BCC Minutes 12/11/2001 RDecember 11, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, December 11,2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, 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 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members
ALSO PRESENT:
present:
CHAIRMAN:
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Jim Coletta
Donna Fiala
Tom Henning
Fred Coyle
Thomas Olliff, County Manager
Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Leo Ochs, Assistant County Manager
Page 1
December 11, 2001
Ramiro Manalich, Assistant County
Attorney
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Sue Filson, Board Secretary
Susan Murray, Planning Manager
Page 2
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
December 11, 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
1
December 11, 2001
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
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
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended
November 13, 2001 -Regular BCC Meeting
3. PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation for National Homeless Person's Memorial Day. To be
accepted by Kelly Shaver Hayman, Chairperson of the Coalition and George
Drobinski.
4. SERVICE AWARDS
Five-Year Attendees:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
John Hayes, Wastewater
Julie Allen, Parks and Recreation
Anais Pappalardo, Parks and Recreation
Marc Matthews, Emergency Medical Services
Joseph Boney, Parks and Recreation
Rex O'Dell. Public Utilities
Terri Meyer, Transportation
Jeffery Smith, Wastewater Collections
Ten-Year Attendees:
9) Heather Sweet, Utility Billing
Fifteen-Year Attendees:
2
December 11, 2001
e
10) Georgina Mausen, Risk Management
Twen ,ty-Year Attendees:
11) Gwen Butler, Purchasing
PRESENTATIONS
This item was continued from the November 27~ 2001 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to recognize Beverly Fields, Lieutenant, Emergency
Medical Services, as Employee of the Month for October 2001.
Recommendation to recognize Beverly Fields, Lieutenant, Emergency
Medical Services, as Employee of the Year for 2001.
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. Public Comments on General Topics
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. ADA-2001-AR-1660
appeal from interpretation INTP-2001-AR-1466 by R. Bruce Anderson of
the Firm Young, VanAssenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson, P.A., representing
Gulf Coast American Blind and Diaz Family Limited Partnership, requesting
an Administrative Appeal to official interpretation INTP-2001-AR-1466
concerning an interpretation by the Collier County Planning Services
Director of the Westview Plaza PUD as it relates to the Blinds/Window
Covering Manufacturing Business.
B. THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED TO THE 2/26/02 BCC MEETING
(Petitioner's request). This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. ADA-
2000-AR- 16 l 3 appeal from interpretation INTP-2001-AR- 1209 by Anthony
P. Pires of the Firm Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, P.A., requesting an
Administrative Appeal to official interpretation INTP-2001-AR-1209
concerning an interpretation by the Collier County Planning Services
Director of Section 2.7.3.5.1.3. of the Land Development Code concerning
the reduction of open space as it relates to the requirements of the Code as to
3
December 11, 2001
what constitutes a substantial or insubstantial change to a PUD Master Plan.
THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED TO THE 2/26/02 BCC MEETING
(Petitioner's request). This item requires that all participants be sworn
in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. ADA-
2001-AR-1370 appeal from interpretation 1NTP-2001-AR-854 by Anthony
P. Pires of the Firm Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, P.A., requesting an
Administrative Appeal to official interpretation INTP-2001-AR-854
concerning an interpretation by the Collier County Planning Services
Director of Section 2.7.3.5.1.3. of the Land Development Code concerning
the reduction of open space as it relates to the requirements of the Code as to
what constitutes a substantial or insubstantial change to a PUD Master Plan.
THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. VA-2001-AR- 1166, Avi Baron, PLS,
representing Montclair Fairway Estate Building Corporation, requesting an
after-the-fact variance of 2.3 feet from the required 5 feet to 2.7 feet for
property located on 797 Provincetown Drive, further described as Lot 29,
Montclair Park North, in Section 5, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEMS AT B, CT DT AND E TO BE HEARD AT 1:00 p.m.
A. THIS 1TEM CONTINUED FROM 11/28/01 SPECIAL BCC
MEETING. Adopt the 2001 Collier County Wastewater Master Plan
Update, Project 73066.
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM 11/28/01 SPECIAL BCC
Ce
MEETING. Adopt the 2001 Collier County Water Master Plan Update,
Project 70070.
Adopt proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees.
THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM 11/28/01 SPECIAL BCC
MEETING. Adopt proposed reuse (treated wastewater) rates.
4
December 11, 2001
te
Adopt an Ordinance that implements proposed rates for water and sewer
services; and consolidates all existing and separately approved utility billing
ordinances into one comprehensive ordinance.
F. THIS ITEM REQUIRES THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS BE SWORN
IN AND EX PARTE DISCLOSURE BE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS. Petition RZ-2001-AR-1165, Michael and
Tammy McEndree requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to the
"RSF-3" Residential Single Family Zoning District with a density cap of one
dwelling unit per 2.27 acre or a maximum of two single family lots for
property located at the southeast comer of Polly Avenue and Everett Street,
in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,
consisting of 4.55 acres more or less.
An Ordinance amending many substantive provisions throughout the Collier
County Ordinance No. 95-66, as amended the "Collier County Public
Vehicle for Hire Ordinance".
An Ordinance creating the Livingston Road Phase II Beautification
Municipal Service Taxing Unit; providing the authority; providing for
creation; providing a purpose and governing body; providing funding and
the levy of not to exceed 2 mils of ad valorem taxes per year; providing for
collection of taxes; providing for creation of the Livingston Road
Beautification Advisory Committee; appointment and composition;
providing for terms of office of the advisory committee; providing for
officers of the advisory committee; quorum; rules of procedure; providing
for functions, powers and duties of the advisory committee; providing for
duties of the County Manager or his designee; providing for review process
of advisory committee; providing for conflict and severability; providing for
inclusion in the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances; providing for
an effective date.
An Ordinance creating the Urban Area Beautification Municipal Service
Taxing Unit; providing the authority; providing for the creation of the unit
excluding the incorporated areas of Collier County and existing roadway
beautification Municipal Service Taxing Units; providing a purpose and
governing body; providing funding and the levy of not to exceed one-half
(.5) mil of Ad Valorem taxes per year; providing for the collection of taxes;
providing for duties of the County Manager or his designee; providing for
conflict and severability; providing for inclusion in the Collier County Code
December 11, 2001
of Laws and Ordinances; providing for an effective date.
Approve an Ordinance Amendment, amending Ordinance 93-72, as
amended, commonly known as the County Manager's Ordinance, clarifying
and establishing the process for communications between the Board of
County Commissioners and the staff of the County Manager.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Appointment of members to the Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
C. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
D. Appointment of members to the Community of Character Council.
Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Approve an Interlocal Agreement - MOU between Collier County and the
Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District.
B. This item has been deleted.
Ce
Approve committee selection of firms for contract negotiations (law
enforcement and correctional facilities impact fees) for RFP 02-3317
"Consultant Services for Impact Fee Update Studies.
De
Authorization to initiate legal action to allow the County to proceed with
design and construction of the approved Vanderbilt Beach parking garage.
Recommendation to confirm Joseph K. Schmitt to the position of
Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
6
December 11, 2001
F. Presentation of the Fourteenth Annual Survey of Registered Voters.
Ge
Review and approve the appropriate invoices regarding the advertising and
promotion of Collier County nationally and internationally and find a public
purpose has been served.
2002 Agreements between Collier County and Prutos Public Relations, Inc.,
Phase V of Southwest Florida, Inc., and Evans-Klages, Inc. (Back-up
material to be available at noon on Friday, December 6, 2001 in Board of
County Commissioners' office, County Manager's Office and Community
Development and Environmental Services.)
Approve a Resolution adopting the Collier County Flow Equalization
System Facilities Plan, authorize the submission of this plan to the FDEP,
and authorize the Public Utilities Administrator to carry out the County's
responsibilities under the Loan Program.
To approve the settlement agreement with Community School of Naples,
Inc., relative to the condemnation of parcels 106 and 706 for the Pine Ridge
Road project in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Community School of
Naples, Inc., et. al., Case No. 00-0137-CA and the purchase of 6.86 acres
(Parcel 101) of right-of-way for the Livingston Road Project.
K. Presentation of the "Vital Signs" Report.
11. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item has a Time Certain for 2:00 P.M. This item was continued
from the November 27, 2001 BCC Meeting. Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board recommendation for adoption of a Resolution requesting dialogue
between Immokalee Growers and Farm Workers.
Recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners to enter into
settlement in Collier County v. Marshall, et al, Case No. 99-2009-CA-TB,
now pending in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit (County's Prescriptive
Easement Claim for Miller Boulevard Extension).
7
December 11, 2001
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. FUTURE AGENDAS
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the Satisfaction(s) of Lien for Public Nuisance Abatement Resolution
92-203 and 92-638.
2)
To approve a Resolution endorsing the Empowerment Alliance of
Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation as a
sponsoring agency under the Florida Enterprise Zone Community
Contribution Tax Credit Program.
3) Adopt Resolutions enforcing liens on properties for Code Violations.
4)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Strand Replat - 6".
5)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Brentwood" and
approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
6)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Sterling Oaks
Phase 4", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
8
December 11, 2001
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Authorization to execute a contractual service agreement with the
Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South
Florida to conduct the Transit Development Plan update in the amount
of $75,000.
2)
Approve a Budget Amendment to provide funds to the Radio Road
Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Beautification Fund in the
amount of $80,000.
3)
Approve Work Order No. 53 with Florida State Underground, Inc., for
installation of culverts on Lakewood Boulevard, Project No. 60055, in
the amount of $125,384.64.
4)
Approve a Joint Project Agreement between the South Florida Water
Management District and Collier County for the construction of a box
culvert at 951 Canal East of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), Project
#63051, in the amount of $200,000 - reimbursable.
$)
Approve a Donation Agreement and accept a Drainage Easement to
provide flood relief for property owners within the Kirkwood
Avenue/Gateway Triangle Area.
6)
A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the execution of a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA)
with the Florida Department of Transportation for Section 5311
(Operating Assistance) Funds in the amount of $112,200 -
reimbursable.
7)
A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the execution of a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA)
with the Florida Department of Transportation for State Block Grant
Funds in the amount of $536,150 - reimbursed at 50%.
8)
Approve a budget amendment recognizing carry forward for the US
41 East project in the amount of $169,918 from FY 01 in the MSTD
9
December 11, 2001
General Fund 111.
9)
Recommendation to approve the purchases of one (1) Gradall
Hydroscopic Excavator for the Road and Bridge section from State
Contract in the amount of $182,899.65.
10)
Approve Bid #01-3299, "Golden Gate Beautification MSTU/MSTD
Roadway Grounds Maintenance", in the amount of $404,453.35.
11)
Approve a purchase agreement between the District School Board of
Collier County and Collier County for the acquisition of a six (6)
parcel of land.
12)
A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the execution of a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA)
with the Florida Department of Transportation for Section 5310
(Equipment) Funds.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said lien is satisfied in full for the 1991 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment.
2)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said lien is satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment.
3)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment.
4)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment.
lO
December 11, 2001
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment.
6)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Lien for Solid Waste
Residential Accounts wherein the County has received payment and
said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste Collection and
Disposal Services Special Assessment.
7)
Approval and Execution of Satisfactions of Notice of Promise to pay
and agreement to extend payment of water and/or sewer system
impact fees.
8)
Funding for Livingston Road Utility Facilities Reimbursement and
Contribution Agreement with Long Bay Partners LLC in the amount
of $883,825.
9)
Approve Work Order LAG-FT-02-02 to Law Engineering and
Environmental Services Inc., for professional material testing services
for the South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion, Contract
99-2962, Project 73949 in the amount of $293,072.
Declare an Emergency and Authorize Negotiations for design-build
services for new reverse osmosis raw water supply wells for the North
County Regional Water Treatment Plant, Project 70075.
11) Recommendation to Award Bid #01-3288 - "Chemicals for Utilities"
in the amount of $548,341.65.
Resolution providing for Board appointment of a replacement member
to the Community Advisory Council pertaining to Landfill Operation
Agreement between Collier County and Waste Management Inc. of
Florida.
Accept Utility Easements and Temporary Construction Easements for
construction of a sewer interconnect to reroute flows between the
North County Sewer System and the South County Sewer System.
11
December 11, 2001
16)
Approve expenditures in excess of $25,000 on State negotiated
contract and sole source to purchase software and licenses for the GIS
Project. The total expenditure is $210,073.61.
Award Bid No. 01-3306 for the purchase of Backflow/Fire Line
Meters, in the amount of $314,171.
Award Bid No. 02-3307 to Severn Trent-Avatar Utility Services,
LLC, for the installation of an Automatic Read Meter System in
amount of $317,150.
17)
18)
19)
Approve a budget amendment recognizing carry forward for the
Livingston Road water main from Golden Gate Parkway to Pine
Ridge Road, Project 70039 in the amount of $270,000.
Approve FDEP Beach Erosion Control Program Project Agreement
for reimbursement of up to $1,285,040.
Approve committee selection of firms for Contract #01-3283 "Beach
Cleaning Equipment", budget of $40,000.
PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Recommendation to approve Professional Service Industries, Inc. to
perform contaminated soil clean up at Caxambas Park in the amount
of $100,027.
2)
3)
4)
Request by Gary D. Lytton of Rookery Bay Estuarine Research
Reserve to use County lands for Tarpon Bay Hydrologic Restoration
Project and the County to be co-applicant on permitting for South
Florida Water Management District.
Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase to provide for the
purchase of Lot 26 for use as a Neighborhood Park in Naples Park, in
the amount of $85,500.
Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase to provide for the
purchase of Lot 27 for use as a Neighborhood Park in Naples Park, in
the amount of $70,300.
12
December 11, 2001
5)
Approve a Resolution authorizing the activities and practices of the
Friends of the Collier County Museum, a non-profit volunteer
organization.
6)
Award of Bid #01-3309 refinishing of main pool at Immokalee Sports
Complex in the amount of $48,650.
7)
A resolution requesting approval to increase fees charged by the
Collier County Health Department (CCHD) for the provision of the
Environmental Health on-site selvage treatment and disposal system
program.
8)
Amend the Parks and Recreation Department Facilities and Outdoor
Areas License and Fee Policy.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
To award Bid 01-3310 "On-Call Electrical Repairs and New
Installation to both Southwest Electric Inc., and Paragon Electronic
Systems" in the amount of $100,000.
2)
Approve an additional sixty (60) day extension of RFQ #99-0284,
answering services with Robbins Telecommunications.
3)
Approve Committee Selection of Firms for Contract Negotiations for
RFP 01-3291 "Fixed Term Construction Engineering and Inspection
(CEI) Services" to the following eight firms: TBE Group, HDR
Construction Control Corporation, Stanley/RWA Joint Venture, Law
Engineering and Environmental Services, CH2M Hill, Johnson
Engineering, Hole Montes, Barraco and Associates.
4)
Amend the County Purchasing Policy to update existing practices and
consolidate previously approved changes.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Approve an Easement Agreement and Non-Exclusive Access
Easement between the District School Board of Collier County and
Collier County.
13
December 11, 2001
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #02-
077.
2)
Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,
Florida, amending Resolution No. 01-456 in certain respects which
Resolution No. 01-456 authorized the issuance of the County's
Capital Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 2001; and providing an
effective date.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Fred R.
Sutherland D/B/A Sutherland Paint Horses, for Parcels 169 and 769 in
the amount of $18,800.00 in the Lawsuit Styled Collier County v.
Fred R. Sutherland, et al, Case No. 01-0756-CA. Project No. 60071.
2)
Approve the Expert Fees associated with the acquisition of Parcel 163
in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Russell Baisley, et al, Case
No. 01-0758-CA (Livingston Road six-laning project from Golden
Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge Road, Project No. 65041).
3)
Execute Satisfaction of Lien arising out of order imposing fine/lien in
Code Enforcement Board Case entitled Collier County v. Epifanio H.
Hernandez and Manuel H. Hernandez.
4)
Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
approval of a resolution authorizing the Authority to issue multi-
family housing revenue bonds to be used to finance the acquisition of
14
December 11, 2001
the Goodlette Arms Apartments by a non-profit corporation.
5)
Request by the Housing Finance Authority of Collier County for
approval of resolutions authorizing the Authority to issue multi-family
housing revenue bonds to be used to finance qualifying apartment
projects.
6)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the condemnation
of parcel 576 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v Richard H.
Evans, Et Al., Case No. 01-1235-CA, Livingston Road Project No.
60071.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM.
Ae
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 27~ 2001. Thin
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. 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 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.
18. ADJOURN
15
December 11, 2001
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
16
December 11, 2001
December 11,2001
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY - APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good moming, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the Board of County Commissioners meeting. This is
December 1 lth. It is nine right on the dot. We are ready to start.
Good morning, Commissioners. If you'll all join with me in the
invocation led by Harold Brown and then the pledge of allegiance.
MR. BROWN: Let us pray. Father, as we resolve the issues of
90 days ago on September 1 lth, we thank you for December 1 lth and
the present. We thank you for the past which teaches us so much for
your love which sustains us in the present and for your wisdom that
guides us in the future. So help us to look -- and a happy holiday
season we trust -- beyond all of the shadows of the past, the
challenges of the present, both here and abroad, and the opportunity
to seek everything that you can give us in this day for the betterment
of our county especially.
We thank you for our commissioners, and we pray for each one
of them to make decisions that are in your will, and we ask you that
you would help us all to be concerned with those less fortunate.
Thank you for your love which sustains us in the past, which guides
us in the present, and which calls us to a high and noble life in the
future. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Olliff.
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
I'll walk you through your change list this morning. It's a fairly
limited change list.
Page 3
December 11,2001
The first item is a continuation of Item 12-B, as in "boy." That
item was a settlement agreement for the board's consideration, and it's
been requested that that item be continued until your meeting of
January 22nd regarding Miller Boulevard Extension. I believe you
talked about that at your most recent workshop this past week.
I'm going to skip down to Item 16-B -- I'm sorry -- 16-D, as in
"David," 1. That is a withdrawal of that item for professional
services for the Caxambas Park. That's being withdrawn at the staff's
request.
Then the single item on your summary agenda which is Item 17-
A, it's being requested that that item be moved to 8-K on your
agenda, your regular agenda. And that's because we received an e-
mail correspondence and I believe maybe even a written letter from
the adjacent property owner on that particular rezoning. As a result
we won't leave that on your summary agenda.
Mr. Chairman, there are also three, I believe, minor language
changes that Mr. Weigel will walk you through that are on your
consent agenda.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Thank you, Tom.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you can see on the change list -- I
will restate what is there. Item 16-B-6 is a resolution in your agenda
package, and we would suggest that the words "unless specifically
rescinded" be deleted from that resolution.
Item 16-B-7, another resolution of the board authorizing the
execution of the joint-participation agreement with the Florida DOT
for state block grant funds, we would request that resolution be
recognized as modified authorizing the chairman to enter into the
JPA, but he is not -- the chairman is not authorized to modify or
rescind the agreement and that the words "unless specifically
rescinded" be deleted.
Page 4
December 11, 2001
The next item, 16-B-l, is an authorization to execute a
contractual service agreement with the Center for Urban
Transportation Research at the University of South Florida to conduct
a transit development plan update in the amount of $75,000. We
would ask that the board approve that item, and before you the
backup is being presented to you, I think, right now. Is that correct,
Jim? Mr. Mudd, is that this item that you have right there? MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. Thank you. But it's identified in
your change list, and we have the backup, and as we indicated it's an
amount up to $75,000.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We'll go to the
Commissioners. Any changes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No changes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wanted to -- I'm sorry. I
wanted to talk to --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you want me to come back to you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Would you, please. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to hear Item 16-C-10
that's dealing with North Naples -- north county regional water
treatment plant emergency/urgency.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you have a question, or is there --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I want to find out what
the reason for the emergency/urgency.
MR. OLLIFF: We can either respond to that right now or move
it to your regular agenda. It's up to the chair.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Is it an easy question to
respond to.'?
Page 5
December 11, 2001
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. It's an easy question to respond to. The
reason for the urgency -- I can't remember the argument that you just
picked out, and that's what I was trying to get right now in the
process.
We came to the board at the last meeting to go with a sole-
source vendor in this process in order to get that plant up to speed.
But in order to do that you have to declare an emergency, and that
wasn't specifically stated in that last agenda item in order to do that.
So you approved us to go to sole source, but in order to do that you
had to declare the emergency. So we're just trying to dot the Is and
cross the Ts in this particular case and make sure that's brought back
in front of the board so they do that and to make sure we're doing
everything in the proper manner, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'd leave that on the
consent then.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The one I was interested in has
already been pulled, but I do have a question about 16-A-1. Mr.
Olliff, was the discrepancy between the $2,045 and the $245
resolved?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. In fact, the property owner who had the
original issue had paid the majority of the lien that was outstanding,
and the remaining portion that was on the lien was only the remaining
unpaid portion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I see. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 16-A-4 is a Pelican Strand item,
and I wanted to talk on the record about whether they had paid all of
their back impact fees and whether this pertains to this particular
development or not. Thank you.
Page 6
December 11, 2001
MR. OLLIFF: While Mr. Dunnuck is coming up, I can just give
you a brief-- unless I miss something, John, you can jump in there. I
think they have paid all of their outstanding impact fees. I will tell
you that the same developer still has an outstanding payment for a
water-management-related improvement with another project, and we
are pursuing payment of the original obligation as part of that
development's approval, but it is unrelated to this particular project.
We believe that we have a letter, and I believe -- John, why don't you
give them the most recent update on that one outstanding payment
issue.
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, John Dunnuck. Yeah. As
Tom referred to the Olde Cypress project, there has been a
discrepancy in the collection with the Cocohatchee weir. We have a
letter from the developer acknowledging that they owe us a sum of
money. Right now we're kind of-- they're challenging the amount
that was provided to them, though, as far as the amount that they owe
as their fair-share cost of it.
They've hired an engineer. We're working kind of as the
moderator between the Big Cypress Basin, who are the ones who
created the fee, and the developer to come up to the amount that can
be agreed upon. We anticipate the issue will be resolved within the
month.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So this is owed to Big Cypress
Basin and not us, or this is owed to us?
MR. DUNNUCK: No. It is owed to us, but we had to depend
on the Big Cypress Basin to develop the calculation of the amount
owed for their weir project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we allowed in any way to hold
this up in order to encourage them to pay the other?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think that's more of a question for
legal.
Page 7
December 11, 2001
MR. WEIGEL: If we're talking about holding up one project of
a developer that is unrelated to the other project geographically in the
scheme of applications, my advice would be not to go that route
because we do not have that provision in our code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have no changes. I would
entertain that we approve the agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we've got one addition real fast
that just came in, and it has to do with the negotiation that we were in
yesterday with the particular firm. I'll pass this out in just a second.
This is to approve the request for staff to enter into a professional-
service contract to acquire a cost analysis of the expenses associated
with the Immokalee Road construction project.
This project has had a series of overruns over the years. The
staff has had an investigation into this process, and we need to bring
on a construction firm to help us estimate those costs so that we can
get that into the claim before we go to mediation with this particular
firm on 9 January. I'll pass that out right now. We'd like to add that
as Item 10 -- 10-L.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 10-L.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my motion did include the
changes from staff and also the consent summary agenda, the regular.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning. I have 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.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
December 11, 2001
CONTINUE ITEM #12(B) to January 22, 2002 meetin.q: Recommendation for the
Board of County Commissioners to enter into settlement in Collier County v.
Marshall, et al, Case No. 99-2009-CA-TB, NOW PENDING IN THE twentieth Judicial
Circuit (County's Prescriptive Easement Claim for Miller Boulevard Extension).
(Staff request.)
David Weiqel will address the followinR 3 items:
ITEM 16(B)(6): A resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners
authorizing the execution of the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the
Florida Department of Transportation for Section 5311 (Operating Assistance)
funds in the amount of $112,200 - reimbursable. The words "unless specifically
rescinded" are deleted from the Resolution. (Staff request.)
ITEM 16(B)(7): A resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners authorizing the execution of the Joint Participation Agreement
(JPA) with the Florida Department of Transportation for State Block Grant funds in
the amount of $536,150 AT 50%. Resolution is modified to authorize Chairman to
enter into JPA. Chairman is not authorized to modify or rescind the a.qreement.
The words "unless specifically rescinded" are deleted. (Staff request.)
ITEM 16(B)1: Authorization to execute a contractual service agreement with the
Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida to
conduct the Transit Development Plan update in the amount of $75,000. (Staff
request.)
WITHDRAW ITEM #16(D)1: Recommendation to approve Professional Services
Industries, Inc. to perform contaminated soil clean up at Caxambas Park in the
amount of $100,027. (Staff request.)
MOVE ITEM #17A TO 8K: THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 27,
2001. 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. 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 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. (Public objection
received.)
December 11, 2001
Item #2B
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 2001 REGULAR MEETING-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then a motion to accept the
November 13th BCC minutes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, and I have a second by Commissioner Fiala to approve the
November 13th meeting minutes. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
That takes us now to proclamations.
Item #3A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21,
2001 AS NATIONAL HOMELESS PERSONS MEMORIAL DAY-
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have the privilege of giving
a proclamation to the National Homeless Persons Memorial Day
chairman Kelly Shaver. Is she in the audience today? Is anybody
from this particular group here today? George Drobinski?
UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: George is out in the
hall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is he here?
Page 9
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. John went out there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There's George.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, George.
I would like to give you this proclamation:
"Whereas, researchers have shown that approximately 12
million adults nationwide have been homeless at some point in their
lives and that well over 700,000 people are homeless on any given
night; and,
"Whereas, with the recent downturn in our economy resulting in
employment layoffs and cutoffs, a significant increase of individuals
and families needing assistance from social service agencies has
occurred; and,
"Whereas, the number of homeless children today is higher than
at any other time since the Great Depression; and,
"Whereas, in Collier County it is estimated that at any point in
time there are over 585 men, women, and children homeless; and,
"Whereas, over 50 years has passed since the Housing Act of
1949 called for a decent home and suitable living environment for
every American family; and,
"Whereas, the Collier County Hungry and Homeless
Coalition is made up of over 30 local social services and
governmental agencies who share the mission of supporting the
planning, delivery, and coordination of high-quality services to the
hungry and homeless of Collier County; and,
"Whereas, hungry and homelessness impacts the entire
community. Each individual in a community can make a difference
in finding solutions to these problems. Solutions begin with action,
and action begins with awareness."
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Friday,
December 21 st, be designated as National Homeless Persons'
Page 10
December 11, 2001
Memorial Day. Done and ordered this 1 lth day of December 2001.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala for approval, seconded by Commissioner Coletta. 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: You need to turn around and face TV
land and the cameras.
MR. OLLIFF: While you're taking the photo, I'm just going to
point out for the record that that's probably the fastest we've seen
George move in a long time.
MR. DROB1NSKI: And, for the record, that's the most
humorous I've ever heard Mr. Olliff.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. They've all had their
Wheaties this morning. Okay.
MR. DROBINSKI: For the record, George Drobinski. On
behalf of the Hungry and Homeless Coalition -- and it's over 30
member agencies made up of social service and governmental
agencies -- we thank you for this proclamation.
Two very brief points: One is the 585 men, women, and
children that were referenced in this proclamation were face-to-face
contacts that the coalition members and volunteers met with last year
during the first ever coalition-bound count and outreach, and we're
going to have another one in February. Now, these are individuals
that could be or could at one time have been your neighbors who
perhaps their child suffered a very serious illness and there wasn't
enough insurance, or perhaps in the wake of September 1 lth terrorist
Page 11
December 11, 2001
activities, these are individuals that found their jobs downsized, and
they could no longer afford their mortgage.
We invite you-all, the commission as well as the public, to come
out to St. Matthew's House, which is on Airport Road just up the road
here, on the evening of the 21st. Show up at 6:15 and just show some
support that it's National Homeless Persons Memorial Day. We will
have a candlelight vigil. We will have a bagpiper who will set the
tone with Amazing Grace.
We just ask you in your Christmas holiday, Hanukkah holiday,
anything that you're doing, if you just take that one hour and take
time to share with us and remember these individuals, these
neighbors, these friends, and we welcome you to spend that moment
with us. May you all have happy holidays. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning, we move to
service awards.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board is making their way
to the floor, I'll take the opportunity to let you know that we've got
five employees who we're recognizing this morning, and I'll call up
the first three, which are all 5-year service award attendees. The first
is John Hayes with your wastewater department. Second is Julie
Allen from your parks and recreation department. Third is Anais
Pappalardo also from your parks and recreation department.
(Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next attendee is Heather
Page 12
December 11, 2001
Sweet with your utility billing department, and she's been an
employee of yours for the last ten years. (Applause.)
MR. OLLIFF: The last award this morning --
Mr. Chairman, we have the rare opportunity to be able to issue a 20-
year award, and that's to Gwen Butler with your purchasing
department.
(Applause.)
Items #5A AND 5B
BEVERLY FIELDS, LIEUTENANT, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES - RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
FOR OCTOBER, 2001 AND AS EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR
2001
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, while you're there on the floor,
the next item on the agenda is Item 5, and it's presentations.
Commissioner Carter.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. This is really a
great opportunity this morning to recognize an employee that not
only will receive the employee-of-the month award, but also the
employee of the year award. So it's my privilege this morning to
bring forward Lieutenant Beverly Fields. She's here, I know, because
I've seen her back there. Come forward. While she's coming up, let
me tell you a little bit about this great lady and what she's done.
First of all, an employee of the month or employee of the year is
a selection process by your peers. To me this is the highest
recognition any individual can receive. The people that you work
with day in and day out say to everyone else, "This is the person that
we hold in such high esteem."
Page 13
December 11, 2001
And, Beverly, for all your work that you have done -- you've
been with us twice in this process. You've been working now in the
paramedic field with us.
The things that she has done -- when there was an injured
firefighter, Jason Burr (phonetic), was disabled, she went out and
raised the money for a motorized wheelchair for this individual so
that he could get around and lead as normal of a life as he could
under those circumstances. That's just the kind of person she is. She
just does this day in and day out. She works with her peers, and they
thought so much of her they said, "First of all, we're going to give
you the employee of the month for October." Then on an annual
basis, they turned around and said, "This lady, for everything that she
has done, the service that she has provided, that willingness day in
and day out to come in and look at the positive, have that smile and
say, 'You know, this is a good place to be, this is good job to hold,
this is the kind of thing I really like to be do.'"
This morning we have the privilege of giving her those two
honors, one for employee of the month for October and employee of
the year for 2001. So if you will join with me in congratulating this
fine person.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Employee of the month, and there's a
little check I think you can probably find something that would be
good to use. Employee of the year 2001, there's a check for $250. It
says, "A little token of our appreciation." With all of that, I know
you're going to have a Merry Christmas. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
Page 14
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Public petitions this morning, Mr.
Olliff.
MS. FILSON: We have six speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, just a
suggestion. I don't know if it's the opportune time to do this. We do
have a lot of people here today on zoning issues that really should be
getting back to work. Can we move that item to -- can we move it to,
like, behind No. 8, advertised public hearings?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What you're suggesting is to do public
hearings first, and then prior to going to 8-A we take public
comments on general topics.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, that's the next item we're
going to be discussing right after public comments; right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We go to zoning. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And how long are public
speakers allowed to speak?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Five minutes. That will take us --
we've got six speakers. We have 30 minutes.
Is everyone speaking on the topics on the agenda today, or are
they just here to speak on general topics? I do not know what they're
here for. It's unknown to us. They could be speaking on something
that happened somewhere in the past. They could be speaking on
some concern for the future. Nobody has any idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have about 40 speakers on
the first item on the Board of Zoning Appeals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Forty speakers?
MS. FILSON: Forty-three.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Forty-three and growing.
Page 15
December 11,2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well--
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What do you suggest? I need to know
what the board wants to do here, folks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem. I think Mr.
Henning's suggestion is well founded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me, Commissioners. I'm here to
speak on public comments.
THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, sir?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Bob Krasowski. I wish, you know, you'd
stick to the agenda because -- although I'm sympathetic to all the
speakers on this other topic, but you've advertised comments on, you
know, general topics. At this time the six people to speak can come
in here -- you scheduled it -- and leave and then be done. If I had
known it was later, I would have come later and accommodated your
schedule. But you're advertising a certain schedule, and now you're
changing it. Thirty minutes, half hour --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm not going to belabor this,
Mr. Krasowski. I understand what the board would like to do. I'm
also going to ask this question of Mr. Weigel. Can we cut these
public comments to three minutes this morning? Can I do that at the
prerogative of the board and the chair?
MR. WEIGEL: It's the prerogative of the chair and the board,
yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. I would suggest that each
person be allowed three minutes this morning in order that we can
move forward on this.
So we'll go to public comments. You've got three minutes to
adjust your thinking and come forward and do that. We appreciate
you being here, but I think you can also appreciate it when I've got 40
people behind you to speak on another subject. Okay. The first
Page 16
December 11, 2001
speaker.
MS. FILSON: Okay. The first speaker is Colin Kelly who will
be followed by Sally Barker.
MR. KELLY: I appreciate the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record.
MR. KELLY: My name is Colin Kelly. I'm with Parker Beach
Restoration. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the county
commissioners. Just briefly, never has the economy of Florida's
beaches been more important than it is now to the people of Florida.
There has been a new directive from the DEP that I brought to your
attention towards permitting and funding of new technology such as
the sand web system. Our results for less than a month has been over
7,000 cubic yards of sand. I would like to encourage you to direct
your staff-- I sent you a letter -- to apply -- we have indications from
Tallahassee that should Collier County apply for another mile of
beach restoration using the sand web system that it would be looked
at favorably in permitting and funding. So that's the main thing I
wanted to impress to you. I'm working hard.
We need our beaches restored in Collier County, and this is a
way of doing it that is quick and efficient. It's another arrow in our
quiver for beach restoration. I thank you for your time. I sent you a
letter showing the places where we can find this funding. As I said,
I'll meet with you and show you the new attitude for the DEP towards
permitting and funding for these matters.
Thank you for your time, and happy holidays.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Members of the board, I did take that information, and I sent a memo
down to Mr. Mudd to pursue that with the new attitude in the DEP.
Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Sally Barker. She will be
followed by Eric Watler.
Page 17
December 11, 2001
MS. BARKER: Good morning, Commissioners. I'll try and
read as fast as I can. For the record, my name is Sally Barker. As
you know, I'm not an attorney, but I think I have a reasonable grasp
of the English language if you consider legalese to be English.
I have read the December 5th opinion rendered by the county
attorney's office on the EMS advisory council, and I think the opinion
is flawed. Most of the opinion deals with the county manager's
authority to deal with personnel matters, and we do not dispute that
authority. What we do dispute is the assertion that the change
implemented in the emergency services division last April 9th was
merely a personnel shuffle.
It was a reorganization. The press release called it a
reorganization, and that is what it was, not merely a personnel matter.
As a reorganization it should have been submitted to the Emergency
Medical Services Advisory Council before implementation. County
Ordinance 80-80 states that the EMSAC acts "as an advisory board to
the County Commissioners on all aspects of EMS." The conclusion
of the December 5th legal opinion states, "The EMSAC has no
explicit authority to involve itself in the internal personnel matters of
Collier County or to require prior review of all EMS internal matters
or proposals before their presentation to the board."
That may be true, but a reorganization is not an internal matter.
It is one of those big things that comes under all aspects of EMS.
Bypassing EMSAC to implement this organization deprives you, our
county commissioners, of the honest services of this advisory board.
If the EMSAC doesn't see the reorganization proposal before it
comes to the BCC, they cannot provide the BCC with their advice on
whether to accept or reject the proposal.
Also of note here is that the April 9th reorganization was, in
fact, a division reorganization, not a departmental reorganization.
Why is that? Because the reorganization included changes between
Page 18
December 11, 2001
departments under the emergency services division. In particular,
helicopter operations was moved out from under the EMS department
and was made into a separate department of its own reporting directly
to the emergency services division administrator. Under Florida
Statutes, county ordinances, and even the December 4th county
attorney legal opinion, division reorganizations must be approved by
the BCC and should have been reviewed by the EMSAC.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in wrap-up, Miss Barker.
MS. BARKER: Okay. The creation of this separate new
helicopter department is particularly interesting since the BCC
objected to that exact proposal on March 24th, 1998, when County
Manager Fernandez proposed it. The BCC felt that helicopters are
simply another form of transport much like an ambulance and should
remain where it was within the EMS department. The fact that the
same BCC rejected change was on April 9th, administratively
approved by County Manager Tom Olliff without your approval
should cause you considerable concern. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you so much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Eric Watler, and he will be
followed by Janet Vasey.
MR. WATLER: My name is Eric Watler. I've got five minutes
here. I'll cut out some paragraphs. If it doesn't flow, that's not my
problem. The emergency services reorganization replaces one
department director with three directors; director of operations,
director of administration, and director of helicopter operations. It
replaces one training officer with two, promoting the second to a
command position, and it dramatically increases salaries of top
management.
In fact, in April two weeks after the reorganization EMS
commanders received a 10 percent pay, quote, adjustment. With the
11 percent increase in October for merit, COLA, and another pay
Page 19
December 11, 2001
plan adjustments, that represents a 21 percent pay increase in one
year. The director of operations supervises 155 employees of the
organization while the director of administration supervises 5.
The county manager tells us that this reorganization is, quote,
better serving the people of Collier County. This is not true. Clearly
the former organization better served the people of Collier County.
The county manager only seems to care about what the fire districts
want. As we've seen in Sunday's paper, the North Naples Fire
District wants to go out on their own anyway with their own separate
medical director and their own different medical protocols as they've
always intended.
Substantial medical opinion -- over 40 doctors, including the
esteemed Dr. Tober, who has no hidden agenda but quality patient
care, protested the change and still do. Members of the public
likewise, but all protests were ignored. The whole EMS organization
has been a ridiculous mess from the beginning when it was
implemented without any input from the medical director, Dr. Tober,
or the EMS Advisory Council. The only group consulted was the fire
district led by NMFD, and I've mentioned, they're going the wrong
way. When only 7 out of 37 of their paramedics have passed the
stringent training and testing that our EMS paramedics do under Dr.
Tober -- I'm glad I don't live in North Naples --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in wrap-up, sir.
MR. WATLER: Yeah, I'm getting there.
Now is the time to correct the errors made in this ill-fated
reorganization and recognize these two legal opinions as what they
are: Attempts to find weak arguments to cover the county manager's
illegal actions and restore the former organization. These actions will
help regain the trust of the public in general and the medical
fraternity specifically. There is your first opportunity to address this
issue. Don't break trust with the people who elected you. Thank you.
Page 20
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Janet Vasey who will be
followed by Chief Bob Schank.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: When I say you're in wrap-up, folks,
it's not to interrupt your thoughts, but when the yellow light comes on
that means you have a minute to complete your comments. I do that
out of respect for the message you're trying to get across to us.
Good morning.
MS. VASEY: Good morning. Janet Vasey for the record. Sally
Barker just gave you some very compelling evidence of why this
reorganization was a division reorganization by Florida Statute,
county ordinance, and even this legal opinion that was provided in
December -- on December 4th, you have to consider this division
reorganization.
Now, there's some very disturbing legal advice in that legal
opinion. It also talks about the fact that it is the county manager's
responsibility to approve departmental reorganizations. The language
says pretty clearly "reorganizations." Everywhere it reads or it says
"reorganizations."
Now, you can either assume that that has a more open
interpretation or more liberal interpretation, and reorganization can
mean departmental or division, or you can take a very restrictive look
at it and then you would say that it's just divisions. I think that it's a
mistake to take a restrictive view of things. In fact, the legal opinion
itself says, "Although there is room for a difference of opinion" --
and this is a quote -- then they say it should be that the county
manager does the departmental ones.
But there is plenty of room for a difference of opinion. I mean,
you could drive a Mack truck through that. I wish you would take a
really strong look at it because it limits your authority. It provides
more authority to the county manager, but it limits yours, and that's
Page 21
December 11, 2001
not right. You should be here overlooking those kind of
reorganizations making sure that wasteful things don't happen, silly
things don't happen. There's been lots of times when reorganizations
have occurred to take care of-- to find a job for people that don't
have one or to get rid of people. That happened with transportation a
few years back, and we are still suffering the consequences of that.
So I would just say, look very, very hard at this. You don't have
to have this restrictive of an interpretation, and you shouldn't want to
have your authority limited.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in wrap-up, please.
MS. VASEY: I would also like to say that as a result of the fact
that this was a division reorganization you do need to take this back
and have your approval before it can be effective. So I think you
need to go back to the pre-April 9th organizational structure and
move forward from there. If they want to bring that through, then it
needs to be looked at by the medical director, the EMSAC, and have
public comment that would include medical and regular people. I
guess that's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you so much. I appreciate your
comments this morning.
Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The speaker is Chief Bob Schank who will be
followed by Bob Krasowski.
CHIEF SCHANK: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Chief
Bob Schank, East Naples Fire Department. I'm here today
representing the Collier County Fire Chiefs Association. Once again,
it's a hard act to follow, I guess, but I'm here today to tell you some
good things that are going on.
It is true back in March we met with the county manager, all
nine fire districts or fire departments because two of them were cities,
to discuss -- we didn't really know what we were going to discuss.
Page 22
December 11, 2001
He called for the meeting. When we got there, he was pretty
adamant. I'll tell you like it was. He was pretty adamant to the fire
districts that he wanted the bickering to stop. He wanted us to utilize
our resources that we had throughout the county from both agencies,
to utilize those resources, pull them together, to provide the best
possible service we could to our constituents in the community. He
wanted us to do it in a cost-effective manner, and he wanted us to do
it with both agencies respecting each individual for what they do.
Well, those that know me know that we had to get over a hill, a
big hill, a mountain, and that is trust. That meeting was in March,
and now it's December. Through the county manager being adamant
about those things -- and also Commissioner Henning was there very
much defending EMS. Despite what people may say, that's what
happened. He defended EMS. He wanted to make sure fire districts
don't take over EMS.
My particular fire department and board wrote a resolution to
the county manager stating that we are not interested in taking over
ALS Transport. We're only interested in providing service to our
community. If it be the wishes, we would do the ALS service
through an ALS engine program. That is what is happening. Prior to
that March meeting, six out of the nine fire districts -- only six out of
the nine signed a memorandum of understanding which happened to
do with basic life support and nothing at all to do with ALS. Three of
us -- East Naples, Immokalee, and Golden Gate -- refused to sign on
because of politics, bottom line.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in wrap-up, sir.
CHIEF SCHANK: Bottom line, we're working together. I
addressed eight -- ten paramedics this morning in my department
from Collier EMS that are learning our protocol for fighting fires in
East Naples. What do we get out of that? We get a three-man
engine. In return our firefighters are going to ride in an ambulance.
Page 23
December 11, 2001
We're going to try it. We're going to see what happens. There is trust
again in our community of fire service and EMS.
It's working. Give us a chance. That's all I can say. It's a good
thing. By the way, please if there's anything -- we have in our
community a world-class service EMS department. Don't forget it's
the people on the streets, not the fire chief or administrators that
make that happen. It's the people on the streets, and they are still a
world-class system. It's our job to promote them. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your last speaker is Mr. Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. Good
morning, Staff. How are you doing? My name is Bob Krasowski.
I'm here today to speak on my own behalf and on behalf of Zero
Waste Collier County. Recently, a week ago last Friday, the request
for proposals were released regarding our interest in gathering
information for who might help us handle the waste stream. There
were three released. One was for organic waste management, the
other for municipal solid waste processing and gasification facility,
and then a third -- I don't have it with me -- it was for the use of
grease waste and how it might be used as a fuel.
I'm here today mainly because your next meeting is scheduled
for Christmas, so that's not going to happen. Right? And so I don't
forget, happy holidays to all of you. So the next opportunity for a
meeting wouldn't be until after January 9th when these proposals --
people interested in these proposals will have a preliminary meeting.
So if anything is to be modified in a timely fashion regarding these
requests for proposals, ! should speak to you now about it.
Okay. So I'd just like to bring up a couple of issues in that
regard. But before I do that, I would like to thank Mr. Yilmaz at the
solid waste department; Mr. Wides, the new public utilities director;
and staff over at purchasing for helping our group and citizens who
Page 24
December 11, 2001
are interested in this issue to pursue our interests as far as being
informed.
In the organic waste management proposal, it's primarily
looking for someone to collect and process food waste and paper
waste that might be associated with that food waste. Horticultural
waste, which is also an organic waste, is an aside. It has to be dealt
with as an amendment to that.
I see my time is running out here.
Our problem with this is that the collection and processing are
grouped together, so people that just process, like composting
operations, or just collect are kind of pushed in a position where they
have to do both or else not propose. It gives the impression that they
wouldn't give an adequate proposal. We think that they should be
separate. We should invite as much input as possible in this arena,
and then we can decide later whether or not we want to accept one or
the other or suggest other people cooperate.
I understand the county wants to simplify the process as much as
possible, not have to deal with a lot of different people in the waste-
handling process, but I don't think we should give up that option at
this point with the RFPs. As well -- and I'll finish up with this, and I
appreciate your listening.
The municipal solid waste processing and gasification facility
suggests that you process and gasify -- it kind of excludes anyone -- it
doesn't exclude, but it might suggest to someone that if you have a
process that doesn't include gasification like a business that might
just autoclave the waste and then do other things with it, if you don't
have gasification, then you're not invited to submit.
So we would suggest that an amendment, which is provided for
in the RFPs, be sent out to all interested parties saying that this isn't
the case, that if you have some other type of operation submit it, but
the only thing we've excluded is the incineration, you know, and the
Page 25
December 11, 2001
municipal solid waste composting. Okay. That's been removed.
Everything else is kind of invited to present --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap
up, sir.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes, sir. Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we've got your points. I
appreciate you participating with us this morning. If anybody has any
comments on the board -- Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sally Barker brought up a very
good point of not everything coming to the EMSAC for
consideration. One thing that -- looking through the minutes of
EMSAC, I haven't seen the ever-changing protocol coming from the
medical director. I think it's only appropriate that the EMSAC
committee members take a look at that before it is implemented.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any comments,
Commissioners? Let's move to -- thank you for the public input. I
think it's been duly noted.
Item #7A
PETITION ADA-2001-AR-1660, APPEAL FROM
INTERPRETATION INTP-2001-AR- 1466, BY R. BRUCE
ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE
AND ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING GULF COAST
AMERICAN BLIND AND DIAZ FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEAL CONCERNING AN INTERPRETATION BY THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE
WESTVIEW PLAZA PUD AS IT RELATES TO THE
BLINDS/WINDOW COVERING MANUFACTURING BUSINESS
- CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETING
Page 26
December 11, 2001
We now are going to move to Board of Zoning Appeals, Item 7-
A. This is what's commonly known in this community as the
Westview PUD. Anyone participating in this needs to stand and be
sworn.
(Sworn by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel, are you presenting first
this morning?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I'm not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Who's presenting -- okay. I'm
sorry. Disclosures on behalf of the board. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I received numerous phone call
and e-mails from the petitioner. I've also received several different e-
mails and visits from the neighbors to the area. The attorneys
representing petitioner have seen me two different times, and I have a
file here for anyone that wishes to see it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I also have received phone
calls and a lot of e-mail, a lot of material printed. I tried to read it all.
I've had visits with people from both sides in my office, and I guess
that's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Likewise, I have a complete file with
all briefs from the plaintiff or the petitioner, numerous petitions,
phone calls, e-mails, regarding this whole subject. I have met with
both sides.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aside from the documents which
are in our packet which are public, I have had meetings with
representatives of the petitioner, Richard Woodruff, Bruce Anderson,
Fermin Diaz. I have also talked with Mr. Bob Beckler, and I also
have received a number of e-mails.
Page 27
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have all correspondence in
this file here. I also set up a meeting with the residents in the area
and the Diaz family to present their case or what they propose to do
with the WesWiew PUD. That was in the early fall.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, to add to the disclosures, I
would point out that I believe that the commission members received
correspondence from the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board of the
county. That should be reviewed as a communication, citizen
communication, and not evidence of the underlying land
development issue. Both of the attorneys for the interested parties
were copied on that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot to mention that I also went
over to the plant and visited all of the sites as well and met with the
owners on their property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Again, Ramiro, I think it's
good to remind the board of our role here, if you want to just quickly
touch on that. We are in a quasi-judicial role, for members of the TV
audience and the community, to review all of this data. You may
have additional guidelines for the commissioners to follow.
MR. MANALICH: Yes. I'll be assisted in that regard by
Assistant County Attorney Patrick White, but I just will point out that
you've correctly observed, Mr. Chairman, that this is quasi-judicial
proceeding. It requires you to afford procedural due process, comply
with the essential requirements of law, and to base any discussion
you make today on competent, substantial evidence. Mr. White, anything you would like to add?
MR. WHITE: Yes. Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
The item before you today, Commissioners, is as indicated quasi-
judicial, and it's covered under your Land Development Code in
Page 28
December 11,2001
Section 1.6. We provided you just now copies of that with the
highlighted portion of the provisions in Section 1.6.6 in particular
dealing with appeals.
The highlighted text essentially sets forth what Ramiro has just
advised you of and also identifies essentially the scope and substance
of what your consideration today should be.
As indicated, with respect particularly to the Hispanic Affairs
communication, that as an example only would typically not serve as
a type of competent and substantial evidence upon which you would
base your decision today. Simply it seems the issue that is before you
today is whether or not the proposed use is within the scope of the
affected ordinance.
Short of that, unless you have some specific questions at this
point in time, the order of the proceedings is likely to be that we'll
have brief presentation, I believe, by staff and perhaps the appellants
through Mr. Anderson and then the appellees, the folks who actually
requested the official interpretation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the public's role in
this? It's not about the proposed building, the color. Can you give us
kind of like a synopsis of what they should be bringing forward to us
as far as this item?
MR. WHITE: Section 1.6.6 contemplates there would be public
testimony, but ! believe because of the other requirements in that
section and the type of proceeding this is, being quasi-judicial, as
Ramiro indicated, whatever your interpretation is today it has to be
based on competent and substantial evidence. Now, that evidence
must support whatever conclusion you reach. The fact of whether the
building is a particular color or not is probably not relevant. It
wouldn't, therefore, be competent or substantial evidence.
! think you have to look at the things that identify whether the
Page 29
December 11, 2001
proposed use is rightfully considered as part of that ordinance or not
and at only those things, but you have to do so within the scope of
this regulation that says that you'll adopt the official interpretation
with or without modifications or conditions or reject the
interpretation. But you're not authorized to modify or reject that
interpretation unless you find that it's not supported by competent and
substantial evidence. This is a very big word. We've circled it in
your LDC section there "or" that the interpretation is contrary to any
of the following: Growth management plan, future land-use map and
code, or the official zoning atlas, whichever you may consider to be
applicable.
So there may be a breadth of issues that you may hear comments
on today that are not primarily or consistently focused on what it is
that you-all need to make your decision based on. It's for you to
ferret out that information as we go through this process. We'll be
happy to assist, if possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I understand is we're
going to only be looking at whether this fits the PUD -- this use fits
the PUD and the interpretation by staff.
MR. WHITE: Yes. That's precisely the issue. Although there
may be other matters that are of concern and add great emotional
weight to the individuals who are affected by them, I don't believe
that they rightly should be within the scope of consideration. We are
anticipating, as we have from the beginning of this process, that it's
likely to end up in litigation. We tried to advise you, as we've done
individually as well as in this hearing, on taking a straightforward and
objective approach and looking at what is the competent and
substantial evidence in the case is the best way to be able to assure a
good defense of whatever interpretation and decision you reach
today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I realize we've got a number of public
Page 30
December 11, 2001
speakers on the issue, and there are -- there is legal counsel
representing the homeowners group, and I think we have to, you
know, fold this all in. When we get down to just individuals wanting
to speak on whatever their feelings are on the situation, with the
permission of the board, I will invoke the three-minute rule so that
they can express those feelings. Sometimes we've found in the past it
becomes very repetitive in terms of what even what the individual's
say. So, in essence, so that everybody can be heard, I think it would
be wise to invoke that when we get to what I'm going to refer to as
personal input by individuals on either side of this, which may be
outside of the framework of what we're trying to make the decision
on.
MR. WHITE: If there's no other questions, I'll sit down.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to have the case presented.
MS. MURRAY: Good morning, Commissioners. Susan
Murray, current planning manager. If you would prefer, I think I
would rather save my comments and/or I'm certain you'll have
questions after both attorneys present their sides rather than give you
a presentation now if that's acceptable to you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: She asked if that was acceptable.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I think I would
rather defer my comments and/or answer your questions after
presentation by both attorneys if that's acceptable to you. I'm sure, as
a result of their presentation, you'll have questions of me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. As a commissioner and as the
chair, I don't have any problem with that. What say the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No problem.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. Thank you. Let's proceed with
the proceedings.
Page 31
December 11, 2001
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, fellow
commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm an
attorney, and I represent the Diaz Family Limited Partnership and
Gulf Coast American Blind Corporation.
I would like to preface my remarks with some procedural
matters. First of all, I would request that the County Commission
admit into evidence all of the materials that are in your agenda today
labeled Agenda Item 7-A consisting of 61 pages and also admit into
evidence correspondence from me to the interim planning services
director dated December 3rd, 2001, and it's attached 44 pages of
documents which were delivered to the commission office on
December 3rd, but not included in the agenda materials. I can detail
what's included in that December 3rd packet. It's the report and
resume of land-use planning expert Robert Mulhere; the affidavit of
Donald Pickworth, general counsel for the Industrial Development
Authority for Collier County; the affidavit of Charles N. Reeves, as
senior vice-president of Fifth/Third Bank; and a memo to the Board
of County Commissioners from John Dunnuck dated August 29,
2001. I would ask that you admit those into evidence, please, at this
time, and I'll provide a copy of the December 3rd correspondence to
the court reporter at this time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That is this packet, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And also your memorandum of
December 107
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Have I got the right document?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, shouldn't
all evidence -- all correspondence be part of the evidence?
Page 32
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not an attorney. I will give that to
Mr. Manalich.
MR. MANALICH: There is no problem with admitting what
Mr. Anderson has requested.
MR. ANDERSON: Do we need a motion to that effect?
MR. MANALICH: I would suggest so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: 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.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assisting me
today is my partner, Clay Brooker, and Robert Mulhere, former
Collier County planning services director, who will be testifying. I
would also ask that you formally accept Mr. Mulhere as an expert
witness on the matters of land-use planning and zoning. I want to get
these things out of the way up front so I don't forget them later in the
heat of battle.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think you'll need to hear
from opposing counsel as to whether they have any objection to that
request.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Objection by opposing counsel?
MR. THORNTON: My name is Chris Thornton. I represent the
respondents, Bob Beckler and Linda Heims.
I don't know Bob that well. I would like to hear what his
qualifications are. I don't doubt that he's qualified, but I would like to
Page 33
December 11, 2001
hear what they are before
MR. MANALICH:
Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON:
Thornton, as well as you
of Mr. Mulhere's resume
education.
he's accepted as an expert.
Perhaps that can be done in summary form,
I'll let Mr. Mulhere do that. I believe Mr.
commissioners, have been provided a copy
which details his extensive experience and
I need to reiterate a procedural objection that the planning
services director had no authority to overturn the Board of County
Commissioners' October 2000 approval of the finding in the staff
report for approval of the issuance of industrial development revenue
bonds for this project and PUD permits for the project on this
property. Having raised that procedural objection and leaving it in its
place, I will continue to proceed, but I do need to preserve that in the
event that there should be an appeal. I would also --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's two different
issues, though, the industrial bond and whether this items fits the
PUD or not.
MR. ANDERSON: I'll help you understand their link as part of
my presentation. It would be my pleasure.
I would also like to raise a formal objection to any testimony by
Susan Murray regarding this matter. Mr. Tom Kuck is the planning
services director, and his signature is on the interpretation being
appealed today. We are appealing his decision. Miss Murray is not
the planning services director. She's the current planning manager.
And as the attorney for Mr. Beckler and Ms. Heims, I've asserted that
only the planning services director can issue a formal interpretation,
not the current planning manager.
Having disposed of those legal niceties, let me proceed to the
merits. First of all, I would like to introduce Carlos and Mary Diaz --
if you would please stand -- and Fermin and Edy Diaz, his mother
Page 34
December 11, 2001
and father. These folks are the owners of Gulf Coast American Blind
Corporation and the principals of the Diaz Family Limited
Parmership.
Today I am here on behalf of a nondeveloper client, a local
small businessman, mom-and-pop operation made good: Gulf Coast
American Blind Corporation and Diaz Family Limited Partnership. It
is a true American success story that began in 1986 when Carlos and
Mary Diaz were the only employees. Since that time the mother and
father have joined the operation, and through hard work and
perseverance they built a business today which employs more than
160 people who fill orders for more than 1,000 retailers throughout
the southeastern United States and the Caribbean for the top-of-the-
line Hunter Douglas brand of window coverings.
Hunter Douglas takes the raw materials and manufactures them
into various parts and products that are shipped to Collier County for
precision cutting, fabrication, or painting and assembly according to
the customer's specifications. Once the component parts are
assembled here in Naples, the final product is then shipped to interior
decorators, furniture stores, and other retail businesses. In Collier
County alone over 200 retailers depend on Gulf Coast American
Blind Corporation to provide them timely, cost efficient, locally
made window coverings.
The decision before you today affects not only Gulf Coast's 160
employees and their families, but it will also affect the many retailers
and their employees who depend on Gulf Coast to fulfill their retail
customers' needs. An adverse decision to Gulf Coast will have a
negative ripple effect on the local economy impacting many jobs in
our community. Your decision today will also send a message to
other businesses considering relocation of their operations to
Southwest Florida. Should they relocate their businesses to Sarasota,
Charlotte, Lee, or Collier County?
Page 35
December 11, 2001
Besides attracting new businesses to our community to diversify
our economic base, what kind of a message would it send to other
successful local businesses in need to expand and relocate their
operations? Is it a matter of when the planners change, the law
changes too? We've already lost too many such businesses that used
to exist to Lee County as of late. We hope Gulf Coast American
Blind Corporation will not become Collier County's latest casualty to
relocate into the more welcome and consistent confines of Lee
County. I would also note that Gulf Coast American Blind
Corporation is a past winner of the governor's business award and the
industry beautification award by the East Naples Civic Association.
The essential question before you today is one of fairness. Gulf
Coast American Blind was told that their business operation was a
use that was allowed by the Westview Plaza PUD zoning not once
but twice in writing by the Collier County planning staff and finally
the county commission when it approved more than $3 million in
industrial development revenue bonds for Gulf Coast's relocation to
the Westview Plaza PUD.
Included in the evidence before you today is the affidavit of the
general counsel for the county's Industrial Development Authority
that he and the authority relied on those two letters from the county
planning department that the Gulf Coast project was an allowed use
by this PUD when the authority issued its approval for the issuance of
industrial development revenue bonds for the project. Also included
in the evidence before you is the affidavit of the senior vice president
of Fifth/Third Bank that the bank relied on those same two letters and
relied on the county commission's subsequent approval of the
issuance of the bonds for this project when the bank loaned $3
million to my client for the project.
The documentary evidence submitted with this appeal shows
that my client closed on the Westview Plaza PUD lots in reliance on
Page 36
December 11, 2001
and only after receiving written confirmation from the Collier County
Planning Department and approval by the Board of County
Commission that his business operations were an allowed use on that
property that he was about to purchase. In reliance on these county
approvals, my client sunk his life savings and went into debt more
than $3 million less than a month after the county commission issued
its approval for the industrial development revenue bonds to relocate
and consolidate his business operations in Westview Plaza.
After all of this due diligence and the approvals of the planning
department and the County Commission and my client's reliance on
these approvals, to pull the rug out from under my client a year later
would violate the fundamental foundations of fairness that the law
calls vested rights and equitable estoppel.
The two neighboring property owners who initiated this fight
with my client waived their right to object to my client's use of this
property more than a year ago when they failed to timely voice any
concerns or file any objections to my client's use of the property
when they had a timely and publicly noticed opportunity to do so
before the county's Industrial Development Authority. The
authority's duly advertised public hearing notice stated that the
purpose of the hearing was to consider issuing bonds to acquire,
construct, and equip Gulf Coast American Blind Corporation's
manufacturing facilities on the Westview Plaza property. The notice
said, "All interested persons are invited to submit written comments
or attend the hearing, either personally or through their
representative, and will be given an opportunity to express their
views concerning the project or the financing."
The notice advised all persons of the location, nature, and size of
Gulf Coast American Blind's project including the square footage of
the building. A neighbor residing on the same street as respondents'
Beckler and Heims did submit written comments which were
Page 37
December 11, 2001
considered at the hearing and addressed by my client. Although they
had the same notice as their neighbor who did make a timely written
filing with the Industrial Development Authority, neither Mr. Beckler
nor Miss Heims appeared at the hearing nor filed any written
concerns or objections.
Now, I ask you to consider when the county publishes a notice
of hearing, as you do all the time, to amend a Land Development
Code provision or to increase impact fees, the law recognizes that not
everybody may actually read that notice, but the law treats everybody
as if they did read it and had actual knowledge by virtue of the fact
that it was published in the newspaper.
This rule of law is known as constructive knowledge or implied
knowledge. It's that some particular action is proposed to be taken at
a time, place, and location specified in the public notice and that all
interested persons are invited to submit written comments ahead of
time or attend the hearing and make comments at the public hearing.
This rule of law protects you, the county, from lawsuits brought later
on by citizens claiming that they didn't have any knowledge of the
action that was proposed and advertised in the newspaper. This same
rule of law is equally applicable to the actions that were taken by the
county's Industrial Development Authority in approving the issuance
of the bonds.
Mr. Beckler and Miss Heims had implied knowledge of what
was being proposed by my client on Westview Drive, and as their
attorney acknowledges in his written response to our appeal petition,
"It is well established in Florida law that there can be no waiver
without expressed or implied knowledge of that which is to be
waived." His statement acknowledges that where there is "implied
knowledge of that which is to be waived," as there is in the present
case, a waiver of rights has occurred.
Now, this rule of law of waiver of rights based upon implied
Page 3 8
December 11, 2001
knowledge protects government from the untimely objections of the
citizens it regulates, and it also serves to protect those same regulated
citizens from the untimely objections of government and the untimely
objections of fellow citizens.
Once again, the principle of fairness raises its head. The
purpose of this rule of law of implied knowledge is to provide a point
of finality of the decisions of local government. Commissioners, that
point of finality occurred a year ago.
Now, in addition to meetings and tours with individual residents
of the surrounding neighborhood, Carlos Diaz and his family have
met twice with the residents of the surrounding neighborhood as a
group. Commissioner Henning was kind enough to allow us to
participate in a meeting that he had organized for the twofold purpose
of explaining the sales tax referendum for roads and to provide an
opportunity for dialogue between Carlos Diaz and surrounding
residents.
Somewhere between 25 and 40 neighboring residents attended
this meeting. Mr. Diaz explained the project, showed a rendering of
the landscape wall buffering that he had proposed along Donna
Street, and answered questions from the audience. It was a good
meeting with a lot of cordial give-and-take discussions. Neighboring
residents asked Mr. Diaz to consider changes to his proposal and to
put the things that he was willing to do to address their concerns in a
written document that would be recorded as a deed restriction on the
property.
Mr. Diaz agreed to sponsor another meeting with neighboring
residents to respond more fully to some of the matters that had been
raised at the October meeting and to provide the residents with copies
of the deed restrictions that Mr. Diaz was willing to impose on Gulf
Coast American Blind Corporation's use of the property.
Mr. Diaz obtained a mailing list from the property appraiser's
Page 39
December 11, 2001
office of property owners in the surrounding neighborhood. He
rented a large room at the Elks Lodge and had desserts and coffee
and soft drinks catered. Lo and behold, on the evening of this second
meeting, only five neighboring residents showed up instead of the 25
to 40 that had been at the prior meeting.
Now, I wondered why was attendance so low if there was so
much interest in comparison to the attendance that we had had at the
prior meeting. So I asked those folks who did show up if they knew
why none of the rest of their neighbors had come to this promised
follow-up meeting. They told me that they and other neighbors had
received a call from respondent Linda Heims telling them not to
come to this meeting because it was a done deal that Gulf Coast
American Blind Corporation would not be allowed to build on this
property.
That is not right. Notwithstanding these efforts to sabotage Mr.
Diaz's attempt to be a good neighbor and to try to address their
questions and concerns, my client has offered to record a set of deed
restrictions on the Westview Plaza PUD property if Gulf Coast
American Blind Corporation relocates its operations on the property.
I would ask the permission of the chair to distribute a copy of these
proposed declaration of restrictions, and I will provide a copy to the
court reporter and ask that this be admitted into evidence.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Duly recognized.
MR. ANDERSON: I would like to summarize these restrictions
for the benefit of the neighbors that are here today that never had an
opportunity to find out what was being offered to you. These deed
restrictions, among other things, provide the following:
Number 1, access to and from Gail Boulevard or Donna Street is
prohibited.
Number 2, all structures constructed on the property shall be set
back a minimum of 100 feet from the property lines adjacent to Gail
Page 40
December 11, 2001
Boulevard and Donna Street. That's double the required 50-foot
setback that the PUD currently requires, so you're getting double the
protection.
Number 3, semi-truck deliveries are limited to between the
hours of 7 a.m. And 7 p.m. And no semi truck shall be parked on the
property overnight with its engines running.
Number 4, hours of operation for production work on the
property are limited to the hours between 7 a.m. And 11 p.m.
Number 5, any buildings erected on the property shall be fully
enclosed and air-conditioned.
Number 6, a 6-foot architecturally finished stucco prefabricated
concrete or similar treatment wall on top of a two-foot berm will be
placed along the property adjacent to Donna Street and 14-foot high
canopy trees planted 12 1/2 feet apart shall be placed in an alternating
manner on each side of the wall.
Also, on the eastern side of the wall facing Donna Street will be
a hedge. Along Gail Boulevard the existing vegetation shall be
supplemented with native vegetation to provide a 10-foot-wide
landscaped buffer that will achieve a height of-- an average height of
8 feet within a year after planting and providing 80 percent opacity.
Along the northern boundary of the property for a distance of
100 feet measured from the northeast comer of the property, 14-foot
high canopy trees again will be planted 12 1/2 feet on center together
with the hedge. Maintenance of all the foregoing will be the
responsibility of Gulf Coast American Blind Corporation or any
successor owner.
Number 7, exterior lighting for the parking lot and any buildings
located on the property shall be directed and maintained so as not to
cause glare on surrounding residential properties or on Gail
Boulevard or Donna Street.
Number 8, use of exterior loudspeaker is prohibited.
Page 41
December 11, 2001
Number 9, fire and police burglar alarms which are audible from
outside the building are prohibited.
Number 10, we give Collier County the right to enforce these
deed restrictions. There's not another land use that's permitted by this
PUD that will offer you these protections to be a good neighbor.
I would like to now call upon Mr. Mulhere to testify as to his
research and findings on the facts and issues of this case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions at this time by the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mulhere.
MR. MULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Mulhere.
First, with respect to my qualifications and experience, I'm currently
employed by RWA, Incorporated, a Naples-based planning and
engineering consulting firm. Prior to April of this year, I was
employed by Collier County as the planning services director. I held
that position for approximately three years. Prior to that I was the
current planning manager in Collier County, and I held that position
for approximately four years. Prior to that I was a Planner II with the
county and prior to that a Planner I. I was employed in total at
Collier County for approximately 12 years.
I have an undergraduate degree in political science and a
master's degree in public administration. I received the AICP from
the American Institute of Certified Planners in 1994. I have
submitted a copy of my resume into the record and would
respectfully ask that I be qualified as an expert.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, at this point does Mr.
Thornton have any cross-examination with regard to qualifications?
MR. THORNTON: No.
MR. MANALICH: Okay. No objections.
Mr. Anderson, what is it that Mr. Mulhere is being asked to be
recognized as an expert in?
Page 42
December 11,2001
MR. ANDERSON: Land-use planning and zoning, particularly
interpretation of the county's ordinances which was his responsibility
for the number of years that he served as the planning services
director. He's also being offered as a fact witness as well.
(Chairman Carter left the room.)
MR. WHITE: IfI may, Commissioners, just one comment.
Patrick White, assistant county attorney. The only exception I think
that we would take with respect to Mr. Anderson's request for
qualifications is that he may be hinting at the fact that Mr. Mulhere's
an expert on the law, if you will, or the interpretation of the law, and I
believe that the precise reason that we're here today is so that you can
perform that function, not he. Thank you.
MR. MULHERE: I've been duly warned. I have a tendency to
practice law without a license. I won't do that today if I can help it. I
did just want to -- I'm sure that most of you are aware of where the
site is, and probably all of you have been actually out there to the site,
but I did want to just show you on this aerial the area. I'm sorry these
thumbtacks won't hold that a little higher, but I hope you can see this.
The area in green is the subject property. As you know, it's just due
east of Airport Road.
I just wanted to show you that all of this area in here is industrial
use, industrially zoned, and portions of this area are industrially
zoned or used for commercial or office purposes. So the subject is
surrounded on two sides with industrial or commercial uses, and then
this is the residential area, single-family residential area, to the east of
the subject property.
(Chairman Carter entered the room.)
MR. MULHERE: I have reviewed the circumstances
surrounding the issuance of the official interpretation related to this
use, and I offer the following: The first issue that I would like to talk
about is the process, the process that resulted in the issuance of this
Page 43
December 11, 2001
official interpretation, which I believe to be somewhat flawed.
The PUD document, as I'm sure you're aware, expressly
authorizes the zoning director to make interpretations as to whether
or not a professional or commercial use expressly permitted in the
PUD document -- excuse me -- not expressly permitted in the PUD
document, but similar in nature to one or more of the uses that are
expressly permitted in the PUD document is (A) comparable and (B)
compatible to those uses that are expressly permitted in the PUD
documents.
Now, that's a curious term, "zoning director," because we don't
have a zoning director anymore in Collier County. However, I want
to reiterate that this is an administrative process that the PUD allows.
It allows an administrative determination as to whether a use or a
number of uses are comparable and compatible to other uses that are
expressly permitted.
I would suggest to you that interpretation requested and then
rendered in this fashion constitutes a final administrative
determination.
The written zoning interpretation does, in effect, constitute an
official interpretation.
Interestingly, the current planning manager's position is a
position that evolved from the former zoning director's position. In
the 1970s and 1980s Collier County did have a zoning director.
Collier County also had a development services director, and Collier
County also had a growth management director.
When we look at the responsibilities of the current planning
manager, those responsibilities are very similar to those that were the
responsibilities of the zoning director. We have a PUD that was
approved before the 1991 Land Development Code was adopted
which set out a process for official interpretation which called for that
to be made by the planning services director.
Page 44
December 11,2001
Based upon this history and the fact that there is no definition in
the LDC for the term "zoning director" and, finally, based upon the
fact that the planning services director may, indeed, and does have
the authority to delegate such responsibility to a senior-level staff
member such as the current planning manager, there can be no
question with respect to Mr. Nino's ability to respond to zoning
inquiries and interpretations, and that a property owner -- and this is
probably more important -- would fully expect to rely on the findings
and determinations of Mr. Nino in his capacity as current planning
manager.
As an aside, I will tell you that while I was the current planning
manager determinations such as this were made on a weekly basis at
a minimum. My predecessor, Mr. Ken Boginski, who is also a
current planning services -- current planning manager, also made
similar decisions on a weekly basis. There are many PUDs that
contain this language, the language that allows the zoning director to
determine whether a use that's not expressly permitted in the PUD is
comparable and compatible with other uses that are expressly
permitted in the PUD.
With respect to Mr. Nino's interpretation, Mr. Nino indicated in
writing and verbally that in reviewing the requests for zoning
interpretation regarding the proposed use, he relied on an evaluation
of other uses expressly permitted within the PUD that are similar in
nature. He also relied on specific language within the PUD and
whether such language is prohibitive or permissive, inclusive or
exclusive. He also relied on commitments made by the petitioner.
And, finally, he relied on representations regarding the proposed
business operations and functions which were made by the petitioner
in conjunction with the request for zoning interpretation.
He found that the PUD allows manufacturing and assembly in
conjunction with a number of expressly permitted uses, both
Page 45
December 11, 2001
commercial and light industrial. Moreover, the language expressly
allowing such uses within the PUD is permissive, not prohibitive, and
exclusive. In other words, the language in the PUD allows high-
technology precision manufacturing where the product is of a small
nature including -- and these are my words -- including but not
limited to -- I think the PUD actually uses the term "e.g." meaning for
example -- optical, dental, medical, and computer components.
Mr. Nino interpreted that the subject use was comparable and
compatible to these and other permitted uses given that all activities
are to be conducted in an enclosed building and no noise or odor is
detectible from off the premises, which is a condition contained in the
PUD. There is no specific definition of what is meant by "products
of a small nature," although some examples are cited. What is clear
is that the mixture of commercial and industrial-type uses are
permitted in the PUD.
I think it's very important to note that the official interpretation
concurs with this point. The official interpretation agrees with the
fact that a mixture of commercial and industrial uses are permitted.
"Light industrial uses" -- I believe is the term that was used -- are
permitted within the PUD.
Many of the other permitted uses in the PUD, such as shopping
centers, medical clinics, bank, and other uses would generate
significantly higher traffic and potentially more noise, odor, and other
impacts than would be the proposed use. I state that notwithstanding
the additional restrictions and conditions which the property owner
has agreed to, including the fact that all manufacturing activities will
occur indoor, and this should virtually eliminate any potential odor or
noise off the premises. Outside storage is prohibited. All of the other
conditions that Mr. Anderson enumerated that the property owner has
agreed to -- all of these conditions really are not necessary to make
this use comparable and compatible, but they certainly do address the
Page 46
December 11, 2001
concerns of the neighbors to a higher degree.
Anyway, it was on the basis of this review that Mr. Nino made
his interpretation. Miss Murray asked Assistant County Attorney
Patrick White in an RLS to opine whether or not Mr. Nino's opinion
was correct in interpreting that the subject use was comparable and
compatible to any other professional or commercial use. Mr. White
responded, and I quote, "There's more than ample factual support for
staffs" -- Mr. Nino's -- "prior conclusion that the proposed uses as
evidenced by the existing operations are sufficiently comparable in
nature to the high-technology precision manufacturing uses allowed
by right in the PUD district. As such, the proposed uses were not
wrongfully considered to be comparable by staff."
In conclusion, Mr. White opines, and I quote again, "This office
is of the opinion that there was no legal error in staff having
concluded that PUD Section 2.2.A.25 when read in combination with
subparagraph A.47 of the PUD ordinance allowed the use and
processes being proposed for the Westview Plaza PUD."
This brings me, again, to a procedural issue. I don't believe that
we've had a situation previously -- I'm not aware of one -- where a
PUD allowed for the zoning director to make an interpretation under
this comparable and compatible language where that interpretation
was made -- and on this occasion or circumstance twice on two
separate occasions by the individual who has the authority and
responsibility to make those determinations. I'm not aware of any
situation where that was subsequently the subject of then an official
interpretation that reversed the previous interpretation of the person
who had the responsibility to make that interpretation and was
authorized to do that.
In this case I believe that given Mr. Nino's interpretation, which
was rendered twice, the concerned residents who expressed concerns
about whether or not this use should have been permitted should have
Page 47
December 11, 2001
been directed to appeal that interpretation or, conversely, they could
have taken civil action when a final local development order was
submitted for consideration or rendered. I may be practicing law
there, so strike that last statement.
Anyway, in other words, I don't feel that the burden should have
fallen on the Diaz Family Partnership and Gulf Coast American Blind
as they followed all the required procedures to request and receive on
two separate occasions an interpretation from the responsible
authority in the county that the proposed use was permitted, an
opinion that was further supported by review of the county attorney's
office.
I would like to call the commission's attention to a letter which
further supports the contention that this action on the part of the
current planning manager, this action of finding this use comparable
and compatible does constitute an interpretation. This was submitted
to the board, but I can refer to it. It's a fairly short letter dated April
13th. It's to Donald L. Arnold of Arnold & Arnold, Incorporated. It's
from Susan Murray, acting current planning manager.
The letter states that "County Resolution No. 2455 is a
resolution that establishes fees for certain activities engaged in by the
staff of the community development and environmental services
division." It goes on to say, "On several occasions you have asked
staff to confirm in writing an interpretation of the uses permitted in
the above-noted PUD," which is the Westview PUD, "and I believe
we have asked you to remit the fee for each interpretation while
concurrently providing you with the interpretation. We cannot
continue" -- the word "interpretation" is, again, used several times.
"We cannot continue to do this in that manner as technically the
action to provide an interpretation of a zoning regulation requires that
the request be accompanied by the appropriate fee. Please be advised
that the fee pursuant to the stated resolution is $100. In the future, we
Page 48
December 11, 2001
would appreciate your filing the required fee for a zoning
interpretation letter. A copy of the relevant portion of the fee
schedule is enclosed for your review."
I bring that up only as further evidence to the fact that in this
situation, which is somewhat unique, where you have a PUD -- I say
somewhat unique, but there are several PUDs that contain this
language -- and may not have been anticipated by the language that's
provided in the LDC for a formal interpretation. Because you have a
PUD that authorizes the zoning director to make an administrative
determination as to whether or not a use is comparable and
compatible with other uses in the PUD -- and that's exactly what
occurred here. Again, I reiterate -- sorry to be redundant -- but it was
on two separate occasions.
It is my professional opinion that the proposed uses permitted
within the Westview Plaza PUD under Section 2.2.A.25 is consistent
with Mr. Nino's zoning interpretation. Miss Murray and Mr. Kuck --
Miss Murray prepared the official interpretation and Mr. Kuck signed
it and rendered it -- they concede that the PUD does, in fact, allow for
a mixture of commercial and light-industrial uses including
manufacturing and fabrication assembly.
Nevertheless, the conclusion is in the official interpretation that
based upon the 1983 zoning ordinance and the list of uses permitted
in the C-5 commercial industrial district it was the intent of the board
at that time -- at the time of the approval of the PUD in 1983 -- to
only allow specific types of manufacturing and fabrication uses as
expressly identified in the PUD documents. However, the PUD
contains no such prohibition or limitation.
There is no competent and substantial evidence to support this
conclusion. No such intent is revealed in the PUD document. No
such intent is revealed in the minutes from the PUD hearing before
the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners.
Page 49
December 11, 2001
No such intent is found in any of the files or review comments from
the reviewing staff back in 1983.
The 1983 zoning ordinance is only germane in that it did allow
in the C-5 district for a combination of commercial and industrial
uses as does this PUD including assembly, manufacturing, and
fabrication, particularly where the impacts of those uses will not be
experienced by the neighboring residents. One can infer that since
some use was expressly permitted in the C-5 or industrial districts in
the 1983 code are not expressly permitted in the Westview Plaza
PUD, either those uses were simply not requested by the applicant at
the time, or perhaps some such uses were deemed not to be
appropriate.
In addition, high technology/manufacturing uses were not listed
in the 1983-zoning ordinance. There was no way for the then BCC to
determine all of the future uses that might be compatible and
comparable. That's why the language appears in the PUD. Again,
what is clear is that manufacturing/assembly type uses are permitted.
Some examples are given. Other uses that are compatible and
comparable are anticipated, and the proposed use falls into this
category.
The PUD document and any supporting submittal documents,
review comments, and minutes from hearings are certainly relevant,
as I have stated. None of these records identify intent to limit
permitted uses to those expressly identified in the PUD.
(Commissioner Fiala left the room.)
MR. MULHERE: To the contrary, the PUD clearly and
expressly allows other uses if they are comparable and compatible. It
is clear that the PUD does allow a mixture of commercial and
industrial uses. It is also clear that the PUD does allow
manufacturing and fabrication provided the products are of a small
nature, provided all activities are internal, and no noise or odors can
Page 50
December 11,2001
be detected from off of the premises.
The term "small in nature" is relative, and clearly the PUD
anticipates some assembly of smaller components into a larger
finished product. The proposed use is fully consistent with all these
provisions. I won't go into the conditions that the property owner has
agreed to because Mr. Anderson has already reiterated those for you.
Finally, it's my opinion that the Diaz Family Limited Partnership
and Gulf Coast American Blind should have been able to rely on Mr.
Nino's interpretation, which was requested and issued on two
occasions. Anyone who then expressed opposition or disagreement
with the staff interpretation should then have been instructed to
appeal the interpretation.
In closing, I would like to state that I do understand the concerns
of the residents. We all understand the concerns of the residents.
Clearly, these concerns center around noise, odor, and operational
aspects associated with the use. These aspects may be undesirable;
however, based on the conditions that may be attached to the
approval of this use through the site development plan, they can be
fully and completely mitigated. I don't think that these additional
restrictions are in any way necessary to find that this use is
comparable and compatible, but I think it's sort of the icing on the
cake for the neighboring residents. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Questions by the
members of the board.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, just as a housekeeping
matter, first, I believe Mr. Mulhere was offered as an expert on land-
use planning and zoning in regard to county ordinances. I believe the
board should make a motion. As I recall, that was not opposed by
opposing counsel, and the board should make a motion to that effect
if it's going to accept him in that capacity as an expert.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make such a motion.
Page 51
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Commissioner Coletta -- a
motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seconded 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.
Commissioner Fiala is absent from the dais.
MR. MANALICH: Secondly, Mr. Chairman, because this is a
quasi-judicial proceeding, there should be an opportunity for cross-
examination by opposing counsel.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We will do that after we take a short
break and give Magic Fingers a rest. Take ten, and we will resume
with cross-examination.
(A break was held from 10:38 a.m. To 10:47 a.m.)
(Commissioner Fiala is present.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Olliff, are we live?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. We're resuming
the public hearing. There was a question by Commissioner Henning
for Mr. Mulhere, and then we will go to the next presentation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is, I'm not sure if
Mr. Mulhere stated that the Diaz's got an official interpretation from
staff.
MR. MULHERE: I indicated that the process was a little bit
different here when the PUD calls for -- allows the zoning director to
make an interpretation as to whether or not uses are comparable and
compatible. They did not get an official interpretation as is called for
in the LDC. To me this is a little bit of a different process. You
Page 52
December 11,2001
know, the property owner should have the right to rely on an
interpretation that was rendered completely in conformance with the
provisions of the PUD document, which is the prevailing document
in this case.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Also, you mentioned a couple of
times something about a fee and the fact that a fee is normally paid
with this, and it wasn't.
MR. MULHERE: No, that was a different -- let me clarify that.
The purpose -- the reason I brought that letter up was to highlight the
fact that the staff referenced that process as resulting in a zoning
interpretation. That letter did not deal specifically with this request
for an interpretation on the part of staff. It dealt with this PUD, and it
dealt generally with requests for these types of interpretations. There
is a fee, and the fee should be paid before the request is rendered.
My reason for bringing it up was simply to provide the board
with a document that expressly states in it on several occasions that
this is an interpretation. That was the reason I raised that issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Counselor.
MR. THORNTON: Yes. My name is Chris Thornton. I'm an
attorney, and I represent the respondents, Mr. Beckler and Mrs.
Heims. At this time I request the opportunity to cross-examine the
petitioner's expert witness.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. Proceed.
MR. THORNTON: Mr. Mulhere, have you ever visited the
existing operations at Gulf Coast American Blind? MR. MULHERE: No, sir.
MR. THORNTON: In your capacity as an expert land-use
planner, is it your testimony today that a 12-foot-tall by 5-foot-wide
plantation shutter is a product of a small nature such as optical,
dental, hearing aids, and computer components?
Page 53
December 11, 2001
MR. MULHERE: My testimony is that the components that
make up that product are of a small nature just as the components that
make up a computer or a telescope or a -- computer components such
as a visualizer or a printer are also smaller components that make up
a larger product.
MR. THORNTON: Do you agree with me that a 12-foot-tall
plantation shutter is larger than any of the examples listed in the
PUD?
MR. MULHERE: I can't agree with that necessarily because I
can think of some computer products that are fairly large that would
be permitted by right and expressly stated in the PUD.
MR. THORNTON: Is it your testimony today that the use of a
chop saw, circular saw to cut lumber is high-technology precision
manufacturing?
MR. MULHERE: It is.
MR. WHITE: I have to offer an objection. We're assuming
facts not in evidence. There's been no testimony about the size of
shutters or the particular equipment used.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the
objection be noted for the record, but unless it's something that denies
fundamental due process, it will just be preserved. This is not with
all the formality of a court hearing, so that would be my suggestion.
MR. MULHERE: It is my testimony and has been my
testimony that I'm not an expert on high-technology precision
manufacturing. The business owner is certainly an expert, and they
have provided to Mr. Nino indications that the utilization relied on
high-technology precision manufacturing. On the basis of that, Mr.
Nino rendered his interpretation, an interpretation which was
subsequently supported by the county attorney's office review and
one which I concur with. That's my testimony.
MR. THORNTON: If we -- as a hypothetical, if the evidence
Page 54
December 11,2001
shows that a circular saw is used in these operations to make
plantation shutters, is it your testimony that the use of a circular saw
to make a plantation shutter is high-technology precision
manufacturing?
MR. MULHERE: Could be -- it could be.
MR. THORNTON: All right. Is it your testimony today that the
proposed use -- you've determined that the proposed use is consistent
with the PUD. Is it your testimony today that the proposed use will
not generate any noise or odor off site?
MR. MULHERE: That's correct. There are conditions agreed
to by the applicant, and there are conditions in the PUD that are
requirements that no noise or odor be detectable off the premises.
The fact is that the applicant has gone further by saying, "We're going
to put everything within a building." And just like any other use
that's permitted in Collier County with restrictions on it, should the
operation result in a violation of those conditions or restrictions, then
really it becomes a code enforcement issue, but we must rely on the
applicant's -- property owner's position that they can, indeed, mitigate
the noise and odor and contain it to the building such that it will not
be detectable off the premises.
MR. THORNTON: Do you believe that the current planning
manager has the power to amend a PUD on his own? MR. MULHERE: No. That was an easy one.
MR. THORNTON: The proposed use -- as an expert and being
familiar with the code, do you agree with me that the proposed use is
only allowed in the standard straight zoning classifications under
today's code in the industrial zone?
MR. MULHERE: I do. In 1983 the proposed use was allowed
in C-5/industrial when the PUD was reviewed.
MR. THORNTON: You also testified that you believe the
current planning manager has the power to issue a binding
Page 55
December 11, 2001
interpretation. Your testimony is that under Division 1.6 it's the
planning manager's job to issue those interpretations and not the
planning services director.
MR. MULHERE: No.
MR. THORNTON: So that job is the job of the planning
services director?
MR. MULHERE: To render an official interpretation under 1.6,
it is required that the planning services director render that
interpretation.
MR. THORNTON: And that was your job at the time this
request was made?
MR. MULHERE: Uh-huh.
MR. THORNTON: Okay. Lastly -- this is my last question --
you suggested that the respondents should have appealed Ron Nino's
determination. My only question is, how were these residents who
live across the street from this property to appeal a secret, private
communication that was never noticed and never provided to them
over a year ago?
MR. MULHERE: Well, I would say -- I would answer that
probably in two parts. Number 1, I would object to the use of
"secret" and "private" because it's a public document in public
records, so I don't think it's secret and private. I do agree, however,
that they had their opportunity to appeal based on the notice from the
Industrial Development Authority that they intended to issue bonds,
so there was a notice opportunity.
MR. THORNTON: Okay. That brings to mind one last
question. Do you believe that the Industrial Development Authority
has the right to rezone property or approve site development plans?
MR. MULHERE: No.
MR. THORNTON: That's all the questions I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. You may proceed,
Page 56
December 11, 2001
Counselor.
MR. HOOLEY: Mr. Chairman, I've got some cross-
examination. It will be short, though.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'd appreciate that.
MR. WHITE: Excuse me. I object.
MR. HOOLEY: My name is John Hooley. I'm the president of
the East Naples Civic Association. I also live in East Naples. I think
I have the right to ask Mr. Mulhere some questions. You've tendered
him as an expert, Mr. Anderson, so I would appreciate some latitude
here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me. I'm going to legal
counsel. Do they have standing?
MR. ANDERSON: They're not a party.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, it is true that they're not a
party. Now, I think in order to create the most offensible record here,
although perhaps somewhat unusual, I believe that Mr. Hooley -- are
you here on your own capacity or representing others?
MR. HOOLEY: I'm representing the East Naples Civic
Association.
MR. MANALICH: I think we have the latitude to allow limited
cross-examination from Mr. Hooley, and I would suggest that I think
we'd make a better record if we do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. You may proceed, sir.
MR. HOOLEY: Mr. Mulhere, following up on the prior
questioning, you said that it was a public record, Mr. Nino's letter.
Do you know whether or not that was ever circulated in the
community?
MR. MULHERE: I do not know.
MR. HOOLEY: And when you were here working for the
county, did you occasionally write letters to private citizens?
MR. MULHERE: Yes.
Page 57
December 11, 2001
MR. HOOLEY: Were they circulated in the community?
MR. MULHERE: No, not generally.
MR. HOOLEY: How would these people -- how would the
neighbors be able to access that letter not knowing of its existence?
MR. MULHERE: They would -- based on the notice of intent to
issue industrial development bonds and that notice, they would come
in and request to look at the file. That notice indicated both that they
were reviewing the site plan and the issuance of the development
bonds. So they'd have to come in and look at the file. The letter is in
the file. I went to the county and went into the file --
MR. HOOLEY: That was several months after the letter had
been written; right?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. HOOLEY: As an expert witness here, you must have gone
back through the history of the Westview PUD; right? MR. MULHERE: I did.
MR. HOOLEY: So you must have seen that after the PUD was
created the owner, Mr. Vetter, applied for a zoning change. MR. MULHERE: I did.
MR. HOOLEY: How many times did he do that?
MR. MULHERE: I found record of one application that was
denied by the Board of County Commissioners in 1992.
MR. HOOLEY: You didn't find a second one where he
attempted to change the use?
MR. MULHERE: No, I did not find evidence of a second one.
I'm not suggesting whether or not one exists. I did not find evidence
of a second PUD amendment. There was a hearing which the board
held relative to a zoning re-evaluation. There was a hearing that the
board held relative to extending the PUD under the PUD sunsetting,
which the board did unanimously extend the PUD for two years.
MR. HOOLEY: And Mr. Vetter was requesting on the zoning
Page 58
December 11,2001
change that he applied for was commercial; right -- was industrial;
right?
MR. MULHERE: He was requesting, to my recollection, three
uses: A fraternal organization, warehousing, and wholesale
distribution.
MR. HOOLEY: Okay. And that was denied; right?
MR. MULHERE: That was denied.
MR. HOOLEY: Do we have wholesale distribution in the Gulf
American Blind situation?
MR. MULHERE: You have distribution. You have distribution
with a number of uses that are permitted in the PUD.
MR. HOOLEY: Do we have wholesale distribution with the
Gulf American Blind proposal?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, you do.
MR. HOOLEY: Okay. And that was already denied by the
board once?
MR. MULHERE: As a specific expressly permitted use,
wholesale distribution was denied. However, the PUD clearly allows
ancillary wholesale warehousing distribution to those permitted uses
that allow for manufacturing. Obviously, you cannot have a
manufacturing use. We all agree that certain manufacturing uses are
permitted in the PUD. You can't have a manufacturing use if you
don't have any way to distribute the product.
MR. HOOLEY: In your experience as a planner, have you
come across the term "millwork"?
MR. MULHERE: Millwork, yes, I have.
MR. HOOLEY: And what is millwork?
MR. MULHERE: Creation of wood products would be my
explanation -- finished wood products.
MR. HOOLEY: And is that what we're having here?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sure there is some millwork involved in
Page 59
December 11, 2001
this, yes. These are premanufactured components that are assembled
to manufacture a final product. I'm not an expert in that terminology
so, you know, I would qualify my response to you to say that, you
know, you've got a product that is manufactured by the manufacturer
elsewhere, shipped in, and then assembled in this operation to a
finished product based on the ultimate purchaser's specifications. If
that constitutes millwork, I would have to leave that up to --
MR. HOOLEY: Well, you're the expert. Does it constitute
millwork?
MR. MULHERE: In my opinion, it does not constitute
millwork as it is described in the Standard Industrial Code.
MR. HOOLEY: Standard Industrial Code? We're here with
light industrial.
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
MR. HOOLEY: Would millwork be standard or light?
MR. MULHERE: Well, no, no. The Standard Industrial Code
is a publication that is used to identify. It's produced by the federal
government, I think, in the Office of Budget and Management to
identify and categorize certain types of uses. I believe that millwork
falls into a different area of the Standard Industrial Code than it does
assembly.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Uh --
MR. HOOLEY: Two quick questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a second. Wait a second. I have
a question here. Is either one of these gentlemen experts in
millwork?
MR. MULHERE: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then I just really don't understand the
relevance of the questions.
MR. MULHERE: Okay.
(Applause.)
Page 60
December 11,2001
MR. HOOLEY: I've got two other questions.
Is it your interpretation that 160 employees, two shifts, and a
wholesale manufacturer with 1,000 customers constitutes light
industrial?
MR. MULHERE: Absolutely.
MR. HOOLEY: I have no further questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Hooley.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the next witness I would like
to call is Carlos Diaz.
MR. DIAZ: Good morning. Well, for the record, I'm Carlos
Diaz, and I'm the president and CEO of Gulf Coast American Blinds
and a partner in the Diaz Family Limited Partnership. Honorable
Commissioners, I fully understand you have some very important
decisions to make today. Personally I don't understand why I'm here,
quite honestly, but I know what needs to be done here today. And
with this in mind, I have three points I want to share with you. Just so
that I don't miss any points, I've prepared a written statement.
First of all, when we embarked on this project over two years
ago with the involvement of the Economic Development Council,
Collier County Industrial Development Authority, several financial
institutions, and the very early involvement of Collier County staff
and other county agencies from it's inception, we have never -- we've
been very open and clear as to why we were interested in the property
on Westview Drive and its intended use.
I want to assure you that we have never been -- we have never --
there has never been any change -- I'm sorry. I want to assure you
that there has never been any change on our part on what we wanted
to accomplish. Mr. Kuck's letter dated October 8th, 2001, took us by
total surprise, especially after the fact that we were within a few days
of obtaining a site development plan, and now the entire process has
been put on hold again. And I say "again" because this is the second
Page 61
December 11, 2001
time that this project has been put on hold.
The first time was at the direction of Mr. John Dunnuck who
had placed the project on hold midway through the site development
process until he received a legal interpretation that he had requested
from the county attorney's office pertaining to the proposed land use.
After a visit from Mr. White to our facility, Assistant County
Attorney Patrick White -- the county attorney's office rendered their
opinion. And in a subsequent follow-up meeting with Mr. Dunnuck,
Miss Helene Castletine, the person in charge of fast-track projects at
the county, Jill Greenfield from the Economic Development Council,
my engineer and myself -- at this meeting, Mr. Dunnuck indicated to
us that he was satisfied with the results of the interpretation and
would allow the review process to continue.
We've been around long enough to know that to succeed in life
and to be fair you need to look at all sides of the issues. County staff
had comments and concerns, so to address those issues we made
revisions to our plans on at least three separate occasions, and it is my
understanding that we have satisfied those concerns. The release of a
site development plan is pending today's decision.
It is also my understanding that a few neighbors of the Coconut
Creek area have indicated concerns over the proposed project. As far
as neighbors are concerned, we have had two scheduled meetings
with them as previously mentioned and would like to also point out
that my wife, my mother, and my father -- my mother and I, actually,
personally, visited some of the Coconut Creek residents to explain
our proposed project to them. As a result we have received many
comments of support. I must also add that a few of the neighbors
closed their doors on us and did not grant us the opportunity to speak
to them. Rest assured we gave it our best shot.
Well, Commissioners, I now have a much greater appreciation
for the work you do. The first meeting was to personally listen to the
Page 62
December 11, 2001
neighbors and receive the concerns, some of which were immediately
resolved and agreed upon and others were deliberated upon. Written
proposed solutions in the form of a declaration of restrictions was
prepared. These were handed out at the second meeting with the
neighbors at the Elks Club on November 14th for the few that
attended, of course. As a result of these interactions with the
neighbors, we've made significant changes to the building structure
and have substantially enhanced the buffers along Donna Street and
Gail Boulevard. Our intent has always been to be a good neighbor.
After all, that happens to be my neighborhood as well. It used to be
my neighborhood for many years. I lived in Flamingo Estates. So --
and to make this point very clear, we may compromise to that level.
Our opinion exceeds what may be considered reasonable, but what is
-- but that is what we committed to do, and that's what we'll do.
Lastly, I want to talk about compromise. Due to your staff's
original interpretation of the Diaz Family Limited Partnership, my
family, I put everything we had on the line to help our business grow,
obviously, with the help from the Economic Development Council
and Industrial Development Authority and the financial institutions
that have supported this project to which we have long commitments
of over $3.5 million of which $1.4 million are land costs alone.
Much interest has piled on this year to date, thus making a prompt
decision imminent. We have not only placed all of our resources and
family trust into this project, but we've also committed to large
mortgages and debt that will invariably change our financial position
for years to come.
The last point I want to make is compromise, balance, and
fairness go hand in hand. After all is said and done, the bottom line
is, what is fair and reasonable to all concerned? That brings us to
why we're here today. After a thorough research, there are not many
options to develop projects of this nature in Collier County. This is
Page 63
December 11, 2001
one of the few PUDs left with what we understood all along and were
led to believe by your staff had the right zoning in place.
We prefer to stay in Collier County and are very proud to be a
homegrown business and hope that you come to the conclusion that
this project should continue as planned, because it will be good and
much appreciated by my group of local and committed employees.
But, also, because it would be good for the greater good of Collier
County.
I want to thank you, and I would like to answer Mr. Thomton's
question about the 12-foot shutter. We make components. We don't
assemble every product on our facilities. A 12-foot shutter would
have a maximum panel width of 36 inches, and that would go as
much times as we need to attain a 12-foot width. As far as the height,
we have a limitation of ten feet currently at the moment. However,
let me explain to you that 80 percent of our products are within a 48
by 60 size. That is our average size of window covering in our
facility right now with the highest seller being 36 by 62 by far. There
is a small percentage of blinds that are large, but as we've spoken
before, they're all carried by one human being. No machine
necessary. That to me is what I consider of a small nature, I guess.
I'm not an expert, but I do know the blind business. All our products
are component based. No window covering really is fully assembled
until it reaches the customer's home.
I brought some examples of some of the products that we
actually do, and I'd like to share that with you, if you would. These
are components that are made -- that are assembled, put together, to
make all of our products operational. This is where all the pieces --
the pieces that are cords, mechanisms, little gear systems, that our
employees put together. They're fully guaranteed.
As you can see -- and I also would like to make a point that our
distribution is through our own trucks, which are really vans and
Page 64
December 11, 2001
light-sized trucks, and that's most of the distribution. But, of course,
we use shipping companies and carriers.
This is an example of one of the products that we actually
fabricate. This is -- it's good that we bring in the word "fabrication"
because that's what our suppliers call us. Our suppliers are called the
manufacturer in this industry. The manufacturer is Hunter Douglas.
The fabricator is Gulf Coast American Blind. That's our title. We're
fabricators. We assemble all pieces into final products.
We do not mount or make anything. These parts are bought
together, and we assemble them into a finished product to the
customer's specifications. We cut fabric. Yes, we drill fabric. Yes,
we put together beautiful products for your windows.
This happens to be a shade product from our valance and shades
division. This is a panel from our shutter division, and I would like
to let you know that shutters come in two different types. They come
as outside shutters -- outside of the exterior of the home -- and
interior shutters. Everything Gulf Coast makes up to now is interior
products for the decor of the home. Nothing for protection of
hurricanes or anything of that nature. Right now we strictly fabricate
decor products to control the light, not to block a thief.
So, anyway, this is a composite product, not exactly wood. The
word "milling" came out. I'm not a professional at that. I buy my
products fully milled. All of my products, even the wood, come pre-
formed already from a mill, quote, unquote. That's where we buy it
from. We do not mill our products. We do cut it to size, assemble it,
do small drillings, and do all of this assembly type work. All of our
shapes are already pre-shaped at a mill. That's where I buy my
products from. As far as the shutter division is concerned, the rest
are components.
I thank you very much, and I hope that we can be neighbors.
Thank you.
Page 65
December 11, 2001
(Applause.)
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that these items
be admitted into evidence.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Do you need a motion for that? Who do I
give these to?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we need a motion on that?
MR. MANALICH: Yes, I think so. First, is there any objection
MR. THORNTON: I'm here to ask for the opportunity to cross-
examine the last witness.
MR. MANALICH: I think it should be allowed. If you could,
obviously, given the number of speakers, get to the point, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make a motion to admit the
shutters and blinds into evidence.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala and 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. Thank you.
MR. THORNTON: Mr. Diaz, I just wanted to clarify my
understanding of a portion of your testimony wherein you said that
you did not manufacture products, but rather you fabricated products.
Was that your testimony?
MR. DIAZ: Somewhat, somewhat. We are labeled as a
fabricator, and we actually assemble products. But the words
"fabrication" and "manufacturing" have been utilized even in this
operation when we first started. That's how the bank did it, and the
Page 66
December 11, 2001
housing -- that's how they used it. Everybody used the
"manufacturing" word. It's interchangeable a lot of times in a lot of
ways.
MR. THORNTON: So earlier when you said you were not a
manufacturer, now you're saying that you are a manufacturer?
MR. DIAZ: No. I'm saying that the words are interchangeable
and that some people call us a manufacturer. I believe we're still a
fabricator, but we call ourselves manufacturers -- people call us
manufacturers. Like, you would call that a levelour, and that's not a
levelour. That's a mini blind. It's a horizontal blind. Levelour is a
brand. They're interchangeable.
MR. THORNTON: I want to get some information from you. I
think you would be the most knowledgeable person. What types of
equipment do you use in your operations?
MR. DIAZ: We use all kinds of equipment. We use guiatines
to cut fabric. We use small drills to drill. We use a lot of dies to
punch cut. We have a couple automated machines that you, I think,
had an opportunity to see. We load the pieces in, and the machine
actually feeds it into the lathe. It puts it into the lathe. It's both
computerized, air driven, and it uses power as well. It's a
combination of the three resources.
MR. THORNTON: Do you cut wood with saws in your
operations?
MR. DIAZ: Oh, yes, we do.
MR. THORNTON: What type of saws?
MR. DIAZ: Most of them are miter saws. Some of them are
radial arm saws, which barely cut over the top. As we're looking into
it right now, there's some saws that will come from the bottom and
cut.
MR. THORNTON: How many saws do you use in your
operations?
Page 67
December 11, 2001
MR. DIAZ: Oh, boy, possibly 10 or 12.
MR. THORNTON: Do you use any drilling machines in your
operation?
MR. DIAZ: Yeah, we do. We drill the bottom rails of the wood
blinds. We drill the fabric that you just saw to put the cord through it
with a drill. It actually drills fabric.
MR. THORNTON: How many -- what type of machine does
the drilling?
MR. DIAZ: Small little electric drills and some air-driven drills
or air powered -- there's a lot of air-powered equipment.
MR. THORNTON: Is there any sanding in your operations?
MR. DIAZ: Well, there is some minute sanding on the
stainwork, yes, and on the ends of the louvers when we cut them we
have to remove the -- we have to remove the roughness.
MR. THORNTON: What about painting? Is there painting in
your operation?
(Chairman Carter left the room.)
MR. DIAZ: Currently there is little painting in the operation.
Eventually there will be some painting in the operation when we get
into that aspect. Right now we don't do full paints. We outsource it
to a gentleman on Westview Drive. (Applause.)
MR. THORNTON: Is the gentleman who does the painting
located on the Westview PUD?
MR. DIAZ: Oh, no, sir. It's adjacent.
MR. THORNTON: It's in the industrial district?
MR. DIAZ: It's on Westview Drive. That's all I mentioned. It's
on the street, yes, it is.
MR. THORNTON: The last question is, have you been
contacted by any buyers who have proposed to purchase your
property and do a use that's consistent with the PUD?
Page 68
December 11, 2001
MR. DIAZ: This is an interesting one. So far I don't have any
contract in my hand, but I did receive two calls from the same
individual. My property hasn't been put for sale. I plan to win this
case, of course. My property hasn't been for sale. However, I believe
that some members of the First National Bank of Naples have
contacted Jim Lindsay, who happens to do all of their real estate
investments or purchases for them, and he called me about a month
ago and said Mr. Beckler and Miss Linda Heims had told him that
they were going to win the case and that it was a done deal and that
they could find a way to take the property away from my hands and
that I would make some money in the process. This was about four
to six weeks ago.
Yesterday at four o'clock Mr. Lindsay left a voice mail on my
telephone. I did not get an opportunity to return his call yet. But I
had not received any calls from him in the last month and a half. So
far I haven't seen a number or a contract. If my realtor would talk to
you, they would tell you that we have nothing.
MR. THORNTON: For the record, I would like to object to the
hearsay of Mr. Diaz testifying for Mr. Beckler and Ms. Heims.
MR. ANDERSON:
walked right through.
MR. MANALICH:
MR. THORNTON:
witness. Thank you.
Mr. Thornton, you opened the door, and we
Objection is noted.
That's all the questions I have for that
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Diaz, I have a question.
What precision tools or equipment do you use to manufacture these --
MR. DIAZ: We have automatic stamping machines, sir, and
feeder machines, so feeding and stamping machines. They actually
do cutting, punching, and forming, and they actually build your blind.
You're welcome to come.
(Chairman Carter entered the room.)
Page 69
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that computerized?
MR. DIAZ: Yes, it is, sir. They are computerized.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great.
MR. DIAZ: But we do have saws.
MR. ANDERSON:
(No response.)
MR. ANDERSON:
Any other questions for Mr. Diaz?
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our case in
chief. I would reserve the right to question any witnesses and also to
present any rebuttal that may be necessary at the end. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. THORNTON: Good morning. Again, my name is Chris
Thornton. I'm an attorney with Treiser, Lieberfarb, Collins &
Vernon. I represent Mr. Bob Beckler who resides at 3720 Gail
Boulevard and Mrs. Linda Heims who resides at 4000 Gail
Boulevard.
At this point I would like to ask your indulgence is accepting my
submittal that you should have received on Friday by hand delivery
into evidence. A copy was provided to opposing counsel, and a copy
has been provided to the court reporter already for inclusion in the
record. Do I need a motion for that?
MR. MANALICH: Yes. I think we should have that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Page 70
December 11, 2001
MR. MANALICH: For clarification, Mr. Thornton, what did
that consist of again?
MR. THORNTON: It consisted of my letter of December 7th
directed to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals, care of
James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman, as well as the official response of
the respondents Beckler and Heims, which is dated December 7th,
and it's nine pages long with Exhibits A through J.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you have a copy of that,
Counselor?
MR. MANALICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. THORNTON: I would like to begin by, I think, kind of
bringing us back to the issue that's at hand, which is whether this use
is allowed in this PUD.
MR. ANDERSON: I was not provided an opportunity to
register an objection or acceptance of these things into evidence as he
was on my items. I would like to register an objection to those
exhibits which relate -- particularly Exhibit F of his document and
Exhibit G of his document on the grounds of irrelevance. They relate
to actions or attempts to amend the PUD that occurred many years
later and are irrelevant to the consideration before you today. Thank
you.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I think those objections can
be noted. I think quite a bit of latitude is offered to Mr. Anderson in
terms of his submittal, and I think the board can determine as it hears
Mr. Thornton's case whether those are relevant or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Anderson.
MR. THORNTON: Has it been accepted into evidence at this
point?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not yet.
Page 71
December 11, 2001
MR. THORNTON: Okay.
MR. MANALICH: That vote, I think, can be called for at this
point.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Objections for items -- I believe G was
one of them; am I correct, Counselor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I believe it was F.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: F and G?
MR. MANALICH: F and G.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As stated being irrelevant by Mr.
Anderson because they pertain to prior discussions or actions.
MR. ANDERSON: G and H, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: G and H.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought it was F and G.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And what I understood
Mr. Manalich to tell me is that we could have latitude on this, but we
could hear Mr. Thornton's presentation and then make that decision.
Am I understanding that correctly?
MR. ANDERSON: And F. Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And F. Anything else we need to add
to this, Counselor? Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: My recommendation would be that it be
admitted much as Mr. Anderson's materials were admitted. The
board can then decide in its deliberations if those items, depending on
Mr. Thornton's presentation and cross-examination, are of relevance
or not.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So later on we can remove them if we
so desire.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We didn't accept anything from Mr.
Anderson, did we?
MR. MANALICH: No. That's what I'm saying. I think there
Page 72
December 11, 2001
was broad latitude afforded Mr. Anderson, and I would recommend
the same for Mr. Thornton.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can take care of that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Counselor, wait a second. Mr. White
has something to say, Commissioner.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White. I just
add that not only determination with respect to relevance or not, but
if you deem it to be at all relevant what weight to give it in terms of
competent and substantial --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I guess if was a judge I would say
overruled, but anyhow I will ask for a motion by the board to accept
it. Correct?
MR. MANALICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You already motioned, Tom.'?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I think some of the
evidence and the public testimony that we're going to hear testimony
today on is not relevant to what our goals and duties are.
MR. MANALICH: Perhaps it would assist the board, Mr.
Thornton, if you could in summary just state why you believe those
particular exhibits are relevant.
MR.
and H.
MR.
those are.
MR.
THORNTON:
MANALICH:
THORNTON:
Exhibit F? The ones in questions are F, G,
If you could just describe for the board what
Exhibit F is an application submitted on
behalf of a former property owner by agent Wilson, Miller, Barton,
Soll& Peek in June of 1986, specifically by Allen Reynolds,
planning director of WilsonMiller. The application is for the
Westview PUD. They proposed an amendment in 1986. The
amendment proposed to add the following uses to this PUD:
Aluminum, awning, glass and mirror fabricators, equipment rentals
Page 73
December 11, 2001
including lawn mowers, power saws and small engines, light
manufacturing or processing including packaging and fabricating, but
not processing of raw materials, retail and repair establishments for
sale and repair of new and used automobiles, warehousing,
wholesaling, storage or distributing establishments.
The property owner in '86 submitted an application to this
commission and asked to add those uses to the PUD. The application
was denied. I think that is completely relevant to this matter. It
shows that the former property owner admitted that the uses were not
allowed and that this board rejected those uses in this PUD because
they were inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Correction, Counselor. This board
didn't reject anything; the prior board did.
MR. THORNTON: The prior board, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I noticed in your letter that you
submitted to us that it's already stated that those years '85, '86, and '87
were rejected, and then I think it mentioned even another year. So it
just -- it's saying the same thing. You would have to reject this letter
if you would want to reject F; right?
MR. THORNTON: I would hope you wouldn't reject my letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One is saying the same as the other.
I think now we're talking -- somebody said "be fair.' Well, what's
fair is fair. If we've taken all of the information that Bruce Anderson
has submitted, then I think we should do the same for the other
counselor.
MR. MANALICH: The other thing I would add is you
obviously - as Mr. White mentioned to you earlier, you can decide
how much weight you give to any particular item of evidence
submitted to you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's not prolong the discussion. I
would guess that --
Page 74
December 11,2001
MR. ANDERSON: Just let me explain, Commissioner Fiala,
why I do that. If I don't mention it now, like Mr. Thornton's clients,
I've waived my opportunity to object ifI don't do it now, so that's
why I do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. So in keeping with
what's fair is fair, I would like to make a motion that we accept Mr. --
I'm sorry -- Mr. Thornton's booklet into evidence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coletta, and I have a question by
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that approval include
recognition of Mr. Anderson's objections?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think he's on the record for saying
it, yes.
MR. MANALICH: That is preserved for the record even
without it being included in the motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries -- the motion carries 4-
1. Proceed.
MR. THORNTON: The petitioners submit an application for a
site development plan. The proposed project is about a 60,000 square
foot industrial manufacturing facility to be located in the Westview
Plaza PUD. A copy of that PUD is included in the packet as Exhibit
A. I would ask that you take a moment at this point in time to review
Page 75
December 11,2001
the list of 46 permitted uses that are allowed in this PUD. Those uses
are art studios, automobile part stores, banks, barbershops,
engineering supply stores, business and professional offices. Forty-
six specific uses are allowed.
One of those uses, which we haven't discussed very much today
in the testimony from the petitioner's case, is the actual language of
the use that they're coming in under, and that is Use No. 25, "high-
technology precision manufacturing uses where the product is of a
small nature which does not generate odor, noise, etc., which is
detectable from off the premises, e.g., optical, dental, hearing aids,
medical instruments, computer components, etc."
When the Respondents Beckler and Heims first learned of this
proposal, they immediately made their objections known to county
staff. They had some trouble getting information from county staff,
but after submitting a written public records request I did get some
information. Rather than submit an application to amend this PUD to
obtain legitimate approval of the uses proposed, the petitioner is
trying to get the use in under Use No. 25.
The official interpretation of your professional staff is well-
reasoned, correct, supported by substantial and competent evidence,
consistent with Land Development Code, consistent with the PUD,
and you should uphold it and adopt it today. In his position as
current planning manager, Mr. Ron Nino did not have the power to
amend the PUD or to issue binding interpretations through private
communications with the petitioner. Only the Board of County
Commissioners can rezone property, and only the planning services
director is authorized to issue code interpretations. Mr. Nino was
simply incorrect when he issued unofficial and nonbinding
determinations that were inconsistent with the PUD and that were
inconsistent with your professional staffs analysis in this case.
The issue today is not whether we want to allow the use in the
Page 76
December 11, 2001
PUD. It's not whether my clients want to allow it or whether you
want to allow it. The question is whether it is allowed under the
language of the PUD as it is currently drafted. You don't have an
application today to rezone the PUD. You have your staff telling you
that the use is not allowed, and the petitioner trying to get you to
overturn your staffs official determination.
As the expert witness for the petitioner testified, the proposed
use under your standard zoning classifications is only allowed in the
industrial district. They're trying to get that use to be also allowed in
this PUD under the high-technology precision manufacturing use. I
think the evidence will show -- I think the evidence has shown that
plantation shutters and Venetian blinds are not products of a small
nature. All the products listed in the PUD as examples of what's
allowed are big enough to hold in your hand; optical, dental, hearing
aids, computer components. Blinds are going to be as big what
window they're intended to cover. They're all bigger than the items
that are listed as being allowed.
In order for this use to get approved under this high-technology
precision manufacturing, it has to meet all of the qualifications of that
use. We don't think that it's of a small nature. Secondly, the use of a
miter saw to cut lumber is not high-tech precision manufacturing. It's
a simple operation to use a saw and cut a piece of wood. It's not
high-tech precision manufacturing such as the manufacture of hearing
aids, dental implants, and computer components which are listed as
being allowed in the PUD.
The PUD also requires if you're going to get a 'use in under Use
25 that it not produce any noise that's detectible from off site. I know
that you've adopted a modem-and-comprehensive noise ordinance,
but that noise ordinance does not repeal the language of this PUD,
which says that if you're going to have a use under Use 25, it cannot
generate any noise that can be detected off the premises. I don't think
Page 77
December 11, 2001
that the evidence will show that there will be no noise from this.
In drafting this PUD -- the PUD was drafted in 1983 -- the
property owner was kind enough to come to the residents, get their
input, negotiate with them, find out what uses they would like to see
across the street from their homes. They sat down in 1983, and they
took the existing LDC at that time, which was 82-2, the old LDC, and
they cut and pasted the -- verbatim they cut and pasted a lot of the
uses from the old LDC. All the uses you see listed in the PUD were
cut and pasted directly from the old LDC except for the one we're
talking about, high-technology precision manufacturing, and we'll get
to why that was included later.
I think it's interesting to note that 82-2 is relevant, and it's
included in your package as Exhibit E. What's interesting to note is
that you can look through that old LDC, and you can see all the uses
that were selected. You can also see the uses that were not selected.
By not selecting those uses, they meant to not allow them. Those
uses were not allowed.
The uses that were not selected for this PUD that were available
include, from the old C-5 district, assembly in enclosed buildings,
cabinet shops, drapery shops, light manufacturing or processing,
packaging or fabricating in completely enclosed buildings,
wholesaling storage, or distributing establishments. All those uses
were in the C-5 zoning district at the time, and some uses were
selected out of C-5, but those uses were not. If all of those uses had
been included, then the use that we're looking at today might be
allowed, but those uses were excluded.
From the old IL district, which is industrial light, these are uses
that were not included: Wholesaling, warehousing, storage or
distribution, assembling, packaging, and fabricating. And from the
old I district, the following uses were there for the choosing if they
had wanted them to be allowed, and they were not selected. It's
Page 78
December 11, 2001
manufacturing, warehousing, storing, processing, canning, packing,
mining, extracting, or similar uses, as well as packaging or
fabricating in a completely enclosed building. If the Collier County
Commissioners in '83 had wanted all of those uses, they would have
taken them and put them in the PUD just like they did with all the
other uses that were taken from the C-I, C-2, and C-3 districts.
I would also like to point out that Mr. Anderson has submitted
as part of his packet a memorandum from -- I think his title is interim
community development services administrator -- John Dunnuck. It's
a memorandum dated August 29th that's sort of a heads-up to you
guys to say there's a controversial project out there. I just wanted to
point out that I don't want you to make your decision based on that
memo. That memo incorrectly quoted the PUD. The memo said to
you the PUD allows "high technology, light industrial manufacturing
uses." That memo -- it was just an error on Mr. Dunnuck's part. I've
spoken to him about it. I just want you to know that the word
"industrial" does not appear in this PUD. The word "industrial" does
not appear in any location in this whole PUD.
In addition to the Use 25, the petitioner and staff's -- the expert
witness's decision or his opinion in this matter was, "Well, you've got
25, and then you've got this catch-all. So with the Use 25 high-tech
precision manufacturing and then with the catch-all, sure, we can let
this use go." The catch-all for this PUD does not and was not
intended to allow any industrial uses. The catch-all, if you'll take a
look at the PUD catch-all language says, "Any other professional or
commercial use comparable in nature with the foregoing uses."
Compare that with the catch-all from the old LDC Ordinance 82-2,
and that's the catch-all from your C-1 district under your old code.
All of your old districts, C-I, C-2, C-3, under 82-2 had a little
bit different catch-all. The one for industrial reads, "Any other
intensive commercial, industrial, or manufacturing use," which is
Page 79
December 11, 2001
comparable. For this PUD they didn't take that catch-all. They took
the catch-all from the C-1 district. One of the documents that Mr.
Anderson objected to is Exhibit F. In that application the property
owner in 1986 applied to amend the catch-all to make it say "any
other use which is comparable in nature." They applied in '86 to take
out those words "commercial or professional," and that application
was denied.
The residents in Coconut Creek have been fighting this fight for
20 years. They sat down with the property owner in '83 and arrived
at a mutually acceptable list of permitted uses recognizing the
property owner ought to get a return for his property but also
recognizing that an industrial park doesn't belong next to a residential
neighborhood.
In 1986, as previously discussed, the property owner applied to
the Board of County Commissioners to allow warehousing,
wholesaling, storage, or distributing establishments in this PUD, and
the PUD was not amended. That use was rejected. A copy -- I've got
a copy of the -- Exhibit F is a copy of the application and a copy of
the staff report in that application. The staff report states, "It is staff's
judgment that several of the proposed uses are more intense and
different in character than uses that are currently permitted and, in
fact, are a change to industrial uses." That's why the application was
rejected.
In early 1992 the owner of the property submitted a PUD
application -- amendment application to change the PUD to allow
warehousing and distribution. The residents again -- at that meeting -
- I'll quote from the minutes. Exhibit G is the minutes from that
hearing, and I got those from your clerk's office. At that meeting,
"Commissioner Volpe pointed out that the current PUD has come
before the board three times in the last five years for similar types of
requests and each time was denied." Commissioner Volpe further
Page 80
December 11, 2001
stated that, "This appears to be an opporttmity for financial gain on
the part of the developer to try to add to the already existing 49
different uses." Commissioner Volpe sympathized with the
community "for having to appear before the board time after time."
That was a quote from 1992.
In late '92 a contract buyer submitted an official request for
interpretation to staff and asked if they could do a pet crematorium in
this PUD. The staff said, "No. If a crematorium had been intended, it
would have been included in the use of permitted uses." A
crematorium is listed in the old ordinance, 82-2. They didn't select
that to go into the PUD so, no, it's not allowed. That decision was
appealed to the BZA and the BZA upheld staffs decision in this
matter. I think what's important -- to me what's important about that
is that a crematorium is only a C-5 use under today's code, and the
proposed use is an industrial use in the I district.
Further, when this PUD came to the Board of County
Commissioners in '97 for an extension, it would have sunsetted.
They applied for a two-year extension. The planner who presented
the PUD to the board asking for the extension presented it this way:
"With the exception of technology manufacturer uses such as optical,
dental, and hearing aid manufacturing, this PUD allows mostly C-4
zoning district uses with the exception of restaurants, lounges, liquor
stores, and auto dealerships, which are not permitted." So it was
presented by staff on whether or not it should get an extension -- it
was presented as a mostly commercial PUD with very limited
industrial uses, and I believe the extension may not have been granted
if the commissioners had known that this expansion of industrial uses
was possible under the language of the PUD.
The petitioner also spends a lot of time in his submittals
asserting that my clients don't have the right to object and that they
have waived their rights based on a notice in the paper in September
Page 81
December 11, 2001
of 2000 that said that the Collier County Industrial Development
Authority is considering the issuance of bonds. My clients know
enough to know that the Industrial Development Authority doesn't
rezone property and that the Collier County Industrial Development
Authority doesn't issue site development plans. They had no reason
to be worried that the Industrial Development Authority was going to
be rezoning this property or that a use that's not allowed -- they're
familiar with the PUD. They helped draft it in '83. They had no
reason to worry that a use that's not allowed was going to go in there.
They want Collier County to attract industrial development. They
want the Industrial Development Authority to issue bonds and help
industry come here but not on the property across from their rural
neighborhood.
I think the petitioner's main position is, "Ron Nino told me I
could do it. The Industrial Development Authority issued the bonds.
The question has been decided." It's not -- it wasn't Ron Nino's job to
amend the PUD. It's not the Industrial Development Authority's job
to amend the PUD. A PUD to be amended has to come to the Board
of County Commissioners.
My submittal includes information on vested rights. We think
that the interpretation given by Ron Nino was incorrect. If it was
incorrect, which we believe it was, a landowner never has the right to
rely on an invalid permit. Ifa permit is wrongfully issued, that's too
bad. You can't rely on it. The planning manager does not have
authority to rezone property, and under your LDC the only person
who has the power to issue an official and binding interpretation is
the planning services director.
Today before you the only official determination that you have
from your planning services director says that the use is not allowed.
The letters from Mr. Nino were private communications, and I would
say what they are is just as good as a verbal -- "Hey, Ron, ifI come in
Page 82
December 11, 2001
with this application, do you think it will get approved?" And Ron
says, "Yeah, I think it will." But that doesn't mean that it has to be. It
has to be looked at. It had to be analyzed. The application has to be
reviewed under all the procedures you have and an official
determination made with a local government development order
issued. Because the only local development order that you have
before you today from your professional staff tells you that the use is
not allowed, I think you should uphold that decision.
The petitioner also relies heavily on the Industrial Development
Authority's decision to issue bonds and on the county -- actually, on
your consent agenda one day you voted to -- you approved the
issuance of the bonds. If it was your intent that day to approve a site
development plan or to rezone the property, then the notice for that
meeting should have been done in accordance with the notices that
are required for a rezone of property. It wasn't. The only notice that
was published was the one that said the Industrial Development
Authority might issue bonds and the county might issue those bonds.
That should not cause anybody concern that the uses are going to be
changed in the PUD.
The resolutions from the Industrial Development Authority that
are attached as Exhibit J to my submittal -- the first resolution from
the Industrial Development Authority is called the inducement
resolution. It's Authority Resolution No. 2000-1. I would like to
quote from Section 9 of that resolution: "The approval given herein
shall not be construed as an approval or endorsement of approval of
any necessary zoning applications nor for any other regulatory
permits relating to the project, and the authority shall not be
construed by reason of its adoption of this resolution to have waived
any right of Collier County or estopping Collier County from
asserting any rights or responsibilities it may have in that regards."
So the Industrial Development Authority when it decided to
Page 83
December 11, 2001
issue those bonds, it said in its resolution, "We're not giving you any
land-use approvals. You're on your own to get those." In the
executive summary for your October 24th BCC hearing on the
approval of the bonds, the executive summary stated, "The resolution
expressly provides that this approval by the board does not abrogate
any county regulations, including land-use regulations."
In your resolution in Section 1 of the Board of County
Commissioners Resolution No. 2000-362, which approved the
issuance of the bonds on the recommendation of the Industrial
Development Authority, your resolution specifically and expressly
states, "This approval shall in no way be deemed to abrogate any
regulations of Collier County applicable to the project, and the
project shall be subject to all such regulations, including but not
limited to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, all
concurrency requirements contained therein, and the Collier County
Land Development Code."
Based on this language which is expressly stated in all these
resolutions, it is clear that the authority did not intend and this board
did not intend to rezone the property or to approve a site development
plan for this property. The property owner had to get those on his
own. We believe that the decision of your professional staff is
correct. It's the only official decision that's been given.
My clients had no knowledge of Ron Nino's letters. They were
sent directly to the petitioner. If we had known about it, we would
have done something about it. It's been suggested that we should
have appealed those letters. We didn't know about them. Maybe we
would have tried. If we had I assume that the appeal would have
been rejected because you can't file an appeal until there's an official
interpretation mailed out or the interpretation is published in the
paper. So until there's an official interpretation, there can be no
appeal.
Page 84
December 11, 2001
It was suggested that we wait until the site development plan get
issued. The problem with that is that it lets the horse get further out
the bam door. It would have let the petitioner -- the petitioner is
already claiming vested rights. If we had waited any longer and the
site development plan would have been issued, they could have
commenced construction. They don't have a site development plan
approval for this project. They don't have a single building plan for
this project. They have submitted a site development plan
application, and now your staff has issued an interpretation that says,
"We can't give you the SDEP because the use isn't allowed under the
PUD."
We ask that you uphold your professional staffs decision and
adopt that interpretation as your decision today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Counselor.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Cross-examination? Or do you have
other -- present your case, and then we'll go back for cross-
examination.
MR. HOOLEY: I would like to -- I'm John Hooley. I'm
president of the East Naples Civic Association. I am an attorney.
Don't hold it against me. But, you know, we're here on a legal
matter, basically.
First of all, I'd have to say that I'm very impressed with Gulf
Coast American Blind. I'm very impressed with Mr. Diaz. I think
that that's the type of stuff that we need in Collier County. The only
issue before the board is whether we need it in its present location,
and that's the problem that we have. I mean, I think the operation is
great. I'm all behind it, but the neighborhood is not where it needs to
be.
It's a buffer zone neighborhood with commercial. You want to
have a transition from industrial, commercial, to residential, and
Page 85
December 11, 2001
that's what they have, and that's basically how the PUD was put
together. But I've got to talk about -- Mr. Diaz came up here and said
that he had these two meetings, and I think those meetings should
have occurred with the people who lived in the neighborhood before
he bought the property.
You know, if he had done that and said, "I'm going to buy the
property, and this is what I plan to do, and I need you behind me
because, you know, technically we may not be in the PUD," we
wouldn't be here. If the owners said no, he would realize it was
going to be too difficult. That didn't occur. When did he have those
meetings? He had those meetings just in the last two months, I think.
So we've got a problem. We've got a perceptual problem too. So
when you come up here and say to the county commission, you
know, "I've done everything that I possibly could to placate the
community," that's not accurate. It's a great project. It's a great
company, but those are not accurate statements.
The issue that is before the board, too, is a legal issue because
here's the deal. I mean, I do appellate work. Mr. White presented it
to you that you have to decide on the zoning. That's not your job
today. You have a staff determination. This is an appeal for you
sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals to tell staff that they did it
wrong, that they considered it wrong, and that they're incorrect, and
you're going to go ahead with the type of use that's proposed. You
shouldn't do that. You shouldn't do that.
When we do this in court and we go to an appellate court, the
lower court's decision, even if it's wrong, comes to the appellate court
clothed with the presumption of correctness. I submit that the staffs
determination comes to you clothed with the presumption of
correctness. It's not a coin toss here. They've got to go beyond 50/50
in order to get you to tell staff that they did it wrong, and you
shouldn't do that, and I'm going to tell you why.
Page 86
December 11,2001
Mr. Anderson objected to those exhibits because those exhibits
destroy his argument. In a court case, we are entitled to rely on
precedence. Before you as the Board of Zoning Appeals, we're
entitled to rely on precedence, too, and you've had several
determinations as the Board of Zoning Appeals stating that this type
of use is not permitted.
Why is that important.'? Well, it's important because, as Mr.
Anderson told you, the Diaz family did due diligence. Due diligence
means they looked at the records. Due diligence means that when
they bought the property they knew or were presumed to have known
that these zoning changes had been proposed before and categorically
denied consistently. According to Mr. Volpe, five times, but at least
two times in your own records. And so there really isn't a
requirement that we move these exhibits into evidence. Those are
part of your own records. You have to take notice of them.
So what do we have? We have Mr. Vetter, the prior owner. He
knows that this is not a permitted use. Okay. He contacts Mr. Nino.
We have Fermin Diaz, who is a member of the Diaz Family Trust,
who happens to be the executive vice president and chief operating
officer of WilsonMiller. Oddly enough, WilsonMiller presented
some of those zoning change proposals to the board. So it's
inconceivably -- inconceivable that Mr. Diaz would not know that
these zoning changes had been proposed and denied. So they knew.
Ron Nino, I would assume that your planning department would
know what went on before. So Ron Nino knew. Everybody knew.
So Mr. Nino writes this letter and says, "Hey, yeah, it's okay." That's
not the way government should work. That's just inappropriate. So
now Mr. Anderson and the Diaz Family Trust come to you and say,
"Hey, we didn't know about any of that stuff. We got this letter from
Ron Nino, so we purchased the property. Hey, you need to let us
build our fabricating facility."
Page 87
December 11, 2001
You can't do it. You have a duty to the people who live here.
I'm the president of the East Naples Civic Association. I'm not here
as an attorney, and nobody's paying me, but it's your duty as the
Board of Zoning Appeals to make sure the zoning laws are upheld.
With the present state of the situation in county government around
here, you should be angry that Mr. Nino would do this and try to bind
you and create this problem for you. And if there is any message you
need to send it's a message to staff, "Don't do this stuff. You know
better." Thank you. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ramiro.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Anderson had
reserved rebuttal.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll wait to give my rebuttal
at the end of the public hearing. I'm not sure how many other
lawyers may be popping up out of the audience.
MR. MANALICH: I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, the
board is afforded wide latitude here, and all of the arguments that I
can foresee have been heard. Now, obviously, we need to open it up
to public comment. But I think the speakers -- while encouraged to
participate should recognize that a lot of latitude is offered to both
sides to fully discuss the facts and the law, we hope that there isn't a
great deal of repetition. Obviously, we have a large number of
speakers. The board may wish to limit the comments from five to
three minutes as we did in the previous item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would prefer to limit it to three
minutes. We also are running into a very, very difficult situation, but
it depends on how many people speak to the issue. So let's go with
public speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker will be Mr. Robert Beckler who
will be followed by Linda Heims.
Page 88
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, before we go to
public speakers, I need a clarification. We've got a one o'clock
certain.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's what I'm referring to, sir. We
have to be breaking this by 12:15. We have a one o'clock certain. I
have a two o'clock certain which I may honor. This hearing may get
continued to later into the afternoon.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the two
o'clock, I've asked for a call to be made for those people to not be
here until four to give the board a little more flexibility.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. So we may be in a situation
where it will be continued until after the one o'clock certain. Let's
proceed. Three minutes each speaker, please.
MR. BECKI,ER: Honorable Commissioners, my name is
Robert Beckler. I live at 3720 Gail Boulevard. I've been there for 21
years. Yes, back in '83 we met with Richard Vetter and hammered
out the 45 uses for that proposed PUD. Just before we closed up for
the night he said, "We have a prospective buyer, a manufacturer of
dentures and dental implants, and could we just add one more use to
accommodate this so that we can get this buyer on board?" That use
became the regrettable Use No. 25, the one that we've discussed as
high-technology precision manufacturing use which has come back to
haunt us.
Now, when Gulf Coast American Blind became interested in the
property, they were very familiar with it. As you already know,
Fermin at WilsonMiller had reason to understand how restricted that
property was. The property was very desirable because it had the
space they needed and also was at a very reasonable price
considering its restricted uses rather than being industrial.
They knew that to qualify for that property they had to prove
they're a high-technology precision manufacturer. The key to success
Page 89
December 11, 2001
was to emphasize the use of a laser-cutting tool. With this they
hoped to make it look like a high-technology precision manufacturer.
Working with County Planner Ron Nino they started the process that
created the mess that we have today.
The first two letters -- excuse me -- the first two letters that
started this process were a joke, but the result was anything but
funny. Richard Vetter was instructed to write a request letter to Mr.
Nino.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There needs to be -- you have one
minute, sir.
MR. BECKI,ER: Thank you. He was instructed to write a
request letter to Mr. Nino to include the words "precision laser
cutting." So he wrote this letter: "Dear Ron, we have a customer that
would like to build a manufacturing facility, etc. The business plan
consists of manufacturing and sales of shutters and blinds, etc., by
using precision laser cutting and stamping equipment." A week later
Vetter writes back: "Well, this office opines that the PUD permits
the sale and manufacture of shutters and blinds. Your letter states
that the manufacturing process involves the use of precision laser
cutting and stamping equipment. We find this activity consistent
with the PUD."
Well, obviously, this little thing, this laser cutting and stamping
equipment was the key. My neighbor Linda Heims and Attorney
Chris Thornton went and visited the facility with Carlos Diaz. They
went to five manufacturing buildings and never saw a laser cutter.
Now, since this is going so fast, I have to jump all the way down
to my conclusion here.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sir, I think we understand your point.
I really -- in honor to everyone here, I must go to the next speaker.
MR. BECKIJER: May I read my final --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, but please, sir.
Page 90
December 11, 2001
MR. BECKI.ER: I'll conclude by saying that if Gulf Coast
American Blind does not build in Westview, it will survive, and they
will continue to prosper. In time this will be a distant memory for
them. However, if they do build, we know that it will be a tragedy for
our neighborhood and will only get worse as the company's
operations grow. The beeping sound of a tractor-trailer backing up to
a loading dock, the occasional manufacturing sounds which will
inevitably escape from the building, the forklifts and other sounds
typical of large industrial activities will be a constant reminder that
our neighborhood was irreparably damaged on December 1 lth, 2001.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Linda Heims who will be
followed by Margaret Swilley.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question for
the prior speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Beckler, I have a question for you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please return to the podium, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Beckler, do you own any shares in First
National Bank of Naples or its parent holding company? MR. BECKLER: Yes, I do.
MR. ANDERSON: And were you a founder of First National
Bank of Naples or its holding company? MR. BECKLER: Yes, I am.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Margaret Swilley, will you please come up.
MS. HEIMS: I think you asked to find somebody to help you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ms. Heims --
MS. HEIMS: My name is Linda Heims. I live at 4000 Gail
Boulevard. I have lived on Gail Boulevard since 1973. I've got a lot
Page 91
December 11, 2001
to say in a short time, so I'm going to read and go as fast as I can.
As you know, Collier County has written rules and regulations
covering all zoning and the necessary steps that must be taken in
order to change the zoning for any parcel of property. For Westview
Plaza a planned unit development document has been in effect since
1983. In order to change any uses allowed under the present PUD
that is not specifically stated would require by Collier County that the
applicant provide the development services director documentation
describing the changes. It is then submitted to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation and then must be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
In this instance one county employee, Ron Nino, usurped the
power of this county commission and all of the county rules and
regulations, because this was a substantial change to a PUD
document and must be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners.
Mr. Nino arbitrarily decided that he would undertake to make a
decision that he did not have the right or the authority to make. Only
the elected officials have this right of determination.
This same parcel of land has been brought before five different
boards of county commissioners requesting even much lighter types
of zoning, and it has always been turned down. If this type of
arrogant and unlawful approval by one individual is allowed to stand,
what are the future ramifications? The powers of this board would be
just taken away, and any county employee would be able to make any
rule they wanted to. There would be no laws, no rules, no
regulations.
The current county personnel and all other county employees for
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute, ma'am.
MS. HEIMS: Okay. I'm rushing.
Page 92
December 11, 2001
-- for 18 years have done a complete and thorough study of the
PUD plan. This PUD never allowed any type of industrial zoning.
When the Diaz family purchased this property, they were given a
copy of the prevailing PUD governing any building allowed on this
land. We absolutely know this since they inquired if window
dressing was an allowed use.
Fermin Diaz, chief operations officer at WilsonMiller, made this
request, and with his position and working with the county
representing WilsonMiller, Fermin Diaz would know the correct
procedures for this type of zoning change.
There's a lot more here, but I'm going to try to skip to the end
here. Once industrial buildings are completed, there would never be
any recourse for our neighborhood. If Mr. Diaz outgrows his
buildings, we would be left with any kind of industrial zoning that
can be slapped in there. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Margaret Swilley. She will be followed by
Diane Gamble.
MR. ANDERSON: One quick question for Ms. Heims, please.
Ms. Heims, did you contact any of your neighbors and tell them not
to attend the second meeting that Mr. Diaz had organized?
MS. HEIMS: I talked to two of my neighbors, and I told them
that we were not going to go because we had already attended two
meetings.
MR. ANDERSON: Did you participate in sending out any
newsletters?
MS. HEIMS: Yes, I certainly have, a bunch of them.
MR. ANDERSON: Did you send out any newsletters telling
people that this was already over with and that they shouldn't attend?
MS. HEIMS: No, I did not. I said that the Board of County
Commissioners -- excuse me -- that the planning department had
Page 93
December 11, 2001
written an approval in our favor. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MS. BATCHER: My name is Mrs. Batcher, and I've been asked
to read this for a neighbor if that's all right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's permissible, ma'am, within three
minutes, and I'll give you a one-minute warning.
MS. BATCHER: Thank you. The residents in Coconut Creek
Estates are again in an indescribable position of having to protect and
defend the naturally quiet and harmonious atmosphere of our
community. We chose to live here because it was family oriented,
there was little traffic flow, and parents and children both could bike
and walk in safety and enjoyment. Yes, I realize change takes place
in life, but it is wrong when the change favors one community, as in
the gating of Foxfire where the traffic flow is just geared in around
our streets.
Our problem now is that an industrial business wants to build
and expand on a parcel that is not for industrial usage. I implore our
county commission to reject a rezoning to accommodate Gulf Coast
American Blind Corporation and thereby put our quality of life for
our families at further risk. I'm pleased with their success, but not at
our expense.
I feel the noise factor of the semis and the beeping factor of the
lifters, the extensive double-story premise and shift-work employee
parking and the necessary lighting would be very detrimental as their
growth increases. It could also increase to around-the-clock shifts in
production.
They have proposed to build a high wall and beautify the
surrounding and probably never open WesWiew Drive to Donna
Street. The latter is of great concern to us. We have already
experienced negative political power plays. I understand there is a
Page 94
December 11, 2001
very acceptable low-key business interested and ready to develop on
this parcel, and in line with existing zone, I feel Mr. Diaz put
everyone involved in stressful financial and time-consuming
impositions when, as a businessman, he knew the zoning before he
purchased the parcels.
The intended manipulations for self-interest and gain is very
evident. The willingness to sacrifice a small community in exchange
for power and clout many times prevails. When the Boys and Girls
Club was an issue, we thankfully were instead blessed with the Elks
Club development. Now we are addressing another dilemma that
threatens the serenity of our environment and our lifetime investment.
Please protect the basic American dream.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. BATCHER: And if I'm allowed to speak for just a
minute ~-
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have about 30 seconds, ma'am.
MS. BATCHER: All right. We live on a very unique property.
We keep it very quiet and peaceful because I've worked with abused,
abandoned, and neglected children. I have volunteered and done this
for 32 years in Collier County. Our home has many times been the
place where these children have come for quiet and peace. We have
been able to even have one small child who had never spoke a word
speak again because of our peacocks and other animals. We would
really hate to see all of this taken away from us. We ask that you do
consider us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Diane Gamble followed by Debra Cully.
(Commissioner Fiala left the room.)
MS. GAMBLE: Good afternoon almost, Commissioners. I
appreciate your time. I'm Diane Gamble. I live at 4443 Kathy
Avenue. I have just a couple of points that I would like to make that
Page 95
December 11, 2001
are not an issue as far as an emotional issue, but that may have
relevance with regard to the issue at hand.
First, I also own property on Gail Boulevard. I own 1.8 acres
which is zoned RS-1. About a year and a half ago, I contacted the
zoning department and asked them for a letter of interpretation with
regard to the use of that property that I -- with regard to a project that
I wanted to do as far as building on the property and then building
later on because there's one home per acre. I was issued a letter. At
that time I also received a caveat from John Gebhardt over at
development services that said, "This letter is a letter of
interpretation; however, that does not preclude you or guarantee any
type of zoning or zoning approval when you submit your building
permits." And that was approximately the same time that this was
going on as far as the approval.
Secondly, I also -- I have to recall what my second point was
here. I had a lot to say, but none of it was pertinent to the issues at
hand with regard to that, so I just want to address the zoning and -- if
I can defer -- I'm going to defer to the next speaker, and if she can
save about 15 seconds for me, then ! can finish up. Debbie.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
Debra Cully, and she will be followed by
MS. FILSON:
Timothy Cully.
MS. CULLY:
My name is Debra Cully, and I live at 303 Esther
Street, and I've been a resident of this community for over 19 years.
When there's reported ambiguity of the law, which appears today,
you look for the spirit or the intent of the law. I was a part of the 35
plus people who met in 1983 to define the 47 uses of the PUD along
with Fred Strom and Ted Harvey who were owners of the property.
The intent or spirit in allowing the term "high tech," which is
one of the issues today, in one of the 47 uses was for the express
reason that one of the owners thought he had a buyer who was a
Page 96
December 11, 2001
dentist and would be using it for drilling dental work. He felt that the
county might not pass it if we had not put that in there.
But today "high tech" doesn't have the same meaning as it did in
1983, as other words in our vocabulary have also changed meaning
through the years. What did high tech mean in 1983 when there were
no Nintendos, cell phones, CD players, DVDs, or colored printers?
In 1983 I was working for an attorney in town using the best device
known for typing. It was a high-tech IBM correctible typewriter.
So to take two words like "high tech" out of context from a huge
PUD document and interpret its meaning to accommodate high-tech,
high-powered equipment, beeping semi trucks, day and night loading
and unloading, forklift noise, odor and traffic is really inconceivable
and a stretch of the imagination for C-1 zoning. (Commissioner Fiala entered the room.)
MS. CULLY: Gulf Coast Blinds is not an optical, dental,
computer, or producer of products of a small nature. Mr. Anderson
said himself in the beginning that they are now a large business
filling thousands of orders all over the southeast portion of the United
States and in the Caribbean.
It is not an issue as Mr. Anderson and Mr. Thornton said of
whether we are in support or opposition of this. It is whether this
PUD accommodates this industry in the C-1 zoning, and we know
that it does not. I am not against Gulf Coast Blind. I believe they do,
indeed, represent the American dream. We need businesses like them
in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute, ma'am.
MS. CULLY: But the business belongs in an industrial park
where C-5 allows it. The law was established to protect existing
neighborhoods. That's what the law was intended to do. That's what
the law must do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Page 97
December 11, 2001
MS. FILSON: The next speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me have this person finish up.
MS. CULLY: Mr. Cully will not speak. He had to leave.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I'll let this
speaker finish, and then we're going to have to break.
MS. GAMBLE: I appreciate that. The other issue that I wanted
to speak to was with regard to Ron Nino. During the time that the
Boys and Girl Club was going on or seeking to purchase the property
on Westview, I spoke with Ron Nino. I asked him specifically, I
said, "If at any time we receive or you receive any applications or any
informal or formal inquiries into the property that would result in the
changing of the PUD or changing of the use of the property, I would
like to be notified because I'm not within 200 feet or whatever the
specific location is that requires notice." I specifically asked him for
that. That was prior to the Boys and Girls Club -- prior to this
purchase. I never received any type of notification from Mr. Nino
stating that this PUD was being considered or that an alternative use
was being considered to the PUD. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. This
hearing will be continued to approximately two this afternoon. We
have a one o'clock time certain. I would suggest anybody involved in
this hearing be on standby by two this afternoon, because I do not
know how long the second hearing is going to -- the time-certain item
is going to take.
We stand adjourned until 1 p.m. Commissioners, we need to be
here promptly at one.
(A luncheon recess was taken at 12:15 p.m.)
Item #8A
2001 COLLIER COUNTY WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
Page 98
December 11, 2001
UPDATE, PROJECT 73066 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED; CHAIRMAN TO SIGN LETTER TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REQUESTING MODIFICATION TO CONSENT ORDER NO. 01-
0052-11-DW
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We are live. We are live.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is a time-certain item on
the agenda. These are Items 8-A, B, C, D, and E. They all deal with
the wastewater management update plan, the wastewater adapting --
adopting a plan, proposed water impact fees, et cetera.
The board has spent five hours in a workshop hearing all of this,
having discussion on this item. I would suggest or recommend to the
board that we go directly to public speakers, take that input, you
make your notes and questions. You would have a right to recall
anybody to the podium if in the discussion that ensues you need to do
that, and then you can get clarification from staff on any of these
questions. But the missing element that we don't have at this point is
the public input. So I would suggest if it's okay with the board we go
to that direction. We have a dozen speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that's a great idea.
MS. FILSON: On these -- on the items you just spoke of we
have six.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Six. All right. Let us start, and you
identify for us which section of the issue you're dealing with. We
will duly note that whether it's A, B, C, D, or E.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker will be Bill Ryan. He will be
followed by Kathy Curatolo. If you could please come forward.
MR. RYAN: Commission Chair, Commissioners, county staff,
I'm not sure what I'm going to speak to, but I'm going to speak to
impact fees in general.
Page 99
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. RYAN: For the record, my name is Bill Ryan. Along with
my wife, Carol, we've lived in Naples for 24 years. We've raised two
children, educated them in Naples. They went off to college and
have returned to Southwest Florida in professional jobs. At Lely
High School in the mid '80s the commission assured our citizens that
they would keep us in compliance with the growth management and
with concurrency.
Today impact fees on a single-family home are approximately
$10,000 and with the proposed increase in both sewer and water
would be at approximately $12,500. According to figures compiled
by a representative of the Florida Building Commission from the
Florida Board of Realtors, for every $1,000 added to the cost of a
new house, 1 percent of those buyers who would have been eligible
to purchase will no longer qualify for a mortgage. This means that
due to impact fees alone approximately 12 percent of potential entry-
level buyers have lost the opportunity of home ownership, one of the
greatest of all American dreams other than our freedom, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.
In effect, what we have and continue to do is eliminate the
ability of our middle-class working citizens, i.e. schoolteachers,
policemen, firemen as well as the entire service industry which we
look to for maintenance of our private estates from the American
dream of home ownership. To many of us, we do not know where
the millions of dollars which have been raised through impact fees
have gone. I for one feel it's time for the county commission to act
physically (sic) responsible and provide through staff an allotment of
how much money has been collected and how the money has been
used.
The feeling one is left with when looking at the big picture is the
fact that a portion of our citizens are very happy to be here but have
Page 100
December 11, 2001
forgotten that at one point in their lives they were an entry-level
buyer themselves, someone working hard to get ahead, someone
aspiring for home ownership, someone who probably never thought
they would reach a position in their lifetime when they would impose
a form of taxation that would eliminate the American dream for
others that so dearly work for themselves at another time and most
likely another part of our country.
In conclusion, I would like you to know that I believe in only
well-planned growth. I personally feel that as a team we must apply
our efforts. Together county and city government with developers,
land planners, engineers, architects, builders, subcontractors have
created one of the best-built environments known to man. The
barometer of this success has been our -- and continues to be the
phenomenal number of people moving to our wonderful home called
Southwest Florida.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll have to ask you to wrap it up,
please.
MR. RYAN: My hope and wish is that our commission as well
as our new residents of Collier County will never forget that at one
time they too were entry-level buyers. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Kathy Curatolo followed by
Mario Valle.
CHAIRMAN. CARTER: Is there some way to give a one-
minute warning to speakers?
MS. FILSON: The yellow light and they have it on the podium.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. When you see the yellow light
MS. CURATOLO: Watch that yellow light is what you're
saying.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Page 101
December 11, 2001
MS. FILSON:
Nold.
MR. VALLE:
MS. CURATOLO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you
for allowing me to take the opportunity to speak to you in terms of
impact fees. I represent about 5,000 employees in this community
relative to the construction industry, the subcontractors. We are
extremely concerned at the high rate of increase in impact fees.
Currently we are facing -- it is an anticipated 15 percent increase in
building costs due to the standard building codes which are scheduled
to take effect as of January 1 st. This coupled with a 30 percent
contingency in impact fees will devastate subcontractors. These
same individuals are part of this community which we continually
forget and that is our work force and their ability to purchase homes
in this community.
I would urge you to reconsider the rate of increase and lower it
enough so that growth pays for growth but those within this
community who represent the work force are not burdened with this
increase. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Mario Valle who will be followed by Henry
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my
name is Mario Valle, and I sit on both the Affordable Housing
Commission and the Affordable Housing Committee created this year
by the commission.
It is my large concern -- and I want to echo the sentiments of the
previous two speakers which relate directly to work-force housing in
the county and its affordability. What my feeling is, is that as we
increase the level or the cost of development and a developed piece
of property in the urbanized area, we're going to force more and more
residents into the rural fringe increasing or artificially increasing the
cost of lots out in the estates and complicating matters by increasing
traffic flow congestion, the sprawl effect, if you will.
Page 102
December 11, 2001
The other concern that I have is the fact that we're collecting
these fees -- these impact fees on only a one-time basis without
having a plan for another revenue stream to provide for a continued
maintenance of the items, whether it be roads, water, or what have
you.
The other aspect is the impact fee is a regressive tax un --
unduly burdening the first-time homebuyer or the lower economic
level. When a person is purchasing a million-dollar home, they're
able to absorb that 2,000 to $2,500 increase much more readily than
somebody purchasing what now is the minimum home we can build
out in the estates is $90,000 right now. And so when you're talking
about impact fees being about 12 to 15 percent of the cost of that
home, it's an extravagant amount when it's in relationship to their
direct income streams for those folks. So ! really want you to take a
look at those folks and see how we can -- may be able to tier the
impact fees so that they become less of a regressive tax for that first-
time homebuyer. So I thank you very much for your consideration.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Before you go, Mr. Mario (sic),
I -- I consider you to be somewhat of an authority on affordable
housing, impact fees, and I've come to you quite a few times for
counsel, and I didn't get a chance to talk to you prior to this. As you
know we're into a real crunch situation to try to be able cover what
the shortage has been in the past.
I -- I have something I just want to throw to the commission for
a possible direction we might want to consider. One would be
another category of impact fees for water and sewer. Impact fees are
based on the use and the impact it's going to have on the future needs
of Collier County as far as infrastructure goes. In the case of, like,
school -- school impact fees we waive them when the people can
prove the fact that they're not going to have children or a community
that's 55 or older and they're not responsible. In other words, their
Page 103
December 11,2001
bylaws are such that they can't have children in there so they --
they're exempted from the school one.
I was wondering if we might be able to come up with a special
impact fee that would pick up something that would be, like, for three
bedrooms, a minimum-sized house that would have such things as a
restricter on the water line with the water coming into the house the
pressure would be considerably less. Showerheads would be -- the --
the -- would use less water and restrict the amount of water going to
it, the low-volume toilets, and limit the green area that goes around
the house just to the media edges of the house or the front of the
house where they would only be able to use drip irrigation. In those
cases, the needs would be so small, possibly come up with a category
so we could still keep something going with the affordable housing
effort.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner, I think those are all
good ideas, but I would suggest we wait until we get all public input
and then go to working on solutions.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. VALLE: Mr. Commissioner, I just have one more point,
and the point that I want to make is emphasis on the time frame, the
rapid turnaround time of the -- of the implementation of the impact
fee.
With those folks right now qualifying for their mortgages, three
weeks is an extremely short period of time to be able to complete all
those matters. In other words, a person would have to have a piece of
property signed and sealed today so that they can apply for their
permits so that they can go ahead and be able to -- to meet the -- be
able to pick up their permit with the fees assessed at this point in
time, as opposed in the past we've been able to have just a 90-day or
even a 60-day window. I would appreciate your consideration of that
as well. Thank you.
Page 104
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Henry Nold followed by Anthony Pires.
MR. NOLD: Good afternoon, Commission Chair and
Commissioners and the staff. I first of all have a paper which I'm
going to be talking from, but I've also made sufficient copies for each
-- for the commissioners and extra for the -- for the files.
I noted with great interest that I didn't realize this paper was
going to have the effect when I saw the front page of the paper today
of impact fees, but that's part of the subject I want to talk about. I
was -- I attended the workshop two weeks ago and received quite a
bit of information from that. And that I could only look at this whole
thing as a combined function within the government; that is all
sections and all departments.
While each department is held responsible for its own complete
effective and efficient operation, it must interrelate with other
departments, and ultimately the interrelationship of the many
departments must be without voids or overlapping, functionally and
fiscally. Thank you. The several departments are presumably guided
by the overall master plan in accordance with the contributions of the
planning, the resources, the execution, and the control of each group.
I'll go on down my paper, and say that for the purpose of the
study I have not nor could not challenge the rates, that is, the cost per
thousand gallons delivered to establish the consumer charges for
water and for sewer without the benefit of data derived from an
extensive cost analysis of the operation; therefore, I have accepted
them as being correct. However, I believe that they are inflated from
what it should cost to provide the services.
Perhaps as a start do a comprehensive review -- reviewing the
comparing studies of other communities. I'll go on down to water
usage. The water charges are based on an escalating unit cost with
increased usage. This is natural. This is not being challenged at this
Page 105
December 11, 2001
time for the reason just stated above.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have a minute, sir.
MR. NOLD: Sewer usage. I will tell you what I'm going to do.
I'm going to go back to the four attached charts inasmuch as not
enough time for me. You can look at this. I have four charts in the
back and that's --
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
sir?
You're leaving those for us to review,
MR. NOLD: The entire package, yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. NOLD: The only one I wanted to concentrate on is the
Chart 4 which is showing the proposed increase, the percent increase
of the proposed rates.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, sir --
MR. NOLD: As you'll note -- and I have the data table below.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MR. NOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Okay. You're out of time, sir.
We appreciate your comments and all
the hard work you did on this and the information that you're
providing us.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Anthony Pires followed by
Dino Longo.
MR. PIRES: For the record, Anthony Pires, Woodward, Pires &
Lombardo law firm representing the Fiddler's Creek Community
Development District. A couple comments I have, I have a similar
comment that I made earlier with regard to notice provisions, the
requirements of Chapter 180 Florida Statute, Section 180.136. I
won't belabor that point because my time is so limited, but I believe
notice should have gone out to every customer of these proposed
increase in the rates in the next billing cycle in addition to the
provisions required under the special act.
Page 106
December 11,2001
Additionally, I think under the special act it also says that rates,
fees, and charges shall be just and equitable and uniform for users of
the same class. Fiddler's Creek Community Development District has
a separate irrigation system that unfortunately due to the lack of
effluent that's capable to be utilized for reuse is using potable water.
They have a master meter, and they were comparable to a
condominium association or an apartment complex, yet there's no
mechanism or language contained within the existing proposed draft
ordinance for treating them in a similar fashion or in a bulk-rate
fashion.
I would suggest that you add a new Section 2.9 that would
address the situation where any community development district
that's a customer of the district that provides water/sewer service
and/or effluent irrigation to properties within the community
development district through a single master meter -- I don't know if
we have 3 minutes or 5 minutes today because we're down to a
minute forty already on this clock -- that people be provided the
opportunity to have the cost allocated.
But also I think you need to provide for the ability for a district
like that who is trying to find alternative sources of water -- it may
take 18 months to do so since the county does not have effluent
irrigation water available in that part of the county -- to make them --
give them a bulk-rate agreement for that 18-month period of time or a
reasonable period of time. And, once again, that's a complicated
topic that I don't think can be fully addressed in 3 minutes.
One other provision I'm not sure what it means in this particular
document is the definition of "use" under Section 1.1-G that says (as
read): "The term use with respect to water use on a district's water
system which is a potable water system shall mean the sole utilization
of water from the district system through all fixtures and pipelines on
the property except where a separately metered system is available
Page 107
December 11,2001
solely for outside irrigation." So, I guess if it is being used for
outside irrigation and separately meted -- metered, then we don't have
to be worry about being charged -- engaged in water use.
I think there's still some work that needs to be done with this
ordinance. I think if you take the time for another 30 days to provide
for governmental bodies, community development district is a special
purpose local government. It's not quasi-governmental. It's
governmental. They provide a service to the customers, and if you
have the stepped-up rate with a master meter, there's going to be a
huge increase to all those individuals that otherwise if they had
individual meters may not be impacted as severely.
We think you also should provide the opportunity for such bulk-
rate agreements to be -- make districts eligible for such bulk-rate
agreements and hold off on increasing these rates for such users for at
least 18 months. Thank you very kindly. I'm sorry you've limited the
time in such a fashion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Thank you for the
way you expedited.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask him a question?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wasn't -- clearly didn't get all
your points there. You're saying that your client or some people out
there already have applications in for alternative uses for irrigation?
MR. PIRES: That's correct. Fiddler's Creek has attempted for
years to obtain treated effluent for the irrigation purposes and reuse
purposes, and I guess it's -- the more you hit the bottom of the list of
the 42 or so that's out there. The developer and the district in the past
even offered to extend the line up to the effluent line to construct the
line and donate it to the county to be able to provide non-potable
treated effluent irrigation water to Fiddler's Creek. Unfortunately,
because they are in the process of trying to get a -- permits from
Page 108
December 11, 2001
South Florida, that may take another 18 or so months to obtain.
The district, which has its own irrigation lines -- it's different
than the other districts that I represent -- has to use potable water at a
master meter, and then that potable water gets distributed through the
irrigation lines to the users -- to the property owners within Fiddler's
Creek. And what happens is for the stepped-up rate the -- because
you have one meter and it reflects this huge number going through it
-- does not reflect the per-user actual use -- to be potentially paying
that huge $4 and some odd cents rate per thousand gallons and we are
-- we have a fiscal year of October 1 to 9/30 and there is nothing
budgeted anticipating these drastic rate increases, so that's why we
request some consideration for that, to try to get these alternative
sources of water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In North Naples there's some
condos that have one meter that services all the units. Is that what is
similar in this case in Fiddler's Creek?
MR. PIRES: At the present time, yes, for the irrigation lines.
There's one master meter where the water comes in from the county,
and then it's distributed to all the other -- all the property owners
within Fiddler's Creek.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many property owners are
there?
MR. PIRES: I think there are currently 600 units.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Under one meter?
MR. PIRES: I'm not sure about the individual developments or
condominiums. I represent the district. I'm not sure exactly. I may
be able to consult with somebody who may have more information,
and I can get back with you in a minute.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mark is shaking his head yes.
MR. PIRES: My consultant in the back is advising.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Again, Commissioners, you
Page 109
December 11,2001
can recall any one of these speakers if you have additional questions.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dino Longo who will be
followed by David Ellis.
MR. LONGO: Good afternoon, Commissioners and Chairman
Carter. I'm Dino Longo for the record. I'm president of the Collier
Building Association and the vice chair of the Development Services
Advisory Committee, and I chair the subcommittee on codes and
construction. I'm wearing all those hats, and I'm also a contractor.
We are concerned with the speed with which this impact fee
study and the wastewater management plan has -- has come to
fruition. As a Development Services Advisory Committee, we have
seen it twice, once as subcommittee, which made no recommendation
to the full committee because we could not get our arms around all
the questions and issues that we brought up and, secondly, at a -- at a
DSAC meeting first of this month. We voted to go ahead and make a
recommendation to go ahead with this with two caveats. Thirty
percent contingency to lower that and if you're going to implement
this to put at least a 90-day implementation period.
It is simply unfair to the community and industry to not allow us
the time to fully study all the impacts and consequences of these
proposed fees and master plan. There are a number of issues that I
have brought forth to your attention via a letter hand delivered to you
yesterday, those technical questions and legal issues that we are
concerned with. We have two speakers that if you would like to
address any of those questions we will be glad to bring up to you.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Ellis followed by Bob
Krasowski.
Page 110
December 11, 2001
MR. ELLIS: Good afternoon. My name's David Ellis, and I'm
the executive director of the Collier Building Industry Association.
And, Commissioners, we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, so
you-all know my feelings in terms of the affordability issues and
what some of the other speakers have addressed and our concerns
there. I'd really like to focus our concerns again on the study itself
and on the process we've been through to get here.
Again, most of the people that I've dealt with in talking with this
really are -- there's -- there continues to be more and more confusion
over issues of the legality as well as the numbers and how we arrived
at those through the plan. Again, I don't doubt that the county is
doing their best to try to deliver forward a plan, but when I see those
things -- and I guess I'm still very uncomfortable with some of the
numbers that have come out.
The 30 percent contingencies we've talked about. The 5 percent
inflation rates and how they relate to the numbers and when those
numbers begin to look inflated, it then inflates the fee that's paid by
the consumer. I'll say it every time I come up here on impact fees,
we're willing to pay our fair share. We want to be sure that the fee
that's charged to the consumer is -- is their fair share of their impact.
And I will tell you, just in the last -- since we met last -- and
when we talked last, I wasn't specific on some of my concerns, and I
told you why. It was because I was just starting to develop concerns.
Since then really in looking at it -- and I'm sure you've had a chance
to look over some of the thoughts in Mr. Longo's letter -- I'm not sure
we're right on some of our guesses -- or the things that we've assumed
that we've read in that plan.
Again, it goes back to the timing and the process. I have some
concerns about some of the legal aspects of who we can legally
charge these fees to, and in adopting this plan are we adopting -- are
we saying to the people in Golden Gate City, "You're going to have
Page 111
December 11,2001
to pay an impact fee"? Because I guarantee you if you ask the folks
in Golden Gate City, "Do you realize today the commission is voting
on something that caused that?" They'd say, 'Tve never heard that."
And those are some -- those are some important issues for our
community that may come back to haunt us in the process that we're
going through. I'm concerned that this has moved ahead very
quickly, and we've left some thoughts behind.
I'd -- what they just mentioned about Fiddler's Creek, excellent
point. We should have a way that those guys that are doing what
they're doing have true incentives in this rate process to conserve
water, not to penalize them. And I'm sure that on some level that's an
unintended consequence but a consequence that will occur. And I
guess I'm just continue -- and I will continue to reiterate that concern.
The other major concern we have is industry which was
reiterated and said again by Mario. The timing of the implementation
is critical for the consumers that are buying these houses. It can have
a dramatic effect. Again, we've said before, the guys paying for
million-dollar homes probably don't feel these things. Those guys
that Mario stayed up with till nine o'clock last night trying to figure
out a way to get them into a house won't be able to January 2nd if this
goes into first -- you know, there is a real genuine concern for the --
for the potential home buyer in Collier County, and if we're going to
ask them to pay this fee, let's make sure it's fair. I think that's what --
that's what we would say as an industry -- you know, it's going to get
paid. Let's just make sure it's fair and appropriate. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Bob Krasowski, and your last
speaker will be Rich Yovanovich.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Bob Krasowski for the record. I'm standing up here
today as a private citizen, just one of many people that live here in
Page 112
December 11, 2001
Collier County, blue-collar working-class type. And I wanted to
address this issue.
I saw the workshop on television, was at home and watching it,
and enjoyed it very much, became informed on the many issues here.
But today I'm speaking because not too long ago, a few weeks ago, !
got my insurance bill in the mail. And my insurance has gone up
quite a bit because of hurricanes and the high valuation of properties
in the area and lifts us all up. So I'm -- I'm investigating that or
checking that out, and then I hear you're discussing raising water and
sewer rates and potentially hooking up neighborhoods that are on
septic onto the sewer, which is another expense.
A few weeks ago I saw a movie on television, and as I was
going through the channels I caught a portion of it, and it was like a B
or a C movie. It was the life story of Marilyn Monroe, and the scene
was this high school sweetheart of Marilyn Monroe sitting at Lover's
Lane with her and discussing how she has an opportunity to move up
and on into Hollywood and stardom, and they had to separate ways. I
feel like that guy sitting in that '55 Chevy being that my relationship
with Collier County started 21 years ago. I came here with a small
family and have educated them through the grade school system here,
and we've been part of this community, but now Collier County has
developed into Marilyn Monroe who is so desired by many of the
fancier people who are being invited here.
So with that in mind, I appreciate your continued attention to
make sure that growth pays for growth. I heard that several times at
the workshop -- at your workshop. So I'd like to see you follow
through on that.
You know, when you talk about giving special consideration to
work-force housing, you're kind of messing with the free enterprise
system. It kind of undermines the value of houses that are at that
level available for sale, and you're using us by wavering (sic) impact
Page 113
December 11,2001
fees to subsidize this growth. So it's another level of subsidy, and it's
another example of growth not paying for growth.
So I understand it's real complicated, and I've watched you
people deal with the various aspects of it, but I'm here as an existing
resident saying be sensitive to the existing residents because we don't
want to be burdened with the industry that development is. And
Collier County is an industry town. It's not coal mining or anything
of that. The industry here is development. So let it stand on its own
two legs. Okay? And if you want to provide housing for teachers and
police and stuff, then raise their salaries. Give them -- give them
more money so they can earn a living in the free enterprise system
and quit all this subsidy. I'm surprised Republicans -- not to make a
big issue out of that, but -- you know, you're -- I have a sense you'd
be more inclined to defend free enterprise than to start -- you know,
manipulating the process. Okay. Well, thanks. Good seeing you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir. Next
speaker, please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Tom, can you make it bigger?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I won't start the timer until he gets
ready here. You -- Mr. Yovanovich, are you going to speak from that
side today?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. For the record, Rich
Yovanovich on behalf of CBIA. I registered for all five of these
items. I don't think I need 25 minutes, but I'm going to probably need
6 or 7 if that's okay, Commissioner.
What I'm trying to do is put on the visualizer one of the exhibits
that's in the master plans that I believe you were provided copies
with, although it was not in the agenda backup material. And I'll be
speaking specifically from the wastewater master plan.
What I -- what I'm talking to you today about is there appears to
be some inconsistencies between the water master plan, the sewer
Page 114
December 11,2001
master plan, and the county's comprehensive plan, the county's
special act that established the Collier County Water/Sewer District,
and the county's own utility impact fee ordinances. And I think that's
important that the commissioners understand that, and I'd like to
speak in a little bit of detail on each of those points.
Regarding inconsistencies with your existing comprehensive
plan, right now the county's comprehensive plan prohibits service
beyond the urban boundary unless you already have a legal
commitment to provide service there. Now, that affects Areas A-l,
A-2, B-2, B-l, B-3, C-l, C-2, D, and D-1. All of those areas are
beyond the county's urban boundary, and right now, in my opinion,
it's prohibited under the county's comprehensive plan to provide
service out there.
The commission has to amend its comprehensive plan before
service can be provided to those areas. Now, that may be -- there's
discussion now about the rural fringe and what may happen in the
rural fringe, but those decisions have not been made at this point. The
point I'm trying to make is the water and sewer master plans assume
service in those areas, and they assume a five-plant system for the
sewer system which includes providing service to properties in those
areas, and in doing that all of the capital cost to provide services in
those areas is now put in one pot and divided amongst the various
users who will be impacting the system.
You will be charging and should be charging everybody in those
areas an impact fee because we are funding that infrastructure under
the master plan. And you have $100 million worth of sewer
improvements related to the three new plants that you're planning on
building, the northeast, the central, and southeast plants under this
sewer master plan. And that is -- this is based on the information
we're provided. In the next ten years, you're going to spend $100
million to provide service to those areas, and those areas are currently
Page 115
December 11,2001
outside of the comprehensive plan limits.
The Collier County Water Sewer District, the special act,
Chapter 88499 -- which I watched the workshop, and you heard Mr.
Weigel mention that. Its boundaries are consistent with the county's
current urban boundary. The special act prohibits the Collier County
Water and Sewer District from providing service beyond the district
boundaries. You have to amend the special act to provide service to
those areas. Those are policy decisions that the Board of County
Commissioners needs to make. Again, you have about $100 million
in the next ten years dedicated for those three plants that will include
those areas.
Finally, you have a county utility impact fee ordinance. And it
is -- it says you can charge impact fees for water and sewer within the
Collier County Water/Sewer District boundaries. That ordinance
itself has certain areas that are specifically exempted from being
charged impact fees. That includes the Pine Ridge area. That
includes Golden Gate Estates. That includes OrangeTree. And that
includes Golden Gate City. Those are all within the technical legal
boundaries of the Collier County Water/Sewer District, but the
county commission has decided that impact fees will not be charged
for those areas.
Now, all of those areas are now planned to be served under the
new water and sewer master plans. Well, in order to do that, you're
going to have to amend your utility ordinance. Now, say that we are
going to charge an impact fee to people in Golden Gate City. They
are going to have to charge an impact fee to the -- let me -- I'll be
done, Commissioner Coletta, in just a second. You're going to have
to charge impact fees to those areas. Why? Because you're sizing
your plants to service those properties. If you're going to serve those
properties and connect them to your plant, they have to pay an impact
fee. You can't say to someone who is using the plant, "You're
Page 116
December 11,2001
exempt from paying impact fees," yet someone else who's also using
the plant," you must pay impact fees."
The county currently -- and if you look at the improvements --
the county in the next -- through the year 2011 -- and this is the
information we've been provided -- plans on spending $7 1/2 million
just in plant to serve Golden Gate City. They also plan spending
another $5 million in taking septic lines off site. I don't know what
that $5 million is going to, but I can tell you when I was in the county
attorney's office in the early '90s, we went through with the east and
south Naples project which was a special assessment project where
the water lines and the sewer lines in the streets were paid by special
assessments. And the people in the east and south Naples area got a
bill from the county. One bill was for the special assessments, and
one bill was for the impact fees, ballpark about $7,000 a home, and
they were told, "You've got to pay $7,000."
The county worked out a payment plan over a number of years,
so it wasn't 7,000 right away. We had to deal with the banking
industry and explain to them that, yes, even though the assessment
jumped in front of their mortgage, please don't foreclose on these
mortgages because now there's an assessment out there and
everybody's mortgage says if there's an assessment out there you're in
default on the mortgage, pay off the assessment. We worked through
those bumps and bruises.
But the same thing is going to happen in portions of Golden
Gate City where there are not water and sewer lines in front of the
properties. You're going to have to extend water and sewer lines in
the streets and fund them somehow. You're either going to fund them
by special assessments, increased taxes. I don't know. But that's
going to have to be funded, because as I understand the master plan,
Golden Gate City's current plant is coming off line and is now going
to go to one of these three new plants.
Page 117
December 11, 2001
Now, these are questions we raised in reading the documents.
We would like answers to those questions, so if we're wrong, we
have misinformation, great. If we're right let's factor all of that in.
But my opinion is, for what it's worth, the rate study is invalid
because it includes areas that you're specifically prohibited from
serving right now. You have -- you've put the cart before the horse.
You need to change your comprehensive plan. You need to change
the district boundaries for the Collier County Water/Sewer District,
and you've got to change your utility impact fee ordinances to make
sure that the people you plan on serving are the ones who will pay
their fair share.
What I believe has happened, the commission is making a policy
decision today by adopting the master plan and adopting the impact
fee ordinances based upon the capital improvements, because at some
point Year 10 people get added. You know, '012 becomes the tenth
year -- '013 becomes the tenth year at some point.
The policy decision has been made to extend utilities to those
areas because that's how the impact fee ordinance is structured. It's
structured to fund the capital improvements related to the water and
sewer master plans. It is okay to do that. Obviously, you have the
right to do that, but property owners need to know that that's what's
happening, that they're going to get a bill at the end of the day to
connect to the county's system.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll have to ask you to wrap up, sir. If
there's additional questions, commissioners can bring you back to the
podium.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I think I've hit the three areas
where we think that there's conflict with existing county ordinances
which I think you have to amend first before you can adopt a study of
this magnitude.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think, you know, a lot of this we
Page 118
December 11,2001
have to get input from staff, and then we can bring you back for
questions, because maybe we'll clarify some.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good points that you raised.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Henning, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. I think it was Coletta, wasn't
it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I had -- I was going to
make some comments, but for the most part I'm going to wait until
we're finished, and then I'll be asking Jim Mudd some questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. And the next speaker,
please.
MS. FILSON: That was the final speaker, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Final speaker. Okay. Questions by
commissioners to staff on any or all of these areas, and then we can
recall anybody that you want additional information from.
Commissioner Coletta, you said you had some questions for Mr.
Mudd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do. What about the bulk
water rate? Is there anything that can be done because of the special
circumstances that are there that it's being divided over a large area
with a number of residential uses?
MR. MUDD: Sure. What I tried to do is get ahold of Mark --
and we've been playing phone tag -- to address that specific issue.
For the record, I'm Jim Mudd. The -- we could put up a couple of
meters at those homes to get a -- an average type home irrigation
based on the number of homes he has and on a yearly basis give that
average at the -- at the rate per residence and what's left over bulk if
he's using it on a golf course or general areas or whatever, and then
he'd pay the metered rate for that -- that water up and above -- above
Page 119
December 11, 2001
and beyond what the regular residents are using to water the grass
around their home. We can do those kinds of things.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that.
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, ifI may -- Tom Wides for the
record. Commissioner, if I may, we did have a chance to talk to Mr.
Strain and his attorney more today. And, in fact, what -- we've also
offered some other opportunities here, and that would be to
individually meter those irrigation lines. And we haven't decided that
that is the right thing to do, but that is another alternative for us to
consider here. So that would be as the user uses the irrigation water,
we would, in fact, charge them for their use.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Could we stay on this one topic
for a minute?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Commissioner Henning,
go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean the topic he raised?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. How do you make sure that
the irrigation system upon which you base the permit fee is the
irrigation system that will exist three years after the permit fee was
issued for the impact fee?
MR. WIDES: Right. This is -- this is probably less so a
question of the three years. We -- we know -- we are in
communication with these folks, and I'm going to have to refer to our
reuse folks to give them or give you a better answer on this or a little
bit closer to it, if I may.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if I understood the question,
it had to do with limiting the amount of irrigation around homes to a
strip or something of that nature?
MR. WIDES: Yes.
Page 120
December 11,2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we base the -- base the
impact fee upon that assumption at the time that the -- the permit is
drawn, what happens if the -- the owner then puts in a more elaborate
landscaping system and uses more water?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we've got two topics on the
table. MR. WIDES:
MR. OLLIFF:
But the only -- the only thing I'd like to --
The answer to your question is there is no
protection. And the example -- the parallel example that was offered
was the school impact fees and adult living facilities. In those
particular cases, the Court has decided that the -- the standard, if you
will, is that there must be a deed restriction that's recorded that cannot
be changed, and in that way they have that protection that there will
always be adult-only communities and there never will be children
living there. There is no parallel opportunity that we have to insure
that water restrictive devices or drip irrigations systems or anything
like that will continue to be in place.
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, also we're referring to the user
side here, too, in terms of the consumption of water.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Getting back to the topic. You
stated that you're going to send a couple meters out there to take an
average of the homeowners.
MR. MUDD: It's one of the alternatives that we could use. It's
an option, and he gave you another option where you meter each one
of them in order to do that. But you're going to have to -- which ever
method is determined to be reasonable, costs that aren't extravagant,
that have to be checked on a yearly basis to make sure that you're still
getting a good read. Things change as Commissioner Coyle basically
said. You can't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Same person --
MR. MUDD: -- figure a change a different way, or the usage
Page 121
December 11,2001
might be different, or they build more -- more units, or they change
the way the units are done. There's lots of different alternatives to
take a look at that, and Mr. Strain would like to get alternative water
sources, okay, from the Florida Water -- South Florida Water
Management District.
Their permits are getting harder and harder to get. I got to let
the board know that. They're not just going out there and saying,
"Okay, dig a well and use it for irrigation." They're concerned that
"Use it for irrigation for what?" "For landscaping."
"Well, you're not really protecting the aquifer, and how do we
determine that you're conserving water?" So even if they do dig a
well, they're limiting the amount of consumption that they can have
from those wells that don't meet their needs.
So it's -- it's kind of a Catch-22 for Mr. Strain, and I understand
he's trying to work ASRs and things like that, and that permit just got
booted from the -- from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. And people are looking for ways to find alternative
sources so that they can irrigate their properties.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think our goal is -- is
twofold, is to conserve water in general and not use potable water for
irrigation. So, you know, we have somebody out there that wants to
do that, but we're going to use a big stick in the meantime until he
gets a permit, and we -- before I vote on it, is how can we come to a
resolution for citizens that want to do the best thing. We're changing
the rules. I understand these bulk meters is -- they're going to get the
big stick and whether that's justified or not. I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it possible just to take the
number of residents served from the bulk meter and divide it and then
charge them on that basis?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: That's one issue, but with the way I understand
Page 122
December 11, 2001
this master meter, it also services a golf course as well as a number of
individual homeowner sections -- property, so you've got to find a
way to distinguish between those two uses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we can do that; right? I mean,
we're working with them to that end? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right now. And when they switch
over -- when they switch over to reclaimed water, if that happens --
or are we planning on them switching over? Are we taking that into
consideration?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, they're one of the people on the list.
They're about midway down on the folks down on the south end as
far as the south list is concerned. As soon as they come on that
system, their metered water for irrigation would basically come off
the potable system, and it would be strictly reclaimed or some kind of
well capacity and that's what Mark's trying to come to. But we're a
couple years away from that, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for Tony. Do
you know how many other communities that are in this situation
where they're using bulk? I know there's some in North Naples.
MR. PIRES: I'm not aware of any, but ifI could correct -- as I
understand it, the issue with regards to residential there's a separate
meter for the residential user as opposed to the golf course. So what
-- commissioner indicated -- I think Commissioner Henning indicated
or Commissioner Coyle about dividing it by the number of users is
possible to the residential users on the irrigation lines.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And there are bulk to the north, but I
think they are on reuse, and the other is separated off, so it has not
been an issue because we know which type of water is being used for
Page 123
December 11, 2001
what purpose.
MR. WIDES: Right. And I'd also like to clarify, too, when we
use the word "bulk," there is no bulk rate. I mean, you can consider
these as very large meters, but there's not a special rate just for these
very large meters.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And my understanding is that
they would get the highest rate because they are bulk rate and use --
there's the large uses there.
MR. WIDES: Looking at the block structure as they are
organized today in Fiddler's Creek --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hang on. I can't hear you.
MR. WIDES: As Fiddler's Creek is organized today, they
would -- I don't know exactly what their actual usage is, but they
would go through the various blocks in terms of their consumption
because they only have two very large meters today. Okay. And,
again, the fair alternative would be to consider for those irrigation-
only customers which are the residentials to measure right off of what
their individual usage could be, so it is an alternative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This -- what we have together
in this particular ordinance, it's very exact. How would we be able to
come back after the fact and adjust it -- what we're talking about?
Wouldn't we have to do that right now at this point?
MR. WIDES: The -- the alternative of using an average
consumption for a homeowner -- backing that off the rate would be a
rather involved process for us. The individual metering would be a
very direct situation --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That wouldn't be practical if
they're only going to be on it for, like, 18 months; is that correct?
MR. WIDES: Well, I think that opens us to the question of will
it be 18 months -- will it take longer to, in fact -- or will we ever --
will they ever be able to get that alternative source of-- of water.
Page 124
December 11, 2001
And, again, the well situation with the permits, will they be able to
get the permits? This could be 18 months. This could be much
longer.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not too sure I have the
answer.
MR. WIDES: Well, the answer is if it's 18 months, then we
revert to another source of water. We would revert to another rate
structure. Okay. If it continues out past 18 months, we would keep
them on that individual metering of their potable water until they
could prove that, in fact, they have another source.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if I could interrupt for just a
second. Commissioner, we have clients right now that go into a
master meter for water, for instance, multi-family units. Okay. And
we break out those bills per unit from that one-meter size. So it's
doable without an ordinance change.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So, in other words, we can put
this together. If we approve this ordinance the way it is today, we
can still address Fiddler's Creek's concerns over the bulk-water rate.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And if you'd like to you can give staff
direction to fix it before the rates go in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to hear from Tony Pires
again, if I may. Tony, have you been following this?
MR. PIRES: A bit of it. I was receiving some clarifications and
corrections about some factual issues, so if I could just briefly.
Number one, the golf courses are getting it out of the lakes. So it's
not using potable water. Number two, the 18 months is an estimated
time frame from some consultants, that are more knowledgeable than
I in the permitting process, to transfer an existing consumptive use
permit over from agricultural use to this particular use. So it's not a
question of applying for a brand-new well. There's existing wells,
existing permits.
Page 125
December 11, 2001
And, I'm sorry, I've been following some of the discussion, I
guess, Mr. Mudd was referencing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the water use that you're
saying that takes place from the county is used strictly for residential
use within the home and possibly some -- some watering around the
residential area, and that's about it?
MR. PIRES: There -- there's a dual -- there's a separate
irrigation line that's been installed in Fiddler's Creek that Fiddler's
Creek CDD owns. The county does not own that, contrary to what
happens in Pelican Marsh; the county owns those irrigation lines up
there. Potable water is currently being utilized for purposes in the
irrigation lines, and that's where there's a master meter on that
system. So you may have a huge amount of water at that master
meter, but then when you divide it by the number of users it may be
far below the gallonage that would trigger this huge $4 and change --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's basically what we were
saying. I just wanted to make sure that it falls in line to what you
were talking about earlier.
MR. PIRES: About dividing it up, averaging it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's what I understand; is
that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We individual the meter -- individual
meter or we'd install meters based on where the residences are, work
the number of residences that they have. They would be out of the
big meter for those common areas like medians and -- I don't know if
golf course -- whatever they've got that they water outside of those
local residences, and the difference between what's individually
metered to the homes and what comes on that meter on the other side
will be the stuff they'll get at a higher rate because it goes to the
common areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that is a community that is
Page 126
December 11, 2001
growing. You're going to have new units come on board every day.
You have a way to monitor that and --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And it behooves the developer to tell us
the next house that's coming on board, because if he doesn't, he's
going to have more go into the bulk rate, go into the common areas.
So no doubt Mark will be calling us on a daily basis telling us about a
new one with a permit or a CO, and we'll keep track of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And he calls you direct?
MR. MUDD: He'll call the public utilities administrator, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seems to me like the incentives are
there. All right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Have we exhausted that? Can
we move on to something else, or is there something else to be added
to that, because I do have something else I want to bring up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go to it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I -- I know this is at the
eleventh hour and it's not going to be received well at this point, but I
really do want to bring it up. I'm very concerned over the
affordability of the houses out there with the impact fees. I realize
that it's an absolute necessity the way this government's been
structured for years to be able to meet our current needs that we do
raise them. But, once again, is there a possibility if we came up with
a structure that was limiting in size that would limit the amount of
water to be used that would use next to nothing for irrigation, if such
a type of residence might be able to be exempt from the new
increases? Just a suggestion. I'd like to hear the reason why not.
MR. MUDD: Well, while you -- while you were gone,
Commissioner, the county manager basically noted that the
difference between the example that you just gave and Commissioner
Coyle asked a question pertaining to it, and the example to the school
impact fees for adult living complexes, the adult living complexes by
Page 127
December 11, 2001
-- by the decision by Florida courts has basically said that they have
to have a deed restriction -- permanent deed restriction on their -- on
their property that basically says that they will never have children;
therefore, there's a waiver of the school impact fee.
If you -- even though that they try to put minimize-type fixtures
within their -- within their home and -- and/or do xeroscape around
outside to limit the amount of irrigation they have, the benefit that
they'll get there is on their rates. They won't pay as much because
they've done those prudent measures within their home. But there's
no way presently to mandate that -- that homeowner could never
change those minimization features or to change the xeroscape
outside to go through that process. There's no way to put a deed
restriction on that process. There are some things that you can do to
minimize the impact, for instance, on work-force housing. You can
use SHIP funds to offset some of that. You can put deferred payment
programs in for the first-time homebuyer.
Now, I will tell you on a deferred payment, doesn't make a
whole lot of sense for impact fees because that person's going to have
a 30-year mortgage, and the impact fees are in the 30-year mortgage,
and it spreads it out over those 30 years. So a deferred-payment plan
kind of is a self-defeating mechanism, I think, if I -- if I can spread it
out over a 30-year period of time versus a 7 year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you finish? I just want to
follow up on the same question. I'm also concerned about that
problem, but I need to understand it a little more clearly. You just
clarified one point. It is rolled into the mortgage. Now, what is the
average increase in impact fees that is being proposed for a home of,
let's say, $200,000 in value?
MR. WIDES: Assuming that home has a 3/4-inch fixture --
water-sewer fixture, that increases approximately by $2,800.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: $2,800. Okay. Now -- now, the
Page 128
December 11,2001
problem with not being able to purchase that home is what? Is it the
inability to get a mortgage because one's income does not meet the
appropriate percentage of the payment, or is it because the price of
the home itself creates a mortgage which is too expensive for
someone to afford? I need to understand which one it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, if you
wouldn't mind --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Mr. Mario would be able to
answer these for us. Mario Valle.
MR. VALLE: For the record, Mario Valle. Commissioner
Coyle, in essence, it's a matter of the qualifying ratios. And I think
we're looking at more towards what -- what right now qualifies for a
SHIP home which would be $130,000 and under. And someone in
that entry-level market doesn't have a 90 percent mortgage. Most of
those mortgages that we're seeing right now are 97 percent and some
100 percent mortgages through some special programs. So when
somebody adds on -- we'll call it $3,000 onto their mortgage, which
is 2,800 and some change, what you're doing is increasing that
payment anywhere from 21 to $36 a month depending upon the
mortgage rate, and that may be enough to push that person out of
qualifying. What -- what we're -- what I'm trying to do is find a -- an
alternative source of how we can offset that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, my experience has been that
in many communities that are faced with that same problem it's
handled with the lending institution; that there are special programs
for first-time home buyers, and they get either a lower interest rate or
they have a lower down payment. And consequently the
qualification ratios can be adjusted by the lending institution, and I
am -- I would like to see this problem solved, but I don't -- don't see a
way it can be solved if we exclude everybody from a certain
Page 129
December 11,2001
minimum income from paying an impact fee on a house. Because
what happens when somebody moves into that house five years from
now, growth is not paying for growth again.
So I understand this problem, I think. I have a feeling it's not as
severe as we might think it is, because if the lending institutions in
this community are interested in solving that problem, they can solve
it just like they've solved it in lots of other communities. Is that not
true?
MR. VALLE: Correct. I mean, what we -- what we do need to
look at, though, is the time frame in which we -- we are looking at the
implementation of the impact fee. With your first-time homebuyers,
most of those folks are using a governmental form of financing,
whether it be FHA or VA, those types of loans, because of the nature
of the flexibility of the ratios if you understand that lending side of
things. The flexibility of the ratios and the flexibility of the credit
underwriting, they take a longer period of time to, quote, unquote,
underwrite than a traditional conventional conforming loan. So what
we're asking from an affordability standpoint what I'd like to see is to
say, "Okay, well, we need 60 days," so that that gives that
homeowner enough time to say, "Hello, you need to get back with
your mortgage company. You need to get back with whomever and
get this problem straightened out because it does take time."
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, where would you establish
the break point? That is, what level of home or what value of home
would you propose there be a 60-day delay for implementation of
new impact fees?
MR. VALLE: Right now what -- what work-force housing has
been delineated at is what qualifies for -- for the SHIP's approval, if
you will, which is $130,000 home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if-- if the Board of County
Commissioners were to say that for all homes less than $130,000 in
Page 130
December 11, 2001
value or purchase price -- I presume that's including the impact fee --
MR. VALLE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- would be exempt from the
increase in impact fees for a period of 60 days. MR. VALLE: That would help with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would that solve it or help solve
the problem?
MR. VALLE: It would help solve the problem, right. Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I ask a question?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, can I -- can I just interrupt for just
a second? I wish we'd -- we'd -- we'd designate -- because we talked
impact fees, and I'm not too sure we're talking just water/sewer
impact fees. Okay. And when he said "the estates," they don't have
water/sewer impact fees because they do wells and they -- and they
have septic tanks.
And the other issue I'd say you're also saying home sales. I wish
somebody would delineate new-home sales versus resale, okay,
because resale homes don't have an impact fee because it was already
paid. And so I -- we need to -- we need to clarify that just a little bit
because we're crowding everything into one category, and I don't
think it's fair as you go through this process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure. I understand.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So what we're really saying, though, I
think, Commissioner, is if it's a new home under the SHIP guidelines
in an impacted area, meaning you're going to go into this new home
MR. VALLE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- that that could be drafted into this
and delay it by 60 days. My question would be back to you, Mr.
Mudd, is that workable into this formula?
MR. MUDD: Change the words.
Page 13 1
December ! 1, 2001
MR. WIDES: I think, Commissioners -- Tom Wides, again, for
the record. I would say anything is possible. I would be concerned
with the administrative impact of this: The possible introduction of
errors, the slowing down of the timing of responding, those types of
obvious things that could happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're talking about volumes of
applications coming in --
MR. WIDES: I can't -- I can't tell from here from the
discussion. I just don't know. We're going across a couple different
departments here, not just public utilities. But, again, I think the key
thing here is -- well, the key thing here is, are we talking new homes
or are we talking existing homes?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think we're talking new
homes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: New -- new homes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: New homes.
MR. WIDES: Yes. So then I would stay by my original
comment that, yes, anything can be done. Okay. It's just going to be
introducing the -- the anomaly into the system then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question. Where in the water
and sewer service area existing can you build a $130,000 home?
MR. VALLE: Golden Gate City would be the only place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not in the county service
area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Naples Manor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not talking a bunch of
-- not a bunch of them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's a relatively small number.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we wouldn't be talking rental
Page 132
December 11, 2001
units or anything, I mean, like somebody putting up -- we're only
talking about homes 130,000 or less.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: New homes, ownership.
MR. VALLE: It would be Naples Manor, Trail Acres, I guess,
is the one across the street which are working off the same plant, but
those would be the two areas of affordability.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Glenwood.
MR. VALLE: Yeah, somewhere in those.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you very much, sir.
Other questions. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm concerned with some of the
things that Mr. Yovanovich brought up about in some of these service
areas, Golden Gate Estates, Golden Gate City. Golden Gate City
being a separate service area, are we going to be collecting impact
fees for--
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, ifI may respond to that. Tom
Wides. As Mr. Yovanovich was -- was reviewing the book, he was
looking at the master plan book which shows -- in fact, shows dollars
in there for plant sizing; however, when it comes to impact-fee study,
okay, there are no impact fees calculated on Golden Gate City nor
Golden Gate Estates. They are specifically excluded in the line item
in the impact-fee studies. So there are no costs being borne there.
MR. MUDD: Sir, and one of the reasons we looked at -- at
Golden Gate City is, as you know, Florida Cities used to have it.
Then Florida Government Utilities bought it over. Were not
necessarily a voting member at the table, but there are a series of
counties that are buying out the Florida Government Utilities. In
Collier County in its plant in Golden Gate City, it would not be
prudent on the part of the staff to let us be the last one out there,
because then we're going to suck up every bit of overhead that -- that
Florida Government Utilities has, and it'll all be sent to those rate
Page 133
December 11, 2001
payers that can ill afford that increase in their -- in the rates.
So one of the things with the contract the Florida Government
Utilities has is the county could buy them out when the residents --
the Board of County Commissioners tells us they want us to buy
them out because it's a prudent thing to do. When that happens, sir,
that's when we'll address those issues. But there is no intent in any of
our plans to go out there and buy somebody out and force people to
go and pay and come onto the system unless they want to.
And that would have to be a special assessment, and we do those
today. I mean, we have several special assessments going on right
now because the community comes to us. And it might be a street in
a community, a hundred or so homes, that says, "We really want to
be on the sewer system and the water system," and they take a vote in
that neighborhood. As long as it's over 50 percent, then we start
drawing out an MSBU with them and come up with a special
assessment to be paid over a series of years, normally seven, so that
they can hook on to the system with those impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that the same scenario with
Golden Gate Estates and Pine Ridge; it would be driven -- because
that is part of the area that we're proposing to service under the
master plan.
MR. MUDD: The master plan has it there as a potential, but
again, they're not coming on the system until that neighborhood says
they want to be on that system, and you and I have talked a little bit
about -- about this process. Since the East Naples incident with the
assessment and picking up package plants, we have become a little
bit more attuned, okay, you might want to say that, to not put a
neighborhood or a whole area in jeopardy in that process. And part
of the comp plan you'll find out as you read into it is to try to stop us
from having a number of package plants sprawled out and developed
all over the county, so that when it does come on a system, then we
Page 134
December 11,2001
get ourselves back in the East Naples process. So a good master plan
laid out there with a series of centralized plants prevent us from
getting into that pick up the package plant and take that whole
process. And, again, it's very typical of the Golden Gate City process
with Florida Government Utilities, sir, that we want to try to preclude
in the future based on that master plan.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And wouldn't this equate that when a
community wants to come on stream, they're paying an assessment
which to me equates to an impact fee? Otherwise, if my home is
going to come on, I am now paying a fee which equates to the fact,
which as I said is an assessment; therefore, it would go into the mix
for building that plant of necessity. So no one is excluded. No one is
forced. It really becomes community driven in terms of
incorporating these. Am I tracking with this correct?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, if I may, just slightly to amend
that, but you're -- you're basically right on track. The -- we will go
into an area on the invitation of the neighborhood. There may be one
or more individuals that may be rallying the folks in the area to come
on to water and sewer. We have a couple situations going like that
right now. They take a vote. They come back to us with petitions
and tell us what their feelings are. We try to give them a good picture
of what the cost will be, which includes the construction cost, the
impact fees. Because you're really paying two pieces there. You're
paying for the construction cost as part of the community, so you're
paying for that piece of infrastructure. Then you're also paying the
impact fee for use of the entire network.
So you're paying two components there, and we lay that out for
the communities before we go any farther with them, either on a pay-
up-front or finance basis, but that is at their invitation and they're --
as Mr. Mudd said earlier -- they're 50 percent plus 1 desire to do so.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
Page 135
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need to ask
Mr. Yovanovich a question that he said something that I need to
clarify about some ordinance you were referring to under the Land
Development Code.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, for the record, Rich Yovanovich.
First of all, as I understand the master plan, the master plan talks --
takes into consideration building plants as if 100 percent of the
people in Golden Gate City vote to connect. Now, as I just
understood that, you're saying people in Golden Gate City may vote
not to connect, yet you're going to have a plant that you built to serve
them. So you're going to have some excess capacity sitting there
because these people -- when they see the dollars and cents of it,
they're already getting their sewer treated either by their septic tank
or from the existing governmental utility out there. So I don't know
that anybody is going to say, "I'm going to connect and pay another
government X number of thousands of dollars when I'm already
getting sufficient service." So you're either going to have excess
plant out there, or you're going to have to force these people to
connect.
Now, if Collier County ever takes over that system, and there is
a line that goes in front of a piece of property, and that person is on a
septic system, your own county ordinances requires that they
disconnect their septic system and connect to that line within 90 days.
So they do have to disconnect and get off the system, so there will be
that expense. But as I understood it, you're going to have excess
plant capacity out there if someone decides not to connect.
Now, regarding the comment that $100,000 worth of capital
improvements that I've -- that I brought up based on the master plan
as it was explained to us at a Development Services Advisory
Committee submeeting, the cost of the infrastructure on the impact
fees was spread over a 1 O-year period.
Page 136
December 11,2001
Now, if that was information that's no longer accurate, what
we're asking for is we have questions. We'd like to be able to sit
down, have the questions answered. If they're answered to
everybody's satisfaction, CBIA has always said as long as the fees
can be rationally explained, they've supported that. This has gone
very quickly. We have been told different things at different
meetings. We've not had our questions answered.
Your ordinance specifically exclude Golden Gate City. Yet it
appears to me that the ultimate plants that are going to get built out
there are sized for the residents of Golden Gate City. Why are you
sizing plants for Golden Gate City at this time if you haven't made
the policy decision yet to take Golden Gate City over? Same thing.
Why are you sizing plants if you haven't made the policy decision yet
to dismantle and abandon OrangeTree's plant?
There's -- these are questions that if this is down the road, take it
all out of the study right now. Get down to what you really plan on
serving today and make -- help us understand the numbers. If-- if
you're not going to serve those areas, take that stuff away. The
numbers are confusing. You're confusing us. Give us 30 to 60 days
to sit down, figure it out, and come back. And if the questions are
answered, you know, then everybody's happy. I don't think --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me let staff go back and try and
answer those. One of the reasons we're doing this, because we got
ourselves in big-time trouble by not doing this. And I'm not going
there again. I'm going to tell you that right now. So we'll find a
solution to this, but I want to have it on the plan. I want to make sure
that we're planning for it. Golden Gate City, there's a plant there
already. We're saying eventually we may take this over. We better
be ready for it and be able to pay for it and not be penalizing people
in that process. But I want staff to answer some of Mr. Yovanovich's
questions.
Page 137
December 11, 2001
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, I'd like -- Tom Wides again. I'd
like to comment on a couple of these items, and I'd like to also get
some of our expert consultants that we've had involved with the
process here to get them involved with this discussion; however,
number one, we're really speaking to -- and this is out of my initial
element, so I'll ask for our help here -- but in terms of some of these
areas that we're talking about, to try to size a plant, you can't size part
of a plant. If you're going out that direction, you need to
accommodate for possible changes. Okay. And I'll ask our folks to
comment on that a little further.
In terms of policy, no, we are not asking for change in policy.
We know those are existing plants and at least in Everglade -- excuse
me -- in --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Golden Gate.
MR. WIDES: -- Golden Gate City. That is an existing plant. It
is an older plant. We do have to accommodate for that possibility.
Again, we will not go in there unless -- unless invited in, unless
there's an environmental issue that requires us to do that, which we
don't see that at this point in time.
Let me turn a couple of these questions over to David Hagan,
our consultant for the master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's my understanding that
we're not going to go out there and just build the plant to capacity all
at once. We'll stage it in.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just like we've done every other plant.
MR. HAGAN: You're kind of answering -- gave my answer for
me, because what we had --
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
fee; right?
MR. HAGAN: That's right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
You get a reduced rate on your
Thank you very much, sir. Go ahead,
Page 138
December 11, 2001
please.
MR. HAGAN: Dave Hagan for the record. Yes. We -- we --
what we largely did in the master plan was identify an ultimate need
that -- so that you could plan for the size of property that you would
purchase in case you needed to serve some of these areas. But the
infrastructure would not be built until you had a firm commitment
that that's what you wanted to do. And the -- in the -- we show this
coming on line flows from Golden Gate City and/or Golden Gate
Estates over a very long period of time. And in the first ten years,
which is really what is being calculated in impact fee, there's very
little population that we show going onto a new plant from those
areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before you go away, are we
basing this new rate on those plants that we're assuming that we're
going to take over certain areas?
MR. HAGAN: Rob Ori did the impact fee analysis.
MR. ORI: Can you repeat. I didn't understand it. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the plant that would
service Golden Gate Estates or even the rural fringe, are we basing
the proposed rates on those plants?
MR. ORI: We have a provision in the impact fee for any facility
that has to be built in the 1 O-year time frame. We picked a 1 O-year
time frame recognizing you have near-term expansions and some
major expansions coming. We want to get the average cost. If there
was a facility being built, say, year 2007, we've recognized that
facility and that total capacity of that facility. Whether it served
Golden Gate, south county and north county, we have those facilities
in our -- in the analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And 2011 is proposed for that
plant that would service Golden Gate City?
MR. ORI: If it was a facility in 2011 and beyond, I'm not sure
Page 139
December 11, 2001
where it fell in the time frame in the master plan. We picked the first
two, 2002 to 2006 or '07, I guess, 2007 to 2011. If the facility -- if
2 MGD of that plant -- of that total plant came on during the 2000 --
in that 2011 time frame, we recognize the 2 MGD. We did not
recognize, say, an ultimate capacity of 4 or 6, only the 2.
Conversely, we recognize all the ERCs that 2 MGD could serve.
We didn't say, "Well, let me see, that 2 MGDs didn't come on line;
there'll be 100 units added on here. I'll take that 2 MGD divide it by
100." We didn't do that. We said that 2 MGD could serve 5,000
units, and we divided by the 5,000. That's kind of how we
approached it in that analysis.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we was to take out or
amend this master plan, say, taking out those plants that would
service rural fringe area and Golden Gate City and surrounding areas,
what would that do to the impact fee?
MR. ORI: I was wondering if you were going to ask that
question, because that's a very good question and a very hard
question for me to answer. I'd have to almost look at the engineer to
say, "What facilities would you have in place?" Would it be three
plants at four, four versus five. The size of the capacity change. The
type of facilities change. Once I knew that, then I could give that
answer. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's say I'm guessing at we
take those out and we have three plants.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- let me help you a little
bit. If you -- if you wanted -- and -- and what I had the staff do is I
had them break down the 1 O-year plan to a 5-year plan, and when
they did 5~year plan for impact fees, I made them pull out everything
that was outside of the rural fringe except for real estate acquisition.
Okay. And take a look at that process because if you don't go out and
buy the real estate, you're really messing up, because it does -- it does
Page 140
December 11, 2001
take a while in order to lay that down.
When they did that, it decreases the impact fee about a thousand
dollars. Now, is that prudent for the board to think about? Could be,
but I would tell you once the governor approves the rural fringe and
that plan that you're about ready to submit and we're coming back
and we're saying, "Guess what, the impact fees need to go up $1,000
next year." That's something that you need to think about.
Now, we've heard attorneys get up here ~- and I'll use it plural,
because I've heard at least one or two today -- and they say, "Well,
it's illegal." It's not illegal to use impact fees outside of the district. It
is illegal to charge people user fees outside the water/sewer district.
And we've had a -- and I've got an attorney's opinion here from the
county attorney's office, okay, that basically talks that process.
And I don't want to get into the legalese. Okay? I just want to
make sure that you understand. I can't collect money outside of the
water-sewer district boundary from a customer, okay, and use that
user fee. I can't sell the service out there, but I can go out there and
build or acquire land outside of the water/sewer district for future
expansion. You could expand that, and you could pull the water
sewer out past the urban boundary and process it there and push it
back into -- into the water/sewer district.
And that's, basically, what you might have to do, because you
have only two water plants and you only have two sewer plants
within the urban boundary right now. And they're all getting to the
point in time where they're maxed. And so you might have to go out
and acquire a piece of property outside the water/sewer district
boundary if we -- if we don't get the rural fringe thing passed and the
one mile east of 951 stays the water-sewer district boundary in
general for the county, you might have to have your plants outside of
that boundary and move water and sewer back and forth across that
line to basically service the customers that you have within the
Page 141
December 11,2001
water/sewer urbanized boundary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: When you get right down to the
end of it, the only people that are going to be paying for it are going
to be the people on the utility. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. So the people
out in the estates will not be paying for something that they're not
hooked up to?
MR. MUDD: That's correct, sir.
MR. OLLIFF: And, Mr. Chairman, we could keep arguing with
Mr. Yovanovich all afternoon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah. I'm not going to argue with him
anymore.
MR. OLLIFF: I've been in a room with him, and it's lasted all
dog-gone day, and he's good.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I understand. I understand.
Commissioner Coyle had a comment.
MR. OLLIFF: But in closing I wanted to tell you that I think
this is a planning document upon which you base some fees. Any
planning document that's looking out ten years has got to make some
assumptions. We believe we have made some reasonable
assumptions in this plan, and we believe we have rates that do a
couple of things. One, we believe that they provide impact fees that
will put you in a position to be able to keep up with the growth rate
and provide the water and sewer plants that not only is the industry
that's here today in need of but the people who live here and use the
systems today are in need of.
The second thing we think the rates do -- and this is something
that the board told us six months ago was important to you -- it
inverts the rates, and it puts a premium on people who will conserve
our natural resources. And we think that's a very important thing in
Page 142
December 11, 2001
terms of the rate structure.
Based on those two issues alone, we think the rate structure in
front of you today is important, but the last thing I want to tell you is
the impact fees and some of the rate structure are very much
contingent upon the capital construction plan that we need to build,
and we need to build it because we were told we need to build it by
the DEP in Fort Myers.
And those first two issues alone ought to be enough to go ahead
and get you to approve, I think, the rate structure and the impact fees
with the fact that I think we have a very, very, very tight construction
schedule in terms of getting some of these improvements in place,
and those improvements are contingent upon the fee schedules in
front of you today. I think that ought to be a compelling argument
for you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to reinforce Mr.
Olliff's comments. I don't think anyone here really believes we have
done a very good job with making sure that growth pays for growth.
We haven't done a very good job of anticipating our needs for
infrastructure in this county. And as Mr. Carter or Chairman Carter
has pointed out, this board wants to solve that problem. And in order
to solve the problem there is going to be an increase in impact fees
and user fees. The question is how much.
Now, are they -- the staff has been criticized for failing to
anticipate. This staff is anticipating. They have made assumptions
about growth that might prove to be incorrect, and this board has
committed to reviewing their assumptions on an annual basis so we
can adjust them if necessary. I believe that -- that these impact fees
must be fair to everybody. Growth has to pay for growth, but we
should not lay impact fees on the building industry that are
unreasonable.
Page 143
December 11, 2001
And I think that we need to have a little more dialogue here.
And I would be willing, Mr. Chairman, to move approval of these --
these rates and give the building industry an additional 30 days in
which they can iron out the areas that are still under question with --
with one stipulation. And that is that -- that the impact fees -- or the
impact fees relating to permits submitted after 1 January will be
assessed on the date in which those permits are approved. And I
know that your problem has been, Mr. Olliff, that if we don't approve
and implement those fees quickly, there will be massive requests for
approval to beat the date. That means growth isn't really paying for
growth. People are getting in early so they don't have to pay for
growth.
And so what I'm proposing is we give the building industry a
chance to take a look at this. We remain open to modifying our rates
until February the 1 st or some other date, and if they can demonstrate
that we're being unfair, then we modify them. If we're not being
unfair, then any permit approved after that point in time pays the
increased impact fee, and I said approved. So a permit that's
submitted on the 1 st of January but not approved until February the
2nd would pay the higher permit. Does that make sense to you?
MR. MUDD: Higher impact fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Higher impact fee. Sorry.
MR. OLLIFF: To play devil's advocate, the only criticism I see
in that is that I promise you we will be criticized for holding up the
permitting process in order to levy the additional or higher impact
fee.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that, and I'd like to
make sure that we have some kind of agreement with the building
industry that if we're willing to grant an additional 30 days to work
out some of these details and -- and we are honestly behind our
commitment of adjusting them if they're unfair, then I would like to
Page 144
December 11,2001
have the building industry commit to not having a run on the bank for
the first month of January.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I might
have a suggestion that might help this along a little bit. The impact
fees are supposed to be increased if we went with this particular
scenario on January 1 st; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about if we set in place
where the impact fees are increased on January 1 st, we keep the
dialogue going and actually close this out one month in February 1 st,
and if we do reduce the rates we make back a -- we make a refund
back to those people who paid into it? Meanwhile, we have got
everything going. We don't have a run on the bank to try to have a
mass rush, but we do give the building industry a chance to react to
what's happening here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that would be fine,
Commissioner. The only thing I'm concerned about is for people
who have -- who have plans for beginning construction shortly and
they were going to get caught in the crunch here. I don't know if
that's a significant issue for the building industry. I'd like to hear
from you with respect to that.
MR. ELLIS: IfI may, David Ellis, with the Collier Building
Industry Association. Commissioner, it is a significant concern. It's
a concern again -- excuse me -- for the home buyer that Mario talked
about, the one who is entering into the process, but not only them. I
gave an example at our last meeting of the business owner who's
looking to build a new building in Collier County and they've been
working with their architect. They've been planning. We haven't
even talked about the commercial rates, but even on a reasonably
sized commercial building five, six thousand square feet, if I even ask
Page 145
December 11, 2001
the staff you-all probably know better than me the actual numbers,
but for a building that has a 6,000-square-foot building, what would a
normal rate be and how much is that going up on a commercial
structure?
I mean, I know they are doubling. I've seen the chart. The one
chart I saw and I asked because the impact fee we paid on the new
CBIA Building which is about five, six thousand square feet, would
go up, like, $20,000. Well, I got to tell you, that wasn't in my plan,
and that is going to significantly impact people, business owners,
small business owners, and if you wake up in the morning and they
read in the paper, "Hey, your buildings now cost $20,000 more," it's
going to create an economic impact on those people.
And again, Commissioners, I'm not asking for something I don't
think sounds fair. And I got to tell you the other side of the coin is, is
whenever this becomes effective, there's going to be a line that day --
that last day in front of development services because that's part of
human nature. People are going to respond to that. I don't know how
to address that any other way other than to say that will happen. But
I think as an equity to the business community, to the people that are
buying those houses, there has to be a point of fairness. I wish -- I
wish I could be real exact and say the point of fairness is, you know,
February 2nd or some specific date on the calendar, but I think some
consideration has to be given to that because it does have -- I don't
know how many people are sitting around right now with their
architect or engineer in planning that process, though. It's hard to
know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I've heard the people
say you want 30 days. I've heard you say that you want to have an
opportunity to have a dialogue and get the questions answered. I'm
making a motion to give you both of those things.
MR. ELLIS: Yes, sir.
Page 146
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, what is it about that
you don't like?
MR. ELLIS: Well, I'm not sure there is anything about it I don't
like other than, you know, my concern is that in the short run some of
the concerns that we've expressed today, some of the legal issues --
you know, today when your staff said, "We could pull those things
out, and then when we have certainty next year we can put them back
in." I'd rather do it that way. I'd rather know what we know and plan
as we know towards that as opposed to putting it in now and then
taking it out later. It makes more sense.
And, again, it goes back to that equity issue on impact fees.
Impact fees are to pay for the impact of the house. And I still worry
about that guy in North Naples that's going to pay for part of a sewer
plant for somebody in Golden Gate who's never going to use it. And
that's not -- and so I -- that -- that -- but can we sort those things out
in 30 days? I hope so.
But yet I like the idea of giving us that flexibility to continue to
work on it. I'm not sure we'll have any more rhetorical answers to
quote you from the last meeting. Will we really be able to solve
those things? I mean, I still -- we're going to come back here in 30
days, and I'm still not going to agree with the staff's philosophy on
that in terms of, you know, where those things go, unless we can get
some legal interpretations either from your county attorney or from
outside sources that can really direct us. Can we really do those
things, you know --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, really from my
perspective the last thing I want to hear is we take another 30 days to
look at this thing, and we still disagree with it. I really would like to
reach some conclusion.
MR. ELLIS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I honestly want to be fair. I
Page 147
December 11, 2001
understand the impact it has when you're -- you're faced with these
kinds of increases, but you must understand that this government has
to do something.
MR. ELLIS: Oh, certainly. As a matter of fact --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're in very bad -- a very bad
situation and comparing the increase from -- from impact and service
fees that were probably too low to impact and service fees that are
being proposed now is probably not the right kind of comparison to
make. I think we have to make sure that whatever we calculate can
be justified under the reasonable nexus concept. MR. ELLIS: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I think that if we
cannot do that in 30 days then we're not ever going to reach
agreement. And -- and I can only suggest to you that as we go
forward and as this board reviews the results of those impact fees we
will have the ability to adjust them and -- and if we find that the
assumptions by staff are incorrect, we can cut them back. We might
even be in a position to refund some of the some impact fees.
So I hope that you're going to be able to get your questions
answered in 30 days.
MR. ELLIS: I do, too, and again I guess two answers. I would
rather have an effective date of February 1 st. It would give six
weeks-ish from today for people that have things to know to make
those adjustments and at the same time I always -- when we talked
about the last meeting, again, the trouble we got in at the north plant
wasn't because we ran out of money; it was because we didn't execute
the plan. And again, I'm very encouraged that we're looking at a plan
that's thinking 20 years ahead that seems to be based in some reality
even -- even -- even -- and, frankly, I see where it really stretches
reality can we do in those areas.
I appreciate that type of thinking, and it's not that we don't
Page 148
December 11,2001
appreciate that kind of thinking. We encourage that kind of thinking.
The question really comes down to, can impact fees pay for that kind
of thinking in terms of what is truly appropriate, and I don't know --
and again, we've been having this discussion for the last couple of
meetings -- but I'd rather see an effective date of something like
February 1 st. It gives that reasonable time to make those adjustments
for those people that are in the process.
I've got to tell you, builders aren't going to go out and invent
houses to pull permits for. They can only pull permits for houses that
they have sold, and they can only permit things that they have
permitted. One of the things your development services' folks have
done and done a very good job of, frankly -- and your Development
Services Advisory Committee addressed it very directly after the last
major impact fee increase was what would be accepted as a building
permit? You know, to some things that were submitted and accepted
today will not be -- will not be accepted by development services,
and you can thank Ed Perico and John Dunnuck and some of those
good folks down there.
They've changed some of what will be accepted across that
counter, and if it doesn't -- if it is not a true realistic application for a
building permit, they're sliding it back across the counter. What --
there were many things that were accepted that day that, frankly,
weren't reasonably good applications. That's not going to happen.
Never going to happen again, but yet -- I share your concern, but yet I
think with that reasonable time frame that we'd be okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. What I'm hearing is February
1. My question is, is that a huge impact on us, Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: Our recommendation is January 1st, Mr.
Chairman --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. OLLIFF: -- in the executive summary.
Page 149
December 11,2001
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd. On the overhead right
now is the checkbook, and we're -- we're dealing in -- we're talking
about a tight time schedule, and Mr. Olliff mentioned that before. I
want to just make sure -- and you've got to make the decision one
way or the other on this process, and I understand that, but you need
to have all the facts. You're right on the edge. You notice these
numbers down here (indicating), the plant expansions. You've got an
8-million-gallon plant expansion -- white piece of paper, borrow that.
MR. OLLIFF: How's that, better?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine.
MR. MUDD: You have an 8-million-gallon plant expansion for
water. That's the south water plant that we started construction on in
October. It's now in the plus column for -- for permits to be drawn
off of them. If you go through -- if you go through the whole process
of what we've got on right now and what permits are out there, we've
got 8.9 million gallons with that new 8-million-gallon plant coming
on line in 2003. So what I would say to you is if you took that off
and we used the AUIR, about what we have right now to give away,
you got .9 million gallons. That's all you have in water. If you take a
look at the 5-million-gallon plant that we brought on line, you only
have .9. You only have 900,000 gallons per day in sewer in the north
plant with that new expansion on line, and I haven't started the next
expansion yet.
The south plant, 8 million gallons. We are supposed to start
construction in October, and we haven't got the permit yet. Okay.
Down in the south side of that plant you have 7.3 million gallons in
the south plant right now in order to do process. What I'm trying to
say to you is if there's a financial issue here in order how to pay for
the growth in order to keep things moving, the more you pull off the
more chances you get yourself into where we were in the springtime
of this year.
Page 150
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which is when they had to start
laying off employees from the building industry. Immediately after
we found that we had the spill they started laying people off when we
said we had to issue dry permits, and we don't ever want that to
happen again.
MR. MUDD: That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so we want to support the
building industry. We want to make sure this thing goes into place
properly, so I'm going to second Commissioner Coyle's motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, let's clarify it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion was not in accordance
with staff's recommendations; however, based -- based upon what
I've heard since we -- since I made that motion, I have absolutely no
hope whatsoever that we're going to reach agreement on this in the
next 30 days or 45 days or 60 days or 90 days. And I would -- I
would propose we -- we go ahead and approve the staff's
recommendation with the implementation date of January, but I
would also ask that the board commit to sitting down sometime
shortly thereafter with the building industry and the staff and trying
to work out any of the problems. I think it is basically unfair that
anybody who has to pay those costs doesn't understand why they're
being charged.
Now, we might not ever reach agreement, but I think we owe
you an explanation of our position, and I would just appreciate the
fact that if the board would be willing to do that, that I would feel
comfortable moving ahead with January 1.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm hearing a motion that says we
would approve January 1 with a 30-day review period to work -- to
meet and work with the industry, but the rates are in effect --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- unless there's some kind of
Page 151
December 11, 2001
overwhelming evidence --
MR. MUDD: Sir, if there is a -- if there is a mistake after we
have that meeting and they -- and they find an issue where there's a
corrected amount, we come back to the board last week in January to
you, let you know where that is, and we refund to those people that
paid the increased amount for the impact fee. We give them a refund
check because the amount we collected was too high.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would second that as long as
the affordable housing suggestion you --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be part of the -- part of
the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. As long as that is part of the
motion, I'll second that and that was that we give the -- the affordable
housing $130,000 or less homes that have already begun to be built.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was one hundred thirty.
give
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
them 130,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Give them --
I'm sorry, one hundred thirty. Yes,
Give them 60 days --
60 days.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Give them 60 days before the
increase would be in effect.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just on those particular
homes; right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That -- the ones that apply for
the SHIP program, ones that apply for waiver of impact fees.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, as long as 130,000 or under, I
think that was the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I think as long as they
Page 152
December 11, 2001
qualify.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A new $130,000 home they get a
60-day delay before the rates go into effect. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No matter how they qualify.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When -- we're okay on the
motion. I thought we might have had two motions on the floor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. We've got a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, that motion,
when you refer to the staff recommendation, the specific -- there were
a group of agenda items together. Which specific item are we
referring to?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: A.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Item A, Item B. I think it's all. I don't
see any -- anything that we wouldn't approve on that. MR. MANALICH: All right.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, just to differentiate. I don't have
them in front of me right now, but we do have the user fees -- the
customer user fees as a separate item. And we also have the reuse
rates as a separate item. I believe the -- what we've -- what I've heard
so far what I understand to be the master plans and the impact fees.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're correct. This would be for
master plan and impact fee. Require a separate motion on fees, Mr.
Weigel? Does it require a separate motion on fees?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: But I -- I'd like to add something. In regard to
the discussion about the -- call it affordable housing, whatever the
breakout is of 130,000 including impact fees and down, this is
something that's not contemplated in the study in regard to the
Page 153
December 11, 2001
implementation. You're picking a figure, 130,000. Those that have
140,000 will say, "What's the difference? How did you draw this
line?" And I'm having some questions about that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I was told it was by the SHIP
guideline.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's -- that's the stop-off point for
the work-force housing eligibility for SHIP funds, so that's where we
put the 130,000.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And the idea is that they get 60 days
before it's implemented against them?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Now, these people -- I don't
know if you were here then at the time we first discussed it. These
people aren't in Golden Gate City. They're not in Golden Gate Estates
because they're not -- they don't even have to pay that impact fee.
We're only talking about the --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Impacted carrier. If you're going to
impact the system, you get that break for 60 days following the SHIP
guidelines. That's where we got the 130,000 number, Counselor.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. It's -- it's a break of 60 days before it's
implemented. It's not a deferral for clarity. We're not talking
deferral.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Right. Right.
Are you okay with that, Counselor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Wait a minute. Tell me what you mean by deferral.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, a deferral is where it's paid eventually at
the full rate and you're not talking about deferral. You're talking
about merely having the -- the impact fee that you would be
Page 154
December 11,2001
implementing January 1 st for everyone else, that those people who
are in the purchase aspect of the 130,000 below the SHIP guidelines
not have that impact fee apply until 60 days from implementation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right. Because it's our belief the
financial institutions, if they're committed to work-force housing, can
work through that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Deferral program would make it
very difficult to roll that into a mortgage, I believe. It would
complicate the problem considerably, so I think we're just talking
about delaying the implementation date for 60 days.
MR. VALLE: Correct. And the number of homes that we're
talking about in the areas that we're talking about Naples Manor,
Glenwood Estates, the surrounding areas, Trail Acres, is a relatively
small number seeing as how those communities are primarily almost
built out.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, if there's a
problem with this, please come out and say it.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm just raising the questions right now so
that I can advise you properly during the decision-making mode.
What I will say is, based upon the discussions that you've had of
record today from the building industry and others in regard to first-
time purchasers and particularly low-end first-time purchasers, I
guess I can say from the record that I've heard made here that they --
that they, too, find that an agreeable aspect of what you're approving
today, that you are looking out for the very interests that they have
expressed a significant concern for and I believe, the county attorney,
I'll opine that it's defensible and we'll -- we'll go forward with it you
approve it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, thank you, sir. We have a
motion. We have a second. Any further discussion by the board?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Page 155
December 11,200 !
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
We need to take a break for 10 minutes and then we're going
back to public hearing which we continued from this morning. Oh,
I'm sorry. Time out. Before we break -- I'm sorry -- I need a motion,
too, on the wastewater impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We -- we had that. I think we
were talking about rates and reuse rates.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we need -- we need five motions.
We need one for the water master plan, one for the wastewater master
plan, one for the impact fee which you just did.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We just did the impact fee.
MR. MUDD: You need to have one for the user rates for water
and sewer, and then you need one motion for the waste -- wastewater
reclaim water user rates.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have any problem with that,
Commissioners, just going through and approving each one of those?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Each individually. Some
discussion on one of them that I want to bring up.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, then we're going to have to take
a break, folks. I've got to give the recorder ten minutes. Okay.
(Short recess taken.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Board of County Commissioners is back in session. No. We're
doing it now. But we need to complete the items on water. We have
passed the impact fees. We still have four other items to deal with.
Would you like to lead us through those, sir.
MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioners, ifI may, I'd like to just at
this point clarify exactly which items we have approved and make
Page 156
December 11, 2001
sure we have final resolution on them. We have on agenda Item 8-A,
we had the wastewater master plan. We'd like to request we close the
public hearing here and the recommendation that we have is that we
adopt the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan and direct staff to adjust the
level of service. That is the representation we have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. We close the public hearing.
You may proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve staffs
recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coletta to approve staffs
recommendation. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
Item #8B
2001 COLLIER COUNTY WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE,
PROJECT 70070 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, likewise Item 8-B the Water
Master Plan, our recommendation here is similar to adopt the 2000
(sic) Water Master Plan and approve the operational standards and
direct us as staff to adjust the level of service.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Page 157
December 11, 2001
Henning. I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any comments,
questions by the board? All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, I'd also like to note to you that in
a prior discussion we had received preliminary approval from the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. They have now
come back to us and given us written approval, and they have asked
us now to request a -- have the chairman, in fact, view the letter I
have in my hand. In fact, approve -- from our point of view -- that
we will do the 2-, 5- and 5-million-gallon expansions on the north
wastewater plant rather than the original intended 10 million gallons
all at one time. And I'd like to put this forward to the chairman for
his signature.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does that require a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we need a motion?
MR. MUDD: Sir, you're -- you're amending the consent order,
okay, and it had to be approved by the board, and I would say it has
to be moved, but -- but the thing here is this is a good-news item
because we would have to build the whole ten million gallon
expansion by 2005. This gives us the ability based on the master plan
to build a 5 million gallon, have it done in 2005, and have the next
one done in 2010.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta. I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. All
in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Page 158
December 11, 2001
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, for clarification was that one
of the 8-A(3) items or separate add-on or --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It was an additional item, sir.
MR. MUDD: It was a -- that was an additional item, but it had
to do with the wastewater master plan, Ramiro, because that master
plan is predicated on a 5 and 5, and we have been in -- in limbo as far
as FDEP approve this or not. We -- we received that information
from them about two days ago that they needed to have a formal
request by the board to -- to change -- amend that consent order.
MR. MANALICH: Thanks for the clarification.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we already were briefed on
that. I remember reading about that. Yeah. So we already had that
information before us. We were just waiting for that letter. We were
hoping it would come today; correct?
MR. WIDES: This is just a formalization of that process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Missed a photo op.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Bring in the cameras. Go ahead.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2001-488, PROPOSED WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES - ADOPTED
MR. WIDES: Third item was to adopt the proposed water and
wastewater impact fees. Our recommendation to the board was to
adopt the attached resolution adopting the proposed water and
wastewater impact fees with the January 1 st implementation. I
believe we moved that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
MR. WIDES: -- based on your implementation. Okay. Okay.
Our next -- I believe we're complete there.
Page 159
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is the -- what about
addressing the bulk rate?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we're on -
Item #8D
PROPOSED REUSE (TREATED WASTEWATER RATES) -
STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED
MR. MUDD:
-- and, sir, that's the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WIDES: That's actually Item 8-E.
be Item 8-D.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: As in "David."
MR. WIDES: As in "David."
Sir, that gets the -- that gets to the rates and that's
That's the next one.
And our next one will
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What I would like to do is
make it a motion to adopt it with the caveat that -- that on the bulk -~
bulk-rate users for irrigation that we postpone that for 18 months for
people to get alternatives.
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, ifI may, only from the point of
view that we are on Item 8-D. That would be Item 8-E in our --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought we were at 8-E.
MR. WIDES: No. I'm sorry. We are at Item 8-D, as in
"David."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that's about the proposed reuse
rates.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that the one that affects golf
courses?
Page 160
December 11, 2001
MR. WIDES: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In that did we give them to an
effective date of October 1, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The recommendation by the staff is 1
January. We discussed that during the workshop as -- as an
alternative for the board to consider. This particular rate takes the --
you've got three kinds of users. You have bulk user for -~ and this is
the reclaimed water that comes out of the sewer plant, okay, that we
treat that they spray for irrigation.
There's 27 customers in the county that receive that service.
Right now their rate is at 13 cents a thousand. The new rate would
have three different levels based on the cost of providing that service.
The bulk rate goes from 13 to 26. The pressurized rate goes from --
MR. WIDES: Pressurized rate goes from 13 to 34 cents and the
pressurized and distributed rate would go from 13 to 65 cents.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had one fast question.
MR. WIDES: And that's per thousand dollars.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait just a second. The reason I
brought up about the golf courses meetings of their superintendents,
it already turned in their budgets for this year, and their homeowners'
associations had already approved those budgets, and they've already
mailed their bills, et cetera, et cetera. They had requested that this be
an effective date of October 1 so that in their current upcoming fiscal
year they could budget the new increases. They weren't quarreling
about the increases. They were questioning how they might defer
that so they could incorporate it into their new budget. So I'm asking
the board for an input on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We also have submitted a
budget, and we find ourselves on the short end, and we have to move
pretty quick on it, and I'm sure that they can make an adjustment if
it's required. One thing I've never been very favorable of is
Page 161
December 11,2001
subsidizing golf courses with utility customers' money.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well -- and, Commissioner
Coletta, I agree with that wholeheartedly, but these are communities
of homeowners' association, retired people who have said from the
president of the association, board of directors, this is what your
assessment is going to be for the rest of the year. No more different
than, you know, impact fees on affordable housing.
MR. MUDD: What I -- what I would -- just to give you another
piece of information, there's 1,300 residences -- there's homeowners
associations, total of about 1,300 including those golf courses that
receive this. Out of the 27 customers break down to 1,300 and the
number of golf courses. So there are 1,300 residences involved in
that just to give you the number that is behind Commissioner
Henning's statement.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So does that mean that -- what that
means, I think, is that when they pay their annual fee by living in that
community, it already paid for this year, and what they're looking for
is how they're going to accommodate that in the next year. Because
it's a master association that pays for that and they budget it and then
sent out the notices to the community. That's how I understand it.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From a personal point of view now,
I live in Lakewood. We have reused water. I don't golf. We have
two golf courses. I don't belong to the country club, but I pay to
subsidize watering those golf courses. We get billed every -- every
quarter, and if the rate goes up, they're going to say to us, "You owe
so much more." Whether I like it or not, that's what I have to pay
rather than have everybody else pay for my golf course that I choose
to live on. I think it's my responsibility. And I realize that we have
been charging people a very low, low rate, and it's time we step up to
the plate and -- I mean, just like we've had to do with everything else.
Page 162
December 11,2001
We've got to bite the bullet. It's not easy, but we have to do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may add, District 5 is not
really affected by what's taking place here, but I have compassion for
the user out there that's been subsidizing it for years. And I'm sure in
this period of time that they would appreciate it that we could pass
the savings on to them. You know, the subsidizing the golf courses is
something I don't think they really intended to do but where we are
with it now. Who's got a motion?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Don't have a motion yet. Did you
make a motion, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a question. I still have that
same old question. Where it says "bulk" and then it says
"pressurized," somebody wrote me a letter -- I don't remember who it
was -- and said, "You have to have pressure in order to take it to the -
- to the bulk-rate customer anyway. Why can't they just pay the bulk
rate rather than the pressurized rate?" I wanted to ask that.
MR. WIDES: And, Commissioner, in different situations we are
either providing the water to the facility, which in that case is bulk.
They then will have their own operations internally to put that under
pressure to get a sufficient pressure for the golf courses to, in fact,
power those sprinkler heads. In other cases, where we are literally
owning the infrastructure inside their facilities where we actually
provide that extra power to them, that is your pressurized rate.
Again, that is from a novice in the industry, but I can -- I think our
experts would support that discussion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion, ifI
may?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we approve staff
recommendation and the -- and adopt the proposed reuse treated
Page 163
December 11,2001
wastewater rates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta. I have a second by Commissioner Fiala. Question,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one thing that I shouldn't
say, but I'm going to say. Being the commissioner from District 3,
I'm sure the bridge on 13th is not going to affect my constituents in
District 3.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what you --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's okay. Any other discussion on
the motion? All in favor signify by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Next item.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2001-73, IMPLEMENTING PROPOSED RATES
FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES AND CONSOLIDATES
ALL EXISTING AND SEPARATELY APPROVED UTILITY
BILLING ORDINANCES INTO ONE COMPREHENSIVE
ORDINANCE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. WIDES: Yes. Commissioners, just a notice of
clarification here that this -- this item will be part in the
recommendation -- this will be part of the following discussion.
other words, there is an ordinance attached to our following
discussion, and these rates are buried up in that ordinance.
In
Page 164
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
MR. WIDES: All righty. Okay. Item 8-E is the adoption of the
proposed rates for water and sewer services. We have -- as we have
discussed in a prior meeting, we have inverted our rate structure.
We've had some discussion on that already today. We have no -- we
do have a prepared presentation if you wish to go further in that but,
in fact, we are, in fact, recommending the same rates that we, in fact,
recommended two weeks ago on the water and sewer side, where
basically for clarification -- if you go to the third page of your Item 8-
E you will see that, in fact, these are the rate changes by number of
gallons used per month for combined water and sewer.
And the other clarification I would make here is that on the
sewer side we have raised our cap on the sewer usage from 10,000
gallons a month to 15,000 gallons per month so the point at which
you use water to the extent of 10 will now be raised up to 15 and still
put sewer charges against it -- sewer user charges. There is a slight
change in the base rate, the availability rate for sewer. No change in
the availability rate for water.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: In this there was discussion at the
board meeting of an implementation date, I believe, of April 1,
allowing us three billing months to let people see the comparison.
Here's today. Here's what you're going to see April 1. Is that
incorporated in here, sir?
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, as it stands right now, we are still
suggesting a January 1 st increase for these rates. Okay. We can at
the board's desire delay those increases for whatever period of time
and, further, we will -- if we, in fact, delay those increases, we will
communicate in letter -- in letter form -- example form for those
billing periods whatever they are in the billing documents
themselves. It will be a statement of, "Here's the rate differences, and
here are some examples of user levels, and here's what your rate -- or
Page 165
December 11, 2001
your payment differences would be."
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I know that was discussed at the
workshop, Commissioners, and I need to get some input from the
board how you feel.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: (Inaudible) I really do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we delay the decision or
the vote until sometime in February -- the end of February last
meeting?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Why would we do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, for implementation in
April.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. What we're saying is we approve
the rates effective April 1.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just thought since there are
not a lot of customers out there that know the proposed rates are
going to take place, that there would be an opportunity to have more
public input.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, ifI may, we have, in fact, had
articles that have appeared in the newspaper publishing the rates
there. I believe there has been an item on the Channel 11 that has
been running consistently. If I may clarify that. And we can do as,
obviously, as you -- as you desire here, but there has been
communications so --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'd like to make a motion
that we approve staff's recommendation along with two other things:
One, implementing this to take place April 1 st so that we can serve
notice to the customer through several billing periods so they can see
what the difference would be by conserving water. They'll be able to
compare a new bill and an old bill. In some cases it might be a
savings over what they're doing. And the other part would be to
Page 166
December 11,2001
address in some sort of language before we make this approval the
bulk rate.
MR. MUDD: We'll make -- for Fiddler's Creek and those
particular bulk rates where we have several homes off a master meter,
we'll get into agreements with each one of those in order to make
accommodations to make sure that the water that's going on that
individual homeowner's lawn is being metered or taken into account
and subtracted from that bulk. He'll be -- he'll be metered at a lesser
rate based on the home.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's true with all the bulk
customers that we have out there?
MR. MUDD: Yeah. We'll go out there and get -- notify them
and let them get into it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the irrigation that
they're going to get off of the potable water to get on --
MR. MUDD: Sir, that stuff that isn't -- that -- that we can't say
is going to that individual home that's going to medians and common
areas maybe as a small park or whatever in the community, that will
-- that will be at the bulk rate, the higher rate from that big meter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we defer that for
18 months, part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. My motion stands.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't understand, Tom. Where
were you going with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have some people
out there that are trying to get off the potable water and get on a
different use but because of government regulation of permitting
South Water -- Water Management, it's taking an additional 18
months to do that. So we're giving them the stick before they get a
chance to get the carrot in 18 months.
MR. MUDD: The only thing I'd say in that -- Commissioner
Page 167
December 11,2001
Henning, just another point of information. There's no guarantee that
the South Florida Water Management District is ever going to permit
an alternative use for Fiddler's Creek or anybody else based on the
water shortages that we had from three years ago.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Public hearings are closed. We have a
motion by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Commissioner
Fiala. Other discussion by members of the board?
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, ifI might ask, excuse me for
interrupting, but this is for a clarification. I believe I've heard that
this will begin, this mechanism will go into effect, the intent is April
1 st; is that correct? Because we have an effective date of-- upon
filing with the Department of State, are we going to amend the
ordinance to that affect, or are we simply going to --
MR. OLLIFF: Yes. Based on their motion the ordinance would
be amended to reflect --
MR. MANALICH: So that language will change in the
ordinance. All right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's all been incorporated in
the motion. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye. Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-1.
MR. OLLIFF: We'll also take from this action that -- that you
are directing us to not only implement on April 1 st but to use that
ensuing period to try and make sure that we inform customers, not
Page 168
December 11, 2001
only through their bill but through Channel 11, that there is a new
rate structure that encourages people to conserve and tries to educate
people between now and April 1 st.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And also the -- the bulk rate
that Jim was talking about, that you're going to continue working
with the bulk-rate users.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. That's all there. Thank you
very much.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, thank you.
Item #7A
PETITION ADA-2001-AR- 1660 APPEAL (WESTVIEW PUD)
CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING AND
FURTHER CONTINUED TO LATER IN THE MEETING
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, it is about 3:15. We're going to
go back to the Item A -- 8-A, continuation of public hearing 7. I'm
sorry. Back to 7-A, continuation of that public hearing. We were at
public input. People speaking have three minutes to do so. If you
have something written by somebody else, that may be submitted as
part of public -- public information for the record, but you only may
speak for yourself. I got clarification on that during the break today.
So we will proceed with the next speaker. Ms. Filson. Mr.
Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, there appears to
be a gremlin loose in the commission chamber. There is a large
shutter that has been marked as an exhibit there which was not put
there by us or offered into evidence by any witnesses whatsoever, and
I would ask that it be removed from the commission chamber. I don't
Page 169
December 11, 2001
want it attributed to my client in any way. I don't know where it
came from.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, that was brought up by one
of the citizen speakers. It was not moved into evidence, so it should
not be marked as an exhibit at this point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Well, let's get the gremlin
shutter out of here. Out. Out.
MS. FILSON: The next -- first speaker is Christine Gamble.
She will be followed by Richard Munyos.
MR. ANDERSON: I have his letter, and I will pass it through
for each of you to see, and then please give it to the court reporter.
MS. FILSON: Jack Smith, would you like to come up. And
Jack Smith will be followed by Paula Tucker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Jack Smith followed by Paula Tucker.
MR. SMITH: I'm Jack Smith, President of All Blinds & More
and All Shutters, Inc. Good afternoon, Commissioners, Gulf Coast
American Blind and concerned neighbors.
I'm here on my behalf as a businessman and on the behalf of
Gulf Coast American Blind and to speak to the concerned neighbors.
I have been doing business with Gulf Coast American Blinds for over
six years. During this time they have demonstrated the highest
integrity in their business dealings. They are family owned and
operated and care about their employees and customers in a very
personal way. They not only provide a service to the community by
employing so many people directly, but they provide the service of
having a quality national fabrication with top Hunter Douglas
Window Fashions which aids many small and growing businesses
including mine here in Collier County.
They run training seminars for the more technical aspects of our
business as well as all types of management and marketing
workshops. I've achieved a lot of-- a lot of my success due to the
Page 170
December 11,2001
support, pride, and workmanship and educational opportunities
provided by Gulf Coast American. And know that I am not alone in
my feelings about them. They go beyond business too truly caring
and doing everything in their power to make us all successful.
As far as the kind of neighbor they would be, I can't imagine
that anyone that would be more conscientious and respectful to --
towards their neighbors to make things work well for all concerned.
I encourage you to work with them and continue to build and grow
his business and use his property for what it was intended.
If Gulf Coast American Blind Company has to go to another
area to do their work, it would be a great loss to our community and
create a real hardship for my business as well as many others. I can
understand the neighbors' concerns, and from what I know from
Carlos, he would do everything he can to make it a win-win for
everybody. And I don't know who you want for neighbors over
there, but -- you know, you couldn't have a better neighbor. And I
don't think anybody could try as hard as -- as they do and put as much
like I heard into their deed, and to have a lessened impact.
And I live in North Naples, and I just had a road put next to my
house. I got a road next -- within 50 foot of my pool cage. I mean, I
got WCI. They don't tell me anything. They don't come over there
and talk to me and say, "Hey, what can we do to try to help, you
know, give you some, you know, less impact here." I've heard
nothing. I mean, I swear to God, I wish Carlos was putting his
factory over there for that matter. You know, at least I could sleep at
night knowing I would have some privacy and some peace of mind,
so -- I mean, I don't know what all the crying's about.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Paula Tucker followed by
Leila Anderson.
Page 171
December 11,2001
MS. TUCKER: Good afternoon, County Commissioners. I'm
Paula Tucker. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I represent the
management team of Gulf Coast American Blinds and had a speech
written out, but there's a few things here that I'd really like to say.
Number one -- and I know that we're supported by anybody that
knows the Diaz family -- there is no manipulation or deception going
on here and there hasn't been. Carlos Diaz and his family may have
built a business and be a leader in the community of making blinds
and leading the industry on a national level, but he's not a land
developer. And there isn't a process that we go through to learn these
things.
After 28 years in this industry myself, I can tell you I could
probably answer any window covering question you have, but I don't
think I could tell you what permit I would need to know or what I
would need to research to build my business better on -- in an area.
So I hope that you'll not make those assumptions going forward.
I moved to Naples a year ago with my husband. We both work
at Gulf Coast American Blind. We built a home in Golden Gate so
that we could be located next to the new factory. Part of our
employment and interview was to look at the plans and to look at the
property and to share in the pride that was going to be taking place
there. So will it impact us? Definitely. To move now after I moved
my elderly parents onto our property creates a hardship for all of us.
But I have to say, after a year in the facilities that we're in -- and
we're in five and we've outgrown them, nobody wants to leave where
we're at, and we've been good neighbors, and we live and work next
to good neighbors.
We have 160 employees. That's 160 families. We are PTA.
We are your consumers that support your local businesses. We're the
people that pay your taxes. I think the previous statement before me
from one of our customers and I think it -- it would be emanated
Page 172
December 11,2001
throughout most of our customer base -- that you couldn't have a
better neighborhood if that's what it was about. If that's what it was
about was fair play, if you were concerned about how we would
impact your community, it would only be favorable.
I keep looking at this banner here that says, "United We Stand,"
and I get a warm feeling for those people in New York and all the
people that came to everybody else's aid. And I think if there was
one community person or business or situation that I could really
count on in this community, it would be the Carlos Diaz and the Diaz
family and Gulf Coast American Blinds because I've seen it several
times in my one year here. They have had reaching down and
supporting community programs and all of our associates and team
members and customers based.
I know that we talked about assumptions of a thousand
customers coming in and out. Well, we service Florida and we
probably don't have six local dealers that come to see us every day
that pick up their own merchandise. It's not a thoroughfare. That's
not going to happen. That's not going to take place. We're not going
to disrupt your community. I think that we would add to your
community.
I think we're upstanding citizens, and I appreciate your time and
hope that you'll consider this when you go to vote. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Leila Anderson followed by Ralph Toledo.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Ralph Toledo's on deck.
MS. ANDERSON: Commissioners, I want to thank you for
your time. My name is Leila Anderson. I'm the human resources
manager at Gulf Coast American Blind Corporation, and I'm going to
speak for our employees, all 160 of them or I'm going to try.
Page 173
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So you'll have to speak into the
mike, ma'am.
MS. ANDERSON: Okay. Is this better? All right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Much better. Thank you.
MS. ANDERSON: We have 160 employees, 140 of which live
in Collier County, and a lot of these people are very involved in our
community. Gulf Coast American Blind Company is about people as
well as about products and about people that value their employees
and value their community. And we have a new mission statement,
and our new mission statement is, Personally Extending Our Promise
Leading to Excellence, and the acronym is PEOPLE, and that is what
this company is about.
A lot of our employees are non English -- their -- English is their
second language, so we have to do a lot of translating and a lot of
help for our employees in order to be able make it where they can
deal with everyday issues, things like insurance that we take for
granted, things that we can talk and handle ourselves. I handle a lot of
insurance questions for employees or questions with getting
information on how to handle something with the school, as well as
everyday business matters and -- for our company. And it's difficult
for people when they're in a country where English is their second
language. I don't know how many of you have traveled to other
countries where you couldn't speak the language. I have and it's very
frustrating, and you feel very isolated and very alone, and that's what
a lot of these people feel. But they are good steady employees. They
contribute to the community. They contribute their time to us, and
they're very good employees.
One of the things we try to do is take care of our employees.
We have a good benefit package. We have medical benefits, 401(K)
benefits, paid time off, holidays, provide free flu shots. And medical,
our employees pay 18.50 a week. We pay 370 a month. We pick up
Page 174
December 11, 2001
the biggest part of that so they can have good health care for their
families and they can take care of their families.
We do things for them to make it an enjoyable place to work.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute, ma'am.
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you. We are good neighbors. We do
give a lot back to our community. If we have to move to Lee County,
a lot of our people would have to spend more time commuting, and
they would not be able to meet their babysitting needs. They
wouldn't be able to get their children when they're sick, so they'd
probably leave. It would hurt us as a company because we lose good
employees, but it would also hurt the county because you'd have
higher unemployment costs. You would have families that weren't
able to have medical insurance. They couldn't afford COBRA.
You'd have them on the county health department. There'd be less
money circulating in the economy. We heard of homeless people.
Some of them might become homeless because they don't have the
money. And our company contributes a lot in property taxes to the
community. It would impact Collier County as well as us. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Ralph Toledo followed by Jean Elsgesser. I'm
sure I messed that one up.
MR. TOLEDO: I'm going to make one change in my little
speech here, and it's only that instead of good morning I have to say
good afternoon, Commissioners.
I'm speaking on behalf of the senior group of our company, the
older group, which is about a dozen of us. We're not over the hill.
We're getting there, but we're at that age where we start thinking
about retirement maybe a couple of years down the road. And we
look ahead and we say, "Well, where do we go from here?" If I lose
Page 175
December 11,2001
my job, I probably go to the supermarket to do some bagging but
other than that, what can I do? I mean, at my salary and my level
with the company, I'm not going to find anything in Naples at my
age. I'm 59.
Anyway, my personal background, as I mentioned in my letter
to Commissioner Henning, I've been associated with this great
family, Diaz family, for 20 years. Of those 20 years, 13 years as part
of Gulf Coast American Blind. I've seen this company grow from a
group of 12, I believe, when I started in -- 13 years ago to a group of
160 people. The potential is there not only for the people that are
here now, but for the growth in the future. So that group will become
a lot larger than 160.
If the company has to relocate, of course, I'm not going to be
homeless. I know that's not going to be my problem, but it could be
somebody else's problem within the company. We have things to
consider like retirement plan, extra travel time. We have no good
reliable public transportation system to get over to Lee County. Gas
expenses are going to be extra for us. Additional wear and tear on our
automobiles and, of course, the increased possibilities of accidents.
Because you're on the road there's the possibility of accidents. And,
of course, like I said before, the job possibilities for a group of
seniors -- so that once you get a little older it becomes a little more
difficult.
And, like I said, I'm going to be with the company until I retire
no matter where they go, but I don't know if anybody -- everybody
else in the company that's at my age or older is going to be able to
say the same thing. So I would ask you consider us, and thank you
for your time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Jean Elsgesser, and she will be followed by
Page 176
December 11,2001
Carlos Diaz.
MS. ELSGESSER: My name is Jean Elsgesser. I thank you for
this opportunity to speak. I'm a little nervous.
I own a home in District 3. Mr. Tom Henning represents my
district. I'm here as an employee of Gulf Coast American Blind, and
I'm also here to speak for those that couldn't be here, and trust me,
they wanted to be here.
To vote against allowing Gulf Coast American Blinds to
proceed with the previously approved plans to build on Westview
Drive would mean certain hardship that would be felt by many
families in the community. This would also inevitably lead to the
forced relocation of Gulf Coast American Blinds to Lee County and
place my employer out of realistic reach for most of its employees.
By that, I mean we would be too far away from our children and
families.
My husband and I have four children. My older three children
attend public school, and my baby is in home day care, all of which is
right now approximately ten minutes away from where I work. Many
of us would be forced to seek alternative employment. Concerns here
are things like lower wages, starting salaries, starting at the bottom
again, significant loss of benefits, and also losing the comfort that
comes with being with people that I work with and that I love.
! care deeply for my co-workers and customers and would miss
each and every one of them. Like many people, I always felt that if I
had to leave my job and change employment it would be my choice,
not because someone feels the view outside their window would be
diminished.
This would honestly diminish the capacity that my family lives
in. One of the Coconut Creek residents, Linda Himes was quoted by
the Naples Daily News on September 16th, 2001, as saying, "If you
got this sitting in front of your house, your life is over. And if this
Page 177
December 11, 2001
could happen to us everyone in Collier County better be worried."
My company builds and distributes blinds, shades, and shutters.
We're not a nuclear power plant. The people that I work for are good
people.
In closing, I would like to point out that in these trying times of
financial uncertainty, we as a community have a local business that's
willing to expand and forge ahead with new facilities and add more
jobs right here. It's not 30 miles away. It's not 100 miles away. It's
not a thousand miles away. It's here.
I beg of you as a resident, a wife, a mother, and a very happy
employee of this customer to help us build a stronger foundation to
enhance the way of life for our families and this community. Thank
you very much for your time. (Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Philip Perzo (sic) followed by Larry Lindsey
followed by Janice Elliott.
MR. PENZO: Good evening -- afternoon. I'm Philip Penzo,
president of Marco Office Supply. We're a family-owned business
that depends on other Collier businesses to prosper. Gulf Coast
American Blind is one of our customers and as Collier goes is
considered a large business. There are lots of major corporations in
Collier County but few are headquartered here which those higher
paying jobs and profits are spent elsewhere. We can relate to the
problem of growth and expansion which we haven't solved.
The Economic Development Council looks to attract businesses
to Collier County. Gulf Coast American Blind is one of our own and
deserves our support. Their willingness to expand and invest their
future in Collier County is a real positive to other businesses like ours
struggling during this economic downturn. What I don't understand
is if you can't see it, you can't smell it, and you can't hear it, why does
it matter if you're assembling a computer or a shutter? Thank you.
Page 178
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. Folks, please, if you
would hold your applause it -- it just does not help the situation.
MS. FILSON: Larry Lindsey followed by Janice Elliott.
Edward Krzeminski followed by Ray Elliott.
MS. ELLIOTT: If I may, for the record, my name is Janice
Elliott, and I live at 4121 Gail Boulevard which is a part of the
Coconut Creek subdivision.
Commissioners, I thank for your time this afternoon. I'd like to
ask that you support county staff in their decision to uphold the
Westview Plaza PUD by refusing this appeal which would place an
industrial usage in a PUD which was never intended to be industrial.
The vote you take today will be a precedent-setting vote.
Should you decide to go against staff recommendations and grant this
appeal, you will be setting a precedent that any county employee can
grant zoning changes by simply issuing an opinion. You may not
agree that this is the message you are sending, but please do not
doubt that if you grant this appeal it will be thrown back into your
faces during future appeals. No longer will developers be required to
follow the proper procedure for a zoning change to a piece of
property. They would only have to find a sympathetic -- excuse me -
- a sympathetic county employee to write an opinion that the usage
was already within the PUD usages.
This vote could, in effect, end up voiding a number of PUD
documents that your staff has worked diligently to develop in
cooperation with both developers and surrounding communities.
Unfortunately, you've been put in this position today. This should
never have progressed to this point. One employee, Mr. Ron Nino,
who was at the time the county planning manager -- we understand
he has since been demoted -- issued an official opinion that the
Westview Plaza PUD allowed for this usage.
I was hoping I was going to have five minutes today so that I
Page 179
December 11, 2001
could have the opportunity to read into the public record the 47
approved usages so that the public could understand why this official
interpretation was made by county staff. As you've heard, the
community worked very closely with the developers and with staff to
establish usages for this PUD which would be both acceptable to the
residents and to the developers and owners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute, ma'am.
MS. ELLIOTT: I'm afraid that it may be public perception that
our neighborhood is trying to prevent development. That is not our
purpose. We are asking that the county respect the amount of work
which went into the document and continue to honor it.
As an aside, today we have heard Gulf Coast American Blind
threaten this county with the loss of their business should they fail in
their bid to obtain this -- the use of this property. I hope that Gulf
Coast American Blind has more respect for their employees and for
the citizens of this county than to make this kind of an idle threat.
They're obviously operating quite successfully now. There's no
reason to believe they cannot continue to do so until they can find
property in Collier County with suitable zoning. Thank you,
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Edward Krzeminski followed by Ray Elliott, and
he will be followed by Rosalia Dante.
MR. ELLIOTT: For the record, my name is Ray Elliott. I have
lived at 4121 Gail Boulevard for the past 13-plus years.
Commissioners, I thank you for this time this afternoon. I would like
-- I would like to ask you to support your staff in their decision to
uphold the Westview PUD by refusing this appeal. It would place an
industrial usage in a PUD which was not intended to be industrial in
nature.
The residents of Coconut Creek subdivision have spent a great
Page 180
December 11, 2001
deal of time over the years on this PUD. They have -- they worked
very hard when the PUD was developed to establish a number of
allowed usages that would both protect the quality of life for the
residential neighborhoods and still give the owners and developers of
the number of possible purchasers. There -- there have been several
subsequent attempts to obtain rezoning for the property, but every
time the Board of County Commissioners has continued to support
the approved PUD document.
By granting this appeal you will be changing this PUD into an
industrial PUD. There are already plenty of properties zoned for
industrial usage so, please, do not make this change. There is no
need to increase industrial lands by allowing this change. There are a
number of properties that this company could have purchased, but
they wanted this property regardless of zoning because it was priced
to move.
You may say that their -- that the intention is not to do so, but
once a manufacturing use is allowed for this property, it has become
industrial property, and should any of the lots be sold in the future,
any industrial usage can move into that area.
While Gulf Coast Blind may be willing to work to reduce the
noise and odors from their business, there is no reason to believe that
anyone purchasing property in the PUD in the future would do the
same. Gulf Coast American Blind said they scaled down their
original plan due to unexpected expenses. Doing so was less than --
doing so has left them a block of unused acreage that they can sell off
should they need a financial boost. Obviously that property would
then be available to other industrial usages, since its adjoining
property would be manufacturing.
Several of our -- several of our residents have felt strong enough
about this issue to take time away from their jobs to be here today. In
addition, Gulf Coast American Blinds is losing production today
Page 181
December 11, 2001
because they're paying their employees to be here instead of working.
Please do not lose sight of the fact that the issue today before you is
simply an appeal of a county staff decision to uphold a PUD
document. Your decision is not a vote in support of or against this
company. It is a vote against this appeal and only a vote to uphold a
PUD document. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Rosalia Dante. She will be
followed by Tom Walker.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I wanted to speak for Eddie
Krzeminski. You called his name.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may not, ma'am. You have a
written letter from him?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. You may submit that as part of
public record.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And no one reads it?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can speak for yourself, but not for
him.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
MS. FILSON: Rosalia Dante.
Who gets the letter?
Tom Walker.
MS. DANTE: It's Rosalia Dante. I have lived in this
community on Kathy Avenue, 4182 Kathy, for 28 years. I have been
here when this particular Westview plot was still zoned agricultural,
so there's been many, many changes. I also sat in on one of the very
first meetings to set up these different -- 47 different things we
worked out. I really feel that this is about a company who wants to
operate where it's not allowed and, unfortunately, there were people
in the county who were willing to make it possible.
This is a rapidly growing company. They totally disregarded the
surrounding community, the damage it would cause. They say they
Page 182
December 11, 2001
have 160 employees. Our little community has over 160 families;
husbands, wives, children, aged parents living in it. We do not wish
for you to allow this company to do this to us. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker,
please.
MS. FILSON: Tom Walker followed by Cheryl Horbal.
MR. WALKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners and everyone.
I'm a resident of Coconut Creek. Only a two-year resident there,
4212 Burton Road, and Tom Henning is our most able commissioner.
However, I have to say in support of the Diaz family that what I
heard from them personally and from what I gathered from the
meeting that I attended, which was a month or so ago that they
hosted, that, in fact, they're trying to be a good neighbor. And I'm a
person of the stature that we should grow our business and grow our
county and prosper, and we should stand united together.
And I'd like to see this work. I'd like to see it work that
somehow the commissioners and the planners and the approvers all
agree that with certain restrictions on the deed that this business
could operate from now until whenever and be a prosperous part of
the growth of Collier County.
I'm a resident of Burton Road, so I don't adjoin the property next
to Gail or Donna. We're around the corner from them. And most of
the traffic noise that I get off of Radio Road and all of the heavy
industrial stuff that's north of Radio Road is of minimal concern to us
even with our windows open at night. But we still hear it, but, you
know, we tolerate it because we understand that we live in an area
that is -- is what it is. We live next to an airport. We understand
there's noise from the airport. We choose to live there, and we
choose the environment of the community, and we love the people
that are in the community, and we're newcomers. We're two years
there. But we came from Arlington, Virginia, and next to
Page 183
December 11, 2001
Washington, D.C. Whatever noise that comes out of this business is
nothing compared to the sounds of the abyss of the great beyond of
the -- of the 14th Street Bridge, believe me.
So we stand in support of it, and we stand in support of growth
and of prosperity, and we stand in support of our neighbors. And
should there be some future opportunity to put this property on the
market again or up for sale again for resale or redevelopment, hey, I
think it should be revisited. But I don't see that there's that big of a
deal over it, and that's my two cents worth. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Cheryl Horbal. She will be
followed by Doreen Vachon.
MS. HORBAL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Cheryl Horbal for the record. And my husband an I own and operate
a local blind company here in town and Carlos Dilos -- Carlos Diaz
and his company is our fabricator. We have been dealing with the
Diaz family for the last six years, and I have to stand here and say
that they are without a doubt the most upstanding, reliable,
responsible, caring individuals that you will probably find in Collier
County. They want to do what is right. That is their only thought.
And believe me, you folks, I got a chance to sit back with you this
morning, and I know a lot of you are angry and upset. We all are in
Collier County because of the rate of growth, and none of us are
happy with what's happening. But I promise you if you would be kind
to this family you would find that they only have your best interests
at heart. I promise you. And Carlos is a man of his honor, and he
would never say or do anything to jeopardize your -- your homes or
your financial interest in your homes or your property.
And I see some of you back there shaking your head and making
rude comments, but please don't set opinions because there's a group
of you. Talk to him individually, and I think you'll find things to be a
Page 184
December 11,2001
little bit different. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Doreen Vachon, and she will
be followed by Virgil Batcher.
MS. VACHON: Hi. I'm Doreen Vachon. I've lived in Naples
since 1969. I'm a registered voter. I'm a Coconut Creek resident
since 1980 and a taxpayer for 24 years. I am concerned about
property values. There's going to be noise. There's going to be
odors. My brother is in woodworking. He's in the industrial park.
He has a small one-man shop. You run a chop saw and -- you know,
the county interpretation of a laser -- do you know what a laser beam
is? It's a light. You shine a light on a chop saw, we're now high-tech
tool. That's what I'm being told here. It's -- it's pathetic. I'm really --
it's really sad that it's come down to this.
Ron Nino has made a mistake and used poor judgment, and I
think -- you know, I'm -- I've always been proud to live in Naples
compared to Lee County and other counties, that our zoning has
always been -- been good. We've not had -- we've -- we've taken care
of things -- you know, we don't have what Fort Myers has. We don't -
- we don't have the mixed uses that don't belong next to each other.
I don't know how this has -- this has taken place, and I think that
a saw is a saw and ! think you really need to look at that. I also have
another major concern is that the road access on this property is a
private road. I believe that there is -- and I talked to Ed Kant, and
I've also talked to Norm Feder, and they told me this is a legal issue
that they cannot attach or talk about that needs to be hammered out
with the legal team of these parties here. And at the first preliminary
hearing with Mr. Henning and Mr. Diaz, the road that the back parcel
-- the front parcel of Westview is industrial zoning. And the front
industrial park -- the owners of all that -- of all those parcels up front
own to the middle of the road, and it's a private road. It is not county
Page 185
December 11, 2001
maintained. It is loaded with potholes. And Mr. Diaz's property will
access over that.
And I believe that there is some kind of county ordinance that
says a commercial piece of property must access a county road. And
I do not want to hear that Mr. Diaz is going to come back after the
fact and say, "Please open the road to Donna and -- and -- onto
Donna because all of a sudden I have an ingress and egress problem."
Boys and Girls Club pulled away from this property when Mr.
Arnold and Arnold and Mr. Vetter originally were marketing this
property because the buses were going to hydroplane because the
incline of the road needs to be built up, improvements need to be
made.
And I see this as another -- another avenue of problems besides
the idea that educated people here -- you know, that knew what they
were getting -- you know, I'm realtor in the real world everybody
here. And I would love to buy commercial property and make it
industrial and sell it -- buy it at the price tag of commercial. I'm just
hoping that you gentlemen will do the right thing today.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for
this witness, please.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: There will be no comments from the
audience.
MR. ANDERSON: Ms. Vachon, I show you a letter that
commissioners will find in their agenda packet at page No. 23. Is
that your signature that appears at the bottom of that letter? MS. VACHON: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: And how did you find out this -- this letter
is a letter to the Industrial Development Authority. How did you find
out about what the Industrial Development Authority was doing?
MS. VACHON: There was a public notice in the newspaper
Page 186
December 11,2001
about a bond issue, and my husband wrote a letter, and we both
signed it to -- to reiterate that we would like to make sure -- and by
the way, Mr. Nino never responded to this letter.
MR. ANDERSON: It wasn't sent to Mr. Nino, was it?
MS. VACHON: It was sent to the Collier County Industrial
Development Committee and was shared with them. Isn't all this
information shared?
MR. ANDERSON: I don't know.
MS. VACHON: Gee, that's a shame.
MR. ANDERSON: Now, I don't see anything in your letter
making the points that you just made today about objecting to this
use. Why is that?
MS. VACHON: 'Cause I didn't know what the use was. I
figured it was something within the PUD. Is there anything wrong
with thinking that the PUD was being honored?
MR. ANDERSON: How did you know to write this letter?
MS. VACHON: There was public notice.
MR. ANDERSON: Did you read it, the public notice?
MS. VACHON: My husband did.
MR. ANDERSON: Are you aware that the public notice said
that it was Gulf Coast American Blind Corporation and it gave the
legal description exactly of the lots in question?
MS. VACHON: Oh, I knew where the location was, but I was
assuming what they were doing was in -- was within the PUD, not an
industrial use. If it was just assembling -- you're going to be cutting
blinds.
You're going to have vapors from respraying and cutting.
You're going to have saws going. That's millwork, sir. If you look
under your industrial zoning, that's millwork, and millwork is a Phase
5 industrial use.
MR. ANDERSON: Did you notify any of your neighbors about
Page 187
December 11, 2001
this?
MS. VACHON: No, I didn't.
MR. ANDERSON: Why is that?
MS. VACHON: Sometimes I do talk to them and sometimes I
don't. Am I -- am I responsible for every one of my neighbors?
MR. ANDERSON: No. I just wanted to inquire whether you
had told any of your neighbors about what was going on since you-all
were so alert to note the public notice in the paper. But didn't note
that it was a blind manufacturing company.
MS. VACHON: Yeah. And -- and in this letter I also asked that
there would be no access onto Donna.
MR. ANDERSON: And we have agreed to that, have we not?
MS. VACHON: Correct. But I'm also telling you that they're
all -- and since I have legal counsel standing here, what is the
situation on -- on -- isn't there a county ordinance that says a
commercial piece of property must have access onto a county-
maintained road?
MR. ANDERSON: I'm not aware of that, no. But they -- when
this PUD was approved, the county at that time imposed a restriction
on access to Donna Street, and that is being honored by my client and
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chair, ifI may interject. I would
recommend with regard to any cross-exam that's allowed it be limited
to the one-way questions here; otherwise, we could be here a long
time.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm finished. Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Thornton, did you have any questions
for this particular lady?
MR. THORNTON: No.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Virgil Batcher. He will be
followed by Leonard Wassmer.
Page 188
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I won't take from your time, sir. How
many people here are left to speak for or against this project? How
many people are here to speak against? We have left -- that's one,
two, three. How many that's here to speak for? One, two, three, four.
I'm going to make this suggestion. It is up to you. You have a
perfect right to take your three minutes, but if you are speaking for or
against and are not going to introduce any new information that the
board hasn't already heard, we would appreciate that you consider
waiving so we then could continue the discussion on the action
before us. Your prerogatives.
MR. BATCHER: I got about a minute. All I want to say, about
a minute.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. That would be fine. Thank
yOU.
MR. BATCHER: Virgil Batcher, 3950 Gail Boulevard. I
bought this property 28 years ago because it was a nice quiet
property. I've lived in Collier County for 40 years, raised a family
here. And this lot across the street at that time was just woods,
undeveloped, real quiet neighborhood. I've had people come to my
house -- and Bob Becker will testify to this too, they said, "Hey, this
is beautiful back here. You're right in the middle of nowhere, but
you're five minutes from downtown." Because our area is so quiet,
so peaceful they really loved it, and that's the reason I bought here.
And I think this blind company and the machines they're going
to be using, they can't block it all with walls. I know. I've run
millwork machinery myself. I wore earplugs. I know how much
noise it makes. And I think they ought to reconsider. There's other
areas in Collier County that can be used.
This whole thing stems from one employee of the county
overstepped his authority and okayed a PUD that should not have
been okayed. All these people got to do is obey the PUD, and there'll
Page 189
December 11, 2001
be no more problems from us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Leonard Wassmer followed
by Tim Zellers.
MR. WASSMER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Leonard Wassmer, and I do live at 4620 Gail Boulevard. It is very
clear what the commission should vote today in response to this, to
be against the appeal for Gulf Coast American Blind. They have
already been denied the use they request, and it should stay that way.
The code is very clear on the allowable uses of this property,
and this factory does not conform. You were talking about saws,
motors, planers, drills, anything that works with wood, cuts wood it
makes noise. It can't be sheltered. I can tell you firsthand, 'cause I
owned and operated a sawmill with all its complimentary equipment.
They are loud. ! have the hearing loss to prove it.
I also remember another operation in my area that spent $1
million going high tech. They had lasers to show how to dissect logs
and computers to control the saw cuts and machinery to move the
products, but it was still just as loud because you're still cutting wood
even with the high-tech stuff.
The business we are talking about cuts wood, shapes wood,
fastens it together. The product will be packaged, bundled. Will be
required a forklift to move it and put it on trucks. Trucks coming and
going in themselves are going to be noisy. Just the inherent nature.
It was a county staff, Ron Nino, who was in error to allow a permit
back in March of 2000 when he thought laser saws made shutters.
Lasers line up the cut; saws make the cut.
Again, Commissioners, the only vote for the code is to stand
against the building of this factory. It does not conform, and if Mr.
Diaz in his own words wants to be fair as he claims, he should put his
factory in an industrial area where it belongs. Thank you.
Page 190
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tim Zellers, and he will be
followed by Robert Murray.
MR. ZELLERS: Good afternoon. I'm Tim Zellers, and I'll cut
mine down and be brief. I am the Ford dealer here in town. I own
and operate Tamiami Ford and also Tamiami Collision. I can tell you
I'm probably the only one that spoke today that's already a neighbor
of Carlos's in that our collision center is about a half block from
where his main location is, his main offices and part of his assembly
and so forth as well as some of the other -- other places are right in
the vicinity where we own property.
I would -- I would say that he is an exemplary neighbor. If you
go back in our industrial park and look at some of the facilities and so
forth and the way that they are maintained, it's less than what you
would want to have as a neighbor. Carlos's -- I've been in and out of
the place from business -- me doing business with him and he doing
business with us. The places are kept neat and tidy. They're up to
date. I've been in and out and -- all this talk about all this
manufacturing and so forth. When I've been in and out of there, I
haven't heard saws run. I haven't seen dust flying. I haven't smelled
paint. It's basically a retail outlet from what I can see.
As well, they're a good customer of ours over the years. We've
got about 20 units in the fleet. Someone was talking about vehicles
earlier. Everything that we've sold them has been on the light-duty
truck and van side, smaller vehicles. We're not talking about semis
and diesel trucks here. We're talking about, basically, street type of
vehicles. And they're good customers of ours.
You know, it would be easy for him to throw his; hands up and
walk out of here and go somewhere else because, in my case, I have
an agency and I have a franchise. I have to serve Collier County. He
can take Gulf Coast anywhere he wants to. And I think it would be a
Page 191
December 11, 2001
shame if he was forced to take this -- to take his company and take it
somewhere out of the county. I think it's the kind of thing the county
should be looking to bring here, not run out of here. So I would just
throw that out to you. It would -- it generates a lot of income; parts,
service, sales, the whole deal, and it would be one small piece of pie
that's gone if they leave.
I've known the man. I graduated Naples High School with
Carlos. That's how far we go back.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute, sir.
MR. ZELLERS: He's a good guy. He runs a tight ship. I think
that the neighbors -- I don't like growth. I'm born and raised in
Florida, and I'd rather live in a 1970s Florida than I would in a 2000
Florida, but I think the people are underestimating him because of the
type of the work that he does. He is not intrusive, and I think he'd
make them a good neighbor.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Robert Murray, and he will be followed by
Patricia Patten.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may submit them as part of the
evidence, sir. Thank you.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Bob Murray, and I am a representative of the East Naples Civic
Association. We represent well over 400 people, 400 memberships.
And today I'm also representing myself as a neighbor to the folks
surrounding the Westview PUD.
The issues, quiet enjoyment of their property by owners of
residential parcels nearly adjacent to the parcels of land within the
Westview PUD, a contained set of parcels zoned for commercial use
and not for industrial use. Rezoning efforts have been going on since
1984. Records show many attempts to have the PUD parcel zoned
industrial. Allowed uses of the commercially zoned Westview PUD
Page 192
December 11,2001
are very specific, however, and are a result of negotiation with
adjacent residential owners that permits only some 43 or 46
commercial applications with an exception for certain very specific
industrial use that was inserted after it was agreed to in that
negotiation. The intent was made clear at that time no industrial use
save that permitted.
Back-door efforts to rezone to industrial resulted in a county
employee issuing a letter opining acceptable usage for millwork and
fabrication, clearly and by definition a manufacturing use, based on
the owner's statement of intended use of laser technology for cutting
wood.
County commissioners on the advice of county staff's findings
that an improper act by a manager not authorized to issue changed
zoning recently determined to reverse that perceived authority to
proceed under which the owner of the parcels has based his right to
proceed in clear-cutting the area. It became apparent that this owner
failed to follow the only procedure that would evince a properly
evaluated judgment through well-known procedures that could be
binding on the county to support. Windfall benefits derived from the
value of land zoned commercial and thereby valued considerably less
than industrial but put to use as an industrial purpose results in the
most favorable financial reward for the owner.
Additionally, the owner, we understand, has secured at least
start-up funding from the county on its basis of providing jobs in the
low and median income levels. These jobs exist now, so when will
these new jobs operate? On second shift? Third? The owner is an
officer of the company intending to use this property, so he knows
that in the five buildings that house their employees these jobs
already exist unless the business intends to dramatically expand.
And what are the practical consequences of that event?
A contents -- I'm sorry -- a concept of jobs over zoning seems to
Page 193
December 11, 2001
be the kind of call-to-arms catch phrase used openly just recently. It
is intended, I believe, to provoke a concern for a common good that
can come from job opportunities that are being tauted will be gained
or lost should this owner fail to achieve his purpose. What this says
about this corporation's concern for the well-being of its neighbors as
well as its employees should the company abandon them if it fails to
move its operation to Florida speaks volumes.
I won't continue because you have your documents. They're a
good company, no doubt. I hear that. I understand that, but we need
to maintain our zoning requirements in place so that those who own
their property do not lose to others who come later. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Patricia Patten. I believe she
had to leave. Joanne Harvey. John Hooley. Good. Sheila
Pensinger. Russ Wimer. Jose Puertas. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Three minutes, ma'am.
MS. PENSINGER: Sheila Pensinger, 4482 Lorraine Avenue. I
had two pages prepared. We had to break. I went home. I redid it
down to two paragraphs, and I'm not even going to say that.
Commissioner Carter, you said at the very beginning not to let
emotions play into this. That's all I've heard, almost all I've heard
from over here. You ask us not to clap. They continued clapping. I
think -- I hope that you guys are going to take your emotions out of
this decision. The decision should be is it -- have they -- are they
legally in their bounds to be able to have this PUD changed to
industrial when it was zoned for commercial.
The other thing I'd like to point out, the two meetings -- I went
to the first meeting because, Commissioner Henning, I respected that
you took the time and the initiative to have the opportunity to bring
us all together. I heard everything I needed to hear then.
The second meeting I did not attend because I felt it was now up
to the commissioners. Thank you.
Page 194
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jose -- and I'll let him
pronounce his last name -- followed by Frank Cooper.
MR. PUERTAS: Puertas.
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
MR. PUERTAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Jose Puertas. I'm president for Blind Expert, Incorporated, a Hunter-
Douglas Window Fashion Gallery. I am talking today with my heart.
Okay. Many of you that knows me I am for real. Gulf Coast
American Blind Corporation is my main supplier. This is a company
with good foundations based on integrity, good manners, excellent
quality, and values. My business depends 100 percent on Gulf Coast
American Blind Corporation and their ability to perform a fast
delivery -- and delivery and their quick service.
If Gulf Coast American Blind Corporation had to relocate their
facility in Lee County or elsewhere, this decision not only will affect
us as loyal retailers and our employees. Also will take a major affect
on the 160 Naples residents employees, many of them working with
the company for many, many years.
So, please, Commissioners, reconsider and give the Diaz family
and Carlos Diaz the opportunity to make this dream come true.
There is nothing to worry about this fine family -- this Cuban family
-- I'm Cuban too -- and their business. I am proud to know the family
and have them as my best friends and wonderful partners.
My blessings to you, Carlos and your whole family. I love you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Cooper followed by
Frank Loney.
MR. MANALICH: Frank Loney, I believe, had to leave. ! don't
think he's here.
MS. FILSON: David Correa.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Correa is here on behalf of the Hispanic
Page 195
December 11,2001
Board. I already mentioned earlier in these proceedings the
communication that was sent on behalf of the Hispanic Board, so he's
waiving at this point.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And the last speaker is Joan Hanshaw.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That completes the public speakers.
MS. HANSHAW: It's on another item.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's on another item. Thank you,
ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: This completes the public input on this
-- this subject. I guess it is. I'm not getting any nod from my right.
Therefore, I will close the public hearing. And, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we
haven't heard from your staff yet in defense of their opinion, and I did
reserve rebuttal time as might be necessary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
believe, Mr. Olliff. I'm going
after the four o'clock certain.
And I am at a four o'clock certain, I
to have to continue this hearing until
I apologize for that, but when there's
time-certain items we need to honor those on the agenda. So,
therefore, we'll go to the four o'clock certain, and then I will -- and I
continue this hearing until after that item is heard. We'll come back
immediately for a conclusion.
Item # 12A
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
REQUESTING DIALOGUE BETWEEN IMMOKALEE
GROWERS AND FARM WORKERS - MOTION FOR
APPROVAL FAILED
Page 196
December 11, 2001
Four o'clock certain is the Hispanic Advisory Board.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, this is under the county
attorney part of the agenda; however, I would ask Mr. David Correa,
who is the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board Chairman, to address
you on this. It's merely here because I'm the liaison to the Hispanic
Board, but it is a Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board item.
MR. CORREA: Good afternoon. There's still time. For the
record, I'm David Correa, chairman of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board for Collier County.
Mr. Chairman, honored members of the commission, for the
record, we are here today to -- as a continuation of the November
13th commission meeting at which time it was adjourned to
November 27th, and then November 27th because of the lateness of
the hour it was adjourned for today's date.
It's brought us closer and closer to Christmas so I'm hoping I
might get a Christmas present this time. As you may recall, the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board has formerly requested a resolution
from this board asking that the farm growers to have a dialogue with
the laborers. The resolution is very clear in that we are not asking the
board to involve itself in any dialogue or in any conditions of
employment. The resolution will only request the parties to
communicate with each other. This is all we're asking for.
Mr. Chairman, I believe you have previously stated you would
rather wait for Commissioner Coyle's appointment before the
question was called. I notice Commissioner Coyle is not present.
Should I await his appearance?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Check the guy out on some real estate,
but he'll be right back.
MR. CORREA: May I then continue?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. He's back. We have speakers all
Page 197
December 11, 2001
over the place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't missed a word.
MR. CORREA: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not only that, I heard it the last
time.
MR. CORREA: I'm quite sure you have, but -- you know, I just
wanted to follow the proper procedure. Okay. And I did want to say
-- I did not want to say it in your absence, but I have met with
Commissioner Coyle, and he is cognizant of my prior arguments on
behalf of the farm workers. I see Commissioner Henning is gone
now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're taking tums.
MR. CORREA: Okay. Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The place is wired.
MR. CORREA: Therefore, it is not necessary that I repeat them.
A question was asked by a board member if there was a possibility of
setting a precedent -- precedent by involving this board in a labor-
management issue. And mention was made of the nurses and the
Naples Community Hospital dispute. I will now take this opportunity
to address the question.
The nurses are a recognized labor force and are fully protected
by the National Labor Relations Act with all the rights, privileges,
and benefits accorded to them. They are well organized and have
sufficient funds to retain counsel, staff, and have advisors in their
labor negotiations with management; whereas, the farm laborers are
not included in the National Labor Relations Act and, therefore, are
not entitled to the protections it provides to other occupations.
Although, if I may add a postscript to the statement, they must
receive a minimum hourly wage for the hours employed.
The migrant farm workers are a powerless group. Most do not
speak English well enough to do anything else. They depend on
Page 198
December 11,2001
charitable organizations for additional assistance. The medical care
is almost nonexistent except for the emergency room treatment. Their
housing is substandard, and it is only recently that the government
and the nonprofit sector are participating in a joint venture to provide
better housing in Immokalee.
They arrive here to pick our fruit and vegetables, and quite often
they cannot afford to purchase the same items in a local store. The
economies of Immokalee and East Naples are highly dependent on
the farm laborers. The miserable, squalid surroundings of East
Naples and Immokalee can certainly be traced to the extremely low
wages paid by the farm -- paid to the farm workers.
President Bush has spoken of conservative -- compassionate
conservatism and this country to assist those who need it. If the
migrant farm worker in one of the wealthiest counties in this country
does. Not deserve our compassion, then please tell me who does?
We are not asking the Board of County Commissioners to
involve itself in any labor dispute or conditions of employment,
although, as far back as I can recall legislative bodies, the courts, the
governors and even the president have been involved with labor
disputes. In fact, in 1980 President Reagan, one of the first acts he
committed was to dismiss the striking air traffic controllers who went
out on strike. They refused his go-back-to-work order and therefore
were dismissed.
The courts have been involved with labor management issues
since before the industrial revolution, but we are not asking for any
involvement by the Board of County Commissioners, only a
symbolic gesture. We just want to hear your voices. We want your
vote on this. Thousands of others from former presidents to public
citizens all of whom have stated -- have stated, "Let us sit down and
reason together."
The issue affects the entire communities in Collier; therefore, it
Page 199
December 11,2001
is rightfully the province of the county commissioners to involve
themselves, to articulate a humane response. The resolution is only a
request by this board to encourage dialogue between the growers and
the laborers.
I want to leave one -- one point with you before I go, and that's a
laborer must pick one basket of tomatoes for 40 cents. A basket
contains 32 pounds; therefore, with a little math we get 10 pounds --
10 baskets or 320 pounds. For that he earns $4. He has to pick 4,000
pounds of tomatoes in order to make the grand sum of $50. Now, I
want that all to sink in. Four thousand pounds of tomatoes in order to
make $50. And all we're asking is that you encourage the dialogue
between the growers and the laborers.
We need a statement. We have a resolution which we have
presented to this board, and if you would just sign it and send it to the
growers, we would be very happy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Correa, before you leave, a
couple years ago I think this whole issue came up before.
MR. CORREA: This is my fourth year I've been working on
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, maybe it wasn't
two years, but maybe it was in that four years that at one point in time
that you asked Governor Bush to get involved; am I correct? MR. CORREA: Yes. Yes, you are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what was the outcome of
that?
MR. CORREA: He appointed -- he appointed a representative
to sit down with the growers and laborers, and there was some
discussion, but nothing came of it. I'm not aware of any -- of any --
of any concrete decisions made.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did the governor personally get
involved in it?
Page 200
December 11, 2001
MR. CORREA: I don't know if he -- I won't say he personally
got involved. He did appoint -- he did appoint a representative to
come down and talk with them. Perhaps it was in an election year.
Perhaps that was the reason he appointed someone. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, he -- this is his first term,
so it wasn't an election year. But -- so you're saying there was a
representative sent down by the governor and nothing was resolved.
MR. CORREA: Well, I'm not sure if nothing was resolved.
There was some dialogue, but I think what's happened is that nothing
came of it. Dialogue but nothing came of it. For example, the
laborers are still getting 40 cents a basket. They were getting
possibly 40 cents then. They're getting 40 cents now. I'm not the --
excuse me, sir. I'm not the expert on the amount of income that the
laborers are getting other than the general figure, but I do know that
at one point they were receiving 35. They're now getting 40 cents a
basket.
It still comes back to 4,000 pounds of tomatoes for -- for $50.
What we're asking is that possibly the board encourage the growers to
sit down and discuss. Perhaps there's other ways of doing this. For
example, we can possibly as the large consumers, the distributors, the
Taco Bells, the Pepsi-Colas who purchase large quantities of
tomatoes to possibly pay an additional penny and pass it -- and have
the growers pass it on to the laborers. A penny per pound would give
them 70 cents per basket which would be -- well, they could live with
that. I'm not saying it would change their lifestyle, but they could
live with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could we keep the issue
confined to the resolution that we have in front of us? MR. CORREA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd rather you didn't branch out
to cover the whole world.
Page 201
December 11, 2001
MR. CORREA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Stay within and if I may help a
little bit. I -- this is something I've been personally involved with for
something like 16 years. Immokalee is like a second home to me.
I've been involved with Catholic Charities down there through
Guadalupe Social Services under our belt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
resolution?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
Does this have to do with the
It sure does, Mr. Henning.
Okay.
And I'm sure if you spent a
little time in Immokalee, too, you'll understand where I'm coming
from. I didn't mean that --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Gentlemen, let's stick to the issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You're right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The thing is that we have a
tremendous impact upon our -- not only our social climate but our
economic climate and our welfare climate. The county here has to
spend X number of dollars that has to support this particular industry
when they're here. Not only that, but we have social service agencies
that put a tremendous amount of time and effort that could be used in
other places trying to cover the loose end on this whole deal, and if
there was just a little more money, that could be made there, and I'm
not even saying something will ever come of the talks. I want you
people to be aware of the severity of the situation. How you vote on
this is one thing, but the main thing is to get this up in front of you,
and I appreciate the fact that we're doing it and we'll probably have to
do it again next year and the year after too.
MR. CORREA: The board keeps changing. The board keeps
changing.
Page 202
December 11,2001
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, maybe, maybe not, but
just for the sake of discussion, I'm going to make a motion that we
approve this as is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion to accept the
resolution. I have a second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You probably have speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: However, we have -- we may have
additional speakers. I need to go to those first before we can act on a
resolution. Do we have speakers, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We do. We're up to 12. Lucas Benitez
followed by Henry Fay followed by Theodore Walwik.
MR. BENITEZ (THROUGH INTERPRETER): Good
afternoon again. I'm just -- we're just asking Commissioners
Henning, Coyle, Carter, Fiala, and Coletta -- I don't know if I'm
saying your last names correctly -- we're just asking for you to play a
role to put your name as Jim -- Jimmy Carter, Jeb Bush, and other
representatives across the country have done. We're not asking you to
encourage the growers to come to the table or that you be the
mediators in this situation. We're just asking that you put your names
-- your -- your voices out as leaders of our county -- as leaders of the
county in which we, too, live to ask the growers to come to the table,
because if we are Americans and we call ourselves Americans in this
country, exploitation should not exist. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Henry Fay followed by Theodore Walwik
followed by Dr. Rhea Gray.
MR. FAY: Hi. I'm Hank Fay, and I'm a resident of Naples
Park, and I represent the Religious Society of Friends meeting in
Southwest Florida -- that's Quakers -- on the board of interfaith action
who have been supporting the farm workers in Immokalee for several
years. Our prior name was Religious Leaders Concerned.
Page 203
December 11, 2001
We are quite aware that you can't change the fact that as the U.S.
Department of Labor has stated the -- a full-time farm worker makes
$7,800 a year working full time. Now, a little math will show you
that there's a problem with that. How could they be getting minimum
wage and get $7,800, and the answer is that when you get to the field
at six and tomatoes are wet, you wait. And you don't get paid while
you wait. None of the usual rules apply and -- and this is the problem
for Quakers, and that's the perspective I wanted to give to you today.
The central belief that Quakers hold is that God's spirit lives in
every one of us or as we put it, "There is that of God in every
person." This to us is the overwhelming fact about every human
being and overwhelms other issues of education, money,
achievement, intelligence, position, class, and it leads us to see each
person as having -- as it says in the Declaration of the Independence -
- certain inalienable rights granted by our Creator which cannot be
diminished or removed or even granted by worldly authority. It also
leads us to listen, because if there is that of God in any other person,
then I'd better listen to see if God is speaking to me through that
person and, hence, our emphasis on dialogue. We believe in talking
things out, and that's what you're being asked to do here today, to
lend your support to the idea that the farm workers can express their
concerns about the dignity and justice with which they are treated in
dialogue to their employers.
And so our Quaker prayer for you today is that you be held in
the light of God's truth and love as you make the decision whether
you're going to lend your moral support to a dialogue in the cause of
people attempting to gain justice and dignity in their lives. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Theodore Walwik followed
by Dr. Rhea Gray.
Page 204
December 11,2001
MR. WALWIK: Good afternoon. I'm Ted Walwik. I've owned
property here since 1987. I'm a retired university professor and now
serve as the pastoral assistant at the Lely Presbyterian Church. You
might wonder why I'm interested in this issue. Well, I have been
concerned with it for some years, because I think I recognize two
core beliefs of mine to come under challenge here. The first is my
belief in our interdependence. I think the sign in front of your dais
that says, "United We Stand," has a curious irony when we realize
that united we are not in this county that those of us that live in
affluent coastal Collier County like to turn our eye away and pretend
that those inland who are picking our fruit and food are not there.
Like the others in the story of the good Samaritan, we pass by on
the other side. That interdependence I think is a very, very important
fact to me that we are community. And whether we like it or not,
whether we would define it that way or not, that these folk are part of
our community, and we are a part of their community.
The second core belief that is challenged here is my conviction
that each person has dignity and worth and deserves attention,
deserves respect, deserves a hearing. And that's what's not happening
here, and I encourage you to take your part in making that happen.
This is not in my mind fundamentally a labor management issue. I
think sometimes that's a smoke screen in its consideration because it's
-- it's kind of easy to jump to that, and I think the -- some interests
have wished that we could say that it's a labor management dispute,
but first and foremost it's a human relation's issue. People need to be
treated with respect and with dignity, and people in Immokalee and in
those fields are not being treated with respect and with dignity. There
are causes underway even that would charge in some circumstances
slavery conditions, and that's simply intolerable. And as concerned
human beings we can't stand by and let that happen.
Now, why should you as a board be concerned about that?
Page 205
December 11, 2001
Because you do represent our community, and these folks are part of
our community, and it's our responsibility, I think, to respond to their
needs. Their labor-management issues some day will be addressed.
Other issues will some day be addressed, but first we must talk with
them.
I spent 35 years as a university professor of communication, and
one of the landmark kind of statements about communication made
by an early scholar named Harold Lasswell was that communication
requires a minimum level of attention. It doesn't take place until
people start paying attention to one another. And what we're here to
do today is to ask you to lend your moral force to the request that all
parties here give each other respect, dignity, and listen to each other,
and let the matter then go from there. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Rhea Gray. He will be followed by Harold
Brown.
DR. GRAY: Good afternoon. I'm a retired protestant
clergyman, pastoral counselor, psychotherapist, organization
development consultant.
I became involved and concerned about the plight of the migrant
farm workers in Immokalee in 19 -- late 1997, early 1998 during their
hunger strike. I began to raise questions in some of the ministerial
associations in Southwest Florida about where the church and where
the religious community was on these matters, and their response was
a very understandable response. We don't know what the truth is.
The growers are saying, "We pay this much." The workers are
saying, "We pay this much." The growers are saying, "We can't
afford to pay any more." The workers are saying, "But you're making
profits of this much and this much." And they said, "We can't take a
stand because we don't know what the truth is." And I said, "Why
don't you go out there and start asking around? Why don't you do
Page 206
December 11,2001
some research?" And their response was a little embarrassing, and it
was, "Well, you're retired. Why don't you go find out?"
So I used my own research background and went out and did
research. I interviewed a large number of people in the community,
the workers. I interviewed people by telephone from the Department
of Labor, from the Department of Agriculture. I reviewed all of the
documents from the tomato committee of the Florida Fruit and
Vegetable Association for a seven-year period and with their reports
were able to put together what the return on investment, the actual
profits that the agri-businesses who grow tomatoes in Southwest
Florida were making. And I did precise kinds of research on what the
workers were actually making. Actually, the labor department's
estimate of what tomato workers make is really quite high. I couldn't
find anybody that I interviewed in Immokalee who was a worker who
reached what the labor department said was that average figure.
Now, my major point in trying to support what I think is a
marvelous recommendation from a group of people that I assume
exist precisely to serve you in precisely this way. To give you advice
and to advise you about matters pertaining the Hispanic community
in Collier County. And they have studied this and followed this and
finally have said, it's time for the governments, the people's
representatives to step forward.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll have to ask you to wrap up, please.
DR. GRAY: Yes. And we're simply asking you to do this. It is
not that you are going to interfere in a labor-management situation.
It's not the labor-management situation. It's a matter of socio-
economic stranglehold because the growers have banned together in a
cartel-like stonewall not to raise the wages and not to dialogue with
the workers. We believe that the function of government is to help
maintain that healthy balance between individual freedom and the
common good, and we believe you can do that. Thank you.
Page 207
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Harold Brown. He will be
followed by Francisca Cortes.
MR. BROWN: My name is Harold Brown, and I am a resident
of Naples and Collier County for about 25 years. My hope is that
you will see that I represent also clergymen who are in both
ministerial associations in our area. Our hope is that you'll respond
positively to this effort to encourage dialogue. I don't think I need to
go into the other details that others have mentioned so much as to say
it's a human-rights issue that I hope you'll respond positively to.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Francisca Cortez followed by Francisco
Martinez.
MS. CORTES (THROUGH INTERPRETER): Good afternoon.
My name is Francisa Cortes, and I am a worker in Immokalee. The
reason why I am here is because I want for you to support us in this
resolution because as you may know our work is very difficult and,
therefore, we deserve your support. Because if we didn't work hard
in the work that we do then the growers wouldn't be making the
earnings that they make by our sweat. And we also are asking you
this because the majority of Immokalee are farm workers. I thank
you very much for listening to us today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Francisco Martinez followed by Julia Perkins.
MR. MARTINEZ (THROUGH INTERPRETER): My name is
Francisco Martinez. I'm also a farm worker and a member of the
Coalition of Immokalee Workers. I'm speaking on behalf of the
Coalition of Immokalee Workers, and I think what we're asking for is
fair, and I'm not -- we're not asking you to go beyond your legal
reach. And one of the things I'd like to clarify is it's a shame the
Page 208
December 11, 2001
amount of poverty in Immokalee. And even up to this day and age
there exists cases of slavery. I don't know if the topic has been
mentioned by anybody else, but I personally was enslaved by people
working in Immokalee, and as a result of that we have to come all the
way from Mexico, and we are treated as bad merchandise. And we
come from Mexico looking for an opportunity, a dream, and yet
when we get to Immokalee it's worse than we ever thought.
And that's why we're coming here today to ask for your support
so that there's real change and so those of us who are farm workers
deserve that change, and we know that you have the strength of voice
to help change that. And that's all we're asking from you is your
voice and support. That's all. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Julia Perkins.
MS. PERKINS: Good afternoon. I'm going to change my hat
for a minute from interpreter to a resident of Collier County and
Immokalee and as a young person who is concerned about what I see
in my community. Also, I know we've spoken so far about the
conditions of life, housing, work, health, et cetera, et cetera, that
farmers face today in Collier County, but I also want to touch briefly
on the image that this spreads out to the rest of the nation about
Collier County.
There are students that will be coming this season to see our
county, but not to come to the beach. They're coming to Immokalee
because they've heard about the situation that exists there. And they
are wanting to see it firsthand. They're coming to work in the fields
alongside farm workers. They're coming to work in organizations --
social service organizations alongside those people who provide
those services in the community. And what kind of image are they
going to take back to their communities and talk to with their friends
and their families and their commissioners of their counties and
Page 209
December 11, 2001
governors of their states, about what they've seen in Immokalee?
Well, chances are it's not going to be great because they're going
to see bad housing situations. They're going to see what it is to make
25, $50 a day after sweating all day in the hot sun. And I think that's
something that we need to be concerned about as a community. We
need to -- and we also need to take -- this is an opportunity that hasn't
been faced by any other farm worker community really. It's a unique
opportunity to take a stand and say, "Okay, we're good people. We're
moral people, and we don't like what we see in our backyard, and we
can do something about it by simply asking people to be seen as
human beings and not as machines that harvest our crops." Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. MANALICH: The next speaker, Gerardo Reyes Chavez.
MR. CHAVEZ (THROUGH INTERPRETER): Good afternoon
to everyone. My name is Gerardo Reyes Chavez, and I am a member
of the coalition as well. We're here today because we believe that
your support of this resolution is fair, possible, and necessary. We
believe that it is fair because we as workers are doing one of the
hardest jobs in this country for one of the largest industries of this
county, and just because of the work that we do we believe that we
deserve your support.
We believe that it is necessary because we, as workers, have
been living with 20 years of a stagnant wage. We are living in
inhumane conditions, no overtime pay, no benefits of any kind, and a
horrible salary, and in extreme situations we're talking about slavery
cases. There have been three slavery cases in the past three years in
this county alone, and it is not only a scandal but also a shame that
these cases have come to light and have been ignored.
We believe that it is possible because we have achieved bringing
one of the large companies Garguilo to the table and even though --
Page 210
December 11,2001
usually the argument against an increase in wage is because it's been
a bad season or they haven't had any earnings, Garguilo continues to
be one of the largest or the best earning companies.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm sorry. Your time is up, ma'am.
One more statement.
MR. CHAVEZ (THROUGH INTERPRETER): I just want to
invite you. There's a saying in Spanish that, "If you want to
understand the life of someone, walk a mile in their shoes." So you
are invited to come pick tomatoes with us so you can understand
what the life of a farm worker in Immokalee is like.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: That's the last speaker, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much. I appreciate
your participation. We have a motion. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. I guess I need to
state the reason why I was so much opposed to this last time it came
up. The reason is who's next that's going to come before us asking
for a proclamation for a dialogue between an employer and
employee? Is it going to be the person that cleans the rooms of the
hotels? Is it going to be a person that throws the newspaper at your
door? Or is it going to be the reporter for the paper asking for
increases? Or is it going to be somebody that works in a blind
company? I just don't want to set precedence and open up the door
for the future of these proclamations to come forward.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make sure that no
one interprets the decision that's made here, whatever it is today, to
mean there is a lack of respect or there's an intent to speak to treat
people without dignity. You've come here today to ask us to
encourage a dialogue, but what you've really done is asked us to
assure that you're treated with respect and dignity. You've asked us
Page 211
December 11, 2001
to ensure that you have good housing. You've asked us to protect
you from slavery and other bad treatment. I don't know that we can
do all those things, but I'll tell you this, my personal feeling is after
getting to know and out of sheerness to Mr. Correa, getting to know a
number of Hispanic immigrant and seasonal workers, I have a very
high regard for them. I find them to be some of the hardest workers
and most honest people I have had the opportunity to meet. I wish
they could make more money, but ours is an economy based upon
supply and demand. If-- if there was an opportunity to make more
money somewhere else, I presume those workers would go there. If
there is a shortage of labor and there were not enough workers to
work at the wages they're currently being offered, then the growers
wouldn't have enough workers.
Every time the government gets involved in trying to manipulate
the basic laws of our economy they do bad things, and it doesn't work
out. I prefer to approach this from a standpoint of creating conditions
where our Hispanic visitors and immigrants can find better
employment, can move onto other jobs. I've seen them go from the
farm fields, to landscaping, to carpentry, to plumbing, to contracting.
That's exactly what I want to see and -- and I would be very happy to
see us proceed with that sort of thing. But you're asking us to -- to
pass a resolution which you believe will accomplish a lot of things
for you, and it won't accomplish anything.
Commissioner Coletta has, I think, already tried to get the
growers to the table. The last time you met it was agreed that Mr.
Coletta was going to try to get the growers to come here and talk.
The growers aren't here. Now, if we passed a resolution, are the
growers likely to show up? No, I don't think so.
It's a symbolic issue, and I'm concerned that underlying all this
is a union-organizing effort, and I don't think we need to get involved
in it. If you want me to get involved in improving living conditions
Page 212
December 11,2001
and making sure people are treated properly, then I'll do that for you.
I'll work for those things, but I'm not going to get involved in a labor-
organizing dispute. So for that reason I -- I can't support that
resolution.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any comments from Commissioners
Fiala or Coletta?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I hadn't heard it all. I
wouldn't know why it would be a labor organizing. I haven't seen
anybody here that is involved in that, and I would believe that
hearing from the clergy would make me feel that it isn't a labor-
organizing effort either.
I guess I've always been under the -- I've always conducted my
life with trying to ever -- come to the table and work things out at an
open table, not that you always come out with the right answer. You
don't even come out sometimes with a good answer, but at least
you're sitting down together and talking.
And I think that's what these people are asking for is please just
--just send a letter on our behalf saying, "Sit down and talk with us."
I see no harm in that. I have to support that. I don't see any
underlying motivation, especially if we've got the clergy here
promoting that. That could be somebody trying to shake us up or
make us nervous. I don't believe that that's here. So -- and I don't see
any harm in encouraging people to get together at a table of
negotiation and then backing away and letting them do their own
thing. So I stand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'm sorry if I got a
little emotional outburst in the beginning. I was trying to establish
my credentials and connection with Immokalee, and I didn't mean
anything against the commission here. I'm sure that you're acting in
Page 213
December 11,2001
good faith on your own, but let's look at the resolution itself. It's very
simple. It's only for the board that we request dialogue. It doesn't
mean that they have to do dialogue. To request dialogue and not for
the board to involve itself in the dialogue or terms or conditions of
employment.
I, for one, am not going to support a union. I'm not -- for one,
am not going to be standing at Taco Bell refusing to buy from them
because of the possible actions that the union's going to take, but I
would like to see some effort, just good faith, where we just ask the
growers, if you could, please, consider what's happening. Just take a
moment. Garguilo did. He's done a wonderful job, and we
appreciate his efforts, and he has been doing wonderfully expanding
his operation. He is making it work. There's no reason that other
ones can't do the same thing.
Meanwhile, I do agree with Commissioner Coyle. Opportunities
have to be made available, and we've been doing that. That's why I'm
one of the supporters of the public bus system for many years. A
number of people are getting out of Immokalee and entering the
service industry throughout the area. We also have been very
involved in the housing initiative down there, and I thank your
support for removing that substandard housing and making sure that
there's housing in the SHIP program. We can have standards of
housing that are above. So we are very much involved in Immokalee
in one way or another.
How ever your vote goes on this, it won't change my opinion. I
think that much more needs to be done and anything I can do -- I've
been involved with the raising of food, clothing, shelter for many
years in Immokalee. I know the amount of energy that goes into it,
energy that could be spent in other directions if these people had an
income that was somewhat more self-sufficient than it is today. But I
do appreciate you bearing with me and allowing me to bring this
Page 214
December 11, 2001
before the commission. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
Let my track record as a commissioner suffice that I have supported
particular situations involving people in this community, affordable
housing, cleaning up, encouraging the application of sound code
enforcement in Immokalee and other areas of the county. I believe in
the free enterprise system. I will stay with that. It's a core belief for
me, and I will work on specific issues, but I cannot support this
resolution.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Call a motion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Call a motion. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed.
COMMISSINER HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do that over again?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Change of heart.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor of the resolution which
supports the motion signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed. Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion fails 3-2.
MR. CORREA: Excuse me.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're all over with. It's done, sir.
You can come back at another time with something else, sir. I
Page 215
December 11,2001
respect your organization, but thank you very much.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I need to take a brief break so that
we can change our recorders.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes.
(Short recess taken.)
Item #7A - Continued from earlier in the meeting
PETITION ADA-2001-AR- 1660, APPEAL FROM
INTERPRETATION INTP-2001-AR- 1466, BY R. BRUCE
ANDERSON, RE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CONCERNING
AN INTERPRETATION BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR OF THE WESTVIEW
PLAZA PUD - PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR
INTERPRETATION OVERTURNED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are we live? I guess we are. It
sounds like the mics are. This is a continuation of the Westview
PUD. We're at the point now, where if the Board of County
Commissioners has any questions of staff, we will proceed with that.
Any questions by the commissioners or staff?.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I first want to hear Susan's
presentation.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Susan's presentation.
MS. MURRAY: For the record, I'm Susan Murray, current
planning manager. And, given the hour, Commissioners, I don't
think it's really necessary for me to make a full-blown presentation.
You have the written interpretation in your packet; that's part of the
record. There's no change from stafPs recommendation that I'm
aware of. The record speaks for itself. I'd just like to answer any
questions for you if I may.
Page 216
December 11,2001
MR. BROOKER: For the record, Clay Brooker. I'm a partner
with Bruce Anderson. We would, again, reiterate our objection to
Susan Murray offering any testimony because she is not the planning
services director.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, on that point, I do believe
that under 6.1.5 of the Land Development Code, we believe that does
provide for delegation of authority, whereby Mr. Kuck was
empowered to render the interpretation by Ms. Murray could speak
also.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Your objection's been noted, sir. It's
on public record. We will continue.
MR. BROOKER: Mr. Chairman, can I just reserve the right to
question Mr. Kuck?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, sir. You can question anybody
that comes up from staff, I believe. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I don't know who to ask this
question of, but if they didn't feel that we should hear from Susan
Murray as a planner, how come they placed so much place in Ron
Nino as a planner? Why does one outweigh the other?
MR. BROOKER: The official interpretation requested by the
neighbors was pursuant to a provision in the Land Development Code
which gives express authority to the planning services director, which
is Mr. Kuck and not Ms. Murray. So we reserve the right to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I know that.
MR. BROOKER: -- question Mr. Kuck with regard to his
opinions because he is the ultimate --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But you're basing most of your case
on Ron Nino's submission. But isn't he the same -- doesn't he have
the same title?
MS. MURRAY: At the time Ron Nino was the current planning
Page 217
December 11, 2001
manager, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, what they're
saying is, Ron Nino's opinion is correct as the planning manager, but
you don't have the authority as the planning manager.
MS. MURRAY: Based on the information that Ramiro
Manalich provided to you, I will say for the record that I was directed
by Tom Kuck to analyze the interpretation request and write the
information that you have for his signature. It was confusing to me
as well. The information presented by the applicants that they seem
to think that Ron Nino's testimony was accurate, but mine would not
be. So I can't comment on that at this point.
MR. BROOKER: We'll just reserve to right to question both of
them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Counselor.
Any questions by the Commissioners and Ms. Murray?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we go to closing
arguments?
MR. BROOKER: Well, I guess we would reserve -- exercise
the right now to question both Ms. Murray and Mr. Kuck, unless the
staff wants to denote which one we would like to -- which one the
county would like to present for our questions. But in the end, if it is
Ms. Murray, we do have just two or three questions for Mr. Kuck
after Ms. Murray's answers to cross-examination questions.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of due process, I
do believe that given the central role of the interpretation in today's
proceedings, it is necessary to afford an opportunity for the
questioning by counsel, as well as by Mr. Thornton. Obviously, they
should be encouraged to keep it as relevant and summary as possible,
given the latest ness of the hour but --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. I would encourage you,
Counselors to ask your questions of the people so you can get what
Page 218
December 11, 2001
you want on the record so we can move forward.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Manalich, is it important for me to be
sworn in as an expert witness?
MR. MANALICH: Yes. At this point you will be answering
questions, providing testimony, so that should occur.
MS. MURRAY: Okay. Do I need to state my credentials and
educational background, or is it just assumed that -- MR. BROOKER: We'll stipulate.
MR. ANDERSON: I'd stipulate too. Could the clerk please
administer the oath.
(The oath was administered.)
MS. MURRAY: I do.
MR. BROOKER: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BROOKER:
Q. Ms. Murray, you do agree that the Westview Plaza PUD
permits certain light industrial land uses, correct? A. That's correct.
Q. Therefore, the statement that only professional and
commercial uses are permitted in the PUD is incorrect, right?
A. The interpretation rendered stated that the commercial
uses were inclusive of light industrial uses and that should not be
deemed to exclude industrial uses as well.
Q. In your opinion, does it make any sense to have a
permitted manufacturing use without the ability to actually distribute
the manufactured products off-site?
A. That's typically part of a manufacturing use.
MR. BROOKER: I'm going to refer now to the PUD document,
Section 2.2.A.25, Commissioners. That's the provision that deals
with the high technology, precision manufacturing use language
Q. Ms. Murray, the second half of that section, do you have
it in front of you?
Page 219
December 11,2001
A. Yes.
Q. The second half of that section starts off, does it not, with
"e.g., which means, for example, optical, dental, hearing aids,
medical instruments, computer components, et cetera", you would
agree with me that that's not an exhaustive list, and those are just
examples of the uses permitted, wouldn't you?
A. I would agree that those are examples of the permitted
uses, and that list is not exhaustive, and that list was written there to
provide examples of the type of manufacturing that would be allowed
in the PUD.
Q. So other uses that fit the criteria in the first half of that
section would be permitted in this PUD, correct?
A. I think that they would have to fit all the criteria inclusive
of that list which provides a sample.
Q. If you could flip to Paragraph 47 of that same section,
subsection section, Paragraph 47, in addition to the permitted uses we
just talked about in Paragraph 25, uses which are comparable and
compatible as determined by the "zoning director", are permitted as
well in the PUD, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You do agree that the PUD document gives the "zoning
director", authority to determine what uses are comparable and
compatible, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You have no evidence that the proposed use will create
noise, odor, or fumes detectable from off site, do you?
A. The only evidence I had was the one site visit I took at
that time. I did not personally witness any type of noise, other than
your typical noise associated with a business, or even residential use,
for that matter, that being noise associated with air-conditioning units
and traffic entering and exiting the site.
Page 220
December 11,2001
letters?
Q. Your opinion that apparently you authored at the
direction of Mr. Kuck states, and I quote, At the time of the site visit,
there was no off-site odor or unusual noise associated with the
operation of business, correct? A. That's correct.
Q. Ms. Murray, if the proposed use operates in a fully
enclosed building with no noise or odor or fumes detectable from
offsite, how does that proposed use impact the surrounding area in
any way different than that say, of the manufacturer of hearing aids?
A. It may or may not. It really depends. But I think the
point of the noise issue and the comparability issue has to do more
with the use and the intention of the PUD to only permit those very
specific types of manufacturing uses.
Q. Would you agree with me that if you can't see it, smell it,
feel it, whatever the case may be, you really have no idea what's
going on inside that building, do you? A. That's a possibility.
Q. Prior to rendering your opinion, did you read Mr. Nino's
A. Yes.
Q. Did you talk to Mr. Nino as to why and how he arrived at
his interpretation?
A. Briefly, yes.
Q. Do you agree with Mr. Nino's interpretation?
A. No, I don't.
Q. You're aware, aren't you, that the Assistant County
Attorney Pat White reviewed Mr. Nino's interpretation at your
request, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BROOKER: Commissioners, beginning on Page 60 of
your agenda packet is the memorandum I'm going to be referring to.
Page 221
December 11,2001
This is a memorandum from Patrick G. White, Assistant County
Attorney, dated July 27, 2001.
Q. Based on that memorandum, Ms. Murray, what opinion
did Mr. White ultimately reach?
A. I think I would prefer Mr. White answer that question. I
don't feel like I'm qualified to interpret Mr. White's memo.
Q. Then I'll ask you some specific questions about the
memo.
Isn't it true that based upon Mr. White's words, he made a
thorough review of all relevant PUD ordinance provisions, the
pertinent communications between the staff and the applicant, as well
as an on-site inspection of the existing production facilities; isn't that
true
A. That's what I believe it says, yes.
Q. Did you accompany Mr. White on that on-site
inspection?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Isn't it true that Mr. White concluded that more than
ample factual support for staffs' prior conclusion -- referring to Mr.
Nino's interpretation -- that the proposed uses, as evidenced by the
existing operations, are sufficiently comparable in nature to the high-
technology precision manufacturing and uses allowed by right in a
PUD district?
A. I'm going to let Mr. White answer that; it's his memo.
Q. Do you agree with Mr. White's opinion?
A. I don't believe Mr. White rendered an opinion about the
uses and whether or not they were comparable or compatible. That is
the role of the planning services department, specifically the planning
services director.
Q. You are aware that he said the proposed uses were not
wrongfully considered to be compatible by staff, aren't you?
Page 222
December 11,2001
A. Urn-hum.
Q. You are aware that he opined that was not unreasonable
for staff to have concluded that the proposed use, in terms of any
potential impacts on adjacent properties, would "not generate odor,
noise, et cetera., which would be detectable from off the premises,"
aren't you?
A.
Q.
A.
I believe you're reading verbatim from the memo, so yes.
Do you agree with those opinions stated by Mr. White?
I do agree with his opinions, yes, but I don't believe that
his opinions were relative to the comparability and compatibility of
the use onsite, and that's a planning_level analysis that was done
through the interpretation.
Were you here to hear Mr. Mulhere's testimony earlier
today?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Earlier this morning, I guess?
Yes.
Do you agree with Mr. Mulhere's expert opinion?
No.
Q. In summary, then, do you disagree with Mr. Nino's
opinion, who held your former position; you disagree with the
Assistant County Attorney Patrick White's memo that we've been
discussing; and you also disagree with the opinion of Mr. Mulhere,
who was the former planning services director; isn't that true?
A. That's correct.
MR. BROOKER: I have nothing further for Ms. Murray, but I
would like to ask Mr. Kuck just two or three quick questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may proceed. And then Counsel,
you may cross-examine when he finishes with Mr. Kuck.
MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, Interim Planning
Director and Engineering Director.
Page 223
December 11, 2001
(The oath was administered.)
MR. KUCK: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BROOKER:
Q. Mr. Kuck, you signed the letter or opinion that's at issues
here today, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Do you have any training as a land planner?
A. I am not a land planner. As I stated for the record, I am
the Interim Planning Director. I'm a professional engineer and have
been for 40 years and that's my expertise.
Q. Mr. Kuck, you have doubts as to the accuracy of this
opinion, don't you?
A. I'm not sure what you're alluding to.
Q. Do you stand wholeheartly behind the interpretation or
the opinion that you've rendered?
A. I do as of today. I had some doubts maybe, even at the
time I signed it. As I say, I gave it to Susan Murray as my designee,
and she did the reference and the -- or all the interpretations. And I
did -- as I stated, I had a few reservations, but going through -- and
I'm going to call it like a trial today, that I think and I believe what
she rendered, I'm supportive of it.
MR. BROOKER: Nothing further. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Cross-examination by Mr.
Thornton.
MR. THORNTON: I only have one question for Ms. Murray.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. THORNTON:
Q. I just want to know if it's your professional opinion that
the proposed use is not allowed in the PUD?
Q. It's my professional opinion that the proposed use is not
allowed in the PUD.
MR. THORNTON: Thank you.
Page 224
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
Any other questions of staff by either counsel? Any questions
of the staff by the Board of County Commissioners.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have one --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- to the county attorney. I
was wondering why we had two different opinions, one earlier and
one later.
MR. MANALICH: I think the way my office views that
situation is that you've heard testimony that there was correspondence
from Mr. Nino. Obviously, there's a dispute between the parties as to
how that should be characterized, whether that is an interpretation or
not. I think that's something you'll have to determine. Basically,
under 1.6 of the Land Development Code, the way this matter is
postured before you today, your mission is to review the formal
interpretation that Susan Murray has issued from Mr. Kuck and to
determine -- I think Mr. White may have passed this out earlier to
you -- but basically to determine if it is supported by competent,
substantial evidence or that the interpretation is contrary to the Land
Development Code of the PUD.
Now, that second part of that is what I believe allows you the
latitude here as the ultimate authority to interpret the PUD and its
meaning. And, obviously, among the evidence that you've heard is
there have been different opinions provided as to whether this
proposed use fits within the PUD or not.
Mr. Nino, I believe there's been reference to a couple of letters
that he issued, taking a view that it was within the ordinance and
obviously, the formal interpretation of Ms. Murray/Mr. Kuck is that it
is not. Does that help clarify your question, or do you need a little
more?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be honest with you, I really
Page 225
December 11, 2001
didn't hear the answer to
the rest of the dialogue.
MR. MANALICH:
some illustrative benefit,
the question, but I found it very interesting,
Let me try to answer it. I hope that serves
but let me try to answer your specific
question, which -- if you could restate that, please.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. My question was, there
was a difference of legal opinion from the County Attorney's Office
from the first opinion to now; is that correct?
MR. MANALICH: Not from the County Attorney's Office. I
think the way our office views Mr. Nino's correspondence is that was
an administrative response or opinion that was issued informally.
Ms. Murray's opinion was a true formal interpretation under 1.6.
However, I stress under 1.6, not only are you looking at whether her
formal interpretation is supported by competent, substantial evidence,
but as the ultimate interpreters of your code, what is the proper
interpretation of the PUD with regard to the facts about this proposed
use.
Mr. White, is there anything you would add to that?
MR. WHITE: Yes. Commissioner Coletta, I think that perhaps
more precise, to go to your question, I think you were looking to
understand how it could be that our office could opine that with
respect to opinions that seem to be reaching different conclusions by
the planning staff that our office concluded that each of them were
somehow okay. And I think that's a good question because the tactic
that our office has taken is one that's consistent with the direction that
the code provides in terms of what our function is. And that is to
make as the first opinion from July in response to the RLS, the
opinion that basically said nothing more than -- it was not unlawful
exercise of discretion on the part of the then current planning
manager to have reached the conclusion that was reached.
We did not opine with respect as to whether or not that was an
Page 226
December 11,2001
official interpretation or not but rather whether there were facts in the
record to be able to support the conclusion that was reached. And as
Susan had indicated to you a few minutes ago, it was not opining at
all with respect to the planning aspect of the opinion that Mr. Nino
had rendered.
Similarly, with respect to the official interpretation, our office is
required under the code in 1.6 to make a determination of form and
sufficiency of that interpretation. And when I looked through that
interpretation, I found that there were facts in the record that a
reasonable mind could infer from those facts that it was an
appropriate conclusion. It was supported, if you will, by competent,
substantial evidence.
That doesn't mean that different conclusions couldn't have been
reached under the same set of facts. And the point is, whether under
either of them, were there sufficient facts. And in each of them, it
was my opinion that there were sufficient facts, and only with respect
to the official interpretation were we required to also opine as to
whether the procedural due process set forth in 1.6 had also been met.
And my opinion, our office's opinion is and was that it had been met.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I wish I could speak as
eloquently as an attorney, huh?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, just ask your question, and we'll
go from there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So from what I understand,
stripping away everything that has just been said, what we have to
find out is, officially does this PUD fit into ~- does this company fit
into the PUD as officially determined. That's what we're getting
done. You have to strip away whatever we think about a good
company, good people, good neighbors. But does this company fit
into this PUD, that's the issue, right?
Page 227
December 11, 2001
MR. WHITE: Yes. You are required to, if you will, ultimately
interpret whether the PUD ordinance that's applicable allows the
proposed use.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: If I could just move this along,
I think it's the appropriate time. I'm not really sure if this use fits the
PUD at this time, but I believe that the PUD can be amended. We've
heard a lot of good things that will protect the neighborhood, and
what we have right now is any uses, these 46 uses that can go in there
without protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. So the question
to the board members is, are the board members willing to hear a
PUD amendment in order for this use to fit the PUD?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that isn't the issue here, right?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it may be.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's an interesting question raised by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've been called worse.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That you raise, Commissioner
Henning. Along with that, I would be willing to entertain that
thought as long as we didn't have to repeat the entire process again,
that everything that's here is public record, but not come back and be
regurgitated again, but it stands as public record for the amendment
process. Is that possible, Counselor?
MR. MANALICH: I'm going to ask Mr. White's help on this.
But as I understand it, the question is, can you treat this as -- or
somehow render a decision or opinion as to whether this should be
going through an amendment process? I mean, I don't believe that's
formally the legal issue before you today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Exactly. But I was just talking
Page 228
December 11,2001
to my colleagues here whether they think that would be a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I in response? You know, I
was worried if, for instance, this did not pass and the blind company
didn't get in there, what could get in there and could it be a lot worse.
That was one of the things -- of course, I know that isn't the issue.
But I agree. If there's some kind of amendment, we have to be
careful to protect the neighborhood with what that amendment would
be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And we can do that with an
amendment to the PUD, and the uses within the PUD is we can't.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that would have to go back to the
process, Commissioner, to the planning council and back to us to get
a final decision.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But still Commissioner
Henning makes a very good point. I think we're feeling very
uncomfortable that the present situation of American Blind does not
fit this PUD. But we also realize the value of this company, and
we're trying to in some way find a way to salvage it. Mr. Henning
has made a very good point. Maybe if this doesn't make it, an effort
could be made to move things forward so we can explore the PUD
angle.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make an observation?
First of all, this problem isn't nearly as simple as it seems. We should
never have been placed in this situation. The residents, the blind
company, the board should never have been placed in this situation. I
do commend Ms. Murray, though, for bringing the issue to us. I'm
not intending any criticism of her. But my understanding is that this
company is going to provide a corporate headquarters which consists
of offices. Offices are permitted in this zoning category and under
the PUD.
Page 229
December 11, 2001
The blind company is going to be providing an indoor
showroom for their products. Interior decorating showrooms are
permitted under this particular PUD. But the problem, it seems to
me, is that there is activity going on in this facility. And the debate is
whether or not you can hear it or smell it.
Now, the issue of traffic, as I see it, is no more severe than the
issue of traffic if you built a shopping center here, which is a
permitted use under this PUD. So -- and the traffic is not going to be
on the residential streets at all. But the central question, the one that I
am most concerned about, is activity which might be disturbing to the
residents when they have been assured that there will be no odor,
noise, chemical discharge detectable from off the premises.
I'm also a little concerned about the extended working hours
until 11:00 at night. I don't think that would be generally anticipated
for most of the uses in this PUD as I see it. I would like to find a way
to resolve these problems for the residents because I understand what
you're faced with. And if there is a way to solve that problem, then I
think it's worth getting together and talking about it.
But I see no reason to -- not to agree with Commissioner
Henning. I think his suggestion is a good one, but I think we should
focus on the bottom line, which is, is there noise, odor, other
chemical discharge detectable from off the premises. So I think that
somehow we have to resolve that issue because that seems to be the
primary potential for violating the conditions of the PUD.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're right. But that is the
PUD that you're talking about. That's amending the PUD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's exactly what I'm
saying.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing we can address
today is this one legal issue: Does this fit in? All the other issues
really, they have nothing to do with it, just that one thing. Is this
Page 230
December 11, 2001
permitted under the present allowment? It doesn't mean that, you
know, the company is going to be able to contain everything in the
building, that their parking places are X-number, that they're going to
have such and such. Is this permitted under the present listing that
this PUD allows?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if it made no noise and
produced no odor or chemical discharge which was detectable from
off the premises, I think you'd have to reach the conclusion it is
permitted under this PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me help you out here. The
PUD noise and odor is enforceable by a code-enforced person.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever use is there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that's really not -- should be
an issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have one other concern. I don't
know if this is my only concern -- and I hear both sides of this,
believe me -- but since March 8th, if we accept the White paper
report of March 8, 2000, through October -- or up to August 28,
2001, there were 17 actions by government that encouraged petitioner
to move forward to get this use on this property. And that is a great
concern to me, because the things about noise, odor, et cetera, as
Commissioner Henning just said, if you violate it, it's code
enforcement. But at this point I really don't know if any of those
conditions will ever exist. But when I see 17 actions by government
that encourages, I think I can read between the lines. I don't ~- I
really have great concern about that if I deny this going forward.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right about that, in that, we
have been encouraging them. I went over there. They don't make
any noise, they don't have any odor. I mean, they're a clean
Page 231
December 11, 2001
operation. The place is immaculate inside where they're building.
The point is, does it fit in this PUD? And we're going right back to
the initial, does it fit into the PUD. And our official interpretation
says, no, it does not. And even though 17 times -- as you've
mentioned, 17 times we've gone along with that, how many times do
we get something presented to us up here and here later on we find
out some facts that were never presented to us? Bet you dollars to
donuts that when these things were presented to the commissioners
for the loan that they were -- the bonding, they had no idea that it
didn't fit in the PUD. And maybe when Ron Nino opined, maybe he
didn't go back to check how many times this PUD had -- they had
tried to amend it and it was never able to be amended because people
stuck to the original PUD. So maybe all of those things weren't
brought to light as each one of these things was again brought
forward.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But there is one item in a PUD that
allows a planning staff to opine a use and that's what took place. It is
a broad category, but it is there. And I have great concerns that -- I
even heard Counselor White tell me just a few minutes ago, they
looked at information, we may say piecemeal, opined one way, and a
letter came back and opined another. That disturbs me a great deal
because as a person who ultimately has to sit in a judicial role, I feel
like now I am caught in a legal lawyer debate -- VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- that could go from court to court to
court and could change along the way, depending on the judiciary
presence so...
Commissioner Coletta.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what was brought up
just a little while ago by Donna, Commissioner Fiala, here that -- or it
possibly was on the floor that if we are to dismiss this, even after the
Page 232
December 11, 2001
staff's finding, that we may open up the door to have to do this
numerous times in the future. And I have a little bit of concern, you
know, about one thing here, too, that enters in the picture a little
differently, is that we finally have members of staff that are willing to
stand up. They're not going to take the political expedient way out,
and it takes a lot of guts for somebody to take on an issue of this
magnitude.
I can tell you right now, the Diaz family is personal friends of
myself. And I'm sure they are of many of you. I know them socially.
I have for many years, and it's very hard for me to have to deal with
this and maybe tell them they're wrong on it on this part of the issue.
And undoubtedly this kind of pressure -- you've seen what kind of
pressure came down on you on this particular issue. And it wasn't
just on the finding of a legal opinion, but it was tremendous numbers
of letters, phone calls. And that had to weigh very heavily. And I
want to make your sure the staff knows that we're supportive of what
they're doing. And if someone takes an opinion that's different than
the norm, we're going to be there to support them.
That's another angle on the whole picture when we try to
balance this out. That's why I'm supportive of seeing if we can find a
way, if we do reject this -- or not reject it. If we do accept the staff
finding as is, that we also come up with a mechanism to be able to get
this up in front of the public as soon as possible to see what kind of
action we can take to make this work for everyone or -- you'll never
satisfy everybody, but to reasonably work for everyone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, how would that be any
different than what we're trying to do now?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, what you're trying to do
is, we're asked to find on a legal opinion, not on the merits of the
American Blind Company which are beyond reproach, absolutely
beyond reproach. You have got -- and this is very difficult. I
Page 233
December 11,2001
remember the first time I went through this, I couldn't sleep the next
night. You have to make a legal opinion. You have to base that legal
opinion just on what's in front of you. And you can't be swayed by
the emotions of the day from either the pro side or the con side.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But our obligation is to either
approve it or, where applicable, make modifications or conditions to
this decision. So this is not a yes or no answer, as I understand it,
right, Mr. Manalich?
MR. MANALICH: Mr. White, why don't you describe again
what you view as the controlling requirements of 1.6.
MR. WHITE: Commissioners, I think that 1.6.6 kind of sets out
the contours of what you're struggling with. And what it tells our
office, and me in particular, is that you have essentially two choices
in how you reach your ultimate interpretation. One of them is that
you can modify or reject the official interpretation if you find that it's
not supported by competent and substantial evidence or completely
forget that thought or you can find that the interpretation is contrary
to the code. And in this instance the code that you're talking about is
the PUD ordinance itself which is adopted by reference as part of the
Land Development Code.
What that means in simpler terms is that if it's your opinion
today that staff missed the mark in the official interpretation and that
the actual use, from what you've heard today, the evidence put on the
record, is something that is comparable to one of the listed uses and is
otherwise compatible with the surrounding uses, then you're free to
reject the official interpretation and find as your own interpretation
that the use is allowed by the PUD ordinance.
The effect of that is essentially, I believe, the same as what
Commissioner Henning has offered to you as what he believes might
be a more appropriate ultimate outcome, that being to allow the use.
I guess what I'm suggesting to you is that one of the two choices you
Page 234
December 11,2001
have here is to actually do what it is that he's suggested. And it's up
to you to merely --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So at this point in time we could
designate the use?
MR. WHITE: Well, I think by finding that the use is allowed by
the ordinance, you've essentially achieved that objective. All you
need to do in order to achieve that end is reject the official
interpretation.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we can't amend the
ordinance from here.
MR. WHITE: No, I'm not suggesting that the ordinance needs
to be amended. What I'm suggesting to you is that you find that the
use is comparable, compatible, and allowed by the ordinance, that
that's the end of the issue.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: You do not need to do a PUD amendment
today in order to achieve the end --
MR. MANALICH: I think they want to know if--
MR. OLLIFF: Can they?
MR. MANALICH: -- can the other conditions be attached to the
use.
Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: What the commissioner is asking is, can they
today, on the floor, do a PUD amendment in order to expand the list
of uses to incorporate this use?
MR. WHITE: That isn't the issue. The issue is one that's very
similar to that.
MR. MANALICH: No. I don't think you can amend today on --
you cannot advertise an amendment.
MR. WHITE: You cannot do what you want to do by that
process, but I think you achieve the same end. You're not doing a
Page 235
December 11, 2001
PUD amendment in terms of your discussion today. You're finding
that the proposed use is already, if you will, allowed by the
ordinance, which is essentially the same thing.
Now, if there's a further question about whether you're entitled
to put any additional conditions on that, I think that 1.6.6
contemplates being able to modify the official interpretation. Now,
how you can modify it if you reject most of it and believe that a
portion of it is appropriate, perhaps that's one means by which you
can achieve that end.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we need -- Mr. Anderson wants
to make a comment. But ask your question first, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One of the concerns of the
residents of the area is that if this were to be approved, it might set a
precedent. And if sometime in the future Gulf Coast Blind Company
were to move from this facility, could it then be converted to a more
intense industrial use since we will have already permitted an activity
which is technically called industrial use. And so my concern is, if
we make any decision which in any way permits this today, can we
address that particular problem?
MR. WHITE: I think at any time in the future that a different
use that is not within the list of permitted uses is requested to be
approved, that that has to go the same route that this one did. And I
would strongly encourage any applicant who wanted to do that to
obtain an official interpretation which would allow for just this
process to occur. So as to precedent of value, I don't believe it has
any.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully
offer a solution that I think addresses all the very real concerns that
you have raised. And it is as follows: This case doesn't need to set
any precedent that will apply to anybody else because of the unusual
facts that are present in this case.
Page 236
December 11,2001
What distinguishes this case from any other, the original current
planning manager's interpretation, the county commission's approval
of the bonds, and the finding in the executive summary for those
bonds that the PUD allowed this use, the 17 acts of encouragement
that the county gave, my clients purchase of the property, and
incurrence of other debt in reliance on those approvals. You can
recognize that because of these unique facts that my client has vested
rights and that the interpretation is not binding on my client but
would be on anybody else.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That sounds like closing
statements, so can I ask you a question? MR. ANDERSON: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you think it is possible to
come back to the board of Commissioners for a PUD amendment --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Whoever has a cell phone, please get
it out of the room. Thank you
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- for this use? Is your client
willing to do that?
MR. ANDERSON: He cannot get a commitment from the bank
as to whether they will extend the deadlines that they have imposed
upon him to go through the PUD amendment process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, if you take the court
route, you don't have a final solution either.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good point, Commissioner
Henning.
MR. ANDERSON: We do when the judge rules. The
conditions that you might want to impose, you can do it today. We
don't need to be glutins for punishment and go through this all again.
You can get exactly what you want today on this property that you
could get as if you went through another lengthy PUD amendment
process and a God-awful hearing like this again. You can do that
Page 237
December 11,2001
tonight with the suggestion that I offered.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, if I understand
you correctly, we could go ahead now if we wanted to and play a
what-if game? In other words, your client would close his business
by 9:00 in the evening, that there wouldn't be any activity on
Saturdays and Sundays, that he'd Kuck a turkey for everybody on
Thanksgiving, whatever. It's getting late, isn't it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to hear from the other
side on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I finish up with Mr.
Anderson.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me. I didn't mean to
jump in front of you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I'm not convinced
that the planning director, you know, looking at the planning
director's decision, I think he might have made the proper decision.
The interpretation, it is an official interpretation. But, again, I think
that the PUD can be amended for the use, and that's what I was trying
to get at is, those conditions can be put on at that time, and we can
also ask our staffto fast-track this through the system to get it back to
the board of Commissioners for a PUD amendment. That's, you
know, what I was getting at.
MR. COYLE: What would we amend on the PUD?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you would amend it for
the use.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: For what use? A manufacturing
use?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the blind company, in
particular, with the standard industrial code, SIC code for that
particular use. And then you could put stipulations on it.
Page 238
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, no. Personally, I think we already
have that, and we can read it tonight. What it gets down to is the
thing that anything that's violated by that goes to code enforcement.
And believe me, if there's some way to strengthen that so it doesn't
become one of these --
MR. ANDERSON: You've got a belt -- I've offered you a belt
and suspenders. The belt is the PUD that's already in place and the
prohibition on odors, noise, et cetera, detectable off the premises.
The suspenders we've offered you in the form of deed restrictions,
which are even more specific and more drastic than the PUD
provides and which the county is given the right to enforce against
tlS.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bruce, I just want to say on the
record, really, I think they would build a beautiful place. They'd have
enough landscaping and lush things. It's not going to be in anybody's
face. It's not going to be -- I don't think it's going to be injurious to
the neighborhood because they're going to build it in such a fashion
that they really -- they've bowed to every request of the
neighborhood. On the other hand, I still don't see that the PUD
includes it.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think that the attorney's office -- and
I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong -- has told you, in effect, that
either interpretation is supportable and defensible and that you have a
choice between the two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bruce, they've always told us this,
anything to make the client happy, I believe. But I'm very
uncomfortable with this situation, the way it's coming down.
Obviously, there's not an easy out. Possibly we should make a
motion and then continue the discussion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, don't we have Mr.
Burton's opportunity to have closing remarks?
Page 239
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would believe so.
MR. ANDERSON: And my offer of a solution was not in lieu
of closing remarks.
MR. BURTON: The public hearing is still open, I guess. Thank
you for your time. I think you've all picked up on the issues.
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side you're on, we
can't just sit here tonight and amend the PUD. The residents of
Coconut Creek went through the negotiating process in 1983. They
agreed -- and the developer sat down with them, and they all decided
what would be allowed and what wouldn't. And they intentionally
left out all of the industrial uses that were in the code back then. But
to accommodate the dental guy, this paragraph got put in. It's turned
into a trogan horse, and it should never have been included.
The question -- the only question you have before you tonight is,
are you going to defend Ron Nino's decision, ron Nino's one-
paragraph letter that was sent privately that was never sent to my
clients, or are you going to defend your current planning manager and
your current planning services director's official interpretations?
Your staff is telling you that it's not allowed. And I know that the
county went and spent a lot of time and money to go through all this
bond -- the bond deal, but all those resolutions in the bond say you've
got to come in and get your zoning, but this doesn't constitute a
rezoning or an approval of the use.
So I think you are -- clearly, I believe, that the use is not
allowed. It's not a high-tech use. The product is not a product of a
smelling nature. A hearing aid, glasses, computer components tell
you what kind of things that were expected to be in this PUD: High-
tech, precision manufacturing of products of a small nature. These
are wooden -- these are the same as cabinets, wooden flooring,
roofing tiles. It's an industrial manufacturing activity that's only
allowed in your industrial districts. This project belongs in the
Page 240
December 11,2001
industrial park. That's where they are now.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have an interesting question. So
the things that are allowed -- somebody brought out at this table, I
believe, offices are allowed and the advertising area is allowed. All
those things are, just not the manufacturing in. So, in other words,
parking of the vehicles would be allowed. So with the property that
they own as is, as it is under this particular PUD, they can still build
that portion of their business while they left the manufacturing plant
in the industrial to see if they could change the PUD; is that correct?
I mean, they could do this without our approval or anything?
MR. BURTON: Yes, ma'am. Use number six in the PUD is
business and professional offices, including retail. That would be
allowed in this PUD.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Um-hum.
MR. BURTON: And I much remind you that previous owners
have applied on at least two occasions that I've documented, first in
'86 and then in '92 to add only warehousing and industrial
manufacturing to this PUD. And former board's have rejected those
applications. They've determined that that is not a good use for
property that's right across the street from Coconut Creek, a rural
neighborhood. So I just ask that you support your current staff and
uphold their decision and reject the opinion. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, I have a few points here. If
you'll turn to Page 55 of the agenda packet, the staff report to the
board on the original rezone of this property under the paragraph
labeled "Considerations" states that this petition is "to allow
commercial uses as outlined in the PUD." That stands for the fact
that at the time this was approved, all the uses that were listed in
there were deemed to be commercial uses, including manufacturing.
Secondly, the courts in Florida do not require a building permit
Page 241
December 11,2001
or an SDP for a vested rights' claim, a successful one. And you can
consider and must consider the vested rights' claim as part of this
process. Because, folks, remember, we wouldn't be here if your staff
and your predecessors in office hadn't led us along the merry path.
If you'll turn to Page 60 of your agenda packet, Assistant County
Attorney White has already opined that Mr. Nino's opinion was not a
mistake of fact or law. Thusly, our vested rights' claim cannot be
rejected on the basis that there was a mistake of fact or law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where do you see that?
MR. ANDERSON: On Page 60 in Mr. White's opinion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereabouts in there?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's the second paragraph.
MR. ANDERSON: The end of the second paragraph,
"Furthermore, this office can find nothing that leads to the conclusion
that the staff interpretation rendered an opinion expressed were
legally incorrect."
Drop down to the middle of the next paragraph -- well, no, let's
focus on the beginning of the next one. "Specifically, this office is of
the opinion that there was no legal error in staff having concluded as
they did in Mr. Nino's original interpretation."
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No legal error. Not planning error,
right?
MR. ANDERSON: Drop down to the middle of that paragraph.
"There is more than ample, factual support for staffs prior conclusion
that the proposed uses, as evidenced by the existing operations, are
sufficiently comparable in nature. As such, the proposed uses were
not wrongfully considered to be compatible by staff."
Now, when Ms. Murray was up here, she insisted to you that
she was not asking Mr. White to render a planning opinion, yet if
you'll turn to Page 58 of your agenda packet and look at her
handwritten memo to Mr. White requesting legal services, and you
Page 242
December 11, 2001
drop to the bottom and you see it says, "Action requested: Please
review and opine as to whether or not the use described in the
attached letter was correctly interpreted to be comparable to "any
other professional or commercial use" comparable to other uses
permitted by right in the district." He responded to her legal request
and said, "Yes."
Mr. Thornton has made some references to boiler-plate language
about the Industrial Development Authority and the board of County
Commissioners not rezoning property when they approved the bond
issuance are fully consistent with what my client was told and fully
consistent with our legal position that no rezoning was needed
because the use was already allowed.
Mr. Thornton and Ms. Murray and Mr. Kuck, to the extent that
he had an authorship of that opinion, point to the fact that the PUD
doesn't have specific allowances for uses such as warehousing and
distribution. And they have an insistance on a specific reference to
such use, but such a specific insistance on a reference in this PUD has
never been required by Collier County. And to demonstrate that, I
ask you to admit into evidence the brochures from a warehousing
operation known as Warehouse Services Incorporated located at 3504
Westview Drive and a brochure for the distribution business known
as Airborne Express located at 3503 Westview Drive. Both of these
businesses are up and operating in the Westview Plaza PUD, yet
neither is specifically listed in the PUD, and both uses were the
subject of a PUD amendment request for this PUD that were denied.
The bottom line is, a successful local businessman came in good
faith and relied upon the approvals that the county gave him, and it's
just -- it's wrong. It's not fair. If the laws change, depending on who
you ask in the planning department, then let's just throw the Land
Development Code out the window. We don't need it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Colletta.
Page 243
December 11, 2001
MR. ANDERSON:
evidence, please.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
that?
MR. THORNTON:
MR. MANALICH:
We would ask this be admitted into
Mr. Thornton, any objection to
No objection noted.
Wait a minute. Does the
Board want to vote to admit that into evidence?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want to make a motion that we
accept the evidence as presented.
Do we have a second on this or not?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a second.
Discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The Westview PUD, is this
within the Westview PUD?
MR. ANDERSON: (Nodding head.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that was my statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How far does that extend?
MR. THORNTON: If you look at the -- I'll give you the page
number in your agenda packet. It's at the back of the PUD ordinance.
There should be a map.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to call the question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: On a public hearing?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. I'm going to call a question on
whether we can accept that piece of material.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
BOARD MEMBERS: (Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
Page 244
December 11,2001
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thank you.
Now, we have heard closing arguments. Commissioner Coletta.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll make a motion if you want
to close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to close the public hearing.
MR. MANALICH: Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, because
there was a new piece of evidence introduced, I don't know if Mr.
Thornton has any response to that -- and I realize we had closing
argument, but there was also some additional evidence introduced.
Mr. Thornton, do you wish to respond to that in any way?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Of course he will.
MR. THORNTON: I would just say, I haven't seen it. But I
guess if a use was allowed in that shouldn't have been in, that's not a
reason to allow a use in now that shouldn't be. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification before you begin your
deliberation, I just want to clarify. What I note, for purposes of the
clerk, to assist the clerk here -- it's been a long day -- what I
understand is, exhibits from Mr. Anderson has been the agenda
materials in your book, the December 3rd and December 10th
materials, the blind samples that were submitted, the declarations,
restrictions, and now the brochures, is that correct, Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Thornton, I believe you submitted the
December 7th packet of bound materials with your evidence and
exhibits?
MR. THORNTON:
MR. MANALICH:
MR. THORNTON:
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Yes, sir.
Anything else?
No, sir.
Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta.
Page 245
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll tell you, this has
been one chore. What I'm recommending is that we reject the official
interpretation and that we proceed with the modified requirements
that are listed in the package and possibly some other modifications
too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second the motion for discussion.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You're saying the
official interpretation rendered by the planning director you're
rejecting?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The way I see it, there's no
other way to be able to go with this. There's been enough challenges
to it that my faith in the interpretation has been waivered quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that mean yes?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That means yes. I'm starting
to talk like an attorney, aren't I?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, when
Mr. Thornton got up and spoke, looking at his material that he
submitted on December 7th, looking at the PUD, I agree with you, if
we base that under the current Land Development Code. Because of
the uses of computer components, these high-tech uses are uses that
are permitted only in light industrial areas. And you see them
throughout the park. And if you go to the Land Development Code
today, that's where they're listed as, the SIC codes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you have any questions? The
motion, as I understand it, Commissioner Coletta, is not to accept the
staff's recommendation, and therefore, you are concurring with
Westview PUD use as presented by the petitioner.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With all the restrictions --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All the restrictions.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- placed upon them.
Page 246
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Deed restrictions, everything else.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if I could, I'd like to see if
we can amend that, or is that not possible at this time.
MR. WHITE: Commissioner, ifI may, Patrick White, Assistant
County Attorney. I believe it would be appropriate to modify those
or any other conditions you think that might be appropriate so long as
it's ultimately your opinion that that is what it takes to be comparable
in terms of a proposed use and to be compatible with the surrounding
uses.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, the hours of operation
are a big concern of my own. I'm sure everyone else has some other
concerns. Eleven o'clock at night does not seem prudent. And I'm
sure that as the time goes by and they prove to be a good neighbor
and brought it back again, it could be brought up for reconsideration.
But eleven o'clock at night, it doesn't sound like realistic hours. It
really doesn't for a full-blown operation to be underway.
I would suggest that we come with that -- modify something,
possibly 9:00 at night and weekends being nothing more than just
stocking the shelves and getting ready for the following week. That
would be a suggestion at this point in time.
MR. ANDERSON: Would we be able to come back to the
commission at a later time if we saw that the success of our business
warranted to seek permission to extend those hours?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Along with the whole
neighborhood.
MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Sure. We'd have to send them notice.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And also to add to that, closed
on holidays, major holidays, Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving.
A VOICE: We are already closed.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. What I understand the motion
is, for me to second your -- you're kind of amending your motion, I
Page 247
December 11, 2001
believe. You want to limit working hours from 7:00 to 9:00 and
Saturday -- or let me say weekend activity be restricted to stocking, et
cetera, but no, what we call production operation. Acceptable?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Any further discussion?
MR. ANDERSON: But that we can come back?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: And with the provision that the
petitioner can come back and repetition the board if circumstances
merit you doing so.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may make one suggestion
with respect to that, that one additional caveat be placed on the
proposed motion, and that would be that that would be subject -- the
deed restrictions would be subject to review by our office for
approval as to form and sufficiency. There's been a claim made by
Mr. Anderson that will have a right of enforcement. I think we need
to take a look at that to ensure that we're going to have an effective
legal mechanism that we can use that we can do so without difficulty.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll add that to my motion.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. White, do you recommend any other
findings as to competent substantial evidence be made at this point?
MR. WHITE: I believe a summary finding with respect to the
proposed motion being one that renders or considers the proposed
use, as amended, to be comparable to those allowed by the existing
PUD and to be compatible with the surrounding uses be made by the
board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody seems to be all right with
that. Second's okay with it. Any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Seeing, hearing none, call the
question.
Page 248
December 11,2001
All in favor signify by saying aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm opposed by it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. The motion carries 4-1.
All right. If you would quietly leave the room, the commission
needs to continue.
Please, ladies and gentlemen, would you exit quietly. Exit
quietly, please.
Item #7D
PETITION VA-2001-AR-1166, AVl BARON, PLS,
REPRESENTING MONTCLAIR FAIRWAY ESTATE BUILDING
CORPORATION, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE OF 2.3 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 5 FEET TO 2.7
FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 797 PROVINCETOWN
DRIVE - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 8,2001
We are now going to agenda item --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- 7~D.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're ready, Fred, I'm ready. Let's
do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's continued, isn't it?
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. We've
received a request from the petitioner, and the neighbor in opposition
has agreed, and staff has no objection to continuing this, but it's at the
pleasure of the board.
MR. OLLIFF: The board needs to make an additional motion at
Page 249
December 11, 2001
this point because it wasn't continued.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I entertain a motion we continue this
item.
MR. REISCHL: To the first meeting in January.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: To the first meeting in January.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The motion by Commissioner Fiala.
Second by commissioner Coyle.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2001-74, RE PETITION RZ-2001-AR- 1165,
MICHAEL AND TAMMY MC ENDREE REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO THE "RSF-
3" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT WITH
A DENSITY CAP OF ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 2.27 ACRE
OR A MAXIMUM OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
POLLY AVENUE AND EVERETT STREET, CONSISTING OF
4.55 ACRES MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED
Now we are at 8-F as in Frank. Good evening. Anyone
participating in this needs to stand and be sworn. (The oath was administered.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, Ray Bellows of
planning services staff. I'm presenting Petition RZ-2001-AR-1165.
The petitioner is requesting to rezone approximately 4.55 acres from
Page 250
December 11, 2001
agriculture to the RSF tree zoning district to allow for two lots.
The planning commission heard this on December 6th, and they
recommended approval subject to the petitioner's request that one of
the lots be a minimum of one and a quarter acres in size. Staff has no
problem with that. There's no traffic impact statement -- significant
impact to the traffic, so the staff is recommending approval. I'll be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions by the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're aware of the error in the
executive summary?
MR. BELLOWS: About the density?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: About the density.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're talking about one unit per
2.27 acres and not 2.27 units per acre?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. And the planning commission
modified that again, so we're ready to go with the minimum of one
and a quarter acres for one of the lots.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it's still going to be one unit
per 2.27 acres, so there will only be two units, right? That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do we have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 251
December 11, 2001
Item #8G
ORDINANCE 2001-75, AMENDING MANY SUBSTANTIVE
PROVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 95-66, AS AMENDED, "COLLIER COUNTY
PUBLIC VEHICLE FOR HIRE ORDINANCE" - ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That moves us to Item G, Collier
County Public Vehicle for Hire Ordinance.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, commissioners -- or good
evening, Commissioners. I think right here before you you have a
request -- for the record, John Dunnuck, Community Development
Environmental Services Administrator.
You have an issue here to make some amendments to the Public
Vehicle for Hire Ordinance. I think it's pretty explicitive than what's
listed in this ordinance. I think one of the changes is the raising from
35 cents to 45 cents per mile. If you have any questions, I'll be happy
to answer them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question by commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One question. With respect to the
inspection requirement, why would we have an inspection
requirement for brand new vehicles?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's a good question. I think -- and
frankly, I think they wanted to make sure that they had the assurances
that it was going to meet all of the requirements that are required as
far as the code.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: However, what if they brought
forward, if their new vehicle was under warranty, to go through the
regular maintenance schedules on them and submitted their
paperwork? Wouldn't that suffice, Commissioner?
Page 252
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My problem is just forcing people
to come in for an inspection if they've got a brand new vehicle.
Generally, what we are doing is looking at these things from a safety
standpoint, making sure the brakes are in good condition, et cetera, et
cetera. But requiring them to come in for inspection for a new
vehicle seems to me to be the extreme, and I was wondering if it was
good logic and good reason for doing that. And if not, is it possible
to set some standard?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, I think they want to make sure that the
meters work correctly and are -- you know, they're -- you know, they
have done the testing for the mile, you know, to make sure that it's
recording at the one mile to make sure it's accurate and to also ensure
that it's properly marked as a taxicab vehicle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Some of the limousine services are
not going to be marked at all and won't have meters, yet some of
them could be brand new vehicles. What would we inspect if we
brought them to inspect them?
MR. DUNNUCK: We wouldn't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But they're included under
this ordinance, right? You would have to bring those in to be
inspected, even though you just got it right out of the showroom?
MR. DUNNUCK: I would have to defer. I'm going to defer to
Bleu Wallace. He knows a little bit more about the technicalities of
this program. So I'm going to ask Bleu.
MR. WALLACE: For the record, Director of Community
Development Operations. As far as the limos go, I do know that they
cannot bear any kind of advertisement on the side, and that's one of
the things that it is inspected for. And, also, there's a certain
medallion that has to go on them. Other than that, sir, I couldn't
respond.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Bleu, before you wander too
Page 253
December 11,200 !
far off, question on the rates. Can we get out of setting rates and
leave this up to the cabs themselves? I feel now that we have a
public transportation system in place that the economically
disadvantaged wouldn't be suffering quite as much.
MR. WALLACE: Sir, I'd have to defer to the county attorney.
That would be a legal matter.
MR. MANALICH: I was distracted for a moment.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The question was, can
we get out of the rate-setting business and leave that up to the vendor
itself to set his own rates and post them duly and be able to change
them as the year goes by? If it's an off season, he might want to
lower his rates. If he's in the peak of the season, he might want to
raise them. As long as they're posted, would that be an acceptable
way of doing business or no?
MR. PALMER: Commissioner Coletta, Tom Palmer, Assistant
County Attorney. The rates established in the ordinance at the
present time are maximum rates. They can always lower them. What
the ordinance presently prohibits is going above the maximum rates.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And why do we have that?
MR. PALMER: I think that is to protect the public from the
possibility of somebody having a high rate and not making it clear to
the prospective passenger of what the rate is. Like, in effect, it's a
protection against absorbent rates.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. In other words, you
can only scalp them so much. MR. PALMER: Right.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I still lose the point on it. I
question, you know, free enterprise in this particular -- you've got a
small-type business, small industry. It's going to be driven by many
factors, including the price of fuel. And if they can't respond to it -- I
know they can come down. But suppose the price of fuel went up to
Page 254
December 11, 2001
$3. We'll have them here begging for us to be able to raise them. If
they had that ability to be able to change their own rates, can they
legally do it?
MR. PALMER: Yes. There is no legal requirement that the
county regulate taxicab rates.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, how do you feel about
it, fellow commissioners?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't have any problem with the
ordinance the way it is. I question this area of inspection, but I think
that's been sufficiently answered. I'm going with the PVAC's, that
meeting I had with them -- that's a public disclosure I should have
made -- and I was comfortable with it in terms of why they were
setting up a limit. Anybody can charge anything they want up to that.
Also, when we had the fuel surtax thing, if we got in that
situation again, I'm sure they might come back to the commissioners
for that question. But at this point I really just don't have problems
with it.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This has nothing to do with
the price of tomatoes in Immokalee.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions of staff?. Because
we do have public speakers. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No further questions. We can go to
public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Douglas Wilcox followed by Jack Bridenthal.
Thank you.
MR. WILCOX: Hi. For the record, I'm Doug Wilcox. I own
Air & Taxi, and I'm also I'm Vice President of the RSW Taxi Limo
Association.
I've spoken to several of you on the phone, and I've written some
letters, and I rise in opposition to this bill because it drives me nuts.
Page 255
December 11, 2001
What am I talking about? I think in the first place, it's corrupt. First
of all, if any of you had a financial interest in a taxi company, you
would have to recuse yourself from participating in the vote because
of a conflict of interest. What we have here is one step removed from
that. We have a Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, which is -- by
mandate it has to be no less than two, no more than three certificated
holders, operators of taxi businesses. And you will follow their
directives. And I think that's a conflict of interest, and I've got a
problem with it. Beyond that, we are regulated by the Port Authority,
the standards which are higher than those, more stringent than those
imposed under this ordinance.
For example, we're required by the airport to carry a half million
liability insurance per seat, $2 million five on the call. The Collier
ordinance calls for 100/300. Our vehicles are inspected monthly by
the Port Authority. This ordinance calls for an annual inspection.
The drivers of our vehicles at the airport have to submit a three-
page dossier to airport police department. They do a background
check. They want to find out, are you the kind of people -- are we the
kind of people that they want driving around the airport representing
the area to tourists and people who come in. They're looking for
wants and warrants, the obvious stuff. They're also looking for any
history of bounced checks, is your alimony paid, is your child support
paid up. And if they're not, you don't get a permit to operate out
there.
Now, what's called for in here is a sworn affidavit. As I've said
in letters to you, Osama Bin Laden or John Gotti would have no
problem swearing in an affidavit that he is good and moral character.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute to wrap up, sir.
MR. WILCOX: Okay. I'm sorry to hear that.
Back in -- I've been a legitimate taxi operator in this area since
1990. I've been certificated in Collier County since 1995. Now,
Page 256
December 11, 2001
from that point forward, every year the bar has been raised in terms
of being in compliance with the Collier ordinance and it's about done
by an interpretation of what it is that the ordinance says.
Now, initially, in the ordinance from '95 in the first paragraph, it
says that the purpose of the ordinance is to express the county's
authority to limit the number of vehicles for hire that may operate
from within the county. And, of course, what's going on here in the
subsequent ordinance that we're considering today is an extension of
that. Well, I just have to ask you. Do you care how many Taco Bells
there are in town? Do you care how many Pizza Huts there are in
town? Do you care how many Eckerd Drug stores? Why do you
care how many taxis there are on the streets of Collier County? You
look out there, and there's a hellacious traffic situation going on -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Will you, please. I've got other
speakers.
MR. WILCOX: All right.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Please.
MR. WILCOX: The taxis would tend to solve your traffic
problem.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MR. WILCOX: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Jack Bridenthal followed by Nick Whitney.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Thank you. Jack Bridenthal, USA Taxi.
This wasn't how I planned on starting, but since this isn't the way we
do it in Lee County, I think these Lee County units should pay about
$1,000 a permit because they don't buy food, they don't live here,
they don't pay property taxes. Out-of-county pickups should be
eliminated because we aren't allowed to do pickups in Lee County.
No way of doing it.
Now, on to what I was going to say. There's been a lot of hours
and a lot of work put into this ordinance by PVAC, and I think it's a
Page 257
December 11,2001
good ordinance. I think it applies to all of us as long as it's enforced.
Now, there's been an ordinance for over nine years, I've been in it
seven. I've got documented complaints going back six years on
illegal, gypsy unmarked cabs, and there's been zero enforcement in
nine years. We wouldn't need a rate increase if you could eliminate
all the outlaws.
I sent a packet in for review, so I won't get into that any further
except I hope you notice there was a letter asking Michelle what had
been done about complaints. No answer. I really don't have -- this is
a multi-million dollar private industry, even if nobody realizes it
under county regulations. It's a good ordinance, but it must be
enforced.
And I only have one thing to say against ordinance. I fought
this, and I want it on record, that if a kid gets his neck caught in a rear
power window or some old drunk loses a finger when they run a
window up, that goes directly to the county because I disable all my
rear windows. They don't have it -- they have it in the ordinance that
all windows have to work. I ask. I ask why this couldn't be. There's
plenty of air conditioning. The front windows go up and down.
Keep the back windows closed. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
The next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Nick Whitney followed by Bryan Pease.
MR. WHITNEY: Good evening. For the record, I'm Nick
Whitney, Executive Director of Checker Cab. I kind of have the
same sentiments as Mr. Bridenthal did. I thank the PVAC committee
for putting in all the effort they did to improve our ordinance. I think
it has very good intentions. But, again, as Jack said, we need to have
the ordinance enforced. There are things going on that simply just go
by the wayside, and no issues have been dealt with.
We're here to provide professional service to our guests, to our
Page 258
December 11, 2001
residents of Collier County. The safety issues, some of them have
been addressed. And all of us try to do professional service, want to
provide good service, safe service, but we need the support of the
staff and the committee in order to enforce the current ordinance.
A couple things I don't agree with, but I can assure you that we
will work hard to comply with the ordinance. We're here to work
together with the staff and the commission.
And one other thing on the rate. I really hope everybody looks
seriously about deregulating the rates. It's been done throughout the
mid '90s in many cities around the country, and it only has created a
disaster. And after months and months of rebuilding taxis throughout
the United States and cities that have deregulated, they've all went
back to regulating rates. We want to, you know, continue to move
forward with good taxi service, and by deregulating, it would set us
back.
Thank you for the opportunity and wish everyone a very safe
and happy holiday season.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir. The next speaker,
please.
MS. FILSON: Bryan Pease. He will be followed by Lester
Fogel.
MR. PEASE: Bryan Pease, PVAC chairperson. First of all, I
want to address Mr. Wilcox's comment. PVAC is an upstanding,
outstanding straight-up organization, a committee. They're
hardworking. They've worked very hard on this ordinance for the
last year with monthly meetings. They do it voluntarily, and the
word "corrupt" associated with this committee is outrageous.
The fact is, if there was any sort of attempt to manipulate, the
vote wouldn't have went the way it went. PVAC voted 4-1 in favor
of continuing to regulate rates, not the opposite. They voted 4-1 to
recommend to staff that we do not deregulate the rates. 4-1 in favor
Page 259
December 1 l, 2001
of the ordinance as is. So if there was any manipulation by the
operators, it didn't happen because they voted with their conscience
and toward the community, which is their duty and responsibility.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Lester Fogel.
MR. FOGEL: Good evening. I don't want to take your time and
go over and over again what everybody said. I go along with
everything that they said. I would like to see somebody look at
limiting the number of cars on the road --
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you pull the mic down
a little bit, sir?
MR. FOGEL: I don't think it's a good idea to limit the number
of cars out there, especially if you're talking about deregulating
prices. Less cars and prices will go higher. I'm concerned that there's
an article here. It says, I have Lincoln Town Cars. All we have is
Lincoln Town Cars. They're not sedans. It looks like they're even
described as sedans in here. Lincoln Town Cars are luxury vehicles.
There's an item that says the sightseeing buses don't need a
permit, don't need a license. I don't understand that. Sightseeing
buses, sightseeing cars should be licensed just like we are. They're
doing the same thing. I don't see no reason why they can't be
licensed like we are.
Driver background checks, that's great. You should go for that.
I wish in Boston they checked all the drivers. They didn't. You don't
know who is driving these cars today, especially the night. We
should check out our drivers. We should get them fingerprinted. We
should get them pictures, get them I.D. Cards, get something. It's a
good idea. Fingerprint them, background checks, see if their alimony
is paid up. You should have that, and that's it.
Thank you very much for your time.
Page 260
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you very much, sir.
MS. FILSON: And he's the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Michelle Arnold?
MS. ARNOLD: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforement Director
for the record. I apologize, I was down here later than --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We apologize we're here this
late too.
MS. ARNOLD: I wanted to address some of the comments that
were made with respect to the ordinance. Mr. Wilcox did indicate
that we don't require background checks. We are, in fact, proposing
that background checks be submitted by the drivers. There's a new
change in the ordinance for an I.D. That should be posted in the
vehicles. This is something that is not currently in the ordinance but
we're proposing, and then prior to the issuance of those I.D.s, we
would require a copy of the criminal background check for the driver.
With respect to the comments made by Mr. Bridenthal and the
enforcing of this ordinance, I believe my department is enforcing the
ordinance and to enhance the enforcement side of it, because we don't
get into the practice of following vehicles because we are dealing
with mobile violations. We are coordinating with the Sheriff's Office
to identify for them vehicles that we suspect are in violation out
there, so we expect to enhance that side of the ordinance as well.
Regarding the comment about the ordinance limiting the number
of vehicles on the road, we do not restrict the number of vehicles that
are within each operation. We do have many small businesses that
are licensed by the county, either one vehicle or two vehicles, but we
do not limit the number of vehicles per operation.
And regarding the sightseeing companies, the ordinance does
include exemptions for companies that are regulated by other
agencies, and this would be one of those.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Michelle, question: The Port
Page 261
December 11, 2001
Authority regulates the taxicabs also?
MS. ARNOLD: Are you referring to the Fort Myers Port
Authority or this one here? The Naples Airport does regulate, but
they coordinate with us, and they just regulate those vehicles that are
picking up at their premises.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're not only -- we don't
have two enforcements doing the same thing? MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about the window
operation in the ordinance or the inspections? They must operate?
MS. ARNOLD: We require all windows to be operable, so that
if someone needs to open the window, that they should. I'm not
aware of that being raised as a restriction to limit the passengers'
windows, but we do require as a part of the inspection of each vehicle
that even windows are operable.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why? Because of safety,
you're saying?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, I can't see why we wouldn't require it. If
somebody wants to have air come into their -- into the vehicle, it
wouldn't be necessarily an unsafe condition to have it operable.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's possible that both goals could be
achieved, and that is, the windows could be operable but under the
control of the front -- of the driver. So from that standpoint, you
achieve maybe the best of both as something to look forward to. I
don't know if you want to try to put that into this ordinance or not.
That wasn't part of what was advertised for the changes in this
ordinance. But I think if you studied and look at it from a risk
standpoint -- and not that the county has any direct risk, because we
do not, but as a regulator, to some degree -- we might want to look at
it and bring it back later.
Page 262
December 11,2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: If that's the desire of the board, bring
that item back, but it's not been advertised, so you cannot act upon it
this evening
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to have that amendment
MS. ARNOLD: Can I make one comment? My staff did
indicate that this was discussed during the process. And it was
thought that because some of the drivers are smokers and for
ventilation purposes, it would probably be better that the windows are
operable rather than inoperable and under the control of the driver so
that the passengers have the ability to open the windows. And there
was also some concern about motion sickness, if there's passengers in
the vehicles that would rather have the windows open rather than
shut.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can the back windows be fixed so
that the driver can operate them?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If they are power, and most of
them are that way.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, but if you've got to toss your
Kuckies --
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It brings back fine memories,
Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Not to me, but I've been in situations.
MS. ARNOLD: I think it's more ora -- it's probably not a
concern in the newer vehicles. For the older vehicles that are out
there, you're probably going to have more of a concern with the
ventilation.
MR. OLLIFF: I think we beat this one to death, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So do I. I would entertain a motion
for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 263
December 11, 2001
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I move that we approve it. I have a
second by commissioner Fiala. Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: You may want to ammend your motion just
slightly. And that is, in the time that this was being put together and
advertised, our board -- we have adopted 2,155, the revised Advisory
Committee Ordinance which is in slight conflict with a few of the
provisions here. This may provide for unlimited terms in this
ordinance alone.
My suggestion would be that your approval, if you approve,
would be that we just make this consistent with our general advisory
ordinance so that we don't have unlimited -- unlimited without your
approval, term reappointments, things of that nature, and I'll provide
this to the clerk that we'd also adjust for, more cosmetic than
anything else, provide a reference to Section 112.313, Florida
Statutes, in a couple of places.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So is the motion, Mr. Olliff, put all in
there?
MR. OLLIFF: Okay.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You second it, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're in agreement. Okay. Any
further discussion by the board?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign. Motion
carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #8H
Page 264
December 11,2001
ORDINANCE 2001-76, CREATING THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
PHASE II BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING
UNIT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Kant.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
We're here tonight to give you a -- to request a creation of the
Livingston Phase II, Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit.
In the packet we gave you the draft ordinance and an executive
summary. We've been meeting with the -- most of the folks are
represented that are in the district. Let me very quickly point out, I
put on the visualizer -~ the district runs from Golden Gate Parkway to
Pine Ridge and from Airport Road to Interstate 75 within the heavy
black line (indicating.) The criteria that was used to determine those
properties in versus those properties out were a combination of direct
frontage on Livingston Road and direct access to Livingston Road
because of the idea of the benefiting property owners.
We have been meeting with representatives from the three major
adjoining communities. That would be the Wyndemere community,
the Kensington community, and the Grey Oaks community. There is,
in my opinion, a great deal of support for the creation of this district.
There are representatives here if you want to speak with them or get
their support. This is very similar to the other five existing -- six
existing municipal service taxing units that we've created. I have
been requested, though, by the representatives to make two
comments to the ordinance. And I draw your attention to Line 8 on
Page 2 of the ordinance, which would be Page 4 of your agenda item.
That line is under purpose and governing body. It says,
"Providing enhanced street lighting and sidewalks within the
MSTU." We wanted to make it clear that that provided the flexibility
Page 265
December 11,2001
should the MSTU decide to do that but does not require that they
provide enhanced lighting or any type of enhanced sidewalk
improvement.
And the second request that we received was -- and again, I
draw your attention to line 31 on this same page. About the middle
of that line it says, "Said members shall be permanent residents."
And we've been requested to add the phrase, "property owners or
appointed representatives of property owners within the MSTU,"
because of the seasonality of some of the residents.
With those two -- with that clarification and that change, if there
are any questions, I'll be glad to to answer them.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any questions by members of the
board? Is there anybody here representing those MSTU carriers that
are in opposition?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've gotten our letters in favor of.
It's wonderful to hear the letters in favor of.
MS. FILSON: We have four speakers. Bob Stone, followed by
Mary Jo Fausnight.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are they for or against this motion?
Because the board's going to move to approve this. Are you for or
against?
MR. STONE: Against.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Then you need to speak to us, sir.
MR. STONE: Good evening, commissioners. For the record,
my name is Bob Stone, and I'm a member of the Taxpayer Action
Group of Collier County. I've been asked by our new President, Mr.
Tom Mokia, to clarify a point with you on a letter that was sent
September the 24th by the county manager to Mr. Neil Dorill,
President of Dorrill Community Management, advising that the
request for the Livingston Road and county-wide MSTU for roadway
landscaping would be rescheduled until after the sales tax referendum
Page 266
December 11,2001
in November to avoid public discussion of these proposed ordinances
until after the sales tax referendum. His question was, are these the
same MSTUs on the agenda today that were referred to in that letter?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What's the relevance of the question?
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know what the relevance of the question
is, Mr. Chairman. The answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The answer is yes.
MR. STONE: If so, this leads us to believe that you would have
still levied this tax on the citizens, even if the sales tax referendum
had passed, therefore creating both a sales tax increase and a property
tax increase. We question the need for expensively landscaped
medians which create a lifelong need for water and maintenance
along with initial costs.
In many cases these create a hazard for drivers when they have
to secure the lanes to maintain these medians. We also question the
need for the two to $300,000 traffic signals many call the green
monsters that are going up at every intersection, as well as the
expensive street lighting every 200 feet in remote urban areas
stretching for miles.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to wrap up, sir.
MR. STONE: There is also a question as to the need for
Livingston Road and the medians and lighting required. We would
like to see the transportation department to begin a conservative
utilitarian approach to these roadways for the purpose of moving
traffic, which is why they are built in the first place, and forego the
frills of exotic medians and overkill of traffic signals and lighting.
TAG stands opposed to the approval of these MSTU's because we do
not see a need for another tax to be imposed without referendum on
the citizens of Collier County for this purpose.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: With all due respect, sir, this MSTU
requires 50 plus one of the residents of that area. And unless you are
Page 267
December 11,2001
a resident or member of TAG, "live there and can oppose it, it really
is the decision by a community whether or not they want this. They
are taxing themselves. Board of County Commissioners are not
taxing them, they're making their own decision.
MR. WEIGEL: That's correct, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So thank you for comment, sir, but to
this item it does not apply.
MS. FILSON: Mary Joe Fausnight she will be followed by Jeff
Mangan.
MS FAUSNIGHT: Good evening, gentlemen and lady. My
name is Mary Jo Fausnight. I'm executive director of Wyndemere
Homeowners' Association. I would first like to say that Wyndemere
is greatly in favor of the MSTU. There is no objection there. There
is, however, some concern about the lighting -- or the line that Mr.
Kant referred to earlier of Item 2 of Line 8 of Section 3, which reads,
"Providing enhanced street lighting and sidewalks within the
MSTU."
The reason for this objection is that currently Wyndemere is the
only nondeveloper-controlled community within the MSTU. With
the language the way it is proposed, there's no guaranty that future
developers, who will be soon wanting to build their communities,
won't want more enhanced street lighting, curb, and linear sidewalks.
The street light that is proposed right now is, in our opinion, an
enhanced street light. It's not the 40-foot lights that are in the typical
areas. In fact, it can't be a 40-foot because of the Florida Power &
Light power lines. And we're perfectly happy for that, but we just
want to know that down the road that somebody else won't come in
and try to cause more of an expense than is needed or necessary.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That will be up to the jurisdiction of
your local MSTU, right?
MR. WEIGEL: I was going to comment, Mr. Chairman. Yes,
Page 268
December 11, 2001
the MSTU will have an advisory board made up of residents within
that area. And typically the way these MSTUs operate, they make
the determination as representatives of their respective communities,
and the budgets are set based on those recommendations. Staff
rarely, if ever, has gone against what the community desires, and I
can't think of a single instance when the board has taken odds with
what the community has desired.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jeff Mangan. He will be
followed by the last speaker, Tom Sansbury.
MR. SANSBURY: Mr. Mangan had to leave early.
For the record, Tom Sansbury, very briefly. Representing two
people this evening, and that is, the Grey Oaks Property Owners'
Association, which I serve as President and as a board member and
vice president of the Livingston Road Beautification Association.
About two years ago residents of Wyndemere, Grey Oaks,
Kensington, Belle Maur, Arlington, a great majority of the property
owners along the corridor for Phase I! started an organization. We
incorporated June 1 st of 2000, and we have been working very
closely with Mr. Kant, Mr. Feder's people, Pam, your landscape
architect to come up with a plan to ensure that the Livingston Road
corridor's appearance would be of the same quality as our
surrounding communities.
We voted last week after we reviewed this ordinance. We did
make the comments to Mr. Kant of our request for the two small
revisions that were voted unanimously to support this. And we'd like
to thank Mr. Kant, Mr. Feder's organization for working with us and
we look forward to working together on making Livingston Road,
Phase II, a very beautiful corridor. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, very much, sir. That
concludes public speakers. Any comments, questions by the board of
Page 269
December 11, 2001
County Commissioners? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'd entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I move to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, I have a second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
Item #81
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE URBAN AREA
BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT -
CONTINUED TO A MEETING IN 2002
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
That moves us to 'T' as in island, an Urban Area Beautification
Municipal Service Taxing Unit.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, first of all, for the record, Norman
Feeder, transportation administrator. Very quick background on this,
given the late hour. What I will tell you is that you had a public
petition brought forward to establish a county-wide MSTU. That
proposed -- or a concept was to look at both the capital costs of
constructing or beautifying roadways throughout the county, as well
as maintaining them. It was basically a concept that would have
established a steering committee and staffing that was sort of a
successor, if you will, to Naples Gate.
That issue was brought a couple times to this board. We as staff
were asked to look at the issue and bring it back to you, this being the
Page 270
December 1 l, 2001
last meeting in December and, therefore, the last time that we can
bring something back to you relative to your consideration if it's to be
certified to the tax roles we adhere today. What we have brought to
you for your consideration, though, is something different than what
is being proposed, a lot more limited. And basically what we're
proposing to you is, within the urban service boundary, which is
basically out to one mile east of 951, if you will, or from that point
west. Within that urban boundary, excluding the municipalities,
excluding current MSTUs, including possibly the one you've
established this evening, that you establish up to a half mill for
simply maintenance, not for the capital. Concept being that right
now we have 3.2 million that the county is expending to maintain
landscaping throughout the county outside of those MSTUs that are
out there today. This would offer you about one-eighth of a penny
because a half mill would raise about $8 million, a funding source to
maintain that, allow existing MSTUs once they are done with their
capital and have had operations for at least a year to, if they want to,
opt out and, therefore, come under this urbanized area MSTU for
maintenance and continued maintenance or to maintain their own and
maintain control.
So essentially what you've got before you is that opportunity to
consider that you asked us to bring back to you. There is an
acknowledgement that this represents an increase in ad valorem
taxation, one that hasn't had a lot of debate. It does represent an
opportunity to fund a portion of what you'll be facing very shortly in
transportation funding need right now today. Three million of gas
taxes are put into maintenance. This would technically free that up
and be used for operations and other activities.
So I present that out to you. I'll be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Yes, Commissioner.
Page 271
December 11,2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have one. It might be this late
hour, although it was the late hour last night when I came up with the
question.
In the very last paragraph on the first page it says, "A tax levy
will raise $8,766,000," but then it says, "The estimated maintenance
costs is $2,546,000." Why would we want to raise $6 million more?
MR. PETER: First of all, the $8 million is a cap at a halfpenny.
That's how much you could raise at a halfpenny. You would only
implement what you needed to maintain what was out there, that $2.3
million, up to possibly a little over $3 million, because you have
some others that are not currently being maintained that may try to
opt in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me see if I understood what
you just said.
MR. PETER: You would only implement what you needed to
pay for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Like a little piece of that in order to
make the, say, $3 million.
MR. PETER: You would effectively be an eighth of a mill
today, if you will, rather than the full half million.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All right. But the cap is .5.
MR. PETER: The cap is .5, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's my understanding that the staff
is actually going to take a look at the cost of landscape, maintenance,
and the type of landscaping we will be putting in in the future.
MR. PETER: That is true. But these are addressing landscaping
that are out there today that we're maintaining. We are looking at
that. Any new landscaping would have to come in through its own
MSTU, stay for one year, and then choose to opt into this program or
to stay with their own MSTU and, therefore, reduce the demand on
this.
Page 272
December 11,2001
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is a situation where we are
not having neighborhoods come to us about establishing an MSTU.
We are mandating a MSTU county-wide with the exception of the
City of Naples and some other MSTUs.
MR. PETER: That's correct, Commissioner, with one minor
caveat to that. We have right now landscaping that we are
maintaining. And if no other MSTU forms and then asks us to
maintain, we wouldn't take any more maintenance on. This is only
for maintenance. It's not for the capital to establish more. So it is to
address what we have out there today. But you are correct, it is
establishing a new MSTU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can the staff assure me that we
have exhausted all other methods short of a ad valorem property tax
increase to fund this?
MR. PETER: I can assure you that we will be coming to you
with many other dollar needs and other sources to generate revenue.
This happens to be one option, but only an option. And we will still
need to generate considerably more funds to address our needs, as
you will be discussing on the 18th of this month.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I suggest that we table this
item until such time as would give the board an opportunity to choose
another alternative?
MR. PETER: That will be fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But we do have to take action before
the end of the year because we will --
MR. PETER: Only if you want to certify the roll forward.
Obviously if you choose to go forward with it and if you want it to be
effective starting next year, that's correct. So you could address it on
the 18th during your AUIR discussions. I believe that's correct. I'd
defer.
Tom?
Page 273
December 11,2001
MR. OLLIFF: I'm sorry, what was it?
MR. PETER: That it could be readdressed and considered on
the 18th when we go through the annual update and inventory report.
MR. OLLIFF: It could be but, frankly, I wouldn't recommend it.
I think the board's got some major funding decisions to make,
whether it funds your current landscape maintenance program out of
the ad valorem or 111 Fund versus an MSTU is not a critical funding
decision that needs to be made because it's the last meeting of the
year or second-to-last meeting. If the board wants to consider that,
that opportunity is available for us as we go forward and you develop
long-term funding plans for transportation and as you put your budget
together for fiscal year '03.
MR. PETER: And subsequent years. And, again, we did bring
this to you at the board's request.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta -- I mean,
Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Have we established the level
of service for these existing MSTUs that we're going to take over?
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, we're down to the last sheet of
paper here, so I'm going to need to get you to take a break so she can
change paper.
(A short break was held.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We're live again.
MR. PETER: Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
Commissioner Henning, to your question, we established
minimum standards as we give right-a-way use permits as people
plan to develop landscaping within a median. As far as the
maintenance, of course we maintain what is developed out there later
on over time, different times to our different agreements.
Lastly, as we maintain that, should there be some plants that die
Page 274
December 11, 2001
within that landscaping that may be above even our minimum
standards, we go to our minimum standards and refurbish to
something a little less exotic maybe in some cases.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about some of these
minor roads that are landscaped? Is that --
MR. PETER: Again, as I pointed out, the current level that
we're paying, $2.3 million, there are some roadways being
maintained by associations outside of MSTUs, some that we've been
asked to look at. And with our current finance situation, we haven't
encouraged that consideration. That's part of what we're looking at
under this MSTU as an option as well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who is going to make all these
decisions? Which roadways are we doing?
MR. PETER: We have done it based on past practices and
standards. I'm hoping not to impugn others if I do not have an
MSTU. In answer to your question, I am maintaining quite a few
right now, and those I inherited.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope you can start one that
I'm thinking about right now.
MR. PETER: I perfectly know what you're saying, and I'm
afraid if I go down the list, I may have some others. So right now I'm
trying to resist any more coming on, sir, but I will serve at the
pleasure of the board.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: The question is, you take $3.2 million,
you can bond that off and use it for roads. MR. PETER: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: It would go to maintenance because it
frees up --
MR. PETER: This would go for maintenance. The other funds
you're using on maintenance you may be able to do some things with
but, again, I don't want to overcomplicate it again. We were asked to
Page 275
December 11, 2001
bring this -- I go to the pleasure of this to the board. I think it's a late
hour, and we are obviously ready to answer all the questions you
have, but what is the pleasure of the board?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: What's the pleasure of the board? We
have two speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first is Norman Trebilcock. He will be
followed by Bob Stone. No speakers.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No speakers. What's the pleasure of
the board.
Commissioner Coletta.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would make a motion to
continue this at another time.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a motion to continue until
next year, a future date.
MR. MANALICH:
weeks.
Do I have a second?
Mr. Chairman, there is a limitation of five
MR. OLLIFF: We would readvertise.
MR. MANALICH: Oh, we're going to readvertise? Okay.
That's fine.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do I have second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a second by Mr. Coyle.
Discussion.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had discussion. I just wanted to
say if we postpone it to next year, that means -- how do we maintain
this coming year all of the medians that are there right now?
Page 276
December 11, 2001
MR. FEDER: We are budgeted for right now. We'll maintain
that, and we'll find a way to continue and go to the pleasure of the
board, as we said. We can bring this up again next year.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0 to continue until
2002.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, just to close that item, I will tell
you eventually that idea is going have some merit. One, you can
have an advisory board; two, you can segregate your costs so that you
can see them separately; and three, I think it gives some of the
smaller landscape MSTUs who are, frankly, paying a fairly high rate
for maintenance on some of their small road projects an opportunity
to meld themselves into a much larger MSTU and have it paid for on
a county-wide basis. I think eventually it will have some merit. I just
think trying to break-neck pace, trying to adopt something in this
eleventh hour is probably not good advice.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've had requests from several
people that we put this off so they'd have time to consider it. They
actually love the idea, but they haven't had time to digest the fact to -
Item # 8J
ORDINANCE 2001-77, AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-72, AS
AMENDED, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE COUNTY
MANAGER'S ORDINANCE -ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let's move to Item J,
Page 277
December 11, 2001
approve the ordinance amendment amending Ordinance 93-72, the
famous county manager's ordinance.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, in brief, the amendments are
fairly straightforward and simple. I am trying to find some balance
between a separation which I think is important between the
politically elected board of county commissioners and your staff, the
staff who is supposed to be making decisions based on the laws and
ordinances that are in place and not based on political motivation.
On the other hand, I am trying to make sure this organization
runs as efficiently as I can possibly make it run. The amendment in
front of you this evening provides for you to forward requests for
information, all our constituent complaints directly to any of the staff
in my office or to the division administrators. That, in essence, gives
each of the commissioners ten points of contact into the organization.
We will also request by this amendment that any communication
directly with one of the administrators, that you simply copy or let
our office be aware of that so that we can be in the loop on those
issues. And the last amendment that we made was, we actually
tightened up the separation section a little bit by not only including a
prohibition against interference in terms of staff.working decisions,
but also a prohibition against direction of the staff which is in
keeping with the Florida State Statute as well. So we tried to make
those two mimic each other a little bit.
That's the recommendation that's there in front of you. And I'm
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two questions. First Commissioner
Henning, then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
to be available on the weekends?
MR. OLLIFF: They are today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Are these staff members going
So we'll be able to get to them
Page 278
December 11,2001
either by pager, cell phone?
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. We all carry that little card. In fact,
you've been provided one that's got their home phone numbers, their
cell numbers, their fax numbers. And while I'm sure they would like
to have more time off, we bug them 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the appropriate person to
direct, let's say, utilities, if that person is on vacation, you'll provide
us with another number to call?
MR. OLLIFF: Well, generally, you know, the organizational
chart so that's it's either going to be myself-- in that case of public
utilities you would have three people to contact. Myself, Jim Mudd,
the assistant that deals with that division, or the division
administrative. So you'd have three points of contact.
It is for those of you -- some of you have been very good about
providing citizens or constituent complaints on the weekends directly
to the code enforcement officer that's on board that particular
weekend. What I'm proposing is going to be a more difficult route to
get the citizens complaint resolved. I fully understand that, but I'm
also recognizing the balance that we're trying to provide by the
ordinance.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you. That was
my question about the code enforcement officer on weekends, but
that makes sense. I have no problems with calling you at 4:00 in the
morning, but --
MR. OLLIFF: Don't be surprised if the phone's not busy.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This document is something
you should supply to any new commissioner in the future for them to
view. It's extremely important. It would be greatly helpful if I had
this when I first started.
MR. OLLIFF: It was included in each of your orientation
Page 279
December 11, 2001
booklets, and it is included in the orientation booklet that we've
provided Mr. Coyle and we'll be going over tomorrow afternoon.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've read it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
Any other questions?
I'd entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a couple of speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker. However, I don't see him.
Mr. Dick Lydon.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think he went home.
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me tell you, I'm not in
favor of layered government. I do see this as the form of it. And I
think that, again, if we only do not give staff direction of what to do
or not to give them direction or not to do their job, that isn't fitting
with what we should be doing. It limits our contact with the people
that we have, that we employ. The only time that we get to see them
is every 5 years, every 10 years, or every 15 or 20 years. And I'm a
little bit concerned about that because I would like to know the
person that is working for us, their duties, so on and so forth.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can visit with them, but you can't
give them direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no, we can't ask them any
questions. We can't ask them any inquiries. You know, I have a lot
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
opinion.
Can't even ask them for their
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. Almost like maybe we
should have a county commissioners' board minutes.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: We already do. It's called the
Page 280
December 11, 2001
Sunshine Law.
MR. OLLIFF: You can ask anything you like, and it's simply
the route that that question will take. And we can certainly get you
the opinions of the staff members at whatever level, but in order to
just make sure that there's some organization to the system, we've
provided a few controlled points of access.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't see the need in that
unless there is violations such as directions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So we can still have contact with
employees, and we can still go over to see them on Horseshoe Drive
and drop in there to see them, whenever they are, as long -- as long as
we're not asking them to do anything, right?
What I'm saying is, like when I was in the hotel industry. The
people that really made things work were the staff. It's not the big
guys. It's the people that make the beds and serve the passengers and
so forth. They're the people -- they do everything, and it's up to us to
say thank you. It's up to us to ask them. They know more about
what's going on than anybody else.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: But, Commissioner Fiala, this
ordinance will not allow you to do that. You have to take it to the
administrator level. You can't go to the department level, is what I'm
understanding. I can no more, after this ordinance is passed, call up
Ed Perico and ask him about anything than the man on the moon. I
have to go through Joe Schmidt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
we?
But then we can't now anyway, can
CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's true.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can probably ask the man
on the moon a lot easier.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I probably -- I'm not going to go there.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: IfI may, I've got a question.
Page 281
December 11, 2001
Let's talk about when I address a question to you or one of the
division heads by e-mail and I'm getting cc'd from staff on it. There's
no problem with that, right? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about the other -- reverse
where I am sending something out to someone and I cc a member of
staff?.
MR. OLLIFF: If you're just simply providing the information, I
don't have a problem with that. I would ask that you provide a copy
to that division administrator so that they are in the loop. We're just
trying to make sure that everybody up and down that chain is all
within that same communication loop. Because in most cases, the
division administrators are going to be the ones that are here at the
board meeting. And when those issues come up, they need to be
aware of it. They need to be able to respond to your questions, and
they need to be as knowledgeable as the staff person down the line.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got one other question --
well, actually two.
First one, what this ordinance is now, this will comply with the
state statutes as far as they require?
MR. OLLIFF: This ordinance is more restricted than the state
statute.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's the next question. Is
this ordinance more restricted than the state statute? MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why?
MR. OLLIFF: The original ordinance was more restricted in the
state statute because I think there were some issues here, frankly, that
had arisen and in terms of commission interference and direction with
staff. The ordinance was drafted years before I became the county
manager but was in response to those type issues. And it was
Page 282
December 11,2001
intentionally drafted by this board to be more restrictive than the state
statute to provide the public a level of assurance that we were willing
to be more restrictive than the state statute required us to be.
The only reason this is in front of you at all is to provide a
clarification of the ordinance that is in place already. Because if you
took the literal interpretation of the ordinance that is already on the
books today, it could be opined that all communications would have
to go through me personally, and I don't think that's what was
intended.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I could see just a slight drop
off in performance when we worked through Tom. I'm sort of not
sure if we can go back through the division heads that we'll be able to
get that time factor back to where it was before we made this latent
discovery.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's nobody ready to make
a motion, I am.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. I move that we
amend this ordinance so that we do not direct staff to do their
obligations and their duties and to remove the language of
information and inquiries by the commissioners.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Tom, I can barely hear you.
To amend the ordinance so that
we can have direct contact with our staff for information and
inquiries and keep in the language that commissioners cannot direct
staff to do anything. That's my motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning. I have a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
Page 283
December 11,2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
staff?.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
what you do.
So this means we can talk with
Yeah.
But you have to be guarded
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. Never tell them what to do,
but we can ask them a question or -- a lot of times I'm just confused
about something that's come up, and I don't even understand it. I can
actually call somebody and ask them now -- I mean, if this passes?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can ask for information. You
cannot give direction.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have to be very, very
careful how you phrase your words too. How about the county
attorney giving us a --
MR. MANALICH: Well, I think the motion that's been
presented is, essentially, to keep the present ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No.
MR. MANALICH: I'm misreading that.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. It's saying you can ask for
information. Today we have to go through the county manager or
Jim Mudd or Leo Ochs.
MR. WEIGEL: You're correct, Commissioners. It's similar to
the present ordinance, but it takes away what Tom Olliffbrought to
your attention, and that is that the current language says, its members,
meaning the board, shall deal with the administrative services solely
through the county administrator. So that language would be
removed.
So we don't have a question of-- you can make inquiries and
request information but still have to go through Tom. And, as Tom
indicated, it may be opined by some, that means through him solely,
Page 284
December 11, 2001
and Tom was attempting in his proposal to spread it out to his key
staff through you. But what you have in mind here is, in fact, a slight
broadening of what you have right now. And there's nothing wrong
with that legally whatsoever.
So it's not a question of legal sufficiency or conflict with state
law. It's the question of how you want to administer yourselves, vis-
a-vis the staff, through this ordinance. It's been your own restrictor
up to this point for many years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, while you're there,
the ordinance, the way it's written today, the example that
Commissioner Coletta brought up is, if I e-mail a staff member
directly and copy one of the administrators or the county manager,
would that be okay? And we heard Mr. Olliff mention that it is okay,
and I just want your opinion the way it is.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in fact, I think that's what Tom had
indicated earlier if the ordinance were not changed, that his
operations were such that would accept that very practice. But there
were others who indicated that they felt that that was wrong, but not
within this room necessarily, at least not from the County Attorney
Office or from Tom. But if you remove the language that talks about
dealing with the administrative services solely through through the
county manager, county administrator, then there's no question from
any point of view that, in fact, you have the ability to make inquiries
and request information from staff directly. But still you have in
there that you cannot interfere with staff. Tom had suggested that
you add the word "direct" also, "direct" or "interfere."
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I make a comment, an
observation? I understand the frustration of the board members
concerning this restriction, and we're having to live under guidelines
that were the result of misconduct by people who preceded us. And I
think we're asking for a lot of trouble if we start fiddling with this
Page 285
December 11,2001
ordinance as it is now.
I'd like to make the observation that these are not our
employees. We don't hire them, we don't evaluate them, we don't fire
them. We are the board of County Commissioners. The employees
belong to Tom Olliff. And anytime we start developing direct
relationships with members of Tom's staff, two things are likely to
happen. Number one, they might not relay the information to Tom or
the division heads, and that cuts management out of the loop. And
the second thing is that if you start developing personal relationships
with the staff, there is the appearance that they're doing things for you
that they perhaps would not otherwise do. And although I don't like
the concept that I've heard repeated so often, that perception is as
important as reality. Quite frankly, it is. And if we're living under
the cloud that was created by prior commissioners, I would
encourage you to take some time, and let's work out from under that
cloud before we start making modifications to this.
But I do understand your frustration. I do understand why you
want to change it.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
favor signify by saying aye.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
MS. FIALA: Aye
MR. COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
motion.
It carries 3-2 -- no.
four votes.
Okay. Any further discussion?
I'm going to call the question. All in
Aye.
Opposed.
I'm going to vote in favor of the
It fails because this is a situation that needs
Page 286
December 11, 2001
MR. MANALICH: No, it doesn't.
MR. WEIGEL: No, just three.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Vote in favor on the motion.
It carries 3-2.
Item #8K
ORDINANCE 2001-78, RE 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, CONSISTING OF 6,750 SQUARE
FEET - ADOPTED
We are at Item J -- no, L.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, J.
MR. MUDD: 17-A was moved to K.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: OKay. And we also had one other
item that we moved.
We are onto Item K. This is the Petition RZ-2001, William
Hoover. And this is moved from the summary agenda, 17-A.
Mr. Badamtchian, you need to be sworn.
Do you have a presentation here or what?
MR. MUDD: If you have any business with this particular item,
and this is 17-A, that's been moved to 8-K. It's a petition by William
L. Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. Representing
Page 287
December 11, 2001
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. If you have anything to
do with this particular item, would you please come forward, stand,
raise your hand and be sworn in.
(The oath was administered.)
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: I do.
Any ex-parte communications, Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would disclose that I have visited
with both petitioner and the people questioning petition. Not met
with them, I've talked to them on the phone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have received several e-mails
from the person, neighboring property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have received a e-mail from
a person opposing this petition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: E-mails as well.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Same here.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good evening, Commissioners. My
name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is
a single lot zoned C-3 commercial in Naples Park. This is the last
commercial lot on 109th Street and -- Avenue North -- I'm sorry.
And they are trying to rezone it to residential to build a single-family
house on it. Basically, this complies with the requirements of the
Growth Management Plan. All residential lots are zoned RMF-6 and
they are requesting to rezone RMF-6, which will allow them to build
a single-family house.
This petition was reviewed under a different name. The petition
for this lot was reviewed under a different name several months ago.
At that time they asked a variance to build closer to the property
lines, and they also requested off-site parking for commercial
building that they were planning to build on this lot, and the off-site
Page 288
December 11,2001
parking was supposed to be on the residential lot next door. But they
decided at the board meeting to continue that, and they came up with
this new idea of just rezoning this to residential.
The problem with the single-lot commercial is, on one side you
have a 15-foot setback which is the setback for the commercial,
which in this case, since it's a nonconforming lot, it may be reduced
to 13 or 12, depending on the height of the building. But on the side
that is residential, the setback is 25, 25 and 15, that leaves them only
a 10-foot-buildable-area width on the lot. So it makes, basically, the
lot unbuildable. That's the reason they are asking -- that's the reason
they asked for variance in the past, and that's the reason they asked to
rezone it to residential, so they can build a single-family house on it
since commercial is not there.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we're really identifying commercial
to residential to build a single-family home on it. Does anybody
really have any questions of Mr. Badamtchian on that? Does the
petitioner have any comments? Do we have any public speakers on
this?
MR. MANALICH: There are two.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we go to public speakers?
First, let's hear him, what he has to say.
MR. MANALICH: Norman Handshaw and Joan Handshaw.
MR. HANDSHAW: Norman Handshaw, I'd just like to speak
basically against this rezoning because the trouble is with the
problems that was just mentioned with the development of this single
commercial lot, the 25-foot setback would suddenly become our 25-
foot setback. Right now we have the two commercial lots next to
him, and we could build a 70-foot building with two 15-foot
setbacks. If this lot gets changed to residential right next to us, then
we have a new setback because now we are the lot that's bordering
the residential lot.
Page 289
December 11, 2001
So as a result, we lose 10 feet worth of building. We go from
being able to build a 70-foot building on the property when we
redevelop to being able to build a 60-foot building.
And we are long-term owners of these two commercial lots.
We've been paying taxes for over 30 years at a commercial
assessment. So we've got a long-term investment, and we will invest
in the long-term down the road.
And when you look at the negative impact of having the
buildability of this lot shrunken down, that leads to a lot of long-term
impact. The potential -- there's a house on 106th that when I e-
mailed I sent a picture of an office building on 106th that was built
there, two stories, and it suffered from having the residential setback
and was smaller as a result. But that building is basically 60 by 33.
So if you look at losing that 10 feet, that's 10 by 33 feet, that over a
course of two stories, that's a potential of over 600 square feet of loss.
And you look at that in the long term of leasing, you look at that
as a smaller building being built which is less valuable, in 15 years
that building could double in value easily, the way things go around
here property-wise and property-value-wise. It could double in
value. And then, you know -- but there's 1 O-foot of building that's
not being built now if the zoning change goes through.
So you look at the long-term financial impact -- and we're long-
term people. We've been here for 30 years. We've had other
commercial property that we've developed before. And when you
look at the long-term financial impact -- and then, you know, we've
got two lots that are being negatively impacted with a bigger setback.
You look, we have two lots, he's got one. I can sympathize with the
fact that it's tough to buy the one lot, but when he bought those lots,
he also knew that they couldn't be developed the way he wanted to
develop them when he got them.
So basically, if you look in anyone's interest that should be
Page 290
December 11, 2001
protected, it should be us. We're the long-term investor here. We've
two lots, he's got one. We're the bigger -- you know, bigger
investment and, also, when you consider the potential financial
negative impact on our property and its development and you
compare.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to wrap up, sir.
MR. HANDSHAW: Okay. You compare that to Mr. Gode who
spent less than $40,000, less than half the appraised value of that
commercial lot next to us, his financial interest is miniscule
compared with our financial damage.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Joan Handshaw.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. HANDSHAW: My name is Joan Handshaw, and I
sympathize with ya'll for having to sit here all day long because I
think your hours are too long, and I think you're a terrific bunch.
Now, first off, this here big refusal, this is a buffer,
environmentally sensitive lot. This is not just -- when he came to
build this, I was up here. When he was trying to build a two-story
with a -- on a 45-foot commercial lot, okay, he's had all this -- the
ideas but -- first off, I'm not a good speaker, but it is -- I mean, I'm
really environmental. This is -- according to my cousin, he's an
engineer, and he classifies this as an environmental lot.
Now, this, they say, has vanished. I went up to the surveyor in
Bonita, Mark Allen his name is. And he came in, surveyed, and he
said this is the green space that goes through Naples Park, and it has
been green space -- you have the choice of either saying no to green
space and allow this man to build whatever he wants to build. As far
as I'm concerned, this has been green space to me for many years.
When my mother passed away, I tried to buy this with the idea that --
and they told me --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have one minute, Mrs.
Page 291
December 11, 2001
Handshaw.
MS. HANDSHAW: -- that I could build on it. I could not build
on it. So why should somebody else build?
But I hope you can see things my way, but I can understand your
way too.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you.
MS. HANDSHAW: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Hoover, would you like to make
any comments? Is there any questions by the board?
MR. HOOVER: Sure. Good evening, commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Excuse me, Mr. Hoover. There are
questions by members of the board.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to hear him.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Proceed, sir.
MR. HOOVER: Okay. William Hoover representing the
petitioners. Basically, we're just rezoning the property. When we
came previous to the board here, Commissioner Coyle wasn't on
then, we were I guess maybe a nice way of saying this, we were
roughed up a little bit.
The newspaper wrote an editorial on this particular project, and
these -- Mrs. Handshaw previously has came to, I believe, about
every hearing opposing this rezoning. But now they're saying this
may have a negative impact on them. So I think it's a little bit late for
them to support the commercial petition. We actually applied for that
in August 30, 1999. So we're asking -- we've met with Mr. Fitzgerald
on the request of Commissioner Carter and the board here. There
was about 20 people in attendance on May 8th. All but one of the
people here tonight voted for the two single-family homes. So the
civic association supports our position.
We're going to build two single-family homes, about 1,800
Page 292
December 11, 2001
square feet under air, each with a two-car garage. So they're very
pleased with what we're going to put up there. And you've already
told us that you don't want the lot to be developed as commercial, so I
don't think there's a whole bunch of choice left on this.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have a question. The
executive summary says that you want to build a single-family
residence. You're saying you want to build two residences on the
property?
MR. HOOVER: Excuse me. There's the lot next door, and we
turned in a site plan. So the lot next door we will also build a single-
family residence. So we just wanted to let you know that they'd be
two similar homes on each of those lots, so it would only be one on
the commercial lot.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, the other lot has
no question, just this one?
MR. HOOVER: Yeah. We're -- it would maintain its current
zoning, which is RMF-6. So I wanted you to know that we weren't,
like, sticking a duplex on those two lots, which we could do, but Mr.
Gode gave me authority that I can promise you that there will be two
single-family homes. He's already turned in the building permits for
those.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this the guy that was building the
walls around his place?
MR. HOOVER: Oh, no, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That isn't the same one, okay.
Good.
MR. HOOVER: We're asking for no variances on the -- you
know, just the regular RMF-6 zoning that we would use like on any
other lot out there that would be used for a single-family home on
each lot.
Page 293
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this is when the Handshaws
didn't want the commercial on there, right.'? So there was no way else
to go but single-family, right?
MR. HOOVER: Correct. Or a duplex. But I'm assuring you
that we're not going to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you cannot develop this lot at
all unless you're permitted to put a residence there; is that correct?
MR. HOOVER: I believe so, yes, sir. I can fit one on there, but
it's going to look pretty ugly. I would need to come back with my --
we did withdraw the variance petition, but the petitioner's daughter
has sold her house. And Mr. Gode is a builder, and he's going to
build these two homes, and his daughter's going to occupy one of
those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There are residences all around his
property on every side?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Correct.
MR. HOOVER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if I understand the
Handshaws' concern, they have a multi-family residence on their
property.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, they don't have anything on their
property.
MR. COYLE: You don't have anything on your property?
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They have a single-family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a regular residence. It's
been there for almost 50 years.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's to the east of this property?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Dunnuck.
MR. DUNNUCK: Commissioners, I may be able to clarify this,
so you just know, right to the point what the issue's about. To the
right side of it is the Handshaws' property. Right now it's a
Page 294
December 11, 2001
nonconforming use. It's a house on a commercial property. If you
rezone this to residential, it increases their setback requirement and
their develop property on their commercial side is less applicable.
They'd be going through the same issue that Mr. Hoover went
through with this current property, in essence. And they're saying by
zoning this, you're passing the problem on to us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it is a residential property.
MR. DUNNUCK: It's a residence, house, on a commercial lot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a nonconforming use?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes, it is.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Hoover's options at this point are to build as
it is currently zoned in which case, without a variance, he's got 10-
foot of buildable space, I believe --
MR. HOOVER: I think that's what Mr. Badamtchian said.
MR. OLLIFF: -- 10 foot wide and the length of the property.
Or his other option is to get a variance, which was denied and then
his only other option is in front of you today, which is to mm it into
an RMF-6 or a residentially zoned property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I guess my problem is -- you
know, I think I understand the problem, but you can't have it both
ways. You can't say, "I've got a residence on this property, so you
can't build a commercial building next to me, but I'm going to tear
down the residence and build a commercial structure so you can't
build a residence there." I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of sense
to me.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't think the Handshaws objected to the
commercial. I think it was more the Naples Park Homeowners'
Association.
DR. BADAMTCHIAN: They did object.
MR. OLLIFF: Oh, did they?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Naples Park Homeowners'
Page 295
December 11, 2001
Association objected to the commercial. We denied the variance.
That's why they're back here.
MR. HOOVER: You continued it.
MS. HANDSHAW: Because it was not --
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, I cannot take comment.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Close the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Close the public hearing. I'd entertain
a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries.
MR. HOOVER: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are you with us, Commissioner
Second.
Any discussion?
All in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed by the same sign.
Yes, I was.
5-0. Thank you.
Coletta?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay.
We have one more item.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2001-489, RE-APPOINTING TARA LA GRAND
AND MORRIS JAMES LOUIS TO THE ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE
CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Page 296
December 11, 2001
MR. MUDD: That brings us to 9, which is the board of County
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thought you had one other item that
was a walk-on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 9-A.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I thought we had a walk on.
MR. MUDD: That's 10-L, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: It goes under county manager's report.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. We're moving to the county
manager's report. Mr. Manalich, that requires three votes for
passage, is that correct, on any of these items that remain on the
agenda?
MR. MANALICH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to try to get to my
granddaughter's Christmas pageant if she hasn't already done her
thing. So I think I'm going to turn it over to the vice chair and let him
carry on in good faith.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're at what, 10-A?
MR. OLLIFF: 9-A.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 9-A. Reappointment of two
members to serve two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any speakers?
All those in favor indicate by
Page 297
December 11, 2001
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 4-0.
Opposed?
Passed 5-0.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Jim is still here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you vote on that, Jim?
CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
(Whereupon, Commissioner Carter left the meeting room.)
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2001-490 APPOINTING DAVID M. CORBAN,
ELLEN CHRISTIAN-MYERS AND WILLIAM J. MC CARTHY
TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Item 9-B, to appoint three
members to serve two years, term expiring December 31 st.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the three
applicants.
MR. COYLE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve
and a second. Do we have any discussion? No speakers?
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
All those in favor indicate by
Opposed.
Page 298
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Carter is gone.
December 11,2001
Passed 4-0. Commissioner
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2001-491, APPOINTING MARY ELLEN RAND
TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD -
ADOPTED
The next item is 9-C. If I'm going too fast for anyone, just
holler.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve this single
member that applied.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You have a motion and
second. No speakers on this one?
MS. FILSON: No speakers.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by
Opposed.
Passed 4-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2001-492, APPOINTING THERESA ABRAHAM-
WALLEY, LISA M. DOUGLASS, BARBARA HATTEMER, KEN
Page 299
December 11,2001
HUMISTON, JENNIE KELLER, P.K. MISRA, BARBARA
PLAAG, LOURDES RAMANN, DIANE TAYLOR, ELIZABETH
L. WALKER AND CONFIRMING APPOINTMENT OF
COMMISSIONER COYLE, LINDA ABBOTT AND KAREN
STRICKLAND - ADOPTED
The next one is 9-D.
MS. FILSON: This one will take a little longer.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will take a little longer.
MS. FILSON: We have 12 applicants for the Community of
Character Council. You need to make ten appointments. Then you
need to confirm there's five spots representing certain organizations.
The City of Naples has opted not to participate at this time, and Mr.
William Maus from Marco Island City had sent a letter nominating
Nicholas Carcillo who later withdrew. So we'll have to work on
those two organizations for representation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So nobody in this list that we
received could fill those two slots. That would have to be something
that's nominated by those two cities, correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Got you.
MS. FILSON: Let me make one other comment. Theresa
Abraham Wally, who is the first applicant on my list, she is
registered, I got that after the fact, and she resides in District 5.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you.
Afterwards, there were a couple districts that you had on this list
of things. You know me, how I pour over these things. But I noticed
that there were wrong district numbers on there for the addresses that
they gave, but you and I will talk about that at another time.
MS. FILSON: I get the districts from the supervisor of
elections.
Page 300
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 3112 would never be in five.
That's where I live.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So, clarification, we need to
appoint the ones within the box?
MS. FILSON: We need ten of them. There are 12 applicants.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You go ahead and start, Donna,
and I'll finish.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, Barbara Flagg. I
know her.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ken Humiston. I don't know him,
but his resume was great. Elizabeth Walker, again, I don't know her
but hers sounded very, very good. Lisa Douglas, I know her, and I
know she's been real active in the Jaycees, that's No. 4. P.K. Misrock
(phonetic), man, did he have an impressive resume, so I figured him
for five. Jenny Keller, again, I don't know her, but she sounded really
good. That's for six.
I don't know when you want to take over there. Theresa
Abraham Wally, I was just concerned with her voting status. But as
long as she's a voter, she sounded very good. She comes out of
Cleveland, so she must be good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Barbara Hattimer, Diane
Taylor. Did you mention Diane?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I haven't even gotten there yet.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Diane Taylor. What are we up
to, eight?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Diane Taylor is eight, and Barbara
Hattimer would be nine, right. And what else?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's see. I have another one
Page 301
December 11, 2001
here. I didn't know about Lourdes Raymond. It said that she had
writing background, and in the considerations it said they wanted
people in the media. She isn't a local media person, but it sounded
like she had media background.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe she could take notes,
though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that could be our tenth person.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now, we have a total
of ten people now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be ten, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: And that's also confirming the three,
Commissioner Fred Coyle, the school board member, Linda Abbott
and Lieutenant Karen Strickland representing the sheriff's
department. And then we'll work on the City of Marco and City of
Naples.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
a second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
So we have a motion, we have
All those in favor indicate by
Four. It passed.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2001-493, APPOINTING VICKI A. CLAVELO
AND KAYDEE TUFF TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Page 302
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the two
applicants for the Golden Gate Community Center Advisory board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion. I would like to make that
motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
think we need a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
that.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
No speakers again. Any discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Well, we have a motion. I
Did he make that motion? I second
We have a motion and second.
All those in favor indicate by
Four.
Item # 10A
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
GOLDEN GATE FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT -
APPROVED
Under local agreement, the first-response training between
Collier County and Golden Gate Fire and Rescue District.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like me to make a
motion to approve
A VOICE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second
A VOICE: Thank you.
Page 303
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've a motion to
approve, we've got a second. Any discussion? (No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Passed.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I just need to point out, that's a
big deal, and that's something that we would not have been able to do
for the last two or three years. And a lot of credit goes to Tom
Storrar and Jeff Page for pulling that one off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We ought to hang that one up
on the wall.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A little more fanfare should be
given to that, too, huh?
Item # 10C
COMMITTEE SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS (LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES) FOR RFP 02-
3317 "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDIES - STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS WITH HENDERSON, YOUNG & COMPANY
MR. OLLIFF: We're on 10-C, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening. For the record, Michael
Smykowski. We're looking for board direction to approve the
committee selection of a firm -- or to enter into contact negotiations
for consulting services, for impact fee study updates. In this case the
Selection Committee was related to the correction facilities on law
Page 304
December 11, 2001
enforcement impact fees. That was a component on five impact fee
updates that included the regional fire protection and educational
facility, as well as the aforementioned correctional facility impact.
At this point I would just be entering into contact with the top-
ranking firm, which the contest was Henderson, Young & Company
who had previously done the initial correctional facility's impact fee
study, as well as the previous version of a law enforcement impact
fee that the board opted not to implement at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question. Does the
fire department and school participate in this as far as financial
because we have fire protection?
MR. SYMKOWSKI: That's correct. In the executive summary,
those three elements, the first three, community and regional parks,
fire protection, and educational facilities or schools, will be brought
-- they'll be separate selection committees for those, and those will be
brought to the board via separate executive summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Got you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think I have any questions.
MR. SYMKOWSKI: Again, we would be bringing back a
contract award, and the board would make a final decision on that
negotiated contract with staff and at direction of the county manager.
We'd be looking to accelerate that to get the results as soon as
possible.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would it be at all possible if a
commissioner had any interest of watching the proceedings of the
select committee and how to go through this? They might be able to
sit in very quietly in the background and
bear witness.'?
MR. SYMKOWSKI: Well, the select committee has made its
recommendation already.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I mean, in the future when this
Page 305
December 11, 2001
comes up again?
MR. SYMKOWSKI: Sure.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know there are several of
them coming up.
MR. SYMKOWSKI: Those are public meetings in the
purchasing department coordinated by the purchasing staff with the
appropriate select committee members, so I see no reason.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have two of them coming up
on my calendar. I just wanted to see how the whole process takes
place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that. And this is in
accordance -~ and staff and this board want to make sure that we're
collecting the highest legal level of impact fees. MR. SYMKOWSKI: That is correct.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That will be noted in your
motion and in the second, too, I take it?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a
second. Any discussion? (No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Passed 4-0.
MR. SYMKOWSKI: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #10D
AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE LEGAL ACTION TO ALLOW
THE COUNTY TO PROCEED WITH DESIGN AND
Page 306
December 11,2001
CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROVED VANDERBILT BEACH
PARK1NG GARAGE - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving right on, 10-D,
authorization to initiate legal action against WCI Communities. I'm
sure we've got a speaker on this.
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to go ahead,
Leo?
MR. OCHS: Certainly. Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, Leo Ochs, assistant county manager.
This is an authorization request to initiate legal action against
WCI Communities to allow the county to proceed with the design
and construction of the previously approved Vanderbilt Beach
parking garage which the board approved in October of 2000.
Very quickly, back in 1982 as part of their PUD commitment,
the developers of the Pelican Bay community conveyed a 5-acre
parcel of property to the county to be used for public beach parking.
That conveyance contained a series of deed restrictions, several of
which without modification are prohibiting us from moving forward
with the design and construction of the beach park facility and the
attended parking garage. Staff has attempted to work through those
deed restrictions to gain some relief through a series of discussions
with WCI, but so far they have refused to grant those permissions.
And, given their stated position in the letter that's attached to your
executive summary, staff feels our best course of action at this point
is to recommend to the board that we move to the court system and
ask for some declaratory relief from these deed restrictions so that we
may proceed with the project. And therefore, staff is making that
recommendation.
Page 307
December 11,2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
time?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
move to the public speakers.
Questions from staff at this
Why don't we go ahead and
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Matthew Grabinski. He will
be followed by Dick Lydon.
MR. GRABINSKI: Good evening, Commissioners, Matthew
Grabinski with the law firm of Garlick, Stetler & Peeples
representing the Ritz-Carlton and Host Marriott Corporation. Many
years ago when Host Marriott Corporation acquired the parcel upon
which the Ritz-Carlton Hotel is now located, it relied upon the
representations of WCI Communities as a developer, and it relied
upon their willingness and ability to create land-use restrictions and
enforce those restrictions within the Pelican Bay PUD to ensure that
the quality and character of that community would not be
compromised.
Now, land-use restrictions are also known as equitable
servitudes. They're enforceable against subsequent property owners
that where never in privity to the original document that created those
restrictions. However, long before our legal system recognized
equitable sevitudes as being lightly enforceable, it acknowledged and
recognized that property owners could create land-use restrictions
and enforce them under a contract's theory, and those restrictions
would be enforceable to the original parties to the contract.
Collier County, you made a deal in 1982, and now your staff is
asking you to break it. I spent this afternoon upstairs on the fourth
floor printing out copies of the minutes from the April 13th meeting
held back in 1982, and I will submit this as Exhibit A. Item 12-C on
the County's report was acceptance conveyed by Coral Ridge Collier
Properties, Inc., in satisfaction of PUD and Corps of Engineer
Page 308
December 11, 2001
requirements with Pelican Bay Improvement District for conservation
area.
The minutes read in pertinent part as follows: "County Attorney
Pickworth explained that certain conveyances and agreements
between Collier County and Coral Ridge-Collier Properties, Inc.,
were being done in conformance with certain Corps. Of Engineer
PUD and DER regulations and explained that April of 1982 marks
the fifth year of a commitment that Pelican Bay made with Collier
County to deed an area for a park and for parking spaces.
Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner
Wenzel, and carried unanimously that the aforementioned deeds to
lands conveyed by Coral Ridge Properties, Inc., be accepted with
appreciation.
Attached to those minutes are the deeds, and I will admit the
relevant one for the public record. I will also point out that on the
front page of this deed, the County noted its acceptance right on the
face of the deed. The relevant restrictions provide that no building or
facility shall exceed 1,000 square feet per structure and that no
building or structure of any kind shall exceed 20 feet in height above
finished grade of the site.
Since Dick Lydon had to leave due to the length of the meeting,
I'd appreciate it if I could have a few minutes at this time to at least
wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't speak for somebody
else.
MR. GRABINSKI: Could I at least have a minute or two to
wrap up then?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll give you one minute to
wrap up.
MR. GRABINSKI: One minute, please.
The restrictions make it clear. WCI reserved itself the right to
Page 309
December 11, 2001
specifically enforce these restrictions, even for purely aesthetic
reasons to preserve the character and nature of its community. I'm
not here on behalf of WCI. I don't speak from them -- for them, but I
do know in my legal research that this is a matter of first impression.
There are no cases on point with respect to this.
There are cases that hold that when a governmental entity
acquires property subject to land-use restrictions that it was not
privity to, that those restrictions are not enforceable against them.
They may have to pay compensation, but they're not enforceable.
Collier County is in privity with WCI. And as a developer of
thousands of acres in Southwest Florida, if I were WCI and I were
making the call, I would want to see this go to court. I'd either want
Collier County to agree to drop this, or I'd want to see it go to court,
and I would appeal it up to the Second DCA because I'd want to
know exactly where I stood, both with respect to dedications and
exactions now, but in future developments. And as a personal
property owner and an attorney who represents developers, I'm also
curious to see how this will pan out. Good night.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Matt.
MS. FILSON: Dick Lydon. I believe he's gone. The last
speaker will be John Hickey.
MR. HICKEY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm John Hickey,
Community Relations Committee of the Beach Lot Residents
Association on Vanderbilt Beach Road. I represent 354
owners/residents in that community. I am speaking to you to ask you
to vote no on the staff's legal action request on this item.
I am further supporting Dick Lydon's request which he put in a
fax, which I hope you all have. It was sent to you yesterday. If not, I
have a copy of it here, and I'll be glad to give you a copy of it this
evening. His request was to not only say no to what staff is
requesting, but go back and rescind the original approval for the
Page 310
December 11,2001
parking garage by the county commissioners.
Each of the facts that Dick has enumerated are true. One, on
three separate occasions the Beach Renourishment Committee
reviewed this project, and it was never approved. Two, the project
never was approved by the TDC. Three, beaches are now
overcrowded now. Body counts did not take into account folks who
walk to the beach. Four, funds for this project were deleted by the
commissioners' action recently, and funds for this project may not be
available for some years to come with the higher priority needs that
the county is finding now. And, five, it is obvious that parks and
recreation never checked the deed restrictions before gaining your
prior approval for this.
We agree this project is in the wrong place. Every road leading
to this project is today overburdened. More parking means more cars
on these roads and streets and there's no more room for them now.
Please vote no on the staff request and go one step further now and
rescind the original approval for this garage. Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Could we get
an opinion from legal?
MS. CHADWELL: Good evening. I'm Ellen Chadwell,
assistant county attorney. Did you have some questions as to --
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, yes. They just made a
case for a deed restriction, and I'd like to see how we can work
around this where we can go forward with the project. That's my
own personal feeling.
MS. CHADWELL: Well, staff is recommending a declaratory
action because we believe there is some legal basis for determining
that these restrictions are no longer in force -- are non-enforceable
against the county either by virtue of being a county, or that they are
no longer enforceable by virtue of a change in circumstance. As
you'll look up on the visualizer, you'll see the character of the
Page 311
December 11,2001
community that they're concerned about as far as the aesthetic
quality.
We're seeking to build a four-story parking garage that is located
next to the Ritz. As a practical matter, the court will make a ruling
on whether these restrictions are enforceable or not. Mr. Grabinski
has made his legal argument, but I don't think that's appropriate for
the forum tonight. There are other options to the board. You could
decide to go forward and let them take legal action to enforce you,
but staff doesn't recommend that, as generally, it's not cost efficient
for the county, and it's probably not a good-neighbor thing to do.
There is also the alternative of the county exercising its eminent
domain powers. We think at this point in time that that's a much
more expensive proposition and simply taking the matter before a
judge, let us assert our legal positions and let the court decide if, in
fact, they're enforceable. Then it will be this board's decision. If you
prevail, they may appeal. Or if you don't prevail, then you can decide
if you want to drop the battle at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So, in other words, the court might
decide for us what we're going to be doing, right?
MS. CHADWELL: Well, that's what we'll be asking the court.
What the declaratory action is, is to say that we are in doubt as to --
the parties are in doubt as to their rights under these restrictive
covenants and to ask the court to declare that these covenants are, in
fact, unenforceable against the county. The court will then look at
the issue as to the restrictive covenants and make a legal
determination on that point. So you'll have an outcome that will
either say we are right, or you'll have an outcome that will say they
are right.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we need to provide
certain amenities to the residents and visitors of Collier County. We
Page 312
December 11, 2001
need to plan for those amenities. What action we're taking today is
not a binding thing. The project is not funded at this time. So,
therefore, I'll make a motion to include staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay we have a motion and a
second. Any discussion? (No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd just like to make one
comment. I know when I get to the beach twice a year, very often I'll
get down there during the winter season, and there won't be any
parking places. And if the beach is overcrowded, the only other
alternative to a parking garage would be to come up with some
system where the people that live on the beach use it on Monday,
Wednesdays, and Fridays, and the people that live inland can use it
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. And if this don't work, how
about if the Ritz-Carlton let us use their parking lot. That would
solve the problem also.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I might
without belaboring this, there was a statement made that the staff did
not advise the board about the existence of these deed restrictions
when we sought approval for the parking structure back in October of
2000. I just want to read two sentences from that executive summary
dated October 24, 2000.
It says, in part, "Also A series of deed restrictions on the
property may have to be addressed with the Pelican Bay Foundation.
The County Attorney's Office will provide legal guidance on the
county's potential obligations with respect to this document at the
board meeting, and they did address it.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a
Page 313
second. Any other discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye. Aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
December 11,2001
All those in favor indicate by
Opposed?
4-0.
Item # 10E
CONFIRMATION OF JOSEPH K. SCHMITT TO THE POSITION
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR - APPROVED
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next item is 10-E, and it's the
confirmation of Joe Schmitt.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
Item #10F
PRESENTATION OF THE FOURTEENTH ANNUAL SURVEY
OF REGISTERED VOTERS - PRESENTED; AND CHAIRMAN
TO SIGN LETTER TO THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
Page 314
December 11,2001
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, the next is the presentation of
Fourteenth Annual Survey of Registered Voters, and God help Mr.
Mohlke who has been here on and off since 8:00 this morning. We
thank him for being here. He is ready to make a presentation, but I
wanted to give the board at least a little thumbnail about the process,
and Beth will follow up -- Walsh from my office will follow up a
little bit and just tell you about how this fits in with an annual process
that includes budgeting and strategic planning.
MR. MOHLKE: Thank you, Mr. Manager. If it please this
honorable board, I appear representing the Institute of Government,
as well as the manager's office in reporting to you on the outcome of
the Fourteenth Annual 2001 Collier County Telephone Survey. I will
be brief because I think the substance of the remarks that Beth Walsh
will be making and follow-up remarks by the county manager will
probably provide the substantive part of this presentation.
My easiest way to represent the findings here is to urge
members of the general public and board members, if their schedules
permit, to be at this next Monday's meeting of the League of Women
Voters at the Naples Depot to hear presentation at 12:45 as a part of
that program before the main luncheon program which will discuss in
some detail the material that you not only have in your agenda
packet, but also in more specific detail, some of the tabular materials
which are contained within the three-ring binder folder dated
November 2nd, which I know has been presented to each board
member and has been reviewed in some small part with the manager
or with staff--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Chuck, I hate to bother you, but
one second. You had said before the luncheon meeting at 12:45. You
mean at 10:457
MR. MOHLKE: 10:45. I did say 10:45, before the luncheon
presentation. We have made every effort to provide whatever detail
Page 315
December ! 1, 2001
is necessary and desired by the media in regard to this and will
continue to do that, if that is the pleasure of the board. I would just
say, in concluding my part of these remarks, that I think there are
three things that board members will want to be mindful of in respect
to their use of this data.
One is that you have some very highly regarded county
departments and services. And they represented, for example, the
library, parks and recreation department, emergency management
services. You also have some very highly regarded vendors of
services to the county. It would be very hard in any corporate
department to have the kind of community reputation that Waste
Management has on behalf of the board in terms of the way it collects
waste and recycles that waste.
The consistent reputation of this service remains at this very,
very high level and has ever since we began asking this question,
well beyond the six years that are demonstrated to you in the matrix
of responses that go back to the mid 1990%.
Secondarily, you have a universe of respondents that we go to
regularly on behalf of the board, that demonstrate consistently that
about one in three of the persons who are interviewed in the 14 years
that we've been doing this work who have less than five years of
residential experience in Collier County, there is to my knowledge --
and I stand to be corrected by the manager or by staff-- currently no
effort underway to provide systematically information about county
services or the services of the constitutional officers with the
exception of the Supervisor of Elections Office. It gives new
residents a clear idea of how they will relate in the future to county
government, although the services are very well outlined in what
used to be Channel 54 and now is Channel 11. And it is just the
suggestion of our firm that you revisit that issue from time to time
and make a determination as to whether or not the board wants to
Page 316
December 11, 2001
posture itself very proactively with new residents when they declare
their domicile and consistent with the programs which are provided
through the Supervisor of Elections Office to acquaint them with the
mechanisms by which elections are conducted in Collier County.
And, lastly, that as you proceed with development of the
important public projects that are budgeted by this board, that you
give consideration to what I will call the predicates that underlay the
construction programs so that you're always mindful of what a
community perception may be, for example, of a roadway
construction project. Anyone examining this data and the data from
previous years will be struck by the fact that there has been a steady
decline in public confidence about, what I will call, the maintenance
of traffic in Collier County.
And that as you examined the tabular material which
accompanies this, you'll notice that the county is broken into
geographic areas represented by clusters of zip codes and in those
areas where, after some considerable effort, major roadway
construction projects have been completed, most notably in east
Naples, in the very zip code that we are all in this evening, that
there's been a steady escalation in terms of the understanding of these
roadway programs and the willingness of those who are interviewed
to say that there is a good maintenance of traffic program in zip code
area 34112 or 34113.
Now, that doesn't happen to be the case in other areas where
active roadway construction programs are underway. And when
there is visible evidence of a very satisfactory completion of a long
ten-year project, you get a positive public response that indicates how
important it is in the minds of the voters interviewed that very
soundly construed maintenance of traffic programs be in place before
major construction programs are undertaken and that particularly --
and I think the evidence is clear in here that projects undertaken by
Page 317
December 11, 2001
other jurisdictions in Collier County have a profound impact on the
reputation of the county's maintenance of traffic program. It doesn't
require a rocket scientist to read the data and come to any conclusion
other than that.
I cannot tell you how rewarding an experience it is to act on
behalf of the board and the Institute of Government in conducting
these annual surveys. And I feel it's important for me to say that
without the cooperation of the Collier County League Women
Voters, none of this would be possible. The budget for this is very
modest, indeed. It has been $5,400 for the last 14 years and remains
at that level. And there is no request that that amount of money be in
any manner increased or augmented in any fashion. We're getting
good at this, and we in each year manage to achieve some reasonable
efficiencies which make it possible for the project to be completed in
a timely and, we hope, in an efficient manner from the standpoint of
the board.
We had excellent cooperation from the county manager's office,
and it is a reward, indeed, to know that in the planning for your future
budgets and the programs which you are evaluating, meeting to
meeting, that this data will have some use in your consideration. And
I'm looking forward to hearing the remarks of Beth Walsh and the
manager in this regard.
We thank you for the opportunity to be able to participate in this
fashion. And should you direct us to undertake similar projects in
future years, we will be very pleased to do that. And on behalf of the
League of Women Voters and, our firm Fraser & Mohlke, we express
appreciation for the opportunity to present these results to you.
Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are there any questions from
the board?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a comment. Mr. Mohlke,
Page 318
December 11, 2001
thank you for doing such a fine job for the Board of Commissioners,
over the years and also the best to the league for their participation.
MR. MOHLKE: I'll be certain to convey that response,
Commissioner Henning, on behalf of the whole board at the league
meeting on Monday, and we thank you for the comment. VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Beth.
MS. WALSH: For the record, I'm Beth Walsh, assistant to the
county manager. The information that Chuck has provided in
conjunction with the information from the vital signs report and the
other surveys conducted in the last few years such as FoCus and
Collier 2000 will be combined and presented at our strategic planning
workshop which is scheduled for January 29th. At the workshop
we'll be focusing and prioritizing our goals as we prepare to enter a
new budget cycle. The commissioners will be asked to provide their
input as to their goals and visions for their constituents as well as
Collier County.
During the months of February and March, we will enter into the
budget policy phase establishing more refined guidelines and
parameters for staff to utilize while developing their budgets. We
will be asking staff to focus their programs towards reaching the
goals and visions recognized during the workshop.
March through June we will be internally reviewing, modifying,
and streamlining our department budgets.
And September we will be holding the public budget hearings
establishing a budget that has been formulating towards reaching the
goals discussed during the strategic planning session.
October starts the new fiscal year when employee action plans
are formulated. Those action plans are structured in a manner to
encourage employees to work towards attaining those strategic goals
and visions that were originally identified in January.
The cycle is an ongoing process that begins with the citizens'
Page 319
December 11,2001
survey. Utilizing and continuing to refine the valuable information
provided by the citizens and by acting upon and structuring our entire
operating system towards attaining those previously identified goals
will help us all achieve a county government that truly exceeds
expectations.
MR. OLLIFF: I just wanted you to understand that there is
some method to the madness here and that the very first step in any
planning process is to understand what our constituents expect of us
and are saying about us. And I think the survey has got a wealth of
information that tells us that. And so we are going to take that
information and for the first time, I think, try and make some actual,
real relationships between what they are saying and what budget we
develop for you this summer.
And the intermediate process, step in between, is simply going
to be your synthesizing that information, along with what we've
previously gotten out of foCus in some of these other processes and
boiling it down into some meaningful goals for us so we know what
kind of budget you want us to develop, and the budget will drive the
action plans that we actually have our employees develop in the fall
of next year.
So it is all a continuing cycle and a process and Mr. Mohlke is
an integral part of it. And, if nothing else, we certainly appreciate his
maintenance of the cost of this program.
One other thing that I would like to ask the board to do is, I've
got a letter here that I'd like to read into the record and just ask the
board to authorize the chair to sign it. It is directed to the League of
Women Voters, attention Aldero Pierce (phonetic), who is the current
president of the league. "Please accept this letter as our thanks for
your hard work and dedication in the preparation of the Fourteenth
Annual Citizens Telephone Survey. It is through the hard work of
the League of Women Voters in conjunction with Fraser, Mohlke &
Page 320
December 11,2001
Associates, that Collier County can conduct this survey in such an
effective and cost-efficient manner. Your group's concern for the
people of Collier and your desire to make Collier County a place that
truly listens to its citizens is commendable. We look forward to
many more years of working together. Sincerely, James D. Carter,
Chairman."
And if the board would authorize the chair to sign that, we
would have that delivered at the next lively league luncheon where
they're talking about the petition.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Second.
All those in favor.
You got it.
Item # 10G
REVIEW AND APPROVE THE APPROPRIATE INVOICES
REGARDING THE ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION OF
COLLIER COUNTY NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY
AND FIND A PUBLIC PURPOSE HAS BEEN SERVED
The next Item will be 10-G.
MR. WALLACE: Thank you. For the record, Bleu Wallace,
director of community development operations. I think last week
John Dunnuck, administrator of community development and
environmental services division notified everybody that the TDC
function has been transferred to community development operations.
We took that over last week, and we had the opportunity to meet with
Tourism Alliance during their regular meeting on Tuesday at which
Page 321
December 11,2001
time we learned that they are starting a visionary process to look to
the future on how they would like everything set up.
You took the first step on Friday by approving KSR's contract
for the next ten months or until we decide to terminate it, in view of
the Alliance's move towards this visionary process. I will tell you
that I've just been informed that the Alliance is planning a meeting
this Thursday to further that process. And hopefully after the
Christmas break, they can come back with the recommendation.
In the meantime, this item was provided by -- was submitted to
the board by the previous TDC staff, and it has the November and
October invoices from Tourism Alliance. You'll notice that there's
one Category 3 item that staff recommends not be approved. I'm here
to change that recommendation. On your visualizer here is the article
that appears in the Links Magazine, their November and December
issue. I read the article. I am not a golfer, but I thought the article
was very, very good. It hit all of the bullets.
Concerts, arts, golf, shopping, the outlet mall, cultural activities,
echo-tourism, on and on, to include a cattle drive down the streets of
Immokalee. This is what we want. And although the Tourism
Alliance's agreement with the vendor stated that Collier County will
be shown prominently in the article, they missed it. Collier County
doesn't show up. But the title of the article is "Greater Naples, Marco
Island, and the Everglades."
So I'm saying this does meet our public purpose, in my opinion,
and I would recommend that the staff approve all the invoices that are
submitted with this item. And before I go any further, since I've been
in the TDC business for some seven days now, I have discovered that
there are $63,000 in approved, board-approved invoices that had been
returned from the finance department because the Tourism Alliance
budget is over budget. There's no funds there to pay these invoices. I
bring that to your attention because if my name's going to be on it, I
Page 322
December 11,2001
want to have disclosure up front.
Also, we've discovered a $4,200 fiscal year '99 invoice that has
not been paid. This had to do with the Greater Naples Bowling
Tournament. I can assure you that during this break I'm going to do
everything I can, working with the county attorney's office and also
working with the clerk and trying to figure out a way to find a
remedy and bring it back to you for approval on some way to fix this.
With that, staff would recommend that all of the invoices
submitted in this item be approved for payment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask how, if we don't have
any money in there?
MR. WALLACE: No, ma'am. What I'm saying is, the $63,000
was fiscal year 2000 invoices. There is no -- in other words, the
Tourism Alliance is over budget for the fiscal year 2000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You mean they overspent what
we allocated to them?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that good management?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We don't need a motion on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How did they miss it?
MR. WALLACE: Sir, we don't need a motion on that. I just
brought that to your attention since you're going to be looking to me
from this point forward.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would we do about an over
budget?
MR. WALLACE: Sir, I'm going to have to figure that out with
the good services of the clerk, finance office, and the county attorney.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is responsible for budgeting
the expenditure control with the Tourism Alliance?
MR. WALLACE: The Tourism Alliance and, I would assume,
Page 323
December 11, 2001
their president, who is someone that's under contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bleu, are you recommending
that we amend our ordinance so that we don't have a big county logo
on any advertisement?
MR. WALLACE: Sir, I haven't been in the business long
enough to make that kind of recommendation. I'm sorry.
MR. MUDD: Sir, could I interject? I think the last time you
met and you talked about budgeted items for the Tourism Alliance,
you made it quite clear that advertisements need to have Collier
County in it and around it, and I think Ms. Prutos got that word. I
think this is a document that was published before that guidance was
made clear, and I think Bleu did due diligence in going to that article
to make sure that, in fact, it met the intent, even though the words
"Collier County" weren't on it. But I think Ms. Prutos understands
that Collier County needs to be mentioned in any article, based on
our ordinance and contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I read it, too, and it almost
made me want to come and vacation here. It was a good article. It
did miss Collier County, and they're trying to get more recognition
for the county rather than Naples, Marco, Everglades City. They're
trying give us a focus on the county as a whole. But I think with
Bleu there now -- and he feels confident that we'll be marching in that
direction. I think I have no problem in making a motion to approve
these expenses.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's just the expenses for this,
not the 63?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no. This is just for this that
Bleu recommends we pay.
MR. WALLACE: The $63,000 was mentioned just for
information, that and the $4,200 from fiscal year '99.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate it. Just for your
Page 324
December 11,2001
information, I'll sleep a lot better tonight.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I make a motion that we pay
these expenses that Bleu has recommended to be paid. He has looked
over all of them and studied them and comes back with his
recommendation.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion. Do I have a
second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'II second that motion.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and a
second. Is there any speakers on this?
MR. MANALICH: I think one comment, Commissioners.
There should be a finding of public purpose to support the approval
of the motion as included within the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was only one
questionable item on there, and that's the item on the screen right
now. So there is a finding of a public person as the spirit of
advertising Collier County and even in Immokalee.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In Immokalee. Thank you for
mentioning Immokalee.
MR. MANALICH: I think we intend that as to all the items, but
that will do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, there is the public
purpose.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and second
too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We find a public purpose in
all of these items.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have to elaborate on
that, or is that --
MR. MANALICH: No, I think that will be sufficient.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's obvious. Any other
Page 325
discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Item #10K
December 11, 2001
All those in favor indicate by
4-0. Thank you.
PRESENTATION OF THE "VITAL SIGNS" REPORT -
CONTINUED
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, before we jump into the next
item, could I ask the board's indulgence just to agree that you are
willing to continue the presentation of the vital signs report from this
agenda so I can get some staff off to school and out of the room? The
vital signs report is probably a 40-slide PowerPoint presentation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can read it, we've got the data
plan
Any
MR. OLLIFF: And we'll include that as part of your strategic
meeting in January.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
We have a motion and second.
All those in favor indicate by
4-0. Move onto 10-I.
Page 326
Item # 1 OH
December 11, 2001
2002 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
PRUTOS PUBLIC RELATIONS, INC., PHASE V OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., AND EVANS-KLAGES, INC. -
PHASE V OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. CONTRACT
APPROVED; CONTRACT W/EVANS-KLAGES, INC.
APPROVED; CONTRACT WITH PRUTOS PUBLIC
RELATIONS, INC. APPROVED WITH CHANGES
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10-H.
MR. WALLACE: Item 10-H, sir. For the record, Bleu Wallace.
At their December 4th meeting, the Tourism Alliance voted
unanimously to advise the vendors to sign off on agreements under
the same terms as the previous years' agreements, but these
agreements will be with the County and not with the Tourism
Alliance as had been in the past.
The first one you've already approved, that was last Friday with
KSR. Today I bring you the agreements recommended by the
Tourism Alliance for Phase V of Southwest Florida, Evans-Klages
Incorporated and Prutos Public Relations Incorporated, as
recommended by the Tourism Alliance and based on the Tourism
Alliance's recommendation that the County -- that these agreements
be with the County and these vendors, we present these agreements
that have all been executed to include the one at the time you got the
executive summary Prutos Public Relations, that one has been
executed as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll tell you, Bleu, I just got mine
today. I haven't had a chance to study it, read through it or anything.
So I'm kind of going into this thing fine, but I prefer to have them a
few days in advance so I know what they say.
Page 327
December 11, 2001
MR. WALLACE: From the time that the Tourism Alliance took
their vote, which was around somewhere between twelve and one on
Tuesday, staff had to coordinate the negotiation and execution of four
agreements. Three you have in front of you now. One you acted on
on Friday. And I'm sorry that the backup was not provided sooner,
but it was provided on Friday as soon as staff could get to you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I got it on Monday. Is there
any reason not to put this off?. Or is there anything -- we want to
continue this on so that we can set up for the summer advertising?
MR. WALLACE: Well, keep in mind that Tourism Alliance is
going to meet this week to continue their vision as to how they want
this whole situation as far as the tourism thing to look in the future.
There are 30-day termination clauses for each of these vendors. So in
the event that the Tourism Alliance comes back with the
recommendation to go a different route, then that option is open to
you to terminate these agreements. All of them have the 30-day
termination clause.
And with that, I'm presenting these agreements that have been
recommended by the Tourism Alliance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WALLACE: These are retroactive to one December. All
of these firms have been working since the 1 st of December, so these
would be retroactive to the 1 st.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What does Phase V do?
MR. WALLACE: Phase V, they do the media -- the media kits
and the telephone calls on 800 numbers and all that that they receive.
And there's a representative here from Phase V that could probably
tell you in a lot better detail than I as to what I do. Evans-Klages, that's the 800.
MR. WALLACE: No. Evans-Klages, he's the independent
counsel that provides the statistical data to back up what they do and
Page 328
December 11, 2001
what the results are.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
motions on each one of these
A VOICE: Yes, they should be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
the contract for 30 days on Phase V.
Oh, the results.
And are we taking separate
Entertain a motion to continue
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second it.
You mean just for 30 days you want to do this?
MR. WALLACE: No, we have a -- there is a provision in all
three of these contracts. If after you hear from the Tourism Alliance,
if they want to go in another direction, we can terminate each of these
contracts within 30 days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Separately?
MR. WALLACE: In the meantime, until we have something
else in place, as recommended by the Tourism Alliance, you may
wish to go ahead and approve these 1 O-month contracts to carry us
through the end of the fiscal year.
MR. MANALICH: Commissioners, there should be a separate
vote as to each contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do you want us to do one month
or ten months on Phase V -- I seconded yours but --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's a ten-month contract with
us to get out of it within 30 days. All we have to do is give them
notice in 30 days.
MR. MANALICH: We do have some speakers, I believe.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we get the speakers
up here first.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Joy Lelonek, and she will be
followed by Rich Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Both of them are gone.
Page 329
December 11, 2001
MS. FILSON: Oh, no speakers.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. It isn't for 30 days.
entire ten months to be --
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
agree on what we're doing here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
do we have it for ten months?
too.
Do we have a motion?
It's for the
You know, let's make sure we
Yeah.
Do we have it for 30 days, or
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Ten months.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ten months.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second for that
Any discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is for Phase V?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. All those in
favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sorry for the confusion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the next part.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve the contract with Evans-Klages.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion and a second. No
other speakers, though, right?
All those in favor indicate by
Page 330
December 11, 2001
MS. FILSON: No other speakers, period.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a motion and a
second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-0.
Next item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a little bit of heartburn
with the next item. I understand that Ms. Prutos does not work for
the Alliance anymore?
MR. WALLACE: No. Under this contract agreement she
would work for the county, but she would be reporting to the
Alliance.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, why
don't you go ahead and state your objection to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're being asked to
compensate somebody that is paid more than the county manager.
How many people do you have under you, Tom? Two? Three?
MR. OLLIFF: Almost 1,400.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, this is a small
operation. And in looking at it, the agreement, it almost looks like
it's a continuation of the Alliance acting as a tourism for the Tourism
Alliance. I mean, there's a lot of stuff in here too. When directed to
ensure representation by the Tourism Alliance at domestic and
international trade shows and at press events, I mean, it's -- a lot of
this stuff that is in here is, again, working for the other alliance. And
I don't know if that's really what we want Mrs. Prutos to do. Tell me
what the void is and maybe we can get there by some amendments.
All those in favor indicate by
Page 331
December 11,200 !
MR. DUNNUCK: For the record, John Dunnuck, community
development and environmental services administrator. I think
where the Alliance was trying to get to, she acts as kind of their CEO
for Tourism Alliance. She is doing the day-to-day functions. We
currently don't have that function to do it from a marketing public
relations standpoint at the county level.
So I think what they have asked is, that while they go through
this visioning process, they have someone to continue that endeavor
to ensure that we don't lose things in the interim process between,
you know, what's happened since September 1 lth, the recent
approval of the agreements on the marketing side, and until we get to
this visioning process -- I think their point of view was that you have
a 30-day clause, that should they come up with a reorganization plan
of how we are going handle tourism in the community, that they can
go ahead and make a recommendation to terminate and even, you
know, make her -- she could be an applicant for whatever they come
up with. Right now that's up in the air. I do know they have
scheduled to have a visioning meeting later this week, so they are
acting on it immediately as quickly as possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: And, also, for the record, you may want to
have Kathy come up, because I think of the $12,000 point of view,
she has overhead expenses that she pays for telephones and office
management. And she may want to argue that that's not just a salary
base, but there are overhead included in that whole contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd be happy to hear about that,
but I still need to get by coordinating the community tourism efforts
on behalf of the Tourism Alliance in Collier County. You know, this
should be a contract between Collier County, not the -- and Kathy
Prutos and not the Tourism Alliance.
MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly, that will be the board's decision,
Page 332
December 11, 2001
you know, when it comes down to this agreement specifically. If
we're talking about changing amendments where she's reporting
directly to us and that we're outsourcing her then to the Tourism
Alliance, if the board wants to make that amendment, that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Except the Tourism Alliance is
going to want to have some say as to what kind of advertising. They
have the expertise in that field, correct? MR. DUNNUCK: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And this meeting that's occurring
Thursday, will we have both county and Tourism Alliance so
everybody is sitting down out at a -- you know, like to sit at the table
together and negotiate this thing out?
MR. DUNNUCK: You will have many parties. You will have
the Chamber of Commerce, you will have representation from Marco
Island, you will have the Hotelier's Association. It's not limited to the
Tourism Alliance. The Tourism has agreed that this process needs to
take place, because I think from the point of view we received on
Tuesday, I think they concur that it's not effective right now as a
program and that they want to take a look at their options.
You know, what has been tossed out down the road is that
eventually the County may assume some of the operational
standpoint from management and actually have some sort of tourism,
I guess you would say, department, which is similar to many other
counties in Florida altogether. But at this point in time, what they've
recommended is that you continue with the service that they have
until they come up with that visioning process, which they think is
going to take a couple months.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is the contract for a couple
months or a year?
MR. DUNNUCK: The contract is for a year, but it has a 30-day
termination clause. So the board can terminate at any time.
Page 333
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
month basis?
MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
that?
Can we take it on a month-by-
Would you like something like
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can't get a grasp on this whole
thing, and maybe Ms. Prutos can help me out.
MS. PRUTOS: Kathy Prutos with Tourism Alliance. Thank
you, Commissioner Henning.
I would like to clarify a number of things. The retainer that is
paid to my firm, Prutos Public Relations, oversees the running of the
office. We have five telephone lines. I have two staff persons. That
pays for the rent. That pays for any out-of-pocket expenses,
including postage, delivery service, any overnight services as well.
So that $12,000 does not go into my pocket. We pay other people,
and we do act as the voice for tourism for Collier County.
And you will see in my contract, this new one that has been
developed, I specifically asked whom do I report to? And you'll see
that I report to the development service's Administrator. So I will
continue to oversee the running of the Tourism Alliance with its
monthly meetings, oversee the management of our marketing
committees, and keep the train running.
We're very happy that you approved the contract last Friday for
Kelly Swafford Roy (phonetic), our advertising agency, but we need
to have somebody in place to guide that advertising. We also need
someone in place to oversee that the fulfill -- the answering of the
inbound calls from the 800 number, the distribution of our
promotional materials is taking place, as well as coordinate with Dr.
Klages with Evans-Klages who provides us with that all-important
research that helps us develop not only our customer profile, but
provides information on what the direct and indirect expenditures are.
Page 334
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about the contract itself?.
I think we're a little bit uncomfortable with the duration of it in a
year. Thirty days is not long enough.
MS. PRUTOS: It's ten months, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I suggest that possibly
we come up with a month-by-month with a 30-day notice.
MR. DUNNUCK: Certainly, board. I think what I understand
you saying is that you're uncomfortable with probably the amount of
money that they're paying towards this contract. And if the board so
desires, they could potentially do a 30-day and ask staff to come back
and ask what it would cost us to do it in-house to handle some of
these services.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, I think our expertise
went out the window when we got into this subject. I don't think
we're capable of making judgment decisions on advertising dollars.
We're dealing with a contract with an individual that's an outside
agency, not in-staff. We need some sort of comparison, would you
agree, fellow Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. But I'm wondering what
this is going to do to set up for the advertising of the Collier County
market for the summertime. That is my concern.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it's real important. You know,
you have to set up for these things in advance. I come from that
industry, and I did all of these trade shows that we talked about and
these fan trips, and I arranged for them. And so with that
background, I know that we need some lead time. We didn't give
KSR or whatever their letters are, on Friday, we didn't give them any
time. In fact, we were a couple months behind every other county
here in Florida. I think we ought to keep Kathy here in place as our
team begins to negotiate with the Tourism Alliance. We have a 30-
day clause. The Tourism Alliance hired Kathy at that rate. Whether
Page 335
December 11,200 !
we like it or not, that's what they hired her at, and we have to, I think,
uphold that until we have another plan in place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't think we have to
carry on anybody's contract, but I think that we can work with what
we have here and kind of tweak it to get to where we need to be. One
of the items in here is monitor legislation dealing with tourists. Now,
is that going up to Tallahassee? Are we paying for your trip to
Tallahassee to do that or --
MS. PRUTOS: Any out-of-pocket expenses are contained
within the contract. I have not been up to Tallahassee physically -- in
fact, Visit Florida directors will be here in Collier County on
Thursday morning for a meeting at the Naples Beach Hotel and such,
but we conduct business as needed. I am in constant communication
with Visit Florida as a member through their directives, their e-mails,
you know, telephone calls and such, and we monitor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So is that a yes or no?
MS. PRUTOS: I pay when I travel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's part of your out-
of-pocket expenses?
MS. PRUTOS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You're going to be
working for Collier County and reporting to Collier County. The
expenses that you're talking about is to -- can we do itemized
expenses --
MS. PRUTOS: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- instead ora contract of
$12,000 a month?
MS. PRUTOS: I serve at your pleasure, if that's what you
would like. I mean, I can tell you, based on my past 11 months that
I've been overseeing the Tourism Alliance, you know, what the
monthly expenses are. I can tell you that today.
Page 336
December 11, 2001
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what would your fee be
for your services -- I mean, you have your employees that we
identified just now saying that you're going to submit those bills as
what it cost for those employees and for the telephone lines, for your
rent, things of that nature?
MS. PRUTOS: If you want me to, I certainly would be happy to
do that. I mean, it's at your pleasure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is a reasonable amount
for your services?
MS. PRUTOS: Currently to run the Tourism Alliance and to
pay all the expenses and such, about 50 percent of that $12,000 goes
to pay staff; goes to pay rent; goes to pay insurance; the five
telephone lines, as I mentioned; the copies; the postage that's
involved. So about 50 percent of that goes to those expenses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I think we got a little
sidetracked here. I thought where we were going is, you were going
to submit what the cost of your expenses was not your profit, but
your expenses, and then tell me what is the value of your services so
we can quantify that.
MS. PRUTOS: Generally, at this time the expenses that are
incurred because, you know, postage in particular is a difficult one to
anticipate and such, and the copies and such. But I have been $6,000
a month in expenses. That other $6,000 would be a professional fee
paid to Prutos Public Relations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What do the two office employees
do with regards just to tourism?
MS. PRUTOS: They're clerical and administrative. They
answer the telephone, they make the Xerox copies, they, you know --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But all of these other companies do
the work. I mean, the advertising firm does all the advertising, and
Klages does all of the demographics, right?
Page 337
December 11,2001
MS. PRUTOS: The research.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So they do all of that work and
you're the one that oversees to make sure they get done. So what do
these girls do again?
MS. PRUTOS: These -- my office staff is just that. They're
office staff. They answer the telephone, they send out information,
they arrange for the meetings, they do the postage. You know,
they're secretarial.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think what you're trying to
do is establish a value on what you're getting; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think so, but I need understand
the contract under the contract sum. It says it shall be paid $120,000
over a 10-month period totaling $12,000 a month. And then you will
bill expenses, office, rents, furniture, equipment, office supplies,
postage, entertainment, professional fees and so forth and other out-
of-pocket expenses, but that will be included in the $120,000. So
you're going to be submitting expenses for everything, vouchers, for
everything that you spend in your office, including the administrative
support personnel and that sort of thing. Do I read this right?
MS. PRUTOS: That has not been the case to-date with my
previous contract. And this is very similar to that, but I'd be happy to
provide you with that information.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This contract says expenses will
be billed monthly. I presume that means you're going to bill the
county for that amount. We will see the invoices and, I guess, we'll
okay the invoices for Kathy and her company to pay.
MS. PRUTOS: No. No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No?
MS. PRUTOS: I would be paid the $12,000 in semi-monthly
increments, and when they say that it will be billed -- I mean, we
keep our records, but the telephone line -- when I'm paid from the
Page 338
December 11, 2001
county, I pay the telephone company, I pay my staff, I pay my office
at the rent, I pay the copies. And we keep receipts of all that. And, if
you'd like, I would certainly provide those for you. In the past that
hadn't been asked for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I'm just trying to
understand the contract because it says here expenses will be billed
monthly and will include postage, but they will be included in the fee.
So I don't understand where those expenses -- who those expenses are
going to be billed to. I guess what I was expecting from reading this
is that you would give us a bill for your office expenses and then we
would approve that, and then it would be an authorized expenditure,
but it would not exceed $12,000 a month. Do I have this wrong?
MR. DUNNUCK: Right now, yes. Currently, the way it's listed
right now, it's $12,000 inclusive of those type of global uses. So I
think what it's saying, that she cannot separately bill the county for
those type of uses. But this is really a $12,000 retainer, so-to-speak,
for her to run her operation. It includes the fees that go to her, and it
also includes those overhead expenses.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I need to go to per diem
and travel expenses. The contract says, the county will reimburse per
diem and travel expenses in accordance with Section 112.061, which
is essentially saying the same one that we have. Now, that means the
travel expenses are in addition to the $12,000 monthly retainer?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes. The Tourism Alliance requested that
when she has to travel to some of these local areas, that she be
reimbursed basically for those type of expenses, mileage and lunch --
you know, if she's having a breakfast, she gets a $3 reimbursement
and would go through that -- something similar what a county
employee would go through. But it would be preapproved by myself
or my designee.
One of the whole main gist of this moving over to the county, is
Page 339
December 11, 2001
so that we do have control over some of these type of things because
in the past we would get the bills for them, but we didn't have any
idea of what the public purpose was. This gives us more
manageability over this contract to pre-approve this prior to
understanding what we think -- you know, the program needs to go
from our level and have a little bit more control.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I am in the same position
Commissioner Henning is. I can't get my hands around this. I have
no idea what's going on. I have to sit here and certify that these serve
a public good, yet I really haven't the slightest idea of what's going
on. And I'm not sure I want to, to tell you the truth. I'm not sure I
want to get involved in that business. But yet we have an obligation
to make sure that the funds are spent for a valid public purpose. And
I hope with these RFP's, we are moving in a direction that will get us
out of this morass, at least from my standpoint.
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. And I think everybody
acknowledged that. I think when you're dealing with an industry like
this -- you know, historically we have turned it over to them and said,
you're the experts, but from a board's perspective and from a staff's
perspective, there has to be that level of control. That we know that
there is public purposes for these type of expenses.
That's why we're looking to go through kind of this visioning
process so that we can kind of marry the two concepts together, so
that we give the tourism community some flexibility, but we know in
advance what that flexibility's going to be, and the board understands
the rules of the game. I think that's missing right now, and I think
that's what I hear from the board's frustration on the program.
What we're saying right now is, this is a critical time in the
tourism industry from their prospective. And let's keep it moving.
Let's fast-track. And frankly, they weren't going to meet until
January on this visioning process. I requested specifically that they
Page 340
December 11,2001
move that up as soon as possible, and they scheduled a meeting this
week. So I think they recognize the urgency here and the need to put
some more control into this whole program. I think we're taking a
first step here today, and I think the 30-day clause gives you the
ability that in a couple months, that if we so desire and want to
change how we're going to handle this program, we can do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. I think the contract as it
stands provides us the flexibility to tweak it and/or terminate it within
30 days if we come up with a better idea. So I don't think we're
facing a great risk here by proceeding with this contract.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, my
concern is that we may reach the 30 days and not have enough time
to be able to reach a final opinion. We're going into the holiday
season and everything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I meant the ten-month
contract. By approving the ten-month contract, we wouldn't be
exposing ourselves to any great risk. Because if we come up with
this other idea, we can terminate the contract with 30 days advanced
notice.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand now. In
other words, it's not 30 days out is the only option to get out of the
contract?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thirty days advanced notice
and you're out of the contract.
MR. DUNNUCK: And frankly, to do our due diligence on our
end of this -- and this may give the Board a little bit more level of
comfort -- what I would ask is, the support of the direction from a
management prospective, to go back and look at those overhead
expenses, and do the evaluation, whether we can do it cheaper in-
house, or whether Kathy could be doing it. We may end up with a
Page 341
December 11, 2001
straight contract with Kathy on her fee, and we may take over those
overhead expenses. But to at least to do that level of analysis from
our standpoint.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
head on that one?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Do I see anyone nodding their
Question.
Commissioner Henning.
Suggestion. I know it's a ten-
month with an option on 30 days, but I would like to hold the feet to
the fire to the members of the Alliance to make things happen. This
could stretch out over ten months. We don't know that. Therefore --
and I don't feel comfortable of not knowing the knowledge whether
we're getting the bang for the buck. So what about a RFP process for
-- I don't even know how long it takes, whether it's a month or two
months to do and RFP for what needs to be come accomplished in
this.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're proceeding with three
RFPs?
MR. DUNNUCK: Right now, what we're looking to do is, we're
looking to work with this visioning process to find out what product
is going to be on their end. Understanding, this is not the Tourism
Alliance that we're talking about. We're talking the Hotelier's
Association. We're talking about the Chambers of Commerce in
Marco and the Naples area. And we're talking about a collective
group together to talk about this and see where they can be most
effective. What I would say --
MR. OLLIFF: I need to stop you. She's down to her last sheet
of paper again. We're going to need to change paper. (A break was held.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we take off
Page 342
December 11, 2001
again, I want us to take a deep breath. Mr. Oliff has a suggestion for us.
MR. OLLIFF: Actually, I don't. I don't have any magic here. I
will tell you that if you want to approve the contract that's in front of
you -- I understand the board has a lot of intrepidation about it. I
would suggest, if you're going to approve this contract, that you do a
couple of things. That you send John Dunnuck back to look at the
overhead and some of the specifics of the agreement. And if we've
got some ways that we can bring you either more detail or reductions
in some of the overhead, that we come back within 30 days with
those recommendations.
The second recommendation I'd have for you if, again, you're
going to approve this agreement, is that you specifically task the
Tourism Alliance to come back with whatever recommendations
they're going have within a period of, whatever that may be, probably
three months. That's probably a fair amount of time to give them to
finish their visioning process and at the same time they come back
with their visioning process, this agreement comes back for review at
the same time within that three-month period. So then, you know,
you've got two additional checks within the next three months on this
particular agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How long would it take for an
RFP?
MR. OLLIFF: Three months. It takes 30 days to draft it, 30
days to give somebody a chance to review and respond, and then 30
days to get it back in front of you.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would someone like to make
a motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll make a motion to the
recommendations from our county manager.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
Page 343
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I've got a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Fiala. Is there
-- there is no speakers?
MS. FILSON: Not on this item, but I do have one speaker on
10-J.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, what did you say?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One speaker?
MS. FILSON: There are no speakers on this issue.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-0. Tom, you did it again.
MR. OLLIFF: Thank you, sir.
MS. PRUTOS: Thank you, Commissioners and also on behalf
of the Tourism Alliance, I'd like to thank --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You work for the county now.
MS. PRUTOS: On behalf of Collier County and the Tourism
Alliance, I'd like to think Mr. Dunnuck and Mr. Wallace for so
promptly and efficiently pulling this all together within a six-day
period.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Kathy, One of the advantages of
working for the county is that you don't have to pay any attention to
anything we tell you.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got that county
manager's ordinance protecting you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He gets a little punchy at this time.
MS. PRUTOS: Thank you all. Merry Christmas.
Item #10I
Page 344
December 11, 2001
RESOLUTION 2001-494, ADOPTING THE COLLIER COUNTY
FLOW EQUALIZATION SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN, AND
SUBMISSION OF THIS PLAN TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION-
ADOPTED; PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR TO CARRY
OUT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE LOAN
PROGRAM
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next item will be 10-I,
move a resolution adopting the Collier County Flow Equalization
System Facilities Plan.
MR. WIDES: Tom Wides, Interim Public Utilities
Administrator for the record. The request you have in front of you is
a result of our working with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection in order to put in place a state-revolving
fund, low-interest loan for the flow equalization tanks at the north
plant. This project is part of the consent order signed last spring.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion approved.
MR. WIDES: Commissioner, if I may, we just have a few items
that we need to put on record at the request of the Department of
Environmental Protection.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WIDES: And we'll be very brief. At this point, I'll turn
this over for very brief comments from the folks working with us
from Angie, Brewer & Associates. They are, in fact, putting together
the facilities plan and the capital plan for us, and there's just a couple
of items that we need to note for the record, please.
MR. BREWER: For the record, my name is Mark Brewer with
Angie, Brewer & Associates. We have to say just a couple of things
to make sure that the public meeting and public involvement portion
Page 345
December 11, 2001
of the DEP process under the SRF Program is met.
Essentially, as you have seen in your packages, what this does is
is it the first major step in moving forward towards the option to avail
yourselves of low-interest loan funding. The current rate is 3.05
percent. There's not another program that exists in the State of
Florida that Collier County has access to that you can save,
essentially, 30 percent off of what you would -- what your cost would
be under a conventional bond process.
One of the things we have to do. Is to explain what the project
is in very brief terms. And we need to talk about the impact on the
rates. The good news is, that the rates as a result of this project are
sufficient to be able to fund any future repayment that may result
from that. The total amount of the loan is estimated to be a
maximum of $9 million. In that are construction, administration,
design, technical services during construction, loan service fees, loan
repayment reserve, and a -- and capitalized interest.
Beyond that, the important points of the program are one,
approving this planning document does not get you a loan, it gets you
the option. It gives you the option to move forward with that process.
The other important thing to note is that in the event the costs are able
to be reduced or the bids come in lower than what was estimated at
the time of the preparation of this document, under the SRF Program,
you only borrow what you actually draw. So there are some ways
during that bidding process and other cost-saving measures, value,
engineering, those kind of things, that are to come, if those costs go
down, then the entire amount of the loan and the subsequent
payments would go as well.
As a matter of point, it is a 20-year repayment which, again, in a
bond situation you would have a 30-year repayment. The payments
are essentially the same between bond and the loan. So you save ten
years worth of payments if you want a quick way to figure out what
Page 346
December 11, 2001
the savings is. And on that, that's $7 million on this project.
And I'm going to turn it over, at this point, to Kurt Feffer. I was
going say some other things and come back, but to make some other
things a little bit faster, I going to let him say it. But I just want to
remind you, as I've already started to, the purpose of this is to have
approval for the resolution so we that can submit this document to the
State to process it. Thank you.
MR. FEFFER: Good evening. Kurt Feffer/ with Hays &
Assord (phonetic), the design consultant. I'll make this extremely
brief. The idea of flow equalization is, in essence, to take peak flows
coming into a waste water treatment plant, temporarily store them in
holding tanks when the flows are at their highest, in order to keep the
plant from being stressed by peak flows.
Overnight, when everybody is asleep and there's no flow coming
into the treatment plant, that flow is pumped back into the plant. It
helps to keep the plant from staying in compliance, producing re-use
water and day-to-day, just helps plant operations to operate the plant
better. This particular project has a couple of one-and-a-half million
gallon concrete storage tanks and return pumps, some other
miscellaneous equipment, and the goal is to get it on line by the DEP
consent order of November of 2002.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now can we make a motion?
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
have a second?
Yes.
I made it.
We have a motion.
Do we
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
Yes.
Any discussion?
All those in favor indicate by
Page 347
December 11, 2001
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-0.
MR. FEFFER: Commissioners, thank you.
Item #10J
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
OF NAPLES, INC., RELATIVE TO THE CONDEMNATION OF
PARCELS 106 AND 706 FOR THE PINE RIDGE ROAD
PROJECT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF NAPLES, INC., ET. AL., CASE NO
00-0137-CA AND THE PURCHASE OF 6.86 ACRES )PARCEL
101) OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
PROJECT - APPROVED
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-J, next item.
MR. OLLIFF: The next item is one that Mr. Yovanovich has
been waiting on. I think we need to take a dinner break before we
have that.
MS. CHADWELL: Good evening again. Ellen Chadwell,
assistant county attorney for the record. We're coming before the
board with a proposed settlement agreement between Community
School of Naples, Inc., and Collier County. The agreement addresses
-- or disposes of all the claims arising out of the condemnation of
Parcels 106 and 706 that were acquired from Community Schools
through the widening and construction of Pine Ridge, the Pine Ridge
project.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Motion approved.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve.
Do we have a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 348
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have one speaker, Mr. Rich
Yovanovich and he just waived.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He said he'll waive.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll waive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do have a question. Under fiscal
impact, we're saying that funds in the amount of $856,185.50 are
available. That isn't the purchase price, is it?
MS. CHADWELL: That is the total settlement cost, yes, sir, it
is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's not the purchase price, the
settlement cost?
MS. CHADWELL: We're acquiring in addition to those parcels
on Pine Ridge, we're acquiring a 6.86 acre parcel from Community
School for Livingston. So we're kind of hitting them twice on both of
these projects. And in lieu of condemnation, the Community School
has been cooperative in talking to us in trying to reach a settlement
on this. The large, extremely large portion of that is the land value
for that less than 7 acre parcel, but the details are laid out, they're in
the settlement agreement which is in your materials.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions or
discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-0. Thank you.
MS. CHADWELL: Thank you.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving onto 10-K.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Continued.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Continued.
Page 349
December 11, 2001
Item #10L
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO ACQUIRE A
COST ANALYSIS FOR EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECT - APPROVED
MR. OLLIFF: We're at 10-L.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the last item.
MR. MUDD: And this is to approve a request to staff to enter
into a professional service -- this is Jim Mudd, deputy county
manager for the record. It's to approve a request for staff to enter into
a professional services contract to acquire a cost analysis, the
expenses associated with the Immokalee road construction project.
This project has had several supplemental agreements, has several
change orders. We think that the design engineer has made some
mistakes in that process, and we would like to put a claim against him
during mitigation on the 9th of January.
The costs that we've seen from the staff are preliminary. We'd
like to solidify them and we would like to get into an arrangement
with this construction contracting firm who does a good job at
estimating contract claims to bring that to mitigation on the 9th. In
order to do so, this is a $50,000 not to exceed contract, and we're
paying this contractor an hourly rate of $120 an hour.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good work, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: And so far, our preliminary estimate is, this claim
could be anywhere from 600 to $850,000.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we should get a return?
MR. MUDD: Absolutely, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
Page 350
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
and a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
saying aye.
(Unanimous response.)
We have a motion to approve
All those in favor indicate by
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-0. Thank you.
From there we go on to county attorney. We already did that.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, that was your last item.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was my last item?
MR. OLLIFF: Outside of communications.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's go with the county
manager. Any comments?
MR. OLLIFF: I wouldn't think of it, sir.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: County attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Unfortunately, I must, very brief.
Commissioner Carter spoke glowingly of the The Florida Bar low
mass audit that I had as part of my review process for the
commissioners that you discussed a month and a half ago. I wanted
to inform you that we are, in fact, having the Florida Bar audit of our
office commence. It will be January 16th and 17th. It has a cost of
$5,000, not unanticipated. I would like for you, on the record today,
if you could, indicate that you find that this cost and expenditure is in
the public benefit and purpose.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it is an efficiency-type
Page 351
December 11, 2001
study?
MR. WEIGEL: It's efficiency and more. They not only look at
what we're doing, we hope doing well, but they'll also tell us things
that can be done better, provide some suggestions that perhaps we've
never contemplated. They go around, obviously, at a fee, and have
done this both in the private sector and the public sector, and so we're
looking to achieve some recommendations that here before we
haven't had before.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good work. Do we need a
motion on that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I know this is communication, but if you
would even go to the formality of a motion, then that would be even
better.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion to approve the
expenditure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second it.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No Response.)
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor indicate by
saying an aye?
(Unanimous response.)
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, very much.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And from there, we'll go to
Commissioner Henning for any closing comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess you'll be receiving
minutes to the Smart Road Community Character Committee that
you all approved. Shortly, we've had two meetings now and we are
hoping to get everything ready to bring forward to the Board of
Commissioners for Land Development Code changes and
Page 352
December 11,2001
comprehensive amendments. And some of the items in there was
also transportation.
And Commissioner Fiala, you took over the Environment of
Foreign Land, or was that Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It wasn't me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Environment? I took over Portable
Housing and Redevelopment, and Redevelopment hasn't gone any
place.
MR. OLLIFF: I don't believe the board has appointed anybody
to serve on what was going to be the Conservancy's Committee. We
didn't create a separate committee, but the conservancy has an effort
underway to look at green space in the urban area and the board has
not appointed a replacement to fill in for Commissioner Mac'Kie
now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We can't take action on that.
So it's something we need to, I guess, consider for the future.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, it is your turn.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. You might
recall, I sent a memo to the county manager earlier or late last week
with copies to the members of the commission. Based upon
information that Mr. Olliff has presented, this board probably has
worked harder and had more meetings then any board in years. And I
don't think most people understand that. So what I would suggest is,
that we consider regularly scheduled meetings that people anticipate.
We had a bunch of meetings last week and I've had several
people say to me, we didn't know you were going to meet. Well, they
were publicly advertised. But unless people are expecting you to
meet at a certain time, they're not going to look for public
advertisements. And many cases, they're just not going to know that
we are here. So it seems to me, it would be a lot easier for the staff, it
would be easier for us, and it would be easier for the public if we
Page 353
December 11, 2001
established meetings on a regular-basis. And that means, that we
don't have to meet any more than we've been meeting, maybe even
less than we've been meeting, but do it on a regularly-scheduled basis
with perhaps one of those meetings a month, or more, devoted
entirely to land-use issues so that we don't have people who are here
for other administrative-type issues, waiting for these never ending
land-use decisions to be made.
So it's just my recommendation. If you think it's worthwhile,
perhaps the board could ask Mr. Olliff to take a look at it, look at his
schedule and come up with a schedule and recommend something to
US.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only problem -~ I'm sorry,
you go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only problem I see with
that is that our meeting schedules are very ambitious. Like the
previous year, I think they had 32 meetings and we had 64 this year.
The meetings covered all sorts of different subjects and they came at
different times and were convenient for the people that were going to
be presenting material. In some cases, the workshops were held in
the evening and sometimes they were even held at remote locations.
So in that case, it would be difficult.
The only thing that I see is, I'm going through my second year
now and I'm seeing a repeat of the cycle that happened when I
started, just like you, where the meetings at the end of the year were
extremely long. Everyone is rushing to get that last order of business
through. We might want to forego workshops next December for
sure, and maybe November, and pick up an extra couple of meetings
where we go on to a weekly schedule with our board meetings. And
that's something we should give consideration.
Generally, meetings aren't this long, but this time time of the
Page 354
December 11, 2001
year -- last year was the same way. I don't know if it was the year
before also. There's that mad rush to get it through before the end of
the year before different tax incentives were lost or new zoning
requirements kick in. But I understand what you're saying. Maybe
there's a better way to get the word out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we could let Mr. Olliffmake
some recommendations to us about a schedule, we might be able to
work from there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I agree too. Maybe like once a
week, every other Tuesday have a workshop, or however you want to
do it, so you have a regular schedule. And, you know, you're right,
about not meeting -- not being informed. How many people know
LDC or MPO or, you know, I have transportation. How many people
know that? Wouldn't it be nice if we had some kind of a calendar just
like the emergency services? Every time there's a strong wind out,
you get something on your desk, on your fax machine, as well as
there's an advisory on the television every hour on the hour, possibly
a calendar or something that people could pull off their computer. A
lot of people don't know to go on to their computer. So maybe they
would tune into their T.V. More, but we do need to have a better way.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if we said we have regular
land development meetings and then we have workshop meetings the
second Tuesday of each month and so forth, it would make it a lot
easier for everybody because then people would know exactly when
we are going to be in session.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if we are going to be
dealing with 64 meetings a year, we are going to have to have more
than one a week.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Those are the ones that we have to
schedule for the evenings. I don't think we'll ever get away from that.
Page 355
December 11, 2001
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It would be great if we'd come
up with a regular schedule. We've been through a cycle now where
we've had numerous workshops and some of the workshops are going
to be embellished upon, so we can almost book them ahead. Has this been thought of, Mr. Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: Outside of just an initial communication from
Commissioner Coyle about the idea, which is probably a good idea
for us to look at, because a regular schedule allows the public to
understand how often this goes. I think the sporadic schedule has
given the public that opinion. So I think there's a couple of benefits.
And I'd be happy to go back and look at it. There are some positives
and negatives too, no matter what you do schedule-wise, but I'd be
happy to draw up some options.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't want you to get the
impression that this is based on the intense schedule we've had over
the past several weeks because I thoroughly enjoyed spending my
time with you and I wouldn't want to change that to anything in the
world.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I enjoy your wife's
company.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I would like to promote that,
put on a calendar of events. I had one thing, just a little heads up, we
were talking about reducing our budget in any way we could. And
one of the things I'd love to have Tom look at a little bit, is if maybe
the budget that has been submitted was submitted when the cost of
fuel was high for all the vehicles in our entire fleet, and I bet we
could drop that out of the budget and make a little bit of a reduction
there.
And good night, Paul wherever you are. It's my husband.
VICE CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think you heard too much, so
Page 356
December 11,2001
I'm going to pass.
*****Commissioner Henning 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
SATISFACTION(S) OF LIEN FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE
ABATEMENT RESOLUTION 92-203 AND 92-638 ON BEHALF
OF CURRENT OWNER, MR. MICHAEL VALENTINE
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2001-457 ENDORSING THE EMPOWERMENT
ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AS A SPONSORING
AGENCY UNDER THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE
COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 2001-458 THROUGH 2001-467 ENFORCING
LIENS ON PROPERTIES FOR CODE VIOLATIONS
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2001-468 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
STRAND REPLAT - 6"
Page 357
December 11,2001
Item # 16A5
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRENTWOOD" AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item # 16A6
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "STERLING OAKS PHASE
4", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECURITY WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16B 1
CONTRACTUAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE CENTER
FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA TO CONDUCT THE
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE IN THE AMOUNT
OF $75,000
Item #16B2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO THE RADIO
ROAD MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT (MSTU)
BEAUTIFICATION FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000
Item # 16B3
Page 358
December 11, 2001
WORK ORDER NO. 53 WITH FLORIDA STATE
UNDERGROUND, INC., FOR INSTALLATION OF CULVERTS
ON LAKEWOOD BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60055, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $125,384.64
Item # 16B4
JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTH
FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND COLLIER
COUNTY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOX CULVERT AT
951 CANAL EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951),
PROJECT #63051, IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 -
REIMBURSABLE
Item #16B5
DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPT A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT TO PROVIDE FLOOD RELIEF FOR PROPERTY
OWNERS WITHIN THE KIRKWOOD AVENUE/GATEWAY
TRIANGLE AREA FROM AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES OF
FLORIDA
Item #16B6
RESOLUTION 2001-469 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR SECTION 5311 (OPERATING ASSISTANCE) FUNDS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $112,200 - REIMBURSABLE
Page 359
December 11, 2001
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2001-470 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR STATE BLOCK GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$536,150 - REIMBURSED AT 50%
Item #16B8
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
FOR THE US 41 EAST PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $169,918
FROM FY 01 IN THE MSTD GENERAL FUND 111
Item # 16B9
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) GRADALL HYDROSCOPIC
EXCAVATOR FOR THE ROAD AND BRIDGE SECTION FROM
STATE CONTRACT #760-001-99-1 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$182,899.65
Item #16B10
BID #01-3299, "GOLDEN GATE BEAUTIFICATION
MSTU/MSTD ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE", IN
THE AMOUNT OF $404,453.35 TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE, INC.
Item #16B11
Page 360
December 11, 2001
PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF A SIX (6) ACRE PARCEL OF LAND IN
THE AMOUNT OF $477,489 ($79,608/ACRE) AND
ACQUISITION COSTS NOT TO EXCEED $3,500 - AS
OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16B12
RESOLUTION 2001-471 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FOR SECTION 5310 (EQUIPMENT) FUNDS
Item #16C1
RESOLUTION 2001-472 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2001-473 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIEN IS SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Page 361
December 11, 2001
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2001-474 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item # 16C4
RESOLUTION 2001-475 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item # 16C5
RESOLUTION 2001-476 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2001-477 APPROVING THE SATISFACTION OF
LIEN FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS
WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND
Page 362
December 11, 2001
SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID
WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT
Item #16C7
EXECUTION OF SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE
TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF
WATER AND/OR SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
Item #16C8
FUNDING FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD UTILITY FACILITIES
REIMBURSEMENT AND CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH
LONG BAY PARTNERS LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $883,825
Item #16C9
WORK ORDER LAG-FT-02-02 TO LAW ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL
MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY EXPANSION, CONTRACT
99-2962, PROJECT 73949 IN THE AMOUNT OF $293,072
Item #16C10
DECLARE AN EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZE
NEGOTIATIONS FOR DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES FOR NEW
REVERSE OSMOSIS RAW WATER SUPPLY WELLS FOR THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT,
PROJECT 70075 - PUBLIC UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR TO
NEGOTIATE CONTRACT WITH BEST QUALIFIED FIRM;
Page 363
December 11, 2001
CONTRACT TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD
Item #16C11
AWARD BID #01-3288 -"CHEMICALS FOR UTILITIES" IN
THE AMOUNT OF $548,341.65 -AWARDED TO VENDORS AS
CONTAINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C12
RESOLUTION 2001-478 PROVIDING FOR BOARD
APPOINTMENT OF MR. STANLEY PLAPPERT AS
REPLACEMENT MEMBER TO THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COUNCIL PERTAINING TO LANDFILL OPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT INC. OF FLORIDA
Item #16C 13
UTILITY EASEMENTS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
EASEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER
INTERCONNECT TO REROUTE FLOWS BETWEEN THE
NORTH COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM AND THE SOUTH
COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM - AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C14
EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $25,000 ON STATE
NEGOTIATED CONTRACT THROUGH SOFTWARE HOUSE
INTERNATIONAL, LOCAL RESELLER, WILSON MILLER, INC.
Page 364
December 11, 2001
AND SOLE SOURCE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
RESEARCH INSTITUE, INC. TO PURCHASE SOFTWARE AND
LICENSES FOR THE GIS PROJECT. THE TOTAL
EXPENDITURE IS $210,073.61
Item #16C15
BID NO. 01-3306 FOR THE PURCHASE OF BACKFLOW/FIRE
LINE METERS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $314,171 - AWARDED TO
U.S. FILTER DISTRIBUTION
Item #16C16
BID NO. 02-3307 TO SEVERN TRENT-AVATAR UTILITY
SERVICES, LLC, FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN
AUTOMATIC READ METER SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF
$317,150
Item #16C17
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD WATER MAIN FROM GOLDEN
GATE PARKWAY TO PINE RIDGE ROAD, PROJECT 70039 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $270,000
Item #16C18
FDEP BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM PROJECT
AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF UP TO $1,285,040
Item #16C19
Page 365
December 11, 2001
COMMITTEE SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT #01-
3283 "BEACH CLEANING EQUIPMENT", BUDGET OF $40,000-
STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH H. BARBER & SONS,
INC.
Item #16D 1 - Withdrawn
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. TO PERFORM
CONTAMINATED SOIL CLEAN UP AT CAXAMBAS PARK IN
THE AMOUNT OF $100,027
Item #16D2
REQUEST BY GARY D. LYTTON OF ROOKERY BAY
ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE TO USE COUNTY LANDS
FOR TARPON BAY HYDROLOGIC RESTORATION PROJECT
AND THE COUNTY TO BE CO-APPLICANT ON PERMITTING
FOR SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Item # 16D3
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE TO PROVIDE FOR
THE PURCHASE OF LOT 26 FOR USE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK IN NAPLES PARK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,500 - AS
OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16D4
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE TO PROVIDE FOR
THE PURCHASE OF LOT 27 FOR USE AS A NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK IN NAPLES PARK, IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,300 - AS
OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 366
Item #16D5
December 11,2001
RESOLUTION 2001-479 AUTHORIZING THE ACTIVITIES AND
PRACTICES OF THE FRIENDS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
MUSEUM, A NON-PROFIT VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATION
Item #16D6
BID #01-3309 REFINISHING OF MAIN POOL AT IMMOKALEE
SPORTS COMPLEX IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,650 - AWARDED
TO FINISHING BY BAKER, INC.
Item #16D7
RESOLUTION 2001-480 REQUESTING APPROVAL TO
INCREASE FEES CHARGED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT (CCHD) FOR THE PROVISION OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ON-SITE SEWAGE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROGRAM
Item #16D8
RESOLUTION 2001-481 AMENDING THE PARKS AND
RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR
AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY
Item # 16E 1
AWARD BID 01-3310 "ON-CALL ELECTRICAL REPAIRS AND
NEW INSTALLATION TO BOTH SOUTHWEST ELECTRIC
INC., AND PARAGON ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS" IN THE
AMOUNT OF $100,000
Page 367
December 11, 2001
Item #16E2
AN ADDITIONAL SIXTY (60) DAY EXTENSION OF RFQ #99-
0284, ANSWERING SERVICES WITH ROBBINS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Item # 16E3
COMMITTEE SELECTION OF FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 01-3291 "FIXED TERM
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION (CEI)
SERVICES" TO THE FOLLOWING EIGHT FIRMS: TBE
GROUP, HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORPORATION,
STANLEY/RWA JOINT VENTURE, LAW ENGINEERING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CH2M HILL, JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, HOLE MONTES, BARRACO AND
ASSOCIATES - EACH WORK ORDER ASSIGNMENT LIMITED
TO A MAX. AMT. OF $90,000 AND A MAX. INITIAL
CONTRACT AMT. OF $500,000
Item # 16E4
RESOLUTION 2001-482 AMENDING THE COUNTY
PURCHASING POLICY TO UPDATE EXISTING PRACTICES
AND CONSOLIDATE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CHANGES
Item # 16F 1
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND NON-EXCLUSIVE
ACCESS EASEMENT BETWEEN THE DISTRICT SCHOOL
BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY-AS
OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 368
December 11, 2001
Item #16Gl
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - BUDGET AMENDMENT
#02-077
Item # 16G2
RESOLUTION 2001-483 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 01-456 IN CERTAIN RESPECTS
WHICH RESOLUTION NO. 01-456 AUTHORIZED THE
ISSUANCE OF THE COUNTY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2001; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
Item #16J1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence has been filed/or
referred to the various departments as indicated below:
Page 369
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
FOR BOARD ACTION: ..
1. MISCRt.t .ANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Ao
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 November 7, 2001 -November 13, 2001
2. Disbursements for November 14, 2001 - November 20, 2001
B. Districts:
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of July 16,
2001, Minutes bfNovember 5, 2001.
Mediterra South Community Developmem District - Minutes of August
2, 2001, Minutes of August 22, 2001, Independent Auditors Report - FY
September 30, 2001, Management Letter, Schedule of Regular Meeting
FY 2001-2002, Financial Statement Unaudited July 31, 2001 and District
Map
Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water Management DisWict
- Minutes of November 2, 2001, Agenda for Thursday Dec. 6, 2001
A G F.,Ntl),~, \XF£M
No. ~f )%
DEC 1 1 2661
H:Data/Format
Item # 16L 1
December 11, 2001
AUTHORIZE THE MAKING OF AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
RESPONDENT, FRED R. SUTHERLAND D/B/A SUTHERLAND
PAINT HORSES, FOR PARCELS 169 AND 769 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $18,800.00 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. FRED R. SUTHERLAND, ETAL, CASE NO. 01-0756-
CA. PROJECT NO. 60071-STAFF TO DEPOSIT $4,700 INTO
THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item # 16L2
APPROVE THE EXPERT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 163 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. RUSSELL BAISLEE ET~iL, CASE NO. 01-
0758-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD SIX-LANING PROJECT FROM
GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY TO PINE RIDGE ROAD, PROJECT
NO. 65041)-IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,778.75
Item #16L3
EXECUTE SATISFACTION OF LIEN ARISING OUT OF ORDER
IMPOSING FINE/LIEN IN CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. EPIFANIO H.
HERNANDEZ AND MANUEL H. HERNANDEZ
Item #16L4
RESOLUTION 2001-484 AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING
FINANCE AUTHORITY OF COLLIER COUNTY TO ISSUE
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED
Page 370
December 11, 2001
TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF THE GOODLETTE ARMS
APARTMENTS BY A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
Item #16L5
RESOLUTIONS 2001-485, 2001-486 AND 2001-487
AUTHORIZING THE HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY OF
COLLIER COUNTY TO ISSUE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE QUALIFYING
APARTMENT PROJECTS
Item # 16L6
APPROVE THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE
TO THE CONDEMNATION OF PARCEL 576 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V RICHARD H. EVANS, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 01-1235-CA, LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT NO.
60071-STAFF TO DEPOSIT $14,635 INTO THE REGISTRY OF
THE COURT
Item #17A - Moved to Item #8K
Page 371
December 11, 2001
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
workshop was adjourned by order of the Vice Chairman at 9:17 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEAL/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL ZL-,.
JAMEg D. CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN
/:fiWiG~TE~ BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented
///,ff./~,~, , as
or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT
REPORTING, INC., BY MARGARET SMITH, CAROLYN FORD
AND CATHERINE A. FROMMER, NOTARY PUBLICS.
Page 372