BCC Minutes 05/14/2002 RMay 14, 2002
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
May 14, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special districts as have been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00
a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government
Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
James Coletta
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
Fred Coyle
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
ALSO PRESENT:
Tom Olliff, County Manager
James Mudd, Assistant County Manager
Joseph Schmitt, Community Development
Adminstrator
David Weigel, County Attorney
Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
May 14, 2002
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,
1
May 14, 2002
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor G. Dale Benson, Naples First Church of the Nazarene
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
mo
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members
for summary agenda.)
B. April 9, 2002 - Regular Meeting
3. PROCLAMATIONS
A. This item has been deleted.
Proclamation for Collier County Safe Boating Month. To be accepted
by Commander Edward M. Irving.
Ce
Proclamation for Law Enforcement Appreciation Day. To be
accepted by Sheriff, Don Hunter.
Do
Proclamation for Observing Emergency Medical Week May 19-25,
2002. To be accepted by Ken Pineau, Interim Administrator of
Emergency Service Division.
E. This item has been deleted.
F. Proclamation for Teen Pregnancy Awareness Month.
2
May 14, 2002
e
e
e
G. Proclamation to observe May 12-18, 2002 as Police Week.
SERVICE AWARDS
Five-Year Attendees:
1) John Kirchner, Airport
2) Christine Alexander, Library
Ten-Year Attendees:
3) Douglas Roberts, Emergency Medical Services
4) Michael Goguen, Emergency Medical Services
Fifteen-Year Attendees:
5) Joseph Collins, Utility Billing
Twenty-Five Year Attendees:
6) Gail Wilver, Parks and Recreation
PRESENTATIONS
A. Recommendation to recognize Guy Spieth, Lieutenant, Emergency
Medical Services, as Employee of the Month for April 2002.
PUBLIC PETITIONS AND COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
A. Public Comments on General Topics
B. Public Petition Request by Jack Bowerman to discuss mining project
permit stipulations and requirements.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2001-AR-
3
May 14, 2002
1810, Dr. Louis Kastan, requesting a 4.9 foot variance from the
required 25 foot rear yard to 20.1 feet for the principal structure and a
13.9 foot variance from the required 25 foot rear yard to 11.1 feet for
a second story porch for property located at 116 Connors Avenue,
further described as Lot 24, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 3,
in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
e
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. An Ordinance
amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County
Growth Management Plan for the Unincorporated Area of Collier
County, Florida, by: Amending the Future Land Use Element and the
Future Land Use Map and Map Series; amending the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan Element and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Future Land Use Map and Map Series; providing for severability; and,
providing for an effective date.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition No.
CPSS-2001-1, a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment
(Immokalee Area Master Plan Element) for expansion of the High
Residential (HR) District.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
mo
Bo
Authorize staff to prepare and advertise for public hearing the
designation of three areas subject to a moratorium for backlogged and
constrained roadway segments of US 41, Vanderbilt Beach Road and
Davis Boulevard (SR 84). (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
Advise Board of County Commissioners on progress and schedule for
development and implementation of a real-time Transportation
Concurrency Management System and Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services.)
4
May 14, 2002
11.
Co
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners consider
the proposal by the Taxpayers Action Group (TAG) to consider a
Referendum on the issue of Concurrency. (Tom Olliff, County
Manager)
Do
Staff update on plan to improve reliability of County water supply and
production prior to peak season 2003 and authorization to implement
improvements up to $690,000. (Tom Wides, Interim Administrator,
Public Utilities)
mo
Approve a Change Order to the design build contract with Metcalf
and Eddy, Inc., for two additional reverse osmosis raw water supply
wells and in-plant modifications for the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plant, Project 70094, in the amount not to exceed
$3,300,000. (Tom Wides, Interim Administrator, Public Utilities)
Fo
Board consideration of alternative make-up of the Tourist
Development Council to provide representation for all municipalities.
(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
Go
Approval of Resolution providing recognition of Section 28.33,
Florida Statutes and stating policy relating to interest accruing from
moneys deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. (Mike
Smykowski, OMB)
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
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,
5
May 14, 2002
that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately.
mo
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
1)
Final acceptance of Water and Sewer Utility Facilities for
Cedar Hammock Golf Maintenance Facility.
2)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Cedar Hammock
Clubhouse.
3)
Review Tourist Development related advertising and promotion
invoices, determine expenditures serve a public purpose,
approve appropriate invoices for payment, and approve specific
funding source, as recommended by the Tourist Development
Council in the amount of $68,395.86 from FY01-02 Tourism
Advertising Budget and approve a re-appropriation of
$48,736.19 from prior year funds to partially fund dated
invoices.
4)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Cedar
Hammock, Tract F-5 Multi-Family.
5)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Cypress Cove-
Feather Sound.
6)
Authorization to amend the Consulting Services Agreement
with RWA, Inc., to extend services through adoption of both
the Rural Fringe and Rural Eastern Lands Comprehensive Plan
Amendments mandated by the Final Order at an incremental
cost amount of $24,200.
7)
Approval of Second Amendment to 2002 Tourism Agreement
with Kelley Swofford Roy, Inc. to fund additional advertising at
a cost of $250,026 from Fund 194 Reserves to Fund 194
Operating Budget.
6
May 14, 2002
8)
Petition AVESMT2001-AR2023 to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the County's and the Public's Interest in a portion of the
perpetual drainage, utility and maintenance easement acquired
by "Order of Taking" as recorded in Official Record Book
2445, Pages 3125 through 3140, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, and to accept a relocation drainage easement
over a portion of Lot 8, Block C, "Briarwood Unit 6", as
recorded in Plat Book 30, Pages 59 through 61, located in
Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East.
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the final plat of"Portofino at
Pelican Marsh".
Adoption of two resolutions to approve two (2) applications for
impact fee waivers for eligible not-for-profit charitable
organizations representing a cumulative total of $8,035.59 and
authorize staff to process reimbursement from this Fiscal
Year's unencumbered interest account.
11)
Award of Bid #02-3358 in the amount of $67.50 per ton not to
exceed $40,000 for construction of an artificial reef.
Proposal to impose a temporary moratorium on projects in the
Whippoorwill Area (bounded on the North by Pine Ridge Road,
on the South by the Wyndemere Subdivision, on the East by 1-
75, and on the West by proposed Livingston Road) until such
time as a Master Plan showing proposed infrastructure
improvements, including at a minimum, potable water
distribution, sanitary sewage collection, stormwater
management and roads, has been accepted by the Collier
County Community Development and Environmental Services
Division.
13)
Authorize funds in the amount of $154,000 from Development
Service fees for three (3) new Planning positions to improve the
Growth Management/Land Development Code Review and
enforcement of architecture standards.
7
May 14, 2002
14)
Request for approval and funding of a Senior Budget and
Management Analyst position for the Community Development
and Environmental Services Division to provide a Division-
wide analytical resource to satisfy a variety of critical needs.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Adopt a Resolution giving priority to the acquisition of
additional right-of-way along the "951 Corridor".
2)
Enter into Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) for modification of
median openings and additional mm lanes at SR 84 (Davis
Boulevard) from Commercial Drive to Brookside Drive, Project
No. 60016.
3)
Approve a Budget Amendment to transfer funds from Pelican
Bay Street Lighting Fund Reserves to the Operating Budget.
4)
Approve Work Order No. BRC-FT-02-03 for Better Roads Inc.,
to modify Radio Road Median Opening between Industrial
Boulevard and Commercial Boulevard in the amount of
$56,827, Project No. 60016.
5)
Approve Amendment No. 2 providing for Phase II of the
contract for Professional Engineering Services by RWA Inc., in
the amount of $1,891,110.00, for final design of the Airport
Road Grade Separated Overpass as part of the Golden Gate
Parkway six-laning design from Airport Road to Santa Barbara
Boulevard, Project No. 60027.
6) This item has been deleted.
7)
The Board approval to utilize insurance proceeds and
approximately $8,064 from the General Revenue Fund to
purchase a replacement paratransit vehicle.
8)
Board approval to enter into a lease agreement with Volusia
County for the use of two trolley/buses in the amount of
$500.00 per month, per bus and approval to expend $3,500.00
8
May '14, 2002
for the upgrade of the air conditioning systems of each bus.
9)
Award a Construction Contract in the amount of $6,008,521.88
to Bonness, Inc. and allocate $600,000.00 (10% of the
construction cost) for contingency purposes to construct the
proposed Livingston Road Phase IV Project, from Immokalee
Road to Lee County Line, Project No. 65041.
io)
Approval of a three-month contract extension with
ATC/Intelitran for the provision of Transportation
Disadvantaged Management Services and approval of a Budget
Amendment adding approximately $300,000 to the current
purchase order.
11)
Approval of two (2) Road Impact Fee Refund Requests totaling
$33,931.51.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Adopt a Resolution and approve a Declaration of Easement for
two water well house sites and a pipeline to be located within a
portion of property acquired for a future park site, not to exceed
$22,924.00.
2)
Amend Work Order CDM-FT-99-6 for Engineering Services
related to Effluent Resource Planning in the amount of $17,000
in Project 74029.
3)
Approve Staff, Coastal Advisory Committee and Tourist
Development Council recommendations to disapprove a TDC
Category "A" Grant Application for the Barefoot Beach Club
Dune Restoration in the amount of $81,500.
4)
Approve Tourist Development Category "A" Grant
Applications in the amount of $4,853,537.
s)
Approve Staff, Coastal Advisory Committee and Tourist
Development Council recommendations to disapprove a TDC
Category "A" Grant Application for the Goodland Canals
9
May 14, 2002
6)
7)
8)
9)
11)
dredging design and permitting in the amount of $150,000.
Approve Award of RFP #02-3360 for beach raking and clean
up activities to Lightnet Contracting Inc. estimated at $50,000
per year.
Approve a water meter size deviation for the Krehling
Industries Concrete Facilities at Wiggins Pass Road.
Approve an Easement to Florida Power and Light Company for
relocated electric power service at the North County Water
Reclamation Facility, Project 73077, at no cost.
Approve funding and an amendment to a Work Order for
Construction Engineering Services for a 12" water main and a
6" force main to Boyne South, Projects 70862 and 73061, in the
amount of $44,910.
Amend Professional Services Agreement with Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc., for the South County Water Treatment Plant
Reverse Osmosis Expansion, Contract 98-2891, in the amount
of $231,804, Project 70054.
Amend Professional Engineering Services Agreement with
Water Resource Solutions, Inc., to construct the second deep
injection well for the North County Water Reclamation Facility
Deep Injection Well, Contract 00-3122, in the amount of
$289,850, Project 73948.
Approve an Agreement for reimbursement of costs in the
amount of $72,600 for construction of a Wastewater Force
Main to serve the M & E Trailer Park.
13)
14)
Request approval for the standardization and purchase of a
TV/Grout Truck from Community Utilities Environmental
Services, Inc., (CUES, Inc.) in the amount of $209,900.
Board approval of Budget Amendments recognizing positive
carry forward of a $300,000 variance in the Pollution Clean-Up
and Restoration Fund (108) and transferring $300,000 to Water
l0
May 14, 2002
Pollution Control Fund (114).
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Approve a Sub-Grantee Agreement between Collier County and
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida in the amount of $48,586
awarded through the State Coastal Impact Assistance Grant
Program.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment totaling $125,000 for the
emergency replacement of a 150-ton Chiller at the Sheriff's
CID Building, Horseshoe Drive, Project No. 80525.
2)
Approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $29,000 to
cover the costs associated with promoting the "Cool Summer
Breaks" Program.
3)
Extend current Annual Engineering Services Agreement (98-
2835) pending award of new agreement (estimated $40,000 per
month during the extension period).
4)
To Award Bid #02-3361 "Hardware and Related Items" at an
annual cost of $40,000.
5)
Approve Agreement with Cedar Enterprise Solutions to develop
and deliver training to County Staff pursuant to implementing
the new Financial Management Software System at an
estimated cost of $185,955.00.
6)
Request Board approval of a Budget Amendment in the amount
of $22,000 to cover the costs associated with the Naples Studio
Contract.
7)
Award Contract #02-3324 "Fixed Term Professional Surveying
and Photogrametric Services" to: Agnoli, Barber and Brundage.
8)
Award RFP 02-3344 for Wellfield Maintenance and
Rehabilitation to Diversified Drilling Corp. and Hausinger and
May 14, 2002
Associates Inc., for an estimated annual amount of $650,000.
9)
Approval of the amendment to the County's Prescription Drug
Program Provider Agreement to reduce prescription drug rates
and extend the agreement one year.
10)
Approval of the Administrative Service Agreement for the
County's Self-Funded Short-Term Disability Benefit Program
with Sun Life Assurance Company for approximately $39,000
in FY 02.
11)
Authorize the termination of the CBSA On-Site Customer
Service Support for the County's Health Insurance Program and
the creation of a full-time employee in the Employee Services
Center to provide these services at an annual savings to the
County of $10,000.
12)
Rejection of proposals for RFP #02-3353, revision of Human
Resources Practices and Procedures due to a change in the
scope of services required for the project.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1)
Secure approval of an assignment of lease between Omnipoint
Holdings, Inc., and Clearshot Communications, Inc., having no
fiscal impact on the County.
G. COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Proclamation for Civility Month. Carol Kirkland will not be
present to accept this proclamation; however, it will be mailed
to her.
2)
Request for leave of absence from the Code Enforcement Board
and the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee.
12
May 14, 2002
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for Record with Action as Directed.
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners endorse
the United States Department of Justice and United States
Department of the Treasury Federal Equitable Sharing
Agreement valid through September 30, 2005.
2)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination
of whether the purchases of goods and services documented in
the detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public
purpose and authorize the expenditure of county funds to satisfy
said purchases.
3)
Recommendation to approve an increase of ten sworn Law
Enforcement Officers upon award of a United States
Department of Justice Three Year COPS Universal Hiring
Program 2002 Grant Request.
4)
Recommendation to approve an increase of eight sworn Law
Enforcement Officers upon award of a United States
Department of Justice Three Year COPS in Schools 2002 Grant
Request.
5)
Accept a Grant-in-Aid from the Justice Administrative
Commission in an amount not to exceed $27,917.56 for
Juvenile Dependency Costs and authorize the Chairman to sign
the Agreement.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve and ratify the Settlement in Fleeta Wheeler, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of Linda Delgado and
Fleeta Wheeler, as Guardian of the Property of Kimberly
Sabrina Delgado, the Minor ChiM of Linda Delgado v. Collier
County, Pre-Litigation but After Notice of Claim, Pursuant to
13
May 14, 2002
which the County paid $37,000 to the Estate of Linda Delgado
and would pay $100,000 to Fleeta Wheeler, as Guardian of the
Property of Kimberly Sabrina Delgado, Decendent's daughter,
said Settlement was arrived at during Settlement Negotiations
by Collier County's Outside Claims Adjuster and prior to the
Institution of Suit.
2)
Recommendation to approve a Budget Amendment in the
amount of $10,000 to fund the cost of supplements to the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances and the Collier
County Land Development Code.
3)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the
condemnation of Parcels 124 and 125 in the Lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Anthony F. Jancigar, as Trustees, et al, Case
No. 00-0142-CA, Project 60111.
4)
Approve the Agreed Order awarding expert fees relative to the
easement acquisition of Parcel 2.4T in the Lawsuit entitled
Collier County v. John B. Fassett, Trustee of the Anne M.
Fassett Trust dated June 5, 1986, et al, Case No. 99-3040-CA
(Livingston Road, Project No. 65041).
$)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the
condemnation of Parcels 124 and 125 in the Lawsuit styled
Collier County v. Anthony F. Jancigar, as Trustee, et al, Case
No. 00-0142-CA, Project 60111.
6)
Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondent,
James M. Goldie, Trustee, for Parcels 105 and 106 in the
amount of $26,530.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Faith Bible Church of Naples Inc., et al, Case No. 99-2165-CA,
Immokalee Road, Project No. 69101.
7)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment pertaining to the
easement acquisition of Parcels 733A, 733B, 733C, 733D,
733E, 733F, 833A, 833B, 933A and 933B in the Lawsuit
entitled Collier County v. McAlpine Briarwood, Inc., et al, Case
No. 98-1635-CA, Project No. 60061.
14
May 14, 2002
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. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BE
MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
Ao
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an
Ordinance to correct a Scrivener's Error on the Official Zoning Atlas
Map Number 0511S referring to the Zoning District of C-1/T which in
fact should state C-3.
Bo
Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve
an Ordinance to amend the Contractor Licensing Board Ordinance to
reflect changes to the State Statutes and enhance the effectiveness of
the Ordinance in the Regulation and Licensing of Contractors in
Collier County.
An Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102, the Collier
County Land Development code, to correct Scrivener's Error due to
omission of an intended revision to Section 2.6.21.2.2.; and an exhibit
depicting typical setback requirements for dock facilities.
Do
Approval of the MSTU Advisory Board recommendation to approve a
millage increase from 1 to 3 Mils for the Forest Lakes Roadway and
Drainage Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU).
18. ADJOURN
15
May 14, 2002
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
16
May14,2002
May 14, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
Thereupon,
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a whole bunch of smiling
faces out there today. Move right on to -- Mr. Olliff, any changes?
MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good
moming commissioners. We have a fairly lengthy change list this
moming, so I'll just jump right into it. The first item is a deletion, it
is Item 6-B off of the Public Petition Request by Jack Bowerman,
that item has been deleted at the Petitioner's request. Next item is a
move from your Consent Agenda to the regular agenda; 16-A-10 will
now become 10-H under the County Manager's portion of the agenda.
That is the adoption of resolutions regarding impact fee payments for
not-for-profit charitable organizations. That item will become 10-H.
The next several items are all continuances off of today's agenda 16-
A-12 on your Consent Agenda will be continued to the May 28th
meeting, that was a discussion regarding the developments in and
around the Whipporwill area. At staff's request that item is being
continued to the 28th. The next item is 16-B as in "boy" one, that is
also being requested to be continued at this time to the June 1 lth
meeting, that was a resolution regarding the right-of-way along the
951 corridor and that has been requested by Commissioner Fiala.
The next item is 16-B as in "boy" four, again, that's being requested
to be continued until the June 1 lth meeting. It was a work order with
Better Roads in regards to some Radio Road modifications in order to
Page 2
May 14, 2002
be able to accommodate the Radio Road beautification committee's
request to review these amendments to that roadway, we're going to
ask that item be continued to June 1 lth so that's being requested at
the staffs request. Item 16-C-3, off Your consent Agenda, is also
being continued to May 28th, at Commissioner Carter's request. This
was a CAC and TDC -- sorry, to many acronyms here, that's the
Coastal Advisory Committee and Tourist Development Counsel
Recommendation in regards to a Barefoot Beach Club Dune
restoration project, that item will be heard on your May 28th agenda.
Item 16-C-5, also on your Consent Agenda is being requested to be
moved to the May 28th meeting, that's at staffs request, and that is
again a Coastal Advisory Committee TDC item in regards to the
Goodland Canal's dredging project. Next item is actually going to
move two items off of your Consent Agenda to your regular agenda,
Commissioner Coyle has requested that in conjunction with Item 10-
D, that we hear Item 16-C- 10 and 16-E-8. So in order to
accommodate that, 16-C-10 will become then Item 10-I on your
agenda. 16-E, as in "Edward" eight, will become 10-J on the agenda.
But in order to be able to hear all of those related-water issues, we'll
all hear them in conjunction with Item 10-D, which is the overall
water report. Item 16-E, as in "Edward" 12, on your Consent Agenda,
has been requested to be deleted by the staff, as well as 16-F-1, also
on your Consent Agenda at staffs request is requested to be deleted.
The last two items, Mr. Chairman, is an addition of 16-G-l, and that
is authorization for the chairman to sign the letter supporting an
FDOT Project of the Year Award application for the Naples Airport
Authority, that is for all their beautification, drainage and roadway
improvements that they recently completed at the airport along with
the Board of County Commissioner's landscaping funding assistance.
The last item is a deletion, 16-1-2, which was a request for a leave of
absence from a couple of your advisory boards by one of the
Page 3
May 14, 2002
members, has been requested by that member to be deleted.
Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't think of bringing up any more changes to
your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Nor would I. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir, we appreciate that.
Commissioner Henning, we'll start with you for any other consent
items that you'd like to bring forward and also for an ex-parte
disclosure on the Summary Agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no disclosures. But I do
have two things I request of the Board to take -- well, one thing for
the Board to take action on is move Item 16-A and B after Item 10,
County Manager's Report. And those items are Public Comments on
General Topics and Public Petitions, which one has already been
deleted.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning,
one more time. You want to take Item 6-A and put it where?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After the County Manager's
Item, after 10, which is 10-J.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To be honest with you, I think we
better stay with that schedule. We haven't announced ahead of time
to the people on that particular thing that we would be moving them
that far forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's up to the Board
members to decide that. I don't think it really needs to be advertised.
But--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Generally, the chairperson has the --
sets the agenda, but I'll entertain any ideas from this Board that they
care to make.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And also, Mr. Chairman, for --
we do have some parents here with there children. If they so wish to,
Page 4
May 14, 2002
I've asked that my assistant mm on the television in the
Commissioner's conference room, cartoons. There's also a speaker
there so you could hear which item is coming up, so when your item
comes up, you can come and talk on the topic, or anybody else that
wants to watch cartoons.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
meeting that may happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
a seat for me.
I think if they're watching this
The only request I have is, save
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The item that Commissioner
Henning just brought up is to move the item on the Public Comments
and General Topics to -- after the items from the County Manager's
Report. I don't think we're looking at a long presentation on that, so
I'm going to limit the talk on that to strictly items that have nothing to
do with the moratorium issue. We're going to be covering that in
great detail. After we finish the County Manager's Report, we'll be
getting into it. If there's no objection, I'd like to keep with the present
schedule as we got it on the agenda book at this point in time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I call for a vote
on the topic.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion from Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question? Do I have to
wait for a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask how many registered
speakers we have for public comments?
MS. FILSON: Three.
Page 5
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion. We have a
second. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor indicate, by
saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, I didn't get the count. We
got Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner
Carter. Okay. So we will move that item to the other side of the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is after the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: After the County Manager's
Report. Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER: COYLE: I would like to ask that Item 16-B-
5 be pulled and placed on the regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 16-B-5.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. OLLIFF: That item will become 10-J on your agenda.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16-E-8 is 10-J, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I have.
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, you're right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What was the item again,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16-B-5.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. OLLIFF: 10-K.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And we're going to move it to?
Anything else, Commissioner Coyle?
No, thank you.
Page 6
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing for me. Thank you. I
already pulled mine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no disclosures. All items
that I requested have been pulled. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MS. FILSON: I have three speakers for the Consent Agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. We'll come to that in a
second. Today's agenda order, with the exception to the change that
we just made, will follow through 6-A, with the exception of the item
that was moved on the Public Petition Comment -- 6-5-A, would be
the last part and from there we're going to go to the County
Manager's Report, A, B, C and D or just C? MR. OLLIFF: A, B and C.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A, B and C. We have no idea how
long the final part will take and that's the discussion on the
moratorium. What I'm going to do is tell the rest of the people that are
concerned about the rest of the agenda that are going to be waiting
through this process, that's if you would like to go and come back, I
can assure you that we won't go to these items until after 12:30. I
can't tell you that it will be at 12:30, I can just tell you that it will not
take place until after 12:30, the remainder of the agenda.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do. I would like to ask you
to reconsider and let me pull the Livingston Road Project. MR. OLLIFF: 16-B-9.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16-B-9 from the Consent Agenda.
And that is merely a formality. It's a six million dollar contract. I
Page 7
May 14, 2002
think that we should at least have it under the regular agenda for
public comment.
MR. OLLIFF: That will become 10-L on your regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-L.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, on your request
to hear the County Manager's Report first, I can tell you there's going
to be speakers on the Growth Management Plan Amendment. And I
would hope that we can give them a time certain so they know when
to come back here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, all these items lead up to that. I
wish I could give you a time certain, but at this point in time, it's
going to be a little difficult. Do you have any estimates on that, Mr.
Olliff?.
MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. I think you had indicated having this item
A, B and C heard first and at least giving public notice that we
would come back and move to 7-A, which should be a fairly brief
item, and then it goes straight into your Growth Management Plan
Amendments right after that. So I think immediately after your A, B
and C, and I think you had tried to indicate that we would not get to
those items until 12:30, I would expect that shortly after 12:30,
you would be at your Growth Management Plan Amendment items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll do that. After completing
the agenda, we already went through what we're going to do about
the time part of it. We'll move into this right now, is there any other
changes? I have no disclosures, by the way, in the Summary Agenda
and I have no other changes to the Consent Agenda.
So at this point in time, let's go back to where we were, and oh,
how about an approval of the agenda?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have to get
public comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, public comments.
Page 8
May 14, 2002
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers and I believe all the issues
that they registered to speak on have been continued. Bob Mulhere
wishes to speak on 16-B-1.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. He'll wait.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Rick Bonasencurt (phonetic) 16-C-3.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He'll wait.
MS. FILSON: Michael Popp, 16-C-3.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He'll also wait. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I hear an approval for the agenda?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval of the agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second from
Commissioner Coyle and a first fromnCommissioner Carter.
All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
May 14, 2002
DELETE ITEM 6(B): Public Petition request by Jack Bowerman to discuss mining
project permit stipulations and requirements. (Petitioner request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(A)10 TO 10H: Adoption of two resolutions to approve two (2)
applications for impact fee waivers for eligible not-for-profit charitable
organizations representing a cumulative total of $8,035.59 and authorize staff to
process reimbursement from this Fiscal Year's unencumbered interest account.
(Commissioner Carter request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(A)12 TO MAY 28, 2002 BCC MEETING: Proposal to impose a
temporary moratorium on projects in the Whippoorwill area (bounded on the north
by Pine Ridge Road, on the south by the Wyndemere Subdivision, on the east by 1-
75, and on the west by proposed Livingston Road) until such time as a Master
Plan showing proposed infrastructure improvements, including at a minimum,
potable water distribution, sanitary sewage collection, stormwater management
and roads, has been accepted by the Collier County Community Development and
Environmental Services Division. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(B)1 TO JUNE 11, 2002 BCC MEETING: Adopt a Resolution
giving priority to the acquisition of additional right-of-way along the "951
Corridor". (Commissioner Fiala request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(B)4 TO June 11, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve Work Order
No. BRC-FT-02-03 for Better Roads, Inc., to modify Radio Road medial opening
between Industrial Boulevard and Commercial Boulevard in the amount of
$56,827, Project No. 60016. (Staff request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(C)3 TO MAY 28, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve staff, Coastal
Advisory Committee and Tourist Development Council recommendations to
disapprove a TDC Category "A" Grant application for the Barefoot Beach Club
Dune Restoration in the amount of $81,500. (Commissioner Carter request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 16(C)5 TO MAY 28, 2002 BCC MEETING: Approve staff, Coastal
Advisory Committee and Tourist Development Council recommendations to
disapprove a TDC Category "A" Grant Application for the Goodland Canals
dredging design and permitting in the amount of $150,000. (Staff request.)
ITEMS 16(C)10 AND 16(E)8 TO BE HEARD IN CONJUNCTION WITH REGULAR
ITEM 10D: Staff update on plan to improve reliability of County water supply and
production prior to peak season 2003 and authorization to implement
improvements up to $690,000. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
DELETE ITEM 16(E)12: Rejection of proposals for RFP #02-3353, revision of
Human Resources Practices and Procedures due to a change in the scope of
services required for the project. (Staff request.)
DELETE ITEM 16(F)1: Secure approval of an assignment of lease between
Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., and Clearshot Communications, Inc., having no fiscal
impact on the County. (Staff request.)
ADD ITEM 16(G)1: Authorize the Chairman to sign a letter supporting an
application to the FDOT for the Project of the Year Award for the Naples Airport
Improvement Project as requested by the Naples Airport Authority (NAA). (Staff
request.)
DELETE ITEM 16(I)2: Request for leave of absence from the Code Enforcement
Board and the Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee. (Staff request.)
May 14, 2002
Item #2B
MINUTES OF APRIL 9, 2002 REGULAR MEETING-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I move for
approval of the minutes from today's Regular Consent, which we've
done on April 9th, 2002 regular meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter for approval and a second from Commissioner
Henning. All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it. 5-0. Going on to the
proclamations now and Commissioner Henning, you're first.
Item #3B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 18, 2002 THROUGH
MAY 24, 2002 AS SAFE BOATING WEEK IN COLLIER
COUNTY- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if there's anybody
here, but this is the proclamation on safe boating. Is anybody here?
Come on up, please. If you can just stand in front of the dais. Your
name Ted Irving. Thank you again for being here.
Page 10
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you can come up here in the
middle and mm around and face TV land and everybody will know
who you are, smile and wave to everyone you know.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, boating is a major
recreation activity of Collier County.
And whereas, boating is enjoyed by citizens of all ages.
And whereas, boating is participated by residents and visitors
alike.
And whereas, boating is deserving attention of safety on the
waterway.
And whereas, boating is enhanced by the practice of safety on the
waterway.
And whereas, boating is a safe matter of benefit to everyone.
And whereas, it is appropriate to recognize the value of safe
boating education by designating Collier County Safe Boating
Week.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed, by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 18th through May
24th, 2002, be designated as Collier County Safe Boating Week, to
encourage people of Collier County to become more familiar with
safe boating procedures and practice in safe boating in the waters of
Collier County.
Done on this day 14th day of May, 2002, and signed by the
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion
that we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye."
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 11
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Congratulations. We're going to ask
you to tum around and face the camera for a photo opportunity. And
if you'd like to speak for a moment, we would welcome that.
MR. IRVING: On behalf of all of the organizations involved in
boating safety, I'd like to thank all of the Collier County
Commissioners for this proclamation, taking the time to recognize the
importance of National Safe Boating Week.
In the State of Florida, there are 900,000 registered vessels in
2001. And in season, we get another 400,000 visitors.
That means there's 1.3 million vessels in the State during our
busy season and that puts us probably right at the top of the country.
I think sometimes all of those vessels are on the Gordon River.
In 2001, there were 1,200 serious boating accidents, and of all of
those involved 80 percent had no boating course instruction.
And our job is to reduce that number. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle.
Item #3C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 16, 2002 AS LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER APPRECIATION DAY - ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
accepted by Sheriff Don Hunter.
You got to stand up here.
The next proclamation will be
Sheriff Hunter, will you come up?
Page 12
May 14, 2002
Whereas, the problems of crime touch all segments of our society
and can undermine and erode the moral and economic strengths of
our communities.
And whereas, we're fortunate that law enforcement officers from
all area agencies dedicate themselves to preserving law and order
in the public safety.
And whereas, we recognize that the men and women in law
enforcement risk their lives on a daily basis to protect our citizens
and maintain social order.
And whereas, we encourage all citizens to pause to recognize our
law enforcement officers so that we may not take their work for
granted.
Now, therefore, be it further resolved that we, the Board of
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, hereby take great
pleasure in honoring all law enforcement officers for their
outstanding services.
Now, therefore, be it further resolved that we hereby proclaim
May 16th, 2002, as Law Enforcement Officer Appreciation Day, and
ask all citizens to join us in honoring these law enforcement officers
and to assist them by exercising responsible citizenship.
Done and ordered this 14th day of May, 2002, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta, Chairman.
Congratulations, Don, I would like to say to all of you that our
local law enforcement officers are the front line of defense with
respect to our safety.
I encourage all of you to get behind Sheriff Hunter's efforts to get
the necessary information from other governmental agencies that will
help him do his job better and enforce our laws.
Every day we get more evidence that had our state and local
enforcement officers possessed the information that is contained by
Page 13
May 14, 2002
the INS and other agencies, it is possible that the September 1 lth
tragedy could have been averted.
So Don, I congratulate you on taking a leadership position in
trying to solve this problem, and I express my appreciation to all
of our law enforcement officers. I so move.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and second from Commission Fiala. All those
in favor, indicate by saying "Aye."
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it.
SHERIFF HUNTER: I'll be very brief. You have a full agenda.
Let me first say that we appreciate very much law enforcement in
Collier County. We appreciate the support that we've enjoyed with
this board and I don't believe that many sheriffs across the State of
Florida can say that.
I believe you've been very supportive and you're out front and
you are certainly leaders, and we would like to thank you. I do so on
behalf of this agency.
I tell you that 2001 was one of the most deadliest years for law
enforcement in the nation's history. We lost 240 men and women of
law enforcement. Seventy at the Twin Towers alone.
And we use this week, which you have been very favorably
supportive of in years past, we use this week to commemorate the
fact that we have had members killed in action and we take this very
Page 14
May 14, 2002
seriously, I can assure you. And we very much appreciate the fact
that you do as well.
Thank you on behalf of the agency for the proclamation. And on
behalf of all my colleagues, keep up the good work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sheriff Hunter, come here for a photo
opportunity. Thank you. Commissioner Carter.
Item #3D
PROCLAMATION OBSERVING MAY 19, 2002 THROUGH MAY
25, 2002 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL WEEK- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, let
me go to the second leg of the three-legged triangle that protects our
community and is an integral part of everything we're trying to do to
make it safe and secure and that is our emergency medical
professionals and firefighters would be the third leg.
And with those three groups working in unison, the Sheriffs
Department, medical professionals and firefighters, we have the
first line of defense in any tragedy or the prevention of any tragedy in
this county. It is my pleasure to read this proclamation:
Whereas, emergency medical professionals and volunteers
provide medical care to victims of sudden life threatening injuries
and illnesses often under stressful conditions and in high situations to
save the lives of others.
And whereas, emergency medical personnel must rapidly assess,
manage and effectively provide care in unpredictable situations
requiring life and death judgments.
And whereas, emergency medical personnel are often the first
contact many residences and visitors to Florida have with the health
care system. And these personnel provide education, assessment,
Page 15
May 14, 2002
prevention and referral services in addition to their emergency
activities.
And whereas, the residents and visitors of the State of Florida
benefit daily of the efforts of skilled dispatchers, first responders,
emergency medical technicians, paramedics, emergency and trauma
nurses, educators, emergency and trauma physicians and support
personnel.
And whereas, it is critical that the general public be made aware
of and understand and support and efficiently use its local
emergency medical services system.
And whereas, recognition is due to all emergency medical
personnel serving in a variety of roles with the unselfish dedication
to Florida's residents and visitors.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners in Collier County, Florida, that May 19 through 25 be
designated as Emergency Medical Services Week.
Done and ordered this !4th day of May, 2002, of Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter and a second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor, indicate by
saying, "Aye".
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take a moment and face the camera.
MR. CAMPAGNO: Good morning, Commissioners, I realize
you have a very full agenda. I'd like to thank you on behalf of our
Page 16
May 14, 2002
county emergency medical services as well as all of the paramedics
and emergency medical technicians and our fire service, as well as
the unsung heroes that are really not out on the street, our dispatchers
that work to make this place a better place to live. And they really
deserve a lot of credit.
Thank you for the recognition. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: May I apologize in remiss that
this gentlemen, Mr. Campagno, is the interim Emergency
Management Services Director and without him and the programs
that he oversees, this county would certainly be in jeopardy. He is a
real professional, a credit to this community. I have the highest
personal regard for your efforts, sir. And thank you, again, for
everything that you've done for Collier County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to mention that Mr.
Campagno has also been recognized by his colleagues as the
Emergency Management Director of the year, which says something
for him. Commissioner Fiala.
Item #3F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY AS TEEN
PREGNANCY AWARENESS MONTH- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Would the
representatives from the Teen Pregnancy Community please come
forward. Thank you. Stand here, please.
Whereas, we the citizens of the State of the Florida and the
residents of Collier County are dedicated to improving the well-being
of children, youth and families by reducing teen pregnancy.
And whereas, high rates of teen pregnancy burden not only
teenagers, but also their children, families and communities.
Page 17
May 14, 2002
And whereas, four out of 10 girls in the United States gets
pregnant at least once by the age of 20, resulting in more than
900,000 teen pregnancies a year.
And whereas, teens around the country will be asked to stop,
think and take action.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the month of May be
designated Teen Pregnancy Awareness month.
Done and ordered this 14th day of May, 2002, Jim Coletta,
Chairman. Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, a second by Commissioner Carter. All those in favor, indicate
by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Approved.
SPEAKER JODY: My name is Jody and I'm from Planned
Parenthood, and we have representatives from AAUW, American
Association of the University of Women and the Collier County
Health Department.
Although teen pregnancies over the last several years have
decreased in the United States, teen pregnancies and teen births in the
United States have put us among the highest in all industrialized
countries.
The State of Florida ranks 36 out of 50 states, 50 being the
highest for teen pregnancies and teen of births.
The rate in the State is 57.3 per thousand teens. And the shocking
factor is that the rate in Collier County is 76.8 per thousand teens,
Page 18
May 14, 2002
which actually puts our county at arate higher than the whole State
of Florida.
Because of this issue, we have several organizations who have
come together to work on a collaborative, comprehensive outcome
focused approach that is sensitive to all diverse needs, backgrounds
and values of our citizens.
So on behalf of the Collier County Teen Pregnancy Teen
Initiative, I thank the Board of County Commissioners for
proclaiming that.
Item #3G
PROCLAMATION OBSERVING MAY 12, 2002 THROUGH MAY
18, 2002 AS POLICE WEEK- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next is the proclamation to observe
May 12th to 18th, 2002, as police week.
Is there anyone here to receive this
proclamation? Okay.
Whereas, as the Congress and the President of the United States
has designated May 15th, as Peace Officers Memorial Day and
the week in which May 15th falls as National Police Week.
And whereas, the members of the Collier County Sheriff's Office
play an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedom of
Collier County.
And whereas, it is important that all citizens know and understand
the duties responsibility and hazards and sacrifices of their law
enforcement agencies and that members of our law enforcement
agency recognize their duties to serve the people by safeguarding life
and property by protecting them against violence and disorder and by
protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against
Page 19
May 14, 2002
oppression.
And whereas, the men and women of the Collier County Sheriff's
Office, unceasingly provide a vital public service.
And therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the Collier County
Board of Commissioners calls upon all citizens of Collier County and
upon all patriotic civic and educational organizations to observe the
week of May 12th to the 18th, 2002 as police week.
With appropriate ceremonies and observations which all people
may join in commemorating law enforcement officers, past and
present, who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their
responsibilities rendered a dedicated service to their community, and
in so doing, have established for themselves an enviable and enduring
reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens.
We further call upon citizens of Collier County to observe May
15th to 2002, as Peace Officers' Memorial Day in honor of those law
enforcement officers, who through their courageous deeds, have
made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their community or have
become disabled in the performance of duty, and let us recognize and
pay respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes. Done and ordered
this 14th of day of May, 2002, Jim Coletta, Chairperson,. I so move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye."
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 20
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thank you and I'm going to take the
opportunity to present this to our sheriff deputy at the end, who has
been very faithfully standing here and guarding us.
Item #4
EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS- PRESENTED
Now, we go to the service awards. And Commissioner Fiala,
you're going to lead the charge.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, it's me this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It sure is.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, as the board is working their way
down to the floor, I'll take the opportunity to call one five-year
attendee this morning and we have two 1 O-year attendees.
First is John Kirschner with your Airport Authority. He's been
with the county for five years.
Doug Roberts with EMS and Michael Gogan with EMS, have all
been with the county for 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, we also have the honor of recognizing a 15-year
employee, Joseph Holland, with your utility billing department.
Lastly, this morning, Mr. Chairman, we have the rare honor of
recognizing a 25-year employee with Collier County, Gail Wilbur, of
your Parks and Recreation Department.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, that's all your
service awards this morning. Thank you.
Item #5A
GUY SPIETH, LIEUTENANT, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES, AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR APRIL 2002
Page 21
May 14, 2002
- RECOGNIZED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is Guy Speith in the audience? Would
you come up, please. And if you would, please, mm around and face
the audience so we can recognize you.
Guy is the employee of the month. Guy has lead the EMS
Explorer Post for 9-1-1. This program offers high school students the
opportunity to become involved in the emergency medical service
field prior to graduation.
Lieutenant Speith has demonstrated tremendous initiative and
enthusiasm by leading this program from its in conception from 1998
to the success it has become today.
The EMS Explorer Post for 9-1-1 has been very active in the
community. They have participated in parades, fairs, community
education, such as CPR classes. They've also conducted their own
fundraisers to support themselves. That's a big item.
The Explorers continue to grow with their community as well as
their own personal development under the guidance and leadership
of Lieutenant Speith.
The EMS Explorer program has become a tremendous success
due to the dedication and leadership of Lieutenant Speith.
Recently, Lieutenant Speith was honored with the Explorer
Leadership Award for outstanding leadership, volunteerism to the
community.
He was also honored for receiving the Explorer Leader of the
Year Award from the Boy Scouts of America.
His unselfish contributions to this program as well as to his
commitment to serve the community is admirable.
Lieutenant Speith recently recognized by the Boy Scouts of
America is another feather in the cap of an organization that
constantly exceeds expectations.
Page 22
May 14, 2002
And what we would like to do is present you with this plaque, sir,
and a cash award of a $150, and a letter of our appreciation. We
thank you very much.
Mr. Olliff, I think we're to that part of the agenda where we get
down to the nitty gritty of it.
If I'm not mistaken, we're moving on to your part, the County
Manager's Report.
Item #10A
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PREPARE AND ADVERTISE FOR
PUBLIC HEARING THE DESIGNATION OF THREE AREAS
SUBJECT TO A MORATORIUM FOR BACKLOGGED AND
CONSTRAINED ROADWAY SEGMENTS OF US 41,
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR
84) - APPROVED
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir. The next item on the agenda is 10-A.
MR. FEEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, for the record,
Norman Feeder, Collier County Transportation Administrator.
A little over a year ago, April, 2001, what was then your new
transportation division came to you with a number of changes in
policy areas requesting board direction and received that direction.
Emanating out of that and a big part of that direction that we go
away from annual consideration of concurrency in this county
under the annual update and inventory report, and rather go to a
realtime concurrency that's been dubbed in many areas the checkbook
process.
As we progressed on that and numerous other changes to the land
development codes, some of which have already been implemented,
we have found that, in fact, we had to address a number of issues to
Page 23
May 14, 2002
our Growth Management Plan to secure consistency to these other
changes to the Land Development Code and to policies as
directed by the Board.
The Growth Management Plan, of course, as you know, is only
updated twice annually, so based on cycle, we found that we were in
a position after coming to you at the end of last year on December
18th, in presenting to you a work program, which this board had
adopted and funded, that we identified basically six segments,
roadway segments, that could not be addressed under the current
practices of the the AUIR.
Of those six segments, three of them we found that we could
address through, basically, traffic operation improvements.
Recapture, if you will, capacity through median modification and
alterations.
Those three were Radio Road from Airport over to Livingston,
Pine Ridge Road from Airport over to Goodlette-Frank and 41, as
well as Airport Road south of Golden Gate Parkway.
Those three segments, we have developed initial plans. We have
discussed those in some of your workshops. And in the case of Radio
Road, gone out with quite of bit of public debate with more to follow.
As a matter of fact, tomorrow is a town hall meeting, as well as other
meetings with the beautification meeting as noted earlier today on
that agenda item to get that addressed.
In Pine Ridge and Airport, those plans that are developed have
had some basic scrutiny. We would like to get them out to the
property owners and let them see exactly what we're proposing to do.
In essence, in each of those cases what we're talking about is
limiting the number of median openings, creating in some cases, a
requirement of turn around, rather than direct access to each and
every business or area along the route.
Page 24
May 14, 2002
In many cases extensions of turn lanes, so that we don't have the
traffic backing up into the through lanes in those facilities.
Those facilities are particularly Airport and Pine Ridge, where the
maximum lane is six lanes. So the recapture capacity is the major
thing we can do other than alternate facilities.
In the case of Airport, of course, we have Livingston and others
coming forward. In Radio, we got some real constraints in our
right-of-way. We're trying to evaluate if there's even a prospect of
future six laning, but right now that recapture capacity will meet
the need and that's why we're proceeding in that direction.
But we had three segments as we identified for you back in
December that could not be resolved either by your funding plan or
by the operational improvements.
Two of them were basically identified as constrained, one had
been in your Growth Management Plan for sometime, constrained
that being Vanderbilt Beach Road. Vanderbilt Beach Road from US
41 west over to Gulf Shore Drive have already been deemed as a
policy constraint facility.
In other words, not to expand the lanes because of many of
attributes and desires of the community.
In the case of Vanderbilt Beach Road, we were facing at that time
in December a level of service E with a volume capacity ratio of .95,
pretty much almost at the total capacity.
Since that time it has grown by almost 15 percent. Nominal
growth with a volume capacity now and a level service of F at 1.1. It
is over its volume of capacity ratio.
And with that in mind, we are bringing that one forward to with a
recommendation today to create a moratorium until the realtime
concurrency can come forward, until the definition of a constrained
facility and how it will be applied and come forward.
Page 25
May 14, 2002
Another light facility is US 41. US 41 is a six-lane section
between Pine Ridge and Creach Road. Creach Road is, of course, is
where the city limits are, and therefore, control on both sides of the
roadway.
North of Creach Road up to Pine Ridge, the east side of the
roadway is under county control and that's the area that would be
effected directly by this moratorium recommendation to you.
Essentially, in that section we had a level of service F back in
December, volume capacity of 1.0, and we have seen about a 10
percent increase in accidents or crashes in that section.
And therefore, for public health and safety proposing that while
we pursue our new process to define constrained and how we will
meet growth in those areas that that too be designated by you for
moratorium.
And lastly, Davis Boulevard, the section between Radio Road and
951, that section of Davis Boulevard was already at a level of
service F, volume capacity of 1.29. So it's exceeding its capacity.
We have also seen an increase about 10 percent already in crashes
in that area because of all the congestion. And again, that is a
major facility. It's already been identified through the Department of
Transportation, who has only the beginnings of funding within their
five-year work program, up to 2007, that is about 57 million to make
the improvements.
You, in your absence in December, agreed to advance with
reimbursement what the Florida Department of Transportation
programs, in this case, over eight million that's in our five-year work
program to advance and then seek reimbursement to advance that
segment.
But nonetheless it is only a two-lane segment. It is already, as I
noted, well passed it's volume capacity ration and it's experiencing
increasing pressures.
Page 26
May 14, 2002
With that in mind, I bring forward to you today somewhat
reluctantly, but nonetheless, based on the fact that in December we
went to pursue constrained for Vanderbilt Beach Road and 41 and
backlogged for that section of Davis, that we present to you today
that with the Growth Management Plan change requirements
that have to go in first, probably prior to this fall, before we can
implement the land development changes that we will be discussing
next agenda item in particular, that we move forward with the
moratorium.
We recommend to you that, in fact, you authorize staff to go out
to public hearing develop an ordinance and bring back to you for
your consideration. That you also adopt a schedule, that is in this
item, for the growth management changes and the land development
changes that would then be the interim nature of this moratorium and
then cease once the new process for concurrency is in place and
adopted.
In the sense of the moratorium what would be effected is directly
on the segments, anything that has sole access above residential,
single-familiy on its own lot, would be exempted.
Anything that has either access elsewhere, but is well to this
segment or in the next adjoining segments of roadway, if they
provide more than a one percent impact, also would be recommended
to fall under this moratorium in the ordinance.
What I have put on the display here for you, in red are three
segments as we discussed. Of course, Vanderbilt Beach Road and 41
over to Gulf Shore Drive, 41 from Pine Ridge Road down to Creach
and Davis from Radio Over to 951.
What you see in yellow is the area that we would be looking at
that one percent impact, to see if it impacted the red segment or the
moratorium segment.
Page 27
May 14, 2002
And basically we're looking at one segment from the designated
segment in each case. One argument could be that I could have a
development way up in Immokalee, a large development that
somehow could put some trips on one of these segments.
But yet, there are many alternative routes that can be chosen
between here and there. If one of them becomes deficient then
it gets self-regulating that way. While they are not deficient, there
are alternatives.
With that in mind we have gone to just the next segment in the
system that would be evaluated by one percent impact on the
deficient segments that you have in front of you today.
With that, I open up to any questions that the Board may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope that we could do
something more proactive in the future not to let this happen. I think
that is where we're going.
My concern is essential services, are they going to be permitted --
MR. FEEDER: Yes. I didn't touch on that. In your agenda item,
basically what's exempted here would be single-family homes on
their own lot, anything that is already vested that concurrency already
has a certificate of occupancy already by necessity. And then very
importantly, essential public services as may be the case.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Norm, do we have a plan yet to
recover from this problem?
MR. FEDER: Yes, we do, sir. What I will tell you is since --
over a year now, it seems like longer, we have had a five-year work
program that is extremely important and I appreciate this the Board
taking a strong action to fund that program. That program does
Page 28
May 14, 2002
set a course that has been followed thus far, we've had one year
behind us and we met it.
Essentially, we have three segments of roadway that are very
open; Livingston from Radio up to Golden Gate Parkway, as well,
obviously, Pine Ridge Road west -- excuse me, east of Airport and
Immokalee Road, 951 over to 1-75.
You have one that is essentially completed and is open today to
six lanes on Airport Road from Pine Ridge up to Vanderbilt Beach
Road. One opening this fall, which is Golden Gate BoUlevard, that
four-laning five miles from 951 on out to Wilson.
As well, you have at the end of this year the opening of a second
phase of Livingston between Golden Gate and Pine Ridge, make a
major reliever, as it connects to the Interstate.
And others -- four more programs for this year, six more the
following year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is not quite where I was going,
but I appreciate that explanation.
I'm concerned, specifically, about the three road segments that
we're talking about a moratorium for. It would appear to me if we
proceed to establish a moratorium, we should also have a plan to
recover from the moratorium. How do we stand there?
MR. FEDER: On two of the segments, they will get designated,
with this Board's direction, as constrained, which is what you direct
us back in December. We have to change the Growth Management
Plan to define constrained and how that provides for metered growth.
What we're looking to as the basis right now is essentially the
State's model, which is no more than 10 percent growth over time
within that area once it's designated as constrained.
So it's a metered growth situation, allows for redevelopment,
allows for some expanded growth, but does very directly meter
growth and control it.
Page 29
May 14, 2002
In the case of Davis, it's a little bit harder one to address. Fifty-
seven million is a big, big, price tag to hit.
The State currently has the design program. They just finished
the project development environmental study, as you're aware. They
have the design program and we're looking to advance that and get
reimbursed.
They had about seven million for the right-of-way and nothing for
construction. Again, like I said, we have eight million, that seven
million, plus the design. We're ready to advance and seek
reimbursement in the year they have a program. We're going to
continue to work with the State to see what they can do to bring it
forward.
They recently got authorization this session for additional
bonding for right-of-way and bridges. Hopefully that can bring us
forward some of the right-of-way dollars.
There's also an option for them to agree for advancement
reimbursement for items that are outside of their five-year work
program. That has a cap on it statewide. We need to find out what
that cap is and see if we can get that commitment from them and then
see if we can find the monies locally.
Obviously, with about six or seven million a year on a good year,
sometimes they're making up for estimate changes, it would take us a
number of years to get that program.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we were to approve your
recommendation today, you're going to have to go through the public
hearing process, and I presume that there might be some
modifications you would like to make as a result of the public hearing
process. This will come back to us for final approval before it goes
into effect, will it not?
MR. FEDER: That is correct. And we're always open during that
process. What it's meant for is to find out what we would get for
Page 30
May 14, 2002
input any recommendations that we could help you find.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. With regards to Davis
Boulevard, which is truly a failed road, two roads pouring into one
tiny little two-lane highway. Also, we have the 1-75 in the area and
no funding to widen that. And I'm glad to hear that you're doing your
best to see what you can do about encouraging the State to find
dollars.
But until that happens and until the road is actually widened, how
long does this moratorium stay in effect?
MR. FEDER: This moratorium that we're recommending to
would not be in effect after you establish a Growth Management Plan
development changes for realtime concurrency.
However, if that segment is not widened, .it could well fall into
restrictions, even diminimus much like the moratorium
recommendation today until it is widened.
So I don't want to give you a false answer. The moratorium
would end, but the new Growth Management realtime concurrency
provision might well pick up from there, particularly on the Davis
section. The other two would probably go into definition of
constrained.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you go ahead and call
the first speaker.
MS. FILSON:
Krasowski.
MR. PERRY:
Jeff Perry and he will be followed by Bob
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today. My name is Jeff
Perry. I'm a planner with the firm of Wilson and Miller.
I have a keen interest in this particular program, especially
concurrency. I was involved with the early development of
Page 31
May 14, 2002
concurrency in Collier County. I spent 23 years working for you.
I'm a little concerned at the approach is being taken and I have a
couple of very specific issues with several of the links and a
couple of general observations that I'll make.
I have talked with your staff as we've been going through this
process. I want you to know that I appreciate their work and time
and energy they're putting into it. But I want to put a few comments
in front of you.
My memory is failing me, but about seven or eight years ago, as I
recall, the county staff brought to the Commission a plan to widen
Vanderbilt Beach Road to four lanes.
The community at the time came out in droves suggesting that
they were willing to live with congestion. They didn't want their
landscaping torn up. The didn't want their sidewalks removed. They
didn't want a four-lane road down Vanderbilt Beach Road from
US 41 to Gulf Shore.
We didn't think it would have much success passing a Growth
Management Amendment to allow continued growth there. But we
developed something anyway. We developed something called way
constrained. We justified it to the DCA. And surprisingly, they
approved it.
And for years the level of service on that particular roadway has
labored under essentially no capacity limits. For years the capacity in
your AUR was 99,000 thousand, when the two-lane roadway passed
is about 17,000.
So I'm surprised that there's something being brought before
today that is talking about a moratorium on a road that is legally
already designated constrained with no limits to it.
Maybe something has changed, maybe the people have come
forward and cried uncle and they just want their road four-laned. But
Page 32
May 14, 2002
I think incumbent on the decision to pass a moratorium is you've
already sort of touched on, is the fact that you need to have a
solution.
You just can't designate a road as a moratorium and say it is just a
moratorium. We are going to have to see what happens.
Even as a constrained facility, what Mr. Feeder is talking about is
a metering of growth certain percent per year, somebody is going to
be under a moratorium. Somebody is not going to get a building
permit. And even as a constrained facility there has to be a solution
or you're just going to have to agree that there is no solution. And in
that particular instance that may be the case.
US 41 -- another anomaly, the city limits runs right down the
middle of the roadway. The east side of the road is an unincorporated
area, would be a subject of your moratorium. The west side of the
road is in the City of Naples.
The City of Naples analysis of the roadway says it's operating at
level service C. The county's analysis says it's operating at level
service F.
I'm no attorney, but it just seems to me like there's a discrepancy
with something here that there's no cooperation and there's no
understanding of what the problem is and whether there's a public
health, safety and welfare issue on one side of the road that's not
present on the other side.
I don't think anybody is going to disagree with you about Davis
Boulevard. It's one of the worst sections of the roadways we have in
the county.
Unfortunately, the process that is being undertaken here today for
all three of these roadways is contrary to your Growth Management
Plan.
You have in the Land Development Code procedures and
processes for handling these types of events. They're supposed to be
Page 33
May 14, 2002
brought forward in a timely fashion with your AUIR, so you have
decision-making process that says, we have three choices, we either
fix the road, we change the level of service or we pass a moratorium
and then figure out what we're going to do afterwards.
But there has to be that afterwards. There has to be some solution
to the problem. You can't just pass a moratorium. The Land
Development Code says one year. You pass the moratorium for one
year, and then you go through this exercise again. Do you change the
level of service? Do you fix the road? Or do you again pass the
moratorium?
And lastly, the boundaries of the moratorium area defined within
the Land Development Code. The guidance is there, and you then go
through the public hearing process. At least it describes an area that
everybody knows going into it, they're either in or out. It can be as
small as you want when you end up with it.
In fact, there's a checkbook accounting system in your Land
Development Code. That when the road gets to the point of being
intentionally deficient, the checkbook balance is supposed to kick in,
you're supposed to describe the area, you're supposed to come up
with the numbers, you're supposed to ration the capacity out to those
people that are coming in to get building permits, and yes, a
moratorium may result.
But again you go through that exercise to decide when it's going
to be fixed and how you're going to solve the problem.
You just can't adopt a moratorium and say, well, we think it's
going to be fixed some day in the future, and quite frankly, the
concurrency management system that's proposed metering growth is,
in fact, a moratorium, regardless of what you call it. Somebody is
going to be stopped from getting a building permit and that's a
moratorium.
And I'll answer any questions that you have.
Page 34
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, I'd like to direct a question
to our county attorney. What we're doing, is it legally defensible?
MR. WEIGEL: What you're being asked to do today is merely
authorize staff to put a process in place where there will be
significant due process afforded the public and the review agencies;
such as the Planning Commission and ultimately the Board of County
Commissioners.
No decision is being made today which that creates any legal
imposition on anyone.
This is merely an potentially authorization by you for staff to come
forward and bring a program forward to you.
I think obstensibly, is it a June 1 lth date, as the proposed and
recommended date for the public hearing before this Board of County
Commissioners to make more definitive decisions.
At that time, through the process, which will have been brought
forward by staff with the assistance of the public and obviously
working through the Planning Commission, not significantly different
if at all from a Land Development Code type amendment process,
will come a product to you for your review and the legal and
substantive questions that you will ask and will be asked of us at that
time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just as a follow on to that. I wanted
to make it clear that the intent of my earlier question was to assUre
that we had a solution in place.
As I understand it, we're not declaring a moratorium today, we're
going to go through the public hearing process and I would hope that
when the staff brings this back for our consideration, they will have a
plan to recover or we'll be in a position of saying, yes, nobody is
going to get a building permit.
And I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing to do under certain
circumstances. I don't want to see that as a general policy in the
Page 3 5
May 14, 2002
county, but there are going to be circumstances where we're going to
stay nobody is going to get a permit until we solve the problem.
And if that results in a legal challenge, I guess that's what will
happen. I certainly would intend that we have a solution to these
problems as quickly as possible. It's not my intent to support an
ongoing moratorium.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala.
C~OMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good presentation, Jeff. It's so
important to us right now as we're trying to shape and guide the
future of our roadway system that we consider this very thoughtfully.
I do want to know on June 1 lth, you'll be bringing forth this
solution to us so that as we contemplate, we also know where we're
going for the future.
MR. FEDER: Yes, Commissioner. Again, for the record,
Norman Feeder, Transportation Administrator.
That is the next agenda item that we're going to be covering. And
in this agenda item, as I mentioned, is a schedule for Growth
Management Plan changes, the Land Development Code. Next
agenda item will be discussing some particulars.
But I do need to note to you that first of all a statement that is a
surprise or astonished that the DCA approved a constrained
corridor in our Growth Management Plan, Vanderbilt Beach Road, to
say that we allow it to just continue to degrade because a community
has accepted it, is already passed it's level of service and put in no
controls over that future expansion and constraints, I don't think
is responsible.
And we do want to assure you that we are working through the
process. It was the AUIR that identified these three segments and at
that time it was decided to go to constrained and backlogged. It was
only because we could not make the changes to Growth Management
Plan timely enough and other things have come forward, accidents
Page 36
May 14, 2002
and growth in those sections that are coming to you with this
recommendation on an interim basis today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Bob Krasowski and your
final speaker will be David Ellis.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Bob Krasowksi for the record. It is clear to me, and I'm speaking
for myself just as a citizen that's been here for 23 years, I've seen a lot
of development, and of course, when I came here there was a lot of
people saying the same thing to me, how different things were from
when they got here.
I'm all in favor of what I notice about your activities in regards to
this issue and that's planning and analysis.
I understand today that we're here for you to authorize staff to
prepare and advertise for a public hearing regarding designation of
these three areas, the moratorium for these three areas. I'll reserve
most of my in-depth comments for that public hearing when we
discuss this issue.
But I would like to request of the staff that they come prepared to
that hearing with the understanding that eventually work will
diminish here in Collier County unless we start putting roads over
roads on Highway 4 ! in this section you're considering. And it will
be continuing to increase the impact on that road to a point of
gridlock.
So as work diminishes and the workload goes down and our
population grows, I think that we are going to have at least ato some
degree of slowing of construction jobs.
And I know that I'd like to see at this workshop or this meeting
exactly what areas are effected. And then along the lines of those
issues that the reduction of jobs, I think we have to analyze and see
which of these jobs are held by illegal immigrants.
Page 37
May 14, 2002
And there are many working crews here that are not licensed or
legal, and my understanding, that's why I'm requesting that these
numbers be brought before us. And as a solution to this, because this
whole process, this whole standing, is undermining the working
condition of the citizen workforce in these trade jobs.
And if we could concentrate the work that's available here as we
reduce it on citizens, and then possibly export development, have our
developers, like some of the larger ones, make arrangements in
countries like Mexico, Columbia, Central America, the Caribbean, to
start exporting development there, so that these people can stay there,
work there, and improve the quality of life in their own communities.
Now, I know this a bit of an extreme position, but it's worthy of
consideration. Because we have people coming out of high schools
now that don't have jobs and that aren't learning skills. They're not
learning trades and these are perfect opportunities for these people to
move into these jobs and they're competing with people that are
working under the table, getting cash, that are sending money out of
the country and it's not staying in our local economy.
This is one element of this whole issue that we have to address
with sensitivity to all people involved.
Remember that our growth here in this county is a resource, and
we're not all suits and ties. We are, many of us, working people.
And those working people deserve protection. And you've had people
up here that have asked for consideration regarding their own
children's ability to proceed in their careers as builders, and I think
that's something you should give consideration to and protect our
resource, and think outside of the box.
And I hope when we have meeting that Mr. Feeder will have
some of these numbers available to us. Thanks for your attention.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr David Ellis.
Page 38
May 14, 2002
MR. ELLIS: Good morning, Commissioners.
My name is David Ellis and I'm the Executive Director of the Collier
Building Industry Association.
I wanted to take a moment this morning to address this part of the
issue that we're going to be talking about today.
If I can communicate one message in relation to moratorium as a
concept, I want you to frame it as an extraordinary measure.
When we look at this in our community, and certainly we have
challenges dealing with our infrastructure. We come here every two
weeks, it seems like we're talking about it.
I want, again, to frame it in your mind as an extraordinary
method, an extraordinary thing that we would do as a community, has
extraordinary effects on people's property rights, extraordinary effect
on the affordability of homes in our community, an extraordinary
effect on the working people of Collier County.
Even though I know you're looking at this in a more limited and
focused way, it still has that effect. And when we set that precedent
in the working lives of Collier County, I don't want you to take on
this issue lightly.
As a matter of fact, as you take it on as an extraordinary method, I
want you to consider as Commissioner Coyle was bringing forward,
extraordinary efforts to resolve those issues.
If we only take this on as, well, this is something we can do to
stop things, it's really-- it becomes something I think very different
than all of you would want to accomplish in Collier County.
Again, you may feel that moving forward with these things, and
will be discussing them, I know at the next workshops, may be an
appropriate move.
Be it at the same time, I encourage you when you use that word
moratorium to think in terms of we're doing the most radical thing we
can do as a community in relation to this issue.
Page 39
May 14, 2002
Now, it takes me back-- I haven't been with CBI very long, when
we came before you, as a matter fact, Commissioner Carter, you may
have been the only commissioner that was there at the time. It was in
August of 1999.
We came forward with recommendations about transportation
specifically, to summarize that it was, basically, Commissioners,
we've got an issue with our transportation network. We're not
building roads in Collier County. It wasn't a planning issue. We
planned to build the roads. It wasn't even a funding issue. We
raised the money to do it. We just weren't executing the plan.
And we came to you and said, Commissioners, you need to look
at how you organize your departments. And to your credit you did an
excellent job. You brought in a very strong transportation
administrator. You reorganized those departments. And guess what?
We're building roads in Collier County. You see them everywhere.
We've also looked at funding. I will tell you one of more painful
moments that day is we said to you, Commissioners, you need to
look at your impact fees. It has been years since you evaluated the
road impact fees.
And I can tell you, I guess, somewhat to your credit, you did that
probably quicker than anything else you did and raised them to a
record level to the highest level allowable by law.
Again, you moved on that. And again we're still looking for more
broad-based funding sources. We know we have issues. That was a
positive move on behalf of the County to look at infrastructure.
Again, I would like to say we were some of the first people to the
table calling for changes. And some of those changes have been
made. It took us years to get behind and it's going to take us
sometime to catch up.
And again, this morning many of you know we showed up with a
force because we're concerned about jobs and we're concerned about
Page 40
May 14, 2002
the effects it has on the industry that we represent.
But more than anything, we want you to consider this to be an
extraordinary approach no matter what you do.
The other thing that I wanted to mention, one of the things that
we've been talking about, and I would urge you to do this, if you
could pull together a task force, an organization within the
community, that helped your staff that deals with these capital
projects, with these infrastructure projects.
Right now there aren't real oversight groups that deal directly
with your transportation department or with your sewer and water
folks.
They work very well and they're coming forward with some good
plans. We were here just a few months ago when we talked about a
billion dollar plan for the next 20 years for our water and wastewater
systems, which you improved and funded through impact fees.
But again, the oversight to getting those things executed, we stand
here today facing these issues not because of a planning system or
concurrency and how that's done, we really stand here because we
didn't execute the plans that were ahead of us.
How many of us have seen maps from the 1980s that have
Livingston Road on it. Those types of things we just haven't
executed. I would say we could move forward and do that.
During the sewer issue, many of you were involved and saw
when private sector folks started working with people at the county,
we came forward with some very aggressive and some very creative
answers.
I think again, we need to approach this issue with transportation
and other infrastructures as an emergency. Call in the troops. Call in
the people who have expertise from the industry.
When Jerry Perry comes up, that's a man who has expertise that
we could call upon and use in this county to make a real difference in
Page 41
May 14, 2002
resolving these issues.
I would encourage you to create some kind of organization that
can be a resource to your staff in resolving those issues. We saw it
work during the sewer issue and I think we can do it again.
The one last thing I would mention to you that to come forward
with and it's time to look at impact fees again on roads. I know your
staff has begun looking at them. I'll tell you, you've heard me say
this before. Impact fees are one of the ways we have selected
Collier County to fund infrastructure.
I would encourage you to move ahead with looking at the review
process for the impact fee on roads. We want to make sure that we're
collecting enough to properly allow growth to pay for growth in that
regard.
Again, I have to tell you, that's not my favorite approach to this,
because you all know that I'm going to be making my speech on
affordability.
But yet, I think it's important and it's an industry. We came
forward in 1999 and said look at this, we need to make sure we're
maximizing our opportunities. Let's do it fairly, so that we have a
chance to review it. But let's move ahead.
If you'd consider it, again, I don't think anybody thinks we're
exaggerating to say those fees may go up a thousand or fifteen
hundred dollars, your staff has already made that statement in their
initial review.
Every corridor in Collier County, for the last couple of years, we
have done about 2,000 building permits. Two thousand permits in a
quarter times by fifteen hundred dollars is three million dollars.
If Norm had three million dollars he can be building some of
those roads. Again, I'm not telling you we need to run it through a
meeting. We need to have due process.
Page 42
May 14, 2002
But Commissioners, let's get that on the agenda to. Thank you
for your time. I'm sorry ran a little over. If I can answer any
questions, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two more speakers,
Kathy Curatole and she will be followed by Bill Thesin.
MS. CURATOLE: Good morning, Commissioners. Thank you
for giving me the opportunity to speak on this matter.
I come before you today representing five thousand workers from
construction; specialty contractors, suppliers and service providers.
While we continue to support your efforts and are willing to work
with you and other representatives of this fine community to catch
up on road construction, there are certain issues that we need to have
addressed by you and by this community.
This issue has major economic consequences for many people
who live and work in this community. Whether it's 100 hundred
feet of road or 1,000 of road. There are economic consequences.
We need to be a part of the solution. We are able and willing to
step forward to work with you on task forces as we did with the
water management issue.
But I beg you, come to us, communicate with us, let the workers
of this community in construction know what's going on so we can
move forward with our businesses and our lives.
We are also a part of this fine community and we would like to
have a voice in it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Bill Thesin.
MR. THESIN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I
stand here this morning representing, basically, a way of life. I don't
feel that a moratorium is the way to correct problems within the
Page 43
May 14, 2002
Moratorium means stop. If we stop building, if we stop
expansion, you stop life. You change the community to a point where
it can't be rectified.
I do feel that growth has to be meshed with the development of
the proper infrastructure in the community. I feel that we have to
take a look at a lot of different areas of growth and expansion and
services.
I also feel that the roads should be paid and in place along with
the development that comes to the county. We can't wait until after
something becomes a problem and face it. That's a very costly way to
put the infrastructure in place.
I feel, unfortunately, that we do have to look at increasing in
some way the fees that are charged when someone opens up a
development or develops a new property.
Everything in our life costs more money. We can't buy a home for
what we bought it 10 years ago. We can't buy the same home that we
bought 10 years ago for what it costs 15 years before that.
The impact fees have to keep track as -- keep right up with the
cost of development. If the impact fees increase slightly, we are
going to hear from the building industry, we can't sell homes. And
yet, look at the development we have seen in the county with past
increase in the impact fees.
I feel it's fair. It's the part of the price of the home, and I feel it
protects our way of life.
I came to this county 13 years ago. I immediately got involved in
the community. I worked on several projects for the community
commission. I worked within the court system developing programs.
I run a charity that benefits our schools. All of the things in this
county are intermeshed.
Page 44
May14,2002
The schools which is the basis from which our children go
forward into the country, I am extremely proud of. But the schools
also have to grow. And growth means more money.
Everything costs more than it did before. We have to realize that.
We have to stop, not catering, but we have to stop considering one
area of interest against the interest of our lifestyle and our
community.
And I feel managed growth is the way to do it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Yes. Again, for the record, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator.
Some very good comments, if I could just some quick things.
First of all, it was noted by Kathy that we need to keep the
development community involved, and let the task force work, I do
encourage that.
I want to note that we have worked with the DESAC Committee,
advised them both of this moratorium and where we're going relative
to that and the next agenda item.
But we obviously welcome any parties that want to work with us
in any recommendation or solution.
I was pleased to find out that David Ellis is ready to work with us
on the impact fee process. We're nearing completion of all of the
methodology work and the estimates of costs.
We will have before you for an approval within two months, after
having gone through all the various committees, giving due process
to everybody, the adoption of a new impact fee schedule that we
already know will be significantly higher, for no other reason than
right-of-way, which is one thing that I'd like to talk to the industry
about as we try to figure out how to task together on getting out
of these issues.
Page 45
May 14, 2002
The other thing I will point out to you is just two other things,
one, you are following your process. In the AUIR that we came to
you in December, we decided try to go constrained and backlogged,
because we have not been able to move on that, you alre. ady
evaluated lowering service, which is not resolved segments and
conditions.
You had already looked at the possibilities of funding it. And
unfortunately, could not, although you aggressively funded the
program in December, and the option was to try and move in this
other mode which we were unable to do in a timely manner.
Therefore, I just point it out with a definite area defined we are
bringing forward moratorium, which is the third option under the
current provisions.
The last I will point out to you is we do have a plan of action, not
necessary all the solutions, but a definite plan of action. And as
you'll be hearing in a minute, we are looking to bring this ordinance
back to you to the Planning Commission on the 6th of June and to
this board on the 1 lth.
And then as far as the new concurrency process, Growth
Management Plan changes, the 6th of June, we'll go to the Planning
Commission, and then the 25th of June to this Board for transmittal
to DCA. It will go on the September 12th to the Planning
Commission, and then to this Board on the 24th.
In like kind, I won't belabor it, but two presentations the Planning
Commission to the Board culminating in October 9th, to the Board
or adoption hopefully without any interveners and following the
process.
So there's an aggressive program to try and respond. This is
brought to you only, and unfortunately as an interim measure.
And the last thing that I will tell you is that I agree with David
Ellis. It's an extraordinary measure. We need to treat as such.
Page 46
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I would like to make a
motion for an approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Coletta, myself, and a second from Commissioner
Carter. Discussion. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see this as not a developers or
the people who are pulling the permit. I see that as responsibility of
Government coming up with solutions on that.
I can tell you that as we go forward, we will find solutions for it.
I guess my concern is that we do the responsible thing. And that
is to protect the existing citizens to make sure that EMS and fire can
get to their homes in time.
And I hope that if anybody has a burning desire to make political
advertisements to refrain from that and you can always give me a
call and have those political comments on a one-on-one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
MS. FIALA: Just before we go to a final vote, I do want to say
that I hope Norm will be working with the building industry and Jeff
Perry, who has got so much background in roads anyway as we move
forward to these situations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have one more speaker. We'll go
to that last speaker. Normally, at this point in time, we would not
recognizing new speakers, but I want to give everybody a chance at
due process.
MS. FILSON: Shalonda Washington.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This will be the last speaker on this
subject.
MS. WASHINGTON: Good morning. My name is Shalonda
Washington. I did hand in one of those slips, but I don't know what
happened.
Page 47
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. We're glad to have you.
MS. WASHINGTON: I'm here because this issue is very
personal for me. It's a very personal issue because I have been in
Collier County all of my life. I'm 28 years old and I've attended all
the public schools here.
And as a product of Collier County and as one who had a child in
10th grade at a very young age, I found Collier County to be a very
loving, very supportive county in the respect in that I have been able
to meet people that have really encouraged me and enlightened my
life.
Through that, having the baby at a young age and all, I did have
to receive public assistance, government funding, in order to
help me to support my child.
But through all of that, I wasn't satisfied. I've always been taught
my by grandmother who raised me as a single mother, and as my
grandmother that you should always do for yourself, don't wait for
anyone else do it or you.
And after growing up and going through school, finishing school,
and finally getting married at 21, it still was a struggle. I couldn't
survive. Any little money that you make, it's over. Help that you get
from the government and that.
And I wanted to provide for my daughter. I want to be able to
give her things that I never had. And I've had to work really, really
hard. I'm a business owner of S. Washington Permitting and
Secretarial Services.
My husband and I both now work in that business. We have
worked it up to that point where it has to be two people working.
Prior to that, my husband did concrete work. So it kind of went hand
in hand.
A building moratorium I do not believe is the answer, because
I've been there where we've had to worry after building our house in
Page 48
May 14, 2002
Golden Gate Estates where our next meal will come from. Just to be
able pay for our housing over our head.
I've worked really hard. I've worked hard and I've been blessed
with some awesome people in my life. And now I'm asking that you
be that next source of help and that we find another alternative there
are other ways, as we heard today other options we can take, other
directions.
Because truly, a moratorium would be taking food out of my
children's mouths. I'm not at the very, very top yet. And I just want
the opportunity to get there, because Collier County has provided
opportunities.
People say opportunity stands at the door and knocks. No
opportunity waits to be discovered. And I discovered it and I took
charge on it and I don't want it to be taken from up under my feet
when I've worked very hard to accomplish what I've accomplished.
And thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was beautiful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A very good speech. I thought she
was addressing the subject that's going to be coming up soon, rather
than this particular--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just say that's the preamble to what
we're going to be going through. Commission Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: As we vote on this, I've been here
for almost four years and I've lived in the world of crisis management
from the day I arrived to the day that I sit in front of you this
morning.
What is happening here is no surprise. In the way out of a crisis is
to have the right people, the right direction, the right inputs to be able
to get to where you need to be.
Today we have a top management team in place who's dealing
with the problems. You can't have growth like we've had and not
Page 49
May 14, 2002
implement the management plans necessary to deal with the
infrastructure.
It is not a smooth process. It is not one today that I am happy to
sit here and say, that as a commissioner, I have to make some damn
tough decisions, but I have to look beyond the decision today to work
out of the crisis.
I don't like moratoriums, but a moratorium is only an interim
development control because you have to find a solution to it. And I
believe this Board of County Commissioners is now working towards
solutions to build for the future. And we have to take are of what's
coming here as well as what is already here and hasn't been taken
care of in the past.
I think that's where we're trying to go. There's a number of factors
that surrounds each one of these areas that we're talking about for a
short period of time.
If you take the Vanderbilt segment, there are already two other
studies going on in that area. One for the drive that runs all the way
from the road to Bonita. And that is a part of all of this.
If you look at the study down in the beach and bay area. That's a
part of this. There's no one single factor. And you take all of this and
you look at what you have to do and then you get about the business
of doing it.
We spent, I don't know how many hours through Swifty,
Commissioners, staff, in Tallahassee with our elected representative
and at the 1 lth hour, we got seven and a half million dollars out of
the TOPS Program to take care of one of the areas that will help
relieve this situation.
And that is dog work, ladies and gentlemen. There's no easy
solutions and you just keep after it, day, after day, after day.
And I think there are no magic bullets to this. There is an
immense amount of gray areas, but we can get there as a community.
Page 50
May 14, 2002
It takes everybody in this room to get there. And no simple solutions,
but right decisions.to get you where you need to be for the future.
I am going to support this morning to bring it back through
process and that is your planning council and back to the board and
that given everyone in this community who wants to participate that
opportunity to do it.
Because the five of us up here don't have the answers, ladies and
gentlemen. We are looking for guidance and direction. We were
elected by you, to listen to you, and find multiple inputs to get there.
And we're not looking for something that says magic bullet, it's over.
It doesn't exist.
But we will get there through working hard with you to
accomplish the plans that need to be implement to make Collier
County a great place to continue to live in where we can raise our
families, where we can get done what we have to get done, because
you out there are the infrastructure of this community.
And we will get it done with your guidance and direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well put, Commissioner Carter. Any
other comments? With that, I'll call the question. All those in favor,
indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it 5-0.
Thank you. Before we go on to the next item, we're going to take a
five-minute break, so the television room, they can change out the
tape. I'm told every one and a half to two hours we have to do this.
Thereupon,
(A brief recess was taken, after which the following proceedings
were had.)
Page 51
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Olliff.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2002-224 REGARDING PROGRESS AND
SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF A REAL-TIME TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES - ADOPTED
MR. OLLIFF: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I believe we're at 10-B on
your agenda.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feeder,
Transportation Administrator.
As we mentioned in the prior item, we're bringing forward to you
at this Board's request as far back as last April when your new
transportation division raised some policy changes a realtime
concurrency management system.
We've been working on this for some time, trying to evaluate
some options to do what the Board has directed, which is something
that I must admit from what I heard from folks in Tallahassee, both in
DOT and in DCA and around the State and consultants, and that is do
not wait until a facility becomes deficient before we try to decide
how to respond.
Whether that be three years or zero years. Waiting until it's
already deficient, when it takes us a good, unfortunately, six to
seven years to come forward with a project, puts us behind the eight
ball. When you don't build anything for five years, you're
particularly behind.
So that's what we're facing, where we are today. And we have a
system that basically as exists today, an annual update and inventory
Page 52
May 14, 2002
report, says we wait until once a year to evaluate and at that time
when we take action to either to lower level of service, provide for
improvement or create a moratorium, that at that time everything,
other than what's in moratorium, obviously, is that fine to go for
the full year.
So everything that happens during that year is no longer
monitored effectively until you come to the next cycle.
Now, you did try to look at what was potentially going to become
deficient, there was some attribute of that in there. But essentially,
once a year you did a report card and took care of it there.
What the Board told us they wanted was something that basically
looked at where we were as capacity started to get consumed and
put us in a position where we could start, if you will, slowing things
down a little bit as was necessary, if we didn't have a project coming
forward and our capacity was, in fact, getting consumed, put us in a
position where we slow down a little bit more. If unfortunately,
more capacity was consumed, and we didn't have a project coming
forward and ultimately if, in fact, we got to the point where we did
not have a project and our capacity was, in fact, getting consumed
that we would put ourselves in a diminimus situation.
To do that, we've developed a concept for your consideration as
essentially a matrix that does just what I just related to you. That is
it takes the capacity of a segment and reviews its consumption
relative to actual traffic counts that are out there right now as well as
everything that has been issued a certificate of adequate public
facilities.
Please understand, this isn't at the time of a PUD. A PUD is a
zoning process. It does not grant vesting for concurrency.
You took action just recently and along with other numerous
other changes, you already made to the Land Development Code and
Page 53
May 14, 2002
Growth Management Plan, to eliminate the process of people being
able to buy in early and buy that concurrency.
So now, what we're recommending, in fact, is that that
concurrency without that prior provision come at the time of final
subdivision plat or SDP for non-residential, year subdivision
development plan.
And essentially, at that point in time the impact fees be paid and
they become available for use rather than waiting until later when the
building permit is pulled.
That gives us a little bit of lead time to start utilizing those impact
fees, which by the way, in two months that I mentioned will be under
review and brought to this body again.
It allows those fees to be used as we try to respond on this process
as consumption of the capacity moves forward.
What we're recommending is that about 75 percent of capacity
consumed, three-quarters quarter of the capacity being consumed, if,
in fact, we have nothing programmed in the five years, that we start,
as I would characterize it, taking our foot off the accelerator.
We are coming up to the red light. We know that we need to not
wait until we reach the intersection before we apply the brakes, as
we've done in the past.
We need to start looking forward, planning, if you will, of where
we're going to be.
So 75 percent of our capacity is consumed and we don't have a
construction phase program, in other words, the green light is not
reasonably going to appear as we approach the intersection, then, in
fact, we take our foot off the accelerator.
In this case, we're recommending a 10 percent backlogged annual
growth be applied.
Additionally, as we move up, we start consuming more of that
capacity, we find ourselves in a situation where we're going to
Page 54
May 14, 2002
recommend to you that that 10 percent go to a five percent.
And in a case of once we consumed 85 percent of the capacity, if
there's nothing programmed we, in fact, go to only a five percent
annual growth allowed.
Because we're getting closer to that red light and we still don't
have anything coming forward to turn it green, no new construction
project.
Even if I have something programmed in the fifth or the forth
year at that point, we're saying we have still have to take our foot off
the accelerator because we may well have to stop and we better slow
down in case we have to.
As you can continue to consume on up, once we get to the point
of where. In fact, we are approaching the intersection itself, we may
have to go to the "X" that you see in this graph, which is diminimus.
Again, not where we want to be. The discuss we just had. And in
some sections and I would tell probably Davis, unless we get that
construction phase program. And you've directed us, we're going to
pursue every avenue we can to get it programmed as soon as
possible.
But if it's not forthcoming, then you end up in a section like that
in a diminimus situation where you had to put on the brakes because,
in fact, you're going to sit there at a red light, hopefully, for a very
short period of time, and you sit there and you don't want to end up
skidding on into the intersection and risking a crash.
So effectively what you have here is concept that says we are
going to look at -- not just one or two dimensionally, but three
dimensionally where we are, we're going to plan for it. As we
consume our capacity, we're going to bring forward projects. If we
do not bring them forward, we need to respond accordingly.
Page 55
May 14, 2002
And that's exactly what you got here, it's not worrying about what
do we do once we already approach the intersection, we should have
done something long before then.
And that's a very, very, quick overview. The other thing I will
remind you, as I noted in the last item, in fact, this is going to be
brought forward first with growth management changes, because it
requires those changes to implement the Land Development Code.
Essentially, the growth management changes will be coming
before the Planning Commission on June 6th, as well as June 25th to
the Board. And that is to transmit to the State, hopefully back with
Planning Commission on September 12th, and then the 24th for
adoption by this Board to be followed very shortly after that, and
obviously, as we continue to work with this, work with the
community. We developed that in parallel, but Land Development
Code changes, two readings, Planning Commission, two by the Board
of County Commissioners culminating hopefully October 9th, in
adoption of a new concurrency management system for Collier
County.
I'm open for any question you have. I know I hit quite a bit in a
very short time frame.
What I will tell you is we're going to be out talking to an awful lot
of people about this process seeking any refinement we can make.
Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just a couple of questions. Is
this something similar to a realtime concurrency or is this realtime
concurrency?
MR. FEDER: This is realtime concurrency. What we're looking
at the actual traffic counts out there on the street at the time, plus
what has been approved or adequate public facilities has been issued
until it gets built.
Page 56
May 14, 2002
Once it gets built, then it is that traffic out there out the road and
you subtract it back out. And as you look at, as you come into this
process, if I'm 75 percent at this point in time, I've got a project in the
fourth year, there are no restrictions, but if that the project adds 10
percent to the service volume of a particular segment, next person
that comes in, I'm starting at 85 percent and even though I have
something programmed in the fourth year, I'm starting to lift my foot
off the accelerator. I am going to attempt to send backlog.
So it's done realtime and you're taking that checkbook and you're
applying it as it goes through and back to this matrix that responds on
how we react as we get our capacity consumed versus when an
improvement is coming forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, were you finished?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I wasn't finished.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll yield my time to Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I'm sorry, it's
kind of hard to see you through Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: So this would be the answer to
TAG's request for a moratorium?
MR. FEDER: This would be staff's recommendation to a
realtime concurrency management that goes beyond figuring out
what we do once we're at the intersection, but rather evaluating the
decisions we make before we get to that intersection, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One final thing, you stated that
we gave you direction in April, but I remember that we were talking
about this earlier than that, I just don't know when the topic really
came up.
MR. FEDER: Shortly after I came on board, August of 2000.
We presented to you the need to change a number of things and you
Page 57
May 14, 2002
presented to me, we started some of these discussions, in particular,
in April, we came to you with some policy papers. Yes,
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me clarify that time line a little
bit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The checkbook accounting system
has been a topic of discussion and research by the staff for at least six
months.
And on January the 29th, the Board of County Commissioners in
a strategic planning session resolved that we wanted to have realtime
concurrency and we authorized at that time a complete review of the
Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. And
that occurred on January the 29th.
And the staff has been working on this ever since that time to
refine it.
Now, what Norm has described here is not just the checkbook
system, but an application of that system to permit us to forecast to
where we're likely to go at the current rate of growth so that we can
start taking action well in advance of the point in time where a road
might reach capacity.
A moratorium is not in the best interest of anybody in Collier
County. And it is our responsibility to plan properly for this.
And that's what Norm is presenting, I think. Is that--
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, thank you very much. Yes,
exactly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just one question, Norman. I
hope this begins to replace the alphabetic system of level of service
which no one really understands. And no one in their right mind can
understand why "C" is an acceptable ideal level of service. They say
Page 58
May 14, 2002
what happened to the front of the alphabet?
I think that whole system is atrocious. We may have to follow it
for the State of Florida, but I hope in our community we get to what
you're presenting here in this matrix, which is understandable and
people can follow because it makes sense.
The other system doesn't make sense and to try to get people to
understand that, myself included, was not a very pleasant process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, Mr Feder. This would
become part of the Growth Management Plan, and once it's in place,
it's not saying taht we can arbitrarily change it at our whim, we would
be bound by it.
MR. FEDER: We would obviously not recommend that, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, we go back to
yOU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I would like to follow up on a
comment Commissioner Carter made, which I think is a very good
one.
I've had this discussion with staff, I don't know where it's going
yet, but the level of service standards we use in my estimation are not
sufficient to measure the capacity of the road.
I think most people are more concerned about how long it takes to
get from point A to point B, than they are about how many cars
there are going from that point.
Clearly, the amount of time it takes a particular volume of cars to
get from point A to point B, is a function of lots of things; access to
the highway, traffic lights, traffic light timing, left-turn lane stacking
capacity.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Driving skills.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, exactly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We don't want to go there.
Page 59
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So I would like to see reevaluate
those two issues. I think we can find some better ways of doing that.
And it's my understanding in reading the statutes that we have the
flexibility to suggest new ways of doing this. And, if approved, by
the DCA and Tallahassee we can do that.
MR. FEDER: Very definitely, Commissioner. And your point is
well-taken.
One of the things that we face is not just purely the volume, but is
the way we're designed, the lack of roads, number of signals, by all
means.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may add to that. I can remember
the very first meeting that I attended in November of 2000, they came
up with the five percent, it was lost rule, and I stopped, and I said, "I
don't understand. What is that?" Pam Mac'Kie got all excited. She
said, "My God, he's asking the question. He's asking the question."
And I didn't know what the question was, much less the answer at the
time.
The answer was, is that you could build a development, if you did
increase more than five percent total on the roadway, which was
ludicrous, because the roadway could over capacity, you add five
percent to it, you increase the capacity so the next person could
take a heavier five percent.
At that point in time, I think that we had the resolve to be able to
go forward, we all took exception to it, and we said we wanted to
change. It took a long time to get there. But then again too
Government, has got to move with great care and caution through the
process.
Any other comments? Questions? We got speakers. Why don't
we go to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have no speakers for this item.
Page 60
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, since I
think that Item B and C are very similar of the direction that we're
going that we can hold off on a vote of giving staff direction to --
what the Board really wants to do as far as concurrency.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning,
you want to delay it until what point in time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're going to hear TAG's
item, and then I think at that time then we can make a decision which
way we're going to go, to further process this checkbook concurrency
or take under consideration TAG's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If the rest of the Commission doesn't
have any objection to that, that's what we'll do.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I object, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I believe that what we need to do
here is make a decision on what we think is right based on everything
that we know.
And I'm not going to wait until I hear a lot of other comments
about an issue that seems to be very straightforward and has been the
desire of this Board for almost a year and prior to that to try to find a
way to wrestle with these concurrency issues.
So I'm ready to move on this item and take it forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to make
a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to move staff's
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I move to second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got second from Commissioner
Fiala and a first from Commissioner Carter. Now discussion.
All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
Page 61
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it 5-0. Thank
you. Now we move on. Mr. Olliff, who's going to be making this
presentation on 10-C?
Item # 10C
RESOLUTION 2002-225 PLEDGING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
PUBLIC REGARDING CONCURRENCY- ADOPTED;
DECLARING THE BALLOT QUESTION AND ORDERING AND
CALLING AN ELECTION - DENIED
MR. OLLIFF: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, that there's much of a
presentation that's needed. I will tell you that this is the item that's in
follow-up to the public petition item that was presented by the
Taxpayers Action Group, 30 days ago, roughly 30 days ago.
The proposal was for the Board to consider much like the
Greenspace Committee has asked the Board to consider a referendum
ballot question for the fall.
They've made a presentation. The Board indicated that the item
would warrant at least being put on a regular agenda, which is this is
the follow up item to that public petition.
I know that this is item is fairly straightforward. It's a request that
there be a definition of concurrency, referendum question placed on
the November 5th ballot, as I believe is the recommended ballot.
And we've included, at least as part of the back up, a resolution
that does indicate what the established petition process for having
Page 62
May 14, 2002
citizen initiated items for ballot items on the agenda is for the Board.
And that was established, I believe, back in 1995.
But in discussions with the County Attorney's Office, the Board
does have the flexibility to decide either way on an item that's going
to be on a ballot.
And frankly, as a recommendation, Mr. Chairman, I know that
you've got a host of the public speakers and we're probably be better
served just going to the public speakers and hearing the comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I do have to ask the question
once more to make sure that we're going through due process. There
is no formal presentation by TAG, since they're the ones that brought
this forward?
In other words, they're just going to come forward and just make
it as a regular speaker for --
MR. OLLIFF: Typically, these become a staff item once the
Board's decided that it warrants putting it on agenda.
Executive Summary is fairly self-explanatory about the process
involved from this point forward. The Board needs to decide yes or
no if it's going to have a recommendation for a ballot question to the
Supervisor of Elections Office, by roughly the third week of July. So
a decision needs to be made in that time frame.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I decided to go ladies first here,
guys. Just so that we're all singing off the same page here, what I'd
like to do is tell the community where we are and I've written it out,
because I didn't want to miss any of my words, where we are, where
we have progressed in rewriting the Land Development Code and the
Growth Management Plan to address our growth and concurrency in
a responsible manner. And what our goals are and how we plan to
get there.
Page 63
May 14, 2002
And first of all, I've got a nice list, but I'm going to read it. I'm
usually a woman of few words, so I'm going to take this time and fill
in. Usually, I just say one thing and I'm off.
But anyway, growth management -- we have in these actions
already taken, excuse me, we've tightened up the review time for all
zoned and unbuilt PUDs to three years.
We've consolidated 24 different impact fee ordinances into a
single manageable ordinance, establishing fixed and more regular
update schedules for all impact fee ordinances to ensure that they stay
to the highest levels that we can charge.
We've authorized a doubling of the water and sewer impact fees.
We've authorized updates on the roads, schools and jail impact fees
for this year and the creation of a new law enforcement impact fee.
We've eliminated the five percent rule where many developments
were considered to have no transportation impacts if they didn't add
more than five percent to the total road trips. And that's something
that we all wanted to get on quickly as soon as we identified the
problem.
We eliminated the floor area ratio process for determining the
size of the RT zone projects. Excuse me, again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing fine.
MS. FIALA: Thank you. Eliminated that wedding cake
allowance for determining set back requirements, and we eliminated
the process where developers could buy concurrency certificates in
advance.
And the items that the Board has now directed staff to do and that
are already underway, development of Growth Management
Amendments to provide a realtime transportation concurrency
checkbook, as Norm just mentioned, requiring access management
plans for all commercial developments in activity centers, requiring
Page 64
May 14, 2002
that the transportation impact studies be done either directly by or
through a contract managed by the county staff rather than the
developer.
As you can see, we've had a busy year. A moratorium for US 41
north, as you just heard, Pine Ridge, Golden Gate Parkway, Davis
Boulevard, between Radio and Collier Boulevard and the Vanderbilt
Beach Road. And it isn't a moratorium, it's the process to -- by which
we get to that discussion.
And then over the next year, the BCC has already committed to
the following, a revised method of PUD review that will provide
more specifics, a review of 16 old PUDs that should have been
reviewed a long time ago, some from back in the 70s.
Major revisions to the affordable housing process, inclusion of
smart growth and community character into the Land Development
Code and a complete review of the Growth Management Plan and the
Land Development Code.
And I just felt that everybody in the audience ought to know
where we already are. We have been painted with a brush that says
we haven't been doing anything and everybody says that it's about
time you get on track.
But folks, we've been doing a lot of stuff. It's just that I. don't
think you've heard it all in succession, and that's what I wanted to do.
So you all know where we are. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Donna. If I may
piggyback on what you just said. A couple of other points that I want
to mention.
This Commission has been actively involved since when they
were first were elected in trying to effect changes. Some of the other
parts that might be a little bit easier for you to measure, the previous
Commission in 1999, met some 36 times.
Page 65
May 14, 2002
The present sitting Commission, last year, met over 70 times.
That's in the year 2000.
What do we do in our spare time? I don't know. And the
Consent Agenda 16-A-13, there's a little clip in there that I want to
read to you. This has to do with hiring new planners.
And it says, "While in the previous years amendments were
brought forward primarily tweaked the code, under this Board there's
been a desire to introduce wholesale changes to address concurrency
issues, improve public participation and ensure the development has
occurred in compatible communities.
Overall, the staff has seen 140 percent increase in code
amendment changes under this Board, and it is anticipated that the
trend will continue.".
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what more we can do. I
know these other commissioners this past weekend have been
working straight through the whole weekend to be prepared for today
and that's not an unusual occurrence.
There's total devotion on the part of this Board. There's no
special interest here. And I think that we truly reflect the will of
the people and we're making every attempt to reach out to everyone
that we can to involve them in the process.
And with that, I'm going to go Commissioner Coyle, who will put
it in a much more elegant way than I ever could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You guys didn't leave anything to
say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I read your notes, Mr. Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm happy that you've gone through
those. I think it's important as we proceed with this debate today
that we do so from the basis of fact.
And people who have not been able to or who have not taken the
time to engage in the public input process over the past year are
Page 66
May 14, 2002
certainly unaware of what has been going on and their assumption is,
of course, the worst.
But as you have heard, there are lots of good things that have
happened here. Quite frankly, I don't need to wait for a resolution
or a referendum to know that we need concurrency. I knew that
when I got here. And I, along with all the other commissioners, have
been working to accomplish that.
But there's certain facts that we have to keep in mind as we go
through the day, concerning this issue.
Number one is that there is a huge infrastructure deficit that has
been inherited by this Commission.
Number two, it is the Government's responsibility to build the
public facilities to meet the needs of our people. It is not the fault of
the development community. They have been following our laws.
Our laws have to be changed in many cases.
So number three, we are involved in revising our Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, and all of this
will be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs in
Tallahassee in the next submittal this fall. That is the very time-
consuming process.
Number four, the Board of County Commissioners has an
obligation to assure that we apply our concurrency management
system in a way that does not result in unfavorable unanticipated
consequences. We want to maintain the economic vitality of this
community and it is important that we do that.
The checkbook accounting system, as you have already heard, is
getting very close to full implementation. And we are committed to
doing that.
So that there is no misunderstanding. I want to address one other
item which is the one of confidence. Either people are unaware of
Page 67
May 14, 2002
what we've been doing or they don't believe that we're going to do
what we've been doing.
So in order to put all of the people at ease with respect to that
problem, I am proposing now that the Board of County
Commissioners make a contract with the community.
And that contract with the community is a resolution, which I will
now read to you.
"whereas, the rate of residential and commercial construction in
Collier County has been one of the highest in the United States
over the past decade.
And whereas, the county government has not done an adequate
job of providing roads, water, sewer and other public services
necessary to accommodate this growth.
And whereas, in an effort to recover from this infrastructure
deficit as quickly as possible, the county government is in now
engaged in the most aggressive infrastructure development program
in Collier County history.
And whereas, on January the 29th, 2002, the Board of County
Commissioners unanimously approved a complete review of the
Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan in order to
assure that adequate public facilities exist prior to the impacts of
development.
And whereas, the community government is in the process of
developing a concurrency management system to assure that
infrastructure keeps pace with the future needs of our community.
Whereas, it is the responsibility of the Board of County
Commissioners to implement this plan in a way which preserves the
economic vitality of our community and does not produce adverse
unintended consequences.
And whereas, in view of the past failures of county government to
adequately manage growth, the residents of Collier County require
Page 68
May 14, 2002
reassurance that the current Board of Commissioners is committed to
a program of sound growth management.
Therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that one, it is the intent of the Board of
County Commissioners that public facilities and services needed to
support development shall be available concurrent with the impacts
of such development.
Number two, changes to the Land Development Code and the
Growth Management Plan necessary to achieve concurrency, which
are already underway will be expedited to the extent possible.
And number three, the target date for the submission of these
changes to the State Department of Community Affairs for approval
shall be September the 1st, 2002."
This has been our program all along. We remain committed to it
and I hope that this resolution, if approved by the Board, will give
you some assurance that we are going to do what we said we are
going to do a long time ago, and we are in the process.
I'm also asking that unlike other resolutions where only the
Chairman signs the resolution, I'm asking that every member of the
Board of County Commissioners sign this resolution as personal
commitment that we're going to do what we said we were going to
do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, I would
move for acceptance of that resolution.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 69
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it 5-0.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Coyle, for putting the time
in to put that together.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, just a
couple of words so we can move forward.
I've been on this commission almost four years. I've worked with
nine different commissioners. And today I see the dream becoming a
reality. We're really getting to where we need to be.
I will tell you in my tenure, I have felt often like the little Dutch
boy with the finger in the dike. How long can we hold this thing
back to until we get resolution?
To hear what I just by heard spoken here this morning by
Commissioners Fiala and Coyle and Coletta, it is now becoming a
reality. Where body politic and professional government are working
together pulling on the same oar to take this community forward to
make it better and better with the best is yet to come.
Because we're dealing with the quality of life, the environment
and the economics of what makes a viable community. And we're
doing it by not sliding one leg of that triangle.
And I am proud to sit here this morning as a county
commissioner. And I no longer feel that I have to walk through this
community and apologize for the job that we're doing.
So thank you all. God bless you all. We are getting there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Well put. Well put. With that -- Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to hear from the
public.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am too. How many speakers do we
have?
Page 70
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 392.
MS. FILSON: 35.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The way we're going to work it is that
we have three minutes a piece. If you feel that speakers that followed
in advance of you have already covered the subject quite well and
you wish to waive, you can indicate by waving.
At that point in time if you like, you can say that are supportive of
this particular agenda item or you're opposed to it.
In other words, you're supportive of a moratorium or you'd be
opposed to a moratorium from where you are, and I will repeat it up
here so we can continue this meeting in an orderly fashion. With that, would you call the first speaker.
MR. OLLIFF: I think the question would be whether they are in
favor or not in favor of a referendum. That's the question on the
table.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Favor or not in favor.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker will be Mr. Bill Thesin and he
will be followed by Russel Tuft.
MR. THESIN: I'm Bill Thesin. I live in Vineyards. Mr.
Chairman, Commissioners, I have spoken here before this morning.
Most of what I wanted to say has already been said. I do want to
point out that a moratorium would create an atmosphere where
people are going to be coming into the community anyway,
purchasing existing properties, and the people that are coming down
here, the baby boomers have targeted Naples as a place they want to
retire.
They are going to demand services. These services are going to
have to be provided. Why create a moratorium where the services
are going to be created by all the taxpayers, and that the people
moving into the community are going to have to settle instead of
having the home they desire.
Page 71
May 14, 2002
That's about it. I don't see moratorium as good. Moratorium it
creates hardships in all phases of the community. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Mr. Russell Tuft and he will be
followed by Abbie Saunders, if you would like to come --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is Mr. Tuft here?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I think he was here earlier.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go to the next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Abbie Saunders.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If he comes later, he will be
recognized.
MS. FILSON: She will be followed by Janice Davis.
MS. SAUNDERS: I would just like to say that I am against any
moratorium on building. It's going to create economic disaster for the
young people of this community and for the builders of this
community.
We stood here this morning, we prayed for our young people in
the military. We said our pledge of allegiance, the end of that pledge
of allegiance is liberty and justice for all.
A moratorium is saying, I've got mine, we don't want you. We're
here. We're happy. Stay away.
Remember, liberty and justice for all. And that's what I'm looking
at. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Janice Davis. She will be followed by Nancy
Weis.
MS. DAVIS: Hello, I'm Janice Davis. I just wanted to speak to
you all in regards to the referendum that we're discussing. I'm the
owner of a hair salon and you're going to disrupt my business, the
thing that provides for my son who is two years old.
Page 72
May 14, 2002
If we let this go, I lose my business. I service these people. I am
the one that services these people. And if these people lose their
jobs, I don't have their wives. I don't have their children. What do I
do with my home? What do I do? How do I provide for my son? Do
I leave Collier County after being here since 1964.
I have been here since 1964, bom in Naples Community Hospital.
My son was bom here. I am asking you to be considerate of the
people of Collier County and not let this go through. I am asking
you.
I want to provide for him. I want to give him a good home. I
want to give him a great place to live. Collier County is where I
chose to be. I could have left. I went away to school in 1982 after
graduation. I came back because this is where I want to be.
I don't want anybody to force me out. I want my home here.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next time I give a speech, I want to
borrow that little kid.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nancy Wise and she will be
followed by A1 Zichella.
MS. WISE: My name is Nancy Wise. I've lived in Collier
County for over 20 years. I've been employed in the construction
industry for 15 of those 20 years.
Please, please, help save our jobs, our homes and our community.
I and all the other Collier County residents have elected you into
office.
Do not let a small group of retired no-growthers influence your
decision concerning the proposed referendum in the building
moratorium.
What right do they have to do that? We put you into office to
make these decisions for us. We think you're doing a good job.
Page 73
May 14, 2002
Where would the money come from to pay for the government?
Where is the money going to come from to support the people in this
building? God forbid if there was of fire, you know where -- who are
they going to call? If they have of heart attack, who are they going
to call?
I'm sorry. Who's going to pay for our mortgages and our taxes,
you know, when we're forced to leave because there's no jobs for us.
I represent the people out in the parking lot this morning. They
weren't the builders. They were the workers who support this
community.
I moved here 20 years ago to retire here and I want to have that
chance, and I think the Commission is going to give us that chance,
but please don't put that the referendum on the ballot.
Help save the working-class people. Thank you for your time.
Do you have any questions for me?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you so much.
MS. FILSON: A1 Zichella, followed by William Spinelli.
MR. ZICHELLA: Commissioners, I'd like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak. And I would like to -- first, I'd like to thank
you for everything you have been doing and that includes hiring
Norm Feder and Jim Mudd and the other people you brought in to
help resolve the infrastructure deficits that we do have, as
Commissioner Coyle spoke about.
I don't have a prepared comment. I want to speak against the
proposed referendum. I think -- I don't even know why it really is an
issue. There's less than 100 people that who would like to see
something like this go on the ballot, misrepresent the issue and
virtually punish 50,000 others, there about.
I think it's a bad, a poor idea. We have here what many
communities in this country would kill for, a very vibrant, growing
community.
Page 74
May 14, 2002
If you look in other areas of the country up north where
communities are dying and languishing, they would do anything to
have what we have here.
And I just think that we need to be very careful. There's a lot of
people involved. We can't be a leadest about what we would like to
have because traffic is inconvenient or we've not delivered on our
promises as was mentioned here many times before.
I think the builders and developers have paid their share. We've
played by the rules as they've been in place. We've done what is
always been requested of us.
I think as a community, we've always been responsible. And my
memory, I've been here 16 years, I'm a certified general contractor for
15. I don't ever recall, I can be wrong, but I don't remember ever an
instance where our community, our organization has opposed an
impact fee or being on record of doing so. I don't remember that,
maybe we have, but I don't recall.
I think that as members of the community, we are very generous
in charitable endeavors. I think across the board, if you just look at
what CBIA alone does, never mind the company I work for and many
others, I mean, charitable donations in this community should be
legendary around here.
Nothing would get done without a lot of the people that are
represented by our community. And I urge you to vote down this
proposed referendum. I don't think it's good for our community.
I think it actually harms what's good about our community. It
separates us and it doesn't do us any good.
I urge you to vote against it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: William Spinelli and he will be followed by Dave
Weston.
Page 75
May 14, 2002
MR. SPINELLI: Good morning, Commissioners. I didn't know
what I was going to hear as I came today from the constituency that
you all represent.
It's becoming clear to me the people that support this referendum
and/or moratorium are far and few between. I'm proud to hear what
all of you had to say as we started this section of our -- your meeting
today.
Okay. We had some problems here. I've worked for years in
home building industry. I've lived here 15 years. We fell behind.
Not your fault. But I'm proud of the work that I've seen each of you
do to help try and catch up.
I want to let you know, we appreciate it. We have some more
work today. There's one last comment that I want to make from
Commissioner Fiala.
You rattled of a list there today. It's about as impressive as
anyone could ask for you people to work.
Do you know what I think the problem is? Most of the people
don't know. And maybe there's a lesson to be learned here in how all
of us can educate the community in exactly the good work that's
going on and the progress that is being made and the things that have
been of accomplished and will be accomplished shortly
and over the next few years so that there's some comfort in our
community that this problem is getting better. I'll leave you with that. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: David Weston, and he will be follow by Ken
Lane.
MR. WESTON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. My name is Dave Weston, for the record.
I'm here this morning on behalf of the Naples Area Chamber of
Commerce. You have heard from some of the people who are
members of the Chamber of Commerce. We represent more than just
Page 76
May 14, 2002
the construction industry. We represent the hair salons, the retail
groups, tourism, education, and so on, as well as the construction and
development industry.
I'm not going to talk to much about- I crossed out a bunch of
things. I think what we heard today was action is underway. And I
think that is has been spoken of enough.
One of the things that we wanted to say is that we support a few
other items, and that is perhaps Collier County Commissioners could
create or empower an infrastructure oversight committee, as well, add
to the recommendation.
And we would also like to maybe recommend that the county add
to the plans what we'll call Project Acceleration Teams, which is
something that Dave Ellis referred to, which is using the expertise
that's out there in the private sector to assist with the programs that
you have in mind.
We want to extend our hands to the other organizations that even
with differing opinions to partner with us in developing solutions,
because it sounds like we're all trying to do the same thing here, and
we just differ on how we should approach it.
I look at the flag in front of you and to think about the way that
we elect our officials and we empower you to get the job done for us.
We have a great staff. I mean, I got to hand it to Manager Olliff for
putting together a staff now that their energy to get something
done and delivered is probable. They are driven.
And we haven't had that here in awhile. So I almost feel like
we're doing this, and I walked in the middle of a movie. It's already
happening. We got some radical idea to say we're going take away
your vested responsibility that was given to you by the voters. When
we already see that you have heard the call, when the commission
was changed, when new staff was put in place that the citizens had
spoken.
Page 77
May 14, 2002
And so I think that you're on the right track. I want to tell you
that those of us that represent the industry outside of the directly
impacted industry are very concerned that this not become a train
wreck, because it seems like it's going in the right direction.
We appreciate your strong stance against this referendum. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ken Lane, and he will be
followed by Todd Gates. If Mr. Gates would like to come up and
stand on board.
MR. HENNING: Thank you very much for letting us all speak
today. On behalf of the building industry, I am not a business owner,
I'm a construction worker. I am one of those guys out there on those
job site every day busting their butts.
If you take our jobs away what are we going to do? You know,
we're the little league coaches, the volunteer firearm, the guys that
are out there adopting a road. We're the ones that work hard for this
community.
I'm getting ready to get married in September. Collier County
has been my home since 1970. I just want to make it a home for
my children. Can you please give me the opportunity? Vote against
it. Please. Thanks.
MS. FILSON: Todd Gates, and he will be followed by Bill Ryan.
MR. GATES: For the record, I'm Todd Gates, the President of
the Collier Building Industry Association.
I would like to start out by thanking the staff, the managers of the
county and you commissioners for your leadership and hard work.
Obviously, we have of long way to go, but it feels like the County
has accomplished more in the last couple of years then previous five
years combined.
Commissioners, I'm here this morning representing the second
largest economic engine within this community. To put it simply, we
Page 78
May 14, 2002
are scared. We're very scared.
When they start hearing words like moratorium, the first things
that come to their minds are families and financial responsibilities.
How will they feed their families? How will they pay their home and
auto, mortgages? Will they have to relocate and leave their home,
school districts, area little league and area churches?
For every action there's a reaction. When we start tinkering with
an industry that effects many so businesses, supplies an enormous
amount of capital to pay for the much needed infrastructure, and we
start effecting the lives of so many fine people, great thoughts, a
thorough analysis, and extreme care is needed prior to any
modifications and adjustments.
This referendum proposed is simply not the smart, thought-out
action that is needed. The result which can lead to a countywide
moratorium is both economic and community suicide.
I know this may surprise a select few, but we live here too. This
is our home. Our children attend the local schools. Our families are
active in the neighborhood churches. And yes, believe it or not, we
must make a profit to feed our families and plan for the future.
Without the Haldermans, the Colliers, the Samples, the Pullings,
the Luckerts, the WCIs, the Bonita Bays and other fine developers
and builders, there would be no Port Royal, no Royal Harbor, no Park
Shore, no Pelican Bay, no Ritz-Carlton, no Naples Philharmonic.
There would be nothing.
Without this fine companies and individuals this wonderful
paradise which has become such a well-respected and admired all
over the world would not exist. We would simply be a mosquito
infested, non-airconditioned swamp.
So please, and with all do respect, I am tired of reading and
hearing that we as developers and builders don't care about this
community.
Page 79
May 14, 2002
Stopping progress is not an option. I think that needs to be
repeated. Stopping progress is not an option. Without new members,
the church withers. Without children a family ceases to exist. And
without progress a town becomes extinct.
Our responsibility as an industry, a community and as a person is
to plan, implement, adapt, and to continue to care deeply about this
paradise we all call home.
We must all work together to preserve and plan for the
continuation of this quality of life we all so love.
So when you make your difficult decision today, and in the
future, please remember these thoughts and carefully considering the
lasting results. Thank you and Godspeed.
MS. FILSON: Bill Ryan. He will be followed by Genaro
Martinez.
MR. RYAN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. County
Manager and fellow taxpaying citizens. For the record, my name is
Bill Ryan. My wife and I have lived and paid taxes in Collier County
for the past 25 years.
Today I'm here representing several thousand people who are out
working. There's a cross section of our economy, not just
construction, and I have with me a petition signed by several
thousands people, we haven't had a chance to tally them, sir.
But these people have asked me to come on their behalf and ask
you to not to vote in favor of a referendum.
We represent a large cross section of business who contribute
millions of dollars to county's economic base. We have always paid
our share with hope of maintaining the quality of life for all citizens
of Collier County.
We have always supported the efforts of both county and city
government and work with you and all previous commissioners to
develop funding methods for infrastructure.
Page 80
May 14, 2002
I will interject at this point that I certainly appreciate what I've
heard this morning. The last time I heard something similar to this
was a commitment by of group of commissioners, much like
yourself, at Lely High School on a day many years ago with all the
good intentions, and my caution to the folks here, my caution is, that
commissioners change. I truly believe we have and we can make a
difference.
You guys have put together of very proactive program that can
benefit Collier County and the economic base of Collier County.
But we need to continue and support this group of people by
ensuring that either they or people like them that have that type of a
thought process get reelected.
Although, we have differed at times in terms of methodology, we
have always agreed with the ultimate goal of maintaining the highest
quality of life for all of our citizens.
Yes, we live here. We raise our children here and we want the
best for all citizens, not just the vocal minority.
Together, we have developed one of the best built environments
in the world. That's what is attracting them. The come latelys want
to change everything that we have tried to accomplish over the last 20
to 25 years.
While communities across the United States are working towards
economic recovery, a small group in Collier County in an effort to
gain control over one commission seat is doing everything they can
to mm off the building and building-related industries, which is the
key to our economic engine.
We pay taxes. We pay impact fees. We provide employment
opportunities for thousands of people. We provide an economic base.
Without building construction and construction-related industries,
everyone will suffer.
Page 81
May 14, 2002
There will be no funding for infrastructure other than to raise
property taxes and thousands will be unemployed.
The current lack of infrastructure is a result of poor planning from
several years back, we all know that.
Commissioners, we know you are building roads at record levels,
as well as addressing county needs regarding wastewater treatment,
water needs and many others.
Building construction and construction-related industries
represent a large section of the county's economic base.
Do not allow that economic engine to be turned off. Allow your
plan time to work. I urge you to continue to offer reasonable
solutions that meet the quality of life and financial standards of all
citizens in our community and continue to lead. Do not be blindly
led into a countywide economic disaster.
Commissioners, this is not a construction industry issue, but
rather an issue that will effect all industries and the quality of life
for thousand of families.
On behalf of the silent majority, I want to commend you on the
job that you all have done in restoring confidence and leadership in
the chaotic mess that Commissioner Carter referred to several years
ago. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Genaro Martinez. He will be
followed by Ron Roy.
MR. MARTINEZ: Commissioners, for the record, my name is
Genaro Martinez. I have lived in Collier County and have been
employed by Krehling Industries for over 30 years.
I'm here today representing thousands of hard workers, taxpayers
of all nationalities, who appreciate the opportunity of working in
the construction and the construction-related industry.
Page 82
May 14, 2002
dais. Thank you.
MS. FILSON:
Saunders.
Give your program an opportunity to work. Do not risk our jobs
and economic by TAG's campaign. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. If I may interrupt you
for just one second. Our schedule, we want to keep going without
lapse. We're go continue this meeting right on through possibly 10 or
11 o'clock tonight.
We're not going to break for lunch, the commission isn't. One
commissioner at a time will be taking 15-minute break to go into the
back room, eat their lunch, where they'll be able to hear everything
that takes place on a speaker.
As this goes through and you see one leave and then another one
leave. There will be four commissioners at all times up here on the
Continue.
Ron Roy and he will be followed by Jack
MR. ROY: Ron Roy for the record, President of American
Speciality Contractors of Florida.
Commissioner Carter, I know he's back there listening now. He
came and spoke to us as an organization said we needed to come
forward and have our voice heard. I think we did that this morning.
Everything that needs to be said has been said.
I think our voice says one thing. Vote no for the referendum.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON:
Hayes.
Jack Saunders.
He will be followed by Gary
MR. SANDERS: Good morning. I am Jack Saunders and I am
from the retired community. I've been here for six years and I just
feel that this referendum that is being proposed for November is
wrong.
And in my golf circles in the retired community that I come from,
we're pretty much in that role, no. Vote no.
Page 83
May 14, 2002
I just like to compliment Fiala for recapping what you guys have
achieved. You've inherited a real mess. You're doing a good job.
And the resolution that was adopted, thank you. Keep up the good
work. Just say no.
MS. FILSON: Gary Hayes. Mr. Hayes will be followed by Dean
Edmonds.
MR. HAYES:
Good morning, Commissioners, got all five of you
this time. I can speak for a long time and those of you up front here
and those back there know it. But I don't think I need to, so I'm not
going to waste a whole lot of my time today.
My name is Gary Hayes for the record, I'm part of the
construction industry in this community. We're a busy lot. We have
of living to make. Work to do, families to raise.
We don't have the time to spend lobbying our politicians. So you
don't see us as often as you see some of the other people.
This morning is just a sample of the size of the impact a no-
growth growth policy can have on this community. If we continue to
focus on concurrency as we have already been doing for the last year
or so, problems will go away without the cost of our lives. It doesn't have to happen. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Dean Edmonds and he will be followed by
Tom Macchia.
MR. EDMONDS: Commissioners, good morning. I'm Dean
Edmonds. And I confess freely that I'm one of the retired no-
growthers that have been referred to here today.
There are a great many like me. I happen to be one of the ones
that's willing to admit it. And yes, I'm a member of TAG. In fact,
yes, I'm second vice president, whatever that means.
But I'd like to point out that that's all beside the point. We're
talking about Agenda Item 10-C. That item has absolutely nothing to
do with moratorium.
Page 84
May 14, 2002
It has absolutely nothing to do with what the commissioners have
already done and what they're planning to do, which is fine. This is
a referendum, a question being asked of the citizens of Collier
County.
Now, this is a country in which Government is supposed to be by
the people, for the people and of the people. And what's a
referendum? It's a question to those people.
It doesn't say what ought to be done or what has to be done. It's
merely a question to which the people respond and say what they
like.
We've heard a lot of people today who say they don't want a
moratorium, they don't want a delay in growth. Well, we're not
talking about that. We're talking about a referendum.
If they don't like what's on the referendum, they vote no. And
remember, even the referendum doesn't say anything about
limiting growth. It just says that you need to have the facilities in
place before you build a building that uses them.
So I would like to point out that this concerns only a referendum.
That in our so-called democracy every opportunity in order to find
out what the people are thinking should be taken. That's what a
referendum is.
It is a question put to the people. If you don't like what it
proposes, you vote no.
Now, my problem is that I don't really understand how people can
oppose a referendum? I can understand how people oppose a
moratorium, yes. That's not what we're talking about.
How can you oppose putting a question to the people? Now, if
that moratorium doesn't go on -- excuse me, if that referendum
doesn't go -- oh, yeah, use me. If that referendum does not go on the
ballot, remember, it doesn't cost anything to do this.
Page 85
May 14, 2002
Suppose the fundamentals of the question are already being put
into effect by you commissioners, that's fine. They don't have to
wait for November.
But in November, the people would have a chance to say
something. If this referendum is on the ballot, and even if it's not
necessary that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's of straw vote. It
doesn't matter that it's not binding. But it is there as a question to the
people to speak.
I don't think any such opportunity should be omitted. If it's not
on the ballot, that sends the message that people who are running
the affairs of this county do not want to hear what the people say.
That is not a message that I want to here. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Macchia and he will be
followed by Victor Neidtz.
MR. MACCHIA: Everything he says goes for me twice. I'm
amazed at the amount of people that here talking about the
referendum and not talking about moratorium.
The first two items, A and B, were about moratorium. There
were five speakers from the development community, five speakers.
In fact, what I notice and why I think the community, may be
suspect that you're not really going to do what you say is because
these people here from the development community all like what
you've just said and what you claimed what you're going to do.
Isn't that amazing? They're not opposed to you. They're not
coming up here screaming up here about the five different roads or
the four different sections. They're up here talking about denying the
right of people in the community, the silent majority which is not
here in this hall. It's denying them the right.
Now, I'm curious about something. There was a resolution, that I
don't have it in my hand,, of course, I'll get it later, made by
Commissioner Fred Coyle.
Page 86
May 14, 2002
Contained in that resolution is what TAG asked in the first place,
unless I'm wrong. It said that they want roads and the infrastructure
in place before development.
Now, if that's what is in the resolution, I would suggest that you
take the resolution, cut it down so it will fit in a referendum and
allow the people to vote on what you suggested.
My guess is that the reason the community, the development
community is afraid of the referendum, is they're afraid it's going
to come out 80, 85 percent, and then you guys are going to be
jammed up politically and have to support what's on the resolution.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But anyway, I had canned speech ready, but there was so much
said here, I had to sort of revise myself. Let the people vote. It's
not a terrible thing.
Jeff Lytle and both Ben Braton have said that the thing isn't even
binding. And I can ask your attorney, is it binding when the
resolution passes, do you have to do it? I don't think so.
So why are you afraid? If you are really will sincere about this, if
you're really sincere about doing what Fred Coyle and what you've all
said up there, let the people agree with you. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Victor Neidtz, and he will be followed by Frank
Halas.
MR. NEIDTZ: I had prepared of very nice statement to make,
but after hearing what I've heard, I'm not going to waste your time
with it.
Let me give you -- I'm not someone who speaks well
extemporaneously. But let me say this, I listened carefully to Fred
Coyle's resolution, I think it's great. I'm all for it. The only thing I
did not hear was the lag, the fact that concurrency today allows a
three-delay delay until the infrastructure is put into place.
Page 87
May 14, 2002
Of course, Fred mentioned, well, we're going to put these things
in place before we permit construction. If I take his word, and I
have no reason not to take his word, then perhaps these three-year
possible delay is unimportant.
I would like to see -- I would like to see this three-year delay
deleted. It is not in -- no deletion is made in his resolution, but
perhaps that is what he means also.
I cannot say better what Dean Edmonds said about -- about a
referendum. There's no reason why the people shouldn't be asked
where they stand on something. Especially since my understanding
is you folks don't have to pursue it anyway.
The third point I want to make is this: Everyone is concerned
about the word moratorium. Well, a referendum does not mean
moratorium. Moratorium could come about as a result of
concurrency.
When you have a situation where you do not have the
infrastructure, you folks are obligated to preserve the health, welfare
and safety of the community by not permitting roads -- by not
permitting more growth when the roads cannot take the growth.
Past commissions were less concerned about this commitment.
They were less concerned about the public wheel. They were
more concerned about their friends in a particular industry. And
unfortunately, these people now are going to be sentenced for
misplaced loyalty.
We expect the county commissioners and we respect you all. We
voted for many of you and we would expect you to show your loyalty
to the people as a whole and not to any particular industry. Thank
you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's necessary to that we
address this three-year thing that keeps being raised.
Page 88
May 14, 2002
As I've explained a dozen times and to public forums every time I
speak. The checkbook accounting system is just like your
checkbook, and your bank account.
If you don't have money in it, you can't write a check. You can't
say I'm going to put money in it three weeks from now, so I'll write
of check now. It doesn't work that way. It works just like your
checkbook does.
It means concurrent. There is no three-year delay. There is no
one-day delay in this checkbook accounting system process.
Now, as far as -- so that we make sure we understand where the
language came from, I'd like to read for you the Florida Statute which
says, "It is the intent of the legislature that public facilities and
services needed to support development shall be available
concurrent," not three years later, concurrent, "with the impacts of
such development."
Yes, in the past there has been a delay, three, perhaps five-year
delay. But what is incorporated into the resolution that I have
proposed is exactly the intent of the Florida legislature, and it is
exactly the intent of this Board of County Commissioners.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Halas and he will be
followed by Shalonda Washington, and I believe she spoke on 10-A.
Then he will be -- he will be followed by Bill Varian.
MR. HALAS: Good morning, Commissioners. It gave me -- I'm
one of those old people, I've been here about three years, permanently
here in Florida. I came here since 1985 every winter and enjoyed the
wonderful climate here.
I want to thank Commissioner Coyle today for making the
statement that he made in that proclamation. I think it was because of
the fact that people in the organization I belong to Taxpayers Group
forced his hand or caused you people to take consideration that
something needed to be done.
Page 89
May 14, 2002
And that is where the point was that we tried to get across to all
the commissioners here that there had to be something done.
We were not talking about a moratorium. Nobody wants a
moratorium. What we would like to see and I think everybody would
like to see is controlled growth. That doesn't mean a moratorium.
That means that things are put into place prior to being large areas of
construction.
Good example is the large buildout of an area on Vanderbilt
Beach Road called DiVosta.
If you look at that area, there's north-south west roads, north or
south roads in that complex, north-south or south roads in that
complex. No east or west roads in that complex for people to get
around other than Vanderbilt Beach Road, 951 and Immokalee Road.
There's no other roads going through there. And that has to stop.
You're going to have of build out of about 500,000 people in this
area. What you have to look at is gated, large gated communities
have to have thoroughfare roads going through them to accommodate
the traffic.
You can't -- right now with the amount of roads that we have
right now in Collier County, we're almost at top level of what those
roads will handle.
Now, we have to come up with other roads, like neighborhood
roads or whatever that are only two lanes, but yet will take some of
that impact traffic. That's what we're talking about concurrency. Not
stop growth.
When you look at the amount of water that's being used. We
have to come up with another means of applying water to golf
courses instead of using all this large freshwater supply to the golf
courses that are presently being used.
We're concerned about our water supply. I think we only had one
or two days supply of water.
Page 90
May 14, 2002
And in fact, you were under such a demand or not demand, but
you had such a concern that you ended up putting basically a water
moratorium on watering lawns around Easter time and that was
because of the amount of water that was being consumed by not only
the residents, but also by the golf courses and so on.
This is not a moratorium. This is what you people signed up to
this morning and that is that we have to find a way to make sure that
everything is concurrent prior to continuing growth in the manner
that it is. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think it's important that we
deal with facts when we're considering these issues.
There's nothing in my resolution that was forced by TAG or by
anybody else. It was forced by sound management practice. There's
no way that anyone can make the connection between TAG's
proposal, which occurred in April of this year, and the fact that we've
been working on this concurrency system for at least the last six
months.
No, TAG didn't force this. TAG hasn't not been paying attention
and they don't know what we've been doing. This is an out growth
of a solid management plan that the staff and the Board of County
Commissioners has been involved in for months, if not up to a year.
I don't want there to be any confusion about that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the media needs any
information, I will go out and pull out the records of when this
discussion first came up. I think that's very important that, you know,
the media is very important here in Collier County and we need to
play this out fairly and correctly and hammer us when we're wrong.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Varian and he will well
be followed by Bob Krasowski.
Page 91
May 14, 2002
MR. VARIAN: Good morning Commissioners, my name is Bill
Varian. I'm a taxpayer here in Collier County. I'm also the owner of
a small construction business.
I got to say what I heard today, fantastic. I like the plan you guys
have in place and hope you proceed.
I don't see why the vote has to be taken on something you guys
have already to put in plan or have been planning and following
through on. Just to let you know on that. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski and he will be followed by Nick
Hale.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, again, Commissioners. My name is
Bob Krasowski. I believe that the main responsibility of the
Commission is to protect the quality of life of all the citizens here.
I've been impressed and understand many of the comments made
by representatives of the building industry. I understand TAG's
interest in this as well.
I have been impressed with the resolution that Commissioner
Coyle has read and have total support for it. And as time has gone
on, I have been impressed by the work of the staff.
I think we have the components to discover options and avenues
to solve our problems, but I have to say to you that I. support TAG's
request for a resolution on this topic.
I don't see how it can hurt us. And I think it might provide to you
the clear understanding of how the community as a whole feels.
And then being it's not a binding resolution where you don't have
to take it as the total lead for what your actions would be as a result, I
think it would -- it's a good thing to try to do.
Many comments have been made -- I'm not going to touch that.
The three-year delay. I'll speak to that. I think that wording should be
removed. I think we have to be concurrent. I don't think we're going
Page 92
May 14, 2002
to lose thousands and thousands ofjobs. I don't think you'd let that
happen.
I've mentioned this before to Commissioner Coyle, I still don't
understand and maybe realizing I don't understand and maybe other
people don't understand, but your checkbook scenario, I'm hoping the
three-year delay will be eliminated.
If we go with your checkbook scenario, there's a credit card debt
that's been left over for road developments that's being distributed on
all the people in the community here, because the development of a
certain period of time did not cover the cost of building the roads.
So we're all paying for that and I think that has caused a lot of
people to be real weary of the influence the development community
has on the Board here.
When you look around and I come to meetings a lot. And I
appreciate how difficult it is for you to deal with a great number of
issues that come before you.
I've been trying to deal with one issue and it's a full-time job, the
solid waste issue and you have many and it's difficult.
But, you know, for people to be able to follow these issues, it's
not an easy task, so I'll just leave it at saying, I think you should go
ahead with the resolution.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Nick Hale and he will be
followed by Paul VanStone.
MR. HALE: Good morning. I think the Commission and the
staff has come a long way in the past couple of years. I don't think
this just happened. I think it happened because a very large number
of people are getting very, very, disgusted at what's been going on.
This has resulted in changes in the Commission, has resulted in
changes in the staff, and I'm not sure which of these two is the most
important.
Page 93
May 14, 2002
Mr. Coyle's resolution is certainly very fine, and he is to be
congratulated. The other speeches from the dais have been very
good.
And I especially want to congratulate Mr. Henning, for not saying
the same thing over again, "Let's get moving."
There's one thing Mr. Coyle said that I want to correct. He said
that the developers haven't done anything wrong, they've just
obeyed the land use code.
Now, I disagree with that. And every thinking person in this
room disagrees with it. And are earning a living disagreeing with it.
They are directly up here on the 8th floor. The special prosecutor is
up there prosecuting people who are developers and who are past
commissioners and other people, one kind or another. They're being
prosecuted because they violated the law.
This was all with respect to letting development run wild. And I
don't think many people in this community want to have all of
these people who have beeen here talking about it, being put out of
their jobs. Nobody wants that. Everyone who has had a job, perhaps
has had fear of losing it, and nobody wants that.
But we want some rationality here. We want to see things go the
way they should go. And now we're moving along to getting that
way. We've had to have a lot of things happen.
I haven't seen any resolutions from the County Commissioners to
the Governor to send a prosecutor down here because this county is
overrun with white-collar criminality.
I haven't seen staff send any resolutions. But there's been a lot of
things by people like me by sent the Governor by e-mail and fax to
do something. That's where the special prosecutor came from.
Now, everybody agrees that the prosecutor is doing a good job.
And as far as most of us are concerned, he can't put these people in
jail fast enough.
Page 94
May 14, 2002
Now, what we need is to have a little rationality. We need to
have the things that Mr. Coyle has postulated here, move right
along. It's not going to be easy. And we have to keep in mind that
one of these days Collier County will be like the City of Naples. It
will be built out. And the construction people who are here now
won't all be here. This is the nature of the business.
On the other hand, there will be lots of redevelopment. Where I
live, they are tearing houses down all the time, building bigger ones.
Sadly. I think we are aiming in the same direction.
Mr. Weston spoke of it a little while ago and he talked about what
the Chamber of Commerce wants. He is quoting yesterday's paper as
saying that he stood on principle, they stood on principle when they
wanted to raise our taxes.
Well, I don't know what that principle was, except to raise our
taxes so they can continue to do what they've been doing and that's
why it was voted down 71 percent.
Now, I think, gentlemen, Ms. Fiala is gone, Commissioners, that
it would be a good idea for you to let the voters speak. If there are
thousands of people who are signing petitions against the referendum
that all they have to do is vote no, a small group of a hundred or so
people who have been vilified today, I'm one of them. We're only
going to vote once, each one of us. But in a democracy or a republic
voting is a big thing. Voting down the tax increase was a big thing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nick, I'm going to have to have you
wrap it up. You're a minute and a half over the three.
MR. HALE: Okay. I will. Over 225 years Ago, we had of war
in this nation and it had to do with representation. Representation has
to do with voting.
I think the people should be allowed to vote. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 95
May 14, 2002
MS. FILSON: Okay. The next speaker is Paul VanStone and he
will be followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. VANSTONE: My name is Paul VanStone. I'm the Vice
President of TAG. Much has been said, so I threw away my
presentation.
I would like to compliment Dave Ellis of CBIA, that's about the
best proganda job since I've seen today since Jim Carmel, when he
got all of the panic that he caused within the construction industry
that we're going to cause a moratorium.
We have never used that word, moratorium we have only talked
about concurrency. If he's in a panic because he feels that all of our
roads are at gridlock at the present time, then we should stop
construction, because we are in desperate shape, much worse than
any of us realized.
We never used that word, moratorium. And we don't want to
scare the builders. It will help the builers a bit. Because what we
want to do is slow down growth. We don't want to stop it, we want
to slow it down. That means we won't have build out quite. As soon
as it is going production of all of this, they're going to be hitting
buildout probably in three to five years. There's not much left to
build.
If we could slow that down they might keep their jobs for ten
years. That's one of the things they have to take into consideration.
I'd like to just mention the water, something we have not talked
about much because primarily we're interested in roads. It's a
very visible problem.
But I have of report from the Collier County Government Water
Department of a chart that shows that we can produce about 32
million gallons of water per day or will be able to in 2005. In 2000,
we could produce 29 million gallons per day.
Page 96
May 14, 2002
Our storage capacity showed at 29.35 million gallons. Now,
that's less than a one day supply. I don't know if those numbers are
still current, I hope they're not. Because if we have less than a full
day's supply, then I think you need to address water to a much
greater extent then you have.
I read these reports on water and they say the farther up we go,
the harder it is to project whether we really will have all that
water in the aquifer that we're looking at five 10 years out. It
becomes a little less than an exact science. That worries me a bit on
water from that standpoint.
I guess Mr. Coyle, I have to mention you continually talk about
the checkbook program. I've heard that a great deal and I listen as
careful as I can. I majored in political science in college. One of the
things that I learned was that in something that's very complex, it's
loaded with loopholes, like so many of our Federal Government laws
that are being violated and changed because of all those loopholes.
The TAG proposal for a referendum is pretty straightforward and
it will help support and bolster what you're trying to do and eliminate
some of the loopholes that will undoubtedly ben in that checkbook
balance. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Ty Agoston. He will be followed by Robert
Guididas.
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that anyone that
wants to become enlightened on water and water management,
attend next year's symposium. If he were there last week many of
your questions would have been answered and you could have made
a great input. It will be there next year and you'll have the
opportunity to learn what is going on in water management.
MR. AGOSTON: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I don't
like to be here in the afternoon, my name is Ty Agoston, but I'm the
Page 97
May 14, 2002
president of the Taxpayers Watch of Collier County Incorporated, I'm
speaking for them.
There's a segment of our population who firmly the believes in a
Fort Naples concept and they want to live in splendid isolation.
The New York Times have a sunbelt in their real estate section,
prestigious homes providing splendid isolation.
While I have no particular problem with any living in splendid
isolaon, I'd like them to pay for it. Not make other people pay for
it.
TAG's presentation of a referendum runs across a number of
issues, one of which, this country is not of democracy, this is a
representatives republic.
You guys are elected to make the decisions on a day-to-day basis
and you get elected based on your principle.
These people are simply trying to take away what you were
elected to do. But besides that, there's a number of issues involved in
this proposal.
First, I believe it's political grandstanding by someone who's
trying to get back on the government payroll, but further than that, it's
disingenuous. These are the same people who will fight every new
road building proposal that ever comes along. You are not going to
have concurrency unless you build roads.
There was a lady a couple of weeks ago here speaking out against
overcrowding and she let it slip that the answer is not to concrete
over Collier County. Give me a break. Collier County is preserved
for conservation for some 87 percent, like I mentioned yesterday. So
we're not going to concrete over Collier County.
These gentlemen and the entire organization is essentially let's
make Collier County a Fort Naples. Do not allow any of these people
to crowd us out of our beaches and crowd us out of our restaurants.
The waiting period is too long. Thank you very much.
Page 98
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Robert Guididas, and he'll be
followed by Jane Varner.
MR. GUIDIDAS: Commissioners, Mr Chairman. My name is
Bob Guididas. First, I want to personally thank each of you for
continuing doing the great job that you're doing. Personally, I don't
know how you put up with it sometimes, so thank you.
I do believe as many people have mentioned that you're doing a
great job, things are progressing.
As most of you know, I have run banks in Collier County for 12
or 13 years. And it's taught me one thing, follow the money.
And it's ironic that TAG is coming up with a proposal to put a
referendum on the ballot that would effectively force a moratorium.
If that happens it's a defacto property tax increase for the citizens of
Collier County.
The counsel economic advisors which I served on in the mid 90s,
had a study, I believe, it was by Fish Con (phonetic) that said just
that, if be construction stops or slows down, the money has got to
come from some place. And the only other place it's going to be ad
valorem tax. I strongly urge that the referendum not come to a vote.
There most certainly is an expense in bringing this to a ballot, and I
thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Jane Varner and fire chief Don Peterson.
MS. VARNER: Good afternoon, Commissioners, I'm Jane
Vamer. I've been a resident here for 14 years. And I am of member
of TAG, but I have some personal opinions here of my own, which at
first I did support the referendum because I thought, well, maybe it
was necessary for us to do this to get something moving.
But I'm very proud of what I have heard today. Mr. Coyle's
resolution gave us something that we could be assured of, some
wording that we could understand.
Page 99
May 14, 2002
Our main concern was that concurrency has not been the
definition of concurrency, meaning at the same time or the same
place. It has been extended to become where it's been meaningless.
And that has left all of us out here with the sense of not having
some kind of a plan that we can count on, not having the protections
that we thought we should have.
Well, it looks like you have met and in many ways have been
addressing these things. I think some of our concern was some of the
things you've mentioned are a little complex for the average person to
understand.
And so that the main thing we were looking for or that I'm
looking for is that we have a clear definition that concurrency means
at the same time, so that we'll not be caught in these continual
problems that have happened in the past, because the Growth
Management Plan concurrency did not mean concurrency. I don't
know what it meant. It really was distorted and it left you with a lot
of problems.
I want to say thank you very much for all the work that you're
doing. And of course, I'm never against the citizens always having
their input, if you do choose to vote that we put a referendum on the
ballot that would be fine.
I have been very satisfied in what I've been hearing because I was
wishing this is what we would do is take the leadership, so you know
we out here wouldn't bring it up and I see that you're doing that.
And one thing I want to say is TAG has never mentioned a
moratorium. And what is so discouraging to me is how many people
have been so mislead about what's going on and the fright, the fear
that have been thrown out there. It's like chicken little. I'm just
amazed at what has come about because we ask for something very
simple, concurrency, which is a protection for all of us the industry,
Page 100
May 14, 2002
individuals, builders, people in business we all want some assurance
of what our future is going to look like with some planning. We do
not want chaos. Thank you very much for what you have done.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before you leave. I want to thank
you as well. Excuse me, I gave a little speech when we began this
whole subject that is because you called me last week and you
said just tell us where you are, tell us what you're going to do. We
don't understand. If you would make it clear to us, so I set about
putting this together and it was your prompting because I didn't even
realize that people don't realize where we are or what we
accomplished. I wanted to thank you for that.
MS. VARNER: Well, thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Fire Chief Don Peterson, and he will be followed
by Ken Drum.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chief Peterson is not here.
MS. FILSON: Ken Drum, and he will be followed by Susan
Paragis.
MR. DRUM: I'm Ken Drum. I'm president of the East Naples
Civic Association and I representative an area that contains of lot of
the working people that you have seen come up to the podium.
And they have eloquently expressed the problems of this
particular referendum proposal. So I won't dwell on that. What I
would like to talk about briefly is the referendum process itself.
Someone here earlier said that we do not live in a democracy.
We live in a republic, and that is true. There's also been said that
the ultimate form of democracy is anarchy, where people can do
whatever they want.
And this particular referendum, as it rightfully should be
advisory, but the language that I have seen is a very radical approach
to solving an ongoing problem.
Page 101
May 14, 2002
It would be something akin to a doctor administering shock
therapy to a patient by using an electric chair.
The second part of this is what is the purpose of the referendum?
The purpose of the referendum is to advise you. I somehow get the
feeling in what previous speakers said that the purpose of this
referendum or the referendum itself is being prostituted either to
conduct a membership drive by particular organization or to further
someone's political agenda.
And therefore, for those reason and also for what the previous
speakers have said about their jobs, I would urge you to vote this
down. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to the next speaker, I've
been told that every two hours we have to stop for five minutes so we
can switch the tapes in the production room so we have of running
record of what we're doing we don't run out of room.
We'll take a five-minute recess. Please stay in the room, don't go
far. I want to pick right up where we left off. Thereupon,
(A brief recess was taken, after which the following proceedings
were had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Take your seats, please. Thank you
for waiting.
MS. PARAGIS: PERRY: My name is Susan Paragis (phonetic.)
I'm President of the Economic Development Council of Collier
County. I would like to say at the beginning of this, I'm a nativan
Floridan.
Again, I feel very strongly that this issue has been debated and
redebated many times in the State of Florida. I will tell you that
Collier County for the first time has really started to look at the
specifics of how we move this item forward. So I want to
congratulate you first of all.
Page 102
May 14, 2002
The mission of the Economic Development Council is to be an
effective force in approving the quality of live for all people in
Collier County. By promoting economic development which will
diversify the local economy, retain and create high-wage jobs,
increase the average wage, facilitate capital formation, preserve and
enhance the natural environment and enable all county residents to
have a meaningful opportunity for upward mobility.
The retention and recruitment of companies that provide those
high wage jobs requires certain reliable regulatory process. It also
requires available telecommunication, water, roads, sewer, and a K
through 20 infrastructure.
The EDC belives in and supports a representative form of
government. The EDC also believes that the citizens of Collier
County deserve high quality infrastructure. And that our county
government has an obligation to the taxpayers to deliver on these
infrastructure capital projects.
Our representatives are elected to make timely, fiscal and public
policy decisions that are beneficial, effective and in the best interest
of all of our community.
The proposed referendum attempts to address infrastructure
deficiencies that arose as a result of the delays in completing
necessary infrastructure.
The present Board of County Commissioners, you, have already
taken many positive steps that would help prevent a recurrence of
these problems.
In particular, Collier County is once again building necessary
roadways after several years of little construction.
We commend the current Board of County Commissioners for the
progress that has been made to date and encourage the Commission
to stay the course and continue to work on long-term solutions that
ensure that necessary infrastructure is in place.
Page 103
May 14, 2002
The Collier County Board of County Commissioners is actively
reviewing and modifying the Growth Management Plan and the
Land Development Code and will pursue all and any necessary policy
changes, of this we are assured.
The EDC believes concurrency issues must be addressed
immediately and the community cannot and should not wait for a
non-binding referendum that will merely reinforce a well accepted
consensus that we need a more proactive infrastructure delivery
system and that we are not accepting the status quo.
The EDC encourages public participation and dialogue of a
desired growth management changes and recommends a citizens
advisory team to assist in the solicitation of input from Collier
County citizens to begin immediately.
A methodical review of the actions and inactions that may have
led to the current situations with specific language changes is
required for meaningful remedies to the Growth Management Plan
and the cost and benefits must be quantified for all recommended
modifications and changes to the Growth Management Plan and the
LDC.
Again, we appreciate your time and interest on this. We feel
you're on the right track and stay the course. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: Maureen Sistari (phonetic.) And then following is
Phil Meldrick (phonetic.)
MS. SISTARI: Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners
and staff. I'm Maureen Sistari. I'm Director of Government
Relations with Comcast Television.
I'm here today as both representative of Comcast but also as a
new resident to your wonderful community and certainly love living
here in Collier County.
Page 104
May 14, 2002
Comcast is here to voice our concern regarding any action to
place a referendum on the November ballot that would create a
countywide growth moratorium here in Collier County.
Over the past year and a half, Comcast has made a major
financial commitment here in the county. Comcast has vested in
excess of 30 million dollars in Southwest Florida by upgrading our
cable plan and offering our customers, your constituents, a large
variety of new telecommunications, products and services.
Without growth this would not have been possible. Comcast's
continued growth is reliant upon the growth within the communities
that we serve. New and continued development is essential to that
growth.
I urge the County Commissioners not to put this referendum on
the November ballot.
I strongly urge and respectfully request that you instead continue
in establishing a comprehensive growth management plan and
perhaps coming together as a community where everyone's input to
develop a growth plan that makes the most sense to our county and
the residents is considered. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to thank you personally for
what you did in in Everglades City, the expansion of the service.
They do appreciate it.
MS. SISTARI: Thank you. You're very welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He must left.
MS. FILSON: Next is Chuck McMann and then he'll be followed
by Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got to duly note that Mr. McMann
is also a Fire Commissioner for the Golden Gate Fire Department.
MR. MCMANN: Commissioners, thanks for having a nice room
for us to meet in and make decisions. I got on an couple hats today.
Page 105
May 14, 2002
I would start with my first one as a homeowner owner in Collier
County, District Three.
I had started 20 years ago in Golden Gate, Naples area, and I
started out renting and working. I have moved up. I bought a
house. I sold that. I bought a bigger house. I sold that. I bought a
new house.
The new house is in a gated community. It's in a development. I
wouldn't have been able to do that if there was a problem with
moratorium where we were stopping growth. I would not be able to
progress myself.
It's very important that we continue to grow and continue to feel
and give everyone earn the opportunity to grow and build there
community just as I have.
Another one in -- my other hat now, I'll put on my commissioner
hat. With a moratorium or a stop growth at this point in time, we've
come so far and we are moving forward with impact fees. We're
getting ready to build fire stations to help protect the public.
A stop growth will stop the impact fees which will stop the
money coming in to build fire stations. We can't build fire stations
without growth. And the growth is there now and we can't continue
to build if we don't have the money coming in to move forward.
So it's very important that we be careful and not take away the
supporting factors that we have in order for safety also.
I voted for a commissioner that sits on this board. I voted that
that person to be my voice. Okay. I don't need another referendum
on there to take your opinion away, to take my voice away, because
my voice is sitting in front of me.
With that, that is all I got to say. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners
and Madam Commissioner. I'm proud of the way you've taken some
Page 106
May 14, 2002
strong actions so far today. But I want to reiterate to you what you've
heard me say.
I've been trying to describe these folks to you as being an
essential part of what this county is all about.
You received petitions from a thousand folks. Those are the folks
that don't make enough money where they can take the time off
and come here and spend four hours here to tell you to take care of
them.
Okay. You got to keep these people in the back of your mind.
Remember, some of the folks that are pushing for this referendum
also have been claiming for lower taxes, fought against the half cents
sale tax, who provides the monies to do the kind of things we need
done.
We are the wealthiest county in this state. Median income
$69,800. We had left historically, and I don't want to follow your
past commission, the millage rate, the lowest in this state, left it
where it was, we would have of war chest to solve all of our
problems; whether it be roads, fire stations or what you have. We
would have that war chest you can get anything for nothing.
Now, you are going to -- this public to ask them what they want
to do is like going to a teenage kid and say, do you want to go to the
doctor to check on your ailment?
You are the leaders. Send us to the doctor. Send us to school.
Prepare for the future. All great statesmen in this history are not
measured by what they do in office. They're measured about what
happens after they get out of office.
Don't follow the trend of our past commissioners. Set a new
legacy. Makes us proud of you and protect our future. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Lauren Wells and then followed
by Gene Scanlon.
Page 107
May 14, 2002
MR. WELLS: My name is Lauren Wells. I'm a plumbing
contractor here. I've been involved with trade organizations since I
started my company in '91. My main focus in the trade organization
was education. It is still education. And that to me is the issue here.
I think that the actual issues, and I'll be quite honest, I was not
going to speak today, I was leaving it to the organizations, which the
building industry has come together and is well-represented by our
group, and there's a lot of knowledge, and I don't need to have the
specifics, because I trust my organization, and that is because they've
educated me on what they're doing.
And that's where it's an education issue for you, I believe. And
the thing why I wanted to respond is the issue of why should this not
be a referendum.
I think that it's great to have the right to vote. I mean, we are of
democracy, but education is the cornerstone of democracy. And
right at the very beginning, it was obvious, even to you when you
read your list, that we didn't know what you were doing. That's an
education issue.
Right when we walked in the door. The issue of this county
having teen pregnancy higher, higher, much higher than the national
average, is an education issue. I fought a lot through the association
trying to get construction education in the industry because I'm a one-
man shop and I'm going to stay a one-man shop until I can hire a
skilled worker to represent my company, because I as a construction
worker or construction company, am no better than the product I
produce. And that is a skilled worker.
And the reason why it would hurt or why it should not be a
referendum is because you have to realize that our industry are
younger people who are trying to raise families. You heard all the
stories and the success stories of people who have come through. We
Page 108
May 14, 2002
don't have time and we are at a distinct disadvantaged of dealing and
trying to defend and to hear all this information.
Once something gets on a referendum, then money buys access
and time and money is speech and the issue becomes blown out of
proportion. You hear all these different things. And then we, who are
the working people, do not have the time -- and statistically you look
at voter turn out and the whole issue that's where bad decisions are
made from disinformation and this is why it's something where you
have the responsibility because it's a republic and you are our elected
officials, you should filter this and you should do what you're doing,
which I think is great -- I've learned. That's all I've done today is
learned. I'll be quite honest with you.
And that's all I'm saying is you take your responsibility and keep
it as not a referendum. You need to do your job and filter it out the
way you see fit. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Gene Scanlon. Then will be followed by Allan
Reynolds.
MR. SCANLON: Commissioners, Chairman Coletta and staff. I
didn't intend to speak. But I've been drawn to the podium to make a
few comments.
An old an axiom, when we don't know what we're really facing, if
it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and walks like a duck,
invariably it's a duck.
So let's recognize what this call for a referendum is really all
about. It's a thinly veiled ruse to promote the political visibility
of Fred Tarrant for his race for a commission seat.
It's not about concurrency. You've dealt with the issue of
concurrency. And Ms. Fiala, I thank you very much for the long list
of accomplishments that we read piece meal, but to see them all put
Page 109
May 14, 2002
together, it's a very substantial record and a tremendous
accomplishment.
Our democratic process then is obviously working. Because we
have elected a very competent Commission and the staff has
improved tremendously with some excellent additions.
Proof, excuse me, they're handwritten and poorly so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can give you lessons on how to do
that.
MR. SCANLON: So I would ask you to say no to this very
blatant attempt for mob rule to run roughshod over a competent and
well-working democratic process.
And finally, and again, in reference to your fine list of
accomplishments, Ms. Fiala, is I would challenge the media to finally
take a positive role in the lesson of civics that this community is so
badly in need of rather than continually contributing to a sense of
divisiveness. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Last speaker is Allan Reynold.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Reynold, let's see if you can top
that.
MR. REYNOLD: I can't. I too had some remarks that I wrote
down just of few. First is, like many others, I want to applaud the
proactive leadership that you have been showing and continue to
show on these issues.
The turn out today is a testament to the fact that the people in this
community, regardless of their motives, care about the community
and are looking for solutions and they're looking for leadership and
you're giving them some leadership.
This community does not deserve substandard infrastructure. It
doesn't deserve adequate infrastructure. It deserves superior
infrastructure. We said that 10, 15 years ago. We thought at that
point in time, we couldn't place a system that would get us to
Page 110
May 14, 2002
superior infrastructure.
The first step was making sure that we solved the existing
infrastructure deficiency problem.
That hasn't changed. We still need that as the first key step. This
community has proven that it knows how to produce high quality
infrastructure. We have still the best places, the best neighborhoods
in this country to live. With very high quality infrastructure, but we
can do better.
If you look at the facts and I'm a very pragmatic kind of person, I
think there's a few facts that are undisputable and on what causes
road congestion in Collier County. Seasonal population, spike of 30
to 40 percent for a couple of months. Insufficient work force
housing in the urban area. The need for improved traffic
management at intersections and at accident scenes. The need for
more mixed-use neighborhoods. The need to secure well in advance
the right-of-way that we need for the critical interconnections in our
road system, and the need to build all of the critical infrastructure that
our processes has already identified as needed.
And often times, that gets delayed do to localized neighborhood
constraints or reprioritizations that causes us to lose sight of the
overall objective.
The temporary congestion caused by construction, which we have
experienced, thankfully, in the last couple of years because we're
building roads. And finally, the underfunded, existing deficit of
infrastructure.
For those of you who were here in 1990 when the first
concurrency system was designed, the reason for the three years was
that was the time it was going to take to dig ourselves out of an
infrastructure deficit, a hole, so we can maintain concurrency.
That has not changed. Nobody can dispute these facts. This is
what causes traffic congestion. And none of that can be addressed
Page 111
May 14, 2002
by non-binding referendum.
I would suggest to you that if you look at the language in the
proposed referendum very closely, it does nothing more then state the
obvious that pretty much everyone here has agreed to. But platitudes
don't solve problems, people do.
We don't need another platitude. What we need a real solution.
And that requires planning. It requires implementation and it
requires funding. So let's move forward. I think you've taken a huge
significant step today, but the hard work still lies ahead.
And we are on a very tight time frame to make sure that if we're
going to change the system, make sure we're changing it in a way
that does solve the problem. And that means that with this
commitment, there's a hefty price tag. And it has to be paid.
So when the time comes where we make the more difficult
decision to implement the realtime concurrency, the checkbook
concurrency, whatever system we come up with, there will be a price
to be paid and we will have to have as part of our solution, the way
we're going to pay, to get our infrastructure to the high quality that
our community deserves. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I believe that concludes our speakers.
We're closing the public hearing at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make a couple
of comments.
Unfortunately, most of the people who asked this question have
already left the room. So apparently they don't want to hear
the answer.
The question was why or what is wrong in placing this item on
referendum? What is wrong with placing a question on the
referendum. Do you want to have enough garbage trucks to pick up
your garbage? Do you want to have enough police officers in the
community to protect you from crime? The question on a referendum
Page 112
May 14, 2002
should be substantive. It should not try to answer something we
already know the answer to.
We know the answer to those questions.
Let me take you through an exercise in logic here. If you place
this on the referendum, then logically we should stop our work that
we're trying to achieve concurrency until we hear the outcome of that
referendum.
Because if we don't stop, we might very well be put in laws
between now and then that would contradict the results of the
referendum.
So the reason you don't put it on the referendum, is it delays
getting done what people say they want to get done.
Now, I would like to tell you a little bit about how this all came
about. On March the 22nd, an e-mail from Mr. Macchia, who is
President of TAG, was sent to the County Manager, and it said, "We
would like to place on the upcoming county commission meeting
agenda the following proposals. We request that the County
Commissioners instruct staff to accomplish a change in the definition
of concurrency when it is applied to roads, water and sewers.
If the Commission is not so inclined, we at TAG would like the
question placed on a November referendum."
Now, in fact, we have been changing the definition of
concurrency for sometime. It's not as simple as changing one word,
you have to change Land Development Code. You have to have
public hearings. You have to change the Growth Management Plan.
We have been doing that all along. And today, we have actually
signed our names on a contract with the community which says we
are going to implement a realtime concurrency management system,
so we have done that.
Now, why are we still being asked to place this on a referendum?
The answer is simple, and some other people have told you. It's
Page 113
May 14, 2002
purely a political ploy. The same people have been doing this in
Naples politics for years.
They find a very emotional issue and you place it on a ballot and
then your political candidate runs on the basis of this very emotional
issue and hopes to ride into office on the back of this issue.
This is not a concern about concurrency. Concurrency is not a
new problem. We have known about this infrastructure deficit for at
least a couple of years, if not more. Why is it that TAG waited until
March the 22nd to bring this issue up? Because it just preceded
Mr. Tarrant's announcement for his run as county commissioner.
We started working on concurrency a long time ago. Why didn't
TAG start working on concurrency a long time ago? Because it's not
concurrency that is the issue. It is the political ploy.
And that is the reason that I oppose this referendum. We have
signed our contract with the community. We have put our names on
a resolution to commit us to doing the things that are necessary to
assure we have appropriate infrastructure in our community.
And I would suggest we do just as Mr. Macchia asked us to do,
so, if we're not inclined to change the definition, he would like to put
it on a referendum.
Well, we are inclined to change the definition. We have been so
inclined for a long time and we have taken the action to do it. I don't
think it needs to be on a referendum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that your motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that eloquent motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll give you credit for the second,
Commissioner Fiala. We'll start down with Commissioner Carter for
comments and we'll work through the board. Commissioner Carter, I
took you by surprise.
Page 114
May14,2002
COMMISSION CARTER: No, I'm thinking on how I want to
phrase this. Personally, I feel insulted by the way TAG has
approached' this, because it would infer that I, as a commissioner, that
all commissioners here, have been doing nothing. Well, we've been
doing a lot. And we are doing what needs to be done. And I see no
reason to put an item on a referendum where you're elected officials
are already dealing with the subject.
If we were here having steaks and champagne in front of you
every day, I would say you have an issue, but we're not. We are
doing what we were elected to do and that is to work on setting
policy and giving staff direction for the health, safety and welfare of
this community. And that's what we're trying to do.
And have we been perfect in this? No. Are we being successful
in getting where we need to be? Yes. And what I saw in here this
morning was a lot of people saying to us from all over the
community, we think you're on the right track. You're doing what
you need to do. Go forward. Godspeed. Make it happen and
don't listen to a minority of people who really have a different agenda
then what is being brought in front of you. So everything that we
have done, Commissioner Coyle, and this has been going on
for a long time. We're doing the right thing. We're going in the right
direction.
And if you don't like what we're doing as elected officials, if you
don't want concurrency, if you don't want us to improve the Growth
Management Plan, if don't want us to wrestle with the issues, and if
you don't want us to look at how we're going to finance this and come
back with tough decisions for the community, then don't re-elect us to
these positions.
But that is done on a ballot during an election cycle based on
what you've done or not done. It is not a single issue thing that you
Page 115
May 14, 2002
put out there and say, we need the community to tell us what to do. I
have heard that over a number of issues that come in front of this
board.
Elected officials are challenged to do what they have to do. If
you disagree with them, you can unelect them. But don't come to
me and say, everything that you decide, Commissioner, we want it on
a ballot. I have to ask you a bigger question, then what do you
need an elected official for? Run every decision on a whole long
laundry list of ballots and everyone can go out there and make
these decisions by a checklist.
Elected officials are no more than the puppets setting on a dais
and nodding like this. They don't have to think. They don't have to
be creative or do anything. That's not what this republic is all about.
I will defend to the death anyone the right to say what they had to
say here this morning. I don't agree with TAG. They have a right to
say what they want to say.
But when it comes down to making that decision, I will make that
as an elected official based on what I think assessing all of this is the
right thing to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A woman of few words has already
said what I had to say. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll go next, if you don't mind? I just
want to say the need for a referendum is obviously a moot point.
Action is already underway and has been underway for a long time.
To go to that point, it would be unnecessary, if anything, it would
make us stand back and try to do a critique of what we're doing and
possibly bring everything to a dead stop.
What we have witnessed here today is a good example of how
county government works. I truly enjoyed this exercise. I know
Page 116
May 14, 2002
myself, last night I got less than four hours sleep trying to prepare
myself mentally for what I envisioned today to be.
I want you to know, honestly, this has been a positive experience
for me. For a heck of a long time now we've been getting beat up.
Everytime we turn around, no decision we make is perfect. Every
decision has been challenged. But in some cases, they've been
challenged in a very rude and nasty way. References have been made
about the sins of the people that preceded us. The ones that we
replaced to be able to put together a better government for everyone
concemed.
But I want you to know this has been a positive experience in the
fact that we have got not only the building industry united behind a
cause and maybe they'll get united behind a solution for this. I'm
pretty sure we're going to come up with something.
Also, too, we got to establish our net worth to the point that we
have not been able to do for a long time and that's a positive
experience.
We're human beings. We need reinforcement once in awhile. If
you want us to get a kick, at least let us stand up and smile at us
before you kick us again.
But thank you all for being here today. I'm going to go from here
to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. What TAG has
asked us to do is put something on a referendum that will create a
moratorium unless there are solutions.
And as Commissioner Coyle has stated is, we have been working
on this for a long time.
A member of TAG, Dean Edmonds, a resident of Port Royal said,
put it on the referendum because this is for the people, by the people.
Page 117
May 14, 2002
And I can tell you, we are here representing for the people,
because we're by the people. And that is what a republic government
is.
Ty Agoston from Tag Watch got it right. And I think this is a
hidden agenda for either one candidate or a different form of
government.
Government that allows people to stay into office a long time
because it allows the people to keep on voting for issues, such as
this, when you have people up here, the people that are of part of this
community, that is coming up with solutions.
And what I heard is from a young lady Mrs. Washington who has
started her own business, and without solutions it would have
took that business away from her. Then she could not afford to pay
for her home. And she had told us that she came off government
assistance. And what a slap in the face if we were to take her means
to pay for a home and feed her children, just to put her back where
she came out of. That is unfair.
Janice Davis, a hair salon owner in the community, who works
for -- cuts you guys hair in here and your family. A single mother
with a two-year-old child. Is that fair?
What we need to do and we're in the process of doing and have
been doing is coming up with solutions, so that we don't put this
community in economic spin downward, and therefore, having to
raise taxes like Mr. Bob Guididas said, who's a banker that knows
some of these issues.
I think what is very important what Bill Thesin said is the
Commissioners must manage growth. And that's where we're
headed, folks.
So I cannot support putting a question on the ballot to help a
certain person get into a political office or a certain group of people
that would like to change Government and how we vote.
Page 118
May 14, 2002
I want to thank A1 Reynolds and Susan Paragis to tell us what we
need to be doing is smart growth. All the things that those two
people said is smart growth and that is where we're going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excellent speech.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you like it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You referred to everyone. That was
just excellent. Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's quite all right Commissioner
Fiala, it came right from the heart, I know. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick closing statement. This
resolution that we have all signed today is a contract with the
community. It commits us to achieving concurrency with
respect to infrastructure.
It redefines the concurrency argument. Those people who support
it are serious about concurrency. Those who oppose it are just
playing political games. Thank you very much, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, we'll call for the
question. All those -- the motion was to -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Reject.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor of Commissioner
Coyle's motion to reject, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Aye.
The ayes have it 5-0. I thank
you very much, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to ask you, if
you're through to move out quietly. We are going to proceed with the
next item on your agenda. Thank you very much for coming. We're
at 10-D.
MR. OLLIFF: You're moving back to 7-A on
Page 119
May 14, 2002
your agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about the public
petitions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We never got to that.
MR. OLLIFF: The Board voted to put that
at the end of the County Manager's Report. It
will be at the end of 10-K.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2002-223A REGARDING VA-2001-AR- 1810, DR.
LOUIS KASTAN, REQUESTING A 2.9 FOOT VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD TO 22.1 FEET FOR THE
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 116
CONNORS AVENUE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 24,
CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES UNIT 3, IN
SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA-ADOPTED
You're moving back to 7-A on your regular agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Thomas, for keeping us
straight.
MR. WEIGEL: Since you're back on the agenda and into an
advertised hearing situation, everyone who is going to speak will
need to be sworn in.
If there's any further disclosures to be made on this item, would
you so make them.
Page 120
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I was just prepared to do,
Mr. Weigel. Thank you for the kind reminder.
Would all those people that wish to participate on this particular
item stand at this time to be sworn in.
And would you do the honors, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Swearing them in?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir, I think you're capable.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, all right. I think I'd rather give the
invocation.
Thereupon,
(All speakers were sworn at this time.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Going down the line here with the
disclosures, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: On 200-1, I have met with the
legal counsel. On the next item, I have met with representatives of
that particular request.
In fact, all items on this agenda, at some point in time, I've either
met with the representatives of that group or neighborhood groups
t~hat showed some interest in this particular item. And I also have for
the file a petition from one group on an issue that is on this agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we have to handle one at a
time, but's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we on 7-A?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're on 7-A, on the
variance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have received information
and I have met with legal counsel.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's tree of myself. Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE' I have met with the legal counsel
representing the Petitioner.
Page 121
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If Commissioner Henning comes back
in on this item, we'll have him weigh in at that time. Please, proceed.
MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Fred Reischl,
Planning Services.
This is a request for variance in the Vanderbilt Beach Area. You
can see on the visualizer, the location of the lot, which is at that the
end of a cul de sac, adjacent to Vanderbilt Lagoon.
And in the aerial photo you can see the house in question and the
two neighboring houses.
This is before you today because of an encroachment. You can
see in blue the cul de sac lot. In yellow is the house as it has existed
since 1974. And in red is an additional two foot encroachment that
the Petitioner is asking for a variance for.
As I said, this house has been in existence in the original walls
since 1974. There was a two-foot addition, which you can see a
couple of photos I took and this is actually a better evidentiary photo
then it looks like.
This is the linoleum of the original houses and this is the two-foot
addition, so you can see the extent of it from the interior of the house.
And also you can see the old and the new on this. The stucco is the
old portion of the house and the concrete block is the additional two
feet.
We have had a correspondence from the neighbor and she also
testified at the Planning Commission hearing, and there you can see
her house and Doctor Kastan's house on this side, so you can see the
extent of the encroachment as it effects the neighbor.
If I can go back to the survey again what staff and the Planning
Commission are recommending is that the additional two feet not be
approved. The variance for the additional two feet not be approved,
Page 122
May 14,2002
but that the original walls that have been in existence since 1974 that
you approve a variance for those walls.
Those walls were approved with a building permit that stated it
should be 25 feet from the rear lot line. Spot surveys were not
required at that time. And it is -- there's an encroachment that has
been in existence for over 25 years.
Staff recommends approval of those original walls, but not of the
additional two feet of the new construction.
So staff recommends that and the Planning Commission agrees
with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know I understand the position
on the wall, but there's a balcony and a roof structure above that.
What is your recommendation concerning that?
MR. REISCHL: Thank you. I appreciate that. That was my
omission. When I went out to the sight visit, there was also an
encroachment by a balcony. Staff recommends that the balcony be
able to extend three feet into the required yard, and we don't
recommend any further variance for that. And the Planning
Commission agreed with that also.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before I get away from this one.
The roof structure currently extends over the entire balcony, which is
more than three feet now, I think.
MR. REISCHL: Yeah. I have to admit it's been over of month
since I've been there and I have a photo of when I was there. And
that was the roof structure at the time I was there. Here's the balcony
and here's the roof. Roof overhang can be three feet into the yard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that balcony looks like it's more
than three feet? Am I mistaken? Those joises (phonetic) are
probably what, 16, 18 inches apart?
Page 123
May 14, 2002
MR. REISCHL: I believe the statement was seven feet beyond
the existing wall.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The current balcony is seven feet
beyond the existing wall?
MR. REISCHL: Beyond the wall that you see. The temporary
wall that was allowed to support the house during construction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the Commission were to follow
your recommendations that balcony would have to be partially
removed; right?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And your recommendations are
what? Go back to the original --
MR. REISCHL: The original wall, which is approximately here,
and that this balcony be able to extend three feet beyond that original
wall, which is provided by code today, no variance would be
required.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any other questions for staff?.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Reischl, your all done with
your --
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's go to the public -- the
Petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I'm
going to speak from this podium because I'm going to need to use the
visualizer right now. I know normally I'm over there. I don't want
this to imply that I in any way I agree with what staffjust said.
I need to go back briefly and go through a little bit of the history
of how we got to where we are today.
Naturally, this is an after-the-fact variance, which means that
where we are today is in violation of the existing rear setback
requirements.
Page 124
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you move that picture around so
I could see the house next door?
MR. YOVANOVICH: This is the house next door. This is the
house where we're requesting the after-the-fact variance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is before any construction?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And where we are is the original permit
back in 1974 1 think it was, was issued and it stated that the rear
setback was 20 feet, not 25 feet.
So the original home was built consistent with the approved
building permit that was issued back in 1974.
So when you look at how did we get to where we are, the first
home was built consistent with the approved building permit back in
1974, so that encroachment that exists today was permitted and CO'd
way back when, based upon the then existing building permit.
I don't want there to be any implication that the original house
violated the then issued building permit; that is not factually the
correct.
The home today has an issued building permit for the two foot
encroachment. I have the building plans. They are already part of
the county's official record, but I have a copy that I think -- I have
with me if the Commission wants to see it.
Part of those approved building plans one of the documents is the
home laid out on a site plan. That site plan shows the existing home
plus the requested two additional feet for the building permit to add
the second floor as well as adding two feet to an existing bedroom on
the first floor. That was approved by the county.
It was a mistake. I'm not -- staff gets it right more than Ivory
soap is pure, more than 99.7 percent of the time, staff gets it
Page 125
May 14, 2002
right. There are cases where a mistake happens. And in this case a
mistake happened. It was not caught by staff. It was not caught
by the architect that who designed the improvements who's from
Louisville, Kentucky, and it was not caught by the builder who built
the improvement and it wasn't caught by my client who ultimately
authorized the improvements. It was a mistake takes. I'm not
trying to blame -- I'm not trying to say that we're not at fault.
My client has a share in the blame of how we got to where we are
today. Likewise, county staff has some portion of the blame as well.
What we are talking about today is when you -- and Mr. Reischl
showed you the two-foot square, the cross hatch is the two foot that
we're talking about. This white area right here is the existing home,
slab.
What we are asking for is a total encroachment of 73.79 square
feet. We're not asking for a two foot variance across the entire rear of
the house. We're talking about a portion of the house that has been
constructed based upon, apparently, a valid permit. Pilings have been
placed in the ground to support the first floor addition and the
second floor addition.
You can see the second floor has already been built, it overhangs.
Once the spot survey was done, construction on the first floor
stopped. We have not been working in that area.
We can, quite honestly, comply with the staff recommendation is
and the Planning Commission recommendation is, we can move that
wall back.
My hope is that the planning -- the Board of County
Commissioners can recognize that you do have a process for after-
the-fact variances, and that is when there's an honest mistake
occurs and where there will be a detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the public, if that's the case. If there's a detriment of
Page 126
May 14, 2002
the public. I would say that an after-the-fact variance would be
inappropriate.
However, in this case, I think it is appropriate. And I believe
your code provides for this variance to be granted because when
you look at the impact to the one complaining neighbor, you will see
the orientation of her home and the orientation of my client's home.
Her home, the orientation, it is straight out this way. Okay. The
orientation of my client's home is straight out this way. Across
from both of us, there's a wide body of water that we all look at.
When you see the side of her home, this is the side of our
neighbor's home. There are no windows focusing towards our clients
property.
In addition, what you will see is that this home, when my client
purchased it, had a boathouse. This is the boathouse. Any view
she had in this direction was already greatly impacted by a boathouse.
So any potential impact on the view and I believe your staff
report reflects that it's staffs opinion that we really do need impact
our neighbor's view. We're not harming her in any way with her
view of where she lives today.
Additionally, Mr. Reischl testified at the Planning Commission
that in his opinion as a professional planner, and Mr. Reischl,
correct me if I say this wrong, he did not see any harm to the health,
safety and welfare of the public in granting this variance petition.
In my opinion, the reason this variance petition, the
recommendation of denial, is because staff couldn't check the box
that said there is a site-related hardship, property-related hardship.
That's not the only criteria the Commission looks at when
granting a variance. There are several criteria you look at. It is
not a pass-fail test. If you miss one, then you're automatically out.
You look at all the criteria and the totality of the circumstances,
and then you decide whether or not to grant an after-the-fact variance.
Page 127
May 14, 2002
I also think it's important to look at the builder on this project.
This is not a builder where you've seen his face before asking for an
after-the-fact variance.
People make mistakes. And in this case there was a mistake. I'm
not saying it's the builder's fault. I'm saying there's been a mistake
made. We're trying to rectify the mistake. But this is not a builder
that routinely comes to you and says, I couldn't build a house in the
right place, please let me keep it.
And -- there's been allegations, you're going to open up the flood
gates if you allow people to build their house and automatically
grant an after-the-fact variances.
I don't think that's, in fact, the case. You don't have very many
after-the-fact variances that actually appear in front of the
Board of County Commissioners.
There has been some confusion on this house, even after we
started the variance process. At one point, and I believe in the
staff report to the Planning Commission, staff was of the opinion that
the balcony could be five feet overhang, that was corrected at the
Planning Commission and it has been clarified that it is a three-foot
maximum.
We are not asking for any variance for the balcony. We know we
have to bring the balcony back, basically, four feet to comply with
the order or recommendation.
So that will occur and I hope that makes it real clear to you, Mr.
Coyle, that we know the balcony has to come back, and we are not
asking to keep the balcony as it is currently constructed.
What we are requesting, again, simply to keep the improvements
as they've been permitted by staff. We don't believe we have a
negative impact on our neighbor. We don't think we impact her view
at all. We don't believe we harm the health, safety and welfare by
Page 128
May 14, 2002
approving the after-the-fact variance. I have attempted to reach a
resolution with our neighbor. I will tell you what we have proposed.
It was rejected, but I will tell you what was proposed.
The proposal we made was to discontinue any efforts to
reconstruct the boathouse. We would not seek to rebuild what was
previously there.
And in return -- I think that greatly enhances any view issue she
had if we stopped doing that in return for allowing the after-the-fact
variance to go through.
So we've tried to, you know, work with the neighbor to
compromise, to make it a win-win for anybody.
That offer is on the table. It is still on the table. I hope -- I think
it shows the willingness, because you all have seen up in the
Vanderbilt Beach area boathouses are at a premium and that is a hot
ticket amenity to any home.
And what we're hoping for to say, basically, we'll give up the
value that it adds to the home, please don't make us rip out
improvements that have already taken place. The estimates to do that
are approaching $50,000 and what it costs to put it in, and then to rip
it out. It's a $50,000 mistake, if we are required to go back.
The builder is here to answer any technical questions you have
regarding the home and any questions you may have regarding to
how we got to where we are. And if you need any clarifications on
the costs we have incurred to date for the improvements and what it
will cost to remove them.
Again, we're simply asking for that, as far as the variance goes,
which is basically 73 -- 74 square foot request for variance.
We are not asking it for the entire back of the house. It's in the
comer of the house. If you have any questions of me or the
builder, please--
Page 129
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Before we go to questions from
the Board, I would like to make my disclosures, ex-parte
communication. I did receive a packet and some e-mails on that and
a letter from the neighbor, so I did want to disclose that. I have not
talked to the Petitioner.
Any questions from the board members?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just for clarification. You want
the 2.9 feet, which was originally missed, because it's been there
forever?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That was permitted. The home was built
in the area that was originally permitted.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you want to bring it into
compliance by getting an after-the-fact variance of 2.9 feet? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's based on what the planning
commission has recommended.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. That is what the Planning
Commission recommended. Yes, they said, we're not looking to
make you rip down of home that was permitted back in 1974.
We're also asking you for an additional two feet on top of that for
a portion. Not all of that 2.9 foot encroachment actually violates the
25-foot rear setback.
As you can see, Commissioner Carter, what we're talking about,
this area right here, that is roughly a 26-foot encroachment, that's
how much the original home encroaches into the 25-foot rear setback.
Remember, it was permitted with a 20-foot rear setback. That
really was never debated by the Planning Commission. They were
comfortable saying we're not interested in ripping that out. I don't
know what the neighbor's view is on that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commission Fiala.
Page 130
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Commissioners, this is just a
discussion with you. I think so many -- too many times lately, we
have builders who build over what they're allotted.
They know better. Then know better than we do what the zoning
laws are. And yet, they build far beyond and then they come in for
after-the-fact variance.
I think we ought to start making a tough stand that we just aren't
going to do that anymore. They want a variance, come in before
they start building then we'll discuss it. That's my opinion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: May I briefly respond? Then there's no
reason for your code to have an after-the-fact variance petition
process.
The petition process is there for those rare instances where a
mistake has occurred.
And I think we need to look at each individual case separately
and say -- first of all, if it was intentional, it was not a mistake. And
you should never grant an after-the-fact variance if the person did it
on purpose.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll bet you dollars to donuts, and
since I've been here, nobody has ever come up to say, I intentionally
built over it looking for an after-the-fact variance. Sorry, am I getting
to--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Of course not. And my client is not --
there's expenses he's incurring to try to make this right.
My response to that would be, that's why I brought up the history
of this builder. There are builders in this community who routinely
violate the county rules.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can you give us a list of those?
Page 131
May 14, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: Then there are others where there's an
honest mistake. I believe that this is a case where this was an honest
mistake.
Also, remember, we submitted full plans with a site plan showing
the building on the lot. This could have been caught by the county
before it happened.
I'm not -- there was a mistake made there. They're not a hundred
percent responsible. I'm not trying to say that. But there's a process
where this gets reviewed and approved and it did get reviewed and
approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question. Before we get
into debate on philosophy and that, I think we ought to close the
publichearing because we could probably debate this all day.
Mr. OLLIFF: You have four registered speakers on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: My question is, when the person
-- the doctor bought this property, did he not have a survey done at
this time?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's interesting, and yes, the person
who represented him at that time, not me, missed the existing 2.9 foot
encroachment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it did not show up on the
survey?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It did show up on the survey. But nobody
told my client it violated the law. His representatives did not tell
him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Isn't that the -- is that the
responsibility of the title company?
MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be my fees incurred to fix this
problem will be passed through, so there will be a party held
accountable for their mistake.
Page 132
May 14,2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I don't think -- the surveyor
does the survey, it's up to the title company to find any errors and
omission in the piece of the property or I could be wrong, but still the
responsibility goes back to the owner.
And I'm not sure if it goes to the neighbor, so I'm ready for public
speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Robert Pritt, and he will be
followed by Frank Halas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That will be for five minutes each.
MR. PRITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
County Commission. My name is Robert Pritt and I'm with the law
firm of Roetzel & Andress. I represent Mrs. Jean Carpenter, who
lives next door. You've seen pictures of her property.
I would like to clarify something before I start, if I may. Her
daughter Chris Carpenter, I don't represent her, but she is here and
she wanted to make a statement also. I know you have rules
concerning representation, but I'm representing Mrs. Carpenter, who
is not here today, and I'll explain why in a minute. But we would ask
that Chris Carpenter be allowed to make a statement also.
I did send a little packet to the Commission with some
photographs and a copy of a petition that Chris Carpenter had
circulated in the neighborhood.
We do have more signatures on the petition. A total of 29
signatures, and I would like to give you the petition with the rest of
the signatures. I think what you have is 17.
Also, in your packet and I'm -- I assume you all have this packet.
It was given to you. Also, in the packet are some photographs from
the Carpenter house looking toward the house that is under question.
And if I can put this in the visualizer.
Page 133
May 14, 2002
This first picture is a picture from the Carpenter house, closer to
the front, and the second picture this just gives an idea of the
height of the structure next door and how much of the vision is being
cut off simply from the height of the structure. It's a very large
structure.
This photograph here is from-- that's the top photograph, that is
more from the side, and you can see in the foreground the
boathouse, it's not a boathouse yet, but it's a boathouse structure and
we understand the proposal is to put a roof over that.
If you look carefully, you can see in front of the palm tree, you
can see the proposed overhang and I realize that Mr. Yovanovich has
indicated that they're going tocut that back.
However, with the two feet out and the overhang there, you're
really talking about, with that notch where the boat goes, you're
talking about eight feet is what we calculated it from the back of the
house to the notch. So it's very, very tight in there and essentially
there's no -- almost no setback at all.
And the other picture is another picture from a little bit further
away to give you the perspective.
I did want to have those in front of you for the record. And the
last two pictures I want to show, this is Gabrielle last year, I
have pictures again that were taken by the Carpenters, and the top
picture shows- you could see the pilings in front of the houses
and the bottom shows how far up the water goes when there's a
storm. It might look like it's high and dry today, but there really is a
problem. And the closer you get to the water, the worse the problem
becomes.
It's our position that this has been -- Mrs. Carpenter has been here
for over 20 years. She has a right to a reasonable view on the right-
hand side. There was never a problem. She's not complaining and
Page 134
May 14, 2002
not going to complain about the two-foot encroachment that was
talked about that has been here for apparently a long period of time.
However, we are concerned about the further encroachment,
another couple of feet encroachment, out toward the water. And
under our calculation, especially, the balcony, even though it's going
to be cut back, it's our position that balcony ought to be cut back to
where it does not go more than three fee past the original
encroachment, which is about a foot further out.
So our concern is that this house be brought back the way it's
supposed to be brought back. The Planning Commission, in a
six to nothing vote, and the planning staff-- everybody has been
unanimous on this from the staff's point of view, that this ought to be
removed, ought to be brought back. There's no good reason for it to
be that way and all setbacks, including this setback, either they mean
something or they don't mean something.
Either they have something to do with the public health, safety
and welfare or they're meaningless.
With that, I realize that my time is up. If I can just say one more
sentence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please keep it short, sir.
MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you. I'm a little bit concerned, one of
the reasons- I told you why Mrs. Carpenter is not here, frankly, she's
intimidated.
People were out measuring her dock. I don't know if anything is
going to come up, I didn't hear it come up. But people are talking to
her about her property and she's fearful to come down here.
She did come down and did not speak at the Planning
Commission level. She's very concerned about coming down here.
And if there's any -- I don't want to get into things that are irrelevant,
and I don't want anybody else to get into anything irrelevant. There's
Page 135
May14,2002
nothing wrong with her dock.
in case it comes up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you, though.
And I'd like a chance to speak about it
Sir, that has nOthing to do with that.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Halas.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While he's coming up, if Mrs.
Carpenter at any time would like to meet with me here or up at the
library or at the office in Pelican Bay, it's very private, confidential,
easy surrounding, I would be happy to talk to her about any of her
issues at any time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank Halas, and he will be
followed by Keith Sowers.
MR. HALAS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm here
representing not only a homeowner, but also Vanderbilt Beach
property owner's estate. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach
property owners.
I've got some exhibits I'd like to show, start off with the pictures
here. First one, here, I guess that shows up. What we're talking
about here, this is the boathouse that is also in question. And this is
the residence as it was -- this picture was taken about a month ago
when we were at the Planning Commission.
If you notice, you could see where they made the additional
encroachment into the setback into the backyard. And then I got a
slight dotted line here which would represent about where the house
should be if it was really in compliance.
And at the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission
basically told him that he could come out to where they are presently.
And they're taken the second story and going all the way up also.
My contention is that if you people, the Commissioners here, if
you go along with what the Planning Commission came up with and
Page 136
May 14, 2002
that is to have a wall where it presently is, but the second story ought
to be setback to where it is in compliance, so the second story should
be in compliance. Because this is a continuation of the house.
The LDC codes of Vanderbilt Beach area state that a 25-foot
setback is required for actual residence from the seawall. This
property starts with an error of about two feet that was brought up
when the home was originally constructed 25 years ago.
Had the builder maintained the location of that outer wall with it's
prior location, the administrative variance might have been granted.
What has occurred is that the setback walls extended another two
and a half feet closer to the seawall. Added to this addition of the
balcony that we see here in the photograph and the addition of the
house will further encroach into the rear setback.
I firmly believe this was intentionally done with the idea that it's
very easy to request and receive an after-the-fact variance approval.
Why do I say that? Because Doctor Lewis Kastan had called me
up prior to coming to the Planning Commission wanting me to write
a favorable letter in regards to this home. That is when I was alerted
that there might be a problem and then I noticed the sign of the
variance.
It's my understanding that both the builder and the homeowner
were aware that the home was out of compliance before the rear of
the building was completed, but decided to go forward to seek a
variance later in the interest of time and money.
Also, Mr. Kastan said that it would enhance his upper bedroom
and the lower bedroom. That was the conversation that I had with
him at that time.
The County then formally stopped the project and eventually
reversing themselves as far as the front of the house was only
concerned.
Page 137
May 14, 2002
Work on the back of the residence is still halted pending your
decision. And I firmly believe that the building codes at the
Vanderbilt Beach area should be strictly enforced and that all after-
the-fact variances should be highly scrutinized.
It is hard to believe that the building industry does not know the
setback requirements or it fails to make use of 50-foot tape
measures to measure what the setbacks are both front, rear and side,
as specified by the LDC.
Upon viewing the property, I firmly believe the residents on the
left side of this structure, will have its view greatly restricted if the
variance is approved.
The height of the structure in addition to the intrusion to the
setback area will greatly effect the property.
As you can see there, here's another picture of what we're talking
about. This was taken by -- in the Carpenter's back yard looking at --
what the view they're going to have there, and since she's been living
there for 20-something years.
We are all concerned with oversized structures being proposed
and sometimes approved in our area. The house in question has two
major problems and does not comply with the present LDC codes.
After-the-fact variance of this magnitude should not be
forthcoming. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Keith Sowers, and he will be followed by Chris
Carpenter and she will be the last speaker.
MR. SOWERS: My name is Keith Sowers. I am the past-
president of the Wiggins Pass Conservancy of Vanderbilt.
I've owned 28 lots in the Vanderbilt area, all on water. I've built
approximately 13 to 14 houses in that area and remodeled eight of
them and my own, which is within three doors of this property, just
last year.
Page 138
May 14, 2002
My concerns are that up there right now it's around $600 a square
foot for every foot that I can cheat and get in value of my property.
All of us up there for all these years have never had any variance
problems. The first thing we do is get the tape measure and we buy
the lot, we see what the setback is.
On my very own property a year ago, I wanted 22 feet to go out
back, but I was within a setback and I had to cut my house back to 21
feet. I also tried to do a second story, which brings us into another
detail in this area.
This is Vanderbilt Beach, this falls under the FEMA
requirements. And the house that you're looking at there, when we
all have lived there all these years, was a single-story little old house.
And we all know that we know FEMA likes it to stay that way. To
remodel it, you have to go through a lot of criteria to get there.
This house has doubled in size by going up on an existing wall
that was already in a variance problem. And I have gone back all the
way, I have never found a 20-foot setback. They made reference of it
and maybe there was.
But everything since I've been there in the 72's and 73's have all
been 25-foot setback. So to me the house was not in concurrence at
that time.
He comes along, recognizing that's a problem, which we all have
to do when we buy a piece of property, then he wants to add another
two foot onto that house, then he wants to add a balcony on the
house. And at the same time, he has doubled the square footage of
the house.
He didn't vacate the first floor for FEMA. He has the first floor
liveable. The second floor liveable. And to me it's an outrageous
massive home that has too many violations. That all these years as a
general contractor, I've never been able to get by with.
Page 139
May 14, 2002
I just don't understand how we can even consider -- I like the first
idea of letting the first house, it's been here all these years, I'm three
doors down, we've all looked at it, let it stay.
But when you go to that second floor, just pull it back to what the
code says it's supposed to be. And then that will let him have his
balcony from that point out.
I don't think anybody has a major problem with that. But I think
we're -- he's asked for too much and is showing too much at one time.
This is something, I hope that you will stick with the original
decision, which is a denial of this project. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that the last speaker, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: No, sir. Chris Carpenter is the last speaker.
MS. CARPENTER: Hi, I'm Chris Carpenter. I live at 123
Connors Avenue with my mom, Jean Carpenter. And I'm a little
nervous about being here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Pull the mike down just a little bit
lower.
MS. CARPENTER: Is that better? I'm a little nervous.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing fine. Just take your time.
MS. CARPENTER: I just want to summarize about the view.
We can see all of this from all of our windows on the side and also
my mom's bedroom on the back wall, it's very close to that comer.
She can see all of this.
If he gets to do everything that he wants to do, he might as well
put up a wall there from the house out into the water. It's really
going to mess up her view.
As Mr. Pritt was saying, I circulated a petition and I got to hear a
lot of comments from neighbors. And the neighbors are really, really
angry. They can't believe what he's trying to get away with. And I've
had people thinking that there's a lot of fudging with figures to
FEMA to get the second floor.
Page 140
May 14, 2002
I've had people made comments about the boathouse and the
variances for the two feet and the balcony. They're just not happy at
all about anything that he's trying to do.
I -- some people have even thanked me for trying to save the
neighborhood. They don't see it as something that just effects us.
They see it as something that effects the whole neighborhood.
So one thing that has been very upsetting to both my mom and to
me, I feel like Doctor Kastan really tried to pull a fast one on my
mom.
Before the hearing on the 4th, he had told her and me about the
two feet that he wanted and he gave us actually three versions of a
letter saying that we -- he explained what he wanted to do on that
comer of the house and that we approved of it. And it doesn't
mention, you know, the balcony or the spiral staircase or the
boathouse or the big wooden deck.
It just says that he explained everything and we approve. We
didn't know about any of it and she didn't sign it. I just feel like he
tried to pull a fast one on my mom.
Another thing I wanted to point out is that the boathouse that
they've got there is twice as big as the old one. I pulled the history
card of the house and it's a lot bigger. And they tore down the
original one and they're putting up this big one.
I also wanted to point out that we didn't get any notice about this
meeting. I wouldn't have known anything about it if I hadn't talked
to Fred Reischl about -- I had another question for him about the first
hearing, I wouldn't have known anything about it, so thank you.
In closing, I'm probably running out of time. Just to close, I ask
that you please at a minimum uphold what the planning staff and
the Planning Commission have recommended. And if you can do
more, like what a few people have suggested, bringing the second
Page 141
May 14, 2002
floor back in compliance with code, that would be really great.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll close the public hearing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman, I would like an
opportunity to address some of the statements.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to keep it very
short.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll do it as quick as I can. Frankly, some
of the statements were speculation at best, totally inaccurate at worst.
You can't see this. I'll hand this in to the record. This is the
original permit. You'll not that there's some handwriting on here
because when you microfilm these things, you don't always get a
good copy.
Mr. Marvello will be happy to come up and testify that he printed
this out and he handwrote in the numbers on the rear setback for the
original home.
The original home was issued with a 20-foot setback. Okay.
This is for the record. So there was no attempt by the original
homeowner again to try to get around the rules.
What they have not also pointed out is had this house can't fit the
lot as constructed, had the original issue been noticed that it was a 25-
foot setback simply the house would have been brought forward and
it would still be there and it would still be able to fit.
It wasn't an attempt to cheat and get around the rules and get
some extra square footage as one person testified to.
I do want to address a couple of specific comments, but I have no
idea what the petition said. I have no idea what Mr. Pritt handed out
to you today, I was not given a copy of it. So I can't respond to it, and
frankly, to give it me right now would does me no good.
Mr. Pritt knew who I was and how I was involved in this in the
first place. Like I said, it's a little late.
Page 142
May 14, 2002
Also, what I found ironic his comment is that you have the rules,
you should be able to live them and you should never ask for an
after-the-fact variance as Mr. Pritt has represented clients for after-
the-fact variances.
So I think we ought to be open and honest with each other about
what we have done and who we have represented in the past.
So you have a process that Mr. Pritt availed himself of in an
attempt to get an after-the-fact variance. I just want to put in
context that comment.
The FEMA issue was well-debated in front of the Planning
Commission. There's no violation of FEMA. So any implication that
there is inappropriate and should not be relied upon. This was
debated and proven that this house is consistent with FEMA as
constructed.
Also, I believe Mr. Sowers, I Can't remember what he said at the
Planning Commission whether or not the variances he obtained in the
past were after the fact or ahead of time. My recollection was they
are after-the-fact variances, but I could be wrong on that, so we're not
a hundred percent clean in what we're saying and testifying in front
of you. I want to put that in context.
Finally, if my client was intentionally trying to slip this by the
Board of County Commission and county staff, why would he
submit a detailed site plan that shows the house that he has got there
today with the expansion on a scaled site plan? That's pretty dum to
put it on a scaled site plan, if you're trying to sneak something by. It
doesn't make any sense.
This was an honest mistake. It happens. That's why you have an
after-the-fact variance process. I agree with Mr. Halas. We should
highly scrutinize after-the-fact variances. It doesn't say you should
never grant them. It says you should look at each one on a case-by-
case basis.
Page 143
May 14, 2002
The boathouse if it is rebuilt in the existing configuration will do
more to harm the view and I don't know exactly the angles of where
these pictures were taken from her property, but I did show you the
picture, there's no window facing in the direction of the photographs
that were taken.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to wrap it up.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. And also, I do want to point out
that the neighbor on the other side of the home did write a letter in
support.
And also, Mr. Kastan honestly did explain to the Carpenters what
he wanted because they .didn't sign the letter. He wasn't hiding
anything. He went to them and said, I'm explain to you, if you agree
sign the letter. They said we don't agree, so they didn't sign the letter.
This has been done -- when the issue came up he tried to work it
out. Again, I made a proposal, hopefully that proposal is satisfactory
to address any concerns regarding what we're asking for. And with
that I'll sit down, unless you have any specific questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions on the part of the
Commission?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My question is clarification of Mr.
Reischl. The Planning Commission's recommendation was to
approve the 2.9 foot of the original wall, was their intent to include
the second story or not?
MR. REISCHL: To include the second story, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's their recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners? MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. What about the three-
foot balcony, was that ever discussed?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, that's part of code. So there would be no
reason to put that into variance. The Land Development Code says
Page 144
May 14, 2002
whatever your setback is you can extend three feet beyond.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now I'll close the public hearing.
MR. PRITT: Can I put this in the record ifI referred to it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's something you have to do
anything.
MR. PRITT: This is just the remaining signatures of the petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can hand it to them.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May I ask a question to clarify
something. Mr. Reischl, I just want to make sure I understand when
you're saying that you will approve the 2.6 foot variance, are you
recommending an approval of that, that is the original wall, isn't it?
We're grandfathering in that particular variance?
MR. REISCHL: That's my recommendation and the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It does not include the additional
two-foot concrete block wall that has been built there?
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public hearing is closed at this time
for sure. Okay? Do I hear a motion on this and a second? And then
we'll move forward from there with more discussion, if necessary,
amongst ourselves.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The purpose of discussion, I
would like to move the recommendation of the planning counsel
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Henning.
Now discussion.
Page 145
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'll open it up with the
discussion. My feeling on variances when they're small is let them
go if the neighbors have no problems with them. If it's accepted by
the general community, great.
I don't see where this is accepted by the general community. And
I, myself, will support Commissioner Carter's motion.
I'll call for the question, all those in favor of denial, indicate by
saying "Aye".
MR. REISCHL: Denial of the four foot and approval of the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me put it this way. All those in
favor of Commissioner Carter's motion which was to follow the
recommendations of the Planning Commission, indicate -- am I
saying this right now?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it 5-0. Thank
you very much.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2002-24 TRANSMITTING ALL PETITIONS
REGARDING AMENDMENT OF ORDINANCE #89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY: AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES; AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE
Page 146
May 14,2002
AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT AND THE GOLDEN GATE
AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP
SERIES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE - ADOPTED W/CHANGES
Moving on now to Advertised Public Hearing 89-05. All those
that wish to participate must stand at this time to be sworn in. And
now I'll go down the line here to the commissioners for disclosures
and start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have all my correspondence
and telephone calls are in a packet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: During the process of over seven
months, I have talked to with representatives of several of these
projects, including the Henderson Creek area, but not about this
particular matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I myself have received of couple of e-
mails on it and that's about the extent of what I got on this. And
yourself?.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I received quite of few e-mails on
the subject. Are we talking about the first?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just the first one, 8-A.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I met with the planner. No.
No. I'm sorry, not 8-A. I haven't met with anybody. Excuse me. I'm
sorry. I do so many things.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I apologize for jumping the gun
the last time. I have met and there's public record on this and e-
mails, phone calls. I have had discussion on this particular item.
MR. WEEKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, I'm David
Weeks of your Planning Services Department. Just for the record,
this is a legislative action. Therefore, the swearing in and revealing
Page 147
May 14, 2002
of public contact was not required, but we didn't want to stop you,
you were on a roll.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Never hurts to play it safe.
MR. WEEKS: What you have before you, Commissioners, is a
single-agenda item, but, in fact, consists of seven petitions.
This is an adoption hearing for the Growth Management Plan
Amendment, the 2001 cycle. Five of these petitions CP2001, two,
three, four and five, you previously saw last fall in November for
what's called the transmittal hearings.
These types of amendments are reviewed by you twice. They're
transmittal hearings to be thought of as a preliminary review. If you
vote to transmit, then those amendments go up to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs. They give us a review
preliminary and they respond to the county with a report, which is
referred to as Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report.
That is their preliminary response to their review of these
amendments. And then welcome back to you as we are today for the
adoption hearing. This is where you take final action. You either
adopt or do not adopt the various amendments that are before you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, David, I need to stop you
for a moment. If we're discussing all of these different changes to the
Growth Management Plan, and now we're talking about Buckley;
right? And we're talking about Henderson Creek, I've met with those
developers in the past. I want that to be on the record, even though
you say we don't need to do that, it says here we need to. That way I
don't have to worry about it.
MR. WEEKS: And for clarification what we'll do is, each one of
the petitions, each one of the seven, will be presented to you
individually.
That's the way we've historically done this and you take a straw
vote and then take a single motion at the end for all seven petitions,
Page 148
May 14, 2002
because these are being adopted under one ordinance. So each staff
planner will come up and make a brief presentation.
Again, for the first five you saw those last fall. Something
unusual about this cycle is we have two petitions, number six and
seven, that have not come before you previously.
Both of these are located just south of Pine Ridge Road on the
west side of a segment of Livingston Road that is under construction.
Both of these are the result of independent settlement agreement
between the property owner and the Board of County Commissioners
that pertains to alleged damage to the property as a result of the right-
of-way taken for those properties.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Those have to be transmitted?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. These are going to straight to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Straight to adoption.
MR. WEEKS: You will take your final action today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But adoption does not guarantee,
adoption as I understand it, allows the property owner to bring
forward a proposed project, which would be decided independently in
each situation by the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Element. I wouldn't want anyone
adopt it today, you have built in a
The only rights you have is to
Under a Future Land Use
out there to be confused that if you
guarantee or a vested right.
come back and ask.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct, sir. With these amendments to the
Growth Management Plan, the next step would be a rezoning petition
based upon these amendments- individual amendments. And
certainly at that time you would we reviewing that rezone petition
individually based upon the criteria and the Land Development Code,
one of which is compliance with the Growth Management Plan.
Page 149
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go to legal for just a
second. Ms. Student.
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney
for the record. I just wanted to add to the two additional items that
we look at these as additions to this amendment cycle.
And if the DCA has any problems with these additions, since
they're additions from what we transmitted and they were not worked
as we say in the planning business, then they look at them to be their
first look at these. And if there's of problem with them, we turn them
into an administrative hearing.
I just want to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: David, this process to -- will
there have to be an advertised public neighborhood meeting along
with when these people come back, if we do amend the GMP, they
will have to come back with a neighborhood meeting?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That's now required in the Land
Development Code for the various land use petitions such as
rezoning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Just one more question.
Six and seven, was that reviewed by the Planning Commission?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: The final comment I want to make before we turn
it over to the individual staff planners, the Florida Department of
Community Affairs did issue their ORC Report. They had no
objections to any of the five petitions they reviewed.
They did have some comments on the Research and Technology
Park Subdistrict and as we noted we did make some changes in
response to their comments and that will be noted further at the time
of the individual presentation.
Page 150
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One additional question, I don't
think I was here when these things were originally staffed, and I don't
have of lot of background on them, but is it essential for this kind of
change that we specify the intensity and density and the number of
housing units in the Growth Management Plan change?
MR. WEEKS: The State statute does require specification of
intensity and density of land use. Whether it's so specific down to a
number of dwelling units or not, I don't think it is.
As you know, or perhaps know, our existing Future Land Use
Element does not go to any specific property and say this how many
units you get, it has a range. We have a density rating system with
bonuses built in and one subractive item, so if you meet certain
criteria, you're eligible density can go up or down.
So in my opinion, I don't believe we would not be required to
specify an exact number of dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I guess that's one of my problems
with respect to this. In some cases, we are in this plan approving 345
dwelling units on a little over 12 acres -- I'm sorry, 22.84 acres, and
I'm just wondering if that is essential in a Growth Management Plan
change.
I don't necessarily have a problem with making a modification to
a Growth Management Plan that permits a certain use in this area.
My concern is that we are already, at this point in time, making a
decision that we're going to permit low-income housing or affordable
housing and all the densities associated with it in this particular spot.
And I don't know to what extent the public has heard about this or
even understands that this happening to them.
And that bothers me a lot. I think some people in the audience
say -- you haven't heard about it. So that is what bothers me about
some of these changes here. This is not the only one.
Page 151
May 14, 2002
I'm -- I just don't know what the practice has been and what it
should be.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, a couple of responses, I am not
sure if you're referring to the Henderson Creek.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Buckley.
MR. WEEKS: Buckley. That's a little bit
of a different circumstance in that the density allowed there is not
related to the density rating system.
So if we do not specify the number of dwelling units that are
allowed and if we do not link the allowed density to that density
rating system and to the Land Use element, then the question is, what
are they allowed? We would not know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's currently selling at four
units per acre. What is wrong with leaving it that way. And then if
someone wants to come in with a PUD, then we can make decisions
about what we want to put in there.
But to do it in a Growth Management Plan Amendment and
short-circuiting, I believe this is an accurate statement, short-
circuiting thepublic input process, I think is not the right way to
proceed here.
MR. WEEKS: I'll make two more comments and be brief. First
of all, if you don't mind, I'd like to defer further discussion when we
get to that specific petition item, because I know there's some rational
for why they're asking for what they're asking for.
The second, I'll go back to what I was stating earlier. Once you
have approved an amendment that does set the stage for what is
allowed. You are not mandated to approve the subsequent rezone
petition.
You certainly are giving some signal, I would say, to the
community that we find this acceptable. But when you give the
details that are submitted with the rezone petition, for example, if the
Page 152
May 14, 2002
traffic impact or the neighborhood comes out and says, we think this
is incompatible, you have the authority to say, no, we'll not approve
that maximum that is allowed.
I'll draw to a parallel our density rating system in the Future Land
Use Element does allow a maximum of 16 units per acre in some
instances; one being mixed-use activity centers another one being a
conversion of certain commercial land.
To my knowledge the County Commission has rarely, if ever,
approved that maximum. I think the previous Board's position has
been, it may be allowed, but that's not acceptable to us.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to discuss each one of
these individually, is that it?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. If no further comment, I'll turn it
over to Aaron for the first petition which is an amendment to the
Golden Gate Master Plan.
MR. BLAIR: Good afternoon, for the record, Aaron Blair. The
subject site contains five acres located on the comer of Collier
Boulevard and 1 lth Avenue Southwest as seen on the visualizer.
All the property surrounding the subject site are zoned estates.
However, the ones to the north which are also in color are located in
the Estates Neighborhood Center boundary. Therefore, making them
eligible for commercial rezoned, as is if this one is to be added would
be eligible for commercial rezone.
The Petitioner seeks to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
to expand Estate Neighborhood Center boundary, to include track
114, which is the yellow subject site. Therefore, making it eligible for
commercial rezone.
And also, there's a text change that changes the right-of-way
buffer requirement, and not only this neighborhood center, but also
the one that is out on Wilson.
Page 153
May 14, 2002
Some of the staff comments from transportation was that the
access would be limited to 1 lth Avenue Southwest and not from
Collier Boulevard.
The Planning Commission recommended approval 6-0 as
language as modified by staff. And since transmittal, the language
has been modified to better clarify the buffer requirements. And the
Petitioner has agreed with what staff has changed it to. I can read it if
you'd like or you can just read it.
And we have no members of the public that were against this
petition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there anyone here that wished to
speak on this particular position today? We have people signed up
for Item A, but we don't know what parts of it you were interested in
commenting on.
So if you wish to speak on this particular item, indicate it at this
time. If not, the next will catch you on the next one or the one after.
I guess that's it. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think Bruce Anderson is
representing the landowners so I would like to ask him a question, if
he doesn't mind.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Bruce
Anderson for the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We saved your job.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's been paid the whole time he's
been here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, your client, what
I'm looking at is fitting to the character of the community in that area.
I don't think a big box retail would be fitting to the character of
the community. I'm asking you if you're willing to the maximum
single use square footage on the retail uses.
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioner?
Page 154
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: Couldn't we put that off until the time of
rezoning instead of putting it in the Comprehensive Plan? Once it's
in there then there's no flexibility whatsoever?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I need some clarification for
staff that this is proper and we handle it at the rezone.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, it's really your choice. One of
the things you see about the Golden Gate Master Plan, because it is a
master plan, it's covering a smaller area then the countywide Future
Land Use Element.
We typically do have and presently do have much more detail
then we would find on provisions that have much broader
applicability.
My response would be, it's your choice. If you want to get that
specific, you can do it now. Understanding that whatever change you
might make is going to be applicable to all neighborhood centers.
There's only two at present, but it will be -- has a broader application
than just this single five-acre parcel.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So maybe the proper venue
would be the Advisory Board Golden Gate Master Plan Committee
and let them make some recommendations.
MR. WEEKS: I think that's a good approach, since they're
looking at the entire master plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That was the question
I had, has Master Plan Review Committee reviewed this? I believe
they have, haven't they or no.
MS. TAYLOR: For the record, Amy Taylor, with
Comprehensive Planning Section. The committee has been aware of
it. They were given copies of the amendment and the language, but it
hasn't been an item for discussion. They did not have an issue with it.
Page 155
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So when it comes back for the rezone,
that's what you're suggesting, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amy, if you would talk to the
committee members and ask them about, you know, big box in
activity centers in activity centers and what's appropriate and what's
not appropriate. I would appreciate it.
MS. TAYLOR: We will. And it is design issues for commercial,
for the neighborhood centers, for existing ones, and ones that may be
added to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Design is an issue and
would be part of the amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan,
which would then make this property subject to, if it's added to those
design criteria.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think we can go to the next
item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to go through the straw
poll at this point in time so we can move onto it? I have no objection
to that one.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Our practice is been to take a
straw pull and then at the end you can do --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct that's what
I was doing. Next item.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, Amy Taylor for the record.
Um, before you for your consideration is Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2002-2.
Um, the item was committed by Karen Bishop of PMS,
representing Buckley Enterprises. The amendment is requesting that
the Future Land Use Element be changed and the Future Land Use
map be changed to create the Buckley.
Is requesting that Future Land Use Development be change an the
map be changed to create the Buckley mixed-use subdistrict.
Page 156
May 14, 2002
The subdistrict allows for a maximum of 171,300 square feet of
office retail uses and a maximum of 345 dwelling units and changes
the designation of urban and residential subdistrict to Buckley mixed-
use subdistrict for 22.84 acres.
The subject site is um, just north of the new Collier County
Public Library site, just north of Orange Blossom. Um, the library
being to the south. North is Brighten Gardens assisted living facility.
East is Airport Pulling Road currently expanded to six lanes. Um, the
Vineyards, a residential community, is also to the east as well as
Lakeside. Um, a church and a plant nursery. To the west is
Emerald Lakes residential community.
Um, in the language of the, um, amendment, it allows for a
maximum of 15 dwelling units per acre. Um, it also allows for, um,
certain maximums of square feet for retail and office.
It doesn't specifically say that 345 dwelling units will be, um, be,
permitted or allowed, it just says up to 15 units per dwelling unit
maybe, it's a maximum, part of the language.
Um, the Planning Commission, um, voted five to two to
recommend, um, that this amendment be adopted with two changes.
One change being that, um, the -- this would be subject to the density
rating system with the exception of, um, provisions of multi-family
housing, which would allow it to be a maximum of 15, um, dwelling
units per acre.
They also had asked for-- the Planning Commission asked, um,
for an additional change which would require that it be in the form of
a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, he's not here.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Amy, my biggest problem with this,
the concept is wonderful. It's been explained to me. I asked a lot of
questions.
Page 157
May 14, 2002
My biggest thing is, and I always go back to the same thing is the
traffic generated by this many cars even though -- I know the road
has just been widened.
And yet, I'm very concerned with 345dwelling units in this little
spot, plus commercial. I'm truly afraid of how it will impact that
street.
In realtime concurrency, what does that bring that level of service
down to?
MS. TAYLOR: Actually, and Reed Jarvey, the applicant's
representative, um, probably can address that a little bit better.
They were required to submit a traffic impact statement and with
the widening of Airport Road and also the addition of Livingston
Road from, um, Golden Gate Parkway to Pine Ridge, um, and further
up north, this should be, I believe my recollection is a level of service
C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because of the additional road and
Orange Blossom that- does that go through to Livingston? MS. TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, that can
accommodate the traffic that this development will generate? MS. TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who figures out that level of
service? Do we give that sanction? After somebody submits it to us,
do we go back and prove that those are the correct figures?
MS. TAYLOR: At the time of rezone, the applicant would be
required to submit a traffic impact statement that's much more
detailed than what is required, um, at the level of Growth
Management Plan Amendment.
At that point, it would be analyzed as to whether -- um, whatever
they're proposing, um, whether it's 15 or 12 or 10, um, and the
Page 158
May 14, 2002
combination of commercial uses that they want would exceed any
level of service.
Um, at that point, it would be the judgment of the Transportation
Division to make whatever recommendations to this Board after
evaluating. But at the rezone stage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Amy, you've been involved and
working on the Community Character Plan with the citizens of
Collier County, do you think this to intense to fit the character plan as
we bring it forward?
MS. TAYLOR: As of my professional planning, um, opinion,
um, with regard to infill properties, this is consistent, um, with many
kinds of new urbanism and neo-traditional development.
Um, the number of dwelling units in um, relation to the amount of
commercial provided is, um, you know, meets -- and particularly the
design, um, and the way in which um, the commercial and residential
components may -- because they're fully integrated with one another
and there's interconnectivity on site between the uses.
Um, it meets the criteria standards and basic principles of the
Community Character Plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It meets the principles, but we
need some more detail to whether this is truly what the community
wanted?
MS. TAYLOR: Right. At the point of rezone and site
development plan, when they come up with the design criteria, which
when theyactually put on paper what reflects the design criteria and
the language in the Growth Management Plan, then we'll be able to
evaluate whether it truly meets um, -- um, and is consistent with the
principles of new urbanism.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
Page 159
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have another question with respect
to public review and comment, to what extent have these items been
subjected to that process?
MS. TAYLOR: Um, there are, of course, um, several public
hearings, that was the transmittal hearing in the fall, um, it went
before the Planning Commission and this board.
Um, it goes before the -- of course -- the Planning Commission at
this stage at adoption, again, and you're hearing it today.
Um, the um, applicant, I believe, on her own, did also on her own
take it before several of the neighborhoods, but that is not a
requirement of staff to do that at this point. It's the requirement at
rezone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to have to help me a
little bit because this is the first time I've gone through this.
Why then if we have not had a full public hearings on the density
and the type of use and that sort of thing that is likely to have
occurred there, why would we want to do that as part of the
Comprehensive Plan change, because we have just gone through the
CP2001-1 that doesn't really specify any densities or units, it merely
changes the use.
And then in CP2002-2, we're getting very, very specific, and
we're making the assumption that affordable housing will, in fact, be
approved there?
And we've had this discussion on affordable housing a lot. I feel
very uncomfortable making that decision at this point in time.
Particularly, if the residents don't clearly understand what that means.
And I don't have the comfortable feeling that people really do
understand it.
MS. TAYLOR: It relates the process to you and the reasoning
why you can or cannot -- it's really the choice of this Board of
Commissioners as to the specificity.
Page 160
May14,2002
And our current Future Land Use Element reflects a range of
very, very general to certain subdistricts to very, very specific.
Um, this one in particular because of it's um, location, various
criteria that's on a six-lane facility that along that segment of Airport
Road there are consistently, um, compatible uses like the assisted
living facility, like the Orange Blossom that allows
the same configuration and combination of uses and various other
things.
Um, if-- also protection, um, to the surrounding communities,
um, by inputting and providing for design criteria, it is very specific.
Um, there are some situations, some subdistricts that are very,
very vague. They just say -- like the business park subdistrict, um, is
-- has a 35 acre, um, minimum, and it has certain design criteria and
that's it. It's not site specific.
The more site specific you get, the more the more particular site,
the more likely you are to be more detailed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, Ms. Taylor, if we were to
pass this on at this point in time, when it comes back for rezone, we
are totally within our rights to be able to configure it however we
want to; is that correct?
MS. TAYLOR: Yes, you would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Actually, what we're doing now is
we're giving a broad approach with the idea that later that when we
get to it, how far it would come back? A year away? Six months?
MS. TAYLOR: I'm not sure what there time table is, six months.
It could be as short as that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At that point in time, we may have
firmed up -- I see some concern over density for affordable, which is
an issue that is starting to rise up and raise some questions.
And I kind of hope that we can hold off by the time we get to this
decision to be made in six months, we may get something back from
Page 161
May 14, 2002
our Affordable Housing Committee, they'll gives us some better
direction on this.
I hate to throw the baby out with the bath water at this point in
time. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can help with
Commissioner Coyle's to the answer his question is because the
public has told that we want more specificity. And I think that's what
the Board of Commissioners has said that we need more specificity,
but at this time maybe it wasn't such a good idea to have it, because
nothing in here is going to be set in stone.
MS. TAYLOR: Well, the specificity allows, um, for certain
protections, but it doesn't -- it binds the, um property owner or the
developer to certain design criteria and commitments.
Um, however, when we have caps or maximums that allows this
Board of County Commissioners for a real range of flexibility at the
point of an approval of a rezoning or a PUD -- a rezoning or a site
development plan approval.
Um, you have a maximum of 15 units, but you're not -- the
applicant is not promised 15 units per acre.
And -- in the same language, there's criteria for, um, design that is
something that we are assured that the applicant will meet.
So if there's, um, both, um, you know, pros and cons to having
specificity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion to go on to
Mrs. Bishop and come back to more questions.
MS. TAYLOR: If I could just clarify about affordable housing
on the record. This petition that's written does not require affordable
housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. TAYLOR: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Does not require?
Okay.
Page 162
May 14, 2002
MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon, Karen Bishop. I'm an agent for
Mr. Buckley. I wantto talk about a few things first, Mr. Coyle. I'd
like you to know that I did go to each of the associations, Lakeside
and Emerald Lakes, specifically went to them last year before this
came in front of the Board to go over this petition with them, so they
knew what was going on and to ask them what they thought, and
specifically to see what their concerns might be.
I think that the Emerald Lakes people, in my opinion, had more
concerns then anyone, because they're right on our boarder.
And specifically, what they said to me was, don't even think
about interconnecting and they didn't want their views to be bad
views.
And I talked to Mr. Buckley and to his associates and we came up
with a substantial landscaping buffer and a requirement -- or at that
time, we agreed that we would only put two-story along their
property line, so that they're not being overwhelmed. We do have a
three-story element. We are allowed up to three stories, but we want
them to keep the neighborhood look as they have it, so there's a really
substantial hedge now. We're going to improve that which I do have
some exhibits to show you that, as well as I brought with me some
things that we have come up with on at this point is conceptional with
the type of architecture that you're looking at and these buildings are
two-sided buildings. So you're accessing from both sides getting, so
you're getting four-sided architecture here.
We do have those kinds of things in place. But I specifically,
even though I didn't have to, I considered important for the public to
be a part of the process.
I've always done that and I don't think it's an excuse that, well, I
didn't have to tell them now. I don't believe that that is the way to
approach anyone. These people live there. I want them to be happy.
Page 163
May 14, 2002
And if I can't make them all happy, I want them to know we're doing
a good job with the best that we can do at this point.
Also, the term affordable housing, you know, as a person whose
lived in affordable housing most of my life here in Collier County,
one of things I think is important that there will be housing available
in this community, even though it's not affordable housing. That will
be affordable like people who work in the commercial, so it's work-
force housing of sorts.
Part of this community will be available -- our size of units range
from 800 square foot to 1,700 square foot. So there will be some
availability for people that work in the commercial element to just
walk to their house, instead of having to drive out and about.
So I am really annoyed by everybody worried about affordable
housing because if it weren't for that, I wouldn't have lived here all
these years. It really kind of boils down that.
I do have a couple of things that we can go over. One of course,
this is a mix-use. It has not been done too many places. Downtown
Naples is probably the best example of mixed-use.
You have a combination, in some areas, commercial by
themselves. We have offices on the front side of the building, the
residential in the back.
Or at the -- same as in the Orange Blossom, you'll have all the
uses in one building. You'll have commercial on the bottom office
and the residence on top. That's the kind of thing that we're looking
for. That is what the focus plan said. That's what the Community
Character Plan says.
So we're not the first, but we're the second application come on
board, saying, okay, let us be the good example. Let us show you
that this can, in fact, work.
The density seems to be high. But the truth is when you're
looking at an odd shape of property which this one is very skinny,
Page 164
May 14, 2002
long and skinny, the infrastructure is the same price, but you can't
foruse on this, we would never be able to recover -- Mr. Buckley
would never be able to sell single-family homes on this property. It
just wouldn't happen.
Now, another ACLF, I think probably would not be appropriate
because there's one next door and maybe that amount of density can
be up to, I believe it's almost 26 units to the acre that you can get
those ACLFs up to.
The 16 units which is the mixed-usenumber, we're below that
number, by one. But we're below that. When we come back in front
of you we'll have a more definitive plan on how units I need there
versus how much commercial.
I can show you now what the plans, if you like, I have some
examples, I can give you an idea of what we're looking at and the
type of architecture, specifically, if you'd like to see it. And then that
gives you at least some idea of the way we're heading.
Obviously, during the zoning end of this it will become a lot more
detailed. I'll put it over there for her, I only have one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On your way over here,
Commissioner Fiala, do you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: As I listen to this, of course, I'm
really-- I would like to promote work-force housing, affordable
housing as much as I can, because we desperately need it here. I love
the size of these things, 1,700 square feet. That's wonderful in some
instances.
What you've done, in my opinion best is number one the mixed-
use element here sounds very appealing to me and I'm sure to people
who will be living there to be able to walk to work or walk to their
shopping, and possibly there may even be a day care center
someplace in here, somebody who wants to put a day care right there
for all of the children for the work force.
Page 165
May 14, 2002
And the other thing that I was terribly concerned with, and I have
to tell you that I'm concerned with this on everything, not only work
force housing, and that is the traffic, the traffic impact.
Now, my concerns have been allayed is that the right word? So I
don't have to worry about that anymore. I think the concept on the
whole is very good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me take another shot at this.
Here's my problem. The two ladies sitting on the end in the second
row are going to go back at the end of the day and say to their
neighbors, the Commission just approved 345 dwelling units -- no --
it's more than that; isn't it?
MS. BISHOP: No, it's 345.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 345 dwelling units there and people
are not going to know what they look like. I don't think. They're not
going to know the whole plan for this area. I think it's very attractive,
but it seems to me
that we go through things at the time the PUD is being considered; is
that not true?
MS. BISHOP: It's correct. But we took that step earlier.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. But it hasn't come
before the Commission as a PUD and I don't think its come before
the Planning Commission or any of the other advisory commissions.
And that's where we're able to communicate to the people in the
community what they really -- what we're really proposing here.
My concern is that we're telegraphing to the community the worst
parts of this proposal, without ever giving them the good parts.
We're communicating to them that the density without really being
able to explain to them what this is going to look like, how it's going
to be very attractive, it's going to be clean and proper, to going be
landscaped properly.
Page 166
May 14, 2002
And it's just -- in my estimation, it's just like the pine trees on
Pine Tree Road or Pine Ridge Road.
MS. BISHOP: Those are Australian Pine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. They're foreigners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're all foreigners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: People heard that recommendation
by a subcommittee that we were going to cut those things down and
they got really upset about it and it was in a newspaper article for,
you know-- several times.
I just like to have a more thorough and logical method of
communicating to people of what we're planning to do without
getting people upset about something when they don't have ali the
information. And that's my concern.
MS. BISHOP: But you're right. The truth is, I don't want these
ladies to go back and feel bad. I don't want their days to be ruined. I
want them to enjoy life in paradise because that's where we are.
Mr. Buckley, he's a good neighbor. He's been around a long time.
He's not trying to rape the land. He's trying -- you hire people to do a
Community Character plan. You hire people to do focus studies.
They come to you with their recommendations, but then you don't
want them to implement them.
I'm kind of in a Catch-22 because I'm trying to do what you want
me to do and I want them to be happy and at the level of PUD, they'll
get every opportunity to see every detail for this application.
This is a concept at this level that apparently has, only in
downtown Naples, has it worked. And even then it has taken
redevelopment in Downtown Naples to work the way it intended to
work.
We get to use that as the example and come in and do these
things.
Page 167
May 14, 2002
Now, I'm a huge pedestrian interconnect fan and a car
interconnect fan, but I can't make people let me connect to their roads
to prevent them from going out on to the road.
What I have done, I had the public meeting for Mr. Poling's stuff
last week, I had the opportunity to speak to some of the homeowners
at Lakeside and I ask asked them if we could at least try
interconnecting through the ACLF, from their entrance to the ACLF,
to my project to the library, so that they wouldn't actually have to go
out on Airport Road to get to the library.
And then they would have that connection. Then also the people
in my project or the people at the library would have an opportunity
to go through my project, through the Marriott across that access, into
the other commercial.
None of them have to get out on the road, so what we're doing
essentially is by, in this case, I can't require them to do that, but at
least their frontage, I can cross the access easement on their frontage
is retrofit what maybe should have been done a long time ago.
They should have been required to interconnect. Well, we can't
make them do that now. And we shouldn't make them try to do that
now. It has to be voluntary.
Now, pedestrian access is a little different. If nothing else, if
you're not going to make people connect with cars, at least you
should make them connect their sidewalks together, so that people
can walk to places. If you give them an opportunity, I think they'll do
it.
I know I do. I spend a lot of time on the bike paths and the walk
paths. My kids are some of those kids on those roads, on those
sidewalks walking to school.
It's a good idea. We got to start somewhere and we actually have
to do it. And without doing it -- the only other opportunity here for
Page 168
May 14, 2002
Mr. Buckley would be to put affordable housing in that spot, you
know, just the
connotation of it makes everyone nuts or commercial. And then it's a
little mini activity center.
It's almost like we're trying to do the right thing. And this is one
building. By the way, that's two sides of the same building.
So you have the commercial-- this is the view from Airport and
this is the people with their garages living in the back and almost
everyone has garages here.
Now, these will be rental apartments at this point is what we're
looking at, but this is what it is. My first apartment here was just
under 700 square foot. My duplex in Golden Gate was 750 square
foot. I got to move up to 1,100 after that.
So those are the things that these kinds of opportunities allow.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we're going to do is we have
some more comments, I'm running past the time that I agreed with
the people in television production. We'll take a five-minute break,
while they change the tapes again.
Thereupon, (A brief recess was taken, after which the
following proceedings were had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Where we left off,
I think we had Commissioner Carter with his hand up wanting to
speak.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First
of all, Commissioner Coyle and Ms. Bishop, when I had a little burst
of laughter, it was not at your dialogue, it was a side comment that a
commissioner had said to me. I will try to constrain myself in the
future.
When looking at this I understand the communities concern. I
understand the Board's concerns, but the key here to me is that you
Page 169
May 14, 2002
have planning counsel recommendation of a PUD. That gives you the
frame work of which to have the debate in the public sessions, in the
planning counsel, in front of the Board of County Commissioners.
These numbers are guidelines. There's no absolute here. We
have been criticized in the past for not being specific enough. And
when there's an attempt to try to put in some parameters,
unfortunately, it's human nature, the seller runs out and says, this is
an absolute. They're going to do this and they're going to do that.
No, we're not going to do that. We're trying to establish some
frame work to make that decision. If we don't do that, I think we
have not done the right thing by the community.
And this is -- adopting this thing into our land -- Future Land Use
Elements part of the Growth Management Plan is governed by the
Land Development Code.
Between now and the point that anyone proposes to do anything
in a piece of property land development codes can and in all
probability will change. And there will be a tougher criteria of which
to use in the design process.
So I am comfortable with what we're going through because we're
trying to address that along with the fact that these other guidelines
are also in the process; being Land Development Code, which is
certainly going to effect all of this.
So I look at it as an opportunity to establish what is what I have to
do as a commissioner in the future, but not as an absolute.
There's a lot to be heard from the community. There's a lot of
inputs to be made before those final decisions are made.
So that's where I am in this process, Commissioners, and I hope
that we can keep in our minds as we move through these elements.
MS. BISHOP: I'd like to just also make on other -- my office is
going to start a policy that after we have these public meetings, which
Page 170
May 14, 2002
are somewhat ill-timed I think in the process, that we're going to
provide our neighbors with a copy of our application.
So when I submit to the staff, I'm going to make sure that they
have it. They're not going to have go down and get copies made. I'm
going to make sure they have a copy of that. So that they have it in
their own hands and see what I'm submitting. And when I make
changes to that because of staff recommendation or whatever, I'll
make sure they have another copy again.
Because it's not -- this process is not intended to exclude, it's
intended to include. It gives them time, when we have these meetings
there are people that stand out in the community that -- Sally Barker
comes to mind immediately. I see her around at these meetings.
She's kind of self-taught and knows her business and she'll sit in these
meetings and she looks at these documents and sits with the residents
and goes over those things with them. That's what is intended.
I've always made myself available to the residents, whatever they
want to know. I can't always give them the answer they want to hear,
but I can certainly give them that information and certainly listen to
them and try to do my best, because that's all I can do.
When I went to these meetings with the neighbors, I gave them
my card, my numbers, and said, "Please call me. Is there anything
you need?"
I understand now there's a problem now, you know, I understand
two days ago, the Lakeside people and the Emerald Lakes people,
some of them have a problem with this application.
You know, I've been available for almost a year in this process
and will still obviously be continuing if this is passed on to PUD
level, ! will then also be available to go through this process and to
discuss these things with them.
But I did make sure that I did not leave them out, because I
personally believe it's important. And I don't want them to be
Page 171
May 14, 2002
unhappy. It doesn't make for good neighborsthat way. But we've
spent a lot of time on this focused group and these Community
Character Plans and somebody has got to implement these things.
When I come back to you again with the PUD, we can fine tune.
Obviously, I cannot fit all of it on the site. I'm going to have to make
some choices then. I'm going to have to decide what uses I can fit,
whether it's 250 units and more commercial or less commercial and
more units. However it works out. I have to come to you and prove
that I can make it work through water management, through traffic
analysis. All of those things have to work, as well as the criteria of
how the buildings look.
And I think these are nice looking buildings. I was surprised that
they really do look nice. The front side of them is commercial and
the back is the residential. They're attached. There's garages
available.
These are not cheap apartments. These will be a high-level
apartments as far as rentals go, but there still will be an element for
the people that work in this place to be able to afford to live there to.
So you're going to have a mixed use- a mixed financial use, if
you want to look at it that way.
How else are you going to start getting people to not designate
certain areas as affordable housing unless they're mixing it in with
what they're doing?
You know, I love East Naples. I have lived in East Naples as
much as I've lived anywhere else. I liked it there. And why?
Because I could afford to live there. That was the important part for
me.
If there's any other questions. I have Reed here, the traffic guy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner
Coyle and then we want to go on to the speakers.
Page 172
May 14,2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Karen, I'm not arguing against your
project. It looks like a good project. When we put something this
specific into a comprehensive plan, it leaves us very little flexibility
later because the argument will be that what you're proposing is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
It might be that we -- you want to do something different, and at
the time you come in with a PUD we have a chance to talk about that.
Your property apparently is under the density rating system, so
there's a density specified for mixed-use history. So it's not like we
have to specify density in this particular change. I know why you
want it. Okay.
MS. BISHOP: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wouldn't - I don't want to jump to
any conclusions that I would deny it. I'm merely saying that if we
expect to communicate effectively with the public, we can't telegraph
we're going to do one thing without giving them some details. That's
all I'm saying. I've been through that. I know how people get upset
when they don't have all the details and they're not going to get all the
details until you go through the PUD process and everybody has a
chance to take a look at it. And I've said it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You said it well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm out of here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's go to the speakers.
MS. FILSON: First speaker is Reed Jarvey.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, would you permit me to make a
couple of comments before we get to the speakers? I think it's
important.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can make it now and after the
speakers too if you like.
Page 173
May 14, 2002
MR. WEEKS: Some of it is repeating what I said earlier. I just
want to make sure it's absolutely clear. There's nothing about this
proposal that has any linkage whatsoever to affordable housing.
Affordable housing is what we have a definition of. It is a
regulatory frame work that requires a density bonus through our
density rating system. The applicant works with the Housing and
Urban Improvement Department to get that density bonus that's
where that linkage is with income levels and so forth.
This a market-rate housing component to this project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we all understand that.
MR. WEEKS: Secondly, the maximum that is established as we
said earlier is not an entitlement so when you do come back- the
Petitioner comes back with the rezoning, you can say no, that is too
much, we won't accept it.
Once you get more specific detail, a detailed traffic impact
statement, the detailed site plan, a beauty master plan, excuse me, and
other type of things that you see at regional stage.
But at the same time, I would certainly acknowledge, as I think
Commissioner Coyle said, that does gives some indication to the
community and to the property owner, that gee, this is maybe where
we can go and get some hope.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got to get these speakers right now.
Until we hear from them we don't know what the problems may be.
MR. WEEKS: I'll wrap it up quickly. The design standards -- the
comp plan process just doesn't get down to that level of detail.
There's some standards in here. There's a requirement for
architectural design for all four sides of the building as an example.
But the pictures that comes at the beauty stage, if at all. And the
public notice requirements, I thought that was important,
Commissioner Coyle.
Page 174
May 14, 2002
The notice requirements for amendments is a quarter-page legal
ad in the paper, so certainly the individual residents in the
surrounding area have not been notified by the county. It's not a
requirement. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Jarvey is only here to answer questions. So
your last two speakers will by Carol Pahl and she will be followed by
Forrest Wainscott.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. PAHL: My name is Carol Pahl. I am president of the master
association for Lakeside. I would like to read a brief statement, if I
may. "On behalf of the residents of Lakeside, I wish to ask you and
your fellow commissioners to reject the proposed change in the
Comprehensive Community Development Plan 2001-2.
This property is 22.8 acres and under the current land use permit,
there are four residential units per acre. This proposed change would
increase the density to 15 units per acre for 345 residential units, plus
would add 172,500 square feet of commercial retail space.
In view of the current water and sewer situation, not to mention
the traffic problems along Airport Road, and may I point out that the
main entrance to this Buckley mixed-use property, is a quarter-mile
south of Airport and Vanderbilt Beach, at which point Airport is back
down to two lanes in each direction and we all know what the
problems are on Vanderbilt Beach Drive.
Let us also think about the addition to the solid waste problem
that we have in this county and what about classroom space? This
would impact all of those things.
I wish to assure the Commission that we are not opposed to
development, as such and certainly the mixed-use concept has merit.
However, in this case, we feel that this type of over development
is not in the best interest of the current or future residents of Naples
Page 175
May 14, 2002
and would most certainly diminish the value of our homes as well as
over tax our natural resources."
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, question, ma'am. You
represent what organization? MS. PAHL: Lakeside.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're speaking for
them?
MS. PAHL: Yes. I'm president of the Master Association. We
are directly across from the proposed development.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much for coming
today. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Forrest Wainscott.
MR. WAINSCOTT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a
prepared statement that I made.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You are, for the record, sir.
MR. WAINSCOTT: My name is Forrest Wainscott and I'm
speaking on behalf of the residents of Emerald Lakes and I am a
member of the Board of Emerald Lakes of the Master Board.
We are greatly concerned about the petition before you CP2001-2
to amend the future use land plan to create a special subdistrict, the
Buckley mixed-use subdistrict.
I had a difficult day yesterday not with my voice. Problems.
This petition would allow the development of a 172,500 square
feet of office and retail, commercial space and 345 rental dwelling
units in and area that is currently designated urban residential
allowing a density of only four dwellings per acre.
Approving the petition would increase the density from four units
to 15 units per acre, which is essentially quadrupling the density in
this 22.8 acre tract.
Page 176
May 14,2002
Emerald Lakes, which is several hundred acres has roughly the
same number of units. Although, we have a beautiful lake.
This particular property is in an area where all the surrounding
communities on both sides of Airport-Pulling Road, with the
exception of the Buckley property, are presently almost fully
developed with the density of four units per acre.
And I guess we would like to know why is it now suggested that a
density of 15 units per acre is appropriate for one small section in the
middle of this?
Our community is not opposed to development in this area. We
recognize that the property owner has every reasonable right to
develop the property within the restrictions allowed by the current
use plan.
But what we are concerned about is the increased density of
development. Our members recently attended a public meeting at the
Naples Italian-American Club where Ms. Bishop made a presentation
of the Pulling Property, which is almost directly across the street
from the Buckley Property.
And the development of the Pulling Property has remained within
the constraints of the plan with only a density of four units per acre.
Whether the surrounding communities prefer to see less density
of development, we consider the plan development of the Pulling
Property to be both reasonable and appropriate for its given location
in the community.
So why now is the property located across the street from that
subject to a much greater development density? We feel that the
county planners and the Planning Commission have not given
adequate consideration of the impact of quadrupling the density of
the surrounding areas and the public infrastructure.
When we hear the talk about concurrency and the moratorium on
development of nearby roads, we wonder what's going on. We have
Page 177
May 14, 2002
seen no analysis of the impact of this petition on the local
community, the schools, the roads, the water, the sewer, the water
management, as well as there was no allowance for any input by the
public community.
The hearing where this petition was considered was not properly
advertised and thus there was no input by the public. Had we known
about the hearing we certainly would have been there. I'm and
talking about the Planning Commission hearing.
Here we have the usual case before you Commissioners with the
public and effected communities on one side and the property owner
and the potential developers on the other side, and, of course, you're
in the middle and we wondered how many of you have any personal
knowledge of what you're being asked to approve.
We have more knowledge today. What is the real potential
impact on the community that your decision will have? And why is
there a rush at this time to make a very specific judgment on what's
going to happen on this piece of property?
I had a little more to say, but that really summarizes it. What
we're concerned about is that we have essentially all single-family
homes located -- and facing, having their front yards facing where
this development is going to occur.
And while that's a beautiful picture, you can imagine walking out
your front door and seeing this. And -- while the proposal limits the
height to three stories -- I mean, the development to three stories,
there's no real height limitation in the plan that is proposed. And
that's our major concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I ask you to wrap it up, sir.
MR. WAINSCOTT: We would have hoped that we would have
had a chance to have our input in this so that we can all get together
and make everybody happy.
Page 178
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, I guess we didn't explain it
well enough. You are going to get your chance, your input.
MR. WAINSCOTT: We understand we have two more cracks at
this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can tell you if the infrastructure
is not there; the water, the sewer, the landfill, the roads, that I'm not
going to approve it when it comes back, but if this is smart growth,
community character, I'm willing to take a look at it when it does
come back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I absolutely agree.
That's what I started out to say myself. It sounds like it is smart
growth. That's what the committee is going forward with. It sounds
like it has followed the guidelines for smart growth.
It is filling the void for affordable housing. And you know, I
don't even want to call it that. These building are just so nice
looking, the height limitations that we don't have a problem with that
either. The buildings look like they're a credit to the area. They're
really nice looking, even with garages. You never see that.
My goodness, how many -- you see cars littered all over instead
of garages. I was very impressed with that. And you've answered
my questions and my concerns with regard to how will the road
accommodate the traffic and you've answered all those questions with
the surrounding areas.
Actually, I don't have a problem with it. I think it's -- I think
they've done everything they could to make this an attractive element
-- new element to the community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: At this point, I don't have a problem
either.
MR. WAINSCOTT: Can I make one comment?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir.
Page 179
May 14, 2002
MR. WAINSCOTT: If you just go through the numbers, the
space available and the intensity of development, what is proposed
right now, doesn't really fit in two stories.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We haven't seen the final product yet
and that gives them an opportunity to bring it to us and at that point
in time there will be community meetings.
And believe me, one of the things we're getting very good at is
making the developer meet the communities needs.
I can say that this Commission has been extremely proactive in
that way and developers have given an awful a lot along the way
whenever it came to these projects getting them through or they've
been refused.
You got to get to that part of the process before you know you're
there. So at this point in time, Commissioner Carter what about you.
Thank you very much, sir.
MR. WAINSCOTT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's an old saying out of the
old movie Cool Hand Luke, I think we failed to communicate here.
And that's the impression that I'm getting is that there are no
absolutes in what is being asked for at this point.
There are guidelines which require under a PUD to go through a
very thorough public process where everyone is heard. And those
schedules are posted because there's a sign put on the property that
tells you.
Now, no matter how hard we communicate, through whatever
method, I'm sure someone, when we get to that process will come to
me and say I didn't know about it. I don't know what else we can do,
but I do have an obligation to listen to all parties through the process.
And I will guarantee you that when that PUD comes in here if it
doesn't meet specifications that fits into the total character of the
Page 180
May 14, 2002
community, it is not compatible with the community, I'm not going to
support it.
But today, I am all right with what is being proposed, but I want
to see pretty pictures translated into reality, because I've seen pretty
pictures before so I want to see it in more detail.
And I'm going to give those who own the property that
opportunity to come back, and like they say from Missouri, show me.
And I will reserve judgment at that time, but I'm okay where we are
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's three on the
straw poll. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not addressing the project. I'm
addressing the process. And it appears to me that what we are doing
is making a comprehensive plan change to fit the development rather
than the requiring the development to fit the comprehensive plan.
And I think that is the wrong process. I might very well argue in
support of the project itself, but I do not agree with the process. I
think it creates unnecesSary opposition in the community, and I
would prefer not to put this kind of specificity into a Growth
Management Plan, but I'm in the minority, so I will vote no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I'm waiting for it to come
back for a rezone and see what the project looks like and how it will
impact the community.
If it has a negative impact, then I'm not in favor of it. Right now
I'm in favor of let's forward. Let's see what it looks like when it
comes back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that one there we're passing on
four to one straw poll approval with Commissioner Coyle being the
descending vote on that.
Next item.
Page 181
May 14, 2002
MS. JUDIAN: Good afternoon, with Comprehensive Planning.
Before you is Comp Plan Amendment CP2001-03. The property
consists of 10.74 acres. It's located at the northwest quadrant of
Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road and lies within the North
Naples planning community.
The property is encumbered by 6.7 FPL easement which limits
the usable site to 3.8 acres.
The surrounding uses is to the north is the Community School of
Naples, which is zoned CF. To the which is the Estates, which
single-family dwelling unit. To the west is Naples Progressive
Gymnastics, and to the south across the road would be a related
group PUD, which is 276 rental units.
The Petitioner seeks to amend the existing Future Land Use
Element and map of Collier County Growth Management Plan for the
addition of 10.74 acres to the Livingston-Pine Ridge commercial
infill subdistrict of the urban commercial district for 40,000 square
feet of general and medical office uses only in this quadrant.
This went before the DCA and they had no objections,
recommendations or comments on this. And previously this had gone
before the Board and they -- the Petitioner had actually asked for, let
me find it here, they had asked for general retail uses also, but the
way it was transmitted to the DCA and approved by the BCC
previously and the CCPC, was that this quadrant shall be limited to
general and medical office uses provided that the total building
square footage does not exceed 40,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I talked to the neighbors in that
area and they do not have a problem with that. I have no problem
approving that amendment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have any speakers on this?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have two. The first speaker is
Terrence Kepple and he will be followed by Don Pickworth.
Page 182
May 14, 2002
MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon, for the record Terrence Kepple
representing the Petitioner. I'm really here just to answer any
questions.
The Commission did have some concerns last meeting about
density and we did agree with that and ask for your approval. If you
have any questions, I'll be glad to answer any.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We'll call you back if we
do.
MR. PICKWORTH: I'll waive. I'm just here to answer any
questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. There we are,
Commissioner Henning. We'll go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No questions from me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any opinion on this? Is there anything
else to present at this point in time in time?
MS. JUDIAN: No, basically, it's set forth in the amendment itself
to limit it to medical and office uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tom has already done our
homework work for us. He's talked with the neighbors. I certainly
don't have a problem with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't either. We're united on that as
far as the straw poll goes. Thank you very much. Next item.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again, I'm David Weeks of the
Comprehensive Planning Staff. This the Henderson Creek Mixed-use
Subdistrict.
It may be familiar to you because you previously seen a fairly
recently a rezone petitioner for a portion of this site.
This subdistrict would allow for 325,000 square feet of
commercial development, primarily regional commercial subject to a
variety of standards and limitations; one of
Page 183
May 14, 2002
which we would point out is the requirement for a loop road open to
the public connecting 951 and US 41 East.
There's an error in the staff report, excuse me, Executive
Summary. It states that the Planning Commission recommendation
was to reduce the density from 500 dwelling units to 346, that should
be 360. That is merely reflecting the previous action that this Board
took in approving the rezone petition for the eastern portion of this
property for a residential project.
They also limited the h~ight, recommended the height be limited
to two stories again, recommending the previous action on that
rezone petition for that portion of the project.
I'm going to stop there and wait to see if you have questions. I
know you're in a hurry. The big amendment as far as the impact is
the square footage of the project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions before we proceed? Mr.
Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll try to keep it short and sweet. This is
basically the follow up, as Mr. Weeks has explained.
What we heard from the Commission during the rezone hearing
was the concern about traffic and we understand that traffic is the
essential issue that needs to be addreSsed, and we are prepared to
address that today, but hearing the comments from the Board is that
it's a conceptual plan today, we still have to come back on the zoning
which we will do and our zoning petition will address any traffic
issues that were raised at a related, but yet, separate zoning hearing.
For the Commission's information and for the general public's
information, the FDOT has already started the design build process
for the intersection improvements for 951 and US 41. Those
improvements will be constructed designed and the construction
completed by the end of calendar year 03, that will be well in
advance of when we could ever pull any building permits -- or
Page 184
May 14, 2002
complete our cOnstruction for any improvements, so the traffic issues
will be resolved for that intersection when the commercial is ready to
come on-line.
As you all will remember, David pointed out there's a loop road
which will be constructed as part of the project that which would also
address that in intersection.
I don't believe I heard any opposition through any of the public
meetings and we had our fair share of public meetings on this project
to the commercial aspect of this and that's what we're here today
hoping for is your support for us to come back with a PUD to address
the specifics of the commercial aspects of this project.
Wayne Arnold is here, Reed Jarvey is here to address any traffic
issues, and if you have any specific questions regarding this Comp
Plan Amendment, I'll be glad to answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're only here to talk
about the commercial end, why are the 360 units mentioned here,
number one?
Number two, you know the problem I have all along and that is
the road, and there's only a two-lane road not planned to be widened.
Now you're going to bring a loop road for 325,000 square feet of
commercial uses. And you're going to loop that out to US 41 as well,
with an already broken road, by someone else's standards because we
didn't have in place the traffic impact study that should be for today,
we haven't changed those.
But I'm just terribly worried about that. And this is what I've
asked consistently throughout that the day.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. And I appreciate that. Like the
petition that was two before us, where they had a request of a density
of 15 units an acre, plus the commercial. If you calculate that out
versus what we're requesting, they're requesting 15 units an acre over
Page 185
May 14, 2002
their 20-something acres. We're requesting 40 units an acre over our
80 acres.
So when you are comparing that, you will see that our petition is
much less intense than the one that just went through.
In addition, we have the traffic solution for you today, I'll let Mr.
Jarvey go through that to show you that the traffic concerns that have
been raised will be addressed and will have to be addressed in our
PUD, because we fully expect when we get to the level of detail and
analysis, I heard loud and clear Commissioner Henning saying, "If
the infrastructure is not there, I'm not approving it."
We'll have to have the infrastructure there in order to get the PUD
approved for the commercial zoning. I'll have Mr. Jarvey take you
through what will be there to address the commercial aspect of this
project.
MR. JARVEY: My name is Reed Jarvey. I'm a professional
engineer with the firm of Bonness in Fort Myers and Naples. I've
worked on, I'm going to call it a traffic analysis because officially for
a Comp Plan change we do not do a traffic impact just statement
terminology.
But I have done an analysis of this change and for the commercial
aspect of it, I have added some in the last week or so added some of
the residential issues to it, and so I can address some of those
Commissioner Fiala's comments.
First let me start with -- the main issue here has been from the
commercial standpoint the 951 corridor. And as many of you may
know 951 at US 41, the intersection itself, is either at or very near
failing, if it's not.
I've got some calculations that show basically it's at a level
service E, which is below level service standards. I think that's a safe
bet we can pretty much agree on that.
Page 186
May 14, 2002
FDOT as part of Governor Bush's Economic Stimulus Package
has advanced the US 41. widening for Barefoot Williams to 951 into a
design-build program that will be let in the next month or so.
The apparent low bidder has been selected. They have not gotten
the official word and go ahead. They have done the negotiations and
all that's done. That starts this summer from a design-build
standpoint and that is scheduled now for about 450, 60 work days,
which is the end of 03, so basically a year and a half from now.
The 951 corridor will -- excuse, me the US 41 corridor in that
area will be fixed. And if you can pass these around.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But that isn't in front of this property
nor does that intersection have anything to do with the property.
MR. JARVEY: Correct. I'll go through this, just briefly, this
intersection because I know everyone is interested in it.
I have a board on the side that's taken from the 90 percent plans
of the design for this US 41 corridor, and what I've given you is a
closeup of the intersection so you can see the language, but I have a
little more if you need it.
Basically, what they're adding is an additional lane in each
direction and in the northbound direction, they -- it goes from a
double-left turn lane to a triple-left turn lane, northbound, so that
would be from Marco Island to Naples.
In addition to the eastbound direction they have added what now
is a single-right turn lane to a double-turn lane, that would be the
Naples to Marco direction.
So those have been the critical movements and that's what they're
improving in the very near future.
So next, just to tell you, we have addressed this using traffic
methodology that we think are consistent with the county's past
guidelines and we have analyzed 951 from US 41 south to the
Manatee Road, that's the very north end, the outlet stores there.
Page 187
May 14, 2002
And we have also analyzed what is the Eagle Creek -- the current
Eagle Creek residential area entrance and what would be proposed as
the future main entrance for the commercial area and we call that the
northern project access.
And in addition, we have put in a southern project access and we
have done the US 41 access, which is the back door for this
commercial project, but kind of the front door for the affordable
housing project that you all know much more about than I do.
So I've done the analysis up to projected year, build-out year
2006, and I can tell you that p.m. peak hour, which is typically the
worse case, is still the worse case in this project.
In our analysis northbound direction from Marco towards Naples
is the p.m. peak direction. And the level of service on 951 at the
intersection of 951 and US 41 with this project, I've only done with
the project is projected to be level service C for 951 and US 41.
For 951 -- excuse me, and down the line at the project entrance,
which once again is opposite Eagle Creek area, is projected to be
level service D and at the Manatee Road and 951 intersection, it's
projected to be level service B.
We've done the calculations for the two -- excuse me, the Eagle
Creek and US - and project entrance right now is not projected to
work as an unsignalized intersection, so it would be all in my analysis
to be a signalized intersection.
We have also done the, as I said, the unsignalized intersection
analysis for the southern entrance to the project and for the apartment
site -- or excuse me, yeah, the apartment site and US 41 and both of
those appear to be at the point in time to be projected to a level
service A, that's where the delay, we do that with an amount of delay
of vehicles.
So at this point in time with this level of the project, which is
complete build out 360 units of affordable housing, 325,000 square
Page 188
May 14, 2002
feet of commercial land, a growth rate on corridor of about 3.9
percent, we have projected that, along with the improvements that the
State is doing here, that the intersections should all operate within
level service standards through year 2006, which is our build-out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did I just understand you to say that
on US 41 heading east of 951 that that two-lane highway is expected
to have a level of service A?
MR. JARVEY: I said the intersection would have a level service
A, that unsignalized intersection, which is the apartment intersection
onUS 41.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: On US 41, where the two-lane
highway is?
MR. JARVEY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's level of service A?
MR. JARVEY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask Norm Feder if that
seems to coincide with his traffic studies?
MR. FEDER: For the record Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator. I think what you're hearing is a spot analysis.
First of all, it's a traffic analysis. I haven't seen the data. What I
can tell you if you put a triple left in northbound at 951, you will
relieve what is a problem today. We've already asked DOT to try to
expand that. They said they were going to do it in their project. So
that will make some assist.
A loop will provide some assistance to that intersection itself. So
that part, I think I understand on the intersection analysis.
41 is a two-lane road, basically, east of 951 is not part of the
construction project and I would question the numbers very strongly
in that area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Especially with the loop
road, people will take 951 out that--
Page 189
May 14, 2002
MR. FEDER: The relief that it gives to the intersection will bring
it over, and in any case if it's going to turn onto that section of 41,
you only have one lane.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go yet. How would this project
fit into your checkbook concurrency?
MR. FEDER: Again, until I see the numbers and I see what
comes out of this, we're talking Comp Plan, and were talking a traffic
analysis, and all due fairness to Reed, he does good work. But
nonetheless it's very, very broad in general. When we get closer
down to look at it, right now that section of 41 has grown a
appreciably over the last few years. As a two-lane section, I can tell
you it's moving very, very rapidly into a problem situation.
And we're talking about adding more development there and
other development being proposed, so I really to look at it and be able
to come back and answer your questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. FEDER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions from the
Commissioners? We have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: There's one other person who signed up, Wayne
Arnold. I don't know if he's just to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions on part of the
Commission?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not yet.
MR. ARNOLD: Wayne Arnold, I'm with the
Applegate Team. I am here to answer an additional questions.
I know that Rich had indicated to you some of our project timing.
If you're interested we can certainly go through that.
Just to recap while I'm here. What Reed was telling you -- we've
gone through this process for the last year. We kept hearing problem
with the intersection.
Page 190
May 14, 2002
We now note that the State is fixing a great majority of the issues
that we have. I understand Commissioner Fiala's concern with US 41
east of that intersection.
When we look at those numbers, they drop dramatically at the
intersection as you move east. It's not to say that we still won't be
addressing that segment of the roadway.
For instance, we'll be providing a right-mm lane, at a minimum,
into our project entrance on US 41.
We may also, when we get to that design stage, be looking for
provision of left-turn lane into our project, which allows the through
movement to continue without a problem to us.
We'll certainly work with Mr. Feder and the State for all project
entrances because we do access two to State roads. I mm the floor back to Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know if there's anyone here from
the public opposed. There was nobody here from to public to oppose
at the Planning Commission, which I think is significant in light of
what we've been through in the past.
Again, this is something that we need to bring back to you. We
have shown you that we have addressed the major traffic issues. And
the good news is with our project, it looks like the people of Eagle
Creek will get their wish, which is traffic light at their entrance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you ever talk with anyone in
Eagle Creek to see what they felt about?
MR. YOVANOVICH: About -- we met with Eagle Creek first,
when we first started the Comp Plan process. And we also met with
other -- Keith Tompkins -- subsequent to the other zoning hearing.
I have -- he has expressed to me that they were not going to be
here to speak opposed to this. They are not here. I would suggest
that the fact that they're not here is a vote of confidence on the project
at this point, and we would hope that you would support the project.
Page 19.1
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What would they gain from this
project themselves?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they would get a traffic light that
they've always at their main intersection to allow for their safer
egress from their own project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can they get that traffic light on their
own?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Not without us. They're going to need --
Reed can tell you, the warrants aren't there without our project
coming forward with our loop road to make that happen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that you're maybe leading us
to believe that the Eagle Creek people are in support of this project,
and they have told me in mass and they were here before and they've
told me by letter and I've spoken to Keith and they are not in favor of
the project.
So you might have talked to them, but they're not in favor of the
project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, I can only tell you who's here and
who's not here. And they're not here speaking against it, so I'm
assuming --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's probably my fault I never made
an issue of it. I never told anybody that this was on the agenda. It's
probably my fault.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's look at it another way. I think
we're all dedicated to the fact that we're not going to allow something
to take place that doesn't have the Infrastructure in place.
And I definitely don't want anything in District Five that is going
to impede those roads, not one bit.
If we do go ahead and move this forward. You're coming back on
your own risk at a tremendous amount of your investment and time
Page 192
May 14, 2002
and money, blueprints and everything else, it could very possibly be
rejected.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're very comfortable with that.
Because we know we can deliver any cure to any traffic issue at the
zoning stage.
And we're prepared to address that and go forward at our expense
to make sure that you are happy and that we meet the new
concurrency -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
there to be happy.
It's not if I'm happy, it's the people out
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. The global.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, if
we give this the stamp of approval, it's kind of like saying, okay, fine,
we've said this is okay.
As you remember, when they first came before us the traffic issue
is still there with the other project and they said you've already
approved it for the Comp Plan, of course, we approved it to be
submitted, and they were using that in their favor then.
You better believe that this will be going in their favor as to why
they need to move forward. They say they're going to address the
road issues, but there's no doubt US 41 is two lane. There's no
dollars in there to widen, number one. No plans to widen it, number
two, for 25 years.
And this is the road that this project is going to pour out onto.
Now, with the loop road and you got two big boxes going in there,
plus a cut off from 951 all pouring onto that two-lane highway, it's
already overcrowded.
I'm definitely opposed to this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I still haven't seen the argument at this
point, one way or the other. It sounds like there's a little bit of
indecision over what the roads are.
Page 193
May 14, 2002
We got -- Mr. Feder hasn't seen the numbers, regrettably hasn't
seen them. I'd loved to have heard his opinion. That's why I
suggested you call him up because I did want to hear it.
At this point in time, if I was to say no to this, I would have to go
back to the other two or three and say no to them too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, the thing is, with Buckley,
which I felt might have the same problem, they have six lanes, three
on each side, and they Orange Blossom and they've got
interconnectivity to get out onto the roads. Plus, it's a mixed-use,
again.
So where people can handle their concerns right within the
property, go down and get milk or go down and get diapers or
whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hear you loud and clear. I really do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is not--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But I still see similarities. And the
whole thing is if we're going to give it a chance to be able to come
back to us --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is two lanes, that's six lanes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know. The numbers are coming up
with, the improvements to the intersection, I don't claim to be a
traffic expert. But at this point in time, my traffic expert is not telling
me this won't work.
Norm didn't come up and say this will not work. If he did, I
would be saying, let's forget it right.
Did you want to readdress the question to him differently?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, Norm, will this work on a
two-lane road with 360 units and two big boxes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With all the considerations for
everything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And the loop road.
Page 194
May 14, 2002
MR. FEDER: Rapid growth in this section of two-lane road, I
haven't seen all the numbers, I'm looking at the Transportation
Element Analysis that was done by my former director that said that
on a five percent evaluation, which is our old process, it might not be
a problem.
I don't know what we'll be facing at the time that section is two-
laned 41, at the time that it comes in or not. I'm not trying to skirt the
question.
I can't tell you emphatically that there's a transportation problem
in this area. I can tell you the obvious issue that you've raised, and
that is, I got a two-lane section roadway under very rapidly escalating
demand and no prospect for program in the future.
And that's under your own matrix formula that you're going to be
utilizing to say that you need to slow down growth in that area right
at the time this proposing to expand.
Now, not knowing when that's going to come forward, not
knowing the particulars, not knowing whether the applicant is going
to make some improvements to US 41 and propose those in a way to
address their impacts. I can't, unfortunately answer the question any
more then that at this time, with the limited information that I have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Your traffic impact study was done
before you were here? That's over two years ago; is that correct?
MR. FEDER: It was done as part of this process for this Comp
Plan Amendment. It was done by Don Wolf and it was done utilizing
the prior process the assumptions of level of service, which are not A.
I think that was an intersection statement of A. Because I know for
sure, I'm not A on 41 today without adding any more traffic.
But I can tell you right now, based on the old process, the
assumed level of service, and our Comp Plan as it was at that time,
and on a five percent basis, this probably would have been okay'd.
Page 195
May 14, 2002
Under the new process, you're asking me to -- my opinion and
that's all it is an opinion. I think that they would be faced with
having to make some significant improvements before they could
proceed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're trying to keep
with that concurrency right now.
MR. FEDER: Of course. It's not in effect yet. I don't have exact
figures in front of me to be definitive with the statement to you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad to hear you say that
anyway. Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, Commissioners. We know that
at the PUD stage, Mr. Feder is absolutely right. It shows that if we
need to build improvements on US 41, we'll have to build those.
Today is not the day to get into that level of critique. Make us
prove it at the PUD like you've done with every other petition that
has gone through the process to this point.
Let's get into the details then, and we may have to make
improvements to US 41. And we know it will be our financial
obligation to do it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm ready to support it. Because I
don't have the level of detail. I don't know what the Land
Development Codes will look like at that point. And when they're
there and they bring it, I can base my decision based on what's in
front of me at the time not on speculation today.
I'm comfortable to go forward, because the are developers at risk
here more than anybody else. He has to prove it, not me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I cannot give my stamp
of approval that I know is wrong in the first place.
Page 196
May i4, 2002
And to say I agree with this is then condoning this and allowing
them to go to the next step. I think that's wrong.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, once again, I will reiterate that I
have not heard anybody say that we have an insurmountable problem.
I am willing to let the developer to spend his money to come back
here and prove that this is going to work.
And I have no problem rejecting him at that point in time if he
fails even one inch along the way doing that. Commission Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My problem still is with the
process. I had no idea we didn't have a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for this. It's time it came up for an approval in the first
place. I think the process is somewhat reversed, but apparently that's
the way we do things. I'm a little surprised at that.
But this particular project has received a lot of public review. I
think we've done the right kind of thing with respect to letting people
have their say.
But I think -- I'm positive at that meeting where we approve the
residential component of this that I said there's nothing here that
guarantees that the commercial component will ever be approved,
and as long as that understanding still remains, then I will support
this primarily because we have gone through very extensive process
of seeing what is going to be there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have the same concerns that
Commissioner Fiala does, but not having all of the details, it's hard
for me to say no.
But Commissioner Fiala, I'm going to be there with you if it is a -
- hopefully, it would be a benefit to East Naples and not just the
infrastructure to support their impacts.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commission Henning, I
Page 197
May 14, 2002
really felt the commercial component as much of an impact as it was
going to put on that roadway there, I thought that was great,
especially the 951, the interchange would be expanded.
It was the impact of the loop road going out and impact on to 41.
That's been my concern. I mean, 951 is definitely a concern, but
we're going to fix that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I see that they're
going to have to step up and improve 41. I'm not an expert, but loop
roads, collector roads, really do a tremendous job of a reliever, but
you only relieve it if on the other side there's a place for it to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Thank you. I'll need your
support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That takes care of that one, we have
four to one with Commissioner Fiala being the descending vote on
the straw vote.
MS. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, um, Amy Taylor, again. Um,
before you for your consideration is Comprehensive Plan
Amendment 2001-5.
Um, this is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment submitted by
your, um, Comprehensive Planning Staff. Um, it is also um, a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment that the staff has worked very
closely with the Economic Development Counsel on. It's actually an
amendment that was initiated by your Economic Development
Counsel.
Um, it was transmitted to the DCA in the fall. Um, with -- um, a
um, little bit differently then what you see today before you. There
have been some changes, and I'll, um, briefly go over those, um, you
have those before you.
Um, it was modified so that there would be a reduction of
acreage. Staff recommended from 35 to 20 acres. Um, there was a
removal of the requirement for 25 to 40 percent of the site as far as
Page 198
May 14, 2002
building coverage, um, limitations to the building coverage. Urn, we
felt this may not consistent with actually low structural density.
Urn, we, um also, urn, enhanced the language to encourage
interconnectivity and open space areas for the users of the park in the
language.
Urn, transportation -- urn, and these are some items -- urn, let me
just go over this a little bit.
Okay. Urn, in addition, staff also changed the language about
direct access -- urn, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I don't
have any problem with it and I support it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you also?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Me too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. You did a
good job.
MS. TAYLOR: I do need to clarify something, the Planning
Commission's recommendation was to reduce the, urn, acreage from
20 acres to 19. That's the Planning Commission recommendation.
Staff has no issues with that.
So with that change, they are also in agreement with the rest of
the staffs changes.
MS. FILSON: No speakers. They just waived.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, David Weeks again, for the
record, from the Comprehensive Planning staff.
This is the first of the two unreviewed amendments. The first of
the two that you did not see at your transmittal hearing.
Page 199
May 14, 2002
This property is located on the west side of the Livingston Road
segment that is under construction, south of Pine Ridge Road,
comprises 12 and a half acres.
The proposal is to allow 91,000 professional or medical office
uses in buildings at a maximum height of 35 feet or 200,000 square
feet of indoor self-storage within buildings at a maximum height of
50 feet.
The access to the property would be limited to Eatonwood Lane,
which is on the chunk of the land here, about adjacent to the south of
the subject site. They do abut Eatonwood Lane, and they also would
be allowed, if they can demonstrate compliance with the Access
Management Standards at the time of their further development
orders, access on to Livingston Road as well.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this by a
vote of five to two. There was some concern about the access onto
Livingston Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question. Is Eatonwood
Road, is that going to be a connector to Livingston, is that proposed?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. From Livingston road into the
Kensington Park residential community to the west.
It's actually a part of the Kensington Park PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can we hear from Norm
Feder as far as the access to Livingston Road. I know we're trying to
limit access to these roads. Tell me what we should do.
MR. FEDER: Again, Norm Feder, Transportation
Administrator. Commissioner, this Board took action to establish
Livingston as a controlled access facility.
We are trying to reduce access points. That's why the language
you have here in front of you says that the access will be off of
Eatonwood and as far west as possible away from its intersection
with Livingston.
Page 200
May 14, 2002
It does go further saying that if it can meet the access standards
providing right in, right out, I have some hesitation on that, but
nonetheless, especially in Comp Plan language. We're putting access
controls and I won't go through the tougher that Commissioner Coyle
has already covered on these issues.
But nonetheless, I would feel much comfortable by the first
statement. The next one you're seeing doesn't have direct access to
Eatonwood.
And I have a real concern with the statement that was in there on
its access road to direct access to Livingston.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thought you might.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta. I don't
have a problem with this. And I see there's very limited use for this
land, other than commercial service for the neighbors in that area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are you saying deal with it when it
comes back for the PUD?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't want any
specificity. I just think it's appropriate use for the land.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, any comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No comments on that one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How do you feel one way or the
other?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I still have a problem with the kind
of specificity we're putting in these, but in this particular location, I
am less concerned about it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I don't have a problem at this
point in time. But once again too, I tell you to come back with any
kind of access that's going to screw up Livingston Road I'm not going
to at all be supportive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand this particular change,
though, is going to require access off Eatonwood.
Page 201
May 14, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's not?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We are required to have access off
Eatonwood. We have to make Norm happy to get anything on
Livingston. We're not given any access to Livingston Road through
this application.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll wait until it comes back.
MS. FILSON: Speakers. They just maybe here to answer
questions. Rich and Robert Dwayne. Okay. You're all set.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the next item is slightly farther to
the south. Again, on Livingston Road similar circumstance regarding
the taking of right-of-way for this property.
This one is about six acres. It's proposing office uses,
professional and medical, at a maximum of 52,500 square feet.
It als° would allow for indoor storage uses, but only to serve the
occupants of office building. It's not free-standing storage where Joe
citizen can go and take use of.
Similarly situated, it's also impacted as well as the property by the
FPL easement that runs over a significant portion of the subject
property.
The recommendation from staff and Planning Commission is for
approval.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could. Again, Norman Feder for
the record. This is the one that I would tell you that I'd like to see the
language changed just a little bit.
It says it's access shall be Livingston Road. Obviously, you can't
landlock the property. I'd like to think if there's any way they can get
Page 202
May 14, 2002
access across that golf course maintenance, that is Eatonwood, and
they may not be able to, if they cannot, obviously they need to get
right-in, right-out access to Livingston Road.
We encourage that to be put at the southern part of the property
where they can make that a joint access with the balance of the
further to the south.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why don't we just remove that
language from--
MR. FEDER: If you remove it then we would try to work with it
on access points.
Although, you may have opportunity here by declaring that to be
for joint access on this southern boundary with the property they own
to the south, maybe even more beneficial then our own access
management capability late.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you point that out?
MR. FEDER: Of course. More south is to the bottom here. The
property that we're looking at, if we can get access, and I'll let the
Petitioner speak to this, if they can get access to the southern part in
right-in, right-out, and also make that available to the property further
the south as a joint access.
Again trying to limit the access points, again, right-in, right-out,
but on Livingston trying reduce the number of access points, joint
access.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is Eatonwood?
MR. FEDER: Eatonwood is just above it here. The parcel you
just responded to is this one right here. It's the parcel right between
the two.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right between the two?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And Eatonwood comes off of here in this
direction into the development. I believe they're showing it to you
over on the graphic over there.
Page 203
May 14, 2002
If you can show her where Eatonwood is in relatiOn to the
property. It's up on the map here for you. That's the entranceway.
There's a golf course maintenance between here an Eatonwood just to
the north of this subject site.
MR. DWAYNE: For the record, Robert Dwayne. I don't believe
there's going to be opportunities to share with the golf course
maintenance facility, but I have no objection to sharing the access for
this district with the lands that are under common ownership to the
south, so we would accept that stipulation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bob, you don't have a problem
with just removing the language of access to Livingston?
MR. DWAYNE: No, I have no problem with
that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What we need to do, you need to
access to the property, everybody recognized that. So not a given
that we're going to have a direct access and I don't have a problem
with that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We can amend that to remove that
language and make it a part of the final motion for approval?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Since we are putting details in these items, you
might say that putting in, especially if Mr. Dwayne has agreed to it,
that that will be access only right-in, right-out at the southern part of
this subject and joint access with common ownership further to the
southern, might be advantageous to the county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure if we really have
tried to work out access on the Eatonwood, so you know that-
MR. FEDER: I think if you put in the caveat if access through
the golf course maintenance onto Eatonwood cannot be secured,
which is what they've advised you.
Page 204
May 14, 2002
If you add that language in, we can continued working with that.
Otherwise, it would at least be joint access provision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. No problem?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm okay with those stipulations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I am too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That concludes the last one of them.
Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: Yes, I have a general comment about the
ordinance that accompanies all of these amendments as to
severability and effective date. And we're going to, with the Board's
approval, add some language to the effect if one of the amendments
is found in non-compliance by DCA, it's not going to effect either the
legal effectiveness or the effective date of any of the other
amendments that are found in compliance.
So we just want to add that -- put that on the record. I don't know
if Mr. Weigel is going to address it or not.
But this requires four votes, and we have two of those
amendments with different commissioners on a straw vote and that's
why it's helpful to do the straw vote, so we know
before we get to the final official motion what's happening, that are
not in favor of that particular amendment, which if you took the
whole thing as one vote, it would give 3-2
vote, that is not sufficient to carry it.
So we'll have to break out amendments one, three, five, six,
seven, because those are the once that were unanimous with the
changes that the Board recommended in the straw vote from the other
two, which number two was Buckley and number four was
Henderson Creek.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
Page 205
May 14, 2002
MS. STUDENT: And in your motion if you make my changes.
Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Chairman, could I ask for clarification. I've
written out what I believe the change was on this last item. Would
you allow me to read that into record and see if this covers it?
If access cannot be obtained from Eatonwood Lane, then access
to the property within the subdistrict shall be from Livingston Road
located at the southerly end of the site, limited to right-in, right-out
only and that the access will be shared with the property to the south.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is assuming that it's not
possible to share Eatonwood Road.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. The first part is if access cannot be
obtained Eatonwood Lane.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll include my motion to accept
they. And don't we have to say -- it is consistent, finding that it is
consistent with Growth Management Plan.
MS. STUDENT: This is the Growth Management Plan
Amendment. It's when we do the Land Code Amendment that we
make that finding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Gotcha. And with the
stipulations that David Weeks has just stated for Petition Number
One, Three, Five and Six and Seven.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion and
we have a second. The motion by Commissioner
Henning and the second by Commissioner Fiala.
Is there any other discussion? All those in favor indicate by
saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 206
May 14, 2002
Oe
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed?
The ayes have it, 5-
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Petition
Number Four, that is Buckley.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, second by myself, Commissioner Coletta. Is
there some comments that staff wishes to make or the county
attorney? I can hear some background noise.
MR. WEEKS: Petition Number Four is Henderson Creek.
Petition Number Two is Buckley. There's a mix between the name
and Buckley.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Number two. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're dealing with item number two;
Buckley.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
"Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have four in favor and the
descending vote is Commissioner Coyle.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. See ya.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you got one more.
Page 207
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Henderson Creek PUD, Petition
Number Four, motion to approve second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion made by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Carter.
Discussion? Hearing none, I'll call for the question. All those in
favor indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just one fast one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was giving you an opportunity. I
didn't mean to move so quick.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we -- they come
back with anything further, would you bring us an updated traffic
analysis that uses our checkbook and with today's figures? Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Four in favor and the opposing vote
was Commission Fiala. Thank you very much for that.
Move on to the next item. We're getting there. Hang on gang.
We do not have to swear people in. That was a mistake on here. You
do not make a declaration, you might say you're a little tired, but
you're holding up well.
Item #8B
Page 208
May 14, 2002
ORDINANCE 2002-25 REGARDING PETITION #CPSS-2001-1, A
SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
AMENDMENT (IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN
ELEMENT) FOR EXPANSION OF THE HIGH RESIDENTIAL
(HR) DISTRICT- ADOPTED
And so we're at 8-B.
MR. OLLIFF: Chairman, this may be one of those items where
you want to see if anyone has any questions on this particular item
and see if there's any registered speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anyone registered to speak on this
item?
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Fred Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Thomas, why don't you
come up.
MR. THOMAS: Waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I guess we're
obligated now. I make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
myself, Commissioner Coletta and a second Commissioner Carter.
My gosh, it's getting to be late.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The old guy on the end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No discussion. All those in favor,
indicate by saying, "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 4-0.
Thank you. Take good care of the place.
Now, we're moving on. We're moving good, folks.
Page 209
May 14, 2002
Item # 1 OD
STAFF UPDATE ON PLAN TO IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF
COUNTY WATER SUPPLY AND PRODUCTION PRIOR TO
PEAK SEASON 2003 AND AUTHORIZATION TO IMPLEMENT
IMPROVEMENTS- APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $660,000
MR. OLLIFF: Your next item would be 10-D. And this is the
water item, if you recall that you also this had two items removed
from your Consent Agenda that you would hear in conjunction with
this, 16-C- 10, which is 10-I
and 16-E-8, which is 10-J.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, good
afternoon. For the record, Tom Wides, Interim Public Utilities
Administrator.
As Mr. Olliff has just noted, there's four exec summaries that
we'll be covering here in this section.
The first one is Item 10-D related to our overall reliability plan
that encompasses much of what you'll hear this afternoon. But
specifically along that lines, if I may note, there's an error in the title.
The note of 690,000 is, in fact, 660,000 in the body of the Exec
Summary -- title, excuse me.
Also, there is a second Exec Summary that is the two additional
reliable wells for the RO system and in plan improvements, that's
Item 10-E.
In addition to that, we have engineering inspection services for
the South Water Plant deep injection wells that was Item 16-C-10
moving to 10-I. And then finally the Wellfield Maintenance and
Rehab Exec Summary that was Item 16-E-8, and that moved to 10-J.
Page 210
May 14, 2002
In front of you, I'll go into this in just a moment, we have a water
supply planning presentation that we would like to give you this
afternoon, but just let me give you a few opening comments to put
this in perspective.
First, off the plans that you're seeing in front of you are to avoid
any further operation issues or excursion as we experienced last
March time frame.
And what we have here is, in fact, the capability and the capacity
of our current water plants to produce 32 million gallons of water per
day; that is the capacity of our production facilities.
As it stands today, primarily, limited the extent of our well
availability to put that -- pull that water out of the ground, and, in
fact, put that water through the production
systems.
That capability today is approximately 26.2 million gallons a day.
In addition to that, according to our water master plan that was
completed in the fall of 2001, we had an estimate of our year 2003
utilization or demand to be approximately 30.6 million.
Another item that we've tested in our process is that based on our
last five year average of water consumption or water demand and
escalating that by approximately six percent over year on top of year,
in fact, we expect the flows based on that information, demand based
on that information, to be about 28.3 million gallons.
So what I'm saying to you is our Master Plan last year based on
the estimates that we've put in place at that time said we would
anticipate demand in 2003 to be about 30.5 million gallons. Our
testing that number against what we've seen very recently and
escalating it by six percent, we'd see our demand to be approximately
28.3 million gallons. We're somewhere in that 28 to 30 million
gallon demand as was face the 2003 season.
Page 211
May 14, 2002
The plans that you'll see today, the first few plans put us up over
that 30.6, so it puts us over both of our possible estimates and these
are certain activities that are already in place, in terms of activities
that we're trying to complete. And there are some additional
improvements that he we want to put in on top of that.
In addition to that, just getting us over that hump of where we
expect to be in this coming year, we put some other additional
activities and plans in place to further support that bring us up right
close and actually in excess of our 32 million gallon capacity.
So we have plans here today to get us to where we need to be and
the worst case scenario for next year and beyond that.
The other thing that you should be aware of, I heard a gentlemen
here earlier today in reference to our storage capability. Our storage
capability will be approximately five days storage capability. Again,
that is between our above ground storage capabilities and our ASR
storage.
That's really a segway into the topic that we would like to talk to
you about this afternoon.
Roy Anderson our director of engineering will take you through
some of the -- a little bit more of the detail of the plan that we have
here this afternoon.
Before I turn it over to Roy, can I clarify anything that I
mentioned to you so far?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle,
we have no chair or vice chair.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's not even a vice chair here.
I just want to clarify something because someone can misinterpret
this.
In the Executive Summary on page two, you list the items that
will add capacity, and then you have give the cost per gallon. It is
Page 212
May 14, 2002
important that nobody interpret that as being the cost per gallon for
water processed.
Okay. What you have done is you have divided the estimated
cost of the project by the amount of gallons that it will add to our
capacity.
MR. WIDES: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that does not yield an accurate
cost to gallon project to proc ess that water. I'm afraid somebody's
going to say it takes 10 times as much to do that as it does with --
MR. WIDES: You're absolutely correct, Commission. That is
over just the added capacity that that implementation activity will
provide. It's not over the total base of water produced.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So in the first 3.24 million gallons
that you process, you will have paid for the entire cost for new RO
wells?
That's essentially what you're saying. MR. WIDES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You were talking about storage for
five days are you talking about potable water storage or reuse as
well?
MR. WIDES: No, not reuse. We're excluding. We're talking
about potable water storage.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. The second question on
sentence number three, on the first page here, you talked about acid
flush, declining yields of acid flush. I didn't understand that.
MR. WIDES: Commission, I'm going to give you the simple
form again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. WIDES: And our water director can help us if we need to
go deeper. The acid flush is a way to clean the systems. It's not acid
Page 213
May 14, 2002
as to an invasive acid that would bother the human. But it's a
common method to clean the elements as they become clogged.
And let me just turn to, if I may, to our water director and see if
he's shaking his head up and down. There you are.
MR. MATTAUSCH: The question was on the rehabilitation of
the well?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Acid flush. I was just wondering --
how do you get it into a well and how do you flush it? Is that
something that they have to do to use potable water, just general.
MR. MATTAUSCH: That is injected directly into the well from
a tank by our contractor that does the well rehab work. It's allowed to
set in the well to effectively work down there.
It is a relatively weak acid, but it never gets to the drinking water
because then what you do is you pump that back out before you put
the well into operation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That first drink, Commissioner,
would be a real jolt.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WIDES: Any other questions? I'll turn this over to Roy
Anderson, our Director of Engineering.
MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to start off with a few general
planning level comments and work down to the more specific -- the --
basically, in terms of our water supply planning program the -- our --
if you recall last year we adopted the Master Plan and basically that
called for a vision of over the next 20 years of expenditure of
approximately $900,000,000 for water facilities.
And that actually over the next five years breaks down to about a
$160,000,000, so we got a major capital program, as you well know
in place.
In concert with the Board's strategical focusing on system
reliability. Basically our master plan has followed that cue and this
Page 214
May 14, 2002
plan, the immediate plan that we're discussing today, is also very
much in keeping with that concept.
The third item in terms of our long-term plan is that we want to
promote the wise use of our water resources through rate structures
and through ordinances an regulations.
The current -- I'd like to talk about the current status in a little bit.
And in terms of our near term plans really the focus of our program is
to increase the supply and enhance the liability and we're also going
to be revisiting our long-term plans, the Master Plan that we did last
year.
We're updating this year, it will be completed for water and
wastewater of August of this year. And we're also updating the
Growth Management Plan in terms of incorporating a good water,
wastewater and reclaimed water element into that study.
And of course, this information will feed into the AUIR and also
the impact fee analysis and the rates so the whole program will
keeping going.
In terms of our present status, I have a slide slides which that
shows the sources and treatment of our water as designed. You'll see
over here on the left, we have the Tamiami Aquifer, which is our
shallow aquifer. And the Hawthorne Aquifer.
The Tamiami supplies both the south plant and the north plant.
The south plant lime softening project plant and the north plant
membrane softening portion of the project.
And there you can see -- normally, there should be is 12 million
gallons a day going to the first part and 13.4 going to the north plant.
Down here at the Hawthorne Aquifer, which is the deep aquifer
that feeds -- it's normally supposed feed 10.6 million gallons a day to
the north plant RO process.
After it goes through the plant, then we have our 12 million, and
12 million, and eight million for a total idealized of 32 million
Page 215
May 14, 2002
gallons a day of finished water. That's how the system is supposed to
work.
In terms of the current status what had happened is in the RO
wellfield, the Hawthorne, the lower Hawthorne Aquifer, we had the
problem of four wells developing the high chloride contents, so it
rendered those wells unusable for the use in the RO plant.
Also, we had two wells in the north system that were suffering
from excessive draw downs, and those are the ones that we're going
to address with the acid cleaning to clean up the well shafts.
In terms of ongoing programs or new projects, we have the four
new RO wells that are permitted and they're going to be online by
December of 2002. Those will be in the Hawthorne Aquifer.
We also have the ongoing construction of the South Water
Treatment Plant, which will be fully online, we anticipate, in April of
2003. And we have the five Tamiami Reliability Wells that will serve
as both the north plant and the south plant. Those are going to be
going out to bid in June of this next month.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When will they be available for
use?
MR. ANDERSON: Those will take approximately six to eight
months to complete, so some of those should be available by this next
season. That pens the conditional use. Which we expect and hope
will be out of the woods by June of this next month. Now, in terms of our present-
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Roy, I'm so sorry to bother, but you
as long as you're talking about digging these wells and everything
with all the new wells that we're digging and the city too is digging
some, what are we going to do to the Golden Gate Estates wells, the
private property owners, and how do we guarantee that they'll have
water and that it will be of safe quality?
Page 216
May 14, 2002
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we are going through the South Florida
very rigorous permit approval process and there are extensive ground
water and geological studies that are done to minimize that problem.
In case something is missed and there's a problem after the fact,
there's the ability to rectify that problem. So we are sensitive to that,
and by going through the permit process we are not expecting that to
be a problem.
MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd, Deputy County Manager for the record.
First thing, out in the Golden Gate Estates area there's no wells that
we're going to put in that are going to have us draw additional
capacity from the lower Tamiami, the fresh water aquifer.
What we're basically drawing right now in the lower Tamiami is
what the Board and county staff agreed to do several years ago, not to
use that source for any additional growth capacity, but to go deeper
into the Hawthorne Aquifer, which is a brackish salty aquifer in order
to get water for expansion.
So the County was drawing in this particular case 25.4 million
gallons from the lower Tamiami and it stopped at that point.
So any expansions that we were going to put on water plants, we
were going to get our additional capacity from the Hawthorne aquifer
which is that the brackish aquifer, which caused us some problems,
because those increased chlorides were increased salt and there was a
statement that was made, well, the RO couldn't handle. RO plants are
designed to handle will salty water, but they're designed for certain
percentages of salt and then you need to have a booster and different
kind of skid for real salty water.
We didn't have that skid on line at the time. The City of Naples is
not increasing the number of wells. The South Water Management
District put a halt. They put a request in for two additional lower
Tamiami wells to add to the wellfield out there, and South Florida
came online pretty hard and said until you decrease your
Page 217
May 14, 2002
conSumption per person in the City Naples, which was over 300 per
person, which is twice the National average, we're not going to give
you two additional wells to keep track of growth or increased water
usage that you're having right now. You have to show us how you're
going to conserve.
So the City of Naples is also being taken to task by South Florida
Water Management District in their monitoring program that they've
got them in right now to talk to issues that Mr. Weeks had on his
lakes that Commissioner Coletta is very knowledgeable about and
we've had meetings with the City of Naples and they have a very
detailed study ongoing right now to see exactly what happens to the
surface water out in the Golden Gate Estates when the wellfields are
both on for the city and the county to see if it has an impact upon
those lakes that are out on the private lands that people have.
But just so you get the answer, we're not putting additional wells
in to increase our capacity. We're putting additional wells in to
increase our reliability.
If we haVe a well that goes down and we did have some in April
that went down from the lower Tamiami, we couldn't bring another
one up in order to take that well down in order to fix it. We kind of
limped along with that well until we could get a breather and then we
went into a fix it after the high season, and Paul started that process
right around the first of May or so.
But -- we're not adding additional fresh water wells to increase
capacity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just redundant there.
MR. MUDD: Just redundant there. We are increasing our Lower
Hawthorne wells, especially in the south plant, we go in for the
expansion the in order to draw, but the folks out there in the Estates
aren't drawn brackish water up to drink with.
Page 218
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do have a question along that same
line if I may. The use in the Estates for private wells is going to be
increasing as time goes along. I notice we have graphs, we can
expect the water, sewer and how we stay above it, has anyone every
done study to see what the capacity for out there to draw well water
for just home use?
MR. MUDD: I would tell you that they South Florida Water
Management District keeps track of the well usage.
Now the permits for the individual homes is visa via county, but
their privy to our information about the wells that are out there and
they have an idea of the capacity and they model that process.
Their biggest problems are getting the municipalities and the
county and the private plants off of that aquifer so they maintain it as
an artisan aquifer and maintain the individual private well
consumption.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand what you're saying, but
do you think possibly South Florida Water Management might have
these statistics that could give us a graph that would show that we're
well within--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. They've got that. And I sent down a memo
or a pictorial the other day that, about three weeks ago, come to think
about it, that had the individual well sites that were placed on the map
that was given to you by the South Florida Water Management
District. They keep track of that process very well.
If we ask Clarence he would --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can share with me. I'd like to see
it very much.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
MR. OLLIFF: It would be a very good exercise for this point to
have Clarence to come and talk about the permitting process, for
particular, the Tamiami wellfield and future protection that they have
Page 219
May 14, 2002
and what process, if any, they go through, the special large water
users and what, if anything, are they doing to encourage those water
users to go to some other water source.
Because I believe you are right, the only water source for those
single-family residential homeowners in the Estates is the Tamiami
Aquifer, if we need to be working in a much better partnership with
Big Cypress, in particular, in terms of the process for that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We don't want to find out that we
reached 50,000 people with another 10 to go and that the water level
aquifer has dropped to a level that the original wells can no longer
reach.
MR. OLLIFF: Exactly.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Commissioner, for the record Paul
Mattausch, Director of Collier County Water Department.
The lower west coast supply plan that was completed in 1999,
and passed by the South Florida Water Management District in 2000,
which I will provide a copy of to you looked at residential use
projection along with everything else, agricultural use and municipal
uses and projected that out for a 20-year period of time and made
some determinations that are within that plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think it's very important that
these small homeowners in Golden Gate Estates, we should be
proactive and make sure that they have enough water in the Tamiami
Aquifer.
It is a good exercise and I think we just got our answer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the items that you're
recommending that we do, can you please tell me which of these you
Page 220
May 14, 2002
have already seen -- received funding authorization to pursue, and
which of these you have not.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that would be later on in the
presentation, if we could--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can wait.
MR. OLLIFF: The one that we ask for at the end is the ones we
have gotten the funding request for yet.
MR. ANDERSON: In terms of the current sources and treatment
based on the problems that occurred this past spring, this slide here is
very similar to the other with the exception that in the Hawthorne
Aquifer, you'll see we no longer have 10.6 million gallons a day
going to the north plant, but now it's only three million gallons a day,
that meant that our total available coming down to the lower right
was 26.2 million gallons a day as opposed to 32 on the other chart.
That is why we were just barely balancing out the demand and the
supply, so that was the critical situation we were in.
In terms of the maximum month analysis of our water supplies,
the bar on the left is the 2002, the present supply. And the lines that
you see, the growth lines, the upper line, is the growth, the demand,
as per the Master Plan, which is a more conservative projection, and
the one below it is the actual, the existing max monthly flow
projection from 2002 to 2003.
So as you can see that is the band, this is the band of growth that
we're looking at. This bar on the right shows that the total
combination of measures that we've identified and shows them
exceeding the demand for a year 2003, I'll just run through them very
quickly.
On the bottom is the base demand, of course, the actual April
2002. The purple, the next one up, is the four new RO wells that will
be put in place and that gets us just up over the minimum demand
dash line.
Page 221
May 14, 2002
Then the green is the restoration of the two RO wells that gives us
another half a million gallons a day, and we have an alternative to
boost the RO pressures in the RO pumps, the feed pumps, and by
boosting the pressure that increases the flow so that will get us
another half a million.
The next step is to boost the ASR pumping rate, which is for a
Manatee ASR in the southern part of the county to increase that pump
rate, so that will get us -- that will increase our flow by .25 gallons a
day.
The two redundant RO wells that we're going to build are the next
and that will give us another two -- one and a half million gallons a
day.
And then the blue items, the second from the top, is what we call
off-setting the irrigation demand, and that would mean for
development that have dual systems that use a lot of irrigation water,
but not for sure purposes, irrigation water, we would take them off
potable water and bring them reclaimed water so that would allow us
to conserve in that sense. So that we believe will give us another
million gallons a day.
And, of course, the last item is what we call the fresh water
bypass which involves piping around, in the treatment plant, piping
around the RO units so to bring in clean Tamiami water and bring it
around and mix it with the treated RO water. And that basically
gives us an increase of 1.6 million gallons a day.
So through these combination of measures, we're pushing 35
million gallons a day, if all of those go into place. So those are the
basic components of the plan.
The terms -- this slide shows the status and the funding request,
as well as the cost per gallon per day of our various options.
The first item on the list on the four new RO wells, and that is
shown in black and white. That means it's already funded and
Page 222
May 14, 2002
committed. That will get us 3.24 million gallons. And these are also
cross-referenced in the Executive Summary.
The next one which is the red item, in red ink, is companion item
which is being asked for an approval today, and the separate
Executive Summary.
This involves adding the stage to the RO feed pumps. It's
basically involving doing mechanical work on the reverse osmosis
feed pumps to increase the pressure to increase the flow, so that is
being requested.
And the next item is a blue item and that's the Manatee ASR well
to add a pumping stage to that. And that is being requested under this
immediate Executive Summary that will give us ,25 million gallons a
day.
The next one is a blue item that is being asked for in this
Executive Summary, that's to restore the yield from the two RO
wells, basically, the well cleaning and relation and that is covered in
this Executive the.
Next is another companion item, the two redundant RO wells,
which would be -- give us 1.5 million gallons.
And the next in this immediate Executive Summary, it's to offset
the potable irrigation demand, and that as I indicated will give us one
million gallons, but we don't know what the cost of that is because it's
going to depend on a case-by-case basis. In some cases it could be
very minimal and some cases it would be nothing. It involves just
switching over the piping from one system to the other and there
would be some private expense with that.
The last is the fresh water bypass, which is a companion item that
we're asking for today and that would give us 1.6 million gallons.
These are all supply on this slide here, these are all supply related
options, so they're increasing our capacity.
Page 223
May 14, 2002
This next chart Shows our reliability improvements that are being
recommended. And again, we're using the same color coding. The
first item is the preliminary design of the salt cost water RO.
What this means is that we would basically change out the RO
treatment units or skids that are in the north plan one at a time and we
would go to a higher capacity RO desal unit which is a higher
pleasure, higher purity. It can handle much saltier water coming in.
The theory here is that we can take the flow that is coming from
the high salt wells and treat it directly, run it through the process and
get additional capacity that way. But it would be a dramatic change in
our plan, so we do need to do an engineering study first. So we're
asking for $100,000 to do the preliminary design for that work.
That's a blue item.
The next is the black item, which is the five Tamiami reliability
wells of $1.4 million. And that is -- that's committed and that's
already going ahead. That's funded.
The next is the currently requested the in plant reliability
replacements. These are various upgradings of electrical and
mechanical equipment in the plant to improve reliability and we're
requesting 450,000 for those items.
The next three items are companion items and the other Executive
Summary that we're asking for approval today. The first is to replace
hardware and software in the plants for $160,000. And then to
replace the concentrate back flow protection valve for 30,000. And
to revisit the preventive and spares policy at both plants. That would
look into the methods of reordering of spare parts and keeping critical
treatment plant components on hand so to recommend a change in the
present process of the treatment plant for that purpose.
Just some useful facts in this study, things that become apparent.
First is that if we can achieve a one percent reduction in potable
water demand that saves the equivalent of 230,000 gallons per day.
Page 224
May 14, 2002
So everything we can do to promote conservation can save us that
kind of demand.
And the other aspect is'on an average day, 214 million gallons per
day of fresh water discharges from the Golden Gate canal go into the
Gordon River every day increases in the wet season, drops off-- but
it averages year round, over a 35-year it's that much water.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's considered a pollutant, isn't it?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, it's not really -- well, it's surface water.
So it's not -- certainly not drinkable, but the areas that are subject to
the shallow wells that could be placed in the vicinity of the Golden
Gate canal as we're doing in Immokalee supplemental water project
that water gets some filtration and that can be used for irrigation
purposes and combined with our reclaimed water, so we're not
talking potable water.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I wouldn't say it's a pollutant. It's a
fresh water source that goes into a fresh water river just like any other
tributary would be.
The problem that you got where it's the dry season and pretty
much the canal is in limbo. It's just sitting there. It's not really
flowing. And then all of a sudden, you get a heavy rain with a run
off. We'll get some complaints that say, you know, we got a smell
that came from it, because it churned it back up again or we'll get a
visual complaint from one of the taxpayers in that process.
But as the rainy season starts, those complaints and those issues
leave, but we also send pollution control out there to test to make sure
that it isn't a pollutant or anything that would be hazardous to the
health of the taxpayers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I was thinking of
because of the chemicals that are used in a lot of the growing process
in the Gate and in the Estates. And I thought some of that runs off
into the canals.
Page 225
May 14, 2002
So I thought -- thank you for clearing that up.
MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to show here a slide
from our Master Plan, this dark line here as our growth curve. It
shows for the next 20 years the demands for max daily water.
And the thing that this shows is, it shows the various new
facilities that we planned out in the future coming online. And as you
can see here in right at this point at around 2002, 2003, we have the
supply here in coming very close to the demand curve, and that's kind
of related to the problem that we've had because we're just planning
so close.
And if we looked -- of course, in the next year we have the south
plant coming on line and that brings us up another 10 million gallons,
so we're okay. And then for a little while and then when we get in
here in 2005 it's getting tight again.
I think what this is showing is that even though this is a well-
thought Master Plan, there probably would benefit to maybe, in terms
of planning for the worse contingency may be to accelerating maybe
a year some of the projects, so there's less of a -- you know, there's a
little more of a cushion during these critical times. So that will be
one thing we'll be looking at during the update of the Master
Plan.
MR. MUDD: Let me interject again.
Commissioner, you remember during the AUIR when we put the
chart up and we said in 2003 before the south county plan expansion
comes online, we're going to get within about 300,000 gallons a day
of demand and supply.
What happened, we had some mechanical failures this year that
got us real close to this process.
Next year, full up, when we're running it at both plants capacity,
we're going to get there and that's why today's briefing and the steps
that you take today are very, very important.
Page 226
May 14, 2002
We're doing everything we can to get the south plant on earlier,
but right now our best projection is it will come in right around April,
which is right at the height of the high season. If it misses it by days,
it misses the high season.
MR. ANDERSON: This is a summary of the sources and plants
and capacity. The south water plant is taking 12 million gallons from
the lower Tamiami currently. The north plant lower Tamiami 12
million gallons a day.
The north water plant lower Hawthorne, 8 million gallons a day.
The south water treatment plant lower Hawthorne, the plant will be
coming online will take eight million gallons per day.
And the next expansion of the south water plant will also utilize
the lower Hawthorne and that will add another 12 million gallons a
day.
The new northeast plant that will be out in the Orange Tree area
will utilize the lower Hawthorne and that would use 20 million
gallons a day.
And then the southeast plan as recommended in our Master Plan
down in the area of Avon Park would add 36 million gallons a day.
In general, we're not talking significant expansion of our existing
facilities, but we're looking to handle the bulk of the new growth and
the new facilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where is Avon Park?
MR. ANDERSON: It's down on -- it's out on East 41, East Trail.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Avon Park is a deeper aquifer and that's
below the lower Hawthorne Aquifer. It's a more salty brackish water
supply.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that's a more expensive source of
water too; correct.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, higher salt content.
Page 227
May 14, 2002
MR. MUDD: Right now. We're looking at locating that southeast
plant right there by our Manatee distribution site that we have right
there that we have the ASR well at.
Because we own about 40 acres of land there and we're trying to
require another 20 to put a future plant site there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to reinforce independent a
comment I made earlier, then I need to ask another question.
I'd like to encourage you not to use the terminology of cost per
gallon per day when you're evaluating the capital cost of an
improvement, because it is not cost per gallon per day.
Let's take the four new RO wells. They're going to provide 3.24
million gallons per day. That's going to cost you around $4,000,000.
What that means is that at $1.45 a gallon you'll recover your entire
capital costs in a day and a half.
That's what you're trying to show. You're trying to show what the
capital cost impact is, but it is not a cost per gallon per day. Your
cost per gallon per day over a year is about four-tenths of a cent. The
capital cost is about four-tenths of one penny.
So I am very concerned that somebody is going to lock onto that
$1.45 and say, we got to start paying $1.45 a gallon for RO water
because the county has not made sure that we're providing adequate
water supply.
I'll be willing to bet you that I'll see this in the paper, hopefully
Denise won't write it, but I'll be willing to bet you that we'll have a
letter to the editor a letter talking about it pretty soon.
We have to be real careful of those figures. And the other thing
is, I'm still confused about which one of these activities, they're
numbered 1 through 13 on the Executive Summary, I need to know
which ones are already funded and you have authority to proceed on
and which ones you're asking us for authority to proceed on. Can
you do that for me?
Page 228
May14,2002
MS. WIDES: Yes. Commissioner, Tom Wides for the record. If
I can take you to the third page of the Executive Summary, and I'll
list for you, of those items adding the stage -- adding the stage to the
Manatee ASR wells for $30,000, okay, which is item three.
Item four which is restoring the yield for the two RO wells.
Item six which is the offset of the potable irrigation demand.
Item eight, the preliminary design of the salt water reverse
osmosis.
Item 10 the implant reliability improvements. There were three
or four of those. Those are the items that add up to $660,000 in this
first Exec Summary. These are the items in this Exec Summary we
are asking for additional funding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that gets us 1.75 million
gallons a day; right?
MR. WIDES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What are we going to have to do to
get more than that? You have item number one, has that funding --
MR. WIDES: Right. Item one is in the next Exec Summary --
excuse me. Item number one has been previously approved in late
February.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's underway right now and
completion date for that is?
MR. WIDES: December.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thanks. That helps. Thank
you.
MR. WIDES: That's the most significant one.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And number five is sort of
important too.
MR. WIDES:
number five.
MR. OLLIFF:
Yes. But that is in the next Exec Summary,
That's 10-E E.
Page 229
May 14, 2002
MR. WIDES: Also, I note that number nine, the five Tamiami
wells have been previously approved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't have any increase in
water capacity as a result of that?
MR. WIDES: No. Those are reliability or redundancy issues.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, we're talking about --
MR. WIDES: There's approximately four additional ones that
we're asking for funding. The dollar amounts are smaller there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It looks like 5.5 million gallons per
day, you're adding with the projects that are already approved and the
projects that you're asking for approval here; is that correct? MR. WIDES: It's in excess of five million.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I just want to know what I'm
getting for my investment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't had the opportunity to
attend the water symposium workshops. Where I see where we need
to go is technology.
And I have an idea that Commissioner Carter is going to come to
the Board with recommendations to start implementing that
technology and that is what is going to help us out in the future about
irrigation and our water uses. Am I correct about that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, Commissioner and thank
you. Within the next couple weeks, I will bring a paper to the Board
which will be a summation of the water symposium that deals with
issues across the board, some as simplistic as building into our fees
for county use of landscaping and irrigation system, contractors and
things that we can immediately apply to reduce the consumption of
water.
Page 230
May 14, 2002
And along with what, I'm going to say to the easy to the more
difficult or from the short-term to'the long-term which can phased in
over a period of time.
Because the water symposium what it did is to get people to
recognize it's not just a conservation of water, but the cost of
producing water because the other element is called energy.
And while we're looking at how you increase capacity in the
amount of water that we consume, we're not putting in here what the
energy costs are and there's a number of energy saving devices, not
only the individual homeowner can apply, but it can apply in a whole
lot of situations.
So I will be bringing this back, and today what I am seeing today
and it's a good catch by Commissioner Coyle is that you don't want to
confuse capital costs with processing costs.
And what most of the public fails in -- it's difficult-- immediately
when we talk about water, they say we're running out of water. We
just had -- we ran out in April.
No, we didn't run out. We had a processing problem. We've got
the water, but you see how much it costs to produce that water. And
that's where we got to tie the pieces together.
And the other thing that I really learned from this symposium is
that so many of us came from the north want to impose the value
system of the communities there in terms of expectations of what
your yard should look like and what sort of fertilizers you should use
it et cetera, instead of looking at what this area is all about and what
you need to do and not need to do.
So there's been a transfer of values here that are not applicable to
the community that we live in. And that's a major educational
process.
Page 231
May14,2002
The people that attended that symposium, they really got it and
they gave us a lot of good ideas. This is only one piece of the puzzle
to me of going forward in the future.
MR. ANDERSON: Very good. Commissioner, if there's any
other questions, I'd like to answer those, or else we'll wrap it up and
start to talk about the items themselves that we're asking you to
approve today.
The first one is as we discussed was Item 10-D that was for
$660,000, and that primarily as we noted included the largest cost in
there was the reliability improvements for $450,000.
The design work on the salt water RO skids. The restoration of
the two of the RO wells and the adding to the ASR pumping
capability at the Manatee site.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So move to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a motion D
and E?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just D.
MR. WIDES: This would just be Item-D.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We got a motion from Commissioner
Fiala and a second from Commissioner Henning. Any discussion?
All those in favor--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before you vote,
I want to make one correction to that. It says on the Executive
Summary it says $690,000, but the really cost is $660,000. I just
wanted to make sure that you know that there's a $30,000 difference.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I note the correction.
And noted you second; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
Page 232
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, those in favor, indicate by
saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #10E
CHANGE ORDER TO THE DESIGN BUILD CONTRACT WITH
METCALF AND EDDY, INC. FOR TWO ADDITIONAL
REVERSE OSMOSIS RAW WATER SUPPLY WELLS AND IN-
PLANT MODIFICATIONS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, PROJECT 70094 IN
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,300,000 - APPROVED
MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, ifI can move you to 10-E.
The primary activity here, and this is a 3.3 million dollar request for
funding.
The primary activity here is for the two additional reverse
osmosis wells. Again, they will either be reliability wells to give us a
back up on RO side, and that's the most use for them. It also gives us
some room as wells need to come out of service on the RO site.
In addition, there are other expenditures in here, if I can turn you
to the considerations paragraph three. We spoke to the fresh water
bypass that is approximately $70,000.
The additional stage to the reverse osmosis feed pumps is
approximately $80,000. The replacement of the control hardware and
software is approximately $160,000, and the backflow preventer is
another $30,000,000 {sic}.
Page 233
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: $30,000.
MR. WIDES: I'm sorry, $30,000. Those add up to 3.3 million
dollars.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The sources of funding, so we all
have an understanding, separate what comes from impact fee driven
process to that from the general funds so our listeners will understand
where the funding is coming from.
MR. WIDES: And let me answer that in reverse order.
Maintenance or rehabilitations of systems or just keeping the system
running, those are all considered user fee sources from our water or
wastewater user fees. The bills that are paid each month as part of
your water and sewer bills.
In fact, the impact fees are applied to any capacity additions
where, in fact, we are trying to get out in front of the population
growth and they become impact fee eligible. Basically, growth
related activities.
MR. OLLIFF: The short answer that you're looking for is that the
funding source for all these improvements are either going to water,
service customers, user fees or their impact fees from new
developments.
There's no general fund money going into any of the
improvements in front of you today.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Olliff, I think that
is critical that the community understand that. I would like to see that
duly reported in all news articles and TV coverage. Growth is paying
for growth.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that was a motion for an approval?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir, I would so move.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 234
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commission
Carter and a second by Commission
Henning. Any discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying
"Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Any opposed?
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item # 10I
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH METCALF AND EDDY, INC., FOR THE SOUTH
COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT REVERSE OSMOSIS
EXPANSION, CONTRACT 98-2891, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$231,804 - APPROVED
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, if you bear with
us there's two more Exec Summaries.
The third one was originally Consent Agenda 16-C-1, and it was
moved to 10-I and this was the engineering inspection resources from
Metcalf & Eddy. And this was related to the south plant reverse
osmosis- reverse osmosis expansion. And these are the engineering
services.
If I can display this, basically, this was an acknowledged
engineering estimate error.
The contractor has stepped up. It was for the second well that was
being put into place.
Page 235
May 14,2002
And, in fact, they've acknowledged the error. They've given us a
discounted rate for engineering services, but the work needs to be
done. It was always contemplated as an activity to be done as part of
the engineering services for the two wells or for the two injection
wells.
And, in fact, there was an error made, we worked that through
and they've given us a discount of approximately $77,000 on their
additional work here. This is for an amount $232,000.
MR. OLLIFF: The short explanation here is that when you
adopted your Utility Master Plan update, you accelerated the
construction of this second well.
At that time, we should have come to you an amended this
contract for the construction inspection and engineering portion of
that, but the Board was well aware that we were going go accelerate
the construction of this second well.
You already have a contractor on board.
We need to have that contractor also involved in the second well as
far as the first well. We've got a discounted price out of him. You're
going to end up with a second well in the process, and we probably
should have done this two months ago, but we're here today asking
for your approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner
Fiala. Any discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have 5-0.
Page 236
May 14, 2002
Item # 10J
RFP-02-3344, FOR WELLFIELD MAINTENANCE AND
REHABILITATION- AWARDED TO DIVERSIFIED DRILLING
CORP. AND HAUSINGER AND ASSOCIATES INC., FOR AN
ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $650,000
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, the last item was originally Item
16-E-8. It was moved to Item 10-J on the agenda and this was for the
annual contract for the wellfield maintenance and rehabilitation of
our wells.
Basically, what this is is the ongoing, again, preventive
maintenance activities that we do on our wells, it's -- they're basically
chemically treated, again, as Commissioner Fiala had asked earlier, to
the wells themselves operating at peek efficiency.
When we see a well that's starting to lose capacity we start to see
if there's ways we can remediate that well. We use these, in fact, to
do that work.
One of the activities that we talked about I think in a recent
discussion was the casing failure we experienced on one of our wells.
In fact, this was the group working on that contract that remediated
that casing to bring us back into service.
That is approximately a $650,000 contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner
Henning for approval, second by Commissioner
Carter. Any discussion? All those is favor, indicate by saying
"Aye".
COMMISSION CARTER: Aye.
Page 237
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it 5-0.
MR. WIDES: Commissioners, that concludes our activities in the
water plant for mediation.
Item # 1 OF
RESOLUTION 2002-226, PERMITTING COLLIER COUNTY
MUNICIPALITIES TO RECOMMEND TOURIST
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL APPOINTEES- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, we're back to Item 10-F; is that
correct?
MR. MUDD: That's right, Commissioner.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Bleu Wallace,
I'm the Director of Community Development Operations.
On March 28th, Commissioner Fiala brought to the Board's
attention her concerns regarding all the municipalities, being
represented by the TDC.
As you know, right now the Marco Island and Everglade City
rotate every four years. Currently, Councilmen Tucker represents
Marco Island.
The County Attorney has rendered her legal opinion as to a way
to do that by resolution.
Staff provided you the legal opinion and also a copy of the draft
resolution. Should the Board wish to move in this direction, staff
would recommend that whenever the next non-operator vacancy
occurs, go ahead and ask the -- whichever municipality is not
Page 238
May 14, 2002
represented at that time to come forward and make a recommendation
as to who they would like for the Board to appoint.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may comment.
That's a plus for Everglade City too. In fact, that they'll have a
permanent seat. And I would like to make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, staff in the Executive
Summary just asks for guidance.
However, you do have the draft resolution and I do have an
original here that has been blessed by the County Attorney. So if you
want to adopt that resolution.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So moved. Your second still there?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm right with you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And any discussions or
questions? Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have a Councilmen Glen
Tucker on there and what, do we want to add another one?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. What happens is there's one
seat for an elected official, it ends shortly and then he leaves and
there's no one from Marco and then there's someone from Everglades
City.
And the people from Marco Island really felt that they do so
much of the tourism business, at least one-third of it, and contribute
one-third of the tourism tax dollars and they have no one that
represents them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to make sure
that I didn't exclude Everglade City. I wanted to make sure we had
somebody from Marco.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I understand.
Page 239
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. If I understand
correctly, the next person that doesn't represent municipality will be
on there will be Gene Vaccaro.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He'll be finished; right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. I'm not too sure when that
term is. When that takes place that's when the succession of
membership would change.
MR. WALLACE: And that's in 2003. If you look at the
Executive Summary, Mr. Vaccaro is the next to the bottom member
there. His term ends April 21st, 03.
So at that time, if you adopt this resolution, then we would ask
Everglades City to make its recommendation to the Board as to who
you will appoint.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So let me just ask, does this then
mean that we'll have a permanent seat on there just slotted for Marco
Island?
MR. WALLACE: Yes, ma'am. And a permanent seat for
Everglades City.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the elected official seat,
does that swap back and forth then and that permanent seat swap
back and forth? How does that work?
MR. WALLACE: It depends on who the City Father in
Everglades City wish to recommend to the Board to represent them.
It's up to the Board to appoint.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you have the final say. In other
words, if they recommend somebody that isn't to your particular
liking, whether it be Marco or Everglades City, whatever, you still--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We have to have another elected
official besides the one from the county on there. So I was just
wondering, do we swap that back and forth?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
Page 240
May 14, 2002
MR. WALLACE: Ma'am, the State statute requires the chairman
of the county to head up the TDC. It also requires the most populous
municipality as a permanent seat.
That's the only requirement for municipalities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, so I see, then Tucker is not one
of those requirements?
MR. WALLACE: No. In your ordinance you have established
that Marco Island and Everglades City will alternate.
MR. MUDD: To answer your question, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're changing that.
No further discussion. All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #10G
RESOLUTION 2002-227, PROVIDING RECOGNITION OF
SECTION 28.33, FLORIDA STATUTES, OF MAY, 2002 AND
STATING POLICY RELATING TO INTEREST ACCRUING
FROM MONEYS DEPOSITED WITH THE CLERK OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT- ADOPTED
Thank you. Moving on to approval of resolution.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners, Michael
Smykowski, Budget Director.
Before you is a resolution providing recognition of Section 2833
of the Florida Statutes relative to interest accruing from monies
deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Page 241
May 14, 2002
This resolution would provide for the Clerk to invest funds in
excess of those needed to meet expenses in accordance with Florida
statutes, and it would provide- interest would be deemed income of
the Circuit Court
Clerk of the Circuit. At tend of the fiscal year, it would be returned
to the Board of County Commissioners.
A portion of which would be recognized as new revenue to the
general fund.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mike, I guess I
should direct this at David. We are still going to test it and find out if
this is legal. Well, we know it's legal, but we don't know what
interests that we can -- the Clerk of Court can direct back to the
general fund; correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, pretty much. We had an outside counsel
request that was in preliminary form, and the request was to help
ascertain what of the county funds this statute would apply to and the
related statutes of interest income. And the question of that income
becoming, the surplus funds, becoming considered assets of the
Clerk, funds of the Clerk's Office.
And we didn't have a final determination back. We had a
preliminary draft opinion back. And so this Board has not taken a
standard position, and I have not presented to you a position in regard
to the law.
Although, we have some idea that there's -- there's some
considerations that maybe had concerning the application of the
statute.
The resolution that is before you today is a resolution that really
merely states that the Board recognizes that there are these laws out
there and the Clerk is authorized to follow those laws in regard to the
investment income policy procedures that those laws indicate.
Page 242
May 14, 2002
There has been a lawsuit that was filed by the Clerk against
Collier County in regard to the very statute that's referenced in the
resolution 28.33 Florida Statute.
And the Clerk, Dwight Brock, and his counsel have advised me
and provided me with a proposed stipulation, and I have passed that
out to all of you this morning.
In that lawsuit and the stipulation would provide for a staying,
that is a putting on hold of that lawsuit, with no requirement and an
agreement not to respond, that is Collier County to respond, until the
Plaintiff, meaning the Clerk, would indicate that it was necessary for
the County to respond.
And that the Defendant, meaning Collier County, would agree by
the stipulation, not to file any Motions to Dismiss based upon an
allegation of a failure to prosecute or pursue the case by the Plaintiff,
which is the Clerk.
And there's an order for the judge to sign, based upon a
stipulation that would be signed by me, on behalf of Collier County
Government, and Mr. Pires, on behalf of the Clerk, which would put
the lawsuit on hold for a period of up to a year.
There about that time if nothing happened under the stay the case
would be thrown out of Court by the judge for a lack of prosecution.
I've responded to your question lengthy to provide you these
facts, but the ultimate answer to your question is, therefore, through a
process of the courts we would not be looking to define the breadth
or limitations to the clerk's ability to utilize these assets.
MR. OLLIFF: And I would, ifI can, the barest answer to your
question is that the Clerk has agreed to go through and make that
legal determination about which funds, we all believe there are
certain funds that the Clerk can retain the interest on.
Page 243
May 14, 2002
And the clerk has agreed to go through that analysis of the
individual different county funds and make that determination from
his finance department.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would just like to emphasize
that in the resolution, I have been told by the County Attorney that it
does state that, but I think a little bit stronger wording for the Clerk of
Court to find any interest that he can take that is legally allowable,
that he finds legally allowable.
So, you know, if you're comfortable with the language there but--
MR. WEIGEL: I'm absolutely comfortable with the language of
the resolution. The Clerk has always stated that he will be following
the law, and he has indicated, particularly in communication with
County Manager, that he apparently recognizes that some funds
maybe treated a little differently in regard to the interest that comes
from that.
And he's going to make that determination and ultimately then act
upon his determinations. As the clerk had indicated previously in his
own presentation to the Board at an earlier agenda item, the Board
County Commissioners will still have the opportunity to make its
own decisions about the allocation of interest income that the Clerk
returns to the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala first and then come
back to you Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It says right here, that we have taken
10 percent for processing this interest; is that correct?
MR. SMYKOWSKI: That's a statutorily allowable management.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ten percent of the interest accruing.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: But at the end of the fiscal year, recognize
to that the Clerk as a constitutional officer is required to return any
Page 244
May 14, 2002
unspent excess funds to the Board of County Commissioners on an
annual basis.
He cannot carry over money from one year to the next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering what the 10
percent was on. Was it on the entire interest that we have? The
interest that he invests? The interest that he tums back? I was just
wondering what the 10 percent for the Clerk's Office is based on.
Sorry. Maybe I shouldn't ask that question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know if it's relevant.
Again, he brings back excess money each year just like the tax
collector.
MR. OLLIFF: I believe it's on the interest earnings on the funds
that he determines are legal. We can provide you a follow up answer
on that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just curious. I'm very, very,
comfortable with him taking this money and pouring it into --
separating out what's is proper amount that we can use.
I think that that's great that someone will be doing that for us.
MR. OLLIFF: Keep in mind three things.
One, that you review and approve the Clerk's budge like you do
everyone else budget.
So you get an annual opportunity to review what the Clerk's
expenditures line-item budget is going to be.
In addition, like Mike said, at the end of the year, any unspent
funds in the Clerk's agency, get returned to the County. And none of
the constitutional officers are allowed to carry forward money from
fiscal year to fiscal year.
It all returns back to the Board of County Commissioners for
reallocation in the next approved budget, which you will again
review.
Page 245
May 14, 2002
So the last thing, I don't think any of us will argue that there are a
number of funds that the Board, the Clerk and certainly your
transportation staff would agree that if we could use the interest in
order to offset some of your general fund expenses, in particular,
some of the transportation construction shortfalls, we would all be
happy to be able to access some of those funds.
So I think, this is a mechanism that provides the Clerk to do that.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: The timing is also appropriate,
Commissioner, we're now developing our budget for fiscal year 03,
and obviously, we have to be cognizant of the assumptions that the
Clerk will use relative to those funds.
Obviously, we do not want the budget interest earnings in a fund
that the Clerk is contemplating using in this scenario, that would
ultimately be returned back to the general fund.
So obviously you can't count that interest money in two separate
baskets. So we want to be clear as part of the budget review as well
as what the assumptions the Clerk is using. So the timing is
appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's probably planned it that way to
make sure it's appropriate. I feel like he has found a windfall for us,
quite frankly. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think it's important to note, I think
this is where Commissioner Henning was going with his earlier
question, that the Clerk has agreed to take the legal responsibility for
determining what interest can be returned to us.
We are not going to be subjected to any legal challenge based
upon the Clerk's action with respect to the transfer of that money.
So he has agreed that he will accept any legal liability with
respect to the legality of transferring that money back to us.
Now, I want to make sure that's what this resolution says.
Page 246
May 14, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think the resolution implies that. I don't
think there was ever an intent for this Board, based upon the legal
question that was being reviewed in our office, to provide a
challenge.
The question was raised in regard to the track of interest income
related to specific funds, because it is an important planning tool and
budgetary tool for the various funds. It was an academic question
that we were asking.
And it was not in terms of a challenge to the Clerk or the
responsibility that is clearly his under the law.
So the answer to you is, yes. What you have stated is, yes, is that
the Clerk has indicated and restated here and to us privately and
through this resolution that he is responsible under these particular
statutes. And, in fact the statute -- this is a Clerk's statute here, in
essence.
And one further thing I might mention in regard to Ms. Fiala's
question about the 10 percent in the registry of the Court. I don't
attempt to speak for the Clerk here, but I do know in kind of the
general understandings that I have from the office, that the Registry
of the Court is what is used as a depository agency for so many of the
lawsuits and other issues that the Clerk stands in as the fiscal agent
for, such as our condemnation lawsuits, where we, the county, make
a good faith proffer of funds to the Court on property that we need to
take for eminent domain that may be distinguished -- and it's from
separated by a comma here, I don't want to get to technical.
But the registry from the Court clause appears to be separated from
the other interest on deposit and that the Clerk, through out fiscal
policy, and by statute has requirement to deposit.
So there may be a distinction between that 10 percent and the
interest income that is deemed income to the Clerk. I'm sure he can
provide a follow up to you at some point later on in that regard.
Page 247
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I move that we
adopt the resolution relative to the investment of county funds by
Clerk of the Circuit Court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning and a backup on that
from Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? All those in favor,
indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSION FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to thank the Clerk
of the Court for helping us work for the citizens and visitors of
Collier County.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, in regard to
this item just heard, having heard no disagreement, I will sign the
stipulation on behalf of Collier County and see to it that it is filed in
court with the assistance of Mr. Pires, on behalf of Mr. Brock.
Item #1 OH
REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF TWO RESOLUTIONS TO
APPROVE TWO APPLICATIONS FOR IMPACT FEE WAIVERS
FOR ELIGIBLE NOT-FOR-PROFIT CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS AND STAFF TO PROCESS
REIMBURSEMENT FROM THIS FISCAL YEAR'S
UNENCUMBERED INTEREST ACCOUNT- DENIED
Page 248
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good, Mr. Weigel. We're going
to move on to 16-A-10. I'm glad you pulled that particular item
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSION CARTER: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, this
has been a subject which has always generated a lot of debate on this
board. It says up to 100,000 a year. That's not difficult, but there's
two items here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I noticed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But whose Board? I would like to
hear from the Board about the situation. The one in Immokalee, I
have- I don't have trouble with that one, that's a harvesting situation,
not-for-profit organization. Maybe the Board has trouble with both
of them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I address this myself. I have
problems with both of them. The original intent for this was to help
people with medicine, food and immediate shelter. The project in
Immokalee is a wonderful project.
It doesn't quite fit the need. I thought of the intent to begin with.
And the day school, I wish they were here to defend it. Maybe we
should put this off.
But personally, from what I see here, I didn't think it was the
intent that we were looking for when we originally started off.
Also, keep in mind, we did reserve the right to be able to accept
or refuse any particular item that we wished.
What would be the direction of this Board? Would you like to
see these continued so these people can represented?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. If we're thinking of
eliminating they should be able to come in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree. We should've taken the time
today. I wasn't paying attention. We should have reached out and
see if we could have gotten them here, we didn't.
Page 249
May 14, 2002
And how do you feel about it, Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I never was in favor of it before.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know that, but we're talking about
fair play here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, and again, I never was in
favor of it before.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So if he were to hear it 150 times,
he's not in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I have three
Commissioners that agree we should bring this back and give these
people a chance to address it? We don't. We got two commissioners.
You're the deciding factor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I never believed in fair play in the
first place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Considering- never mind. I won't go
there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, I wouldn't touch that,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Not after this morning. Okay. Then
in that case, would somebody like to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we not
approve by 16-A- 10.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning not to approve it. We have a second from
Commissioner Coyle on the same venue. And with that I'm going to
open it up for discussion. And the only comment I'm going is, even
though I am in agreement this doesn't fit the criteria originally set. I
do feel bad that we didn't give them a chance for fair play on this to
come in and address it.
Page 250
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They can come back, can't they?
They can bring this back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's a long process. I don't know.
Do you want to address it?
MR. OLLIFF: I will tell you that both applicants certainly knew
that this item was on the agenda. And it was going to be presented to
the Board of County Commissioners. And whether it's on the
consent for the regular agenda, they know the petition is going to be
here.
And generally speaking, even the people that have an item
consent agenda, if they're concerned, they will be here at the
beginning of the meeting to see if it's going to be pulled.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, Joe Schmitt,
Administrator Community Development and Environmental
Services. I just want to make sure for the record that you understand
that both of these organizations technically do qualify. They are tax-
exempt organizations and they technically do qualify.
And they fall into that category, as you recall, and I have on the
visualizer, kind of a history of how we got to where we are.
The last one that we approved was back in the Neighborhood
Health Clinic and the Planned Parenthood where we approved $7,500
each, which is the maximum.
Just so you know, the track record and kind of the precedence
that's been set. It's certainly to the Board's -- whatever your desire is
on how you want to proceed with this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In 1901, it says, waiver of for certain
charitable.
MR. SCHMITT: I have to defer to Phil for that. That was before
my time, as I use the quote, but certain charitable organizations.
And then in February we wet back and amended the ordinance or
adopted the ordinance. And in January, back when we came to you--
Page 251
May 14, 2002
or actually at the end of February, when we came with the two
organizations that kind of started this. That was the Neighborhood
Health Clinic and the Planned Parenthood. And now subsequently
Harvest for Humanity and Seacrest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand. I remember too, I had
original discussions, we wanted this to be for very basic human
needs, social service type organizations that fill the need that we're
not doing as a county.
And these -- even though these things do fill a need, I don't think
they fill that particular need; a day care center and Habitat for
Humanity, I love them down there- excuse me, Harvest for
Humanity, I love them. They're wonderful people and they got a
tremendous project going. I have a hard time just justifying funds in
that particular direction.
And I'm surprised we haven't utilized more and I'd like to address
this sometime in the future as to what it is.
I know there's some building going on there for difference
organizations they're just not applying. Maybe we never got the
word out.
MR. SCHMITT: And just so we understand, these are for the
correctional facilities impact fees.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I do understand. I know what the
intent was when we started off. If I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected
by my fellow commissioners.
MR. SCHMITT: You have the option. You can accept these or
deny them. They applied, if they're told no --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Joe Schmitt, I do appreciate you
bringing this up and giving us your view on the whole thing.
We have a motion to deny. We have a second. Any other
discussion? Okay. With that I'll call for the question. All those in
agreement with the motion, please indicate by saying "Aye".
Page 252
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. That hurts to
have to do that but it's absolutely necessary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commission Coletta, we have a
constitutional officer, the item that we just discussed. I don't know if
he wanted to address anything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's so wonderful to see you. We need
to have you say hello at least.
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, the only reason that I'm here is
Jay was watching TV while I was working and he said that
Commissioner Fiala had a question about whether
I was going to take 10 percent of the interest income. And I wish I
could, but I can't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't ask if you were going to
take it. It says that you're entitled to it, and I said what part - does
that come off of the entire interest? Does it come off the part that
you invest? I was just asking what was getting the 10 percent.
MR. BROCK: I will try to answer that for you. The 10 percent
has absolutely nothing to do with the money that we're talking about.
The 10 percent only applies to the Court Registry money. And
the reason that it applies to the Court Registry money is because that
money belongs to non-governmental entities. It's private money. It
is money that parties in court proceedings have deposited with the
Court.
And there was Federal litigation years ago that said that the States
were not entitled to take interest if interest was earned on private
Page 253
May 14, 2002
money. And they could only take and administrative fee out of that
for handling it.
And the legislature came back and amended the statute so that it
now says that the Clerk can take an administrative fee on court
monies that are -- belongs to private individuals of 10 percent.
It would be like me taking the interest of people's deposits for
utility hookups and keeping that interest. I can't do that either. That's
their money. You can do that either. That's their money.
So the 10 percent that is discussed in that statute has absolutely
nothing to do with the monies that we are talking about. And when
you go through the entire process of what we're doing, the Clerk of
the Circuit Court will not get one, I mean not one penny of the
interest that we're referring to.
Every penny of that will come back to you, with much more or
much greater discretion as to how to spend it then you have had in the
past.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: For the record, your name, sir.
MR. BROCK: My name is Dwight Brock, Clerk of the Circuit
Court. And I'm sorry it's been a long day. I bet my day has not been
anywhere near as long as yours.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you for explaining that
about the registry. Thank you for coming over. MR. BROCK: Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Mr. Brock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Brock, for
everything.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, help us out here, what's the
next item?
Item # 1 OK
Page 254
May 14, 2002
AMENDMENT NO. 2 PROVIDING FOR PHASE II OF THE
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
BY RWA INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,891,110 FOR FINAL
DESIGN OF THE AIRPORT ROAD GRADE SEPARATED
OVERPASS AS PART OF THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SIX-
LANING DESIGN FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO SANTA
BARBARA BOULEVARD- APPROVED
MR. OLLIFF: 10-K, which is 16-B-5. It's the RWA design of
the overpass.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I asked for this to be pulled and I'll
be real brief. It's not a big issue except for two questions I want to
ask.
One, are we going to direct the design engineer to develop a
design that accommodates the need for the Bear's Paw neighborhood
for access to their neighborhood?
And then, number two, it's the same question I asked earlier,
maybe last week about traffic flow patterns when this construction is
begun?
You know, I really like to see the number of construction projects
that are going on simultaneously when this is underway and how
traffic will flow from one place to another and if we have given
consideration for that.
I'd like to see a traffic flow map. And I just -- I'm bringing that
up again so we can get to that. The last thing we want to do is pretty
much bottle neck or block up all traffic going from one point to the
other point.
And I just like to see that, so those are my two questions and you
have something to show us.
Page 255
May 14, 2002
MR. FEDER: By all means, Commissioner, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. To your first question and we
appreciate your assistance in meeting with the folks at Bear's Paw.
We went through with RWA on the first supplemental, which is
contemplated in the original contract along with other consortium
with their engineers and firms essentially to design the footprint to
come up with a concept that they've done. This is follow through and
actually do the design.
One provision in the contract and even in the write up was that
they address some of these citizen issues that came through in the
original concept design.
One of those was trying to address what we do in circulation
pattern for Bear's Paw. As you come off of Airport Road, of course,
you come to the at grade service road, you have the ramp coming
down from the overpass, your ability to merge all the way to the left
to get to the signal to turn into Bear's Paw is generally restricted.
There's some of them there that will be a signal at the other end of
the overpass for westbound movement to be stopped, some brakes.
But generally speaking, it's going to be a difficult maneuver.
We do have a provision for a turn around just to the west there.
There's one option for them, but they are asking if there's a possibility
that we could have something that can allowed them to come along
on that at grade at Airport and maybe go into that turn around is the
Estuary and then be come up to a light and come straight across.
As you can see on the design concept, that's being looked at by
our consultant. We're working with the folks at Estuary.
At this time I need to tell you that communications are ongoing,
they have not agreed to that. We noted to them that we might want
us to obtain an easement, such that that takes them out of the liability.
Page 256
May 14, 2002
The last thing I've heard, and again, this tentative, I must express
that, is that they may be okay with the turn-around aspect, but not
necessarily with providing easement and allow it go as it is.
People will probably take that maneuver, but we don't want to
sanction it without having worked with the Estuary folks. So that's
one issue to your question.
The other one is, part of the design contract is to do just that, look
at maintenance to traffic. The good news we will have Livingston
open well before we have the six lanes completed on Golden Gate.
This work will go on at the same time though as we will be finishing
up the six lane. This will go on at the same time as the State is
developing the interchange on Golden Gate.
So Golden Gate is going to be looking for alternatives, so we will
develop a schedule of projects and flow items for you and how we'll
try to handle traffic. Again, a very aggressive program we tried to do
that all along.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That solved my problems.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for
approval from Commissioner Coletta, a second Commissioner Carter.
Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, indicate by saying
"Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? And the ayes have it 5-0.
Page 257
May 14, 2002
Item # 10L
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,008,521.88 TO BONNESS, INC. AND ALLOCATE $600,000
(10% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COST) FOR CONTINGENCY
PURPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED LIVINGSTON
ROAD PHASE IV PROJECT, FROM IMMOKALEE ROAD TO
LEE COUNTY LINE, PROJECT NO. 65041 - APPROVED
Thank you. The next item is 16-B-9.
MR. FEDER: That's correct. Again, Norman Feder,
Transportation Administrator. I believe this is pulled based on the
fact that it represents a sizeable contract.
I'm pleased to tell you that we are about to let Phase Four of
Livingston, which is the section from Immokalee up to the Lee
County line, of course, we have two lanes today, this is to go six and
then four lanes to coincide with the work being done in Lee County
to the north.
We got a favorable bid. In this case the low bidder is a little bit
new to the area, which is nice to have as an opportunity, Bonness.
Bonness came in at a bid that was essentially about a million nine
less than our estimate. We are asking for a 10 percent contingency,
which is pretty standard as we work through the project, but even at
6.6 million, we're well under the 7.9 we anticipated.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do I understand you correctly, we
have a new road builder in Collier County?
MR. FEDER: Bonness has come in, they have done work,
obviously, in smaller scale work, but this is the first time we've had
them on a major project since I've been here in Collier County yes,.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wouldn't consider them new,
but nevertheless.
Page 258
May 14, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: For this size project, they are new.
MR. FEDER: I understand they are split off. But, yeah, they are
new to this size project and they are the low bidder and we're looking
look forward to working them.
Obviously, an important project, should be done by the fall of
2003.
MR. OLLIFF: It's a good project to put them on because it's not a
lot of maintenance and traffic, not a lot of difficult utility issues. It
gives us a chance to work with a new contractor and see how they do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm looking forward to progress
over there much like the Livingston Road that I see that's being
worked on right now.
MR. FEDER: Yes. I'm looking for that one to speed up even
more when we're working with Better Roads to see what we can do to
get that one even moving faster now that they have essentially
finished Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have motion for approval from
commissioner Carter, second from Commissioner Fiala. Any
discussion? All those in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. Opposed? The ayes
have it 5-0.
Item #6A
Page 259
May 14, 2002
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And now we go back to 6-A public
comment.
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers. I believe there's only one
still here, maybe two. The first one is Jim Kramer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good evening, Mr. Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Good evening, I expected to say good morning.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman-- good evening. My name is Jim
Kramer and I'm from North Naples. Kudos to my opponent Dr.
Carter and Clarence Tiers of the South Florida Water Management
District for their sponsorship of the water symposium last week. It
was great.
This opportunity to study such an important issue in depth, no
pun intended, here in Collier County was quite valuable for all the
citizen that attended.
The let us come together and schedule future seminars and
symposium on timely issues such as traffic or growth et cetera. This
is Government at it's best, and it should be
encouraged. Thank you all once again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Kramer, I don't want to
interrupt you, are you done?
MR. KRAMER: At the time moment, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
water symposium?
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
event.
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Thank you.
So you endorse this concept of
I see. It might be an annual
Well, I'm glad you endorse it.
Page 260
May 14, 2002
MR. KRAMER: This does conclude my prepared remarks and
Mr. Chairman, I need to ask a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. KRAMER: What latitude do I have to discuss politics as
you have already done today?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
force of habit, I know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Next year you can do this, okay. It's a
Politics is a very broad subject. What
I don't want to see happen here right now open is an open debate
between you and your opponent. That I won't tolerate.
Now, if you have some comment that you want to make that has
to do with county government, by God welcome it 100 percent.
If it's something about your opponent's character, no, by all
means. You know from that point, you can go forward.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I received this letter
from the CBIA, Collier Building Industries. On behalf of the Collier
Building Association, may we extend to you out sincere thanks and
deep appreciation for offering yourself for candidate for public office.
The community can indeed be proud of enthusiastic leaders such
as yourself who are willing to take time to serve. In order to assist
your candidacy, the CBIA is holding a campaign school on Thursday
May 29th, from eight to five at the CBIA offices.
CBIA has conducted this non-partisan school for over 15 years
and has assisted many local and state and national candidates in
planning their come campaign efforts.
The campaign in-school instructors have national representations
and will work with you in a hands-ons practical environment.
Page 261
May 14, 2002
We are expecting participants from all over the Southwest Florida
area and hope you will join us.
Campaign school is a practical nuts and bolts approach to
planning your campaign including raising money that it will take to
within allocating your resources money, time and people efficiently.
You won't want to meet this and learn from the SWAT team of
politics. Your fee will provide you with invaluable wealth of
knowledge which may make the difference on election day.
Is that perhaps why for 15 years we've been doing things for the
building industry? In this morning's editorial, it says many will
jockey for time to speak in the commission's favor. The communities
eyes will be on county government today.
Leaders an activist of good will enjoy an opportunity to shine.
Negative unproductive behavior will be noted as well.
Six months ago the BCC sought a vote on a sales tax by
referendum supported by public funds and special interest money.
What I saw this morning wasn't an opportunity to shine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Can I ask you a question? Are you
going to go to campaign school? MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't blame you. It's a wonderful
opportunity.
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir. I most definitely am going to go.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You'll learn a lot. They bring
professionals from all over the United States and none of them are
builders, by the way.
They will sit down with you and take you through the whole
process, which is quite involved and you need to learn it from
scratch, and this is the only place you're going to get that opportunity
to do it. Thank you very much. Is there any other public petitions?
MS. FILSON: Jim O'Gara.
Page 262
May 14, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner
Coletta, I think the Women's Republican Party also puts on a
candidate school. So I think there's other opportunities out there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would take advantage of every one.
You'll never learn the whole thing until it's over with.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You never know you, they might
have more Republicans.
MR. O'GARA: Mr. Chairman, member of the Commission. I
understand that this is the time to comment on things that were on the
agenda earlier today, but I do want to express that I was -- I am very
impressed with what the Board has done getting its arms around the
development industry.
One of the issues that wasn't on Commissioner Fiala's list that you
should be very proud of is requiring developers to communicate with
the community.
I was a little skeptical myself. But I got to tell you that I got
religion. And I'm here at the request and the endorsement of the
Golden Gate Civic Association.
I want to speak to you about that particular issue. You will recall
in early April, you had a meeting out in Golden Gate and Mr. Peter
Lillinthall (phonetic) spoke very eloquently about the need for some
pedestrian improvements, for children primarily, going northbound
across Golden Gate Parkway.
After that meeting, I had the opportunity to speak to Norm Feder
and Linda Abbott of the School District about another issue on
Golden Gate Parkway crossing the bridge at Golden Gate Parkway
that goes over the canal.
There's a similar dangerous situation that I think you're familiar
with. Presently the School District buses the elementary kids from
the east side of town over to the west side of town to avoid the danger
of those kids walking across the bridge.
Page 263
May 14, 2002
I also represent a developer of commercial properties along
Golden Gate Parkway, and we've been working with the civic
association in the last month or so deintensifying our commercial
uses on those properties.
And just last night they endorsed a Revised Land Use Plan for
that project. But as part of our re-examination of the land use in a
public meeting, one of these kind of communications that required us
to have, we came across a little known opportunity that it is in our
PUD and that is for allowing of transportation fee credits if we build
pedestrian bridges going across that canal.
Frankly, we were not be surprised with support for that type of
use. We've turned our architectural engineers loose on that to come
up with scenarios. But before taking it too much further, we kind of
wanted to come back to policy directive kind of thing, is this the kind
of thing that the Commission, kind of operating under new ground
rules these days, the need for physical reprioratization of our
transportation mess that we're into, is that something that we should
continue to pursue or is the goal of funding the roads that we
desperately need to do, is that something that takes priority?
We're kind of not sure which way to go. It takes a little bit of
effort and money to put the meat on the bones here. And we would
like to work with staff, if that is still an opportunity to pursue these
pedestrian bridges to come back with a proposal. What does it look
like? What does it cost? Operational issues, kind of pull it all
together for a recommendation to you. Or if your thoughts are, gee,
there's lots of great ideas out there, Jim, but we kind of have to go a
different direction on this.
I realize if I came in and walked in today saying, here's this safety
kind of issue that we'd like to use transportation impact fee credits,
you'd probably throw me out on my ear.
Page 264
May 14, 2002
But this is one that is kind of grandfathered on the books, so we're
looking for some guidance. The Civic Association has asked me to
come and ask you, is this something that we can -- should study or
look at or do we need to go into a different direction?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't know the answer to that. I do
know I got an open mind on these type of things. I would like to hear
more about it. I really hate you to encourage to do sign at this point
in time without talking to staff.
Possibly Commissioner Henning might have had advanced notice
of this and a better understanding of what we're talking about.
MR. O'GARA: Actually, in the last month or so we sent a
number communications to staff, but as you know they've been pretty
busy doing other things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very busy.
MR. O'GARA: So we're trying - is something that -- staff is very
talented and also very busy. Is it something that we should ask them
to do and get involved in? What is your pleasure today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would recommend that you start
working with a commission. Commissioner Henning to begin with,
but also keep us apprised of what you got. This is pretty late in the
day and it sounds like a very wonderful idea, but I don't want to give
you encouragement and find out that I put you in a direction and
expense that was totally erroneous. It wasn't going to work for you
or anyone else.
At this point in the day, I would recommend you just bring it back
on a talk basis, just feel it out within the community, you get the
endorsements, maybe talk to the commissioner, Commissioner
Henning, and take it from there.
I don't want to give you encouragement that you're spending
tremendous amounts of money and moving in all sorts of directions. I
don't want to put something else on staff this evening.
Page 265
May 14, 2002
MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you may want to get a response
from Norman because I think they had some discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: First of all, what I'd like to tell you is Jim's got an
outstanding item there. We looked at it and talked, also Linda Abbot
at the School Board. There's a lot interest in it.
What essentially it would is help with some of the students
traveling to the school and keep them out of small of the flow traffic,
which is something we all want to encourage.
One of the difficulties we had, as far as the transportation
standpoint, is while the PUD provides for impact fee credit for
something we tried to pull away from in the past.
Also I'm dealing with a situation of where can I consider a
pedestrian walkway or bridge to be impact fee creditable? And
usually I can only use that on capacity expansion on the system. And
of course, as was noted by Jim we pulled ever more of our resources
to those capacity projects.
So I guess that's the difficulty we've had. We've tried to explore
the issue a little further. We're looking at the School Board and their
impact fee process. I don't want to pull away from it. I think he has
an outstanding idea.
I think in fairness to him, though, he's trying to present that out to
the community and he needs an answer one way or the other and he
hasn't a very quick answer from us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, if you see this project as
having some value to it and the interest you showed to it --
MR. FEDER: I think the Civic Association --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I by all means would be one to
instruct staff to go ahead look at it.
MR. FEDER: We'll continue to work with him on it and with the
School Board.
Page 266
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How does the rest of the Commission
feel?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the majority of the Board
made a statement that the number one priority is put the pavement
down on the roads, expand the roads, which is very important.
Impact fee credits is, you know, what public benefit is. If nothing
else, then not having a impact fee credit for is to reserve that area
where the bridge would be, that pedestrian traffic, you would have a
sidewalk on both ends, I would imagine, Mr. O'Gara; is that correct?
MR. O'GARA: No, sir. Actually, there would be a bridge kind
of circular thing that a Beautification Committee came up with that
would highlight the bridge. It's not right there at the sidewalk area.
They want to move it over a little bit.
We're willing to participate or cooperate in any way we can. The
PUD does specifically say that if that's done it would be expanding
the existing transportation network.
So we don't know which way to go. We're asked to put this all
together, but it may be that given our priorities as a community, we
can't do every good idea.
I'm just trying to get some direction to either keep pushing this or
back off on it off.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we're prepared to have staff
continue to work with you on it. Possibly, too, we can look at the idea
of grants grant.
MR. O'GARA: And the School District said they may be able to
pony up some. Because they have this annual operating cost for a
one-time capital contribution.
So there may be some ways to raise some other funds. But how
much money are we talking about? These kind of issues --
Page 267
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what staff will help with.
MR. O'GARA: Correct. And that's why we really haven't had
any response from staff on that was the reason.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give them a little breathing space on
it and they'll come around.
Now, especially since the Commission is giving them direction.
Before they didn't have direction and they had to try to find time for
you whenever they could.
Now they got direction to look at it, now they got a public
purpose. Anytime we're looking for the safety and welfare of our
children, I'm sure we have an interest here.
Of course, the name of the bridge will be the Golden Gate Bridge;
is that correct?
MR. O'GARA: The Coletta Bridge, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: I have one other registered speaker I think they've
left, but I want to be sure. Phil Mudrick. That's the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You all did an excellent job before
you go. We have another 45 minutes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe you do.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OLLIFF: Against my better judgment, Mr. Chairman, I do
have two items. One is -- there was an item that had been placed on
the agenda the last board meeting which was a request to have the
Chair send a letter to the Everglades Restoration project.
That was added to the agenda at the last meeting at the Chair's
request. The Chair has also requested at this point that item not be
Page 268
May 14, 2002
brought back. I need to make that a note for the rest the
Commissioners. It was going to be continued on your last meeting,
so the original commissioner who put it on the agenda has requested
that it not be brought back, so I'm not going to be bringing that back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was that one?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It had to do with
Everglades Restoration and the funding was pulled. But the truth of
the matter was that the science is not there to be able to support what
they're trying to do.
They have to come with a science to assure our residence on the
another side of 75 will not suffer any repercussions as far as flooding.
That was not something that we want to get involved until they can
come back and give those absolute guarantees.
MR. OLLIFF: The other item and this is a request that the Board
authorize the Chairman, I think following the State's approval of the
funding for the overpass project.
I think we would be remiss if we didn't send some follow up
letters to those people that were involved, in particular, I think the
Collier County Legislative Delegation, in particular, needs to be sent
a thank you.
In addition, I would probably suggest that a letter get sent to the
State Speaker of the House as well as the President of Senate, and the
two appropriation chairs on both sides of the aisle as well; both the
Senate and the House, which would be Carlos Macaza (phonetic) and
Jim Horn, John McKay and Tom Finney.
Unless the Board has a concern with that, I think we can draft up
the letter and have the Chair send a letter of thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to have that in a form of a
motion authorizing me to act as the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I so move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 269
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Fiala. All those
in favor, indicate by saying "Aye".
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. OLLIFF: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing more. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start off with Commissioner
Henning tonight, any closing comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two items. I did go to the water
symposium, and what I learned was that not only Collier county, but
municipalities in Collier County uses way more than the National
average per household.
That was what the symposium was all about, what can we do
differently in our own homes to reduce that number.
And I remember that a former president changed the toilets. They
had that low flow toilets in there. I hated that. I hate those things,
but I understand--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You mean the two-flushers?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You mean four.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. It's not just a problem
here in Collier County, it's all over. And also what else I learned was,
we use 40 the percent of our potable water that we treat for
irrigation. That's irresponsible.
So I'm looking forward to Commissioner Carter's coming back
with some recommendations to doing some changes.
The other thing is -- delinquent tax forms are out, or the sheet,
advertising for people to buy them. I was appalled and amazed that I
Page 270
May 14, 2002
read some names that came from people that came before the Board
of Commissioners to take action on items.
Their delinquent on their taxes. And with the assistance of the
County Attorney, I'm going to be very careful, but I think somebody
comes before the Board of Commissioners, if I can make an issue
that they're delinquent on their taxes, I'm going to make it an issue.
Not only do I think that's not American, but when somebody
comes to a governing board that is in charge of the tax dollars and
they're not paying their fair share, then that is very upsetting to me.
Those are the only two comments I have.
Commissioner Coletta, thank you for running a wonderful
meeting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The only thing that I would like to
say is I believe we should present a proclamation to Commissioner
Carter for the fine job he did with the water symposium. ! think he
deserves special recognition.
That took a lot of work and I think the results are going to be very
favorable. And he really should get more recognition then what
we've given him so far.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Also with Clarence
Tiers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's keep it a surprise. It's obviously
getting late; isn't it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it is. Can we get this thing
over with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I got to take my mm now. This
has been one amazing day that I'll never forget. Starting off with a
massive, what do you want to call, it rally, protest in front of the
courthouse. And covering tremendous amount of issues and working
with some wonderful people.
Page 271
May 14, 2002
Do you know something, looking back at on it, even though I'm a
little tired, I truly enjoyed it. I must be crazy.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You need to get a life.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I can get home now so I can
get my mail caught up. Thank you. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do have something. My
Work-force Housing Committee met after our last meeting and they
asked if I would submit to this Board some additions that they would
love to see on this LDC cycle.
And I think we've already discussed them at the LDC, and at the
workshops, but I just wanted to ask about them.
There are four fast ones, amend the LDC to include fast track
provisions for affordable housing projects, which will also include a
project manager to coordinate the process, who is yawning. Change
the requirements and standards to allow guest houses or accessory
units in the urban area, reevaluate qualifying criteria for density
bonuses provision or percentages and change the LDC to encourage
mixed-use zoning to provide incentives for workforce housing.
Those were the four. They will make a great fact on our
inventory for affordable housing. And we need to get there. I was
going to go ask if you would all agree to ask Tom to bring it back to
our next workshop.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Olliff, is that possible?
MR. OLLIFF: Given our Board direction, that's possible.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you would direct a memo to
Tom Olliff, given that direction with those recommendation, if I can
see those in writing, if you can copy that to me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I sure will.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's it. Oh, and thank you for a
great meeting.
Page 272
May 14, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I had about 25 items, but I
wouldn't got there this afternoon. First of all, thank you for your kind
words Commissioner Coyle.
Again, I want to thank Steering Committee, my co-chairman
Clarence Tiers, the sponsors the participants, the speakers, everyone
who worked so hard to make that a very successful symposium. This
is the beginning. We'll come back year after year and make it a
bigger and better event.
I thank the Board for your support on this. For those who did
participate, I think they learned a great deal. And I will deliver the
white paper to give us additional some additional information think
about and take action on.
To you, Mr. Chairman, excellent meeting. Well done. We're
through in reasonable time today, and I think it just speaks well of a
community that came here as ladies and gentlemen and presented
their points of view.
And I was pleased to be a part of the process and with that I have
nothing further to say, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. With that, we're adjourned.
Thereupon,
(Commission hearing concluded at this time.)
***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY
FACILITIES FOR CEDAR HAMMOCK GOLF MAINTENANCE
Page 273
May 14, 2002
FACILITY- WITH RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Item #16A2
F1NAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CEDAR HAMMOCK CLUBHOUSE - WITH RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A3
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT RELATED ADVERTISING AND
PROMOTION INVOICES FROM THE FY 01/02 TOURISM
ADVERTISING BUDGET AND RE-APPROPRIATION OF
$48,736.19 OF PRIOR YEAR'S FUNDS TO PARTIALLY FUND
THESE INVOICES AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item # 16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CEDAR HAMMOCK, TRACT F-5, MULTI-FAMILY- WITH
RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CYPRESS COVE-FEATHER SOUND- WITH RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A6
Page 274
May 14, 2002
AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH RWA, INC., TO EXTEND SERVICES THROUGH
ADOPTION OF BOTH THE RURAL FRINGE AND RURAL
EASTERN LANDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS-
AT AN INCREMENTAL COST AMOUNT OF $24,200
Item # 16A7
SECOND AMENDMENT TO 2002 TOURISM AGREEMENT
WITH KELLEY SWOFFORD ROY, INC.
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2002-220, RE PETITION AVESMT2001-AR2023,
VACATING A PORTION OF THE PERPETUAL DRAINAGE,
UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON A PORTION
OF LOT 8, BLOCK C, "BRIARWOOD UNIT 6"
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2002-221, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS IN PORTOFINO AT PELICAN MARSH
Item #16Al0- Moved to Item #10H
Item #16Al 1
Page 275
May 14, 2002
BID #02-3358, ARTIFICIAL REEF AT KEEWAYDIN-
AWARDED TO MC CULLEY MARINE, INC. IN THE AMOUNT
OF $67.50 PER TON (NOT TO EXCEED $40,000)
Item #16A12- Continued to May 28, 2002
PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON
PROJECTS IN THE WHIPPOORWILL AREA (BOUNDED ON
THE NORTH BY PINE RIDGE ROAD, ON THE SOUTH BY THE
WYNDEMERE SUBDIVISION, ON THE EAST BY 1-75, AND ON
THE WEST BY PROPOSED LIVINGSTON ROAD), UNTIL
SUCH TIME AS A MASTER PLAN SHOWING PROPOSED
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED
BY THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Item #16A13
BUDGET AMENDMENT FROM DEVELOPER FEES IN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND (113) RESERVES FOR
THREE NEW PLANNING POSITIONS TO IMPROVE THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT/LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
STANDARDS
Item #16A14
REQUEST FOR FUNDING OF A SENIOR BUDGET &
MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITION FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Page 276
May 14,2002
DIVISION TO PROVIDE A DIVISION-WIDE ANALYTICAL
RESOURCE TO SATISFY A VARIETY OF CRITICAL NEEDS
Item #16B 1 - Continued to June 11, 2002
ADOPT A RESOLUTION GIVING PRIORITY TO THE
ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE
"951 CORRIDOR"
Item # 16B2
RESOLUTION 2002-222 AND JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT
(JPA) WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) FOR MODIFICATION OF
MEDIAN OPENINGS AND ADDITIONAL TURN LANES AT SR
84 (DAVIS BOULEVARD) FROM COMMERCIAL DRIVE TO
BROOKSIDE DRIVE
Item #16B3
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM
PELICAN BAY STREET LIGHTING FUND RESERVES TO THE
OPERATING BUDGET
Item #16B4 - Continued to June 11, 2002
APPROVE WORK ORDER NO. BRC-FT-02-03, FOR BETTER
ROADS, INC. TO MODIFY RADIO ROAD MEDIAN OPENING
BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND COMMERCIAL
BOULEVARD- IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,827
Page 277
May 14, 2002
Item #16B5 - Moved to Item #10K
Item # 16B6 - Deleted
Item # 16B7
PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT PARATRANSIT VEHICLE
USING PROCEEDS FROM INSURANCE SETTLEMENTS FROM
TWO VEHICLES THAT WERE LOST IN A COLLISION AND A
FIRE IN 1999 AND 2001 RESPECTIVELY
Item #16B8
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VOLUSIA COUNTY FOR THE USE
OF TWO TROLLEY/BUSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $500 PER
MONTH, PER BUS AND APPROVAL TO EXPEND $3,500 FOR
THE UPGRADE OF THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS OF
EACH BUS
Item #16B9- Moved to Item #10L
Item # 16B 10
THREE MONTH CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH
ATC/INTELITRAN FOR THE PROVISION OF
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
Item # 16B 11
Page 278
May 14, 2002
TWO ROAD IMPACT FEE REFUND REQUESTS: DE ANGELIS
DIAMOND CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29,533.12; AND JANCI PRABAKARAN FOR FLORIDA
ENDOSCOPY CLINIC IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,398.39
Item #16C 1
RESOLUTION 2002-223 AUTHORIZING THE DECLARATION
OF A UTILITY EASEMENT FOR TWO WATER WELL HOUSE
SITES AND A PIPELINE TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A
PORTION OF PROPERTY ACQUIRED FOR A FUTURE PARK
SITE- NOT TO EXCEED $22,924
Item # 16C2
AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER CDM-FTR-99-6 WITH CAMP
DRESSER & MC KEE, INC., FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO EFFLUENT RESOURCE PLANNING- IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,000
Item # 16C3 -Continued to May 28, 2002
APPROVE STAFF, COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISAPPROVE A TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATION FOR THE BAREFOOT BEACH CLUB DUNE
RESTORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,500
Item # 16C4
Page 279
May 14, 2002
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Item #16C5 -Continued to May 28, 2002
APPROVE STAFF, COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISAPPROVE A TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATION FOR THE GOODLAND CANALS DREDGING
DESIGN AND PERMITTING IN THE AMOUNT PF $150,000
Item # 16C6
RFP #02-3360, FOR BEACH RAKING AND CLEAN UP
ACTIVITIES- AWARDED TO LIGHTNER CONTRACTING,
1NC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $50,000 PER YEAR
Item #16C7
DEVIATION TO ALLOW KREHLING INDUSTRIES CONCRETE
FACILITIES AT WIGGINS PASS ROAD CONTINUED USE OF
V4" WATER METER
Item # 16C8
EASEMENT TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY
FOR RELOCATED ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE AT THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
Item #16C9
Page 280
May 14, 2002
AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER JEI-FT-01-0 l-B, TO
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC. , FOR A 12" WATER MAIN
AND A 6" FORCE MAIN TO BOYNE SOUTH PROJECTS- IN
THE AMOUNT OF $44,910
Item #16C10 - Moved to Item #10I
Item #16C 11
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WASTER RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC.
TO CONSTRUCT THE SECOND DEEP INJECTION WELL FOR
THE NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY-
IN THE AMOUNT OF $289,850
Item #16C12
AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS RELATED
TO CONSTRUCTION OF A WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN TO
SERVE THE M & E TRAILER PARK- IN THE AMOUNT OF
$72,600
Item #16C13
STANDARDIZATION AND PURCHASE OF A TV/GROUT
TRUCK FROM COMMUNITY UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC., (CUES, INC.) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $209,900
Item # 16C 14
Page 281
May 14, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING POSITIVE CARRY
FORWARD OF A $300,000 VARIANCE IN THE POLLUTION
CLEAN-UP AND RESTORATION FUND AND TRANSFERRING
$300,000 TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FUND
Item #16D 1
SUB-GRANTEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA IN
THE AMOUNT OF $48,586 AWARDED THROUGH THE STATE
COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM
Item # 16E 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALLY $125,000 FOR THE
EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF A 150 TON CHILLER AT
THE SHERIFF'S CID BUILDING, HORSESHOE DRIVE
Item # 16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH PROMOTING THE "COOL SUMMER
BREAKS" PROGRAM
Item # 16E3
EXTENSION OF ALL AGREEMENTS UNDER RFP 98-2835,
ANNUAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, PENDING AWARD OF
NEW AGREEMENT- (ESTIMATED $40,000 PER MONTH
DURING THE EXTENSION PERIOD)
Page 282
May 14, 2002
Item # 16E4
BID #02-3361, HARDWARE AND RELATED ITEMS -
AWARDED TO JACK AND ANN'S FEED & SUPPLY, INC.,
MCCONNELL'S TRUE VALUE HARDWARE, HAWKEYE
TOOL AND SUPPLY, INC., PLUMBMASTER PROFESSIONAL
GROUP, SUNSHINE ACE HARDWARE, INC., AND ITW INC.,
D/B/A AAA TOOL AND SUPPLY- AT AN ANNUAL COST OF
$40,000
Item #16E5
AGREEMENT WITH CEDAR ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS TO
DEVELOP AND DELIVER TRAINING TO COUNTY STAFF
PURSUANT TO IMPLEMENTING THE NEW FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM- AT AN ESTIMATED
COST OF $185,955
Item # 16E6
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER THE COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAPLES STUDIO CONTRACT
Item # 16E7
CONTRACT #02-3324, "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMETRIC SERVICES"-
AWARDED TO AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE
Item # 16E8 - Moved to Item # 10J
Page 283
May 14, 2002
Item # 16E9
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY'S PRESCRIPTION DRUG
PROGRAM PROVIDER, EXPRESS SCRIPTS AGREEMENT, TO
REDUCE PRESCRIPTION DRUG RATES AND EXTEND THE
AGREEMENT ONE YEAR, TO JANUARY 1, 2004
Item # 16E 10
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SHORT
TERM DISABILITY WITH SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY
OF CANADA, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 2002 - IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $39,000
Item # 16E 11
TERMINATION OF THE CBSA ON-SITE CUSTOMER SERVICE
SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM AND THE CREATION OF A FULL-TIME
EMPLOYEE IN THE EMPLOYEE SERVICES CENTER TO
PROVIDE THESE SERVICES AT AN ANNUAL SAVINGS TO
THE COUNTY OF $10,000
Item #16E 12 - Deleted
RFP #02-3353, REVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCES
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES- REJECTED DUE TO A
CHANGE IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES; PROPOSALS TO BE
RE-SOLICITED
Item # 16F 1 - Deleted
Page 284
May 14, 2002
SECURE APPROVAL OF AN ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE
BETWEEN OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., AND CLEARSHOT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Item # 16Gl - Added
CHAIRMAN AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A LETTER SUPPORTING
AN APPLICATION TO THE FDOT FOR THE PROJECT OF THE
YEAR AWARD FOR THE NAPLES AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT AS REQUESTED NY THE NAPLES AIRPORT
AUTHORITY (NAA).
Item #16I 1
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY AS CIVILITY MONTH
Item # 1612 - Deleted
REQUEST FOR TWO MONTH LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR
KATE GODFREY-LINT FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD AND THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Item #16J1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
Page 285
May 14, 2002
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 286
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
May 14, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Co
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 April 13, 2002 through April 19, 2002.
2. Disbursements for April 20, 2002 - through April 26, 2002.
Districts:
1. Lely Community I3evelopment District Minutes of December 19, 2001.
Minutes:
1. 1-75/Golden Gate Interchange Advisory Committee - Agenda for April
18, 2001.
Rural Lands Assessment Area Oversight Committee - Agenda for April
15, 2002; Minutes of March 18, 2002; Rural Lands Assessment Area
Oversight Committee- April 1, 2002; Minutes of April 18, 2002
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for April 16, 2002;
Minutes of March 18, 2002.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for April
12, 2002; Minutes of March 8, 2002.
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for April 8, 2002.
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda for
February 13, February 26, and March 13, 2002; Minutes of February 13,
February 26 and March 13, 2002.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Beautification - Minutes of April 5, 2002
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for April 25,
2002; Minutes of January 31, 2002
H:Data/Format
o
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for April 26,
2002; Minutes of April 5, 2002
Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for April 17,
2002; Minutes of March 20, 2002
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes of March 4, 2002.
Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board - April 17, 2002
Livingston Road Phase II Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Commiffee -
Agenda for April 24, 2002; Minutes of March 27, 2001.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for April 17, 2002.
Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee- Agenda for April 9,
2002
Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board Summary - Minutes of
January 3, 2002, Minutes of December 18, 2001
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board Regular Meeting -
April 25, 2002
Environmental Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 1, 2002.
Hispanic Affiars Advisory Board - Minutes of January 31, 2002
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Wednesday May 1, 2002
Clam Bay Sub-Committee - Agenda for May 1, 2002; Minutes of April
4, 2002
H:Data]Format
May 14, 2002
Item # 16K 1
ENDORSEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY FEDERAL EQUITABLE SHARING AGREEMENT
VALID THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005
Item # 16K2
DETERMINATION THAT THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item # 16K3
1NCREASE OF TEN SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
UPON AWARD OF A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE THREE YEAR COPS UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM
2002 GRANT REQUEST
Item #16K4
INCREASE OF EIGHT SWORN LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS UPON AWARD OF A UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THREE YEAR COPS IN SCHOOLS
2002 GRANT REQUEST
Item # 16K5
Page 287
May 14, 2002
GRANT-IN-AID FROM THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMISSION IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $27,917.56
FOR JUVENILE DEPENDENCY COSTS
Item # 16L 1
SETTLEMENT IN FLEETA WHEELER, AS PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA DELGADO
AND FLEETA WHEELER, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY
OF KIMBERLY SABRINA DELGADO - AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item # 16L2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE COST OF
SUPPLEMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES AND THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Item # 16L3
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
CONDEMNATION OF PARCELS 124 AND 125 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY F.
JANCIGAR, AS TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0142-CA-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT $4,350 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT
Item # 16L4
Page 288
May 14, 2002
AGREED ORDER AWARDING EXPERT FEES RELATIVE TO
THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 2.4T IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOHN B.
FASSETT, TRUSTEE OF THE ANNE M. FASSETT TRUST
DATED JUNE 5, 1986, ET AL., CASE NO. 99-3040-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD, PROJECT NO. 65041)
Item # 16L5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
CONDEMNATION OF PARCELS 124 AND 125 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY F.
JANCIGAR, AS TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0142-CA-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT $12,305 1NTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT
Item # 16L6
OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, JAMES M. GOLDIE,
TRUSTEE, FOR PARCELS 105 AND 106 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$26,530 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
FAITH BIBLE CHURCH OF NAPLES INC., ET AL, CASE NO.
99-2165-CA, IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 69101 -
STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $9,830 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L7
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT PERTAINING TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 733A, 733B, 733C,
733D, 733E, 733F, 833A, 833B, 933A, & 933B IN THE LAWSUIT
Page 289
May 14, 2002
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MC ALPINE BRIARWOOD,
INC., ET AL. CASE NO. 98-1635-CA- STAFF TO DEPOSIT
$58,041 INTO THE COURT REGISTRY
Item # 17A
ORDINANCE 2002-20, CORRECTING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR
ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 0511S
REFERRING TO THE ZONING DISTRICT OF C-1/T WHICH IN
FACT SHOULD STATE C-3
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2002-21, AMENDING ORDINANCE 90-105, THE
CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD ORDINANCE
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2002-22, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102,
CORRECTING SCRIVENER'S ERRORS DUE TO OMISSION OF
AN INTENDED REVISION TO SECTION 2.6.21.2.2; AND AN
EXHIBIT DEPICTING TYPICAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR DOCK FACILITIES
Item # 17D
ORDINANCE 2002-23, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-107,
WHICH CREATED THE FOREST LAKES ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT
Page 290
May 14, 2002
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair.- T±me 6:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAM~IRMAN
:D~.?g'I~ .~ :-,?-~ CK, CLERK
These mlnut~ approved by the Board on ~-~- ~ & ,
As presented ~ or as co~ected .
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF COLLIER )
I, Lisa Holton, Professional Reporter, do
hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were
taken from a video/audio cassette to the best of my
ability, at the date and place as stated on the agenda
and tape. That the foregoing computer-assisted
Page 291
May 14,2002
transcription, is a tree record of my Stenographic
notes which were taken from video/audio cassette.
Dated this 6th day of June, 2002.
Page 292