back? I
mean, if that was satisfied, if she worked, I don't understand. If that
was -- I mean, it's one of two things, either she doesn't get paid until
she delivers the seven jobs and that is the reimbursement, or if the
marker for reimbursement is that she worked -- well, but then why
were we advancing the money? Why was the Clerk advancing the
money if the trigger was job creation? You can't have it six of one,
half a dozen of the other.
I mean, if a legitimate basis for disbursement was that she was
working towards this initiative, then we should not be refunding that
portion. If she -- if the IBDC should not have been reimbursed until
those jobs were created and part of the underlying cost that they were
going to be reimbursed for was the salary, then this should not have
been disbursed 'til the end.
(At which time, Commissioner Taylor exited the boardroom.)
MS. KINZEL: Commissioner Nance, perhaps I can help clarify.
Commissioner Hiller, this is set up somewhat like your EII
contract is right now. You're paying expenses, you pay towards a goal.
If the goal isn't met in the end, you'll have to pay back the entire grant.
Those were the provisions of this grant. The Clerk disbursed
based on the information that was provided, the signature of the
department, the monitoring that was or was not completed. But the
validation of her payroll was there.
When we got towards the end of the program, we asked for the
validation of the jobs having been produced. That could not be
validated. They sent to HUD, asked for different methodology
considerations and that was denied.
So the disbursements during the course of the grant were perfectly
appropriate, approved, there was a person working as validated by the
staff, and that was the basis for the payment.
But in this grant, as in other grants that you get, if you don't
Page 233
March 24, 2015
perform at the end of the grant, you do pay back the funds.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The full amount, regardless --
MS. KINZEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- of the fact that you qualify along
the way.
What's EII?
MS. KINZEL: That's your current grant with Economic
Development. If they don't produce 208 jobs in five years, you will
have to pay back that 2.5 million --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, that's great, so --
MS. KINZEL: -- so it would be the same.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So then what is happening over
here, then disbursements under the EII are legitimate notwithstanding
jobs won't be created -- or proven created 'til the end, and that's what's
parallel here.
MR. OCHS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. Okay, I understand.
What was Penny Phillippi's role in all this?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: She was the one that solicited the grant.
MR. DURHAM: She was the executive director, ma'am, of the
CRA at the time of this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So was she working for the IBDC
at the time this was going on, or not?
MR. DURHAM: Well, she oversaw it as the executive director
of the CRA. And Maria Capita was the manager of the IBDC.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Penny Phillippi -- so if I
understand correctly -- what was the name of the lady that worked
there?
MR. DURHAM: Marie Capita.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So Marie Capita worked for Penny
Phillippi.
Page 234
March 24, 2015
MR. DURHAM: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And so Penny Phillippi was the
one who was responsible to ensure that her staff brought forward seven
new employees and failed to do so.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. This was an award to the Immokalee
CRA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And it was -- okay, so it
was basically Penny's responsibility to ensure that this was done and it
wasn't done.
MR. DURHAM: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Got it. I don't think there's any
choice but to return --
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Wasn't part of this job that
Marie was being paid for was training and teaching people how to go
out and get jobs and teaching people how to start businesses and how
to keep the books and so forth? There was more to it.
And in the end, the end result was also employees. But they first
wanted her to be going out and training is the way I understand it, and
teaching them how to run a business, right?
(At which time, Commissioner Henning exits the boardroom.)
MR. DURHAM: That's correct, ma'am. There was a large
number of workshops and training that took place throughout the entire
period. And the idea was that through that training, it would ultimately
produce --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. DURHAM: -- permanent jobs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Okay, just so -- I think that
that maybe wasn't said, so I just wanted to put that on the record as
well.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, but at the end of the day they
Page 235
March 24, 2015
could not directly track the requisite number of jobs as having been
created to become eligible to receive the money. So the determination
was made after exhaustive attempts that they would have to comply
with the grant and return the monies.
MR. DURHAM: Correct, sir. They never -- it's clear to me,
reviewing all this material, the training did take place, there was a lot
of training. There were some companies that did receive a modest
benefit, they received various certifications, but at the end of the day
they were not able to create sustainable permanent jobs.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What is the status currently of this
IBDC?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: It has expired.
MR. DURHAM: It expired, ma'am, in July of 2014.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: What happened -- didn't we make
some arrangement for them to have space?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Yeah, we rented them space, we
arranged space.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And what's the status of the lease
agreement for that space?
MR. DURHAM: I believe that's all expired and wrapped up at
this point.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Sad circumstance. But not central to the
mission of a Community Redevelopment Agency. It's an unfortunate
development.
Any further comments?
MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have a registered public speaker
for this item. The Iron Man Award goes to Marvin Courtright.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Marvin, you have all night. Take
your time. Don't rush. We're not going anywhere. We're used to
sitting in these chairs. We're comfortable.
MR. COURTRIGHT: Marvin Courtright, small business in
Page 236
March 24, 2015
Immokalee.
I thank you for the privilege of sitting here this late period of
time. You've answered a lot of questions in my mind of matters that
have taken place over the years in regard to the Immokalee area.
Specifically I attended a program in Miami that addressed the
CRA program. I attended at my own cost to become more
knowledgeable before I tried to become a member of the CRA in
Immokalee.
As a result of attending it, 32 pages of really good information. I
took the liberty of providing the entire Commission with copies of
these documents.
I'd like to just say that we should take advantage of what has
happened and upgrade the existing CRA in Immokalee and make sure
that we recognized Mr. Brad Muckel as capable of salvaging
something from this mess.
The -- they need an office; the CRA needs an office. I don't know
if any of you -- well, I think maybe one person, might have tried to
visit the CRA in Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I went there. I did a full tour.
MR. COURTRIGHT: How did you get there?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, they actually took me on an
air boat. And it was actually Brad who took me on a tour of the whole
area. And he -- I want to just interrupt you and please give him the
additional time.
But you are right, Brad has done a really great job and he should
be recognized. And one of the reasons I brought out the fact that
Penny was the one responsible is because the paper unfairly named
Brad and linked Brad to this issue when he was not involved with this
at all. And I think that was a very unfair characterization and clearly a
misstatement of fact.
And Brad, you know, should be supported and should be
Page 237
March 24, 2015
recognized. And as we are developing the east, you're right, we should
start looking at the right office space and the right support for the
Immokalee CRA so that it can grow with the community and really be
there to make a difference. Brad has already made a tremendous
difference and has done a great job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As well as the benefits that can be
received from a CRA --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a well functioning CRA.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. I mean, there's all sorts of
stuff, but Brad is really great and we should really request that our
staff, Leo, look into what resources -- hello? Hello.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You're pushing the button.
MR. OCHS: You turned yourself off.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I've never done that to myself in
my life.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Take your finger off.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: That's a new technique. I'm going to start
using that one. That works --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's like (inaudible sound). See, if
you go like that, it's fun.
But I think if staff would please look into the needs of the CRA
and see what, you know, what you might propose in working with
CRA staff, what we should do to help them and bring it forward.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Let me help you in that.
They need property evaluations to go up. They're broke. Now
they're really, really broke. Brad has done a great job.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: They've huddled down, they've hunkered
down, they've got some active grants in the process. Things are really
Page 238
March 24, 2015
central to their Immokalee CRA mission. I think things are --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: This is horrible. Absolutely
horrible. And at no fault of Brad. No fault of the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The Zocalo looks wonderful,
though. I just was down there. What a beautiful little place that is, that
Zocalo.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: I hope they really can start working on
some of the blight buildings downtown and hopefully this FDOT
money that's going to improve the road is going to help them, it's going
to raise some valuations, and I think the TIFF money will start going
back up so --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, just see what you can do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They've got sewers going in there
too, to help with their flooding problems.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: We have a motion and a second.
Hearing no further discussion, all those in --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Did you want to speak more?
CHAIRMAN NANCE: -- favor, signify by saying aye.
Thank you, Marvin, we've got your --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Marvin.
MR. COURTRIGHT: You've done a good job, thank you.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Your copies have been distributed to all
the Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you, Marvin. I was really
hoping to spend the evening with you here, but --
MR. COURTRIGHT: Good night.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Good night.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Aye.
Page 239
March 24, 2015
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Passes 3-0.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Commissioners.
Mr. Chairman, that takes you to Item 15, staff and commission
general communications. I have nothing this evening.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Commissioner Hiller? I'll go next then.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have to think about it.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Mr. Ochs is going to put a picture up
there. Now, my wife was out in the community. And I think
Commissioner Fiala has always told me she was a full-time
Commissioner, but we caught her modeling clothing on a runway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's hysterical.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: And my wife has taken this picture, so I
just wanted to share it with you. And I'm going to present
Commissioner Fiala with a copy. Doesn't she look amazing? I think
she could make a lot more money as a model than she can as a
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm blushing.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: See, we know about you, ma'am. We
follow you.
I don't have anything else. You want to make any comments,
Page 240
March 24, 2015
Commissioner Hiller? I think we've worn this out today.
I would thank the Board and thank all the people that are left for
their perseverance. I think we had actually a very broad discussion but
I think a good one. I feel like we comported ourselves well.
Mr. Ochs, do you have anything? You got the BCC workshop
schedule?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Congratulations on your first
meeting, Nick. You did great. I mean, you were just like -- you had so
much to say.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: That is your schedule, it's in your packet. So you'll
have a workshop in April and May and June and then back in October.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Back in October. All right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What are we going to do about that
landscaping business? Because it seems like you've got a bunch of
varied opinions on here as far as the usefulness of it, types of
landscaping, ways to manage it, ways to pay for it. And so far I hear --
I bet I hear five different opinions about it.
When are we going to be discussing that? Because I get a lot of
e-mails about it.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I would say probably within the next
30 days.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: You know, we're going to have a
discussion on MSTUs and roads, we're going to have a discussion on
MSTUs and landscaping.
MR. OCHS: We're going to try to do it all in one item.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Unless you want to do it in two steps.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: No, we can do that. We can do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's like a whole day's subject,
you know, just the two of them, don't you think? Because, I mean,
Page 241
March 24, 2015
you've got lots of them in your roads, I've got a few.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Well, put it to a workshop, if you'd like.
I wouldn't mind. I don't see how we're going to possibly cover that in
one agenda item unless we don't have anything else on the agenda.
That could go on. That's going to generate more questions than
answers I'm sure the first pass-through.
MR. OCHS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: At your -- I would say make us a
recommendation, Mr. Ochs, on how you think we ought to handle it.
Depending on what you come up with.
MR. OCHS: Yeah, you're definitely going to get a
recommendation, if not two.
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Okay. All right, any further from the
Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN NANCE: Hearing no further good for the county,
we'll declare ourselves in adjournment until the next meeting.
**** The following items under the Consent and Summary Agendas
were unanimously approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER UTILITY FACILITY
FOR CULVERS NAPLES AIRPORT ROAD, PL20130001819,
AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS
DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $7,650.38 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER
OR THE DEVELOPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Page 242
March 24, 2015
Item #16A2
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND NO.
40094491 IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,500 WHICH WAS POSTED
AS A GUARANTY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NUMBER
60.081, (PL20120000747) FOR WORK ASSOCIATED WITH
CAMDEN LAKES — THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THIS
SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND THE DEVELOPER
HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
Item #16A3
CLERK OF COURTS RELEASE OF A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $12,030 WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR WORK ASSOCIATED
WITH FREEDOM SUITES SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EARLY
WORK AUTHORIZATION (EWA) PL20130000663 — THE WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECURITY HAS BEEN INSPECTED
AND THE DEVELOPER HAS FULFILLED HIS COMMITMENTS
Item #16A4
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF PARKLANDS - PLAT ONE,
(APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001253) APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL
APPROVAL LETTER
Page 243
March 24, 2015
Item #16A5 — With additional requirements (Per Agenda Change
Sheet and as referenced below)
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF GOLF CLUB OF THE
EVERGLADES PHASE 1, (APPLICATION NUMBER
PL20140001653) APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY — AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT AUTHORIZES
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO ADMINISTRATIVELY UPDATE
DEDICATION #4 ON THE PLAT FROM EAST NAPLES FIRE
CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT TO GREATER NAPLES
FIRE RESCUE DISTRICT PRIOR TO RECORDING THE PLAT
Item #16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF TUSCANY POINTE 2,
(APPLICATION NUMBER PL20140001338) APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY — DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL
APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A7
AWARD INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 15-6369, AIRPORT
ROAD (US41 EAST TO COUGAR DRIVE) MAINTENANCE TO
FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE INC — TO MAINTAIN SIX (6)
MILES OF MEDIAN LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Page 244
March 24, 2015
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2015-52: A REVISED LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION IN PLACE OF A PRIOR VERSION
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON MAY 27, 2014,
WHEREIN COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE REIMBURSED UP
TO $400,000 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ADVANCE
INTERSECTION SIGNS AT VARIOUS URBAN COUNTY SITES
— LAP AGREEMENT #430875-1-58-01
Item #16A9
EXECUTION OF A FUNDING ASSISTANCE LETTER TO THE
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)
FOR SHORELINE PROTECTION WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY —
A REQUEST FOR SUFFICIENT FUNDING TO CONDUCT A
FEASIBILITY COST SHARE AGREEMENT, PROJECT
MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT FEASIBILITY
STUDY IN THE UPCOMING CIVIL WORKS INVESTIGATIONS
WORK PLAN
Item #16A10
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER
COUNTY, AND COLLIER COUNTY, TO EXTEND THE
DEADLINE FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL L WITHIN COLLIER COUNTY — LOCATED OFF OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD NEAR MOULDER DRIVE; THE STUDY
Page 245
March 24, 2015
WAS TO BE COMPLETE BY DECEMBER 31, 2014 BUT THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE THE SCHHOL
BEING CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE NEXT 5 YEARS
Item #16A11
AWARD ITB #15-6394 FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE
AT THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND
44TH STREET SW TO ONPOWER SERVICES, LLC, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $297,391.85 FOR PROJECT #60172 — TO
UPGRADE EXISTING SPAN WIRE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION TO A STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY
Item #16Al2
AWARD ITB #15-6393 FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPGRADE
AT THE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND
TROPICANA BOULEVARD TO HIGHWAY SAFETY DEVICES,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $479,967.30 FOR PROJECT #60172 —
UPGRADING THE EXISTING SPAN WIRE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION TO A STEEL MAST ARM ASSEMBLY
Item #16A13
THE RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $66,977. 18, FOR PAYMENT OF $677. 18,
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. EBED GUADARRAMA
AND IRMA GUADARRAMA, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE CASE
NO. CESD20130004682, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 831 EVERGLADES BLVD. N., COLLIER COUNTY,
Page 246
March 24, 2015
FLORIDA — CODE VIOLATIONS FOR THREE STRUCTURES
ERECTED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PERMITS AND
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2014
Item #16A14
THE PARTIAL RELEASE OF 55 CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS
WITH A COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $10,108.85 FOR
PAYMENT OF $1,091.21, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
VS. CAPRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
CASE NOS. CENA20120012920, CENA20120012922,
CENA20120012918, CENA20130003493, CENA20130003492,
CENA20130003495, CENA20130007036, CENA20130007231,
CENA20130007218 AND CENA20130007230, RELATING TO
PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1410 MARION LANE, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA — PARTIAL RELEASE IS FOR A
DIFFERENT PROPERTY WHICH CONTAINS NO CODE
VIOLATIONS OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY, CAPRI
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Item#16A 15
THE RELEASE OF THREE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS
WITH A COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $531,150 FOR
PAYMENT OF $450, IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
ENTITLED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. PALM
LAKE, LLC., CODE ENFORCEMENT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE
CASE NO. CEPM20090017229 AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD CASE NOS. CENA20100002928 AND CEV20100003082,
RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3131 TAMIAMI
Page 247
March 24, 2015
TRAIL EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA —
CENA20100002928 WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
MARCH 18, 2014, CEPM20090017229 ON MAY 3, 2011 AND
CEV20100003082 ON MARCH 18, 2014
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 2015-53: A SECOND AMENDMENT TO JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COLLIER
COUNTY TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ON THE FDOT RESURFACING
PROJECT ON SR951 FROM FIDDLER'S CREEK PARKWAY TO
SOUTH OF SR 90, ALONG WITH THE COUNTY'S US-41 AND
SR/CR-951 INTERSECTION PROJECT; A RESOLUTION
MEMORIALIZING THE BOARD'S ACTION; AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT; PROJECT #60116
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2015-54: A REVISED LOCAL AGENCY
PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, IN PLACE OF A PREVIOUS VERSION
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD SEPTEMBER 9,
2014, WHEREIN COLLIER COUNTY WILL BE REIMBURSED
UP TO $491,322 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS
SIDEWALKS IN GOLDEN GATE CITY (20TH CT. SW, 46TH
TERR. SW AND 48TH ST. SW). THE PRIMARY REVISION
CHANGES THE GRANT EXPIRATION AND CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION DATE FROM DECEMBER 31, 2017 TO
NOVEMBER 22, 2016, WITH NO CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT
Page 248
March 24, 2015
OF THE AWARD — SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FALL 2015
Item #16A18
A "DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AGREEMENT" WITH THE COLLIER
COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS (CLERK) TO ESTABLISH AND
MAINTAIN A DEPOSIT ACCOUNT USED FOR PAYMENT TO
RECORD NOTICES OF COMMENCEMENT BY THE CLERK
THAT HAVE BEEN ELECTRONICALLY FORWARDED BY
COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF AS A CONVENIENCE TO ITS BUILDING PERMIT
CUSTOMERS — IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE NOC
CONVENIENCE FEE REVENUES COLLECTED WILL BE
OFFSET BY THE COSTS OF PROVIDING THE SERVICE
Item #16A19
AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROMOTIONAL FUND GRANT
AWARD AGREEMENT, MODIFYING THE COMPLETION
DATE TO OCTOBER 31, 2015 FOR THE COUNTY'S
CONSTRUCTION OF ARTIFICIAL REEFS AND THE
CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AMENDED AGREEMENT —
ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE
MINIMUM AMOUNT OF 6000 TONS OF ARTIFICAL REEF
MATERIAL AS STATED IN THE GRANT
Item #16C1
A $340,537 WORK ORDER TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES USA,
INC., UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #14-6213-21 FOR
UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR
Page 249
March 24, 2015
THE WASTEWATER PUMP STATION 104.05
REHABILITATION PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 70046 —
LOCATED ON MILL POND CIRCLE WITHIN THE EMERALD
LAKES COMMUNITY
Item #16C2
A $468,196 WORK ORDER TO DOUGLAS N. HIGGINS, INC.,
UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #14-6213-22 FOR
UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES FOR
THE WASTEWATER PUMP STATION 151 .00
REHABILITATION PROJECT, PROJECT NUMBER 70046; AND
THE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — LOCATED ON
BENT TREE LANE SERVICING THE STONEBRIDGE
COMMUNITY (PREVIOUSLY SOUTH HAMPTON)
Item #16C3
A $495,140.95 WORK ORDER TO QUALITY ENTERPRISES
USA, INC., UNDER REQUEST FOR QUOTATION #14-6213-23
FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONTRACTING SERVICES
FOR THE WASTEWATER PUMP STATION 147.00
REHABILITATION PROJECT NUMBER 70046; AND THE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT — LOCATED WITHIN
KENSINGTON GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB
Item #16D1
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING RECOVERY OF
COUNTY FUNDS IN CONNECTION WITH A CLAIM
INVOLVING A COLLIER AREA TRANSIT BUS SHELTER —
Page 250
March 24, 2015
DAMAGE FROM AN AUTO ACCIDENT ON THE WEST SIDE
OF AIRPORT ROAD, JUST NORTH OF ARDISIA LANE
Item #16D2
A REVISED FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SECTION
5339 FY2013/2014 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
AND TRANSMITTAL TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) — CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S
ERROR ON THE APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Item #16D3
EXECUTION OF THE 2013/2014 FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDS GRANT AWARD FOR
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF BUS SHELTERS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $294,000 AND APPROPRIATE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT — FOR THE INSTALLATION OF UP TO 24
SHELTERS WITH A 20% MATCH REQUIRED
Item #16D4
EXECUTION OF THE 2014/2015 FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION FLEXIBLE FUNDS GRANT AWARD FOR
THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF BUS SHELTERS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $287,124 AND APPROPRIATE A BUDGET
AMENDMENT — FOR THE INSTALLATION OF UP TO 12
SHELTERS AND REQUIRES A 20% MATCH
Item #16D5
Page 251
March 24, 2015
A STANDARD DONATION AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS
MARCO A. ESPINAR TO DONATE A 2.26 ACRE PARCEL
ALONG WITH A MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $8,802.70
TO THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION
PROGRAM UNDER THE OFFSITE VEGETATION RETENTION
PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC SEC
3.05.07H. 1.F.III. (B), AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DONATION
AGREEMENT AND STAFF TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY
ACTIONS TO CLOSE — FOLIO #39493200103 LOCATED IN RED
MAPLE SWAMP PRESERVE IN NORTH GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES
Item #16D6
A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING $29,128.43 OF
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(SHIP) PROGRAM INCOME FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013/2014 —
EARNED FROM MAY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2014 FROM
INTEREST AND LOAN REPAYMENTS
Item #16D7
A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE FY2013-2014 AND
FY2014-2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT ANNUAL ACTION PLANS AUTHORIZING
COMMUNITY AND HUMAN SERVICES STAFF TO
ADMINISTER A RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO
PREVENT HOMELESSNESS USING EMERGENCY
SOLUTIONS GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,226
AND APPROVE NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS — AS
Page 252
March 24, 2015
DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item#16D8
RESOLUTION 2015-55: SUBMITTAL OF AN AFTER-THE-FACT
GRANT APPLICATION FOR $516,816 TO FUND THE
EXPANSION OF THE IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX
FITNESS CENTER THROUGH THE FY2015-2016 HOUSING
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) —NO MATCH
REQUIRED, HOWEVER PARKS AND RECREATION IS
MATCHING $24,353 FOR PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
Item #16E1
CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN THE REQUEST FOR
A FIRST YEAR TAX LEVY FOR THE FIDDLER'S CREEK
MUNICIPAL RESCUE AND FIRE SERVICES MSTU, WHICH
SHOULD HAVE READ "2015 TAX YEAR" RATHER THAN
"2016 TAX YEAR"
Item #16E2
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, DEPARTMENT
OF FIRE RESCUE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR
MUTUAL AID SERVICES — MUTUALLY ADVENTAGEOUS
WITH THE OPENING OF THE ALLIGATOR ALLEY PUBLIC
SAFETY CENTER TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AND/OR
MANPOWER IF NEEDED TO HELP CONTROL EMERGENCIES
OR AID IN THE RESCUE OF PERSONS
Page 253
March 24, 2015
Item #16E3 — Continued (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
AWARD RFP #14-6307 "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR GENERAL
CONTRACTORS SERVICES" TO THE FOLLOWING FIRMS:
BRADANNA, INC., SURETY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., PBS
CONTRACTORS, AND COMPASS CONSTRUCTION, INC
Item #16E4
REMOVE THE GOODLAND FIRE DISTRICT MSTU FROM
CONSIDERATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE PROVISION FOR
FIRE SERVICE — A REQUEST BY MARCO ISLAND FIRE
DEPARTMENT
Item #16F1
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY "B" FUNDING TO
SUPPORT THE PRO WATERCROSS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
SEPTEMBER 19-28, 2015, AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND MAKE A FINDING THIS
EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM — WILL BE HELD AT
LAKE AVALON IN SUGDEN PARK
Item #16F2
RESOLUTION 2015-56: AMENDING AND RESTATING
RESOLUTION 2015-36 IN SUPPORT OF PROSPECT #15-011, AS
A QUALIFIED APPLICANT TO FLORIDA'S QUALIFIED
TARGET INDUSTRIES (QTI) TAX REFUND PROGRAM,
PROVIDING UP TO $48,000 OF LOCAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT
Page 254
March 24, 2015
FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT FIRM IN COLLIER COUNTY THAT WILL
CREATE 40 NEW QUALITY JOBS, AND APPROVE ANY
BUDGET AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO PROCESS THIS
TRANSACTION — AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16F3
RESOLUTION 2015-57: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F4 — Moved to Item #11B (Per Commissioner Henning
during Agenda Changes)
Item #16G1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO A COMMERCIAL AVIATION
OPERATIONS LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND CAREER
FLIGHT TRAINING AND AIRCRAFT RENTAL, INC., AT THE
MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT — CORRECTING THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE OFFICE SPACE AND ADDING A
STANDARD PROVISION FOR LATE PAYMENT FEES
Item #16H1
RESOLUTION 2015-58: APPOINTING RONALD KEZESKE TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY AUTHORITY FOR A
Page 255
March 24, 2015
FOUR YEAR TERM TO EXPIRE ON MARCH 24, 2019
Item #16H2
RESOLUTION 2015-59: APPOINTING BARBARA BELL TO
THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE MSTU
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO A FOUJR YEAR TERM
EXPIRING ON APRIL 21, 2019
Item #16H3
RESOLUTION 2015-60: APPOINTING ANDREW J. DEAN (TO
FILL A VACANT TERM EXPIRING JUNE 12, 2017) AND
ROBERT R. JONES (TO A FOUR YEAR TERM EXPIRING ON
APRIL 13, 2019 TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
Item #16H4 (Withdrawn during Agenda Changes)
RESOLUTION 2015-61 : RE-APPOINTING JULIO ESTREMERA,
MICHAEL FACUNDO, FRANK NAPPO, CRISTINA PEREZ,
JAMES WALL AND CARRIE WILLIAMS TO THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Item #16H5
RESOLUTION 2015-62: COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REQUEST THAT THE FLORIDA
LEGISLATURE SUPPORT THE FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES EXTENSION SERVICES AND
Page 256
March 24, 2015
RESEARCH AND EDUCATION CENTERS, IN SUPPORT OF
LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND STATEWIDE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND AGRIBUSINESS INDUSTRY, AND TO
DELIVER THE RESOLUTION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY
LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND OTHER ELECTED STATE
OFFICIALS
Item #16J1
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 5 THROUGH
MARCH 11, 2015
Item #16J2
BOARD DECLARATION OF EXPENDITURES SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND APPROVAL OF
DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD OF MARCH 12
THROUGH MARCH 18, 2015
Item #16K1
A STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$14,000 FOR PARCEL 232DAME IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN LESPADE, ET AL., CASE NO. 14-
CA-2316 (LASIP PROJECT NO. 51101 — CREWS ROAD, COPE
LANE AND SANDY LANE/WING SOUTH INTERCONNECT).
(FISCAL IMPACT $7,270) — TAKEN FOR A DRAINAGE,
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
Page 257
March 24, 2015
Item #16K2
TENTATIVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS, IN THE CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. VINEYARDS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, DEBRA LEE GOGAN, AMELIA SOSA, AND
ASTRID RAMIREZ, WHICH REQUIRE DEFENDANTS TO
COLLECTIVELY REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR THE FULL
AMOUNT OF DAMAGES, PLUS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS,
TOTALING $26,800 — FOR DAMAGES TO A COUNTY
CONTROL BOX DURING A VEHICLE COLLISION ON
OCTOBER 29, 2013
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2015-63: PETITION VAC-PL20140002643 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 20-FOOT
UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT RUNNING THROUGH
THE BACK YARD OF LOT 10, RIVIERA COLONY GOLF
ESTATES, UNIT IV, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, PAGES
88 AND 89 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2015-24: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-11,
ADDING CRITERIA SPECIFICALLY FOR "KEY ISLAND" TO
PROVIDE FOR CONSISTENCY IN ACTIVITIES ALLOWABLE
BY LOCAL LAW AND FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Page 258
March 24, 2015
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2015-64: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Page 259
March 24, 2015
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:17 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
TIM NANCE, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
_latest as tb:Cha an's
siOnative only.
These minutes app by the Board on 1.4 lab I/
as presented rove or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting,
Incorporated by Cherie' R. Nottingham, CSR.
Page 260