BCC Minutes 09/10/2002 RSeptember 1 O, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PUBLIC HEARING
Naples, Florida, September 10, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., at County Commission
Meeting Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
JIM COLETTA
DONNA FIALA
FRED COYLE
TOM HENNING
JAMES D. CARTER
ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Assistant County
Attorney David Weigel, County Attorney Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney Jim Mudd, County Manager Leo E. Ochs, Jr.,
Deputy County Manager Joe Schmitt, Administrator of Community
Development Environmental Services Stan Litsinger, Comprehensive
Planning Manager Tom Wittis, Public Utilities Operations Manager
Kay Deselem, Principal Planner Fred Reischl, Planning Services
Susan Murray, Current Planning Manager Edward Kant,
Transportation Operations Director
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
September 10, 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,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
1
September 10, 2002
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 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
A. Reverend Robert Jacobs, Messiah Lutheran Church
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members
for summary agenda.)
B. June 11, 2002 - Regular Meeting
C. June 19, 2002 - Rural Fringe Special Meeting
D. June 20, 2002 - Budget Hearing
E. June 21, 2002 - Budget Hearing
F. June 25, 2002 - Regular Meeting
G. July 30, 2002 - Regular Meeting
H. July 31, 2002 - Regular Meeting
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to recognize September as National Teen Court Month.
To be accepted by Judge Ellis.
2
September 10, 2002
Be
Proclamation to recognize the week of September 9-13, 2002 as
Museums Celebrate America's Freedom Week. To be accepted by
Charles Abbott.
Proclamation recognizing Big Cypress Basin for their outstanding
assistance to Collier County. To be accepted by Clarence Tears, Jr.,
Basin Administrator.
De
Proclamation for Collier County to continue to support the Everglades
Restoration Plan. To be accepted by Mike Bauer.
Ee
Proclamation to recognize the week of September 16-20, 2002 as
Industry Appreciation Week. To be accepted by Susan Pareigis,
President of Economic Development Council.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of a National Association of Counties award, recognizing
the Collier County Library for their Library Literacy Program. To be
accepted by John Jones, Director, Collier County Library and Roberta
Reiss, Literacy Coordinator.
Be
Presentation of a National Association of Counties award, recognizing
the Collier County Solid Waste Department for their program entitled,
Recycling and Waste Reduction is our Future. The Future is Now.
To be accepted by Denise Kirk, Recycle Coordinator, Solid Waste.
Ce
Presentation by Russell Budd, Chairman of the Board of the Naples
Chamber of Commerce to the Board of County Commissioners
commemorating the events of September 11,2001 along with a
distribution of American Flags.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
Public Petition request by Ms. Elise Batsel Lynn to discuss
reassessment of impact fees on the Homewood Residence.
Bo
Public Petition request by Bruce Anderson to discuss affordable
housing in urban-residential fringe.
3
September 10, 2002
Ce
TItIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AT 10:00 A.M. Public Petition
request by Representative Irving Slosberg regarding Dod Slosberg
Driver Education Safety Act.
De
Public Petition request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss Towing
Ordinance.
ge
Public Petition request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss Alleged
Hepatitis Outbreak in Copeland.
F®
Public Petition request by Richard Yovanovich, representing Toll
Brothers, regarding Naples Lakes Country Club/Blockbuster,
Shipmates and Dry Cleaners.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A®
This item continued from the July 30~ 2002 BCC Meeting. This
item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-
2691, Don Cahill, of Don Cahill Architect/Builder, representing
William and Joann Reckmeyer, requesting variances in the PUD
Zoning District as follows: 1) From the required Gulf Front Yard
(PUD Ordinance 85-83) Setback that aligns with the State of Florida
Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) to allow (A) the balconies
to extend a maximum of 8 feet West of the CCSL; (B) the roof to
extend a maximum of eight feet five inches West of the CCSL; (C)
the shear wall to extend a maximum of ten feet five inches West of the
CCSL; and 2) From the required ten foot access drive right-of-way
yard setback (PUD Ordinance 85-83) to allow: A building setback of
eight feet, a variance of 2 feet, on the East side, along Dominica Lane,
for property located at 107 Dominica Lane, further described as Lot 9,
Block C, Lely Barefoot Beach Unit l, Plat Book 12, Pages 34-37, as
recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida in Section
6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-
2011, Cynthia G. Yanosik, P.E., of Community Engineering Inc.,
representing Strand Professional Partners Inc., requesting a 5-foot
after-the-face variance from the required 20-foot rear yard setback to
4
September ~1 O, 2002
15 feet; a 5-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 20-foot side
yard setback to 15 feet; and a 2-foot after-the-fact variance from the
required 24-foot width of a drive-aisle to 22 feet for property located
at 5692 Strand Court, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
Petitioner requests and Staff recommends that this item be
Continued to the October 22~ 2002 BCC Meeting. VA-2002-AR-
2015 Austin White, of Becket and Poliakoff, P.A. representing Unit
Owners of the Manatee Resort Condominium Association requesting
relief in the RT Zoning District from the 500 square foot maximum
size for a hotel unit set forth in LDC Section 2.2.8.4.7.2.1., to allow
four (4) units of the total 19 as-built units to have 3,200 square feet of
floor area (includes 550 square foot lanai) and to allow 15 units to
have 2,625 square feet of floor area (includes 543 square foot lanai),
for property located at 9566 Gulfshore Drive, further described as the
North 50 of Lot 14 and all of Lots 15 and 16, Block B, Conners
Vanderbilt Beach Estates Unit 1, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Approve the Collier County Fire Prevention and Protection Code
Ordinance.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners adopt
Resolutions approving the preliminary assessment as the final
assessment rolls and adopting same as the non-ad valorem assessment
rolls for purposes of utilizing the uniform method of collection
pursuant to Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes, for Solid Waste
Districts No. 1 and 2, Municipal Service Benefit Units Special
Assessment levied against certain residential properties within the
Unincorporated Area of Collier County pursuant to Collier County
Ordinance 90-30, as amended.
Ce
This item continued from the July 30, 2002 BCC Meeting. Public
Hearing to consider transmittal to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs of a Resolution amending Ordinance No. 89-05,
as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, for the
Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard Area (Heritage Bay Development
of Regional Impact) to establish the "Urban-Rural Fringe Transition
5
September 'l 0, 2002
Zone Overlay" for Sections 13, 14, 23, 24, T48S, R26E, Collier
County Florida by: Amending the Future Land Use Element and Map
Series; amending the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of the Public
Facilities Element; amending the Potable Water Sub-Element of the
Public Facilities Element; amending the Water and Sewer Service
Boundary Map of the Public Facilities Element; providing for
severability; and, providing for an effective date.
De
This item continued from the July 30~ 2002 BCC Meeting~ Ord.
91-102 (LDC). An Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 91-102,
as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which
includes the Comprehensive Regulations for the Unincorporated Area
of Collier County, Florida, by providing for: Section One, Recitals;
Section Two, Findings of Fact: Section Three, Adoption of
Amendments to the Land Development Code, including Amendments
to Division 2.3, Off-Street Parking and Loading; Section Four,
Conflict and Severability; Section Five, Inclusion in the Land
Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date.
Ee
This item continued from the July 30, 2002 BCC Meeting, ST-
2194. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition ST-2194,
Michael Landy, P.E., of Landy Engineering, Inc., representing
Southwest Florida Opportunity Fund, L.L.C., requesting a Special
Treatment Development Permit to construct a 11,200 square foot drug
store and a 266-seat restaurant via the site development plan approval
process on a 4.02-acre site zoned C-3ST, located at the Northeast
comer of the Intersection of US-41 and CR-951 in Section 3,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
F. This item has been deleted.
Ge
This item has been continued to the October 22, 2002 BCC
Meeting. RZ-2001-AR-1595, James G. O'Gara of Marquette,
Development Company, representing Golden Gate Capital Ltd.,
requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a seventeen-lot single-
family home subdivision on 4.26+/- acres on 2951 44th Terrace SW,
further described as Golden Gate Unit 3, Block 103, as recorded in
Plat Book 5, Pages 97-105, Collier County Records in Section 27
6
September 10, 2002
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
This item has been continued to the October 22, 2002 BCC
Meeting. RZ-2001-AR-1596, James G. O'Gara of Marquette,
Development Company, representing Golden Gate Capital, Ltd.,
requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to RSF-5 for a thirteen-lot single-
family subdivision on 3.15+ acres located at 4501 30th Avenue SW in
Golden Gate Unit #3, Block 104, Parcel 1, as recorded in Plat Book 5,
Pages 97-105, Collier County Records, in Section 27, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AS THE CRA BOARD -
Appointment of member to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board.
Appointment of Commissioners to serve on the Value Adjustment
Board and set tentative dates for the heatings.
Co
Confirmation of member to the Health and Human Services Advisory
Committee.
De
Appointment of member to the Development Services Advisory
Committee.
Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board.
F. This item has been deleted.
G. THIS ITEM WAS VOTED FOR RECONSIDERATION AT THE
6/25/02 MEETING AND IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED TO
BE CONTINUED TO THE 9/24/02 MEETING. Request that the
Board of County Commissioners reconsider its June 11 th action
regarding Item 10C, "Request Board provide staff with direction in
regard to landscape maintenance on Devonshire Boulevard."
7
September 10, 2002
He
Discussion regarding Immokalee Impact Fees. (Commissioner Tom
Henning)
Appointment of members to the Health Planning Council of
Southwest Florida Inc.
J. Appointment of members to the Contractors' Licensing Board.
Consideration of the creation of a "Citizens Corps" Advisory Council
to the Board of County Commissioners. (Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Anthony Bove representing the Knights of Columbus requesting a fee
waiver in the amount of $100 for a Parade Permit for a Columbus Day
Parade. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
Be
Status Report to the Board regarding access issues for G's General
Store at the Intersection of Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
C. This item has been deleted.
De
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners review
and approve a Scope of Services and Funding for a Contract with
Dover, Kohl and Parmers for the Development of the Naples Park
Community Plan. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Ee
Authorize a Budget Transfer from the General Fund to the
Development Services Fund in the amount of $4,050.00 to pay the
Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show, Inc., variance application fees
for two off-site signs. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Fe
Recommendation to confirm the promotion of Mr. Leo E. Ochs, Jr. to
the position of Deputy County Manager. (James V. Mudd, County
Manager)
8
September 10, 2002
11.
Board approval of a Budget Amendment in the amount of $106,000,
funding unbudgeted Personal Services Expenses in the County
Manager's Office. (Mike Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
He
Request for approval and funding of a Public Information Coordinator
position for the Public Utilities Division to provide division-wide
communications resources to satisfy a variety of critical needs
($53,200). (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12.
13.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered
to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate
discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the
Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and
considered separately.
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
1)
Board approval of Budget Amendment realigning Personal
Services Funds regarding reorganization of Community
Development and Environmental Services Division, as
approved by the County Manager on May 22, 2001.
9
September 10, 2002
2)
Approve an Agreement to accept a 100% reimbursable Florida
Fish and Wildlife Marine Turtle Grant in the amount of $5,000.
3) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution approvals.
4)
Petition AVESMT2002-AR2930 to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of a
Utility Easement conveyed to Collier County by separate
instruments and recorded in Official Record Book 2270, Pages
1839 through 1840, and Official Record Book 1335, Pages 62
through 65, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located
in Section 6, Township 52 South, Range 26 East.
5) This item has been deleted.
6)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Vanderbilt
Pines, Phase 3, Waterford.
7)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Vanderbilt
Pines, Phase 3, Wedgewood.
8)
Request to accept an alternate Performance and Maintenance
Security and Construction and Maintenance Agreement from
the Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club Neighborhood
Association, Inc.
9)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Chrisms Victor
Lutheran Church.
10)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Classics
Plantation Estates, Phase Two", and approval of the Standard
Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval
of the amount of the Performance Security.
11) Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of"Galilee".
12)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of"Westview
Commerce Park".
10
September 10, 2002
13)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Shores at
Berkshire Lakes, Phase Two-C".
14)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Ibis Cove
Phase Two-B", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Ibis Cove
Phase Two-C", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the Performance Security.
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Laurel
Lakes Phase Two at Laurelwood, a P.U.D.", and approval of
the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
17)
Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Laurel
Lakes Phase Three at Laurelwood, a P.U.D.", and approval of
the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement
and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
18)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Ketch Cay at Windstar,
Unit One".
19)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Ketch Cay at Windstar,
Unit Two".
20)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for '"'Ketch Cay at Windstar,
Unit Three".
21)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Stonebridge Unit Four".
11
September 10, 2002
22)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Stonebridge Unit Five".
23)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Pelican Strand Replat Tract
15".
24)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Vanderbilt County Club -
25)
Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for Fairway
Preserve Apartments.
26)
Approve an Agreement with the Economic Development
Council of Collier County, Inc. (EDC) to execute continuation
of the Economic Diversification Program and provide a
contribution to the EDC of up to $400,000 for Fiscal Year
2002-2003.
27)
Approval of the Mortgage and Promissory Note for a Twelve
Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Six ($12,566) Dollar Loan to
Collier Housing Alternatives, Inc., a Non-Profit Housing
Provider, to assist in the rehabilitation of fifteen (15) special
needs affordable housing units.
28)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for the Final Plat of"Vanderbilt
Country Club".
29)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage,
water and sewer improvements for "Livingston Road, Phase
One (Immokalee Road to Mediterra Entrance)".
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approval to maintain the curbed median area at the intersection
of Radio Road and Commercial Boulevard.
12
September 10, 2002
2)
Approve by Resolution the Local Agency Program Agreement
between Collier County and the Florida Department of
Transportation for the design and construction of ramp
improvements for the Immokalee Road/I-75 Interchange
Improvements.
3)
Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
authorizing the Chairman to sign a Memorandum of Agreement
with the Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (CTD).
4)
A Resolution authorizing speed limit increases from twenty-
five miles per hour (25 MPH) to thirty-five miles per hour (35
MPH) on Tropicana Boulevard and Coronado Parkway at a cost
of approximately $800.
5)
Authorize the execution of a Quitclaim Deed to the property
owner of any interest the County may have in a 30-foot strip of
land along the North boundary of the Terrafina PUD.
6)
Approve Work Order for $1,830,620.00 for the Construction
Engineering and Inspections Services by AIM Engineering and
Surveying, Inc., for Livingston Road Phase III (Pine Ridge
Road to Immokalee Road) six lane improvements, Project No.
62071.
7)
Approve Work Order for $854,078.00 for the Construction
Engineering and Inspections Services by HDR Construction
Control Corporation for Livingston Road Phase IV (Immokalee
Road to the County Line) four and six lane improvements,
Project No. 65041.
8)
Approval to renew the Airport-Pulling Road and Immokalee
Road Current Maintenance Contracts in the estimated amount
of $138,000 for Airport-Pulling Road and $65,000 for
Immokalee Road to Commercial Land Maintenance Inc., for a
Fourth and Final-One Year.
9)
Approve Change Order No. 1 to Construction Contract #98-
2905 for Better Roads Inc., to modify the Radio Road Median
13
September 10, 2002
Opening between Industrial Boulevard and Commercial
Boulevard.
10)
A Resolution authorizing the speed limit reduction from thirty
miles per hour (30 MPH) to twenty-five miles per hour (25
MPH) on 13th Street Southwest from Golden Gate Boulevard to
16th Avenue Southwest at a cost of $100.
11)
Resolution of the Collier County Board of County
Commissioners approving the expenditures of funds for
activities and incentive prizes for children active in the Annual
Walk Our Children to School Day.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Authorize the Chairman to accept the Year 2002/2003 Waste
Tire Grant Offer in the amount of $38,171 and authorize the
Solid Waste Director to sign the Agreement.
2)
Approval of Budget Amendment to transfer funds from the
Water Distribution Telemetry Project to the Facility
Rehabilitation Project for the installation of an additional
variable frequency drive at the Raw Water Booster Station in
the amount of $91,600.
3)
Recommendation to award Bid #02-3395 - "Annual Contract
for Emergency and Scheduled Sewage Hauling" to J.C.
Drainfield for the approximate amount of $150,000.
4)
Authorize conveyance of easements to Florida Power and Light
Company for the installation of Electric Utility Facilities across
the County owned property North of the Naples Landfill at no
financial impact upon the County.
5)
Award Bid No. 02-3404R for backflow prevention assemblies
and associated materials in the estimated amount of $361,517.
6) This item has been deleted.
14
September 10, 2002
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
Approve and accept the execution of two utility easement
agreements for the location of the 30" raw water main in the
Tamiami Wellfield in the amount of $24,650.
Approve a Resolution to authorize the Public Utilities
Administrator or his designee to execute agreements for
Cooling Tower Deduct Meters, and approve Agreement,
Procedures and Application, for the Cooling Tower Deduct
Meters (Recording Fees approximately $15.00).
Accept Livingston Road Utility Facilities provided in
accordance with Developer Contribution Agreement with Long
Bay Partners LLC in the amount of $883,825.
Waive Formal Competition and approve the purchase and
installation of four (4) Allen-Bradley Variable Frequency
Drives (VFD's) at the South County Water Reclamation
Facility, for an installed price of $82,818.00.
Approve a Work Order to Youngquist Brothers Inc. in the
amount of $649,500 to fund and complete the repair of Deep
Injection Well #2 at the North Regional Water Treatment
Facility, Well #1 currently is under similar repair.
Award Contract in the amount of $745,983 for South County
Regional Water Treatment Plant Test Well Construction, Bid
#02-3403.
13)
15)
Accept a Utility Easement for the construction of a reclaimed
water main along the North side of Vanderbilt Beach Road
Extension at a cost not to exceed $2,170.
Approve funding for advancing the acquisition of property
related to future water and sewer facilities in the amount of
$40,000.
Approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $200,000 to
fund unanticipated expenses within the Water Department.
15
September 10, 2002
16)
Approve a Resolution adopting the Collier County North
County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) expansion to
30.6 MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Facilities Plan Update,
authorize the submission of this plan to the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), to facilitate the State
Revolving Loan Approval Process, and authorize the Public
Utilities Administrator to carry out the County's responsibilities
under the Loan Program.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Acceptance of Library Current Year Action Plan and approval
of Library State Aid Application. (FY03 Grant Revenue of
$350,000)
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment to appropriate Building
Maintenance Special Service Revenues totaling $30,000 for
reimbursement of operating expenses in Fiscal Year 2002.
2)
Award Contracts #01-3290 "Fixed Term Professional
Engineering Services" to the following firms: Agnoli, Barber
and Brundage, Pitman Hartenstein and Associates, TBE Group
and Johnson Engineering, (estimated annual amount
$1,000,000).
3)
Award RFP 02-3354 - Comprehensive Energy Management
and Retrofit Services to Siemens Building Technologies, Inc.
4)
Approval of RFP #02-3363 to David Lawrence Mental Health
Center, Inc., DBA Employee Assistance Services of SW
Florida for Employee Assistance Services, at an annual cost of
$28,000.
S)
Approval to award Bid #02-3380 "Purchase and Installation of
Floor Covering" to Wayne Wiles Carpets, Inc.
F. EMERGENCY SERVICES
16
September 10, 2002
1)
Secure approval of an assignment of lease between Omnipoint
Holdings Inc., and Clearshot Communications, Inc., having no
fiscal impact on the County.
2)
Approve a Budget Amendment transferring $505,500 from
EMS Ambulance Fees and $86,800 from Reserves for
contingencies to EMS Personal Services Budget to meet FY 02
Payroll Expenses.
3)
Approval of an agreement between Collier County and Dr.
Marta U. Cobum, M.D., Florida District Twenty Medical
Examiner DBA/District Twenty Medical Examiner, Inc., to
provide Medical Examiner Services for Fiscal Year 2003 at a
cost of $748,500.
G. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Summary of Consent and Emergency Agenda Items approved
by the County Manager during the Boards scheduled recess.
2)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment
#02-500; #02-502; #02-503; #02-504.
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
I. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Commissioner request for approval for payment to attend
NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet.
2)
Commissioners' request for approval for payment to attend
function service a valid public purpose. 2002 Excellence in
Industry Awards Luncheon. (Commissioners Carter, Henning,
Fiala and Coletta)
J. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Items to file for Record as Directed.
17
September 10, 2002
K. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Accept a Civic Traffic Infraction Hearing Officer Grant-in-Aid
from the Office of the State Court Administrator and authorize
Chairman to sign the Agreement (FY03 Grant Revenue of
$6000).
2)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a
Budget Amendment transferring funds from General Fund
Reserves to the Sheriff's Office Budget.
3)
That the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution
authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed
$1,800,000 from the Florida Local Government Pooled
Commercial Paper Loan Program for the purchase of mobile
data infrastructure for implementation of the Mobile Data
Project.
4)
That the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution
authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed
5; 1,400,000 from the Florida Local Government Pooled
Commercial Paper Loan Program for the purchase of equipment
and services necessary to add two additional towers to the
County's 800 MHz radio system.
s)
That the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution
authorizing the borrowing of an amount not to exceed
$2,750,000 from the Florida Local Government Pooled
Commercial Paper Loan Program for the acquisition of 99 acres
related to the Lely Stormwater Improvement Project.
6)
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 for the period July
20, 2002 through July 31, 2002 serve a valid public purpose and
authorize the expenditure of county funds to satisfy said
purchases. The Open Purchase Order Report is available for
review in the County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon
Turner Building.
18
September 10, 2002
7)
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 for the period July 1,
2002 through July 19, 2002 serve a valid public purpose and
authorize the expenditure of county funds to satisfy said
purchases. The Open Purchase Order Report is available for
review in the County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon
Turner Building.
8)
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 for the period of
August 1, 2002 through August 16, 2002 serve a valid public
purpose and authorize the expenditure of county funds to satisfy
said purchases. The Open Purchase Order Report is available
for review in the County Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W.
Harmon Turner Building.
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approval of the Stipulated Order of Taking and Final Judgment
relative to the Fee Simple Acquisition of Parcel 219 in the
Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Cary B. Collins, et ux, et al,
(Immokalee Phase 1 Project).
2)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the Settlement in the Case Styled Collier County v.
Mark Steven Vogel, Case No. 02-835-CC, now pending in the
County Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, for $7,200.00 (seventy-two hundred dollars).
Said Settlement was arrived at during settlement negotiations.
3)
Recommendation that the Board pay the reasonable attorney's
fees and costs incurred by the County employee in connection
with the March 7, 1999 sulfuric acid spill at the North County
Regional Water Treatment Plant as he has successfully
completed pretrial diversion and the charges against him have
been dismissed and that the Board approve any necessary
Budget Amendment.
19
September 10, 2002
4)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 361 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County
v. Tony Guarino, III, et al, (Golden Gate Boulevard Project,
Project No. 63041).
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.
Approve the County's Community Development Block Grant
Program Year 2001-2002 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER) as required by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, and authorize staff to
submit the CAPER to the U.S. Department of HUD.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2002-AR2586 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the 20 foot wide
Maintenance Easement located along the rear of Lot 88, according to
the Plat of"Moon Lake Unit 5" as recorded in Plat Book 23, Pages 79
through 80, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in
Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2001-AR-
20
September 10, 2002
1710 Greg White, of Finishing by Baker, representing Jose and Carol
Rocha, requesting a 2.5 foot after-the-fact variance in the PUD Zoning
District from the required 12-foot side yard setback to 9.5 feet for a
swimming pool and enclosure on property located at 215 San Mateo
Drive, further described as Lot 41, Southport on the Bay Unit 1, Plat
Book 15, Pages 51-53, as recorded in the Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
De
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-
2044, Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson,
P.A., representing Chris Cox, requesting a 30-foot variance from the
required 40-foot rear yard setback to 10 feet for property located at
4790 Radio Road, in Section 1, Township 50 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida.
Ee
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVROW2001-AR1578 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's
and the Public's Interest in a portion of a road right of way for
Cocohatchee Street which was dedicated to the County by the Plat of
"Palm River Shores", as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 27, Public
Records of Collier County, Florida. Located in Section 22, Township
48 South, Range 25 East.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
21
September 10, 2002
September 10, 2002
Item #3A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, all stand. Reverend Robert
Jacobs, from the Messiah Lutheran Church, would you be so kind as
to lead us in an invocation.
Thereupon, (Invocation was given, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. Good morning. I'm
going to start the day off by making sure that everybody remembers
that today is election day. We need you to get out there and vote.
The first item we have here is the consent agenda, summary
agenda. I believe we have one or two speakers on the consent
agenda?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, we have three.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three speakers on the consent
agenda which we'll hear first.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you want to go over -- excuse me,
you want to --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The changes, yes. Let's go over the
changes first, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: For the record, I'm Jim Mudd, County Manager.
First today, we have continue Item 6A to September 24th. And
that's a public petition request by Ms. Elise Batsel Lynn to discuss the
reassessment of impact fees on the Homewood Residence. Again,
that's a continuance of 6A to September 24th at petitioner's request.
Next item is a continuance of Item 8E to October 8th. And that
item was further continued from July 30th, and that's at the
Petitioner's request.
Page 2
September 1 O, 2002
And that's basically the -- you sent the Petitioner back to
redevelop the landscaping in concert with the community character
study. And that was at the northeast comer of U.S. 41 and 951 in that
comer. So that particular Petitioner will be continued until October
8th.
We have an add-on item, 9L. And that's a discussion regarding
the facts request for special assessment for Article 5 work. And that
request to be added was from Commissioner Carter.
The next item is a move item, 16A-21 to Item 10I. That request
is the final acceptance of roadway drainage water and sewer
improvements for Stonebridge Unit Four. And that was
Commissioner Carter's request.
There's also a companion item, 16A-22 to be moved to 10J.
And that again is with Stonewood (sic) Unit Five. And that's a final
acceptance of roadway drainage water and sewer at the request of
Commissioner Carter.
We have a delete item, Number 16B-5. And that was to
basically authorize the execution of a Quit Claim Deed to the
property owner of any interest in a 30-foot strip along the north
boundary of Terrafina PUD. And that's at staffs request. So we're
going to delete 16B-5.
Next item is to move Item 16C-16 to 1 OK. And that has
everything to do with some particulars that the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection needs to have read into the record for a
State Revolving Fund Loan for the expansion of the North Water
Reclamation Facility.
Of note, we have Item 10E, a time certain for 10:30. Petitioner
asked that he could get his folks that basically use that when they get
out of school in order to talk to the Commissioners -- excuse me, at
3:30. So 10E time certain to be held -- or to be heard at 3:30.
Page 3
September 10, 2002
We have one other time certain item, Commissioner, and that's
at 10 o'clock. And that was Item 6C. And that's Representative
Slosberg to talk about the Education Safety Act. That's all I have, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Mudd, did I understand you
that 16B-5 has been pulled?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ramiro, do you have any comments
before we begin?
MR. MANALICH: No, sir, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Well, let's hear the
speakers first on the consent agenda. Then we'll --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What about the rest of the
Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was going to see if there was some
other items we might want to pull on the consent agenda after we
hear from the speakers and then come back to the Commission.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Your call, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you please call the first
speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The first speaker is Nancy Payton and
she would like to speak under Item 16A-4.
MS. PAYTON: Good morning. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation. Actually, there are three items that I
might as well speak to at the same time. 16A-4, 17B and 17E all
have to do with the County giving away, giving up, vacating
easements.
And we ask that these three be continued, because two of these
easements we're giving up because the developer built into the
easement. Instead of going through a variance to see whether they
Page 4
September 1 O, 2002
give the variance or not, they're just asking the County to vacate the
easement that they built into. That seems bad public policy.
Another question I had is why are we giving up these
easements? Why aren't we selling them? For a County that's strapped
for money, why are we giving away land?
And thirdly, I think before we approve any more vacation of
easements that we ought to have a public policy on how we're going
to do it, where we're going to do it and whether we're going to charge
money.
And one of the things that came to my mind when I was looking
at these easements that were being given up was that we ought to be
holding onto those as we develop a green infrastructure for
particularly the urban area. And look at these easements, not just for
cars, but look for them -- if we're not going to put cars on them, for
bicycles, hiking trails, linear parks.
One of these easements that we' are giving up a portion of it
leads to a lake. Well, maybe that would be a nice hike in and out of
that lake. It seems as though it would be appropriate that the Smart
Growth Committee would look to look at these easements to see if
they do work into some sort of green network.
And lastly, I wanted to comment about the ad. In the executive
summary it said that they received no comments from anybody.
Well, actually, I did comment on most of these to either you and/or
Mr. Mudd.
The ad doesn't give the public any option to comment. It doesn't
tell you where to comment other than to come to this meeting. So it's
somewhat misrepresentative of the public's interest if the public isn't
told how they can comment on this particular easement if it doesn't
appear in the ad.
Page 5
September 1 O, 2002
So the ad I think also needs to be reevaluated. Maybe it's a
holdover from the time when the Commission didn't want the public
interfering with County business.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's all possible, Ms. Payton. Why
don't we call up either Ed Kant or Norm Feder and see if they can
answer those. Okay. Joe Schmitt or Ed Kant; one or the other.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development Environmental Services.
I'm just looking at the one easement, reference the Twin
Dolphins Tower on Isle of Capri. We don't own the property. And I
know we've had correspondence with Ms. Payton on this. There's a
misnomer that the County owns this property. The property is under
the ownership of the developer.
This was an old easement for a utility easement. The comer of
the building was constructed over a portion of that easement, a small
piece of the building. It was -- the utility easement was of no use to
the County. And, yes, it was after the fact. But after research
through the County Attorney's Office and my staff engineer, there
was no interest in the public to retain this easement.
So it was really a simple approval process. There was -- again,
we don't sell the land. We don't own the land under the easement.
That land belongs to the developer. All we had was an easement to
allow for public access for utility placement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think there's a possibility we
might be able to look into the wording of the ad so it does have a
telephone number that a person could reference to?
MR. SCHMITT: Oh, absolutely. That's something we'll
certainly go back and correct if there's a deficiency in the ad and who
to notify. We'll certainly deal with that.
Page 6
September 1 O, 2002
MS. PAYTON: And there was another easement that led into a
lake to allow for maintenance of the lake that we're giving up for the
same reason, because they built into the easement.
MR. SCHMITT: I hear you. But I'd have to look at the, again,
at the -- I've only -- just a short while ago I just pulled up the Twin
Dolphin one. I can't recall the other one.
But, again, it's an easement, probably a maintenance easement
or a utility easement. Again, we don't own the property. It was just a
matter of when the PUD was first laid out or when the subdivision
was first approved. It was desiwned with an easement in there to
allow access by either storm water drainage or Utility's Department
or whomever.
And it was deemed that those easements were no longer
necessary or no longer needed to be retained under the control of the
public. So without any time, I would have to go back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, that's fine. I understand the
process of an easement.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The property is still owned by the
original owner.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have the right of access over it.
It's something that we've taken without compensation to the owner; is
that correct?
MR. SCHMITT: In most cases. And I'd have to defer to the
County Attorney for a legal opinion. Ramiro, I would guess from an
easement perspective, we don't compensate the owner. That is
something that is usually designed into either the final subdivision
plat or the PUD. Or, Marjorie, I guess if you can help me on that one
because those are usually attorney questions.
Page 7
September 1 O, 2002
MS. STUDENT: Thank you. For the record, Marjorie Student,
Assistant County Attorney.
I don't usually work on subdivision and platting in what I do.
But I can tell you from my own experience as being a property owner
here and owning property in a platted subdivision that at the time it's
subdivided, in many instances, those right-of-ways and -- or excuse
me, those easements are set forth in the plat on the face of the plat.
And it's something that the developer does to meet the County's
needs as a condition for getting final plat approval.
And that's a real quick answer. But that's my understanding as
to how it works.
MR. MANALICH: The only thing I would add would be I think
we have the legal authority to do what has been asked here on the
agenda. The question that I think Ms. Payton raises is more of a
broader policy issue on future items, which we may want to in depth
consider the policy ramifications.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick question. Ms. Payton
is raising the issue, at least on one of these, and it's just an access
issue. And I think the question might be, does the access to the lake
provide us any benefit from the standpoint of Parks and Recreation or
whatever? And maybe we might want to consider that?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes. We'd have to look at that.
But again, it's not -- we don't own the land.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I understand.
MR. SCHMITT: So but to take that and use that as a park
would be -- we don't even have the authority to do that. All we had
was a maintenance access to facilitate at least the access to the lake.
And it was deemed no longer necessary to retain that under that
easement under the County control.
Page 8
September 1 O, 2002
So again, I'd have to go back and look at this. And we can come
back and report to you in probably an hour or so after we look at
what the issue is. But again, these were all reviewed by both
engineering and Patrick White, the Assistant County Attorney, who
reviews all the legal aspects of these and recommended approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One follow-up question: Does the
legal description of the easement itself provide or identify the
permitted uses for that easement?
MR. MANALICH: Let me take a look, one moment,
Commissioner.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student.
I might be able to help a little bit because I have done title work
in my history. The easement is usually dedicated to an entity. And I
believe the document creating the easement would indicate what the
purposes would be for. And then the legal description of the actual
easement would be contained in the document where the grand tour
of the easement grants that right to the easement holder.
MR. MANALICH: It does appear to be described.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So we could not convert
the use to something else without getting an additional easement? Is
that essentially true?
MR. MANALICH: I think you would be correct. And I'd have
to look at it more closely, but I think you're correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me. I just thought this was
exciting. We could have some new bike paths. But you asked my
question and I withdraw.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe in our future easements we
should cover all bases.
Page 9
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can give an example of this. Out in
Golden Gate Estates for years there was easements going through the
property. You couldn't build it 220 feet. You couldn't build another
one, the idea being way back when they were going to subdivide the
whole thing for mass housing. It never came to be. Ordinances were
changed. Zoning was changed.
Those easements were vacated back about six, seven years ago
en masse throughout a good part of Estates. No money exchanged
hands, but then you had the right to build on those easement lines that
were problematic back then.
Any other comments or questions from this Commission? I see
no lights lit. Ms. Payton, we thank you very much. Okay. Another speaker?
MS. FILSON: No. She was the only one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine.
MS. FILSON: We have a speaker on one of the proclamations,
however.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we'll come back to that.
Meanwhile, I'm going to go down the line here to see if there's
anything else on the Consent Agenda that needs to be addressed and
the Summary Agenda. And also too, I'll ask for you to make any
declarations that are necessary on the Summary Agenda at this time.
We'll start with you, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have had the items pulled, and I
have met -- or had conversation with the people coming to make the
presentation regarding the items I had pulled. Thank you. I have
nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Nothing else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then I, myself, have nothing
else and I have nothing new to declare on the Summary Agenda.
Page 10
September 10, 2002
And yourself?.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would ask that Item 16B-4 be
continued to the October meeting.
I would also ask for Item 17D on the Summary Agenda, Ex
Parte Communications would be on that item. What I need,
Commissioners, this morning is for the Petitioner to amend the
resolution to state that all vacuum cleaner motors will be located
within inside the building.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one was that? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 17D.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no declarations, because I
have not had any contact on the issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we have that Petitioner --
Commissioner, state that for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We certainly can, Commissioner
Henning.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich
representing the Petitioner on Item 17D. We have no problem adding
that to the resolution. The motors are, in fact, located within the
northeast comer of the building, as far-- the furthest point from the
residential. So we will be happy to add that to the resolution that the
motors must be within the actual building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the continuance that --
you're asking for one item to be continued, and we'll make that as
part of this motion for approval at the end.
Okay. Nothing else, then at this point in time do I hear a --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the Regular
Consent and Summary Agenda as amended.
Page 11
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Carter.
those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
All
Page 12
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
September 10, 2002
CONTINUE ITEM 6A TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 BCC MEETING: Public Petition
request by Ms. Elise Batsel Lynn to discuss reassessment of impact fees on the
Homewood Residence. (Petitioners request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 8E TO OCTOBER 8~ 2002 BCC MEETING: This item continued
from the July 30, 2002 BCC Meeting, ST-2194. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Petition ST-2194, Michael Landy, P.E., of Landy Engineering, Inc.,
representing Southwest Florida Opportunity Fund, L.L.C., requesting a Special
Treatment Development Permit to construct a 11,200 square foot drug store and a
266-seat restaurant via the site development plan approval process on a 4.02-acre
site zoned C-3ST, located at the Northeast corner of the Intersection of US-41 and
CR-951 in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
ADD ITEM 9L: Discussion regarding FAC's request for a special assessment for
Article V. (Commissioner Carter.)
MOVE ITEM 16(A)21 TO 10 I: Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements for "Stonebridge Unit Four".
(Commissioner Carter.)
MOVE ITEM 16(A)22 to 10J: Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway,
drainage, water and sewer improvements for "Stonebridge Unit Five".
(Commissioner Carter.)
DELETE ITEM 16 (B)5: Authorize the execution of a Quitclaim Deed to the
property owner of any interest the County may have in a 30-foot strip of land
along the North boundary of the Terrafina PUD. (Staff's Request)
MOVE ITEM 16(C)16 TO 1OK. THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AT 11:00 AM. Approve a
Resolution adopting the Collier County North County Water Reclamation Facility
(NCWRF) expansion to 30.6 MGD (Million Gallons Per Day) Facilities Plan Update,
authorize the submission of this plan to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), to facilitate the State Revolving Loan Approval Process, and
authorize the Public Utilities Administrator to carry out the County's
responsibilities under the Loan Program. (Staff request.)
**Note** Item 10 E to be heard at 3:30 p.m.: Authorize a Budget Transfer from the
General Fund to the Development Services Fund in the amount of $4,050.00 to pay
the Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show, Inc. variance application fees for two
off-site signs.
September 1 O, 2002
Items #3B, C, D, E, F, G & H
MINUTES OF JUNE 11, 2002 REGULAR MEETING, JUNE 19,
2002 RURAL FRINGE SPECIAL MEETING, JUNE 20 & 21, 2002
BUDGET HEARINGS, JUNE 25, JULY 30 & 31, 2002 REGULAR
MEETINGS- APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move we approve the minutes
from the June 1 lth Regular Meeting, June 19th Rural Fringe Special
Meeting, June 20th Budget Hearing, June 21 Budget Hearing, June
25 Regular Meeting, July 30 Regular Meeting, July 31 Regular
Meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second to Commissioner Fiala. I need
discussion. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
ladies and gentlemen.
We're moving on now to -- yes.
now. The proclamation--just one question.
they wish to speak on is which one?
MS. FILSON: 4D.
Aye. Thank you very much,
We're going to do that right
The proclamation that
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: D?
MS. FILSON: Uh-hum. The Everglades Restoration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. What we'll do is when
it comes time for that proclamation, we'll allow that person to speak
first.
Page 13
September 1 O, 2002
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE SEPTEMBER AS
NATIONAL TEEN COURT MONTH- ADOPTED 5/0
We'll go first to the proclamation, Tom Henning, Teen Court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my pleasure to call up
Judge Ellis to the dais. We don't have Judge Ellis.
MR. MANALICH: Judge Ellis had a court proceeding starting
and she had to leave. However, her other representatives are here to
accept it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you step up to the dais,
please, while I read this proclamation.
Whereas, the month of September 2002 has been declared as
National Youth Court Month by the National Youth Court Center
which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice. And whereas,
nationally there are more than 880 youth core programs also known
as Teen Court in operation in 46 states and the District of Columbia,
including Teen Court of Collier County, Florida.
Whereas, Teen Court increases the awareness of juvenile
delinquents' issues and problems, behaviors on a local level and
mobilizes community members and youth to take an active, civic role
in addressing the problem. More than a 150 youth and 30 adults have
volunteered in Teen Court of Collier County in Naples, Florida.
And whereas, Teen Court exemplifies the practice of
empowering youth through involvement of community solution,
problem solving, decision-making, leadership development, public
speaking and positive peer pressure, and whereas, keeping Collier
County safe.
Page 14
September 10, 2002
And it's time to celebrate, support and proclaim the valuable
contribution that the youth and adult volunteers of Teen Court of
Collier County have made in our community.
Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida that September 2002 be designated as
National Teen Court Month, Positive Peer Pressure, Teen Helping
Teens. Done and ordered this tenth of September 2002, signed by
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve the
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Carter. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we get a picture, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Photo opportunity. And face
towards the camera. More towards the center.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stand right in the center.
MR. RICE: For the record, my name is Charles Rice, Director
of Criminal Justice, on behalf of Judge Ellis and Judge Monaco.
Unfortunately, Judge Ellis had to get back to her courtroom. She had
a courtroom full of juveniles, but they thank you. And on behalf of
Court Administration, we thank you. So thank you all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for all you do.
MS. WALLACE: And for the record, I'm Lori Wallace. I'm the
Teen Court Coordinator. And I want to thank the County
Page 15
September 1 O, 2002
Commissioners also very much for supporting us for a year and a half
and making this happen. So we invite you to come back and visit
again. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, I'd just like to say, if
anybody has an opportunity to stop by and watch, I've done it a
couple of times myself; it's really quite an exciting experience. And
you see these teens dealing with teen problems on a teen level. And I
think it's far more inspiring to those that are standing before their
peers to maybe change their way of life. And if you ever get a
chance, do stop by.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, you're next.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER
9-13, 2002 AS MUSEUMS CELEBRATE AMERICA'S FREEDOM
WEEK.- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Will Charlie Abbott
and -- I see Donna out there.
Charlie, this is the proclamation. If you'd like to come up here.
Oh, Ron. Thank you.
MR. ABBOTT: I need to be escorted by the museum director.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And probably kept in line by the
museum director.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You need to face the camera.
MR. ABBOTT: Face the camera.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Whereas, America's museums are
stewards of the nation's history and heritage and special places where
Page 16
September 1 O, 2002
people can reaffirm and examine the richness of the American
experience.
And whereas, the American Association of Museums has called
upon museums across the nation to unite with their communities in
remembrance of September 1 lth, 2001.
And whereas, Collier County Government's museums in Naples,
Everglades City and Immokalee have joined with the museums
nationwide in a week-long program to celebrate the freedoms that
sustain America's strength and honor.
And whereas, Collier County citizens are encouraged to visit the
Collier County Museum and record their personal feelings and
patriotic sentiments.
And whereas, these written records will be shared with
American troops serving in Afghanistan. With local police and fire
departments, the local American Red Cross and New York's police
and fire fighters.
And whereas, September 1 lth, 2001, a day of national tragedy
and supreme sacrifice is remarkable for the strength of the character
demonstrated by nation and our people.
Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that the week of
September 9th through September 13th be recognized as Museums
Celebrate America's Freedom Week. Done and ordered this 10th day
of September, 2002.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion by Commissioner Fiala, a
second by Commissioner Henning.
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
All those in favor indicate by
Aye.
Aye.
Page 17
September 1 O, 2002
staff
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
MR. ABBOTT: On behalf of the friends, we thank you and the
we support.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Stand up here, Charlie.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING BIG CYPRESS BASIN FOR
THEIR OUTSTANDING ASSISTANCE TO COLLIER COUNTY-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. I have the proclamation
recognizing the Big Cypress Basin for their outstanding assistance to
Collier County to be accepted by Clarence Tears. Clarence, you need
to come up here and join everybody else.
MR. TEARS: They're the ones that did the work.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
MR. TEARS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
You're going to let them --
All right. I have a proclamation.
But I -- it is also Bill Habig. Is he here this morning? Bill, thank you.
Proclamation reads as follows: Whereas the Collier County
Storm Water Management section of the Transportation Engineering
and Construction Management Department recently completed a
critical drainage improvement in exotic vegetation and eradication
effort known as the Gordon River Cleanout Project located on the
south side of Golden Gate Parkway, continuing south to the southeast
comer of the Conservancy Nature Center, approximately one half
Page 18
September 1 O, 2002
mile in length, located in Sections 27 and 34, Township 49 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Must have been written by
Clarence.
Whereas, a significant portion of the work compromising the
Gordon River Cleanout Project was performed by Staff, equipment
and materials provided by the Big Cypress Basin Office of the South
Florida Water Management District at no cost to Collier County.
And whereas, Staff of the Big Cypress Basin Office of the South
Florida Water Management District, specifically, William Habig,
Glen Lange, Henry Bujnowski, Robert Kirkland, James Thompson,
Vernon Allen, Aaron Dermid, Steve Salokar, Ray Willis and Gabe
Rodriguez labored tirelessly under difficult conditions for six weeks,
completing the critical first phase of the project prior to the start of
this year's rainy season.
And whereas, by contributing manpower, machinery and
supplies, the Big Cypress Basin's participation in the Gordon River
Cleanout Project saved Collier County an estimated $100,000 in
project expenses.
And whereas, completion of the work improves drainage
conditions and increases flood protection for an area extending seven
miles, north of Golden Gate Parkway to the Orange Blossom Drive.
And whereas, completion of this project results in much
improved section of the upper reaches of the Gordon River and with
less restrictions to storm water flow, increase flow capacity, restore
natural tidal flushing action and environmental enhancement through
exotic vegetation and eradication, all of which will be realized for
many years to come.
Now, therefore be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners that the Big Cypress Basin Office of South Florida
Water Management District be recognized for their outstanding
assistance to Collier County in the spirit of team work, cooperation in
Page 19
September 1 O, 2002
sharing mutual concern, responsibility and stewardship for the
protection and management of the water resources of Collier County
and the State of Florida on this 10th day of September 2002. Done
and ordered this 10th day of September 2002, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. James M. Coletta,
Chairman.
I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Fiala. 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 to 0.
A little tighter or walk back farther; one or the other.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Tears, do you have some
words of wisdom for us?
MR. TEARS: Yes, just a couple. I want to thank Collier
County for the leadership that you have in place, because as a
community, I think government agencies need to work together for
the common good of the public. And I think we have the leadership
team in the County that allows for that to happen. And sometimes we
have to just forget, you know, who's responsible for what and get the
job done. I think this demonstrates that working together we can do a
lot more. Thanks again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Clarence.
Item #4D
Page 20
September 1 O, 2002
PROCLAMATION FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO CONTUNUE TO
SUPPORT THE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN-
ADOPTED AS AMENDED
Would Mike Bower from the Audubon Society come up, please.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the proclamation I have a
speaker on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Why don't we do
that. Would you take a seat upfront and we'll be right with you.
MS. FILSON: Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. And we are here to support the proclamation, but ask for
consideration of a friendly amendment. And it has to do with the
now therefore portion where it says, "Collier County would like
guarantees that any flooding caused by the project will not occur
outside the designated project area." We don't want flooding within
the project area. We're seeking rehydration restoration of southern
Golden Gate Estates.
Also, there are additional issues of potential impacts of the
restoration to areas in northern Golden Gate Estates. And the most
recent meeting of the team that's developing the restoration plan, and
these are issues that Florida Wildlife Federation has brought up
numerous times in various forums, that there is also a concern from
us and residents in northern Golden Gate Estates of dewatering; that
is lowering the water table. And there are concerns for their wells
and for fire protection, so are additional issues associated with getting
the restoration right.
And we ask that you would consider a friendly amendment that
talks something about, the County seeks guarantees that the
rehydration of southern Golden Gate Estates will not result in
Page 21
September 10, 2002
negative impacts to neighboring lands, including northern Golden
Gate Estates.
We felt that that was far more inclusive of some of the potential
problems associated with getting the restoration right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I have no problem with that
second part. But the first part where we remove the word flooding,
flooding is a word that the residents of Golden Gate Estates are very
familiar with. And I think that we need to leave that in there to give
them the insurance that flooding won't take place. I know the
terminology doesn't.
MS. PAYTON: But we don't want flooding in southern Golden
Gates Estates. And I agree that we don't want flooding in northern
Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're talking about the difference
between restoration and water retention as opposed to flooding. And
flooding is the one word they do identify with. And I would like to
leave it in the proclamation if I may.
Start with Commissioner Carter and then Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll defer to Commissioner
Henning first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to move this
proclamation as written and not amend it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, one more time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I say I would like to move this
proclamation with no amendments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So thank you very much, Ms.
Payton.
Page 22
September 1 O, 2002
MS. PAYTON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we do have -- we'll go forward.
Let me read the proclamation and then we'll come back to take our
vote to make sure we are in agreement.
Mr. Bower, would you please take position up here. We thank
you very much for coming here today. And you were one of the
original authors of this, and I thank you for taking the time to do that.
Whereas, the Everglades ecosystem spanning from the
Kissimmee River to Florida Bay is a significant natural resource and
international treasure.
And whereas, December 1 lth, 2000, Congress approved the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
And whereas, Everglades restoration must move forward
expediently.
And whereas, Everglades restoration requires that Congress
approve each restoration project. And three projects are scheduled for
approval during the 2002 Session of Congress.
And whereas, three projects, the Indian River Lagoon Feasibility
Study, the Southern Golden Estates Project and the Water Preserve
Area are immediately necessary because of development pressures
escalating cost of delay and impeding estuary ecological collapse.
And whereas, these projects promise to provide large scale
restoration early in the CERP process, thus demonstrating the worth
of the investment of federal, state, local taxpayers are making in this
historical restoration effort.
And whereas, these projects contain more than half of the total
land area in the restoration plan and provide impressive ecological
benefits well before 2010, including 270 square miles of restored and
protected wetlands and uplands, restored habitat for more than 2,200
species.
Page 23
September 1 O, 2002
At least 35 of them are threatened or endangered, including the
manatees, snail kite, wood stork, red-cockaded woodpecker, scrub
jay, whooping crane, bald eagle, indigo snake, Eastern loggerhead
turtle, Atlantic green turtle, leatherback turtle, Atlantic hawksbill and
Atlantic ridley turtle, tens of millions of dollars in associated
economic and quality of life benefits annually, improved water
quality for the Everglades, Florida Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, St.
Lucie Estuary and Lake Okeechobee.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that Collier County
continues to support the implementation of the comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan through the authorization of three
projects listed above: The Indian River Lagoon Feasibility Study, the
Southern Golden Gate Estates Project and the Water Preserve Area in
a Water Resource Development Act of 2002 or other Legislative
vehicles constant with the insurance provisions of WRDA 2000.
In regards to the southern Golden Gate Estates Project, Collier
County would like guarantees that any flooding caused by the project
will not incur outside of the designated project areas and that the state
and federal government recognizes the rights of the public to recreate
in the project area in a reasonable manner.
Furthermore, Collier County calls on Congress in the Florida
Delegation to endeavor to pass legislation approving the Indian River
Lagoon Feasibility Study, the Southern Golden Gate Estates Project
and the Water Preserve Area. Done and ordered this 10th day of
December 2002. Jim Coletta, Chairman.
And I make a move that we approve this.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second, including the red
Cockatoo woodpecker.
Page 24
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 'Motion by myself, Jim
Coletta, second by Commissioner Carter. All those in favor indicate
by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And the ayes have it 5
to 0.
Turn to the camera there. Would you like to say a couple of
words, too?
MR. BOWER: Thank you very much, Commissioners. Mike
Bower, Southwest Florida Policy Director for Audubon of Florida.
Everglades Restoration is at risk. And it's primarily because of the
immense size of this project, the inertia that is resulting in dealing
with an 8 billion dollar project covering almost all of Southwest
Florida.
These three projects, the Water Preserve Area, the Indian River
Lagoon and our own Southern Golden Gate Estates were scheduled
to be authorized by Congress this year in 2002. And this may not
happen. We're seeking help from all the local entities, West Palm,
Palm Beach County, St. Lucie County have passed similar
resolutions asking Congress and asking the Corps of Engineers to
move forward on this project to get restoration going. And our own
southern Golden Gate Estates may be one of the very first, if not the
very first project in all the Everglades restoration plan to turn dirt.
You've sent a very important message today to the Corps of
Engineers and to the Congress of the United States that, yes, we
support this locally, yes, we want you to get going on this, yes, we
want Everglades Restoration. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 25
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then we have another
proclamation. Mr. Coyle?
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER
16-20, 2002 AS INDUSTRY APPRECIATION WEEK- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, industry in Collier
County is vital to the community's economic health.
And whereas, Collier County's existing industries are the key to
a prosperous future.
And whereas, the expansion of these industries accounts for the
majority of new jobs created.
And whereas, Collier County's industries helps sustain our
quality of life, exemplify high standards of excellence and a positive,
responsible approach to economic diversification and community
enhancement.
And whereas, public knowledge of the contributions made by
industry is essential to maintenance of good cormnunity industry
relationships.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners that the week of September 16th through 20th, 2002
be designated as Industry Appreciation Week and urge all residents to
solute our industries and their employees for their contribution to our
community. Done and ordered this 10th day of September, 2002,
Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida. Jim
Coletta Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 26
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a move for approval from
Commissioner 'Carter and a second from Commissioner Fiala. All
those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5 to 0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we'll see you at the luncheon.
MR. BOWER: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. No. After your picture.
MS. PAREIGIS: Susan Pareigis, President of the Economic
Development Council of Collier County. I want to thank you on
behalf of the Board of Directors and Membership of the EDC for this
proclamation.
We'd also like to invite you and encourage the public to attend
the Industry Appreciation Luncheon next Wednesday the 18th at
11:30 at the Ritz Carlton. We believe that the creation or retention of
highways jobs is essential to the economy of Collier County. And we
thank you for this proclamation this morning. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Susan.
Item #5A
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AWARD,
RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY LIBRARY FOR THEIR
LIBRARY LITERACY PROGRAM- PRESENTED
Page 27
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's my pleasure at this point to ask
John Jones, our director of the Collier County Library and Roberta
Reiss, literary coordinator to come forward, please. Good morning.
MS. REISS: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's a great pleasure that I present to
you the National Association of County's Award recognizing the
Collier County Library for their library literacy program. And this is
very much deserved. It's been a tremendous undertaking that you've
taken and it serves a great purpose in this community. If we can get you to face the camera.
MS. REISS: For the record, Roberta Reiss, Library Literacy
Program Coordinator.
It's indeed an honor to be recognized as an efficient and
effective County/Government Program by the National Association
of Counties. And as a library outreach specialist, it's especially good
to know that the program will also be included in a database
organized by the association. It will be in a database that is available
to all counties all over the United States and as a way to encourage
them to create programs just like this in their own communities.
It's a very proud moment for all the volunteers, all of the
community partners that make this program possible, working so
hard to improve the literacy skills of adults in our community. It's a
very proud moment for library administrators and staff that support it
with their professional expertise.
Thank you very much. And thank you for the Commissioner's
support also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
Item #5B
Page 28
September 1 O, 2002
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AWARD,
RECOGNIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE
DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR PROGRAM ENTITLED,
RECYCLING AND WASTE REDUCTION. THE FUTURE IS
NOW- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Is Denise Kirk the Recycle
Coordinator from Solid Waste Collier County here? Denise, please,
come up here. And it's with great pleasure that I present to you an
award from the National Association of Counties recognizing Collier
County Solid Waste Department for their program entitled Recycling
and Waste Reduction in our Future. The future is now, and you've
done a remarkable job.
Collier County is starting to shine as one of the people that is in
the forefront of the recycling movement. And I'd like to present this
to you.
Would you like to say a couple of words?
MS. KIRK: Oh, sure. The Solid Waste Management
Department has made great strides in the last couple of years under
our director, Dr. George Yilmaz.
We really appreciate the Commissioner's support, the County
Manager's support and the community's support. Let's all recycle.
Thank you very much.
Item #5C
PRESENTATION BY RUSSELL BUDD, CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF THE NAPLES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMEMORATING
THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11,2001 AND DISTRIBUTION
Page 29
September 1 O, 2002
OF AMERICAN FLAGS - PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Now, Russell Budd, the
chairman of the Board of Naples Chamber of Commerce. Would you
come forward, please.
MR. BUDD: Good morning, Commissioners. As chairman of
the Naples area of Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the Board of
Directors and membership of the chamber, we're proud to join with
the Naples Daily News, WINK-TV, WNOG AM Radio and the
Marco Island Chamber in sponsoring Flags for Freedom. And it will
be a Southwest Florida Tribute scheduled for today and tomorrow.
And hundreds of free flags are being passed out to police, fire
units and emergency medical vehicles. And the sponsors of this
program request that all the citizens of Southwest Florida display
flags in memory of September 1 lth.
And I would like to, with your permission, present these to your
Staff for distribution to the EMS vehicles. Unfortunately, I have no
flags for you as that would be a gift, which we cannot indulge in.
With your permission?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Item #6C
REQUEST BY REPRESENTATIVE IRVING SLOSBERG
REGARDING DORI SLOSBERG DRIVER EDUCATION
SAFETY ACT- STAFF TO PREPARE ORDINANCE FOR
ADVERTISING
Page 30
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're at public petitions.
We're going to go to Item 6C, which is a 10:00 o'clock certain. And
we'll do that first.
Representative of Slosberg, are you here?
MS. MORRELL: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Desiree Morrell and I'm the legislative assistant to State
Representative Irving Slosberg. Representative Slosberg regrets he
could not be here himself today and thanks you for giving me a few
moments of your time.
The Representative's 14 year old twin daughter died in a car
accident in 1996. This session he passed an act in her name to bring
in money for driver education courses.
We are asking the Commission to enact the Dori Slosberg
Driver Education Safety Act, which allows a three dollar surcharge to
be added to all civil traffic violations. This money is earmarked for
driver education in the County schools.
In the year 2000, this ordinance would have brought $147,351 to
Collier County for such programs. This act was intended to enhance
and not replace already existing driver education money. We offer
our assistance in any way we can to help expedite this process. The
act goes into effect on October 1st. And I'd like to thank Lieutenant
Rhodes from the Florida Highway Patrol for support of this.
CHAIRMAN C_LETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is there anything Representative
Slosberg would like us to do as a Board of County Commissioners?
MS. MORRELL: As the Board of County Commissioners, we
are asking you to draft an ordinance and hold a public hearing to pass
such an ordinance so you can start a program.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I would
recommend to this Board that we give Staff direction to make that
happen.
Page 31
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If I see one. Commissioner
Coyle, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a question: This surcharge that
is to be added, does that money stay within the County or is it
expected that it will be submitted to the State and reapportioned?
MS. MORRELL: No. The State never touches the money. The
County sets up a fund and collects the money and distributes the
money as they see fit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It appears to me and I will --
and I just have concerns that this is just another tax. What we do
have in the school system is driver education presently. I will wait to
see and get public input before I make up my decision and vote on a
new ordinance which appears to be a tax.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very well put. But right now we're
going to direct Staff just to bring it back. And I got how many nods
of heads, two, three. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, you have my support on
this. But what I would like to do is to have some input as to how this
money is spent. I'd hate to see this money just get thrown into a
program without increasing the efficiency of the program.
And if there were some specific guidelines that we could
provide the school concerning certain deficiencies or certain
additional programs that are required, then I think that would be
helpful.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is for public and private
schools.
MS. MORRELL: Right. Most of the counties are working with
their Public School Board to better the programs, because this money
can be used to buy additional cars, simulators, update textbooks,
Page 32
September 1 O, 2002
certify teachers and expand it to allow more students to participate in
such a program. And this money is not intended to be a tax. It is an
extra surcharge on violators only to help our children learn to drive
better.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiata and then
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. From what I understood and,
of course, we'll be doing this locally and we'll be working with the
School Board, but I understood from the backup work that you gave
us, in other counties what they've done is pull the people off the
simulators and actually give them driving experience.
From the statistics you gave us, it looks like children not being
able to actually drive but just using simulators because it was cheaper
in the school system has led you to this; is that correct?
MS. MORRELL: It is. We're hoping that it can expand to a lot
more children, because a lot of County School Boards only offer it
during the summer. Only a certain amount can take it. There are kids
on waiting lists, and we want to make sure that -- simulators are not
bad. But there is no replacement for actually being in a car and
stepping on that gas pedal and feeling the car underneath your feet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think what I hear the Board
asking is to Staff in that direction you would like to know or outline
the goals, the scope of the program, including the uses, and it really
goes after violators. And I don't have a problem taking the violator
on something like this. And hopefully I may not even be here.
But when you bring it back it will fulfill the goals and the scope
so that the Board would feel comfortable in best utilizing these funds
in Collier County to achieve the objective and that is improve driver
education.
Page 33
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN CHAIRMAN: I think we got direction to the
Staff. And I agree with Commissioner Henning that it shouldn't be
just another tax. This should be something that would embellish what
is already there and add to it, rather than just replace other dollars.
With that, I thank you very much for bringing this to us.
MS. MORRELL: Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, while we're on that and you've
given direction, just to clarify, we're looking at the last meeting in
October, first meeting in November to have the ordinance drafted, the
hearings done, and the coordination with the school folks.
So I just want to make sure we're putting that expectation out
there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Understood.
MR. MUDD: So it's not coming back to you next meeting.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, that's great. I'd be happy to
vote on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item #6B
REQUEST BY BRUCE ANDERSON TO DISCUSS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN URBAN-RESIDENTIAL FRINGE-
STAFF TO COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to go back to 6B now.
Bruce Anderson with public petition on Affordable Housing.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson. And I filed a public petition to
request you to allow a late filed comprehensive plan amendment to
Page 34
September 1 O, 2002
provide for workforce housing in the urban fringe area that abuts the
east side of Collier Boulevard.
By allowing a late filing, the merits of an amendment to
encourage workforce housing could be considered at a first hearing, a
transmittal hearing, before the end of this year instead of waiting
another year.
This amendment would make land in the urban fringe eligible
for the same affordable housing density bonus that other lands in the
urban area are eligible for. The particular project that my client
would offer up later in the process would not be rental housing. It
would not be Habitat for Humanity, but it would be home ownership,
a combination of single family and multifamily. I agreed to become
involved with this request because the client wanted to do home
ownership affordable housing project.
And I really think that type of project needs to be encouraged by
the County because there are no substantial state or federal programs
in financing, to my knowledge, for affordable home ownership like
there are for affordable rental apartments.
Now, I have been informed that several years ago the County
Commission had directed Staff to look into this very issue and report
back, but that it was never followed up on. I'm asking you to allow
my client to do that follow-up and not put it off for another year.
The County should be encouraging private sector initiative to
address workforce housing needs, particularly the stability of home
ownership. And I would suggest that we should not be imposing
procedural road blocks that would further delay and discourage
workforce housing initiative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning first and
then Commissioner Fiala and then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we talking density bonuses of
what, Mr. Anderson?
Page 35
September 1 O, 2002
MR. ANDERSON: I believe currently it's in the urban area you
can get a density bonus of up to eight dwelling units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. It's not 16. It's eight
units. And you're talking about doing this, the proposal, in the rural
fringe?
MR. ANDERSON: Urban fringe.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Urban fringe.
MR. ANDERSON: Which is -- I have a future land use map
here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Between 951 and one mile east.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. That's not within the
receiving lands. It's just urban fringe.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. It's been lands
designated as urban fringe since 1989. The current base density there
is one and a half units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: As opposed to the true urban area where the
base density is four units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think it's worth
considering to take a look into more detail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I agree with Commissioner
Henning. It sounds like something we would want to look at. I note
two things: I like the idea. In fact, I love the idea that it's moderately
priced owner-occupied homes. There are so few where young
families now can go to college and then come back and buy a home.
And our market out there is almost void of any of that anymore.
So you're filling a gap here that needs to be filled. I do want to
know-- and I guess we'll get into this as we move forward. I do want
to know from our Transportation Department how this will impact
Page 36
September 1 O, 2002
the roads before we decide. And I don't guess we have to know that
now; right?
MR. ANDERSON: No. In fact, that's the kind of thing that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
MR. ANDERSON: -- would have to be addressed in a plan
amendment itself.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's the only thing I would be
concerned with. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Anderson, I understand
roughly it's a mile east of 951 to what we call the urban line border.
It's a corridor.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And within that, would you
envision this becoming a mixed-use where we might have, literally,
the village concept where not only you have the income sensitive
housing but that they have easy access to the conveniences so they
don't have to exasperate the road situation by coming further into the
urban area to meet some basic services?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, I didn't want to bite off any more than
I could chew. And the urban fringe subdistrict, I do not believe,
allows any commercial development at all.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, Stan Litsinger,
Comprehensive Planning Manager. We have reviewed Mr.
Anderson's petition and we're generally very supportive of the effort
to provide affordable workforce housing, particularly on an
ownership basis.
I think from the Staffs perspective, however, that we would ask
that due to the late nature of this petition that you not accept this
public petition to include another comp plan amendment in the
current cycle which is already late due to workload. We have several
Page 37
September 10, 2002
amendments in process and in various stages of review and
compliance.
Staff would recommend that this amendment be included in the
Spring Cycle for the FYO Three Amendments. There's a possibility
that there will be a second cycle amendment also in the spring
relative to Community Character and Land Development Code
associated with implementation to community plan.
We are about two weeks from advertising for the transmittal of
the FYO Two Cycle Amendments on the Planning Commission for
November the 7th with yourselves and the November the 26th. Time
is very short if the Board is inclined to approve this petition for a late
submittal of a comp plan amendment to enable this using the urban
residential fringe.
We would request that you direct us to process it as a Staff
Amendment and not a private petition with the Petitioner providing
data and analysis and support in order to assemble the necessary
traffic analysis. And there's a lot of work that has to be done in order
to assemble this amendment package in a very short order. We are
very short on staff and time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, other
Commissioners have raised a number of good suggestions about how
we can deal with the affordable housing crisis. I would like to see us
deal with this issue in a comprehensive manner rather than
piecemealing it.
Certainly the impact fees are something we have to consider and
their impact upon affordable housing. And these changes might very
well be good, but my concern is that we do them on a comprehensive
basis rather than piecemealing these things. And I would suggest we
do have a workshop of some kind concerning this so that we can get
input from Affordable Housing Committee and Staff.
Page 38
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to echo on that,
Commissioner Coyle. I'm a little bit concerned that we're rushing
this to the point where we won't have the sufficient public input. And
this is a pretty big thing. And I'm sure that the public's going to want
to weigh in on this, not only on the amendment, but also on each
particular project that's going to go out there.
And I'm a little bit leery about trying to rush it through in a
manner that will not give it proper public exposure. I'm totally in
favor of doing this. I think it's a wonderful idea. I'd like to wait for
spring cycle myself.
Commissioner Carter, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Anderson, in regards to what
Mr. Litsinger asked you, would you be willing to do all of that if it
was expedited?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. And if we have to wait
for the spring cycle, would you also be willing to make a major input
to assist us in data gathering and modeling for this proposal?
MR. ANDERSON: I can't make that commitment. I do not have
authorization to do that. Like anything in the construction and
development industry, time is money, particularly so where the
margins are thin on an affordable housing project. My client may no
longer -- may lose the interest, contractual interest that they have by
springtime.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I hear that. That's a
decision that as a Commissioner I probably won't be here to make.
But if I had my druthers today and your client was willing to do
modeling and provide it to the Staff and we could do it as a Staff
proposal, then I would be in favor of trying to put a piece of this into
the process.
I don't know. That might have been for me.
Page 39
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They started timing us now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, I think so. So those are my
comments, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, two questions: If we were
able to put this on this LDC cycle, would that then allow them to
build these homes with the impact fees that are in place today or will
the new and higher impact fees still --
MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner, these comp plan
amendments will probably be transmitted in November and probably
be adopted and become effective sometime in early june or July of
the following calendar year. Of course, they would be subject to the
impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time.
So I think the answer to your question is, no, ma'am, they would
not be in at the current rate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And the second question
was to Commissioner Coyle when you were talking about a
comprehensive plan. Were you talking about a comprehensive plan
for this whole corridor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. Just for affordable housing or
workforce housing. There are a number of issues that have been
raised with respect to workforce housing and how the proposed
impact fees will affect it. And there are lots of other things like
mixed use, workforce housing and that sort of thing.
But I've just heard a lot of issues raised about how are we going
to deal with a workforce housing problem? And I don't know that we
have reached any solutions yet. And I think we should reach a
solution, but I think it should be in a comprehensive workshop where
we can take all of these issues and consider them at one time and
Page 40
September 10, 2002
make sure that there are no contradictions and they work effectively
to achieve the goals. So that was my only observation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me see if I can move this along a
little bit with Mr. Mudd's help. We're all in agreement that this is an
excellent idea as far as individual homes being built for home
ownership. I think the question that comes to mind that we haven't
really settled is, would it be in this cycle or the next cycle? And I
think that's something that we need to direct Staff on which way we
want to go. So I'm going to ask the simple question: How many
Commissioners here would like to see it happen in this cycle rather
than the spring cycle?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Raised hand.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to vote yes on that,
Mr. Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman. I don't want to miss a
window of opportunity to try to do something in a section for what I
call income sensitive housing. It may not be a perfect solution, but if
it does put a piece in there, then in further workshops, if you look at
the big picture, it seems to me that you can fold this in as, "Here's a
piece that's working and what did you learn from it?" And maybe
you can even further amend it at that time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only question I would have that
would determine my vote is if we were to force it through this cycle
and to bring it through this cycle by bringing outside help and maybe
cover the cost for the -- Mr. Anderson's client. I'm not too sure how.
I'm sure that can be worked out by Staff when it comes back to
us. Would we be able to get total exposure to the public in an
equitable manner or are we going to be lacking the pressure of the
whole thing?
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, if you direct Staff, and I
assume the direction would be to initiate a Staff originated
amendment with the support of the Petitioner relative to data
Page 41
September 1 O, 2002
collection and analysis in order to meet the advertising requirements,
the answer to your question is that, yes, they would go through the
two public hearing process for transmittal, Planning Commission on
7th of November and yourselves on the 26th of November and it
would go into the review process and come back again for final
adoption through two public hearings in the spring.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then I'll put my name with
the other two here as having it sooner than later. Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. If the question is, would we
prefer to have it sooner than later, I will certainly support that. I
agree with that. But I'm not sure that is the question.
The question is, should we do this in a comprehensive workshop
and get almost all of these issues resolved? And if we can do that
sooner rather than later, I think that's fine. And I would be willing to
have the workshop within this next quarter to accomplish that. I'm
not in any way trying to postpone the issue. I'm merely trying to get
it dealt with in a more comprehensive fashion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I see Courmac Giblin coming
up. But just as the liaison to the Board from the workforce Housing
Advisory Board, I don't believe we're quite ready yet for a workshop,
because we still have to define what the needs are and how we're
going to tackle them before we start workshopping it. I think we're a
ways off yet. But I stand to be corrected.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator of
Community Development and Environmental Services.
Commissioner Coyle, just to address your concerns, we're going to
cover this here in our workshop on the 17th of September in detail
where we're going to cover some of the impacts, some of the
recommended programs to help offset the impacts of the raising of
Page 42
September 10, 2002
impact fees, the impacts on low income housing. So those issues will
be addressed. And we're going to be putting some issues in front of
you and, of course, the rest of the Commissioners to give Staff some
guidance on which direction to go as to deal with that issue.
So though it's not a separate, entire piece from our standpoint
where we can look at low income housing, it's going to be addressed
from the impact fees perspective. And then, of course, the Low
Income Housing Work Group is going to come back and make
proposals as well as part of their findings and duties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would be the schedule for
that, Joe?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think Courmac Giblin just
whispered in my ear just a second ago. Jim Mudd, County Manager,
for the record.
The Work Force Housing Group should be ready in about two
months. Joe's got -- Joe Schmitt's got three LDC Workshops for you
to start laying out what you want to have in the springtime.
During one of those workshops, we can bring that forward. And
we can take the majority of that three-hour block and discuss that
particular issue to get a more comprehensive look at how we want to
address affordable housing, not only the 17th, talking about the
funding and the mitigation side as far as impact fees are concerned or
what things we can lessen the impact as far as monetary, but a more
comprehensive look as far as zoning and things like that and density
bonuses at a later workshop about two months away from now. I
think that's all doable.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you can do that in two months
from now and have a workshop, it would seem to me that we couldn't
deal with this one, this particular petition much faster than that. So if
that information is going to be available, I would suggest we try to do
it at that point in time and incorporate this recommendation into the
Page 43
September 1 O, 2002
others that we're going to workshop within the next 60 days. And
that would seem to me to be the most efficient way to do it. And we
can move ahead more quickly that way, I think.
But if the Board wishes to move more quickly, I'm not going to
try to stand in the way if you want to do this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have three people that
have nodded that they would like to have it in this cycle.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. ANDERSON: If you would prefer rather than have this
applicable to the entire urban fringe, we could submit it as simply a
site specific amendment and allow you more time -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like that.
MR. ANDERSON: -- to consider the overall urban fringe area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I think you're going for a
much easier direction to be able to meet the public need out there,
you know, trying to encompass the whole urban fringe is asking a lot.
That was my concern.
Can we really get the public input in a manner that's going to
mean something. But if we site specific, I think it's going to be
something that will be a lot easier to deal with.
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, are we in agreement?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah. I like the idea because it
gives you a model. From that model, you can figure out how that
will play out in your total bigger picture.
MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, my only concern is that this
item is on public petition today. It's normally not slated for any
specific action of the Board. I think direction can be provided, but I
don't think we can take any specific action today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We're offering certain
direction, many directions to look at and come back with. Of course,
Page 44
September 10, 2002
don't waste your time looking too hard in some directions. How did I
do, Ramiro?
MR. MANALICH: Okay. Mr. Mudd can we work with that?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we'll come back the next meeting
and talk to you about this thing. We haven't seen, the Staff hasn't seen
the recommendation. We don't know the traffic implications. We've
got to go down utilities. We've got to go through all of those things.
Give us a chance. Next meeting we'll come forward --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- the same time. And the Planning folks will
start working that process and they'll start working with Mr.
Anderson and his client to start working on all the detailed
information they need in order to do that Staff proposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we covered that sufficiently.
MR. ANDERSON: I guess I can file an application? Okay.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to ask our Staff
when they come back to the next meeting of-- because I know the
workload of our Staff is what is in jeopardy of putting off day-to-day
workload or some of the long-term projects that the Board has asked
the Staff to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Knowledge of the fact
that they're overworked. That's for sure. But we're going to ask them
to do a little more, I guess.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Overworked and short-staffed.
MR. MUDD: We'll bring that next time to give you the
implications of that, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 45
September 1 O, 2002
Item #6D
REQUEST BY MR. JIM KRAMER TO DISCUSS TOWING
ORDINANCE - COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK
AMENDMENTS AT A FUTURE MEETING
Let's move on to the next public petition. Mr. Jim Kramer to
discuss the towing ordinance.
MR. KRAMER: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr.
Chairman. My name is Jim Kramer and I reside on Plymouth Rock
Drive in Naples.
Quotation: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing."
I started my public petition to you folks on February 12th. I was
directed because the accident took place in Naples to go to Naples. I
was directed by Naples to come back to the Commission. I came
back to the Commission on March 12th. Sitting at this table, Tom
Olliff said, "I'll take this on personally." Tom Olliff is no longer with
US.
It actually went to the detectives in the Sheriffs Department
who took sworn statements from myself and the tow truck driver. It
was sent to the State Attorney's Office.
The State Attorney's Office said that your ordinance, which is
9938, has a flaw in it. And here's the flaw: Each violation of this
ordinance shall be subject to the maximum fines or penalties as then
specified in the law under which the enforcement action is based,
including Section 125.69 Florida Statutes as if a misdemeanor.
Those two words "as if' included in your ordinance makes it not a
misdemeanor and cannot be criminally prosecuted.
Page 46
September 10, 2002
I would ask you to amend this ordinance taking out those four
letters or two words and put this on your next agenda. And let's get
this cleaned up. I believe your Staff has had a look at this and they
probably have something to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I ask that we direct the County
Attorney's Office to take a look at this ordinance and bring it back in
a future meeting for consideration of amendment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have some agreement here?
Four of us agree. Thank you very much on that.
Item #6E
REQUEST BY MR. JIM KRAMER TO DISCUSS ALLEGED
HEPATITIS OUTBREAK IN COPELAND - CHAIRMAN TO
SEND LETTER TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE REQUESTING
INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER; MR. KRAMER TO
MEET WITH ATTORNEY'S OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Now that we have you up there, we'll start your time over for
your second item, if you may.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you. Again, my name is Jim Kramer,
and I reside on Plymouth Rock Drive in Naples.
Quotation: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
for good men to do nothing."
There was a newspaper article on Friday, August 23rd entitled,
"Copeland meeting ends fairly peaceful after rocky start."
I'm here to ask you to arrest James Hammond. The gentleman
who perpetrated a hoax down in Copeland needs to be arrested and
reminded that this is not the kind of activity we take lightly in Collier
County. This gentleman perpetrated a hoax to get the media out there
Page 47
September 10, 2002
so that he could complain to you, Commissioner Coletta. And I don't
think that's right.
Now, I happen to be a security guard over at the Naples
Municipal Airport. An incident happened one day, a gentleman was
in the restaurant drinking and making -- mouthing off and making
statements whereby he eventually said, "Well, I'll put a bomb in this
place." That was not taken lightly by the National Guardsmen on
duty that day. As a matter of fact, he put his M-16 rifle on that
gentleman and told him to get on the ground.
We have Federal statutes that require somebody not to make
threats like that.
You and I don't go down to the Hollywood 20 and pull a fire
alarm so that people think there's a fire in that theater, because there
are statutes against that.
In this case there ought to be a law. There ought to be a law not
allowing someone to perpetrate a hoax or create mayhem, or
whatever legal term you want to use in this particular instance, down
in Copeland. And I would ask you to put this on your next agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to Ramiro to comment on
this, please.
MR. MANALICH: Well, obviously I think we all share Mr.
Kramer's concern if it is determined from the facts that threats were
made. And he may be correct that those may be criminally
prosecutable.
Now, on the other hand, we have competing concerns of a First
Amendment nature in terms of if merely opinion is stated by
someone whether that can be actionable, whether criminally or
civilly. Certainly we can look and see what authority we have.
Obviously, this Board does not have criminal prosecution
authority. But depending on -- I'd welcome any comments from the
County Manager. But we can certainly review from the County
Page 48
September 1 O, 2002
Attorney perspective whether there is any law that would be
implicated by this. We'd first have to marshal facts beyond just, you
know, the brief newspaper article here.
It's not clear from this article whether Mr. Hammond was
speaking in terms of his opinion about the water quality or was he
actually saying that he had contaminated the water supply, which
may be a significant distinction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, there's some facts I'd to enter
into this that have come to my attention. The news media was very
much put off because they were directly referred to, not as possible
problems with Copeland but that there was a hepatitis outbreak in
Copeland.
Several news people have told me that and I think that a couple
of them would be more than willing to testify in Court to that fact that
they were told this. Substitute the word hepatitis for Anthrax and I
think you would have had a much stronger outpouring of grief
against Mr. Hammond for what he did. The thing was is that it
caused a lot of people undue concern.
The County incurred expenses to make sure that this -- we were
sure at the time that we went out that there was no basis to it. But we
can never take the position that there isn't.
So County employees were sent out in an emergency basis to do
special testing to confirm what already had been done days
beforehand and prove the fact that there was no contamination of the
water.
Since then Mr. Hammond has been denounced by the Civic
Association for this. The news media also denounced his actions and
the way he handled it. But, you know, how are we going to assure
ourselves that there won't be a reoccurrence of events like this for
nothing more than to use it for a median of event.
Page 49
September 1 O, 2002
MR. MANALICH: I think those are all well-taken concerns.
The question is, did the conduct-- and we would have to marshal the
facts, did the conduct rise to the level of being actionable either
criminally or civilly? It may or may not have.
I mean, we will have to have more specific information and for
that criminal determination, that's not something my office or this
body can do. That would require law enforcement. And I'm not sure
if that has been looked at by law enforcement already. I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And would you advise Mr. Kramer
to take this to the Sheriffs Department?
MR. MANALICH: He apparently already --
MR. KRAMER: I have been to the Sheriff's Office. The road
deputy that I talked to on the Saturday of that week said that there
was nothing that could be done. But since then I've been referred to
the two attorneys over in the Sheriff's Office. I believe their names
are Skipper--
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Schryver--
MR. KRAMER: Schryver--
MR. MANALICH: -- and Hedberg.
MR. KRAMER: -- and Hedberg. And I haven't spoken to them
yet, but I certainly would like to do that. I also have a great concern
because of the County budget that we have. As Mr. -- or
Commissioner Coletta has said, we have incurred expenses and we
ought to be able to go after this gentleman civilly for those expenses.
MR. MANALICH: Certainly that's something my office can
look at in cooperation with the County Manager. I think as far as the
criminal part of it, it's probably more appropriate for him to pursue
the discussion with Mr. Hedberg and Mr. Schryver.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Ramiro, I have, Mr. Kramer, I
have a fax sheet sent to me by County Manager Jim Mudd that says it
Page 50
September 1 O, 2002
cost us a total of $259.64, which public record can be shared. This
may be more of a philosophical issue than a financial issue because
of the numbers involved.
But I don't think that is the issue. The issue is what the person
did and whether or not he can be prosecuted. And as you said, is it a
right to opinion or is it actually a criminal offense? And I'm not
going there, because I don't have any knowledge about that. I will
share this with you and hopefully that will provide some information
for the discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Carter. Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was exactly what I was going
to refer to is the $259.64. It would cost us more to go through the
collection process than it would be worth to get the $259.64. But
from the standpoint of principle, I don't see any reason why we
shouldn't bill him for it. And I believe the guy should be arrested and
prosecuted.
But that's not a function of the Collier County Commissioners,
as far as I can determine. And I would encourage the Sheriffs
Department to take a close look at this and investigate it, because I
don't think it is action that we should permit without some kind of
action on our part. But our hands are pretty much tied.
We don't have an investigative arm, and we don't have arrest
powers. So I don't know where we go with that other than make
some symbolic gestures like billing this man for the cost.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also too possibly we could write a
letter to the Sheriff's Department, if you so directed me, to asking
them to look into it and send us back a final report. That might weigh
a little bit more than if the Commission was to directly ask them to
take a serious look at it and see what laws may have been violated.
Would you direct me to write such a letter?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be supportive of that.
Page 51
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would be supportive of that
unless legal counsel advises otherwise.
MR. MANALICH: I think it's appropriate that you can ask for
that and an investigation be done by the Sheriff's agency if they, you
know, to the extent they deem it appropriate. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And just to make sure that it's totally
appropriate, will you help to draft the letter?
MR. MANALICH: Of course.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That means he's just going to sign
his name to it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, Mr. Coyle, that's assumption.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're using our legal
department for assistance?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No way. I mean, I stay up 'til 3:00
o'clock in the moming working on these things.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Watch out there. Prince of
darkness rides again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Proclamations and findings I do
about 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.
MR. MANALICH: What I envision, Mr. Chairman, is now that
the Board is taking a position on this, because we haven't gathered all
the facts, but merely saying this has been brought to your attention by
a citizen and that you would encourage that the Sheriff's Office
review this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Kramer, I can't tell you how
much I appreciate you being on top of these issues. You are
definitely a part of what happens here. Thank you.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's royal.
Page 52
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to take a very, very
short break to give our receptionist a few -- our recorder a few
minutes to rest her weary fingers.
Thereupon,
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, will you take
your seats, please.
Item #6F
REQUEST BY RICHARD YOVANOVICH, REPRESENTING
TOLL BROTHERS REGARDING NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY
CLUB/BLOCKBUSTER, SHIPMATES AND DRY CLEANERS-
STAFF TO BRING BACK AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM ON
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
Okay. The next item, public petition request by Richard
Yovanovich representing Toll Brothers.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you ready, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm ready. Please.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich,
representing Toll Brothers. This is kind of an unusual item because it
involves an interpretation issue of a PUD, which is basically Naples
Lakes Country Club has a commercial aspect of the PUD.
The PUD document was drafted by someone other than myself,
and none of the Staff that's currently the County Staff was involved
in the review of the original PUD.
And we have found through the process of obtaining an
occupational license for shipmates, which is a Pak Mail place where
they sell green cards, you can go and take your Christmas presents
and have them mailed off. You can get photocopying, fax services.
Page 53
September 1 O, 2002
It's just kind of a business-type -- business service oriented business
that the PUD doesn't clearly list that has a permitted use. It talks
about a lot of different things.'
But it doesn't clearly say that the Pak Mail portion of the
business is a permitted use. In discovering that, as we were going
through the process, I met with your County Staff, who have been
very helpful in determining how do we get in front of the Board of
County Commissioners to allow the business to open, because it's
ready to open.
In the meantime, correct some of the language in the PUD to
clarify that it is a permitted use. Staff and I have a disagreement. I
believe it is a permitted use. Staff isn't clear that it is permitted use.
And since the Board of County Commissioner's is the ultimate
interpreter of their ordinances, we were directed to come to the Board
of County Commissioners on the public petition portion of the
agenda to advise the Board of County Commissioners that there are
two uses that are in question as far as the PUD goes, not a question as
to compatibility and appropriateness. And the two uses are the pack
and ship that I just described and a -- your typical drop-off and
pickup dry cleaner.
Interestingly enough, the PUD as written would allow coin-
operated-operated laundries, and I didn't even know there was such a
thing, but coin-operated dry cleaners. Those are permitted uses; I
think that was scriveners error.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, to cut to the chase,
we need to bring this baCk at the next meeting if it's the Board's
desire. And I think that's most appropriate to do that at our next
meeting to take under consideration what the PUD and the uses
should be. Is that what you were asking?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, actually I was under the
impression that basically Staff wanted some direction to go ahead and
Page 54
September 1 O, 2002
allow us to open those two businesses and continue on it. We already
started the PUD process to clarify --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can we do that? Can we take that
action today?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you think due process would be
served by doing it today? I mean, the public hasn't been noticed that
these two establishments are looking at this particular location. It is
in deference to what's already been decided.
Possibly one meeting, the next meeting might be the right time
to bring it back so that the public can be duly notified.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, what I might add, I have not
had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Yovanovich on this directly. But
we did discuss it in the office. And I would have some concern along
with what Mr. Coletta just mentioned about acting on this today.
The other thing -- concern we had was, and maybe Mr. Schmitt
can, you know, enlighten me on this, but I was not aware that there
was any specific authority that we located for the action which is
being requested for this conditional or provisional permit.
Obviously, he come back with a PUD amendment. But anyway,
those are my concerns.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. For the record, Joe Schmitt,
Community Development Environmental Services Administrator.
What happened here, of course, is what Mr. Yovanovich stated. He
came in for his -- basically his approval to open up the businesses.
It was deemed at that time that the PUD's -- the PUD did not
authorize the permitted -- by permitted uses. There was -- it just was
an error in the way this PUD was developed. We looked at it. We
looked at the uses. It was beyond Staff's authority to make -- to
approve the uses that Mr. Yovanovich was asking.
But in our assessment in looking at the uses, they were no
different than what is there today. This is the Publix facility at 951
Page 55
September 1 O, 2002
and Rattlesnake we already have. In fact, there was an issue on the
Blockbuster which we finally cleared.
But this is now the pack and ship and a drop-off cleaners.
Neither use is any more intensive than what's going on there right
now. But frankly, it did not fall under the permitted uses in the PUD,
and it was beyond Staffs authority. I recommended to Mr.
Yovanovich, we don't oppose it. It just doesn't appear to be anything
that -- what he's asking would be a prohibited use. It's just a matter
of the PUD did not specify that use.
He's asking the Board, frankly, for a conditional approval,
zoning approval, pending the outcome of the PUD amendment,
which he's already had the preap and he's already in the process of
amending the PUD. And that will come before the Board.
Now, the businesses are totally at risk here. They can open up.
Of course, we should be indemnified from any financial aspect,
because if, in fact, you the Board choose not to authorize these uses,
they would have to close their business.
And that's strictly the risk that his client has expressed that
they're willing to take because they feel that, and certainly Staff has
made the assessment as well, we feel that these two uses really are
not any more --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yep.
MR. SCHMITT: -- intense than what goes on there right now of
the current uses within that mall or that plaza.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, whatever it takes for the public
to be able to be duly notified is all I ask. MR. SCHMITT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Cormnissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I was just going to say about
the same thing is I didn't think it would be high-intensity, but also not
Page 56
September 1 O, 2002
offensive to neighbors. I can't see why anybody would be in
opposition of something they can readily use.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So I agree.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So are we in agreement to have this
brought back next meeting?
MR. MUDD: I would recommend that you do that,
Commissioner. If you decide to do anything on this, you direct Staff
to bring this back next time so that we can put it on agenda, we can
lay out all the information that the public be duly noticed and then, so
that we won't have to guess what the public has to say on this
particular case, if somebody has an opposition to an interim approval
for this particular use while the variance process goes along.
And why is Mr. Yovanovich here? They have contract issues
with businesses that are ongoing right now and the variance process
that that PUD will probably take until about February to get all the
way through, all the particular wickets that we have in County
government.
So he's asking the Board for a conditional process. But if you're
going to direct Staff, I would recommend that you direct them for
next meeting and not give us any further direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As Commissioner Henning
suggested in the beginning, are you in agreement?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: David?
MR. WEIGEL: David Weigel, County Attorney. I just
mentioned that in reviewing the issue, taking the PUD as we found it,
as Rich, on behalf of his client found it, that his request today is
obviously not set up to come back for two weeks from now or
another period from now.
Page 57
September 1 O, 2002
But it is -- he is in the process, on behalf of his client, to bring it
through that formal PUD amendment process to clarify or add the
language for these particular uses that he's mentioned that are not
specifically in the ordinance.
Typically these ordinances will have an additional little phrase
that says, and uses similar to what has been illustrated or enunciated,
and this ordinance fails to have that language. What Mr. Schmitt was
indicating is that they do, in fact, have a desire, a need, if you will, to
go forward if possible so that these businesses may open.
Mr. Yovanovich has assured me and indicated that he would
state for the record that if they were to get -- have the ability to get
the occupational licenses that they need, that those would be in a
provisional operational stance subject entirely to the process of
getting a PUD amendment which, of course, would include the full
ability of the due process Mr. Coletta mentioned of notice to the
affected public as well as notice to the public generally for them to
come in.
And Mr. Yovanovich has indicated to me that if the decision of
the Board at that time were to not approve these additional uses to be
brought in as an amendment to the PUD, that he, on behalf of his
clients, is indicating that that is the decision, always the decision and
the authority of the Board and they would govern themselves
appropriately to recognize that the business couldn't continue at that
point in time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It sounds like putting the cart before
the horse. And I'm uncomfortable with that. In other words, we got
two weeks to think about it. It would come back to us. And if we
didn't think it was appropriate, they would have to close the business.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think in two weeks you will be
advised any differently from Staff whether it's Development Services
side or the County Attorney's side as you are right now, unless you
Page 58
September 10, 2002
think that by having an item in the agenda, as this one already was,
that you'll have more public opportunity for the public to say yeah or
nay to just giving them a provisional approval.
Because that is all that essentially you can do in this process
before you right now is .say, potentially say, "We'll allow you to go
forward because Staff has indicated to us that they think these are
compatible uses--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. WEIGEL: -- but you must come through the formal
process for formal decision-making by us later." And that they go
forward at that risk of a yes or a no decision based on all of the input
that you get at that point in time.
I'm merely going through this with you at this point to indicate
that two weeks from now probably won't change much as far as due
process. It apparently, would have significant ramification of the
ability for Mr. Yovanovich's client's businesses to start now or
subsequent to two weeks.
But the decision that you'd make two weeks from now from a
legal standpoint wouldn't be any stronger or less strong, I think, than
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
public opinion does not matter.
will listen to you after the fact.
But what we're saying is that the
We already made a decision, but we
I'm kind of lost on that. But I'll go
with whatever my fellow Commissioners would like.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would just say then it would seem to
me, Commissioner, that then -- I don't know what you would achieve
in two weeks because you still have a formal PUD amendment
process that you'll need to go through in any event.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I agree with our County
Attorney. And we're not sidestepping public input. There are
Page 59
September 10, 2002
conditions on this occupational license. And for me, I'm going to
have an open mind when that comes back for an amendment. So I
would like to direct Staff of just what Mr. Weigel has stated. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: (Nodding in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: (Nodding in the affirmative.) We
have three, four. Okay. We have four Commissioners in agreement
with that.
MR. SCHMITT: And just for clarification, to direct Staff, I
would only approve the use and, of course, the occupational license is
issued by the Clerk's Office. So we would -- that would be -- our
approval would facilitate that process.
And then, of course, the owners of those businesses are subject
to your decision. As Mr. Mudd mentioned -- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-hum.
MR. SCHMITT: -- probably by the time we get through this
process, it will be February before you see this PUD come before you
with the amended uses.
And then at that time his client is at total risk as to whether the
businesses will continue to operate or will be deemed not appropriate
uses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we got sufficient direction for
Staff that we can proceed to the next thing.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I have to as, I promised David, to stay
on the record, that we do acknowledge that you are not approving a
PUD amendment today. We are going through the process, and we
are subject to the final decision in February. And whatever that final
decision is, we will live with.
Page 60
September 1 O, 2002
Obviously, we hope the final decision will be to allow the stores
to continue in operation, and we'll go through that process. I just
want you to know, we have already begun that process. We have had
our preapplication meeting. We have scheduled our neighborhood
meeting.
So we are actively in that process and we understand that the
decision will ultimately be made in February, I hope at the latest, and
if we can go faster, if we can go faster and get it through the process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. I'm sorry.
We have two people here that want to ask you some questions.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm not going to muddy the
waters.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I've said all I'm going to say.
Item #10K
RESOLUTION 2002-374, ADOPT1NG THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) EXPANSION TO
30.6 MGD (MILLION GALLONS PER DAY) FACILITIES PLAN
UPDATE AND SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECITON (FDEP),
TO FACILITATE THE STATE REVOVLING LOAN APPROVAL
PROCESS - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a time certain now
at 11:00 o'clock, Item 1 OK which was formerly 16C- 16.
MR. WITTIS: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
Tom Wittis, Public Utilities Operations Director.
Page 61
September 1 O, 2002
What you have in from of you this morning is we're asking the
Board to approve the resolution to adopt the facilities plan for the
North County Water Reclamation Expansion to 30.6 million gallons.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to move for approval
Mr. Chairman. And do we have any public speakers?
MR. WITTIS: Excuse me, Commissioner, if I may, we just
have a very brief requirement to speak to this document in open
forum. And I've asked our consultant from Angie Brewer &
Associates to give you a very quick briefing on that, if we may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please continue.
MR. WITTIS: Thank you. Mark Brewer, please.
MR. BREWER: For the record, my name is Mark Brewer with
Angie Brewer & Associates. Quickly, the project is an ultimate
expansion of the North County Regional Wastewater Facility to 30.6
MGD. What this -- this is a step in the process of accessing low
interest loan funds through the SRF loan program. And several
alternatives were evaluated all the way down the unit process level.
However, we do have to allow any public comment on the
expansion. It is required through a consent order. That's what began
the process.
However, your existing rate structure does support that service
on both the initial expansion phase one and the ultimate expansion of
phase two. And that's all I have to say.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's why I move for approval.
And if we have a second, then we can go to public speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Henning, yes.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have no speakers.
Page 62
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion or questions?
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 to 0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Item #9H
DISCUSSION REGARDING IMMOKALEE IMPACT FEES -
STAFF TO DISCUSS AT WORKSHOP LATER THIS MONTH
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the next item we're
going to move to is an item that you asked to be added to the agenda
Commissioner Henning, 9H, discussion regarding Immokalee impact
fees. I believe we have one speaker on that also. MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I do not
see that speaker. Oh, I'm sorry, I do. So, yes, I'm requesting that to
be advanced on the agenda so we can address it.
Let me start offby saying, I understand Commissioners Coletta's
request through a memo to take a look at Immokalee. Different than
when we approved the impact fees being the sensitivity of workforce
housing and affordable housing.
My request is to direct Staff to take out in previous years and
years to come on the needs of Immokalee so that when I make a
decision on that topic, I'm fully aware of the future needs and the
expenditures and of the impact fees that we have made in Immokalee.
Page 63
September 1 O, 2002
And I ask to direct Staff to have this ready for impact fee
workshop coming up this month.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Why don't we go to the
speaker at this point in time and then we'll open up some dialogue up
with Staff.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, you have one speaker, Mr. Fred
Thomas.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Thomas, we appreciate you
coming all the way from Immokalee.
recovery.
MR. THOMAS: I'm very sorry.
I hope you're having a quick
I'm having some reversals on
the pain medication I was taking. So if I act a little crazy, be patient
with me.
For the record, my name is Fred Thomas. And I have on there
as chairman of your-- the Immokalee Community Redevelop
Advisory Committee. Collier County is a very large, 2,035 square
mile County where 80 percent of the people live on 20 percent of the
land.
And four of you people represent that 80 percent as the coastal
20 percent of Collier County. That coastal area, very beautiful,
competes very well with Carmel, California; Scottsdale; Hilton Head;
Palm Beach in attracting the quiet, retiring wealth from the rest of the
world to come here to the beautiful Naples coast. And you're doing
an outstanding job of that.
A lot of the decisions y'all make are made to enhance that.
Forty-seven miles from where we're sitting right now there's your
second population center. That's, in other parts of the state, two
counties away from where we're sitting right now is a small
agricultural community that has a national significance.
Between the months of November and March, 80 percent of the
vegetables grown in this country come through Immokalee. There
Page 64
September 1 O, 2002
are many federal and state programs that are designed to work with
small rural communities around this country to help keep them
viable, providing a service that meets the nation's needs.
Now, when you talk about impact fees because of land values in
coastal Collier County, just another doc stamp, insignificant number.
People don't even look at it. They don't even factor that in. It doesn't
change any decisions of whether they're going to buy the lot or not
buy the lot.
But when you talk about the same kind of impact fees in the
community of Immokalee, that puts people out of the business of
being able to buy a house. If you look at the millage rate across the
County until y'all raised your fire impact -- millage rate several years
ago, Immokalee's millage rate was higher than yours on the coast.
But because of the land values, we don't generate the kind of
money you generate. Now, we want to generate more money. In
order for y'all to continue to attract the quiet retiring wealth, y'all
have certain standards you must do.
In order for us to grow and prosper, we got to have the ability to
grow, to get industry that does not demand as much back on the tax
dollars as they pay, to increase agricultural, which does not -- they
only want 37 cents back from the agricultural taxes that they pay.
And we got to do that just like any other community across this
country does by doing some things to encourage growth, not to allow
things to stand in the way of growth. And right now the impact fees
and other things are in the way of growth.
There's no reason in the world why Ford can't build a plant here
in Immokalee. But when they compete with other communities
around the country that, one, did not have impact fees; two, are
willing to abate taxes for several years because they know that after
that several years the tax base will increase. And that's all we want to
do is have our tax base increase.
Page 65
September 1 O, 2002
If you look at first-time home buyers in Immokalee, 60 percent
of them are buying houses in Lee County, over in Lehigh Acres. It's
only ten miles away. Only ten miles away. And they're doing that
because of the cost of land in Immokalee; added on to the impact fee
they can get a much better place. And when they get a better place
over there, we then lose the sales tax along with that and all the rest
of the stuff that helps makes business viable in a small agricultural
community.
We need y'all to understand that you go a very diverse, a
dichotomy, if you will, across that swamp that y'all talked about
earlier in the proclamation that you got to treat differently, because
we're not trying to attract the wealth. We're trying to attract the
industry and the growth.
Thank y'all very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't go away. Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I hope that we can
refrain by turning off all cell phones and beepers.
Mr. Thomas, I hope that you understand, I'm just asking for
information so I can make a logical decision.
MR. THOMAS: I understand that, sir. And if you check, we've
already had the Department of Housing and Urban Improvement
check for the last ten years on road impact fees. About a third,
maybe half, third to half that we collected we spent in Immokalee.
I mean, we're not doing a whole lot of things in Immokalee, you
understand. We have not done a whole lot of things in Immokalee.
We're saying to you to jump-start us. We need to find a way to get
over the hurdle that is desirable on the coast because of what you're
trying to attract.
But it's not desirable where we are because we want the growth.
If we can get a couple of industries in that airport that y'all spent a lot
Page 66
September 10, 2002
of money on to bring 200 employee jobs there, the kind of income
that can be generated from that won't parody with the coast, but get
us close to being good, to take care of ourselves. We want to take
care of ourselves.
But we got to get the capital there to take care of ourselves. And
the capital there is good, clean industry. I mean, remember, coastal
Collier County did not want the university.
We're willing to take an auto plant, a juice plant, high tech
assembly operations; any of those kinds of things that would bring
jobs to our area, bring industrial average taxes to our area. That's
what we need. That's all I'm trying to make sure of that we keep a
focus on that.
Y'all keep trying to make this one homogeneous county and it's
not. It is just not. And you got 30 miles of swamp to get over to get
to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it's any help to you, Commissioner
Henning, I've already requested the road impact information, because
that was the one I thought that we had an argument for about the
logistics of the numbers. As it is now, we have two districts, and
there's seven districts altogether as far as roads go in Collier County.
Two of those districts pay no impact fees because of minimal or no
road improvements that are planned in the near future, major
highways or anything. Immokalee is in a district called District Five.
And it's almost continuous just on Immokalee itself and the
surrounding areas. And what we were looking for is data to be able to
substantiate the fact that I maintain that the majority of the people in
Immokalee stay within Immokalee, do their shopping in Immokalee.
And those that do travel because of the distance and the prices go to
Lehigh --
MR. THOMAS: On State Road 82.
Page 67
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- go to Fort Myers. They go other
than to Naples. Someday maybe we can correct that deficiency with
a four-lane highway.
But the whole process is that in order to be able to kick-start this
we're going to have to come up with something that's fair and
equitable on the road impact fees, very much like we charge. We
waive the impact fees for schools, for the elderly living facilities.
They'll have no impact on it.
Immokalee's even willing to do without some concessions that
are coming up in the near future to be able to get around this, to make
it work. The thing is is that in order for them to be competitive, they
got people walking away from the table all the time over there at the
Industrial Zone.
They come in and they see what the impact fees are. They're at
a total loss. And they turn around and they walk away. They go to
Lehigh Acres where there's no impact fees where they can over -- not
Lehigh, Hendry County --
MR. THOMAS: Hendry County.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- or Lehigh Acres where the impact
fees are a third. And that's not even allowing for the increases
coming up.
I, myself, would have a hard time trying to get away from the
other impact fees as far as the Parks and Recs, the school impact fees.
We know that that has to happen. Their own fire department has an
impact fee they recently imposed. Absolute necessity has got to take
place.
But I think when the time comes that we're going to examine
this and we get the information on the uses of the roads and how
much it's impacted by the people from Immokalee coming all the way
back into the urban area, we might be able to come up with
Page 68
September 1 O, 2002
something that's a little more equitable for Immokalee. And with
that, I'll go to you, Commissioner Carter.
MR. THOMAS: Can I interject while you're talking about
transportation? Y'all think of Immokalee Road as serving
Imm0kalee. Immokalee Road doesn't serve Immokalee. It doesn't
serve Immokalee. It serves Golden Gate Estates.
And if you have to four-lane the road that goes that way, you
don't want to four-lane 846 beyond 858. 858 was a general store.
You don't want to do that because you're going to end up having to
four-lane 858 anyway because of the growth down Everglades
Boulevard, down Desota Boulevard that's happening every day.
And there's no way for those people to get out but to come up to
858 to get out. So if you four-lane 858 all the way over to 29, you
give those folks a way to get to Miami.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Uh-hum.
MR. THOMAS: And just give us a little spir-off to go north
when you get down to Camp Keais Road. But see, Immokalee Road
-- when I came here this morning, I came down the interstate. When
I go back, I go back the interstate.
I wouldn't mess around with Immokalee though for five
minutes, because I -- until I can get past 858, Immokalee Road is a
disaster zone.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, let's stay with the impact fee
part. That's fine, Fred. I'm glad we got across on that.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's a very broad, broad-based
issue here. And, Commissioner Henning, I commend you for
bringing it forward, because that's part of the discussion that has to
take place in that zone. It's only logical to take a look at these things.
Page 69
September 1 O, 2002
And then if we look at the rest of it, everything that Mr. Thomas
said this morning is right. We don't have economic incentives here
for Collier County.
We're getting our brains beat out. That's another whole issue,
because we're not competitive. And we're going to keep losing jobs
here. And you're going to keep going through the same discussions
ten Commissions from now, 20 Commissions from now, if you don't
figure out what we're going to do overall in terms of economic
growth, what you're going to do to stimulate that, what are you going
to do to have enterprise zones; all of these things. And we're not
going to resolve that this morning.
But we have an impact fee workshop. That's only one piece of
it. And that's why I keep pushing this Commission to get to a
revenue Commission to get to a bigger picture. Because until this
County addresses those issues, we will sit here. I won't, but my
successors will and the rest of these ladies and gentlemen will.
And I could come in here a year from now, two years from now
and I guarantee you you will have the same discussion. So it's time
to look at all the pieces. It's time to begin to look at all of this and
ask the real hard questions: What are the revenue streams, what do
you want this County to do for economic development, what are you
going to do to incentivise (sic) economic development and what are
you going to do to address the realities of the community of
Immokalee for what it is?
Because people go to shop the shortest distance to the store.
And I agree with you, Mr. Thomas. You can six-lane Immokalee
Road. And if I live in Immokalee and it's quicker for me to run up to
Lee County to Wal-Mart, I'm sure not going to drive all the way into
Naples to go to a Wal-Mart.
So we better get real in terms of looking at the demographics
and what you really want to do with impact fees and other revenue
Page 70
September 10, 2002
streams to make all this work. I'll get off my soapbox, Mr. Chairman.
But I think it's only the right thing to do to get all of the information
to any of these workshops.
But you got to deal with what the reality is and quit hoping that
some magic rescuer is going to come from the heavens, because it's
not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So Commissioner Henning's
suggestion, so we don't just drop it and move on, was to ask for total
impact information. Where I've already requested the road
information, he wants it for everything across the Board. And do we
want to direct Staff to go forward with that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't have any problem with
that, because I think it needs to be put on the table.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
on a
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
motion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
Okay. Do we need to do that
Just direction to Staff.
MR. MUDD: The plan is on the 17th to give you the most
complete information that we can about everything, impact fees and
alternatives as far as funding is concerned and things that you can do
to mitigate, stimulate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Another point too while we're at it,
before we go on to the next item, there is a task force that has been
put together in Immokalee that's looking at this situation. And they
were supposed to look at other situations too, but believe me, this has
dominated the meeting for the last couple of meetings we had. And
we have another one coming up on Thursday.
They have extended an invitation to each one of you
Commissioners to go there with Fred Thomas and take a short tour to
be able to put your feet on the ground and see what it's all about.
Page 71
September 10, 2002
And I hope that you'll accept that invitation when it comes back to
you again. Thank you.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2002-375, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2691, DON
CAHILL, OF DON CAHILL ARCHITECT/BUILDER,
REPRESENTING WILLIAM AND JOANN RECKMEYER,
REQUESTING VARIANCES IN THE PUD ZONING DISTRICT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 107 DOMINICA LANE,
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK C, LELY
BAREFOOT BEACH UNIT 1 - ADOPTED AS PER PROPOSAL
"C", AS AMENDED
Let's move on to the next item. I believe we're at 7A.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is going to require those
that wish to participate to stand and be sworn in. Could you do that,
please.
Thereupon, KAY DESELEM, WILLIAM RECKMEYER, DON
CAHILL, JOHN WHITE AND DOUG FEE, the Witnesses herein,
having first been duly sworn, testified as follows:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And then disclosures on the
part of Commissioners, and we'll start with you, Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And myself, the same.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
Page 72
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with Mr. Reckmeyer,
Mr. Cahill, with legal counsels, with Mr. Anderson. And I think
that's everyone that I know that surrounds that project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Kay Deselem. I'm a Principal Planner with Current Planning and
Services Division. And--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman and ma'am, may I
just ask a question? Have all the parties reached an agreement on
this?
MS. DESELEM: Almost. We just have one property owner.
Well, he represents the North Naples Civic Association who has still
not determined that he can support the particular request before you.
But the adjacent property owners and the property owners
associations have come to agreement. And I have those letters for
you. The only thing is we did get a new site plan yesterday and the
support of the adjacent neighbors is based upon that site plan and that
site plan alone.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MS. DESELEM: And they're here to represent themselves.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So the people who live in the
community, the adjacent neighbors, the associations, all of those with
immediate standing are in agreement?
MS. DESELEM: That is my understanding. And I have letters
that have been provided to me by the applicant and the opposing
attorneys to state that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, how could we
expedite this?
Page 73
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's see. Why don't you make
a motion and then we'll see what the speakers want to do. We'll hold
off the vote, of course.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Well, then I will move for
approval as recommended by Staff with the plan that was submitted
yesterday with all parties in agreement. And if any of the parties out
there are not in agreement to that motion, you need to nod your head,
go like this or you go uh-huh. That's okay. That's all I need to know.
Am I correct?
Okay. That's my motion.
MR. MUDD: Ms. Filson, we have public speakers; correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One second, please. Do we have a
second? rll second your motion, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter and a second from Commissioner Coletta. And
now, as far -- this is how it goes. You may want to allow someone to
speak for you, if you think that they have covered the subject
adequately, fine. Let's leave it at that. You can waive. Or if you'd
like to speak, you're more than welcome to. With that, we'll call the
first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have four speakers. The first
one is Bill Reckmeyer. He will be followed by John White. MR. CAHILL: Can we reverse that?
MS. FILSON: John White will be followed by Bill Reckmeyer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Are we easy to get along with or
not?
MR. CAHILL: Good morning. I'm not John White. I'm Don
Cahill. Good morning, Commissioners. We have been here before.
Last October we got a variance. We don't want to get into all that
Page 74
September 1 O, 2002
stuff. We asked for quite a bit at that time and were granted that. A
permit was issued. A state permit was issued.
Adjacent homeowner wasn't happy that he wasn't notified
individually by letter. All of that has been taken care of. Everybody
is happy now. We've reduced the balconies from like eight feet to
two foot nine and zero inches in some case. Roof overhangs to three
feet. And we were allowed approximately a ten-foot sheer wall. It's
now three feet.
So everything is very much diminished, and maybe I even
wouldn't had to have been here for this at this point if we started this
way. And I think John White is Mr. Reckmeyer's attorney. And Mr.
Reckmeyer is here to speak for himself as well.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But you're in agreement with the
motion?
MR. CAHILL: But I know they have a lot of things to say.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If they're in agreement with them
MR. CAHILL: Maybe they don't agree. But If we let Doug Fee
speak, maybe we can answer his questions and we won't have to go
further.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Cahill, I think that's a
wonderful suggestion. Mr. Chairman, if we could do that? Or Mr.
Vice Chairman, you're on the dais?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds great.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could we do that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let's move it.
MR. CAHILL: Do you mind, John?
MR. WHITE: I think that's fine.
MR. CAHILL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then is Mr. Fee a registered
speaker, Ms. Filson?
Page 75
September 1 O, 2002
MS. FILSON:
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Filson, after that, Mr. Fee?
MS. FILSON: John White.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
speak today?
MR. WHITE: Yeah.
that will be fine.
Yes, he is. Mr. Doug Fee.
Who's the next speaker, Ms.
Mr. White, do you want to
I will defer. And as long as I can respond
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We're going to control
the meeting here by if you want to speak you want to get up there
ready after Mr. Fee is done with his presentation.
MR. FEE: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I live at 921 Carrick Bend Circle in North Naples.
I am president of the North Bay Civic Association. I've been before
you before and I appreciate this opportunity to speak before you this
morning.
The mission of the North Bay Civic Association is to preserve
our Florida coastal lifestyle. And I would urge you Commissioners
to oppose the granting of this variance. The reasons why we oppose -
- the North Bay opposes is because there is some encroachment into
the CCSL. And I don't have to explain to you what that is. I'm sure all
of you know exactly what that line is.
Some of the reasons we do not feel there's a public interest in the
granting of this variance, it goes against your growth management
policies. And as Commissioners, you represent the people and the
protection of our beaches for generations to come. There shouldn't
be any private gain in the granting of this variance.
The design of this home has changed over the past month
several times by the architect. And as of yesterday, they were still
negotiating with the neighbor to the south. And I would ask where
Page 76
September 10, 2002
the financial hardship is, if in fact this person had to change his plans
over and over.
A couple of weeks ago your advisory Commission, the Collier
County Planning Commission, denied this variance and asked that the
applicant go back and design this home within the footprint. He has
done so. He's redesigned this. However, I believe he's still seeking
some variances.
If this variance is granted and there are a few feet that he's
allowed to build, I would ask how in the future would he be able to
maintenance his home on the beach side of his home if he's building
to the CCSL and would there be destruction to the dune system as he
does this? I urge you to protect the beaches.
Couple of other side notes, I've spoken to some of the
homeowners up there and they have actually been given -- to my
knowledge, they've given letters or sent letters from the Code
Enforcement area of the County. And these letters were in reference
to the nonnative plantings that are to the beach side of the homes.
So your Code Enforcement actually has some violations. Or I
should say the homeowners have some violations. And I brought this
map which is provided by the Code Enforcement Department
showing you the CCSL and some of the nonnative plants that are
planted on the other side of the line.
There's also a few months ago an amendment cycle to the Land
Development Code where some new language was proposed for the
CCSL. That language was pulled at the last meeting or one of the
last meetings because it was determined by your own Staff that it was
in violation to the Growth Management Plan. Some of the language
would have allowed the nonnative to be -- to stay there on the beach.
They have since brought that back.
There's a new Land Development Code Cycle, and they're
bringing back the same -- pretty much the same item. It's been heard
Page 77
September 1 O, 2002
by a few of your Advisory Commissions. It's been denied. I would
bring that up as you weigh this decision. The citizens would ask you
to hold the line, to not grant this variance.
And we're not against the homeowner and it's a beautiful area
and that in the neighborhood and I enjoy the beach very much. But
please do not allow this variance to go forward. Thank you very
much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John White.
MR. WHITE: Good afternoon. My name is John White. I'm an
attorney with the law firm of Parrish, White, Lawhon & Adler. We're
representing Mr. Reckmeyer with respect to this petition.
Responding to Mr. Fee's comments, his comments may be
appropriate in a discussion with changes relative to the LDC. But I
don't think this is the exact forum for that right now. I would like to
remind the Commissioners that this homeowner already has a
building permit issued, has paid his impact fees.
And after the issuance of that building permit, it was brought to
our attention that an additional variance was required under the PUD
sections of Ordinance 85-83. And that's the purpose of this variance.
At the Planning Commission meeting, a number of homeowners
the association argued against approval of the variance based on the
extent of the extensions seaward of the coastal construction line.
We have since met with the homeowners association and the
neighbors and have reached a resolve that -- and agreement that --
where they are no longer going to object to our petition.
And I have here copies of the revised, requested extension
seaward of the coastal construction line that I would like to pass out,
which can be incorporated into it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you show us where the
neighbors are on the map when you get a chance.
MR. WHITE: Yes, I could.
Page 78
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, you had one
neighbor that objected primarily to this. And it was not in regards --
well, he objected and that has been resolved. Perhaps this will clarify
the issues for the Commission.
MR. WHITE: Yes. The neighbor that raised the principal
objections was the neighbor immediately to the south of Lot 9, which
is Mr. Lewallen. The Lot 9 that is requesting the variance is this lot
right here. Mr. Lewallen's property is located here. He was
concerned with respect to the extension for the roof balcony and a
sheer wall that was to extend seaward of the coastal construction
limit line.
The initial extensions are shown in my sheet, which range
between eight and ten feet. With the negotiations with Mr. Lewallen
and with the association, those extensions have been reduced to the
balcony extension of 2.9 inches. I did make a mistake where I put the
roof extension would be limited to 2.9, but it's a three foot extension.
And then a sheer wall extension of three feet and an extension or
into the street right-of-way of two feet, reducing that setback on the
east side of the property from ten feet to eight feet.
And after discussing and reviewing with the association, with all
the objecting neighborhoods, we now -- we have -- we have reached
an accord that are -- and that accord is incorporated into the drawings
that are attached which we generically described as Proposal C.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If I'm correct, sir, actually the --
I'm going to call it a -- the wall of a home does not exceed. It is the
fact of the shape of the balcony it comes up which is not a sheer
straight-up but one that curves --
MR. WHITE: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- is where at the top of that you
get a -- you're asking for the variance. I'm going to say it hangs over
a little bit.
Page 79
September 1 O, 2002
MR. WHITE: That is correct. If you draw a vertical extension
on the coastal construction limit line, that sheer wall curves landward
of that vertical extension and then crosses an access where it goes
seaward of the coastal construction at approximately 50 or 60 feet
into the air for a distance of-- for an extension of three feet, and then
it actually curves back.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Curves back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, could I ask
you to use your light. I got two Commissioners that want to speak
before you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's quite all right. Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to reiterate just to
make sure that the PCC -- the CCPC -- or Planning Commission, I'm
sorry, suggested to you that they would like you to build within the
footprint. You've already done that. You've complied with their
requests. And you've already complied with the requests of the
neighbors; right?
MR. WHITE: The basic footprint of the building is located
within the setbacks, minus the balcony extensions, the roof extension
and the sheer wall extensions, which are allowed under the Land
Development Code except for the PUD section under 8583. On the
gulf front yard is what it's called, and that does require a variance,
even for those extensions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's the two foot nine?
MR. WHITE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Henning and
then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This information that you
submitted to us here today, sir, is this part of 0public record?
Page 80
September 1 O, 2002
MR. WHITE: Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You'll have to give it to
the Court Reporter.
May I ask you one other question?
MR. WHITE: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did the Planning Commission
have an opportunity to take a look at this?
MR. WHITE: No. The Planning Commission, all of our
negotiations with the objective parties -- or Post Planning
Commission.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. WHITE: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have somewhat the same concern
as Commissioner Henning has. The Collier County Planning
Commission recommended disapproval of this project at the time.
There have been substantial efforts made to resolve the variances.
But the variances are not completely resolved.
As everyone on this Board knows, I generally do not view
variances very favorably, particularly if they're not after the fact. If
someone has done something by error, I'm a little more interested in
helping them avoid the financial impact.
But in this case where we're planning a home, it seems to me
that when you buy a piece of property, you know what the
dimensions of the property are and you should know what the setback
requirements are. And proceeding with variances to that to me seems
like you're assuming a substantial risk.
And in this case, and I'll apologize, because I'm going to have to
leave here very quickly. But I would vote against this variance. I
Page 81
September 10, 2002
would send it back to the Planning Commission and solicit their
recommendations on this, because I do respect their review and their
decision-making processes and their recommendations.
MR. WHITE: Well, Commissioner Coyle, in fairness here, the
Commission has already passed a resolution authorizing the
construction seaward of the coastal limit line up to 10.5 feet with
respect to this one house. And that was passed about a year ago.
And in fairness to the homeowner, the homeowner has been
processing, purchased the land in 1999 and has gone through
numerous processes. He initially went to the homeowners
association, submitted preliminary plans, went through everything
that the County requested him to do and was actually issued a
building permit and paid his impact fees and was getting ready to
start construction when some of the neighbors objected. And the
building permit was put on hold.
And at that time we filed an -- we were informed that we should
have received a variance under Section 2.75 of the LDC, which we
timely then filed our application. And this is an -- this is a follow-up
on that application. I'd love to go through with you if you have time
and you're willing to listen the -- a review of the standards and
guidelines that will show that this property, because it's relatively
small and is very difficult to build a home, is consistent with the
value of the lots.
I mean, this is beachfront property, very expensive property to
build within -- without availing them of the extensions for the roof
and the balconies. And there are a number of other homes in that
particular subdivision that do have roof extensions and do have
balcony extensions that -- where the Commission has already
approved variances on those.
Page 82
September 10, 2002
So this is just -- it's consistent with the neighborhood. The lots
get smaller as they move from the road back to the beach. And so it's
-- this is not an unusual request and limited to the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'm going to move along on
this, sir.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter and then --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know Commissioner Coyle has
to leave. But I'm basing my decision on supporting this because, one,
the Commission already approved. And I think that you have an
obligation that once that you have given the go, the green light to
anyone, that you got to stand by your commitment.
Secondly, when this Commission directed the continuance of
this to go back and work out the issues with the neighborhoods and
the homeowners association, the Petitioner did that. The community
is okay with it.
The vegetation issue seaward is a completely different subject.
It has nothing to do with this request. That's a different topic and I
agree with you, that's a Land Development Code decision. It has
nothing to do with your petition.
So I will support this because the physical structure in the
ground has not encroached itself across that line. The balcony slide
overhang, because of architectural design, there is a visual one.
But as I view others, there are other structures there that visually
do the same thing. Right, wrong, or indifferent, there is consistency.
So I would support the motion because I think there is physical
hardship -- or there's financial hardship in this case because of all of
the delays.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we have other speakers, Ms.
Filson?
Page 83
September 1 O, 2002
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The next speaker is Bill Reckmeyer.
And he will be followed by your last speaker Clay Brooker. MR. WHITE: Thank you.
MR. RECKMEYER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Bill Reckmeyer. I'll make this really brief. And I appreciate trying
to get this thing through quickly.
I've been at this process for now 17 months, starting, of course,
way before last April of 2001 doing what the County told me to do
and had this project in front of this Board for review and receiving a
favorable approval last October 9th. We've done everything over and
over and over again that people have told us to do, even up until two
days ago.
The project -- regarding Mr. Fee's comments, this particular site
is not in violation of the Dune situation that they sent papers out.
And we intend not to have unnative vegetation on that site. There are
ways that the -- the dunes he's talking about are 30 feet west of where
the building will be.
It's common practice out there for people to use plywood to run
the rubber tired lifts up to paint their house and so there are ways to
prevent any damage to the dunes. And I feel that all that issue has to
do with an agenda that is not our agenda. It's for some other reasons.
So we have, in summary, an approved CCSL variance. We have
homeowners all around the place, including the POA, consisting of, I
think, maybe 13 beach gardens approving this thing. The building is
no larger than any of the other buildings sitting on a typical lot. It is
no more seaward than other buildings in the area.
This project has been reviewed and rereviewed by many of your
County's best and most professional planners. It has received two
recommendations for approval over the last 17 months. And I would
ask for your support to put this time-consuming and rather expensive
Page 84
September 10, 2002
saga behind us, regarding the after the fact. In a way it is after the
fact.
This thing has already been designed. I put a great deal of
money into the structuring of the project. And it would be super
expensive to start from the beginning again. Thank you for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Clay Brooker.
MR. BROOKER: Commissioners, good morning. My name is
Clay Brooker. I'm with the law firm of Young, van Assenderp,
Varnadoe & Anderson. We represent the neighbor to the immediate
south, Mr. Philip Lewallen.
I believe the motion has been made and seconded to approve the
amended plan that was submitted yesterday. And the only reason I'm
speaking is just to ensure for the record that is the position of our
client Mr. Lewallen, that he has no objection to that amended plan,
although he still maintains his objection to the originally submitted
plan.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My motion was the last amended
plan submitted yesterday, sir.
MR. BROOKER: Yes. And it's been described as Proposal C.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Proposal C. I'll include that in
my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll include it in my second. And
that's the last public speaker? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll close the public hearing.
And I think we have got a motion and we got a second. Now, does
this require a three or four votes to pass?
MR. MANALICH: It's only three.
Page 85
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Three votes. Is there any --
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I just need some clarification.
We have heard this previously?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it was in October, 2001 ?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, again, Kay Deselem. You
were presented an approved coastal construction line variance that
was separate from this prior to this back in October. That is included
as part of an attachment to the Staff report that was approved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it was separate from this?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. It was the very same structure. It was
originally submitted at the larger setbacks. They have since reduced
that. So but, yes, you did approve that particular setback variance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I guess in the
disclosures that I will disclose all the information of that day and any
communication that took part of that decision.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I think we all ought to do the
same then. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner. I
will disclose the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll do the same also.
MR. CAHILL: I'm here if you want to ask any other questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no more questions. Okay.
Let's call the question. The motion is for approval. All those in favor
indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 86
September 10, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have Commissioner
Henning's descending vote. Commissioner Coyle is absent.
MR. MUDD: For clarification, Commissioners, this is Jim
Mudd, County Manager again, we're talking about Proposal C.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Amended.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amended.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Amended. Yes, sir.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2002-376, RE VA-2002-AR-2011, CYNTHIA G.
YANOSIK, P.E., OF COMMUNITY ENGINEERING, INC.,
REPRESENTING STRAND PROFESSIONAL PARTNERS, INC.,
REQUESTING A 5-FOOT AFTER-TH-FACT VARIANCE FOR
PROPRETY LOCATED AT 5692 STRAND COURT - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go on to Item B. And
this will also require all those that wish to participate to stand at this
time and be sworn in.
Thereupon,
FRED REISCHL, the Witness herein, having first been duly
sworn, testified as follows:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter has no
disclosures. He just left us with that message. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have none. And Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think all the disclosures
that we have is I believe this is part of the Clerk of Court, Dwight
Brock, findings I think two years ago in the item with Golf Course
Page 87
September 1 O, 2002
Impact Fees waiver by Staff. And this is part of the report but
separate of the impact fee waivers.
MR. REISCHL: That's correct. Fred Reischl, Planning
Services.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I make that disclosure of
those communications surrounded by that report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, you're good.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I don't know where you're
coming up with two years ago, but God bless you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know he's good. I'll have to do
the same.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember what you said two
years ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. And I'll repeat it again.
I agree.
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services.
This is, as Commissioner Henning said, this is a request for an
after the fact variance in Strand Professional Park which is at the
intersection ofi-75 and Immokalee Road. And as you can see, it's
really an after the fact variance..
The office park is constructed, open and has been functioning
for a few years. This was the result of an approved site development
plan that was constructed according to the site development plan.
The site development plan was approved with incorrect setbacks and
incorrect drive aisles. The setbacks were -- I'll show you a diagram.
It's easier than the photo.
The requirement for a side yard setback would be violated here
and here. This is supposed to be 20 feet. The STP was approved at
15 and it was constructed at 15. For the rear yard, these four
buildings, the PUD requirement was for 20 feet.
Page 88
September 1 O, 2002
The STP was approved at 15 and it was constructed at 15. The
drive aisles that are affected would be these drive aisles. The Land
Development Code requires that a drive aisle two-way traffic with 90
degree angle parking on it be 24 feet. These were approved and
constructed at 22 feet.
The Planning Commission looked at this and recommended
seven to one for approval. Staff recommended approval of the
building setback variances. The 15-foot side yard is standard in
straight commercial zoning for buildings of this height. The rear yard
setback is adjacent to, as you saw in the aerial photo, is adjacent to
the 1-75 canal. There's no -- those are meliorating factors.
Our Engineering Department looking at the drive aisle width
and considered that a safety hazard, they did not want to bring that
forward with a condition-- with a recommendation of approval.
However, I spoke to Stan Chrzanowski who is on vacation now
and couldn't be here. And he stated that there's no history of
accidents in this place. Some jurisdictions do have 22-foot drive
aisles for two-way traffic. And he said that he wanted to leave it up
to the Board. He did not want to recommend a 22-foot when our
standard is 24. He wanted to leave that decision in your hands. But
this -- the Petitioner built this according to an approved STP.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see your comments in here from
Staff and what their recommendations were as for approval and for
denial. And I concur with that. And I see where the Planning
Commission has already approved it. Is there many people to speak
on this item?
MS. FILSON: There are no speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Show me the drive aisle again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Could you go one more time
on that.
Page 89
September 10, 2002
MR. REISCHL: Sure. The drive aisles with 90 degree parking
next to it should be 24 feet in width. They are 22 feet in width in --
on the plan and in reality in here. If you zoom in here you can see. I
mean, Stan Chrzanowski stated to me, "It's there. It's functioning.
There's no reports of any accidents as a result of the narrow drive
aisle."
He also said to tell you that the -- this is not a matter -- as a
planner, I thought this would be just for people pulling in and pulling
out, that it would be safety distance. He said, "No. That wasn't a
concern. It was two cars passing each other, that would be the safety
concern." And he said, "A parking space is 9 feet in width.
So if people are going slow enough, and that's the safety
concern, you can have an 18-foot drive aisle and have two people
pass each other." Our requirement is 24. And he wanted to stick
with that and left it up to you if you desired to grant the variance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's close the public hearing and go
with Commissioner Henning first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can see the conclusion of
Staff and the Planning Commission's recommendations. I do not like
variances like this, but I can truly see there is a hardship. I think it's
appropriate for the Board to take action. So I will make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Does that include the drive aisle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala for
approval. Discussion? Okay. All those in favor indicate by saying
aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 90
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ayes have it 4 to O. Commissioner
Coyle is absent.
Item #7C
PETITION VA-2002-AR-2015, AUST1N WHITE OF BECKER
AND POLIAKOFF, P.A., REPRESENTING UNIT OWNERS OF
THE MANATEE RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
REQUESTING RELIEF IN THE RT ZONING DISTRICT FROM
THE 500 SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM SIZE FOR A HOTEL
UNIT, LOCATED AT 9566 GULFSHORE DRIVE, FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 50 OF LOT 14 AND ALL OF
LOTS 15 AND 16, BLOCK B, CONNERS VANDERBILT BEACH
ESTATES UNIT 1 -CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 22, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is 7C. And it's a request
by the Petitioner to continue the manatee issue until time certain
October 22nd. And the Staff also recommends that particular
continuance. In order for that to happen though, we need a vote from
the Board so this doesn't fall off--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to continue.
MR. MUDD: -- because it's been continued so many times.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion from Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second from Commissioner Carter.
Discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 91
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Coyle is absent.
Ayes have it 4 to 0 Commissioner
Item #8A
COLLIER COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION
CODE ORDINANCE- CONTINUED AND STAFF TO WORK
WITH COMMISSIONER HENNING RE LANGUAGE
CLARIFICATION
Next item is 6A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MS. FILSON: 8A.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 8A.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Commissioner?
8A.
Excuse me.
Is there any point where we're
going to take a break for lunch?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We can take it now if you like. This
might be a good time as that might be a little lengthy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we'll reconvene here in one hour.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Thereupon,
(A recess was had from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome back. We're at item 8-A;
Approval of Collier County Fire Prevention and Protective Code
Ordinance.
And what we need here is all the people that we wish to
participate in this stand to be sworn in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We do?
Page 92
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct?
MR. MANALICH: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I stand corrected. Sit down.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How long have you been the
chairman now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see these little notes on the side of
the package here, it just says close the public hearing. Forgive me, I
didn't mean to make you stand up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta is just
testing us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go.
MR. RILEY: For the record, Ed Riley. I'm the Collier County
Fire Code Official.
We have a proposed ordinance that is designed to accomplish
three goals.
Number one is to reinstitute some of the items that we had in our
local Collier County Fire Ordinance prior to the adoption of the
statewide fire code.
Number two is to bring in some of the items that are in the
ancillary standards that have been adopted by state code, which may
be generic or very broad-based and we're trying to define those.
For instance, NFPA-24, which is adopted, states that the
adequacy and location of fire hydrants and water availability is up to
the authority having jurisdiction. And it's broad-based like that.
So in any case, we could vary from one end to the other on that.
So we defined what the hydrant spacing should be and what the water
availability should be.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this is all for the health, safety
and the welfare of the general public out there?
MR. RILEY: That's correct.
Page 93
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
this item?
MS. FILSON: None.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
How many speakers do we have on
Any questions from staff?.
have
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
a speaker.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Wait a minute, I think you do
I do have one.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Riley, the
document in our packet to me is very confusing, let me tell you why.
It's saying, giving you an example, to amend subsection 1-16.16
paragraph three.
I do not know what is in that section. I have no idea what we're
amending. I know that we're changing language. I feel very
uncomfortable doing that with not -- it doesn't have a flow. Like
when we do amendments to the Land Development Code or Growth
Management Plan, it's laid out with the first paragraph Purpose and
Intent, and everything underlined added or deleted with a scratch-
through.
So to me it's very confusing what we're doing here today.
MR. RILEY: It's a very complicated document. As I said, what
we have here is probably 70 different documents that we draw
information from that are adopted by State law.
What we're trying to do is take pertinent information as it
pertains to building construction, new construction, take what is
pertinent there and put it in this document and amend NFPA-1, which
is our base document, and put it in that document.
These amendments are to NFPA-1. The way you're talking
about it, if I had NFPA-1 written out in it's entirety and highlighted
and drew through that, it would probably be what you're used to
seeing.
Page 94
September 1 O, 2002
We took better than eight months to put this document together,
the fire districts and myself. And we've gone through extensive
reviews through DSAC, Development Services Advisory
Subcommittee.
The documents -- to make it in the format that the developers
can understand, at least those that were involved in the process could
understand. We made changes to some of the language, we deleted
some of the things that were in here.
We felt now that we've got a document at least the developers
can go to and augment NFPA-1 and 101, which are the State fire
codes and with this information see what we do locally as far as for
new development.
Majority of this language is -- probably two or three items in this
aren't to State code somewhere.
The rest are all either in State code or what isn't in the State
code, those two or three items, they were in the code here prior to the
adoption of the State code. They were in for the last five years.
So it's nothing, per se, new. One of the things that I was charged
with when I got here was try to consolidate this information into a
single document.
When this was completed and adopted, the next step was to go
through the Land Development Code and check to see where we have
inconsistencies between the fire code and the Land Development
Code and try to rectify those situations.
So it's an ongoing process and we have to take it step by step.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I know that you
want me to understand before I approve it. Let me ask you on this
one, it is amending subsection 1-9.1, reads as follows: And I'll read
it, but I will ask you in the interim, is this part of State code?
MR. RILEY: Yes, part of it is. Part of it's local and part of it is
State. The first portion of it is directly is out of state code.
Page 95
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you really want me to
understand what we're putting in here and not having 1-9.1. I'm not
sure if we're doing the right thing today.
"No new construction or existing building shall be occupied in
whole or in part of the violation of the provision of the code."
And it goes on, "All tenants must occupy and shall obtain a
Notice of Fire Compliance."
So it reads to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if I sell a
piece of property, a home, then I have to wo to the Fire Department
and get a certificate.
MR. RILEY: Florida Statute 633 is what gives us authority to
do an inspection and plan review duties; 633 specifically exempts one
and two family dwellings from the process.
We could not write locally something that would be in violation
of that. So single-family duplexes are not something that we have
any jurisdiction over. Triplexes and above we do.
That particular section, by the way, was in the past ordinance
that we had in Collier County. That is not new. That was already in
the ordinance.
The intent of that is all commercial buildings and multi-family
buildings with more than three living units, and that's not to say a
tenant within the building unit itself, or multi-family would have to
get a certificate of fire compliance.
That would be if building ownership changed of a multi-family
building. We do an inspection of the entire building to make sure it
meets current code, not new code.
It's very clear in the State statute. You can't take an existing
building and with no changes being made make it conform with the
new code or standard.
Page 96
September 1 O, 2002
There's existing codes that -- whether on an annual basis or if
they changed hands, we are empowered to do annual inspection on
those buildings also.
And if there are corrections that need to be made they would
have to be made at that particular time. We use the existing code
section.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me read this again. I'm
really not getting it. "All tenants and occupants shall obtain Notice of
Fire Compliance." To me it's reading if a tenant vacates said property
that they -- before a new tenant gets in they need a Certificate of
Compliance.
MR. RILEY: The intent of that was for commercial building,
not for residential, and not for tenant turnover.
That language, as I said, was what was in the past ordinance and
that's being brought forward. If you feel we need to change that
language to say that "excluding multi-family or one and two-family
dwellings," we can do that, because that is not the intent to cause
those types of occupancies to conform with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's just -- the information
presented to us is very confusing. And I just feel uncomfortable
approving this today without really understanding it.
So we're only getting a piece of the information. I'll let the other
commissioners speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, I feel you
know about this more than most of us would because of having
served as a fire commissioner, and if the language is confusing to
you then I think that we ought to have them go back and readdress
that.
It is certainly confusing to me, but I don't know that business. I
would suggest that you come back -- well, I would suggest to the
Page 97
September 10, 2002
other commissioners, I would like to see him come back to us with
changed wording so that it's more clear as to what the actual intent of
this ordinance is.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to make a motion for
continuance, Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to make a motion
until he comes back with more clear language -- with clearer, excuse
my English, clearer language.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, because this was advertised
as a public hearing, we need to continue to a date certain or else
readvertise
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say so. I'd readvertise it.
There may be some other people out in the public that want to
comment on this. But we haven't got a second yet.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If we're addressing complete
language instead of clearer, so we do have a clearer understanding,
it's just complete sections of addition or deletion.
MR. RILEY: I'm unclear as to what you're looking for then. I
had a similar request from the DSAC subcommittee and when we sat
down and really got into it, we went through the book and we showed
where it was coming from and realized that is not something that is
easily done. It's extremely difficult.
As I said, we're drawing from 60 or 70 different pamphlets that
are out there that have been adopted by the State. We are trying to
consolidate.
This information is not that we're trying to adopt a new code,
something that is above what the State has already mandated, what
we're trying to put the language in a single location where the
developers can review that language easier.
I did this basically at the request of DSAC. That was one of the
requests they had two years ago.
Page 98
September 1 O, 2002
This process is -- they've reviewed it, sat down and have gone
through it and they have endorsed it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make a suggestion? This
might help to move it forward. If we continue it, I ask that you work
with Commissioner Henning because of his experience with the fire
commission and if he understands it when he comes back and we can
quiz him on a level that we understand, I think that we can get over
this little hurdle and be able to move forward.
MR. RILEY: I'm willing to do that if Commissioner Henning
has the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would hope that everybody
would feel comfortable on the decisions that we make up here. I
need some clarification, if the other commissioners feel
comfortable, that's fine with me.
I need to see where this language is coming from and where it is
going in the code.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you
want to make a second to the continuance?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other discussion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We have a public speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you wish to speak?
MS. FILSON: Rich Y°vanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I
share many of the concerns that Commissioner Henning had with the
format of the document.
By the way, I'm here on behalf of Waterways Joint Venture
Four, which is building town homes, six-unit buildings, in the price
range of about $150,000.
Page 99
September 1 O, 2002
And the concern that my client has is also that there's been no
analysis of the fiscal impact of these changes to the State minimum
code.
And maybe some of the things are a continuation of what was
approved in the past, but things are getting more expensive to build
in Collier County, including the impact fees.
And we hope that staff would come back and explain to the
Board the dollars and cents associated with each of these changes to
the fire code as well.
With that information -- for instance, requiring sprinklers in
buildings that have more than four units adds about $6,000 per unit.
That information needs to go to the Board of County Commissioners
too.
I ask that that be part of what staff comes back with when they
make their presentation to explain the context in which the changes
are being made and also the fiscal impact of the changes.
Remember, this is a State code that applies Statewide that the
State Fire Marshal says is sufficient. The local community must
show that there are unusual circumstances in the community to
warrant a change to the State code.
And I would like staff to explain the unusual circumstances
why they want to vary the code and the fiscal impact in doing that
on, most particularly, workforce housing. There's a great impact.
We hope that information would also come back along with
clarifications requested by Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what I'm hearing, Mr.
Riley, and correct us if we're wrong, this is above and beyond the
State code.
MR. RILEY: There's one item in there that is above and
beyond the State code. There's a number of items that we decreased
Page 100
September 10, 2002
the State code by virtue of not lowering our ability to provide fire
protection.
This was done as a package and I will tell you, if that item is
removed, the sprinkler system, we will remove the other items that
we have given away in order to get it, which are also financially
impacted.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
DSAC with some recommendations.
Maybe this should go back to
I think the Board is very
sensitive to affordable housing, workforce housing.
And I think we need some more input from the community to --
in order to make a good decision.
And I hope that -- I'm sure you and I can get together and
follow this through so we can make that good decision.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have a great deal of trouble,
maybe totally, with this. I agree with Commissioner Henning that it
is not adjustable. It has got to come to us in some sort of summary
that says, oh, well, we only took this one but we down-sized some of
these.
I don't know anything about this. But when Rick Yovanovich
came to me on this one issue, I could not find any logic for following
through on what he was talking about as to why that would require a
sprinkler.
It just -- I couldn't do that. So if that's just one example that's
going to cause difficulty down here, let's get it right before we do it.~
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hope when you do come back you
give us all the options rather than trying to trim it down to be able to
pass it through.
I want to know what the safety concerns are and what the level
of exposure is going to be in any one particular instance myself.
Page 101
September 10, 2002
With that, we have a motion from Commissioner Fiala and a
second from Commissioner Henning for continuance.
Is there any other discussion?
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
All those in favor indicate by
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #8B
RESOLUTIONS 2002-377 AND 2002-378, APPROVING THE
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AS THE FINAL ASSESSMENT
ROLLS AND ADOPTING SAME AS THE NON-AD VALOREM
ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR UTILIZING THE UNIFORM
METHOD OF COLLECTION FOR SOLID WASTE DISTRICTS
NO. 1 AND 2, MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNITS SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT LEVIED AGAINST CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Next is 8-B.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve from
Commissioner Henning and a second from Commissioner Carter.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I also have a speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll hear the speaker before
we vote.
Page 102
September 1 O, 2002
MR. MUDD: I think he needs to make one statement too.
There's been some confusion out in the public that the intent
resolutions talk about a maximum amount of $175.
And some folks out there think their rates are going to be
increased to $175. And I think Mr. DeLony in his statement can
make that perfectly clear to the audience that that is not the case and
that the rates are going to be the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. DeLony, would you please
make that statement.
MR. DELONY: The rate for the fiscal year 2002 to 2003 is
$127.27. This is exactly the same rate as our current year, fiscal year
2001 and 2002.
What we're proposing is no change in the rate. What we
provide here is an opportunity to make one decision for a three-year
time period that allows us to work within that three-year time period
to adjust rates as required within the context to a maximum amount
of $175.
This will save us about $50,000 each of the two years that we
would have to go through a public notice period, because as you
know we have to notify every resident that is within these two
districts of our proposed rate changes or the schedule of rates that we
would propose for a change.
So with this maximum ceiling, we do not incur that expense,
but again, we will go through a public notice period or notification
with regard to rate changes when we do our rate studies over the next
year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
coming tax year the rate is not
MR. DELONY: Absolutely not, sir.
CHAIRMAN COELTTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Gerald Curry.
So in the simplest of terms, in the
going up?
Speakers?
Page 103
September 10, 2002
MR. CURRY: Good afternoon, my name is Gerald Curry.
Excuse some of my ignorance maybe in not understanding this
completely, but if I read this correctly, and as things have been in
the past, I'm going to be assessed on my tax bill $127 for the
removal of my trash; whatever.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Same as last year.
MR. CURRY: Same as last year and in the past. The issues
that I have with that, if I decided not to pay it, then there's going to
be a lien placed on my property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Correct.
MR. CURRY: If I understand correctly, Waste Management is
a private corporation?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waste Management would not be
placing the lien.
MR. CURRY: Irregardless. And the issue that I have may be
there are some things that I don't understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem. That's why we're here
to explain that to you.
MR. CURRY: Good deal. IfI don't pay it, I'm going to have a
lien put on my property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. CURRY: It gives me no option as to what I want to do
with my disposal if I chose to get rid of it myself. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. CURRY: I personally feel that is a taxation that I choose
not to participate in. And I don't have any option other than to
participate in that; am I correct?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's also correct, sir. It's not an
option that we could leave -- some years ago they come up with a
mandatory garbage pickup law that when -- and the reason for that
Page 104
September 10, 2002
was that people were takin their trash and throwing it wherever they
cared to.
The rural areas of the County were just trash from one end to
the other. People didn't want to spend a couple of dollars a week to
have their trash hauled away.
And in some cases renters were taking and putting all the trash
in the back of their lanai for the whole period that they were there
and abandoning and leaving it for the landlord to figure out what to
do.
It was that situation that could not be governed on a person-to-
person basis. So they had to go globally and apply this rule to
everyone.
To try to make exceptions to this rule would put us back in the
same predicament that we were in before.
MR. CURRY: I understand that. And if Waste Management
came to me and said, "Can we pick up your trash, it will cost you
$127 a year." I would be more than glad to pay them.
I do disagree with them being a private corporation, and
therefore, having a say in my tax lien or my taxation --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They don't. They have no say.
MR. CURRY: Well, if I choose not to pay it --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're not paying it to Waste
Management. You're paying it to Collier County. Waste
Management is our vendor of choice and they have nothing to do
whether you pay or don't pay.
They have nothing to do with the ordinances that have been
passed that govern how the garbage pick ups take place, who pays,
and how collections take place.
They have nothing else whatever to do with it. If you never pay
your bill, Waste Management still gets paid from the County.
Page 105
September 1 O, 2002
It doesn't go to them as a payment for services rendered. It
comes to the County and the County in mm, the person that hired the
vendor, to be able to do the service.
It doesn't make any difference if the County had its own force
to go out and collect the garbage. The end results would be the
same.
MR. CURRY: So what it is I'm paying the County, the County
is just electing to use Waste Management.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. CURRY: Okay. That makes it a lot easier to understand
and swallow than it would be the other way around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. I can understand. I would be
very reluctant to be sending a check to Waste Management and if I
didn't pay there would be a lien against my home.
I can understand where you're coming from with that thought
process.
MR. CURRY: Thank you for clearing that up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for participating today.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before he leaves let's -- there
were a couple of things that were said. You're doing great. But
there was a statement that was made about businesses, residences
and businesses.
We have a franchise for residences in Collier County. We have
a District One and District Two and we've broken them down.
For instance, in one district we have Waste Management as the
vendor and we go out for bid to get that particular vendor and they
compete for prices to pick up curbside and we pick the best price.
Waste Management has that in one of the districts and
Immokalee Disposal has it in the Immokalee District.
Now, in 2006, we're going to pick new vendors again. We're
going to go out and advertise and get the best price we can for
Page 106
September 1 O, 2002
collection at curbside for the service that we put the scope of work
out for. So we'll go out in 2004 for that.
On the business side of the house, if you have a business in
Collier County, it's up to that business to go out there and find a
vendor to pick up their trash and they can do that with Waste
Management, Pro Disposal, and I hope I'm not missing any, or
Immokalee Disposal, to name just a few of the many.
So that part is out there. I just wanted to make that clear.
MR. CURRY: Thank you. It cleared up the issue in my mind
where there was a misunderstanding, I equated-- MR. MUDD: It's okay.
MR. CURRY: I equated Waste Management's name being on
there that they were the people that were in an entity of their own,
not the fact that the County was choosing them as a vendor, which
makes a lot more sense to me.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That price that you pay not only goes
for pickup, it also goes to the landfill tip fees and things like that,
how to dispose of the garbage after it's picked up. MR. CURRY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that I close the
public hearing. Is there any other questions for staff before we
proceed?
Do we have a motion? A little time has gone by.
MS. FILSON: A motion and a second, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do. We have a motion and a
second. No other discussion. All those in favor indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 107
September 1 O, 2002
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2002-379, AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE IMMOKALEE
ROAD/COLLIER BOULEVARD AREA (HERITAGE BAY
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT) AND
TRANSMITTING TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS- ADOPTED AS AMENDED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it five to zero. We'll
move on to 8-C. Once again, two o'clock I have to leave to go over
to the Elections Office, the board of canvassers, to take care of
whatever business they may have.
I'm kind of hoping that before I leave I'll be able to interject
some opinions in this particular one. This is a big, big item. Please continue.
MR. HEATH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Glenn Heath. I'm a principal planner at your
Comprehensive Planning section.
The item before you this afternoon was continued from your
July 30th meeting in order that the Petitioner could address some
concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission in their July
19th consideration of this item.
It is a request to transmit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
This comprehensive plan amendment is related to an ongoing
development of regional impact and PUD review process that is
being undergone by the Petitioner at both the State and local levels.
Page 108
September 1 O, 2002
The particular item in from of you is the initial transmittal of
the Plan Amendment to DCA. Under State planning law DRI plan
amendments are not limited to the twice a year limitations that is put
on most plan amendments, so they can come to you at any time.
This is not a PUD review hearing. This is not a DRI review
hearing. This is strictly the transmittal of the Plan Amendment.
You will at some point in time be seeing the DRI hearing and
the PUD hearing along with the final comprehensive plan and public
hearing.
In fact, by a marriage of sort of the State law and County
requirements that will actually have to come to you on the same day.
So you will have a day where you will be having three public
hearings in a row on this particular item. This is just the initial plan
transmittal.
Having said that, the Heritage Bay DRI is located at the
intersection of Immokalee Road and 951. It's shown in -- this is the
project location.
It's at the northeast quadrant of the intersection. It's in four
sections. It's a very large project. You may also notice -- some
people notice this as a Florida Rock property.
US Home Corporation, the Petitioner, has an agreement with
Florida Rock to pursue the development of this project as Florida
Rock completes mining in various sections of the property.
This project -- this review was initially begun in the year 2000
and that's why it has the 2000 date on the Plan Amendment Petition.
It was put on hold at one point in order that the Petitioner could
await the results of the Rural Fringe Amendment process.
And there's some interconnection between this process and the
Rural Fringe. And also that they could deal with some issues
relating to the DRI review.
Page 109
September 1 O, 2002
Mr. Litzinger has just passed out -- a revised draft resolution.
This resolution encompasses some changes that were made by Ms.
Student and the Petitioner has reviewed those changes, and did not
have any problem with them.
They were in the form of clarifications of some of the language,
grammar and punctuation.
Heritage Bay is a development of regional impact and,
therefore, the process is a little more complicated rather than a
regular plan amendment.
It has to go through three levels of approval. It has to have its
plan amendment approved. And it has to have a PUD at the county
level approved. And it has to have the State DRI development order
approved to actually come into being.
The proposed plan amendment would allow the Petitioner to
establish an urban and rural fringe overlay which essentially allows
them to place the development within the Comprehensive Plan fight
now.
The nature of this development would make it inconsistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. The overlay could also allow them to do
density blending.
Density blending means they can take the number of units that
they get from part of the project being in an urban area, an activity
center, plus the number of units that they get from being in the rural
area and they can add those together and spread them over their
entire property.
So in effect, they will be increasing the density in the rural area.
And I will tell you later, there's an issue with the final order about
increasing the density in the rural area.
If for some reason or another the Rural Fringe Amendments are
not approved or delayed for some reason, then it's possible that this
project would be inconsistent with the final order.
Page 110
September 1 O, 2002
I guess they would be hoping that the Rural Fringe
Amendments do get approved.
They are also admitting the future Land Use map to show the
area affected by the overlay and that's the area up on the visualizer.
And they'll be amending the county's sanitary sewer and potable
water district boundaries.
On the visualizer the red line is the existing boundaries, and the
green line is the proposed extension. And essentially, they would
just be proposing to extend the County sewer and water district to
cover the project.
If this amendment is approved, it will allow the process to
continue forward in the DRI and PUD processes and could
additionally allow development of 3,450 residential units, 200
assisted living units, 175,000 square feet of retail space and 55,000
square feet of office space, plus golf courses and other amenities on
2,562 acres, which is four sections of land.
To a large extent, many of the changes being proposed by the
applicant mirror changes that are part of the Rural Fringe
Amendment. And this is deliberate on the applicant's part, but it's
also their intention, as much as possible, to stand alone from the
Rural Fringe Amendment in case something happens to the Rural
Fringe Amendment.
The issue that the Planning Commission raised was that in the
Rural Fringe Amendment, there's a provision that development
within receiving areas that want to have golf courses, whether it's a
stand-alone golf course or a golf course with residential uses, have to
purchase a certain number of TDR credit from the Rural Fringe area.
This project was going to go forward without doing that. The
Planning Commission raised that objection and said, wait a minute,
they're in the rural fringe, they should have to follow the same rules
as the rest of the rural fringe.
Page 111
September 1 O, 2002
The applicant's representative, Mr. Anderson, has indicated to
me that they were prepared to accept the Planning Commission's
recommendation and he can tell you more about that when he gets
up.
And there's a couple of other items I need to mention is that one,
the Utilities Director, Mr. DeLony, asked me to indicate that they are
-- essentially don't have a problem with extension of the utility
boundary provided -- if for some reason the County could not extend
sewer and water lines on to the project in time to meet the
construction of housing, that the applicant would have to do that.
And he would have to construct those facilities to County standards.
And then the County at some point would have those facilities
deeded over to them.
And the other thing I am supposed to bring up, I received a call
from Mr. Dunnuck, your Public Services Director, he indicated that
the County Public Service has negotiated with the US Home
Corporation for some contribution toward a County park purchase.
And they have come to agreement on that and the applicant will
be paying a $150,000 toward the County Parks Program for the
purchase -- of a partial purchase or maintenance equipment;
whatever, for County parks.
And with that, I think staff recommends the transmittal of these
plan amendments with the stipulations that are contained in the
Executive Summary.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we hear from Mr.
Anderson at this time and do we have any speakers? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go to Mr. Anderson at this
point in time.
MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson. I am pleased to be
Page 112
September 10, 2002
here today to represent US Home Corporation, the respected builder
of homes, neighborhoods and communities in Collier county for
more than 20 years. Their very first project was Lakewood.
I want to emphasize to you that the amendment before you
today is no different than what you approved in June for the Rural
Fringe Amendments. This is just a smaller, stricter version.
At the outset, let me note that my client is in agreement with all
the Planning Commission and staff stipulations.
This amendment comes to you with three separate
recommendations of approval. The Planning Commission
unanimously recommended approval. Your staff has recommended
approval and the Rural Fringe Assessment reviewed this amendment
and also recommended approval.
When the Rural Fringe Amendments were approved, one of the
innovative planning techniques that was approved was the technique
of density blending for a project on receiving lands that straddles the
urban and rural fringe boundaries in order to encourage preservation
of environmentally sensitive lands that may be in the urban area.
The rural fringe amendment states with regard to density
blending, I won't read the whole thing, "This provision is intended to
encourage unified plans of development to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat and other natural features that exist within properties
that straddle the urban mixed use and rural fringe mixed use districts.
The allowable gross density for such property in aggregate may be
distributed throughout the project regardless of whether or not the
density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is
otherwise permitted."
The property that is the subject of this amendment has one
entire section of land in the urban boundary and three sections in the
rural fringe.
Page 113
September 10, 2002
This site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires
almost one third of the property to be placed in conservation
easements and caps the density on the property at 1,100 less homes
than the density rating system for the urban area and the Rural
Fringe Amendments allow on this sight.
Stripped away to the bottom line in terms of the number of
homes allowed by the Growth Management Plan, this amendment
claims zero, zero density based on the approximately 1,900 acres
that are in the rural fringe and claims 700 dwelling units less on the
urban land than is allowed by the Growth Management Plan.
This is not just density blending. It is density reduction and
blending. This plan amendment was filed more than two years ago
and was put on hold pending the completion of the rural fringe
assessment.
As I mentioned, the Rural Fringe Assessment Committee
reviewed this particular amendment and recommended approval.
They also made a finding of consistency for this plan amendment
with the rest of the Rural Fringe Amendments.
In several important areas the Heritage Bay Plan Amendment is
stricter than the similarly adopted Rural Fringe requirements. As
previously mentioned, the reduced density cap as placed on the
property.
Secondly, the Rural Fringe Amendments requires 40 percent of
native vegetation to be preserved. The Heritage Bay Plan
Amendment specifically identifies 830 acres of existing vegetation
to be preserved which constitutes at least 90 percent of the existing
vegetation.
These preserve areas constitute more than 30 percent of the
total project acreage as compared to 25 percent of a project acreage
that the Rural Fringe Amendments would normally require.
Page 114
September 1 O, 2002
You may ask why is my client proposing its own
Comprehensive Plan Amendment if their project can comply with
the Rural Fringe Amendments that were recently approved by this
commission and the Department of Community Affairs? A fair
question, with a simple answer.
If someone changes DCA's finding of compliance, the Rural
Fringe Amendments do not become effective until the litigation
challenging those amendments has finally been concluded. The last
amendment challenge dragged out over a two-year period and there
has already been in place a moratorium for more than three years.
Because the Heritage Bay Plan Amendment was subjected to the
Rural Fringe process and recommended for approval by your Rural
Fringe Assessment Committee, and because it is related to a
development of regional impact, this plan amendment can go
forward on its own. Even if the Rural Fringe Amendments would
become tied up in litigation that has no applicability to the Heritage
Bay property.
The actual development of regional impact application was
filed more than a year ago and has recently updated. The PUD
application for this project was filed just two months ago, and is
currently under review by your staff.
By way of analogy, this Comprehensive Plan Amendment
provides the overall skeleton, if you will, of how these four sections
of land are to be preserved and generally developed.
The DRI and PUD applications in turn put the meat on the
bones of the Comprehensive Plan skeleton and provide all the typical
project details that you will review and make detailed determination
on sometime in the next six months or so.
During that six months, while DCA is reviewing this
amendment, we will be working very closely with your staff and the
staff of the regional planning counsel to address transportation and
Page 115
September 1 O, 2002
all other issues that are required to be addressed at the time of
rezoning.
We have to bear our fair share and we are prepared to step to
the plate to do that. And we'll be addressing those issues, as I say, in
discussions with your staff to present to you in six months or so.
One thing I want to point out to you is this plan amendment
incorporates smart growth principles for neighborhood village
centers interior to the project.
These small centers would create recreational facilities and a
place to buy a loaf of bread and a quart of milk or a sandwich and
perhaps have Internet access at three locations within walking and
biking distance to the residence.
These neighborhood centers would capture car trips that would
otherwise utilize County roadways for such convenience and
commercial needs.
The language of this plan amendment also provides for the
connection of the projects internal roadways to the commercial uses
that are inside the activity center. So the residents of Heritage Bay
don't have to travel out on Immokalee Road to satisfy their more
general retail commercial shopping needs, such as are typically
provided in an activity center.
Will this Comprehensive Plan Amendment cause any increase
in traffic impacts? The answer is no. More than 4,700 dwelling
units are allowed on this property by the current Comprehensive
Plan and this amendment reduces that number by 1,100.
Therefore, this plan amendment itself will have no
transportation impact. The DRI application and zoning application
which you will see in about six months will have transportation
impacts.
And at the time of those hearings we have to address them in
detail and we will have had an opportunity to work with the county
Page 116
September 10, 2002
staff to agree on specifics of mitigation to address transportation
impacts.
With regard to 951, the Collier Boulevard extension, in response
to our DRI submittal, the County has requested that we reserve
right-of-way along the western boundary of our project for the
potential future extension of 951. Because the County has requested
us to do so, we have done so. And we have agreed to dedicate the
right-of-way to the County as mitigation for transportation impacts
under the County's concurrency regulations.
However, let me be very clear that the Heritage Bay Project is
not an advocate for nor dependent upon a possible future extension of
951. We do not have a dog in that fight.
Lastly, we have met with the Conservancy of Southwest Florida,
the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Collier County Auduobun
Society to review the Heritage Bay Project and receive their input.
And it is my understanding that none of these groups have an
objection to this plan amendment.
We would respectfully ask you to approve the transmittal of this
smaller, stricter version of the Rural Fringe Amendments to the
Department of Community Affairs.
I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm kind of limited on time, so I'm
going to be the first to speak, if I may.
Bruce, we've come a long way since we first started talking on
this. There's a problem that I have and I want my fellow
commissioners to also understand it.
We're talking about four square miles. We're talking about a
major increase in population on very tired roads. And I look at this
and I say, "What's the public good?"
I know there's a flow-way, if you take that to my civic
association, you tell them you're going to put 7,000 people out there
Page 117
September 1 O, 2002
and they're going to get a flow-way, they're going to tell you,
"Forget it."
You're going to have tremendous amount of outpouring on this
subject. It's undoubtedly going to be one of the hottest buttons you're
going to push in your term as a commissioner.
There's got to be sufficient public good to warrant this to go
forward. One of the things that I think we should require, if not up
front now at least have it in the thought stage, I recommend that we
reject this out of hand for the reasons that I think it's all premature.
I'll tell you one of the things that I'd like to see on this is the fact
that they commit to do 951. Where is the public good? If they put
951 in and they pay for it, it's not even on the horizon right now when
it's going to be done.
We can move tremendous amounts of traffic that are already
clogging Immokalee Road, and move them over to Bonita Beach
Road build that conveyor that we desperately need, without that I
can't see considering this particular project.
I hope you keep that in mind. I hate to run, but I have a two
o'clock at the Election Office and I have to be there on time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hurry back.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll turn this over to Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions? Comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a few comments. You don't
have a button.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, don't
worry about your buttons.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all, this is not your fault,
but I didn't like getting this while we were sitting up here.
Page 118
September 1 O, 2002
I like to read and pour over and study everything that I'm
presented. And I couldn't read this while I'm listening to the
testimony that is presented to me, so I have no idea.
If this is something that we're going to be voting on today, I
don't even know what it says. I have to lodge that complaint loudly.
MR. HEATH: It's very similar to the one that is in your agenda
package. The only differences are some differences in clarification,
some grammatical, proper legal grammar and some punctuation.
There's actually no substantive changes.
If you read it in your agenda package, then it's basically the
same thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I read everything in my agenda
packet carefully.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We'll give you a test.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You can give me a test. Another
thing I want to say, it's like you're building a whole town here so I
wanted to know in this whole town that you're building, have you
planned for moderately priced workforce housing as a component
when you will be bringing this back to us?
MR. ANDERSON: We are required as part of the DRI review
process to address the issue of affordable housing. And we will --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does address mean mitigate it out?
Pay it off?.
MR. ANDERSON: It might mean that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Or actually -- we can be looking for
that carefully to see if you're going to be housing them in there or
not?
MR. ANDERSON: Or whether we're mitigating it in some
other fashion, yes, ma'am.
Page 119
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know that that's not going to
please me. I will just state that for the record. I want to see it right
there if my inclusionsary zoning goes forth.
Thirdly, I have a huge concern with the flow-way and also with
the CREW lands. I read here that you were protecting the CREW
lands; is that correct?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that you would be doing this. Just a couple of more. Thank you for
letting me do this.
As it comes back, I'm also going to be watching very closely for
the traffic impact, because as you well know, that's a big concern of
mine.
And lastly, I'm very happy to see that you've complied with the
Planning Commission stipulations with regard to the TDR. That was
a great concern of mine.
Those are my comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Anderson, with all due
respect, I do believe 4,700 living units will impact 951 -- not 951 but
Immokalee Road.
I won't be here when this comes back. You have a
transportation element in here that concerns me a great deal. I do
believe 951 at some point in time is an extension that will be worked
out, will go through this whole area. I think it's inevitable.
I would look to you and your client, US Homes, as you do this,
that there has to be a way to access it there. You need to be a big
player if and when that is built.
I think you can be a big player by donating the right of ways to
Collier County through that area. I think you can look at the option
Page 120
September 10, 2002
of Immokalee Road, 1-75 well to the west assisting in the
development of that corridor.
This is not the time for the specifics. But I would say on public
record, unless those transportation elements are really met and
developed in a concrete transportation plan approved by and
endorsed by the Transportation Department, that any commissioner is
going to have difficulty approving this large project.
It will be built. It will be developed. You can make it a model.
You can go beyo-d the rural fringe, which you've already stated and
you're doing this, not out of the goodness of your heart, but out of
good land use approach because you don't want it to be derailed in
case the rural fringe is interrupted for any particular reason.
And that is good from a perspective of land planning for Collier
County. I can support the transmittal of this as long as in the future
that all of these conditions are met.
And I think Commissioner Fiala brings up an important point.
You can put income-sensitive housing in here, you can use the
Columbia-Maryland, although you're not as big, you can use a mini
version of that, which constructs things like townhomes at an
affordable level in a project of this magnitude.
I think the environmental considerations will have to be met and
I think these commissioners will make sure they're met.
Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say. I can support it as long as
the commissioners today feel that you are reasonably comfortable
that there's a framework to move this forward.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a number of questions,
primarily of staff. And I'd like to echo Commissioner Fiala's concern
about this.
Page 121
September 1 O, 2002
I, quite frankly, don't like anything given to me during a meeting
that I have to make a decision on. There's too much opportunity to
make an error.
I would like to have these things presented to me in time to
review them and for all intent and purposes, I'm going to disregard
this here and any recommendations I make will not include whatever
this says.
What are the implications to extending the boundaries of the
county's water and sewer district?
MR. HEATH: I would have to defer to the utility staff for some
of that. But it's already extended within the Rural Fringe
Amendments, as the Rural Fringe Amendments are completely
approved and not challenged.
You're extending the water and sewer district therein. And, in
fact, that actually encompasses this area to the -- actually, just include
it within the overall picture.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Two sections of this particular
project are in your rural transition water and sewer district which are
part of your Rural Fringe Amendments for water and sewer service in
this area. I believe it was in your most recent Master Plan update for
water and sewer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand that they're included.
I am asking for the implications of doing this. Who is going to do it
and who's going to pay for it? And what is the schedule going to be?
That's what I'm looking for.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd, County Manager, for
the record. The Master Plan has the specifics on this particular area.
First thing, I want to make sure I have it correct. The Rural
Fringe Amendments that were submitted talked about an extension to
the water and sewer district boundaries.
Page 122
September 10, 2002
It went through this Board and got transmitted and approved and
it's going through that process right now. But as the water/sewer
district authority, you are going to have to do a separate item on this
agenda that's properly advertised to officially extend those
boundaries and that's going to come before you within the next
month or so.
In the Master Plan they talk about having a plant in the northeast
corner in and around Orange Tree around 2006, 2007, in order to
treat and service this particular-- this part of the boundary extension
plus some other ones that are farther to the east of Immokalee Road.
They have got some plans to put in the force mains and the
sewer lines when they go to four-laning of Immokalee Road from
951 for that eight miles.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, when you say they have
plans, who are you talking about?
MR. MUDD: Our utility division.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim has plans. Jim DeLony.
MR. MUDD: And now that Mr. DeLony is back in the room.
MR. DELONY: Let me review this. Specifically what are you
concerned about?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm concerned about what --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For the record, you are?
MR. DELONY: I'm sorry. Sir, I'm Jim DeLony, Public Utilities
Administration.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to understand how this
extension affects our budget. Do we have the money to do it? If not,
where does the money come from? What is the schedule? To what
extent does the developer participate in this process? Those are the
kind of concerns I have.
MR. DELONY: Glenn spoke to you earlier in the presentation
about what we've done with regard to timing.
Page 123
September 1 O, 2002
At the time that they have a need and we're not there, they'll
build it. And we'll assume it when were we're up in that area.
With regard to how it's budgeted out, our Master Plan should
address for the most part this type of development in terms of
population, which was the assumptions we made when we developed
last year's Master Plan, and of course that we're updating this current
year.
So with regard to that process, it's not any different than any
other development that we have out in this area. What is challenging
is that this comes before us setting those boundaries for our sewer
district and our water district.
In that case, I think to my way of thinking, I'll defer to the
County Manager. It's really a little out of norm with regard to this
whole process, is that they're asking about? Something that is not in
our district, yet, formally until we come back to you within the next
60 days with regard to those boundaries?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's suppose the Rural Fringe
Plan is not approved.
MR. DELONY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this project wishes to go
forward, they would have to assume the responsibility of all
water/sewer services for this entire area or only the three of the
sections?
MR. DELONY: In my way of thinking it would be for the area
that they would develop, not for the entire area as far as the
development needs are. It would be a timing issue with regard to
their needs and our ability to deliver all those needs once we expand
our district, our services into that area.
So any plans they would have to make would be on their nickel
with regard to that development.
Page 124
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With regard to the concurrency
issues with regard to traffic, I have essentially the same questions.
They will be subject to the requirements of whatever the concurrency
system is at that point in time; is that correct, Norm?
MR. FEDER: Sir, we'd have to see what was placed -- again,
Norm Feder, Transportation Administrator. We would have to see
what comes out of the DRI in its approval whether or not that
establishes some vesting or in any way preempts our process. That
will be one caution.
I would also note that in the write-up on transportation, we feel
that with that many units they're not going to have any impact
because it's less than it could have been; it's an interesting argument.
It's a very significant impact, but at the same time what I see
here is a write-up that says as long as you build Livingston Road to
six lanes like we're doing, and 1-75 gets done in 2008, you're talking
about intersection improvement, you're talking about a lot more than
that when it's all said and done.
The other thing is to say that if you're going to reserve some
right-of-way and get impact fee credit for it, I think we need to see
what comes out of the DRI.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not sure I understood all of
that but--
MR. FEDER: In answer to your question, it should fall under
our system. The question is if the DRI is somehow out of our process
testimony we need to attend to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we attend to that?
MR. FEDER: Make sure that the provisions of the DRI don't
allow it to happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How do we do that?
Page 125
September 1 O, 2002
MR. FEDER: Make sure we're reviewing that and if it becomes
an issue -- provision in the process and note that the DRI does not
preempt the local PUD and concurrency process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we can make our approval
contingent upon the fact that they would meet the requirements of our
concurrency?
MR. FEDER: We need to put that into our provisions to make
sure that it goes into that DRI process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I do think-- and the rest of the
questions, Mr. Anderson, I'll address to you. You get the easy ones.
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The 951 extension I think is very
important. What is your reaction to providing some right-of-way for
that purpose or building the road?
MR. ANDERSON: We have agreed to provide right-of-way
along our western boundary. There's been apparently some idea from
some transportation planner about preferred alignment and we have
been requested to set aside right-of-way when they were reviewing
our DRI application; we have agreed to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Immokalee Road?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
right-of-way rather than giving us
The same thing would be true of
Let me ask, what does set aside
right-of-way mean?
MR. ANDERSON: We will give the right-of-way to you as
mitigation for our transportation impacts under whatever concurrency
regulations you may adopt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In other words, if our concurrency
measurement shows that the roads are not adequate for you to
proceed without the construction of 951 you would give us the right-
of-way to construct 951; is that essentially what you're saying?
MR. ANDERSON: In essence, yes. Yes. I mean that we own.
Page 126
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Okay. I'm concerned about
the impact on the TDR program of some of the provisions here.
What we wanted to do was jump start the TDR program, and
how does this particular development and provisions contained in it
either support or undermine that effort?
MR. HEATH: Well, in two ways. The density blending under
the input that we had from Professor Nicholas when we were
developing the TDR concept, he indicated in his belief that density
blending, which is what that they're proposing to do, is actually a
form of TDR.
In other words, what they're doing is they're transferring some
development rights to themselves because they have land in both the
rural and urban area. That's one point. And that is -- in the rural
fringe density blending is allowed.
The Petitioner actually helped us develop the language that's in
the Rural Fringe Amendment. It's allowed in this area. It's allowed
in some other portions of the rural fringe area.
The other factor is that they have agreed to accept the Planning
Commissions recommendation that they purchase TDR rights from
the sending area for construction of any golf courses.
And they would be doing that at the same rate as required by
anyone coming forward with a development proposal in the rural
fringe.
So they're not differentiating themselves from other
developments that might occur in Rural Fringe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we know how many potential
TDR purchases this might entail?
MR. ANDERSON: It's a function of the design of the golf
course, it excludes natural areas that most golf courses have. That is
excluded from the calculation, but essentially for every five acres of
playable golf course you have to buy one TDR.
Page 127
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So essentially that's every five
acres of fairway and greens.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And it includes the clubhouse.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've never played on the fairways
and the greens. I'm always in the rough. That's an area that is
unfamiliar to me.
The rural village concept I thought was part of our long range
plan for the rural development, how does that differ from the
clustering concept that you have proposed here?
MR. ANDERSON: This is -- you have limited the number of
rural villages is my recollection. And this is a little bit different than
the other rural fringe lands because this project contains one urban
section.
So we would be having commercial uses inside the activity
center in the urban area and then in addition to that we have this
neighborhood center with convenient commercial uses that would be
distributed throughout out the development.
MR. HEATH: Commissioner Coyle, if I might. This is not
based on the rural village concept. This is an alteration or a version
of the County's existing PUD neighborhood village center which has
been in the plan for some time.
So this is based -- we had to do some alterations to it and we had
to submit some revised language. We worked with Mr. Anderson,
Mr. Weeks and I, had a meeting with Mr. Anderson and we had
developed the language and so we were happy in that regard.
You should understand that it's not based on the same concept.
There are similarities, but it's not exactly the same.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there an advantage of doing it in
a way that is similar to the rural village?
MR. HEATH: Well, the rural village concept would require the
development to be more opened up to more people, outside people,
Page 128
September 10, 2002
coming in and going out. The concept behind the rural village is to
serve as a sort of a center for the surrounding area.
This is more of a little local center within the development for
the residents and guests of the development to use and not for the
outside world at large to really be involved with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this a gated community? Is that
what you're planning?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. And one other item, we don't meet
the minimum density for rural village.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I bet you could solve that problem,
couldn't you?
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we're certainly not proposing to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One last question, I can't resist
this, but I've been looking for a place to put a municipal golf course
for some time. You have a 150 acres or so that you can allocate to do
that? It would be really very helpful. It would be a wonderful
gesture on your part to the community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Look at Jim Mudd, he's already
starting to write down the location.
MR. MUDD: That's part of that regional park he was talking
about. I like it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I haven't gotten an answer yet. I
wasn't joking.
MR. ANDERSON: We'll be prepared to discuss that and all of
the road issues as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And affordable housing.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIO^ER HENNING: My neighbor would love that
what commissioner Coyle has just suggested. So we'll see if we can
get it in there. You'll please my neighbor. It's gotten so bad that I'm
going to go move so I don't have to hear from my neighbor anymore.
Page 129
September 1 O, 2002
If you don't mind, I have some questions too. Commissioner
Coletta is concerned about 951 continuing on to Lee County. No
question about what the impacts of this proposed community would
have on the local network.
I just caution everybody, we don't know what Lee County is
going to do as far as their alignment. And hopefully we can get that
answer before this project moves forward as it goes through the
approval stages.
Are you -- are you in agreement with contribution to county
parks?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And on 951, we are not
doing anything that hinders that in any way. We're facilitating it by
reserving and agreeing to dedicate the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe Mr. Woodruff can
answer this question for me a little bit better; I'll put it out there.
There's a true need in that area for a mini-government center with the
different constitutional officers.
And as a -- I would believe a satellite office for the
commissioner in District Five, that is a real happening place out
there.
Is there any provisions within the village center or the activity
center where we can look at opportunities for a piece, like, four or
five acres for a satellite government services?
MR. WOODRUFF: For the record, Richard Woodruff with
Wilson-Miller representing the Petitioner.
In the plans being prepared for the DRI which has been
submitted, and the planned unit development that accompanies the
DRI, there's a two-acre site that is set aside for various EMS type
activity.
Page 130
September 1 O, 2002
That does not mean that there would be sufficient land there to
cover all the activities of fire, sheriff and EMS as well as
constitutional officers.
I would also mention to you that as part of the overall
development plan you have in your plan document and the DRI
certain square footages for office space.
Now, office space can be either government space or private
office space. So those are issues that I would say that the way the
structure way the documents are today there's certainly potential, as
we know the constitutional officers of Collier County have
traditionally led the way in taking the satellite office concept to the
citizens.
If you approve, hopefully, in January or February the PUD and
DRI, there would be room within that language as currently
structured so that office space could be rented or office space could
be purchased or office space could be arranged.
So I would say that that is an open issue we could look at.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Great. And what I'm talking
about are impacts of this development and how it has on government
services. That's what I'm looking at.
It's not the purchase or rent, it's in lieu of the impacts of the
development.
MR. WOODRUFF: And that is why we're working and have
already set aside, the developer agreed to set aside two acres for the
EMS, fire and sheriffs. There's no question that essential services
need to be addressed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You heard my comment.
Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Woodruff, you might be able
to help me with this. Is there any reason why the planning of this
DRI could not take on a pattern like Pelican Bay where it is an open
Page 131
September 1 O, 2002
community with gates within a community? What is the necessity to
gate it off entirely?
MR. WOODRUFF: From a-- again, for the record, Richard
Woodruff, from a planning perspective there are certain roads within
this that could be set up, as you have indicated, the spine road system
in Pelican Bay.
There's other roads within the system that would not be
appropriate to have set it up that way.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So it could take a blending of
that so you're not giving the public image of a totally gated enclave of
4,700 acres where no one shall enter unless you live there.
MR. WOODRUFF: Yes, sir. I do want to be correct and as we
recognize we're here on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
we're not really giving you a presentation on the DRI/PUD.
But we do have to state for the record that concept is already in
the plan. There are certain roadway systems within this development
that would be open to the public, primarily in the southwest comer,
where we're talking about building the Town Center.
When you get back into the residential areas those would not be
open and they would be more in the concept of a gated community.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Just a couple of other
quick things. Does anyone know how many TDR's would be
absorbed by your projects of the bank and available TDR's in the
rural fringe?
MR. WOODRUFF: I'm sorry.
more time.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
Would you ask that question one
We have a number of TDRs that
will be calculated, there's a bank of them. Whatever that number is,
how many would be absorbed by this project?
MR. WOODRUFF: Would be absorbed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
Page 132
September 10, 2002
MR. WOODRUFF: I'm sorry, that was the word, I apologize
for not understanding. This project is not required to have transfer
development rights or TDR's unless we build a golf course in the
three sections that are in the current rural fringe.
Now, here are some roles of thumb that we use in the industry
for the impact zones of golf courses, not including the preserve areas.
Now, unfortunately, Mr. Coyle apparently took his golf lessons
at the same place I did because I don't play in these areas. But the
impact zone for the fairways and the greens and what we basically
call the playing in bounds can vary from as little as a hundred acres
on an 18-hole golf course up to 140 to 150, depending on how much
you want to have the fairways be wide open versus narrow.
In the golf courses that were developed in the 70's and 80's, they
were much more player-friendly friendly and we saw fairways that
were very wide.
Today we have fairways being developed and systems being
developed that try to challenge, whether appropriately or not is up for
interpretation, but we see much less impact.
So let's just pick a number; 120-acre impact. If you have 120-
acre impact and you divide that by five acres --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Twenty-four.
MR. WOODRUFF: -- you got 24 TDR's. And I will say to you
that when the density blending was first established it did not include
any requirement to have TDR's used because it was a clear
recognition that the two areas of density blending would be used up
under here on this property and one down on US 41 South, that there
were major environmental areas that were included in those and we
were not going to set them up as sending zones.
For example, 2,562 acres on this project there are 830 acres that
have density blending had never been discussed, in my opinion,
Page 133
September 1 O, 2002
would have been set aside as sending zones because they meet the
environmental requirements.
I mean, that whole northern section across this property is
nothing but a continuation of the large environmental systems which
the environmental agencies have worked years to establish.
However, the Planning Commission felt it was important to have
those golf courses still have to have the TDR concept. As you
probably know, because we sent you copies of the letter that we sent
to the Planning Commission, at first we strenuously objected to
having to have those TDR's purchased because we felt that we
already met that by setting aside over 800 acres of reserve.
However, the client said in fairness he would go ahead and do
that. I don't think he was in fairness, I think it was in a system that
we were already more than fair. Nobody, seriously, nobody is going
to set aside more acreage than this development is going to set aside
for preservation.
But be that as it is, we are going to meet the one per five ratio
and I think a reasonable guess is that we will be purchasing
somewhere between 20 and 25 TDR's. I apologize for the length of that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's fine. I think, one, it jump
starts the system and it doesn't as some people has said you exhaust
all the TDR's in one project. That's not true, that's just a very small
public.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
MR. HEATH: Commissioner Carter, we looked at the issue of
this project's impact on the TDR process as part of our review.
And this was before the Planning Commission brought up the
idea of having them purchase TDR's for the purpose of constructing
golf courses.
Page 134
September 1 O, 2002
So we looked at it as a large lot of land within the rural fringe
that did not have to purchase TDR's.
And our belief after looking at that is, given the fact that this is
one project and also given the uncertainty of the TDR process there,
and we don't know -- there will be owners within the rural fringe
sending areas that won't sell the TDR rights because they'll build a
house or they'll opt to hold on to them for some reason or they'll do
other things altogether, they won't pay any attention to it at all.
So we thought that all in all the whole picture would sort of
balance out. We didn't think it would have that significant effect on
the TDR process as a whole.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Now I'm going to ask
a difficult question; actually, I have two.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One of them is with regard to the
flow. As you were saying how much land we're setting aside because
of the flow-ways -- setting aside in preservation, well, obviously,
you've got so much wetland involved in there as well as wildlife, you
have to set it aside, you wouldn't be able to build on it anyway. It's
just something you must do.
What I want to know is, as you're setting this aside, I'm
particularly interested in our future water sources and that flow-way.
And I want you to know what you're doing is, you're building around
that area to protect that flow-way and to protect the CREW lands,
that's my first question.
MR. WOODRUFF: As far as protecting the CREW lands,
remember, they lie north of this property.
When Florida Rock received its permit for mining activities, the
environmental agencies and permitting agencies required certain
Page 135
September 1 O, 2002
structures in the form of berms to be built. And in building those
what it actually did was redirect the flow system.
If you could imagine the flow system coming basically from
northeast down to southwest with the creating of those dikes, it
resulted in the flow system coming from northeast to a point and then
skewing almost due west and then back southwest.
Part of the program that we are going to be doing will be to
reestablish those flow ways where the dike system will be -- will not
be totally eliminated but it will be redirected, so almost 500 cubic
feet per second, to be honest with you, I can't tell you how much
water that is, that's just an engineering number, but 500 cubic feet per
second, which is a lot of water, will be redirected to the properties
east of this project and through this project.
Now, in that redirection, there's some very important things that
happen. Number one, a lot of the environmental areas that were cut
off by the natural sheet flow will now be reestablished. That's
important because when you have wetland systems that become dry
then you know what happens, they convert.
They convert through infestation of exotics as well as things we
normally think of, but are more upland dry land vegetation.
Second thing that's going to be important is that as the water
moves in a more natural fashion, it will then enter the Immokalee
Road canal at a variety of points, almost like a spreader waterway,
rather than having the major concentration which currently exists to
the west.
Now, I recognize very clearly Commissioner Coletta made a
point that he can't go to his Rotary Club and say we got better water
management out of this and everybody goes home happy.
But I will tell you that those folks who live to the west of this,
we had our public meetings with them, that was their number one
Page 136
September 10, 2002
concern. And they were very pleased to know that we are going to be
redirecting a major amount of that flow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you will be protecting our
future water sources by doing this? So what I'm really concerned
with is protecting those future water sources.
MR. WOODRUFF: The answer is yes, but it's not as simple as
one word. Percolation in this part of the country does not occur
vertically. It occurs in long-term lateral flows.
So if you took the position that any place you improve water
management you're protecting your water supply, in that sense the
answer is yes.
I would say to you though, the water supply is really not the
issue here because percolation occurs in that long lateral system.
It occurs, as you know, the hard pan in that area varies from 20
to 40 feet in depth. And the well systems that the city and the county
have all lie east of 951, except for the Coastal Ridge Aquifer which
the City of Naples has.
So your long term water -- the political answer and the real
answer is yes, but I don't want you to be misled that we're actually
doing something there.
The main thing we're doing is surface water management and
that is critical to hold down flooding.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Heath.
MR. HEATH: Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard brought up, I
think it's important for the commissioners to appreciate if you today
vote to approve the transmittal of this plan amendment, you're not in
any way obligating the Commission to later approve the DRI or the
PUD or even the final plan amendment.
All you're doing is allowing the review process to continue.
And that's it. And they still have to address doctors with all of these
concerns that you've expressed, and if they can't do it then you have
Page 137
September 1 O, 2002
every right as commissioners to say, no, we can't approve this
project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But it's more difficult if you let it
go through with the first vote. If you first start crossing some of your
t's and dotting your i's you have a better foundation to move forward.
And that's what I'm doing.
And my second question was, and this is really important,
somewhere lodged in here it was saying additional language.
Somewhere in here it was, "The project will not create a significant
population increase."
Yet, it's going to have 7,000 people and they figure these are all
people that haven't lived here before. To me that's a significant
population increase.
And Commissioner Carter made an outstanding point, what
we're trying to do with our road system, and you know I have this big
thing about transportation anyway, what we're trying to do is create a
grid.
This is something that Norm Feder has been pushing all along.
This is a perfect opportunity to continue that goal of creating a grid
by not gating it off but by allowing spine roads through here.
And you have wonderful communities that have showed us a
fine example of how it should be done. I don't think we should
discontinue that. Because we are going to have a transportation
problem here and that could be one way to solve it along with, of
course, the 951 land that we desperately need.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any more questions before I
close the public hearing?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Vice Chairman, I have one speaker before
you close it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you call the public
speakers, please.
Page 138
September 1 O, 2002
MS. FILSON: Nancy Patten.
MS. PATTEN: Nancy Patten, representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation, NSA, member of Collier County Audobon Society.
We have no objections to the plan amendments. But I did want
to make several comments for the record and to show that we did
participate and explain that we did participate in this plan
development process or this amendment process.
We met with Heritage Bay. We spent an afternoon with them
and discussed a variety of questions and concerns and they were
resolved.
We raised issues at the Rural Fringe Committee about it's
density blending program conflicting with undermining or
circumventing the TDR program.
And as a result of our questions and questions of Doctor
Nicholas did do his analysis and they were similar programs and they
were not competing programs. But I understand that we're sort of
having a meshing of the two now with the final amendments that are
going to be transmitted.
We also had concerns about 951. And our comfort level with
this project was good because the project wasn't driving 951. And we
had a little bit of discussion here today that 951 now is going to be
driven by this project.
These issues weren't talked about as I recall when we dealt with
Marisol to require them to build 951. There's right-of-way for 951
but it wasn't committed to build it.
And I also recall that just a couple of meetings ago, one, two,
three meetings ago, the county contributed a quarter of a million
dollars to the PD&E for 951, which is starting at ground zero in terms
of whether there will or won't be a 951 extension. And there are
supposed to be an extensive and broad-based, long, several year,
Page 139
September 1 O, 2002
public involvement process to determine, one, whether 951 is needed.
And two, what the property alignment for 951 will be.
And our alignment of 951 only goes up t Lee County line. It
doesn't go to Bonita Beach Road as Commissioner Henning spoke
about.
So for us to talk about locking in 951 when we don't know what
Lee County is going to do and we don't know the results of the
PD&E studies a bit premature and kind of countered to what all of us
had hoped would be the whole reason that we're going through this
planning process and participating in good faith. So I caution and I
have a lot of concern about this project driving 951.
And lastly, again, I want to reflect for the record that we did
participate in the process. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you for your corrections,
Ms. Patten. Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any more questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have one comment. It
certainly wasn't my intent in discussing the 951 right-of-way that will
determine the course.
I think we're really preserving our options here, so we don't have
to come back later on about this right-of-way if that turns out to be
the right course.
So I appreciate your comments, Nancy. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
move for recommendation of transmittal, including staff, Planning
Commission recommendations, and comments as addressed by this
Board on income-sensitive housing, affordable housing, road network
considerations, the options, the what ifing on the 951 studies, along
Page 140
September 1 O, 2002
with an open spinal system within that DRI so that it does not
become a closed community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion. And
the reason I'm seconding that motion is this is just a transmittal.
Like it was stated by Mr. Heath, we all have concerns about this
going forward. But the devils are in the detail and they'll come out
later on.
And there's plenty of opportunities to -- if it doesn't fit the needs
of Collier County and the community character, that we can stop this
process.
So I would like to have more details in the future when it comes
forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
MR. HEATH: Excuse me. I need to ask for clarification. If
you do decide to vote on this, Staff needs to know which version
you're voting on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The revised version was part of
my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm all right with the revised
version.
MR. HEATH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could we go through the revised
version, please?
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: It's right here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Essentially, what was the
difference between the revised version and the one that was in our
book? Were some words missing?
MR. HEATH: Words missing. There was no substantive
changes. We didn't change the intent or the meaning of the plan
amendment language as compared to what was in the Executive
Summary.
Page 141
September 10, 2002
If you look at -- there was a couple of things that was done to
the body of the resolution itself. About halfway down on the first
page of the resolution I had inadvertently left out a reference to the
water and sewer district boundary map and Ms. Student caught that
and we put the reference back in.
There was a couple of changes. On the second page there was a
change to -- where it says, "Now therefore be it resolved by the
Board of County Commissioners." I had done something wrong
there. I copied off of a different resolution and we changed that.
There was a clarification in the actual plan amendment language
itself regarding the items on the second page of the exhibit reflecting
the fact that it was the lakes within the corollary area that would have
the storm water management function and also a recreational
function and not the rock quarry themselves.
And that was essentially all the changes that were made there. I
think there was a colon or a period removed in a couple of place.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Didn't it include the TDR?
MR. HEATH: It's already in there. That was already in there.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it in this one?
MR. HEATH: It should be.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Please reference it for me.
MR. HEATH: It was in there as a recommendation. We can
add that. We'll have to add it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely. That's what we're
voting on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was one of my concerns.
Am I first?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I thought he
was done. I guess he wasn't.
Page 142
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That is part of the Planning
Commission's recommendation. That's why you're not seeing it as
part of the resolution. So it will become a part of the resolution.
MR. HEATH: We didn't find out until last week or late last
week that Mr. Anderson's client had agreed, in fact, to that stipulation
so we didn't know to include it prior to this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that is an important point
because the requirement to use the TDR's I think would not normally
apply to this PUD or DRI.
And the Petitioner has voluntarily agreed to conform to the
wishes of the Planning Commission.
But the issue still remains whether we're going to modify the
Growth Management Plan to assure that all similar situations require
the purchase of TDR's. I guess that's what you're saying. That is
going be included in the transmittal and it will change that provision
so that the wishes of the Planning Commission are, in fact,
permanently implemented.
MR. HEATH: Staff is so directed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to all the
other details that we discussed, to what extent are they going to be
part of the record and impact our future discussions when it comes
back for approval by this Board?
MR. HEATH: They're part of the record of what was said and
heard at this meeting. And we will note these factors to DCA,
because DCA, probably they will have some of the same questions
and concerns that you've expressed.
They're not in the Plan Amendment language. And a lot of
those stipulations are the kinds of things that we don't normally put in
Page 143
September 1 O, 2002
plan amendment language. We put that in development order
conditions.
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, for the record. The next time
you see this will be the adoption for the Comp Plan Amendment and
you will be jointly seeing the DRI order and the PUD rezones which
many of these stipulations can be specified at those levels.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The other issue was the
retention of our rights to assert the concurrency requirements and to
require that they be considered for this development. Is there
anything we need to do with respect to this transmittal in order to
assure those rights?
MR. LITSINGER: Well, at adoption of this Comp Plan
Amendment and the associated PUD rezone and DRI development
order, it'd be subject to the concurrency rules that you have in effect
at this time at some point in the future.
Apparently we have the threshold that the Comp Plan and
rezone relative to transportation impact and population impacts in the
five percent range; that's a key issue.
We currently have in DCA amendments to change that to one
percent respectively for population and transportation impact at the
rezone and Comp Plan Amendment stage, plus we're in the process of
implementing concurrency GOP.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the point I'm getting at is
that the comment was made earlier when I raised this question that
the concurrency provisions would prevail unless the Southwest
Florida Regional Planning Council did something different.
MR. HEATH: I have sort of a personal point here. There has
been some changes, but my background is the Assistant DRI
Coordinator at the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
from 1988 until late last year when I joined Collier County.
Page 144
September 10, 2002
And in my experience and -- everybody else stayed so it should
be pretty much the same.
In my experience the Regional Planning Counsel would not
approve something that the County did not want. So if the County
made a case that a particular concurrency requirement or concurrency
requirements in general had to apply to this particular project or they
couldn't approve it, then those types of recommendations would go in
the DRI recommendation from the Regional Planning Counsel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And one final thing, I
presume the transmittal will contain the obligation to provide the 36
holes of municipal golf?.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thirty-six?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thirty-six?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's growing.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Jim Mudd, County Manager, for
the record. I want to make sure, I heard Mr. Anderson mention
something at the podium about right-of-way for -- it seemed like he
was implying credits.
One of the things we're going to talk about and we talked about
with the listening session, somehow we're going to have to start
holding down the right-of-way costs or the impact fees for roads are
going to skyrocket.
There's not a whole lot said in this, giving right-of-way. Giving.
Not giving for a price. Not giving for a credit. Not -- because if you
get an impact fee credit, you didn't get anything. All you have is you
paid for that right-of-way and you're just using those impact fee
credits for something else.
I don't see any of that in here. I don't see anything about
Immokalee Road. Right now we got a little bit of an intersection
improvement on Immokalee and that kind of thing.
Page 145
September 1 O, 2002
But I think we need to address it now. Because I think you're
setting an expectation and I'm not too sure everybody is listening to
that expectation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll include in my motion to
broaden that. I alluded to it. I can say it for the public record. Give
us the right of ways if and when 951 affects anything that you own.
You give it to us.
And how much of the project borders Immokalee Road?
MR. MUDD: About four miles of it, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, then I want them to give us
the right-of-way on Immokalee Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I'm not sure how
much control they have over Immokalee Road, but I'll second that
motion. I know there is some control there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got to interject some points in here.
I'm really a little disappointed the way the direction is going on this.
We get handed a document at the 1 lth hour to make decisions
on. There is so much missing from this. You're talking about raising
the population level of Collier County in one jump to three or four
percent. Bang. There they are on Immokalee Road.
No matter what you do to it you're going to severely impact it.
For what reason? What is the public good for in this?
We're going to get a lot of things. Sure, we heard about the
regional parks we're going to get money for. We need more acreage,
by the way, it's not enough. Two is not enough. We need five. Guy
Carlton wants an office down there too.
There's a lot of things that have not been dealt with. We're
opening the door and we're giving them the way to be able to reach a
final conclusion on this.
Sure, we come in several times and keep interjecting our
opinions and everything. This is opening the door.
Page 146
September 1 O, 2002
If anything, I'd like to see some understandings reached before
we get to the point where we approve this. We're talking major,
major development for Collier County, the biggest we'll ever see.
Marjorie.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant
County Attorney. I have a suggestion, perhaps for some language,
and of course the Petitioner and Staff can address it.
At this juncture, these types of things are usually done at the
rezone DRI level. But what we might include is language to the
effect that the impacts of this development will be considered as to its
impact on Immokalee and 951. And as part of the DRI rezone
process, it will be assessed and they will, you know, may be required
to -- something that sets the stage for the specifics later.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I hate to say this. This is almost all
predetermined before it ever reaches here.
I even found the road plans that were being developed with cuts
for this project before it even got to us. That has since been
corrected.
You know, I don't want to be a pawn to this. I'm going to vote
against it. This is my District. It's going to effect that tremendously.
I don't think we've done enough on it. I wouldn't mind bringing it
back again to address every little issue that's going to impact the area
out there.
It's going to be an absolutely tremendous size -- the scope of this
particular project. And if we don't get a grip on it now we're not
going to get it when it comes later.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, our communities
drawing grew 19 percent in the last 10 years. You're going to have
4,700 people come here regardless if you never approve this or if you
stand on your head out here and tell everyone in the parking lot.
You're going to get the people, that to me is a non-issue.
Page 147
September 10, 2002
Those people are going to have to live somewhere. I think that
is just what is part of what is going to evolve here.
The other concerns that you're addressing now have already
been discussed by the Commission and are incorporated in this,
including facilities.
But I think the comments made in terms of the road and maybe
Ms. Student is giving me the language, we need the right of ways.
We can't afford to keep doing it the way we have done it in the past.
And if the development community as a part of the community,
which they very much are, can assist us and need to assist us, we
have to have the dedication of those right of ways to the county to
move forward to accommodate.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you, Commissioner
Carter. You're absolutely correct. They're going to come here
regardless.
The only thing I'm asking for is provisions that will protect the
rights of the people that are already here, that we'll make sure we will
move them from one end of the County to another in a logical form.
I know you don't want to hear about 951, but I will tell you right
now, if that is an integral part of this, we've lost out as far as the
county goes.
951 eventually is going to have to meet up with Bonita Beach
Road. When that happens you will have met the needs of the public
out there to convey traffic. You better be able to take the pressure off
the other roads.
All the other band-aids that you want to apply are fine. It's
going to help. But the thing is you got a major development coming
in with an approach where we're just touching the edges of it. I don't
think enough thought has gone into it at this point.
Mr. Woodruff.
Page 148
September 1 O, 2002
MR. WOODRUFF: Mr. Chairman, I understand that you closed
the public comments. May I address you, though?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You may. I'll open it up again.
MR. WOODRUFF: Thank you. I would like to remind the
Commission normally when you see a development of regional
impact, the comprehensive plan has already been arranged i some
fashion by some prior commission and some prior actions.
But what is before you today is an amendment to the Comp
Plan. And I recognize that you want to get into the details, but I
would also ask you to remember the process that we're going to
improve.
This is a transmittal hearing. It is on the approval of the DRI. It
is not the PUD approval. It is not the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. Its authorization is to transmit.
Now, normally, when we stand in front of you on a DRI, you
hear, if I may say it this way, you hear hours of boring testimony
about 10 million facts. And come January, we don't want to
disappoint you, you'll hear that.
And come January we will arm wrestle with you and you'll arm
wrestle with us and you'll twist our arms and legs. And eventually
we will wind up with knowing whether we're going to give or
whether we're going to do this or whether we're going to do that.
If I may say very honorably to you, that is not what we're about
today. What you're about today is the Comprehensive Plan. We did
not, nor did we feel it was appropriate, to come with a presentation
today that will try to convince you about all the issues about the
development plan and all those other things. Because again, that's
not this hearing.
So we would ask you, with all due respect, to remember the
process. The process is transmittal hearing. Come January that's
when you get into rolling up your sleeves and telling us, if you'll
Page 149
September 1 O, 2002
pardon the expression, beating on your dais and saying, we will not
do this. I will not vote for that until you do the following.
Because we're there in the right setting for handling the DRI and
PUD which is the development side. This is the regulatory side.
This is the comprehensive plan.
And Commissioner Coletta, I understand and our client
understands very well where you're coming from. We understand.
That's why when Mr. Anderson said at the beginning, and his
words I don't think were quite understood by all, it is not the Comp
Plan change that creates impact.
The second part of his comment was, the DRI creates the
impact. He did not say that our proposed development has no impact.
What he said was, changing the Comp Plan when you look at just the
numbers in the Comp Plan were actually going to be less dense.
But we are going to have impacts and those impacts will
probably be wrestled with you in January or February with the DRI.
So we honorably and respectfully request, please, transmit.
Those issues will be dealt with and must be dealt with in January
when you do the DRI and PUD.
Thank you for your courtesy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Woodruff. We'll
close the public hearing, unless you want to address something, Mr.
Coyle.
C MMISSIONER COYLE: No, I would like to make a
statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I make a statement of what he
just said before you? Is that all right with you?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it's okay with Commissioner
Coyle, it's fine with me.
Page 150
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to say, you were
saying that affects the Comp Plan. This process doesn't affect the
DRI, just the Comp Plan.
But if we don't send it in for transmittal and changing the Comp
Plan, then we don't ever have to discuss the DRI. It's just a play on
words there.
I just wanted to make sure that you knew that I was watching
that play on words. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think the problem that we have
here is that historically what has happened, a Growth Management
Comp Plan Amendment has been made and that Comp Plan
Amendment is used to justify the PUD to the Board.
And I think all of us here are reluctant to see that happen. And
that's why I have asked that our rights be preserved with respect to
the concurrency issues.
I am very reluctant to go forward without those kinds of
guarantees. I don't want to find ourselves in a position in January or
February saying, well, it's part of your Comprehensive Plan, we're
entitled to it.
That I think is the benefit of having these discussions, some of
the concerns that we have, and if those concerns are part of the record
and everyone understands that if a Comp Plan Amendment is
forwarded it does not guarantee you anything with respect to this
development.
Then I feel a little more comfortable with that because I have
seen situations where the Comp Plan amendments, the Comp Plan
provisions have been used to beat the Board over the head about what
the people are entitled to get.
Page 151
September 10, 2002
So if there's a general understanding that we're going to preserve
our rights with respect to assessing the impacts on our community
and determining concurrency from the standpoint of roads, water and
sewer, and that determination will be based on our concurrency
system which concludes at the time you come back, then I feel a little
more comfortable about that.
But I think we all get a little concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Tremendous concern.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate the fact that we feel
concerned. And usually when you have concern you delay action at
that point in time until the concerns are removed.
I don't feel that myself, that we have answered all the questions.
I mean, we're playing with it. I guarantee you that whatever we do
here is going to have a direct impact on the next step.
By not approving this, we're forcing them to come back and
meet all the particular little things along the way and we can address
it further down the road.
The major items have not been handled yet. Why give them--
opening up the door to even consider it without reaching an
understanding what those major items are?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, in all respect, I
disagree with you. The transmittal with the public records statement
that we have put on record today, going with the transmittal has set
the standard of expectation.
And you can delay this for a hundred years, you still have to
move it to a transmittal phase where the standards are communicated
upward, so that when it comes back to these other processes, as
Commissioners Coyle, Fiala and Henning have alluded to,
unfortunately, you were not able to be with us on those, I think we
got the bases covered. And I feel comfortable as a parting
commissioner that that standard is being set and that whoever comes
Page 152
September 10, 2002
here knows that there's some very specific expectations that we are
meeting right up front.
The developers and the representatives leaving here today know
what we're thinking about. They know what our expectations are.
And is this not some of the open-ended stuff that I saw when I
first came here, where it was like, well, you know, we'll transmit and
hope the pieces fall out later?
We've already shored this up before it goes forward. That's why
I'll support this transmittal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we all have to vote our
conscience on this and I know where mine is. I won't delay this any
longer unless someone has some other comments.
Okay. All those in favor of the transmittal with all the
conditions, corrections that were mentioned before indicate by saying
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those opposed? Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about you, Commissioner
Coyle? I didn't catch your voice.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make sure that we
had a clear understanding the concurrency issues and our rights will
be preserved and will not circumvented by the DRI. How do we get
MR. ANDERSON: That is my understanding as well. And that
is conceded.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Say that one more time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That any issues relating to the
availability of water, sewer or road capacity will be determined by
Page 153
September 1 O, 2002
this Board before this thing goes -- before the first spoonful of dirt is
turned anywhere on this project.
See, the problem as I see it, I don't like this process, but there's
nothing I can do about it right now. But the problem is that the
questions we have cannot be answered by the developer until such
time as they have a conceptual plan approval and they know what
kind of-- where the roads are going to be, it's going to be platted out;
all of those kind of things.
They can't do that without going forward in some way. They
can't go forward in some way without having a conceptual plan
which permits them to go forward in that way. At least that's my
understanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm so glad that you brought this
up. But that's absolutely right. And they do have property rights and
so I want to withdraw my vote and I will vote yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We are reserving all of our rights
for disapproval of anything we don't like.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'm glad you brought that up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What we have done is we have
opened the door to say that this project will go forward, eventually,
one way or another.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will not be argumentative.
Please, let me draw your attention to a situation about three months
ago when someone came in with a very, very dense .or change to the
Comprehensive Plan for development of a facility just north of our
library.
It was a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and I was the only
one that voted against it because I didn't think we should set that
standard.
Page 154
September 1 O, 2002
I think that in this case, because it's a DRI, it has to go through
the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, there is a different
process here. And we will get a good shot at it when it comes back.
And that way I think we can protect the rights of our
community.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that was the main thing that I
was concerned with is that they have property rights. We can guide
that development to modify to a point where it will be livable and it
won't impact the roads that much, but I guess we have to get there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to call the question. We
didn't quite finish, Commissioner Coyle, your vote was?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, you had a comment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ms. Fiala's vote.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm doing some serious thought here. It's
essentially turned into a role call vote as you were apparently looking
for Mr. Coyle's vote forward and Ms. Fiala had voted. And it appears
to have attempted to change the vote. I would be --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like us to do it again?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would. I want to make sure we have the
process impeccable here. I would suggest that you have a vote, but
that a person who is voted with majority may ask to reconsider this
vote.
You can do this right now and take care of it and if there's a
majority wishing to reconsider the vote as originally cast, then you
can -- and that is approved, then you can revote.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Reconsideration of the vote?
MR. WEIGEL: Has Commissioner Coyle voted yet?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I did.
Page 15 5
September 1 O, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: No, Coyle. COMMISSIONER COYLE: He
asked me how I would vote and I told him I would vote in support of
that, given the safeguards that we have insisted upon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just yes -- how do you want to do
this? We need a second?
MR. WEIGEL: I think for purposes we have a completed vote,
and now a member of the majority would need to move -- and Mr.
Henning has moved in a second to reconsider the vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A second came from Commissioner-
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Carter.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, any other discussions on
the reconsider for the vote?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIR]AN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it five to zero.
Now, the motion one more time. COMMISSIONER
CARTER: The motion is just as I stated before with all of the
concerns and considerations that has been reiterated by members of
this Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: rll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Caner, a second by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? All
· those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 156
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
is Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
indulgence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
And I say no. The descending vote
Thank you very much for your
One of the hardest moves we've
had.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-45, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO DIVISION 2.3, OFF-
STREET PARKING- ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm ready to make a motion on
the next item, our stenographer needs a break.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I will tell you what, why don't we go
ahead and take a break. Thereupon,
(Brief recess was taken, after which the following proceedings
were had.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if there's no
questions from the members of the Board, I'm ready to close public
hearing and make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
There is a questiOn. Any speakers?
Marjorie, did you have something?
Page 157
September 1 O, 2002
MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to remind the Commission, since
this is an LDC Amendment it takes four votes and a finding of
consistency with the Growth Management Plan.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And you'll incorporate that in your
motion, correct, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle, I see your
finger pointing. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to make
an observation. You had heard that I had made a proposal that we set
hours for the enforcement of this thing.
I just would like to explain the intent. It was to make the
enforcement easier, not more complicated. I received a number of
calls from people who were complaining that they were having guests
over to their house and they were getting ticketed.
And I figured if we dealt with it from a standpoint of 10 p.m.
until 6 a.m. the next morning, then you're not dealing with guests,
you're dealing with people who are spending the night. And that's
who we were really planning to focus on.
And furthermore, by doing that you don't have to worry about
whether they're a guest or whether they live there, the fact that the car
is there should be ticketed.
You don't have to knock on anybody's door. You don't have to
do anything else. You just cite the vehicle and you got the vehicle's
license number and that solves the problem, I think.
But nevertheless, that was the intent of my recommendation.
And that's -- if the Board wishes to consider it, fine, if not, then we'll
just move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me see if I understand you
correctly, Commissioner Coyle. What you're saying is they wouldn't
Page 158
September 10, 2002
have to go to the house itself?. They would just go by -- what is the
limit of cars to any one residence?
MS. MURRAY: For the record, Susan Murray, Current
Planning Manager. There's not a number limit on the cars. It's just
the placement -- they're indirectly limited by where they're limited in
their ability to park on site.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If they don't have sufficient
driveway, the car that is parked off the driveway is the car that gets
ticketed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They can be two or three deep, it
doesn't matter?
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MS. MURRAY: Correct.
designated area.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And they can't be parked on the
grass and they can't be parked on the street? MS. MURRAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be just like a parking
ticket. You don't have to find the owner to issue a parking ticket if
they're parked illegally on the street somewhere.
You just issue the citation to the vehicle and you got the license
number.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we won't be going up to the door
and knocking on it and disrupting the peace and tranquility of the
people that live in that house?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wouldn't think so. Unless the
Code Enforcement people have different requirements.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, this is
separate from what's on the agenda today.
One line drop right behind the other?
As long as they're parked in the
Page 159
September 10, 2002
I recommend individual board members get together with Mr.
Schmitt for their input on how it Should be dealt with.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want to go through this
twice or do you want to do it one time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. It's an LDC Amendment
as far as the enforcement of the code of this amendment. It is the
details of the day-to-day business.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I can't get my answers then I have
to vote against it because I won't understand all the particulars about
it.
I think this is the place to deal with it and not outside the
meeting.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine.
MS. MURRAY: There is a vehicle ownership requirement
provision in the proposed amendment.
And the last part of that talks about the vehicle ownership
requirements not being applicable to vehicles owned by persons or
business firms visiting the site for social or business purposes.
That still does not allow people to park outside of the designated
areas, even if they're there for social purposes. So that's the extent to
which the proposal deals with that issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing would happen if you had six
cars in one driveway and they were all on the pavement; is that
correct? No one will go up to the door and knock on it?
MS. MURRAY: That's correct. As long as the six cars were
either owned by the occupants or they were guests of the occupants.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how do you establish that fact?
MS. MURRAY: That's where you would be knocking on the
door, obviously.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And this would be between the hours
of?.
Page 160
September 1 O, 2002
MS. MURRAY: It really would be between the hours of when
code enforcement is out enforcing. So there's no hourly requirement.
But let me put something to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
MS. MURRAY: And I'm making this assumption, and if Ms.
Arnold here, she might want to back me up. MS. ARNOLD: I'm right here.
MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, Michelle. I'm going to assume that
if a code enforcement officer goes by a dwelling unit and regularly
sees cars parked in the driveway and they're in the designated area, I
think the assumption is going to be made that all 10 vehicles are
likely not owned by the occupant and at that time they would
probably investigate further.
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold. With respect
to how we would proceed with this, we have the ability to check the
tags and we would check tags and not necessarily always have to
knock on the occupant's door.
And as Susan is indicating, if we see a pattern at a particular
location where there's multiple vehicles in it and it seems to be a
problem, then what we would do initially is to monitor the area so
where there's circumstances where it was a special function that
particular night and it's not a reoccurring problem, we would be able
to eliminate that instance.
If it's a reoccuring problem we would address it with the
property owner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That sounds like a workable plan.
Thank you.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your light is on. It's off.
Page 161
September 10, 2002
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I do need to let
you know that the ordinance that is before you was in the review
process in the County Attorney's Office.
Up until yesterday, I gave the signed ordinance to Commissioner
-- I mean to Sue Filson and the changes that were made were not
substantive, they were mostly just grammatical and clarification
changes.
MS. STUDENT: Marjorie Student. I'd like to state for the
record that was so. And the reason that they were in review
yesterday was there were some recurring typos and we had to get
those fixed before it was done.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning
made a motion, it's been seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it was. May I ask, is this the
time for discussion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It sure is. We closed the public
hearing. Wait, do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Close the
public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we answer Commissioner
Coyle's concern?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think so. I don't know. Only
Commissioner Coyle can answer that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. But I'm not going to belabor
the point. I was trying to find a way to make it easier for Code
Enforcement, because if what you're trying to do is find out who
owns the car and whether or not they live there on a permanent basis,
that, quite frankly, is unenforceable.
I don't know how you ever determine that. But if you can say
the car is there between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. in the morning and you
Page 162
September 1 O, 2002
know they're staying overnight, there's no need to go through that
process. You ticket the car. It's that simple.
But this was an attempt to make it easier for people, for the code
enforcement people, but if the code enforcement people don't think it
will be easier, then have at it.
Just don't come back for an increase in budget for people next
year.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we have to be concerned with
the residents too. It's a primary concern. I think it's a workable plan.
To be honest with you, I had some reservations in the beginning,
but the way Michelle explained it, I no longer have those
reservations.
So with that, if there is no other discussion, 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: The ayes have it five to zero. Thank
yOU.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-380, APPOINTING RONALD DE FLAVIS
TO THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE LOCAL
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED
Okay. We're up to which number now? G?
MS. FILSON: I believe we're on 9-A. I think those have been
continued.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right, they have.
Page 163
September 1 O, 2002
MS. FILSON: And this next item you'll have two convene as
the CRA Board.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: In the appointment to the
Advisory Board, Commissioner, CRA Advisory Board for Bayshore.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. This -- item A, I believe you
tabled this one, the chair of that CRA Board.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Okay. I call the meeting to order for
the CRA Board. And we have one item today on the agenda and that
is to appoint one member to fill the remainder of a vacant term on the
Bayshore CRA Advisory Board.
Do I have any nominations?
MS. FILSON: Madam Chairman, may I make a comment? A
couple of the commissioners were concerned because we didn't get a
recommendation on this cormnittee, and the County Attorney's Office
has opined that because it was established by State statute that it
doesn't fall under the umbrella of our 2055 ordinance.
So now may be the correct time, if you so wish, to have
recommendations to direct staff to amend their by-laws to indicate
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have such a recommendation.
We appointed someone earlier this year who turned out to be not the
right person to be on the Board and ultimately resigned because they
were somewhat disruptive.
MS. FILSON: But it wasn't this Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was not this Board. It was not
this Board. And I'm troubled by the fact that we don't get any
information at all from the Board itself.
And I believe they should be giving us recommendations. And,
in fact, I think someone should be interviewing these people and it
should be the board of which they're to serve to determine if they're
qualified to serve on that board so we can rank these people and
Page 164
September 10, 2002
make reasonable selections, rather than just picking a number out of
the air.
I know neither of these two people. They're both from District
Four and I don't have the slightest idea which one would be better to
serve on this committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
appoint Ronald DeFlavis for this position.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Forgive me. It's
kind of hard to keep playing this game of musical chairs.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Is there any discussion on this
matter?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just the discussion on the matter.
I will support the recommendation, but we haven't answered the
question as to whether or not this board wants to institute a program,
a requirement that these people need to be interviewed by the board
on which they're to serve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Although I think that's a separate
subject, and I want to pursue it, I think you're absolutely right. I had
trouble myself.
I attend that board regularly. And as Chairman of the CRA
Board as well, I really wanted to know who we were getting on there.
This is an instrumental position.
Page 165
September 1 O, 2002
I didn't know either one of them. I started calling around trying
to find out any qualifications for either one. And actually, I couldn't
come up with anything.
So even the interview process would be excellent.
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was going to make a
suggestion, why don't we direct Staff to bring it back to us at another
meeting on how this might be done, rather than getting into a deep
discussion at this time.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. MANALICH: As to this one, Commissioner, you could
just simply give direction as the CRA that for the future on this
particular board you do want that committee to provide a
recommendation that could be carried out from this point forward.
As to the others, Ms. Filson, do you have a comment?
MS. FILSON: For the other committees, I can put that on the
agenda for discussion for the next meeting.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Well, there's the CRA meeting on
September 30th; correct? The CRA Board is convening at that time.
I have been told that, I haven't seen it in writing.
If it is, why don't we bring it forth then? That would be a
perfect time.
MS. FILSON: Well, I think he means the Board can give
direction to Staff to have them update their by-laws to include
interviewing the applicants. Right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I had in mind. But in
the interim, if Commissioner Henning knows the person that he has
recommended, then I will be happy to accept his recommendation on
this.
Page 166
September 10, 2002
It's just that generally, I'd like to know about these people, and
I'd like the people on the committees to have something to say about
them.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. Any further
discussions? All in favor.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: Thank you. Motion carried. And
with that, the CRA Board is closed. Pass the gavel.
Item #9B
COMMISSIONERS FIALA, COLETTA AND COYLE TO SERVE
ON THE VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD WITH
COMMISSIONERS HENNING AND CARTER SERV1NG AS
ALTERNATES; HEARINGS TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 2 AND
OCTOBER 3, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next item is 9-B.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I can
tell you that I have a conflict with the next appointment. I would
love to, but I'm afraid I could not carry out the duties of the Value
Adjustment Board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Likewise, I have a conflict too.
MS. FILSON: On this next item, actually, I need three members
to serve with two alternates, but I do have some good news. The only
dates I need are October 2nd and October 3rd. The 7th we won't
need that date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll volunteer to do both days.
Page 167
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
And so will I.
I guess I don't have any choice.
You don't, because the other two
can't make it.
MS. FILSON: The other two would be alternates, then?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Of course.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You need a motion on that?
MS. FILSON: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Motion to accept
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner
Coyle to the Value Adjustment Board members, and Commissioner
Carter and Commissioner Henning as alternates.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification, we're now back in
session as the Board of County Commissioners?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. Appreciate you
noting that. With that all those -- is there any other discussion?
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 five to zero. The
next item is 9-C.
Item #9C
RESOSLUTION 2002-381, CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT
OF ANGELA VALVO COLLINS TO THE HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
Page 168
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to second it and any
discussion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-382, APPOINTING ROBERT MULHERE TO
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving right to 9-D. And I'd like to
nominate Robert Mulhere.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might add that he has a great tie
on today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, a second by Commissioner Carter. Any
discussion? Hearing none, 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: The ayes have it five to zero.
Moving right on-
Item #9E
Page 169
September 1 O, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-383, APPOINTING SHERI BARNETT TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD-
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Sherry
Barnett.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second. COMMISSIONER
FIALA: Oh, I was going to go nominate -- may we have some
discussion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Of course we can. That's what we're
here for. Go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to nominate Gerald
Lefebvre because he's been on there as an alternate and it seems what
we've been doing the past couple of times is when somebody is an
alternate and has that background, we've moved that up to a
permanent position.
They've already paid their dues and that's what I'd like to see
happen and then maybe we can put Sherry Barnett into the alternate
position; but you already have a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. And commissioner the
reason I did that is we do not have somebody from District Five
because the person in District Five moved into District One. That's
the reason for my motion. My motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other comments?
Thoughts on it? Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala, now is the time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ms. Godfrey moved out of five, is
that what you're telling me?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm saying --
Commissioner Coletta, maybe you can help me. He used to be
Page 170
September 1 O, 2002
involved in Golden Gate Civic Association and moved into a condo
in East Naples.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You got me, Commissioner
Henning. The only thing I know is Sherry Barnett.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's talking about Diane Taylor;
right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yes, some time ago. I don't
think-- I didn't even look. Do we have anyone from District Five on
here? We don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Catherine Godfrey.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: My motion stands.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I do want to answer
Commissioner Fiala's question here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do you have a second to your
motion, Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, I made a second to it. There's
been a motion and a second. I don't want to drag this out any longer.
Let's see if the motion has got enough to fly, if it doesn't then
we'll come back.
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
Item #9G
Page 171
September 1 O, 2002
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER THE JUNE 11, 2002 ACTION
REGARDING ITEM #10C, WITH REGARD TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE ON DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD-
CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, on 9-G I need a vote to continue
this particular item, because this was a reconsideration on 625
recommended to be continued on 9/24 as we bring forward all those
seven landscaping items and this will be included.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Item G you're saying?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we made a
commitment at the workshop that any commitments that we did
make that we're going to stay with those commitments, so I cannot
support the reconsideration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So then it will stay on the schedule
unless somebody makes a motion to --
MR. MUDD: Sir, all I was asking for was a vote from the
Board to continue this until 9/24 so I can get all the monitary pieces
together, based on our landscaping workshop, to bring that forward.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 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: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero. So we're on Item H?
Page 172
September 1 O, 2002
Item #9I
RESOLUTION 2002-384, APPOINTING THOMAS SCHNEIDER
AND LARRY RAY TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC. - ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: No, sir, I.
MS. FILSON: 10-I. I mean, 9-I, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion for approval from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The Board woke up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any discussion? All those in favor
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #9J
RESOLUTION 2002-385, APPOINTING ANN KELLER AND
MARGARET RODGERS TO THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING
BOARD- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On 9-J, we --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We only have one person.
Page 173
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval of Ann
Lundblad Keller, from the City of Naples.
MS. FILSON: She was the appointment from the City of
Naples. We need to confirm her plus appoint one other consumer
member.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to recommend Margaret
Rogers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have Keller and Rogers. We
have a motion from Carter and a second from Fiala. I'm sorry,
Commissioner Carter, did your--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I never got to finish, but it's
okay. I'm on this train, you know, open the throttle a little wider and
we'll get out of here in another 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think your motion was
complete. It stopped short --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to include in my motion
Commissioner Fiala's motion and if we get a second to that, are we
okay with that as far as Robert Rule's order, Mr. Ramiro, or should
we take them separately?
MR. MANALICH: I think for purpose of clarity to go
separately.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I made a motion only to
handle the first part and that was to take care of the business of the
City of Naples in regards to Ms. Keller.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. We have a second by
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion on that part of
the motion or that motion? All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
Page 174
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER
HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I'd like to make a motion that
the second person be Margaret Rogers as the consumer member of
this committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 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 it five to zero. Okay.
Item #9K
CONSIDERATION OF THE CREATION OF A "CITIZENS
CORPS" ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS - APPROVED
Item 9-K.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I have a speaker on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And who's the speaker?
MS. FILSON: Ray Cadwalder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I was hoping so. Mr. Cadwalder,
would you come up front, please. I appreciate the fact that you
stayed with us all day long.
Page 175
September 10, 2002
MR. CADWALDER: It was educational. It was a wonderful
experience. The main reason I'm here today is to give -- applaud
many of the people that are in this room as well.
The bureaucracy to get to this point has been excellent; starting
with your County Commissioners, starting with -- including the
County Manager, including Ms. Filson, including quite a few people,
including the Sheriff.
It's a very complex project that is being started and it probably
will never end and it relates to the Homeland Security and it relates to
us being set up in order to act and react.
This morning you heard something in a small community east of
here called Copeland where a fear of Hepatitis was bandied around.
It was unproven and unwarranted and the County Commissioner
Coletta said that if it had been Anthrax rather than Hepatitis, all hell
would have been there.
I also suggest to you that if the name had been some Arabic
name, all hell would have probably broken loose. We are in the
process now of setting up a thing called the Citizens Corps here in
Collier County. And I'm here just to start people thinking. And this
going out to the public by way of television, it becomes very
important.
There is already a pamphlet out, information piece, that anyone
can get either by going to your local FEMA office, Ken Pineau, and
you can also download it from Worldwide Web, the three Ws;
www.citizencorps.gov, and you can see it all.
Oh, by the way, I forgot probably the most important person and
that is a gal that runs your RSVP here in the County, she's actually
put up with me for the last 10 months here on this whole
arrangement, Sharon Downey.
With that in mind, the process will go through this legislation,
hopefully it will be passed. And at the time it will be passed there
Page 176
September 1 O, 2002
will be a regional director appointed by the Governor and that
regional director will be over about five counties in this region.
And we are way ahead of the game so far as organizing. One of
the things that we want done is a database on all retired doctors,
nurses and professional people, biologists, chemical engineers and
the like. So that in case of a disaster that we can immediately call
upon these people to come forward to assist.
That's the simplistic request. Now, it gets to dotting the i's and
crossing the t's.
One of the important factors that pops up is limited liability.
The question of volunteer doctors and limited liability. And the
County has one limited liability approach, the State has an alternate
approach, and there's nothing at the Federal level.
So all of these matters have to be resolved in order to get the
greatest development and greatest improvement for the community.
Tom Henning is the gentlemen that has been on board right from
the beginning and whom I met at a church forum 10 months ago, I
guess, maybe nine months ago, and he's consented to be the sponsor
of this for the development of the Citizens Corps.
I'll be happy to answer any questions. And by the way, this
transcends just about every dam department you have in the County.
The sheriffs office, the hospitals; you name it --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fire department.
MR. CADWALDER: Fire department; you name it. Local
FEMA people have endorsed and sponsored it. The Sheriffs person,
Tom Storer, representing the Sheriff and the Sheriff is endorsing it as
well.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I just want to say I appreciate
everything that you've been doing for Colliur County as a volunteer.
Page 177
September 1 O, 2002
A lot of people don't know that Ray has a background not only
as an attorney, but he has a background in politics. He was a mayor
of a town in Ohio. He also served at the State legislative body there
as a representative.
He's offered his services many times here in Collier County.
And the reason I'm telling you all this is, no, you can't have him. We
already got dibs on him, Tom Henning.
Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions?
MR. CADWALDER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good presentation. With that,
let's call the question. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye. The ayes have it five to zero.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: For all those people from World
War II when the neighborhood -- air warden came around with his
World War II helmet on and all the lights were out, a hot summer
evening, it was the most exciting thing that ever happened. Yeah, I
remember that.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of clarification,
with that vote you just told me to go find $47,000 in the budget. And
I'll go find that with one position, it will be on the budget on 18,
September as an enhancement --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's what I understand.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I just wanted to make sure.
Item #9L
Page 178
September 10, 2002
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES REQUEST FOR A
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR ARTICLE V- DISCUSSED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In the added item, FAC's request for
special assessment, Jim Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Article Five passed 1998 with
the challenge to -- or a direction to the State legislature, I believe, by
2003/4 that they had to come up with a new way to fund the court
system in the State of Florida.
Whereas, on the surface that sounded excellent, as this
progresses you will find that it is full of land mines in Collier County,
as a medium-sized County in this state may end up in a negative
position.
Currently, the Clerk of Courts returns to us approximately
$2,000,000 a year. Depending on how the legislation goes that could
go away and we may end up paying more as a donor County to
subsidize smaller counties and the very large court system
Dade/Broward, et cetera, will probably win in this because they will
find their court costs decreased.
FAC took a position to support this in 1998. State legislatures
were furious with it. I think probably term limits has taken its toll on
some of the fury, but until we know what the FAC legislative
subcommittees and the meeting, which I now understand will be held
in Destin, December 2 & 3, I think is pretty close in that, I would
advise today and we won't know.
So they're requesting an assessment -- volunteer assessment by
each county to come up with $8,000. I would recommend to this
Board that we not be quick to make that donation until we get the lay
of the land.
Page 179
September 1 O, 2002
I would recommend that the Board be at that FAC session in
Destin. And I also understand Staff would be at the subcommittee
meetings 8, 9 and -- is that Tallahassee or Orlando, Leo? MR. OCHS: It's Orlando, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And we move in that direction.
I've had a conversation with the Clerk about this and none of us know
for sure where this is all going to go, but I plan to be at this point in
Destin when FAC begins to work this process and whoever
represents the Board will be there along with County Administration.
So that's the reason I'm bringing it up. You may choose to do
whatever you like as a Board. I am just suggesting that you hold off.
You may reserve it, because County Manager, Jim Mudd, has got to
find it, you may well decide that FAC is going into a positive
direction where we want to be in this, but if you choose not to go in
that direction, you don't want to fund something that is going to
come back and bite you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't think there's anybody on this
Board that is more in tune with what's happening with the Florida
Association of Counties then Commissioner Carter.
And if he suggests that we put this aside until we know more
about this procedure, I would have to go with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we have one speaker.
MS. FILSON: No, sir, no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Senator Saunders, did you
wish to speak on this matter?
Would you please? We appreciate you coming in here and your
input is very much welcome.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: I guess, Mr. Chairman, and members,
I guess the caution is that the Florida legislature, as I was saying to
the Assistant County Attorney, the Florida legislature has two hands.
Page 180
September 1 O, 2002
In essence, one with which money is given and one with which
money is taken away.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the bigger hand.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: That on this one is probably going to
be the bigger hand, so I would encourage you as Commissioner
Carter has to kind of watch this issue because we're going to have
some tight budgets.
And the Florida Associations of Counties is going to need to
really look out for making sure that we don't take back from the
County as much as you're going to be getting with this constitutional
amendment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, I'm glad you brought this up
to, us Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have tracked this for a long
time. The Clerk of Courts has tracked this for a long time. County
Administration is well aware of what's going on.
I'm not saying -- I think you should reserve the money, but I
wouldn't make the donation until we make sure whether or not it's
going to work in our favor.
And if it's going in a direction that we don't like, we would be
better off to spend those dollars lobbying our legislatures to protect
our Internets.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I concur with that direction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think we have to make a
motion on this. Yes, we would. Are we going to put the money --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what I'll do, based on your
direction, I will go find the $8,000 and put it aside in the budget.
You'll see it on the 18th of September as an item and then we'll wait
on payment, depending on some outcome, and see which way they're
leaning.
Page 181
September 1 O, 2002
Item #10A
ANTHONY BOVE REPRESENTING THE KNIGHTS OF
COLUMBUS REQUESTING A FEE WAIVER IN THE AMOUNT
OF $100 FOR A PARADE PERMIT FOR A COLUMBUS DAY
PARADE- DENIED; STAFF TO COLLECT ALL FEES IN THE
FUTURE
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sounds good. I'm going to handle
one real quick item before we go to the time certain then we'll go
right to it. It won't be just but a minute, and that's 10-A.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Knights of Columbus requesting a
fee waiver in the amount of $100 for a freight permit for Columbus
Day.
Did you want to comment on that, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've been waiving that for
the last four years for the Knights of Columbus parade which has
been an honorable community benefit, and I hope that we would
continue to do so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may interject some thoughts on
that. I am a member of the Knights of Columbus and also a taxpayer.
I don't know if we waive these things uniformly throughout the
whole, if we do then we should it for this also.
If it's something that is hit or miss without firm policy, I have
some other suggestions.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
You're correct, Commissioner. This is at least since April since
we've taken over the permitting for these type of things.
This is the first time we've had a request for a waiver of any
special event. That's why when we wrote the Executive Summary we
Page 182
September 10, 2002
requested a policy direction not just for this issue, but so we don't
have to keep coming back to you.
Our position is that a fee is a fee and we don't have the power at
the Staff level to waive it. And if you would give us some direction.
We're not picking on one organization. This was a perfect
opportunity to bring this up.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand that. These are my
brother Knights we're talking about. It's my parade we're talking
about.
But I am opposed to using the government funds to underwrite
this parade. I will make a $50 donation from my own pocket to help
with the cost as a brother Knight.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, I will
pick up the other half. I think I'm a relatively good Catholic. But I
also understand separation of church and state.
I am not going to use everybody's tax dollars to pay for
something on that basis. So with your 50 and my 50, they got their
permit fee covered.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So at this point what we need is a
motion for denial; is that correct?
MR. KANT: I think request was to uphold the Staff's decision
not to waive the fee, sir. And also to provide us with direction that
we'll continue to collect all fees in the future.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would like to make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion from Commissioner
Coletta, a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any other discussion?
All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 183
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero. That was expensive. Don't bring any more of them forward.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Church is getting in my
pocketbook.
Item #10E
BUDGET TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,050
TO PAY THE GULF COAST SKIMMERS WATER SKI SHOW,
INC., VARIANCE APPLICATION FEES FOR TWO OFF-SITE
SIGNS - STAFF TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO
ACCOMMODATE GULF COAST SKIMMER'S AND SIX
MONTH EXTENSION GRANTED FOR SIGNS WHILE
WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, this should bring us to the time
certain Item 10-E.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's right. Let's go right to that.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Joe
Schmitt, Administrator Community Development Environmental
Services.
Before you today is a recommendation to authorize transfer
from the general fund to development services fund to pay for the
application of a variance for the Gulf Coast Skimmers for their two
signs.
They currently have two off-premise permits, directional signs,
both are in violation of the Collier County Land Development Code.
They have no sign permit, no electrical permit, and of course, as
I just mentioned, they're both illegal off-premise directional signs.
Page 184
September 1 O, 2002
This goes back quite a long way and I met with Mr. Gursoy. I
sent him a letter several months ago expressing that it's about time we
get these signs into compliance or we get before the Board a request
for variance.
I informed him that there are two signs, each sign would cost
$2,025 per request. So the request to you today is $4,050.
Now, this comes with a recommendation of approval. And I
will preface that it comes with a recommendation of approval only
because of previous Board guidance as was expressed in the
background from September 6th, 1994.
The Board directed the Staff to come back with a proposal and,
in fact, it said, "The Staff will bring back to the Board as soon as
possible. Meeting requirements for public advertising."
Of course, that will be done as part of the application process.
Provide different avenues for payment of the variance fees.
The only avenue that we have is that it comes out of the general
fund to augment the Development Services Fund, and allow signs to
remain in place if legally possible. So before you is that request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm having a little trouble with
it, to be honest with you. We're right back to the same thing; where
Government is and the responsibilities of it and where we draw the
lines between -- if we're going to do this, I want to see the same thing
done for the Boy Scouts, which I have been very active in. I got a
number of organizations in Immokalee that could use like help. I
also remind this Board that such things as permits that came up for
different organizations that I belonged to, we made them pay, and
that includes the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association, the Golden
Gate Civic Association and right down the line.
If we make an exception in policy, it's going to have be an
exception that's across the board that meets all needs.
Page 185
September 1 O, 2002
Skimmers are a special situation. They certainly deserve special
consideration. What I offer is the fact that if they want to do a fund-
raiser to raise -- to cover the cost of this, I will be more than happy to
get involved with it.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a couple of comments. First
of all, what is the cost of bringing the signs into conformance?
MR. SCHMITT: The signs that currently exist right now are not
at all in compliance with the Land Development Code, even the
design -- of course, what is up there, the sign and the locations, of
course, Avalon Drive adjacent to the US 41 and Avalon. And the
other one is Airport Pulling Road and US 41 otherwise known as the
Blockbuster comer there.
Both of those signs are eight sheets of plywood. They are not in
any way in compliance with the Land Development Code, either in
size, design or any of the criteria.
So in fact, as I discussed this with Mr. Gursoy we would,
number one, have the variance to approve the size of the sign, the
variance for the location of the sign, because the Land Development
Code specifies that its off premise directional sign can be no further
then a thousand feet from the directional turn off of an arterial
roadway.
And of course, the one right here at the comer of 41 and 951 is
certainly farther than a thousand feet.
And of course, they would have to have, I said, the size of the
sign and the type of the way the sign is built. It would have to go
through the proper permitting process to assure that it meets all the
criteria for erection of a sign; wind loads, electrical, that type of
things that would be done under the construction of any sign.
And I believe that would be something that would come up as
part of the variance process or Mr. Gursoy or someone could
Page 186
September 1 O, 2002
elaborate on t)~!iiday, but I believe he would have someone make some
kind of a donation or -- through a process to construct the proper
sign.
What exists right now does not meet any part of the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand, but isn't it entirely
possible that the signs and their locations can be brought into
conformance with very little expenditure at all?
And let me get specific. Our code says the sign shall be located
within 1,000 feet of the intersection serving the building structure, so
forth. And the one that is at the Blockbuster location is well over a
mile away.
Wouldn't it make more sense and wouldn't it be in the best
interest of the Petitioner to have a sign closer to the road which
serves the facility?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. There are two signs, Commissioner, one
as you just mentioned and one right outside Avalon Park, which is
the second sign announcing, of course, the shows that the Gulf Coast
Skimmers put on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But wouldn't it be better for the
Gulf Coast Skimmers to have a sign closer to the road where they're
turning -- people are going to be turning off or not?
MR. SCHMITT: That's an opinion question I can't answer.
That is something that the Skimmers may have more information on,
at least from the signs, which sign produces, at least from an
advertising standpoint, the visibility that they need, claim that they
need for people to go to the show.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: One final question, I think I know
the mood of the Board With respect to granting exceptions and not
charging people for things.
Page 187
September 1 O, 2002
And I'm sympathetic for that, but in this particular case, is there
any additional expense on the County's part to process a variance for
two signs as opposed to just one?
We're actually charging them $2,000 for each sign to process the
variance.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Because they each involve a notification
process, so each will be handled as a separate proposal before the
Board, even though you'll be handling each one. They're both at the
same time, each variance is a separate vote, separate action by the
Board.
And as such, I'm in the box where I have to charge them as
separate applications. And of course, just to reiterate, this comes
back to you based on the guidance of 1994, that's how long these
have been -- this whole issue has been in flux.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Schmitt, while you're at thu
podium. If this application is in front of you today, what would be
your recommendation to the Board?
MR. SCHMITT: Good question. The question really is as the
signs currently exist we would have no oPtion but to recommend
disapproval, unless there was some plan to bring the signs that are out
there now into conformity with the requirements of the Land
Development Code.
I would have no option but to come to you with a
recommendation of disapproval. Of course, then you're faced with
the task of making a decision whether it would -- they would get the
variance. But the issue right now is for -- our position is that the
signs as they currently exist are in violation.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So if they could bring them into
compliance where they are today, we would have a non-issue?
Page 188
September 1 O, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: But they also need -- part of the variance
process, the application process, is they have to have validate both to
the Board and to the Staff that where those signs are located, the
owners, the proprietors, or whomever of those properties agree to
have those signs in the locations they're in.
And that has not been validated to us yet either. So that would
be part of the process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So that's part of the process. If
owners would validate, it's okay. And if they could be brought into
compliance then would there be any charge to Gulf Coast Skimmers?
MR. SCHMITT: Then there would be no variance
requirements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I was sort of getting at
before. It would be a lot less expensive for the Gulf Coast Skimmers
to bring the signs into compliance than go through the variance
process.
MR. SCHMITT: Validate the sign that currently exists here at
US 41 and Airport-Pulling Road, which still needs an off-premises
sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm saying move that sign
to 1,000 feet to meet the arterial that serves the facility and that way
they get it in compliance and they don't pay anything; isn't that right?
MR. SCHMITT: If, in fact, they put it in a place that we can
permit and it's permitted properly, that's part of the process. They
come in a signed contractor, whomever.
Does that make more sense? Yes, it does. But again, that's a
decision Mr. Gursoy and I talked about, John and I talked about in
length.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Can we also grant something
in the way of a time factor that would be more than realistic to allow
Page 189
September 10, 2002
this all to happen? At the direction of the Board we have that
discretion; right?
MR. SCHMITT: Right now. It's a code case and what you will
be directing the staff to do is to hold code case in continuance until a
time that you determine which would allow the Skimmers to bring
the signs within compliance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What is the thoughts of the Board on
that?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have Senator Saunders who
is waiting to speak to us, maybe he has some information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Give us some guidance, please, sir.
SENATOR SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Board. My name is Burr Saunders. First, I want to
thank Staff, because they have been very open to meeting with us on
this issue.
You've raised some questions that I think Mr. Gursoy is going to
have to address. I wanted to kind of lay the foundation if you will as
to why I believe the County should waive the fees, if there are fees
that ultimately will be applied to this, and maybe there is a way to
avoid that. And then perhaps have Mr. Gursoy talk about the
locations and the process.
But I want to give you a little bit of history. It seems like a long
time ago, when I was much younger I skied with the Gulf Coast
Skimmers.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was a long time ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did they have boats back then?
SENATOR SAUNDERS: I had more hair and less gray hair.
And one of my objectives, I was a member of the County
Commission, and one of my objectives was to bring attention to the
beauty of this particular location and to try to help get the County to
acquire that lake.
Page 190
September 1 O, 2002
As you all know, that ultimately occurred. But the other
objective was to assist Mr. Gursoy, who's the Founder and President
of the Gulf Coast Skimmers, to assist him in what his true mission
really was, which was and is, to help youngsters in our community, to
provide an outlet for youngsters to provide some supervision to some
kids who genuinely need supervision and he's been successful over
the years in helping steer kids in the right direction.
We have a whole room of them today chomping at the bit to
speak and we've made arrangements not to have all of them to speak.
But he's run a great program out there. And it's been great for
the children of East Naples and Collier County, but he's also run a
program that has been great for the entire community because that is
what led to the acquisition of Lake Avalon and the creation of this
park, which I would say without reservation, is one of the nicest
community parks in Florida.
And it really is kind of a crowning jewel in East Naples. It's a
tremendous asset. The ski program is important to bring people out
there. That is one of the major attractions out there. So this is not
just a private organization coming before you and asking for some
waiver of fees.
This is an organization that number one, is providing
tremendous services to children, who need that kind of guidance.
They provide tremendous service to your community park. They are,
quite frankly, responsible for that being a community park.
So it's really -- and there's a contract between this organization
and Collier County. They're kind of a part of Collier County
Government. And so I think if you look at it from that perspective,
there is every rationale of not only waiving these fees, but bending
over backwards, if you will, to make sure this program continues and
people are out there. Because it's your program, it's not just there's.
Page 191
September 1 O, 2002
The only thing I want to tell you is there's a little history about
the signs. I remember, I guess it was probably 1993 when John and I
and probably two or three dozen kids went out to the Blockbuster
comer, at that point in time, it wasn't a Blockbuster comer, but there
was an old dilapidated building out there.
We persuaded the County to let us paint the building and paint
the ski agenda on that building. We actually cleaned up the area, cut
the grass and made it look nice. That was the first sign. And now it's
evolved into this.
But you need to understand that this is not just a private
organization, and Commissioner Coletta, I agree with you. You got
Boys Scouts and Cub Scouts and Girl Scouts, you've got hundreds of
organizations that help people, but this is kind of unique in the sense
that there really is a partnership with you on this program.
I'm going to let Mr. Gursoy take over from here and explain why
that location is absolutely critical to this.
I will tell you that we've been working with Florida Department
of Transportation on the Blockbuster site itself. They're going to
declare that as excess property, deed it to the County, so there won't
be any problem in terms of some legal nexus between the owner of
the property and the applicant or the sign.
With that, I'd like to introduce the Founder and CEO of Gulf
Coast Skimmers, Mr. Gursoy.
MR. GURSOY: For the record, John Gursoy, President and
Founder of the Gulf Coast Skimmers water ski show.
And what I gave you there, Commissioners, is a copy of a letter
that explains the partnership a little bit more that Burt Saunders was
talking about.
Partnership in which the whole process was stalled in opening
up Lake Avalon and Sugden Regional Park Lake on a timely basis
because of the Army Corps permit scenario.
Page 192
September 10, 2002
It was because our ability as an outside organization was able to
go up to Fort Myers to be able to meet with the Army Corps of
Engineers, and basically asked him them, what do we need to do to
get an A on this project in order to make this project open up on
time?
And was sitting with them in our ability to ask for an engineer's
help in town here to pull that project together. We were able to, after
three visits, to make that a reality.
And through the help of Terrell & Associates, as an example,
donating their time, we were able to have that permit come to life and
the park open on time and keep us on schedule.
That's an example of some of the partnerships. And basically
what the kids are asking for here is an exchange in equity for this
nonprofit organization.
And it's very difficult to measure sometimes to social benefits
along with the economic and the automatic benefits financially and
how it has benefited the community.
The kids have been putting on ski shows for over 10 years,
providing wholesome, clean-cut entertainment to residents and
visitors, especially those who are on fixed income.
We have a large number of people that cannot afford the Naples
Players or the Philharmonic Performing Arts Center. And this is one
of their entertainment venues that they come out to on a regular basis.
The kids also, as Burt said, are the catalysts behind Lake Avalon
becoming a park. A signature community. One of the conditions
they had before they sold the property is, originally they were going
to develop 372 condominiums around that property, was to drop the
price $900,000 from 2.9 -- from three million to 2.1 million and make
sure that the kids had a permanent home to perform their water ski
shows for the residents and visitors of the area.
Page 193
September 1 O, 2002
The Sugdens then followed that generosity up with a $500,000
gift in which they wanted a permanent home for the kids. And then
they followed that up by another 200,000 to build the permanent
ampitheater, which is named after Mrs. Sugden, The Margaret S.
Sugden Ampitheater.
And then there was a State grant of $850,000 from the Florida
Communities Trust that was provided. That State grant required that
there be a Youth Crime Prevention Program on site along with
preserving Greenspace.
They came down to do their site visit in January of '95 when that
permit was being considered and the kids were out putting on a ski
show in 62 degree weather with 15 tourists that were willing to sit in
the bleachers in the rain, and that was one of the deciding factors that
the kids had that kind of determination to put on a show for the
visitors, that this grant needed to happen.
The park opened, the signs have been there and it's so fun when
you're greeting the crowd when they're coming in and out for them to
hear that, "We never knew this was here." Because it is set off from
the main road, and with the signs it educates people to what the park
amenities are.
The quality of life, I can tell you my wife and I have lived in that
neighborhood for 10 years. We've seen a change. We're two blocks
away from there. The neighbors, that at one time actually had
opposed this park project because they did not understand it, now
they're offering their services and how they can help out the kids
because they've seen what it has turned into.
In fact, they've cleared openings in their back yards so they can
have a better view of the park and has thanked us for even the
property appreciation that has occurred in that neighborhood.
It continues to add fuel for restoring East Naples. I'm very
excited about East Naples. I think -- you know, Donna Fiala, she got
Page 194
September 1 O, 2002
me excited about the potential East Naples years ago and through the
East Naples Civic Associations and there's just a continued fuel of
helping restore East Naples.
The Chamber of Commerce, we work very closely with them.
They consider it one of the'major attractions. And it's always fun, as
the kids can attest, hearing the different accents as we greet the crowd
and they're leaving and coming into the show.
Retirement homes, because of the amenities that we've been able
to put in for the handicapped now, with the shade and the seating and
the ease of access for the wheelchair accessibility, we're seeing more
and more retirement homes use this as an entertainment venue.
And then the justice system is using the Gulf Coast Skimmers
regularly for community service hours. And those kids then get a
chance to be exposed to a different life-style as far as where they can
put their effort and time.
Fourth of July, free entertainment. The kids continue to add to
that amenity. And what is neat is seeing the restaurants like Perkins,
Angus, B.T. Boomers and Rib City show the gratification to the kids.
When they release 800 spectators out on the street they go across the
street and dine at these restaurants and enjoy their services.
The Parks and Recreation budget has been strained over the
years in different areas, and that's where the Skimmers have risen to
the occasion and given equity to that park.
We have the ability to have tractors and heavy equipment
donated for us to do work out there. For example, we had a drainage
situation out there that needed to be addressed. It was about $1,000
to rent the equipment.
We were able to secure that through our 501-C-3 nonprofit at no
charge from Taylor Rental and put in the drainage system that was
savinw an average of five truckloads of sand a year.
Page 195
September 10, 2002
The kids and their scholarship programs, we give them $400 a
year and if they make it through the program through their whole
high school.
So I know I'm going to address some of the questions here, but I
guess everybody has got to read their speech; right? Get on their
soap box for a minute.
But the fee of $4,000 is 10 percent of the kids income a year.
That's a pretty hefty charge. The organization -- it costs us -- we
raise about $40,000 a year. This is 10 percent. This is a winter
season, three months worth of people putting in $1 bills into the
buckets and making this organization run. That is a huge number.
And basically what these kids are doing, they're giving hope to
the community. I can't tell you enough after September ! lth how
much the letters have come in and just showing the appreciation that
there's some hope in the future with the kids in the community.
So the kids come here at your mercy and your grace. And you
have the power to do this and keep this contract, as Burr Saunders
said, going.
So with that I'll take any questions. I can address some of the
questions that were brought up. Okay. We've been talking to Mike
Rip from the DOT and that looks like it is going to go through. For
years, let me explain the DOT relationship. They have had no
problem with that being on the property. And they just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, I think what we need to do is
keep moving right along with this and if we have some questions
we'll address them back to you, rather than anticipate what they
might be.
MR. GURSOY: Okay. You got it. Thank you. Very good
presentation.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Brandon Magnun and he
will be followed by Dustin Beatty.
Page 196
September 10, 2002
MR. MAGNUN: My name is Brandon Magnun, as she said.
And let me give you a little background information real quick, since
I have three minutes or five minutes.
And I'm 19 years old right now, currently. I was born and raised
in Collier County. I graduated from Barron Collier High School in
the year 2001.
And I participated in a marching band and things like that, so I
was active with fund-raising and stuff like that.
I'm currently at Edison Community College, at the Lee County
Campus, studying Criminal Justice while I receive my Bachelor's
Degree in 2004, which then I will apply to the Collier County
Sheriff's Office.
I joined Skimmers in August of 1995. And I've been there
pretty much every single show there possibly was and I hardly ever
missed a show because I'm so dedicated and involved in that.
And one of the things that I found through Skimmers is that
when in order to find -- that's how I knew about Skimmers was
through the sign on US 41. That was the main sign. I just moved
down to East Naples in '95 because I was getting my new house built
with my parents in North Naples and we didn't know about this up in
North Naples originally.
So when I first saw a sign my parents got me involved in '95
when I was 12 years old. To go on from there, I was, throughout the
years. I was so actively participating in the organization and handy
with work that I would fix all the equipment and make the ropes for
the skiers from age 12 until 16 years old.
And at 16 years old, I then became the Director of Marketing
under Jeff Streeter, old Vice President of the organization, which then
I was involved and checking out surveys and doing surveys
throughout the signs and how we bring in our crowd.
Page 197
September 1 O, 2002
And then throughout the years, I did a survey on my time for 52
shows and I have a survey sheet here, I'll pass them out to you after I
get done with my speech here, it talks about 39 shows here. I have
listed on a graph of seven different categories, signs, newspapers,
returning fan, word of mouth, television ad, NOAA skier, flier and
radio.
And signs was 54 percent of how the crowd came to see the ski
63 show. This was conducted back-- the survey was conducted in
'98 through '99 when I was in marketing.
And so 54 percent of that is the major income to the Gulf Coast
Skimmers. And if these signs would be taken out from Gulf Coast
Skimmers that would be 54 percent of profit loss, which would be
about half our profit. The signs are the biggest things according to the
fans.
Beginning the show, when we do the surveys, beginning at the
show when the crowd walks in and we shake their hands, we
welcome them to the show, we then conduct the survey by asking
three different questions: Is this your first time to see the show? Yes
or no question. And then the next question is: How did you hear
about the show? The signs would come in about 54 percent.
And the last question was: What part of town do you live or
vacation? So we know where we can concentrate on marketing the
most and East Naples always was the biggest. Why? Because they
see the signs and know the signs and know how to get to the ski
show.
With the sign on US 41 and Airport Road there, that list says
one mile east of the courthouse, which gives it a great location so
they know and it keeps them so they won't get lost if they're from out
of town or visitors, they're in our tourist season and stuff like that,
which keeps it very good.
Page 198
September 1 O, 2002
What John was saying, going off from John, it keeps a nice
crowd pleaser and tourist development. And through the Skimmers
we do bring all the crowd down there which advertises the park and
gets more kids involved in a nice freshwater lake park with a nice
swimming area to keep the public happy in the regional park, which
is 120 acres total.
To go from there, the signs were put up on June 26th, around
that time, 1993, when we had out first water ski show out there in
Lake Avalon. And they've been up ever since then.
And we've been through a couple of meetings as Mr. Schmitt
pointed out, I think his name was, and we tried to keep it going and --
sorry, it's my first speech.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're doing fine.
MR. MAGNUN: Speech is next term for me in college. I wish
I took it before this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just do it from the heart, man.
MR. MAGNUN: I made some quick notes while I was at work
early this morning. But to sum it up basically, the signs, I grew up in
the Gulf Coast Skimmers and I know how it is. There's a lot of
young kids out here who depend on the Skimmers and without the
fund to pay for the $7,000 insurance bills that run the organization,
and the gas bills, with gas prices at $1.38 a gallon, it just cost a lot of
money to run the boats out there for six hours a day to keep these
kids off the streets on the weekends.
And so we can keep them more -- in fact, with the Gulf Coast
Skimmers so they won't be in trouble on the streets.
And that's the thing too, keep crime down. Keep these kids on
the right path. And it's like a chain effect, if we lose these signs it's
going to take 54 percent, like I said, away from our profits of the
show.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Page 199
September 10, 2002
MR. MAGNUN: I'll let you guys look at this. This is the
survey of all the stuff. The big black marker is the signs. If you guys
will pass that around.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dustin Beatty. And he will
be followed by Erin E-H-R-G-O-T-T.
MR. BEATTY: Good afternoon. Thank you for taking the time
to listen to us. My name is Dustin Beatty. I'm 22 years old. I grew
up in East Naples. I'm currently a fire fighter with Collier County.
Basically, the Gulf Coast Skimmers is a growing place for
everybody, including myself, being the first member in 1993 when
we had a boat and a knee board.
The signs cannot -- there's no way they could be deviated a
thousand feet from where they are to -- I'm sorry, a thousand feet
down the road.
It's hard to put my thoughts into words because my heart is in
the Gulf Coast Skimmers. I've been there since '93, '92, however
long. And it's just very important that the signs stay where they are.
However we have to do it to get them into compliance, we're
willing to work on that. We're developing relationships right now
with the property owners, with Walgreens and like John said,
Blockbuster.
I have a whole lot to say, just giving my opinion and John and
the other speakers summed up all the small details.
But thank you for your time. Looking forward to seeing you at
our show.
MS. FILSON:
Hemandez.
Erin Ehrgott and he will be followed by Andrew
MR. EHRGOTT:
I live in the Moorings.
My name is Erin Ehrgott and my family and
I'm going to make this brief. I had a speech,
Page 200
September 1 O, 2002
but I just want to let you know that I'm a parent of two children that
participate in the Gulf Coast Skimmers.
And these signs that I've seen, we saw the signs by Blockbuster
and that's how we were attracted. I know they bring in 60 percent of
the funding there. And I just want you to know that as parents we are
in support of this and we would like to see you waive this fee and
keep our signs up.
MS. FILSON: Andrew Hemandez and he will be followed by
Kelsey Kennedy.
MR. HERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Andrew Hemandez. I've probably been in the program about
seven years now.
You know, I really don't have much to say to you. I'm just here
to talk about -- I don't really care about the shows as much as I care
about, you know, helping out the youth of Collier County. And
without those signs, I mean, how are the kids going to know where to
go and what to do? They're just going to end up being out on the
street and making trouble and we don't want that.
And then our crowds for the show are going to be totally,
drastically reduced. That's pretty much -- we had a TV commercial
on the Visitor's Channel and they kind of went down the drain.
And without the signs, there's no way that anybody will know
about the show. Anybody who moved down here, they'll have no
clue and it's just going to have to be word of mouth.
What I'm here just to say is that we need those signs. And that's
it, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Kelsey Kennedy.
MS. KENNEDY: Hello, my name is Kelsey Kennedy. I'm in
7th grade and I attend East Naples Middle School.
I am currently on the A/B honor role and I've been skiing with
the Gulf Coast Skimmers for six years.
Page 201
September 10, 2002
The Gulf Coast Skimmers is a great outreach program for kids.
Since the Gulf Coast Skimmers is a nonprofit organization and and
all our money comes from the audience, if our signs get taken down
that means we will not have as big of an audience. So we'll have less
money to run boats, buy skis, life vests, ropes, et cetera.
About a month or two ago John Gursoy and I and a couple of
members met with Ms. Michelle Arnold and Commissioner Carter,
two very nice people who are helping us keep our signs up.
Right now, I'm learning more about swiveling and hopefully
will soon be accomplishing a 360 jump.
At the end of each show, it's nice to see everyone's bright smile
in telling us how wonderful our show was.
Hopefully by your decisions today, I can do the same in the
future. Thank you. God bless.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. That was lovely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: She's great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I wish I could do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So do I.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think we carried this far enough.
That is the end of the speakers; right? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You all did a wonderful presentation.
It's encouraging to see you out there. Now we have to deal with the
realities of life.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is Jim Mudd, County
Manager. If I may interject here real quick.
I'm not -- and I don't have the secret bullet or the secret recipe to
make this right. But I think before you make a decision on the
$4,550, okay, for the fee, so that they can apply for the variance, you
really need to think about are you going to go approve the variance?
Page 202
September 1 O, 2002
Don't go through the fee process and then all of a sudden two
months later when your back is up against the wall of a February 03
new sign ordinance enforcement action and you're looking at setting
a precedent, you need to think about that as you look at this thing.
And think about that question first before you take a vote on
moving the dollars. I think that's an important issue. Because what
you've heard from Code Enforcement and from the Community
Development Administrative is the fact both signs are not in
conformance with the new code. At least one of the signs is not in
the proper locatio-.
And so -- and that's all I'd say to you at this particular juncture
because I think that's an important thought process that you need to
go through.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to Commissioner
Henning, I'm hoping we go back to Commissioner Coyle. Some of
the ideas that he came up with I thought were pretty original and the
time frame, we might be able to work it out to make it work.
I still have reservations. Once we open this door, I'm going to
be here knocking on it many times for my own organizations if we do
start granting funds. I've been very good about not doing that,'but I
will be coming back.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can tell you that each variance
stands on its own. It's not precedent setting. So I know what the sign
ordinance is and how it's going to change the community. And I'm
sure we're going to get several requests. I just want to state for the
record that they stand on their own.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just need to go over the signs one
more time. Sign one is at Blockbuster.
Page 203
September 1 O, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: The comer-- right across the street from the
comer-- right here at Airport-Pulling Road and US 41, which is
commonly referred to as the Blockbuster tract.
That tract is owned by Florida Department of Transportation.
And of course, as was pointed out, there would have to be a variance
also approved by FDOT.
But if FDOT deeds the property to the County, then of course
it's on County property and we'll be able to deal with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just need to understand which
signs are in violation and'what is the violation? We know that that
sign number one is over a thousand feet from the arterial that it serves
on.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's too large.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's on FDOT property.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, those are the only violations
for that particular sign?
MR. SCHMITT: No, the sign was put up without a permit. It is
an unpermitted sign. And Gulf Coast Skimmers wants to run electric
-- a line to that sign to illuminate that sign.
When they applied for the permit that's when I denied the permit
because they said the sign itself is still not in compliance with the
Land Development Code.
So that is the one that there's no electric. And the other sign at
the entrance to Sugden Park at the comer of US 41 and Avalon Drive,
that sign is -- which one is illuminated?
MR. GURSOY: Both of them are.
Page 204
September 10, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Both of them do have illumination. So both
signs have been erected with no permit, no electrical permit and were
constructed improperly as far as the permitting process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
large?
MS. ARNOLD:
MR. SCHMITT:
The Sugden Park sign, is it too
Yes.
That one even would be deemed an off-
premises directional sign because the location of the event is actually
within the park so that would be an off-premises directional sign,
which as I noted can be no larger than 12 square feet. Of course, that
is a four by eight sheet of plywood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, ifFDOT were to deed that
small bit of property to the Gulf Coast Skimmers, what would that do
to it?
MR. SCHMITT: Then it's their property. They can put a sign
up on that property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They would not be limited to,
what is it, 16 -- 12 square feet in area? It wouldn't be off site.
MR. SCHMITT: They would have to comply with the
requirements of Land Development Code as far as the permitting of
the sign and have it constructed properly in accordance with
standards defined in the Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But otherwise, they wouldn't have
to apply for variance and wouldn't have to pay $2,000 for the
variance fee; right?
MR. SCHMITT: You're asking me right now -- yeah. Because
they own the property -- if the sign were there, it is still considered an
off premises sign.
It's a good point because the event is actually at Sugden Park.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Clarify that for me again, please.
Page 205
September 1 O, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Even what Commissioner Coyle just asked, if
the property was deeded to the Gulf Coast Skimmers, the sign is an
off-premises directional sign directing people to go to Sugden Park,
which is not in compliance with the Land Development Code.
In order to construct the sign there, they would have to have a
variance. That would seem to be a rather obvious recommendation
that if they own the property it would seem to make sense.
But again, the talk with -- the County Manager has mentioned,
we got to watch what we ask for here because we may get it kind of
thing, as everybody may want an off-premises sign, Joe's Pizza, the
barber shop, whatever. So that's the kind of dilemma that we could
get in.
Now, again, variances are each separate and distinct item and
would it make sense to approve a variance? I leave that to the Board.
But from the Staff's perspective, but if, in fact, they own the
property it may be deemed an appropriate place to put a sign.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one follow-up question to the
Board. What potential ramifications would you see if our code were
changed to permit a larger off-site sign as long as it was located on
your own property? Do you see any serious problems in that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter is the sign
ordinance person.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would see some seriousness to
that you would -- and I got to divorce my statement from the
situation.
If you open it up categorically that you can change your off-site
sign to a whatever, then you got to open Pandora's box which defeats
the objective of the Land Development Code as regards to sign
ordinances as to community character.
Page 206
September 1 O, 2002
We fought long and hard to get that piece done. And that was
done up front prior to community character and saved us some 50 to
$75,000 out of that study because we already had a model sign
ordinance.
So you need to be very careful with those things. While I have
your attention, Commissioner, can we really talk about this as two
different signs? I see one more that may be a little more complicated.
The one over by Blockbuster seems to be the least complicated
to me and we might find a workable solution. So with the pleasure of
the Board, maybe we can deal with each one.
Because frankly, I don't know how to deal with Sugden Park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Whatever the pleasure of the Board
is. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There might be another avenue
as far as directional signs as to special events. If our staff could
enlighten us on that as far as putting smaller signs in the medians for
directionals of the event; where, so on and so forth.
MR. SCHMITT: I'd have to go back and look. I don't have that
portion of the LDC for special event signs. But those are usually
signs that are not something that are up continually. Those are up for
a certain event and taken down for a limited period of time.
And also, again, there's a distance requirement. And I believe it
is a thousand feet, again, for-- it's like an off-premises directional
sign, the same type.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my question was, could
they have it every Sunday? The Sunday before -- or a Saturday
evening put the signs up. Do you know what I'm talking about, John?
You see them throughout the whole County. And then take the signs
back out.
Page 207
September 10, 2002
The question is, can we continually do that for this special event
every Sunday? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The right-of-way
permits you have to get one each time, don't you?
MR. SCHMITT: You have to go through the application
process for special events permit, those kinds of things.
And this is not a special events type of activity. It's a weekly
event.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I bet you if you asked these
kids, it's very special.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I understand that. But in the confines as
defined as a special event, I think we're creating more of a problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GURSOY: If I can have permission to address the
Commission, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead, John.
MR. GURSOY: What I did is I put up a picture that Michelle
Arnold and I were studying. And this is at the Walgreen's location.
And both of the signs sit in the right-of-way, the County right-of-
way.
This is the Sugden Regional Park sign and this is the Skimmer's
sign, the kid's sign. This one is on the Walgreen's side, this one is on
John Pulling side.
So the argument that the kids are making here is that the County
has the park sign in the right-of-way out on 41, and the kids being a
tenant or a leasee, are also asking for that same right to have a sign
out on 41.
So I think that sign itself can take care of itself right there. I
don't know the formal ordinances. I don't know the surveying or
what's involved with that or the logic.
I think the real issue is out at Blockbuster and that unique
location.
Page 208
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: John, I think the problem the
Commission is wrestling with right now is we're trying to set up
precedents and we have been doing it for sometime now with our
own personal organizations. We just did it to the Knights of
Columbus.
We did it last year to the civic association when it came time for
their sign permit. The Golden Gate City Civic also had to pay a fee
when they came before us. And those organizations we belong to.
This opens it all up again if we approve this, the whole thing is
right back to where it was and we have to be able to refuse, accept.
But I'll be honest with you, it's going to be very, very difficult to
refuse these other ones when they start to come back here again.
You're going to have this on a continuous basis. You're going to
be dealing with a hundred permit applications. You're going to be
tying Staff time up and it's got to cost about 30, $40 to get each one
of these things processed through.
MR. SCHMITT: A little bit more than that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A little bit more than that. So do you
hear where I'm coming from?
I'll finish and I'll come right to you, Commissioner Coyle. You
better push the button, I'll help you.
What I would suggest is that we think about not granting this,
but giving them a time period to be able to work this situation out so
that they can come to something that will meet code, something that
might not require a variance, or if it does, they can find the funds to
carry it and possibly granting them a time period of like six or nine
months. That's a suggestion.
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We have a sign there; right?
That's our sign.
MR. GURSOY: Correct.
Page 209
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. GURSOY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
for our sign?
MR. GURSOY:
sign.
Sugden Regional Park.
What is the maximum limitation
That sign is quite a bit larger than the kid's
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What would happen if we put on
that sign a notice that there's a water ski show every Saturday at 6:30,
free?
MR. GURSOY: That's an idea. Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that way you don't have to
worry about a variance whatsoever.
MR. GURSOY: Right. The only thing I ask is that it is
something of a reasonable size to catch the eye of a motorist that is
going by at of 45 miles an hour.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that work? Commissioner
Carter, you're the sign expert.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You and I have mental telepathy.
Because I kept looking at it and saying, I wonder if there's a way to
hang that out there, the same thing. It just announces that, keeps us
from not opening Pandora's box. It's only one location.
Can we work that with our codes, with our system in order to
make that type of thing to happen where people would know that that
is always there?
Because nothing else is leased in that park; right? This is an
exceptional situation. We only have one of these in the County. It
seems to begin to fall into place for me. I don't know what happens
to our ordinance.
But in this case, if you don't have anything else like it, people
have a tough time --
MR. GURSOY: Create it.
Page 210
September 10, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Integral is part of the Sugden Park sign as you
can see this little section down here, this bottom piece. That was a
sign that announces the Gulf Coast Skimmers.
And naturally, that is not very easy to see.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about the top part?
MR. SCHMITT: The top part is the park sign.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is above where it says
Sugden?
MR. GURSOY: It's a mural of egrets, snow egrets, sunset, some
cattails.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about putting a skier on that.
MR. SCHMITT: That's not up to me. That is something that I
would have to refer to John Dunnuck.
But as far as what you're recommending, is that we intergrate
the sign into the Sugden Park sign.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: In order for us to work that out
today, perhaps you can look at the top part with Parks and Recreation
and do an integration of the sign so that we would accomplish the
goal, and not us micromanaging it.
MR. SCHMITT: I mentioned that quite a while ago.
Regrettably, when they did a lot of the leg work for the park and
created this whole movement, it wasn't integrated as part of the park
sign then.
It's unfortunate, because that's probably where the best place
would have been. But this is all after the fact.
Then there's a long history, as John can probably tell you about
this sign. It was originally in another location. It was moved because
US 41 was widened.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we can -- Jim Mudd. For the
record. We can try to integrate that sign into the County sign, if not,
Page 211
September 1 O, 2002
thatsign is on county property, maybe we can put something off0to
the side of it.
Whatever it takes, we'll try to take a look at that process.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: May I make one suggestion too? Is
that we come up with something as far as enforcing any rules against
this sign for six months, at least.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we've been putting this off for
a long time --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This time you have the blessing of
the Commission to put it off.
MR. SCHMITT: Good.
MR. MUDD: Sir, we've been at this for eight years, you know.
A couple of months doesn't make a big deal.
MR. SCHMITT: Specifically, John was trying to legalize what
he has out there so we don't burden anymore man hours on an issue
that really is not that critical.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we're not spending any County
money for variances?
MR. SCHMITT: I would say if we're going to go this route,
then the burden is going to be on the Skimmers to raise the funds and
somehow we'll have to define who's going to pay for what, if we're,
in fact, going to try to create a sign and put it on as part of the integral
to the park sign.
But there's a cost involved and we're going to have to figure out
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think the ingenuity in this
community might come to the rescue. We've got Sign0Craft. We've
got a couple of other people who might be willing to work with
Skimmers, as long as you can get that integrated, and when you get
that intergrated, you can remove the one out here that takes away the
headache, solves the problem.
Page 212
September 10, 2002
Now, we got to go back and deal with Blockbuster.
MR. SCHMITT: I would say, I think that's a great suggestion
from a standpoint of trying to get that property deeded to the
Skimmers and then we can move from there as to where we go from -
- if, in fact, we want to put it on that location.
But then, in fact, we got a significant piece of the variance
process already in place.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just to summarize. Make sure we
know where we're going. The Staff is going to look into putting --
integrating these two signs.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we're also going to take
action to see if FDOT will transfer ownership of their property to the
Gulf Coast Skimmers or to Collier County. Will that work?
MR. SCHMITT: What will happen is that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then we could lease it to the Gulf
Coast Skimmers, if we wish to do so; right.
MR. SCHMITT: We have to figure out something some legal.
But I know this has been quite awhile with the Skimmers working
with FDOT and I know Senator Saunders has been involved in this,
and that's news to me, I didn't know they were going to look to give
that property to the County.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if we get into the process
maybe we can move that along a little bit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do we need this in the form of a
motion or do we address it as a directive to Staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to comment on what
Commissioner Coyle just said. That is we have an NPO meeting on
Friday so we can bring it up before the NPO then.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good idea.
Page 213
September 1 O, 2002
MR. MANALICH: Just for clarification, I assume by your
comments that this all premised that the Board at this point or in the
future is going to make a determination based on the record made by
Senator Saunders that there's a public purpose in getting involved
with this private entity for the reasons that Senator Saunders outlined
of the community, benefits and causes that have been served.
So I'm just saying I assume that is part of the thinking process
here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would say so. Do you agree?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would agree it's a public
benefit; health, safety and welfare.
MR. SCHMITT: I just need to point out that if, in fact, we
secure that property or the Gulf Coast Skimmers secure that property
right here at Airport-Pulling Road and 41, the Blockbuster area, that
there still will be a requirement to come in with a variance. We'll be
down to one variance request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's still -- one variance or two
variances, it still comes from public funds. That was one of the
things I was trying to avoid by all this action we're taken.
At that point in time, if they want to come back, I have no
problem with them coming back. But I don't think I'm going to
change my opinion as far as using the public treasury to be able to
underwrite the cost of a variance.
I'll do everything else. I just can't see spending that money. It
opens that Pandora's box that we've talking about.
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll waive.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll waive too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you need to tell me what you're
going to do with 10-E and--
Page 214
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Staffs
direction or recommendation.
MR. MUDD: In this particular case, the recommendation by the
Staff is to move the funds out of the general fund for $4,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No.
MR. MUDD: That's what it says in the Executive Summary.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought Staff was against it?
MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify, Commissioner, my
recommendation was for it based on the guidance from a previous
Board.
I was compelled to recommend approval based on the public
record so that's why -- COMMISSIONER HENNING:
motion.
I understand. I'll remove my
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll give it a try. I make a motion that
we direct Staff to come up with a plan for using the sign at Sugden
Regional Park to incorporate part of it in there for the water ski show,
also move for them to work with FDOT to try to secure the land by
Blockbusters so that we can work out something to accommodate the
Skimmers.
I'm not authorizing Staff to spend any funds for a variance at
this time, but I also recommend that we grant them a six month
extension for the signs that are already up while they work through
this process of how they're going to handle it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion. And
John, with that second, if we need to raise funds for a variance, we
need to get involved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, by all means. You can have a
pie throwing contest of your favorite commissioners. And I'll
volunteer Commissioner Henning.
Page 215
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not my face, I don't care what
you do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? With that,
we'll take a vote. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, John. Thank
you, kids, we appreciate it.
DIRECTIVE FROM GOVERNOR BUSH REGARDING STATE
OF EMERGENCY TO ENSURE MAXIMUM CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTION PROCESS
Before we go to the next item, I have a directive I want to read
from our Governor Bush.
This is very important. "I hereby declare that based upon
described certain conditions a State of Emergency exist. In order to
ensure maximum citizen participation in the election process and to
protect the integrity of the election process, for today's election all
polling places in the State shall remain open for two hours beyond the
regular scheduled closing time." This is because there's a number
of different municipalities, counties that have also instituted, voting
machines, new voting machines, new voting methods. They're
running some difficulties handling the crowds that are there.
I don't think this is true in Collier County. So they will remain
open until 9 o'clock. So that means instead of having to vacate this
room at six, we have a little more time.
So talk slow and we'll go through everything with great detail.
Page 216
September 10, 2002
Item #1 OB
STATUS REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING ACCESS
ISSUES FOR G'S GENERAL STORE AT THE INTERSECTION
OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND WILSON BOULEVARD
-COUNTY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CUT IN THE MEDIAN
LEADING TO BOTH PROPERTIES AND MR. RISHER TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCESS ROAD; BOTH PROJECTS TO BE
TIED TOGETHER
Okay, next item.
MR. MUDD: 10-B, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 10-B, status report to the Board. G's
General Store.
MR. KANT: Edward Kant, Transportation Operations Director.
At the July 30th meeting we were directed to -- you have public
petition from Mr. George Risher, who's the owner of G's General
Store, who was concerned about the effect of the new median on
Golden Gate Boulevard.
On the wall is a blow up of the drawing I handed out on the
visualizer. There's another one -- one on the wall depending on the
how well the TV picks it up. It's probably the easiest one to see.
Basically, we met at the Board's direction with Mr. Risher and
his attorney. And in the Executive Summary, I provided for you a
copy of my correspondence to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr.
Yovanovich's reply on one item, except for the issue of some funding
for the median modifications on Golden Gate Boulevard, it appears
that we have an agreement with Mr. Risher, in principle, and, in fact,
with respect to the issues that he was concerned about.
Page 217
September 10, 2002
I spoke with the Current Planning Department, the gentleman
that I spoke with doesn't seem to think there's going to be a problem
to provide for some temporary parking improvements for Mr. Risher.
I understand that on the long term, Mr. Risher is going to be
coming in looking for either a Comp Plan or a rezone or something in
that comer.
But essentially, the access issues that we worked out for the
short term will also serve him in the long term.
So I think it's a win-win situation. The only issue is that there is
going to be a cost associated with modifications to the median,the
new median on Golden Gate Boulevard and Mr. Risher has
requested that the County pay for those modifications.
Staff has done some research into that issue and we can't support
that request for several reasons. Not the least of which is that there
was a negotiation with Mr. Risher during the original right-of-way
acquisition for Golden Gate Boulevard.
And it could be construed that if we pay for those improvements
we would by paying again in that Mr. Risher was compensated for
the take on the first time around.
We also believe that the improvements that are being made are
site related. And it's never been our policy on any development
proposal to pay for site-related improvements.
On that basis, we can't agree to support that and our status report
to you is that we believe we worked out a satisfactory solution, save
for the issue of the payment.
And I believe Mr. Yovanovich may want to make a statement on
Mr. Risher's behalf on that issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you
have something? I'm not too sure if the light is on from before or you
just turned it on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do have something.
Page 218
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was Mr. Risher compensated
for loss of business?
MR. KANT: I don't know what the negotiation was,
Commissioner.
I know that at the time that the right-of-way procedures took
place that he received an arms-length payment; that it was an arms-
length appraisal and a payment based on that appraisal, which is our
normal practice.
Now, what the appraiser put into that, I couldn't tell you. I'm not
familiar with the details of any of those takes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, how can you make
recommendations of not approving for the County to pay for it when
you're stating the reason is that he was compensated?
MR. KANT: Because he was compensated for the take. I guess
if I'm making any assumption at all, I'm assuming that the appraiser
gave him full compensation at fair market value for whatever the
value of that take was, which would have included any access
improvements at the time.
At the time, there were none contemplated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're assuming that it was --
he was compensated for a loss of business because --
MR. KANT: I would have to make that assumption,
Commissioner, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're making it now on
assumptions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. For
the record, Rich Yovanovich representing George Risher.
Most of what Mr. Kant said is true, but I do need to take
exception to the compensation issue.
Page 219
September 1 O, 2002
When the County approached Mr. Risher for acquiring his land,
Mr. Risher and the county entered into discussion, keeping in mind
that the county had not finalized their design plans at the time.
To expedite the acquisition, Mr. Risher agreed to sell the
property to the County, but was told that his access to his property
would not be effected. Come to find out that is not the case.
As the project was built, his ability to attract traffic that was
going eastbound is now significantly impaired due to the location of
the mm lane.
We came to you a few weeks ago at your last Board meeting and
talked about the situation. And we agreed to work with your Staff to
go through what could be a compromise solution as0to how we could
restore access to Mr. Risher's property and move forward with access
issues that will result due to the County's take.
Because you're dealing with a two and a half acre parcel, we
have very limited access now due to the County's redesign of the
project.
One of the things we were requested to do by Commissioner
Coyle was to talk to our neighbor about acquiring an access easement
so we could move the left-mm movement or the eastbound
movement as far east as possible to provide access to our property.
If I may, Mr. Risher has entered into an agreement with his
neighbor to get access and built a frontage road across the neighbor's
property to his property at his expense. He'll do that.
He's acquiring that access easement at a significant cost. It cost
him $50,000 to acquire that easement. So he can then build-- now he
has the right to build the fringe road at his expense.
Mr. Risher has also agreed to build another access point on
Wilson Boulevard further north which will better address access.
Because right now there's this one access point that is both a right in,
right out and a left in and a left out.
Page 220
September 1 O, 2002
He's agreed to build his other access point on Wilson further
north and close this access off, as I understand, Mr. Kant wants this
to become a right-in/right-out access. MR. KANT: Right-in.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right-in? We can't go right out?
MR. KANT: That's what we agreed to.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's only right-in? That's fine. Which
will require that we build more access this way and loop it back here
and some other site improvements.
So Mr. Risher has agreed to incur a tremendous amount of
expense to also address the access issue. Keeping in mind that he
was told by the County staff that access would not be effected when
he agreed to sell the right-of-way to the County.
So in answer to Commissioner Henning's question, he was never
compensated for business damages.
The long-term solution will involve going through the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, which we have started.
We met with the cormnittee dealing with the Golden Gate Master
Plan. There's certainly no guarantees that will even become eligible
to have the neighbor's property become commercial.
We started that process. We will then have to go through the
rezone process for the long-term solution.
Mr. Kant is correct that we will be able to use what we're doing
for the short-term solution as part of the long-term solution, but
there's no guarantees on the long-term solution.
We're talking about asking the County to reconfigure a mm lane
that is basically a eliminating an access to the property. That's all
we're asking.
We're willing to pick up all the site-related expenses, including
going off-site and acquiring the access easement and building a
frontage road off-site.
Page 221
September 1 O, 2002
We are doing, I believe, Mr. Risher is doing his fair share to
address the situation. We've asked the County to participate in that.
I don't agree with some of the statements. We don't agree that
Mr. Risher has been compensated. Again, I'll reemphasize that he
entered into an agreement with the County before the final design
was done.
This is not your typical situation. There are other situations
where I'm sure during the eminent domain process where one of the
negotiated settlement points is a turn lane or an access improvement
as compensation for property been taken.
Each situation is fact specific. I don't think you're setting a
precedent. You're looking at the factual situation that applies to Mr.
Risher's property, we say this is an atypical situation.
Mr. Risher is incurring a tremendous amount of expense. He's
only asking the County to pay for reconfiguring the turn lane. That's
the only point we disagree on and everything else we've agreed to.
Everything else would be at Mr. Risher's expense.
MR. KANT: I would like, Commissioner, I know you want to
discuss this a little bit. In the interest of making sure all the facts are
on the record, I want to make it clear that we have copies of the 30
percent, 60 percent and 90 percent and 100 percent plans for that
portion of Golden Gate Boulevard that was just improved and started
with the 30 percent plan.
The median configuration is as shown, it's my understanding,
the real property specialist that negotiates this particular piece of
property is no longer with the County.
But it is my understanding that those plans, starting with the 30
percent plans, were the ones that were shown.
So the reason for my assumption that all of the costs had been
counted for was because he was starting -- while he was starting
before the plans were complete, he still was starting from a point at
Page 222
September 1 O, 2002
which we showed him what the final plans looked like. But the
engineering detail was not complete.
So I just want to make sure there's no mistake that we tried to
get something for nothing or that we purposely tried to keep anything
from Mr. Risher. I don't think that's the case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner
Fiala and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A series of questions, but first I
need to understand, is this configuration of the median the one that
the Staff has agreed upon?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner. The existing median is
shown sort of ghosted underneath -- that would be on the east end or
the right end of that median.
You can see, it kind of bulbs out. The new median
configuration is the heavier line with the small arrows showing the
mm-ins into Mr. Risher's property.
I believe, and Rich correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that that's
the configuration that he is looking for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, it's my understanding that
the property to the east of the store in question is ultimately going to
be developed, is that correct, but not the same owner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: The property immediately to the east is
by a separate owner, not Mr. Risher.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it is likely to be developed
also? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it depends on how the Comp
Plan Amendment process comes out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the access road that Mr.
Risher has purchased the rights to build, will service both of those
properties; is that not correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, it will. It will be a shared access.
Page 223
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what we're doing by having
him build that road is that we are reducing the number of curb cuts
that might otherwise exist if we didn't have the access road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And reducing curb cuts is
something that is advantageous to us?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
minimize.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I think this was a good plan to
Will one of the curb cuts on the
south end of the property be eliminated or will both of them be
eliminated?
MR. KANT: Excuse me, Commissioner. Are you talking about
the two directly in front of the store? These two here? (Indicating.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. That's correct. Just to the
south. Yes, that's exactly right.
MR. KANT: It would be desirable to eliminate one or both of
them, but obviously that's probably not going to be very practical
until he comes in for some kind of revised site plan or major site plan
improvement because he has permitted those driveways.
And unless we can show a safety or operational problem,
typically we don't require closures.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I'm really getting at is if he
builds that access road, then we can really close off maybe one of
those or both of them and not cause him any difficulty at all; is that
right?
MR. KANT: I would say that's a reasonable assumption
because people coming from the east would simply come in at that
access driveway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct. We would solve a
couple of access problems very close to that traffic signal?
MR. KANT: Yes, sir, that would be correct.
Page 224
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It appears to me that there's
substantial advantage to the County to have that access road built and
with the multiple understanding that we would close those access
points.
And for that reason, I would suggest we move ahead with this
arrangement. But -- the total coast is something like $20,000?
MR. KANT: That's our estimate. Again, I want to make clear
that we have to confirm that we actually got the bids out once we get
the turn lane designed. I think it's a reasonable estimate, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: In view of the advantages that I
see occurring to the County by having an access road, I think it's a
reasonable arrangement. Assuming the access road will be developed
sometime in the near future.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can assure you Mr. Risher is anxious to
get that access road built.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I come from a
plain old common sense standpoint.
Okay? If I have the only store out there selling bread and milk
and somebody is heading east on my street, the street out in front,
there's no place else for them to go out there unless they go quite a
few miles to go to the other G's. There's no place else to buy bread
and milk, to make a little u-turn to get into my store, they're going to
do it.
Anybody heading going west can get in there anyway. And
being that you're the only game in town for miles around, I don't see
how he's going to have any loss of business. All somebody has to do
is make a u-turn.
It's just a common sense question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's stay with the order here. You
pushed the button again, we'll come back to you in a second.
Page 225
September 1 O, 2002
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll give you the common sense
answer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's very likely that because of
the growth in that area and as busy as that intersection is, you will
pass that, whether, you know, you're low on gas or whatever, because
of the frustration.
The observation that I made is, I cannot not understand,
knowing a little bit about Mr. Risher, why and what you're stating is
you showed him the 30, 60 and 90 percent plans and there wasn't an
issue there.
Well, I take issue with that because access to any business
especially a see store is very important.
I would think it was the understanding and maybe it was a
misunderstanding, but I think Mr. Risher's understanding was, his
access wasn't changed and then Government comes along and
changes it.
I do, along with Mr. Coyle, see a benefit of this. And therefore,
I make a motion that the County absorb the cost on this and make
those improvements.
MR. KANT: Is that subjected to the closure of those two
driveways, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not an expert on whether
that will enhance any safety issues in that.
If we can have the planning, Transportation and Planning give
us -- make it his judgment whether it should be closed or not.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know that both would necessarily
need to be closed. I think we need to look at that issue.
Page 226
September 10, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may speak on this issue. I too
see some benefits here, but also too -- first, I think Staff acted
accordingly to what they should do.
I kind of fault everyone around. I can't understand why there's
no written record that this every took place. There are no maps that
can be shown--
MR. KANT: Excuse me, there are. There are a complete set of
records on every property taken. And that's why -- when I examined
those records I was given the impression that it was a full-arms length
transaction.
I'm not an appraiser. I don't know exactly. Like I said, this was
several years ago. The people who were directly involved weren't
there, so we're trying to reconstruct it.
I'm making what I believe to be true statements based on the
record as I examined it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I want to go a step further. I do
believe that -- I kind of lost it, someone made a promise to Mr. Risher
on part of staff that there would?
MR. KANT: There's no clear documentation of that,
Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that kind of leaves me at a loss.
But I do agree with the fact that there would be some benefit with the
access road. Us paying the $20,000 up front to be able to give him
access over to one side with the idea that we're going to get a future
access road, all fine and good.
But could we make possibly make it contingent that Mr. Risher
would be reimbursed the $20,000 if he did it at the point that the
access road goes in?
In other words, the benefit that ties in with it. There's no
guarantees right now the access road is going to happen.
Page 227
September 10, 2002
MR. YOVANOVICH: The access road is going to happen.
What we don't have -- you may want to wait to reconfigure the turn
lane until we build the access road, but what -- there's no guarantees
that the County is going to approve a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and then a rezone for the neighbor's property.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going forward with this. I
hear the benefit is the access road. That's the reason and the rationale
that we're going to spend $20,000 of the taxpayers hard earned
money.
Now, the nexus would be the access road will be there at some
point in time.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What I'm saying is why don't we go
ahead and have Mr. Risher build this particular access and whatever
the cost of that is up to $20,000, we would reimburse him at the point
in time that the access road is there?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think Mr. Risher would like to know
that you'll pay whatever the actual cost of reconfiguring that turn lane
is.
Or if you want to wait and change the turn lane until we build
the access road that would be fine with Mr. Risher too.
So you're not changing the turn lane until we build the access
road, we're comfortable with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In other words, we wouldn't have to
do anything until the point that the access road went in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That I wouldn't have a problem with.
Now we have a cause. We have something that we're benefiting from
that we can identify for a cost that we're paying for. That's my
thoughts on it.
Page 228
September 1 O, 2002
Let's go to Commissioner Coyle. Is there anyone else that
wishes to speak on this?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Just -- I'd just like to
summarize. One of the problems with doing a u-mm here is that this
road is going to have more and more traffic as it begins to get
developed.
It's going to be a safety issue of trying to do a u-turn and then try
to get into the right-hand lane to go into one of those entrances into
the store.
So it becomes a safety issue. The other point is that the property
just to the east of this property is going to be developed. I think we
were told that last time and you reiterated that today.
We're going to have another property owner in here looking for
a curb cut to get into his property. And that way we're going to have
at least one, two, three, four, five curb cuts within 300 feet or more of
the intersection.
So what we are gaining is if the Petitioner builds that access
road for us we could also use that access road to access the other
property that is going to be developed.
We won't have another curb cut to deal with and we can
probably even close one of the curb cuts if not both the curb cuts
there closer to the comer.
So I believe there's substantial benefit from a safety and long-
range planning standpoint.
We've been criticized for not looking far enough head on
developing things like access roads. And if we've done access roads
on Radio Road or Pine Ridge Road or something like that, we
wouldn't be in the mess that we are in right now.
And I think if we look a little further ahead here, we're getting
an access road free of charge, that will solve our problems with
respect to the future development in that area. And that's the
Page 229
September 10, 2002
reason I would suggest we go ahead, and I think $20,000 is a
relatively small sum to pay for that benefit, but it's up to the Board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask, do we need an
access road?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, Commissioner. I think that what is being
proposed by Mr. Risher is safer ultimately. It will also be better for
all of those property owners because it will be one major point of
access east of the intersection.
I would like, before you vote on it, I would like to ask that staff
be given the flexibility to work with Mr. Risher as he develops the
plan for the access road, because we found that sometimes if we can
get the same contractor to work on the both of those locations, we can
save some money for mobilization and that type of thing.
I don't think that would be a detriment to either one of us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would so move, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's Commissioner Henning's motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Henning's motion.
Would you so move?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, we should have -- well,
anyway. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So let's go over everything that we
just agreed to so we fully understand what we're dealing with.
We're talking about an access road. We're talking about a
$20,000 adjustment to the way Mr. Risher can get in and off of
Wilson into; is that correct?
MR. KANT: Am I to understand that you're putting up to
$20,000.9
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The number came from you, if I'm
not mistaken.
Page 230
September 1 O, 2002
MR. KANT: Yes, sir. It's possible that we can do it from
somewhat less.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Up to 20,000.
MR. KANT: If by some strange chance we were off by a few
thousand, you know, I don't know whether -- you want Mr. Risher to
stand that or do you just want to use the $20,000 as an estimate?
We'll be happy to come back to you once we get a design and
give you an exact number.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think 20,000 would be a fine
number to work with. We're comfortable with'that number and --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's my motion, let me restate it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The County would be
responsible for the median access to the connector road into both of
the properties.
And Mr. Risher be responsible for the access road. That is my
motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No conditions about when the access
road is put in? The cost of the cut that is going to be made in there?
None of these things are going to apply? Who can use the access
road? You know those things are important.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: As long as you and I can use it,
that's fine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could as a second to the
motion, just throw something out for consideration, if you bundle
these two contracts, the building of the access road and the creating
of the median as you alluded to earlier, it's entirely possible that the
cost will be less then if we do them separately as you stated. MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What I would suggest is that in
order to assure that there's appropriate timing between the
Page 231
September 1 O, 2002
development of the access road and the curb change, or the mm lane
change, that we require that they be bundled together and that we
pay the actual costs or the median change. Whatever that actual cost
might be.
By bundling we might find it to be 12 or $15,000. I don't know.
But not to exceed $20,000.
Okay. Would that be acceptable to you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're taking a chance of
this coming back at us. And as long as we spend on it, it is very
frustrating on a simple item.
So if we just leave it up to Staff, let them know that our
direction they will, I'm sure, make sure that they get a good value out
of the improvements.
That's my concern of it coming back.
MR. KANT: Can I just ask once again, because the question
was raised about the closure of one or two of the existing driveways.
Is that of interest at this point your deliberations?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not sure that we should
make that determination. That should be a planning -- transportation
planner to make that determination.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This motion is getting so convoluted,
I can't follow where we are on it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you want me to restate it?
I'll be happy to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, give it a try. Let's see if it
sounds the same way you said it earlier. There's so many particulars
to it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is your
understanding? It sounds like you do know.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The understanding that -- this is what
Commissioner Coyle said, I don't know if it's been incorporated into
Page 232
September 1 O, 2002
the motion or not; that these two things are one in the same and it has
to be done so that one happens at the same time that the other, or at
least the access road would happen first, that's my words, that we
know we got a value for what we're going to be paying for.
Commissioner Coyle I think covered that very well. I don't
know -- if your motion reflects that or not, number one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What I stated was is for
the county to pay for the cut in the median and Mr. Risher would be
responsible for the access road and Mr. Kant wanted to know if that
includes closing off one or two of those cuts. And I stated it should
be something that the transportation planner deal with.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: While I agree with the motion, I
really think it is essential that we tie these two projects together.
That we not go out there and build this median and then Mr.
Risher takes a year or two years to build an access road.
I really think it's essential that we tie these two projects together.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. I'll make that part
of my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
ownership of this access road.
can't tie into it?
The only other question I got is the
Is there any way that someone else
MR. KANT: That's on private property and what we normally
try to do, and again, I don't know whether Mr. Risher would have any
objection, but we try to get cross access agreements whenever we try
to get people to bundle their access.
I don't know, Mr. Yovanovich, you want to address that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I've already got a cross access
agreement in place for the neighbor. If it ultimately stays at single
Page 233
September 10, 2002
family, they'll have access. If it's developed, it will be they're shared
access between the properties.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm becoming very comfortable with
this. Commissioner Coyle, do you have something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nope, that's it for me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Anything else? We have a motion
from Commissioner Henning and I'm not too sure who the second
was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was.
MR. MANALICH: Mr. Chairman, before you vote, do I
understand, Commissioner Henning, that you accepted a friendly
amendment to your motion as stated by Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, tying them together, the
two. Correct. Thanks.
MR. MANALICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So any other comments?
Commissioner Coyle, you're through; right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm finished. Can I leave now?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, you're here for awhile. Not until
9 o'clock do they close.
I'll call for the motion. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't worry, Commissioner
Coyle, your opponent will be sleeping by 9 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. No. No.
Page 234
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just hope he would have lost by
9 o'clock.
Item #1 OD
SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FUNDING FOR A CONTRACT
WITH DOVER, KOHL AND PARTNERS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NAPLES PARK COMMUNITY PLAN
- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10-D, which has
to do with the scope of services for the Naples Park Community Plan.
MR. TOMERLIN: For the record, my name is Tom Tomerlin
and I'm a Principal Planner with your Comprehensive Planning
Section.
I thought I would give a brief introduction of what this scope --
basically what the history behind it is. I'll try to make this brief.
Basically, the proposed scope of services you're considering
today is a product with quite a history. In short, the Naples Park
Community Plan scope of services is bom out of community
character plan, you accepted by resolution in 2001.
At a Board workshop on June 5th, 2001, commissioners voiced
their support for the tenants of the Community Character Plan and
identified the Naples Park Community as the pilot community.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval from Commissioner Carter. Do we have a second yet?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have plenty of questions, but I
want to support it in theory.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For discussion purposes?
Page 235
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, because it will just drag out
for awhile so I'll hold it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: For discussion purposes, I'll give a
second, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning,
you're first and Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my concern is we are
asking for the amount of-- is it 211 or 250 -- 150, I'm sorry.
$211,000 or is it $150,000.
MR. TOMERLIN: $211,370, that would include a drainage
study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Bring me back to when we
approved -- allocated so much for each community for restudy of
redevelopment for each of the projects.
MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger,
Comprehensive Planning Manager. I take you back to June the 5th of
01 when you accepted your Community Character Plan at a
workshop and supported the intent of the Community Character Plan
both from the standpoint of working through your Community
Character Smart Growth Committee, where Comp Plan Amendments
were implemented and Land Development Code.
You also supported the recommendation to begin local
community planning efforts on an annual basis in the neighborhood
of 200, $250,000 per year.
Your direction to Staff was to come back at FYO-2, with a
recommendation for Naples Park as the first localized community
plan based on community character'overall plan for the community to
implement the standard that we had identified in the Community
Character Plan.
Page 236
September 10, 2002
We were also directed to work with Dover-Cole, our
consultants, who we have continuing services contract with. We
have worked in the recent months to develop the total scope of
services for Community Character Plan localized for Naples Park
including the study of methods for financing the fiscal improvements
that might be identified in this project including drainage
improvements.
And where we are today is that we're back to you in FYO-2,
there are no appropriations. The total project amount is $211,000
which there are no FYO-2. In October, FYO-3, October 1st, we have
$150,000 in total budgeted because we had no idea of what the scope
of services would entail.
That is also to include the US 41 corridor study which obviously
this particular contract $211,000 that would leave some area of what
for us to come back to you and possibly ask for additional funding for
US 41 corridor study in FYO-3.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess my problem with this is
somewhat the a~i~iii~nt, but I really want to support it, but I believe it
is a lot of money for the scope of services.
And I think if we can go out for a request for proposal that we
can probably do a little bit better. There's so many firms out there
that knows things about community character and smart growth and
is willing to work for the citizens, I think we can just get -- I hate to
really delay it. What kind of delay are we talking about if we go out
to RFP?
MR. LITSINGER: If we would RFP this process, it would be,
we would probably be talking 60 to 90 days before we could get back
to you to set up a selection committee, probably at the end of the
calendar year before you would award a contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING' Those are my concerns.
Page 237
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Commissioner Coyle and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I share the same concern
Commissioner Henning does about the money. And when these
things came up, I think I suggested at the time that what we do is try
to bundle these consulting contracts together and see if we couldn't
get a better price.
I'm concerned now that the US 41 project is left unfunded. And
as part of my support for this particular project, I would have to insist
that the Staff, County Manager, find some money to fund the US 41
project by Monday morning.
MR. MUDD: No problem. I've already got it done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- like Commissioner
Henning, I won't stand in the way of progress. I'm not happy about
the cost, but let's see if we can't bundle these things together.
Sometimes if we got another community that might want to do a
similar study in addition to the 41 corridor that maybe. We can put
these things together and see if we can get a better price on them.
MR. LITSINGER: Commissioner Coyle, just to add something
to your discussions and deliberations relative to the US 41 corridor
study.
We have been meeting with Bob Murray and his group of East
Naples Civic Association. And our first impression was we're
developing that work project, it appears that we may be looking at
something in the neighborhood of a Land Development Code
modification to your current architectural and design standard to
customize something for the US 41 character-- US 41 corridor that
meets the vision of East Naples and south Naples for the future in
that particular area of development and redevelopment along that
corridor.
Page 238
September 1 O, 2002
And I don't know that you'll be seeing a scope that is this
ambitious nor a price tag that approaches this.
I'm trying to avoid using a number, but we think that some of
the work can be done in-house and that we probably will not exceed
$75,000 when we come back to you with that particular study.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wouldn't want to short
change the project. I would like to make sure it's a good project and
it meets the needs of the community.
And as long as you can assure me that you will find the money
for the 41 corridor study, I will be happy to support this particular -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you throw in Golden
Gate too?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't forget the Estates and
Immokalee, East Naples.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Immokalee.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can tell you that we had based
on the Productivity Committee's recommendation about Country Jam
and Viva Naples, we're going to cut $95,000 out of those two
programs.
Those two programs are in the 1-11 fund. You can't use that
money to go to the reserve for the Lee County Memorial Trauma
Center because that would be double taxation with the general fund
and 1-11.
So that $95,000, I can put aside and put it for the US 41 study
and put that aside in that particular project in order to make sure that's
funded.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Although he has stolen my thunder.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I bet you can add to it, though.
Page 239
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all let me say that I feel it's
important that Naples Park has an outstanding firm. I know that
they're expensive, but you don't want to do a half-baked job. They've
come this far. They've worked this hard and they need to have
funding.
Conversely, when it comes to the East Naples 41 corridor, I'm
going to expect the same.
And as I had a meeting with Jim Mudd the other day, I said I
would never want to take anything away from Naples Park, but I
want to make sure our funding doesn't go away. In our meeting, I
said find the money for us, and he said, 'Tll do that."
And as long as this one stays on track, which is very important
to me, I wouldn't want to take anything away from Naples Park. I
want to make sure they get funding for a great project.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's one already been made.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, has it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. That's what started all this
conversation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's already been seconded.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to make a couple of final
comments. I--
MS. FILSON: I have speakers on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know the direction we're going.
Oh, thank you. Waive. Call the names anyway, we have to.
MS. FILSON: Brenda Kaiser, Erica Lynn, Dwight Richardson.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, if there's no other
discussion, I'll call for the motion here. All those in favor indicate by
saying aye.
Page 240
September 1 O, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed? The ayes have it five to
zero.
We're going to take a very short break. I know that you've been
at it now for about two hours since the last break. Don't go too far.
Thereupon,
(Brief recess was taken, after which the following proceedings
were had.)
Item #1 OF
CONFIRMATION OF THE PROMOTION OF MR. LEO E. OCHS,
JR. TO THE POSITION OF DEPUTY COUNTY MANAGER-
APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're at 10 --
MR. MUDD: 10-F, sir. That's the confirmation of the
promotion of Leo Ochs to the position of the Deputy County
Manager.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion? All
those in favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
say no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Aye. He thought I was going to
Did you say aye?
Page 241
September 10, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
bow?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's too late.
MR. MUDD: The motion carried three to zero.
Henning and Carter were absent.
correct.
I said aye.
Do you want to stand and take a
Commissioner
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's
Item #10G
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $106,000
FUNDING UNBUDGETED PERSONAL SERVICES EXPENSES
IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-G, and that's a Board
approval for a budget amendment in the amount of $106,000 funding
the unbudgeted Personal Services Expenses in the County Manager's
Office.
Mike, don't even talk. First one is Mr. McNees left, he had sick
leave and leave amounted to 30 some odd thousand dollars. Mr.
Olliff did the same. Both weren't planned for vacancies and that gets
us up to about $70,000.
And the other piece to the $106,000 is the fact that the Assistant
County Manager and the Deputy County Manager weren't budgeted
in the 01 budge.
One of the positions were, the assistant --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 242
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
a second from Commissioner Fiala.
favor indicate aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
HENNING: Aye.
Any discussion?
Motion from Commissioner Coletta,
All those in
Aye.
COMMISSIONER
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a ghost aye. So then the
vote was four to zero with Commissioner Carter absent.
Moving on.
Item #1 OH
FUNDING OF A PUBLIC INFORMATION COORDINATOR
POSITION FOR THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION TO
PROVIDE DIVISION-WIDE COMMUNICATIONS RESOURCES
TO SATISFY A VARIETY OF CRITICAL NEEDS- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10-H. It's a request for approval
of funding a Public Information Coordinator position for Public
Utilities Division to provide division-wide communications resources
to satisfy a variety of critical needs.
And Mr. Ochs briefed that during the workshop on the process
and Mr. DeLony's division did not get that into their budget.
And so instead of putting it on the 18th without having some
discussion with the Commissioners prior to that I thought it would be
prudent to put this on the regular so you'd have the opportunity to
discuss it before you got to see it or didn't get to see it on the 18th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning
was first.
Page 243
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand, we have a
Public Information Office. And yet, we're setting up different public
information people within each of the administrations.
And it seems to me more efficient and better communication to
have one -- run it through one office.
MR. OCHS: For the record, Deputy County Manager. Again,
as Jim just pointed out at the summer budget workshop we briefed
this with the Board and essentially this is a plan to do a better job at
an agency wide level of integrating and coordinating our various
media relations, public relations and customer relations programs and
services.
And the lynch pin of that is -- of that coordination is a
coordinator in each of the managing operating units coordinating
with central public information and customer relation.
So this position already exists in our Community Development
Division and in our Transportation Services Division.
We have a huge capital program and a lot of construction
coming in our utilities area as well. And this is very consistent with
the plan that we presented to the Board this summer that we had
endorsement from the Board on.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Do we have a motion to approve
yet or we haven't done that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. We haven't had a motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: A motion from Commissioner Carter
and a second from Commissioner Coyle for approval. Discussion?
Any discussion? Anything else, Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Not from I.
Page 244
September 10, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
to zero.
All those in
And the ayes have it five
Item #10I
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR "STONEBRIDGE
UNIT FOUR" - CONTINUED FOR 30 DAYS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 10-I and 10-J
were items at Commissioner Carter's request to move 16-A-21 and 22
forward.
We have the homeowner's association representatives from
Stonebridge. I think it's Stonebridge here.
The developer is not here. I talked to Tom Kuck of our
Community Development Engineering staff. He's the County
Engineer.
They have done -- the developer has done some work as far as
drainage is concerned on their particular development, but it doesn't
seem to have worked.
Staff is requesting the Board to continue this item for 30 days so
they can work with the developer and the homeowner's association to
see if we can't come up with an amiable solution and actually fix the
drainage issues in these two particular units.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So moved.
Page 245
September 1 O, 2002
MS. FILSON: Commissioner, Mr. Chairman, I have three
speakers as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. I thought we would get
the motion up front and see where we're going to go from there. I
make a motion that we do so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do you want to call up the
speakers?
MS. FILSON: The first one is Justin McLaughlin.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. Okay.
MS. FILSON: The second one is Ron Cavalle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
MS. FILSON: The third one is. Oh, I have two. He registered
for both items.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, is there any other
comments from the Commission?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I made -- you understand why I
pulled it, you know where we're going with it.
I just don't release -- it's always been my philosophy never to
release the final dollars to anybody when there's still pending
questions from the homeowners to get it resolved for reasonable
satisfaction.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. I'm concerned
about how this got on the agenda for us to approve if there was still
an outstanding problem? Is there a check process? Do we check to
see if these things are functioning properly before you recommend
them to us for approval?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:
to be--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
I have photographs. It appeared
I'm sorry. We can't get --
Page 246
September 1 O, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to let Tom Kuck, the
County Engineer answer that question.
MR. KUCK: Yes, Tom Kuck, County Engineer. We did do a
final inspection like two weeks ago. Everything was okay.
Shortly after that they had another blow out. And this has
occurred two or three different times.
I went out and looked at it this morning. It's my
recommendation to give us some time to work with the homeowner's
association, the engineer of record and the developer and come up
with a solution that will lasting.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Once again, the Commissioners are
the last barrier for these things to happen. Good work, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I thank the president of the
homeowner's association for bringing that to my attention so that I
can deal with it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we give credit to the
homeowner's association also for being on top of this and working
with the Commission. With that--
MR. KUCK: I just want to make publicly for the record, as part
of our process working with the public, I'm going to make a
commitment that we contact them homeowner's association every
time we approve one of these.
They have to be an integral part of this process qnd the position
that I'm going to have within my division to help me do that to notify
the homeowner's to do the things that we need to do. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I might suggest you do that in
writing and you hand carry the letter down there, and if they have to
give you a written reply, they do it handwritten too.
Page 247
September 10, 2002
hold
best
MR. KUCK: This is the only way we can hold it hostage. We
that bond unless it's released.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's call for the question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's Mr. Kuck's opinion that it's
we put this aside until the job is completely done; is that correct?
MR. KUCK: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then I withdraw my second.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wow.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's saying don't pass this; right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're not passing this. We're
making a motion to continue it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, to continue. I'm sorry. I
thought we were passing it. Sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your second stands?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It stands. Oh, my goodness.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're almost there. All those in
favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
zero.
COMMISSIONER
The ayes have it five to
That's quite all right, Commissioner Fiala.
Item # 10J
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE,
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR "STONEBRIDGE
UNIT FIVE"-CONTINUED FOR 30 DAYS
Page 248
September 1 O, 2002
The next one is item, well, formerly 16-A-22.
MR. MUDD: Same thing Commissioner, and I think that vote
you had was for both items.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, it was.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You understand that that's the way it
was.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'm so sorry. I thought you
were making a motion to get it on the floor to talk about it. I am so
sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's quite all right. Is that the end
of the agenda?
Item #1 IA
PUBLIC COMMENT - ANTHONY PIRES REGARDING
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING ORDINANCE/LONGSHOREMEN
INSURANCE
MS. FILSON: Actually, we're at public comments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Public comments, how many?
MS. FILSON: We have three speakers and the first one is
Anthony Pires. He will be followed by Blake Wishart.
MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My
name is Anthony Pires Junior, I represent Marco Dock and Lift and
Blake Wishart, who's also here this evening. Thank you for the
opportunity, I know it's get going late.
The reason why we're back here is that in May of this year, you
all adopted amendments to your contractor's licensing ordinance that
clarified particular requirements as to insurance that's required to be
maintained by contractors.
Page 249
September 1 O, 2002
This particular type of insurance that was clarified was
Longshoremen and Harbor Worker's Compensation coverage that is
required that whenever a person is performing work over navigable
waters of the U.S.; dock repairs, so it effected marine contractors.
That ordinance was adopted as you always look out for the
welfare of the public and protecting the public, health, safety and
welfare to ensure that the marine contractors performing work on
docks had the insurance both to protect-- three parties, the employee,
who's working, so that if an accident, injury or death occurred over
the water on the dock doing work that that employee had some ability
to receive insurance compensation.
The employer, of course, and the property owner, the consumer,
the citizens, the public in Collier County.
Unfortunately, in July of this year apparently after lobbying
efforts by some contractors who felt that the provisions were to
onerous and made some certain determinations or thought it was not
possible to obtain, the Board on July 30th, basically, through the
County Attorney's Office suspended enforcement of that particular
portion of your current contractor's licensing ordinance; that section
2.8 dealing with insurance.
There may have been a sense through some of the other
contractors, not my client or Naples Custom Dock, that Congress was
in the process of adopting legislation to change the Federal legislation
that provides for this type of coverage.
As you all know, Congress is a very fickle animal. The vagaries
of congressional lobbying and with Ted Kennedy, quite frankly, and
the U.S. Senate and Democratics in charge, I can't imagine any
change to insurance coverage over navigable water involving
Longshoremen whatever occur.
Needless to say, I think that what we request of this Board --
Naples Daily Newspaper did a very nice article and I provided a copy
Page 250
September 1 O, 2002
to the Chairman that outline the risks, the hazards, the homeowner's,
the public, the citizenry, the employees of this community, are being
put at risk by virtue of contractors not having that insurance, by
virtue of the County not enforcing that ordinance.
We would request that the Board of County Commissioners
direct its staff to vigorously enforce the ordinance in its entirety.
Once again, the "suspension" of this ordinance and the
implementation of this section was made without any notification to
those contractors involved, at least my client did not know about it, it
came up in the course of the July 30th Board meeting.
There may have been a concern by some of the other contractors
that don't have this insurance that the amendment in May was not
adopted without them having plenty of opportunity for input. We
differ with that. It was difficult public notice provided and it was not
an advertised public hearing.
The action that occurred in July was not an advertised
consideration, no notice to the public, no notice to those parties that
carry it.
My client carries that insurance. It's very, very expensive; 3.48
times the normal coverage rate work for those people working over
the water.
We would implore you on behalf, of not my client only, of the
public, the employees of the contractors and the community as a
whole to ensure that this coverage is provided in u-suspend the
suspension of the enforcement and the implementation that requires
that people working over navigable waters and marine contractors
have longshoremen and harbor worker's compensation coverage.
We think that's very critical to the public, health, safety and
welfare.
I'm available for any questions as is Mr. Wishart hard.
Page 251
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, any questions at this
point in time. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. As you recall the
action that the Board of County Commissioners on July 30th, I
brought forward to the Board informing them of a recommendation
which you endorsed concerning the suspension of a program that
actually had not been initiated yet by Staff in regard to the
implementation of a requirement of a showing of the policy of
longshoremen harbor worker's coverage when people were coming in
for dock construction permits and things of that nature.
Now, upon the adoption of the ordinance, Staff had already sent
out letters indicating that there would be a 60 day phase-in period,
which had not even finished at that point in time. So that the effected
contractors could go out and look into the market place and secure
the insurance and not run up against a brick wall immediately.
As I stated July 30th, no matter what the County does with its
local ordinance, which had been amended to reflect a requirement for
the longshoremen harbor workers insurance, it's actually nothing
more than a local tool referencing the Federal law which is in place.
So for those contractors who don't have the insurance, they
already have a problem with the Federal law, whether it's to be
changed in the future or not, they have a problem right now with that.
And that's what I told the Board and the public at that time. And
as Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Coyle know we met
with quite a few contractors and representatives just before that
meeting.
County Attorney Office has done its due diligence and we
checked with the insurance market place and we've conversed various
times with the Department of Labor since that time July 30th, and
have talked with, I think my Staff has talked with Tony, talked with
Fred Hart, talked with Carson & McKeatian, attorneys representing
clients, contractors, who do have that insurance.
Page 252
September 1 O, 2002
I already have scheduled with the Commissioners meetings with
each of you individually to tell you what, in fact, our ultimate
determination is concerning the insurance.
And that is as Mr. Pires indicated. It does appear to be nearly
four times as expensive as the regular insurance is, and yes, it will be
onerous on people.
As I said before, the law is the law and in my individual
discussions that I have scheduled with you, and it should only take
five or ten minutes, when and if we do them, and they start on the
12th, was to tell you as the client that I'm prepared to issue a
statement. I was going to come back on the next Board meeting, the
24th, but issue a statement indicating that there's no change, that the
assertions made by that group of contractors with whom we met was
incorrect to the extent that there is, in fact, an absolute duty under
Federal law for them to have this insurance.
And therefore, the County ordinance that we have can be an
effective tool on behalf of other contractors that who have ponied up
and paid the insurance as well to as protection for the workers who
work over water and the secondary liability of the private individuals
that contract for those kind of services.
All those things will come into play with our ordinance. But
quite frankly, the 60-day period was only just now about coming into
phase anyhow. So I think we're in pretty good shape there.
My desire was to bring that same group of people and we have
that list of their names was to bring them back and have a face-to-
face discussion with them before I sent out an official letter to
everybody.
We're just about there, but you've gotten the news telegraphed a
little bit early based on our discussion today. If you have any further
discussion, I'll certainly respond.
Page 253
September 10, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle has got a
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. One of the things that struck
me about the applicability of that law was not so much with respect
to applicability of marine contractors, but to people like -- people
who clean my boat.
They're working over water and they're working off of a dock.
People who actually clean the dock, that coat it with something,
people who come to maintain my boat.
They're all working over water, does this law cover those people
and require that they have the same kind of insurance coverage?
MR. WEIGEL: I expect that it doesn't cover most of those
examples that you just provided. However, I think it will cover the
subcontractors that work in regard to dock and water installations.
Some of the, call it the parade of horribles that we've seen, are
the restaurants that exist over water on stilts, which there are few.
And as well as docks, private docks and things of that nature where
you may have a, call it a prime contractor, in the sense of a dock
construction contractor, but they may have subcontractors to provide
electrical service or some other subservice that's on there.
And it would appear that the subcontractors may also have to
have that coverage because they're performing that kind of work and
their employees are subjected to that kind of risk, which based on
Florida legislation, Florida law does not opt to allow, call it a
slippage, where landlubbers insurance covers incidental water
construction as well.
So the Florida legislature has set its own stage that the Federal
law doesn't meld into the Florida insurance system that way. And
there's nothing that we here locally can do locally about it.
The initial amendment to the ordinance at first was that having
recognized that there was a Federal standard and we already have a
Page 254
September 10, 2002
standard in place requiring Florida workmen's comp, it seemed
inappropriate then, and I think we all agree still inappropriate now,
for there to be a segment of workers, a type of workers work over
water that suddenly loses coverage just by virtue of the geography of
being over water.
So again, I still hope to have face-to-face contact with all of
those contractors that were unhappy with the State and Federal law.
And as Mr. Pires indicated that State and Federal has not
changed in our ordinances. I think correctly drafted and I'll try to
make an arrangement for them to come in next week at the earliest
convenience.
And we'll coordinate with Staff so that we'll have a fixed time
period, fixed in sense of noticing out to everyone that from that point
and forward they'll need to have insurance if they're going to get
certificates.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr> Weigel, you'll keep us updated
on this; correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I will. In fact, I have a meeting with you
in just a few days in that regard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who is the next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Blake Wishart.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive.
MS. FILSON: He will be followed by Greg Oreck.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Waive. Okay. That concludes our
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
Item #15A
BCC MEETINGS IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER TO BE
HELD 11/05/02; 11/29/02; 12/03/02; AND 12/17/02
Page 255
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's take a few minutes here and go
down the line. Let's start with Mr. Mudd, any closing comments?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, two items of communication.
First -- and we probably don't need an answer on this one at this
meeting, we can bring it back the next one, but it's something to
consider.
Thanksgiving in November, we have two meetings, the 2nd and
the 4th meetings in November basically fall on the 12th and the 26th.
The 26th is the Tuesday before Thanksgiving.
We might want to deconflict that week of Thanksgiving meeting
and try to either make a change to November and make it the 1 st and
the 3rd weeks, and then we can do something to December, maybe
add a meeting. Decembers are normally a busy meeting month, and
maybe have it on the 1st or the 3rd. But it's something to think about.
Right now we've got a Tuesday meeting on Thanksgiving week.
We might think of a way to either change November or do something
just a little bit different during that time period.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you take a look at the way
November is laid out, if you started with the first Tuesday in
November, you already have a two week span from the one in
October.
Then you go from the first Tuesday to the third Tuesday, and
then you're automatically avoiding that week and if you continue that
through December, you avoid Christmas Eve being a meeting day.
And then you have a span between the meetings of two weeks
each.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If the Board desires to switch
November, I'm going to need the Board to give us some direction to
do that. We have to make sure the advertisments are done correctly.
Page 256
September 1 O, 2002
And we're going to have to start in October, the first week, and
let them know that November is going to be different than our usual -
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And December would be also -- let
me see your head nod or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Two heads looking at the calendar.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thanksgiving is the 28th?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And our legislative delegation would
like to come in on November 26th to talk about those issues that we
have.
And I've been trying to work their schedule to get off of that
week if I could, but with no success because I either have a
representative not going to be there.
The only time I can get all three of them in one place is on the
26th of November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it will be October 8th, October
22nd, November 5th, November 19th, December 3rd and December
17th; is that correct?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That would be every two weeks
anyway.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We wouldn't lose a meeting like we
have in the past.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to make a motion that
we change our schedule according to the dates I just mentioned.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second that. Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are those the dates we just
discussed here?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Read them off again, please.
Page 257
September 1 O, 2002
MR. MUDD: The different dates would be the first week of
November, the third week of November, the first week of December,
the third week of December.
The dates are November 5th, November 19th, December 3rd,
December 17th.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
from this vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
favor indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
zero
Mr. Chairman, I will abstain
Any other discussion? All those in
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
with Commissioner.Carter abstaining.
The ayes have it four to
Anything else?
Item #15B
COUNTY MANAGER MUDD TO PROVIDE MEMO TO BCC
RELATING TO FUTURE PRESENTATIONS OF EMPLOYEE
SERVICE AWARDS
MR. MUDD: The other thing that I need to bring up and we've
talked about it a little bit, I'm going to ask Mr. Ochs to prepare a
memo for you to describe it, you noticed the last two meetings that
we haven't had any service awards here in front of the Board because
of length of time and we didn't know what this meeting was going to
do as far as time was concerned and the Chair had some concerns that
this could be another two day meeting. We tried to work that out.
We would like to recommend that we have a employee award
ceremony, service award ceremony, and we deal with the employees
that are 20, 25 and 30 and 35 and 40, if we ever get that far, and they
Page 258
September 10, 2002
would come to the Board once a month and just like we've done
before.
And that the 5, 10 and 15 years, would be done either at the
NPO meeting, I think that's where we we're talking about doing it so
you get to see them at the same time, work both groups with one
commissioner, the County Manager present during some kind of a
breakfast so we could get a little bit closer to them and get them
amongst their colleagues and let them feel a little bit more
comfortable as we do that process.
So we're going to be coming forward to you with a memo on
that particular case. The folks with the longer longevity really look
forward to meeting you in this forum.
They've been around for a long time. They've been at the
podiums. And it means a lot to them. Some of the younger folks are
sometimes intimidated, not that you're not a good looking group, but
they're intimidated by that process, so we'll bring a memo to you so
we can talk about it another time too.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd. Mr. Weigel,
do you have anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you very much.
Item #15C
COMMISSIONER HENNING REGARDING A STUDY FOR
DREDGING GOODLAND CANALS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll start with Commissioner
Henning for any closing comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, as far as communications,
I've been working to try to find some funding for the Community of
Page 259
September 1 O, 2002
Goodland on their issue of dredging of some of their canals
prohibiting motorized boat traffic through the canals.
I'm making some headway. I had some contact with Porter
Goss' office, talking to the US Corps of Engineers and we're going to
be contacting the citizens in Goodland for their input of what these
canals are used for.
And there's a possibility of a grant funding for the study of the
dredging. So moving forward on that item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you want to tell the people to get
out there and vote?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Get out there and vote.
Item #15D
COMMISSIONER FIALA REGARDING "OPEN" NEON SIGNS
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: First of all, thank you,
Commissioner Henning. I didn't know you were doing that, but
you're offering a great service to the people of Goodland. Thank you
so much. I appreciate that.
Second of all, I would like to offer my congratulations to you
and Darcy on your announcement. May I say it out loud?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, we're working for the
Government, I don't think it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thirdly, I would like to talk to
you all of you about signage. I have been contacted by a few of my
constituents regarding open signs.
Page 260
September 1 O, 2002
And I no the sign law has said that we can't have any neon signs
that say open in the windows and that is something that was declared.
What I'm having -- and I wanted to talk at some point in time
with of all you, people that are located in the back of the shop or with
the dark covering that they have on the windows that keeps the sun
out.
You can see out of there real easily, but you can't see if business
is open. And I was wondering if maybe we can at least discuss,
address, just in particular, open signs, nothing else, and maybe just a
small sign, but at least it lets people know that they're open.
How would I go about -- do I schedule that on a board meeting?
Do I ask my fellow Commissioners if they would allow us to talk
about that?
MR. MUDD: If I can get at least three heads to nod on that to
consider that, then the Staff would go back and take look at the
ordinance and see how we go about modifying that process.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Not mine. I fought that battle
long and hard on neon.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I know, but I have to live with it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: These are neon signs we're talking
about?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Open neon signs inside the building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't have a nod from me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. How about you,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't -- I don't think it's an
appropriate time to bring it up. It's something that maybe I would
consider later on.
At this point I would have to --
Page 261
September 1 O, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. If you take your neon signs
down, put them in the cupboard and later we'll bring this up and
maybe put it back up again. That's fine. That's no problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My closing comments is been an
interesting day. I am glad it's coming to and end. It is now.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, thank you, Mr. Coletta,
Mr. Chairman. I really had a lot to say tonight at the end of this
meeting, but since you closed the meeting, I have nothing to say.
COMMISSIONER COLYE: It's too late now, Jim. It's late.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. Did we skip over you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll hold all my comments until
the next meeting. I would take at least 25 minutes at the end.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did we really do that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's all right. I jabbed you
once today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's not all right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Carter and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
BUDGET AMENDMENT REALIGNING PERSONAL SERVICES
FUNDS REGARDING REORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION, AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER ON
MAY 22, 2001
Page 262
September 10, 2002
Item gl 6A2
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT A 100% REIMBURSABLE FLORIDA
FISH AND WILDLIFE MARINE TURTLE GRANT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $5,000.
Item gl 6A3
RESOLUTION 2002-345 THROUGH 2002-353 RE ASSESSING
CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS FOR THE ABATEMENT OF
PUBLIC NUISANCES
Item gl 6A4
RESOLUTION 2002-354 PETITION AMVESMT 2002-AR2930,
GEORGE HERMANSON, P.E. OF HOLE MONTES, INC.,
REPRESENTING TWIN DOLPHINS EQUITY PARTNERS, LTD
REQUESTING TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF
A UTILITY EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY
BY SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS AND RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2270, PAGES 1839 THROUGH 1840,
AND OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1335, PAGES 62 THROUGH
65, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST.
Item gl 6A5 - Deleted
Item gl 6A6
Page 263
September 10, 2002
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
VANDERBILT PINES, PHASE 3, WATERFORD AND RELEASE
OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
VANDERBILT PINES, PHASE 3, WEDGEWOOD AND
RELEASE OF UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item # 16A8
ALTERNATE PERFORMANCE AND MAINTENANCE
SECURITY AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT FROM THE ESTATES AT BAY COLONY GOLF
CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. AND RELEASE
OF CURRENT SECURITIES
Item #16A9
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CHRISTUS VICTOR LUTHERAN CHURCH AND RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16Al0
FINAL PLAT OF "CLASSICS PLANTATION ESTATES, PHASE
TWO", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH STIPULATIONS
Page 264
September 1 O, 2002
Item #16Al 1
FINAL PLAT OF "GALILEE"-WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A12
FINAL PLAT OF "WESTVIEW COMMERCE PARK" -WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A13
FINAL PLAT OF "SHORES AT BERKSHIRE LAKES, PHASE
TWO-C" - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A14
FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE PHASE TWO-B", AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE
SECURITY- WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "IBIS COVE PHASE TWO-C", AND
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE
SECURITY- WITH STIPULATIONS
Item #16Al 6
Page 265
September 1 O, 2002
FINAL PLAT OF "LAUREL LAKES PHASE TWO AT
LAURELWOOD, A P.U.D.", AND APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16A17
FINAL PLAT OF "LAUREL LAKES PHASE THREE AT
LAURELWOOD, A P.U.D.", AND APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPULATIONS
Item #16Al 8
RESOLUTION 2002-355 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "KETCH CAY AT
WINDSTAR, UNIT ONE"
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 2002-356 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "KETCH CAY AT
WINDSTAR, UNIT TWO"
Item #16A20
Page 266
September 1 O, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-357 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "KETCH CAY AT
WINDSTAR, UNIT THREE"
Item gl 6A21 - Moved to Item gl 0I
Item gl 6A22 - Moved to Item gl 0J
Item gl 6A23
RESOLUTION 2002-358 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
STRAND REPLAT TRACT 15"
Item gl 6A24
RESOLUTION 2002-359 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VANDERBILT
COUNTRY CLUB - 2"
Item gl 6A25
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY' FACILITIES FOR
FAIRWAY PRESERVE APARTMENTS AND RELEASE OF
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item gl 6A26
Page 267
September 1 O, 2002
AGREEMENT WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF COLLIER COUNTY, 1NC. (EDC) TO EXECUTE
CONTINUATION OF THE ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION
PROGRAM AND PROVIDE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDC
OF UP TO $400,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003
Item #16A27
MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A TWELVE
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX ($12,566) DOLLAR
LOAN TO COLLIER HOUSING ALTERNATIVES, INC., A NON-
PROFIT HOUSING PROVIDER, TO ASSIST IN THE
REHABILITATION OF FIFTEEN (15) SPECIAL NEEDS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.
Item #16A28
RESOLUTION 2002-360 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "VANDERBILT
COUNTRY CLUB"
Item #16A29
RESOLUTION 2002-361 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR "LIVINGSTON ROAD, PHASE ONE
(IMMOKALEE ROAD TO MEDITERRA ENTRANCE)"
Item # 16B 1
Page 268
September 1 O, 2002
CURRENT AND FUTURE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE
CURBED MEDIAN LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF
RADIO ROAD AND COMMERCIAL BLVD.
Item #16B2
RESOLUTION 2002-362 RE THE LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
FOR THE IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75 INTERCHANGE
IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16B3
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA
COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED (CTD), FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TO CONTINUE ITS ROLE AS THE
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR (CTC)
FOR THE NEXT 3 YEARS
Item #16B4 - To be continued on October 8, 2002
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPEED LIMIT INCREASES
FROM TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) TO
THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (35 MPH) ON TROPICANA
BOULEVARD AND CORONADO PARKWAY AT A COST OF
APPROXIMATELY $800. FOR THE TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS
Page 269
September 1 O, 2002
Item #16B5 - Deleted
QUITCLAIM DEED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, ROBERT
VOCISANO OF ANY INTEREST THE COUNTY MAY HAVE IN
'A 30 FOOT STRIP OF LAND ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY
OF THE TERRAFINA PUD.
Item #16B6
WORK ORDER #AIM-FT-02-01 FOR $1,830,620. FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS SERVICES
BY AIM ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. FOR
LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE III (PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD) SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT
NO. 62071
Item #16B7
WORK ORDER #HDR-FT-02-01 FOR $854,078. FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING & INSPECTIONS SERVICES
BY HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL CORP. FOR
LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE IV (IMMOKALEE ROAD TO THE
COUNTY LINE) FOUR AND SIX LANE IMPROVEMENTS,
PROJECT NO. 65041
Item #16B8
ADDITIONAL RENEWAL OF THE AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD
AND IMMOKALEE ROAD CURRENT MAINTENANCE
CONTRACTS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $138,000 FOR
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND $65,000 FOR IMMOKALEE
Page 270
September 1 O, 2002
ROAD RESPECTIVELY- TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MAINTENANCE, INC., FOR A FOURTH AND FINAL ONE
YEAR
Item #16B9
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,200. TO
COMPENSATE FOR THE ADDITION TO CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT #98-2905 WITH BETTER ROADS, INC. TO
MODIFY THE RADIO ROAD MEDIAN OPENING BETWEEN
INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND COMMERCIAL
BOULEVARD
Item # 16B 10
RESOLUTION 2002-363 AUTHORIZING A SPEED LIMIT
REDUCTION FROM THIRTY MILES PER HOUR (30 MPH) TO
TWENTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH) ON 13TM STREET
SOUTHWEST FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO 16TM
AVENUE SOUTHWEST AT A COST OF $100. FOR THE
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS
Item #16B 11
RESOLUTION 2002-364 APPROVING THE EXPENDITURES OF
FUNDS FOR ACTIVITIES AND INCENTIVE PRIZES FOR
CHILDREN ACTIVE IN THE ANNUAL WALK OUR CHILDREN
TO SCHOOL DAY- NOT TO EXCEED $2,000.
Item # 16C 1
Page 271
September 1 O, 2002
2002/2003 WASTE TIRE GRANT OFFER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$38,171. AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE SOLID WASTE
DIRECTOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT
Item #16C2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE
WATER DISTRIBUTION TELEMETRY PROJECT TO THE
FACILITY REHABILITATION PROJECT FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF AN ADDITIONAL VARIABLE
FREQUENCY DRIVE AT THE RAW WATER BOOSTER
STATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,600
Item #16C3
BID #02-3395 FOR "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY
& SCHEDULED SEWAGE HAULING" AWARDED TO J.C.
DRAINFIELD FOR THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $150,000
Item #16C4
CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS TO FLORIDA POWER &
LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC
UTILITY FACILITIES ACROSS THE COUNTY OWNED
PROPERTY NORTH OF THE NAPLES LANDFILL AT NO
FINANCIAL IMPACT UPON THE COUNTY
Item #16C5
BID NO. 02-3404R FOR BACKFLOW PREVENTION
ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS IN THE
Page 272
September 1 O, 2002
ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $361,517 - AWARDED TO HUGHES
SUPPLY, INC.
Item # 16C6 - Deleted
Item #16C7
EXECUTION OF TWO UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENTS
FOR THE LOCATION OF THE 30" RAW WATER MAIN IN THE
TAMIAMI WELLFIELD IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,650
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2002-365 AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR COOLING TOWER DEDUCT
METERS, AND APPROVE AGREEMENT PROCEDURES, AND
APPLICATION, FOR THE COOLING TOWER DEDUCT
METERS
Item #16C9
AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT LIVINGSTON ROAD UTILITY
FACILITIES PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH LONG
BAY PARTNERS LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $883,825
Item # 16C 10
WAIVE FORMAL COMPETITION AND APPROVE THE
PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF FOUR (4) ALLEN-
Page 273
September 10, 2002
BRADLEY VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES (VFD'S) - AT
THE SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY,
FOR AN INSTALLED PRICE OF $82,818.
Item #16C 11
WORK ORDER TO YOUNGQUIST BROTHERS INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $649,500 TO FUND AND COMPLETE THE
REPAIR OF DEEP INJECTION WELL #2 AT THE NORTH
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Item #16C12
AWARD CONTRACT TO DIVERSIFIED DRILLING
CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $745,983 FOR SOUTH
COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT TEST
WELL CONSTRUCTION, BID NO. 02-3403
Item #16C13
UTILITY EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT WITH PELICAN
MARSH FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RECLAIMED
WATER MAIN ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD EXTENSION AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$2,170. - WITH STIPULATIONS
Item # 16C 14
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 FOR ADVANCING
THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO THE
FUTURE WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES
Page 274
September 10, 2002
Item # 16C 15
BUDGET AMENDMENT 1N THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 TO
FUND UNANTICIPATED EXPENSES WITHIN THE WATER
DEPARTMENT
Item #16C 16 - Moved to Item #1 OK
Item # 16D 1
LIBRARY CURRENT YEAR ACTION PLAN AND LIBRARY
STATE AID APPLICATION (FY 03 GRANT REVENUE OF
$350,000)
Item # 16E 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE BUILDING
MAINTENANCE SPECIAL SERVICE REVENUES TOTALING
$30,000. FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES
IN FISCAL YEAR 2002
Item #16E2
CONTRACT NO. 01-3290 FOR "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES" AWARDED TO THE FOLLOWING
FIRMS; AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, PITMAN
HARTENSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, TBE GROUP AND JOHNSON
ENGINEERING FOR AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$1,000,000
Page 275
September 1 O, 2002
Item #16E3
RFP#02-3354 COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY MANAGEMENT
AND RETROFIT SERVICES AWARDED TO SIEMENS
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Item #16E4
RFP#02-3363 AWARDED TO DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER, INC. D.B.A. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
SERVICES OF SW FLORIDA FOR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE
SERVICES, AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $28,000.
Item # 16E5
BID #02-3380 "PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF FLOOR
COVERING" AWARDED TO WAYNE WILES CARPETS, INC.
Item # 16F 1
SECURE AN ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BETWEEN
OMNIPOINT HOLDINGS, INC., AND CLEARSHOT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
FLAGPOLE TYPE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT THE
GOLDEN GATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
Item #16F2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING $505,500 FROM
EMS AMBULANCE FEES AND $86,800 FROM RESERVES FOR
Page 276
September 1 O, 2002
CONTINGENCIES TO EMS PERSONAL SERVICES BUDGET
TO MEET FY 02 PAYROLL EXPENSES
Item #16F3
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND DR.
MARTA U. COBURN, M.D., FLORIDA DISTRICT TWENTY
MEDICAL EXAMINER D/B/A DISTRICT TWENTY MEDICAL
EXAMINER, INC. TO PROVIDE MEDICAL EXAMINER
SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003 AT A COST OF $748,500
Item # 16G 1
SUMMARY OF CONSENT AND EMERGENCY ITEMS
APPROVED BY THE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE
BOARDS SUMMER RECESS, JULY 31, 2002 - SEPTEMBER 10,
2002
Item # 16G 1 (1)
BUDGET AMENDMENT #02-443 - TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES
Item #16G1(2)
WORK ORDER VC-02-01 AWARDED TO VARIAN
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
GULF SHORE BEACH ACCESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,930
Item #16G1(3)
Page 277
September 1 O, 2002
CONTRACT BETWEEN BCC AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING
FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC., D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR HOME CARE FOR THE
ELDERLY CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$89,586.
Item # 16G 1 (4)
CONTRACT BETWEEN BCC AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING
FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC., D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR COMMUNITY CARE FOR
THE ELDERLY CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$614,132.
Item # 16G 1 (5)
CONTRACT BETWEEN BCC AND AREA AGENCY ON AGING
FOR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA INC., D/B/A SENIOR SOLUTIONS
OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
INITIATIVE CONTINUATION GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$101,546.
Item #16G1(6)
WORK ORDER #ME-FT-02-4 FOR WATER SYSTEM
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AT COLLIER COUNTY
WATER FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $114,966
Item #16G1(7)
Page 278
September 1 O, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT #02-463 FOR IMMOKALEE
REDEVELOPMENT AREA (FUND 186)
Item #16G1(8)
RESOLUTION 2002-366, LIMITATION ON THROUGH TRUCK
TRAFFIC ON THIRTEENTH STREET SW 1N GOLDEN GATE
ESTATES AT A COST OF $200 FOR THE NECESSARY SIGNS
Item #16G1(9)
BID# 02-3401 FOR PARKING LOT SEAL COATING AND
RESTRIPING AT SIX PARK LOCATIONS AWARDED TO
ASPHALTECH, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,303.
Item #16Gl(10)
WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMPETITION AND
AUTHORIZE PUBLIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GROUP,
INC., (PRMG) TO CONDUCT RATE STUDIES IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $60,000; AND APPROVE
NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16Gl(11)
AWARD CONTRACTS TO TRISEP CORPORATION AND FILM
TEC CORP. SUPPLY REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANES TO
THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT
PLANT 8-MGD REVERSE OSMOSIS EXPANSION AND
COUNTY WATER PLANTS, BID NO. 02-3400
Page 279
September 10, 2002
Item #16G1(12)
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER $73,000. FROM GAS
TAX RESERVES TO "FAST TRACK" THE SURVEY PORTION
OF THE FOUR-LANE DESIGN IMPROVEMENT TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) FROM GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD
TO IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 65061
Item #16G1(13)
GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE DIVISION OF
HISTORICAL RESOURCES FOR THE PHASE I RESTORATION
OF THE ROBERTS RANCH HOME AT THE IMMOKALEE
PIONEER MUSEUM (FY03 GRANT REVENUE OF $92,028.)
Item #16G1(14)
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE MOTOR POOL CAPITAL
RECOVERY FUND (522) TO RECOGNIZE INSURANCE
REVENUES FOR CURRENT YEAR REIMBURSEMENTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $17,900.
Item #16G2
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT - BUDGET AMENDMENT
#02-500, #02-502, #02-503, #02-504
Item # 16I 1
Page 280
September 1 O, 2002
REQUEST PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 FOR
COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO ATTEND NAACP FREEDOM
FUND BANQUET TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 19, 2002
Item #1612
REQUEST PAYMENT IN THE AMOIYNT OF $45 FOR
COMMISSIONER CARTER TO ATTEND 2002 EXCELLENCE IN
INDUSTRY AWARDS LUNCHEON TO BE HELD ON
SEPTEMBER, 18, 2002
Item # 16J 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILES AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 281
FOR BOARD ACTION:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
September 10, 2002
1. Disbursements for July 12, 2002 - July 19, 2002
2. Disbursements for July 27, 2002 through August 2, 2002
3. Disbursements for August 3, 2002 through August 9, 2002.
4. Disbursements for August 17, 2002 through August 23, 2002.
Districts:
Medittera South Community Development District - Minutes of
Unaudited Financial Statements and Minutes of May 22, 2002.
o
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Unaudited Financial
Statement and Minutes of January 14, 2002.
Key Marco Community Devleopment District - Minutes of May 30, 2002
and Proposed budget for fiscal year 2003.
o
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of June 26,
2002 and Unaudited Statement dated May 31, 2002.
Port of the Islands Community Improvement District - Minutes of June
21, 2002 and Financial Report June 21, 2002.
Minutes:
Collier County Planning Commission_- Agenda for August 1, 2002,
Agenda for July 18, 2002
o
Health and Human Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 16,
2002, Minutes of May 16, 2002, Agenda for April 18, 2002, Minutes of
April 18, 2002, Notice and Agenda for April 10, 2002, Minutes of April
10, 2002, Agenda for March 21, 2002, Minutes of March 21, 2002, Draft
Agenda for February 21, 2002, Minutes of January 17, 2002 and
February 21, 2002, Agenda for January 17, 2002, Minutes of January 17,
2002.
Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board - Agenda for July 17, 2002
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee - Agenda for July 10,
2002
H:Data/Format
Se
10.
11.
Other:
1)
2)
Community Character Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Agenda for
May 22, 2002, Minutes of May 22, 2002.
Pelican Bay MSTU Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 11, 2002
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board- Minutes of April 25,
2002; Minutes of May 23, 2002, Minutes of February 28, 2002, Minutes
of March 28, 2002.
Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda
for July 17, 2002; Minutes of June 19, 2002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Agenda for July 1, 2002
Minutes of July 1, 2002.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for July 25,
2002, Agenda for August 22, 2002 and Minutes of July 25, 2002.
Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2002.
Clerk of the Circuit Court for Collier County - Payment of Publication Notice
for Unclaimed Funds.
Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - Errors and Insolvencies List
for Tax Year 2001.
3) Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector - FY 2001-2002 Budget
H:Data/Format
September 1 O, 2002
Item #16K1
AGREEMENT FOR A CIVIL TRAFFIC INFRACTION HEARING
OFFICER GRANT-IN-AID FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR (FY03 GRANT REVENUE OF $6000)
Item # 16K2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM
GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUDGET
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2002-367 RE BORROWING OF AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $1,800,000 FROM THE POOLED
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT
TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMISSION IN
ORDER TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILE DATA
INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MOBILE DATA PROJECT, INCLUDING THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED
Item # 16K4
RESOLUTION 2002-368 RE BORROWING OF AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $1,400,000 FROM THE POOLED
COMMERCIAL PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT
Page 282
September 1 O, 2002
TO THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMISSION IN
ORDER TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AND
SERVICES NECESSARY TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL TOWER
SITES TO THE COUNTY'S 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM,
INCLUDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES
INCURRED
Item #16K5
RESOLUTION 2002-369 RE BORROWING AN AMOUNT NOT
TO EXCEED $2,750,000 FROM THE POOLED COMMERCIAL
PAPER LOAN PROGRAM OF THE FLORIDA LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE
LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO
FINANCE THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LAND WITHIN
THE COUNTY ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE LELY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING
THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED
Item #16K6
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN
THE DETAILED REPORT OF JULY 20, 2002 THROUGH JULY
31, 2002 OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item #16K7
Page 283
September 10, 2002
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN
THE DETAILED REPORT OF JULY 1, 2002 THROUGH JULY
19, 2002 OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES
Item #16K8
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN
THE DETAILED REPORT OF AUGUST 1, 2002 THROUGH
AUGUST 16, 2002 OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE
EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID
PURCHASES
Item # 16L 1
FINAL JUDGEMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 219 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. CARY B. COLLINS, ET UX.., ETAL
(IMMOKALEE PHASE 1 PROJECT)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE
SUM OF $4,300 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
Item #16L2
SETTLEMENT IN THE CASE STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
MARK STEVEN VOGEL, CASE NO. 02-835-CC, FOR $7,200
Item #16L3
Page 284
September 1 O, 2002
PAY THE REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
1NCURRED BY A COUNTY EMPLOYEE IN CONNECTION
WITH THE MARCH 7, 1999 SULFURIC ACID SPILL AT THE
NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
AS HE HAS SUCCESSFULLY COMPETED PRETRIAL
DIVERSION AND THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM HAVE BEEN
DISMISSED- IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,784.07
Item #16L4
FINAL JUDGEMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 361 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. TONY GUARINO, III ETAL., (GOLDEN
GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT, NO. 63041)- STAFF TO
DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $4,000 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE
COURT UPON ENTRY OF THE STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGEMENT
Item #17A
STAFF TO SUBMIT CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL
PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORT (CAPER) AS
REQUIRED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM YEAR
2001-2002
Item # 17B
RESOLUTION 2002-370 RE PETITION AVPLAT2002-AR2586
TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S
Page 285
September 1 O, 2002
AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE 20
FOOT WIDE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT LOCATED ALONG
THE REAR OF LOT 88, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
"MOONLAKE UNIT 5" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 23,
PAGES 79 THROUGH 80, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, LOCATED IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2002-371 RE PETITION VA-2001-AR-1710 GREG
WHITE, OF FINISHING BY BAKER, REPRESENTING JOSE
AND CARLA ROCHA, REQUESTING A 2.5-FOOT AFTER-THE-
FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 12-FOOT SIDE
YARD SETBACK TO 9.5 FEET FOR A SWIMMING POOL AND
ENCLOSURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 SAN MATEO
DRIVE, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 41, SOUTHPORT ON
THE BAY UNIT 1, PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 51-53, AS
RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST
Item #17D
RESOLUTION 2002-372 RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2044,
RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH, OF GOODLETTE COLEMAN &
JOHNSON, P.A., REPRESENTING CHRIS COX, REQUESTING
A 30-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 40-FOOT
REAR YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4790 RADIO ROAD, IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP
50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Page 286
September 1 O, 2002
Item # 17E
RESOLUTION 2002-373 RE PETITION AVROW2001-AR1578 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF A ROAD RIGHT
OF WAY FOR COCOHATCHEE STREET WHICH WAS
DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY BY THE PLAT OF "PALM
RIVER SHORES", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 27,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED 1N SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair- Time: 6:15 p.m.
ltt~st/as to Ch,~lr~an~(
z nese minutes approved by the Board on
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAMES~~
COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
Page 287
As presented
or as corrected
September 1 O, 2002
STATE OF FLORIDA)
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
I, Lisa Holton, Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that the
foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as
stated in the caption is a tree record of my Stenograph notes taken at
said proceedings.
Dated this 26th day of September, 2002.
Lisa Holton,Professional Reporter
Page 288