BCC Minutes 11/27/2001 RNovember 27, 2001
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
NOVEMBER 27, 2001
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 9:02 a.m. In
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: James D. Carter, Ph.D.
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
ALSO PRESENT:
Tom Olliff, County Manager
Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
November 27, 2001
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
1
November27,2001
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Swearing-in of Commissioner Fred Coyle by Judge Brousseau
B. Reverend Grant Thigpen, New Hope Ministries
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
B. November 6, 2001 Workshop
m
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation for Collier County Adoption Month. To be accepted by Terry
Iamurri and Debbie Allen.
Proclamation for World Aids Day for December 1,2001. To be accepted by
Andrea Taylor, Chris Hatch, Arlene Lindell and Betty Aubut.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five-Year Attendees:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Anne Viera, Emergency Medical Services
Archimed Valcin, Parks and Recreation
Juvert Calero, Emergency Medical Services
Penelope Costin, Library
Carolyn Allyn, Parks and Recreation
Fifteen-Year Attendees:
2
November 27, 2001
6) Linda Swisher, Emergency Medical Services
5. PRESENTATIONS
Recommendation to recognize Beverly Fields, Lieutenant, Emergency
Medical Services, as Employee of the Month for October 2001.
Be
Recommendation to recognize Ray Higdon, Database Administrator,
Information Technology, as Employee of the Month for November 2001.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. Public Comments on General Topics
Be
Public Petition request to discuss the efforts of local safety counselors to
promote safe practices among our general aviation pilots
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ao
This item was continued from the November 13~ 2001 BCC Meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SV-2001-
AR1265, Bo Gallagher, representing Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., requesting
a 5 foot variance from the required 150 foot road frontage for a pole sign to
145 feet for a property located on 5495 Airport Road North in Section 11,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The property is
an outparcel of the Bed, Bath and Beyond Shopping Center.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDA-2001-AR-834,
William L. Hoover, Trustee, representing Bucks Run Land Trust and The
Restoration Church Inc. requesting an amendment to the Bucks Run PUD
having the effect of adding a child care center as a permitted use on the
western 15+ acres or 60 dwelling units, and a maximum of 288 affordable
housing dwelling units on the eastern 24+ acres, for property located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 700 ft. North of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
3
November27,2001
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 38.99+ acres.
B. This item has been deleted.
This item was continued from the November 13, 2001 BCC Meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-2001-
AR-500, R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. Of Young, VanAssenderp, Vamadoe and
Anderson, P.A., representing the Skinner and Broadbent Development
Company, Inc., contract purchaser, requesting to repeal the current Falling
Waters Beach Resort PUD and to adopt a new PUD for the purpose of
adding self-storage (SIC #4225) to the list of permitted uses and removing
some of the permitted uses including restaurants, fast foods restaurants, food
markets and automobile service stations from the community commercial
tracts of the PUD. The subject property is located in the East side of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) approximately 400 feet North of Tamiami Trail and
Collier Boulevard Intersection in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. The Falling Water PUD consists of 74.37
acres. The community commercial tracts consist of 4+ acres.
De
This item was continued from the November 13, 2001 BCC Meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-2001-AR-
1376, Carolos Morales of La Quinta Homes of SW Florida, Inc., requesting
a rezone from its current zoning classification of"RSF-3" residential single
family zoning district to "RMF-6" residential multi-family district for a
property located at 5211 24th Avenue SW in Golden Gate City and is further
described as Lot 1, Block 194, Golden Gate Unit 6, Section 21, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This site consists of 12500
square feet.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2001-AR-986,
Karen Bishop of Project Management Services Inc., representing Kenneth P.
Saundry, Jr., Trustee, requesting a rezone from "RSF-3" and "A" Rural
Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Walnut
Lakes PUD permitting a 4.5 acre village center, a maximum of 612
residential dwelling units and adult living facility units, and a 9-hole golf
course with related lakes and open space, for property located on the North
side of US 41 approximately 3 miles East of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in
4
November 27, 2001
9e
10.
Fe
Ge
Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 204+ acres.
This item has been deleted.
This item was continued from the November 13~ 2001 BCC Meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUD2000-21, Robert
L. Duane, A.I.C.P., of Hole Montes Inc., representing Robert Vocisano and
Angelo Favretto, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development to be known as Terafina PUD for a maximum of
850 residential dwelling units, golf course and clubhouse, for property
located approximately 1.5 miles east of 1-75, one mile North of Immokalee
Road (CR 846) in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 646.5+ acres.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Recommendation that the Board take whatever steps are necessary to review
and make decisions regarding the three administratively approved variances
referenced in the Clerk of Courts Audit. (Commissioner Henning)
Be
Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
C. Appointment of members to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A®
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
implementation of the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget reduction and
expenditure control plan. (Thomas W. Olliff, County Manager)
Bo
A Resolution authorizing the issuance of not exceeding $55,200,000 in
aggregate principal amount of Collier County, Florida Capital Improvement
Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 in order to effect such financing and
refinancing; providing certain terms and details of said bonds, including
authorizing a negotiated sale of said bonds; delegating certain authority to
the Chairman for the execution and delivery of a purchase contract;
appointing the paying agent and registrar for said bonds; providing an
5
November 27, 2001
11.
12.
De
effective date; and selecting underwriters (RFP 02-3312) in anticipation of
issuing said bonds. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of Management
and Budget)
Request Board approval to purchase equipment and engineering services to
expand the Simulcast Component of the County's 800 MHz Radio System.
(Jo-Anne Learner, Administrative Services Administrator)
Amend Professional Services Agreement with Hazen and Sawyer, PC, for
engineering services to expand the North County Water Reclamation
Facility, Project 73950. (Thomas G. Wides, Interim Public Utilities
Administrator)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ae
This item was continued from the November 13~ 2001 BCC Meeting.
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board recommendation for adoption of a
Resolution requesting dialogue between Immokalee Growers and Farm
Workers.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
15.
FUTURE AGENDAS
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.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) CARNY-2001-AR-1714, Sandra Ramos, Program Leader II,
Immokalee Collier County Parks and Recreation, requesting a permit
0
November 27, 2001
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
to conduct the 8th annual Carnival Around the World, on December 8,
2001, at the Immokalee Sports Complex.
Petition CARNY-2001-AR-1699, Peg Ruby, Special Events
Coordinator, Collier County Parks and Recreation Department,
requesting permit to conduct the annual Snowfest Carnival on
December 1,2001, on county owned property at the Golden Gate
Community Park, 3300 Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Raymond Berube representing the Berube Brothers Inc. requesting a
fee waiver for an after-the-fact variance application for a swimming
pool encroaching into the required setbacks.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Venezia at Grey Oaks".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Cedar Hammock -
Unit 6" and approval of the standard form construction and
maintenance agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Approve an agreement to accept a derelict vessel removal grant from
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
7)
8)
9)
Final acceptance of Water and Sewer Facilities for Doubletree Hotel.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Quail Phase III,
Unit Four" and approval of the standard form construction and
maintenance agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Ibis Cove, Phase
Two-A" and approval of the standard form construction and
maintenance agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
Approval of the mortgage and promissory note for a one hundred
eighty thousand ($180,000) dollar loan to the Shelter for Abused
Women of Collier County assisting in the construction of a 60 unit
7
November 27, 2001
ii)
12)
affordable transitional housing shelter.
Fiscal Year 2002 Tourism Agreement between Collier County and the
Tourism Alliance of Collier County regarding advertising, promotion
and special events.
Request to review the Board's previous decision to present a Special
Treatment Permit and Final Plat for Little Palm Island simultaneously.
Be
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Request Board approval of a budget amendment transferring funds,
$15,500, from Reserves for the San Marco Road Culvert Project.
Approve Change Order # 1 to Work Order #BRC-FT-01-03 for
Intersection Improvements at Santa Barbara Boulevard/Golden Gate
Parkway, Project #60016, in the amount of $8,602.18.
Establishment of a "No Fishing" restriction on Bridge Number
030210, Plantation Parkway over the Everglades Drainage Canal.
Accept an access and maintenance easement from the Fountains
Condominium that will facilitate the county in maintaining an existing
drainage easement North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the acquisition by gift or purchase of
right-of-way in fee simple title, as well as perpetual, non-exclusive
drainage and utility easements, temporary driveway restoration
easements, and temporary construction easements which will be
required for the construction of roadway, drainage, and utility
improvements for Phase One of the Immokalee Road four-laning
project (from just West of Wilson Boulevard to 43rd Avenue
Northeast), Project No. 60018.
Award RFP01-3296 -Bayshore Street Lighting to Lumec Inc. in the
amount of $122,182 which are available in the Bayshore MSTU Fund
160.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
8
November27,2001
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
6)
Award BID #01-3295 for the purchase of sodium chlorite for odor
control of hydrogen sulfide in sludge to Vulcan Performance
Chemicals in the amount of $44,900.
Authorize Public Utilities Administrator to negotiate a binding
agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection
related to reclaimed water storage ponds at Eagle Lakes Park.
Approve funding and an amendment to a Work Order for construction
engineering inspection services for a 12" water main on East US 41
from Manatee Road to Boyne South and a 6" force main from Pump
Station 3.17 to Boyne South, Projects 70862 and 73061 in the amount
of $28,800.
Authorize funds for additional county utility relocations in
conjunction with US 41 road widening from Myrtle Road to Old US
41, Projects 70047, 70048 and 73048 in the amount of $275,960.62.
This item has been deleted.
Approve the emergency after-the-fact purchase of a line stop for a 24"
ductile iron force main in the amount of $25,900.
7)
Approve funding for final payment for legal counsel related to
Lawsuit against Boyle Engineering Corporation for claims arising
from the design and construction of the original North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 70002 in the amount of
$32,009.33.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
2)
Authorization to accept a position for Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods funded by a University of Florida grant at no cost to
the County.
Award Work Order PBS-01-03 to Professional Building Systems
(PBS), Inc., for the construction of South Marco Beach Access
Restroom Facility in the amount of $85,939.
9
November 27, 2001
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Fo
1) This item has been deleted.
2)
Award Contract #01-3235 Annual Contract for Architectural Services
for Collier County to Disney and Associates, Victor Latavish,
Schenkel Schultz Architecture and Barany, Schmitt, Summers,
Weaver and Partners Inc.
3)
Award of Bid #01-3298 for Temporary Clerical Services to Coastal
Staffing Service Inc., Manpower, Kelly Services and Adecco
Employment Services.
4)
Approve Shortlist of Firms for Contract 01-3289 Fixed Term
Professional Mechanical Electrical Engineering Services to CH2M
Hill, Anchor Engineering Consultants, TECO BGA Inc., and Tilden
Lobnitz Cooper.
s)
Award of Bid #01-3287 for Office Supplies to Corporate Express and
Marco Office Supply.
6)
Award of Bid #01-3286 for Handyman/Minor Carpentry Services to
Bradanna Inc., Wm. J. Varian and Made in Rio, Inc.
7) This item has been deleted.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
For approval of a service agreement with Medtronic Physio-Control
for the Maintenance and Upgrade of Lifepak Monitors for the
Emergency Medical Services Department in the amount of $31,404
for FY02.
G. COUNTY MANAGER
Je
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
10
November 27, 2001
Ke
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
17.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the easement
acquisition of Parcel 13-70 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
John B. Fassett, Trustee, et al, (Livingston Road Project, Project No.
65041).
2)
Authorize the making of an offer of judgment to respondents Peter B.
Frank and Ann T. Frank for Parcels 155 and 855 in the Lawsuit styled
Collier County v. RonaM G. Bender and Michele J. Bender, Trustees
Under That Certain Declaration of Trust Dated the 17th Day of May,
1991, et al, Case No. 98-1394-CA (Livingston Road Extension -
Golden Gate Parkway to Radio Road) Project No. 60061.
3)
Authorize the making of an offer of judgment to respondents,
Kathleen G. Sedlacek and Donald E. Cline, for Parcels 219 and 219T
in the amount of $5,100.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Kathryn Hankins, et al, Case No. 99-1296-CA. Project No. 63041.
(Golden Gate Boulevard Project)
4)
Authorize the making of an offer of judgment to respondent, H.R.
Moag, Jr., for Parcel 218 in the amount of $800.00 in the lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Kathryn Hankins, et al, Case No. 99-1296-
CA. Project No. 63041. (Golden Gate Boulevard Project)
5)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the condemnation of
Parcel No. 169 in Collier County v. George Visnich, et al, Case No.
91-2776-CA. (Pine Ridge Industrial Park MSTU Project from 1991)
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
November 27, 2001
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.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-2001-
AR-881, William L. Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development Inc.
representing the Salvation Army, a not for profit organization, requesting to
repeal thc current Salvation Army PUD and to adopt a new PUD for the
purpose of increasing the site area by 0.73 acres and adding motor vehicle
display and sales to thc list of permitted uses for the Commercial Tract of
the PUD. The subject property is located on the West side of Airport Road
South of Estey Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 8.51 acres.
This item was continued from the November 13~ 2001 BCC Meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition RZ-2001-AR-
1208, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc.
representing Larry J. and Marcy A. Godc requesting a rezone from its
current zoning classification of"C-3" Commercial Intermediate Zoning
District to "RMF-6" residential multi-family district for a property located
on the North side of 109th Avenue North approximately 275 feet West of
Tamiami Trail North and is further described as Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park
Unit 1, Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida. This site consists of 6750 square feet.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SNR-2001-AR-1503,
the Operations Department of the Community Development and
Environmental Services Division, representing the Transportation
Administrator, requesting a street name change for a portion of Livingston
Road North and South to Old Livingston Road, located in Unit 35, Golden
Gate Estates, in Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and also in
Section 6, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
12
November 27, 2001
De
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition CU-2001-AR-
371, RWA Inc., representing Hideout Golf Club Ltd., requesting a
Conditional Use for earth mining activity on a parcel of land zoned "A"
Agricultural for a property located at the Southeast intersection of Kean
Avenue (A.K.A. Brantley Boulevard) and Garland Road, approximately two
miles East of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 25, Township 49 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This parcel consists of
approximately 20.5 acres.
Ee
This item was continued from the November 13~ 2001 BCC Meeting.
Approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, ratifying and further authorizing the more efficient
administration of the County's Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) by providing for participation in the CDBG Program
through Federal Fiscal Years 2001-2005, and by providing for more clearly
defined delegation of signature authority for CDBG Program documents to
specified county officials; providing for conflict and severability; and
providing for an effective date.
Fe
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. ¥A-2001-AR-1295,
Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes Inc., representing Collier County
Public Utilities/Wastewater Administration, requesting a three (3) foot
variance from the required thirty (30) foot side yard setback to 27 feet for a
proposed sludge holding tank in the "A" Rural Agriculture Zoning district
for property located at 5600 Warren Street in Section 20, Township 50
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Ge
An Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 72-1, as amended,
which created the Collier County Lighting District; to add Willoughby Acres
to the Collier County Lighting District; to amend the existing district
boundaries to include those areas of Immokalee not currently part of the
Collier County Lighting District; providing for inclusion in Code of Laws
and Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability; providing an
effective date.
18. ADJOURN
13
November27,2001
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
November 27, 2001
November 27, 2001
Item #lB
INVOCATION BY THE REVEREND GRANT THIGPEN, NEW
HOPE MINISTRIES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mudd, can you-- are we live?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the November 27th board meeting, Board of County
Commissioners. It is now nine o'clock, and would you please join
with me in the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. The invocation
this morning is -- we have Reverend Grant Thigpen of New Hope
Ministries
REVEREND THIGPEN: Let us pray. Father, we thank you
this morning for the privilege of living in the United States of
America, for it is the land of the free and home of the brave. Lord,
we ask that you be with all the brave men and women this morning
that are serving faithfully in our armed forces, both at home and
abroad. We ask, Lord, that you be with those that are in harm's way
this morning, that you help them accomplish their assigned tasks and
that you bring them home quickly.
Now, Lord, we ask that you be with us this morning as we
conduct the necessary business of government. We pray, Lord, that
every matter would be given due and proper consideration, that every
decision would be made for the good of the whole community. We
seek your guidance and seek your blessings in Jesus' name. Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #lA
SWEARING-IN OF COMMISSIONER FRED COYLE BY JUDGE
Page 2
November 27, 2001
BROUSSEAU
CARTER: The first thing we're going to do this morning -- it
will be a great pleasure to have Judge Brousseau come forward.
We're going to have the swearing in of Commissioner Fred Coyle
from District 4.
So, good morning, Your Honor.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Coyle, I was going to put you
right down there and raise your right hand and do all the good things.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Congratulations. Due to recent current
local events, the citizens of Collier County have high expectations,
and you must show them that you are honest and frank in all things
you do. I recommend that -- if you haven't, that you read the Florida
Constitution. If you'll permit me, I'll read the beginning, a short
portion. This is the preamble (as read): "We, the people of the State
of Florida, be grateful to almighty God for our constitutional liberties
in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, ensure
domestic tranquility, maintain public order and guarantee equal civil
and political rights to all do ordain and establish this constitution."
Section 1, very short (as read): "Political power. All political
power is inherent in the people. We must never forget we serve the
people; the people don't serve us."
If you would raise your right hand.
MR. COYLE: Could I have my wife up here for this, please?
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Raise your right hand. Repeat after
me. I do solemnly swear or affirm--
MR. COYLE: I do solemnly swear--
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- that I will support, protect, and
defend --
MR. COYLE: -- that I will support, protect, and defend--
Page 3
November 27, 2001
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- the constitution and government--
MR. COYLE: -- the constitution and government--
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- of the United States --
MR. COYLE: -- of the United States --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- and of the State of
Florida --
MR. COYLE: -- and of the State of Florida --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- that I'm duly qualified to hold
office --
MR. COYLE: -- that I'm duly qualified to hold office --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- under the constitution of the state --
MR. COYLE: -- under the constitution of the state --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- and that I will well and faithfully --
MR. COYLE: -- that I will well and faithfully--
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- perform the duties of Collier County
commissioner --
MR. COYLE: -- perform the duties of Collier County
commissioner --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- on which I'm now about to enter --
MR. COYLE: -- on which I'm now about to enter --
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: -- so help me God.
MR. COYLE: -- so help me God.
JUDGE BROUSSEAU: Congratulations.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, now we can say officially,
welcome aboard, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's our pleasure to have you here to
serve with us, and we will look forward to your input and help in the
deliberations that you will be going through today and for many days
Page 4
November 27,2001
ahead.
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDAS-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Mr. -- moving to our regular agenda, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Welcome aboard, Commissioner Coyle.
The changes that we have for you this morning are fairly brief.
I'll walk you through them. The first is a continuance of Item 5-A
which was an employee of the month, and that was actually at the
recipient's request.
Item 10-C which was a request of the board to purchase some
800-megahertz radio equipment has been withdrawn at staff's request.
Item 16-A-12 from the consent agenda is being moved to Item
10-E, as in "Edward." That is the request for the board to review a
previous decision regarding a special treatment permit and final plat
for Little Palm Island simultaneously. That's being moved to the
regular agenda at the petitioner's request.
There are two additional items that are not on your change list
that I needed to point out. Item 16-B, as in "boy," 3 has been
requested to be continued to a meeting in January. That is an item
regarding a no-fishing ban on a bridge between Everglades City and
Chockoloskee.
The next item is Item 17-B, as in "boy," off of your summary
agenda. The petitioner has requested that that item be continued to
the meeting of December 11 th.
Item 17-D, as in "David," from your summary agenda is being
moved to Item 7-B, as in "boy," on your regular agenda. That is a
Page 5
November 27, 2001
request, a petition for conditional use for Hideout Golf Club, Ltd., for
an earth-mining activity. That's being moved to the regular agenda at
the public's request.
The last item, Mr. Chairman, that I have on your change list is to
move Item 17-G to Item 8-H on your regular agenda. It's an
ordinance amending the Collier County Lighting District Ordinance
adding certain streets in the Willoughby Acres community, and that
item will be on your regular agenda at the staff's request and I also
believe at least one of the commissioner's request as well.
Mr. Chairman, that's all the changes that I have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, staff did an excellent job
of answering all my questions before this meeting.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask Tom if-- just
for the record, I also pulled that -- that excavating thing off of the
consent agenda, and I just wanted to make sure I was legal about that.
MR. OLLIFF: You are. That was also a request by
Commissioner Fiala. That item was 17-D, as in "David." That was
the item moving to your regular agenda. Both the public and
Commissioner Fiala requested that move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I had-- because of a last-
minute call in regards to the item on the summary agenda which dealt
with a situation of downzoning a piece of property in Naples Park,
that has been continued, and everybody is in concert to do that for
just a little more edification so that we could deal with that in two
weeks. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The two items I was concerned
about have already been pulled from the consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Page 6
November 27, 2001
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All questioned and answered.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I entertain a motion to
approve --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the
agenda. And all in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 27, 2001
CONTINUE ITEM 5(A) to DECEMBER 11, 2001 MEETING: Recommendation
to recognize Beverly Fields, Lieutenant, Emergency Medical Services, as
Employee of the Month for October, 2001. (Recipient request.)
WITHDRAW ITEM 10(C): Request Board approval to purchase equipment
and engineering services to expand the Simulcast Component of the
County's 800 MHz Radio System. (Staff request.)
MOVE 16(A)12 to 10(E) Request to review the Board's previous decision to
present a Special Treatment Permit and Final Plat for Little Palm Island
simultaneously. (Petitioner request.)
MOVE ITEM 17D to 7B: Petition CU-2001-AR-371, RWA Inc., representing
Hideout Golf Club Ltd., requesting a conditional use for earth mining
activity on a parcel of land zoned "A" Agricultural for a property located at
the Southeast intersection of Kean Avenue (a.k.a. Brantley Boulevard) and
Garland Road, approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
in Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This parcel consists of approximately 20.5 acres. (Public request.)
MOVE ITEM 17G to 8H: An ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance
No. 72-1, as amended, which created the Collier County Lighting District; to
add Willoughby Acres to the Collier County Lighting District; to amend the
existing district boundaries to include those areas of Immokalee not
currently part of the Collier County Lighting District; providing for inclusion
in Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for conflict and severability;
providing an effective date. (Staff request.)
November 27, 2001
Item #2B
MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2001 WORKSHOP-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the August
6th workshop.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me back up a second. I made a
mistake here. Before approving that agenda, I did have to ask, is
there any public comment on anything on the consent or summary
agendas? Having no sign-up sheets, I escaped. My mental error.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: November 6th workshop,
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning to approve the meeting -- the minutes from the December--
November 6th workshop.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Second by Commissioner Fiala. All in
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries.
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER, 2001, AS COLLIER COUNTY ADOPTION
MONTH - ADOPTED
Page 8
November 27, 2001
All right. That moves us to proclamations which is 3-A. The
first one is by Tom Henning and the Collier County Adoption Month.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is
an honor and a privilege for me to read this proclamation, and I
would like if Terry Iamurri is here, Debbie Allen-- and I also asked
one of our long-term employees, Eddie Chessar, and his family,
Shannon Chessar to come up with their adopted twins. Eddie Chessar
has been an employee of Collier County for 12 years, set a good
example of our employees of Collier County. They recently -- well,
in the last two years, adopted these twin babies. So thank you for
being here this morning.
Whereas, every child has the right to grow in a secure, loving
family, and adoption is a positive way to build a family; and,
Whereas, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida, Inc., is
collaborative effort of community agencies and individuals to create
increasing awareness of the adoption; and,
Whereas, the Adoption Task Force of Southwest Florida, its
purpose is to provide resources and education on the various aspects
of adoption and promoting positive attitude towards adoption; and,
Whereas, adoption brings an untold benefit to Collier County
residents that are affected by the adoption process. This includes
benefit of birth parents, adoptive parents, the children placed in an
adoptive home as well as an extended family; and,
Whereas, crisis -- crisis pregnancy is a problem in Collier
County, and adoption is a positive option that is not only considered
due to the lack of awareness and education.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the month of
November 2000 (sic) be designated as Collier County Adoption
Month. Done on this day 27th November 2001.
Page 9
November 27, 2001
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All crunch together. Everybody smile.
MR. OLLIFF: IfI could get the board members to stand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got our new little seats here.
MS. IAMURRI: If I can, I'd like to just address the public in
letting them know that adoption just puts another dimension to the
family, and I as an adoptive parent as so many realize the loving
choice that it is.
Item #3B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER 1,2001, AS
WORLD AIDS DAY- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you so much.
All right. The next proclamation we have this morning is on
World AIDS Day, and that is by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Will the representative please come
up for this proclamation. Thank you.
Whereas, the global epidemic of HIV infection and AIDS
requires a worldwide effort to increase communication, education
and united action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and,
Page 10
November 27, 2001
Whereas, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS -- it's
called UNAIDS -- observes December 1st of each year as World
AIDS Day, a day to expand and strengthen worldwide efforts to stop
the spread HIV/AIDS; and,
Whereas, UNAIDS estimates that over 36 million people
worldwide are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with young people
under the age of 25 accounting for more than half of all new
infections; and,
Whereas, the American Association for World Health is
encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV/AIDS
nationally as it recognizes that the number of people diagnosed with
HIV and AIDS in the United States continues to increase with
900,000 people in the U.S. Now infected; and,
Whereas, Collier County has 742 AIDS cases reported as of July
31 st, 2001; and,
Whereas, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus
local, national and international attention on HIV infections and
AIDS and to disseminate information on how to prevent the spread of
HIV; and,
Whereas, an estimated 900,000 people in the United States are
currently living with HIV or AIDS and half of all new HIV infections
in the U.S. Are among young Americans under the age of 25. The
World AIDS Day 2001 theme is, "I Care. Do you?" Youth and
AIDS in the 21 st Century, urges all youth and those who influence
them to increase their awareness of the risk of HIV/AIDS for
themselves and to use their influence in their families, among their
friends and in their communities to help them stem the tide of the
HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that December 1 st, 2001,
be observed as World AIDS Day and urge all citizens to take part in
Page 11
November 27, 2001
activities and observances designed to increase awareness and
understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge, take part in
HIV/AIDS-prevention activities and programs and join the global
effort to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS.
Done and ordered this 27th day of November 2001.
Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a move to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Henning. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Appreciate that.
Okay. We need to get you right up here as close together for a photo.
Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you for approving the
World AIDS Day Proclamation and recognizing HIV/AIDS as an
issue in Collier County. With 742 people diagnosed with AIDS in
Collier County, we appreciate your support in our efforts to create
awareness and disseminate information and education. And we invite
everyone to join us at the observance Saturday night at six o'clock at
Cambera Park. Thank you.
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much.
Page 12
November 27, 2001
Okay. Now we move to one of the favorite parts of every board
meeting, and that is the awards -- service awards. Commissioners, if
you will step with me to the floor, we will have that opportunity to do
that this morning.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board's making their way
down to the floor, I'll take the opportunity to call up -- we have two
five-year service award attendees this morning. The first is
Archimed Valcin from the parks and recreation department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations, sir. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the second employee receiving a
five-year award this morning is Carolyn Allyn, also from your parks
and recreation department. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, our last service award this
morning -- we've got the opportunity to award a 15-year employee
and -- Linda Swisher who's with the Ochopee Fire Department.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you so much. Congratulations.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that's all of our service awards for
this morning. Thank you very much.
Item #5B
RAY HIGDON, DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, RECOGNIZED AS
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR NOVEMBER, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: While I'm down here,
Mr. Olliff, I believe the one service award person or the employee of
the month will not be present with us this morning, but I have the
Page 13
November 27, 2001
privilege of awarding Mr. Ray Higdon in Information Technology.
He is the employee of the month for this month, and we're really
pleased to have this opportunity to present the award to him.
Many of you may not know that these awards are set up and
become a reality because the peers are the ones that recommend their
fellow employees for this award. And, Ray, I got to tell you, some
really great things said about you by your peers. They -- there's a
person that comes to work early in the morning and stays to the last
minute of the day. He is always there to help someone. He has a
great attitude and is truly concerned about our computer programs.
Some people, when faced with a mountain, will go around it, but Ray
Higdon is the kind of a guy that climbs the mountain to overcome
whatever's necessary to get the job done. Ray Higdon has achieved
his MCSC certification and has knowledge of his position. He's a
true professional. He is a true asset to Collier County.
And, Ray, again, as the chair of this board and from the Board of
County Commissioners, we congratulate you, sir, on your
achievement and your recognition by your peers and the rest of us.
So thank you so much and congratulations to Mr. Ray Higdon.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Job well done.
MR. HIGDON: Thank you very much.
Item #6B
MR. JOE BAWDUNIAK RE THE EFFORTS OF LOCAL SAFETY
COUNSELORS TO PROMOTE SAFE PRACTICES AMONG OUR
GENERAI. AVIATION PILOTS - DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We will now move to public
petitions and comments on general topics. What I'd like to do this
Page 14
November 27, 2001
morning, with permission of the board, is have Mr. Joe Bawduniak
who is coming forward with some comments and public petition, and
then we will go to the other people who are signed up for public
comment.
As Joe walks up to the podium this morning, let me tell you, this
very quiet gentleman has done a tremendous service to this
community in terms of safety education and working programs for
pilots, and these are the single-engine pilot guys that are out there
that go over this county and around the area. We probably don't pay
much attention to it, but they often spot situations which help us a
great deal in security and recognizing that there may be a potential
problem out there. And Joe has been very, very active. He is a pilot.
He's the kind of a person that has quietly done his job and then
recognized not only by this community, he has been recognized by
the south region which is composed of the State of Florida, Georgia,
the Carolinas, Mississippi and Alabama. And they have awarded him
the award for being the person who is really caring and carrying out
this fine service in-- in the safety and training of further pilots. He's
also now being considered for a national award on this basis.
He is too quiet of a guy to ever say those things about himself,
so I took the liberty of saying them for you this morning, Joe, but I
want to really appreciate -- I really appreciate it. I know this
community does, all the fine service that you're doing.
MR. BAWDUNIAK: Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Carter.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Joe, I didn't take that out of your five
minutes either.
MR. BAWDUNIAK: I'm here as a -- as Chairman Carter
mentioned, as an FAA safety counselor for Naples. I thank you for
the opportunity. I'm only going to take five minutes to tell you our
Page 15
November 27, 2001
story.
We've had activity going on in our area for five years and never
said much about it, and this year I was prompted sternly to inform our
public officials and start informing the public about this type of
activity. It deals with aviation safety. It's a national program which is
a function of the collaboration between the Miami flight services
district office which covers all of South Florida, local volunteer
counselors, like myself, and local pilots. With the help of the
volunteers, the Miami safety managers put on a series of safety
seminars here every year. This year they requested eight which is the
most aggressive number we've ever held.
We have aircraft that fly low and slow over our county
populated areas. This is a natural phenomena because we have
airports and airplanes take off and land. Our local pilots recognize
the population density they're flying over, and they appreciate how
they have to be alert and as safe as they possibly can be. They attend
and support our programs. In fact, one was held at Marco last year,
so the county airports are involved.
We have the series of safety seminars that cover our aircraft
operations, equipment -- and when I say "equipment," we look at
equipment failures, et cetera-- and overall maintenance. All of this is
free. All the seminars are free, no cost to our taxpayers. We have
local businesses, both aviation and non-aviation oriented who support
individual seminars with door prizes and refreshments. We have --
I've been involved five years. And in the last year or so, we've had
several more volunteer safety counselors come on board, including
your Mr. Gene Schmitt, a commissioner on your airport authority.
It's interesting to note that three out of the last four years the
Miami district has selected a safety counselor from Naples as safety
counselor of the year for South Florida, and this year that recognition
has gone to the national level, as Chairman Carter mentioned. But,
Page 16
November 27, 2001
really, the pilots who attend the seminars ask the questions and go
away and practice what they hear are the people who deserve to be
recognized.
No machine is perfect and no man-machine relationship is
foolproof, but we feel our efforts are definitely contributing to
shaving the odds in favor of, say, flying over our community.
I'm looking at this large crowd. I have to temper my next
comment a little bit. I'm here to invite all of you to a seminar tonight.
We have 40 extra seats. I'd like to see all of you. If you're close
friends, you can sit on each other's laps. This seminar tonight is not
only for pilots. This is one of the most dramatic ones I've ever
previewed. The FAA in Oklahoma City has put together a
PowerPoint presentation called "Flying Smart." Well, Flying Smart
is a presentation geared to the airline passenger who crashes and how
to enhance your chances of escaping the crashed jet. It's very well
done. We have a 30-year experienced airline attendant who will
make some very candid observations from her experience, and as I
said, it's free. We at least hope some of you could come. And thank
you very much for this opportunity to speak of something which
fortunately seems to be very favorable, and there's no cost to the
taxpayer.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you so much, Joe
Bawduniak.
Item #6A
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Okay. Ms. Filson, how many speakers do we have this
morning?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two. The first one is Gil
Page 17
November 27, 2001
Erlichman followed by Monique Renaldo.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Erlichman.
MR. ERLICHMAN: Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples,
and I'm a voter and taxpayer in Collier County. Before I begin, I'd
like to congratulate our new commissioner, Mr. Fred Coyle. I wish
you success, and my further remarks are not addressed to you.
MR. COYLE: That's a bad sign.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not yet. Give him another week.
MR. ERLICHMAN: This past November 13th at the BCC --
that's the Board of County Commissioners -- meeting, Jim Coletta
said that he had been shocked at the animosity exhibited by the
community toward the commission in the wake of the vote. That's
the vote on the sales tax. Quote, "This has not been a pleasant
experience. I've never seen so many cruel and sadistic people in my
life," end quote. Donna Fiala said, quote, "I just can't believe the
nastiness -- the nastiness that's out there," end quote. Well, I say if
you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The taxpayers
respond to the same treatment that is given to them by the BCC. It
seems as though as soon as a commissioner is elected, he or she
forget campaign promises. They become a power unto themselves.
They know what is best for the people. Any input from the public
goes in one ear and out the other. Maybe it is because there is
nothing of substance between the ears.
We are fed up with the conduct of the entire commission
regarding, number one, indigent health care; number two, a hearing
examiner to bypass the BCC regarding appeals by taxpayers on
zoning changes and other real property questions; three, the 8 to 12
percent pay increase for the county payrollers when we have high
unemployment and an economic recession; and, four, the milking of
bed tax dollars by the -- by the tourism alliance of Collier County.
Page 18
November 27, 2001
Live within your means, and don't spend what you do not have.
Be realistic in your budgeting like the taxpayers have to do in coping
with their own daily expenses.
I would like to have weekly BCC meetings again and county-
wide commissioner representation. Go back to pre-1988 city-wide
commission elections. No more district elections. Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your
taking the time to come down and share your points of view with us.
We do this every week. We do take the inputs. We do meet every
other week in a general meeting of this board, but I know Mr. Olliff
has recently prepared a list of all the meetings this commission has
done in the last year and for the number of meetings that we will have
before year end. In fact, we will be in a special meeting of this board
all day tomorrow. So I don't know if meeting every week would
address the problems any better, Mr. Erlichman, but it's under review,
as we always try to remember that we were elected by the people, to
serve the people, and we will do the best to our ability to try to meet
those -- meet those goals.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Monique Renaldo.
MS. RENALDO: Give you each a copy.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. RENALDO: Good morning. My name is Monique
Renaldo. I thank you for giving me this opportunity.
I really appreciate it. I think my letter is quite explicit, and I'm here
representing this new -- this -- to talk about this nightclub that just
opened. It's called Ortegas or Contagious at 3771 East Tamiami
Trail. The noise is just intolerable. They play till late night, late
hours, like my letter says. And the sound of the music carries to our
homes and it's -- the windows vibrate. I mean, the television just
moves, and we don't understand how this can continue. It is very,
Page 19
November 27, 2001
very difficult for us, especially seniors. And, as I mentioned, I live
right in the Enchanting Mobile Home Park. And there's also a lot of
people in the Glades who also signed the petition.
I understand that there is a code enforcement. A letter was sent
to the code enforcement and also to Mr. Olliff, the manager, and we
haven't heard anything, and we just don't understand why this noise --
it is so disturbing, because after they closed the nightclub, either 2:00
or 3:00 in the morning, it doesn't terminate there because then they're
all happy and bang the doors, and they still need that loud music, so
the boom box goes on. And then sometimes there's arguments,
there's yelling, there's screaming, and it just not very pleasant for us
seniors. So I just thought I'd bring this up and see if something can
be done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ma'am, I know that most of the
commissioners, not all of us, have been kept in the loop of the
problem that you have in your neighborhood, and I know that Tom
Olliff is personally working on that item, and maybe he can comment
on his findings.
MS. RENALDO: Oh, there's Mr. Olliff. I'm sorry. I hadn't seen
you.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. We've actually sent code
enforcement noise meter investigators out on three separate occasions
on three separate weekends on Fridays and Saturday evenings.
We've gone to locations both in the Glades and to Enchanting Acres
at the property boundaries. We've taken noise readings from about
every different angle that we can, and unfortunately, none of the
noise readings we have taken have violated the county's noise
ordinance to date. That doesn't mean that we won't continue to go out
and look and see if we can find at some point in time -- maybe it's at
closing time, maybe we're just not there at the right time. So we'll
keep looking, but to date we haven't found a violation that we can
Page 20
November 27, 2001
cite the club on, but we will continue to look.
MS. RENALDO: Well, you're all invited in my house, and then
you bring that equipment there, and you'll see how much it shakes
and vibrates, because if you're outside maybe -- I don't know, you
know, enough technology -- but it does -- I mean, it's -- the sound
carries underground, I guess, and you hear. I'm sorry I have to say.
It just goes, like, boom, boom. It's like a boom box, you know. I'm
sure you're standing at a red light and you hear those -- those boom --
the radio and the rivet of your car gets loose. It is unreal. That's
what happens in my house.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You've been riding next to
Commissioner Coletta's car. I understand that.
MS. RENALDO: So I'm not complaining for nothing. If the
sound didn't record -- believe me, it does reach our homes. So I
thank you very, very much for listening.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hold on just one more second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. I'm so sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. No. No. You just said it. Right
where --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right in my district. And -- and
we're sure that you're correct. We don't think that you're just
guessing at this noise.
MS. RENALDO: I wouldn't be here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Tom, when -- what time
were the code enforcement guys out?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know that, but I know it was when the
club was open late in the evening, and it was on -- both -- if I'm
correct, that club's only really busy on Friday and Saturday evenings,
maybe Sunday evenings.
MS. RENALDO: Excuse me. On Thursday, Friday and
Page 21
November 27, 2001
Saturdays. Yes, sir. Uh-huh.
MR. OLLIFF: But we will continue to go out. And I got a note
from Jim, which is a good idea, that we will also request the sheriff's
department and some people out at closing time in particular to be
there when the club closes to make sure that whatever crowd is there
disburses quickly and quietly and moves on about their business.
And we'll take -- we'll take her up on her offer. Frankly, I'd be happy
to send an investigator out to your house in particular. MS. RENALDO: Yes, absolutely.
MR. OLLIFF: Take some noise readings.
MS. RENALDO: See how it vibrates and how you hear this
constant -- for five hours nonstop. May I ask you, did code
enforcement -- what time did they -- are they supposed to close the
nightclub? Is it two o'clock or three?
MR. OLLIFF: I believe it's 2 a.m.
MS. RENALDO: It is 2 a.m.? Trust me, it goes over that, sir.
Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
MR. COLETTA: Tom, this has been an ongoing problem for
some time, not only in your neighborhood, even my neighborhood. I
can hear it two, three blocks away. I've got a, probably, 50 percent
hearing loss which probably explains why sometimes I seem like I
don't hear you, but I can hear that base sound, and I can feel it, and
it's aggravating as anything, and possibly we need to address this at
some point in time in the ordinance where we can restore some sort
of tranquility to our way of living because definitely this is not the
answer now, code enforcement having to come out at two o'clock in
the morning and they catch them one time and a couple days later the
whole situation keeps on going. We have to have a better way to
address it, and when that time does come, maybe we can bring you
into the process when we look at it again.
Page 22
November 27,2001
MS. RENALDO: Thank you. Now, you know this was the old
Miami Subway, that building, so the acoustic is probably not
appropriate for this kind of music, you know, and this young
generation, they're just aiming for a lot of hearing aids so ... I thank
you very much. I appreciate this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that is the quote of the day.
Thank you, ma'am. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Olliff, I
believe there is a public nuisance ordinance or a statute dealing with
that, that is enforceable by the sheriff's department. So if we could
take a look at that on that particular business, that might be a quick
way to resolve that.
MR. OLLIFF: We will do that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: Someone just turned in another slip for this item,
Frank H-a-l-a-s, Halas.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, Frank Halas. Is Frank here this
morning? There he is. You wanted to speak under public comment,
Frank?
MR. HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Your turn, sir. While Frank is coming
up, in regards to the noise ordinance, I don't know if the existing
commissioners -- I know Commissioner Coyle wasn't here, but the
other three, we tried to put through a more restrictive noise
ordinance, I think last year. I can't remember exactly the time. I
think it was prior to the seating of the new commissioners and the --
what was recommended by staff through the work done by the county
attorney and our code enforcement people, frankly, it was
compromised. And I believe if the ordinance, through all of the
Page 23
November 27, 2001
consulting fees that we pay, that if we would have followed those
guidelines, I think we would have had more teeth in our ordinance
today that -- to address the concerns that are being raised on this
board. So I would -- if the board would agree, I would suggest that
we go back and revisit that, and I need three nods to do that, to send it
back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got a nod here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got a nod here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make one statement?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In the city we had to deal with the
same sort of thing, and our experience was that a lot of the irritation
and the noise has to do with frequency. So that our measurements
were -- were concentrated in certain frequencies, and I don't know if
that base frequency is one that we're really taking a look at because
the instruments sometimes average those. They don't key in on
specific frequencies. But perhaps that's a partial solution, but I very
much agree that we should tighten it up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I think
maybe a better suggestion was -- would be to -- for our staff to
provide us the -- that proposed ordinance and the discussion at that
time. I'm sure the sentiment of the -- of the people that we serve
hasn't changed, so maybe that would be a better --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that would be a good start.
And perhaps, Mr. Olliff, you can work with us to bring that back, A,
so the commissioners could review what was presented; and, B,
maybe at the next board meeting, we can bring it back again as a
subject of discussion whether -- how far we want staff to pursue it.
MR. OLLIFF: I will. I'll provide you the minutes. And it was,
frankly, a fairly lengthy discussion because it was a change,
Commissioner Coyle, from what was an average blended type
Page 24
November 27, 2001
reading to a more -- a breakdown of the actual basses and tenors and
things, and we've got the equipment now to do that. But I will
provide you the minutes and the discussions that you had on that. In
the next agenda we'll go ahead and put something on the agenda for
you to decide whether to actually bring that back and make some
changes to that ordinance or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If that's acceptable to the board we'll
go there. Everybody all right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MS. FILSON: We have one additional speaker, Ty Agoston.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Was he here when we did all of this or
was this just since we started?
MS. FILSON: He just turned it in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just turned it in. Is it on a specific
subject or is it on general topics? I'll have to ask Mr. Agoston when
he comes up. And Mr. Halas, please start.
MR. HALAS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Frank Halas. I was here at the last meeting, and since I spoke to you,
I had some additional thoughts about the budget, and at this time I
would like to share them with you.
Collier County is growing rapidly. Managing growth is a major
challenge. Wall Street is littered with the bones of companies that
could not handle their growth, companies that had money to throw at
their problems and fail to be prudent on their business decisions.
You are Collier County's board of directors. Mr. Tom Olliff, you're
the CEO. And we, the voters and the taxpayers, are the shareholders.
We invest our dollars in the form of taxes. We ask you to protect our
investment. We voted to defeat the 1/2 percent sales tax increase.
We were sending you a clear message. This is the time to change
your approach to managing Collier's growth. Stop throwing money
Page 25
November 27, 2001
at problems. Stop adding taxes. It's time to re-engineer.
Recently all department heads received wage increases, some as
high as 12 percent and some even higher. The rationale was that
these are exceptional, creative and talented people who must be
retained. Go back to these same talented people and tell them to
bring you a plan that maintains public accountability but cuts
departmental expenditures by 10 percent. Let them determine where
the fat is and recommend department-by-department budget
reductions. No department has been free of waste and inefficiencies.
Much of this has been well publicized. This includes the fire
department, the sheriff and the school board. And private business,
this is the kind of analysis and action that is always required by
management when costs are on the horizon and prices can't be raised.
This should be done prior to any serious cuts into full-time
employees or major programs. Look at new funding requests with
the jaundiced eye. Remember -- and remind us, when necessary, that
we can't always have everything we want.
Eliminate the use of expensive outside consultants whenever
possible. Do the work in-house. The tax-paying public expects
highly paid county employees to have the talent and leadership to
deliver these -- on their assignments. Huge consultant awards baffle
us and shift the accountability and responsibility. It's a luxury we can
no longer afford.
Rescind the county indigent health care ordinance. The
implication plan is sketchy. The actuarials are thin. The potential for
runaway cost is enormous. This is not the right time to impose such a
program. This is no hard evidence that will save expense anywhere
else. Any -- any program this large should be brought to the voters to
be voted on. Put non-essential budget items on a wish list for future
and pay for them out of savings.
In closing, rescind the indigent health care ordinance, revisit the
Page 26
November 27, 2001
budget, insist the department heads make the fat cuts, hold
departments accountable for the expenditures not required to do
business on a daily basis, get creative, re-engineer, use savings and
bonds to pay for the roads. Voters need to see positive action and
measurable results. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Halas.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. If you have the opportunity,
sir, to stay with us long enough today, we will be at 10-A where we'll
be reviewing all of the budget reductions the staff has been working
on. Many of the points that you have brought this morning are in that
proposal. So if you have time, we certainly appreciate you-- if you
can't stay and listen here, maybe you can catch us on tape, and any
other comments you have will certainly be appreciated. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Carter-- and I do welcome
everybody to have their comment at that time, and if Mr. Agoston's
topic is about the budget, I would hope that we can put it off. And
that is on budget, the health care on 10-A, the county manager is
going to present that, and that is when the time -- these items should
be discussed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree. Mr. Agoston, do you have
another topic for us this morning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
like to hold off until--
If it's about the budget, I would
MR. AGOSTON: No. I'll leave that out. My name is Ty
Agoston. I'm a co-president of a taxpayers action group, and while
I'm left without the major topic that I was going to discuss, there's
another topic that is -- kind of bothers us. You have established a
code enforcement czar, so to speak.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the real name?
MR. AGOSTON: What's the real name? I don't know, a code
Page 27
November 27, 2001
officer or whatever you call it. But, apparently, all the land-use
decisions will go through this newly created office. If I remember
right, there were three members in it already.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're talking, I think, about a hearing
officer, Mr. Agoston.
MR. AGOSTON: No. No. You just established that, what, the
last meeting or the meeting before?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's a hearing officer.
MR. AGOSTON: It's a current office that you have established.
It's brand new, and prior to your establishing it, it wasn't in existence.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I believe, sir, that you're referring
to the hearing officer.
MR. AGOSTON: Well, I have a problem with this language so
-- from time to time I go astray. But the fact of the matter remains, is
that we view the office as a convenient hiding place for our elected
officials who actually should be making the responsible decisions for
this county.
I was told by a number of you that you were elected to make the
hard decisions. I can well understand that zoning decisions,
especially in this county with a high no-growth sentiment, is a hard
decision because on the flip side of that, you have constitutional
guarantees and what have you. So I understand that you really rather
not get involved with it, but I believe that it's your responsibility.
And you definitely should be the line of decision making rather than
hire an attorney who will make decisions, and by the time it will get
to the general public, everybody be pointing fingers, "Here, look it. I
didn't do it. He did it," and I don't believe that's fair.
There is no reason for you to hide. I believe that you are all
honest people, and you can stand on your own and make the
decisions that's the best for the county. Thank you very much for the
time.
Page 28
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Agoston. We
appreciate your comments.
The topic Mr. Agoston's referring to is a hearing officer. I won't
go into all those details this morning about the hearing officer, but if
you have particular questions about that, I know our county manager
or any commissioner here will welcome your calls or e-mails, and we
will be happy to provide that information about what a hearing
officer is going to do. It's kind of a crawl, walk, run process for us.
It's patterned a great deal of-- after what Lee County does, although
there were things in Lee County that we didn't like because we felt
that it separated the people from the elected officials. So we're trying
to do a balance between you-all having access to us and
depoliticizing the process in which certain decisions are made. And
that's where we're trying -- trying to go with that. So we would
welcome any of your comments or any information that you want on
that, and we'll be happy to provide it for you.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, I just got one additional speaker
slip.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: On general comments?
MS. FILSON: Yes, from Hank Brian.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Really -- people want to speak on
general comments really need to be here at the beginning of the
meeting, but I will take this one. But, please, in the future, ladies and
gentlemen, we have a set agenda. We have opportunities for you to
speak to items on that agenda. And I will take this one, but, please,
in the future, if you're going to speak on this, be here at 9:00 and let
us know so we can accommodate you better so we don't keep a lot of
other people waiting who have other agenda items too.
So if that person is here, I will take that. And if it's on the
budget, I will have to ask you to wait till 10-A.
MR. BRIAN: It's on the budget, and I would be glad to wait.
Page 29
November 27, 2001
Item #7A
PETITION SV-2001-AR-1265, BO GALLAGHER,
REPRESENTING BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.,
REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
150 FOOT ROAD FRONTAGE FOR A POLE SIGN TO 145 FEET
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5495 AIRPORT ROAD, WHICH
IS AN OUTPARCEL OF THE BED, BATH AND BEYOND
SHOPPING CENTER- DENIED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
All right. Moving to -- or moving on the agenda, we will be
going now to the board of zoning appeals, and the first item is A.
And this was continued from November 13th, and this is Petition SV-
2001-AR1265, Mr. Badamtchian -- Chahram Badamtchian. I'm
going to get that right, Doctor. Chahram Badamtchian. But thank
you, sir.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: You're welcome. I believe we need to
be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. Any and all people who are
going to speak on this subject need to stand and be sworn in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What land use item is this?
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: For variance for a sign, for a ground
sign.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before we do that, are there any
declarations by board members on this subject? Commissioner Fiala,
no; Commissioner Coletta, no. Everyone is no.
I have received information on the topic from a couple of
people, so I would require that. One was from a sign company
expressing his input on this subject and that's all.
Page 30
November 27, 2001
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners.
My name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff.
This is a variance for a free-standing sign to be located along Airport
Road for a Firestone tire place -- recently built tire place within Bed,
Bath and Beyond Plaza. Our code requires 150 foot of road frontage
for a pole or ground sign. This property has 145. They don't have
the required 150-foot road frontage. They were issued a permit
several years ago to build a sign. I have a copy of the application
they filled out which shows that they had -- they wrote on the
application 150 foot of road frontage for a pole sign. And a permit
was issued based on that number.
We do not require survey for signs. It can be costly, and we
never have problems with asking people to tell us the lot width. If
they have a survey, they give it to us. If not, we do not require the
several thousand dollars for a sign. In here they told us they had 150-
foot road frontage. We issued a permit. Then when they applied for
building permit to build the building itself, they have to provide the
survey. Then we had access to that survey, and we noticed that the
road frontage is actually 145 and not 150. We revoked the permit,
and now they are asking for a variance to build a sign.
I should say that in the past several years, five or six years, we
had probably about ten variances come in front of this board, and
usually this board denies all of them. There's no land-related
hardship. And I understand that it's only 5 feet, but our code requires
150, and I think we should stick to 150. That's why the staff
recommends denial. And planning commissioners reviewed this, and
by a vote of 5 to 2 recommended denial.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If approval was given for this
one, would it open the door for a whole number of other ones looking
for similar treatment?
Page 31
November 27, 2001
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe each variance stands on its
own, but since there is no land-related hardship here -- here along
Airport Road, a major shopping center, they have a large sign on the
wall. The building has this blue striping that's visible from a
distance. Then it's going to be hard for us to say no to other
businesses with 150 for the 145-foot road frontage.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, if you drive north on
Airport Road and once you cross Pine Ridge, you look to the left, I'm
sure you'll identify Firestone -- Bridgestone Firestone without a pole
sign.
MR. ROBERTS: Excuse me. I'm Lawrence Roberts with
Firestone, and, again, I'm just appealing to the board for a hardship
where we're landlocked. This was the last plot in the Bed, Bath and
Beyond development, and at the time we were -- started negotiations,
we didn't realize that it was only 145 feet.
And, also, I petition that you do make allowances for
applications for variances, and we're just trying to go ahead with the
application and see if we could get a variance. It does have a
hardship. It doesn't have its own entrance. It's set back. It has
landscaping in front of it. The auto dealership next door is about 5
feet higher than we are, hiding us from the southbound lanes, and you
really can't see the building until you're right up on it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board?
I will tell you, I'm going to move for denial because I worked
long and hard on the sign ordinance in 1999 to reduce what I consider
visual pollution in the community. And I know your facility, and I
really can't see any reason why people couldn't identify that store
because of the signage that is there. And I am -- I am going to move
for denial.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner
Page 32
November 27, 2001
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And a comment. I've seen your
building. It's beautiful. It's eye catching. I think that's all the
advertising you need.
MS. FILSON: We do have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: Lawrence Roberts, slash, Don Pickworth.
MR. ROBERTS: That's me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And Don Pickworth? He declines.
All right. No further speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: You need to close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have to close the public hearing. All
in favor of closing the public hearing say aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Public hearing is
closed.
We have the motion. We have a second for denial.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Opposed by the same sign.
Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2001-453, RE CU-2001-AR-371, RWA INC.,
REPRESENTING HIDEOUT GOLF CLUB LTD., REQUESTING
A CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTH MINING ACTIVITY ON A
PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "A" AGRICULTURAL, LOCATED
Page 33
November 27, 2001
AT THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF KEAN AVENUE
(A.K.A. BRANTLEY BOULEVARD) AND GARLAND ROAD,
APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES EAST OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951), CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 5
ACRES- ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS; APPROVAL BY
THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION AND AGREEMENT OF
SAME BY THE PROPERTY OWNER
All right. That takes us to 7-B, as in "boy," Hideout Golf Club
which was 17-D, as in "David," Hideout Golf Club, earth mining.
Dr. Badamtchian is bringing back another portfolio. Yes, sir. We
need to, again, have everybody sworn on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we continue on, I just
noticed a lady who probably has some medical conditions that is
standing up. If anybody would like to offer this lady a seat, I think
that would be -- thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thanks for the
observation, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A gentleman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm learning.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any disclosures on the part of the
board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I have a whole folder
here. I talked to many residents and the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest, I have been very
limited in talking to anyone. The petitioner has tried to reach me
several times, and I tried to reach him back but was never successful.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have no disclosures.
Page 34
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with
Ms. Payten briefly about this issue. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Chahram Badamtchian
from planning services staff. This is a conditional use for an
excavation activity, the property located on Brantley Boulevard
which is east of 951. It's almost 2 miles east of 951. The property
consists of 20 acres. They are proposing to excavate A 13.8-acre
lake. This is an agricultural area and there is a final order -- final --
governor's final order exempts earth mining from the list of uses that
final order prohibits. Basically what they are planning to do is to dig
a lake 13 acres, haul the fill off site, and that entire lake -- lake-
excavation activity shall not take more than 12 months.
They had a meeting for the neighbors which was held on, I
believe, October 30th and there were ten people in attendance.
Basically the only problem they had was the trucks speeding on those
roads, and they agreed to put signs on the property posting the speed
limit and also reminding the truck drivers that if they speed, they will
no longer be working there. And they are requesting blasting and --
that blasting be limited to three weeks in duration at the beginning of
the excavation. And there are some homes there, I believe, two or
three homes close to this area. That's why they agreed not to blast
that portion of the lake, so as not to cause problems for the neighbors.
Basically, this -- this request fully complies with the requirement
of the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends approval of this
petition.
This petition was heard by the planning commission, and at the
planning-commission level, they decided to reduce. The request for
-- was for 18 months of excavation. They reduced it to 12. With
that, the board-- the planning commission unanimously
Page 35
November 27, 2001
recommended approval.
There are no wetlands on site, and they did an environmental
impact for red parcaded (sic) woodpecker -- is that -- and they did --
during the nesting season, and they did not see any woodpeckers on
site. With that, staff recommended approval, and the planning
commission recommended approval of this petition.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chahram, where did they agree
to put the signs on their property?
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: The signs must be on their property
unless transportation department allows them to put signs on public
right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the concern was
speeding on Brantley; am I correct?
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Access to the site is somewhere around
here and the Brantley basically comes to here (indicating) and I
believe one property across the street. I believe the major problem
with traffic, if there is any, should be on the 20 -- 23rd Street
Northwest which goes all the way to White Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's my concern, is the
truck traffic. At certain times of the day, we have, you know, school
bus stops, and that is the only access to those people off of White and
off of 16th, which it gets very busy early in the morning and the
evening. So somehow, if we could address that --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a big concern that I
have. I live very close to White Boulevard, and sometimes the wait
is 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes to empty out from the back
end of that area through the only exit they have now which is White
Boulevard at 951. How many trucks a day are we looking at?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We are looking about 80 to 90 trucks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm telling you right now, we're
looking at real danger. The situation there is critical at the moment,
Page 36
November 27, 2001
and if we put that many trucks on the road on White Boulevard
between six o'clock in the morning to 8:30 in the morning and again
from about 3:30 till six o'clock in the afternoon, it's not going to be a
good situation. It's a two-lane highway that has no plans to be
improved other than the way it is right now. I think we need to give
real consideration or have some limitation on the time element when
these trucks can transport, possibly something more in the summer,
more in the middle of the day and avoid the beginning of the day and
the end of the day when the traffic's at its worst. We'd be
contributing to a problem. Seventy-five to 100 trucks --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We can stipulate, you know, that--
certain hours of the day that trucks will not be allowed on the road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. What was the times
we're not going to allow them?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right now we are going to allow them
from 7 a.m. To 6 p.m.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No way. Why don't we just put
a sign on the road "closed."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What would work, Commissioner?
Something like 9:00 to 3:007
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would have to have a -- Norm
Feder address that question, what would be a good time to make this
work, but this definitely won't work. And, frankly, I'm fairly
disappointed the fact that this was on the summary agenda. I
commend the petitioner for bringing it forward before I did. After all
we've been through with fill pits and transportation on the highways,
you know, this is something that always should be on the regular
agenda. With that, I'll ask for Norm Feder to comment on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We moved Norm Feder to the
back of the bus, if you noticed. It takes awhile --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's a reason for that, but I
Page 37
November 27, 2001
can't remember what it was.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't remember either.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think we want to go there.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. Commissioner, to your question, which I believe is,
what would be the peak hours, basically you look at 7:00 to 9:00 and
then 4:00 to 6:00. In this area that would be a typical peak hour that
you would find. So those would be the areas particularly that you
would be concerned about. You also have a little bit of peaking
usually around noontime, but your major peak is a.m./p.m.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another concern too is the fact
that we've come up with an ordinance -- and I thought it covered all
pit mines, but obviously, it didn't-- where we had to notify
everybody along the route within so many miles. Obviously, this
wasn't done or else this room would have been extra, extra full.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. Commissioner, that ordinance
was approved on October 24th of this year, and this was applied for
on February 14th of this year, several months earlier.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Frankly, I'd feel more
comfortable if this was continued and notices were sent out, if the
petitioner would be so willing.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That notice was supposed to be at the
time of the planning commission hearing, but that's what your
desires --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I think
that we can work with the people here today. Between the both of
you and I, I think that we can figure out what the concerns of your
constituents are, and the traffic one is the biggest one, and it should
be, and also quality of life. So we -- we cover the blasting through
the planning commission to appease the residents around that area for
their quality of life.
Page 38
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Immediate area.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, let me take your
question. We also need to hear from the petitioner too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. The reason I
pulled this thing was because there were houses on all three sides of
it, according to the written material, and I thought I could -- if they're
starting to blast at seven o'clock in the morning and blasting to six
o'clock, number one, that would be difficult -- I don't know of any
other pit where they -- where they have homes on all three sides.
Number one, that was one of my concerns.
Another one of my concerns was 90 truck trips a day, and in the
neighborhood where there are children, I think that that's very, very
dangerous.
Another thing I wanted to know was, are they going to repair the
swimming pools and walls of these homes that are around the
blasting area?
And, number four, are they going to repair the roads that 90
trucks a day chew up? Those were my comments.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I appreciate that.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm reading in here it's 20
truckloads a day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says 20 on the summary page,
and then when you go down into the white pages, it says 90.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. The difference is there are 20
loads, but then there are trucks coming and going that doubles it, and
then there are workers who drive to come to the site to work.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think in the future, on
executive summary I would like to know all of that so I don't have to
dig down through 20 pages to find out that there was 90 trips is the
true number.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Ninety trips includes all trips, and 20
Page 39
November 27, 2001
is truckloads of fill.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would really appreciate -- that
clarification would help me, sir. Thank you. Mr. Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth representing the -- the applicant.
A couple points: One, with regard to limitations on the truck hours,
that's fine. We will work with you, whatever you suggest. I think it
was suggested that since -- what is it, 7:00 to 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00
are the peaks that we not have the trucks, then that's agreeable with
US.
With regard to the road repairs, I represented Hideout when they
got their conditional use, and I think in there we had a stipulation
which basically says, you know, we do kind of a before and after
look at the road and there's -- and that if, you know, there's damage
done to the road as a result of the construction or that golf course,
that they would be responsible for fixing it. And, you know, I think a
similar -- similar type of stipulation here would be -- would be
equally appropriate. I mean, we'll -- we'll be responsible for damage
that -- that our use does. And, you know, I think that's a fair way to
do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Pickworth, what is the
stipulations to -- the planning commission put on this?
MR. PICKWORTH: Pardon? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The stipulations that the
planning commission put on this also.
MR. PICKWORTH: They did not have that. We're in
agreement with the stipulations that are there. I don't think we had
one on this. Let him--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: IfI may, staff had the list of the
stipulations, and the transportation department had the seven different
Page 40
November 27, 2001
stipulations that added to the eleven stipulations that planning staff
had. The planning commission, what they did, they changed the 18
months to 12 months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And staff's original stipulation was
that no blasting shall be allowed. Planning commission change to
blasting; however, they must comply with the blasting ordinance that
was recently adopted saying that you cannot have blasting 350 feet of
residents, and that's why a portion of the lake cannot be blasted.
And, basically, that's about it.
We have a stipulation regarding the maintenance of the road and
they -- they have to -- basically, what-- we asked them to videotape
the road before the construction starts. So after they are done with
excavation, whatever damage is done to the road, we can compare it
to the original videotapes so there are no disputes if the damage was
already there. And we have those stipulations already in the
resolution of approval which is attached to the executive summary.
MR. PICKWORTH: That's what I was referring to, and we're --
we think that's a reasonable way to do it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, if I may. Let's just take a
look at this to see what may be possible and what isn't possible.
Would you be agreeable to start your operations at -- where you
actually do not leave the pit with a full dump truck until 8:30 in the
morning and you would cease -- the last truck to leave would leave at
3:30 in the afternoon so that would be out of the way of the traffic
coming and going which is greatly-- already greatly impeded by the
present traffic on the road and that you will not use the new 13th
Street Bridge? I'd like to see if we can come up with -- everyone else
that's looking for a -- renewed permits or whatever, that no one uses
the 13th Street Bridge for any of these dump truck loads to try to
Page 41
November 27, 2001
shorten their trip and impede that neighborhood that's going to be
living with that bridge.
Also, too, on the blasting, there's only four homes that you have
to be concerned with; is that correct? MR. PICKWORTH: Four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have you actually met with the
homeowners?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what was their consensus
of opinion? They pretty tolerable about what you're talking about?
Will you be taking pictures beforehand so that you'll -- they'll be able
to document any damage after the case?
MR. DAVIDSON: I'm Jeff Davidson, the engineer for the
project. There -- there was a meeting with the homeowners. I wasn't
present at that meeting, but I have spoken with a few of the
homeowners since that meeting. And what they told me was that
there was general -- a general idea in the neighborhood that the lake
would be good for their property values and that the three that I
talked to didn't have a problem with the lake.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And due notices were sent out
to these people about the meeting today?
MR. DAVIDSON: According to the requirements in the Land
Development Code, the notices were sent out.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me go back to Commissioner
Coletta's question. I like your idea of videotaping a home prior to so
that if there's any question thereafter. I don't know what causes --
and maybe that's not a place for us to be, but I like the idea.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got to come up with
some sort of insurance. One copy will remain with the owner of the
land and one copy with the homeowner.
They can periodically review it.
Page 42
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can assist you, the blaster
goes to the neighborhood and each house, and they ask him if they
would like to preinspect their house before the blasting --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is -- and check for structural
damage and that, and then afterwards, you know, if there is any
damage, the homeowner reports it. That is when it's dealt with. What
we probably could do, Commissioner Carter, is make that a
requirement of preinspection of the structure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would say -- I would think it would
save everybody a lot of heartburn.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And it's not something
to be fluffed off because our own county has a restriction on blasting
within so many miles of the sewage-treatment plants -- water-
treatment plants. So, obviously, there's a cause and effect no matter
how much we may hear it denied.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Does that work? I mean, do
you want to incorporate that into whatever you're doing here?
MR. DAVIDSON: I would love to incorporate it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the taking of the video of
the homes would solve a lot of future disputes because there's going
to be differences of opinion if you don't have proof that damage
either did or did not exist prior to this event. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you be agreeable to
that, sir?
MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. We're -- we're agreeable. I think
that's pretty much -- preinspection or at least offer of preinspection is,
I think, pretty much standard practice among blasters, obviously, for
liability purposes. It's in everybody's interest to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the restriction on hours
Page 43
November 27, 2001
and -- the restriction on hours, of course, would also be with the
blasting too. Seven o'clock in the morning is a little loud for an alarm
clock.
MR. PICKWORTH: It does the job.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And 13th Street Bridge, the restriction
on using that.
MR. PICKWORTH: We got that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Cook.
MR. COOK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Tom Cook, engineering director. In our blasting ordinance, we do
have a requirement for preblast surveys within a certain radius of
where the blasting's occurring, and then we also have a requirement
for notification to the people outside of that -- that radius. So that
would be addressed. And then, normally, when-- the blasting
usually occurs from 1:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon. They do the
drilling during the daytime, load the holes, and in almost all cases,
the blasting is in the afternoon and we can make that a requirement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tom, how strict is our blasting
code?
MR. COOK: Ours, I've been told, is probably the most
restrictive of the strictest in the State of Florida, and each year we
seem to tighten it up a little bit. But it is a real problem. We get
more complaints, I'd say, blasting and drainage, those two issues,
than any other in the county.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Gentlemen, can you craft
a statement here so that we could have a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a speaker.
MS. FILSON: We have one registered speaker.
MR. DAVIDSON: I just wanted to say that I know -- I think it
was Ms. Payten asked this to be taken off of the summary agenda.
Page 44
November 27, 2001
I'm not sure. I've heard second or third hand what the issues are.
Obviously, since they were not raised before the planning
commission, it's going to be kind of new to us. So if we could use
the rest of our time to respond afterwards because we simply don't
know what her --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'll allow a response to that. Is Ms.
Payten in the room? There she is, right in front of me. I kept looking
back there. Thank you. Thank you for helping an old guy with
contacts in.
MS. PAYTEN: Usually I'm in the back of the room. Good
morning. I'm Nancy Payten, and I represent the Florida Wildlife
Federation. And welcome, Commissioner Coyle. We're glad to see
you sitting there.
We did request that this item be removed from the agenda last
Wednesday. When we saw it on the agenda in the packet, we noticed
that on page 2 under "Environmental Issues," it said there were no
environmental issues. I -- in response to a conversation I had had
with Steve Lenberger, I called Andy Eller at the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and he told me, "Yes, they're still unresolved wildlife issues
pertaining to this particular parcel."
This is a conditional-use petition for an earth-mining operation
which ultimately is going to be a private fishing lake. We take issue
with the executive summary that says there are no environmental
issues. There are. This is habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker.
We call it the RCW. It is a state-threatened species, and it's a
federally endangered species, and its habitat is rapidly dwindling.
And I brought with me a map that comes from the -- "Closing
the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System," which
was published in 1994. And what you see in red on this map -- here's
1-75. Here's 951 -- is strategic habitat that the wildlife commission
identified as essential habitat -- critical habitat for the survival of this
Page 45
November 27, 2001
particular bird. And if you know Collier County's geography well --
which I'm sure all of you do know -- that most of this habitat that is
west of 951 is gone, and a good portion of it immediately east of 951
is gone. And so it makes this habitat in this area (indicating), the
rural fringe, which we're under a slow-growth-no-growth moratorium
from the governor and the cabinet because we didn't protect wildlife
habitat -- becomes even more essential and critical for the survival of
this species.
And despite the fact that the applicant's environmental
consultant didn't find a cavity tree on the site or didn't see a bird on
the site, it still remains red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and
essential habitat if the species is going to survive because it provides
dispersal habitat for those that -- that they saw, they're going to
produce young, hopefully, and this provides an area where the young
can go.
And I remind the commissioners, again, that the reason the
governor and the cabinet -- or a major reason -- imposed the
moratorium is because the county was not taking into consideration
wildlife-habitat issues. This is a conditional use. Compatibility is
one component of evaluating this application, and compatibility with
the environment should be a consideration. So, again, I challenge
staff when they say there are no environmental issues.
Staff has deferred a number of their environmental
considerations or issues to the Fish and Wildlife Service. For
instance, the applicant has provided the Fish and Wildlife Service
with a proposal about what to do about RCWs and -- and loss of this
habitat. The Fish and Wildlife Service, as of yesterday, has not had
an opportunity to review and provide recommendations on this
proposal. I spoke to Andy Eller yesterday about this. I spoke to two
representatives from the applicant's environmental consulting team,
Mr. Farmer and Mr. Passarella, and relayed this information, and they
Page 46
November 27, 2001
were aware Mr. Eller -- Andy Eller -- had not reviewed this yet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Payten, can you tell me how long
they've had that in front of them to review?
MS. PAYTEN: They received it, I understand -- well, it was
dated September, but Andy wasn't quite sure when he received it,
Andy Eller, because he hadn't stamped it. So he was unsure when he
received it, but was -- it was dated in September.
But the issue is, if the county is going to defer these wildlife
issues to the Fish and Wildlife Service, then they have to take into
consideration how long it's going to take the Fish and Wildlife
Service to evaluate and make recommendations on these proposals.
And deferring this to a -- the clearing permit or whatever is not
satisfactory to us. Remember, we got into this problem with the final
order because the environment didn't get any consideration. Now it's
getting an afterthought through an administrative process for the
clearing permit. That still is unacceptable to us. And because there
are unresolved wildlife issues, listed-species issues with this
condition-- I'll finish up very quickly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please finish.
MS. PAYTEN: Okay. With compatibility issues, this is what
we request: That this go back to staff; that it wait for Fish and
Wildlife Services' evaluation because, again, compatibility does
include environmental concerns; that it go to the EAC because we
know there are environmental issues, and it should have gone to the
EAC, and we, again, urge that it go to EAC because this is a
significant issue of losing habitat-- I neglected to bring a map that
the county staff had produced of this particular area that does identify
red-cockaded woodpecker habitat -- and, lastly, okay, that it shouldn't
come back before you folks until all these issues are resolved.
And there's a bigger issue, that staff needs to develop a process
or a procedure so that we don't get into this situation where the public
Page 47
November 27,2001
and you are misled that there are no environmental issues for a
conditional permit.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nancy, I hear you loud and
clear, but there is one -- one thing that I'd like to see if you could help
us with in the future, and rather than waiting till this point of the
process to come forward with this information, if we could ever hit at
the planning council meeting that they have, that would be
tremendously helpful.
MS. PAYTEN: I was given the impression from staff that this
was a resolved issue. And in a conversation with Andy Eller, it came
up, "Oh, by the way." And then it was, "No, Andy wasn't aware it
was on the agenda today," coming forward, and he wasn't-- to his
mind, there were a number of unresolved issues.
So I was acting on what I thought the staff was saying, that there
were no environmental issues. It was by happenstance that I found
out that there still are RCW issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Nancy, I thank you for
being the watchdog for the environment out there, and I'll move for a
continuance on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I could just say, I don't
think it's Nancy Payten's job to watch for these items. It's up to our
staff and the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think you're absolutely right,
Commissioner, and I don't know -- I have a couple concerns here.
One, it was going through that process and wasn't completed. We
need to deal with that, and that's an internal issue. But the other is,
I'm concerned that we don't have some sort of mechanism to put a
sense of urgency on Florida Wildlife within a reasonable time line to
evaluate.
MS. PAYTEN: U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Page 48
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: U.S. Fish and Wildlife, yeah.
I get them confused. Whoever is going to be the ruling agency, I
really hate to see them tie up something for 12, 16 months before
they do it. We have to have some time line where we get these folks
to take action.
MS. PAYTEN: Well, maybe the county ought to consider
hiring more staff so they can do it internally using -- using the
development services money which is money that's generated by the
developers, not from me and the taxpayers that are sitting out here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: A lot of folks will have something to
say about that, but thank you, Nancy.
MS. PAYTEN: Let's put their million dollars that's sitting --
umpteen million dollars that's sitting in the bank to use. If they want
these applications expedited, then they got to pay for it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good point. Thank you, Nancy. Mr.
Pickworth.
MR. PICKWORTH: Commissioner, if I could-- if I could
address Ms. Payten's comments, I think maybe there is some
misunderstanding of the Fish and Wildlife Services' role here and
how it works in all of this. This property is upland. They are not
jurisdictional wetlands. There is no "federal action," quote, taking
place that would bring up Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction under one
section of the Environment Species Act. Their-- the section of the
Endangered Species Act that deals with incidental takes, which is the
other prong of jurisdiction that Mr. Eller's group could exercise, only
applies when you have two things: One, you have a take, all right, as
defined in the law. And, two, that it's incidental to an otherwise use
of the property. So think about the Catch 22 we're being put in.
Number one, there is no take. We've done the studies, and we're
very sure of that, that there -- "take" as defined in the statute does not
exist here. Secondly, you can -- even if you have a, quote, "take," it
Page 49
November 27, 2001
can only be incidental to a lawful use of the land. So since we have to
have a conditional-use permit to make this lawful use of the land, we
can't get the permit anyway. So, you know, I'm not sure where this
would leave us. I mean, we're just in limbo, and nothing can happen.
Now, we have provided Mr. Ellers with information, and we
will continue to do that. We are going to do some additional studies
because -- let me explain how -- how the Endangered Species Act
works. Mr. Ellers is not in the business of giving advisory opinions.
He's not in the business of telling you, "If you'll go and do this, then
you're okay. You haven't violated the law, and you're exempt from
prosecution." All right. There are -- they're a permitting agency if
you're doing something which raises their permit jurisdiction. We're
not going to do anything that raises their permit jurisdiction.
Now, we, as any landowner, are concerned that we not take an
action that would violate the Endangered Species Act. My gosh,
these things carry criminal penalties, and we will do the due diligence
necessary, and we will certainly talk with and discuss with and share
information with the Fish and Wildlife Service, because they are the
enforcement agency that enforces this law, but there is no, quote,
"approval or permit" to be gotten here.
MS. PAYTEN: I agree with that. They're not issuing a permit,
but the county has brought them into this process to address the
county's obligations to protect wildlife habitat. It's the county that's
brought them into this process and is using them to help make their
decisions.
And I agree that the Fish and Wildlife Services is not a
permitting agency, that there's not a permit that they're going to issue
for this. My point is that the county has brought them in to address
their obligations under the Growth Management Plan to protect
wildlife habitat. And if the county is going to use them as an
extension of their obligation to -- to protect habitat, then the county's
Page 50
November 27, 2001
got to honor what they have to say and go by their rules. If the
county doesn't want it and you, the developer, doesn't want it, then
you have to have county staff that can do it. But you can't have it
both ways and end up at a loss for the habitat and for the species.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me, Nancy, but I'd like
an outside agency to overlook something like this to be a control, a
balance on this whole thing. And I wouldn't want to change it where
staff did it in-house. I'm, frankly, disappointed this is on a summary
agenda. It never should have been there to begin with.
MS. PAYTEN: It raises a number of questions, broader issues
that need to be addressed as well about how this county fulfills its
environmental obligations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My motion stands.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' Yeah. I -- I just have a couple of
questions. I'm concerned about the sequence of this process. Is this a
procedural problem? Are we following the normal course of action
to approve this, and if so, why wouldn't we seek the input of the
Environmental Advisory Committee before?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To answer this question, I also have an
environmentalist here who reviewed this and can answer that. For
one thing, this came in on February 14th, and we are bringing it to
you in the end of November because we asked for an environmental
study of the area. We asked that the study of listed species during the
nesting season, if you don't have any nests on-site. If you don't have
any cavity trees and if you don't have any birds that you see in the six
months, it doesn't matter if the map has a dot on it saying "nesting
area." I mean, birds -- they don't go by the map. They basically go
where the trees are and that's -- that's why we have this additional
layer of study when it's within the area shown as "nesting area." And
after six months of study, if we don't observe any birds, we don't
Page 51
November 27, 2001
observe any nest in any cavity tree, then there are no birds there, no
listed species birds there.
And in regards to Fish and Wildlife Services, they are not going
to issue any permit. They are basically going to look at it and issue a
guideline how to develop this. And basically we stipulated that
whatever guidelines they have, they have to adhere to that guideline.
And that's why we didn't wait until -- they had it for 90 days. I do not
know how long it takes to review. We always get blamed for the
delay in the review. But at one point after having this on hold for
seven or eight months, we just couldn't hold it any longer, not
knowing when Fish and Wildlife are going to do the review.
We know that they are not going to permit. They are not going
to say, "No, you cannot do it." All they are going to do is issue a
guideline, and we are saying that whatever the guideline is, they have
to comply with. And if the applicant agrees to that, then that's all it
takes.
MR. PICKWORTH: And we agree.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, you know, I'm
not sure continuing it is going to solve the problem. So if we're
satisfied that the study doesn't have any listed species on it, then we
don't need to continue this. We need to vote on it. But if there is,
then those issues need to be addressed at a later time. So -- MS. PAYTEN: The issue is--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish, please? Thank
yOU.
MS. PAYTEN: Sure. I thought you were.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what -- we need to hear
from our staff who reviewed the study and hear from the petitioner,
the person who did the study to make sure that there are no listed
species.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Let's, then, hear from --
Page 52
November 27, 2001
Commissioner, take natural resources.
MS. PAYTEN: I'll sit down after this, but I want to stress again
that we're dealing with habitat here, not necessarily that they've seen
a bird there or not. But this is habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers,
and that's the issue, not whether somebody saw a bird there or not,
but it's habitat, and the county is obligated to protect habitat.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala has one more
question for Ms. Payten, and then I need to go to staff. Thank you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm SO1Ty. So late. When you say
"habitat" -- and you showed where they are on a map, but there are a
lot of residences around there. Do those -- the people that live in
those homes, are they also in the habitat area?
MS. PAYTEN: Yes. But, remember, this is a fishing lake that's
destroying 12 acres. It's obliterating. We're gone. We've lost 12
acres. There's no compatibility as there might be with some other
uses. So that's our concern, is that this is a dramatic alteration of
habitat and habitat that's needed for dispersal of this species so that it
can recover.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ms. Payten, I am really
confused. A few months ago you supported a excavating site in the
south lots that is going to be a fish farm, so I don't see what the
difference is between this one and that one.
MS. PAYTEN: We supported one fish farm, one pond to be
built. And also we were aware that, looking at various maps, it
wasn't habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers or an area-specific type
of bird.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're looking for in this
study of RCWs?
MS. PAYTEN: Red-cockaded woodpeckers are the species of
Page 53
November 27, 2001
concern. Yes, RCWs are the species of concern in this area. They
are a listed species. They are a dwindling species, and it's a species
that helped get the county into the problem that it is with the state
because the county didn't take into consideration loss of their habitat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's why I want to see
this study. If there's birds there, I would say that that is supporting
habitat. I mean, I have a redheaded cockaded woodpecker at my
house banging at the pole every other day, so I guess I'm in an area of
critical concern.
MS. PAYTEN: I'm only going by what your staff has produced
and what the wildlife commission has produced. And I don't know
what you saw at your house because I don't know where your house
is, but this is habitat.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not in the woods.
MS. PAYTEN: It's been identified as essential, and I can't stress
that anymore, and I -- I leave it to whatever you're going to do for
these birds.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ms. Payten, I have one other
question for you. We were trying to decide about an excavation
permit today, and you to object to that. Is there any level of
development that would be acceptable on that property in your view?
MS. PAYTEN: That's something that I'd have to consult with --
with various folks that have expertise with red-cockaded
woodpeckers, but I don't need to be a scientist to know that
excavating and turning into a pond is not a compatible use with RCW
habitat which are pine uplands or pine flatwoods.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I definitely don't want any
more moving into my area, you know, pecking on the poles.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: District 5 is happy for every
red-cockaded woodpecker we can get.
Page 54
November 27, 2001
MS. PAYTEN: Well, they're going to get squeezed by -- and
I'm not sure that's an RCW that's at your house.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Badamtchian, does natural
resources have any comments on this before the board--
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Staff is -- here is going to comment on
that. Just a couple of quick comments. The one that Commissioner
Henning mentioned, it was in a NRPA area, National Resource
Protection Area, and this one is not. And, as I said, there are no birds
around. And most of the Golden Gate Estates -- certain portion of the
Golden Gate Estates is within the habitat area, and we keep issuing
building permits for the Golden Gate Estates. And if we should stop
all developments because of the list of species, probably we should
stop issuing building permits for homes. This is not an ag area. They
can -- will come and ask to remove trees and grow tomatoes and we
don't really need to be here, and the trees will be gone either way.
We are not here because they are removing trees. We are here
because they are removing the dirt off site. That's the scope of the
review. We are reviewing here -- is it appropriate to remove the dirt
from here to bring it in town for new constructions?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But if I understand it correctly, you
have to take trees off of it before you can remove the dirt.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. But they can remove the trees to
grow tomatoes. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand that, but what I
got to get from the study is if there's any endangered species there,
and if there is, maybe it is quality habitat area.
MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Stephen
Lenberger, planning services. I'm an environmental specialist. I'm
the environmental specialist that reviewed this project. A couple
things. One is, Commissioner Fiala was talking about the habitat in
the area that Nancy Payten had shown on the map. A lot of that
Page 55
November 27, 2001
habitat has been developed since that map was produced. So there,
obviously, aren't any birds in that area. The red-cockaded
woodpeckers, in general, have been losing ground in that area due to
habitat degradation. Pine flatwoods have to burn on a periodic time
period, and because they don't burn because we put out the fires for
obvious reasons, the habitat gets very overgrown and the red-
cockaded woodpeckers leave. So, in general, RCWs are losing
ground in that area.
Commissioner Henning was talking about woodpeckers in his
yard. Just to mention --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. They're banging on a
metal pole.
MR. LENBERGER: On a metal pole. I have that too in my
yard. There are quite a few species of woodpeckers and the red-
cockaded woodpecker-- although they have the name "red-cockaded
woodpecker," it doesn't have the red head like many of the other
woodpeckers we have in Florida. And there are quite a few more
common ones than the red-cockaded woodpecker. It actually has a
very small red dot behind his head. So if you have one with red on its
head, it's probably a different species, just to clarify that. There's
quite a few species of woodpeckers. A lot of people do get confused,
so I just wanted to bring that up.
Now, as far as the species, I reviewed the environmental impact
statement. What I did initially, I contacted Andy Eller from the Fish
and Wildlife Service. I originally had talked with Andy, as well Kim
Dryden prior to Andy coming on board about any projects in this
area, and they want to see all the projects that come through that area.
I review all the clearing permits along with some other environmental
staff, and Fish and Wildlife Service reviews all those as well.
At that time Andy Eller asked to do a nesting-season survey
which I relayed to the applicant. They since did the survey, revised
Page 56
November 27, 2001
the environmental-impact statement, and I forwarded it myself to
Andy Eller. Since then the applicant has been in contact with Andy
Eller, and they have exchanged different information back and forth.
They have been in contact with the applicant.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The process hasn't concluded
though?
MR. LENBERGER: Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The process is still ongoing?
MR. LENBERGER: It's still ongoing. The Land Development
Code requires other agency permits to be issued prior to clearing
permits by the county. So that's what we tie the clearing permit to, is
approval by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Fish and Wildlife Service since sent an e-mail to me
yesterday at 4:30 requesting additional information from the
applicant. He was copied on it, which is typical of their review. It
could go back several times. They've asked for a non-nesting-season
survey as well. So the process could take a while. And we talked
about a time period earlier. You know, it could go on for quite a few
months. The applicant is aware that they're going to have to adhere
to the guidelines of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and we made a
stipulation and a conditional-use resolution to that effect.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me see if I heard something
here. If you issue the permit today, they can't do anything until they
get clearance from Florida Wildlife on this -- Fish and Game or
whoever woodpecker watchers are?
MR. LENBERGER: Fish and Wildlife Service. State of
Florida, Florida Game, Freshwater Fish Commission, now called the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, they have
jurisdiction over protected species and their nesting and denning
sites. Because there are no nesting and denning sites to protect the
species on site, it's strictly the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and
Page 57
November 27,2001
Wildlife Service.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
understand this a little bit better.
If I may?
I think I'm starting to
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm glad you are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First of all, their common
woodpecker lives there. It's only in the District 5 where the elite are
and that's understandable.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Great. Got it. I got it. Thank you,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Better be careful there, Mr.
Coletta. And nobody has come over to my house to identify that
woodpecker, so you better be careful.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm still looking for that
Osceola turkey.
But if I could go back to this, I would like to amend my motion
that approval be granted upon approval from the Fish and Game for
this to go forward, and lacking that approval, that the whole thing
ends at that point. Would that be something that would be agreeable
so we don't have to go through this process again? And the petitioner
can wait for the approval from the Fish and Game and then move
forward at that time with this clearing or whatever, and if he doesn't
get it, then he -- of course, he would be subject to whatever.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's basically what we have stipulated.
If you want stronger language, we can do that, but it is in our list of
stipulations. That's standard stipulation we have. If you want
something with stronger language or say something slightly different,
that's fine. We basically said that they cannot touch any trees before
obtaining a clearing permit, and they must comply with the
guidelines of Fish and Wildlife; and, otherwise, we will not issue a
Page 58
November 27, 2001
tree-clearing permit. Basically we have our safeguards.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I hear you, but I would
still want in my motion to include that they could not proceed until
that point in time they produce the -- the letter affirming the fact that
-- that it doesn't present a problem with Fish and Game.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: That's -- that's really the only question in front of
the board today, is the sequencing question. And the question is
whether or not you want to have the conditional-use approval subject
to the final guidelines that are developed and the agreement of the
property owner to those guidelines or the way it's currently stipulated.
The conditional use that's in front of you now would be approved, but
then the site-clearing permit would not be issued until the guidelines
from Florida Fish and Wildlife were issued and agreed to by the
property owner. So that's really the question in front of you. It's a
sequencing issue.
From what I hear, your motion, you're suggesting that we make
the conditional-use approval contingent upon the guidelines being
developed by Fish and Wildlife and agreed to by the property owner
and proof of that provided to the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. And, of course,
all the other stipulations that we prior mentioned as far as the travel
on the roads, blasting, and the use of the 13th Bridge.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm still trying to understand
the sequence of events and why we do things a certain way, but -- but
I understand Ms. Payten's concern about the fact that it doesn't make
any difference there aren't any birds there. There could be birds there
if they come from another area if it's -- if it's prime habitat. But -- but
as I understand the process, this land has already been zoned in a way
which will permit it to be developed; is that true?
Page 59
November 27,2001
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is zoned agricultural. It will allow
agricultural uses, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is -- there is no zoning
category here that says -- that identifies the habitat and -- and
specifies that this cannot be rezoned and cleared, is there?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. We don't have any zoning that
prohibits the use of the land.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have some overlays that requires
additional review, staff review, but we do not have any zoning that
says, "This is the land that you cannot touch." There is no such
zoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not yet.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Not yet.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm going to close the public --
I need a motion to close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by the Chair.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
a motion.
Opposed by the same sign.
Public hearing is closed. I'll entertain
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion I previously stated
incorporating the Fish and Wildlife, the hours of operation, the use of
the 13th Street Bridge, the preblasting inspection, the videos, they
will all be included in my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner
Henning.
Page 60
November 27, 2001
Before I take the vote, Mr. Pickworth, I did reserve the right --
well, I closed the public hearing. You can't talk --
MR. PICKWORTH: You know, we will -- we will get the best
approval that we can get from them, and then we'll follow all their
guidelines. And I don't know if we'll ever get a thing that says
"approved" from them, because I don't know if they'll issue anything
like that, but you know, we'll do whatever they say and do whatever
studies they say and coordinate with them and get the best we can
get. I mean, that's all you can do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's okay with Nancy too.
She's shaking her head. That's fair.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All right. All in favor of the
motion signify by saying aye.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I need to clarify that motion, if I
can. I just want to make sure that I understand the restriction. The
restrictions in terms of travel are 9 a.m. To 3:30 p.m.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
last truck would leave the pit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
3:30 would be the time that the
And thinking about that, you
know, Norm Feder says it's 6:00 to 9:00 -- 7:00 to 9:00 1 wrote down
here, and 4:00 to 6:00. You would amend your motion to have
transportation staff work with that because that could change from
time to time maybe, depending on construction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The time of the year.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
the school hours change too.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Are we stepping off the deep
end on this?
MR. OLLIFF: It's, obviously, better for staff if there is a bright
line in terms of the stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can leave it like it is, and
That's the time of the year or if
Page 61
November 27, 2001
then if there's some reason later they want to come back and ask for
re-evaluation --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's your time?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I had down here -- and if this
doesn't sound agreeable -- it would be after 8:30 in the morning.
That would be when the first truck could leave the pit. And the last
truck could leave the pit at 3:30 in the afternoon. You have to leave
enough hours of operation for them to make it economically feasible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. And you're not
concerned about that half-hour between 8:30 and 9?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, of course, I'm concerned,
but I'm also concerned for the rights of the petitioner to be able to
operate a business within a reasonable fashion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then my second stands.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor of the motion
signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. We're going to
take ten minutes and give our magic fingers a rest.
(Short recess taken.)
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2001-67, RE PUD-A2001-AR-834, WILLIAM L.
HOOVER, TRUSTEE, REPRESENTING BUCKS RUN LAND
TRUST AND THE RESTORATION CHURCH INC.,
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUCKS RUN PUD,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951), APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH
Page 62
November 27, 2001
OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, CONSISTING OF 38.99+
ACRES- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Many of you are here for the next agenda item which is under
advertised public hearings. It's Item 8-A. There is a PUD number,
but it's more community known as Bucks Run Land Trust. We are
going to be taking that item next. We'll have a presentation by staff,
by the petitioner, and I know there are a lot of representatives from
homeowners' associations here. I have met with the people from
Vanderbilt Beach Club yesterday, and they do have some designated
people who want to speak. For a vast majority of the audience, both
in this room and the supervisor's election building, if you are not
comfortable with what the representatives say and there's additional
speakers, we do need to have you sign up. But if most of you are
here and you have legal counsel and you have a planner speaking for
the association, if most of you are comfortable with that -- I kind of
go for a show of hands. How many people are here from -- on this
issue, and how many are working with your representatives of
Vanderbilt? Can you kind of give me your hands. Okay. Thank you very much.
Better ask the question, who isn't and who wants
to speak outside of the counsel and planner representing your group?
I see one gentleman raising his hand. And if there's anybody in
the other building who is going to speak individually, you do need to
come over and sign up with Ms. Filson to speak on this issue.
I do appreciate very much the homeowner's association for your
organization of your presentation so that the board can be fully
informed on your -- on your position and the information you want to
share with the board as we operate as the board of zoning appeals in
terms of this issue. So thank you very much for your cooperation and
Page 63
November 27, 2001
your assistance.
Mr. Bellows, you will present for the county. Can -- everybody
needs to be sworn in on this as it is a public hearing. Stand and be
sworn, please.
(The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with the
planning services staff. Before I begin the presentation, I'd just like
to note, I've handed out a page 5 --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize. Got
to have disclosures by the board.
Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. I met with some residents
yesterday. I talked with the petitioner. I went out to the site. And I
also talked to some of the planning commission members about this.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have talked with
representatives of Vanderbilt Country Club and representatives of the
petitioner, including Mr. Ken Cuyler.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have spoken with both groups. I have
a complete folder from representatives of the Vanderbilt Beach Club,
from the petitioner. And any other phone calls or e-mails that have
been sent to me will be in this folder -- folder duly recognized as
public record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I too have spoken to the petitioner
and his representative. I have also spoken to people from the Bucks -
- or from the area of the Vanderbilt Country Club. I received a
multitude of e-mails and read them all, and I will leave them-- put
them into the record as well. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I also have spoken to the
petitioner on two different occasions. I met twice with the -- with
Page 64
November 27, 2001
different residents from the area, received numerous e-mails, phone
calls and letters, viewed the site once and watched the planning
commission meeting on this subject.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you, Commissioners.
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to point out, I've handed out to you
page 5 of the staff report that's attached to your executive summary.
I've been told that some of the packets may have missed-- be missing
that page. Attached to that also is -- from the Housing and Urban
Improvement Department is the affordable-housing agreement that's
currently being modified by our county attorney staff to clarify some
of the legal language. It doesn't change anything substantive with the
agreement. It's just dotting the I's and -- so to speak, of the
agreement. I just wanted you to have a copy of that for your record.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: As you can see on the visualizer, the subject
site is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, and it's
approximately 2 miles south of Immokalee Road and 700 feet north
of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The site is -- zero in here a little bit. The
site is a currently approved PUD known as Bucks Run.
It allows for 158 -- or 156 dwelling units. It's north of an existing
undeveloped PUD. The Mission Church PUD, which also allows for
a private school to the north, is agricultural-zoned property. That has
a landscape nursery business. To the west across Collier Boulevard
is the Golden Pond residential PUD; however, this property is also
part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment that allows for commercial
uses, and there is a petition that has been filed for that property to
turn it into commercial uses. It's currently under review now by staff.
To the north and east is the Vanderbilt Country Club that allows for
single- and multi-family development.
The petitioner's requesting to amend the currently approved
Page 65
November 27, 2001
Bucks Run PUD to allow for an increase in residential units to --
from 156 units to 348 units. This is done through the affordable-
housing agreement density bonus. Currently the Growth
Management Plan allows for a density of four units per acre. I have
the future land-use map here. The future land-use map and the future
land-use element dictates densities that proposed rezonings have to
conform with.
The subject site is located in the yellow or urban residential area
that allows for a base density of four units per acre. If it was within
the density band, the circle, it could receive three additional units per
acre for a total -- a maximum eligibility of seven units per acre.
However, this is not in the density band, so its base density is four
units per acre, and that's what it's currently approved at, four units per
acre.
The density bonus is allowed through the Growth Management
Plan to encourage affordable housing to meet workers' needs in the
county. It allows for a density bonus of eight additional units per
acre or twelve units per acre on the subject site.
I have a master plan here of the site. The subject site proposes
its primary access crossing the canal from Collier Boulevard to the
front of the subject site is the west tract. In the PUD document, the
petitioner proposes to allow for a church with a private school, and --
or if the church and school are not developed, possible 60 dwelling
units. That would be developed at market rate at four units per acre.
On the east tract is proposed for the affordable housing project
at 12 -- basically, 12 units per acre. It allows for 288 affordable
housing units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Show me again where the 60 would
be, please.
MR. BELLOWS: It would be in the less tract in this area
(indicating). If-- we have put language in the PUD document that if
Page 66
November 27, 2001
the property's developed with a church or school, then they could not
build the residential. However, for each acre of that church or school
property that's converted to non -- or residential uses, then we
subtract that density from the project. So there won't be double-
counting that property, in other words.
The subject site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is
consistent with the future land-use element and the density with the
adoption of the affordable-housing density bonus.
The environmental staff have reviewed this project previously
when it was rezoned in 1999 to Bucks Run PUD, and this amendment
did not change any of those environmental conditions. So it was not
required to go to the Environmental Advisory Board.
The petitioner submitted a traffic impact statement that was
reviewed by the transportation department. We have Dawn Wolfe,
the transportation director, here to help explain in more detail the
traffic-impact statement. I know that's a concern of many of the
residents in the area about traffic and, more specifically, traffic on
this segment of Collier Boulevard.
Basically, the level-of-service standards adopted in the currently
approved Growth Management Plan dictate the way staff reviewed
this project because we are going with the policies and standards that
are currently adopted. Those standards basically say there is -- a
minimum level-of-service standard is D. This project will not
significantly lower that level of service of the roadway below Level
Service D, so it is consistent with those policies. I should note that
transportation department is currently revising those levels-of-service
standards and will be bringing them before you through future comp
plan and Land Development Code amendments.
I have Dawn Wolfe here, and I think it may be a good time for
her to get into some of the -- unless you want me to finish the
presentation, then go into--
Page 67
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I definitely would like to hear
from our transportation staff. I have a real concern about approving
this on a two-lane road.
MR. BELLOWS: Do you want now or finish --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I could just get a
clarification. The Comprehensive Plan establishes this road as Level
of Service D or C?
MR. BELLOWS: Level of Service D is the minimum standard
it can operate at. What you're referring to is Policy 5.1 and 5.2 that
basically says, what is determined as a significant impact, and
basically it comes from the regional planning council's definition of
what is significant.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the base for that
determination is Level of Service C in the Comprehensive Plan; is
that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, as -- if it's a significant impact, but the
county commission can recommend approval of projects as long as
the road is operating at or above its adopted level of service.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think for our listening audience
and people here, sometimes when we talk about level -- grade levels
on roads, A, B, C, D, E, everybody says, "Why not A and B?" A is,
you live out in the country and the car goes by once a day. That's a
Level A road. B is if you're in your neighborhood and a few cars go
by. C is when you get onto collectors and you get onto really more
traversed roads. So C really becomes a Level of Service 1. D
becomes a 2. E becomes a 3. We've never been able to change that
yet, and maybe that's a subject all of us would like to get closer to so
that we could get a better assessment of it. So please don't become
confused. C is kind of the point where you start.
Page 68
November 27, 2001
Ms. Wolfe.
MS. WOLFE: Good morning. For the record, Dawn Wolfe,
transportation planning department director. First, I'll go ahead and
kind of give a little educational component as to -- the
Comprehensive Plan contains in it today a series of level-of-service
volume tables. Those tell us how many vehicles can be on a road at
certain levels of service, and that's the measure by which we make
our recommendations to you of impacts of proposals that come
before you. Those tables are rather dated because those capacities are
subject to the conditions of the physical road, how many lanes, how
much traffic is out there, how much traffic signals. And we are
currently in the process, as Ray indicated, of updating those tables to
be consistent with what the current characteristics of those roadways
are. However, for the time being, those tables are contained within
the Growth Management Plan, and those are the guidelines by which
we make our recommendations to this board. Until they are removed
from it, which we are recommending they are since they are a
technical tool so that we may update them as necessary as we see
changes to our roads, we have to adhere to what those numbers are in
there. Regardless of what we may think or say, we are bound by
what is contained in the Comprehensive Plan in making
recommendations as far as what is or isn't consistent with the
policies.
The adopted level-of-service standard is D on the majority of
roadways within Collier County. That is the case of County Road
951, Collier Boulevard. Because of the service volume, how many
cars can be on that section of two-lane road as contained in the
Comprehensive Plan, we are listing that road as operating at a Level
of Service B because it says it can carry a lot more traffic and
maintain a Level of Service B; whereas, the comfort level, which is
how a lot of people relate to level of services, how comfortably can I
Page 69
November 27, 2001
drive on that road, we relate that to a little bit worse level of service.
And as we've been going through and updating our tables, we have
seen that service volume number drop to a lower amount for the
various levels of service.
If I was here a year from now, those tables would not be in the
Comprehensive Plan, and we would probably be making a different
recommendation to you based on those updates; however, we're here
before you today under the current Comprehensive Plan, its policies
and objectives and what's contained in it, and under those findings
and the impact statement provided by the applicant, it is consistent
with the policy of the Comprehensive Plan because we have a greater
window of allowance for traffic on that road.
I do not disagree that there appears to be a lot of traffic out
there, but we must make our recommendations based on what's
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. So from a staff perspective, it
is consistent with maintaining the adopted level of service on 951.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does this take into consideration all of
the developments between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach
Road and those who are existing and those who have already been
approved by the Board of County Commissioners? Has all -- have all
of those units been factored into that decision making?
MS. WOLFE: With the rate of development, they have
increased their background traffic volumes by an
8 percent per year in order to take into account those developments
which are occurring out there, which is consistent with the amount of
growth that has occurred over just the past few years rather than
looking at a ten-year time frame, which has been past policy in
determining how much growth you see out there. We've limited
them. So we are seeing a higher rate of growth on that road. We
look back ten years, we would probably be looking at more of a 2
percent growth. But they did apply an 8 percent growth rate to the
Page 70
November 27, 2001
background traffic, then added their own on top of it to account for
the other development which is occurring out there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second question for me is, how wide
can that road be? In other words, how many lanes can we expand
that road to if we had the money, if it was in the schedule?
MS. WOLFE: If we had the money, if we had it in the schedule,
we would look at constructing that road to a six-lane divided arterial.
It would require us to procure right-of-way on the west side of the
road due to the existence of the canal on the east side. But if we had
all the money, yes, that's what we would be in the process of doing as
we had intended in a program which would be to start up the design
of that widening project, but we would be looking at six lanes all the
way through Collier County on that roadway.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But it would probably be a staged
process, even though a big part of me says go do six all at once if you
could. It's usually staged. You go from where you are to four and
then to six. But right now you got a two-lane road, if I'm
understanding it, and is there any point there is a trigger mechanism
in here that says you got to have a four-lane road before you could
issue any more permits or approve minor projects?
MS. WOLFE: There is not a trigger in here in regards to that.
That would be in regards to our adequate public facilities
determination, and that is specific to the point at which a site-
development plan or a building permit is obtained by the individuals
along this corridor or anywhere in Collier County.
If at some point in time we say we have reached capacity and
have defined a specific location by which we have exceeded it and
cannot make an improvement and thereby we don't have adequate
public facilities, that would be a point at which we could say, "I'm
sorry, but unless you're willing to widen this road because it's not in
our program to do it, you will just have to wait until it's widened."
Page 71
November 27, 2001
This is something that we will be bringing forward and
discussing with you later on in the week in regards to the adequate
public facilities and where we truly stand with our level of service;
however, those are different stages down the road. At the time of
zoning, we don't specifically say you have an adequate public facility
certificate. You can get your zoning now, but that doesn't mean
you're going to be able to have a building permit six months or six
years from now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I hear some oo's and ah's here.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would like to -- to
understand the statement on page 3 of the executive summary (as
read): "When level-of-service requirements fall below adopted
standards, a mechanism is in place to bring about a cessation of
building activities." Now, I understand that's essentially what you just
said, but I think it's also true that the mechanism in place is a
responsibility that's placed upon the county government to build a
road that will handle that level of service and that we must, within
three years, begin construction on that or we are in violation of the
law; is that correct?
So the law really requires us to do this: To make the -- establish
a road that meets the level of service with respect to the density of
traffic which we expect to be using the road. And -- and, I guess, my
concern is, we're always behind the eight-ball when we're doing that
because we're not able to accumulate that money to build that far in
advance. So what we're really talking about here is a building
moratorium for a period of three years if, in fact, this -- the level of
service falls below the adopted level of service.
Is that correct or partially correct?
MS. WOLFE: Generally. Generally. Generally, yes, you are
Page 72
November 27, 2001
correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't hold me down to specifics
yet. I'm -- I'm new here.
MS. WOLFE: Generally, yes. There's a number of ways of
dealing with deficiencies. First off, our code allows us if we are at D,
but we can operate at a Level of Service E, but during -- for up to one
year, but then we must have in place within a three-year window a
capital improvement set to widen or bring about a capacity change on
that road.
The other issues as we deal with on an annual basis are, as we
go through our annual update and inventory report and we define
what needs we have within a three- and then a five-year time period
is that we look at multiple factors. Either we program the road
improvement as it's needed if we have the funds available. We -- if
we don't have sufficient funds, we identify additional funding sources
to make it come about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that means increasing taxes?
MS. WOLFE: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Okay.
MS. WOLFE: That's not what I said. Find additional funding
sources that may be from existing funding sources and/or new
funding sources, but it's not absolute that it has to be new funding
sources. A lot of it depends upon how much is needed to do the job.
So if you can't fund it with what you've got, you can't find enough of
a resources to build them, then you go and look at perhaps lowering
the level-of-service standard in order to meet them. In certain cases
you may -- since the majority of our roads aren't Level of Service D,
we may look at, for a period of time, lowering certain roads to Level
of Service E. That only buys you some time. That's all that does.
The last thing that you do is define areas of significant impact.
That's where the "M" word comes in. However, you only have a
Page 73
November 27, 2001
short period of time that you can have those defined, and that's a one-
year period. During that time, you have to come up with a plan to
resolve the issues identified by those areas of significant influence,
which means you find the money to fix the roads. You lower the
level of service, but you have to do it. We are mandated to provide
the adopted level-of-service standard within the three-year period of
time that we must be going to construction within that period of time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask one follow-up to that?
I think based upon one of the earlier questions -- I think
Commissioner Carter may have raised that question -- there's a
concern about the cumulative impact of all of the developments that
have been approved already along this stretch of road. I do know that
in talking with staff before this meeting, that staff is in the process of
addressing that stuff and perhaps already has begun to deal with it in
some way, but it's my understanding that the basic stumbling block is
the inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan of a defined level of service,
and since we can't modify the Comprehensive Plan more than a
couple of times a year, we're always behind. So I don't know if Norm
would like to address that issue or if you would like to address that
issue of modifying the Comprehensive Plan so that we're not caught
in that bind in the future.
Is that essentially what we're talking about?
MS. WOLFE: Yes, we are, and we are currently in that process.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's coming to us almost later
this week. See, this is one of the difficulties, Commissioner Coyle,
that I have with this whole situation, is I feel we might be making
some changes later in the week that would affect what we did today;
meaning, if we had that information then forward, we would address
this issue differently. Now, I know I'm going to get into some legal
areas here, but let's stay with the road and assessments. That's --
that's where I am in this process, and those are my concerns and the
Page 74
November 27, 2001
questions that are being raised.
I know Commissioner Henning has a question, and I think
there's others coming from my -- from my right. So --
MS. WOLFE: If I could go ahead and answer Commissioner
Coyle's question with regard to that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you would.
MS. WOLFE: We are required to define our level-of-service
standard, whether it -- based on the letter grade, A, B, C, D, E, or F.
The only road in Collier County where we don't set the level-of-
service standard is 1-75. That is under the jurisdiction of the Florida
Department of Transportation. The other state roads we do have the
ability to set the standard on. What is in question is a series of tables
that identify what -- how many cars can be on a section of road for
each level-of-service grade that are contained in the Comprehensive
Plan. And our objective in the upcoming amendment cycle is to
remove those and place them under a separate ordinance, such that
when we add Livingston Road or we add traffic signals to existing
roads or we widen roads, that we can periodically update those tables
without having to wait for our regular Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycles to come forward, that we don't have to go through
four series -- series of hearings, but that we can take it as a regular
ordinance subject to a public hearing. But these are technical
standards based on accepted national practices, based on nationally
accepted methodologies, and it's a technical tool that should not
necessarily be in the Comprehensive Plan because what that has done
is it has tied our hands.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. To Commissioner Henning,
and then I will come back to my right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right down the street is
Brittany Bay. Now, is that a part of the equation for level of service
of that road, does that traffic impact?
Page 75
November 27, 2001
MS. WOLFE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Because they're right
under construction right now, and you're saying that that is a part of
the equation?
MS. WOLFE: As they have developed their background traffic,
they have included a rate of growth to be inclusive of the
development which will be coming on line during their same build-
out period, and they have used a very high rate of growth. Normally
people look at two to two and a half in a regular area for growth.
They have applied an 8 percent growth rate per year in increasing
their background traffic from when they had their counts done to take
into account the development which is occurring on that section of
road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next question is, when are we
going to be remove that 5 percent rule that the roads can be impacted
before we can say no to a development?
MS. WOLFE: That item will be up for consideration during the
next Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. And, like I said, it's one
of those of where the standard under statute for developments of
regional impact have established that 5 percent as being the level of
significance. This one was looking at -- the 1 percent looked at their
radius of influence. The 5 percent is whether or not they are
significant or not. That is under -- when you're under those
developments of regional-impact size projects, it is up to the local
jurisdiction to determine what that level may be. It can be anywhere
from a zero tolerance up to that 5 percent, and so that is a subject that
is up for discussion.
However, there's other steps along the way, not necessarily at
rezoning, at which greater controls should be given 'cause you don't
know exactly at the time of rezoning what specifically may or may
not be developed on a site. It only gives the property owner the right
Page 76
November 27, 2001
to ask for up to that much, and it's dependent upon what is available
on those public facilities that can serve those projects to make the
determination of how much they can build at the time they come
forward for those specific land uses.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know Commissioner Coyle wants to
ask a follow-up question to that, and then we'll come down to
Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a follow on to the question
about the 5 percent increase. Now, why would the 5 percent-increase
criteria not be removed if we go to a checkbook-type accounting
system that accommodates for the cumulative effect? For example, if
we have 5,000 trips per day available on a road before it drops below
the desired level of service and someone comes in and gets 1,000 of
them, we write a check and say, "Okay. You've got 1,000," that only
leaves 4,000 more. And as we write those checks, then the balance
declines without regard to a 5 percent change at all. Is that possible?
MS. WOLFE: The 5 percent is really not an absolute yes or no,
'cause a lot of times these roads are what is directly out in front of the
development and those which are immediately adjacent. That 5
percent helps us establish how far out we make the determination on
whether or not something will be consistent or not consistent.
We can tighten that ring of where we look at that actually would
make that circle of influence greater, and that's what we would be
doing by eliminating that 5 percent, is saying, "We're going to" -- if it
was at zero, we're going to say, "We want to follow every trip that
comes out of your development until it ends, and any road in Collier
County that you have one trip on, if it's at level of service below its
adopted standard, we're going to stop you." Now, that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's only for three years
before we have to solve the problem. There is no way to stop it, am I
correct, under state law and the current law? There's no way to say
Page 77
November 27, 2001
no forever?
MS. WOLFE: That's correct. There are -- state and federal
statute prohibits us from saying you can never have a right to use
your land. There has to be a reasonable time period in which they
have the ability to develop their land. That's the private land-use
rights that are out there, to have a reasonable expectation of use of
their property. And it is the county's responsibility to ensure within a
timely nature in setting where the projects need to be and when, how
soon someone can develop. But that doesn't necessarily mean that
we're going to widen a road just so a development out east can
develop sooner rather than later. There's certain criteria that -- and
we'll go into a more detailed explanation of that under our workshop
on Friday in regards to that. It's quite expansive in how you can
apply it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me come to my right.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Dr. Carter.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you for your patience.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're welcome.
Ms. Wolfe, the present situation that we're allowing for if--
where everything supposedly meets the standards that are -- been
preset, is this for roads that are presently there or future roads? In
other words, Vanderbilt -- is this allowing for it to be expanded or at
the present language that it is with two-lane right there where it ends,
and also too this is also allowing only for two lanes at 951; is this
correct?
MS. WOLFE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is -- so I'm going to ask the
hard question now. Is Vanderbilt Road planned to be four-laned
anytime in the near future to that point?
MS. WOLFE: We currently do not have it programmed within
Page 78
November 27, 2001
the first three years of our capital improvement program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that part of the six-laning
of Vanderbilt? I'm sorry.
MS. WOLFE: The eastern section from Logan Boulevard to
951 is in the production stage to be expanded from two to four lanes.
The section from Airport to Logan would be expanded to six lanes
under our current design which is underway at this time. The follow-
up phases in regards to right-of-way and construction are not
currently programmed within the three-year window of our capital
improvement program.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's part of the -- what we're
wrestling with now, looking at the whole road network based on the
revenue we have to deal with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm trying to do is look
into the future too to try to visualize what's going to be happening.
So at the present scenario of events, at what point do we see, if
everything comes together, the reasonable time period that Vanderbilt
Road would be four-laned where it meets 951 ? Is there -- is there
anything there now or is this -- am I asking a question that has no
answers?
MS. WOLFE: You're asking a question that we do have a
projection scheduled, but I can't recall it off the top of the head. Mr.
Feder will answer that question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder has total recall, I
know.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. As you know, we identified-- based on action of the
board, identifying 14 projects when we declared a transportation
emergency in May of 2000. We then looked at that and showed you
the need for 19 projects, 8 others to be started up basically requiring 5
years to accomplish that but most of it being issues that ideally need
Page 79
November 27, 2001
to be addressed today. So to your discussion and to the issues we're
having, obviously, tomorrow, Friday when we go over the AUIR
report and other issues, that's going to become very important.
In answer to your question, Vanderbilt Beach Road widening
was one of those projects we showed as needed but, at this present
time, unfunded, and that's part of what we're going to be going
through with you and evaluating together what we do on both the
product side, how to reduce that, and on the other side -- if we do,
and on the other side, how do we find those funds either with an
existing or another revenues or how do we respond as is being
discussed today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: While I have you up at the
podium, Mr. Feder, if we were to change the level of service in the
very near future as far as what's permittable under state law or
whatever the governing statutes are that would determine what it
could be, would this be able to stop certain construction that's already
underway or would they be vested?
MR. FEDER: Okay. Actually, if I lower level of service, it
allows more development, theoretically, to occur. However, we're
looking at that because one of the things we're going to be bringing to
you is the idea of consideration, because as -- one of your steps you
can consider is lowering level of service. Many of the roadways
throughout the county already are experiencing that Level of Service
E; so, therefore, lowering does not necessarily resolve your problems.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not necessarily. I was
looking about raising the level of service. In other words --
MR. FEDER: If you raise the level of service, then, obviously,
two things happen. You quicken the response to the issue of finding
that you have to do something within three years and the nature of the
improvement network-wide has to be greater to meet it.
So when we were presenting to you -- when I presented to you
Page 80
November 27, 2001
the 19 projects and the other 8 that need to be addressed over the 5
years, that was based on a current Level of Service D on most
facilities, E on some of your collector roads.
If you look -- increase that level of service, obviously that brings
in the possibility and probability, I should say, of additional projects
that need to be done and, therefore, more resources that have to be
found to be made available.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess looking at both sides of
the coin --
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in which way we would go, I
think what --
MR. FEDER: Lowering wouldn't change the equation a lot.
Raising would change it significantly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what would the -- what
about grandfathering in projects that are already underway if that
happened? Would that-- they still be able to proceed or would they
be brought to a halt?
MR. FEDER: It depends on what point they are in the process.
As Dawn pointed out, a rezoning does not give you an adequate
public facilities commitment and, therefore, the ability to proceed if,
in fact, we end up in the process of ASIs and area of significant
impact and possibly a moratorium as we try to develop a plan to meet
the needs in this community.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In your-- in getting back to
what we're actually looking at which is the Bucks Run Project -- the
proposed Bucks Run project, in your own words, what -- do you see
that as an impact on the roads?
MR. FEDER: Any -- any development on 951 as a two-lane
facility is going to have impact. We are, though, as Dawn pointed
out, required to utilize by our current process some of the issues that
Page 81
November 27, 2001
we're working with you as a board to change and have been working
in changing some, and the efforts of this board have brought those
forward. But, essentially, right now we're required legally to react
based on what is contained in the Growth Management Plan that
establishes a service volume for that level of service, and it says that
many more trips than we're comfortable saying to you, and I think
we'll be able to show you technically as we go to change it are
allowed within that level of service.
So in answer to your question, by what we have to use today,
they are within the guidelines. As we look at it in the future, there's
no question, in our mind, that we will be modifying those guidelines
as we pull that out of that Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was wondering, can you tell
me when buildout to this project is supposed to be?
MS. WOLFE: The application identifies buildout as being
2003. That would be the time at which they would have applied for
their final site plans and be in the process of pulling their building
permits.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So just to make sure that I
understood what you say correctly, when they pull their site plan and
then when they begin to pull their building permits, at that time if our
utilities aren't in place, if the level of service is poor, then they will
not be given that building permit until that issue is made right; is that
correct?
MS. WOLFE: That is correct, to the point of the three-year
window, that if we have it funded for construction within a three-year
time period, they can presume that capacity being in place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I'm just going to talk
to my own fellow commissioners here for a moment, if-- if I may,
Page 82
November 27, 2001
and that is, we desperately need work-force housing in the North
Naples area, I think, because there is -- the jobs are all there, and the
construction is there, and the hospitals are there, yet at the same time,
we need to keep our roads clear. I mean, we've got -- we've got two
problems here. Neither one seems to be compatible with the other.
Where can we find a solution so that we still salvage this desperately
pretty-needed work-force housing and yet we don't impact our roads
to a point where they're not navigable?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I think I might
be able to answer that. During the process of the comprehensive
amendments is this project here might be caught up in that. So if-- if
the level of the roads are impacted like the 5 percent rule or the
overall impacts to that road, that might be the time that those permits
are not pulled for, and that's what we heard today, is -- then we need
to do something with that corridor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we may have to make
this a rule that'll apply for the whole county. You reach a certain
point of saturation no matter where you are in the project, no new
permits, whether it be a Bucks Run or a Vanderbilt Country Club or
any other of the other entities that are looking to build out there or
any other place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is taking
responsibility -- this board is taking responsibility for the
infrastructure.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, if I understand it,
Commissioners, 156 units have been approved on this project. I
mean, that's already done, if I'm understanding that correctly. So if--
if it became a phased project in terms of carrying out and meeting the
goal, affordable work-force housing, and you start at that point and
you have a -- better parameters on roads and other infrastructure in
place, then you could have a phased-in project which would meet --
Page 83
November 27, 2001
meet the goal. Now, I don't know what the petitioner or others are
going to have to say on it, but that's as I understood it. And I will
have to hear from the people who are here from Vanderbilt, but
yesterday, it was my understanding, they didn't object to the number
of units already approved. Their concern was with everything else
that was coming.
So that's just as a part of the thought process, maybe we can
keep in our minds. But I think what we need to do now if there's not
any other questions of staff, to go to the petitioner and allow them to
discuss this with us. Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Ken Cuyler with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman &
Johnson. I'd like to welcome Commissioner Coyle to his first quiet
controversial rezone petition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, they're all going easy on
me.
MR. CUYLER: With me today I have Wayne Arnold of Q.
Grady Minor. He's going to discuss the planning aspects of this
development with you. Also Blair Foley of Q. Grady Minor. He'll
probably make a few engineering comments and answer any
questions from the engineering perspective. We have Bill Hoover
available if any questions come up. Julian Stokes, an appraiser in
town, will address you. We'll talk about property values a little bit
and give you his qualifications. And Mitchell Friedman who is with
Pinnacle Housing is present today to also discuss with you -- that is
the affordable housing builder -- what they've done in the past, what
they plan to do in terms of a building product for this project.
As you've already heard from your staff, the -- the PUD
amendment is consistent with the Growth Management Plan,
consistent with the density rating system established by the county.
It's been reviewed and recommended for approval by your Collier
Page 84
November 27, 2001
County Planning Commission, by your planning staff, environmental
staff and your housing staff and your transportation staff. Perhaps
most importantly it meets the objectives of the county's affordable-
housing policy.
And there are a couple things that I -- just are not in my notes
but I would like to say, and that is, first of all, we appreciate Dawn
Wolfe discussing with you those transportation issues. We
understand there are transportation issues. Everybody in the county
understands there are transportation issues. But we would submit to
you that, as a developer, we go into the county, put our cards out and
say, "What are your rules and regulations?" Staff says, "Here's what
it is." You meet the rules and regulations, and then you come in to
the Board of County Commissioners through the planning
commission, of course, for your approval.
And Commissioner Henning mentioned he has concern about
approving -- potentially approving a project on a two-lane road. We
understand that concern.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you mind changing the
rules in the mid-game? Can we do that?
MR. CUYLER: That's what I was about to say, is we can't
change the rules in midstream. We've been in this -- as a matter of
fact, we didn't file this last week. We've been in your process for
quite a while, and we understand that things may change in the
future. As a matter of fact, we understand we may be affected by
things that happen in the future. But with regard to today, all we can
do is meet all of your rules and regulations, and we would submit to
you that we have met all your rules and regulations.
I would also point out -- I certainly don't want to get into this
because this is probably a hot topic -- but in terms of a hearing officer
that I mentioned this morning, hearing officers look at those kind of
things. I mean, they look at, Have you met X? Have you met Y?
Page 85
November 27, 2001
Have you met Z? There may be 5,000 people in the audience, but if
you meet the roles and regulations, just because people are not happy
with the project, there has to be legal criteria to show why a project
should not be approved, and we would submit to you that legal
criteria is not here for this project.
One other thing I would point out is that this is not just a typical
development. This is affordable housing, so in your balancing --
even if you were looking today at a balancing between something
that you could address with regard to transportation or the
development, I would suggest to you that there are a lot of equities, a
lot of good reasons, a lot of county policies that lie with the
affordable housing side of this. These petitions do not come in front
of you very often. I would suggest that when you find a good one --
and we -- we think this is a good one -- that you really need to seize
it, and you need to approve it when you can, because they don't come
very often.
So with that, we'd like, obviously, to reserve some time. We see
there are some consultants we didn't see at the planning commission,
so there may be some issues we haven't heard.
With that, I'll let Mr. Arnold step up. We will try to be as
concise as we can. We understand that you have a lot of things to do
today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Mr. Arnold.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady
Minor and Associates, representing Bucks Run Land Trust. I'm
going to put up a couple of boards on the easel over here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure.
MR. ARNOLD: Excuse me for a moment. If I can, I'll just go
ahead and address the board from this location for a moment.
What I've placed up here is a copy of our master concept plan
that Mr. Bellows had up earlier on the overhead. I've also placed
Page 86
November 27, 2001
before you an aerial. I do have a reduced copy of this if you'd like {o
put it on the visualizer so that the audience can see that better, if that
would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you have one, I think that would be
appreciated by the audience, not only here but in the other room.
MR. ARNOLD: You can see the Bucks Run PUD outlined in
white on the plan at this location. What I've -- what I've done is
placed a conceptual plan overlay on the aerial photograph that shows
you the relationship to the Vanderbilt Country Club project to our
east. You see the vacant St. Agnes Church property to the south.
You see the Dorias's Landscaping to the north. As Mr. Bellows
pointed out, our access point is to Collier Boulevard at that location
about 1,000 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension.
The project is being designed to accommodate a church, school,
and potentially 60 residential units on the western tract. What we
indicated at the planning commission hearing that did not get
incorporated into their formal recommendation but a commitment
we're still willing to make is that we will eliminate 58 of the 60 units
should the church go ahead and develop on that property. They're
under contract. And should they go ahead and close and develop
their church, we would eliminate all the 60 units associated with that,
except we'd like to retain two for minister and church staff to
possibly reside on the same tract of land. That did not get picked up
on planning commission recommendation, but it is something that
we're willing to commit to. So you would have the potential to have
60 less of those units.
The eastern tract is where the issue seems to be coming from,
and that is where we would be proposing the 288 affordable-housing
units. Those are intended to be multi-family units, maximum three
story in height.
What we did at the planning commission hearing was look at the
Page 87
November 27, 2001
relationship between Vanderbilt Country Club and the units that
we're proposing. We started out with a 50-foot buffer, and we
committed to increase that to an 80-foot-wide landscape buffer
between Vanderbilt Country Club and our property. We further
committed that the minimum setback to our nearest building from our
property line would be 100 feet. That's very similar to the
relationship that Vanderbilt Country Club has in terms of their
building setback. I would like to further point out, they provided a
1 O-foot buffer against our project. We're proposing 80. It's an eight-
fold increase over the minimum buffer the county normally requires
where you would have residential-to-residential land-use
relationships.
Again, from a compatibility standpoint, they have three-stow
condominium units. One and a half of those buildings have an
orientation to our property line, although they don't physically view
back toward our property. They view back toward their country club
and lake system. There are two buildings that have some orientation
to that common property line, and we're proposing again to keep that
minimum separation at least 100 feet from our line which gives us
about a 200-foot separation through an 80-foot landscape buffer. We
think that's very significant, greater than most other relationships you
would find for very similar building type. And, granted, we have a
rental situation. We still have proposed 24-unit buildings against
their 24-unit buildings. So I would equate that to a like unit to a like
unit.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: When -- let me ask a question. There's
a lot of confusion out there in communities about the difference
between a buffer and a berm, and that keeps coming back to haunt us
because some folks think that any PUD -- when we talk a buffer, they
associate that with berm. Now, don't ask me why, but they do. So I
think we have to be real clear what you mean in terms of a buffer.
Page 88
November 27, 2001
MR. ARNOLD: What we committed on the record for the
planning commission and what we've indicated on the master concept
plan that staff has as a revision since planning commission is that will
be an 80-foot-wide buffer consisting of native vegetation with the
exception of, obviously, having to remove any exotic vegetation. I
don't believe it precludes us from putting in a berm. The water
management system hasn't been formally designed and approved by
the Water Management District, but I don't believe it would preclude
us from putting in a berm. Obviously, there might have to be an
impact to some of the existing native vegetation to place a berm in
that location if it were to be on the common property line.
Nonetheless, I think it would be easy for us to make the committent
that we would replant that buffer with native vegetation, and that's
something that could easily be accomplished.
I think we have another aerial that shows a little bit of a blowup
of that common buffer. It is fairly heavily vegetated, primarily pines,
some palmetto and vegetation of that type, approximately 25 to 30
feet in height for most of those more mature pine trees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Arnold, before you
continue on, do you have any road easements to Vanderbilt
Extension?
MR. ARNOLD: We do not. We've researched that, and our
survey of the Bucks Run property indicated that there was a 30-foot
road easement on our property. It didn't come with any official
record book and page number references, but it showed up on some
of the old deeds that there was a 30-foot roadway easement.
Mr. Hoover has researched public records and could find no similar
easement across the St. Agnes or the Mission Church PUD property
which is to our south which would preclude the access through to
Vanderbilt Beach Road.
Furthermore, I think what we have on our property is a 30-foot-
Page 89
November 27, 2001
wide easement. I'm not sure that the county would accept that as a
standard easement for ingress/egress purposes. Typically a local road
section is 60 feet. You can make exceptions down to 40 feet in many
cases through planned development where you're making other
provisions for utilities, but in this particular case, that 30-foot
easement has been vacated to the north. It doesn't appear to be
located to the south. And it's something that if it gives anybody any
greater comfort, we'd be willing to undertake the process to vacate
that easement on our property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that would settle some
of my concerns, is not to put all that traffic out onto Collier
Boulevard. If we can get some kind of easement across the section
beside it so they have two accesses, it sure is better planning, in my
mind.
MR. ARNOLD: I would offer, one of the things that we do
have as a component of this planned development -- and it was at
your staff's request, and it's something we agreed to -- was to provide
for the potential of an interconnect with that church property to the
south of that the area. It's near the division between the church and
the affordable housing portions of the project that provides for an
interconnect between the two.
I will tell you that the St. Agnes Church does have its site
development plan by the county that does not show that interconnect,
and the planned development was approved a little over a year ago
like an interconnect, but we have made that provision for it with the
future possibility of interconnecting with that project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the question that I
think that we need from staff, is, can we have that site development
plan amended so we have that interconnectivity?
MR. ARNOLD: I think that is going to have to be a question for
your staff, because I don't -- I'm not intimately familiar with the
Page 90
November 27, 2001
planned development document to know what flexibility it may have
had for that. I do know that that's shown as a buffer preserve on their
planned development.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think that'll go to
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The approved
site development plan lists with it some vested rights of development,
and I don't think staff has the power to force the petitioner, the
property owner to come in and provide an amendment to that site
development plan to show this access point. That probably should
have been addressed at the time the property was rezoned to PUD to
provide that access point. It was not provided at that time. And I
looked at the PUD file at that time that a different planner worked on
it, and there were some environmental concerns along the northern
property line is one reason why no interconnect was provided to the
north.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we should hear from
our legal counsel to see. Maybe Margie could tell us. At the stage of
site development plan, can we go back and force them to any kind of
public amendments or amenities to that?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. Under our Land Development Code, once a site
development plan has been approved, it is -- it is -- as Ray stated, it is
vested for a two-year period, and they have to come in during that
time period and either develop -- and then if they do not develop, it
loses its vested status.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we do have an
opportunity there. So if we are going to approve that, I think it's --MS. STUDENT: No. The site development plan, as I
understand it, Ray, it's already an approved site development plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
Page 91
November 27, 2001
MS. STUDENT: Is that not correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're vested for two years.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. And if they proceed to develop during
that time period, they're vested. In other words, we can't go in that
two-year time period and change things.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I heard that, and I
understand that.
MS. STUDENT: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Again, after that there's an
opportunity for us to do something.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. There would be if they lose that vested
status. As a general rule, it doesn't always happen that way, but most
of the time the developer, property owner is aware they have the STP,
and they will come in and develop under that two-year period so they
don't risk having to come back.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle has a question.
And I think, Commissioner Henning, that probably with that
situation we would just go and approach him and see if they would --
as part of the interconnectivity and everything we're trying to do,
would they be willing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was my question. Has
anybody talked with them and asked them if they would be willing to
do this? No.
MS. WOLFE: For the record, Dawn Wolfe. As the
transportation planning department reviewed the site development
plan, we endeavored to get an interconnect as the original PUD,
which is being amended today, was coming forward, and we were
looking for that interconnect, and they were unwilling at that time to
provide for it. So we have made attempts even though it wasn't in
Page 92
November 27, 2001
there in the church's zoning document that it be required. We tried
through the site development review process to get at least the intent
for a cross-access to be included, and they were unwilling to put that
on their site plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. One further question. Were
they unwilling to put it on their site plan at that location or were they
unwilling to put it on their site plan at all anywhere? MS. WOLFE: At all anywhere.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think Father Blackton (phonetic) and
I have to have a conversation.
MR. ARNOLD: I'll go ahead and continue. One of the things
that I wanted to point out is that Vanderbilt Country Club does have
two entrances, obviously, one to our north and one on Vanderbilt
Beach Road. Those trips generally end up on 951 at some location
unless you're a direct westbound trip. So even though they are
separated and they do have access to two roadways, both of them, the
roadways converge at the same location. But I think where I'm going
with -- with my presentation is that the corridor is developing. It is
changing. You have a new shopping center that's now on line at
Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. That will take -- in itself, a
shopping center is not a trip generator. The residential units,
obviously, generate the trips. The people who develop the
commercial shopping center are capturing a certain amount of trips.
It changes trip patterns, but largely they don't generate them. We talk
in terms of trip generation, but they're not the generators. It starts
with residential development.
We have 799 units approved next door at Vanderbilt Country
Club. They were reviewed under the same standards that we're being
reviewed under for their impacts to the roadway. They, obviously,
were below the level of service impact, as are we, and that's why
we're coming through the process. And we understand that we may
Page 93
November 27, 2001
get caught in any future changes that occur as we go through the
process. We don't have a site development plan filed with the
county. And at that point you can either do two things. Excuse me.
You can get a certificate of adequate public facilities. You can
prepay impact fees or you can defer that payment until you get to the
time of building permit. That's your only guarantee. I mean, you
either pay the impact fee up front or you pull your building permit
and pay your impact fees. We understand that that's our guarantee.
That's the county's guarantee, and that's the way the process has
continued to work.
We've been fortunate in the county that we have not had to
establish moratoriums and other programs for building ourselves out
of road deficiencies. We're having to make some very hard
decisions, and we're making those county-wide. It affects a much
larger segment than 2 miles of Collier Boulevard.
But I think the county has reviewed this in accordance with your
existing policies, and we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
in that respect. And nobody likes the level of congestion on any of
our roadways, but the fact is, we have to live with those for a certain
period of time until we find the resources to make those
improvements.
The county staff has done a good job of going through the
findings that are necessary to support a rezoning. They have
confirmed that we are consistent with your transportation elements,
your capital improvement elements, your future land-use element.
We're consistent with the density rating system. And as Mr. Cuyler
indicated, there's something about affordable housing. The county's
need is desperate for affordable housing. I've heard Mr. Mihalic use
the number on many occasions that we're 7,000 units short of our
affordable housing need. It's a huge deficit. We're going to have to
make the hard decisions, and I think we've done the best job that we
Page 94
November 27, 2001
possibly can to assure that the project that we're giving the county has
a compatible relationship to our nearest neighbor. We've increased
our buffer significantly. We've committed to maximum building
heights, minimum separations. And all those things go, I think, a
long, long way toward assuring that it's going to be a compatible
relationship. Albeit, nobody likes the effect of even one more trip on
Collier Boulevard. But it is what it is, and we are consistent with
your plan. We would certainly ask for your support.
I think that you're going to be hearing from Mr. Foley regarding
some of the engineering issues, and then we'll go on down the line
and hear from Julian Stokes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. FOLEY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Blair Foley with the firm of Q.
Brady Minor and Associates representing the petitioner. I'll be very
brief with my presentation.
I've lived and been involved in numerous projects similar to the
Bucks Run project in Collier County and Naples for over 14 years.
And this project, from an engineering standpoint, isn't really any
different than a lot of them. I don't see any unusual engineering
issues or really red flags, if you will, that would preclude this parcel
from being developed successfully.
I would want to offer just a couple brief comments on the water
and sewer. Water is available near the site which we can tap from
Collier County. Sewer is available to the north, which we've talked to
some of the property owners that are adjacent, and we would provide
our own sewer connection to that point as required by the Land
Development Code and county staff.
Lake excavation, as you can see from the site plan, is proposed;
however, blasting will be prohibited in this area, and we don't
propose to blast due to the proximity of the wells and the water plant
Page 95
November 27, 2001
that was mentioned earlier here at this meeting. We do have to get a
permit from South Florida Water Management District prior to our
site development plan.
I did just want to make this one point. Timing has been an issue
here as far as phasing and some things like that. If we were to get the
go ahead and approval today, the very earliest we could obtain site
development plan approval and water management permits is
approximately one year from today. So before we could even really
turn a shovel on the property, we're talking about another year. And,
you know, next month is going to be another year, so it's going to be
2003 most likely. And, then again, the building phase -- who knows,
another year, perhaps a little more than that, and Mr. Friedman will
speak of that. So I think, naturally speaking, the evolution of this
project might fit right into the widening of the road system.
I don't have a lot of other issues that I'd really like to talk about
at this time, but I'm available to answer any questions and rebut any
comments from the opposition, if I may. Thank you.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, at this point Julian Stokes will
address the board.
MR. STOKES: Good morning. I think it's morning. For the
record, I'm Julian Stokes with the appraisal firm Appraisal Research
Corporation of Naples. I'm a member of the Appraisal Institute
holding the MAI designation, and I'm also a counselor of real estate.
I was asked to survey several projects to see -- to determine if
the sample that I looked at -- whether there was any diminution in
value associated with proximity to a rental-apartment project, any
diminution in value associated with an adjacent residential
community. My findings found that there's absolutely no empirical
data to suggest that there is any diminution in value. As a matter of
fact, the properties that I did survey indicated increases in value
typical with other properties in the Naples area ranging from
Page 96
November 27, 2001
approximately 5 percent up to 15 percent. The average was
somewhere between 7 and 8 percent annually.
I think given that the projects that I looked at were buffered
properly -- there was, you know, a buffer. There were proper
linkages. There was a certain disassociation between the apartment
complex and the residential community.
So I think, to summarize, I found no indication that there was
any evidence of diminution in value associated with being adjacent.
I'm available for any questions you might have now or later.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No questions from the board. Thank
yOU.
MR. STOKES: Thank you.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, that last comment may have
seemed obvious, but there were some comments made -- were made
at the planning commission. We did want to address those.
Finally, Mitchell Friedman of Pinnacle Housing will address the
board, and this is the work-force housing development.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. We have a team.
MS. WARNER: For the record, my name is Karen Warner. I'm
an associate of Pinnacle Housing Group.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning. Mr. Mayor, members of the
board, my name is Mitchell Friedman. I'm with Pinnacle Housing
Group. Our corporate offices is in Miami, Florida.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You just got a raise to mayor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I just got a raise. I'm now the mayor.
Okay. Thank you, sir.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, perhaps maybe when I give you a
promotion. I don't know. Thank you.
In any case, let me stand here before you. Let me introduce -- I
understand Karen already introduced herself-- Karen Warner, one of
Page 97
November 27, 2001
our associates.
What we would like to do this morning is just very briefly tell
you who we are, show you some of the things that we've done, some
of the developments that have occurred across this state and what
we're proposing to do here in Collier County and describe to you the
type of facility and development, that we're very proud of what we
develop.
Pinnacle Housing as a company has been around for
approximately four and a half years, although the principals and
partners, of which I am one, have developed well over 5,000
affordable housing units in the State of Florida. During that time we
have excelled in providing all types of affordable housing, different
types of housing for different types of populations.
Karen will show a few pictures of what we do. Let me just show
you on the board-- you can see a Douglas Point Apartments which is
186 units. That was completed in Dade County, Florida, for --
approximately two years ago. This is a 258-unit development called
Hidden Grove. Series of 58 town homes complexes in -- down in
South Dade, Florida. Pinnacle Cove is 420 units which is currently
under construction in Orlando, Florida. Our first residents have
moved in this past Thanksgiving. We anticipate full occupancy by
the end of the calendar year, and its style and flavor is very similar to
what we're proposing here in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, are those all rentals or a part of
those have equity ownership?
MR. FRIEDMAN: All of these are rentals.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you do anywhere where there's
equity?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. In the past we have done home-
ownership developments. In fact, we just completed in the year 19 --
actually, the year 2000, we completed 100 home-ownership
Page 98
November 27, 2001
developments. It's something that we don't normally do, but on
occasion we have done it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What precludes an organization like
you from doing these as -- or ownership versus just rentals?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, we have primarily a multi-family
rental developer. We don't believe that we have the adequate
resources and skill set to do home ownership on a mass basis. We
think we're good in being able to develop affordable housing. We
know what our tenant population is. We know how to work and
manage with them, and we know how to be able to build those types
of multi-family units much better than a single-family.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm not saying they need to be
single-family, but if you took the same units and sold them as
condominiums or if you did coach homes or built quads or
townhouses, what precludes you from taking the same kind of
densities and putting those type of ownership opportunities at least in
a percentage of a project?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, nothing would prevent us, sir. We
just don't develop -- that's really not our line of business. We do
rental. However, what we do is, we collect -- on a monthly basis, a
certain portion of the rent does go into escrow for home ownership,
and as soon as our tenants believe that they're ready for home
ownership, we try to work with various builders and community
developers in the neighborhood and try to have our tenants go into
home ownership.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do have a question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: All right. Will this
development have a swimming pool and a rec room too?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, it will. Let me -- I'll explain some of
Page 99
November 27, 2001
the amenities, if you would like. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Please.
MR. FRIEDMAN: You know, the monocle of affordable
housing over the years has really changed. When you take a look at
affordable housing today, it looks remarkably similar to a market-rate
development. And what I mean by that -- let me just kind of show
you, Mr. Coletta, since you've already brought that up.
What -- let me just show you here just as an opener what is our
typical clubhouse look like? This is a typical clubhouse very similar
to the one that we've done several times before. Within this
clubhouse we have a very large community room. We have a pool
and an outside picnic area. We have a leasing area for our managers.
We also have a computer room. We have a library. We have an
exercise facility. We have a conference room, and we have kitchens
for small events. So when you take a look at the comprehensiveness
of our--just our clubhouse, you can see it's very similar to what one
might expect in a typical market-rate development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And what do you anticipate the
rent to be?
MR. FRIEDMAN: The rent here is going to be -- depending on
one, two's and three's, anywhere from 500 up to $1,000 a month.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's considered work-
force housing?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes. Because everything is based on area
median income, and here in Collier County, as you might know, area
median income is very high.
Mr. Mihalic is here. He could probably give you a little more detail
about that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I see Mr. Mihalic nodding his head up
and down, so he's already in agreement with you. Could you
elaborate a little bit more on the plan that you have for your
Page 100
November 27, 2001
residents? Is this a volunteer plan or do you -- is it an automatic
thing that takes place when they move in that they have an account
set up towards their own home ownership?
MR. FRIEDMAN: No. It's a volunteer program. We offer that
as part of the programming. And what we try to do is give them
home-ownership counseling in terms of trying to show them the
benefit of home ownership, trying to develop some equity and kind of
have a piece of the rock, if you will.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
somewhat similar in Immokalee?
is.
You're also planning a project
MR. FRIEDMAN: No, we are not, not us. Another developer
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Just a couple of more pictures before I
complete our presentation. That is the one under construction in
Orlando. I think we can skip that, Karen.
And this is a small project that we're doing as a rehabilitation
project as well in Florida. And as you can see, we have a variety of
types of experience in developments. We've done high rises as high
as 13, 14 stories, and we've done as small as two-story developments,
nice walk-up garden-style campus atmosphere. What we're planning
here in Naples is the latter, small in scale, what we call a campus-
atmosphere environment.
Let me just kind of show you the site plan right now. As you
can see, this is the -- what we'll call the eastern edge of the tract of
the Bucks Run tract. This is the property that we're talking about right
over here with the 288 units are going to be developing in the 16
buildings (indicating). You can see that we're preserving many of the
wetlands. We're creating different ponds for on-site retainage and
also for aesthetic and amenity effect.
You can see that the way we placed the development and placed
Page 101
November 27, 2001
the units, most of them will have vistas overlooking either wetlands
or the lakes or ponds. Again, we're thinking in terms of aesthetics
and see how it's better for the -- for the residents.
You can see that we have a circulation path around the facility,
keeping the traffic away from -- from the units.
We also will have -- within this clubhouse area over here
(indicating), we'll have recreational areas. We'll have tot lots, and we
have many of the central types of facilities that one would tend to
expect in these types of developments.
Another feature that we have is, we'll have a hall and
maintenance area over here, and why this is important is, this
prevents us from allowing any type of a car maintenance or any types
of trucks or any types of things to go on with -- inside the
development. If one wants to do a car wash or one wants to be able
to do something with their car, they'll be able to do that here in the
maintenance area over here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that going to be a
commercial facility then?
MR. FRIEDMAN: No. This is just -- just for the residents over
here. It's basically a maintenance room where we're able to keep
most of our equipment to cut the lawn, trim the hedges, do some
touch-up painting, et cetera, but as an adjunct to that, we also will be
able to have a spigot so if anyone wants to be able to do a car wash
and things like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a place there for
storage of a boat?
MR. FRIEDMAN: No. We do not allow that at all.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question. If I can come back to your
proposed rendering, if I look at the units around -- I'm going to call it
the first lake. Would be on my left, your right. No, sir. Come back
the other way. That way. Yes, sir. Around there. How many units
Page 102
November 27, 2001
are around that -- that -- that in that pod?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Approximately 140, 146.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have a renderance (sic)
what the building's going to look like? MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is a part of the record?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Yes, it is. And what we've tried to do, we
called this our great home or great-house effect, and the reason why
we like this is that typically when you see multi-family
developments, you see large corridors and breezeways, and more or
less, they stand out as being a multi-family development regardless
whether they're market rate or affordable. What we would like to do
is be able to bring everything inside. So, as you can see, there's no
breezeways, there's no interior, there's no outside corridors or things
that give it that unique multi-family flavor. Everything is brought
down to the street level, and as you can see over here, (indicating) it
provides almost a home-like or town-home look.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are they going to be multi-
colors like it is presented?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Not necessarily. We really don't know.
This is, more or less, a -- an initial feel of what a lot of the people
looked at. We're far from that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the exception of the color
of the building, when this was completed, if we walked in there with
that particular rendering and held it up, we would see something very
similar, including planting, roof line, entranceways?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely. Everything that
I'm here representing to you today is something that we would carry
forward. Now, obviously, there might be some code issues and
building or permit-related issues that may change a certain type of
Page 103
November 27, 2001
pitch in the roof, or maybe there's a certain angle that has to change,
but overall this is what we're looking at; this is what we're going to
develop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And when you say you're going
to develop, that means that your -- actually, your company will
actually develop this from beginning to end and manage it
afterwards?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Right. Let me just describe for you a little
bit about affordable housing programs in general. We normally have
the covenant that we're going to keep this type of housing and this
type of look for a minimum of 15 years or perhaps 50 years.
And what we do is, the partners of Pinnacle Housing, including
myself, personally guarantee that it's going to look like this. And the
reason why we have to do that is that we have as part of our financing
federal tax credits which involves the solicitation of hundreds, if not
thousands, of investors, and they are very, very studious and very
careful to make sure that the developments that we have are kept like
this so that we're able to maintain the occupancy ratio so that they're
able to continue to get the yields and their investment returns. So this
is not something like we're going to build and leave or build and flip.
We're in it for the long haul.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question I have is, how many units in
a pod, in one of those buildings?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Right now they're constructed either to be in
24- or 20-unit buildings.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. FRIEDMAN: Let me just kind of finish up real quick. I
mentioned earlier that there's going to be 16 buildings or pods, if you
will. Right now we're looking at having a total of 8 one-bedrooms,
182 two-bedrooms and 98 three-bedrooms. That mix comes to us
from a variety of sources, including our own market study that we
Page 104
November 27, 2001
completed, and show that that's the type of development mix that
would be most economical, would make the most economic return,
and also be able to lease up the fastest.
Let me just kind of say one last thing, and that talks about how
we go ahead and we manage. These types of developments are
developed so that we have 24-hour, 7-day-a-week coverage. We
have an on-site manager who lives in the development, lives there.
He or she is there to handle all problems at all times. We also have
two maintenance people who don't necessarily live there but are there
during work hours on different shifts to take care of any type of
maintenance issues or any types of problems that may come up.
What we normally do is, we have a -- very stringent types of
rules and regulations. For instance, we do not allow pets in any of
our developments. We have rules that govern in terms of when
things are open and closed, and we make sure that these
developments are run nicely so that the tenants feel empowered if
they feel that they're being in a development that all of us would be
proud to live in.
I think the last thing that I would like to say is that, you know,
we find that the common bond among all of our tenants are very
similar to everyone up here and even the people here in the audience,
and that is, who among us -- who's never lived in a rental apartment?
And we find that, you know, for some people, whether it's an
economic decision or whether it's a non-monetary decision, the use
and living of a rental facility is something that's necessary and
required, and especially here in Collier County where you have a
dearth of this type of product.
With that, I would like to say thank you very much for the
presentation, and with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Cuyler.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: One more question, sir. In your
performa, what's the minimal number of units that you can build
Page 105
November 27, 2001
which you can meet your margins?
MR. FRIEDMAN: Well, right now it's developed as 288 units.
In terms of what's the minimum amount? Right now we feel that we
could do 160 units as a Phase I, although depending on the type of
financing, if we're not successful in getting certain types of financing,
that number would be -- would be substantially too low.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Thank you.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the attention,
and that concludes our presentation initially. Again, we would
reserve time to answer any questions for the commission.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. We have public speakers,
Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: We have five public speakers. Would you like
me to call all of them in case some of them are in elections?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That would be fine. Let's find
out who's in this room, who's in the other.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Fred Thomas; Ed Frick; Jack K-a-z-i-n,
Kazin; David Depew; and Michael Ciccarone.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are all present in this room? Okay. If
they're not, they know they need to come over to participate. Mr.
Thomas.
MR. THOMAS: Good morning. Thank you-all very much, and
I'm going to make it short because as a humble civil servant, I've got
to be back at a meeting in Immokalee at one o'clock.
The real issue here -- oh, Fred Thomas, executive director of
your Collier County Housing Authority. That's the hat I have on right
now. A lot of people in this room are concerned about the projects
coming to their back door, the project that they left in the Midwest
coming back to their door. But as you heard already, this is a tax-
credit problem with rents that are going to be over $800 a unit. They
have to, with the tax credit, reach some of the people at 6 percent of
Page 106
November 27, 2001
the median income in Collier County, 60 percent.
And in Collier County, for a family of four, that's 65,000. That
means they got to be renting to people that earn under $39,000 a year.
Who -- who are we talking about in Collier County? Your
starting teacher makes thirty-two. The deputy makes thirty-two. The
nurses make under thirty-two. Your firemen make under thirty-two.
These are the people that are going to struggle to pay these rents so
that the rents don't exceed 30 percent of their income. These are the
people that are -- hopefully you'll want near you when you have a
problem.
If we don't make allowances to provide housing for this segment
of our population, the ambience has got to deteriorate, and the cost of
business has to escalate because as long as your work force has to
travel 30 or 40 miles to get here, there are several things that become
very evident, Commissioners. One, you lose all our sales tax because
people don't buy things where they work. They buy things where
they live. So if all that sales tax that is being paid here -- I mean, all
that tax money that is being paid here to serve -- pay for this kind of
service is being expended in another county, we're losing money.
There's another cost of doing business for everybody in Collier
County because as these teachers and deputies and firemen and
nurses come here and work starting off-- we got to work hard to get
them to come here because there's not enough affordable housing for
them. We're not talking about projects. We're talking about decent
apartment that they can afford to pay for and not expend more than
30 percent of their income for rent.
As soon as they become marketable -- as soon as they become
marketable, they are going to get a job in Lee County, close to home,
and then you've got to turn it over again. That's why you got a high
turnover in all the industry that we have down here, because we're not
looking out down the road at what has to happen in order to protect
Page 107
November 27, 2001
the ambience here. We got to stop being selfish and understand what
the real deal is.
There's only three apartment complexes in all of Collier County
that serves people who can only pay 30 percent of the income. The
people that I serve as your director of housing authority, only one of
them -- two of them -- two of them are located in coastal Naples,
George Washington Carver and Goodlette Arms for the Senior
Citizens. Everything else costs a fortune to them, and that's why the
folks communicate on these low roads. I don't know why you-all
even vote against the half cent sales tax so they can widen the roads
so the people could come here and work for you. We've got to stop
being selfish, folks. And if you want to live in a neighborhood where
the nurse is not around the comer, the schoolteacher can't go to meet
with you in the evenings, the deputy does not park his car on the
property, if you want to live in that kind of neighborhood, then you
want to live someplace I don't want to get anywhere close to. You
cannot-- folks, you cannot have the lowest fire insurance rates in the
county -- or in the country and not have a fire station within 30 miles
of your door. You cannot do that. It doesn't make sense.
As your director of your housing authority, I plead with you to
have the courage and the leadership to protect the ambience of
Collier County. It's on you folk. It's on you folk to make sure --
contrary to whatever they say out here, you know what's best. You
need to make it happen.
I have to get out of here, so if you'll allow me one more
statement -- I took off my hat as the Collier County Housing
Authority Director, a resident of Collier County who has an office
here and in Immokalee who will never live here as long as you-all
function the way you function. Do you understand? But I asked you,
because we're trying to diversify income in Collier County and
develop Immokalee -- I mean, develop Immokalee as a tourist-
Page 108
November 27, 2001
destination spot, please don't cut the funding for the museum.
Roberts Ranch needs it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Fred. That guy can cover
more in one subject quicker than anybody ! know. That's great.
MS. FILSON: Ed Frick is next, and Mr. Frick will be followed
by Jack Kazin.
MR. FRICK: My name is Ed Frick. I live in the estates.
August commissioners and esteemed citizens, I have a petition that
was circulated at the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association the
other night before it convened. Now, let me preface my comments
by saying, I'm not speaking for, I'm not endorsing for any or anything
that the Golden Gate Estates does with the exception -- I'm holding in
my hand the petition that was signed by the in-going president, the
outgoing president, the board members and everything. This is the
petition against the heavy impact on our roads that this thing is going
to create and the incredible safety fallout that would result. And to
whom do I present this petition? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Jack Kazin followed by David Depew.
MR. KAZIN: Commissioners, and ladies and gentlemen, I
would like to defer and to follow the Vanderbilt Association
speakers --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. KAZIN: -- with your permission.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's fine, sir. Thank you.
MR. CICCARONE: Mr. Chairman, David Depew is my
planner, so to make my presentation sensible, I'm going to go ahead
of him. My name is Michael Ciccarone. I'm the attorney
representing the Vanderbilt Community Association. I'm with the
firm of Goldstein, Buckley, Cechman, Rice & Purtz. We have
offices in Collier County. My office is in Lee County.
Page 109
November 27, 2001
I did not participate in this case in prior proceedings. That was
handled by Attorney Steve Hartsel who did a wonderful job from
what I can see of the recordings of the prior hearing; however, he had
a scheduled conflict that made it impossible for him to be here. So I
am taking over the case and, hopefully, preserving the many issues
which he raised in -- in the previous hearing without necessarily
revisiting them in detail today because you really don't have the time.
Earlier I believe you saw a show of hands as to the number of
Vanderbilt residents here. I'm told there's 205 to 207. I think there's
90 in the overflow room plus what we have here. So, as you can see,
this is a pretty substantial turnout indicating the level of seriousness
with which-- with which this group takes this matter.
Our presentation will be about 20 minutes long. I'm hoping no
more than that. David Depew will address you in a moment, and he
will share with you some of the concerns that we have that -- that I
will also discuss in my closing arguments. But before we do that, I
wanted to tell you what this case is not about. This case is not about
affordable housing as far as we're concerned. If you will check your
public records, you will find that the group I represent supported the
affordable housing project in Brittany Bay. We support all of your
efforts. They are very commendable. We agree completely that you
need to find affordable housing opportunities throughout Collier
County. We're committed to work with you in that regard.
For example, we have absolutely no objection to converting the
156 units which are already approved in this PUD to affordable
housing if that's what you wish to do. We can even support the total
request of 348 if you can solve two of the problems that Mr. Depew
will discuss with you in a moment.
When Mr. Depew is finished, I will make some remarks with
respect to what I think is the controlling law and suggest to you
several options which you may want to consider. I'll have Mr.
Page 110
November 27, 2001
Depew introduce himself in a moment. But so that he's not forced to
assume a role of false modesty, let me say that
Mr. Depew is a very experienced planner. He has a statewide
practice and reputation. He has been an expert witness in literally
hundreds of cases, some of which I have been involved on the
opposite side and some on my side. He's a very formidable expert,
and I hope you will afford him the same level of deference that you
have afforded your own staff and the applicant's planners. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. DEPEW: I would have said good morning, but it's
afternoon. So good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for the
appearance opportunity here. My name is David Depew. I am
president of Morris-Depew Associates which is located at 2216
Altamont Avenue in Fort Myers, 33901.
As Mr. Ciccarone indicated, I have a statewide practice. I'm not
going to bore you with my background and details. Let me simply
state to you that I am a Gator. I think that's one of the more -- more
interesting and relevant elements here. I also am a Florida native.
After leaving University of Florida, I have also attended graduate
school at McMaster University in Ontario and also did doctoral work
at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. I have been in the
planning profession for more than 20 years. I am the former director
of community development for Lee County. And as Mr. Ciccarone
indicated, I have appeared in literally hundreds of various
proceedings, whether they're administrative or court proceedings, as
an expert in planning and zoning issues and have appeared before this
august body, although not with the same makeup that you have here
today. I'm not sure if congratulations or condolences are in order
here for Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've been getting both.
Page 111
November 27, 2001
MR. DEPEW: At any rate, we'll let that pass.
As Mr. Ciccarone indicated, this is not about affordable housing.
This is really about a number of questions regarding the
Comprehensive Plan and regarding the overall impacts on the
infrastructure that this project has.
The first issue that I really want to touch on is the
Comprehensive Plan issue. You have a very unique Comprehensive
Plan and one of the -- I mean that in a good way. One of the
interesting elements of the Comprehensive Plan is that it goes beyond
what the state minimums are required. It's a significant step beyond
what you find in the Growth Management Act because it tries to do
more than simply protect certain resources and direct growth into
those areas that are best suited for it. And one of the classic
examples of that is your Growth Management Plan Policy 5.4. It
requires that the development is not just compatible with existing
development -- that is, proposed development, but it also states that
proposed development must be complementary to, and that's a
standard that goes well beyond simply being compatible with. It's a
standard that means that new development must be favorable as it
relates to existing development. That's a standard that's higher than
what you normally see in comprehensive plans, and it reflects the
county's commitment to existing and proposed development and how
that development relates to the development that is already there and
that surrounds it.
You have an existing development to the north and east of this
property that's at a density of 2 1/2 units to the acre. What is being
proposed here today is a development that is at 12 units to the acre
plus a church and a school.
The school is an interesting question and one that has not been
very much addressed here. It's in an area in which you already have a
number of approvals for schools.
Page 112
November 27, 2001
You have the church directly to the south that has been approved
for a school and a day-care center.
And you have the Nicaea Academy that is a number of
properties to the north of the subject property that has been approved
for a church and dormatories for up to 1,000 students. You have the
Oak Ridge Middle School that is to the north and slightly to the west
of the subject property. You have an adult living facility and church
that's to the north and west. So you have at this point not just
residential elements along 951, you have school elements. And one
of the requests of this development is to include a school. I'll come
back to that.
As an adjunct on the easterly portion, you have this 12-unit-to-
the-acre project. I was really gratified to hear the applicants state
today that they are committed to proposing a vegetative buffer and to
maintaining that vegetative buffer. I did not find that commitment in
the provisions passed forward from the planning commission. I
would urge you today, if you're going to approve this, that is an
absolute -- an absolute necessity. You have to have a vegetative
buffer in order to make these kinds of densities compatible, one with
the other.
I understand that the applicant has looked at the building types,
but it's more than just building types. We are talking about the nature
of the -- the residential project and its -- its fundamental essence. The
essence of the Vanderbilt project is one that is a low-density
suburban-type development. What you're talking about on this
application is not a low-density suburban-type development. It is at
12 units to the acre and is an urban-type development that needs
urban services. It needs access to transit. It needs access to all the
necessary infrastructure that would support urban development. And,
candidly, the addition of the school on this site as a use is another
element that reflects the urban-style development that's being
Page 113
November 27, 2001
proposed on this project, a development that, candidly, needs some
kind of buffer, needs some kind of separation and needs to have
maintenance of that buffer and separation, whether it's a wall,
whether it's an opaque vegetative buffer and, of course, the increased
setbacks as I indicated the applicant has already suggested they
would provide.
This is, as already been indicated, a project that will be here for
50 years. So we're making a decision today that's going to pass
forward for decades in the future and one that is something that needs
to be very, very carefully considered and controlled and evaluated.
The cumulative impacts, as Commissioner Coyle has suggested,
are -- are really a critical element. This checkbook question is really
the way that most municipalities and -- and counties are starting to
view concurrency and their capacity questions with regard to their
road system, their sewer system and their water systems.
The 8 percent buildout figure that was used in the traffic study
on this is, indeed, as suggested by staff, a significant growth number.
But as already indicated here to you today, they're not going to finish
this by 2003. The applicant's already said they're going to do another
year's worth of permitting, and then they're going to start
construction. They're not going to be able to build this project in a
year. That's not going to happen. It's simply impossible to do. They
are going to be building this project over the next few years, and the
traffic study only takes a look at a 8 percent growth rate up to the
year 2003. I would submit to you -- and staff, I think, has indicated
to you -- that that's what -- they're going to be ultimately coming
forward that a new and more sophisticated form of analysis needs to
be undertaken with regard to your road capacity. Something similar
to Commissioner Coyle's suggestion about checkbooks, once you
have a capacity figure for your road system, you need to start
checking off each approval to figure out exactly how much capacity
Page 114
November 27, 2001
you've got left for future approvals. That is the intelligent way to do
this. That is the way that most communities are going to in order to
avoid the over building situation that has characterized many of
Florida's communities across the state.
Access to Vanderbilt Beach Road would be an interesting
question for this project and certainly would serve to spread the
access out from the entrance point. I'll come back to that in a
moment, but it seems fairly clear that that's not really an option at this
point.
The church property to the south has suggested that they do not
think that access across their facilities fits with their site plan and
simply doesn't mesh well with what their proposals are for their
property development.
The access point on this site as shown by the applicant's traffic
impact statement functions at Level of Service either F or E. Access
going from this site just considered as a residential project is going to
be difficult. The applicant already indicated that even if they had
access to Vanderbilt Beach Road, all the traffic is going to end up on
Collier Boulevard and on 951 anyway. They indicated that's -- that's
what their study show happens with Vanderbilt -- the Vanderbilt
Country Club.
The access point is a significant difficulty for this project with
the addition of the units, and mind you, they only considered in the
application the number of units that are going on this as a -- a total
figure. They did not look at what would happen if a school was
located on there. In fact, there's been no indication of how large the
school might ultimately be that would be associated with the
facilities. So that -- that analysis has not been undertaken, and that's
an analysis that could -- especially given the other approvals in this
particular area, really could blow up any of the road models for 951
in this area and blow them up rather significantly at certain times of
Page 115
November 27, 2001
the day, especially drop-offs and pickups. I'm sure all of you are
aware of what happens with drop-offs and pickups. At most schools
you get quite a stacking of vehicles as a result of that, and the access
point is very close to the Collier -- or the 951 Boulevard or 951 and
Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection. That -- that, in itself, presents
the potential for really some quite serious problems both along 951
and at the intersection.
Staff has acknowledged that they're preparing a new standard, a
new mechanism for evaluation. I would suggest to you that those
new standards are important and should be considered. You need to
evaluate this thing with the best material available and the best tools
-- the best analytical tools that are available to you. I would suggest
to you that those new standards need to be established and evaluated
because you are -- you are absolutely buying yourself a problem out
here, given the amount of development that has already been
permitted on 951 and given the increase in density that's being
proposed for this project.
The existing development can be fitted in there. The addition of
these units and the addition of the school is going to be a significant
problem. I would suggest to you that if you know a problem exists,
why would you buy yourself access into that problem.
That is the completion of my planning elements. I'm sure Mr.
Ciccarone has some more legal issues to address, but I'll be happy to
answer any questions the board might have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board? Thank you,
sir.
MR. DEPEW: Thank you very much.
MR. CICCARONE: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, to repeat
what I said earlier, this is not an affordable-housing issue for us. And
it's difficult to talk in cases like this. I've been in cases like this
before. There's sort of a political correctness phenomenon that
Page 116
November 27, 2001
occurs. The suggestion that anyone might question, let alone oppose,
what's being proposed oftentimes has turned into an accusation that
that person must be mean-spirited or elitist or whatever. I detected
considerable anger, for example, in Mr. Thomas directed at my
audience. We support what he wants to do.
Our problem in this case is not that it's affordable housing. It's
that there are too many units on a road network that is already
broken. That's the problem. So now the question is, what do you do
with it? Let me suggest, first of all, that you are in no way obligated,
based on the record that I've seen in this case, to approve this request.
It's my considered opinion that the record below is inadequate to
support approval. As I understand the law, you're sitting in what's
called a quasi-judicial capacity, and under the Snyder case and other
cases like it, you are supposed to decide based upon substantial
competent evidence that's in the record.
When I look at the record, I find unsupported conclusions. A
classic example, it's in the application. It's in the staff report. The
application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Why is that?
How did we reach that conclusion? Policy 5.4, that's the one Mr.
Depew talked about that requires you to find as a matter of fact that
this proposal is not only consistent but complements adjacent
development, is never addressed. What does it mean to complement?
How does this complement? I could go on at great length, but we
don't have the time to do it.
The point here is that it is not our obligation to prove a negative.
It is the obligation of the applicant to provide substantial competent
evidence that would justify your going forward, and that is
particularly so because there is nothing in the record to suggest that
rezoning is required. This is not a case where there is no reasonable
use proposed for the existing property. You have a current PUD in
place in an area where development is occurring. There's no
Page 117
November 27, 2001
suggestion whatever that that's inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. And as I read the Sunbelt Equities case, you are completely on
sound legal grounds to reject this application as a matter of policy
based upon what you know to be the case, which is that the road
network in this area is hopelessly broken and that you are reviewing
this application under antiquated methodology which your own staff
is telling you is probably producing a false result and which they are
going to recommend you jettison at the first opportunity, maybe even
at the end of this week. I'm not sure when that process works, but the
point is, you are not obligated to rezone this property. You have no
legal obligation whatever to do it, and I would respectfully submit to
you that the law supports a denial. But we're not -- we're not here to
be that negative.
You have several options. One is, you could approve the
application, which we really would regret your doing. I'm afraid that
would remove this discussion to another forum, and that wouldn't
serve anybody's purposes.
You could deny the application. You could deny it with
prejudice. You could deny it without prejudice. We, obviously, can't
object to your doing that, but you have other options.
You could approve this with modifications. A couple have been
suggested today; for example, mandating the 80-foot buffer. That's a
great idea; however, it should be an enhanced buffer. It needs to be
vegetated so that it's opaque. We have no idea how opaque the
existing native vegetation will be once the exotics are cleared out. If
it's going to be a meaningful buffer, make sure it's vegetated so that
it's opaque. Your staff knows how to do that.
You were concerned with the architectural renderings. You can
require those as a condition of approval. That's within your
prerogative. The applicant says he's committed to building it. Well,
then he shouldn't be reluctant to committing in the approval to
Page 118
November 27, 2001
building what you see here. Those are reasonable.
One of the commissioners suggested requiring a second access
to Vanderbilt. Well, when would that happen? We would suggest, if
you're going to do that, it should happen before you approve for a
development any units beyond that which is already approved. In
other words, you can go up to 156. If you want to go to 157, there
needs to be a second access to Vanderbilt. If you're going to do that,
you better also widen the buffer enough to accommodate that
easement so that we don't cut into our buffer in the process of doing
that.
Your staff has suggested that the development approvals be
sunsetted after three years. That may come forward to you as a
standard provision in your development code. And I think the reason
for that is to rid you of the burden of having obsolete and antiquated
zoning on the books in a situation where your staff is probably going
to go to the checkbook method of trying to measure impact so that if
it's zoned, you presume it will be built within a reasonable time. You
will take those impacts into account when you do approvals.
As I read the record before the planning commission, I had the
whole videotape, it was clear that the approvals on this road already
exceed 100 percent of the road's capacity to handle the traffic.
What's going on here is gambling who will be first in, and we would
respectfully suggest that if you don't want to consider the
accumulative impacts, that you, at the very least, require a reanalysis
of traffic impacts before the 157th permit may be pulled and that you
require that reanalysis be done using the latest methodology, and that
reanalysis should include an examination of cumulative impacts.
You owe it to the citizenry of the -- Collier County. I mean, we have
a road crisis in Collier County. There's an obligation not to make it
worse.
Well, there is a way to deal with that and still support affordable
Page 119
November 27, 2001
housing, and that's to suggest that this be looked at in two phases, and
before you proceed with the second phase, reanalyze the traffic using
the latest methodology and see if the roads can handle the capacity
then. That's not an unreasonable position to take. I've seen it done in
many, many, many developments.
Sunset this. If this doesn't get built within a reasonable time,
sunset it. Get it off the books. Don't tie up your road capacity. I -- I
was told it was going to be built out by the year 2003, but then I
heard testimony that suggested it wouldn't start until 2003. So I'm
not sure when you would sunset it, but I would respectively suggest
you're going to be sunsetting all of your PUD approvals in the very
near future. Why not start now?
I know the argument, we have to apply the current regulations.
No, you do not. You do not. The reason you do not is because you
are under no obligation whatever to rezone this property in the first
place. You could deny it and be on totally safe grounds, and this
applicant knows it. To suggest that this case be looked at using
common sense is heartily offensive to good government. And your
own staff is telling you that you're probably getting a false result in
your traffic analysis because you're using bad methodology. That
concerns me very greatly.
You could remand this, in my opinion, back to the staff and have
it brought through the planning commission again and require as part
of that remand that this project be reviewed using the new
methodology and that the review be delayed until that methodology is
accepted. It won't be too long from now before that happens and that
the methodology take into account the accumulative impacts of the
development that's already approved for that road section.
Commissioners, we -- we really do want to work with you. We
-- we don't want to hinder you in affordable-housing goals, nor do we
want to create an impossible logjam and safety problem on 951. And
Page 120
November 27, 2001
as Commissioner Fiala said, "How do you resolve this?" We have
suggested to you today any number of reasonable ways to do both,
and we would respectfully suggest that you consider those
alternatives. Whether you have the time to do it today or whether
you would want to take this matter up at a subsequent hearing so you
can think about it, we will be more than happy to come back at that
time if you wish. But please, don't view this case as an all or nothing.
The Second District Court of Appeals -- I think it was in 1983 --
in the case of Smith v. Clearwater, which every local government I've
ever worked with has cited at one time or another, with the exception
of this one -- says that you may deny applications during that period
of time when new regulations have been officially put into the
pipeline but have not been adopted. That was done years ago, and it
was intended to ensure, as the chairman said, that you are not always
behind the process.
You could deny this application. You don't have to. You could
remand it and direct that it be brought forward with a better, more
current analysis. You could -- you could also attach conditions to an
approval that would require that analysis be done in the very near
future using latest methodology.
You do have ways, Commissioners, to accomplish both goals
today, if you wish, and in that respect, we will be more than happy to
work with you and help you. We'll stay as long as the lunch hour
permits. And if you need to continue this, we'll be back, and we'll
continue those discussions with you individually or with the
applicant. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir. And just
for a matter of record, we do review our PUDs every three years.
That's been recently passed by Collier Board of County
Commissioners. So we have tightened up that process, and everyone
should be aware that that's where we are.
Page 121
November 27, 2001
Do we have other public speakers, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: The last one is Jack Kazin.
MR. KAZIN: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I'm
Colonel Jack Kazin, U.S. Army, retired. I'm here today to represent
as a director at Crystal Lake the 489 owners and families at Crystal
Lake.
This opportunity was granted because of the significant
problems we at Crystal Lake -- who, for your information, is directly
across from the Oak Ridge School. We at Crystal Lake are having
significant problems with the highway system. We have difficulties
with our people coming in and out. I don't have to beat the drum as
to the grievousness as far as the highway Collier Boulevard is set up,
but all the construction that's going on on the comer and with the new
construction that is now taking place on the upper end between
Immokalee and Vanderbilt Beach Road, we're even having bigger
problems.
To give you some example, our community has a lot of 55 and
older people in it. And as we grow a little older, our judgment
sometimes becomes a little challenged, and it gets pretty difficult
sometimes to judge a big truck coming from both directions while an
automobile is turning into the school and trying to get through this
intersection safely. Now, we've tolerated these problems for the past
three years. It's been growing each and every year, and this just gave
us an opportunity to say, "Mr. Commissioners, we want you to pay
attention." The infrastructure we recognize isn't there, and we know
you recognize that too.
One of the things that really brought it to our attention is, we
send out almost -- on a Monday of the week, 30 to 45 people go out
to Immokalee to do some work for Habitat for Humanity, and if you
want to see some fun, it's trying to get onto the road any time after
7:15 out of Crystal Lakes' entrance to just make it to the intersection
Page 122
November 27, 2001
of Immokalee. What used to take us 45 minutes to travel up to
Habitat for Humanity to build homes is now taking us in excess of an
hour and sometimes an hour and a half, depending. If there's an
accident, it's even beyond that, and God knows, there have been
many accidents in this particular zone of influence.
Now, we don't object to development. We think that going out
to Immokalee is the right thing to do. And we also feel that the
development here that we're talking about today as it has been
proposed is also the right thing to do because it gives the
commission, as well as the people in the county, the opportunity to
allow the infrastructure to start to come on line as it will slowly, and
in the process of this occurring, it becomes a win-win situation. So
you can understand why I deferred to the Vanderbilt Association
because we concur. I thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, a question before you
leave.
MR. KAZIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How big is Crystal Lakes?
How many acres?
MR. KAZIN: I can tell -- it's off the top of my head,
Commissioner Henning, but we have a 60-acre lake alone that we
deal with. The 489 owned properties in there is -- it's quite
significant. I can't give you it right off the top of my head. I want to
be accurate.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're close, sir. I have 490 units on
my sheet.
MR. KAZIN: We're one down. We have one yet that has to be
utilized, and I won't go into that right now. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
Any other public speakers, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: No.
Page 123
November 27,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any comments that--
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have
Mr. Arnold just make a few response comments, and then I'll wind
up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. ARNOLD: Hi, again. Wayne Arnold. I'd like to address a
couple of comments made by Mr. Ciccarone and Mr. Depew. One of
the issues that Mr. Depew raised was the term "complementary" as
it's used in one of our Comprehensive Plan policies. I would
challenge him to find a definition of"complementary" or
"compatibility" in the Comprehensive Plan and in our Land
Development Code. They are subjective terms that are largely
measured by many of the other criteria that we always look at as a
component of our plan review and code review. So it's not any one
standard. But as an expert and a land planner and a certified planner
as is Mr. Depew, I would say that the term "complementary" has
been met here, and that criteria has been met, complementary in the
sense that we're offering like units to like units in terms of number of
units, bulk of building. We've offered a separation eight to ten times
that provided by their own community. We don't have an
interconnect or any type of contact with that community, and in fact,
we're very largely complementary to the community at large by
providing a much-needed service.
He also pointed out the need for transit. Well, maybe he doesn't
know because he's from Lee County, but the transit system does
serve this segment of Collier Boulevard; very well used, I might add,
in largely this area of the county.
I'm going to point out that he also mentioned the issue of, you
know, the different options that we have and the standards that we've
applied. And we have applied the current standards. We applied the
proposed standards. We met with Ms. Wolfe throughout the process.
Page 124
November 27, 2001
We were okay under review under the proposed standards that the
county has talked about. Those are not technically in the pipeline as
yet. You're looking at a potential adoption of those changes as part
of your February adoption cycle for the amendments that have
already been transmitted. You don't do this as a two-step process.
You'll do this as a single-step process in February as the likely date.
Again, you-all mentioned you're going to be hearing much more
information about this at your AUIR workshop coming up, and you
may certainly send staff out with a renewed sense of urgency to adopt
and identify new standards, but we believe we've already met that
standard.
So as I said before, as much as we all don't like the congestion
on the roads, we're all living with it, and we're living with the
standard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. One of the questions that
came up was the two-phase -- phasing it in in two sections. Was --
you as the petitioner, what's your view on that?
MR. ARNOLD: I don't believe that we have really discussed
that as an option because we ran the numbers as a total 288 project,
finding that we did not have a problem with the traffic level of
service on Collier Boulevard. And, again, utilizing those standards,
we haven't really contemplated a phased approach at doing this. The
applicant has stated that they likely will build it in two phases. What
we haven't said is that it'll be phased. He's going to look at the
option, and depending on his financing, he may decide to build 288
units; he may decide to build 160 units as his first phase.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you. Do you think there
might be a possibility that we could discuss -- and it would make this
a lot easier to accept, I think, for everyone if we had a two-phase
buildout for this thing, and that will allow infrastructure to get caught
Page 125
November 27,2001
up to what's happening.
MR. ARNOLD: I guess I would defer to Mr. Cuyler. We may
need a few moments to discuss that with our applicant.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Cuyler, you might want to
comment on that. I've run the numbers up here through this whole
discussion, and I think it -- it really says 156, but I heard the
petitioner say 160 in that first -- I don't know what kind of trouble
that gets us into. But if there's somewhere to -- to hit that mark, I
think that's a sense that I was feeling up here. So we need your
comments on that, Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Preferably, we wouldn't like to make that
commitment, but we are willing to discuss that.
We may take a few minutes to do that. I'd like to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If it would help you with your
thought process, I would be very favorable -- impressed with what
you come up with if you would agree to the two-phase. If you
weren't, I think I might have reservations on the whole thing.
MR. CUYLER: That couldn't be clearer.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I try to put it in such a way that
it was user friendly.
MR. CUYLER: I was just about to make a few comments about
Mr. Ciccarone's presentation, but if that is the feeling of the board
and you would like to take a ten-minute recess and give us a chance
to talk about it or not take a recess and give us a chance to talk about
it--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a question by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any chance that the
petitioner would be willing to consider going ahead with the original
proposal?
Page 126
November 27, 2001
MR. CUYLER: Without the amendment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CUYLER: No. We would ask for the board's
consideration on that. Again, you know, Mr. Ciccarone cited you a
couple cases. There is no case out there that says you can do
whatever you want to do. You've got certain rules and regulations
that you need to follow. If you've got problems, you've got certain
rules and regulations on how to address them. I personally never say
the "M" word, but you know, there are ways to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Moratorium, I can say it.
MR. CUYLER: I'm not sure that's the answer, but in order to do
that, you have to pass rules and regulations to do that. So -- and I
haven't stood up here and told you, you know, I'm suing you if you
don't approve this. I haven't said yet --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That usually comes later.
(Laughter.)
MR. CUYLER: Well, I think discretion's the better part of valor
with regard to that. And, again, I guess -- I guess we can save us
some time and discussion if we have a chance to talk to the client and
-- and talk a little bit about that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a second. I want to make sure
that Mr. Coyle's -- Commissioner Coyle's question's answered and if
there's any other question because --
MR. CUYLER: Do you want me to expand --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much,
Mr. Cuyler, there is one thing that I would like to get answered by the
county attorney, and I would like to understand this issue of what our
legal obligations are with respect to following existing procedures in
reviewing petitions such as this, and I think that's a very important
issue here, and I'd like to understand it a little bit better since I'm
relatively new here.
Page 127
November 27, 2001
MR. WEIGEL: Fine. We anticipated the question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before we do that, can we allow those
folks to go to the hall and have their discussion while we're having
that question answered?
MR. WEIGEL: I'm going to ask Assistant County Attorney
Margie Student to respond, and if I feel I want to add anything
further, I will after that. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. Again, for the record, Marjorie
Student, assistant county attorney. And what Mr. Ciccarone alluded
to was the Smith versus The City of Clearwater case which I am
familiar with, and it contains within it the zoning and progress rule.
And what that means, if there is clearly articulated regulation. And,
again, the Smith case had to do with some zoning regulations. It
didn't have to do with comp planning as we know it today. So I think
there could be a distinction there, but standards that were in the
pipeline that had been considered by staff that were reduced to
writing and so forth, not something that's more amorphous and has
yet to be further refine and so forth, be brought -- before being
brought to a public hearing. I would submit that they are
distinguishable, and that for purposes of due process and the notice
provision of that, so the applicant is on notice as to what is required
of him -- that we need to follow the standards that we have on the
books today.
Nonetheless, I understand from talking with Ms. Wolfe that
under these proposals -- and she may wish to amplify that further --
but it was my understanding -- and I also heard Mr. Cuyler, I believe,
say that -- that they did meet what was in -- what was being proposed
for comp plan amendments, but I can have Ms. Wolfe elaborate on
that further. But that is the rule and the theory behind the zoning and
progress, is it's in the process. It's going to be changed. It's out there.
People know what it is and is less amorphous, I think, than may be
Page 128
November 27, 2001
the case before us. But, again, just to summarize, needless to say, I
believe I understand that they do meet those requirements that are in
the pipeline.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Margie, before you go away, I
have another question. The Growth Management Plan-- and it says
in our packet it meets the Growth Management Plan. On the
particular Item 5.4, what is the current criteria that it meets it, the
compatibility?
MS. STUDENT: On five -- that-- that gets into planning, but
5.4 is a portion of the future land-use element. It's a policy in the
future land-use element. It talks about compatibility and
complementary. It's a term that's used in planning. I've heard
planners say that you can -- with enough buffering and enough other
conditions that are placed on a project, one project can be made
compatible to another, you know, to any other project. So I think it
becomes a function of landscaping, buffering, architectural controls
and the like. I will defer to staff for some further enlightenment, but
that's always been my understanding. I might add, I believe that term
"complementary" was used in our prior comp plan that was adopted
in 1983. So I think it's been a term that's been with us for quite some
time.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows.
Basically, the staff report and executive summary summarizes the
finding staff has made. And other staff members from transportation,
fire, utilities, the whole gamut of separate staff, environmental staff,
we all review the project for their specific jurisdictional
responsibilities within the Growth Management Plan.
Now, the development standards, setbacks, landscaping and
buffering requirements all have been deemed to be consistent and
compatible with the surrounding land uses. We required minimum
buffers in our Land Development Code. This exceeds those
Page 129
November 27,2001
minimum buffers. The use residential -- adjacent to residential is
compatible. The use of public school -- or private school and a
church is consistent with the approved church and school use to the
south. The Board of County Commissioners recently approved the
Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow commercial designation
across the street from this development. This would be consistent
with that and compatible with that. The Vanderbilt Country Club has
an existing three-story condominium building adjacent to this
property. This project proposes a similar compatible-type structure.
The affordable housing and the fact -- does not make something not
compatible with other residential uses that are market rate.
We have Greg Mihalic here who can explain the affordable-
housing agreement process and the income guidelines, structures that
make sure that these projects are well maintained.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's a -- an issue
with Greg Mihalic and that whole scenario. MR. BELLOWS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I really -- the sense, perhaps, I'm
getting from this is, can we do a phased project taking what we
currently have of 156 units already approved. There's really no
discussion there. It has already been approved for 156 units. If that
could be Phase I of the project and the buffering and the other
considerations put in there and that Phase II would not be initiated
until a date and time when we have reviewed all the new standards
coming in front of us to see if it then complies and the infrastructure
can keep up with the additional units coming on stream. Am I getting
a sense that this is where the board is?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm agreeing with that, but the
only thing is, is, again, we're playing by today's rules and regulations,
and that would be a true bonus if we could get that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're still out of the room.
Page 130
November 27,2001
Let's -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't tell them this if they're ready
to come back in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to ask Mr. Weigel, if' they
were to agree-- if they agreed to that,
Mr. Weigel, would we be within our jurisdiction, if you please, board
of zoning appeals, to do that?
MR. WEIGEL: As you know, with the PUD rezone process, it's
a hybrid arrangement where beyond mere rezoning, typically there
are discussions and considerations on both sides as to what might
come, amenities and things of that nature and timing. I think you're
perfectly within your bounds to approach the question and see if they
would agree on the record. Commitments made in this process today
would be commitments enforceable in the PUD because they'd be
developed into the PUD.
I think -- well, the expressed question you have in regard to the
phasing in the future and the application of standards in the future
could be answered very-- the answer is simple, and that is, if they
agree at a certain point in the future, whether it's 156 units or 170,
whether you use the word "phasing" or not, but the number of units
of development, that they at that point in time and they agree at that
point in time and development to apply the standards that we then
have in effect for transportation. It appears that transportation is what
you're talking about, you've got a solid arrangement that's
enforceable.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I believe the petitioner has
returned and ready to address us.
MR. CUYLER: Let me make a proposal to the board. There
was a lot of discussion, particularly by the counsel for the residents,
as to the school and the traffic output of the school. Let me suggest
something to you that addresses the traffic situation and yet lets you
Page 131
November 27, 2001
get the benefit of the affordable-housing units, and that is, the
developer will commit to no school regardless of what -- it didn't
seem too funny when they were talking about it as a major issue in
their -- in their discussion, but there will be no school for four years
regardless of what the transportation criteria are. That gives you
more than enough time to do whatever you're going to do in terms of
that. And it was the opposition that was discussing that as the high-
traffic generator. And in return for that, have an approval of
affordable-housing units so that if we are able to actually do the
affordable-housing units and, again, if we get caught up in those
regulations -- you'll be able to have your cake and eat it too, because
we'll have made the commitment for no -- for four years of no school.
And if we get caught up in those regulations, we won't be able to
build the units except in accordance with the new criteria. But in
return for that commitment, that we at least have the authorization to
build the affordable-housing units.
I think that that addresses part of your traffic concerns and, on
the other hand, from the policy point of view, gives you the
affordable housing that's so desperately needed for -- for Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Cuyler, is it possible -- so that
-- that the county can have the lead time necessary to do something
about the roads, is it possible to provide you with a certificate of
availability of public facilities now for that second phase so that you
don't get caught up in changing regulations? That is, we've written a
check for that amount. If you will phase it over a period of time, that
will permit us to react to the traffic problem.
Is that possible?
MR. CUYLER: One minute.
Page 132
November 27,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: Do I go ahead?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. He's probably within hearing
distance.
MR. CUYLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hear him.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You got to admit, this commission has
a good sense of humor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you exercised it all morning.
MR. CUYLER: You threw me off with that one.
What I'm understanding is, if we have a phased number in Phase I
and phased number in Phase II, that the county would agree that the
Phase II could proceed when that site plan comes into the county and
that you feel that'll give you enough lead time to -- to change your
regulations and such, but we would be allowed to build that Phase II
when it comes in?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was the thrust of my
question, yes.
MR. CUYLER: If the phase can be 180 units in Phase I, then
we will agree to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Margie --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- our legal counsel -- is, if we
approve that and change the comp plan, do they still go on with the
project or do they -- I mean, if we change it in February and they
don't have a site development plan, do they get to proceed?
MS. STUDENT: Well, this is a novel idea because the way the
adequate public facilities works, you get the certificated building
permit and you can get it earlier at site plan or plat to -- but you sign
a certificate or that you -- a waiver that you're not going to claim
vested rights if later on when you get your building permit there's a
Page 133
November 27, 2001
problem and that you're not vested. I guess the question I have here,
it sounds almost like we'd be vesting --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. We just wrote a check, but we
got to make sure that we keep balanced.
MS. STUDENT: So he'd be vested at least for concurrency, it
would seem like, by having that certificate because this number of
trips would be vested by that certificate. So no matter what we did
later, he's got the certificate to essentially reserve that capacity.
If I've misstated anything, Dawn, please --
MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, for the record. If they come in for
a site development plan next month because they get this approval,
they could even under our proposed standards just barely to a
buildout of 2003 meet our level-of-service standards. But it's that
tight, and that's the buildout they gave us when we reviewed upon.
As long as they paid their impact fees and received their adequate
public facility and pulled all their building permits within the three-
year time frame that that adequate public facilities permit is good for,
they're free to go. But if they phase it and they come in with 180 in
January on their site plan but they don't pay their impact fees and
they don't get any vesting of the remainder of their project, they're
subject to what the adequate public facility capability is at the time
they submit for the remainder of their project. So they will always be
subject to whatever is available.
We could have someone else come in tomorrow who already has
their zoning and consume the rest of the capacity, and they could still
be -- they could be left out in the cold.
MR. CUYLER: I think what your staff is telling you is, there is
a safeguard built into your system that precludes you -- I don't want
to put words in Dawn's mouth -- that no matter what you do or how
you arrange this, there's always a safeguard there that we have a
potential of getting caught up in, depending on our time schedule.
Page 134
November 27,2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this triggered upon the payment
of the impact fees?
MS. WOLFE: They can -- yes. They can get their adequate
public facility certificate at a site development plan or a plat stage if
they pay their impact fees up front.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if they wanted to pay
the impact fees for the entire development but then phase the
development over a period of time, that would give us an opportunity
to address the traffic issues. Is that possible?
MS. WOLFE: That certificate is only good for three years. We
can't extend it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But they can start construction
within the three-year period of time? MS. WOLFE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what that means is we -- we
extend -- if we phase a development period over roughly three years;
is that correct?
MS. WOLFE: Yes. They could do that, but bottom line is, they
don't get any guarantees with this rezoning here today as far as being
able to pull a building permit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MR. OLLIFF: And -- and I'm not sure what's different about
that than any -- Dawn, correct me where I'm wrong here, but what's
different about that and the system that currently exists today for
every rezone that's out there?
MS. WOLFE: It doesn't. It's a presumption that has been made
over time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think we're in a better
shape than the way we are without all these phasings, if what I'm
hearing correctly is, you know, can they pay their impact fees before
the site development plan?
Page 135
November 27,2001
MS. WOLFE: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, that process takes
quite a long time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then if level of service drops,
they have to stop building anyway; isn't that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MS. WOLFE: If at the time of their submittal we do not have
the capacity to serve them, we would not issue the adequate public
facilities even if they tried to pay their impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We still -- we still have to resolve
that or begin resolving it within three -- a three-year period of time.
MS. WOLFE: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- so we're not off the
hook at all either way. So if-- if we decide to stop them, we still
have to pay for the roads so that they can continue. It only buys us
three years until we have to start building that road. I'm trying to --
I'm trying to -- to determine if we can begin planning now rather than
at the end of the first phase and -- well, lets start at the beginning.
My problem here -- and I've always promised only one thing, is
I would try to be fair. And the problem we've got right now is the
county attorney and staff are telling us that this project meets the
requirements of everything we've got, but we know from a practical
standpoint, that it's going to create some traffic problems. So I find
myself in a position of having to do something that appears to be a
legal requirement when I know logically that it's going to cause us
some problems. I'm trying to find a way that we can meet the legal
requirements but buy the time to address the issue of traffic
improvement, however we do that, and that's my dilemma. Is there
anything you can do to help me with that?
MS. WOLFE: I wish I'd won the lottery; several of them, in
fact. That's exactly what we have been doing for more than the past
Page 136
November 27, 2001
year, is identifying those projects where we need -- know we need to
have them within the next three years. And, in fact, we can't really
produce them as fast as we really need them.
We put into place a priority plan of what needs to be done, and
that's what you're asking for. This is what we need to have done.
Well, we're having to step back now and say, how are we really going
to get these done, but in that interim we're still going to have issues
and rezones and PUDs come before us. And, yes, it meets the criteria
of the Comprehensive Plan, but that doesn't mean they can go out and
build tomorrow. There are still other stages they have to go through,
and it's at those points in time that it would trigger the -- do we have
enough water, sewer, roads for this project, this building to go
forward? If at that time we don't, then we say "no," and we -- that
makes -- that is also the position at which we either have to say we've
got a program, we've got the funds to program it where we've
dropped the level of service or we've defined it an area of significant
influence, and we've issued a moratorium; and, therefore, nothing can
move forward during that period of time.
And that's an issue we will be discussing with you specifically
on Friday as to where we go from here on that issue. But, yes, we're
in a quandary.
Rezoning does not give this -- these people the right to go out
and build today. It gives them the ability to ask us if they can at a
future point in time, and we really have to address that issue at the
time they bring it in because things are not static.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And, Dawn, aren't we trying to
draw this process out a little bit so that eventually, hopefully, the
roads are going to get caught up and we can't -- another problem,
we've got the phase -- the idea with phasing something in was that if
the commission cannot come up with the funds to meet the roads or if
the funds are needed in some other section of the county to cover the
Page 137
November 27,2001
roads, we're not painting ourselves in a comer war. Because of one
project, we now guaranteed a road. We've got a problem the way
we're talking here.
Let me go back to that phase business you still haven't answered
satisfactorily, as far as I'm concerned. If we went two phases, now
Phase I -- now, this is hypothetical. Let's look at it this way. How
many units of the total would be Phase I? Is it 50 percent?
MR. CUYLER: We would be -- if we were talking about that--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If we were. Of course, we're
not. If we were.
MR. CUYLER: It would be 180.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would be -- 180 units is what
percentage of the total?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it's almost 60 percent,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What -- what I'm looking at, is
there a percentage that you would -- that you might be able to live
with? I know you have to have enough units guaranteed to be able to
make a profit to work with. Could you live with 65 percent in
phase --
MR. CUYLER: Before I answer, let me try to persuade you one
more time with something that Ms. Wolfe just said, and that is, you
are going to be facing the same issue that you're facing today on
numerous occasions before you get your regulations into place.
Unless you are going to make everybody phase their projects in,
unless you develop some policy for that, what I would suggest to you
is the one thing you have in this case that you don't normally have is
the public policy objective of obtaining affordable housing.
And I know, Commissioner Coletta, you're trying to do the best
you can to accomplish all of those purpose, but since you're going to
have other rezones that you're going to have to be dealing with
Page 138
November 27, 2001
anyway, what I would ask you to do is to go ahead and approve this
as -- as we've submitted it. And I know you're going to have to deal
with other projects. It seems as though -- and believe me, I will never
be sitting in your chair, but it seems to me that if I -- if I were, what I
would want to say is, you know, I've got a lot of problems. I'm going
to have to solve these over the next months and years. Ms. Wolfe
and Mr. Feder are going to help me do that, but I'm going to be
looking at these rezones coming up. I'm going to have to do
something with them, but, you know, do I have to phase in the first
affordable-housing project that comes to me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I assure you that if we did it
with yours and we found out how to do it, we would carry this
blueprint forward until we had something better in place.
MR. CUYLER: It would be better to put it in a regulation, with
all due respect. But, again, if I could submit that we'll put a timetable
on the school to push that out to at least address those traffic concerns
that have been raised, then we would first ask you to consider an
approval as submitted. And good luck with all the other projects
you're going to have to be looking at.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask you this,
Mr. Cuyler. You know, I'm right down health, safety and welfare,
and I don't know how this plays out in terms of what I have to do as
county commissioner-- in this case, as a judge. I understand what
you're saying about the school. I think that makes some sense, but
my greatest concern is, I would like to see half of this project
developed. And then before the second half is developed, that's three
years out, whatever that timetable is, that we have the opportunity to
at least have some of these other considerations into place. So can
we really do this, or are we just ending up buying ourselves a huge
problem that -- to me, it's a safety issue?
MR. CUYLER: If you require us to phase this project, I'm
Page 139
November 27,2001
telling you right now, we will do it. I'll go figure out what the
numbers are, and we will do it. But I'm telling you, there's two things
that you need to understand. First of all, that process is in effect
anyway, as Ms. Wolfe just indicated. We're subject to that anyway.
Whether we're phased or whether we're not, it's the same result. But
if that's something you insist on, then I'll go find --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I'm looking for, Mr. Cuyler, is a
guarantee because I've been here long enough that I've heard a lot of
stories. They always said, heard a few -- seen a few olives, and a
number of them fell out of the tree, you know, because I hear this,
and six months, a year, two years later, I'm getting chewed up by a
constituency that says, "Well, you guys did this, but they're not
following the document."
I need to be assured that if we're going to do this, that if you take
the school out, it stays out for four years. If we're going to phase it, it
means we only do this much and make sure that it's done and there's
buffering and everything else is in.
So that's what I'm looking for, not only what you're presenting
today, but anybody that comes from -- in front of me, as a county --
as a county commissioner, I want to do these same things because
we've got these two things moving here. We're changing, and yet at
the same time, we have to do the business of the projects presented to
US.
MR. CUYLER: With all due respect, the only thing I would say
is that we look for guarantees too. I mean, we walk in the door, and
we look at the regulations, and we go through the process, and we
pay our fees, and we meet all the criteria, and we come in front of
you, and -- and we have to deal with problems that are, you know,
going to be resolved in six months. So, you know, we try to get
guarantees too, and-- and I guess we all would like more guarantees
than we get. Let me talk. Is it your --
Page 140
November 27,2001
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, before -- before he goes to think
about it, I think I understand where the board is trying to get to, and
I've talked to Norman and Dawn, and let her craft some language for
you just to explain what I think it is that you're trying to get to, and
then let Mr. Cuyler and his clients consider that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. WOLFE: Dawn Wolfe, for the record. The suggestion that
we would propose at this time is that they be allowed to move
forward with a Phase I of-- I believe they indicated 180 units, which
is just slightly more than what their current PUD allows for, but that
the second phase for the remainder could not be submitted for
development approval until such time as 951 is four-laned --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bingo. You've hit, haven't you?
MS. WOLFE: -- or under construction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because that's what we're looking
for. We're looking for -- we're -- we're trying to -- to improve our
work-force housing. We're trying to please our constituents. We
want to take care of their concerns as well, and they have said to us in
our office and here at the podium that they didn't mind this -- this
development just as long as it was smaller right now because of the
traffic. So you've answered that. And then we all made campaign
pledges to try and do whatever we could with our roads, and so here
we are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I'd-- I'd like to
add something to that, because I think we're boxing ourselves in a
comer with this, and we're saying the word 951, 951 or Vanderbilt,
either one would be able to take the load off that section.
MS. WOLFE: I believe that your direct-influence area is Collier
Boulevard. You have other projects which will shortly be available
that will provide some relief to Vanderbilt Beach, although it is not
within our current program for widening. I believe the primary
Page 141
November 27, 2001
concern of all individuals is Collier Boulevard and County Road 951.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Wolfe, that's what I have heard
loud and clear from a lot of people, and if I could accomplish that,
Commissioner, I really would-- I would be comfortable with that, if
we could get to that point of agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The nice thing is that we're
going to gain some allies for getting 951 done; right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. When is 951 scheduled to
be four-laned, and what portion of 951 are we talking about?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: July.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: July, this year?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, if we can get all these people
out here to support this widening, I mean, we'd have it made, huh?
MS. WOLFE: It is currently not in our funded program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is in the work program -- of
the ten-year work program; am I correct?
MR. FEDER: The five-year work program that we presented to
you had the right-of-way phase in what would be fiscal year '04.
New 5th year could conceivably have added the construction which
would be '06. That was on the prior schedule and priorities that we
provided to you, but of course, that had an assumption -- that was
about a 290 million assumption made in funding. So it's still an issue
to be addressed. What I'm telling you is, that was unfunded beyond
right-of-way which is in 2004, and we only do a five-year work
program, and we'll be presenting to you a new five-year, adding fiscal
year '06 with current revenues and then talking about where we go
from there. But in the prior and in the new one we will be presenting
to you, it's not funded for construction.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's say, Mr. Feder, that -- that we
had it funded. Just let's make that as a -- as a hypothesis. If we do
the studies, the acquisitions and everything, how long would it take
Page 142
November 27, 2001
us if we had the money?
MR. FEDER: If we had the money, since we have not done the
design yet on it, it's going to take us, before we start construction, at
least over four years, and that's why I said we had a year two for
design, four for right-of-way and six previously for construction.
Basically, that would be about the same schedule in about a year and
a half for construction. So depending upon how you fashion this,
either under construction or completed four lanes --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Completed four lanes, estimated in
2008 if we could make all the pieces work.
MR. FEDER: Approximately, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where does that put us with
respect to state law of having started on it within three years?
MR. FEDER: Again, under the state law, that's going to provide
us with a requirement that we address other facilities that can in the
period to relieve, and then we can only move as fast as production
will allow us to move in any case. So if we end up, as we're going to
discuss with you in some detail, with the inability to address even
within three years, then we got to be talking about issues that go far
more severe than what we're talking about here today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. CUYLER: What are you going to do with all the other
projects that come to you? I mean, are you going to hold them all to
construction until four-laning of 951 ?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: May have --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a good possibility, and
other road segments. You know, we -- we have a tough job here to
do. It was a strong message that was sent Tuesday -- that Tuesday on
the referendum. We have to make those tough decisions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could just make a quick
comment. If we're going to do this, you know, I think, again, we
Page 143
November 27, 2001
must be consistent in how we handle these things. In fairness to the
property owners, we owe them two things, predictability and
consistency in the way we handle these things. And I'm very much
concerned about doing things on the fly and -- because I -- I found
that it gets us into a lot of trouble.
And I understand Mr. Cuyler's point and his concern, but if-- if
we're going to do this as a board, I hope we very, very quickly
develop the procedures that will help us be consistent and predictable
in these things because I believe that the property owners, as well as
-- as the people who have already developed their property, are
entitled to -- to understand what they're faced with when they come
here before this board. I don't think a target should be moving. So --
so I hope we can -- we can take that into consideration and deal with
it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I put that on the agenda for
tomorrow's -- talking about just that, the roads and their compatibility
to all of this development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right now it's quite
unpredictable what's going to happen. Before we had more or less of
a plan. That plan has been trashed, and we're starting over with zero,
and it's kind of hard to apply what we don't know. So if there's a lot
of indecision at this point in time, this is the reason for it. What --
what I'm interested in is, where are we with this at this point in time?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Cuyler wants to make a point, and
you've been given some wording that possibly is where the board
would like to be.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, if we could get some certainty
out of this, not whenever 951 is four-laned because that might be
never, I mean, theoretically. If we could say that Phase II would be
2005 or the earlier of the funding of the four-laning of 951 -- in other
words, when your funding source is secure, then we would agree to
Page 144
November 27, 2001
that, with the first phase being 180 and the second phase being the
remainder.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the remainder number?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 280 -- you got 180 out of 348.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 1017
MR. CUYLER: One zero something.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 160, I believe. Yeah, you've got 348
units. If you're going to pull 180 out, my math is right, you have 168
left.
MR. CUYLER: No. That's -- it's 108 because we're dealing
with a 288 figure for the affordable housing. We deduct 180. We
have -- 108 would be the second phase. The east -- is it the east?
The east 25 acres has 288 units.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I feel very comfortable of
identifying when the funding source is instead of trying to do the
project time certain when we're going to build a road because, as we
know, these road projects are a moving target. One might take
precedence over another. So going by the funding source, identifying
-- once we identify it, then we can give the approval for the second
phase.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And they're asking that they be
allowed to start that in 2005, I believe, and they would be subject to
-- if I'm correct, legal counsel -- the criteria that existed at that time?
MR. CUYLER: Correct. I think that serves Commissioner
Coyle's point, that at least that gives us some certainty in the process,
and we are trying to work with you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But before you back off on that
point, let me try to complicate it a little bit. We're talking about traffic
problems, and I believe in this report the staff has found -- and
Page 145
November 27,2001
perhaps it's normal -- proper to waive road impact fees for low-
income housing -- I hope that's not something that's being considered
here. It's -- I don't -- I can't believe that an $890 impact fee is going
to impact the ability of someone to afford to rent these.
MR. MIHALIC: Well, Commissioner, we do defer all the
impact fees for affordable-housing rental developments for six years
and -- I'm Greg Mihalic. And -- and, yes, the developer will probably
use that as part of his public contribution match to secure his
financing. So it's actually about 5,000 -- a little over $5,000 per unit
of deferral.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all the impact fees, not
just transportation?
MR. MIHALIC: That's right, all the impact fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The transportation component is
about $890 per unit, if I remember correctly; is that not true?
MR. MIHALIC: I believe that's right for a multi-family unit.
Yes, sir.
MR. CUYLER: Mr. Chairman, that's not an abatement. That's a
deferral. And there's only two things that I know of in this county
that are incentives for affordable housing. One is density, and the
other is the deferral of the impact fee. And everybody can stand up
here and say this is not about affordable housing, but if you want
affordable housing in this county, you've got to do something to bring
it in and though -- that's one of the two things that you have to bring
it in. And you can see by the fact that there's not enough affordable
housing, that, you know, they're not -- you know, the builders are not
coming in droves to construct affordable housing or work-force
housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If-- if-- if we do that, if we defer
it, when it is paid, is it the amount of the impact fee that existed at the
time we approve it or is it the amount of the impact fee that exists at
Page 146
November 27, 2001
the time it's paid?
MR. MIHALIC: It's the amount that existed when you deferred
it. In fact, most developers because of their lenders' requirements put
up a zero-coupon treasury bill for the amount due at the end of the
deferral period.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To put it another way, in order
to have affordable housing, you have to have density, and you have to
have deferral for the impact fees. If you don't, you can't have
affordable housing.
MR. MIHALIC: And fast tracking of the permitting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let's go back on this
one more time. I know we're talking about X number of units in
Phase I and Phase II, and I'd like this -- to just concentrate on that for
a moment. And I'm going to play the devil's -- devil's advocate on
that and say, we're looking at, like, a half and half. We're looking at a
low-cost project that's going to have a low return, and it's been
programmed in for three hundred-some units to be able to give them
a return on their investment, and obviously nobody does anything for
free in this world. I'm really not hung up with the fact that it has to
be 180 units. I would be willing to meet you a little bit the other way
myself; in other words, with more units to go in the first phase to try
to keep this thing so it'll actually happen.
The only other thing I would request of you is to give serious
consideration, one, to get this project underway as soon as possible
and to complete it in the shortest period of time so that this
inventory's on the market for people; and, number two, that the buffer
that goes in, as we described here, is more than just a tree-lined open
sign to the community both communities would be very proud of,
that will have different types of plantings in it, and it will fill in for
the most part so there is a segregational line that you will be able to
see it say from one community from another.
Page 147
November 27, 2001
But that's the thoughts I have on this. Now, I want this thing to
work for you. I want it to work for the community, and I want it to
work for Vanderbilt Country Club. And there's got to be a happy --
well, there's not going to be a happy median. Everybody's going to
be mad in the end, I'm sure. But let's see what we can do with these
kinds of numbers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, are you
talking about a Landscape Buffer D?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The landscape buffer that
would be between Vanderbilt Country Club and--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, the quality of it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The quality. I would be --
opaque -- would be to be a credit. However you come up with the
correct wording for a buffer, but not just the native trees left to their
own resources.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you want shrubs in there
and things like that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I believe earlier Mr. Cuyler answered
the question and said they might even do a berm or whatever.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The word was "might."
MR. CUYLER: We'll do something with our 80-foot buffer.
They can do something with their 1 O-foot buffer, and maybe together
that'll give us 90 -- a 90-foot--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And yet the buffer doesn't solve the
traffic problem at all, does it? (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Where we are, Commissioner Coletta,
is that -- what I've heard is just splitting the number of units if we
were going to get into and promised by the petitioner not to develop
the second half before 2005 which is four years out, we don't get a
Page 148
November 27, 2001
credit back for six?
MR. MIHALIC: Six, that's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Six -- you've got a two-year lag in
there. I don't know if they're willing to defer their second phase
another year so at least we're closer.
MR. MIHALIC: Commissioners, can I just mention some
industry standards, and that is that a development really needs about
220 units to provide full services on site. When you get less than 220
units, you cannot provide the 24-hour housekeeper. You cannot
provide the maintenance levels that you need and -- if I might just
throw that out, and that is an industry standard.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean, they have
housekeepers?
MR. MIHALIC: They have maintenance people. They have
people that turn over the rooms when they go re-renting, painters and
maintenance people. Right. Upkeep for the pool. All that is
provided, but they are going to have a live-in rental person in this
complex. And, again, you need about 220 units to make that
financially feasible to provide those full services on site.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand that, but that runs into a
worse traffic problem, so I'm just going back to the petitioner. MR. MIHALIC: I'm just throwing that out.
MR. CUYLER: Well, I only would say that because it came
from a commissioner, that if you could increase the units, that would
be fine. We will -- we will agree to some kind of opaque fence,
shrub, berm of some sort. I think the standard is 6-foot high.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would 200 units now and 148
to follow at that point in time if it's feasible -- just as a suggestion.
This has got to happen one way or another. You got to figure a way
to make it happen.
MR. CUYLER: Okay. Two hundred units in Phase I, the
Page 149
November 27,2001
remainder in Phase II.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll make that as a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you would add to that
motion a Landscape Buffer D and the architectural drawings to be
submitted with this application as their percentage of the public and
the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm more than happy to add
that. That was an original thought. Anything else that you can think
of that would --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other comments by
commissioners in terms of formulating?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The other thing is -- is we need
to -- we lost the interconnectivity with the project to the south. We
need within the motion too is the ability to interconnect with the
property to the north.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What we need to do is send Jim
Carter over there to talk to Father Blackton.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
breaker for this whole thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
I hate to make that the deal
I'm just kidding.
What they, Commissioner
Coletta, is they're having a multi-family unit -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're still mad about the
woodpecker, aren't you?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Look,
there's been demonstrated that the exit onto Vanderbilt is not the
critical issue. It is kind of like frosting on the cake if you could get
there. I will be happy to go and try and ask the questions, but if it
fails, I would hate to see the project fail with whatever you construct
here because you put it in there and I'm not successful in -- in the
Page 150
November 27, 2001
process.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That wasn't part of the motion or
anything.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I never know what happens up
here, folks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I could -- if I could finish.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have multi-family. You're
going to have a school. So if you have a road segment separation to
go to the north for another interconnectivity, I mean, that's a
possibility.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But all due respect, Commissioner, I
heard the school was out.
MR. CUYLER: If we have -- this is one of the problems with
negotiating. The interconnectivity to the north is on our plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm just putting it in a
motion.
MR. CUYLER: Right. I just wanted to let you know that that's
already there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I accept that in the motion.
What's missing here?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I close -- I've got to close the public
hearing.
MR. OLLIFF: Two questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Who are you? Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Two questions. Clarify the motion, if I can.
One, was the school phasing included?
MR. CUYLER: That was under the other proposal. If in the --
in light of--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please continue, Mr. Cuyler.
MR. CUYLER: In light of the phasing of the -- of the two,
Page 151
November 27, 2001
which was your original suggestion, then we would prefer not to put
the school off.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Put the school off or put it --
MR. CUYLER: Put it off for four years as we had agreed we
would do if we didn't -- if we didn't have to phase. All right. We'll
go ahead and delay the school for four years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: And the second question was on -- I'm still
unclear as to what is the trigger that allows the second phase of this
project to move forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- it's a number of years.
MR. CUYLER: I had suggested the earlier of 2005 or the
funding source being in place for the four-laning of the roadway.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: So by that language, just so this board's aware, if
the board makes a decision as part of the Growth Management Plan
to fund a road program that includes this segment of road --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
MR. CUYLER: We will be subject to anything the county as a
whole is subject to, if that's your question.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think he's saying -- he's saying to the
board, if I understand it correctly, if we do it sooner, means that they
can buildout sooner because we would have taken care of the traffic
situation.
MR. OLLIFF: Exactly. If the board makes a decision within
three months on how to fund this road program and this segment's
included, then there is no restriction on Phase II at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. And we're looking at
the five-year work plan, not to try to get off the subject. We're
looking at the five-year program, not the big picture.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Close the public hearing. Mr.
Page 152
November 27, 2001
Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to make one other point of
clarification that the segment of 951 we're dealing is the two-lane
segment from basically the boulevard north to Immokalee Road, just
so it's on the record that that's the segment that's in question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All right. Is that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From Vanderbilt Beach Road or
did you say Golden Gate Parkway?
MR. BELLOWS: Golden Gate Boulevard. That's where it goes
from already four-lane.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Golden Gate Boulevard all the way up
to Vanderbilt Beach; is that correct?
MR. BELLOWS: Basically the four-lane ends around the
Golden Gate Boulevard.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, what about between Vanderbilt
and Immokalee where this is? That's what we're talking about.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, the whole segment all the way to
Immokalee Road.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All right. I don't want to
confuse this. Is it adequately stated for the record? Would the
motion be read back if there's anything missing. Is it necessary, Mr.
Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think you necessarily have to have
the motion read back. Your -- your public hearing is still open, so
you close the public hearing if you would -- you did close it? Okay.
Pardon me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got to do that.
MR. WEIGEL: Sorry. I saw them standing there.
I thought they were still waiting to speak one last time.
But at any rate, from my reiteration, perhaps Tom's also, you
Page 153
November 27, 2001
have your buffer standard in there. Mr. Henning said something
about a deed, and I heard that mentioned I thought as part of the
motion, and I want to be clear that either that's not part of the motion
-- but we have an understanding what the buffer is.
MR. OLLIFF: What's called a Class D.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Landscape Buffer D.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: D as in "Donna."
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you. My ears perked up.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm going to continue to jump in here and try and
clarify on this phasing II. To fund the project means a lot of things,
and so I need to try and narrow that down. What I'm hearing the
board saying is 2005, or if the construction phase of that project is
funded earlier than that, whichever of those two occur first is the
trigger for the second phase of this development project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's what I'm understanding up here,
Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Funding, engineering and design or funding
right-of-way doesn't count in terms of early construction or release of
this project.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or -- or, you know, whatever
standards exist at that time. I mean, that's still -- I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is that clear as mud?
MR. CUYLER: We're talking about funding for the
construction contract of 951 four-laning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I have a question about that.
If we have -- say, for instance, next week we decide we found the
funding, we won that lottery and the funding is in place but -- but we
can't build the road until 2022, then do we still build it in five years?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Five years in the funding that
you go out the funding for. Anything is unfunded past that point; am
I right?
Page 154
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the latter of the two, isn't it?
Earlier of the two?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's the earlier of the two.
MR. CUYLER: What was the -- I missed the part that Tom
said. How did you define it? The funding?
MR. OLLIFF: The earlier of the two. Either 2005 or when the
board has within its five-year construction plan funding budgeted for
the construction phase of the portion of 951 from Vanderbilt Beach
Road to Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Golden Gate--
MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry. Golden Gate Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's just a little two-lane
section in there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Is everybody okay?
Public hearing is closed.
Motion is on the floor. Motion was made by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. Motion
carries 5-0.
We're breaking for lunch. We will return here at 3:10.
MR. CUYLER: Thank you for your time, Commissioners.
(Lunch break was held from 2:10 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. We have a smaller audience than we did before, but we
welcome you back to the afternoon session of the Board of County
Commissioners. At this point I am going to turn the meeting over to
our vice-chair, Mr. Jim Coletta, and he is going to conduct the
afternoon session. It is part of our process where we have the chair
and the vice-chair share the chairing of meetings. And I also
Page 155
November 27, 2001
suggested in the future that the chair have the vice-chair, with the
approval of the board, serve as the chairman of the TDC. So we're
trying to divide the responsibilities between board members as we
move forward. So, Mr. Coletta, I'm going to pass the gavel over to
you and let you carry forward.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2001-68, RE PETITION PUD A-2001-AR-500, R.
BRUCE ANDERSON, ESQ., OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP,
VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING THE
SKINNER AND BROADBENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
INC., REQUESTING TO REPEAL THE CURRENT FALLING
WATERS BEACH RESORT PUD AND TO ADOPT A NEW PUD,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951), APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET NORTH
OF TAMIAMI TRAIL , CONSISTING OF 74.37 ACRES AND
THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TRACTS CONSIST OF 4+
ACRES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS
And we are at advertised public hearings, Item 8-C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Dr. Carter. Would all
the people that are going to be participating in this hearing stand to be
sworn in, please.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got the floor.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: If you have any disclosures, this is the
right time for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
start?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you. Do you want me to
I'm sorry. I didn't hear you, sir.
Page 156
November 27, 2001
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, disclosures. I -- on this
particular item, I -- yes. I've definitely received a couple of e-mails, a
number of phone calls, private meetings, met with the developer, the
attorney, met with numerous residents, and received many letters.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with the developer
and his attorney. I've talked with people who have come to my office
on Marco and in Naples here to discuss this and -- residents of
Falling Waters, as well as I have a whole folder full of letters that I've
received.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with the petitioner. I
have met with the Falling Waters homeowners' groups, and I have
documentation in the file.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have met with
representatives of the petitioner, and I have a number of letters from
homeowners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a file. I met with the
petitioner and some residents at my satellite office in Golden Gate.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: With that, this is -- my name is
Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a PUD
amendment to -- to remove some of the uses allowed by the PUD in
the commercial district of the Falling Waters PUD -- which includes
restaurants, fast-food restaurants, food markets, and service stations
-- and to allow uses in C-1 and ministorage facility. The property is
located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41.
Actually, it's not right at the intersection. There is a row of lots,
commercial and agriculturally zoned lots, along U.S. 41. The
property itself in the PUD is 74.37 acres, and the community
commercial tracts are around 4 acres. This PUD, commercial and
residential tracts, they have a single entrance on Collier Boulevard.
And they -- according to our codes, they cannot have any additional
Page 157
November 27,2001
driveways or access points on Collier Boulevard. We have access
management requirements that says you cannot have two driveways
closer than 350 feet to each other along this portion of Collier
Boulevard, and that's why it's not an option to have a second access
for commercial tracts on Collier Boulevard.
The problem was that the uses allowed on the commercial tract
would have generated over 500 trips per day, which they had to share
the same access with the residential tract. With the new proposal, if
they built ministorages as they are proposing, that traffic count will
go down to 180 trips per day. However, if they don't build
miniwarehouses and they build some other commercial uses, since
they are allowed to have C-1 uses, which include mostly office use,
the traffic will be around 260 trips per day.
They are within an activity center. They are entitled to apply for
a full range of commercial uses from C-1 all the way to C-5. That's
what commercial activity centers are for. And the problem we have,
as I said, is just the sharing of a single driveway for everybody, all
the residences and the commercial tract. That is the reason staff
recommended approval of this petition to the Planning Commission,
and they forwarded it with their recommendation for approval since
any other use would generate excessive traffic on that narrow
driveway that they have.
They met several times with homeowners' associations and
residents, and as a result, they modified the design several times to
accommodate as many people as they can. When this application
was first received, staff received over 110 letters of objection. But
after those meetings I had several phone calls from people saying that
they are no longer in opposition today to this request. However, there
are some people who still want to have greenspace there as opposed
to any commercial use. They believe that they were promised
greenspace. On the artist's renderings that they were shown, it
Page 158
November 27,2001
showed as greenspace and not commercial.
Basically that concludes my presentation. Planning Commission
reviewed this and unanimously recommended approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you help me with the
pronunciation of your name.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Badamtchian, Chahram.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Chahram. Mr. Chahram (sic). Any
questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead, Commissioner
Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were talking about one
driveway, just one driveway in. And I thought maybe one of the
conclusions to that would be -- or problem solving would be the
driveway that enters, have it be a two-lane driveway so that you
could have people on one of the drives entering the -- the --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Widening that driveway is not a
problem. I think it can be accommodated. It's just going to remove
some of the landscaping. But having an additional driveway just for
the commercial, that's not feasible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that we couldn't do
that. So then I thought, well, the biggest problem -- some people that
visited me in my office said that their biggest problem was when
they're trying to get in and there's school buses that might be coming
in and out or a large truck. If those things had their own lane so that
residents only have their very own lane, that would solve the problem
of the other lane going into commercial.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That would be a possibility if the
residents there agree to widen the driveway. The commercial tract
owners, they don't own the driveway. They have easements to use it,
and I believe it's always possible to widen that driveway. I don't
Page 159
November 27, 2001
know if it's going to show --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I went over and took a look at it.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's always possible to widen the
driveway. Commissioners, one thing I forgot to tell you is the PUD
document requires a secondary access to U.S. 41, and they never built
it. We sent them a letter putting them on notice, and we told them
they have to come up with a plan to show that access and build it, and
they have until December 5th to respond.
I had the conversation with the engineer, this project's engineer,
and he told me that they are trying to negotiate with the property next
door -- these lots are owned by the same person who's building a
building supply store there -- to see if they can have a common
driveway since the FDOT doesn't like to have driveways side by side
along U.S. 41. They are planning to build it, and we will make sure
that the secondary access to the residential tract is built.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who pays for that construction?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The developer of the residential tract
because it was shown on the plan as an access, secondary access, to
the residential tracts, and they never built it. They are not finished
building it. They have several units, several buildings left to build.
And this tract is also their recreational tract, and it's still under
construction. They haven't finished it. And if you drive there, you
see they are showing a driveway coming all the way to the end of the
property. And that's the intention, I believe, to continue and build a
bridge to come to U.S. 41.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess my point is, there's not
going to be a special assessment for the current residents of Falling
Waters to do that --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- construction; right?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It was shown on the plans when the
Page 160
November 27, 2001
developer brought them to us for review. It's just they haven't built it,
and we are putting them on notice that they have to build it soon.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, if the developer--
he is not out of that project yet; right? He's continuing to develop?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. They are not.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So he is still under the conditions
of the PUD which stated that he, the developer, had to build that road,
so it would not be any obligation to people --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- there as far as --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are building new buildings, and
there is some land left to build new buildings. We let them know that
we will not issue certificate of occupations (sic) for new buildings
unless they build the road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As far as 41 goes, I've been down
there a couple times. And I've met with the residents, and that's a big
thing. They are looking for that access. Anything we can do to get
the developer there to do it sooner than later is a safety issue and a
two-way access, coming in and going out. At one time I think it was
originally planned to be just an exit and not an entrance, and that
would be a big mistake.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean off 41 ?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Onto 41. Right. Because that would
give you the ability to be able to go down towards Naples on 41.
When you come out of Falling Waters now, you can't make a left-
hand mm. You have to go all the way down and make a U-turn and
come back again. It's very inconvenient. But because of the road and
the way it is, they can't make a cut to allow for a left-hand mm, so it's
a problem.
They got to -- and 41 would solve that problem, plus it would
give them an emergency exit, too, and allow for ambulance or fire
Page 161
November 27, 2001
truck to come that way if the other exit's blocked. That was a big
concern.
But right now we're dealing with the current request on the part
of the petitioner. Do you have any other questions of staff?.
Then we'll go ahead and -- Mr. Bruce Anderson, could you go
ahead and make your presentation?
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, on behalf of
the petitioner. I'd like to introduce Chris McCray (phonetic),
development representative; and Dave Cheslyn, vice president of
development from Skinner & Broadbent Development Company,
who is the applicant. They are the contract purchaser of the
commercially zoned portion of this PUD. They are purchasing from
the original developer of the Falling Waters PUD, who is -- this is the
only piece, I think, they still own. Also present to answer any
questions that you may have are Bruce Tyson of WilsonMiller, the
planner on this project, as well as Dan Johnson of WilsonMiller,
who's the project engineer.
This commercially zoned property is located within an activity
center. The Comprehensive Plan, as Chahram told you, allows the
full array of commercial uses on this property. At present the PUD
allows as a matter of right, without any public hearings, fast-food
restaurants, other kinds of restaurants, shopping centers, grocery
stores, and other miscellaneous retail uses. This PUD eliminates
those uses in favor of self-storage. This change represents a
substantial reduction in impacts such as light and noise and, most
importantly, a huge, more than 90 percent, reduction in traffic
impacts from what would be allowed to be constructed on the
property today.
From a public health, safety, and welfare viewpoint, let's be real
clear about what the choices are today. The choice is between an
Page 162
November 27, 2001
already allowed 49,000 square feet of commercial uses, including
convenience stores, which will generate approximately 3500 vehicle
trips per day by the cars and semis serving those businesses; or the
other choice is 73,000 square feet of enclosed self-storage with a
caretaker's apartment, which will generate only approximately 180
vehicle trips per day. Additionally, the PUD amendment proposes to
reduce the building height in the commercial area from 50 feet to 36
feet to allow for an office and caretaker's apartment. The storage
buildings themselves are limited to one story.
The public health, safety, and welfare question is, is it better to
have a single use that generates 180 vehicle trips per day or an
assortment of uses that generate more than 3500 trips per day? Not
only does this PUD amendment dramatically decrease the amount of
traffic to be generated, there is also a more than 90 percent reduction
in the demand that will be placed on the county's water and sewer
systems by the self-storage use.
Individually and as a total package, the amendments to this PUD
provide real and substantial public benefits and benefits to the
neighboring residents. My client and I have worked closely with the
residents of Falling Waters. We have met with their group four times
over the past five months to explain the project, answer their
questions, and receive their input and address their concerns. In
response to the request from these residents, we've modified
landscape plans, reduced and redesigned our signage, decreased our
storage space in order to increase internal vehicle turnaround area,
and we agreed to install a light at or near the property line at the
northern end where our property abuts the remainder of their PUD in
order to provide a safety light in a darkened comer along their
internal roadway.
At our last meeting, which was held about three weeks ago,
there were about a hundred people there at Falling Waters. And after
Page 163
November 27, 2001
the meeting many of the residents came up to our client to say
welcome to the neighborhood. The fact that you don't have those
same hundred people or so here today to object is evidence of the fact
that the silent majority of Falling Waters residents support this
project now that we have addressed most of their concerns and they
understand all the facts.
I'll be happy -- we have committed to this particular building
style: Stucco buildings, a barrel tile roof on the two-story building.
And we have tried to blend those structures with those that already
exist at Falling Waters. You'll also notice under the site plan that the
-- the storage units are only accessible internally. You won't see any
doors from 951 or from Falling Waters. My clients have gone the
extra mile to be a good neighbor, and we ask you to vote to reduce
the impacts to roads and water and sewer facilities and reduce the
impacts to the residents of Falling Waters by voting to approve this
amendment. And I or any of the other team will be happy to try to
answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one. When you met with them
the last time -- we had received a lot of letters this summer, and now
you're saying that you don't -- everybody seems to understand. And I
notice we got a letter here the other day saying now that the board of
directors from each of these different resort numbers felt that they
had no opposition anymore. Was the setback okay with them as
well?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I -- I have to say something
about Bruce Anderson and his involvement in this project. It's been
total. I mean, this man has gone the extra mile. There's been delay
after delay on this because he was trying to answer more of the
residents' questions. And you never stopped. I mean, it started out --
Page 164
November 27, 2001
it's unbelievable, Bruce, but this is all the e-mail that came, and it
tapered off towards the end.
But Bruce tried every possible configuration you can think of to
make this thing the most pleasant and most user friendly that he could
possibly do. He worked with planning. He worked with Norm in
roads. He -- he's done it right from beginning to one (sic). He kept
going back and kept going back and never hesitated to answer the
questions. But I'm sure there's going to be some good questions today
when we get the petitioners (sic) up here that we'll be passing on to
you. Bruce, thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, could I ask one
question, please?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Anderson, are you
incorporating the suggestions of the members of the board of
directors for Falling Waters?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All phases?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you're accepting those
conditions?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. The only clarification that we made --
and we made this at the Planning Commission hearing -- was with
regard to the minimum 6-foot hedge around the building. On the
portion of the building that faces 951, that hedge would only be 3
feet. But other than that, we've agreed to all those stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But there are existing trees along
that 951 frontage now. Are they going to be removed, or will you
retain those?
MR. ANDERSON: To the extent that they can be retained when
Page 165
November 27,2001
we have to raise up the ground level, they are going to do that
because it'll save the developer money.
COMMISSIONERCOYLE: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ms. Filson, we have five speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, we do, sir. Gisela Chilson, and she will be
followed by Geraldine Krisanda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I could ask the first speaker to
come forward and the second one to get in line.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, just one
clarification. I forgot to tell you that the setback will be reduced from
50 to 20, and that's because they have to give 50 feet of right-of-way
for the road widening. That's why they are requesting to go with 20.
And that larger setback is usually required when you have parking in
front, which setbacks can be used for parking, and here they don't
have the parking in front. That's why staff has no objection with this
request of reducing the front setback.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that's 70 feet from the edge of
the road, 50 feet right-of-way and then a 20 feet -- 20-foot setback;
right?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. It's not going to be right on
top of the road. There is a large setback, but most of it's not their
property. Twenty feet of it's going to be their property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is either one of the first two speakers
available?
MS. FILSON: The next one would be Ralph D'Errico,
Geraldine Weis, and Sylvia Grinder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anyone that failed to put up a
request to speak that would like to at this time?
MR. ANDERSON: I wanted to tell you why -- I don't know the
names of all the folks, but the folks -- some of the folks that had been
Page 166
November 27,2001
waiting around, they left after they found out what action the county
has initiated with regard to enforcing the existing PUD with regard to
the access to U.S. 41.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's amazing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would -- I'd make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's close the public hearing
first. And we got a motion to approve and a second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second with all the discussion
we had today, with the stipulations.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All the stipulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any other discussion? All those in
Opposed?
Unanimous. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your hard work paid off, Bruce.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work. It's amazing.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2001-69, RE PETITION RZ-200 I-AR- 1376,
CARLOS MORALES OF LA QUINTA HOMES OF SW
FLORIDA, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM ITS
CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF "RSF-3"
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO "RMF-
6" RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT FOR A
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5211 24TM AVENUE SW IN GOLDEN
GATE CITY, CONSISTING OF 12,500 SQUARE FEET-
Page 167
November 27, 2001
ADOPTED
Okay. The next one would be Agenda Item 8-D. And who is
going to -- let's see. We have to be sworn in on this one too. So
anyone that wishes to participate, please stand now and raise your
right hand.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Sadat (sic), go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disclosures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Disclosure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Coletta?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Disclosures?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yes, disclosures on this
particular one. Forgave me. Start with you, Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I have several
e-mails from the members of the Golden Gate Civic Association, and
I also talked to the builder's -- one of his subcontractors, and I also
talked to the builder's attorney.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Other than documents in the file, I
have not talked with anyone.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Same thing. Other than
documents, no personal contact.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same thing here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I talked to a member of the civic
association from Golden Gate, and that's been my contact.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon again. Chahram
Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is a rezone in Golden
Gate City from its present zoning of RSF-3 to RMF-6. The property
is located at the intersection of 52nd Terrace and 24th Avenue. It's
Page 168
November 27, 2001
just a single lot. A building permit was issued for this lot to build a
duplex. And the applicant continued to start the construction, and by
the time the spot survey came, the building was almost complete. I'm
not going to say completely done, but substantially complete. And
one of the staff members discovered that their zoning is not RMF-6,
as somebody else had thought that issued the permit, but it is RSF-3.
That's why we put the project on hold.
This is the lot in question, and as you can see, all these yellows
are multifamily, mostly duplexes and some triplexes here. And this
is the lot in question. It's surrounded on three sides by duplexes, and
there's the row of single-family homes in here. So this house on three
sides abuts duplex and triplexes. On one side it's single-family
house.
Most of the Golden Gate City is within a density band of an
activity center which allows additional units and would have allowed
this project to ask for up to seven units per acre, and they are asking
six units per acre just to take care of the existing problem. They are
in compliance with the Growth Management Plan by virtue of being
within the density band, and there are not environmental issues. Staff
reviewed this and recommended approval because it's in compliance
of all the county codes.
And when it comes to compatibility, in planning residential is
usually compatible with residential. Larger homes with smaller
homes are basically compatible. If you go to PUDs, you will see on
one side of the street they have single families; on the other side they
have villas. And that never was a problem, especially in here. As
you can see, there's a row of duplexes next to a row of single family.
And it's like this throughout portions of the Golden Gate City.
Basically what they are asking is to keep what was built
according to the approved plans. And I know there's some opposition
from neighbors, but the main thing is if we change -- we ask this
Page 169
November 27,2001
person to change this into a single-family house, the footprint of the
building is not going to change. He will not tear a portion of the
house down to make it into a single-family house. All he has to do is
have an opening between those two units, and per code it's then one
unit. If there is no separation between the units, it's just one large
home.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he would have to remove
a kitchen?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our code says homes over 2500 square
feet in area are allowed to have a secondary kitchen. So it comes to
the definition of what a secondary kitchen is. Can a secondary
kitchen be as large as the primary kitchen? But even if-- so he has to
remove a portion of the kitchen, make one kitchen smaller, that will
not help the neighbors with the problem they have. As they say, it's a
big building, too close to their neighbors' yards, and the AC units --
as they were saying at the Planning Commission, that the AC units
are noisy, that they will not help the neighborhood. That's why staff
is recommending approval. There is no good solution to this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chahram, the -- does it -- if it
was a single-family home, does it fit within the setbacks on this lot?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it does. Multifamily has larger
setbacks than single family, so this one has multifamily setbacks. It'll
have no problem of being a single family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So he wouldn't have to come in
for a variance if the board decides to not --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No variance is required.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, reading the executive
summary, it's -- on the Growth Management Plan, it's based on
increased densities in Activity --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Density bands.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Activity Center No. 15?
Page 170
November 27, 2001
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is that?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's the activity center which is right
in the middle of Golden Gate City where Winn-Dixie and other stores
are. And the density band is basically a half-mile radius. Actually, a
mile radius, which encompasses most of Golden Gate City. That
circle is there --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A half a mile encompasses
most of Golden Gate City?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. Actually, a mile.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, looking in the Growth
Management Plan, is this referred to as the high density residential
subdistrict?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Because with -- it's within the density
band, that's why it's called high density subdistrict.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
referring to?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
And that's what you were
Well, I went to the map on that,
which I have here, and it shows the density band. And I'll give this to
you. And it -- and the lot requesting for rezone is way up here, and
the density band is around this area. Let me give you this language.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. What you have here,
Commissioner, is not the density band. This is the actual activity
center. This is the area that can be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you put it on the visualizer,
please?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is the area that can be rezoned to
commercial. Because of the existence of this activity center, we have
Page 171
November 27, 2001
a one-mile radius, a circle, that can be rezoned to higher density
residential.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, that isn't what it said in
the language that I gave you that goes along with that -- that map.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: To encourage higher density
residential and promote mixed use in a close proximity to an activity
center there is residential zoned properties -- okay. Up to 12 -- okay.
That is the activity center that they can get 12 units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Then you have the density band that
you can get up to -- the base density basically is -- in the county is
four units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you show that to me in the
Growth Management Plan? Because I did not see that, what you're
talking about, a density band. That's the only thing that I've seen in
the Growth Management Plan within the Golden Gate Master Plan.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: She's going to bring her comp plan,
Comprehensive Plan, and it's in there, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's amazing that we have a
density band within a density band.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There's an activity center which allows
up to 12 units. Then there's a density band which allows up to three
additional units.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On top of the four, you mean?
On top of--
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: On top of the three.
is basically the density band.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And--
On top of the 12.
This is the -- this
Page 172
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're saying within the
Growth Management Plan, they can --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: And, as you can see, it says residential
density band.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They can request to increase
the density because it's within that density --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Within the density band, correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the petitioner?
MR. THORNTON: Good afternoon. My name's Chris
Thornton. I'm an attorney with Treiser, Lieberfarb, Collins &
Vernon. And I'm representing the applicant today, La Quinta Homes
of Southwest Florida, and the president, Carlos Morales, is here. La
Quinta Homes has been building here in Collier County for about
seven years. They do 60 to 80 single-family homes per year. Lately
Mr. Morales has been doing some duplexes because if he can get a
duplex built, he'll save those, and that income is going to be his
retirement income. So lately he's built -- I think he's got about six or
seven duplexes built that he owns now that he rents out.
When he -- when Mr. Morales bought this property in July 2001,
he -- he bought the property first. He -- he had been there before.
He'd been to the street. The property fronts on 24th Avenue
Southwest. If you look at the map that Chahram prepared there,
you'll see that all the properties on 24th Avenue Southwest are
multifamily houses, duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes. This property
for some anomalous or unus -- weird reason is the only piece of
property on 24th Avenue Southwest that is zoned for single-family
homes.
So Mr. Morales bought the property assuming that he could
probably build a duplex and keep it and rent it out. If not, he'll build
Page 173
November 27, 2001
a single-family home, sell it, and that's what his business is. So he
went -- he bought the property, took the survey down, and said,
"What can I build here? Can I do a duplex?" And I'm not sure who
he spoke to, but the answer was, "Yeah, a duplex is allowed there."
You know, anybody would-- the whole street is multifamily housing.
So--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Thornton --
MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- may I correct you? I don't
know if you've been down that road or not, but there are single-
family homes down that 24th.
MR. THORNTON: I have been there, and you're probably
right. The properties on our side of 24th are all zoned RMF-6 except
for our one lot. The properties on the other side of 24th are all zoned
RMF-12; although people could have bought those lots and built
single-family homes. That's tree. The homes -- the home right
across the street -- I'll go ahead and pass out these pictures. The
homes on either side of the subject property are duplexes. The home
directly across the street is a triple, and the home that the back yard --
our back yard abuts a single-family home. So on three sides we have
multifamily, and on one side there's a single family.
The handout that I just gave you -- the house -- the mustard
yellow house numbered No. 1 in the bottom right comer, that's the
subject home. As you can see, it's pretty much built. It's already
constructed. It doesn't have a CO yet. As you can see, it's built -- it's
designed and built as an attached home. There are two residences in
there. Picture No. 2 below that is the back yard of the single-family
home that abuts our back yard. Picture No. 3 on the other side is the
house directly across the street, across 24th from our property. That's
a triplex. The house numbered No. 4 is a duplex which is the house
on our -- our other side. So the only house that I haven't pictured
Page 174
November 27, 2001
here that I speak of is the duplex on the other side.
So what we're asking for is a rezone to RMF-6 in order to get --
legitimize what we've already gotten a permit for and already built,
because the land is zoned single family. We're not really -- we're not
really asking you to do this. We're not saying there is a mistake
made. We got our permit, so you have to do this. The real -- the fact
of the matter is that the property's surrounded by duplexes on three
sides. Your staff has told you that the application is consistent with
your Growth Management Plan, and we have met all the criteria in
the Land Development Code for a rezone. That's the evidence that
you've received so far.
If you just -- if you forget -- wipe the permit out. Pretend the
house wasn't built yet. Say it's a vacant piece of property. This is an
appropriate case for a rezone. It's surrounded by duplexes and
triplexes all around it, and it meets all the criteria in the Growth
Management Plan, all the criteria in your Land Development Code.
The fact that the permit was issued is just -- it's an additional reason
to go ahead and allow this, because if you don't allow it, Mr. Morales
will have to either-- ! guess he would be forced to tear it down and
build a single-family home. Or the least -- the less expensive route,
although it would be expensive, would be to turn it into a single-
family house. And the problem with that is that it's just not built as a
single-family house, and nobody's going to pay what it's worth to live
in a house that's designed like that as a single-family home. They're
not going to pay for all that square footage and for two kitchens and
all that.
I would like to also point out the home as it stands -- as you
heard Chahram say, the home -- if it were built as a single-family
home, it wouldn't need a variance. There's no -- it's a big house.
You would have the same -- I would assume, the same number of
people living in it that it's going to have if it's used as a duplex or
Page 175
November 27, 2001
used as a single-family home. A big family would need to live in
there to fill up all the space. It's got a lot of bedrooms in there.
Also, there are some lots in the city -- I don't know this for a
fact. Maybe Mr. Henning can -- Commissioner Henning can help me
out. I assume there are some lots where people bought two lots and
built one home, a single-family home on two lots. So this just -- this
helps average out. It's not like you're actually gaining density. There
are some places out there, I'm sure, where two lots have been built
with one home. So this is just one case where that gets averaged out.
Further, every month we go -- it's been four months now. Every
month we go, Mr. Morales is losing $1800 a month in rent. So far
we've gotten up to about $7200 ever since this problem got spotted
and he was forced to stop construction. He's had to pay -- the
application fee for a rezone is $2,125. If he -- he would have built a
single-family home probably. He wouldn't have paid me or
somebody else to come up here and rezone the property. He just
would have built a single-family home. But he was told he could
build a duplex, and he'd prefer to have one of these that he could have
for retirement income, so he built it. It made sense to him. It made
sense to staff. The whole street is zoned RMF-6 and RMF-12. This
is one lot surrounded by multifamily zoning.
I think -- I think your staff has given you their opinion that it
meets all the criteria of the Growth Management Plan and the Land
Development Code. The issuance of the permit is just an additional
reason to grant this application. I'd be happy to answer any questions
you have, and Mr. Morales is also available.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions before
we close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just have a question for
Page 176
November 27, 2001
Marjorie Student.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. For the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. What kind of
responsibility do we have in this -- in this case?
MS. STUDENT: Well, I can tell you that when a building
permit or any type of permit is issued in error, there can be no claim,
generally, for vested rights or equitable estoppel. I am the land use
attorney, and I am not sure -- if you're talking about some other type
of liability, I would need to defer to Mr. Weigel on that.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: You answered my question on
that part of it, but one more question. Is there any kind of case law
out there in any type of zoning error like this one where somebody
has built something on a piece of property that it wasn't properly
zoned, and it went to the courts?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, there are many cases out there. There's
one case now that is going to be pending before the Florida Supreme
Court about an apartment building that was built in violation --
alleged violation of a Growth Management Plan provision in Martin
County. And the judge ordered that it be torn down, and the
appellate court agreed with that. So I understand that it's going to go
up to the Florida Supreme Court on that. But--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand from the FAC
update, Florida Association of Counties, it is in the Supreme Court
but has not been heard.
MS. STUDENT: Yes. It will take -- it will take some time to
hear that. And the only -- I've looked at a number of these cases over
time, and the only exception that I don't necessarily agree with was a
case in Coral Gables where an applicant brought in some erroneous --
Page 177
November 27, 2001
it was either a survey or erroneous aspect of some things on the lot,
and the planning director did not make a site visit. Again, this was
the City of Coral Gables, which is considerably smaller than Collier
County. And the Court said that the planning director should have
gone out and made a site visit.
In this case I don't think you have a similar fact situation
because looking -- going out and making a site visit isn't going to tell
you what the zoning is. You have to resort to the zoning atlas map
for that. And it's very difficult to predict, again, how a court might
rule, but I can just tell you what the case law generally is.
MR. THORNTON: Commissioner Henning, can I make one
addition to those statements?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: To Mrs. Marjorie Student's
statements?
MR. THORNTON: I have a comment on those statements, ifI
may.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay.
MR. THORNTON: In addition to potential vested rights -- you
know, she sounded right on point as far as vested rights go. There's
an additional claim that I researched called reverse spot zoning.
There are a few cases that I can cite to you. It's basically where -- in
the cases that I found -- the one that I have the good facts for is a
1976 case called Olive (phonetic) where the property owner came in
and said, "County Commission, I am surrounded on three sides by
commercial. My property is residential. I want to rezone to
commercial." And I don't know if it was a county commission or city
council. Maybe Mr. Weigel can help me out. Anyway, the
application was denied, and the Court said there's no rational --
there's no -- there's no reason that this can be denied. It's surrounded
by commercial. It's not -- residential's not a good use for it. Why
Page 178
November 27, 2001
make this one guy be different than all the property around it? The
other-- the case that states the rule is a case called City of Miami
Beach versus Robbins. It's a Third District Court of Appeals case
dated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Boy, that's a real stretch, isn't
it? I mean, you're talking commercial versus residential, and we're
talking residential versus residential. We're just talking about density
issues, not -- it's apples and oranges.
MR. THORNTON: Well, in the case I just talked about, it was
residential surrounded by commercial on three sides.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he wanted it zoned
commercial.
MR. THORNTON: And I'm extending those to our facts which
are a piece of property zoned single family surrounded on three sides
by multifamily housing.
MS. STUDENT: If I may respond?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. I think that case may be
distinguishable from the case before the commission because I think
you've heard testimony today that residential to residential, there
really are no compatibility issues, but as between commercial and
residential, there are. And the policy reason behind spot zoning or
reverse spot zoning is to prevent an island, if you will, of an
incompatible use that's surrounded by other uses that are
incompatible with it. And we've heard testimony today that
residential and residential are compatible so ...
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
no public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Any other questions? And there is
Okay. Then--
Close the public hearing.
Page 179
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Comments?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The civic association is
opposed to this project because within the 4 square miles, they
received some information from community development -- and let
me just read this.
As to the following conversation regarding multifamily units in
Golden Gate, I offer the following: There are 3,484 existing
multifamily units in Golden Gate City -- mind you, this is a 4-square-
mile area-- an estimated buildout of 4,391 units. Approximately 907
units are undeveloped. Now, in the single family, there are 4,202
existing single-family units with an established (sic) buildout of
4,500 units. So the buildout of single family is 4,500, multifamily is
4,391.
And I would think that if anybody would take a look at good
planning, what you're talking about in this multifamily in the case of
Golden Gate is rental duplexes. And this is the problem that we're
having in the area of blight, crime, and other things, and I can
understand why they're very much objecting to this project. My
under -- I would have thought that Mr. Morales would have had to
get a variance or tear this down. He doesn't have to do either one of
those. It's not a financial hardship. He can -- has the ability to
convert it into a single-family home. That is what the law is there
for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that your motion, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is my motion to deny the
application.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll second it so that we can
have discussion.
Page 180
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just seconding it so you can
discuss it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any questions. I
don't have any need for discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm one who greatly believes in
needing more work-force housing, and so to me, that just gives us
one more unit of work-force housing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this isn't work-force
housing. This is not something that you can subsidize according to
your pay. This is a potential place for -- overcrowding is what we
have in Golden Gate because we're packing six or eight people in one
two-bedroom --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you having that problem in that
road?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're having it all over Golden
Gate, and that's part of the ordinance that we're going to bring
forward. I would agree -- I would like to see the opportunity possibly
to have some habitat in Golden Gate because what that is -- what that
offers is affordability, home ownership, but this is neither one of
those.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, the
question, though, was the permit issued in an error? Was -- the
recipient of the permit, was he aware that this was issued in error, do
you think? I'm kind of curious as to where our guilt begins and ends
on this whole thing too. I feel kind of bad the fact that this is probably
just an average person that's got his life savings invested in the
property, and will he be able to recoup it by turning it into a single
dwelling? I don't know. But was the county at fault? If this man
was -- if this was a large development, we'd probably be sued at this
Page 181
November 27, 2001
point in time over this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think it's our obligation
to make sure that nobody loses money on their investment. If I go
out and buy a car and don't look under the hood, am I responsible for
that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you're a mechanic too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, even if I was --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand where you're coming
from. But I was concerned about the fact that the county was a
partner with this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I have -- I think
what I heard from Marjorie Student is we don't have a liability in this,
and I guess she could--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Liability and responsibility might be
two different things. I'd like to hear from the rest of the board on
this. We're awful quiet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll take a shot at it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I generally don't like variances of
any kind, as a normal course of reviewing things like this. But I think
there is an element of fairness here, and it does seem to be compatible
with most of the other homes or duplexes on that street. I've been out
there too, and I took a look at it. Now, I'm very sensitive to
Commissioner Henning's concerns. But on the one hand, La Quinta
Homes, I don't think, is a novice builder. I think they've got several
homes built in Golden Gate; is that not true? So you're not a novice
builder. You know what due diligence should be accomplished, and
I'm a little surprised that you didn't determine the zoning before you
started building a house.
On the other hand, I think when government gives you a permit
to do something, you generally have the right to rely upon that. And
Page 182
November 27, 2001
if the government changes its mind six months later, I just don't think
we ought to treat our citizens that way. So whether there's a legal
right for us to -- to force the builder to tear the house down, I'm not
sure it's -- it's fair to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think he needs to tear it
down. Is -- what we heard is that it fits within the setbacks. All he
has to do is conform to a single-family lot by removing a wall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, then he's got two kitchens, I
guess two bathrooms, four bedrooms, in a format that is not
necessarily conducive to a single residence home. So I guess my
concern is that -- is one of fairness. And if-- if someone objected to
this house, it seems to me that they would have stepped forward
before the builder completed it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: They're right here, the
objections.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, they did. Okay. This was
before the building was completed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The objections to this petition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I understand. But the
people are living there now. If the people who live there were
concerned about the house, why weren't the objections raised at the
time the house was under construction -- or the duplex was under
construction, rather than after it was completed? And I guess that's
my point. I'm sure people are objecting to it, but from my standpoint
I think it's an issue of fairness. I think the punishment far outweighs
the misjudgment and the impact on the neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Now, we had a case -- I don't
think it was even similar. It was -- it had to do with a setback where
we told the developer he was going to have to tear down the building
-- just to make a comparison -- if he couldn't reach an agreement with
the tenants next door. This was over there in North Naples, if I'm not
Page 183
November 27, 2001
mistaken.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's some where --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But that was something where we
proved the fact that they were aware of the situation, and they took
advantage of it and were caught later on it at the survey, the final
survey.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there was any evidence
whatsoever that La Quinta builders knew that this was not the correct
zoning, I would be the first one to be asking for it to be torn down. If
there's any evidence whatsoever that that's the case --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Direct that question to staff-- that
would be the correct place for that -- and get their opinion on it.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know if they were aware of it.
It appears that they checked the zoning. I don't know with whom.
And they were told that it is zoned for a duplex, and they applied for
a duplex. They gave us plans showing a duplex, and those plans
were stamped approved and returned to them, and they basically built
according to the plans that were approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the staff thought it was a
duplex; is that -- I mean, thought it was zoned for multifamily; is that
correct?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe the mistake was from staff,
correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So if the staff thought it
was zoned multifamily, why would we expect that a builder would
expect anything different?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because the plans that were
submitted was for multifamily. And I don't know if the applicant got
a great deal on this lot thinking it was multifamily. But, again, isn't it
a responsibility of the person to take a look under the hood before he
buys it?
Page 184
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But he kind of did that when he
asked staff and they said yes, it was -- it could -- it was multifamily
zoned. And then they gave him a permit to build it and -- or at least
that's the way I understood you to say that, Chahram.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. He checked with the county,
and he gave an application, and it was approved as such. This is a
copy of our zoning map.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the application,
Chahram? I'm sorry. Let's finish this discussion. What was the
application for, to build a multifamily home?
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I believe it was to build a multifamily
since plans were showed -- plans showed a multifamily building, two
units with a separation wall in between and basically is like a mirror
image.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think what Commissioner
Fiala's question was, did the person go to the county and say, you
know, "Is this a multifamily lot? Can I buy a du -- build a duplex on
it?"
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know if he did that. He's
saying he did, but I have no proof either way. This is our zoning
map. As you can see, RMF-6 is multifamily, RMF-6 in here. And
the county staff-- I don't want to defend that person, but it's easy to
make the mistake and think the whole -- on this road everything is
RMF-6. As you can see, it says RMF-6 in here and RMF-6 in here.
There's only one single lot in the middle that's not RMF-6 and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It should say on the deed what
the zoning is also.
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know if it does. I'm not
familiar with deeds.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It went into the planning
department. The planning department has an accountability and
Page 185
November 27, 2001
responsibility for what the decisions are. They made a -- whatever
they did, they made -- they made a commitment to the person that --
MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Just a minor correction,
Commissioners. Not the planning department, the building
department.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I stand corrected, sir. It went
into our community development division for a building permit. It
was issued. If I'm the recipient of that, I have to operate in good faith
that I can go ahead and build what I was permitted to do. All the
other, I think, is speculation or supposition which I have no
knowledge of and have no way to deal with it. So I do believe that
since that's taken place, I have to say, as Commissioner Coyle said,
it's the subject of, what is fair here? What is equitable in terms of
dealing with this situation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I do understand Commissioner
Henning, where he is coming from. His concern is that these
mistakes are fairly repetitious, and every time they happen, the
community has to live with that type of mistake. So I do hear where
he's coming from from that. But I do have compassion for the builder
in the fact that the county was a part of this, and the builder did have
to pay a fee to be able to bring it before us of how much? MR. THORNTON: $2,125.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: $2,125. So it seems like he's already
paid a penalty for his mistake.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I guess my situation here is
that I don't want to mix situations. I'm not absolving the fact that an
error was made. That is a separate discussion, a separate direction
that has to be taken in terms of a new person coming in to head up
that division and addressing a whole wide variety of issues, and that
can be dealt with accordingly. But in this particular case, I guess I'm
going to go back to being the judge that I'm asked to be looking at the
Page 186
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
motion on the floor is to deny.
aye.
evidence in front of me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If there's no new discussion, let's
move on the motion that we have on the floor. And all those --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I just raise --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- one issue that -- essentially the
one that Commissioner Carter opened up here, and that is I think this
should be a learning exercise for us, and they do happen too
frequently. There must be five -- four or five instances in our packet
today when mistakes have been made. And while I understand how
staff can make mistakes, what I would -- I would feel a lot more
comfortable if someone were able to tell me what we are going to do
to keep this from happening again. And that would be very, very
helpful. But it's not appropriate for this motion. It's just a comment I
want to make. And I would hope that the other commissioners would
join me in -- in asking staff to take a look at that and see, you know,
what lessons did we learn here, and how are we going to keep this
from happening again?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I concur a hundred percent.
I see four nods on that. So the
All those in favor indicate by saying
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The motion failed.
Do I have a new motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I make a motion to approve.
Page 187
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4 to 1. Motion passes. Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just while we're on that subject
and while they're switching presenters, I think Commissioner
Henning also hit on another issue that maybe we can discuss
tomorrow at the workshop. But the discussion about densities and
buildout of Golden Gate City and what opportunities there are for any
redevelopment opportunities and density reductions from this point
forward are something that this board and probably the Golden Gate
community have an opportunity to discuss as that Golden Gate
Master Plan process is working its way through the system.
And I know Commissioner Henning and some of the people
with the civic association there are interested in perhaps having this
board consider some sort of a neighborhood overlay master plan or a
relook at both the Golden Gate City buildout plans and some of this
multifamily versus single-family zoning. And I think there's a
bigger, better opportunity, frankly, to look at some of those density
issues in Golden Gate City through that process than maybe, perhaps,
some of these individual decisions that the board has to make.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Olliff.
Item #8E
Page 188
November 27, 2001
ORDINANCE 2001-70, RE PETITION PUD-Z-2001-AR-986,
KAREN BISHOP OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., REPRESENTING KENNETH P. SAUNDRY, JR., TRUSTEE,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "RSF-3" AND "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS WALNUT
LAKES PUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF U.S. 41 APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES EAST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), CONSISTING OF 204+
ACRES - ADOPTED
Next the agenda item is 8-E, and it requires all the
participants to stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: Good evening. For the record, my name's
Ray Bellows with current planning. The petitioner is requesting to
rezone the subject site which is currently zoned RSF-3 and rural
agricultural to a PUD zoning district.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. Do we have to disclose?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. We do. I met with the
petitioner and -- I'm just trying to recall -- that's the only one I've met
with. I can't recall receiving anything in the way of e-mail or --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She's shaking her head. She's
saying no, she didn't meet with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You didn't on this item?
MS. BISHOP: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I've met with no one on
this. We meet on two or three different other items, and they're all
starting to run together.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She tried.
MS. BISHOP: I tried to.
Page 189
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Trying to give you credit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But I did meet with her.
MS. BISHOP: Not on this one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not on this one?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, two wrong.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What did you meet with us on?
MS. BISHOP: Well, a couple of things, but not this one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm glad you were wrong too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to try. Did we meet?
MS. BISHOP: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did we talk on the phone about
it?
MS. BISHOP: No.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
another one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
this.
Okay. I've got it confused with
I haven't talked with anyone about
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll proceed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tom?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry.
MR. BELLOWS: As you can see on the visualizer, the subject
site is located on the north side of U.S. 41 and approximately 2 1/2
miles east of Collier Boulevard. The subject site is currently zoned
RSF-3 at this portion here, and this tiny little panhandle portion is the
rural agricultural zoned portion. The project abuts a mobile home
zoning district to the east, and to the south is the TTRVC zoning
district. The request -- and to the north is the -- a PUD that allows for
Page 190
November 27, 2001
golf course uses -- residential and golf course use.
The petitioner is proposing to rezone this RSF-3 and agricultural
zoned property to a PUD to be known as Walnut Lakes PUD, and
that would allow for 612 dwelling units along with a golf course and
assisted living facility. The petition is consistent with the Growth
Management Plan which allows for base density of four dwelling
units per acre, minus one dwelling unit per acre for being located
within a traffic congestion zone. The traffic congestion zone is
basically south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road all the way across --
and it comes across to U.S. 41. So one dwelling unit per acre is
subtracted, so the base density in this area is three units per acre. The
proposed rezone is consistent with that at that base density of three
units per acre.
The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will
generate approximately 5,674 trips on a weekday and 540 during the
p.m. Peak hour. This is consistent with the transportation element. It
will not lower the level of service below the adopted minimum
standards for the East Trail. Staff is recommending approval from
the consistency of the Growth Management Plan.
The petition did go to the Environmental Advisory Council on
August the 7th. They recommended by a vote of 6 to 1 to approve
the project. The primary reason expressed at EAC for recommending
approval was the project's consistency with the Growth Management
Plan and with the Deltona Settlement Agreement, which this project
is within. The one vote in opposition was they felt that there could be
some better environmental wetland preserve on site, as I recall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that what it was trying to say in
this paragraph on page 3? It says environmental issues, and the very
last sentence looks like it has two sentences, but from different
categories, in one. It says, "The EAC recommended approval of the
project by a 6-to-1 vote, and the Florida Department of
Page 191
November 27, 2001
Transportation prior to site development plan approval." So it didn't
make any sense to me.
MR. BELLOWS: It was -- inadvertently a word got left out.
The Florida Department of Transportation has also recommended
approval. However, access will be determined at the time of-- if it's
on U.S. 41, those permits are subject to FDOT approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. If the DOT recommended
approval yet they were worried about the project trips exceeding the
significance test on U.S. 41, did they not worry about that?
MR. BELLOWS: No. Because, like I said, its adopted level of
service will be maintained and will not be lowered by the result of
this project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt.
MR. BELLOWS: No problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions of staff?. Mr.
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Traffic congested area, is there
any restrictions on commercial?
MR. BELLOWS: No. This was just a density band for
residential.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Residential?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what does it mean -- they're
asking for a floor area ratio for the golf-- assisted -- for the assisted
living facility of.45.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. The Collier County Land
Development Code has a provision for assisted living facilities and to
regulate the size of the assisted living facility because those dwelling
units within the assisted living facility doesn't equally relate to
residential dwelling units, so the county staff has determined that a
floor area ratio is the best way to regulate the size and intensity of
Page 192
November 27, 2001
assisted living facilities since some units may be more than one or
two people living in a room or a suite type of arrangement. So we
regulate -- the overall floor area of the structure is a better way to
regulate the size and intensity of an assisted living facility and not try
to relate it to a density per dwelling unit per se.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it's not a dwelling unit?
MR. BELLOWS: Assisted living facility is determined to be
something other than just a regular rental unit or assisted -- or a
single-family home. It is basically a service provided for day care
and may have nursing facilities. There's a group common eating
area, so there are many other functions associated with assisted living
facility that it goes beyond a residential-type unit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not done yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody's going to be living
there. This is--
MR. BELLOWS: They're living there, but there are more
services provided such as -- like I said, there may be recreational
facilities there, nursing care facilities. Therefore, those areas would
not be counted towards the size and bulk of any facility if we didn't
have some other mechanism to regulate the size of these structures.
So the floor area ratio is what staff has determined as being the best
way to do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I would imagine it's in a
-- we're in a traffic congested area, and what I hear you saying is
we're not counting the ALF as a living area. And but yet you're also
saying it requires more service than a residential area with, you
know, day care, nurses, and visits and things of that nature.
MR. BELLOWS: From a traffic standpoint, assisted living
Page 193
November 27, 2001
facilities generate far less than a single family or multifamily
dwelling unit. The reason floor area ratio is used as a development
standard versus regular setbacks such as a -- like, in an RSF-3 zoning
district, you might have a 25-foot front yard setback and a 7 1/2 side
yard setback to regulate the size of the structure.
Since this is -- may be a large multifamily-type of facility, what
setbacks are most appropriate for that? Given the fact that there may
be nonresidential uses within it, such as a nursing facility or a general
cafeteria or eating room for the residents of this assisted living and
nursing facility, how do you best determine what the setbacks would
be for the structure? How big can the structure get on a parcel? And
that's -- a floor area ratio was done by the county, a study, to
determine what the best ratio is for these facilities and during that
study determined 0.45 is--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the ALF is not computed in
the 3 units per acre.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's the one I can't get by
because, to me, they're living there. It is a dwelling unit. They're
going to require probably more visits than a single-family home.
That's what I can't get by.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, we don't double count the property for
the density of the entire project. The PUD has a provision in it that
states that for every acre of the project that's converted from
residential development to the assisted living facilities, that 3 units
per acre be subtracted from the total amount of dwelling units that
can be built. So from that standpoint we're not counting the property
for the overall density of the project. If it's developed all single -- or
all -- it could be developed all single family; it could be developed
portions multifamily because the PUD does allow for multifamily
and single-family development.
Page 194
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask -- he's brought up such a
good point. I've never thought of this before. But with an ALF, say
you have one person living in one space, but you've probably got
three employees taking care of that one person by the time they figure
out all day long with the meals, the housekeeping, the -- the regular
maintenance of the building, people who drive trucks, three shifts a
day. You know, that -- that would actually generate a lot more
traffic. I never thought about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And the daughter and
the son and--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Visitors.
MR. BELLOWS: If I may --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How many -- you know, you
don't have three nurses and three service people per unit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. But -- no, no.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're servicing a whole floor.
So on an aggregate, if I've got Y number of employees servicing this
project, how does that translate into road trips versus if I had all
single-family units or multiplexes on some site in terms where I got
people going and coming all the time picking up kids, dropping off
kids, going to the grocery store, going to work, going to the movies,
whatever. That's -- that's where I think I'm getting lost in this. I
understand where Mr. Bellows is, but I think the other may not
equate out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's my assessment. That's
where I'm getting a little--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would require three shifts, three
eight-hour shifts, but I would imagine that -- an assisted living
facility, it means that people have a certain amount of ability to be
Page 195
November 27, 2001
able to function on their own, and they don't need continuous care.
They're just assisted at that point in time. They -- if they own their
own car, they're probably not driving it. It's probably parked there.
How many times they get a visitor in the course of a week, I'd like to
think it was every day, but if it's once a week, they're probably doing
quite well. Maybe when we come to the petitioner we can get an
answer to that. I can't give it to you. I just know my wife's
experiences being a nurse, what she's been up against in the past. Is
there any other questions for staff?. Donna.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one more. It was saying here
that no public hearing had been held on the -- you know, about this
property as yet, and I was wondering if they did hold a public
hearing. You have?
MS. BISHOP: (Nodded head.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is staff finished with the
presentation?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then we'll go to the petitioner.
You're on, Mrs. Bishop.
MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon. Karen Bishop, agent for the
owner. Yes, we had several meetings. We had a meeting with the
neighbors, the trailer park to the east and the Imperial people across
the street.
And they were great neighbors, and we're looking forward to
going in their neighborhood. Of course their issue was traffic, as
most issues are on any projects in general. I'm not sure if you're
aware, but your transportation staff is implementing a policy that now
you have to do updated TISs with each SDP.
So there really is no way -- at this point, you know, zoning is
conglomerative uses. We're not quite sure if we're going to be
building an ACLF. We may, we may not. But at the time that we do
Page 196
November 27, 2001
that with each parcel or phase that we go in this project, we will have
to provide a TIS. And if there's something that triggers it to fall
below the level of service, then we have a problem. So that won't be
-- that'll be something that's ongoing throughout the project. That
will have to be addressed at that time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. Bishop, what's the need for
this? How strong is the need for this facility within the community?
MS. BISHOP: Well, Ken Saundry (phonetic), who is the -- the
owner of this project, has looked at several different scenarios. What
-- I think originally what we were -- the concept was that we were
going to do, like, an upscale golf course where you would come in.
You already have -- you know, you're older. You would come in.
This is a smaller course, executive, where, you know, you would
have -- even though it's not the play course, it's a smaller course for
you to enjoy. And as you got older, instead of leaving the
neighborhood that you've grown up in or that you've aged in, you
now move to the ACLF so that you stay there with your friends and
family and neighbors.
There's a lot of these kinds of things in Tampa and in -- I've seen
one in Tallahassee where my grandmother was, where she started in a
home with her husband. When he passed away, she moved to an
apartment. When she could no longer take care of herself, she moved
to one of these -- I called it a glorified hospital room, which is
essentially what it was. It had one bathroom, and it was a hospital
room.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did she drive a car?
MS. BISHOP: No. No driving. And that's -- the one thing
about a lot of the ACLF people is they're not driving. They have
central facilities where they're moved around and carried around by a
van that belongs to the center, and they set up your appointments.
That day if you have to go into town, you get on the list. They take
Page 197
November 27, 2001
you where you need to go. But the great thing was that her sister who
also lived there, she was in another building. And they -- she could
just walk over to her sister, or her sister can walk over to her, or she'd
wheelchair over. So those are the kind of facilities.
But right now I don't know whether or not we're going to head
down that path. We've been doing the feasibility studies, and it -- we
may or may not head down that. Right now we're looking at the
typical golf course, multifamily, single-family mix, which is what we
are, I think, leaning towards at this point. But we didn't want to take
it out of there just in case that element comes to play that, you know,
we decide that this is something that will be marketable and will be
reasonable for this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I just wanted to -- Commissioner
Fiala, I didn't mean for a moment to discount your statement. I was
just concerned we were adding in a variable here which I had
understood had already been factored in by staff so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
MS. BISHOP: I do want to just point out a few things about this
project. As Ray has pointed out, this was already a platted
subdivision, single family, residential. They actually -- as you can
see, I have an aerial. They actually started digging the lakes. They
cleared the -- the site, dug the lake, and started putting the fill all over
the lakes. The vegetation out there is really nothing to speak of any
more. It is under the Deltona Settlement, is why they were able to do
all that.
However, our project, as you can see by our master plan on the
-- on the visualizer, we are putting 25 acres -- we are actually going
to create this -- wetland areas along the top to add to the Naples
Reserve's preserve. They have this big, huge preserve on their
southern property line, so we're going to add to it and connect it so
Page 198
November 27, 2001
that it's bigger. The areas that we have that are -- that would be
considered wet are just nasty little areas, kind of oblong in the center.
And we do have some decent vegetation down in the south comer
where you see we did keep that in play. That's some cypress. That's
the only thing that we have on the site worth a dam.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. Bishop, why is the preserve line
irregular with the property line, the top of the picture?
MS. BISHOP: That's called--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that --
MS. BISHOP: -- architectural license. It's just the coloring job.
It's just the coloring job, nothing in particular. It will connect directly
to his piece up there. But I think that they may even have a ditch
already that exists up there, and we're having to work out how that
ditch is going to work with the district through the permitting. But
right now it's just shown as an irregular shape. It's intended to go
right to the property line.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Trees overlapping--
MS. BISHOP: There are no trees up there, I can tell you. I've
been on the site. It's not very pretty. It's popular for fishing and
partying on the weekends, though.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mrs. Filson, is there any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And--
MS. BISHOP: Any questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question. Are these
rental units?
MS. BISHOP: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're single-family homes?
MS. BISHOP: Single family, multifamily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Page 199
November 27, 2001
MS. BISHOP: But, of course, if you own it and you move out,
you have the ability, I'm guessing, to rent as anyone else would in
this area. But this is not a rental project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you call the speakers, please.
MS. FILSON: No, sir. There are no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, there are no speakers. In that
case if there's no other questions, we'll close the public hearing. Do I
hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not going to support it
because to be consistent, we were talking about 951 and the
congestion on 951, and this is a designated traffic congested area.
And an ALF facility, the people live there, and it's increasing the
density in the area.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: However, that's not a project--
that's not a road we control. You know, that's -- FDOT makes the
judgment call on that road, and I don't know where we stand on that.
It's an interesting point but --
MR. BELLOWS: And I just -- excuse me. For the record, Ray
Bellows again. Traffic congestion zone is a county device to lower
density in projects that have -- are within that boundary, and this
project is consistent with that density reduction at three units per acre.
And that's the only thing the density congestion zone does is lower
density one dwelling unit per acre, so it went from four to three.
That's what this project is consistent with at three units per acre.
That's -- the only reason the traffic congestion zone is there is to keep
densities a dwelling unit lower.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are there any other PUDs around
that piece of property? It looks like it's kind of vacant.
MS. BISHOP: Naples Reserve is to the north. It was just
Page 200
November 27, 2001
approved right there to the north of us, and we share the same
entrance too. We interconnect. We have -- they have access through
our property to get to their property, and we will all share the same
access on 41. So we will have maybe a secondary access if DOT
approves it or wherever they approve it, most likely in front of this
other project, but we will use the same entrance as -- as they do right
there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what's that next to you there?
Other side, all of those little --
MS. BISHOP: What is the name of it? We met with them.
What's the name of it? He didn't label that one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's Wilderness --
MS. BISHOP: Westwinds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
MS. BISHOP: Yes, ma'am.
It's Westwinds.
Westwinds?
We met with them in their
clubhouse. Very nice people. And we also met with the Imperial
people across the street. The other ones didn't want to meet with us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I motioned, but I don't think we had
I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a second, a motion
and a second. Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4 to 1 the motion passed.
Page 201
November 27, 2001
Item #8G
ORDINANCE 2001-71, RE PUD-2000-21, ROBERT L. DUANE,
A.I.C.P., OF HOLE MONTES 1NC., REPRESENTING ROBERT
VOCISANO AND ANGELO FAVRETTO, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" TO
BE KNOWN AS TERAFINA PUD FOR A MAXIMUM OF 850
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, GOLF COURSE AND
CLUBHOUSE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
1.5 MILES EAST OF 1-75, ONE MILE NORTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (CR-846), CONSISTING OF 646.5+ ACRES - ADOPTED
WITH CHANGES
Next item, 8-G, if I'm not mistaken. And this is also going to
require any -- all the participants to stand and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And disclosures starting with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to Bob Duane on the
project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have talked with Mr. Duane and
representatives of the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with the petitioner,
and I had a phone conversation with Chip Merriam for South Florida
Water Management District.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I also talked to the petitioner. And
when Ms. Fiala returns, we'll get her to make her disclosure. Can we
proceed without-- can we proceed, or do we have to wait for Ms.
Fiala?
Page 202
November 27, 2001
MR. BELLOWS: Do we need to swear in?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
(The speaker was sworn.)
MR. BELLOWS: Again, for the record, Ray Bellows. This
petition is a rezone from agriculture to a PUD to be known as the
Terafina PUD. As you can see on the visualizer, it's located on the
north side of the Olde Cypress PUD, south of the Parklands PUD,
and west of the Mirasol PUD. It's basically one mile north of
Immokalee Road.
The petitioner is proposing a residential PUD on 646 acres
allowing 850 dwelling units which results in a density of 1.3 units per
acre. Approximately 141 acres of residential tract is designed around
126 acres of golf course and open space areas. The master plan also
provides for a 274-acre preserve and flow-way. The flow-way comes
along the eastern property line on the PUD and is designed to work in
conjunction with the flow-way that was approved for the Mirasol
PUD. This flow-way will help drainage and water flow and
stormwater management in the area. That's been prone to flooding
over the last few years.
The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will
generate approximately 5,795 trips. Proposed buildout is in 2005.
The site-generated trips create an impact on Immokalee Road;
however, with the planned road improvements -- yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You said buildout at 2005, but
further down in here on page 10 it says buildout 2009. Which one
is--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: While we got your attention,
Commissioner Fiala, would you go ahead and make any declaration
you have at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yes. I've -- I've spoken to the
developer. I even had a little conversation with an environmentalist,
Page 203
November 27, 2001
and I don't think I've gotten any mail -- or maybe I have gotten mail.
I'm sorry. Yes. I have gotten some mail -- no. I've just met with
George Hermanson and Robert Duane. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all. I was just wondering is
buildout --
MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's 2005, but we can have the
applicant verify that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. 2005. Okay. On page 2 it
says, I believe, 2008. I'm sorry. Page 2, top paragraph says 2008,
and at page 10, top paragraph, fourth sentence from the bottom, it
says 2005. I was just curious.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe it's 2005. The petitioner submitted
an additional traffic study to the transportation department to verify
the traffic impacts to -- that could occur on Immokalee Road. The
transportation department has approved the additional traffic study
and has not recommended any phasing of the project at this time.
The project went to the environmental advisory board meeting
on March the 7th, and they recommended denial by a vote of 5 to 2.
The primary reason expressed by the EAC for denial was that they
deemed the project to be excessive to the -- create an excessive
impact to the wetland areas on site. It should be noted that the BCC
approved the adjacent Mirasol PUD to these which had similar
concerns, but -- raised by the EAC; however, it was determined that
the flow-way -- the benefits of this flow-way outweigh the impacts
that were perceived to be for the -- on this -- on the Mirasol project.
And the Planning Commission heard and reviewed this on
September 7th, and they recommended by a vote of 7 to 0 to forward
this to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation
for approval. Basically they cited the benefits of the flow-way
Page 204
November 27, 2001
approval being vital to the area. And I have not received any letters
of opposition to the project. However, there's some concerns about
right-of-way access along the extension of Logan Boulevard on the
left side; however, I believe that has all been resolved with the
transportation department. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you. In the minutes of the
environmental advisory committee meeting, one of the --
Commissioner Carlson says that the South Florida Water
Management District governing board recommended denial. Could
you clarify that for me?
MR. BELLOWS: We have Stephen Lenberger here to help with
that. He's our staff environmentalist.
MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger,
planning services. I'm unaware of what decision the water
management district governing board made, but Tim Hall is here.
He's the environmental consultant for the project. He probably can
answer that question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: He probably can, but my
conversation with Chip Merriam last night, that would not be the
case. They did not deny it. He says his is a myopic assessment of
this only on the basis of how it is -- how it affects flow-ways,
hydrology, wildlife corridors. That was their assessment. Now, I can
provide more information on that if the board likes, but in that
conversation he was not suggesting denial, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's important because if
the environmental advisory board was under the impression that
South Florida Water Management District denied this, it might very
well explain why they themselves voted against it. And at least two
people have said that yes, it -- they did deny it, as far as the minutes
of this meeting are concerned. So if they did not deny it, I think that's
Page 205
November 27, 2001
a very important piece of information. And your feeling is they did
not deny it, and Commissioner Carter has the same impression.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: This is my impression from Chip
Merriam last night. With the chair's indulgence, just let me share
what he said from the perspective of flow-ways, hydraulics, and
wildlife. He said to me that actually Mirasol had been the leader in
this four-PUD area-- because you have Mirasol, Terafina, Olde
Cypress, and Parklands. And Mirasol had been the -- they provided
the leadership in terms of protecting the flow-ways, working with the
hydraulics, and wildlife.
In other words, they set the hammer or developed the model.
And he said to me that they had dealt with the whole issue of
frequency of rains and, you know, the storms versus -- on a regular
basis versus one in 25 years and, you know, what impacts us the
most, a storm or stacking up of water.
So as he went on through this, to me -- in my notes his
assessment was -- is that if we looked at it based on the information
that they had today, his assessment was that this was -- Terafina was
compatible with Mirasol. I'm not getting into anything other than
environmental questions here, because I got some serious questions
on how this -- I'm going to refer to it as an area of significant
influence or maybe in -- in the book it had raised some questions
about the area of impact, whatever terms we want to use, or projected
radius of development -- and maybe I'm mixing a lot of terms. But,
to me, it's collectively what's happening. But from Florida water
management's perspective, that's the information I have. Now, if I'm
wrong on any of that, please correct me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I did review the tape of the
board meeting, Board of County Commissioners meeting, on the
Mirasol project, and it was very clear to me that Clarence Tears was
in favor of the flow-way design because it would help restore the
Page 206
November 27, 2001
water flow which we previously had through sheet flow, and it would
provide an opportunity to reduce the flooding that occurs further
north. So I guess the answer to -- the question I asked is, did
somebody disapprove this thing7 Apparently, they did not; is that a
fair statement?
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane representing the
petitioner. This project has not yet been in front of the governing
board of the South Florida Water Management District. We're
anticipating being there in a few months. The district had some
problems with the permitting of this project until we introduced the
flow-way over the past 12- or 18-month period. And I agree with
you. I think there was some confusion at the Environmental
Advisory Council. I hope that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DUANE: The board, as far as we know, is on board and
supported our three-party agreement between the three developments.
Mirasol, I think, is scheduled in January in front of the board, and we
hope to be there shortly thereafter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't want to imply that they
approved it, but I wasn't getting any objection from Chip Merriam
last night. He was saying this is where we are, and I think the
petitioner is correct, that it may not have been approved. But they
were favorably impressed by the cooperation between the four PUDs
in terms of the environmental impacts here, and they're not talking
about anything else. Let me say it again: It's environmental impacts.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any more questions of staff, or
should we go on to the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've got a lot of questions of
staff. First of all, will you help me with my math? I saw in the book
it says the land size is 646 acres. We have preserve of 274;
residential, 141 acres; golf course, 126. My math says that's 541
Page 207
November 27, 2001
acres, and I subtract that from 646, I'm a hundred acres lost in here
somewhere. What happened to it?
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Lakes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All lakes? Okay. My other
questions really go to transportation, and that is the impact of this
overall on Immokalee Road as where we are today. And I am not
comfortable with what I am reading in terms of the discussion we had
earlier today as to whether this is a significant level of impact here.
And how are we addressing all four of these developments? And
currently that is a two-lane road. And when we get into the
assessment of environment, Mr. Merriam's telling me that would
reopen the whole ball game again in terms of their environmental
considerations because you're going to widen the road, you're going
to change things, new ball game. So I -- I really need to have some
questions answered on the impact on Immokalee Road.
MS. WOLFE: For the record, Dawn Wolfe, transportation
planning director. While Immokalee Road is two lanes today, it's
currently under construction and should be completed late spring,
early summer of next year, open to a four-lane, divided arterial. The
applicant has submitted an arterial quarter analysis which is much
more significant in detail than the general reviews which have come
before this board and staff prior to this time. We required that this
analysis be cumulative, inclusive of both the Mirasol development;
background traffic; Parklands DRI traffic, which is just to the north
of Terafina; along with the impacts of Terafina itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Big (sic) Cypress also?
MS. WOLFE: The Olde Cypress development was considered
as part of the existing traffic and growth and background traffic.
They were required to submit the analysis with a buildout time period
of 2008, and I'm sure the applicant's engineer will let you know that I
did put them through the wringer on this one. We required a finite
Page 208
November 27, 2001
(sic) level of detail which was not just looking at the tables which are
within the confines of our Comprehensive Plan, but actually doing a
detailed technical arterial analysis with the improvement in place.
Our plan allows us to consider projects which are funded for
construction in the first three years. Well, this one's actually
physically under construction. And by the time they actually get to
pulling their first building permit, there will literally be four lanes out
there on Immokalee Road from 951 all the way through to U.S. 41 as
well as other improvements within the area.
Their area of significant impact was not substantially inclusive
of 951 which, as I said, would not be an issue primarily because of
the level-of-service tables in there. However, if you may recall from
the Mirasol, we were concerned with these major developments,
especially on what we're only building to a four-lane section on
Immokalee Road, and imposed upon them the requirement, prior to
their next submittal, a detailed evaluation of the segment of
Immokalee Road from west of 1-75 to Collier Boulevard. We were
going to place that same condition upon Terafina. They, however,
chose to submit that detailed evaluation prior to coming to the board
so that they could get through the issues of transportation at the
zoning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Shouldn't we be considering this all
the way to OrangeTree or to Immokalee itself--
MS. WOLFE: Not with --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- the cumulative effect?
MS. WOLFE: Not necessarily because it is not within a
substantial area of the 5 percent impact. They are-- trips within this
area, we required them to do the refined level of trip distribution
following a standard higher degree of methodology which required
computer modeling. Rather than just saying I think the trips are
going to go here, here, or here, that there was a systematic and
Page 209
November 27, 2001
technical approach taken to where those trips are being attracted to or
coming from.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle, I share your earlier
sentiments on this 5 percent. It's unbelievable how you can keep
going 5 percent each time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It guarantees we'll always be
behind. We'll never catch up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It does. And you made a good
point earlier today, consistent. And we were talking about just 288
units there. We're talking about 850 Terafina, 850 Mirasol, 1100 units
for Olde Cypress, and we haven't even gotten to Parklane (sic) yet.
And they're all going to be pouring out onto this same road, and I'm
thinking it's going to break the road down, isn't it? MS. WOLFE: Not necessarily.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It seems like it would. All of that
development would just be overwhelming.
MS. WOLFE: And which is why we required the applicant to
go through this process of doing the more specific detailed analysis
which gets down to what the influence of an individual intersection is
on how quickly we can go run along the arterial. Because when it
comes to level of service, what we're doing at the preliminary
planning stages is we're comparing traffic volumes and how much
traffic we expect to be out there and how much the road can handle.
But the actual perception and measurement of level of service when
we get to how it actually operates is that -- a measure of how much
time does it take me to get from Point A to Point B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. But, now, first of all, right
here it says the site-generated trips will exceed the 5 percent of the
level of service. Second of all, not taking into consideration all of the
traffic that's coming out of Immokalee and going to work every day
Page 210
November 27, 2001
that clogs up the streets, and they're overcrowded right now -- and
you-- you've taken all of that into consideration, and it's still fine?
MS. WOLFE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And is there any interconnectivity
between these -- between these developments that possibly could take
some of the strain off the main road?
MS. WOLFE: Eventually. The road which is the access for
Terafina is the northern extension of Logan Boulevard which, in our
long-range plan, will connect up with the Collier Boulevard
Extension up into Lee County, thereby providing us with a collector
connector facility between Immokalee Road and 951 as it will extend
and connect into Lee County up to Bonita Beach Road. It's just the
beginning stages of it. We also have future connections east/west that
would connect Logan Boulevard over to North Brook providing a
secondary means connecting down to Immokalee Road.
There are multiple things going on here, and one of the
requirements under this is that they're building their access road. It
will be a public road. It will be part of our collector and arterial
system. They will not be gaining any impact fee credits for
constructing that road.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Go ahead. I think I'm hearing a
plan that is conceptual. But what are the time tables to make it
happen, and how does this relate to all the units that are going to be
flowing onto it? I really have a problem with this.
MS. WOLFE: Part of the problem in this area is actually one of
the benefits that we will see environmentally, which is the flow-way.
Would we like to be able to see Terafina, Olde Cypress connect up
and over to Mirasol? That would be great. Unfortunately, the flow-
way comes in between them. The next way to go would be to
connect these projects over to the west where we already have
existing gated communities, which does not make that a possibility.
Page 211
November 27, 2001
We do have existing rights-of-way and have had some interest in
building what would be the section of Livingston Road east/west (sic)
which lies east ofi-75 between the Quail Creek and Quail West
where we have an existing right-of-way. To possibly also connect in
there is something that was being considered by Parklands in order
for them to move on their development since they cannot access via a
951 extension.
Yes, these are somewhat conceptual. We have had proposals
come forward in regards to that, but each part of these is a piece of
the puzzle. We have environmental restrictions. We have
preexisting development restrictions in regards to gated communities.
We cannot say, "You can't come in here and not develop at all."
They are providing us part of what we see as a component of our
roadway system, and they have met a significant level of evaluation
in regards to their primary impact area, which is Immokalee Road
from Collier Boulevard to east of-- west of 1-75.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what we're looking at is,
what's in the public good? We've got one thing that's going for the
public good, which is the flow-ways, and that's absolutely beautiful.
Who can deny that? And then you have the negative of 850 new
homes all piling onto Immokalee Road. That's an extremely big
negative, as far as I'm concerned, especially with the uncertainty of
where Immokalee Road's going to be going in the future. We know
that that part of it's going to be completed.
But how about the rest of the system to take them past that
point? How about the possibility of these people taking the road,
Logan, and four laning it all the way to Bonita Beach Road? Then
we've got something that's for the public good. But I know they're
not going to do that, but who knows?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I explore that road
extension for just a moment? Now, the road currently goes into Olde
Page 212
November 27, 2001
Cypress. And the proposal for Terafina is that they will extend the
road to their entrance, and then Parklands will extend the road even
further north into their entrance. Now, do we have anything planned
for an extension of Logan Boulevard any further north than that?
And does the road that goes into Parklands, is that a private road, and
are we talking about building, essentially, a parallel road from
Parklands north?
MS. WOLFE: As Logan would enter into the Parklands DRI
property, it would continue through as a public road as the Logan
extension to either connect up with Bonita Beach Road directly or to
Bonita Beach Road via a connection to the 951 extension. Those two
alignments have yet to be determined from an environmental study.
However, there is a requirement in the Parklands DRI for that road
interconnecting up to Bonita Beach Road as well as provisions and
reservations of right-of-way within Parklands for 951 and that Logan
connection.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The reason I asked that question is
it appears to me from looking at the Logan's diagram that the road
that goes through Parklands is a winding road, which is not
necessarily -- doesn't look like it's designed to carry traffic very
rapidly. It looks more like a road going through an estate area. And I
guess I'm just a little concerned about whether or not we're really
going to get a functional extension of Logan Boulevard northward. I
think it would be very beneficial if we could do that. But if for some
reason the design of that road through Parklands is such that it
reduces traffic or slows the flow of traffic, I don't think we will have
gained anything.
MS. WOLFE: First off, we have not yet had a design proposed
to us for that extension through Parklands, so it's not before us to
consider today. All we have is the conceptual bubble plans with the
conditions of the Parklands DRI, which says it will go through. It
Page 213
November 27, 2001
will connect. We will have these private roads through -- these public
roads through this area, their access as being off of that road.
Collector roads, which this would be one of, two-lane collector
roads can carry a large amount of traffic. We have a few examples
here within the urban area, one of them being Orange Blossom. That
carries a lot of traffic between Goodlette-Frank and Airport Road,
and we will soon have its extension and connection to Livingston
Road, and that is what we refer to as our collector roads. They can
carry upwards of about 20,000 vehicles a day comfortably with the
types of access that they have off of them. So it can carry a fair
amount of traffic and help divert those indirect impacts off of the
primary arterials.
What we're striving to do is to get the developments to access
off of those roads versus off of the Collier Boulevards. Instead of
coming off of the Immokalee Roads, we want them coming off of the
collector-level-type roads. Originally Logan Boulevard extension
had been planned as a four lane in the long-range transportation plan.
However, prior development approvals have restricted that ability by
virtue of our right-of-way north of Immokalee Road being restricted
to 60 feet. Unless we come forward-- through with a condemnation
on that, we will not be able to expand that beyond the two lanes
which exist there today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure that we,
the county, have the right to -- to build a road north from Terafina, if
we wish to do so, that does not wind through a residential area in
Parklands. In other words, do we have the right to build a road that
goes along the western boundary of Parklands to go north to connect
with any other roads?
MS. WOLFE: We can require them to provide a straight, direct
route, but that's not necessarily in either the county's or the
developer's benefit. What we try to do is we look at the design and
Page 214
November 27, 2001
look at what can function properly. And it's not necessarily that
something which has a few twists or turns to it can't have the same
flow as a through road, a straight road. It's more of how many access
points. If I have single-family driveways coming off of that road, I
significantly diminish the ability to move traffic through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's what I'm concerned
about.
MS. WOLFE: But if we have some meandering of it such as we
have on Orange Blossom, we're not significantly diminishing its
ability to move traffic because we have major developments with
their driveways, not individual driveways off of it, allowing us to
move traffic through it. And that's what we would look to ensure at
some such time as that road is planned to be constructed through the
Parklands development.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there's any development
approved north of Parklands, where does that traffic go, using Logan
Boulevard also?
MS. WOLFE: North of that is within Lee County, and their
primary connection is to Bonita Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: North. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you're heading in the right
direction in what you're saying. But that old saying, you know, let
growth pay for growth, possibly this is a case where we should
demand the road before we consider anything -- not only with this
project and with Parkland itself-- all the way to Bonita, and let them
come back to us at that point in time. Where are we going to gain
something? We're going to gain 800 new residents. They're going to
all be emptying out on the same highway. Sure that highway's picked
up a little ways.
That 5 percent magic rule applies no matter where you want to
put it. We're not going to gain anything. We're going to be at a loss
Page 215
November 27, 2001
rather than a plus. Let's make them go back and think out of the box,
come up with some sort of partnership where they put that road
through.
Mr. Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a little side note. I think
we're going to see through the MPO a citizen initiative to take Logan
extension from Vanderbilt to Immokalee instead of improving Oakes
Boulevard, and then you would have that ability to go north and
south all the way from Immokalee Road-- or even further up on this
case -- all the way down to Davis Boulevard. So it might be
alleviating some of that pressure off of--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Immokalee Road goes east and west,
though.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And there is a proposed
Logan extension in between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach
extension.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There was a proposed extension.
That's all being rethought out and reformulated. We don't know
where it's going to go just yet. That's the nervous part of this whole
thing, is that 800 more homes all emptying into the same highways
and the uncertainty of where our road program's going.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Two questions. Parklands is a
DRI.
MS. WOLFE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Has that been approved by
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and is there any
avenue for us to come back and revisit the DRI because of the
impacts that it's going to make as it affects other surrounding areas?
MS. WOLFE: It's a preexisting DRI, a very old one, which is
one of those which is vested past the concurrency growth
Page 216
November 27, 2001
management requirements because it was approved prior to the
implementation of the concurrency and growth management
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. However, they're still
required to meet with the same level-of-service requirements,
although their mitigation may be in a separate form.
When they come forward, should they be in a situation of a
substantial deviation, should they not meet their next time period,
then yes, it can come back before us. We don't normally mandate
that they come back before us. That's something that we can look
into, as we're doing right now with our local planned unit
developments, on their approvals. They're -- at this point in time, my
understanding is they're planning on coming forward with an update,
a modification to that. At such time we can revisit that DRI.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Because we've got the three-year
trigger here to begin to work on that one. My second --
MS. WOLFE: No. This is separate from that. It's not subject to
that three-year window, but they are to -- the discussions I've had
with the representatives of that property owner, planning on coming
forward with a notice of proposed change to update that plan and
reduce the level of development currently approved in that and look
at some considerations such as wetland issues, roadway connections,
right-of-way requirements, and the timing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And where do they have to take
that, to us or to Southwest Regional Planning Council? MS. WOLFE: Both.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Both. Okay. I've got an
opportunity.
MR. OLLIFF: There's nothing this board can do to force that
development to come back in here for a rereview. What she's telling
you is we believe that the developer himself, the property owner, is
getting ready to bring an amended DRI in here for your review. An
Page 217
November 27, 2001
amendment from a DRI needs to go through the entire DRI process
just like the original development order did.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
issue of the road--
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And then we could revisit the
-- if we wanted to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The second part of this, I'm back
to where we were this morning. Is there any way to put this together
in a -- in a methodology where all these units can't come on stream
unless we've got the infrastructure to handle what's coming out of
these collective four? My greatest concern is -- is that will they all
four stay at the table. Right now we've got four developers at the
table with a focus on the environment and the flow-way, and that's
positive, and that's great.
But the second big part of this is transportation and roads, and
we have this 951, which is in a conceptual position. We have Logan,
conceptual, don't know what's going to happen to that. The only hard
facts we have in front of us is called Immokalee Road, and that's two
lanes. And I'm right back to that's an awful lot of traffic to take out
on a two-lane road if they're going to stay with the philosophy and
principles earlier today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The -- Immokalee will be a four-
lane road before this project even gets under way; is that not true? At
least that's what --
MS. WOLFE: We consider Immokalee Road for the purposes
of any development application to be a four-lane road.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's to 951.
MS. WOLFE: From 951 all the way over to U.S. 41 today.
They have -- and the applicant for Terafina has submitted a
consolidated evaluation of the corridor where they have significant
impact. They have demonstrated that with the Parklands
Page 218
November 27, 2001
development to the same year of their buildout, with the Mirasol
buildout, with background traffic as it exists today as well as an
increase for other developments which will come on-line, that they
will operationally meet the level-of-service requirements as set forth
by this board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So are they saying to me that if
we don't get to four, they can't build?
MS. WOLFE: If for some reason the contractor works -- walks
off the site and we're stuck with two lanes, then yeah, we'd be in
trouble. However, we're going to have that road open mid next year.
We will have four lanes open. And at such time with the
improvements that will be out there, with the consolidation of all of
these projects and even their cumulative impacts projected out to
2008, it will operate at an acceptable level of service from 951 to
1-75.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question then, Mr.
Duane?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the timing of the
work, we're looking at, I guess, the latest sometime next fall.
MR. DUANE: We don't have a problem with that. We would
stipulate that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you would hold up -- you
would hold up any construction until Immokalee Road construction is
completed in that section.
MR. DUANE: Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying any
construction. I would say we would not construct any dwelling units
until the road improvements --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You would do site prep? Is that
what you're --
MR. DUANE: We have a golf course. We have infrastructure.
Page 219
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You -- you will construct that road
from -- is it Olde Cypress?
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to your entrance, and you're
going to pay a million dollars for mitigation.
MR. DUANE: We're going to construct over a mile of roadway.
That's if the Parklands doesn't decide that they want to construct it
before us, and I think Ms. Wolfe has pointed out that that is in your
financially feasible plan. And we would agree that that phasing
stipulation as just discussed, that's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I may ask this question, as the
Florida water management district, is this how you're going to them,
that, in fact, it's a four-lane road? Is that the basis on what they're
making their decisions on environmental impacts?
MR. DUANE: No. We're proposing a two-lane road extending
northward.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know, but I'm talking about
Immokalee, which is currently two.
MR. DUANE: Well, I don't think the water management is
looking so much at traffic issues as they are the movement of water.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, they're looking at the impact
widening the road has on the water.
MR. DUANE: But that road has been permitted, the widening
of Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Has that gone through all the
hurdles?
MS. WOLFE: Yes, it has. It's actually gone through the
permitting, and it's been designed such that it's a four expandable to
six.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Don't leave, Dawn. It says
Page 220
November 27, 2001
should the detailed analysis identify a deficiency, the developer shall
be required to provide mitigation or be limited to the amount of
development. In other words, if the road's breaking down, he doesn't
even have to limit his development. He can just mitigate it off?.
MR. DUANE: Well, I think you're, Ms. Fiala, referring to some
prior conditions prior to the extensive traffic analysis that we've
conducted which eliminated those conditions. I think you're looking
at the staff report that came out before the Planning Commission.
The executive summary is the latest review of our petition.
I actually have a very short presentation here that I -- I hope you
would find helpful. First of all, I would like to thank you, Dawn, for
supporting this project. Dawn's correct. We have spent a lot of time
in the wringer, and today I see the benefit of that wisdom, and I thank
you for your help.
But let me begin by saying I've got a team of people here. I'm
not going to bring all these people up, but they're here available to
answer questions. I have Ted Treshar (phonetic), a traffic consultant
from the Metro Group. I've got George Hermanson, project engineer
from Hole Montes & Associates. I've got Rick Barber from Barber --
from Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. And I've got Tim Hall here from
Todd Turrell & Associates, who's done the environmental permitting.
Rick Barber has also been extensively involved in the environmental
permitting of this project.
I'll try to keep this brief, but let me begin by saying that, of
course, we have a recommendation of approval today. We have a
recommendation of unanimous approval from your Planning
Commission, and they spent a lot of time looking at this project. We
have no disagreements with county staff on any stipulations
whatsoever in this package before you today. In fact, there's two or
three key findings in your staff report that I think place this project on
solid ground. The first of those is no one has disputed that the uses
Page 221
November 27, 2001
and the level of development intensity is appropriate at this location.
It's a one-unit-per-acre project. Your plan permits four units per acre.
I don't want to trivialize this point. Eight hundred fifty units is a
relatively large project, but this is about a hundred units per year over
an eight-year period. So I want to put that in perspective also. This is
not coming on the line all at the same time, and I think our traffic
analyses have tried to factor those considerations in.
Dawn made a better presentation than I could on traffic issues,
other than I wanted to tell you that I've done this work here for longer
than I care to remember, and I have never done traffic studies as
extensive as this for a non-DRI. These were very extensive, included
all the intersections between 951 and Livingston Road. We spent
tens of thousands of dollars of additional work over and above what
we would typically do. I understand you want to raise the bar here
and we understood that that's what it was going to take. And the
results of our study by 208 (sic) show Immokalee Road at a service
level of B. It's not failing in the six intersections that we analyzed.
Commissioner, you're correct. There is some traffic that is
going to be traveling east on Immokalee Road. It's less than 5
percent. In fact, it's 3 percent of our total number of trips. And I'm
not trying to trivialize that number either, but it's 20 peak hour trips;
13 going in one direction, and 7 going in another during the peak
hour. So it by itself doesn't break the back of that level of service,
but I'm very -- I understand that that's a concern of yours.
Anyway, we completed the traffic studies. ! think they speak for
themselves. I think the four-laning improvement, in fact, makes this
a good location for us to encourage development, unlike the project
we heard from this morning that needs a four-lane road. And I know
that you struggled with that hard this morning.
Finally, the third finding from your staff report is we are
consistent with your Comprehensive Plan. There is no question
Page 222
November 27,2001
about that. We're consistent not only with your growth management
element, but we're consistent with your traffic element, and we're
consistent with your conservation and environmental coastal zone
management element. Now, we did not receive approval from the
environmental advisory board, but I want to put on the record here
that your staffs opinion was that we met the standards of that
element.
In fact, we are required at a minimum to provide 25 percent of
the habitat. That's a minimum standard. We're providing 43 percent
or almost 270 acres -- 278 acres of this property are going to be in
upland and wetland preserves, and I think that's largely why we had
the recommendation of your environmental staff.
The project -- as I believe one of the commissioners referred to,
we are proposing a million dollars of mitigation in the CREW area.
The wetlands that we're impacting along the western portion of this
property were not quality wetlands. They were heavily invaded by
melaleucas. In addition to the benefits of the flow-way, there will be
considerable acreage that I think is of higher quality than the
wetlands than we're impacting, preserving in a location, quite frankly,
where I think the community will get more bang for its buck.
I would also note that this board found that the mitigation that
Mirasol provided -- flow-way, mitigation of wetland impacts was
determined to be adequate based upon the benefits that that particular
project set forth, and I'm submitting to you that we're the other leg in
the link here. So I -- I'm concluding my presentation. I wanted to
point that out.
Finally, on the -- on the flow-way, I appreciate your listening to
that tape that I got you at the last minute yesterday. I thought we had
blown our chance by not getting it to you on -- before Thanksgiving.
I appreciate your finding the time to review that. Needless to say, we
all recognize it has some regional benefit. One of our Lee County
Page 223
November 27,2001
commissioners, John Albion, wrote a guest editorial in the
newspaper, some of you may recall, encouraging this flow-way and
that it was the kind of regional participation that Lee and Collier
Counties ought to be working with together. So it had the support of
some of your counterparts. The water management district, through
our three-party agreement I think we shared with you earlier, is
desirous of moving this public -- this project forward. So I think
we've got a lot of support, notwithstanding some of your concerns
about roads, which I hope we've addressed here today.
Before I conclude I have one housekeeping item to mention. I
promised the Parklands and their representatives that I would bring
this up. We learned recently that they may want to construct
themselves the extension of Logan Boulevard to their project. If they
get to it before we do, so be it. And they asked that we provide
stormwater management provisions and -- on Terafina property,
which we have agreed to do. I've shared some language with the
Parklands representative and your county staff that we will, in fact,
do that. We're also dedicating 20 feet of right-of-way, by the way, for
-- increasing this right-of-way from 60 to 80 feet. Maybe not that
significant, but that's what we were requested to do, and we have
done that.
Just to wrap up, we have been in the process a long time. Filed
our application last December. It was almost a year to get here. We
have done everything we (sic) had asked to do and even some more.
And I -- hopefully you will look at the benefits of this project. And
I'd appreciate it if you would provide us our (sic) support. I think
we've earned it, and you'll have to be the judge of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bob, what's --
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Okay. Have you provided or made
Page 224
November 27, 2001
any provisions for any work-force housing?
MR. DUANE: No, we have not. I'm-- I think you would like
to know what we would offer; is that what your request is? I have
given it some thought, and I am prepared to make a proposal this
morning-- this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tonight.
MR. DUANE: Tonight. It's been a long day. Bob Mulhere has
appeared in front of you on three or four occasions to talk about
work-force housing. One of the suggestions that he --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And he appears.
MR. DUANE: And he appears. One of the suggestions that he
has made to you is that there is a large pool of dwelling units out
there that are not getting used and that may serve as an opportunity
for the county to tie some of those up so you have enough units
without using density bonuses entirely to meet whatever your goals
are. This project has a large number of units that we are not going to
use; 850 units works fine on this property. At 4 units per acre, we
have well over 2,000 units. We have between fourteen and fifteen
hundred units -- I can give you the precise number.
But we would be willing to stipulate in the planned unit
development ordinance that those units would be available to the
county at such a time that you develop a mechanism for moving these
amongst properties, which does not exist today, but we would put
that language in the ordinance. That would assure you that we would
never be more than 1.3 dwelling units per acre. And I think that that
would be a generous contribution to your future pool of units. Other
than telling you we'll comply with whatever else we have to comply
to -- with, which doesn't buy us too much, we are willing to do that if
you think that solves the work-force solution (sic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wasn't quite sure if you meant
right on your property we could have this?
Page 225
November 27, 2001
MR. DUANE: No. But we'll let you take them off our property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought that that would certainly
take the load off the roads if these people could just live right there in
a little comer of the property, and they could come out and take care
of the golf courses and the restaurants and mow the lawns for the
residents. And they wouldn't even have to go very far, and we would
certainly take the load off the roads. You know I'm going for that
anyway. And I would love to see you give a fine example of how it
can be done right there on your own property. See, if we keep
mitigating, then we're going to still have the same problem, and that
-- that isn't the way to solve it.
MR. DUANE: In all -- and I appreciate that. I'm still happy to
make the offer. If it doesn't move anybody, there's no reason for me
to make it. I think it's something down the road you're going to find
has some benefit. We're going to be subject to these impact fees if
and when you adopt them, so each of our units that come on-line will
be making some contribution. But, frankly, I don't think we're going
to see any worker housing on this golf course the way the project's
been planned and designed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, you realize the reason why
this is dragging out so long. It comes right back to the roads and the
number of the units and how these people get on there. And I just
heard you mention about Terafirma (sic) said that they may be
building their road before you do; is that correct? MR. DUANE: You mean the Parklands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean Parkways (sic), right. And
you're going to be building a road; they're going to be building a
road. Why can't we have this thing put together in such a way that
we know these roads are going to be in place, at the time that the
building takes place, totally, from one end to the other? And then
we've got a plus thing there to offer the public for interconnectivity to
Page 226
November 27,2001
the Bonita Beach Road. Then we've got a positive rather than a
negative where we're generating a whole bunch of new homes that
are going to be emptying out on Immokalee Road and coming into
the system, which we don't know which way it's going to be going.
And I hear you about the studies, and I give Dawn Wolfe credit for
doing a tremendous study. I -- I think we understood, probably, 60,
70 percent of it, and we're getting smarter all the time.
But -- and I don't want to be belligerent, but I feel very
uncomfortable with what we're creating here. I like the flow-ways. I
wish we could get them for free. But I -- I would like the idea more
if I knew there was going to be interconnectivity to Bonita Beach
Road that the general public could use along with everyone else.
Now we're talking about something that becomes a little more
understandable, a little bit more acceptable. And I know that's
probably asking too much, but what's your thoughts on that? I mean,
is there a possibility that maybe if you continue, you might be able to
get together with Parklands and come back with some sort of a
proposal?
MR. DUANE: Well, we're committed to construct a mile of
that. It remains to be seen whether the Parklands -- they can speak
for themselves.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
to be--
They're your neighbors. You've got
MR. DUANE: They're our neighbors. But, I mean, they would
construct -- here's Olde Cypress. We're constructed, I guess, to about
here, Logan Boulevard. We would be taking about 1.3 miles to here.
The Parklands, wherever their entrance, would be taking it at least a
mile or more. And you've gotten pretty far -- pretty far to Bonita
Beach Road with that through a road that's in your 2020 plan. It's not
in your CIE. If it was, we would get impact fee credits for it. I'm
-- I'm not trying to trivialize a road that's going to serve our
Page 227
November 27, 2001
project, but you're going to get 2 miles of it between these two
developments and, I think, in the near future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Marjorie, I have a question for you.
First off, what we have before us takes, what, a supermajority to pass
it?
MS. STUDENT: Yes. It's four votes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So four out of five commissioners
have to be in agreement.
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Legally could we reject this because
of the overall traffic problem, or do we have to be more site specific?
MS. STUDENT: Well, I believe there's been testimony on the
record that there's no level-of-service problem because Immokalee
Road is counted, you know, as having four lanes, at least that's the
way I understood it. And as long as you meet concurrency, then I
think there could be problems with --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning has the
answer.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. So we're not forced into
buying this piece of property, keep in mind what Bob Duane said. In
2006 Immokalee Road, according to their studies, will be at a Level
of Service B with this project. And he can be asking for four units
per acre. He's only asking for a little bit over one. It's no different
than the Mirasol one that we approved not too long ago. I'm not
going to bring up the one that we looked at just previous to this one
that I had a concern that had the traffic. But anyways, the bottom line
is if we're going to be consistent, we need to be consistent with --
MR. DUANE: I appreciate that. And I'm prepared to make one
more concession this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Bob, before you continue,
that --
Page 228
November 27, 2001
go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let him --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If he wants to concede, let him
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's something out there
that he said that nobody caught, and I want to -- those densities that
he was offering to you for affordable housing, they have a value.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I realize that, and I do appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, we can't force
somebody to develop their property in a certain manner. What we
can do is put some conditions on them, but we can't tell them to put
work-force housing on their piece of property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, you're
absolutely right. I'd love to hear the concession, though.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Robert, would you continue with
your confession-- I mean, your concessions?
MR. DUANE: In spite of all the discussion that we have
previously had, my traffic consultant and your staff is aware of some
of the problems --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hold just one second while our fire
alarms go off and test.
This has been a successful test. You may continue.
MR. DUANE: Thank you. In spite of the intersections
generally operating at a good level of service on Immokalee Road,
my consultant identified or recognized this problem early on; your
staff also recognized it. The north/south links to the intersection to
Oakes Boulevard and Immokalee Road are not very well planned.
Terafina and Mirasol -- the through movements work, so we're not
really adding to a problem, but you have an intersection that you need
to improve. You don't have the funding for that intersection, and we
would be willing to advance our impact fees in the amount up to
$500,000 payable at such time as the first certificate of occupancy is
Page 229
November 27, 2001
issued for the first residential unit in the project. Obviously this goes
far and above what we -- under normal circumstances we would
provide, but I'm trying to give you reasons to support this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing -- you're getting better
at it. Let me put it that way. I'd like to hear somebody from roads
interpret what we just heard and tell us how this moves us forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are you offering for the
second certificate of occupancy?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, you're going to do good.
MS. WOLFE: As I indicated, yes, there is a problem there at
Oakes because it's the two lanes north and south of the intersection.
And working with Ed Kant, our director of traffic operations, we've
identified an improvement that could be in place. It is not directly the
problem of Terafina or Mirasol because the problem is dealing with
the throughs and the northbound lefts. However, by advancing those
funds, we could -- considering our funding situation, by the
advancement of those funds, which probably would have taken more
like three to five years to accumulate through general impact fee
collections, we could advance that improvement, and thereby actually
improving the level of service both on Oakes and Immokalee Road as
well as the intersection overall.
transportation division supports.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
So it's a situation that the
So turning the cards over now, we
have a half million dollars for the intersection. We have the flow-
ways, which are going to be the last part of the whole equation to be
able to tie that whole area together. We have a density credit for
affordable housing? How was that worded?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was his units -- he's going
to give -- he's going to say in the PUD that this is how many units per
acre, therefore offering up to the county to use some creative things.
Instead of density bonuses, creating more density, is that he's giving
Page 230
November 27, 2001
it to you. So we're not increasing density in Collier County. MR. DUANE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. What else am I missing?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Million dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Want a new bicycle for
Christmas?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The million-dollar mitigation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think that was already on the table.
That's good. That's all positive, we're trying to serve the public good
here, and I think we're getting closer to it. You know, a million here,
a million there, it adds up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Pretty soon you got real money.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right. The last question,
just as part of edification, I understand now that we have, what, a
couple of miles of road committed to for the north/south along Olde
Cypress. We've got Terafina, Parklands. How many miles are we
short to get to Bonita Beach?
MS. WOLFE: In a straight path, we probably have between a
mile and a half, two miles. I was just speaking with Bob Mulhere,
who is representing the developers of Parklands, and they've
indicated that they have, potentially, plans to move forward with the
actual continuation and extension connection up to Bonita Beach
Road sooner rather than later. Of course, their ability to financially
fund and develop it -- so it can -- we can be looking at a shorter term
versus a long-term improvement in there. But -- so we're getting half
of the road built at this time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So we're a mile and a half short?
MS. WOLFE: Mile and a half to two miles considering some
weaving in there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I wish that we can get the folks
that are already along there to divvy that up and -- as a third of a mile
Page 231
November 27, 2001
or a half of a mile each to work with on that. And I don't know it
that's --
MS. WOLFE: Actually, it's one owner. It's -- Parklands is the
owner that would connect us up and through.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you calculating from the
northern boundary of Parklands when you say a mile and a half to
two miles?
MS. WOLFE: From the -- from the point at which Parklands
starts up to Bonita Beach.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The southern edge of Parklands up
to Bonita Beach or the northern edge of Parklands to Bonita Beach?
MS. WOLFE: Southern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is a mile and a half to two miles?
That's only a half a mile or so short; right? Because those are
sections --
MS. WOLFE: I'm counting the section up in Lee County too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. WOLFE: Probably a little bit longer. As I said, part of it
has to do with some environmental lands, why they were meandering
that road somewhat diagonally across, as well as to have the
opportunity to connect into 951. So we have a couple of miles of
road that are yet to be built. Parklands has indicated that it's
something they might entertain as something sooner rather than later.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they're coming to us to talk
about a change in their DRI.
MR. FEDER: Yes. It's our understanding that they're going to
come to us with a change in their DRI. Norman Feder, transportation
administrator, for the record. Also, they need to connect up to Bonita
Beach Road relative to their DRI. So while we're about a half mile
short of-- of the county line about a mile up into Lee County, that
issue needs to be addressed there. We can't tell you exact time
Page 232
November 27, 2001
frames, but that's to be addressed as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Norm, whenever we can do
something with other people's money, I think we're a little farther
ahead. Is there some way we can make that happen a little sooner
than later?
MR. FEDER: I think we can encourage folks, but that's going to
be conditioned on when they start development on their DRI and
move forward on things. They're coming in, like you said, for a
reevaluation. They've got some issues that they need to come on to
modify where they had right-of-way dedicated. I guess at that time
you can discuss with them what their considerations are.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know about you, but I feel
like I just got through building this road myself.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think we're pretty close, and I
see a lot of cooperation from everyone along here, and I think--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do too. I think we've had some
excellent cooperation. Well, let's just see -- do we have any
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I close the public
hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask one more simple
question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course you can.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tim, can you tell me
environmentally -- because that's what I'm very concerned about.
Environmentally is this good for that area?
MR. HALL: Tim Hall with Turrell & Associates. The flow-
way -- what the flow-way is going to do -- I kind of need to give you
a little background in order to -- I could say yes and sit down, I guess,
but that really won't answer your question.
Page 233
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, it would.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That would be great.
MR. HALL: Okay. Then yes, it will.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right to the point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions? Do I have a
motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want to close the public
hearing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He did.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You did?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve
with the things that Bob Duane gave up and staff's stipulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds like a wonderful
motion. Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: I'm once again going to step in and make sure
that -- we're trying to clarify the motion because the devil's always in
the details, and unfortunately we have to write those details. The
stipulations, the way I understand them, that were added during
today's discussion -- and, Mr. Duane, I need some concurrence from
you as we go through this. There were actually only a few. And one
was a condition that upon the issuance of a CO for the first residential
unit that the developer would pay $500,000 in --
MR. DUANE:
MR. OLLIFF:
MR. DUANE:
MR. OLLIFF:
Up to $500,000.
Okay. What determines that then?
What your costs are to make the improvements.
So it's the fair-share contribution towards the
Page 234
November 27, 2001
intersection improvements.
MR. DUANE: No, not a fair share. Up to $500,000 we're
willing to contribute. If the improvements can be made for $400,000,
then we wouldn't--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Quick, Dawn.
MR. DUANE: -- choose to pay for any more than that.
MS. WOLFE: It would be for the cost of improvements to the
Immokalee Road/Oakes intersection up to $500,000.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. And that would be advanced impact fees.
MS. WOLFE: Advanced impact fees at the time of the first
residential certificate of occupancy.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. Stick around. The additional stipulation
that I believe was included -- and I need Mr. Duane's concurrence on
this one -- was the withholding of residential development permits
until such time as Immokalee Road was four laned? MR. DUANE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, you just said something,
and I just want to make sure I understand it. You said that this was
going to be advance impact fees? In other words, this isn't new
money; this is just the old money -- the money that would be coming
anyways coming a little bit sooner?
MR. OLLIFF: This is advanced use of their impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I must have misunderstood. I
thought it was a half million dollars of--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Extra. That's the way I understood
it too.
MR. DUANE: Mr. Olliff, that would be for four laning of
Immokalee Road up to 951.
MR. OLLIFF: Up to 951.
MR. DUANE: Right. The other condition was that should the
extension of Logan Boulevard be constructed by the Parklands,
Page 235
November 27, 2001
Terafina will provide the necessary area for stormwater management
within the boundaries of Terafina in advance of the construction of
this roadway providing the necessary permits which would be
obtained by the Parklands in the extent (sic) that they are going to
construct this road.
MR. OLLIFF: And I don't recall, Mr. Duane, if the additional
20 foot of right-of-way was included already as part of the
stipulations.
MR. DUANE: That's already in the ordinance.
MR. OLLIFF: Okay. And the last item that I can recall from
the discussions today was the county's ability to reserve the
additional densities up to four units per acre for use in future
affordable or work-force housing projects should there -- should there
be a need for that or a desire on the county's part.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Through a TDR.
MR. OLLIFF: Through a TDR process.
MR. DUANE: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that sound complete, Mr.
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. As far as I remember, that
was all the concessions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the second agrees with that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any discussion-- any other
discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
Unanimous. Thank you very much.
Page 236
November 27, 2001
We're going to take a five-minute break. I imagine by now you're
ready for one.
(A break was held.)
(The proceedings recommenced with Commissioner Carter not
present.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a request on the -- from the
Hispanic group there about the -- I'm sorry. Use the mike. Of
course, Tom. We have a request from the Hispanic group to continue
the -- the -- the resolution between the growers and the farm workers
to another time. They really can't stay any later. If that would be all
right with you, I'd like to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We continued it from the last
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know we did. But it's a time factor
right now. They -- I don't think we could -- it wouldn't be fair to put
them in the schedule in front of everybody else unless you want to do
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm more than willing to do
that. Would that be acceptable? Can we go ahead with-- with you
next? What item number is that, 9 --
MS. FILSON: It's 12-A, the last item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 12-A.
MR. OLLIFF: David, you need to be on the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David, you got to come up over here
to the mike and then introduce yourself, and we'll take it from there.
MR. CORREA: Good evening. I'm David Correa, just for the
record, chairman of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
Commissioner, we do have a number of speakers in addition to
myself. We have approximately, I'd say, six speakers who would like
to speak on behalf of the resolution. We would be willing to come
Page 237
November 27, 2001
back at your next time for a time certain. If you told us to come back
in two weeks or--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the pleasure of the board? I
see three--
MR. CORREA: Whatever you decide, we're willing to go
along. The only thing you have to understand, the persons that are
here do not get paid when they don't work. As a result, they've lost a
day's pay to come here. They are willing to come back. I'll be here --
in any event, I'll be here. But the farm laborers themselves, it's
difficult for them to come in. Now, they are willing to come in, but
the main thing is that we get a time certain. Perhaps if we come back
in two weeks at a time -- two, three o'clock in the afternoon, if Mr.
Olliff feels he can handle that, we'll be more than happy to go along
with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, comments?
MR. CORREA: It's at your pleasure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Do they work at
night? Are they going to leave here and go to work?
MR. CORREA: Tonight?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. CORREA: I don't believe so, but I don't -- I don't know. I
don't think they will -- they would be working in the evening.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wouldn't this be better to
handle this in the evening than during the daytime when --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would take about 20 minutes;
correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. So I don't see -- if we
keep it within the schedule, because there are a lot of other people
that did stay too, and now that I hear some of that, that we should
stay within the schedule. But wouldn't it be to their benefit for them
to stay here tonight to talk on it?
Page 238
November 27, 2001
MR. CORREA: Well, Commissioner, most of these people, you
know, they've been up all day. They had to get up early in the
morning.
They have to get up early for -- they'll -- they'll be going to sleep
perhaps nine o'clock and have to get up at four o'clock in the
morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you. I think we got two
options here: One, we can hear them right now; or number two, we
could ask them to come back for a time certain.
MR. CORREA: We would be willing to come back at --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sounds like a time certain is a good
idea.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
would go with a time certain.
If those are the two options, I
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So I see three nods for that. You'll
go ahead and make the arrangements for a time that's convenient for
these working people to come.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll -- we'll put the item on the December 1 lth
agenda, and we'll request that the item be heard at a time certain of
two o'clock in the afternoon.
MR. CORREA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #8H
ORDINANCE 2001-72, AMENDING ORDINANCE 72-1, AS
AMENDED, WHICH CREATED THE COLLIER COUNTY
LIGHTING DISTRICT TO ADD WILLOUGHBY ACRES TO THE
COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT , AND AMENDING
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE THOSE AREAS OF
IMMOKALEE NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE LIGHTING
Page 239
November 27, 2001
DISTRICT- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Okay. The next item is 17-G.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's 9-A.
(Commissioner Carter entered the boardroom.)
MR. KANT: It's 8-H, Commissioner, moved from 17-G.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. One more time.
MR. KANT: Item 8-H which is moved from 17-G,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
agenda package under 17-G.
Right. And you'll find it in your
MR. KANT: That's correct. Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you want to go ahead and make
the presentation, Mr. Kant?
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation operations director.
This is a request to amend the Collier County lighting ordinance, the
streetlighting ordinance, to include the Willoughby Acres lighting
area as part of the lighting district and to expand the existing
Immokalee area lighting district.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Kant, I'm going to cut you a little short here.
I think there's really only a single issue, and the board's pretty
familiar with what I believe is the issue. It's whether to include all of
the Willoughby Acres community or whether to include the two
primary streets within Willoughby Acres. And we'd be happy to
answer questions, and then we can probably just move on to a
decision on that one issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess the one question would be, is
it absolutely necessary to do all of Willoughby Acres? Is that what
the residents really want?
MR. KANT: The issue is, in fact, as Mr. Olliffhas stated, but
the proposal that staff is making is consistent with our prior actions
Page 240
November 27,2001
and is consistent with the LDC. If a developer were coming in today
to -- to plat the Willoughby Acres subdivision, he would be required
to light all the streets. We're willing to follow the direction of the
board in this case, but our recommendation is consistent with all of
our prior recommendations and with the LDC.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I would suggest we follow the
lead of the -- of the residents. And if they don't want the lights there,
we shouldn't force them on them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we know what the will of the
residents is at this time?
MR. KANT: I don't know if you have any speakers or not,
Mr. Chairman.
MS. FILSON: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who pulled the item?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, they pulled it because of the
fact that the -- we believe the regular -- that originally the residents
were looking to have two of the thoroughfares, Euclid and -- MR. KANT: Lakeland and Euclid.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Lakeland and Euclid lit and not the
whole project. They pulled it for that reason, the uncertainty of what
the actual residents wanted. At that time I assumed that Jack Pointer
was going to be here, but he's not.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as a compromise for--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: -- this evening, we could include the two main
streets for this year, poll the neighborhood in the interim, and then
should the neighborhood want to include the balance of the streets in
-- in the next year, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a first and a second. Any
Page 241
November 27, 2001
discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed?
(No response.)
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Once again, Tom, you
came through in a big way.
Item #9A
THREE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED VARIANCES
REFERENCED IN THE CLERK OF COURTS AUDIT- THREE
VARIANCES TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BCC AT THE
EXPENSE OF THE PETITIONERS
9-A is the next item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reason this is on your
agenda, back when the clerk of court issued a report to the board of
commissioners on golf course impact fees, in there -- and I think
everybody got my memo -- there was three in-house variances that I
believe should come to the board of commissioners. I believe that
our staff should contact the developers of these (sic) variance that
was granted in house and request them to appear before the board of
commissioners, one being The Strand Professional Park, Radio Road
-- Radio Square Commercial Building, and Addison Reserve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you're -- your proposal to us
is to request that that come back to us, Commissioner Henning, so
that we can take action?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, not come back to us. It's
actually to have it come before us so we can either find staff's
Page 242
November 27, 2001
findings correctly, if they are correct, or was it something that we
need to tweak.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I make a motion that we
have these three in-house variances come back to the board of
commissioners when staff can schedule it with the developers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And there is no speakers. Is there
any discussion?
All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't vote on it, and I think
Mr. Weigel has --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, go ahead.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Coletta. It would appear that
one of, if not the only, process to come forward would be a variance
process. And these are either in-house variances or variances that are
paid for by an applicant or a petitioner in this particular case, so I
wondered if there might be a clarification direction from the board.
And I'm prepared to make a suggestion, if I may, in regard to who is
responsible for the administrative application fee for the variance
requests, as that may very well be the vehicle that would be coming
back through the process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't think we charge
anybody anything again. I think we just send it here to make the
Page 243
November 27, 2001
decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did they -- was there a charge
that was paid to community development for this interpretation?
MR. WEIGEL: My understanding is no, that there was no
charge. It didn't come through the variance process. It was a part of
the planning review process. But if it had been part of the variance
process, it would have come to its logical conclusion, which is the
ultimate review and consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners. So I think that what we see from the facts, what I
understand from the facts, is that if it -- if the changes that occurred,
having been approved at the staff administrative level, require board
approval, they will need to formally come through the variance
process of which there is a standard fee under our Land Development
Code.
And I told you I'd make a suggestion. My suggestion would be
that the petitioners be -- the would-be petitioners, that is the people
that have received the benefit of the administrative variance, be
requested by the county through its staff, assistance of the county
attorney office, to enter the process themselves at their own expense
and that it come forward for review by staff, ultimately coming to the
Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's -- was my thought
when I brought this forward and within my motion, that it include
they have to pay their fees to come -- appear before the board of
commissioners and their-- whatever, you know, site development
plan or process or whatever. So I voted --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the motion was complete as
stated and voted on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. And I voted yes for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
Page 244
November 27, 2001
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2001-454 APPOINTING THOMAS WELSTEAD
AND DAVID BENSON THE BAYSHORE/AVALON
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
Move on to the next item, 9-B, appointment of two members to
the Bayshore Beautification MSTU. And you have applicants.
Would anybody care to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Opposed?
The ayes have it.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2001-455, APPOINTING MICHAEL BARIL AND
KENNETH DUNNE TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING
BOARD - ADOPTED
Next item--
MS. FILSON: Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MS. FILSON: I do have one speaker on the next item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9-C, we have two appointments to
serve three-year terms for the Contractor Licensing Board.
Page 245
November 27, 2001
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I thought-- if I'm understanding
this correctly, one person should be or has historically been
engineering. And if that would be the case, I would recommend
Kenneth Dunne since he's the only applicant there to classify as an
engineer. The others, I think, would probably require discussion of
the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to second that because I
had him down as filling that slot as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we hold off discussion
until we hear from the one public speaker.
MS. FILSON: The speaker is Charley Abbott.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: He had to go to a class.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Abbott left. Okay. Any
discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do -- go ahead. Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you. It's nice being the
only one. I don't even have to worry about, then, who goes first.
Michael Baril has called all of our offices, I believe, with his
desire to serve on this board. I looked over all of the lists that we
have and tried to make sure that every slot is -- is covered. And, of
course, the engineer was one of those slots that we needed, and so
we've gotten that with Kenneth Dunne. I don't know Michael Baril,
but I would like to nominate him as the second person. He's in my
district. He's got to be a good guy.
COMMISSIONER
-- Commissioner Carter,
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
HENNING: You seconded that motion that
didn't you?
CARTER: On the--
HENNING: On the first one? We didn't --
CARTER: Yes.
Page 246
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- take a vote on it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. I just seconded (sic) it,
but we didn't have a vote on it because the chair said he wanted to
wait until we resolved the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
engineer slot one first?
have
aye.
Okay. Should we vote on the
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We could do that. And we
-- the applicant, one more time, that we recommended was?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ken -- Kenneth Dunne.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second for that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by saying
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Opposed?
Okay. That passed unanimous.
And I'll second Commissioner
Fiala's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
though, right, on this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
MS. FILSON: No. He left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's it.
Okay. Now, we have speakers,
He's not here.
MS. FILSON: That was the only speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So any other discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Passed unanimously.
Page 247
November 27, 2001
Okay. So let's move right on to-
Item #10A
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2002
BUDGET REDUCTION AND EXPENDITURE CONTROL PLAN
- APPROVED WITH EXCEPTION OF INDIGENT HEALTH
CARE; INDIGENT HEALTH CARE FUNDING DELAYED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 9-A, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. 9 what?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would be 10-B, wouldn't it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10-A.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 10-A. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-A it is. This is authorize imple --
im--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Tom Olliff is here to
present the case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, in view of the time -- I don't like
even doing anything that's fun this long, so I will try and keep my
presentation short. I think from our previous discussions and
obviously events over the last couple of months, the board is more
than aware that the state has had two special sessions already looking
at their own state level budget and some of the budget issues that they
are grappling with, trying to make reductions somewhere in the
billion-dollar neighborhood.
It is obvious even in sunny Southwest Florida that the economy
is slowing and is taking a downturn in a number of different key
Page 248
November 27, 2001
indices. The events nationally have had an effect on tourism, and that
effect on tourism affects us directly, both in tourist taxes and in sales
taxes. The transportation funding, as we discussed at the last meeting,
is still a priority for this county. The transportation funding, as we've
talked all day long, is scarce. And, as indicated in our last meeting,
will require some significant belt tightening on the part of the county
in order to be able to find other sources for transportation funding.
There are four major funding sources that are impacted by the events
that I've just mentioned. Those are primarily tourist taxes, sales
taxes, what's called county revenue sharing, and then obviously your
own general funds.
We've provided an executive summary that we think takes some
proactive steps to not only reduce the budget for this fiscal year and
provide some expenditure controls for the balance of this year, but we
also are making some proactive recommendations that we think put
us in a better position to put together a Fiscal Year '03 budget as well.
Based on the four different categories, I've asked Mike Smykowski,
your office of management and budget director, to come walk you
through the executive summary sections that deal with the tourist tax,
the sales tax, and the county revenue sharing. And then, if you don't
mind, I'll close by talking about some of the general fund
recommendations that are there, as well as your indigent healthcare
program.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, county budget director. The first area I'd like to talk
about is tourist tax revenue. October cash receipts, which are
generated from September hotel stays, typically represent about 3.7
percent of the annual tourist tax revenue. There's a table on page 1 of
your executive summary. It shows historical revenue receipts from
Fiscal Years 2000, 2001, and what was received this year. In fiscal
year 2000, it was slightly above 308,000; in '01,340,000; '02
Page 249
November 27,2001
obviously suffering the effects of cancellations in hotel stays and the
immediate impact following the September 11 th terrorist attacks.
The FY02 revenues were only 217,000, which were almost 40
percent less than we would have reasonably anticipated.
Based on one month's activity, that would result in a shortfall of
$3.8 million in budgeted tourist tax revenue. However, the state does
provide a built-in measure with a 5 percent revenue reserve that is
required. You are only allowed to appropriate 95 cents on the dollar.
That provides some built-in protection reducing the projected
shortfall based on that one month's revenue, which is also key, to just
above 3.3 million. That shortfall would be spread in proportion
across the various TDC funds: The museums; the tourism promotion;
primarily the bulk of the hit, should it come to fruition, would be in
the beach fund; and finally, there is a small component to disaster
recovery.
The museum category would be impacted to the tune of
$600,000 if that one month's activity were to continue and the
historical revenue patterns held. That $600,000 would be absorbed --
there's 177,000 available in the museum fund reserve that is
unappropriated. Beyond that, that would still leave a remaining
shortfall of almost $423,000. That money is spread between two
principal recipients: County museums, which receive 71 percent of
the appropriations; and the botanical gardens, which receive 29
percent of the appropriations.
The museums' share of the remaining shortfall would be slightly
above $300,000. The staff recommendation in that regard would be
to eliminate or defer the Roberts Ranch visitor and administrative
center, which is budgeted at $255,000, and the balance would come
from reserves that are budgeted within the museum operating fund
itself. The botanical gardens' share amounts to a little over 122,000.
That would result, obviously, in reduced operational support to that
Page 250
November 27, 2001
entity this year.
In terms of the promotions fund, its relative share, again, should
that reduction come to fruition, would be approximately a half
million dollars. However, within this category there is over a million
five in available reserves, so we would absorb any reduction without
necessarily impacting operations.
Beach renourishment, its share, as it is the lion's share of the
money that's collected, amounts to $2.2 million. Staff would
recommend eliminating the parking garage on Vanderbilt Beach, the
construction. That's $3.3 million.
The disaster recovery funds' pro-rata share amounts to $20,000.
There's about $1,050,000 that is budgeted for emergency advertising
following any natural disaster, whatever the case may be. The board
has previously authorized $250,000 of that amount. The remaining
balance, which is over three-quarters of a million dollars, in all
likelihood would be unspent barring any natural disaster, and we
would absorb that within that unspent emergency advertising.
Obviously this is kind of the worst-case scenario based solely on
one month's -- one month's revenues. We do receive monthly
disbursements from the tax collector's office, a report shortly after the
close of the month. There's not a huge time lag there, so we'll report
on a regular basis. But these would be the staff recommendations
should the worst-case scenario evolve. Unfortunately it's a little more
complicated because of the four funds. You can't just take a hit in the
-- and eliminate the beach parking garage because the money is
distributed across those various funds.
So I realize that was a little lengthy, but to walk you through the
mechanics of what we would do in that instance, I think, is important
for you-all to understand and, as well, to understand the implications
to the -- to the recipients as well. Any questions in that regard?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would just like to say that I
Page 251
November 27, 2001
would like to see these projects for next year. If the monies do come
in, put them on the top of the list of funding. You know, the beach
parking and -- and Roberts Ranch is very important, and we heard
that through the budget process.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. In addressing the -- the
Roberts Ranch issue with Mr. Jamro from the museum, obviously the
core -- his core responsibility and focus at this point is restoration of
the -- and shoring up those buildings. That is the primary focus. The
visitor center and administrative center is kind of a thought of last
resort. And he's still actually evaluating what type of building
options would be available because he wants that to kind of melt into
the background. The focal point is -- at that facility is the historical
buildings. So, in all likelihood, on a timing basis, it wouldn't really
impact a great deal because, in all likelihood, you might not actually
get to a construction award this year anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question if I may.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is the worst-case scenario based
upon what happened in that month of September, and we're
projecting it forward throughout the whole year proportionately to
what it was; that's correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Haven't -- hasn't it already been
demonstrated in several cases that this scenario hasn't held true? I
mean, we already have results out there for October, and November,
we've got half of November. Has anybody checked the -- the
occupancy rate of the hotels to see how they're doing? I kind of
wonder if we're not moving a little too fast on this.
I'll be honest with you. I'm a little bit disappointed in -- with
what we're cutting. Why is it -- it seems like it's always going to be
the inland folks that are going to take the hit on this, being the
Page 252
November 27,2001
parking garage. I know there's been a big push by some of the big
hotels to have this removed, and it looks like they're finally getting
their way through the events that happened September 11 th. And we
look at Immokalee where we have a donation that took place, and the
donation was neglected for the most part for some time. Then we
stepped up to the plate and started doing all the right things, and now
we're going to take and regress it again. Not that it isn't necessary; it
may be.
But I almost think we -- we might be moving just a little bit fast
on this. I mean, suppose these numbers aren't true and we go ahead
and we bury these things; we have the funds come in, and they're
being unused, and the public can't enjoy them. Am I wrong in that
thinking?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir, in a little way. Let me tell you that I
think, one, these are projects that we would suggest that we certainly
not contract for today because your revenue stream is tied to a fairly
volatile revenue source. That does not mean that the board, midway
through the year, as we're reporting on a regular basis and you see
tourist tax monies coming back in at a revenue stream level that's
consistent with what you budgeted, might not reconsider this.
On the other hand, we didn't pick and choose categories based
on whether they were inland or coastal or hotel or nonhotel. What we
picked them on was based on the ordinance and the categories of
distribution of the monies within the ordinance. So we gave
everyone a fair-share reduction based on the categories of the
ordinance and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see I got the hair up on the back of
your neck. I'm supposed to do that. I'm from District 5.
MR. OLLIFF: So we tried to find the fairest way to distribute
reductions. But what I think Mike was trying to tell you is this is a
volatile revenue source. We do plan on reporting to you on a regular
Page 253
November 27, 2001
basis. These projects -- obviously when we say reduce them or
remove them from the budget, that certainly doesn't mean that they
can't be considered for next year or they can't even be considered
midyear should the revenue stream turn around, and then we realize
revenues that are in keeping with the budget that you've already
established.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So, in other words, keeping with
Commissioner Henning's suggestion, that we put these things on
hold. He was saying for next year, but we may be able to pick it up,
like, nine months from now and continue the stream at that point in
time.
MR. OLLIFF: You may be able to. Our only concern was we
don't want to put the board in a position where you're signing
construction contracts for projects.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. I wouldn't want to be
in that position, and I appreciate the thought process that's going into
this.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: In addition, Commissioner, on the parking
garage, just the negotiations and discussions with the surrounding
property owners, in all likelihood, would push that project to the back
end of the fiscal year anyway. So I don't think in the intermittent
period while we're in kind of a -- taking a wait-and-see approach on
the monthly revenues, I don't think we're really losing anything in the
short run.
MR. OLLIFF: And I did make sure that Mr. Jamro was going to
keep his commitment to have that museum open in December, with
or without this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I always look at a budget as the
amount of dollars that you're looking at, it doesn't mean you're going
to spend it. It's -- it's an item. And if you have it, you spend it; but if
Page 254
November 27, 2001
you don't have it, you can't spend it. So what I'm hearing is we're not
going to commit to any contractual relationships with anybody in
these areas until we know that we have the funds. And it may have to
be deferred until the next fiscal year. But put it at the top of the list.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I feel very comfortable with
what we're saying for the most part. Is there any other discussion? I
know that we have one speaker at least.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have -- have we really gone
through the whole thing here?
(Several speakers at once.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't think so. I'd like to hold
my comments until we finish with the executive summary if that's
okay.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Okay. That concludes the discussion of
tourist tax revenue. The next area is in sales tax revenue. We get an
initial estimate provided by the State of Florida. The use of the sales
tax revenue in the county budget is for existing debt service on
outstanding bonds, and the bulk of the money goes to general fund
operations. Any shortfalls that would be realized impact the general
fund, as obviously you're not going to default on outstanding -- on
any principal and interest payments on outstanding bonds.
In this case staff anticipated softening in sales tax receipts and
recommended to the board during the budget and public hearing
process that we reduce the revenue budget by $1.3 million. The
board had the foresight to implement that recommendation, and as a
result we've recently received revised state department of revenue
estimates and the impact on Florida counties resulting from slowing
tourism, etc. The collective impact was a reduction of 5.4 percent
from the initial state estimate that they had given us in the summer as
we were developing the budget for Fiscal Year '02.
As a result of that proactive action that the board took, the
Page 255
November 27, 2001
revised budget estimate from the state is within -- we're $145,000
short of where we would need to be based on where the revised state
estimate is. So the preemptive strike that you took is paying big
dividends at this point in time. Obviously that's also a revenue. We
have yet to receive our October revenues due to time lag. That's one
we would also anticipate reporting on on a monthly basis just to give
you an idea of where we're at. And the historical revenue patterns are
-- are pretty true from year to year as well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Am I correct we were within
one-half of one percent?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Of the revised state estimate, yes. But
obviously that was a result of the action that you took at the public
hearing.
In terms of county revenue sharing, this is a program that is --
was previously funded via cigarette taxes and the intangible tax.
Now this is also primarily a state funded sales tax program. The state
also provided initial estimates in this area. This is also used for debt
service on outstanding bonds, and the balance of available money is
used for general fund operations. As with the sales tax, any shortfalls
here would also impact directly the general fund because obviously
you're not going to default on outstanding bond payments.
The state department of revenue issued revised revenue
estimates for Florida counties. The county impact, again, similar to
the sales tax revisions, was a recommended reduction of 5.4 percent
from the previous state estimate. Their revised number is just -- is
approximately $6 1/2 million. Our gross county budget figure was
about $6 1/4 million, so we're actually below the revised state
estimates. And when you factor in the 5 percent revenue reserve,
we're at $5.9 million compared to the revised state estimate of 6 1/2.
This was budgeted very conservatively, obviously, due to the
potential impacts to tourism. And actually as a function of the
Page 256
November 27,2001
change in the revenue supporting that, essentially now you have a lot
of eggs in the, quote, sales tax basket, the sales tax revenue as a
whole. And this program is -- now is also a sales tax distribution. As
a result, we budgeted that very conservatively.
In terms of transportation funding, the previously awarded FY03
grant for Livingston Road-- it's almost $3.7 million -- is potentially
at risk. At this point that may be an opportunity, obviously, for
individual lobbying efforts. I know we're shoring up the contract
with Keith Arnold to begin that activity.
Gas taxes, there was no bulletin issued in terms of a
recommended reduction from the state. Obviously we budgeted
those fairly conservatively with a 3 percent growth rate, and there's
also the state-required 5 percent revenue reserve. The state
recommends just monitoring that activity at the local level.
Obviously depending on -- county by county it may vary
significantly, but there are no major budget issues currently
projected.
Other potential impacts are potential cost shifting. One in
specific that's been addressed through Florida Association of
Counties is the shift in the cost of Medicaid and nursing home
patients from the state to counties. Currently the costs are capped at
$55 per patient per month. There's a house bill that would increase
that from $55 per patient per month to $140. With implementation in
January, which is -- you know, you're talking six weeks away, that
would impact the county for nine months of the county's fiscal year.
The FY02 impact estimated by FAC is about $327,000 with an
annualized impact of four hundred and thirty-five.
There's also a companion senate bill. That's a little more
conservative. It would increase the cap from $55 to $90 per patient
per month. Correspondingly the impact to the county would be less.
And the senate bill at this point is based on an April 2003
Page 257
November 27, 2001
implementation, which would be three months -- three fewer months
of the county's fiscal year. It would only impact us for six months in
FY02, an estimated cost of about $90,000 and an annualized cost of
$180,000.
Other potential issues are obviously further reductions in the
state-shared revenues. I think, again, as a result of the previous board
actions, we're positioned fairly well for the time being, barring any
other major catastrophic events that would adversely impact tourism.
And the real question mark at this point is the impact that the
legislature may impose in terms of cost shifting to the counties. And
unfortunately that's somewhat of an unknown at this point and also
part of the reason for the recommendations in terms of budget
reductions from the county manager.
At this point and with that, I'll mm it to Tom to kind of wrap up
the budgetary impacts.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, beyond that we've tried to look at
positioning ourselves just in anticipation, and in follow-up to what
Mike said, to what the state is going to do. I think obviously they
wouldn't keep calling the legislature into session if they were happy
with the level of budget reductions that had been made already. So I
think we have to anticipate that there are going to be some more,
either budget reductions that are going to directly affect the counties,
or probably, more likely, that cost shifting scenario where a lot of the
things that are currently the responsibility of Tallahassee are going to
become the responsibility of the 67 counties around the state of
Florida.
The other thing that we're trying to do here is to -- to not
position ourselves so that we are anticipating making those
adjustments based on your existing reserve balance. You started this
year with a -- a 5 percent reserve balance, which is a general policy
that you have always had. But because that reserve is used not only
Page 258
November 27,2001
for unanticipated expenditures during the year, but more importantly,
from my perspective, to -- to serve as your natural disasters fund,
with upcoming hurricanes and brush fire seasons, that is usually the
fund that we look at should any of those kind of events occur in the
county. And I certainly don't think it's good, prudent financial policy
to have us with -- knowing that there's going to be some budget
reductions coming and looking to our general fund reserve to be able
to -- to bear the cost and the burden of that. So we're trying to find
some other places to be able to -- to bear those -- those reductions.
One of the other things that we did then was to look at all of
your operating budgets. We did not look at every single fund within
your budget because in a lot of cases, every fund doesn't make sense.
Some of your funds are, for example, special taxing districts or
streetlighting districts where there are very specific improvements
being made at the request of very specific neighborhoods who are
making their payments directly for those services.
We tried to focus in on the major funds: Obviously general
fund; your incorporated general fund, Fund 111; Community
Development Fund 113; your county water and sewer district funds,
408; road and bridge funds, 101. And we asked them to go back and
provide for us reductions in the neighborhood of 3 percent out of all
of their operating budgets, and that ended up netting about $3.65
million, which are listed there in your executive summary.
In addition, after discussion with some of the county
commissioners, a look at the capital project reductions was
recommended, and it's a good idea. We went back and looked at
some of the capital projects that were currently included in your
budget. Some of them we're simply recommending that -- don't be
built in this current year, just given the environment that we're in.
This is probably not the time to be doing things that are extra. We
ought to be focusing, obviously, on things that are necessary and,
Page 259
November 27, 2001
obviously, on trying to generate not only funds in anticipation of
Tallahassee, but trying to find funds for transportation construction as
well.
Your horticultural learning center, a project that was going to try
and provide the public with the opportunity to provide on-line and
electronic payments of park programs -- your GIS program has been
reduced by $250,000. Your Vanderbilt Beach parking lot rental,
which was a project to rent the vacant lot across the street from your
Vanderbilt Beach parking lot today, if we're going to defer the
construction of the -- the parking lot, then use of the vacant lot also
ought to be deferred. It's sort of a companion project.
Small projects in the way of Copeland playground land
purchase; and we realized some savings out of the Wiggins Pass
outfall land purchase, which was a drainage improvement project in
the north end of the county; and we're working with Clarence Tears
of the Big Cypress Basin Board to try and have the basin actually
fund the Urban Immokalee Basin Master Plan; the result of all those
capital project deferrals or reductions was $1,250,000.
The next item on your list was a deferred hiring program.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Tom, just -- and I don't know if
you mentioned it before, but I think up front, it's important, that we
reduced 70 million in capital expenditures before we ever started our
budgetary process. That's what our executive team did before they
ever came to the board for this year's budget, so I think that's
important to note, Tom.
MR. OLLIFF: I can't remember what the actual amount was,
Mr. Chairman, but it was -- there's always a -- we are always very
upside down in terms of-- especially general fund supported capital
in terms of requests versus the available revenues, but I think that's --
that's well worth noting.
The deferred hiring program, you -- we already currently budget
Page 260
November 27, 2001
what we call attrition, which is money that we save from positions
when they are vacant. When an employee leaves, it takes a certain
amount of time, obviously, to post the position, interview, and fill the
position. Our recommendation is that we intentionally expand that
program to require that all vacant positions be open for a minimum of
90 days before they're filled. In doing that we think we can increase
your attrition number by a half a million dollars in terms of savings
over the course of the year.
But, in addition, I think we've noted that all the positions, once
they become vacant or when they become vacant, would be reviewed
to try and take advantage of any opportunities that we have to,
frankly, eliminate positions in this year; to combine positions where
we have that opportunity. And, in fact, one of the recommendations
here has already been taken advantage of in your administrative
services division where we've just recently combined your risk
management department and human resources department, and we've
got a single director now for both of those functions. And by that one
move, we're probably going to end up saving about a hundred
thousand dollars in personnel costs by that one position combination.
But we'll also look, when those positions become vacant, as we
have the opportunity to leave the positions open for longer than the
90-day period that is the minimum. When at all possible, obviously,
we'll look at seasonality of positions. If we don't have to fill a
position until the full season or until the summertime, for example,
with lifeguards, we will make sure that we only fill them when we
absolutely have to. And, frankly, we're working with the RSVP
program, which is located here in this building, to try and find
volunteer opportunities for a number of the positions that we
currently have filled with full-time equivalents today.
The next item I'm going to skip and let Mr. Smykowski close
with that one.
Page 261
November 27, 2001
Number 5 on your list is just a straight-up cut in your
development business travel and training budgets of $117,000. That
represents about $25,000 -- 25 percent of that object code.
The last item there that I'm going to cover this evening is Item
No. 6, and it's the primary healthcare program. Obviously this was
mentioned at the last board meeting. It's going to be discussed, I'm
sure, in detail, when I sit down, by the 12 speakers who are registered
to speak. But the board, in essence, has three options in regards to
that program. It is currently in your budget at $700,000. For
$700,000 you are going to get about six months of the program.
The board can continue to fund it at its full budgeted amount of
$700,000, in which case I'm going to indicate to you that you need to
make a mental and a conscious decision that you're going to fund the
program for a full 18 months, because in order for us to contract with
someone to come in and open the shop, hire the people, the
professionals that need to be brought in, that's going to be an 18-
month commitment on your part. The cost for the full year of that
program obviously is about 14 -- $1.4 million. So this year's cost is
$700,000, but the full commitment for the 18 months would be about
$2.1 million.
You can, B, delay a funding decision until your Fiscal Year '03
budget deliberations in the spring or summer of 2002. You will
establish budget policy in the February-March time frame of this
year, and then in the summer you'll be reviewing budgets again. You
have recently created a horizon committee under Commissioner
Coletta's watch who's going to be looking at health and human
services related issues. You could defer this program back that to
committee. Or I believe there are some members here from your
previous healthcare finance committee who, with some arm twisting,
might be willing to continue to take a look at the program if you
wanted them to do that.
Page 262
November 27, 2001
And the last option you have is obviously to discontinue the
program. You can cut that program completely out of your budget,
and we would remove the $700,000 from the budget and put that --
and move that money back into the county's general fund reserve.
That kind of brings me to the last point, that all of the -- the
reductions that we're recommending here, any time that there are
actual general fund, in particular, cash-type reductions to budgets that
are in existence, our recommendation is that we actually physically
do budget amendments and move the cash from those operating funds
into your general fund reserves so that any use of those funds would
require budget amendments and approvals through the normal budget
process, and those monies could not be spent without budget
amendments being done after the fact.
The total of all of the things here, in exception to the indigent
healthcare program decision, are about $15.9 million. And our
recommendation is that, given the current environment, given the
economy, given the impact of the tourist taxes, that the board direct
us, as your staff, to make those reductions and amendments to your
current-year budget.
And with that, I'm going to let Mr. Smykowski give you the
thumbnail sketch on the bond restructuring, which is actually the one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go, Commissioner
Henning, you have a question of Mr. Olliff?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I have some further
recommendations for cuts if you don't mind. One of the things that
the board wanted to do was a program called community of character.
Worthwhile program, but in light of the fact of what's been going on
in Southwest Florida and our tourism, is this a program that we
should continue (sic), just like the other ones that we had cut?
Also, I would recommend-- we did a salary increase to bring
our staff to the -- to a level that they deserve. They haven't had a pay
Page 263
November 27, 2001
increase since 1996. But there is one thing -- and I think everybody
needs to ante up something, and I'm recommending the merit pay that
will be budgeted for next year, but it will be based on this year's
performance. And I'm not asking for our staff to lower their level of
service or performance. The only thing I'm saying is we all need to
kick in in this tightening time.
One thing that -- one other thing that we did this year is giving
some healthcare people a waiver of 700 -- 7,500 -- up to 7,500 in
impact fees. I think we should reconsider that. What we're doing is
we're out there telling the public that we're taking the impact fee
levels at their highest, but then we give it away. I think we're sending
a mixed message. So I think that that should come back to the board
of commissioners for reconsideration. Those are the three things that
I have on my list.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My question would be on these
particular items, they all require quite a bit of discussion. Can we
break them down by the unit and approve them so we can get some of
them out of the way and then deal with the ones that are going to be
time-consuming, rather than try to bring them -- keep them all
together in one piece?
MR. OLLIFF: It's completely up to the chair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How does the board feel?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would think that's not
even a decision you have to make tonight. It's a suggestion by
Commissioner Henning. That can come in two weeks.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well. The one item that we
should consider is the impact fee waiver for medical facilities. The
other items I think that we should include in tonight's cutting. One is
the community of character, and the other one is the merit pay for the
employees.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My question is how much are we
Page 264
November 27, 2001
spending on community character?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it was 165,000 was
budgeted.
MR. OLLIFF: I'd have to go back and look because just sitting
here, off the top of my head, I don't know that number. But I will tell
you that we don't have any executed contracts as of yet, and whatever
monies may have been set aside for that program could be reduced.
The only -- the only real effort that's been made to date is your office
has actually advertised for a community of character committee of
people from around the community to come in and not only work
with our agency, but the entire community in trying to develop some
character training and development.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
hasn't started, I agree with Tom.
do that? Can we--
Seeing that that's a program that
I think that's a good idea. Can we
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You can do anything you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- include that tonight?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Do you want to cut the advisory board as well?
-- the deadline was yesterday. I received 11 applicants, and this
morning I just sent them down to the staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there any money associated with
that?
MS. FILSON: Staff time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's kind of an exercise for people
to go through. We don't have any way to fund it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we might want to do is
just, you know, send a letter of apology; "Because of the shortfall in
the budget, we need to continue this on for another time."
MS. FILSON: Would you have to appeal that ordinance --
Page 265
November 27, 2001
repeal that ordinance? I'm sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry. I had an attorney talking in one ear,
and I couldn't--
MS. FILSON: The community of character council.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The ordinance creating the
community of character, would we have to repeal that? MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we could cut the budget,
repeal it.
Now, we were talking about the committee that was formed.
Ms. Filson has 11 applicants. And what I'm suggesting is sending a
letter of apology saying that we discontinued this program because of
budget constraints.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question on that. Excuse
me, if I may. I'm -- I have this little work-force committee that just
began, but we're all volunteers -- or everybody there is a volunteer.
It's not costing us any money to meet and begin to put together a
program. Maybe -- maybe you could meet with these 11 volunteers
and at least decide where you want to go with this program without
spending any dollars. Or is that not possible? I mean, a lot of other
committees operate on volunteer time.
MR. OLLIFF: They do. I think one of the purposes of that
particular committee was to provide a certain amount of community
oversight, if you will, on not only our program, but others. There's
not a lot of cost associated other than the staff time that's involved to
be able to support those committees. There is, I believe, certain
advantages to having this county take a -- a more proactive stand in
terms of development of character. So I don't see a real downside if
the board wants to continue to have a citizens community of
character committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the president is really proud
Page 266
November 27, 2001
of, you know, initiating this cause. I would think if we could get
volunteers -- maybe we could even get an RSVP person to take the
minutes or type them or something so there's no cost involved, and
yet we move forward with it. What do you think, Tom?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's see. Tom, would
you work on that and see what it might look like with a nonsupported
staff member for this committee?
MR. OLLIFF: We'll bring that back.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we -- did we decide if we
were going to vote on these --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, you know what we ought to do
is -- we have an agenda in front of us that we should be following.
It's great to suggest other items that we can bring up at the next
meeting, but we have to go through an advertising process so that
people that have -- that want to discuss it would be able to get in front
of us. And I don't think there's any ideas that we're not capable of
consideration, but I'm kind of leery about just dropping it on
everybody at a meeting. In other words, we're going to make great
big cuts. What's the -- moving it one meeting forward and
advertising it would be the fair way to do it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was advertised, and it -- it
was advertised in the Naples Daily News.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The community character? But the
These have been advertised.
items here is what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
item --
No. If you look at the agenda
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. --just a second. Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: The other suggestion is you do have a workshop
here tomorrow -- we'll be right back in here tomorrow -- where
you've got an open-forum-type of workshop. And if the board has a
bunch of other issues that it may want to consider in terms of budget
Page 267
November 27, 2001
reductions or financial issues, it certainly has the option to be able to
discuss those there or give us some direction at the workshop to bring
those back on December 11 th for final vote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wasn't this advertised just as a
header, just like anything else? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But the agenda summary you have in
front of you covers specific items. It's not -- it's not open-ended
where it says that everything else could be added at this time. What's
the difference by one meeting? These things came to be by a long
process that we arrived at it. Now, we have a number of items on
here for consideration today. What's the difference in the next
meeting when we have a whole bunch of other ones that you can list
now? And we can list a bunch of them. I'm sure Mr. Coyle's got a
number of them he would like to see. About that many. Yeah. And
there's no problem with it.
But due process all the time. I mean, it's very easy to take and
cut something one, two, three. And then the public comes back and
they say, "Well, why wasn't I consulted on this? Why didn't I have a
chance for due process?" We've heard that before. And due process
got us to this point, and due process will get us out of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How was the workshop tomorrow
advertised? Is it primarily the budget? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that how we're planning on
spending the time?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I believe it's considered a
special meeting, Commissioner Coyle. It's not a workshop. That
means we can make decisions.
MR. OLLIFF: There's actually a special meeting to discuss
Page 268
November 27, 2001
water and wastewater rates and impact fees, and following that was
set up to be a two-hour working lunch workshop, if you will. That
was the open-forum-type workshop that the board had asked to have.
And we've developed a list of topics that were suggested topics, but I
think there's an opportunity to be able to discuss off-agenda items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the public, even tomorrow, will
not know exactly what kinds of items we're likely to talk about, so
they won't have an opportunity to come in and hear the discussion.
Could I offer a suggestion, perhaps?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the board could offer some
direction to staff about the kinds of things we would want them to
look at, the public will have a chance to hear that tonight. The staff,
then, can go back and work on these things and bring them back to us
as quickly as possible and as quickly as it can be advertised. Does
that make sense?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That they be advertised by due
process, yeah, I don't have a problem with that. But to try to
advertise it for tomorrow is going to be very difficult.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. We wouldn't be able to do it
tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I expand upon that
suggestion? We already have the list of cuts that the -- our staff is
suggesting. If we want to continue it, it would just be on our
suggestions for cuts, and let's move on this item today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I would suggest.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's -- that's what I understood.
All we wanted to do is take additional items and take them out to the
first meeting in December.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. I thought we were
moving on them today.
Page 269
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I could just make a
general comment about -- about the items that the staff has presented
to us, I think they're a good start. I think we're faced with some very
difficult and unpredictable times, and I don't think any of us can --
can really decide what our future's going to look like and how many
cuts we're going to be faced with. But I think it's -- it's very prudent
if we, like -- like the national and state governments, begin to focus
on those things that are only essential. That really is the most
conservative approach we can take; living within our budget,
conserving our funds to the extent possible, and allocating them only
to those things that are absolutely essential. And it involves not only
the items that staff has brought up today and -- and the things that
Commissioner Henning has mentioned, but a lot of other items.
We -- at a time when we are telling people that we can't improve
roads, we're spending $30 million building new buildings for
ourselves, and I just think we need to take a look at those kinds of
things. And in some cases, the approval process has gone pretty far.
I believe we do have the chance of reconsidering some of those
things and deciding whether or not that is a wise use of our funds at
the present time. So I -- I don't want to be the voice of gloom and
doom, but -- but this could be a long-term effect, and we just can't
predict it. And I think that we would be prudent and we would be
serving the taxpayers if we really focused on those items that are
absolutely essential.
And -- and with that I would-- I would move -- if approval is
required for your proposal, Tom, I would move approval of your
cost-cutting proposal with the understanding that we then have some
other ideas that we would like to direct staff to evaluate. You know,
what I'm saying is it's going to have to be determined as far as its
reasonableness, and I think that's going to require debate of the board,
and it's going to require a lot of work with the staff and, of course,
Page 270
November 27, 2001
public advertisement. So I would-- I would move approval of the
things you've already done, Tom. And then --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I will second that, and we
still need to hear from the public.
MR. OLLIFF: I guess my recommendation would be to set
aside, perhaps -- because I did not make a recommendation or it was
not included in the package regarding the indigent healthcare
program. So if your motion includes everything other than that -- and
then perhaps we could move to some public speakers, because I
believe you've got a dozen of those.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. You know, Mr.
Chairman, I would--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would have a problem with
everything at one time. I really would. I think that we need to
eliminate everything and get down to the real issue so that we can
deal with that piecemeal. But trying to rule on it all together, we're
going to have all sorts of problems coming to an agreement on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean just on Tom's --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just on Tom's suggestions here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, on the suggestions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we can separate -- you know, go
down through it, if anyone has anything they want to pull from it-- I
mean, I, for one, would like to see indigent healthcare pulled
separately because that's going to take--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what we're going to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anything anyone else would
like to see pulled from this and considered separately?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I just want to thank our
county manager for being proactive and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep. I do too.
Page 271
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- getting us on a great start.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So what we're going to be
doing now is we're looking to vote on everything but the indigent
health issue; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So at this point in time, I'd like to
open up the -- yes, Susan.
MS. FILSON: We have 12 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And is that on the indigent health
issue or on the budget in general? MS. FILSON: On 10-A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, then let's hear from them,
please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. It won't hurt to hear them.
Go ahead, Susan.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Perhaps--
MS. FILSON: The first one is Hank Bryan, and he will be
followed by Ty Agoston.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Perhaps if those who are going
to speak on only the indigent healthcare -- you know, if we know -- if
you're going to just waive at this point, we'll come back to that topic.
But if you're here on general budget items, maybe we could separate
it out on that basis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That would be fair and then we
can --
MR. AGOSTON: Lady Fiala and gentlemen, my name is Ty
Agoston, and I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for the
taxpayers' action group of-- that I'm the copresident of. I wish you
would consider going to a weekly meeting that you used to have. I
believe at seven o'clock I don't think anybody's brains work properly
Page 272
November 27, 2001
anymore. When I was going to school many years ago, I was told that
you have four hours functional decision-making power.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Except for commissioners.
MR. AGOSTON: That's true. If you're a politician, you can
jump over tall buildings. But be as it may, I am -- would like to see
the public civic participation encouraged rather than discouraged.
And I believe -- you have been around a number of years, and you
know exactly what you're doing. For some people -- some of our
people left after 7 1/2 hours. And you knew this. You could have
pulled -- just the way the gentleman from Immokalee interested in the
Spanish problem or the Mexican problem that they have. And I am
sure it's very valid, but my time is as important as anybody's. Maybe
not as important as yours obviously.
But the fact of the matter is, is that you had the opportunity to
pull people -- the items that involved public participation as opposed
to -- there were a number of items here that you have spent a great
deal of time. All those participants were getting paid. So if you are
talking about just pure fairness --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ty, I appreciate that, but could you
address the agenda item that we're talking about now? I'd really
appreciate it.
MR. AGOSTON: Definitely. I would like to recommend that
you go -- you go and place indigent care per se and give it to the
voter. I believe that the amount of money that you are talking -- and I
believe that the estimates that you have are all below -- what it will
actually cost will be a whole lot more, and I believe that --- that the
voters are entitled to vote on that kind of an expenditure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may be right, but we were going
to address the other issues and have you come back on indigent care.
MR. AGOSTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll have you come back up on
Page 273
November 27, 2001
indigent care.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. This is all on the same
thing, Commissioner Coletta, 10-A, the healthcare and --
MR. AGOSTON: This was advertised, as far as I was
concerned. I'm not exactly sure why I'm prohibited on talking on a
subject that you -- I mean, should we -- are we going to carry the
public trust in the public officials down to the level where they don't
even believe what you advertise? One of you have told me not to say
anything at 9:30 this morning, to save it for this agenda item. Two of
us stayed. I could be on my third martini by this time. You know, in
all fairness, you know, let's play a fair game. I understand that you
don't consider us to be important in the scheme of things. We
certainly don't contribute a great deal to your political campaign, but
the fact of the matter is that we are also taxpayers. And ! don't
believe that we are being treated with even a modicum of respect.
And just as aside, you have approved building somewhere near a
couple of thousand dwelling units just while I was watching, and I
wasn't watching that closely. Now, your staff have called Golden
Gate Boulevard -- which I'm very familiar with -- an acceptable
scale. And when that classification has changed is when the
television cameras went out there and showed people spending an
hour traveling 5 miles. Then the staff was convinced that maybe the
classification out there was wrong.
So for you to now approve a project, some of which cars going
to go down 951 where you're discussing just an hour earlier a project
that will dump cars onto 951 on a two-lane section -- I mean, guys, I
know nothing about traffic, nothing about roads. But, I mean, you
guys hustling somebody. I mean, this is not true. Those cars coming
out of this development will impact on 951, which you have
discussed earlier as insufficient already without the new
development.
Page 274
November 27, 2001
You know, environmentalists are complaining about
overcrowding, but they are grabbing small people's properties. And
I'm primarily referring to southern Golden Gate Estates where those
people were financially raped. The big people can hire the attorneys
and defend themselves. And I consider that not exactly ethical. I
think you guys got elected here to protect the little people and allow
the large well-heeled developers to fend for themselves through their
attorneys. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Halas, and he will be
followed by Pam Brown.
MR. HALAS: Before I get started here, are we discussing
indigent healthcare or not?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. HALAS: Okay. That's what I'm here for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me. It is on 10-A.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It is, but we're going to take it as
a separate item. We're approving everything but that, and we're
going to come back, as I understand the chairman, to take that item,
debate it individually, and vote on it separately.
MS. BROWN: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me ask a procedural question
first. If we do bring it back to debate it, is it going to be tomorrow?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no. Tonight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Right now. We just cleaned it
out of this one because the rest of it's really easy.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Ty was right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I went through this last year --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My brain turned to mush.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- at my first meeting too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's okay. We're just waiting
Page 275
November 27, 2001
for you to be here so you can have the pleasure of dealing with all the
land use items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sorry I interrupted.
MS. BROWN: That's okay. My name is Pam Brown. I'm with
the Friends of the Museum. And I listened to Mr. Olliff today, and I
understand all the problems that we're having, and I know we're in a
recession right now. But I would like to think maybe you would
maybe not drop this from the budget right now and see what the TDC
tax dollars are going to be doing -- we've only got one month right
now that we're looking at -- and just postpone this decision for us
right now. We have worked so hard to get the money that, you know,
we have over there now --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean for the museums?
MS. BROWN: Yes, ma'am. I mean, you know, I've been
working with Roberts Ranch now for four or five years, and it's just
-- you know, we finally thought, boy, we've really got a good budget
this year. This is our first year. And now we are having something
taken away from us. If you could, just please maybe postpone this
part. I'm not saying don't do it, but at least postpone it until we see
what happens with the TDC money. Our money does not come out
of the general fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we're postponing it until
we see if the monies come in. That's what we're --
MS. BROWN: So not deleting it, but postponing it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's not even -- you know,
signing any contracts. That's what Mr. Olliff said. And we're pulling
that away back from the budget. And if the monies do come in --
Mr. Olliff's going to keep us posted on a regular basis -- and, you
know, what I said is let's put it on the top of the list for next year.
MS. BROWN: I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta even
Page 276
November 27, 2001
expanded upon that, is that we can -- if the monies do come in, we
can fund it.
MS. BROWN: And we need to look at the museums here in
Collier County before the botanical gardens, because we are a family
here, I think we all are, and we need to consider ourselves first before
we look at an outside museum, a private museum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you're talking about the --
MS. BROWN: The botanical gardens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought we'd be a little more exact
on that.
MS. BROWN:
yOU.
Yes, sir. I appreciate you-all listening. Thank
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Thomas, and I believe
he left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON:
MS. BROWN:
one that--
He did.
Charley Abbott, he left. Jim Underwood.
He left. I spoke for all of them.
I'm the only
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Pam.
MS. FILSON: Stephen Rasnick.
MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Indigent healthcare.
MS. FILSON: Brenda Freeland.
MS. FREELAND: It says indigent healthcare on the top of it.
MS. FILSON: Okay. It says budget also. Tom Schneider.
Okay. And Dr. Joan Colfer and Ann Campbell. MS. FILSON: Okay. That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Here we are, ladies and
gentlemen. We're on the long, long road to recovery. Is there any
discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have a second?
Page 277
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't believe we do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, we do. We got it down
here to the far right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the motion is to approve
everything except for the indigent health, which we're going to
approach immediately.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: As it's presented in the county
manager's report.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move that we accept the county
manager's recommendations less the indigent healthcare, which we're
going to discuss next.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we already have a
motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We do? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, that just reinforced it.
We have a motion and--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we've got a majority here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we only need three to do it, and
I have a feeling we're going to do all right with this part.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And let the record note that Donna
Fiala is absent at this point.
Okay. Now, going to the indigent healthcare, would you like to
start discussion, or should we listen to the speakers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Listen to the speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Great. Let them do the work;
right? Could you start the list over again and --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The first speaker is Frank Halas
Page 278
November 27, 2001
followed by Ty Agoston.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think Ty is gone.
MS. FILSON: He asked to --
MR. HALAS: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Frank Halas.
I live up in the Vanderbilt Beach area. I was here earlier this
morning, and I gave you a list of items that I thought was pertinent to
the -- cutting the budget. And I see that you people are working in
good faith, and I think this is going to project out in the community.
But I think one of the items that needs to be addressed, and that's the
-- to rescind the county's indigent healthcare ordinance as it stands as
of today and leave this up to the voters of Collier County to decide
whether they want to go forward on a issue of this nature.
The reason I bring this up is we look at the -- the actuarials for
this, there seems to be a lot of areas that will throw up a red flag in
that to start with, you're looking at 2,000 people to get involved in
this out of a possibility of 30,000 people. And right now you're going
to budget $700,000 for this 2,000 people. My understanding is that --
also that these 2,000 people is going to be basically first-come, first-
served, and there's going to be a lot of other people out there that may
want to get on this program. So it looks to me like you guys are
going to end up possibly with a liability program of somebody suing
you because they weren't one of the first 2,000 people.
As you look into the plan, you also find that this looks to me like
this is going to end up to be a county entitlement in -- where -- that if
you end up with 30,000 people that have the eligibility to get on there
-- which I'm not sure how you came up with the criteria of what the
income level was going to be for these people to get on this program.
You start looking at this, and as it stands right now, you don't even
have anybody in place that's going to administer this program, so you
really don't know what the whole program is going to run you.
And then as you look farther down into the actuarials, one of the
Page 279
November 27, 2001
things that really pops out to me and to my wife, who is basically a
healthcare consultant, and that is the pharmaceutical part of this
thing. You have no idea what this is going to -- where this is going to
head to as far as what it's going to cost the county for the
pharmaceutical part of this thing. And this is going to go at an
unpredictable expense. And to come up with somebody saying that
we feel that it's going to cost $700,000 to start with and then it may
escalate up in the first ! 8 months to $2.3 million, to me, is voodoo
economics.
I don't think that you really have a handle on this thing. I know
that you spent time with people coming in here and doing a study for
you, but their models were based on all theory and not practicality.
So I really think that before we go any farther with this thing -- and if
you read in the newspaper, you can see that the undertone is that
people feel that they should have a vote on this thing. And I wish
that you would please take the time and really look at this and this
ordinance as it is right now and withdraw it and put it on the ballot
for the whole constituency of Collier County to make a decision on
whether we should go forward on a program like this. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ty Agoston, and he will be
followed by Stephen Rasnick.
MR. AGOSTON: Good evening again. Yesterday the New
York -- the Wall Street Journal have declared that we are in a
recession. While Mr. Olliff and our budget director have made an
eloquent presentation on the inflow of capital into your coffers, I
have yet to see you getting concern with your constituents. You
know, that's those guys who send in to the tax collector that check
that's due right around December. And you have raised ad valorem
tax the first time in, what, five years or so? Does any of you are
Page 280
November 27,2001
concerned that some of these people on the working end may lose
their job because of the slacking guest industry?
And on the other side, there are a lot of retirees who have to be
absolutely clairvoyant not to take an absolutely phenomenal hit in
their portfolios. And, I mean, I am down 40 percent. I don't know --
some of you probably smarter than I am, but I'm sure that everybody
who lives off their investment got hit. Was -- I never heard anybody
mention that.
You, in my opinion, should, in addition to allowing our voters a
voice on a large expenditure such as a -- an indigent care that could --
my colleague Frank Halas mentioned certainly will blow out of
proportion and may run away with you. I want to remind you that
Mr. Gore has lost Tennessee because of healthcare because the cost
ran away with them. I mean, let's not hustle here. I mean, you know,
this is a straightforward issue. I believe that when you're talking
about the kind of money potentially you're talking about, I believe
that voters have the right and you have a duty to submit it to them.
I mean, you were very adamant on promoting your sales tax
which, by state law, you have to in order to enact it. I am sure if
there was no state law in existence, it would have gone through just
like the 20-year gas tax that was enacted here which when Mr.
Saunders enacted that around in '91 or '92, everybody was highly hurt
and insulted. Nobody could say "boo" when you have essentially tied
the hands of five sets of commissioners with a tax that is not exactly
popular. So I would like to appeal to your fairness. You know, talk
to your constituents.
You can bring in any number of people who will give you a very
tragic story. Those people are easy to find. You know, hardships are
all over. I can give you a sad song myself. You know, things aren't
as good as used to. Now, are you interested? No, you're not. People
who have a very serious problem we have provisions to take care of.
Page 281
November 27, 2001
And anything other than that, we should help all we can, but not at
the expense of the average voter without them being able to
contribute an opinion and a decision. And I thank you for your
patience, and again I would plead to you to submit this to the voter.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Stephen Rasnick, and he will
be followed by Brenda Freeland.
MR. RASNICK: Good evening, good afternoon, good morning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stick around. We'll be here at
eight o'clock tomorrow morning.
MR. RASNICK: Well, maybe not this person. My name is
Steve Rasnick. I'm a Collier County resident, and I've been
privileged to work on the healthcare committee for the last 2 1/2
years. While I understand the realities of the message that you feel
that was sent by the voters on November 6th, I feel that it's very
important for the board to make a decision based upon the 360 degree
perspective.
And as such, I wanted to lend some perspective to this entire
issue. First the perspective, yes, we are asking for $700,000, and that
represents 1/10 of 1 percent -- less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the
proposed budget this year. Okay. How much asphalt can you pour
for $700,000, and what will provide greater value to the community?
Simple question, and I know you'll come up with the right answer.
Now for a brief history of the project. The genesis of the project
and the committees came from this committee -- came from this
commission. We operated because you said that there was a problem
in this community of access to healthcare. The committee reported--
conducted a study and did report back to you that there was, indeed, a
problem for access to healthcare in this community, and you
appointed another committee, which I was on, in order to determine
Page 282
November 27, 2001
solutions.
Your second committee developed a primary healthcare solution
which we've talked about quite a bit and I won't belabor right now
because it's in writing. And some of the comments that you've heard
obviously haven't read the writing that was submitted to you and was
submitted to the public. The committee's plan, business plan and
supporting documentation, documented a clear return on investment
for Collier County taxpayers of more than 20 to 1 -- considerably
more than 20 to 1 -- through elimination of the hidden tax of provider
cost shifting that we all pay for.
In spite of the vitriolic opposition from a very vocal minority,
the board, you, voted to incorporate the proposed plan in this year's
budget by a vote of 5 to nothing. But, in all fairness, Tom, 4 to 1.
I understand there was an asterisk there because Commissioner
Henning raised an objection.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate that.
MR. RASNICK: And by that vote you were motivated by a
desire to do the right thing for the citizens of Collier County. Your
action was courageous considering all that was going on. September
11 th will change all of our lives forever. November 6th won't. The
message that was sent November 6th was that a very vocal minority
distrusts this board and feels that this board, like your predecessors,
can be pressured into action or inaction by the realities of political
expediency. Tonight you have an opportunity to prove them wrong.
I have this naive belief that we elect public officials and then
empower them to act in the best interests of the community. The
pursuit of community good will sometimes engender opposition and
place you at risk, but that's your job. And when retaining your job
becomes more important to you than doing what is right, you no
longer are an effective public servant. To allow threats from a vocal
minority and the Republican party to coerce you into changing your
Page 283
November 27, 2001
position on this project is shameful.
As for a referendum -- and we've heard a lot about this -- do we
only vote upon that which the opposition opposes? As
commissioners what is your level of empowerment? $10,0007
$100,0007 $700,000, or is it unlimited as long as TAG or the
Republican party agrees? If the "taxpayers against everything" group
think you should use Canon copiers rather than Xerox, do we put it to
a referendum? As ridiculous as it sounds, that's what they would like
to happen with the healthcare for the working poor.
Do not allow pressure from special interest groups to stop you
from doing what is right for the citizens of this community. The
project is as valuable today as when you twice previously voted for it.
I said before to this group that birth is easier than resurrection. There
is a great need today, and you agreed. And delaying this project will
only exacerbate the need. Federal funds are available, but only for
programs that are operational. And there are more than 600
communities nationwide that are doing what we've done here in
Collier County, and they're behind us, and I'd like us to get those
federal funds.
In conclusion, we all understand that you have a very difficult
job and that you inherited a real mess from your predecessor. If cuts
have to be made, make them after evaluating the return on investment
for Collier County. Remember, you initiated this project and
supported it based upon its merits, and the merits have not changed
after November 6th, only the nature of the threats to you. I urge you
to stand tall and break the history of political expediency that -- and
pandering to special interest groups that unfortunately has existed
here in Collier County for much, much too long. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Brenda Freeland, and she
will be followed by Mr. Tom Schneider.
Page 284
November 27, 2001
MS. FREELAND: You know, I was here at your last meeting.
Take a good look.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Step up, Brenda.
MS. FREELAND: This is what I live with every day. No
matter how hard you want to cut something, you can't kill it. You
want 700,000 for 2,000 people. Well, that's not bad considering I'm
already out a quarter of a million dollars before the end of the year.
Where does that leave me? I work every single day. Do you think
I'm tired? Oh, you better believe it. Do I ask for your handouts? No.
Do you see me going to Medicaid? No. I'm out there fighting. This
is for the working poor, and the working poor need it in the worst
way whether you realize it or not. That poor woman could use it, too,
whether you realize it or not.
You know what? My paycheck says Medicare and social
security. You know what? I don't see that money. Am I going to see
it by the time I'm ready to retire? No. Do you think I'm going to get
a chance to retire? No. You know, my life is short as it is, and for
the short time that I'm here, I would just like to see one program
benefit somebody so that if I want to decide if I want to quit a job and
go part time and know that I can fall back on this and say, hey, look.
I had to take time out, and I need the money. Can I get help?
But none of you see that. None of you see it at all. None of you
have no clue what a healthcare nightmare is because you know what?
You're all retired, and you have insurance. Well, I don't. And now
that I did get insurance, do you know I pay for a two-year preexisting
with a premium of $464 that I can't use? And by the first of the year,
it goes up to $510.26 for another year that I can't use. And then the
following year, for eight more months, I'm going to have to pay
another higher premium that I can't use. Where does it leave me? It
doesn't leave me anywhere.
You know, for $25,744.33 per month for this. And you know
Page 285
November 27, 2001
what? This is not going to keep me alive forever. This is only going
to sustain it. And when the bug becomes resistent, what do I do then?
I'm locked in my house, trapped, where I can't get out anywhere.
Why? Because I can't get adequate healthcare. I have to sustain with
what I can afford. You know what? I can't afford this much more.
Last time I was here I wasn't on it. On September 15th I wound
up in Naples Community Hospital with an emergency room bill of
over $15,000 on top of this. Why? Because I became so deathly ill
that when my parents found me, they decided to rush me. You know,
if I had my wish I wouldn't be here today, and I certainly wouldn't be
fighting for something. But I didn't get it, so now I am fighting for it.
You know, you think it's a joke. People out here, you know, think it's
a joke, and they want to go ahead and pressure you. Well, you know,
it's not a joke.
I'm not the only one that lives this. There are several people out
there that do, and unfortunately they also work. Do they take time
off?. No, maybe don't. Did I take time off?. No. I requested this day
off for a particular reason. Will I have to make it up? Oh, you better
believe it, double shifts, getting up at three o'clock in the morning to
be at work two hours up the road and then having to stay till midnight
and then drive home two hours. Do you know what that puts me --
that puts me at even a more risk. Why? Because not only am I sick,
now I'm tired. Now I'm on a dangerous road. Now I'm driving
home.
None of you see it. None of you absolutely see it. You're
blinded and that's wrong. You shouldn't be. You know, it says here
"United We Stand." Health people can't stand. Do you think I'd be
sitting here without this standing? No. It's more like united we
divide. If you're going to stay together, stay together. You
implemented it. You knew the budget cut. When we had the
September attacks, we sat back here two weeks after that. You went
Page 286
November 27, 2001
ahead and gave the public it. Keep it. It's not going to kill you. It's
not going to kill anybody in this room to give up $5.40 out of
property taxes. You know what? I'll be the first one to give it out
every frigging week. It's not going to kill any of you, not a single
person. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Brenda.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Tom Schneider followed by the last speaker
which will be Dr. Joan Colfer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we already vote on that other
one, or are these still the 12 speakers?
MS. FILSON: They were -- there was 12 total.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There was 12 total. Some of
them spoke on the general budget.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, we did vote on the other one
already?
Can I add my vote to a yes or--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want it to be a solid 5-0.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Tom.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm Tom
Schneider, and I have been a member of both healthcare committees
appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. For the record, I
did not volunteer for these committees. I was asked to join and to
represent Greater Naples Civic Association, GNCA. I have been a
registered Republican my entire adult life, and I believe that my
political philosophy is perfectly in sync with President Bush's call for
compassionate conservativism.
I was vice-chair of the initial committee charged with
determining if there was a problem in accessing healthcare by a large
number of our residents. I was chair of the second committee
charged with finding a solution and recommending a source of
Page 287
November 27, 2001
funding. I am a retired partner with a major international CPA firm.
I have no connection with any healthcare organization in this
community or elsewhere, and I had no preconceived notions before
my involvement.
A previous board of county commissioners agreed with our
original committee's finding that we, indeed, have a huge problem,
and they agreed to appoint a second committee, which was comprised
mostly of business and community leaders and financial executives.
This board more than once made the courageous decision to adopt
our recommendation to form a neighborhood clinic to provide
primary care for the uninsured working poor, and you only did it after
significant due diligence, including a five-hour-plus workshop where
we answered each and every one of your concerns.
And despite strong opposition from a very vocal minority of
people against everything, you did what you knew was the right thing
for thousands of our hardworking but disadvantaged residents. You
recognized that our committee had come up with a creative, sensible,
and cost-effective plan to provide primary care for our uninsured
working poor.
And by agreeing to establish and fund a neighborhood clinic in
the Greater Naples area, you knew that you were enabling thousands
to have a medical home with continuity of care and continuity of
medical records and providing them a chance to manage chronic
illnesses like diabetes and hypertension and, most importantly, giving
them a chance for early detection of life-threatening illnesses such as
cancer and heart disease.
You understood how economically attractive our plan was for
the entire community with an average cost of $300 or less per person
per year versus the average annual cost throughout the United States
of over $4500 per year. And this was due largely to our planned
Collier We Care Program wherein the hospitals and the specialist
Page 288
November 27,2001
physicians in this community were agreeing to provide all needed
care beyond primary care. And when you do the math, you can see
that the county is being asked to fund less than 10 percent of the cost
of the annual healthcare for these people.
You also grasped the concept of earlier primary care being
cheaper care, and you agreed that this program would reclaim the
emergency rooms to be the safety net for all of us for true
emergencies.
You also understood that the federal and state governments were
beginning to put substantial resources behind federally qualified
community health centers as the best way to deliver quality
healthcare to the disadvantaged throughout the nation and that we,
Collier County, only had a chance to share in some of these funds if
we had a track record of funding, ourselves, such organizations here
in Collier County. In effect, a taxpayer-supported local healthcare
plan using Collier Health Services, Inc., which is our federally
qualified healthcare community plan to deliver the care, is likely the
only hope for any ultimate sharing of the state and federal
government in the cost of this program.
Now, I realize that much has happened since the time that you
made this courageous decision, including the terrorist attack on
America of September 11 th, the recessionary economy and the
expected loss of some tourist revenue in Collier County and
throughout Florida with its likely impact on state and local
government budgets, and the recent defeat of the sales tax
referendum on the roads, but none of these should cause you to
change your vote to initiate and fund our recommended healthcare
program. The need is still great. The plan is still right.
And if today you reverse your recent courageous decision, it
will, indeed, be a low point in the history of Collier County, for you
will have caved in to political pressure from a vocal minority, many
Page 289
November 27, 2001
of who have a history of being against everything new and positive.
Further, you will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to attract
competent citizens to agree to serve on any board-appointed
committees to identify and help resolve any community-wide
problem.
The members of our committees know more about this issue
than most anyone in our community. We have studied both the
problem and alternative, successful solutions throughout the state and
the nation. None of our vocal critics have ever bothered to attend a
single meeting of ours or indicated any hint of a willingness to
dialogue with us to find consensus.
So I urge you to hang tough, to continue to do what you know is
the right thing, to throw politics as we know it out the window. I
urge you to approve the $700,000 budgeted to enable the Collier
County Public Health Department to finance the establishment of a
neighborhood clinic to provide primary care to the community's
uninsured working poor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tom, I want to thank you and your
committee for everything they have done. I really do.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you. I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to take just two minutes
here for the stenographer to switch out and get relief for the poor lady
that's been at it forever.
(A discussion was held off the record.)
MS. FILSON: Your last speaker is Dr. Joan Colfer.
DR. COLFER: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
I'm Dr. Joan Colfer. I'm your director of the Collier County Health
Department. I've also been involved with both of your appointed
boards directed to look and assess the needs for primary care and
come up with solutions to offer you.
VOICE: Is the sound on?
Page 290
November 27, 2001
DR. COLFER:
any better? VOICE: Yes.
DR. COLFER: Maybe it's me.
speakers. Thank you.
It doesn't seem to be working, does it? Is that
I'm taller than most of your
At your previous meeting in November, you removed money for
primary care from the health department's core contract. I realize that
you have many projects, need your time, your attention and,
unfortunately, your funding. Probably none of the projects that you
have looked at have received the community input or come under as
much scrutiny as this particular one.
You have several courses at your disposal at this juncture that
you could take. I, of course, would prefer that we be permitted to
move ahead with plans to open a primary care clinic in Naples by
April 1. A previous speaker talked about the fact that there was no
administrative folks in place to do this. And, indeed, I had already
moved some folks around in my shop in hopes of being able to move
ahead in this regard. We do have administrative people and you have
me.
However, we have yet to see the final results of the special
legislative session that started today in Tallahassee and what the
impact will be for all of us in Collier County.
My request, therefore, is to ask that at the very least you put
aside the $700,000 in reserve. Perhaps we could request in the
interim time that Commissioner Coletta's new committee review the
plan. If there's flaws in it, if there's things that we need to fix, putting
it in reserve would allow us the time to take those things into
consideration.
The other thing that putting the money aside in reserves would
do is at least give us the opportunity to stay in the loop for other
potential state and federal funding for primary care. Other Florida
Page 291
November 27, 2001
communities have been successful in receiving federal CAP grants.
And we've talked to you about those before during the workshop.
CAP stands for community access grants for primary care. However,
as my friend and colleague, Mr. Rasnick, mentioned, you do have to
have a demonstrated effort. You do have to have something up and
running. You do have to show that match -- those matching dollars.
In addition, the state health department has just recently
requested $4.6 million as part of their legislative budget request for
next year for primary care. They will also require a match of some
kind. These funds, interestly, are earmarked for the provision of
primary care, but they're also targeted to go to community health
centers or federally qualified health centers. I think it's important to
note that the plan put forth by your healthcare planning and finance
committee also recommended using the federally qualified health
center that we have here, and that's Collier Health Services, Inc.
In addition, it is part of my efforts to move our project ahead
because I thought we did have a funded project. On October 25th we
put a letter out to all the -- all the people in town that we thought
would be interested providers of this service and not an RFP process
but something called a request for information. The only person that
responded was our federally qualified health center, Collier Health
Services, Inc. And, indeed, those were the only people that would be
eligible for these new state dollars, if indeed they survive the budget
process.
In summary, as your director of public health, I do request that
at the very minimum you put this money aside. It gives you choices.
It gives you time. It gives you options, time to realize the budget
shortfalls we may all have to suffer through, the option to perhaps
give this to another committee to look at, and it provides a future
opportunity to capture state and federal dollars. So I would ask that
at the very least you put the money aside. Thank you.
Page 292
November 27, 2001
I have also been asked to read Ann Campbell's statement. She
was here earlier and had another engagement she had to leave for. So
if I may, I'll read her statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Voters.
She's from the League of Women
DR. COLFER: She was here today. She wanted to speak on
behalf of the League of Women Voters of Collier County. She came
here today to urge you to find some way to preserve the funds
previously budgeted for primary care for the uninsured working poor.
For several years at the behest of the county commission, citizens of
this community have studied the health problems of the uninsured,
and they learned about that ripple effect that a large amount of
uncompensated care has on our community.
In the past two years, thanks to the worth -- work of the
healthcare committee, the needs have been very well documented.
The plan's workable. As it has been pointed out, the community as a
whole will benefit.
I realize that pressures of state budget cuts come into play, but
there must be a way to save this program. I'm afraid that it will never
be resurrected. The uninformed and misinformed naysayers in the
community will have won. I urge you, please, to rise above the fray.
Please retain the amount funded for primary care for the working
poor of Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any questions that you have
for doctor--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have one question for
Dr. Colfer.
DR. COLFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At the current level of healthcare
benefits for the first year would you be able to assist Miss Freeland at
all and to what extent? She's -- she has healthcare expenses of
Page 293
November 27, 2001
$25,000 a month, as I understand it.
MS. FREEDLAND: It's actually $25,744.33 per month.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can -- can you -- how would you
provide -- twenty-five thousand seven hun --
DR. COLFER: The program is not -- the program isn't and,
unfortunately, wasn't designed to take care of Miss Freedland as ill as
she has become. The program was designed for a pri -- as a primary-
care program.
I don't know a lot about Miss Freedland or what her particular
problems are, but I assume that she's under a specialist's care. This
program, had we had it in place and been able to work with Miss
Freedland early on, hopefully we would have been able to diagnose
her problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me just one
second. I'm talking about Tom, Tom Schneider behind you.
DR. COLFER: Yeah. And then feed her into the ancillary
program that we've worked hard to develop, which is the We-Care
program. That's a program that local doctor-- local doctors,
specialists join together as part of their medical association, and we
have an agreement from them that they would work cooperatively
with this new program for indigent care -- or primary care and take
people on that have more complicated probleMs. This is simply a
primary-care program, but we do have the referral resources.
And, in addition, we've worked with Naples Community
Hospital and has agreed to take patients on an in-patient basis. So we
believe we have all the bases covered. It's just that it hasn't been in
place to help somebody who has become as sick, unfortunately, as
Miss Freedland has at this point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this program would not help
her.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Could I?
Page 294
November 27, 2001
DR. COLFER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. -- it's not fair to the other
items that have to come up, continue on with speakers coming up to
the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we have questions being
asked, and staff can't answer the questions. And, basically, Dr.
Colfer is a member of staff. I don't think that this is unappropriate at
all. If the rest of the board does not agree with me, I'd like them to
say so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I understand there was a
question of Dr. Colfer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, she needs -- she -- she's calling
on a person that's working with her on this whole program.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need answers on this, Tom. We
can't cut the process short just for the convenience of some other
people.
MR. SCHNEIDER: The only thing I would add is that our
income qualification was 150 percent of federal poverty. So for a
family of 4, that's about 25,000 a year. For an individual it's much
less, about $12,000, so that depending on her income levels and her
family status would determine whether or not she would qualify for a
plan. If she did qualify for this plan, being working uninsured at a
poverty -- at a total income level, family income level below those
numbers I mentioned to you, then she would qualify to be member of
this plan, and then we would expect with the Collier We-Care
program that Dr. Colfer collaborated on that I talked about earlier in
my talk, then we would expect that she would be qualified to be seen
for free by specialists, physicians by Naples Community Hospital or
the Cleveland Clinic on some rotating basis so that depending on her
income level, she -- if she would qualify for the plan, then our plan
Page 295
November 27, 2001
would take care of her or people like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So under the primary care level of
benefits, you're going to be dealing with such acute cases as this so
that Ms. Freedland will not have to incur $25,000 a month in
healthcare expenses; is that correct?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, if her income level qualified her for
the plan and if we are successful, which we have every reason to
believe that we will be able to create this Collier We-Care, then we
would expect that people with serious illnesses like hers would, in
fact, receive quality care at no expense to the county and at no
expense to themselves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we -- We-Care and the primary
care aren't the same thing.
MR. SCHNEIDER: No. But we have -- we have put together a
combined program that would have both of those features. We are
asking the county to fund the primary care, and we have talked to the
rest of the provider community, including both hospitals, and we've
got a unanimous decision from the executive board of the medical
society to work with us to create, to encourage all of the specialists,
physicians in the community or a large portion of them to agree to
take our referrals from our primary care physicians for specialty care
and to treat them for nothing on a pro bono basis.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more question, just in
cooperation with yours, Commissioner Coyle. So now we're talking
two separate programs here. One will -- one will refer to the other,
but the taxpayers don't pay for the We-Care. That's something
completely different, but that has nothing to do with that.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That is correct. There is a We-Care in
about 25 counties already that does pretty much exactly the same
thing, so we have a good model for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But nothing out of taxpayers'
Page 296
November 27, 2001
pockets.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Nothing out of the taxpayers' pockets.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In any of those counties.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. That's it. But when we
spoke to Miss Freedland, we were talking about her expenses each
month. Don't you have a cap for a whole year that a person can -- the
way I understood from reading all of the material I received was $750
per person per year period; right?
MR. SCHNEIDER: No. I don't think so. What's -- oh, no.
That's for-- that's for--
DR. COLFER: That's for the primary care.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That's for primary drugs. That's for -- that
is for pharmaceuticals of a primary nature based on a limited
formulary that would be set up. What we're talking about, her -- most
of her expenses would be part of the We-Care, and that would be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which has nothing do with us.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is confusing us.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Well, I'm sorry but--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But one is an integral part of the
other. You can't have one without the other.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well -- I'm sorry. If we did have one
without the other, then all of the people that came to us through the
primary and qualified for our plan and had significant problems and
went beyond being treated by a family practitioner, then they would
have to go to the emergency room or the hospital, and the hospital
would have to take care of them, so they would be no worse off than
they would otherwise. They would still seek the same avenues of
treatment that they would, but we're hoping to create and we expect
to be successful in creating this We-Care program where instead of
Page 297
November 27, 2001
going to the emergency room that there would be an automatic
referral most likely in the offices of the medical society where they
would identify -- have a computer list of every physician that's agreed
to do it and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But don't get --
MR. SCHNEIDER: But they would rotate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- paid by the taxpayers.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Not -- nothing by the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Okay. Now, somebody else
brought up a problem that they -- I'm sorry. I'm just taking over --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's okay. Ladies first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They spoke of pharmaceuticals,
and -- and they said that they were afraid that that would be a
runaway cost. Tell us about that.
DR. COLFER: Well, that's -- as Tom just said, we have a cap of
$750. That would -- that would be it. The other way --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Per year.
DR. COLFER: Yeah. And the other way that we would control
that is that there's a set formulary that -- that we -- we will design.
But we said in the plan that there would be a formulary. What that
does for you, it says we will only pay for certain drugs. And if the
physicians prescribed something, you know, that's brand new that
some drug salesman came along with that costs a fortune, it's not
going to be on the formulary.
The beauty of this program in having the control of having one
provider is that it's our provider, and they understand the concepts of
the plan, so they're not going to prescribe, you know, the very
expensive drugs. They're going to know what's in the formulary and
what they can prescribe. Now, is it possible something could be
prescribed outside of the formulary, we wouldn't have it? Yes, that's
true, and that person would then have to pay for it out of pocket.
Page 298
November 27, 2001
Again, as Tom said, they'd be no worse off in that program than they
are today. At least some of the drugs would be -- probably most of
the drugs would be covered by the formulary. Does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions? Mr.
Coyle, you look like you're thinking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'm-- I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So was I, so ask your question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Hopefully Miss Freedland
is not having to pay $25,000 out of her own pocket right now. You
must have a very, very good job.
MS. FREEDLAND: Yeah. I'd say I have a very good job.
Unfortunately because they moved to Sebring, Florida, I now have to
travel two hours every day to work one way. Can my health continue
it? No, as my physician said so, plenty of times. Does he implement
that it's -- by the end of the year that I'll be standing here looking at
something maybe? No, it doesn't.
My current lab values have gone back up. They're -- just at
pledge cultures because now they're afraid that I'm going to have
another attack with the staph and strep and the pseudomonas that was
in the bloodstream the last time. And do I think the antibiotics and
stuff are working? No. Because I'm so sensitive. And with all the
allergy testing that they have done and as many times as I wind up in
the ER having to be incubated (sic) because of the allergy testing,
there's not -- nothing left out there much more for me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I guess -- I guess my question
really is this: If there are people who are willing to provide people
like Mrs. Freeland free care -- and there must be people willing to do
that because they're in the We-Care program-- if she's not in the -- in
-- in this so-called indigent care program, those people are still going
Page 299
November 27, 2001
to treat Mrs. Freeland. And they--
MS. Freeland: I beg to differ on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No better -- no different than --
MS. Freeland: An example would be the Southwest Regional
Wound Care Clinic that I was referred to. Just to walk through their
front door, it's $863.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But it won't be changed if
you belong to this indigent care facility because the indigent care --
MS. Freeland: It does -- it does change because what happens is
my job status changed. I dropped down to an income level that I can
become part of this program.
What happens is I go to the Collier County Health Department; I
get assessed. They, in return, fer -- refer me out to the We-Care plan,
which now I don't have to put out all the money that I put out every
month. I don't have to work three jobs just to afford healthcare.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you can't participate in the
We-Care program unless so-called indigent care program is --
DR. COLFER: That's correct.
MS. Freeland: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So people who will agree to treat
you free of charge throughout indigent care program will refuse to
treat you free of charge if you're not --
MS. Freeland: Basically they're doing it right now, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So let me get this straight. If
you drop your income level, then you can qualify for it?
MS. Freeland: Yes. I'd have to drop to, one, being my full time
and another part-time position. I would just have to take one part-
time position job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you did that, wouldn't that
qualify you for Medicaid?
MS. Freeland: No, it doesn't.
Page 300
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Medicaid you can't work at all.
MS. Freeland: You can't work at all.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. Freeland: The reason I am-- I am for this program. It's
definitely needed; there's no doubt in my mind. I'm a living example
who lives a healthcare nightmare. I mean, I don't know what else
more to say--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta --
MS. FREELAND: -- you know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know what I would -- I
would hate to do is for us to fund this and not fund it next year. And
that is the true question that Tom Olliffbrought up. If you're willing
to fund this program this year, you've got to be committed to fund it
the previous year (sic) because of the contract. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Next year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That wasn't the only option. But
think of it this way too. People like Brenda are going to be dying
shortly. There are going to be more people dying as time goes along;
they're going to be falling between the cracks. $26,000 for a family
of 4, I don't know anybody that makes that kind of an income, to be
honest with you. But there are obviously people out there that do
and --
MS. Freeland: And, you know, you don't necessarily have to
fund it, Mr. Henning, as I've pointed it out once before. There are
programs out there, one being the Hilburton Care-Free Plan Act that
was implemented in 1946. It was basically for hospitals and nursing
care homes. But they put in provisions where we can go ahead and
go after them. Brevard County is a prime example of who uses the
Hilburton Care-Free Act, and their clinic funds to a full potential, and
they're doing great.
Page 3 01
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any more questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not from me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
Are there some other speakers?
MS. FILSON: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Time for discussion, I guess.
Who wants to go first?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'll tell you --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Let Donna tell me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think we all learned a lot
tonight. I -- I don't think I like the idea of starting a brand new clinic.
I'd love to see them work with the public health unit now because
then you -- you -- you conserve your dollars, and you're not building
anything new; they've already got personnel. But I'm not going to tell
them what to do right now. What I'm going to say is I feel they had a
very good idea in putting aside these dollars, putting them in a
reserve until the program is more established and -- and -- and we
have more answers. As you were saying, there were still some things
that -- that are left unsaid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I remember you pulled this
from the agenda last time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that your concerns
was -- were what we have here today, is because of cuts that are
happening in Tallahassee and some of the things that you know that
we need to do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what you're saying is you're
not in favor of cutting this anymore; you just want to put it off?.
Page 302
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- well, I guess I do until I see
what's going to happen to us nationally and internationally. I -- I
think we've been hit real hard right now, and we're not spending the
money. We can always -- if we need to build, you know, 4 inches of
road, we can always use it to do that. But -- but right now we're just
putting it aside, but we're still allowing them to move forward. I
think we need more input on it really, Tom. I don't like the idea of
hiring staff. I don't like the idea of building a building. That-- that--
that doesn't -- that doesn't hit me real well. I don't want to do that. I
want to see where we could work with the public health unit, and I
shouldn't be telling them what to do, you know, but I'll -- I'll give
them some -- some suggestions. In a building that's already there,
and they might say, well, we all -- we're already on overflow. Wait a
minute. I think they should be working nights and weekends. That's
when the people who are working during the day need the healthcare.
So hire some extra personnel to do that or shift the personnel around.
They got an administrator in place; I think it would save a lot of
dollars. We'd accomplish what we're looking for. And if the public
health unit is in a strategic place, everybody knows how to get there.
Anybody who needs healthcare, they all know how to get there; I
think it would save us a lot of dollars. And I'd say -- so to me, that --
that's where I was going with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What happens with the ad
valorem tax increase that went to fund the initial $700,000.9
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can answer that. It was -- it was
disbanded. That was the stupidest idea that we ever came up with on
this commission, well, you know, 1/10 of a mill.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That didn't happen.
Page 303
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. What happened is we put
everything back in the line items.
A couple of things you've got to understand, Fred. The concept
of a clinic is not new. There's been clinics here in Collier County at
least twice before, and for budget reasons back then they were cut.
So that's nothing that's knew what we're looking at.
But, however, let me shed some new light. This has become one
of my babies that I kind of wonder how I ever got into this dog fight,
but I'm in it now for -- for a longer life or whatever. I've got a
committee that's starting up, which is basically the hospitals. It's --
it's all the major medical providers. And this committee is going to
be operating without county expenses, a little bit of staff help. But
basically it's not going to be having a budget to be able to spend any
large amounts of money. It's going to be operating in the
background, but it's going to be making reports. It's going to be open
meetings, the whole business. We won't even have a secretary from
the county. We'll have our own secretary, try to hold costs down.
We have some innovative ideas that we'd like to bring forward --
there's never an idea that's ever going to be perfect. You can take
anything that comes out. It's better to probably rebuild and make it a
little bit better and then start with one and keep going.
The health committee has come up with an excellent idea.
Obviously in its present format it's not being well received for
reasons that escapes me at times. But then again, too, I've been so
close to the situation, maybe I can't see the trees for the forest. And I
know somebody's going to play with that one. Excuse me. I didn't
mean to get off of the beaten path.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The woods.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Here we are with it. We -- we have
similar possibilities I'd like to look into. Kathleen Passidomo has
recently offered her help and her father who is a physician to come
Page 304
November 27, 2001
up with a way that would be next to nothing in dollars. I met another
person in another county who was explaining to me -- I attend the
Florida Association of County meetings, that they have a plan in
place that they have a private charity that runs it. They put a total of
$200,000 into it, and they get 2 million in benefits. What I'm looking
for is nothing more than to give me a chance, nine months, a year.
Let this money sit in reserves. It's not going anyplace, gain interest
on it. Nothing can happen until this commission okays it to be able
to see if I can come up with something that would be of the lowest
possible cost and still offer a service to the community.
You mentioned a little while ago the things we have to
concentrate on, and I couldn't agree with you more: The health,
safety and welfare of the community. And this is the -- one of the
health elements. It's not a popular one. It never has been, and it
never will be. And there's no forum that we'll ever be able to take
probably that it will be. And I expect that my committee and myself
will take a beating from now until eternity. They'll probably put it on
my gravestone, you know, here lies the man that served on the health
service committee. I don't know.
But I wanted to give you a background. I'm willing -- and
believe me, I got a lot of commitments now. But I'm willing to take
on another commitment and move this forward, not spend a dollar of
this money, keep it in a reserve. Nobody can touch the sucker until
we come back to you and we say, "Now, this is the greatest plan in
the world we've got." At that point you can reject that one, and we'll
maybe go back and do another one. Have a time line on it. And if
we can't come through with it, then that ends it. Well, I'll never give
up. I've got to be honest with you. This never ends. As long as I'm
alive, breathing on this commission or out in the audience, I'm
committed that the public health of this county is going to be
provided for, not only this, mosquito spraying, trauma center. I want
Page 305
November 27, 2001
to see some major improvements made for the private industry. But
I'll never quit, and I'll never stop. And I hope that you see what I am
trying to say.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I do. And I'm no less
sympathetic to those problems than anyone else, but -- but I am
concerned about entitlement programs because my experience
indicates that once started, they don't ever end. And-- and they begin
to get more and more expensive year after year after year, and -- and
government is notorious for getting involved in these programs and
mismanagement.
Now, there is -- you can present-- you can walk an army of
consultants through that door and tell me that a few clerks can do
this, and I'm not going to believe it because I've seen it before. And
-- and this doesn't come from a position of political expediency, but it
comes from a position of over 20 years of consulting in the healthcare
business.
And if there's anything that the government does badly, it's
healthcare. And if-- if we can somehow find a way through a
partnership, solve this problem--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Eureka.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with contributions of the
employees and employers, I believe that -- that we can solve this
problem. But titling it as an indigent care program --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a stupid title.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- is -- is a bad way to proceed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was a bad title, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we're going to have an ongoing
funding mechanism for this, I think we really should take it to the
voters. It -- it's not an issue of being courageous. You know, I have
no -- no political dog in this fight. So I -- I -- I think what we have to
Page 306
November 27, 2001
do is manage our money wisely. And if we can find a way -- and I --
with you, I believe there is a way to do this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Fred.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But let's -- let's not establish a
program that is going to require open-ended commitments to us. And
we already see how it's going to escalate over the first couple of
years. I mean, it's escalating dramatically. And in order to provide
the care to these people that we want to provide, we're going to have
to shell out millions and millions and millions of dollars. And I don't
think we're prepared to do that under the current circumstances. That
-- and once we start it, it is really cruel to say to somebody, "Well, we
helped you last year, but you're on your own from here on out." And
-- and I -- I just think that we -- we need to rethink that concept and
terminate the indigent care program. And if we want to look at some
other alternative, I 'd -- I'd be all willing to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all, when those-- I
guess what you see is you got stuck with this committee.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I'm not stuck. It's quite a chore.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- I think I remember, but I
could look up the minutes and when it was decided on, and I'll be
glad to share that with you in the future. But I would -- I'm going to
bring up the same thing I did during the budget -- last budget hearing
is bring forward all the health-care needs in Collier County. Now,
you wanted a trauma center in Collier County. Let's bring all those
up. Let the -- the, like you -- I've heard you on the radio. Let the
people come forward under a petition asking us to put this on a ballot
referendum for funding it. And let the people out there defend it.
And we don't have to sit up here and defend it. And I think this is
what the majority of the people said out there to us is they just want
to get a chance to vote on it. When they got a chance, a lot of things
Page 307
November 27, 2001
were aired out during the last referendum. And we don't have to get
into that fight.
But, again, if TAG wants to take it on as a project against it,
look at it, tear it apart, let the health-care people defend it, show it
how -- how -- what a benefit it is going to be to the community, and
let's get out of this. So -- I think that's the way to do it is through
your committee, bringing back whole bunches of suggestions --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Suggestions will have no meaning if
we don't know there's going to be some funding available for it. And
what I suggest is that we -- we put together a pilot program, improve
its worth. And I've got to be able to have some sort of commitment
to be able to make it work from this committee, this commitment --
this commission. Without that we're just twiddling our thumbs. You
know, we'll be coming back here year after year. The program -- the
committee will have a different name every year like it's had in the
past. Now is the time to start taking some positive action. Bank this
money. Let me make an approach to it, and if it doesn't work, it
doesn't work. I'll come back, and you'll say, "Hey, you just wasted a
whole year, Buster. Let's just chuck this thing and forget it."
DR. COLFER: In all honesty --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And -- and, also, I think if we put it
aside, then we are eligible for the matching dollars right now. So
from the federal and state --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
was.
No, no. That's not true. I wish there
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You would have to get up -- have an
active program to be eligible. In other words, you can't just say we've
got money that's committed for a future program, now we can get
matching dollars. That -- that wouldn't work.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think Fred had another
Page 308
November 27, 2001
good --
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
good point, please continue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Can I -- can I --
If you were going to say I had a
Yes, you did. It was, like,
renaming it. I -- I totally agree. That is the worst name I ever heard,
"indigent care." The only indigents that can get any dollars are the
ones that are on Medicaid. They -- this -- this program isn't for
indigents. It's for working people. If you're indigent, you don't --
you're not eligible.
The second thing is, we were talking about -- or you mentioned
entitlements, and I -- I thought -- I think Medicare is an entitlement,
isn't it? Is social security entitlement?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
pensions? Is that an entitlement?
Yes.
How about -- how about even
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. Those are --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's something you've already
earned. You just get Medicare and social security as an entitlement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if-- if-- if I could just address
the one point, Commissioner Coletta, I believe that there is a sincere
interest in the community to do something about this problem. And
making that assumption, it seems to me that that is sufficient
motivation for people to sit down at the table and try to come up with
a good idea. I don't think we need to waive $700,000 in front of them
to entice them to start thinking about how to solve this problem. And
-- and -- and I -- I understand that -- that it makes the job easier. But
from the standpoint of expenditures, I'd much rather be in a -- in a
position of, say, you've come up with a good idea, let's fund that
thing rather than just saying, here's $700,000, go find a good idea.
And -- and -- and so I -- it's sort of the chicken-and-the-egg situation.
Page 309
November 27, 2001
I guess I would rather hear the good ideas and have us jointly decide
upon one of them and then proceed.
But I -- I would make a proposal that -- that we terminate this
program as it is now, and I'd put that in the form of a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. At this point in time we've
got a motion on the floor and a second. Discussion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Reflections: We're -- wait a
minute. In Orlando, the Florida Association of Counties, Dr. Okinobi
(phonetic), the new director of health, the State of Florida, said his
number-one mission is the strength of the infrastructure of the
counties, fire, EMS, sheriff, because these are the groups that respond
to any and all emergencies, no matter what happens. He is looking
for every way to bring federal dollars into the State of Florida to
strengthen that infrastructure. He also acknowledged to me in the
meeting and privately your greatest at-risk population for any type of
disease, whether it would just be an outbreak by natural causes or one
that was induced by some other method, is the people who are at risk.
These are the people that you're trying to do something with.
So going with this thinking, I don't know what he's going to
achieve. So I would like to have the time, while I'm in favor of
delaying, reserving this $700,000, it does not get spent, but it gives us
an opportunity to hear any and all programs from whatever source so
that we can revisit this throughout this budget year to find out, is
there any opportunity to do anything? I don't know. But if I reserve
it, I haven't spent it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's already there. I mean, the
$700,000 that's in this budget is not going anywhere if you reserve it.
It just stays there and maybe have to be absorbed for other -- other
reasons. I don't know that either. But I hate to, at this point, not find
Page 310
November 27, 2001
out what's going to go on through this federal process down into the
states which through a grant through public health they achieve what
we're trying to do in some format. And I don't know all the answers
to that, Commissioner, but I know you're going to be setting up a
committee that's looking at all this.
So that's why I'm in favor of delaying the funding, reserving it
and not making a decision at this point when I don't have all of the
options answered here, because there's a lot of things going on which
I couldn't answer tonight. I have no idea until that takes place. But I
was so impressed by what he said that it gave me hope that there may
be a federal process where we get some back of our tax dollars that
we pay in income tax back into this state to be utilized on a local
level. But he also said if you don't have some kind of mechanism to
match whatever small amount it is, you lose those opportunities. But
if we use Lake Trafford, we took 2 million local dollars and
leveraged it for 16 million state and federal dollars to clean up a lake.
So I'm looking for the same kind of formulation in this process
with the controls. And I'm hearing what Commissioner Coyle is
saying. And I agree. You've got to have all kinds of controls on this.
And I value -- you have 20 years of looking at all of the good, the bad
and the ugly and probably ugly --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mostly ugly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's what I'm looking for.
That's my reflection in terms of this, is that I really would be more
comfortable with delaying and reserving the 700,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I feel the same way too. Meanwhile,
unless somebody has something else to say, let's put it to a vote.
Tom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What -- we're cutting
this program, but I think all this money is going into reserves; am I
correct?
Page 311
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we cut this program.
MR. OLLIFF: If the board voted to cut the program, my
recommendation would be like with the other prograMs. We do a
budget amendment and we move the monies back into your reserve
fund. This is currently in your public health department budget. If
I'm correct, that's a general fund department. That would go back
into your general fund reserves.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So-- so the money goes into
reserves either way. If we cut the program, the money goes into the
reserves. If we delay the program, the money goes into reserves.
MR. OLLIFF: That's the board's decision. If you delay the
program, you can leave the money in the public health department
budget, or you can give us direction to allo -- to do a budget
amendment and actually move the funds --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But if you're delaying the
program, what you're saying is the indigent healthcare program is a
good program. We're just going to delay its implementation. If you
cut the program and put it into the reserve and then you look for
alternatives --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- then you always have the
reserves that you can fund that --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, if the reserves are there.
You've got to remember now, the amount of money we're talking
about would pave approximately a quarter of a mile of road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not talking about paving roads.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, that's a big concern of mine
too. But you're probably correct on that. But what I'm looking for is
encouragement for this committee to go out and work. I give you the
right to be able to reject it at any point in time. But let me give them
the reason to be able to work on this. I mean, it was a major feat to
Page 312
November 27, 2001
be able to get this board to agree originally with the health
department to put money in reserve to see what they would come up
with, to give them the encouragement, to give them the ability to be
able to negotiate. Nothing can happen without your permission. And
at the end if this doesn't work, it's not going to work, then it's not
going to be for the lack of trying. It's not going to be for the lack of
commitment. It's just going to mean that it's not compatible with
Collier County. God help me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So if you reserve it -- I mean,
you delay it, it's still in our budget, but they can't spend it without our
approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Number two, if we decide we
can't find anything that will work, we can always pull it back into the
reserve where it is never spent on that item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Meanwhile, my committee will have
a deadline in the fact that if they don't move in a reasonable period of
time to make this work, then they're going to -- they're going to
realize that everything is lost.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I give you ten years.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I have 11 ?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. It's getting a little late to
even laugh at these things anymore, you know.
Okay. I think we had enough discussions. The motion before us
is to -- to cut it and just put it into the reserve account rather than to
hold it for future discussion. And so with that I'll go ahead and ask
for the vote. All those in favor of this motion indicate by saying aye.
(Those in favor responded.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those opposed?
(Those opposed responded.)
Page 313
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now can we get a new
motion?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I need clarification. I
don't know how many were in favor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry. There was -- and it's best
to mention the names.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Make-- make sure the
names are there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Coyle were in favor of disbanding the program and
returning the money to reserves. Commissioner Carter;
Commissioner Fiala; and myself, Commissioner Coletta, voted
against the motion.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would make a motion that
we delay the funding decision and none of the money can be spent
until it's approved by this board. It stays in the public health budget.
And if by the next budget cycle meeting we get into June -- we want
to put that in there -- we get into the June era if you guys haven't
figured out anything we can do, then I would like it removed and put
into -- into the -- into the general fund. So I'm going to stage my
motion that says you have until the June budget cycle, end of June --
end of June. It's delayed, and nothing can be done by anybody until
it's approved by the board. It stays in the public health budget. And
at the end of that period if we haven't come up with a workable
solution, it then gets pulled into the general fund.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just--just one thing with that. If it
stays in the budget, I mean, in-- in the budget for public health, we're
not getting any interest on it. Can it be set up in a special interest-
bearing account?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd defer that to Mike and Tom to
Page 314
November 27, 2001
find someplace to put it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problem where it is. I trust
this county government that if we tell them what to do --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think all of our-- all of our
reserves are in interest-bearing accounts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we can put it in an interest-
bearing account and tag it for this reason.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's my motion. Is that -- is
that clear, Mr. Olliff?. It's staged, delay it until June 30th to allow this
committee an opportunity to look at any and all options, and nothing
can be spent in any manner, shape, or form unless approved by this
board, and at the end of June 30th if we haven't found a workable
solution or ideas, it then goes -- it's removed and goes back to the
general.
MR. OLLIFF: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just hope the people show up for
the first committee meeting.
Okay. Is there any more discussion on --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Anybody second it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second it. Forgive me.
Is there any other discussion on this motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. In that case, then, I'll ask for
in favor of the motion indicating by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 315
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My, gosh. That call sounded very
familiar. That's quite all right. That's why we're here, to keep the
discussion going.
Okay. Was that the end of what we were dealing with on those
issues?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. Except, perhaps, for some discussion
on the board's part about what or how in terms of format you want to
bring other items that board members themselves may want to
discuss. I think we kind of left that as a little dangling modifier out
there we need to clean up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner
Henning, if you would like to add anything to what's already been
mentioned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: About budget cuts?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. The three items that I
brought up.
MR. MUDD: And they -- and they were, just -- just for the
record, they were community of character, you want us to relook at
the program; look at no-merit pay for -- for next FY --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- and healthcare impact-fee waivers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. OLLIFF: The question is, do you want to discuss those
tomorrow at the workshop, or do you want to put those on the
December 1 lth agenda or even some agenda beyond that, because the
deadline for the December 11 th agenda will be this coming Friday?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't just see why we can't cut
them but whatever my colleagues want to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do it tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it's got to be publicly
Page 316
November 27, 2001
noticed. That's the whole concern about going --
MR. OLLIFF: Just -- just to cut to the chase here, I think my --
my suggestion would be we can talk about it tomorrow at the
workshop. And then if you want to direct us, we'll put it on the
agenda for the 11 th, make sure that it's publicly noticed. And then
we can talk about those reductions formally at the meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean the rest of the -- the
balance of things from tonight?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. We're talking about --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just the --
MR. OLLIFF: Any additional budget reductions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you need to know what we
would like you to prepare for, or are you prepared for anything?
MR. OLLIFF: We're generally prepared for anything, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hey, Tom, what's the next
item? I am lost on this agenda.
MR. OLLIFF: You've got two items left on your agenda, Mr.
Chairman.
Item # 1 OB
RESOLUTION 2001-456, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
NOT EXCEEDING $55,200,000 IN AGGREGATE PRINCIAPL
AMOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS, AND SELECTING
UNDERWRITERS (RFP 02-3312) IN ANTICIPATION OF
ISSUING SAID BONDS- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10-B.
MR. OLLIFF: Again, 10-B.
Page 317
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Resolution authorizing not to exceed
$55 million-- $55,200,000. Go at it.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: For the record, Michael Smykowski,
county budget director. The -- the item before you is a proposed
bond issue to refinance outstanding existing commercial paper and
letter-of-credit debt. The commercial paper debt is a program that
was developed through the Florida Association of Counties. It was
typically geared toward shorter-term projects of five years or less or,
alternatively, was used during the construction stage and upon
completion of a capital project once the exact costs were known,
typically refinanced at a longer-term bond issue.
This program is variable-rate debt. In addition, there's
outstanding letter of credit debt that was used for land acquisition for
the north regional park. There's approximately $3.3 million
outstanding at an interest rate of 5.85 percent.
The proposed bond issue would refund six existing projects and
finance eight new projects that were included in the FY '02 budget.
Those are outlined in your executive summary.
Of key note, interest rates are -- are at or near historical lows.
It's an opportune time for us to refinance this variable rate debt. It's
analogous to people with adjustable rate mortgages locking in a fixed
rate. The repayment periods that were structured in the bond issue
were matched to the useful life of the assets. And no asset would be
financed beyond it's respected useful life.
At this point I'd like to turn the presentation over to Bill Reagan.
Bill is the county's financial adviser from William R. Hough &
Company. The county's finance committee did recommend this bond
issue. The finance committee is composed of the clerk's finance
director, senior staff, and the county manager's agency, a nonvoting
representative from the county attorney's office, as well as our
financial advisor.
Page 318
November 27, 2001
At this point Bill will talk about the specifics relative to this
transaction such as underwriter selection, the plan scheduled, credit
agency ratings that we're quite proud of the ratings we got from the
credit rating agencies on this bond issue, and Bill's also going to
address the need to minimize interest rate risk because it could
ultimately impact any future financings the county may have.
Following Bill's presentation, Steve Miller from the law firm of
Neighbors and Giblin is also here with specifics relative to the bond
resolution itself. Minor changes to the bond resolution were
distributed last Wednesday, but I have additional copies available
here, if needed. With that I'll turn it over to Mr. Reagan to address
the specifics of this transaction.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How many questions does the
board have on this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only one for me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Maybe we could go to that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've been through the whole thing. I
know exactly where it's coming and going.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we can cut this
short.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're waiting for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want me to start?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I've taught with both of you. I
think it's a great idea. I like what you're doing. It's going to save us
money. It's a smart idea. I don't have a problem with it at all.
What I'm concerned about are the descriptions of the projects
that are attached to this bond issue. And until the board can review
those projects and determine whether those projects are the ones we
really want to do, I'm a little hesitant to do anything with -- with
approving them. There's a lot of bricks and mortar here. Again, it's
Page 319
November 27, 2001
included in that $30 million that I talked about earlier that I'm really
very concerned about. And I hate to get ourselves locked in with a
bond issue on -- on doing these specific projects when, in fact, there
might be other more important projects that we want to do. And I'm
not -- not prejudging any of these yet, but what -- what I would like
to be able to do is have the flexibility for the board to consider these
projects and then make a determination as to which ones would --
would get the proceeds of these bonds. Now, I -- I presume it's not
possible, Bill, to -- to issue the bonds without a clear-- a description
of the projects. Is that true?
MR. REAGAN: Yes. You would want--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You have to do that.
MR. REAGAN: For the record, I'm Bill Reagan, senior vice
president with William R. Huff & Company. No. You would want
to have a very good description of the projects before you issue any
debt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'm real uneasy with -- with
these projects.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which one are we talking
about?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're talking about the
community development systems building, the design of a
courthouse, acquisition and construction of Immokalee jail facility,
acquisition and construction of a North Naples satellite facility. God
knows I better not object to this one too much, but it's the tax
collector building, reimbursement. I'm not sure that's a -- that that --
if that isn't just a transfer, but I'm not really sure.
But, you know, those are things that I would like to feel a little
more comfortable are absolutely essential before we start putting this
kind of money into it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, why don't we discuss
Page 320
November 27, 2001
those. Acquisition of voting machines, that's a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's a given.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's one of those mandates
that we got handed down.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No argument on that one.
COMMISSIONER
development expansion,
COMMISSIONER
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
by permit fees and things like that?
HENNING: See -- the community
is that the second one?
COYLE: Yeah.
That is going to be paid back
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That is correct. That's recommended by
the Development Services Advisory Committee, and that was
reduced in initial size and scope, based on discussions with the
DSAC, prior to bringing it in at the revised level.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I under-- understand that,
but there are also what I believe are excess reserves in the CDS
account which can, in fact, be used for a portion of that construction.
So the question is, is it possible to scale back the scope of the
construction, deal with it with the excess reserves that exist in the
account, and then use the proceeds of this bond for some other
project? That's what I'm really getting at. In other words, are -- are
we absolutely sure we need to spend -- I think it's going to be $7
million --
MR. SMYKOWSKI: 7 1/2 million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- $7 1/2 million on a bigger
building for Community Development Services. That's a lot of
building, and -- and I'm not sure if we -- we're prepared to do that
under the current circumstances. And if we issue the bonds, our
hands are pretty much locked or tied as far as the flexibility of using
those funds. So I think it's critical that we -- we understand where
Page 321
November 27, 2001
we're going to spend that money before we issue the bonds. And
then, before that, I think we must be absolutely certain that the things
that we're going to spend it on are essential, absolutely essential.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: If you chose not to fund that project, you
would not be able to use that money, that 3 1/2 million, for something
else because the repayment source for that is community
development permit fees. Obviously if we're not going to expend
that building, the permit fees would stay where they are, and the bond
issue size would simply be reduced by the $3 1/2 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Mr. -- Mr. Coyle, the way
I look at it is, is you -- is like what we do with our roads. You don't
want to build it for the needs today. You want to extend it out so you
don't have to go back and stir it up again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's the way I kind of look at
it. And you-- and once you -- and I've talked to a lot of
constitutional officers, and they're always looking for extra office
space. And I'm sure that we can fill that with somebody.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess that's one of-- one
of my problems, is -- is I really don't like to see government growing
quite so rapidly, and -- and I really believe there's a lot we can do
with our existing space. And I'm not at all convinced, although I'm
new here. So -- and I'm just expressing an opinion. I -- I'm really
concerned about going ahead with -- with what amounts to $30
million worth of construction at a time when we're looking to save
money wherever we can. And I -- I understand how these things are
come -- are compartmented into the so-called enterprise funds, but
that doesn't mean we just take the money and spend it as fast as we
could just because it's coming in. So I -- I'm really uneasy about
doing this until we've gone through these things to determine if, in
fact, an expansion of that size is absolutely necessary.
Page 322
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could I make a suggestion,
Commissioner Coyle? Very possibly -- I understand where you're
coming from. You're walking in the front door, and you're seeing
numbers that are really looking out of sight. The truth of the matter
is, if you were exposed to it over a year's period, you'd understand
that they've been very conservative in what they've been doing for
many years. They're busting out at the seams. They're renting
property all over the -- the town at an unbelievable rate. At least by
my estimation I think we are. Once we start to get people back into
our own buildings, and we -- we -- it's not money we're spending;
we're investing it. We always own it.
What we may want to do, I -- I wouldn't have a problem myself,
but staff might; I'm not too sure what the time element on that is -- is
to put it off just long enough so you could have a couple days' going
around looking at the whole thing, make an assessment rather than
doing it from here with just numbers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I think it would take
longer than that. And I really don't want to get too radical. And --
and thankfully Sheriff Hunter isn't here. But I'd much rather spend
some money building a tent city out in Immokalee with concertina
water around it than spend $8 million jail for somebody. That's --
that's proven to be a fairly effective way to deal --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you've been to Immokalee,
Commissioner Coyle -- have you been in the Immokalee jail, not as a
-- not as guest, but -- COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Thank you.
No. I've never been arrested.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. But if you were, you'd notice
that the facility is how many years old? Forty? It's a facility that,
even though we don't have to be overly concerned with the prisoners
themselves, you got to remember in these places the guards have to
Page 323
November 27, 2001
work. And without air conditioning and very oppressive conditions
in a building that's extremely antiquated, $8 million is a lot of money,
but it's not something you're paying for in one year. You're spreading
it out over many years. And if you don't meet these needs today,
they're only going to compile themselves to the point when we go to
address the situation, we're going to be overwhelmed with it.
MR. REAGAN: That project, Commissioners, that project was
approved by the board on September 25th. A contract has been
executed with Kraft Construction. They had held a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're just looking to get a better
price on the money than we're -- we're borrowing for. MR. REAGAN: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, maybe I
can help you a little bit. First of all, there's about 9 million 4 on two
items that we don't have any choice. So if you take that out of there,
that takes you down very quickly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. Which one --
which ones are those?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Boat launch and the beach parcel, we
have no choice. We bit the bullet on those for a whole variety of
reasons which in your spare time you may want to go back and read
those, but you're going to find out that we -- A, we have no choice.
We've got to pay for it, and I'm looking for the best way to pay for it
so that we don't encumber short-term debt on it.
I've sat here for three years, and I have watched things get
pushed off and delayed and come back. You begin renting
properties. You're beginning to rob Peter to pay Paul, and I don't
know what the numbers look like totally, but I am convinced what I
see here begins to cut down on spreading the dollars out. You hide a
little here and hide a little here, and then you don't see it. But it's
really taxpayers' dollars being spent. I thought what we went
Page 324
November 27, 2001
through, everything here, it seems to me, this was the best way to
deal with the needs in the most conservative fiscal way and now turn
it into long-term financing because of the markets.
And -- and I know it's hard coming here and looking at these
numbers. But on that list I know, from what I've seen, we've just
been in a lot of trouble, and we don't go there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- I agree with the
financing method, but it's my understanding, a lot of this money
could be used for other things like roads. And if that, in fact, is true, I
think you're making a real, real big mistake by not taking a look at
them. It's -- it's another issue of where are the priorities and what are
the most important things confronting this county right now? And --
and if we make a decision that this is where that money's going to go,
we've just removed some options. And -- and when we come up
short on the essential items, we're going to be making some really,
really tough -- tough decisions. So I'm -- I'm -- I'm concerned about
them. If there's not sufficient concern on the board, then I'll quit
talking.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There's definitely concern. We've
been working on it for a whole year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just think we ought to be looking
at some innovative ways to do things rather than just using
conventional ways, building a bigger building --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't wait to make some of my
suggestions in the next couple of days.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you know, I just -- you
know, I just am going to say, I've been through this; I've seen it. And
I am concerned if we don't do this, I'm going to be right back where I
started three years ago. I don't want to be there. So I'm going to
support this because I think I need to do this because I'm going to
exasperate the road situation in a number of these areas if I don't do
Page 325
November 27, 2001
it. Mr. Olliff, you had some comment?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, the only comment I'd make is the board
needs to recognize that all the projects are below the line. They are
the refunded projects, projects that are already underway and
financed through your commercial paper program, so these are
projects that are already out there. In fact, most of these are almost
done, if not done. For example, the North Naples library project is
opening up in -- in December to January time frame of this year.
And it's just trying to find a better way to finance those. Other
projects above the line, obviously, the voting machines is a decision
that's already been made by the board.
Out of the balance of these projects, the only two projects which
have not begun and which have a funding source which might be able
to be used for roads would be the design phase of the courthouse
annex and the North Naples satellite facility. Those are the only two
projects that are out there that are either not already under
construction with a signed construction contract or have a restricted
funding source that would not allow the board to use that money for
-- for road construction.
The design phase of the courthouse annex is primarily the -- the
building project that was part of the -- the campus master plan that is
primarily designed not for your agency at all but is designed for
courts and court-related agencies. This is primarily building space
for the public defender's office, state attorney's office, and other
court-related agencies that is the annex to the courthouse building
here on your campus. And, as you'll recall, this project became a
DRI two years ago. And any expansion to this project is going to
require a parking garage. So that's the associated parking garage
design as well.
The North Naples satellite facility is the project that -- that your
agency has been working with all of the constitutional officers on to
Page 326
November 27, 2001
provide a satellite government facility in North Naples adjacent to
your library project. One of the primary reasons for that building was
to try and lower the amount of traffic from people in North Naples
where the people are from having to drive all the way down to this
complex. It would have been the first facility that I'm aware of where
all of the county agencies would be in one single location providing
every single service that we can possibly remotely provide from a
single location. I think the benefits of that project are going to well
outweigh the cost of that one particular project. But I just provide
that information for the board, at least know that those are the
considerations that you've got on the list in front of you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that's why I support this,
Mr. Olliff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
What's the -- any other discussion?
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I make a motion we approve the
recommendations by staff for the refinancing of the projects listed.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: There are four items in the
recommendation: Adopting the attached resolution as -- as amended,
approval waiver of the purchasing policy regarding the 21-day
posting period. Mr. Reagan was going to address -- there's a
recommendation for Solomon, Smith, Barney as the senior managing
underwriter, the firms of Raymond James and A. G. Edwards as co-
managing underwriters on this transaction, as well as authorize staff
in the event the bond issue didn't close, we -- the schedule calls for
closing in mid-December.
In the event that the our -- the market conditions between
Thanksgiving and Christmas oftentimes are less than optimal. If in
the view of staff, in consultation with bond counsel and the financial
advisor, make a determination that we should wait until early
Page 327
November 27, 2001
January, we would need an alternative mechanism to close on that
Goodland boat launch and the Lely Barefoot Beach property based on
previous board actions and anticipated closing dates in December.
We would borrow internally on a short-term basis and then, when the
bond issue closed, reimburse the source from which those funds were
initially borrowed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all part of my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Don't we have -- have some
language we need to clean up first.'?
MR. REAGAN: Let me -- let me go ahead and--just a couple
things that may give you some flexibility as I think Commissioner
Coyle was talking about that we just chatted about here with your
bond counsel. Steve Miller has got a couple items to go over with
you and also may give you some flexibility that if there's a project
within the bond issues that all of a sudden you determine that you do
not want to use or build that facility, it might -- we'd be able to put
some language in there to give you some flexibility to use it for
something else.
What we don't want to do is issue the bonds and then have
excess bond proceeds. That creates a problem, and the only way to
avoid that is by doing something we call extraordinary call on the
bonds. The problem with an extraordinary call, it ups your interest
rate. And we'd like to try to avoid that for you also. But I think
maybe we can solve it in another way. Steve.
MR. MILLER: I'll try not to take up too much time. For the
record, Steve Miller, Neighbors, Giblin & Nickerson out of Tampa.
We're the bond counsel, county's bond counsel. Just to elaborate on
Bill's point real quickly, there isn't a problem with going back and
amending the project description that's attached to this resolution
before we spend the proceeds. The only problem arises is that at the
Page 328
November 27, 2001
time you issue the bonds, you're telling the bond holders out there in
your disclosure document that this is what we're expecting to spend
our money on.
To the extent that you do extraordinary and wholesale changes,
completely change the project, you may, and you may not have a
disclosure issue that you'd have to go back to the marketplace and
allow them to know that we've changed, you know, directions; we're
doing something else. So you do have some flexibility both before
and after we issue the bonds to modify your project description
before the money is spent.
In order to go forward if you do, indeed, decide to issue these
bonds in this amount, we have a short resolution before you, a
supplemental resolution, to your existing bond resolution that was
adopted back in 1985 to pledge sales tax revenues, which is what this
pledge is.
There were a few changes that were made. I think Mr.
Smyskowski sent around a memo describing the minor changes.
They all occurred because of the bond insurer that was selected had a
few minor nonsubstantive changes to the resolution after the general
packages had gone out. Hopefully you've all gotten those and you're
comfortable with those changes.
The resolution simply authorizes the issuance of the bonds. It
approves the forms of certain documents. It appoints the
underwriters Mr. Smykowski mentioned as the underwriters of your
bonds. And, most importantly, it tells the chairman or gives the
chairman the authority -- when we go out into the marketplace and
your staff and your financial advisor determine the best time to jump
into the marketplace, it gives the chairman the authority to sell the
bonds to the underwriters so long as certain parameters have been
met, and these are parameters that we've gone over with staff. As
long as those parameters are met in the marketplace, we'll sell the
Page 329
November 27, 2001
bonds and close them.
I don't want to belabor the point on the projects too much. I just
wanted to point out one thing. We had discussions with the clerk's
office this afternoon trying to understand a little bit better about how
the tax collector's new building was going to operate, how it was
going to be constructed. And prior to us issuing bonds, we will make
sure, through our due diligence, that it is the type of government
function within that building that we can finance with tax-exempt
proceeds. We just wanted to alert you to that.
If there's any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.
But if you do decide to go forward, you simply have to adopt this
supplemental bond resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The -- we have a motion on the floor.
Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor--
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- indicate by saying aye. Wait.
Tom, go ahead.
MR. OLLIFF: Does that motion include the supplemental
resolution that Steve just--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. OLLIFF: -- indicated?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And your second also, Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We're eating our dinner here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those -- all those in favor indicate
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Page 330
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It passed 5 to 0.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #10C - Withdrawn
Item # 1 OD
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH HAZEN AND SAWYER, PC, FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES TO EXPAND THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY, PROJECT 73950 - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10 -D.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good evening. Tom Wides,
interim public utilities administrator for the record.
What you have in front of you in this executive summary is to
amend the professional services with Hazen and Sawyer for
engineering services for the north -- north wat -- excuse me, north
sewer plant expansion. As we're all painfully aware, this is an
expansion that has been mandated by the federal -- Federal
Department of Environmental Protection, and the consent order that
was issued in April of 2001.
At that time in April and actually in May of 2001, the board
waived the competitive selection process for engineering services by
declaring a public emergency. At that time --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me. Are there questions
by members of the board on this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just -- just a couple, but nothing of
Page 331
November 27, 2001
great substance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, maybe we can go right to
the questions and--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How much money did we have
in the impact fee funds to cover this?
MR. WIDES: We -- we have sufficient funds in the impact fee
fund to cover this. This is a budgeted item already for year '02.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WIDES: This is not an additional request for funds. This
is a budgeted item in '02.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is -- North Naples wastewater
treatment plant, is it up and running now?
MR. WIDES: It is up and running as approximately mid month
of November.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. Come out to the
dedication.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds like fun.
I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have some questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. I just want to
understand something. We're paying for the design of-- of
something we're not going to actually build for about eight more
years. We're combining the design of both phases. MR. WIDES: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the second phase won't be
actually construction started until 2008 or -- MR. WIDES: Approximately 2008.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question: Is there any
danger that designing it now will mean that we will be faced with any
substantial redesign changes at that point in time when we get ready
Page 3 3 2
November 27, 2001
to build it?
MR. WIDES: That is, in fact, the question that I have asked,
Commissioner. And the answer I have received is, no, there are no
substantial risks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There is no risk? Okay.
MR. WIDES: Now, we do, also, have with us here this evening
a representative from Hazen & Sawyer if you would like to hear
directly from them on this also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No. If you checked into it
and you can assure me that we don't have any substantial risk with
respect to having to do a -- to do a redesign, that's -- that's okay with
me.
MR. WIDES: That is correct.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd, deputy county
manager for the record. I used to be the public utilities administrator
on this one.
First is, what-- the consent order that says we have to give them
a preliminary design for the -- the -- the 1 O-million-gallon expansion
by January next month. Now, they're not going to finish it all, but it's
a preliminary design to them for the 10 million gallon. We've asked
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection if we could
break this 1 O-million-gallon expansion that they made us do -- we
only wanted to do 5 more, but they said they wanted to be sure at the
time in the spring, and they said it would be 10. Our bargaining
position was -- was rather meager at that particular point in time. So
we agreed to the 10.
Now that we've got the master plans done and it shows that
we're going to have 5 million gallons, it's going to be not used for a
good 8 to 9 years, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go through
that capital expenditure.
We haven't been able to get them to say yea or nay to that
Page 333
November 27, 2001
request that we put in in order to separate it. And I -- I would say
Tom Wides has told you everything correctly. Unless there is a
significant technology change to sewer treatment, that the design that
they come up with will be the same. If technology changes from
some drastic reason that we don't know of and it makes more sense to
us to do it in a smarter, better way, then I -- I would be a champion to
come back to the board and say we probably need to redesign it
because it will be cheaper in the long run. But -- but outside -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you think the risks are
relatively small to proceed--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Because the sewer treatment hasn't
changed that much, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's fine with me.
Now, one -- one final question; then I'll leave you alone.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The fee schedule looks a lot like a
lawyer's fee schedule. Clerical support at 43 to 49 dollars an hour,
that's $89,000 a year for clerical support. I guess maybe there's a
reason for that, but -- but my-- my overall concern is, is this a fee
schedule that is going to be fixed for the entire duration of this
contract, which is, I think, for the next four, five years, or is this fee
schedule -- schedule going to escalate every year? At these rates, it
ought to be fixed for the next 15, 20 years.
MR. WIDES: Just checking with our experts. This is a fixed
fee schedule by contract. Further, if I can add one more piece to the
information here, there's -- these engineering services are -- these fees
are set at approximately 10 -- almost -- just short of 11 percent of the
total construction cost. And we did receive a -- and we looked at a --
a engineering guide that talks about the professional services, the
estimates, what are the natural ranges for the engineering services
cost as a percentage of total construction costs. Normal range is 10 to
Page 334
November 27, 2001
16 percent. So that being shy of 11 percent is, in fact, well within the
lower end of the range that we'd be looking for for these kind of
services. So, if you take it as a package -- and that's what I would
really look at a package here -- we are well within the lower range.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just don't use many clerical
supports.
MR. WIDES: Well, we use all professional engineers. Very
good.
Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing no other questions,
we have a motion. We have a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. WIDES:
morning.
Those opposed?
Passed, 5 to 0.
Commissioners, thank you. We'll see you in the
Item # 10E
REQUEST TO REVIEW THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS DECISION
TO PRESENT A SPECIAL TREATMENT PERMIT AND FINAL
PLAT FOR LITTLE PALM ISLAND SIMULTANEOUSLY- TO
BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BCC AFTER BEING REVIEWED
AGAIN BY ALL ADVISORY BOARDS AND MEETING WITH
THE RESIDENTS
Page 335
November 27, 2001
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe we're at the last
item --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Little Palm Island.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Palm Island, 10-E.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And these guys have been here all
day long, right, keeping us company for 12 hours?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe they're getting paid by the
hour.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Which item is this?
This is 16-A- 12.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was pulled off the consent
agenda and --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- and it's now Item E-10.
MR. REISCHL: Good evening, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This is a request to revise board direction for the Little Palm
Island development. There were two development orders associated
with this development. One is an ST, special treatment, development
permit. And the other is final plat. Those two are normally heard
separately. However, board direction last February was to hear both
petitions at the board simultaneously, together.
The petitioner would like each petition heard separately as if
standard operating procedure. Staff recommended that the standard
operating procedure be followed. Either way the board directs, staff
has no problem either way.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Petitioner-- we have--
MS. FILSON: Seven.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- three people.
MS. FILSON: Seven.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go.
Page 336
November 27, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: And, Mr. Chairman, you normally -- you listen
to the petitioner make their presentation. I believe the petitioner's
representative is here as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I was looking for to start
with.
MR. GARLICK: Thank you. You've had a number of difficult
and lengthy matters today, and I hope this will be neither, and it
shouldn't be either.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your name for the record.
MR. GARLICK: My name is Tom Garlick. I'm an attorney
with the law firm of Garlick, Stetler & Peeples in Naples. I'm
representing Keystone Custom Homes. I think Mr. Reischl has
simplified very much what the issue is here today.
This is a pure procedural question. We seek no development
approvals today. We seek merely the correction of what we thought
was a procedural issue that came up as a result of the last time this
matter was on for hearing. At the very end of our hearing on an
application for an ST permit on February 13 of this year, Mr. Olliff
made a suggestion that the matter be postponed and brought back for
a hearing on the ST permit at the same time as the final plat. And the
motion was immediately -- a motion was immediately made,
seconded and carried. And we really didn't have an opportunity or
our client didn't have an opportunity to question that procedure at that
time. I was not representing that client at that particular time.
So what we have here is a situation where we have two
development approvals that need to be done. And if we try to do
them together, we're putting the cart before the horse. And the reason
I say that is quite simple. The -- it is almost an engineering
impossibility to come back to you with a final plat without knowing
ahead of time whether you approve or do not approve of our ST
Page 337
November 27, 2001
application. Our ST application is to impact part of wetlands in a 10-
acre sensitive treatment area ST. And until we know what the
configuration of that ST -- the final configuration is, we cannot draw
that on a plat. Until we know, we also have -- we've been advised by
staff that our -- our preliminary site plan cannot be approved until
there's action on the ST. Therefore, we do not have a
recommendation, and we do not have a preliminary -- a final
preliminary site plan. So we cannot draw a preliminary site plan on a
plat when we don't have one and we don't know where it is.
There's another issue that has to do with the existence of an
easement. The -- the issue arose at the last meeting as to whether or
not we were -- we had the ability to develop over the top of an
easement. And that matter's now been resolved. However, we
cannot draw our final site plan and deal with that easement issue until
we have our, you know, approval on our-- on our ST. We cannot do
our plat until we know where that easement is finally going to go and
whether we can build on that or not.
So -- further, just as a matter of fairness to our client, in order to
prepare a final plat, there is a tremendous amount of construction,
construction plans, and engineering that has to be done. And, in fact,
we have an estimate for that for this particular development based on
certain assumptions that is in excess of a hundred thousand dollars.
So to require us to act out of the ordinary course of procedure and
come back for the final plat at the time of our final ST application
will cause us an unnecessary financial burden which may -- which
may cause us to waste funds because you may say no to our ST
permit.
So, actually, what we were asked to do at the last meeting -- and
I'm certain unintentionally -- and because of the situation at the time
and -- and the confusion over some of these issues and the requests
for postponement, that we got ourselves in a procedural box which
Page 3 3 8
November 27, 2001
we now ask to be relieved from. The -- we would point out that the
Collier County attorney said on February 13 that the Board of County
Commissioners has to decide the ST petition in order for the
developer to go back to do the final plat work and engineering.
And at our-- at our last application when we were here two
weeks ago, I believe that he indicated was supportive of the fact that
it was almost unprecedented to have the presentation of the
development orders put to -- together.
Fred Reischl also had indicated back at the February 13 hearing
correctly that the ST area constrained -- the ST area and a definition
of that area constrains the design of the plat.
We have here today some opposition. I notice the Palm River--
we have some Palm River residents, and I admire their staying
power. The -- I'm not surprised that they're here because they've
been very active and very involved from the very beginning in this --
in this project. I hope that they're not here unnecessarily confused
that this is not a substantive issue for a decision on the merits. This is
simply a procedural issue.
However, I notice that their attorney, Tony Pires, is also here.
That is a little bit confusing to me because I'm sure that Tony, who is
a very competent, very experienced land-use attorney, knows that this
is really a procedural matter. I'm sure he will ask you to hold it
together because he does not want this development to happen. His
client does not want this to happen. And I certainly hope he's acting
in good faith and not in any attempt to obstruct or delay this
development.
We were scheduled, when we were last here two weeks ago, to
come back on December 13 for the hearing on the ST permit. We
have -- because of the time that's now passed, we are two -- two
weeks later. We are almost into December. We have decided that in
order to give an opportunity for the Palm River Homeowners'
Page 3 3 9
November 27, 2001
Association to -- to meet with us -- and we're going to invite that --
and for the Collier's Reserve Association to meet with us and for The
Conservancy to meet with us, for the other environmental interests to
meet with us, that we feel that we might more appropriately ask staff
-- and we intend to ask staff if we might not come back sometime
right after mid-January.
In the meantime, we will have those meetings with those
interested groups and hopefully be able to respond to the issues that
were raised at the last meeting.
Lastly, I have -- there is here with me Paula Davis, who is the
president of Keystone Custom Homes, and David Farmer, who is
here in the blue shirt, who is vice president of Keystone Custom
Homes, who -- who does their land work and engineering work. And
they're available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON: John Belt.
Healy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Well, let's move on to the speakers.
He will be followed by Charles
And I'll ask you to -- one follow the
other. For some reason during this proceeding if you wish to waive,
just indicate by raising your hand.
MALE VOICE: I don't wish to waive, sir, by any means. I'd
like to clarify.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, sir. You've got to come up here.
MALE VOICE: I'd like to have Tony Pires, our attorney, come
up and present the evidence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. You can't -- you can't address
us from there. You have to come up there. Tony Pires will get his
chance. The next person can come up if they like.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Why don't you let Tony go first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Tony, would you like to go first? It
might be more appropriate, set the stage for everyone else.
Page 340
November 27, 2001
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, for the
record, Tony Pires. If it's with the pleasure of the board, if that be the
case, because I represent the Palm River Homeowners' Association...
And I am here in good faith. I take issue with the fact that Tom
would question that. I've never had anyone in the 26 years of my
professional practice question any appearance before any judicial
body, quasi-judicial body, administrative tribunal that I was acting in
other than in good faith.
I'm not here merely to obstruct or delay. And Tom, in fact, in
the hallway accused me of engaging in uneth -- in unethical conduct
because he did not think I was acting here in good faith. I am here to
tell you I'm acting here in good faith.
This board on February 13th of 2001, very clearly stated how
this action was to be handled. The board has a very clear
reconsideration policy contained within its ordinances. It's Section
2-41 and 2-42 with regards to consideration. It's the 2-41 and 2-42 of
the codes of Collier County.
This request is couched as -- as I read the letter from Paula
Davis of Keystone Homes, says we would like to petition the board
to reconsider the requirement placed on Keystone at the February
13th, 2001, hearing. And we would like to request a future hearing
date for the board to formally reconsider the petition.
As I read Section 2-41 and-- with regards to reconsideration, no
motion to reconsider shall be made more than 30 days following the
board's vote on the matter sought to be reconsidered when you're
talking about issues generally, reconsideration generally. So if that's
what they are requesting, I think procedurally their clock has long
since passed.
I think additionally nothing has changed from our
understanding. I applaud the fact that Mr. Garlick has today -- let's
see, where are we, eight months later, indicated that their client is
Page 341
November 27, 2001
willing to meet with the community. You will hear from the
community that they've heard nothing from the developer in that
eight-month period of time. I believe you will hear that from the
community. So this is the first time we've had any contact.
And one other issue: Mr. Garlick says he was not present here
on February 13th; his partner was. And I think Mr. Cicerone
(phonetic) on February 13th said, "My partner, Tom Garlick, couldn't
be here, so I'm here." So they were present. There was a full
opportunity for the issue to be fully discussed. If I recall correctly,
Mr. Cicerone asked basically that it be continued. Mr. Olliff wisely
came up with the solution that was unanimously approved by the
board to continue this together. And I think you and Commissioner
Coletta said we want to see everything at once to get the full picture.
I believe that's my recollection of the minutes in this particular case
with regards to this.
(As read): Chairman Carter: So if we deny it, it comes back
through the process with both pieces together. So we can look at it
totally and make that decision. And I think that was the sentiment of
the board. We want to see it all together. And we see nothing that
has changed. We are opposing this request in good faith, not merely
for the purposes of obstruction or delaying. We think the interests of
the community are best served. We are not opposed. My clients, to
my knowledge, are not opposed to development of this property. We
want -- wish that it be developed in a good fashion, compatible and
complementary to the communities and the established residential
communities that surround this property. Thank you. We ask that
the request be denied. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You're talking
about the Land Development Code 2. --
MR. PIRES: No. It's the Code of Laws and Ordinances in 2-41
and 2-42. That's a separate code with regards to reconsideration. It
Page 342
November 27, 2001
addresses -- and I -- Mr. Weigel can best advise you with regards to
that, but 2-41 which says, "Any matter which has been voted upon by
the Board of County Commissioners may be reconsidered as
follows." Then it goes on with "member of the majority by motion
made prior to the adjournment of the meeting or by motion to
reconsideration made by a member who voted with the majority."
that's for matters generally. Then there is a section, 2-42, dealing
with reconsideration of zoning and comprehensive plan requests.
And I would submit to you that at that time, number one, that's not
applicable. But if it was applicable, at that time it has since run and
that the -- from a procedural standpoint, I don't think it complies.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, would you comment on
that, please.
MR. WEIGEL: I knew you'd ask. Well, Tony reads the
reconsideration ordinance, obviously, word for word, line for line.
And technically requests for a formal motion, if-- I didn't hear the
word "motion" in -- in the letter request to this board. But, in
essence, a request for a board -- for a motion for reconsideration,
Tony is absolutely correct that under the auspices of the two parts
that exist of the reconsideration ordinance, it's an old ordinance of the
regular code, not our Land Development Code, that -- that the board
would not have the opportunity to bring it up because of the time
frames that are in there and some prerequisite requirements.
I think really what we're looking at here is the determination of
the board back in February has two -- two substantive matters linked
together. One is the ST review and consideration, and then the other
one is the approval of a plat. And so the $64 question for me is, is, in
fact, the unbundling, the unlinking of those two, of a substantive
nature that -- to which one might argue that the reconsideration
ordinance applies, or is it merely a procedural delinking? And there
is nothing substantively being determined either for the ST request,
Page 343
November 27, 2001
which was before the board back February 13th, or the question of
plat approval, which has never even been submitted for the board but
was part of a directive back then.
So that's the question I need to answer right now at this late
hour. And I'll go this way: I'm willing to state to the board that, in
fact, no, they can't do formal reconsideration. But, in fact, you can
make a -- an interpretation determination yourself that this is a
nonsubstantive procedural delinking if you wish to choose -- to do so,
and I'll defend it in court if someone chooses to challenge.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You certainly may, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This might be my last.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I doubt it. You're getting good at
this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
and link it in the first place?
Why did the board approve this
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I wasn't exactly a proponent of it myself.
Maybe Mr. Reischl can tell you.
MR. OLLIFF: I think I can help the board. The board wanted
to provide this time for the grant application that was going to be
processed, I believe, in Tallahassee through the Florida Communities
Trust Program. And, in addition, the board was looking for when is
the next normal opportunity that this development project would be
in front of the Board of County Commissioners. Since there are
some site plans that would be administratively approved, the actual
next formal process point for the board to review would be at plat.
So the board was looking for a way to be able to delay the decision
on the ST until the next time that this project would actually be in
front of them for something else anyway. That was the plat. So
that's why these two items got linked, from my recollection.
Page 344
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the board had a good reason for
doing it, for linking it?
MR. OLLIFF: More convenience, I would say, than -- than a --
a good reason at the time. And -- and -- but the other rationale, if you
want to, was to try and buy some time, I believe, to see what, if
anything, would come of that grant application. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Belt, and he will be
followed by Charles Healy.
MR. BELT: Good evening, Commissioners. Sorry it's taken so
long for us to have an opportunity to be here. And, really, I don't
know why I'm here to start with. I'm glad to see Commissioner
Coyle, and I'm glad to hear he asked that question, because that's one
of the things I think has not been made clear tonight as to why this
decision was made back in February the 13th.
I happen to have the minutes here, and I've studied them pretty
carefully. You go through about ten pages where the -- the proponent
said that they only want to talk about the ST. And they didn't want to
talk about the plat.
We brought out that -- originally came out that the ST was
originally designed and denied in the first plat they had, which was a
separate plat, but it was a area that they had cluster homes as well as
regular homes. At that time they went before the environmentalist
commission, and the commission said they would not recommend it.
They would not go forward because they didn't have five votes. But
at the time that this first hearing is, they had 5 homes in a wetland
area that was being reduced from the current 20 acres down to 10
acres saying that it should be revised because of years of time. It's
not as wet as it used to be. Of course, the last two years it's been wet
for quite some time. Very little rain has come in the last two years,
and this is when our whole program is started.
Page 345
November 27, 2001
The staff objected to the impacting of wetlands, and then that
went forward to the planning commission, and the planning
commission said they denied it. The people did not bring it on
further to the board. They went back and redrew their plans, went
back to the RF-3 zoning, but they came up with the same outline of
the wetland areas. They had some area for torgle -- for tortoises.
By talking with the staff and adding 3.8 acres of good tortoise --
turtle areas over here, they got the staff to say,'"All right. We'll
withdraw our objections to the wetlands, as long as you're given
gopher tortoise areas." But since that time there's about 6 acres that
they said was in the gopher tortoise reserve which staff said they
didn't think it was very good because they had to swim from 5 acres
over here across the way to where they live now, and there's no
gopher tortoises in that particular area.
Unfortunately, that went through the environmental commission,
and the man said, well, I'll let you impact that because I think it's best
to have only a 10 percent impact in wetlands. We don't feel that's a
good impact. You're impacting it from 22 -- from 20 acres down to
10 acres right now. We're not objecting to that. We're objecting to
their five homes in the wetlands that they've kept all the way along.
My time is about up, but it is important that you understand that
the whole plat is tied into the ST permit. It's been that way all the
way along, because they gave the tortoise turtles preserve area in the
plat. It's not adequate now.
And when we get back to last hearing, it says right here,
Commissioner Sherome (phonetic) -- that's the attorney for the
developer -- there's been a motion made to deny it. There had been a
second to deny it. And they say, "With all due respect, we've got one
of the sharpest lawyers in Southwest Florida up here. And if he
wanted to -- a continuance, you know it's not our job."
Mr. Sherome said, (as read): "Well, I'm still trying to read
Page 346
November 27, 2001
votes. And so telling me you're going to deny it, then we'll ask for a
condingence (sic), and I'll make that request now." And Mr. Carter
says, 'Tll make that easy for you. I'm going to vote for denial." So
they had three votes for denial. The other two commissioners here at
that time hadn't had a chance to talk about it. Commissioner Mac'Kie
said, "Well, will you just continue it? You're going to have to do it
another time, and this is at least allowing you to do it another time
with a full picture in front of you."
Commissioner Mac'Kie: "if you'll give us a whole commission
-- a whole picture -- you won't let us see the pieces." And
Commissioner Coletta said, "Maybe this time we'll do it right."
They then said they had a motion on the floor and they had to
decide that, and both the motionee and the second withdrew. And the
motion was made.
Mr. Olliff: "two things: You have a motion on the floor ready."
"I withdraw the motion. I'll deny it."
"I would just recommend that the board continue this on such --
such time as the hearing of the final plat." 'Tll make that motion."
'Tll second it," and it's all in favor.
They have come back with no change at all, and at the last
hearing when they asked for their special time to bring this before
this board for the present time, they said that they were not going to
make any changes. Mr. Olliff asked a question as to when the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need to ask for you to wind it up,
sir.
MR. BELT: All right. I certainly will. When they came back,
would they bring in another plat? They'd have to go to the
environmental commission and the committee and to the planning
board. They said, "No. We're bringing back the same plat." They're
bringing back the same plat that had three votes to deny it, and that's
Page 347
November 27, 2001
the only reason they asked for the continuance. Now they come back
and want a continuance, but they don't want to -- they want to split it
up, and they don't have the right to split it up. The board understands
that, I think.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Charles Healy. He will be followed by Jean
Belt.
MR. HEALY:
I'm Charles Healy, and I first want to say one
thing: I'm going to deal with this very quickly. I'm very impressed
with the stamina of the commissioners. This is the first time I've sat
in a 12-hour meeting since I was president and CEO of a company 36
years ago.
And, also, Commissioner Coyle, I -- I applaud your baptism.
Now, the only thing I really want to say about Little Palm Isle -- and,
Mr. Carter, you -- you have always advocated that Keystone Home
keep in touch with us. And, as you know, they never have since the
very first meeting. And that always made me very suspicious. And I
haven't changed my mind. I'm not going to make a long speech. I
haven't been without food and water this long since I was in the
Marines. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Call the second shift,
please.
MS. FILSON: Jean Belt will be followed by Kevin Barnhill.
MS. BELT: I'm Jean Belt, president of the Palm River
Homeowners' Association. And I find myself in the same position
that I was in before. You know, that man is hard to follow. It's very
difficult.
But what I really would like to say, I would like to apologize to
all of our commissioners for the Keystone Homes who have avoided
following your directions. I think that is very sad that they can't hear
or they're not listening. Each time they bring something forward,
Page 348
November 27, 2001
there is no change. It's the same thing that they brought before. They
haven't changed anything. Now, to me, that is a waste of your time.
It's a waste of our time. And nothing has been solved. Nothing
really has been solved. And it doesn't sound like they're really going
to have it solved very fast.
Now, we're happy -- we're really happy about the property in
Palm River, 87 acres, 83 acres. We're happy that it's there to have
something done with it. I think that is great. I think all of Palm River
think it's great. But we have a divided Palm River, also, as to what
and how they want it done. And it's maybe not any of our business,
but they're using our roads, and they're -- we have a lot of children
there. There are eight buses that come in every day. And so this, to
us, makes a lot of difference. And so that is why I am concerned.
Homes, we're happy about the homes. Conservancy, we're happy
about the conservancy. A nine-hole golf, we're -- we're not against
any of those things. We're not against their building homes. We
never have been. The only thing that we've been unhappy about is
the number of homes and the type of homes. That is my concern,
because I see all of these children walking to the -- to catch the bus,
the seniors who are out doing their walking, the bicycling people, the
people that are taking their dogs out for a walk. I have taught them to
be sure and take a poop bag but -- so that -- at least we don't mind
that anymore.
But I think it is really very sad that we have to keep putting this
off and putting it off. They had eight or nine months that they could
have at least come up and sat down with us and talked to us. This has
been going on -- it's almost three years now. And we haven't had that
opportunity to sit down with them except the very first time that we
learned that they were trying to buy Little Palm Island, which that
isn't settled yet either. So we are concerned.
But, anyway, what else can I say? I'm just concerned. I'm-- I'm
Page 349
November 27, 2001
very concerned. And I'm not trying to be nasty to anybody. I'm a
caring person. But those kids are very important to me, and so are
those elderly people, and I'm one of those elderly people now. So I --
I'm -- I'm concerned about these people. But thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Paula Davis, and she will be your last speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Kevin Barnhill.
MS. FILSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Kevin Barnhill followed by
Paula Davis.
MS. FILSON: It's late. I'm sorry, Paula.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's getting late, obviously.
MR. BARNHILL: For the record, my name's Kevin Barnhill. I
live at 593 Cypress Way East. I'm here on behalf of the Palm River
Homeowners' Association. I'm also a resident there.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I'm
asking that you please do not separate the presentation of the special
treatment, ST, permit with the final plat for Little Palm Island, 10-E.
My request is based on the following arguments: Nothing has
changed since February 13th. Just a kind of an aside here, based on
the Collier County property appraiser report, Palm River Estates,
Incorporated, is still -- I don't believe they still own it. We believe
we know the owner, and it's not them. We believe they have an
option for it. Of course, that's a sealed contract, just to be clear with
that, I guess.
On February 13th there was a motion and a second to deny the
ST permit. A poll had revealed that the ST permit was about to fail.
Keystone asked if they could continue the ST permit with the
wranglings that we went through, the meetings here, and come back
with an ST permit at the same time as the final plat. And this is to
add some substance to how to -- why to keep us together. What
Page 3 5 0
November 27, 2001
better way for the commission to understand all of the issues with
Little Palm Island than to see the final plat with the ST permit
request?
Finally, Keystone has not participated in the public participation
process. They have not contacted us again regarding changes in the
plat or special treatment area. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And the last speaker is Paula Davis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Paula Davis did speak.
MR. GARLICK: Mrs. Davis has asked me to respond on her
behalf. Mr. Garlick again, for the record. I want to say -- say this.
This is not a motion to reconsider. With all due respect to Tony --
and I'm sure that he realizes that a motion to reconsider happens
when there is a ruling that's been made, denied or granted, denied or
granted. There's been no ruling made on this ST permit. The ST
permit application was postponed. We're simply asking to get back
on the calendar so a ruling can be made. Then if a ruling is made,
then we ask for a motion to reconsider, that ordinance would be
applicable. It's not applicable here.
The eight months -- for eight months, you know -- and Mr. --
Commissioner Coyle, you're new to this, but this project has been
around a long time. We have asked -- been asked by members of this
commission to postpone our applications to talk to Collier's Reserve
about buying this piece for a golf course. We even asked to postpone
to talk to Barron Collier Corporation about developing this as a golf
course. Even asked to postpone for environmental organizations to
try to raise funds to buy this piece. And we have been asked to
postpone, and it was postponed for the last eight months in
consideration of The Conservancy to give them an opportunity to buy
this piece.
Now, eight months has gone by. We spent several hundred
Page 351
November 27, 2001
thousand dollars trying to move forward with this development.
We've been stopped and stymied at every course. We have taken
every single bit of time and consideration and considered every offer
that's been made to us to sell this property. And we now learn -- we
now understand that the Florida Land Trust will act and will decide
within the next week whether or not they're going to fund this grant.
And probably you saw the article in the newspaper, and the article in
the newspaper was pessimistic, and it did not look like they were
going to get this grant funded so that we could sell The Conservancy
this property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that the Naples Daily
News that it was in?
MR. GARLICK: It was the Naples Daily News.
And we cannot now say, okay, maybe some other fairy
godmother will come along and buy our property. This is a business;
this is a development.
Now, we must go forward. We want to get back on the
calendar, and we want to do it in the procedural manner that is
generally accepted and followed in Collier County, Florida. We want
to do what everyone else does. We don't want to be discriminated
against.
Now, insofar as the folks here saying that we haven't made any
changes, what we're trying to do is get back on the calendar so that
we can inform the commission of the changes that we have made.
And what we want to do is meet with those people who say we never
meet with them, okay, to explain to them what the changes are before
we come back here. So, of course, we're not here with any changes.
We're here on a procedural matter to get ourselves in a position to
come back in the normal course, get our ST application approved,
come back with our final plat. It gives them two bites to the apple.
They can come to both hearings to oppose this, and we're sure that
Page 352
November 27, 2001
they will. And, basically, I guess that's all I've got to say.
As far as my comments to Tony, I think you can see pretty
readily, I'm an advocate. I say what I think, and I say it forcefully.
And I say to you forcefully that we are entitled procedurally under
the law to have this application granted and to have this unbundling
of the ST permit and the -- and the final plat. We are entitled legally,
I submit, to come back here with our ST application, have that
decided, come back later for the final plat. Thank you. I'm sorry it
takes so long. It's late, and -- and we're all tired, and you can see that
a little bit of my Irish is up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess staff recollection --
recollection of why we tied these together -- and I was trying to think.
Is it because we wanted to hear the ST overlay for the gopher tortoise
and the plat at the same time, or we wanted to tie it together for a
control mechanism for a long-term period for the turtles?
MR. REISCHL: My recollection is a combination of those
things, that there are gopher tortoise -- gopher tortoise issues which
are not entirely within the ST area. The ST is a portion of the entire
property.
After listening to the speakers, I do have one other thing that I
think may help you with your decision, or you may choose to use it,
is that we do have a procedure called a Preliminary Subdivision Plat,
PSP, which is an administrative approval or denial. And we can
come back with the ST and the PSP together. Instead of a final plat,
that may give the petitioner more of-- comfort and not spending, as
he quoted, a large amount of money. The preliminary plat doesn't
have to have the construction plans with it. It would be showing the
-- the lines of the tortoise preserve, the lines of the wetland, roads, but
it's still conceptual. There can be minor tweaks between the
preliminary plat and the final plat, that -- just throw that out for your
Page 353
November 27, 2001
consideration.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Fred, you hit the home run
because I'm not a lawyer, and I probably said some things in this that
screwed it all up, and, you know, I'm sorry, folks. I never tried to do
that. You said what I just have been hearing that's been going on for
so long. We wanted to preserve the gopher tortoise. That became a
major issue here, getting that preserve set up. It was never
considered large enough to meet the population, and that became a
major issue. There was somewhat of a wetlands issue here, but that
sort of was secondary compared to saving the tortoises. And then we
had the question of the number of units that were going to be in there
because that exasperated (sic) the traffic and safety conditions that
the community is really concerned and I'm concerned about. Then
we had a lot of players getting involved, as -- as was outlined.
Much of the time spent not doing anything was because we're
waiting for Florida Land Trust to make a decision on whether or not
there would be the money to buy the property from Keystone. This
summer I did get some indication of where that point scale was. I
didn't say anything because I couldn't. But I will tell you, for what
came out, where they are now -- in another week we'll get to a formal
decision -- that they only got 70 points on 140-point scale,
somewhere in that area. An early assessment indicated about 70 to
72 points. So that told me we weren't in very good shape here, and I
was hopeful we'd find some other solution. You're right. Barron
Collier Company started to come forward. It met with some negative
re -- reactions, so they pulled off and said, "Wait a minute. I don't
want to do anything until you get this whole deal settled with Florida
Land Trust."
Recently Tom Garlick and Paula Davis and Keystone came to
me and said if we can come back with what you just gave the
mechanism for, if we can show you that we'll preserve this large area
Page 354
November 27, 2001
of tortoise preserve, we'll reduce the density in the project, we want
to find a mechanism to come in without spending a hundred thousand
dollars to do it. Now, I'm just -- I'm just a guy sitting here. I said,
you know, that makes a hell of a lot of logical sense to me. How do
you move it forward and get everybody a chance to look at this? So
they're afraid to say or do anything until they can come forward and
find a procedure. Nobody wants to do anything until the Florida
Land Trust makes a decision. And now it looks like it's all coming
together.
Florida Land Trust in a week is going to tell us up or down.
Now, when that goes away, what are our options? Barron Collier, do
they come back into the picture? I don't know. If Keystone has
another option to bring us in January that says here's what we want to
show you through the term you just gave me, I -- I need some help
here, folks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to say, if it's acceptable to
the communities, can we take that procedure which gives you two
opportunities to come and discuss it in front of the board, to have
personal meetings with Keystone -- and I'm asking tonight, Keystone,
if we do this, will you immediately meet with Palm River
Association? I'm getting a nodding heads out there. Immediately, I
mean within a time that both of you agree to.
MR. GARLICK: We'll obediently schedule those. We have
underway the changes that we want to show. And as soon as they're
finished, we'll have a meeting. And that's why we are looking to
January.
MALE VOICE: Why haven't they done it for two years?
MR. PIRES: If I may, Tony Pires for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Briefly, Tony.
MR. PIRES: If-- ifI may briefly answer a question you were
Page 355
November 27, 2001
going to ask, why haven't they come to us, I recognize,
Commissioner Carter, we've had no communication. Mr. Garlick
knows where my office is; they know where Mr. Belt is; Mr. Farmer
was retained by them to be their point person, if I recall.
I would suggest if the board is going to go down the path as
suggested by Mr. Reischl, to have the PSP not approved by staff but
have it blessed by the board essentially at the same time as the ST,
that it also go back before the EAC, brand new, go back before the
CCPC, brand new. This is new; this is revised. I think they need to
get another look at it because of the other issues that arose last year
where it was determined that the areas they were trying to set aside
for gopher tortoise preserve were not acceptable to the permitting
agencies which radically changed the staff recommendation.
So I think nothing should be scheduled until after the -- the
public participation process that you-all are utilizing in all other
aspects. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Pires, you got a second opinion
right behind you.
MR. PIRES: I'm sure Mr. Garlick will disagree.
MR. GARLICK: And you're absolutely right. And the second
opinion is simply this: We have before the county commission an
application for an ST permit, and that is all. Right now, that's what
was postponed on February 13th. That is what's here. The
application has not changed. We do not have to go back to the EAC.
We do not have to go back to the planning commission. We have the
same application.
Now, on the issue of the PSP, we have to get staff approval for a
PSP, no question about it. We intend to do it before we get back here
for our ST permit application. We have to get approval from the staff
for our gopher tortoise habitat preserve. We intend to do that before
we come back here for our ST. We -- we listened on February 13.
Page 356
November 27, 2001
We knew that we were -- where the votes were. We knew what the
issues were, and we know what they are on density. We know what
they are on gopher tortoise habitat. We know where they are on site
plan, and we're going to deal with those issues. But what we have
here and what we're asking to bring back today is our ST application,
the same one that we had the last time and be able to bring that back
without the plat. We just want to be treated like every other
developer.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is there some -- I mean -- you
know, which attorney is right, legal counsel tells us he can support
whatever we do. So I guess you're really throwing it up here. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chair, ifI may just briefly, one aspect. I think
an important aspect of why the board was considering a denial of the
petition on February 13th was the fact that articulated in the minutes,
when the staff recommendation for approval back to the planning
commission of September 2000 was predicated upon a certain
amount of acreage being allocated and good for gopher tortoise
preserve. Since that September 2000 planning commission
recommendation or staff memorandum, it was found that that acreage
was not the appropriate acreage. And so it became a whole new
ballgame, from our perspective.
I also find out something interesting, why go ahead with the
prior ST petition when we have new plans. I'm really confused. And
I think that's part of the concern by the community is the chaos and
confusion is not engendered by the community, but we believe
honesty is intended by the developer in this case.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to raise another issue
here. No matter what proposal is brought forward, Mr. Pires, are you
telling me that you're suggesting to me as a county commissioner that
Page 3 5 7
November 27, 2001
whoever brings anything in here, whether it's Keystone; Barron
Collier Company; X, Y, Z Company, you want it to go back to the
EAC and planning council process?
MR. PIRFJS: I believe this particular project, yes, because of the
nature of the recommendation to the planning commission back in
September 2000 by the staff as to the approval was predicated upon a
certain amount of acreage being appropriate for gopher tortoise
preserve which subsequently was found not to be appropriate by the
agencies and reduced the amount of gopher tortoise preserve to that is
in the initial recommendation, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: However, if that criteria was
met, sir, that the appropriate acreage was there, help me as to why
you would want to go back to a process if they had met the standard.
MR. PIRES: I think -- I don't know how they could with that
same acreage because -- the same location because that's what was
denied by the other -- if they have new locations for gopher tortoise
preserve, then I think that definitely needs to go back to the EAC.
That's a new equation, because now they're interjecting additional
areas for gopher tortoise preserve that the EAC and the CCPC did not
see.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But if it meets the standards and
set-aside which we ultimately make the decision on, I'm still lost.
MR. PIRES: I believe it would need to go back. That's our, you
know -- our request, and that's what we suggest be the appropriate
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we need to discuss this with
ourselves --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and reach a final decision. I'm
seeing -- I'm seeing certain elements here that really bother me on
both sides. One, we dragged this process out for the landowner for
Page 358
November 27, 2001
some time. I don't think some of the reasons we dragged it out were
really justified. But I don't see the landowner cooperating truly with
Palm River. And this really bothers me, is the fact that there seems to
be a lack of cooperation. Even though it's been promised in the
future, it hasn't happened yet. Good faith hasn't happened, so I -- I'm
a little bit uncomfortable with the whole situation from both ends.
So, of course, we can't vote up and down. We've got to vote one or
the other.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We don't even have a motion
yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're waiting for you maybe to give
You're
us some direction since you're the senior commissioner here.
feeling it, too, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I feel like Custer.
MR. FARMER: If I -- if I may, my name is David Farmer. I
was the original engineer for the project. I have since gone to work
directly for Keystone as their vice president of land development.
This has been a long process. I believe we've been through six
different commissioners on this. There's -- there's a lot of different
sides to every stow. I think what's important here is that it's been
stated that -- that we're not here in the spirit of cooperation. Well, in
fact -- and I think Commissioner Carter will agree with this, that we
even met with him at least once -- well, at least once with the
homeowners directly in his office. I spoke with the homeowners this
last summer telling them that, well, we really didn't -- didn't have
anything to share yet because, again, the -- there were other things,
you know, cogs in the wheel with the Florida Land Trust and such.
Every time that we make a public submittal Mr. Pires finds
something wrong with it. The homeowners have sat here and said
that we, you know, have never changed the plan whereas, in fact,
we've changed it probably four times. We've -- we've got different
Page 359
November 27, 2001
plans on file so -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, I hear you loud and clear.
But I want to -- I want to use this for an example -- MR. FARMHILL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- a good example. This is what the
e-mail was from Falling Waters. Today no one showed up to protest
it because Bruce Anderson and whoever else he was working with
worked with the residents there continuously over and over and over
until they reached the point where they -- they understood each other,
and they came to an opinion, and everything went right on through.
You haven't reached this point yet that I can see.
MR. FARMHILL: If I can beg the board's indulgence, we want
to meet with the homeowners.
We want to work--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
We want to show them what we have.
I think we can give you that
opportunity to meet with the homeowners.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. I don't want to violate
what I've always said and call process. What would it take -- okay.
You -- you come and -- you want to bring something new and
different to the party, and I understand that. And there's a mechanism
where they can do that and not spend a hundred thousand dollars.
Can they do that and go through the EAC, the planning council and
come back to us on that same train?
MR. REISCHL: That's a possibility. I haven't seen any new
submittal, so I don't want to make a judgment on something that I
haven't seen yet. But either way it's possible to come directly to you
if it's unchanged or to go through the -- the three boards. But, again,
I haven't seen any submittal on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Exactly why are we interested in
going back through all -- all the boards again? I'm kind of lost on
that part too.
Page 360
November 27, 2001
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, representative for Little
Palm -- or for Palm River is saying that regardless of what we do, it is
his judgment call that we need to take it back through that process
before anything gets back to us if it's a new approach resolving the
problem.
Authoritorily -- see, I'm looking for the line here,
Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is this something that the Board
of County Commissioners can say, "Wait a minute. You know,
we've really examined this, and the only issue here is gopher tortoise
preserve. How many acres? And it meets the standard. Why would
you take it back to the group? And you reduce the density; that will
be less than they ever saw before. Do you take it back to the process
to get those questions reviewed again when it's even a better plan
than what came through the first time?" so I'm struggling with what
is the level of authority here on the Board of County Commissioners
to deal with that, and that's why I was asking legal counsel.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Maybe Mr. Olliff might be able to
help us with this from his years of experience. Now he's looking --
he's trying to figure it out, what he's trying to say. Tom, what do you
think? What's a way that we can handle this that would be equitable?
MR. OLLIFF: There are some fundamental things that I don't
understand. If the plan is changed significantly enough that they
need to go out and tell the community, tell the other developments
around and bring something new to you to see, I'm not sure why that
doesn't tell us that it's changed significantly enough that the advisory
boards along the way ought to see it as well. If it hasn't changed
significantly, I don't know why we would be rereviewing the same
petition again. So I guess that's a fundamental question that I need, I
guess, the property owner to answer.
Page 361
November 27, 2001
MR. FARMER: For the record, again, David Farmer. Just a
quick example of that. Earlier I believe it was John Belt that brought
up we have five lots impacting the jurisdictional wetland boundary.
Well, if-- let's just say, for instance, that we had a hundred lots. If I
pulled those five lots out, that would remove the wetland impact, but
would that be a substantive change to the plan? Again, that's a
judgment call on your part. In my opinion, the answer would be no,
if you take five lots out, that would not be a big deal -- and yet it
would get rid of one of the issues. But that's the kind of example that
we -- that's -- that's an example of one of the reasons we'd like to
meet with the homeowners and show them a new plan without fear of
-- of retaliation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Retaliation--
MR. FARMER: Retaliation. And here's the plan and then hire
experts and then find 15 things wrong with it when we've done
everything that we -- that we know to do.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Let me move this forward
before we get into tomorrow.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, here's where I'm going to
go with this, if I may, Commissioner, because it's my district. I'm
going to make a motion that we do allow them to come back with a
new -- a new proposal that is reviewed by the EAC, the PAC, and the
homeowners' groups under the shortened version outlined by Fred
Reischl where it doesn't cost them a hundred thousand dollars to
bring it through the system. Is that legal?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, you're still linking something, again. I
think what Fred was telling you about was with the preliminary --
MR. REISCHL: Site plan.
MR. WEIGEL: -- site plan. It's typically a voluntary thing that
is done for the expeditious reasons of the applicant with staff as
they're moving through the process. And I don't think you'll see that.
Page 362
November 27, 2001
And correct me if I'm wrong, Fred, unless -- they wouldn't see it in
the normal process anyway.
MR. REISCHL: You're -- you're right except it is required by
code. The preliminary plat is required by code, but it's
administrative. So the board would not see that in a normal petition.
It could be approved by the development services director.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But what I just said, I think,
allows that to come through. And when we do get to see the site plan
and deal with the ST considerations...
MR. GARLICK: May I suggest that you direct us to come back
with a preliminary site plan and our application for the ST approval
and contingent upon staff's approving the preliminary -- preliminary
site plan and our compliance with the gopher tortoise ordinance.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And bring it back to --
MR. GARLICK: Those are all the issues that everybody wants
to talk about. That's all there are. All right? Bring it back-- bring us
back on our ST application, all right, contingent upon approval of our
PSP and our gopher tortoise habitat -- compliance with the ordinance
as examined by staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Along with meetings of the
homeowners' association, both Collier's Reserve and Palm River.
MR. GARLICK: Excuse me. But, you know, we have tried to
communicate with the homeowners' associations, with all due respect
to them, and they keep talking about the last eight months. In the last
eight months we have been cooperating with the county trying to find
a way, within our reasonable business sense and judgment, to take
this piece of property that we have a significant investment in and
allow it to be purchased by some other organization to, please, follow
the interests. I mean, it's a win-win for everybody. If The
Conservancy will give us money, then Collier's Reserve is happy,
Page 363
November 27, 2001
Palm River is happy, The Conservancy is happy, all of the
conservation interests are happy. But we can't just go on that
assumption. It's just probably not going to happen. If it doesn't have
to happen, we have to go forward with our development applications.
This commission, with all due respect, cannot block us from going
forward before this commission with our applications for
development because people don't like our -- our -- our property -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nobody's asking you, sir. I
mean, from the get-go, nobody --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. What I'm saying to this is, if
you go back through the process, then you've done everything and try
to expedite it --
MR. GARLICK: Yeah. But, you see --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- in such a way that you can
bring it forward--
MR. GARLICK: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You know, it's imposing
upon my client a procedural hurdle that it is not obligated to follow.
And every time that happens, every time we go back to the EAC,
every time we go to the planning commission, it's money, money,
money, dollars, dollars, dollars. It's not fair, okay, because other
developers aren't asked to do it. I know this is a unique development.
I know there's a lot of opposition. God knows I know that, all right?
I'm sorry. We -- we have done everything we can to try to have a
responsible development--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I think you made your point. I'm
going to ask you to step back from the mike now and let us proceed
with this--
MR. GARLICK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to a conclusion. I think we're all
repeating ourselves, to be honest with you.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Coletta and Mr. Carter, just to make sure
Page 364
November 27, 2001
we're all sure of our acronyms, our PSPs, here, when Mr. Reischl
brought it up, he talked about a preliminary subdivision plat. We're
not talking about a preliminary site plan. I know it's gotten mixed
around even by me here. Mr. Carter was talking about the ST
coming to the board and that they -- the board have the opportunity to
review a preliminary subdivision plat, which this board understands -
- and I'll reiterate -- it's not -- that is not a matter for them to approve
in the sense that it is a matter that comes to staff, it's reviewed and
approved at the staff level, and it's only what it is, nothing more, a
preliminary subdivision plat. It's not the final plat which ultimately
would come to you to approve. But it may be illustrative --
illustrative and-- and of assistance to you in your deliberations that
you have on the ST when it comes before you again.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. I've got a motion. Do I
have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't know you had a
motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I made a motion that they'd have
to take it back through the process with their ST and their preliminary
plot so that everybody could see the picture. What are they talking
about? Did they preserve the gopher tortoise preserve? Did they
meet the wetlands? Did they do everything that we've been asking
them to do? And if they met the criteria, go through that process,
bring it back to the board, but not asking them to go into elaborate
construction plans until it went through the process and we -- then it's
up or down or out or whatever it is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing I would want to add
to your motion -- and I'll second it -- whether they have a proscribed
number of meetings with the residents there, no matter how painful it
is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I would -- I would ask
Page 365
November 27, 2001
them to have at least-- at least one meeting with each one of the
entities, Collier's Reserve and Little Palm -- and Palm River, so that
they know. And if they need more -- I hate to name the number of
meetings I'd want them to meet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second your motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question or clarification. Now,
this is not going through the planning commission or the EAC. It's
just doing a preliminary plat; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No. I'm saying it's got to run it
through both of those -- those advisory councils.
MR. REISCHL: And technically the ST would be the petition
that the three boards would be reviewing. The preliminary plat
would be up -- up to approval, and then we would have it on hold
only for the ST permit, and then that would come to EAC, planning
commission, and Board of County Commissioners. Is that how I
under-- do I understand that correctly?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are we saying the same thing?
MR. REISCHL: I think so.
MR. OLLIFF: But the -- the preliminary plat would be attached
to the ST so that the entire package could be seen at one time.
MR. REISCHL: Yes. I'm sorry. Good -- and that's a good
point.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm sorry. I want the whole
package.
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So everybody says, okay, I've
seen it all, now make your decision by seeing it all instead of looking
at pieces so that we could really -- I hope we get this thing resolved
once and for all.
MR. GARLICK: May I have a clarification of the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
Page 366
November 27, 2001
MR. GARLICK: I don't understand the motion, sir. Is the
motion that we should take our preliminary site plan --
MS. STUDENT: It's not a site plan --
MR. GARLICK: Or preliminary plat and ST application both
back to EAC and the planning commission and then return to the
county commission for approval of those items without having to
come back for approval of the final plat?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. REISCHL: If I can correct another thing, the code still
requires them to come back for a final plat.
MR. GARLICK: I understand we have to come back for one.
I'm just clarifying -- MR. REISCHL:
MR. GARLICK:
Not at the same time.
We go back to the EAC, we go back to the
planning commission, we come back here, it's a preliminary plat.
Then we come back after -- assuming we get the approvals, our
approvals we need here, we come back for a final plat. MR. REISCHL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Plus you meet with the residents.
MR. GARLICK: That's not an issue, never was.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm just naming it, in my motion,
at least one meeting with each.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll amend my second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. You amended the second.
You've got to call the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we -- we have a motion; we have
a second. I hate to ask this, but any more discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of the motion
indicate by saying aye.
Page 367
November 27, 2001
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It passes 5 to 0.
Now we're at the end of that, so now we're at communications;
am I correct? Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no communications. I
don't think anybody would dare have any communications.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have to go through the process.
Let's take a second, but I think you scared them enough on that.
Mr. Weigel?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're all going to leave.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. One -- one brief thing, and that is --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you first, Mr. Weigel. We'll be
coming to you, Mr. Coyle.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. Just -- just to go back to
8-A, the Bucks Run item that we discussed earlier today, you
approved a -- a PUD, and that included work-force housing within
the PUD. And I want to make sure that the record reflects that in
your approval of the PUD that that also included the affordable
housing density bonus agreement that was passed out to you and
discussed by Ray Bellows. And I'd like the record to reflect that, that
you're indicating that that is correct, and I want the record to be very
complete.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. I understood it to be
that way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I did too. I didn't think it
could be any other way, so I'm glad you clarified that.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. And that's it.
Page 368
November 27, 2001
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Just welcome Commissioner Coyle to
commissioner boot camp. Special commendations to Mrs. Coyle to
have sat here the entire day as well.
I have nothing to add, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In all due respect, I do have -- it
won't take long, but I need to do this, okay, if you'll bear with me,
and I'm saying it on the public record because I made the comments
in public, and I owe a couple of apologies.
Number one, I made a statement on the radio, and it was brought
to my attention by a respected columnist in this town and a couple
others that there was a perception that I was putting down the people
who had voted on the tax referendum by alluding that, well, there was
only 28 percent turnout and, therefore, was I discounting it. Never
for a moment. You know, I apologize for that. I would never
discount the 28 percent of the population that went and voted on such
a critical issue. I really believe that they did what they needed to do.
I lament that we only had a 28 percent turnout and that more
people didn't turn out on something so important to the community.
But I -- you know, the bottom line is the voters told us and sent us a
message, and I believe that. And I respect that, and if any way that
anyone took that in the wrong way, I sincerely apologize because I
Page 369
November 27, 2001
believe that you did what we asked everybody to do, and that's go to
the polls and vote on very important items.
The second thing is, I have made a couple public statements
from this dias about Jeff Lytle and the Naples Daily News. And I
apologize to Jeff for those statements because they were
inappropriate on my part in a public format or, in fact, any format,
because one of the key things that I believe from the bottom of my
heart is first right amendments, and you got a right to your opinion,
and you can print your opinion, and you can do it on any topic
because that is a right, and I would defend that to my death, the right
of anybody to do that. And I -- I really want to say to Jeff, I do get it.
I do understand it, and you have a right to make those statements
because that is your right. And I believe that. And all I'm going to
tell you is that I -- you won't hear it out of my lips again. I did it. I
apologize for it, and I -- that's -- I'm sincere about that, and I just
hope that we'll have a healing process in this community so that we
can go forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Jim.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you both, all of you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would just like to say good night
to my husband, good night, Paul.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I might add, Maryanne, put the
dinner in the microwave. I'll be there in a few minutes. I would like
to remind the new commissioners, Mr. Coyle, one year and one day
ago that we started this process, our first meeting was the same thing
that you're going through today. This is an initiation.
intentionally.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
It's not
That's right.
I appreciate your patience.
And I -- I'd like you to look out in
Page 370
November 27, 2001
the audience, and you'll notice that Mrs. Coyle is still here. I have
never met a husband or wife of one of the commissioners that
actually could sit through a whole meeting. Congratulations. Thank
you for the loan of your husband. With that I'll say good night and
good-bye.
***** Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2001-08 RE CARNY-2001-AR- 1714,
SANDRA RAMOS, PROGRAM LEADER II, IMMOKALEE
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION, REQUESTING
A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE 8TM ANNUAL CARNIVAL
AROUND THE WORLD, ON DECEMBER 8, 2001, AT THE
IMMOKALEE SPORTS COMPLEX
Item #16A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2001-09 RE PETITION CARNY-2001-AR-
1699, PEG RUBY, SPECIAL EVENTS COORDINATOR,
COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING PERMIT TO CONDUCT THE
ANNUAL SNOWFEST CARNIVAL ON DECEMBER 1,2001, ON
COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY AT THE GOLDEN GATE
COMMUNITY PARK, 3300 SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD
Item # 16A3
Page 371
November 27, 2001
FEE WAIVED FOR AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE
APPLICATION FOR A SWIMMING POOL ENCROACHING
INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR LOT 78, UNIT 1,
SOUTHPORT ON THE BAY, 188 TOPANGA DRIVE,
REQUESTED BY RAYMOND BERUBE REPRESENTING THE
BERUBE BROTHERS, INC.
Item # 16A4
RESOLUTION 2001-449, AUTHORIZING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VENEZIA AT
GREY OAKS"
Item #16A5
F1NAL PLAT OF "CEDAR HAMMOCK- UNIT 6" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE
SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A6
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT A DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,000 FROM THE FLORIDA
FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Item # 16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES
FOR DOUBLETREE HOTEL AND UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY TO BE RELEASED
Page 372
November 27, 2001
Item #16A8
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III,
UNIT FOUR" AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE, PHASE TWO-A" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE
SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS
Item #16Al0
MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A ONE
HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND ($180,000) DOLLAR LOAN
TO THE SHELTER FOR ABUSED WOMEN OF COLLIER
COUNTY ASSISTING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 60 UNIT
AFFORDABLE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SHELTER
Item #16Al 1
FISCAL YEAR 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE TOURISM ALLIANCE OF
COLLIER COUNTY REGARDING ADVERTISING,
PROMOTION AND SPECIAL EVENTS
Item #16A12 - Moved to Item #10E
Item #16B 1
Page 373
November 27, 2001
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS, $15,500,
FROM RESERVES FOR THE SAN MARCO ROAD CULVERT
PROJECT FOR A CHANGE ORDER TO WORK ORDER WD-018
Item # 16B2
CHANGE ORDER #1 TO WORK ORDER #BRC-FT-01-03, WITH
BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
AT SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD/GOLDEN GATE
PARKWAY, PROJECT #60016, IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,602.18
Item #16B3 -Continued to a Meeting in January, 2002
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A "NO FISHING"
RESTRICTION ON BRIDGE NUMBER 030210, PLANTATION
PARKWAY OVER THE EVERGLADES DRAINAGE CANAL
Item #16B4
ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ACCEPTANCE
AND DONATION AGREEMENT FROM THE FOUNTAINS
CONDOMINIUM THAT WILL FACILITATE THE COUNTY IN
MAINTAINING AN EXISTING DRAINAGE EASEMENT
NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD
Item #16B5
RESOLUTION 2001-450, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY IN FEE SIMPLE
TITLE, AS WELL AS PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, TEMPORARY
DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENTS, AND TEMPORARY
Page 374
November 27, 2001
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE ONE OF THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD FOUR-LANING PROJECT (FROM JUST
WEST OF WILSON BOULEVARD TO 43RD AVENUE
NORTHEAST), PROJECT NO. 60018
Item #16B6
RFP-01-3296, BAYSHORE STREET LIGHTING- AWARDED TO
LUMEC INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $122,182; STAFF TO ISSUE
A PURCHASE ORDER IN LIEU OF A FORMAL CONTRACT TO
PURCHASE THE STREETLIGHTS
Item #16C 1
BID #01-3295 FOR THE PURCHASE OF SODIUM CHLORITE
FOR ODOR CONTROL OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE IN SLUDGE
- AWARDED TO VULCAN PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $44,900
Item #16C2
PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORIZED TO
NEGOTIATE A BINDING AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RELATED TO RECLAIMED WATER STORAGE PONDS AT
EAGLE LAKES PARK
Item # 16C3
Page 375
November 27, 2001
AMENDMENT TO A WORK ORDER JEI-FT-01-01-A TO
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES FOR A 12" WATER
MAIN ON EAST US 41 FROM MANATEE ROAD TO BOYNE
SOUTH AND A 6" FORCE MAIN FROM PUMP STATION 3.17
TO BOYNE SOUTH, PROJECTS 70862 AND 73061 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $28,800
Item #16C4
FUNDS FOR A JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZED FOR
ADDITIONAL COUNTY UTILITY RELOCATIONS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH US 41 ROAD WIDENING FROM
MYRTLE ROAD TO OLD US 41, PROJECTS 70047, 70048 AND
73048 IN THE AMOUNT OF $275,960.62
Item #16C5 - Deleted
Item # 16C6
EMERGENCY AFTER-THE-FACT PURCHASE OF A LINE
STOP FROM RANGELINE TAPPING SERVICES FOR A 24"
DUCTILE IRON FORCE MAIN IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,900
Item # 16C7
FINAL PAYMENT FOR LEGAL COUNSEL RELATED TO
LAWSUIT AGAINST BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FOR CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NORTH COUNTY
Page 376
November 27, 2001
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 70002 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $32,009.33
Item # 16D 1
AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT A POSITION FOR FLORIDA
YARDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS FUNDED BY A UNIVERSITY
OF FLORIDA GRANT AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY
Item # 16D2
WORK ORDER PBS-01-03 - AWARDED TO PROFESSIONAL
BUILDING SYSTEMS (PBS), INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SOUTH MARCO BEACH ACCESS RESTROOM FACILITY
IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,939
Item # 16E 1 - Deleted
Item # 16E2
CONTRACT #01-3235 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY-
AWARDED TO DISNEY AND ASSOCIATES, VICTOR
LATAVISH, SCHENKEL SCHULTZ ARCHITECTURE AND
BARANY, SCHMITT, SUMMERS, WEAVER AND PARTNERS
INC.
Item # 16E3
BID g01-3298 FOR TEMPORARY CLERICAL SERVICES -
AWARDED TO COASTAL STAFFING SERVICE INC.,
MANPOWER, KELLY SERVICES AND ADECCO
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Page 377
November 27, 2001
Item # 16E4
SHORTLIST OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT 01-3289 FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES TO CH2M HILL, ANCHOR ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS, TECO BGA INC., AND TILDEN LOBNITZ
COOPER; STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Item #16E5
BID g01-3287 FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO
CORPORATE EXPRESS AND MARCO OFFICE SUPPLY
Item # 16E6
BID #01-3286 FOR HANDYMAN/MINOR CARPENTRY
SERVICES - AWARDED TO BRADANNA INC., WM. J.
VARIAN AND MADE IN RIO, INC.
Item # 16E7 - Deleted
Item #16F 1
TECHNICAL SERVICE SUPPORT AGREEMENT WITH
MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL FOR THE MAINTENANCE
AND UPGRADE OF LIFEPAK MONITORS FOR THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $31,404 FOR FY02
Item # 16J 1
Page 378
November 27, 2001
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence has been filed
and/or referred to the various departments as indicated:
Page 379
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
16J1
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Ao
Bo
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for October 24, 2001- October 30, 2001.
2. Disbursements for October 31, 2001, - November 6, 2001.
Districts:
Pelican Marsh Community Development - Agenda for their Annual
Report - Audit dated September 30, 2000, Management Letter and
Rebuttal to Management Letter.
Key Marco Community Development District - Minutes of the Meeting
held July 17, 2001, FY 2002 Budget and Financial Statement Unaudited
June 30, 2001.
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of June 27,
2001, Operating Budget for FY 2002 and Financial Statement Unaudited
May 31, 2001.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of July 13,
2001, July 25, 2001, District Map, Budget FY 2002 and Financial
Statements Unaudited June 30, 2001.
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District - Final Budget for
FY 2000-2001 and Final Budget for FY 2001-2002.
Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District -Agenda for November 14,
2001
Minutes:
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Meeting Minutes of
September 21,2001.
Collier County Tourist Development Council - Agenda for November 8,
2001.
H:Data/Format
16J1
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Meeting Minutes of October 15,
2001.
1-75/Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 8, 2001, Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2001.
Rural Fringe Area Assessment Oversight Committee - Agenda for
November 7, 2001.
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Meeting
Minutes of October 17, 2001
H:Data/Format
November 27, 2001
Item #16L 1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 13-70 IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN B. FASSETT,
TRUSTEE, ET AL, (LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT, PROJECT
NO. 65041)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT $80,561.22 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L2
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS PETER B. FRANK
AND ANN T. FRANK FOR PARCELS 155 AND 855 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. RONALD G. BENDER
AND MICHELE J. BENDER, TRUSTEES UNDER THAT CERTAIN
DECLARATION OF TR UST DA TED THE 17TM DAY OF MAY, 1991,
ETAL, CASE NO. 98-1394-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD
EXTENSION- GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO RADIO ROAD)
PROJECT NO. 60061 - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $28,450 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item # 16L3
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENTS, KATHLEEN G.
SEDLACEK AND DONALD E. CLINE, FOR PARCELS 219 AND
219T IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,100.00 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. KATHRYN HANKINS, ET AL,
CASE NO. 99-1296-CA. PROJECT NO. 63041. (GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD PROJECT)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT $1,700 INTO
THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Page 380
November 27, 2001
Item #16L4
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, H.R. MOAG, JR.,
FOR PARCEL 218 IN THE AMOUNT OF $800.00 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER CO UN T Y V. ICg THR YN HA NKINS ,
ETAL, CASE NO. 99-1296-CA. PROJECT NO. 63041. (GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT $400
INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
CONDEMNATION OF PARCEL NO. 169 IN COLLIER COUNTY
V. GEORGE IZlSNICH, ETAL, CASE NO. 91-2776-CA. (PINE
RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK MSTU PROJECT FROM 1991)-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT $31,500 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT
Item # 17A
ORDINANCE 2001-65, RE PETITION PUDA-2001-AR-881,
WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT INC. REPRESENTING THE SALVATION
ARMY, A NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION, REQUESTING
TO REPEAL THE CURRENT SALVATION ARMY PUD AND TO
ADOPT A NEW PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING
THE SITE AREA BY 0.73 ACRES AND ADDING MOTOR
VEHICLE DISPLAY AND SALES TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED
USES FOR THE COMMERCIAL TRACT OF THE PUD. THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH OF ESTEY AVENUE
Page 381
November 27, 2001
Item #17B - Continued to 12/11/01
PETITION RZ-2001-AR-1208, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF
HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC.
REPRESENTING LARRY J. AND MARCY A. GODE
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF "C-3" COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE
ZONING DISTRICT TO "RMF-6" RESIDENTIAL MULTI-
FAMILY DISTRICT FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 109TM AVENUE NORTH APPROXIMATELY
275 FEET WEST OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2001-451, RE SNR-2001-AR-1503, THE
OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION, REPRESENTING THE TRANSPORTATION
ADMINISTRATOR, REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE
FOR A PORTION OF LIVINGSTON ROAD NORTH AND
SOUTH TO OLD LIVINGSTON ROAD, LOCATED IN UNIT 35,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item # 17D- Moved to Item #7B
Item # 17E
ORDINANCE 2001-66 RATIFYING AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE MORE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF
THE COUNTY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
Page 382
November 27, 2001
GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FUNDED BY THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
(HUD) BY PROVIDING FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CDBG
PROGRAM THROUGH FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2001-2005
Item # 17F
RESOLUTION 2001-452, RE PETITION VA-2001-AR- 1295,
ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE MONTES INC.,
REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC
UTILITIES/WASTEWATER ADMINISTRATION, REQUESTING
A THREE (3) FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED
THIRTY (30) FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 27 FEET FOR A
PROPOSED SLUDGE HOLDING TANK IN THE "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 5600 WARREN STREET
Item #17G- Moved to Item #8H
Page 383
November 27, 2001
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
These minutes approved by the Board on
///~ ~ ,as
presented
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN FORD, BARBARA
DRESCHER AND BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR
Page 384