BCC Minutes 10/08/2002 ROctober 8, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 8, 2002
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
ALSO PRESENT:
CHAIRMAN: Jim Coletta
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Tom Henning
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
October 8, 2002
9:00 a.m.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY
THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
1
October 8, 2002
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (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 AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Josh Perez, New Hope Ministries
e
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. September 5, 2002 - Landscape Workshop
C. September 5, 2002 - Special-Budget Hearing
D. September 6, 2002 - GIS Workshop
E. September 9, 2002 - Special-Pelican Bay Meeting
F. September 10, 2002 - Regular Meeting
G. September 17, 2002 - Impact Fee Workshop
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
Proclamation for Weed and Seed Program in Immokalee. To be accepted by
Will Daniels, U.S. Department o£Justice-Tampa District; Sheriff Don
Hunter; Commissioner James N. Coletta; Terrance Sumter, Resident Terrie
Aviles, Temporary Chairperson-Executive Committee/Seeding Chair
Lieutenant Mark Baker, Temporary Vice-Chairperson-Executive
2
October 8, 2002
Ae
Committee/Weeding Chair Corporal Martha Bucholtz, Temporary
Secretary-Executive Committee.
Be
Ce
De
Fe
Ge
Proclamation for Naples Players Day. To be accepted by Dolores Gamble,
John Sorey, President, Jim Rideoutte, Executive Director and Ted Tobye,
Chairman on the 50th Anniversary Committee.
Proclamation for Lights on After School. To be accepted by Susan
Luenberger, President and Linda Flewelling, Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the Community Foundation.
Proclamation to recognize October as National Arts and Humanities Month
in Collier County. To be accepted by Joy Lelonek, Executive Director of the
United Arts Council; William R. O'Neill, President and George Lange,
Chairman of Collier County Cultural Plan.
Proclamation to recognize October as Brain Injury Awareness Month. To
be accepted by Lisa A. Phipps.
Proclamation to designate October 6 - 12, 2002 as National 4-H Week. To
be accepted by Brooke Haas, County Council President.
Proclamation to recognize October 8, 2002 as NAACP Freedom Fund Day.
To be accepted by LaVerne Franklin, President of the NAACP, Collier
County Branch.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition ST-2194 continued from the September 10, 2002 BCC Meeting.
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 a 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
3
October 8, 2002
CJ
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.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members Petition PUDA-02-
AR-2098, Mr. Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole, Montes and Associates,
Inc., representing Benderson Development Company, requesting a rezone
from "PUD" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Lawmetka
Plaza for property located on the Northwest comer of Wiggins Pass Road
(CR 888) and US-41, in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 34 acres.
To obtain Board approval of local amendments to the Florida Fire
Prevention Code by adopting an Ordinance and directing staff to complete
the process to make the amendments effective.
e
0
Amendment to the Emergency Management Ordinance expanding the
succession of authority to include all County Commissioners, the County
Clerk of Courts and the Deputy County Manager.
El*
Petition PUD-2001-AR-1404 Dwight Nadeau of RWA Inc., representing
Conquest Development USA, L.C., requesting an amendment to the Silver
Lakes PUD to allow modification to the Land Use Distribution Table of the
PUD. The subject property is located on the East side of Collier Boulevard
approximately one and three quarter miles South of Tamiami Trail East and
Collier Boulevard Intersection in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 146 acres.
Fe
To approve County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 66-116, as
amended by the County Attorney, creating stricter enforcement of Public
Swimming Pools currently under Florida Statutes.
Ge
Adoption of a Resolution amending the Road Impact Fee Rate Schedule,
which is Schedule One of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the Collier County
Code of Law and Ordinances, the same being the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
4
October 8, 2002
Ae
Be
Ce
Appointment ~f member to the Affordable Housing Commission.
Appointment of member to the Workforce Housing Advisory Committee.
Appointment of member to the Historical/Archaeological Preservation
Board.
De
Appointment of members to the Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory
Committee.
Ee
Resolution opposing the Acquisition of the Marco Island/Marco Shores
Utility System by the Florida Water Services Authority. (Commissioner
Fiala)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Be
Staff request the Collier County Board of County Commissioners' discuss,
at a Public Hearing, the proposed contents of an Ordinance providing for the
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and indicate to staff whether
to prepare the Ordinance for advertising and adoption upon the passage of
the November 5, 2002 General Election Ballot. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
Recommendation to approve a Resolution superseding Resolution No. 01-
410 establishing the Schedule of User Fees for Ground and Air Ambulance
Transport and Related Services. (John Dunnuck, Administrator, Public
Services)
Ce
Adopt a Resolution establishing and implementing beach parking fees and
rules and repealing Resolution No. 99-240. (John Dunnuck, Administrator,
Public Services)
11.
This item continued from the September 24, 2002 BCC Agenda.
Approve amended Median Landscaping Agreement between Collier County
and the Vineyards Development Corporation in the amount of $80,000.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
5
October 8, 2002
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Request of the County Attomey that the Board of County Commissioners
enter into a Closed Attorney-Client Executive Session pursuant to Section
286.011 (8), Fla. Stat., at the October 22, 2002 regularly scheduled Board of
County Commissioners Meeting for purposes of advice/discussing
Settlement Negotiations and Strategy related to Litigation Expenditures in
Aquaport v. Collier County, Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Be
Resolution authorizing Commission District Newsletters, Informative
Notices, Mailers or Other Informational Sites or Transmittals.
13. 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
Approve 2003 Tourism Agreement with Marco Island Historical
Society for Tourist Development Special Museum Grant of $25,000.
e
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Stonebridge Unit Four".
e
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for "Stonebridge Unit Five".
6
October 8, 2002
®
e
10.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-198 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-199 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-045 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Patrick and Erin Rose regarding violation to
Ordinance No. 91-102, Sections 3.9.3 as amended of the Collier
County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2000-035 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. I.E.C. Rentals, Inc. and Ivy Jean Nebus regarding
violation to Ordinance No. 91-102, Sections
1.5.6,2.1.11,2.1.15,2.2.16.2.1,3.3.9, as amended of the Collier County
Land Development Code and Ordinance No. 99-51, Sections 6,7,8,9
of the Collier County Weeds and Litter Ordinance.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-200 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-175 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-181 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
7
October 8, 2002
11.
12.
13.
14.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-182 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-196 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-197 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Palm River Estates regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
Approve renewing temporary parking and staging area easements
between CPOC Development Company, L.L.C., and Collier County
for one year's continued use of land located South of Development
Services during construction of the parking deck, at a cost not to
exceed $53,549.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve Work
Order #CT-02-02 to Chris-Tel Company in the amount of $51,750.00
for the construction of the median landscape planter on the Haldeman
Creek Bridge on Bayshore Drive.
Approve Selection Committee ranking of three firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 02-3398 "Professional Design and Related
Services for Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to
Immokalee Road", Project No. 65061.
Board approval to utilize insurance proceeds to purchase two
reconditioned transit buses and other support equipment in an amount
not to exceed $91,853.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
8
October 8, 2002
De
Accept Water and Sewer Utilities provided in accordance with
Developer Contribution Agreement with LB/P Groveway, LLC in the
amount of $223,496.25.
PUBLIC SERVICES
me
Approve an Agreement with the District School Board of Collier
County for transporting school age Summer Camp Participants at an
estimated cost of $60,000.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
To authorize staff to reject Bid #02-3410 "Purchase of Limerock and
Fill Materials".
FJ
e
Approval to purchase Property, Casualty and Workers' Compensation
Insurance and related services for FY2003.
EMERGENCY SERVICES
G. COUNTY MANAGER
H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Je
Ke
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1. Commissioners' request for approval for payment to attend functions
serving a valid public purpose.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1. Miscellaneous Items to be Filed for Record as Directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
Detailed Report of Open Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
Purchases.
9
October 8, 2002
L. COUNTY ATTORNEY
17.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 182 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Lazaro Herrera, et al, Case No. 02-2211-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
e
Recommendation that the Board pay the reasonable attorney's fees
and costs incurred by two (2) County employees in connection with
the March 7, 1999 Sulfuric Acid Spill at the North County Regional
Water Treatment Plant as they have successfully completed pretrial
diversion and the charges against them have been dismissed and that
the Board approve any necessary Budget Amendment.
Approve the Agreed Order awarding Supplemental Attorney's Fees
relative to Easement Acquisitions of Parcels 170 and 770 in the
Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Fred R. Sutherland, individually
and D/B/A Sutherland Paint Horses, et al, Case No. 01-0756-CA
(Livingston Road Project No. 60071) in the amount of $273.00.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 175B in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v.
Michael $. Combs, et al, Case No. 02-2315-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Acquisition of
Parcel 210 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Efrain Arce, et al,
(Immokalee Phase 1 Project).
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
lO
October 8, 2002
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.
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members Petition PUDA-2002-
AR-2559, Dwight Nadeau of RWA Inc., representing Richard Davenport,
requesting an amendment to the "Hibiscus Village" Planned Unit
Development (PUD), for the purpose of revising Table I, Residential
Development Standards to add lot area and width standards for the multi-
family land use in order to facilitate the opportunity to subdivide the multi-
family tract associated with the attached townhouse residences for fee
simple conveyance for property located on the West side of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) and approximately one and a quarter miles South of
Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members Petition PUDZ-01-AR-
1331, R. Bruce Anderson of Young, VanAssenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson
and Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Martin
Adler, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned
Unit Development to be known as the ASGM Business Center PUD
allowing a business park for property located on the East side of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) and approximately one-half mile South of Tamiami
Trail (US 41) in Section 10, Township 41 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members An Ordinance
amending Ordinance 02-35 to correct a Scrivcner's Error in Section 3.5 -
Development Standards of the Winding Cypress PUD that is located on thc
East side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 26 and 35, Township 50
South, Range 26 East and Sections 2 and 3, Township 51 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
11
October 8, 2002
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
12
October 8, 2002
October 8, 2002
Item #2A
REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you all rise, please, for the
invocation by Josh Perez of the New Hope Ministry.
MR. PEREZ: Let us pray. Father, this morning we come before
you and we give you great praise, and bless your holy name this
morning, God. Thank you Lord for this day that you have made.
Father, we just ask this morning that you would give us direction,
Father. We need your direction, Father. We need your instruction.
God, we ask that you would fill us up with the knowledge of
your will and your wisdom and your understanding, and Father,
everything that will be accomplished today, everything that will be
done today, everything that will be spoke today, Father, there be
praise in us. Lord, we give you praise, we give you glory, we give
you all the honor, in Jesus's name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning to you,
Commissioner Carter, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Coyle,
and Commissioner Henning.
And to the county manager, good morning to you, sir. And
would you like to start off?.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Happy birthday to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. We have a couple
of changes today, and we have a couple of changes to the change
sheet, but we'll go -- we'll get through those.
The first item is the item 8E, which was, the Silver Lakes PUD
Page 2
October 8, 2002
is withdrawn at the petitioner's request.
Item 1 OD is continued to October 22nd, and that's the approval
to amend the median landscape agreement between the county and
the Vineyards, and that's at staff's request. Again, 1 OD continued till
October 22nd.
We're going to add item 10E. We gave you that executive
summary yesterday. It's to approve a budget amendment for Wiggins
Pass emergency maintenance dredging engineer services in the
amount of $10,000, and that's at staff's request, so we're adding an
item 10E.
We're going to continue 16B3 to October 22nd, 2002, and that is
the board's approval to utilize insurance proceeds to purchase -- to
purchase two reconditioned transit buses, and we're making sure that
this isn't a price that's too good to be true. So we're going till
October 22nd with that to make sure we have a good inspection of
those vehicles.
We're going -- this was a request, and it's changed. We're no
longer going to move 17B to 8H at Commissioner Fiala's request.
She has a statement she would like to read. But before she does that,
I need to read the note that's in that paragraph note. The following
must be read into the record to correct the executive summary for
item 17B. Planning services staff's recommendations: Staff
recommends approval of petition PUDZ-01-AR-1331 subject to the
stipulations contained in the PUD document and as otherwise
described by the ordinance of adoption and exhibits thereto.
And then of note, but it's not in your packet, I just wanted to
make sure that we keep all things consistent, we continued item
16B 16 until this meeting. We need to further continue it for another
meeting, till October 22nd, and that has to do with the North 11 th
Street extension project at the intersection of State Road 29.
This has everything to do with utilities to Robert's Ranch, okay,
Page 3
October 8, 2002
and we're trying to decipher that process out right now. It's in or it's
out, and staffs working with that diligently right now, so we need to
continue it one more meeting until the 22nd. I just want to make sure
we kept everything consistent, because it should have been in your
packet but wasn't. We're going to continue it for one more meeting.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Is there any speakers on any items on the consent agenda or the
summary agenda?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll start with
Commissioner Henning for disclosures. And as far as the summary
agenda goes, any changes to the agenda?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Neither. No disclosures, no
changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Myself, the same.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I -- on 17B, I've spoken with
the -- with all -- with all sides of this issue, and I would like
something added to the record, if I may, and that is, to be added to
17B, there shall be no interconnection to properties to the south. And
this agrees -- both parties agree to that. I've met with both of them,
and so that's my disclosure as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good work, Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no disclosures. I have no
changes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Do I hear approval of the --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
Page 4
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETINC~
October 8~ 2002
Withdraw Item 8E: Petition PUD-2001-AR-1404 Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc.,
representing Conquest Development USA, L.C., requesting an amendment to the
Silver Lakes PUD to allow modification to the Land Use Distribution Table of the
PUD. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard
approximately one and three quarter miles south of Tamiami Trail East and Collier
Boulevard intersection in Section 10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. This property consists of 146 acres. (Petitioner request.)
Continue Item 10 D to the October 22, 2002 BCC Meetin.cl: Approve amended
Median Landscaping Agreement between Collier County and the Vineyards
Development Corporation in the amount of $80,000. (Staff's request.)
Add Item 10E: Approve budget amendment for Wiggins Pass emergency
maintenance dredging engineering services in the amount of $10,000. (Staff
request.)
Continue Item 16(B) 3 to the October 22, 2002 BCC Meetinq- Board approval to
utilize insurance proceeds to purchase two reconditioned transit buses and other
support equipment in an amount not to exceed $91,853. (Staff request.)
Move Item 17 B to 8 H: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and
ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-01-AR-
1331, R. Bruce Anderson of Young, VanAssenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson and
Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, representing Martin Adler,
requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development to be known as the ASGM Business Center PUD allowing a business
park for property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and
approximately one-half mile South of Tamiami Trail (US 41) in Section 10,
Township 41 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Fiala)
NOTE: The followinq must be read into the record to correct the Executive';
Summary for item 17R: Planning Services Staff Recommendation: Staff
recommends approval of Petition PUDZ-01-AR-1331 subject to the stipulations
contained in the PUD document and as otherwise described by the Ordinance of
Adoption and Exhibits thereto.
Note: Item 16 B 16 Continued from the September 24, 2002 BCC Meetinq and i,-
further continued to the October 22, 2002 BCC Meetinq: Approve Change
Order with APAC, Inc. for roadway improvements on the North 11th Street
Extension Project at the Intersection of State Road 29 in the amount of $31,733.60,
Project #62021.
October 8, 2002
Item #2B-G
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, WORKSHOP MEETING;
SEPTEMBER 5 BUDGET MEETING; SEPTEMBER 6
WORKSHOP MEETING; SEPTEMBER 9 PELICAN BAY
SPECIAL MEETING; SEPTEMBER 10, REGULAR MEETING;
AND SEPTEMBER 17 WORKSHOP MEETING- APPROVED AS
PR F, SF, NTF, D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And for items B through G?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a move for approval
for items B through G from Commissioner Caner, second from
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 8, 2002 AS WEED
AND SF, ED DAY- ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, we'll go on to the
proclamation, and I believe I have the honor of doing the first one.
This is a proclamation for Weed and Seed Program in
Immokalee to be accepted by Will Daniels from the U.S. Department
Page 6
October 8, 2002
of Justice in the Tamp -- the Tampa district; Sheriff Don Hunter, if
he's here, or one of his appointees; myself, I'm handing it out, so I
can't accept it; Terrance Sumter, resident; Tara (sic) Aviles,
temporary chairperson-executive committee of the Seed chair;
Lieutenant Mark Baker, temporary vice-chair exec -- and then -- of
the committee for weeding and -- chair; Corporal Martha Bucholtz,
temporary secretary-executive committee.
Would they please come up? Quite an impressive crowd. This
is quite an undertaking for some period of time in Immokalee, and
it's just starting to take over and move forward. It's a grass-roots
movement. We thank you so much for being here today. Please, right out front.
MR. STIESS: I'm Lieutenant Daniels (sic). I'm not the sheriff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is your name, Mr. Stiess?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Bill, I ask you to behave and
stand still for a moment.
Whereas, the United States Department of Justice has
recognized the Immokalee Community as an official Weed and Seed
site; and, whereas, Operation Weed and Seed is a national program
through the United States Department of Justice; and, whereas,
Operation Weed and Seed is a community-based strategy that
addresses four critical elements; law enforcement, community
policing, preventative/intervention treatment and neighborhood
restoration; and, whereas, Operation Weed and Seed empowers
community residents to assist in identifying and solving problems in
their neighborhoods; and, whereas, Operation Weed and Seed is
designed to weed out violent crime and drug use from select
neighborhoods and to help prevent crime from reoccurring by
seeding those sites with a wide variety of resources; and, whereas,
Operation Weed and Seed will establish safe haven, neighborhood
watch programs and police activity leagues in Immokalee; and,
Page 7
October 8, 2002
whereas, Operation Weed and Seed translates neighborhood's needs
into a comprehensive five-year strategy plan; and, whereas, the
prevention/intervention and treatment strategy of Weed and Seed
hopes to increase the number of quality jobs for all people in the
designated area and also access to drug and alcohol treatment
programs; and, whereas, the neighborhood restoration strategy of
Weed and Seed coalition during its first year is to reduce illegal
dumping, rehabilitate older houses and substandard lots and to
improve the conditions of streets and sidewalks for safer pathways
and walkways for children and families; and, whereas, the
Immokalee Weed and Seed coalition is applying for funds to
implement the Weed and Seed strategy but has not yet received
funds; and therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that the county fully
supports this community initiative and places a high priority on the
project's success. The county will use its human resources to
research and pursue additional funding sources to contribute to
support Weed and Seed programs in the future. The county hereby
designates October 8, 2002, as Weed and Seed Day.
Done and ordered this, the 8th day of October, 2002, James N.
Coletta, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 8
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
What we need you to do is turn around and face the camera.
And this is that photo opportunity.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Better take another.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: One more. Oh, thank God you're
here. Get up here. Get right in the middle. There we go.
Make sure a copy of that gets to the Immokalee bulletin. Thank
you.
And Bill, would you go ahead.
MR. STIESS: Good morning. I'm Bill Stiess, chief of
operations. I'm here on behalf of Sheriff Hunter this morning. I'd
just like to thank the commission for their recognition of the sheriffs
office and the Weed and Seed Program.
This is really a unique opportunity for us. To the best of my
knowledge -- and Lieutenant Baker, you can correct me -- I think this
is the first time the justice department went into a rural area with this
type of project. They've been very successful in urban areas, and so
we're right on the cutting edge with this, and it fits into all of our
programs, all the things that we'd like to do and attempt to
accomplish with community-oriented policing. And we're very
excited about it. I'd like to take some credit for it, but Lieutenant
Baker and Corporal Bucholtz really have done a good job for us.
So on behalf of the sheriff, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We really do appreciate these
grass-roots movements. They're what makes it all work.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 12, 2002 AS
Page 9
October 8, 2002
NAPI,ES PI,AYERS DAY- ADOPTED
Commissioner Coyle, you're next with 4B.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This proclamation for the Naples
Players is going to be accepted by John Sorey, president; Jim
Rideoutte, executive director; Ted Tobey, chairman of the 50th
Anniversary Committee, and Delores Gamble. I presume they're all
here. Why don't you come forward, please.
If you'll turn around and face that direction.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right over here in the middle,
James, in the middle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, we're harmless. Well, I don't
know about these other four.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh.
MS. GAMBLE: That's not what I've heard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, the Naples Players,
Incorporated, was founded in 1953; and, whereas, the current 2002,
2003 schedule of plays represents its 50th anniversary season; and,
whereas, over those 50 years, with the support of the Collier County
community, the Naples Players has grown from one yearly
performance at a high school auditorium to over 160 performances
on two stages at its home, the Sugden Community Theater; and,
whereas, the Naples Players affirms its mission of providing
high-quality live-theater offerings by vOlunteer amateur performers;
and, whereas, on October the 12th, 2002, the Naples Players will
begin a series of special events to celebrate its 50th anniversary; now,
therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, that the 12th day of October, 2002, be
designated as Naples Players Day.
Done and ordered this 8th day of October, 2002, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta,
Page 10
October 8, 2002
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a move for approval by
Commissioner Carter, and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you need to mm around and
get a picture, photo-op here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if you'd like to say something,
by all means, take the microphone.
MR. SOREY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, County
Commissioners, on behalf of the Naples Players, we're delighted
concerning the support of the county. As you indicated, we are a
community theater that's volunteer-driven at affordable prices and
dedicated to providing its on-stage performance opportunities as well
as education.
One of the major efforts that we're working on now is what we
call kids act, and this is an opportunity for young people to learn
more about the performing arts.
Over the 50 years, over 250,000 individuals have had the
opportunity to see the various performances. And we're proud of
what we contribute to the quality of life of this county, and we
appreciate your support. Thank you.
Page 11
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nice tie.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: His name is John Sorey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the fashion comment was by
Commission Fiala.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 10, 2002 AS A
DAY TO ASSURE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS ACCESS TO A
SAFE FRIENDLY PLACE WHERE THE LIGHTS ARFJ ON
AFTFJR SCHOOIJ- ADOPTFJD
And we're going on to Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It
would be my privilege this morning to invite Mary George and Kim
Long to accept the Lights on After School proclamation. If both of
these ladies will come forward, stand right in front of the chairman,
turn around and face the cameras, we'll give TV Land a break this
morning.
Okay. Thank you.
Whereas, the citizens of Collier County stand firmly committed
to quality afterschool programs because they provide a safe, friendly
learning environment for our kids that boosts their academic
achievement, support working families by ensuring that their children
are safe and productive after the regular school day ends, build
stronger communities by involving our students, parents, business
leaders and adult volunteers in the lives of our young people and
encourage families to become more effective partners in their
children's education; and, whereas, the Community Foundation of
Page 12
October 8, 2002
Collier County has provided significant leadership in the area of
community involvement in the education and well-being of our
youth, grounded in the principle that quality afterschool programs are
a critical link to helping our children become successful adults; and,
whereas, the Lights on After School, a national celebration of the
afterschool programs on October 10th, promotes the critical
importance of quality afterschool programs in the lives of our
children, their families and their communities; now, therefore, be it
proclaimed that October 10th, 2002, be a day to assure that every
child has access to a safe, friendly place where the lights are on after
school.
Furthermore, this county enthusiastically endorses Lights on
After School and commits our community to engage in innovative
afterschool programs and activities that assure that children are safe
and productive when the school day ends.
Done and ordered this 8th day of October, 2002, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James A. -- N.
Coletta, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, a second by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need you to mm around, if you
Page 13
October 8, 2002
would, stand right there for just a second, face the camera. Thank you.
Commissioner Fiala, we're back to you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, we have words, words.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me. We're
going a little too fast.
MS. GEORGE: I'll be quick.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no. Take your time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And state your name.
MS. GEORGE: I'd like to thank you on behalf of the
afterschool partnership of which the community foundation is a part
of. We'd like to invite you on Thursday at 9:30 at the supervisor's of
elections office for a press conference where you'll hear more about
this. Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
record.
MS. GEORGE: I'm sorry.
the community foundation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
And your name, please, for the
My name is Mary George. I'm with
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Great organization.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It sure is.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Children, 25 percent of our
population, 100 percent of our future, and that's why these folks are
so important to us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER
AS NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH IN
COI,I.IF, R COl INTY - ADOPTED
Page 14
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you very much. I'd like
to invite Joy Lelonek, George Lange, and Bill O'Neill up, please.
We're going to be reading a proclamation for October as National
Arts and Humanities Month.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Got to be right there in the center
and face the cameras, folks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just stand right along here.
It's really my pleasure to read this, being a part of the United
Arts Council, and the efforts that they've -- that it's going to enrich
our whole county.
Whereas, the month of October is recognized as National Arts
and Humanities Month by thousands of arts and cultural
organizations, communities, and states across the nation, as well as
by the White House and Congress for several years; and, whereas,
arts and humanities enhance and enrich the lives of every American
and embody much of the accumulated wisdom, intellect, and
imagination of humankind; and, whereas, the arts education research
findings suggest the following: The arts help close the achievement
gap, especially among disadvantaged youth, the arts improve the
academic skills essentially for reading and language development,
the arts build strong mathematical stills, the arts advance the
motivation to learn, and the arts promote positive social
development; and, whereas the nonprofit arts industry of Collier
County also strengthens our economy by generating $125 to $175
million in economic activity annually, including 4,000 to 5,000
additional jobs created through secondary spending; and, whereas,
the United Arts Council of Collier County is the designated local arts
agency for Collier County focusing on the importance of all the arts
to our economy and quality of life, and serves as the umbrella
organization for the county establishing partnerships with education,
Page 15
October 8, 2002
political business and social leaders, artists, art organizations and
families; and, whereas, the United States conference of mayors
passed unanimously in June, 2002, a policy resolution to urge elected
officials to proclaim October as National Arts Humanities Month;
there -- now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, we do hereby proclaim October as National
Arts and Humanities Month in Collier County and call upon our
citizens to celebrate and promote the arts and culture in our county
and to specifically encourage the greater population of our residents
and visitors in programs and activities in the arts and humanities.
Done and ordered this 8th day of October. Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Carter.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
MR. O'NEILL: It's our privilege at United Arts Council to
support the cultural life of the county in arts, culture and its
performing organizations. It's particularly gratifying to be here
among friends this morning.
We work with the community foundation and the kaleidoscope
program, which is part of Lights on After School. The Naples
players is one of our constituent organizations, as are 45 to 60 other
organizations within the-- within Collier County.
With the assistance of the Collier County Government, we have
Page 16
October 8, 2002
been working for the last year to produce a cultural assessment and a
cultural vision for Collier County which will be unveiled here in this
room next week, and I do want to, again, express our appreciation for
that support and for the continuing support which you evidenced
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4E
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING OCTOBER AS BRAIN
INJIIRY AWARENESS MONTH- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to -- on 4E here, we
have one speaker; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jim Kramer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Mr. Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Good morning. Jim Kramer, for the record.
It's with great pleasure that I come and thank you for this
proclamation recognizing brain injuries as a significant problem. It
relates also to one of your items in the agenda later today about
public swimming pools, an area in which I have worked for the last
3 0 years.
One of the most significant parts of the classes I used to teach
was when we took the operators and the lifeguards to the
quadriplegic spinal injury, brain injury wards of the hospitals in the
area. Then the people who were taking care of those pools woke up
to the problems and the solutions.
Thank you for your recognition.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Page 17
October 8, 2002
And with that, we'll go to Commissioner Henning, who will
read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if I may ask Lisa Philips
(sic) and Alexis Davis to come up to the dais, please. Right up here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Dais?
MS. PHIPPS: It's Phipps.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You can come right up here and face
the audience.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Whereas, brain injury is the
leading cause of death of ages --persons of ages 44 and younger and
kills more than -- kills more Floridians age of 34 and younger than
all other diseases combined; and, whereas, the estimated 15,000 brain
injuries which physically and mentally impaired our residents occur
in the State of Florida each years; and, whereas, the Brain Injury
Association of Florida, in conjunction with the brain and spinal cord
injuries program, was organized to advocate on benefit of victims of
brain injury to provide a clearinghouse for information and resources
and to provide network for family support centers for survivors of
brain injury and their families; now, therefore, be it proclaimed by
the Board of Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that we
hereby proclaim October as Brain Injury Awareness Month.
Done and this -- ordered day -- this 8th day of October, 2002,
and signed by our chairman for the board, James Coletta.
Motion to approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 18
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If we can have you face the camera
there, we're going to get a picture.
Thank you. Would you like to say a couple words?
MS. PHIPPS: Yeah, I would, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Step right up to the microphone.
And if you'd be so kind as to state your name for the record.
MS. PHIPPS: Certainly. My name is Lisa Phipps. I'm the local
group support leader for the Naples TBI Support Group.
One and a half million Americans suffer TBI every year, and
more than 50,000 Americans die every year because of TBIs. We
have to make people aware of what they are, how they're caused, and
how to prevent them.
So thank you for recognizing this month as being Brain Injury
Awareness Month, and we look forward to your future support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4F
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 6- 12, 2002, AS
NATIONAI, 4-H WEF, K - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's my honor to read the next
proclamation for National 4-H Week.
Would Brooke Haas please come up to the front here, and she'll
be accepting it. Yes, please take a position up front here.
Page 19
October 8, 2002
Whereas, the goal of 4-H is to provide educational opportunities
for the youth and adult volunteers in Collier County in the area of
leadership, citizenship, personal development and practical skills;
and, whereas, these activities have resulted in learning experiences
and accomplishments that have received state and national
recognition; and, whereas, the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, feel this 4-H program
contributes to the overall development of our youth and strengthens
our community; and, whereas, the 4-H members receive inspiration
and guidance from interested parents, cooperative extension service
workers and staff volunteer adults and teen leaders and support from
many community organizations and businesses; and, whereas, 4-H
forms partnerships and collaborates with other youth-serving
agencies to reach a wide and diverse audience. And, therefore, be it
proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier
County, Florida, that the week of October 6th to 12th, 2002, be
designated as National 4-H Week, and all good citizens of Collier
County are urged to join this board in giving appropriate recognition
to the achievements of the 4-H Clubs of Collier County.
Done this -- and ordered this, the 8th day of October, 2002,
James Coletta, Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got a move for approval from
Commissioner Carter, second from Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 20
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
camera.
The ayes have it, 5-0.
If you could, and then face the
MS. HAAS: Good morning. I'm Brooke Haas, a senior at Gulf
Coast High School. I currently serve as the 4-H county council
president, and I also am a member of the outback neighbor's 4-H
Club.
On behalf of 4-H members, I would like to thank the
commission, county personnel, our extension agents, the United
Way, civic clubs, businesses, schools, the community foundation and
4-H volunteers for their commitment to youth development in 4-H.
Last year over 3,200 youth participated in 4-H through 4-H
clubs, school enrichment, special interest groups and through
collaborating youth servicing agencies. Over 200 adult volunteers
made this happen.
4-H emphasizes practical skills, public speaking, record keeping
and knowledge in animal science, citizenship and leadership, health
and safety, individual and family resources, and environmental
sciences.
Our teens excel in district and state competition and are actively
taking leadership roles for state events. This year three Collier teens
were elected to state office, six Collier adults were selected for the
Florida 4-H Hall of Fame, and we opened the 4-H Children's Garden.
I have been very honored to be involved in 4-H, at not only club
and county level, but at district, state and even national levels. I have
participated in things such as the national youth convocation where
we talked about youth development and the important aspects of it in
Washington, DC. I've also participated at Florida 4-H legislature and
Florida 4-H congress. I've raised club -- or I've raised hogs for the
club level and exhibited them at the fair as well.
Page 21
October 8, 2002
4-H helps us to learn to get -- and work together as a group,
making decisions, following through with our responsibilities and
serving the community. We have a lot of fun doing it.
With all the pressures on families today, youth programs are
more important than ever. We welcome new members and invite the
citizens of Collier County to join us in making a positive difference.
Again, thank you for your support.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, I look at that young lady
and I see my replacement. Very, very impressive.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, let's see. You've got two
years, right?
Item #4G
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 8, 2002 AS
NAACP FREEDOM FIIND DAY- ADOPTED
yOU.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners Fiala, we're back to
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's see. I'd like to invite LaVerne
Franklin up, please. And LaVerne, do you have anybody else that
you'd like to come up with you? MS. FRANKLIN: I'm it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I asked to do
this. I wanted to.
Whereas, the National Association of the Advancement of
Colored People Freedom Fund Branch, NAACP, will hold its 20th
freedom fund banquet and awards ceremony on Saturday, October
Page 22
October 8, 2002
19th, 2002, at the Elk's Lodge; and, whereas, Willy E. Gary, Esq.,
Senior Partner of Gary, Williams, Parenti, Finney, Lewis, McManus,
Watson and Sperando -- Sperando Law Firm will be the featured
speaker at the freedom fund banquet and awards ceremony; and,
whereas, proceeds of this event will be used to ensure that
economical, political, educational and social equality remain strong
within our community; and, whereas, the public is invited to attend
and share in this celebration of freedom for all; now, therefore, be it
proclaimed by the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, that October 19th, 2002, be designated as NAACP
Freedom Fund Day in Collier County, and urge all citizens to join me
in this worthwhile celebration.
Done and ordered this 8th day of October, 2002. Motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Henning.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
done.
The ayes have it, 5-0, of course.
Thank you for everything you've
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is a photo opportunity,
LaVeme. Come on back.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You stand right in the center,
LaVerne.
Page 23
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, right in the center. So you can
hide me a little. There you go.
Would you like to say a couple words?
MS. FRANKLIN: My name is LaVerne Franklin. I am the
president of the NAACP of Collier County, and I am honored today
to accept this proclamation.
We have worked hard in the NAACP since my tenure to
improve the quality of life for everyone in Collier County. And
thank you for recognizing us. We invite you to our banquet, because
this is a major fund raiser for the NAACP, and we will take those
funds and use it to help the community, and especially our children.
So thank you very much for this honor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. See you there.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Looking forward to it.
Before we go on to advertised public hearings, at the beginning
I neglected to ask David Weigel if he had anything to add to this
agenda today, and I apologize for that oversight.
MR. WEIGEL: No apology necessary and, no, things are just
fine. I have nothing more to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2002-422 RE PETITION ST-2194, MICHAEL
LANDY, P.E., OF LAND ENGINEERING, INC. REPRESENTING
A 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
Page 24
October 8, 2002
SITE ZONED C-3ST, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF US-41 AND CR-951 -
ADOPTED
Okay. We're moving on to 8A.
Good morning, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I have
-- I have nothing to add besides the previous meeting as far as
disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I met with the group that -- at the
point of petitioners -- get that right yet -- petitioners this week, and
was very impressed with the upgrades that they did on the project,
and I have no further questions of you, sir.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And rve also met with the
petitioners. Actually rve spoken with them a couple times.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I also met with the petitioners, and
rm very impressed with what's been -- with what took place.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have also met with petitioners on
two occasions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think we need to swear
in-- CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. All those people that wish to
participate, would you please stand at this time and be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, do we have any
speakers on this this morning?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
Page 25
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Unless the board has questions, I
will move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval by Commissioner Carter, a second by Commissioner
Henning.
Before we go on, I'd like to have just enough said about the
project so that the public has an idea what we're dealing with.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current
planning staff. This is a petition for special treatment development
permit to construct an 11,200-square-foot drugstore and a 266-seat
restaurant by the site development plan.
The conceptual plan that you see before you, the petitioner will
still be subject to the architectural standards contained in the Land
Development Code, and the plans that were presented as part of this
ST permit are conceptual, but giving us a general idea of what they're
proposing. And since this was presented at the previous board
meeting, I'll have the applicant just go into more detail with the --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. If he could give us a
summary of it. This item has come before the commission before,
and there was -- the land use itself, the layout was not considered
acceptable by this commission. It was sent back for reconsideration,
and the new plan that's come back is a remarkable improvement.
Would you like to go ahead and give us a summary on that.
MR. LANDY: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Mike Landy, Landy Engineering, representing the petitioner.
Yes, back in July we came before you with a plan. It was
engineered more than looking pretty. We went back, worked with
staff, developed upgrades in the landscaping, the community
character plan aspects of the project got worked in, we added
sidewalks everywhere, focusing on trying to get the Falling Waters
Page 26
October 8, 2002
Beach Resort project, which is about a 400-unit residential project
adjacent to it, a sidewalk connection to that project. It's about a 50
percent upgrade on the landscaping, and that's what we tried to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one question that I didn't
even think of when I spoke to you previously and I should have, but
this is very important in my eye, and that is, we're planning on
widening Route 951 there, and of course there's development already
on the other side of the street, and I was wondering if a section along
951 of your project has been dedicated to the new 951 easement.
MR. LANDY: We haven't been asked to dedicate any
right-of-way, but I was just talking to your transportation staff, and
we're willing to work with them, especially for -- we're building a
right turn lane as part of the project. If they need, you know, some
type of compensating right-of-way, you know, we can work with
them to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
MR. LANDY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
You'll work with them on that?
That's really important to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very important. Thank you very
much, Commissioner Fiala, for bringing it up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is taxpayers' money we're
dealing with, and the developer should be sharing a reasonable
amount of that.
Is there any other questions on the part of the commission?
MR. LANDY: I guess the only other language clarification that
I'd like to bring up, there's -- I think it's stipulation three of the
approval. We're just -- it talks about minor revisions to the site plan,
and we're just trying to get it on the record that we're going to work
with staff, and the developer's going to have a little bit of flexibility.
Page 27
October 8, 2002
The definition of minor revisions can be moving a parking space
around, and we really don't want to have to bother the board with this
again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Bellows, I'd like to hear your
comment on that.
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I discussed this with transportation staff
and the applicant, and I -- and our environmental specialist, Steven
Lenberger, and we're convinced that the language as written is fine.
With that clarification, I have no problem.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Does that agree with your motion,
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other questions?
(No response.)
With that, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you
very much, gentlemen.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2002-51 RE PETITION PUDA-02-AR-2098,
ROBERT DUANE, OF HOLE, MONTES & ASSOCIATES, 1NC.,
REPRESENTING BENDERSON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
Page 28
October 8, 2002
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS LAWMETKA PLAZA FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND US-41, CONSISTING OF 34 ACRES
- ADOPTF, D
Moving on to 8B. And we'll start off with Commissioner
Henning for disclosures.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with representatives of
the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have met with representatives
of the petitioner, and I have correspondence from the community.
It's all available in a public file.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, Jim Mudd, county manager, for
the record. If-- they're out in the hallway right now trying to come
to some resolution on 8B, okay, between the petitioner and the folks
that supposedly had some grievances. I think we could probably
save ourselves a lot of work--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
MR. MUDD: -- if we could go to 8C first.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll do that.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2002-49 APPROVING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO
THE FIJORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE- ADOPTED
Page 29
October 8, 2002
Moving on to 8C. Starting off with Commissioner Henning
again.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I talked to fire official
code. I don't think disclosure is needed on this item, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Staff item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, okay, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even know what we're
doing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're talking about the fire
code.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. This has to do -- and the
reason I'm doing these explanations, I had a couple of letters from
individuals out there in our watch -- in our viewing audience who
said -- you know, and it makes sense. They said, you're bringing up
numbers, you're saying 16C, 17-9, and we have no idea what you're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're making a motion and you're
passing it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we feel like we're being left out
of the process. What this has to do with -- and you can clarify this
for me if I'm saying it wrong -- the Florida fire prevention code has
been changed to be able to meet the needs of present-day society, and
these -- with the changes, the last time it came to us, the language
Page 30
October 8, 2002
was written so that it was quite difficult for a layperson to
understand. So we asked them to take it back and rework it, and they
came back with something that was much simplified so that a
layperson could also understand it. Speaking of layperson, I'm
speaking about the five commissioners up here.
And with that, we'll go to a layperson, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's exactly right. As the
layperson, I really didn't understand it. I was hoping that
Commissioner Henning was reading it, because I figured he, of all of
us, would know better what it says, and I'm sure that if you motioned
to approve, you do.
But being that I couldn't talk to you and find out beforehand, I
went to my East Naples Fire Commissioner, Tom Henning or Tom --
you're now Tom -- Tom Cannon and asked him also for his advice.
And he said it's a good -- it's a good ordinance. And so with that, I --
I just wanted to comment that I did check that out.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have one speaker on this
item?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. For the record, Rich Yovanovich representing
Waterways Joint Venture.
At the last meeting I approached the board regarding a specific
project that is geared to the market rate, a market of the $140- to
$180,000 six-plexes.
Essentially, under the change in the code, those units will
require to be sprinkled at this point, which adds a $5,000 per unit
cost. At this point that cost obviously will be passed along to the
end-consumer and you are, again, cutting or reducing the number of
homes that are going to be out there for the working -- the working
Page 31
October 8, 2002
people in the work force.
I don't believe at this point, or my client doesn't believe at this
point that there's been any real explanation as to why the standard
fire code, which does not require buildings with more than four units
to be sprinkled, why in Collier County we need sprinklers in a
six-plex.
So my client would object to that provision being included in
the fire code and request, based upon the financial implications, that
either we create some kind of an exemption for price point homes or
eliminate that provision altogether.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Any questions for Mr. Yovanovich? And with that I close the
public hearing.
And we're going to go to Commissioner Henning and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought that topic, the item,
Mr. Yovanovich, was corrected, and my mistake. I guess I was
assuming the -- a very good point is, you know, if we're trying to
encourage affordable housing, then we need a great explanation of
why that can't be amended for such-type housing. Thank you. Mr. Riley.
MR. RILEY: Thank, Commissioners. For the record, my name
is Ed Riley. I'm the Collier County fire code official.
The reason that we have the four-unit breakoff for the sprinkler
requirements, since 1997 in Collier County, Collier County had
adopted NAPA 1141, which is design criteria for urban development.
That document required any residential building with more than four
living units in it to be fully sprinklered. That was the design standard
for Collier County.
Fire districts of Collier County in their ongoing assessment of
what they need to have and their planning for the future take into
Page 32
October 8, 2002
consideration those items that are -- such as infrastructure and the
prevailing codes.
But a building with sprinklers will take fewer people and less
equipment to provide fire protection or suppression activities for that
structure. With that in mind, we're able to keep the department
smaller in the scope and size, fewer men, and drop that cost of
providing fire protection to the community.
As I said, this particular item has been in place for five years
already. And we have, to my knowledge right now, one development
in this particular case that's an objection to it.
The other side of the coin is that we've relaxed a couple of items
that allow for additional property to be considered for development.
For instance, in hydrant spacing, if you go to the strict interpretation
of the Florida code, we need a 15-foot island with nothing else in it
in the parking to provide for accessibility for fire hydrants. We've
reduced that to an eight-foot island. So when you add parking
spaces, you add livable units that you can put in.
We can -- by strictly enforcing the code the way it is, you will
reduce density in some of the developments. So when it comes to a
cost wash basis, the property costs more usually than the sprinkler
systems of the additional units, and the profitability of the additional
units outweigh the cost of the sprinkler system.
There are other options in the sprinkler system also. You can
put a four-hour rated fire wall in, reduce the building to four units or
less. If I had an eight-unit building and cut it with a four-hour fire
wall in the center, I have two four-unit buildings, therefore,
sprinklers would not be required in that situation.
So there are options around sprinklering, other than just taking it
out of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I was going to ask about the
Page 33
October 8, 2002
applicable date for this, the effective date for these provisions.
MR. RILEY: The effective date would-- this item, once it's
approved by county commission, has to be sent to the State of
Florida, the state fire marshal's office, and the building commission
for the building commission to review it. Once it receives their
approval, it goes -- it becomes effective 30 days thereafter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what is the expected time
frame?
MR. RILEY: Somewhere around the first of the year, best
guess right now.
Also, if any permits were submitted by this applicant prior to
that particular date for those buildings, sprinkler systems would not
be required, as it is not the code currently. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Is there any other
questions?
Hearing none, I'll call the questions. All those in favor indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0. Thank
yOU.
We keep moving right along, Mr. Mudd, or are we ready to go
back --
MR. MUDD:
Let's keep going to D.
Page 34
October 8, 2002
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2002-50 AMENDING THE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE SUCCESSION
OF AUTHORITY TO INCLUDE ALL COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS, AND
THE DEPI ~TY COl INTY MANAGER - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we're moving on to item
D.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve item 8D to
amend the emergency management ordinance to expanding the
succession of authority to include all county commissioners, the
county Clerk of Court, and the deputy county manager.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Carter. And basically, would
you summarize this up, what we're looking at here, Mr. Pineau.
MR. PINEAU: Yes, Commissioner. For the record, I'm Ken
Pineau, emergency management director.
What we're trying to do is expand the line of authority to
include the other commissioners, in addition to the chairman and vice
chairman, and to get somebody out of Building F, actually, to serve
in the line of succession, which we have named the Clerk of Courts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You expect something to happen
to this building?
MR. PINEAU: No, we hope not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But to summarize it up even further,
it used to be that the succession on the county commission was
alphabetical order, after you got past the county -- excuse me -- the
chair and the vice chair, which made absolutely no sense. It was in
Page 35
October 8, 2002
deference to a person that might have had 10 years of experience on
here, you may have a new person that comes in whose first name
might be A, B, with no experience to be able to offer to that.
Under the change that would take place, after Commissioner
Carter leaves, it would be Commissioner Henning, who would be the
senior person. He has one week, or two weeks, additional time in
prior to the other commissions, but it just makes more sense to
protect the integrity of the emergency situation so that it moves
forward. Thank you very much. And without -- any other questions?
Hearing, seeing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #8F
STRICTER ENFORCEMENT OF PUBLIC SWIMMING POOLS
CURRENTLY UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES - CONTINUED
AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK WITH A REDESIGNED
PROGRAM
Going on to F.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: To approve the county code of laws
and ordinances.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. This is the creating of stricter
enforcement of public swimming pools currently under Florida
statute. And Dr. Colfer will present that from the podium.
Page 36
October 8, 2002
DR. COLFER: Good morning, Commissioners. I came and
spoke with you back in June about concerns that I have about certain
public pools in Collier County.
My agency has the responsibility to inspect our public pools.
And we're not talking about pools in people's backyards now. We're
talking about pools in condominiums, hotels, civic association
neighborhoods, pools like that.
However, there's a problem with the state law, and that is, the
state law allows pools that serve 32 or-- units or less to be exempt
from any kind of inspection, anybody overlooking that pool. I think
that's a significant problem. It's significant on three counts. It's
significant from a numbers perspective, it's significant from a health
perspective, and it's significant from a safety perspective.
The numbers issue is important. We inspect 1200 pools that are
over 32 units, but there are 350 pools out there that we don't inspect
because of this exemption. The heath issues are well documented. If
you look on most any of the CDC literature, diseases such as
Shigella, Campylobacter or E. coli as easily transmitted in pool
waters if your pools are not properly chlorinated.
And finally, from a safety perspective, improperly maintained
and engineered pools have caused injuries such as disembowelment
and death.
Back in June I asked you to have the county attomeys draft
some legislation you could approve to eliminate the exemption, and
we're back today to discuss that. But before we do that, I'd like to
show you a clip, a film clip, of how these pools can seriously injure
people.
And Katie, if you would role that clip for me. I think you
moved ahead a little bit faster than we anticipated. There we go.
And Katie, we don't have any volume.
(A video was played as follows:)
Page 37
October 8, 2002
A VOICE: -- arm was sucked in. Luckily there were adults
nearby and the opening was near the top of the pool. Even after
turning the pool's pump off, it took emergency crews almost an hour
to free her arm. She was treated for shock. A day later, Abbey was
her spunky self.
Others aren't as lucky. Valerie Lakey looks like a normal
13-year-old girl, but every night she has to be intravenously fed to
keep her alive. And she's at constant risk of life-threatening
infections.
MR. LAKEY: We really didn't have any concern about her
being in the wading pool.
A VOICE: Eight years ago David and Sandy Lakey thought
they knew everything they needed to know about pool safety.
Valerie had already taken swimming lessons, and they never left her
unattended, not even when she was in the wading pool at their
community swim center, in Cary, North Carolina.
MR. LAKEY: She was sitting here, and she was stuck on the
drain. I got down next to her and tried to lift her off, and I couldn't
get her off. A suction from the pump was holding her.
A VOICE: The cover for the drain that should have prevented
the accident had been removed. In just minutes, Valerie had been
disemboweled, losing most of her upper and lower intestines.
VALERIE LAKEY: I just don't want anyone else to get hurt.
A VOICE: Unfortunately, the tragic accidents do continue.
Fifteen-year-old Lorenzo Peterson remains in a coma after being
trapped under water for 10 minutes at this apartment complex in
North Miami last year. Once again, a missing protective drain cover.
And, it was supposed to have been a happy time when Sharon
Humphreys treated her sons, Blake and Chad, to a trip to the
luxurious Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas. It ended in tragedy.
MS. HUMPHREYS: I remember Blake saying, I think he's
Page 38
October 8, 2002
dead.
A VOICE: The boys had been snorkeling in the resort's
man-made lagoon when Chad was sucked into this uncovered drain.
His mother watched for five hours while rescue workers tried to free
her son's body.
MS. HUMPHREYS: They needed to bring in, you know, a
machine to cut the pipe open that sucked him in. They weren't able
to pull him out themselves.
MR. GRIFFIS: Once a body part or a person ends up in a pipe
with the pump pulling them into the pipe, we can't free that person
out. That person is in there, kind of like the cork in a bottle.
A VOICE: Tom Griffis is director or Aquatics, and the safety
officer for athletics at Penn State University. He travels the country
warning parents that still waters are not necessarily safe ones.
MR. GRIFFIS: When people go to any swimming pool, hotel,
motel, municipal pool or spa, they think of the water as being still
and maybe even stagnant; whereas, in reality, the water is moving at
a very fast rate through those bottom grates.
A VOICE: Griffis took us underwater and removed the
protective grating from this pool to show us just how dangerous these
drains can be. Water is passing through this drain to be filtered at 450
gallons per minute. How dangerous is that?
MR. GRIFFIS: Dive in and see what happens.
A VOICE: Griffis used this doll to demonstrate what could
happen if a small child were to become trapped inside a drain.
Watch as the pump draws the doll into the pipe until it is stuck.
MR. GRIFFIS: It's pretty-well lodged in there.
(The video concluded, and the meeting continued as follows:)
DR. COLFER: Katie, that's really all we need to show. Excuse
me. We just wanted to give you some examples of how serious a
problem this is.
Page 39
October 8, 2002
Our environmental health director is here who supervises that
program directly, and we have lots more information we can provide
to you and answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just -- why don't you stand by for
questions. What we'll do is go to the speakers now. DR. COLFER: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And then open it up for discussion.
But right now I see two commissioners that have lights on, so I'm
going to go to Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the -- where are you
going to be inspecting when you go to these community pools or
condo pools?
DR. COLFER: You mean what aspects of the pool? We're
concerned about the water quality, so we'll be look -- you know, we'll
be looking at whether they're testing their water on a regular basis.
They are required to -- they're supposed to keep a log. They're not
required because nobody's looking at these pools that are 32 units
and less. But there should be a log on the premises.
And what we would do is look and make sure that tests are
actually being performed to make sure that the water is properly
chlorinated, and I believe they do that on a daily basis. So we're
supposed to be looking -- we would look at that.
We would also look at the safety equipment to make sure that
there's -- there's supposed to be things that you can pull somebody
out of the water. It's a great big long piece of pipe that you can reach
somebody, you know, by standing on the edge of the pool, so
different aspects of the safety equipment.
And then we also look at operations room, and we're looking to
see what kind of suction systems the pools have. Exactly the kind of
problem that you saw there, we believe that some of our older pools,
unfortunately, have direct suction systems, and that's what, together
Page 40
October 8, 2002
with a broken drain grate, pulls children into these drains and traps
them.
So we'll be looking at all of those things. The direct suction
alone is not particularly safe, but the direct suction combined with
improper pool maintenance, somebody not looking at these pools to
make sure that the drain grates are in place is a combination that's
deadly, as you can see.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the inspector's going to
actually get in the water and go down and find out what kind of
suction system it has?
DR. COLFER: I don't think they have to get in the water. If I
could ask my engineer to come up, he could probably answer that
question a little bit better. Tom.
MR. WALKER: Good morning, Commissioners. Tom Walker,
professional engineer and administrator of the environmental health
unit of the County Health Department.
The inspectors will be looking at any available record drawings
that are available for the pool system, the filter system, and be able to
determine, if there are those record drawings, the potential flow rate
and velocity through the drain and main grate system.
If it appears that there is extreme hazard because of the way it
was designed and put in place with high velocities, we would then
work with the permittee in terms of any retrofit requirements for
those type systems, in terms of either putting in a second drain or
putting in a collector tank or relief valve to reduce the potential
hazard at those facilities.
Also, for any new pool that comes in, public pool that currently
meets the exemption criteria, when we impOse the new legislation,
those pools then will have to meet the current standards for
public/commercial-type facilities. The filter system, the pipe and
Page 41
October 8, 2002
pumping requirements, those will have to meet commercial grade
requirements. Under existing code, they can-- they're exempt from
meeting the higher standard of construction for the materials put in
place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So what would the cost be to
retrofit some of these condo pools, these small condo pools?
MR. WALKER: Based on a couple of quotes we've gotten from
vendors, if there was a need to retrofit some of these smaller pools,
we're talking on the order of two to five thousand dollars, to either
put in a collector tank, cut in a collector tank so you don't have a
direct suction, or to put in a second drain on the bottom of the pool.
But it will vary depending on the layout of the facility, be site
specific depending on the way the design is on the systems.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So it could be much higher or
lower by that estimate?
MR. WALKER: The majority would certainly fit within the
range from two to five thousand dollars. I don't think it's going to go
much over that range on many pools at all.
And again, we're not talking about going out and, on all these
exempt pools that do have direct suctions, doing a carte blanche,
saying we're going to go out and retrofit all of them. We are going to
do an assessment based on the first year of the permitting of these
exempt pools to see which ones do have the extreme flow conditions
that you saw similar to what was shown on the video.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So some of them you're not
going to enforce -- I didn't -- that wasn't clear.
DR. COLFER: Tom, the discussion that we've had in the past is
when you have the direct suction in combination with a very tiny
drain grate, there's a flow issue that you set up, and a child can
actually sit on that or get sucked into that drain like you saw in the
picture. And without any way to break that suction, they're trapped.
Page 42
October 8, 2002
So it's a combination of the direct suction, the very tiny grate drain,
and the flow that you set up, and we would merely be looking for
those that are the most hazardous and trying to get those corrected as
quickly as we can.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And do we have any history of
injuries in Collier County on these small condo pools?
MR. WALKER: We don't have any current history of any
casualties. I believe we did have a casualty on one of these small
pools. There was one casualty at one of these pools about six or
seven years ago, according to Ralph Vanderbeek, who's our pool
supervisor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the nature of the casualty?
MR. WALKER: Direct suction similar to what you saw on the
video clip.
We did do a random sampling, by the way, between the time we
came to you in June and to this date, randomly going out to 25 of
these exempt pool facilities to see what was out there.
And if I could -- bear with me. I have the results on the slide
here. I think that's helping to justify the need to go out to these
facilities.
By the numbers, you can see here that nearly half of the 25
pools that we visited exhibited poor water quality; nearly a third did
not have the adequate safety equipment under present code for public
pools; almost one out of 10 had a broken main drain grate; 27 percent
had no perimeter fencing around the pool which is required under
commercial code now for public pools; and nearly a third had no
maintenance log for daily water quality readings.
So we believe based on this evidence on random sampling of
these small exempt pools, that there is an issue in going out, doing an
inspection, having these facilities permitted will provide a level of
care that I believe most residents and visitors probably expect's
Page 43
October 8, 2002
already being done on a lot of these facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I was wondering the
same question about, had they had many incidents here, or any
history of it. That was a good question.
I wanted to know, once you've inspected the pools and found
that their suction apparatus isn't good and their fencing isn't good and
whatever and you've ordered them to change those things, and they
have a regular pool service and you've given them a criteria to
follow, I would think that a once-a-year inspection would be plenty
because they've already got a pool service doing the job, and we've
really not had many reports of any illnesses or anything. And it
seems like it's a lot of inspecting to look at the same drain over and
over and to look at the same suction procedure that's already been
fixed.
DR. COLFER: I think the requirement is actually that we look
at these pools twice a year, and our pool inspectors would tell you
that even though we tell them to fix things, we'll go back and they
still don't fix it. So, I mean, I think that there is a role for some
government oversight here. People do come and rent these
condominiums.
I've, unfortunately, had the experience of living in three
different condominiums, and not a single one of those pools was
inspected. They were all small units. Not that I had any particular
problem with them, but there wasn't anybody on site other than the
manager of the whole complex that also, you know, cut the grass and
had many other responsibilities. I don't think any of these people
know a thing about pools.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I agree that safety is first,
and it's kind of hard to be talking this way when we're talking about
Page 44
October 8, 2002
the safety of our citizens. DR. COLFER: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Conversely, it says you'd be going
out two to four times a year, according to our paperwork here. DR. COLFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I've received many comments
from constituents saying, we already have a pool service that's
reliable, we've never had a problem at our pool, 16 years I've lived
here and nobody's -- you know, everything is according to Hoyle.
Well, I can understand that some aren't, and I can understand the
need for inspection, but maybe there's a way to adjust this so that
pools that are always -- you know, that have everything in line and
their fencing and their suction and everything, and their pools are
always up to par, is there really a need to charge them that much
extra to go out and inspect? Or maybe there's a form that they could
fill out that's sent in once a month or once every three months by the
pool company that says, yes, this has been inspected, yes, this has
been done, rather than charge them to -- you know, especially if
they've got a pool company already doing that job, to charge them
again to do the same job.
MR. WALKER: I think our monitoring would help ensure that
the pool company is doing their job. Under the existing permitted
facilities, the 1,200 permitted public pools that we do inspect, over
the past year approximately 300 inspections turned up with water
quality results that did not meet standard. We've shut down those
pools during that time for them to have to super chlorinate and go out
-- even though they do have -- and they're all required to have pool
companies maintain and take chemical readings and provide
assurances to the homeowner association, or hotel, motel, whoever,
we provide the oversight and we take water quality samples for
added assurance that -- possibly you could say that we are giving
Page 45
October 8, 2002
oversight that their pool companies are providing the level of service
that they're paying for.
But the water quality is the major concern. As you can see, half
of the existing pools, or the pools that we inspected showed with
poor water quality.
From the Center of Disease Control, 10,000 people in the past
decade have gotten sick from confirmed pool outbreaks. There's
probably a host of other illnesses and people who got sick where
there wasn't a confirmed outbreak. People get sick, stomachaches,
and they don't necessarily relate it back to having been in the
swimming pool.
So although you may hear that we don't have confirmed cases,
we haven't been out inspecting and taking water quality to make the
linkage, there's certainly the opportunity that there's been added
illnesses based on the CDC's numbers here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question on the illnesses. What are
we worried about, E. coli, yeast infection, hepatitis? What kind of
diseases?
DR. COLFER: No. You're really worried about the things that
are primarily the gastrointestinal illnesses, Chlamydia -- I'm sorry,
not Chlamydia. E. coli, Shigella, Cryptosporidium is the one -- is the
one that I'm thinking of. And Cryptosporidium, in particular, is a
problem for immune-deficient people.
E. coli can affect any one of us. If a child is sick with E. coli,
gets in the swimming pool and the water is not properly chlorinated,
that illness can be spread to the rest of us. And E. coli is not just -- or
not always just a simple, you know, diarrhea for a couple of years.
There's an aspect to it called Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, which
really can destroy your kidneys and make you quite ill for a very
long time. So they're not minor illnesses that we're talking about.
I guess from my perspective I don't see the difference between a
Page 46
October 8, 2002
pool that serves 32 people and a -- 32 units and a pool that serves 33.
What's good for one, to me, ought to be good for the rest of the
community as well.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the speakers at --
DR. COLFER: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- this time, and then we'll come
back and ask you some questions after we close the public hearing.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers. The first
one is Joe Connolly, and he will be followed by Jim Kramer.
MR. CONNOLLY: Good morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, sir.
MR. CONNOLLY: For the record, my name is Joe Connolly,
C-O-N-N-O-L-L-Y, and I live at 10633 Gulf Shore Drive, and I'm
here representing today the Mansion's Condominium Association and
also the Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association with their 700 and
plus members.
And we believe that the state law is correct and should be left in
place. We don't think there is any need for an exemption to be lifted.
We think that the 32 condominium thing is fine.
We do not believe in bureaucratic creep and back-door taxation
to try to have a nanny role on something that is not necessary. There
are more people killed on a golf course in a year than there has been
by this pool suction thing in its history.
You're more than likely to get E. coli that she mentioned at the
grocery store than you are in a swimming pool.
I'm a director of our condo association, and, you know, we
know that we have to keep up our facilities. And we've had our
manager licensed, and our pool is checked daily. Before that we had
a licensed pool company that did it, and it was very satisfactory.
And if the board of directors are not enforcing that, they're
negligent, and maybe the health department would like to send out a
Page 47
October 8, 2002
notice to all the boards reminding them of their responsibilities. But
I believe 99 percent of the boards know their responsibilities and live
up to them.
I think there was one case that was mentioned in the State of
Florida. That was probably the one case in 10 years. And I just
think that they're putting things out of perspective.
Also I think it was very clear to you that the citizens do not
want additional taxes. And your $255 assessment is a tax. One and a
half people, then you get another one and a half people, that's
bureaucratic creep. That's going to require more tax.
So we don't want nannies looking over us when we're doing the
job that we feel has to be done and is being done satisfactorily.
There's always going to be an oddball. I think their numbers
probably were a little inflated about the water quality thing. But, you
know, send out a notice to the condo people and remind them of their
responsibility. We don't need more staff. We just need the people to
be doing what they're supposed to do. And we certainly don't want
to pay $255 for somebody to come over and look when we're doing
the right thing to begin with.
Now, if you want to put it in the code for all new pools -- I
would assume it was already there -- that they had to be built with
this suction thing, fine. And if you want to put it in your permitting
that if a pool needs to be upgraded, which sooner or later all of these
older pools are, that that's a part of the upgrade. But to require that
now, I don't think is necessary. I think it's unfounded, and we just
oppose it and hope you will not lift the exemption. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mr. Jim Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Jim Kramer.
For some 30 years now I have worked in the pool industry.
Page 48
October 8, 2002
About 14 years ago I spoke at the National Spa and Pool Institute's
convention in Long Beach, California. I told the people in the
audience who were pool owners and builders and constructors and so
on and so forth that they needed to get with the government and
allow inspections of the pools.
While I was on stage, 3,500 people booed. They got up and
basically asked me to get off the stage.
This is a self-regulation or oversight issue. You'll hear down
here that there aren't very many children who get in our swimming
pools, so, therefore, them being sucked into the suction of the pools
is not a problem. Well, adults can be sucked into the pools. Young
ladies particularly with long hair in spas can be sucked down into the
pools and trapped and drown.
Here in Collier County, when I came here nine years ago, I went
and looked at a number of public pools; at Falling Waters, at the
Golden Gate Community Park and the Naples Beach Hotel. I told
the owners of those pools that they had a problem with hazard --
hazardous materials, and all three of those pools have now been cited
for the problems with hazardous materials.
In your consideration for this, in the executive summary it says,
it is believed that many of these pools are operating with certain
safety provisions -- without certain safety provisions and with
substandard water quality. Having been out into the community
looking at these swimming pools, those that are already under the
ordinance and those that are not in the condominiums with 32 units
or less, I know, as an expert, that these substandard qualities exist.
And unless there is oversight, you will have some very bad
examples.
Like the bad example I had, you ladies and gentlemen are going
to be asked to approve a water park here in Collier County in the
future. I had a water park owner tell me to my face that he was
Page 49
October 8, 2002
making between $34 and $57 million a year on the water park that he
owned, and that it -- he was going to own it for another seven years
to take care of the tax advantages, and he didn't care who got hurt.
And during the seven years -- six and a half years, actually, that
he owned it, four people were killed and 17 people were injured.
This, I think, is an issue that you need to look at from an oversight
perspective, because, ladies and gentleman, the board of the county
commissioners is to take care of the health, safety and welfare and
quality of life of the citizens. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. That concludes our
public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I close the public portion of this
item.
I would like to point out a couple of things. I've listening to this
very carefully, and I understand the concerns of the commission, just
another government regulation that's going to be stepping in front of
the public, and what purpose does it serve.
But I agree with Mr. Kramer as far as a public health and safety
issue, and I'm breaking it down as far as a cost issue, because, let's
face it, it's always a cost issue. And when it comes to human life,
you really can't put a cost issue up front.
We're talking for 700 units, which one ment -- person mentioned
as far as their condo went, 35 cents per unit to be able to cover it for
a year.
If it's a small amount of units, 30 units, it's going to cost the
owners of that condominium, their fair share would be $8.30. I think
that's wonderful to have that kind of insurance. I mean, if the water
doesn't have the correct amount of chlorine and you put a young
child in there without the correct type of swimming gear on, an
accident happens, the next thing you know, sight unseen, you've got
Page 50
October 8, 2002
a major disaster if the chlorine levels aren't maintained at a certain
level. Who's to say that if there isn't some oversight that this could
happen. So I'll make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for approval from
myself, Commissioner Coletta, and a second from Commissioner
Carter.
Now we'll go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I
disagree. It does sound like more government to me. You would
think that the state legislation who drafted the -- the statutes on this
would know better than for us to have this discussion in the last half
an hour.
We talked about design flaws, and I think that's something that
the inspectors, when the pools were built, should handle and
probably do. Inspecting service records -- I'm sure that the health
department could find other means to having it reporting instead of--
or through the occupational license or something like that, instead of,
you know, having more government, hiring more employees for
government workers.
Commercial pools with no fences, we say it's -- it's an ordinance
now. That's a code enforcement case. So the water quality issues, I
think, is the biggest one, can be addressed and should be addressed
for the safety of the public on these smaller pools. But again, to me,
it's just more government.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. As much as I agree about the
safety of our families, I bet there's another way to work this out
where -- maybe you can come back with something else.
I think that we have to be concerned for the safety our -- of the
people in these condos and so forth, yet at the same time, they hire
Page 51
October 8, 2002
pool services in order to do that. I keep feeling that we're creating
another layer here when the people should be doing their job. But
maybe they should be inspected as an oversight once a year to make
sure that their pools are up to date and to -- you know, and if you
identify a problematic area, well, then come down on that area, but --
I'm really having -- between --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No problem.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- creating a layer of bureaucracy--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and the safety of human beings,
I'm really having a tough time with this one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I understand what you're
saying, but in order to be able to identify a problem area, you have to
have an inspector. And if you don't authorize this, who do you
authorize?
We could drag this out forever and try to get code enforcement,
who is totally overtaxed, being-- they'll be dealing with an element
that they're not totally into, to try to rectify this, and where would be
the advantage when this should be under the state's jurisdiction?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can see that there's some division
of the commission concerning what we should do with this. Perhaps
we can deal with it incrementally and deal with the most
life-threatening issue first, which might be the suction issue, the
design of the pool, and provide people some period of time to make
the modifications and bring this pool up to current standards.
I am surprised at the estimate of two to five thousand dollars for
modification. It seems to me that a fairly simple vacuum brake valve
of some kind would work quite well, and, perhaps, could be done for
a couple hundred dollars, but I'm not an expert in the field. But it
just seems to me that there might be a less expensive way to deal
Page 52
October 8, 2002
with that. But that seems to be the most catastrophic problem
associated with the pools right now.
And I would suggest we try to separate those two things, and
maybe the health department could find a better way to deal with the
other health issues, water quality. But we could just get an inventory
of those pools that do have faulty designs and provide for some
schedule by which they will be brought up to current code.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to address that,
Doctor?
DR. COLFER: Unfortunately we'd have to go out and look at
all these pools, which, you know, we can do. Actually what
Commissioner Fiala is suggesting, and Commissioner Coyle, some
sort of a -- it's a halfway program, but we can look at doing that.
Certainly in my experience, not in pool programs, but in food
programs, programs have been designed such that if, for instance, a
restaurant always has great inspection scores, then they don't have to
be inspected as much as the ones that -- you know, that always are
failing and are making people sick.
So we'll be real happy to go back to the drawing board and look
at something that would give us the authority to go in and make sure
that these exempt pools at least are keeping the logs that we believe
that they're doing or they're supposed to be doing. We could look at
that, and we could also look at, you know, what their design is and
what their grate issues are. So it would be some kind of a
compromise between what is the state system in designing something
a little bit less for the county pools. And we can do that, and we'd be
happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Based on what Dr. Colfer is
suggesting, then I would think this might be an item that needs to be
continued until they come back and readdress it.
Page 53
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I'll amend my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second that.
DR. COLFER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doctor, while you're up there.
DR. COLFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What you're talking about is
just looking at logs that -- the pool service creates a log of service, so
we really don't know -- I mean, the person servicing it could fudge
the records.
DR. COLFER: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So the responsibility -- and
what we're saying is, more big govemment watching over a business
when they should be doing their job that they're hired to do. So I
think there's other ways to work that out and -- because an extra cost
-- you talk about these small condo associations. Most of them are
affordable for the work force here in Collier County that do have
pools. And we're just raising the cost of living here in Collier
County, so I think that -- I'm sure we could get creative in what you
want to accomplish and still keep those prices where they don't need
to be.
DR. COLFER: We'll be happy to come back with a redesign
program just for the county pools. And thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's call the question. All
those in favor for bringing this back, that's what the motion is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I noticed you looking at me
very strangely -- indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 54
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
And we're going to take a 1 O-minute break.
(A recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats and we'll
begin to proceed.
Mr. Mudd, I understand we're ready to go back to -- what was
that, B?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 8B.
MR. MUDD: It's 8B. This has to do with Lawmetka Plaza
PUD planned unit development.
COMMISSIONER CARTER:
this?
Do you have to be sworn on
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we've got to -- disclosures. I
think we did disclosures already. Do we have to do them again?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, just for -- just for clarity, I --
because I kind of caught you in the middle of it, if we could do it one
more time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We sure can. We'll start with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have correspondence from the
petitioners and I have met with the petitioners and also have emails
and correspondence from the community.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I've never met with anybody,
but I have received some correspondence.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I received correspondence also.
Commissioner Coyle?
Page 55
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And you read the Naples Daily
News, right?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I never read the Naples Daily
News, Commissioner Carter. I'm just kidding. I do read the Naples
Daily News.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's continue.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I take that back. I read it online
because I'm cheap.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Obviously you're on your way out,
sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, well, that's what I
understand, that's what I understand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala, would you use
this, please.
Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with the petitioners and
have talked with them at length about the proposal.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Would all those people wishing to participate stand at this time
to be sworn in.
(The speakers were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. For the record, Ray Bellows.
The petition for you today is an amendment to an existing
approved PUD that was originally approved in 1990 and amended in
1999. It's known as the Lawmetka Plaza PUD.
And during the 1999 hearing on this item, the petition was
Page 56
October 8, 2002
involved with an amendment that eliminated the slew the bisected the
middle of the site. Residents within the adjacent community, Tarpon
Cove, felt that this would allow for a big-box superstore-type
business to move in. It generated a complaint that was improper
notice of the petition at that time, so there was a pending lawsuit or
litigation by individual property owners of Tarpon Bay -- or Tarpon
Cove to bring this petition back before you today as a readoption of
the PUD in its original intent; however, during the public information
meeting, many of the residents -- some of them are here today with
their tags on -- indicated that -- what their concerns were with the
project.
And staff and the applicant have been working with the
residents of Tarpon Cove to resolve those issues that -- of
compatibility between the two projects.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Could we get that on the record
by their representative? I believe Mr. Anderson speaks for that
group, and from -- you were part of that negotiations. Could we just
concisely put on that a record so we could move for approval?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, and I think that was where I was headed.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson
representing the property owner and -- along with Mr. Terry Lenick,
an attorney from Fort Myers, who's making his way to the other
podium. We have reached agreement on language to be added to the
PUD. I'd like to read that into the record.
There would be a new section 6.2C under the category
permitted uses, and the following language would be inserted: No
access way between the northernmost principal building and the
north property line shall permit any deliveries, shipping, or stopping
between eight p.m. to six a.m., and the access way shall be so posted.
Additionally, there would be a sentence added at the end of
Page 57
October 8, 2002
section 4.13 of the PUD. The heading on that section is architectural
and site design standards. The following sentence would be added at
the end of that section: The north wall of any structure, including
walls and building facades on parcel C shall, at a minimum, be
stuccoed and painted or otherwise be an architecturally finished,
opaque masonry wall; however, no north wall shall be painted
concrete block as its final finish.
Is that acceptable, Mr. Lenick?
MR. LENICK: Yeah, the agreement was --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, I need you to go to a -- would
you go to this other podium over here, and Mr. Anderson, you
remain where you are.
MR. LENICK: The agreement was that the stip --
MR. MUDD: Please identify yourself, sir.
MR. LENICK: For the record, my name is Terry Lenick. I
represent the property owners in the -- in the lawsuit that was brought
in this case.
The agreement that Mr. Anderson and I reached, or on behalf of
the clients, was that in addition to the planning and zoning
commission's recommendation, which they have agreed to stipulate
to, that the other two stipulations just so named, the planning and
zoning commission's recommendation plus these two stipulations,
that will satisfy my clients.
And this is not a readoption. It's a rezoning of the property.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Therefore, I would move
for approval, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BELLOWS: If I may --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commission Carter has made
a motion for approval, and Commissioner Henning has seconded it.
And we'll start off with Commissioner Henning.
Page 58
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But Ray Bellows wants --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry, Mr. Bellows. Let's -- did
you have a comment you want to make now or do you want to wait
for Mr. Bellows to finish his presentation?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait for our staff member.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Go ahead, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: I just have one clarification to make on the
executive summary. Under Collier County planning commission
recommendations, the last bullet, it should read, revised section 6.3F,
paragraph two, and it's -- the six-foot-tall wall should be placed at the
southernmost edge of the setback -- setback area instead of
landscaped area, and that's the only correction I have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSION HENNING: And I'm assuming, Commissioner
Carter, that in the approval planning sta -- or planning commission's
recommendations along with the two stipulations that Bruce
Anderson brought up and the one stipulation --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. The wall is
inclusive in the motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, therefore, for the second,
too, just a question on stipulation 6.2C. On the hours of delivery,
who's the enforcement of those stipulations?
MR. BELLOWS: Which stipulation was that again?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was the hours of del --
delivery hours stated by Bruce Anderson. Is Mr. Anderson going to
enforce that?
MR. BELLOWS: No. We have code enforcement that would
be in charge of any violation to a stipulation in the PUD.
COMMISSIONER HENNINGi Thank you.
Page 59
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor --
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, you have 10 speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, forgive me. Now, speakers, if
you want to talk us out of it, come on up and speak. If you would
like to speak, you're more than welcome. I'm going to ask you,
though, if you've heard somebody else make the comments that fully
explain what you wanted to say, you may wish to waive.
Call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have 10 speakers. Ernest
Davey.
MR. DAVEY: I'd like to waive, but I'd like to thank everybody
for their time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee.
MR. FEE: And I will waive also.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Richard Graham.
MR. GRAHAM: I'd like to speak.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please.
MS. FILSON: Okay, sir. Come up. Camille Ricketts. She will
follow Mr. Graham. You waive? Okay.
MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is
Richard Graham. I live in Tarpon Cove. I'm the vice president of the
Tarpon Cove Bass Association, and so I'm representing them in this.
Chairman Carter remembers this, back in January of 2000 we
had a meeting with himself and the planning commission based on
the fact -- now, this was before the development was sold to the
present owner -- that when a site presentation program was
presented, which it hadn't been at that time, we would have an
opportunity, the community and anybody else that wants to come,
Page 60
October 8, 2002
would be able to review this to make sure it is adequately done.
Now, this was before the lawsuit was filed, and a lot of these things
have been already answered.
There's one situation, however, that's not been addressed, and
that is traffic. If you know the area, and that's 41 and Wiggins Pass,
all the traffic coming south on 41 should have no problem at all and
should not create a problem. Any traffic coming on Old 41 should be
going right through in the stoplight right into the parking lot.
The two problems we're going to have as the developments
develop out there, is traffic coming from Vanderbilt down Wiggins
Pass, going west, because we're only a two-lane road now -- and I
understand the county has programmed sometime in the near future
that that goes to four lanes. That might help a little bit. And the other
thing, which is the major one, is the traffic going north on 4 ! turning
left into Wiggins Pass.
We only -- we tried to get two lanes of left turn put in there
before the 41 development was finished, and it wasn't a -- successful.
Right now, let's assume we have 270,000 square feet of stores
there, no more than 65,000 (sic), that's the least -- maybe three big
stores, maybe 10. It depends on the size of the stores. It's going to be
a substantial development, and there's going to be a lot of traffic
coming from the south going north.
And it's been my experience that right now, the way this is set
up, if you have six cars waiting to make a turn, that's it. So I would
like the county and the traffic planning to try and figure out a way to
get more cars making left turns into Wiggins Pass, plus where to put
the exit off Wiggins Pass into the development. If it's going to be
right at the corner, it's going to create a problem. If it's farther down,
the cars have a time to go in, and I would think that you'd have a
right turn lane coming in to go into -- so it might be three lanes going
one way west at that point. I mean, that will be up to the planning
Page 61
October 8, 2002
commission, but I would like to have that addressed.
And since at the time we met with the commissioner, it was
decided-- and he'll verify this -- that once the site plan was
submitted, we would be able to go back and review it and just make
sure it met all our demands, and I'm asking that privilege now,
because Commissioner Carter is retiring, and he won't be here to
follow through on this. So whoever's the new commissioner of that
territory, District 2, I would ask that same privilege to be honored to
all of us.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Would someone from traffic like to comment on that?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator. What I will tell you is, first of all, while we're doing a
corridor study on Vanderbilt Drive, and in this area we do not have
anything programmed, nor even a decision to go four-lane on
Wiggins at this time.
I would point out to the comments made that part of what we
would encourage, especially if you only have two lanes on Wiggins,
at that time you can only have an extended left turn lane, as may be
needed for the northbound traffic on 41. You couldn't have a dual.
But what we would probably encourage is, up at Old 41, we
have signalized controls. That would be the better place to
encourage that left turn movement into the development, rather than
this turning onto Wiggins, unless there's major modifications to
Wiggins in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One other question that Mr.
Graham asked was, if you're going north on U.S. 41 and turning onto
Wiggins Pass Road is a -- there is a left turn lane there existing.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And as far as a right turn lane
Page 62
October 8, 2002
into the project, a dedicated right turn lane is one of his issues, and
the other issue is, if you're going east on Wiggins Pass Road, whether
there'll be a turn lane into the project, the cOmmercial project.
MR. FEDER: Let me go through your questions. We're going
to require right turn lanes accel, and decel, on the project at it goes
forward.
As far as on Wiggins, we'd have to look at that requirement,
whether or not a left turn would be required, if we have sufficient
right-of-way or compensating right-of-way provided. I'll defer to
Greg Garcia on my staff that deals with that, but essentially we
would normally require compensating --
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. We will
review all that as part of the site development plan. We know
exactly what they're building and what kind of traffic is produced at
those locations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bonnie Karkut.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: While she's coming up, Richard
Graham is the brother of the famous Otto Graham of the Cleveland
Browns. So if you'd like to have a little football history here this
morning in the NFL, why, you've got it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I take a break?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Sure.
MS. FILSON: Following Bonnie Karkut will be William Curci,
if he would like to come up.
MS. KARKUT: I would like to thank all of you for your
attention on this issue that we've -- many of us began this fight for--
two long years ago, and it's come to what seems to be a very happy
conclusion.
And I really would like -- not like to hear any more negative
issues on this subject, such as traffic. I don't think we're here right
Page 63
October 8, 2002
now for a traffic study. I think we're here now to be grateful for what
we have resolved between the opposing attorney and our attorney.
And I'm sorry, I did not designate my name. I'm Bonnie Karkut.
I've been the chairperson representing all the residents of the
Wiggins Pass area, surrounding communities, for two long years, and
I'm very, very pleased with what I've heard here today from both of
the attorneys. And thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for staying there.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Curci, and he will
be followed by Donna Caron.
MR. CURCI: For the record, my name is William Curci. I have
been involved, as many of our group have, in this continuing effort to
achieve a good neighbor relationship with the proposed project.
As recently as a week and a half ago, we had a meeting with Mr.
Ruben of Benderson Corporation, and the results of that meeting
were -- we thought were pretty much in accord. We were
encouraged by what Mr. Ruben had told us in terms of his desire to
create an upscale community there, which we were pleased about.
And yesterday we thought everything was pretty well fixed, but there
was a flurry of faxes that went back and forth, and the result was this
morning there was an accord reached. We thank you. We look
forward to them as our neighbor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Donna Caron.
MS.
MS.
MR.
MS.
MS.
MS.
MR.
CARON:
FILSON:
LENICK:
FILSON:
I waive.
Terry Lenick.
I waive.
Angela Moureau.
MOUREAU: I waive.
FILSON: And your final speaker, Jim Kramer.
KRAMER: I waive.
Page 64
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And before I call the question, we
have a motion on the floor, don't we, on this? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And before I call the question, I'd
like to thank you, Commissioner Carter, for moving this thing
forward. It's been a long time coming to resolution, but you stayed
there with it. And my compliments go, once again, to the attomeys
doing it the right way, to get in there and to work with the residents
and to work back and forth to come to a final conclusion. I thank
you all. You make our job a lot easier.
And with that, Commissioner Coyle, do you have any comments
before we call the question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just add to that, this is
another success story. I would also like to thank Commissioner
Carter in his work toward bringing this to fruition. I applaud the
residents and the developers and your willingness to sit down.and
reach reasonable solutions.
I have only one concern. Where's Mr. Anderson? Are you
really going to call this Lawmetka Plaza? You know, you've got a
beautiful name like Tarpon Cove surrounding this, and you're going
to call this place the Lawmetka Plaza?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How about Coyle Plaza? Could you
go for that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coyle Cove is okay.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: North Bay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, North Bay, all right? I
mean, seriously, you're not really going to name this thing and put
signs up that say Lawmetka Plaza, are you?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But Mr. Lawmetka likes that.
Page 65
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now that you stirred them up
again, Mr. Coyle, let's --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to
thank the communities for staying the course. It's always been my
philosophy, if you keep the attorneys talking and everybody working
out there, by the time it gets to us, it should be a relatively easy
decision. So that's one more thing I can check off my list before the
changing of the guard. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And with that, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Thank you very much for coming.
clear the room.
Opposed?
The ayes have it, 5-0.
I'll give you a minute to
Item #8G
RESOLUTION 2002-423 AMENDING THE ROAD IMPACT FEE
RATE SCHEDULE WHICH IS SCHEDULE ONE OF APPENDIX
A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF
LAWS AND ORDINANCES, THE SAME BEING THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE-
ADOPTFD WITH CHANGF, S
Page 66
October 8, 2002
And we'll be going on to our-- to G, 12 -- excuse me, 8G.
MR. MUDD: Which is the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The impact fees.
MR. MUDD: Which is the road impact fee rate schedule.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. An item that we've
been dealing with for some time, and hopefully come to some final
conclusions.
I'm going to ask you on the way out, please refrain from talking
till you get out in the hallway. Go ahead, Mr. Feder.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record,
Norman Feder, transportation administrator.
As was noted, we're requesting today adoption of a resolution
that will amend schedule one, appendix A, the road impact fee
schedule, chapter 74, Collier County code of law and ordinances,
better known, if you will, as the Collier County consolidated impact
fee ordinance, and more specifically, the transportation rate structure
in that ordinance.
We met with you at an advertised public hearing on July 30th.
We also held a listening session August 30th, and then came back in
a workshop with you on September 17th.
In those meetings and through all the discussions that ensued,
we are now very comfortable in presenting to you a legally
defensible maximum level of transportation impact fees that will
address your desire for growth-- to pay for growth.
In essence, in looking at the nine factors from our prior impact
fee schedule, we've looked at modifying particularly three; the
construction costs per mile -- per lane mile is 3,151,198; gasoline tax
credit is now 24.3 cents a gallon. And I should note there that that
represents a little bit of reduction in the state, more reflective of what
actually comes to us in capacity dollars, but it also includes an
Page 67
October 8, 2002
increase in this credit on the fee, and it's a major change from what
we dealt with you on July 30th, and that credit is to account for the
bonding that will be paid back by increased ad valorem assessments,
and, therefore, a credit to someone who is moving, pays this fee, and
over time, will not only be paying gas tax, but as well, that property
tax to basically pay back the bonds, retire the bonds.
Also, fuel efficiency, 17.6 miles per gallon takes into account
some of the efforts on the interstate, large trucks in particular, .with
the interstate portion of those trucks pulled out.
The recommendation to you today is to implement the new fee
structure in two phases. The reason for that is the transportation fee
now includes the relocation -- not the capacity expansion, but the
relocation portion of utilities. Typically in a road project, we require
our public utilities, as well as private -- which was not addressed here
-- but the public utilities to move so that we don't have them under
the pavement for future needs.
With that in mind, we're bringing that into our fee, but it's
currently in the utilities fees and schedules, and they are in the
process of removing that.
So to avoid any double charge to the taxpayer, we're
recommending that in phase one you implement the new fee structure
without the utilities relocation portion, roughly about 10 percent, for
frame of reference, but essentially without the utilities relocation
fees, and that as soon as that fee is removed from the utilities fees,
that, in fact, it then is applied and the full fee is implemented, and
that's projected to be about February of next year.
Also pulling to your attention that we have added, based on the
workshop, September 17th, and your request, two new categories for
income-restricted under 1,500-square-foot residences. So for those
in the smaller residences with either half of the median income,
approximately 30,000 a year annual income, including social security
Page 68
October 8, 2002
and pension benefits, there's the new category that's been developed,
and the fee is shown as reduced. And you have the analysis that
supports why that trip generation is lower and, therefore, the
reduction in the fee.
You also have an even lower fee that's been established for
under 1,500 square feet for basically your poverty level household
income, including social security and pension of $15,000 a year.
So both of those, I think, are an assist to some of the issues that
we discussed. A lot of other issues that were discussed at the
workshop will be handled at our first meeting in November as we go
forward and address overall impact fees and how we try to respond to
affordable housing and economic development.
The other thing I'll point out to you here is that the provision as
we discussed at the workshop is for within three years as provided in
the consolidated impact fee ordinance. We'll do a full reevaluation
and restructuring of this fee for transportation. But in the interim, we
wanted to establish an indexing for update of the fee, both to keep it
current in the interim period, and also in a great degree to reduce the
level of increase that's experienced when you go two to three years
later, as is the case right now, and you face a doubling of the fee.
And essentially what you have today that we're proposing is just a
doubling of the impact fees.
So that will require, in your first meeting in November when we
discuss some of those other issues, the update of your impact fee
ordinance, and that will be brought to you to include that indexing,
and that indexing is shown under the cost price index, consumer
price index changes, as well as we'll use the property appraiser for
the right-of-way land portion only, just value, excluding new
development as an indicator of change of property values.
Last thing I'll note to you is that we're looking for an effective
date of November 1st. Of course, what you're doing today with the
Page 69
October 8, 2002
update of the schedule establishes what the fees are and the effective
date for implementation of it.
I know you have a number of speakers. There are other issues
that we'll be addressing over time, some of them dealing with your
land development code and the like.
Having said that, I'm here. Mr. Tindall of Tindall, Oliver is here
as well as the staff and will be happy to answer any questions. I
know you have a number of speakers, so I'll refer to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to say I'm glad
we took our time on this, because I think we've come up with a far
better product. I think this is one that's acceptable by -- by the
community, and far more fair. And I just want to thank you for all
the work you've put into this.
MR. FEDER: We appreciate all your help and support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, first of all, I would
like to thank you for all the time that you've spent on this issue
individually with the commissioners so that we fully understand, and
also the community so they understand.
And I'm sure maybe this is more for Joe Schmitt, is the 1,500
square feet housing category. What happens if, you know, somebody
builds within this category and wants to put an addition on, of living
space? Are they -- do they apply to a different category once they do
that?
MR. FEDER: I will defer to Joe, but I believe, as with any of
the categories, if you go up and put yourself into a new category, a
higher category, then you have to pay the difference, but --
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development and environmental services administrator.
Page 70
October 8, 2002
Commissioner, to answer your question, yes, if you wanted to
enlarge and add an addition to your home, any -- any category, if you
enlarge and bump into -- into another category when you come in for
your review and permitting process, you would be assessed the
additional impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. One other question. Is
this just living area or is it total square foot? MR. SCHMITT: It's living area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Living area, thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For resi -- for residential it's living area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how many speakers do we
have?
MS. FILSON: Ten.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. For those people wishing to
speak, we welcome your comments. If you think that the person
ahead of you may have already sufficiently covered it, you're more
than welcome to waive, but, please, don't hesitate to bring your
comments forward if you'd like to.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Larry Ingram, and he will be
followed by Michael Fernandez.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: How many minutes?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're going to be a three-minute
level for these.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Make sure everybody
understands it's a three-minute presentation.
MR. INGRAM: My name's Larry Ingram. I'm an attorney, but
I'm actually here on my own behalf.
One of the things that disturbs me about the impact fees is, I like
to not forget how hard it was for me to build my first home.
I'd just gotten out of the Air Force after three years, and I saved
Page 71
October 8, 2002
60 days' leave time for the down payment. Today I couldn't have
afforded the house because of the impact fees. I'd a had to stay in
longer or accumulated more leave time.
What really disturbs me though is there is a segment in Collier
County that, in my opinion, does not pay its own way. And I think
before we tax businesses and homeowners any more, we really need
to find a way to tap that segment in Collier County that I do not
believe pays its fair share of taxes.
If you'll let me just walk you through this. There's a bit of satire
in this, but I think it's true.
When you think about farming, you think about American
Gothic. That's the picture on the front page. Farming today is not
American Gothic. It's not the husband and wife with the pitchfork
out there tilling the fields themselves. It's Alico, Miles Collier
Company, Barron Collier Company, Duda, Gargiulo, Monsanto
(phonetic), and the list goes on and on, some of the biggest
companies in the United States.
And the problem I have with the road impact fee is agriculture
uses the roads, and yet, if you examine what agriculture pays by way
of taxes, it is virtually nothing. And it pays absolutely nothing by
way of impact fees.
Granted, there's a lot of agricultural land paying taxes in Collier
County because your code uses agricultural as the holding pattern,
and so there's a lot of land zoned agricultural that is not farmed. But
to show you some of the -- probably the best abuse of the tax system
by agriculture is when Collier County purchased the property out
near Lely Golf Estates for a regional park and for part of the county
sewer system, they paid $4 and a half million for this property. It
had an assessed value of 2,059,000 and paid $178 in ad valorem
taxes.
I think before you increase taxes on residences in business, you
Page 72
October 8, 2002
need to address the issue of making the people who are paying no
taxes pay the taxes, and that's agricultural. $178 on a $2 million
piece of real estate. Most developers today use agriculture as a
holding pattern to take the property off the tax rolls until they can get
it developed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir--
MR. INGRAM: So the statistics are here. Don't put a tax on
single-family homes and commercial until you make the largest
single user of services in the county pay, and that's agriculture.
If your staff can't figure a way, you fire them and you hire
someone who can. That's what my clients tell me. If I can't figure
out how to do it, we'll --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to wind up, sir.
MR. INGRAM: -- find someone who can. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Fernandez, and he
will be followed by Rich Yovanovich.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm
Michael Fernandez with Planning Development, Incorporated,
representing a few of our clients that have projects in the process and
are going to be greatly impacted by this impact fee increase.
These are projects, like a Catholic church, St. Agnes, that is
actually under construction, had their budget established, they don't
have their building permits issued. They haven't even submitted
because they're working on them, but the overall church was
approved architecturally during the SDP process.
They've signed a $2 million contract, and construction's on the
way, but we're talking about a $100,000 increase that's going to
significantly impact their budget.
We're talking about the Allen Systems Group, which has a
90,000-square-foot office building complex that they're doing.
Page 73
October 8, 2002
They've had their architectural design approval. They've had their
SDP approved. They've done site improvements, but they don't have
their building permit either.
These are a couple of the projects that we're involved with that
will be -- that have been financed and -- on the basis of the current
impact fee structure and would like to request a grandfathering in, in
that they've already proceeded down the road fairly far, and they're
greatly impacted.
What we had suggested, and we've talked to staff about this, is
making the effective date -- the November 1st is fine, but for an SDP
or an SDP approval to already be in place by that date.
As you know, it takes a great deal of time nowadays to get an
SDP approved. A lot of money, a lot of time, architecture's been
done. If we have that approved, we think we should be
grandfathered in, or if we think we can get the building permits
applied for -- which I can tell you right now the church can't meet
that deadline -- we'd like to get those -- that item grandfathered.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Explain to me the SDP process.
That's really confusing to me.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, for instance, on the church, we got
our property rezone almost three years ago. We went through the
water management district, Army Corps, DEP and others to get
permits that needed to be processed as part of the SDP. We only
received our SDP this summer. That allowed us to do commit site
improvements for the parking areas, for the wetlands, for lake areas.
As part of that process, we received approval for the church,
architecturals, floor plans, et cetera. What we haven't done is applied
for the building permit because our consultants are working on those
Page 74
October 8, 2002
building permits as we speak, but they already have everything else
done, their budget has been established based on what has been
approved by these other agencies.
Same thing with the Allen Systems Group. They've gone
through -- they've got everything -- their site's all been done, they got
their permits from all these other agencies. They are now working
on their building permits.
It just seems that they've already counted so much on everything
on the existing fee structure. We'd just like to see some equity in
getting that -- them grandfathered in.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The Allen Systems?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: From the time you applied --
submitted your site development plan till the time you got it
approved, what was that time period?
MR. FERNANDEZ: About three months.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It took three months to do that?
What is the permitting progress? Now, you're saying you're waiting
for their permits. How long does that time frame take?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Are you talking about -- well, the other
permits, the Army Corps and so forth, took substantially more than
that. That took about six, seven, eight months. The building permit
process, once you have your conceptuals done, depends on the
complexity of the buildings and how it -- and those can take
anywhere from a month to three months to get done usually.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wow. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to address St. Agnes. I
have spoken to staff, and I think the responsibility and the burden in
that project frankly lies with you, sir, not staff. But they're saying
that if by November 1 you get your building permits in, they're going
Page 75
October 8, 2002
to be okay with the project. So I think what you need to do is get
them in.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Rich Yovanovich. He'll be
followed by Ty Agoston.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. Rich
Yovanovich representing Wally Lewis. I've spoken to you on the --
in the past about the proposed industrial park on 951, and in the
951/Davis Boulevard area.
It's going to be almost impossible for me to make all my points
in three minutes. I was prepared to do it in five, but I'll do the best I
can.
I'm reading from page 48 of your agenda -- I'm sorry, page 45 of
your agenda package. My comments are directed to the right-of-way
costs. When you look at the total right-of-way costs as your staff is
presenting them for the various projects that are past projects as well
as the three projects that are under consideration, of the three projects
under consideration, those numbers have been bumped up based
upon the 60 percent condemnation versus 40 percent resolution split,
those total costs are roughly $54 million.
The total lane miles that that $54 million pays for is 81.6 miles.
When you divide 54 million by 81.6 miles, it costs you $660,000 to
acquire that lane mile using those numbers. Staff is using a number
of $1,250,000 per lane mile cost.
Now, I recognize that that $660,000 number I'm using does not
include the administrative expenses, so that number will increase, but
it will not double.
Staff is using on the -- on the litigated parcels -- keeping in mind
that none of these parcels have actually gone to a trial, a figure of
$55,000 per parcel.
I previously spoke to you regarding the attorney's fees portion
of that being based upon the net increase in value. It's a percentage.
Page 76
October 8, 2002
Staff has gone back in their report and basically has said, well, the
appraised value we used in our report didn't -- it reflected the revised
appraised value, which really was 20 percent higher than the original
appraised value, i.e., the offer amount.
So I've gone back and I've recalculated the increase in value to
come up with the attorney's fees. And basically, the increase in value
was an additional $600,000 that was eligible for attorney's fees. You
take 33 percent of that number, which is the maximum rate you can
get, and that comes out to $200,000.
You've got to divide that by the 84 parcels that were -- actually
went through the litigation process, and that added roughly $2,600 to
my previous estimate. So you're now paying an average attorney's
fees of $11,400 per litigated parcel.
I can assure you, you are not paying $44,000 to the property
owner's appraiser and engineer. So that $55,000 number, which
you're reusing for an administrative cost, is not a good number. If I could just finish this point.
Even if you assume -- I apologize. I've got the day care cruds,
as my kids have told me what it is.
If you assume the appraiser gets $11,400 and the engineer gets
$11,400, which I think is a conservatively high number, you come up
with roughly $35,000 per litigated parcel. That's a $20,000
difference in price, and that needs to be factored into the formula.
I think you need to use the average of what it cost you to get the
property, which was $660,000, add on top of that administrative fees
of approximately 35,000 per litigated parcel, and I think you'll come
up with a substantially lower number as far as right-of-way cost
acquisition goes. And that's the only thing that I can talk to you
about.
I do want to point out one thing on the affordable housing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please -- please wrap it up, Mr.
Page 77
October 8, 2002
Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: On the affordable housing, because I've
just recently met with Cormac Giblin about trying to do an
owner-occupied affordable housing project. In order to meet the
sales threshold of 50 percent of median income, you've got to sell
that home for $73,000. That's not going to happen. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ty Agoston. He will be
followed by David Ellis.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you start his time.
MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Ty Agoston, and I essentially picked this topic on a spur of
the moment. I'm a fervent believer of impact fees and the raising of
them, and I have been kind of promoting the idea for a number of
years.
On the flip side, I have spent a hundred years in business, and I
believe that large dislocations will rock the business world. They
cannot absorb large changes.
And while I believe that a million dollar home, the rate of
increase you have slated to go in there is not going to bother them
one way or the other.
What I am concerned with, that I have five children. They're
relatively young. And while my son finished his house and paid a
very substantial impact fee, maybe one of my kids from New York
want to move down here and build a house, and you're going to price
him out of the housing market. That's that first house -- the first
home buyer that I'm concerned with. And you're talking about
square feet, which not necessarily tie in with the income.
You could buy a million dollar, 1,500-square-foot condo on the
beach, so it not necessarily corresponds to the size of the property
Page 78
October 8, 2002
that is in question.
So what I would like you to do is possibly space out the
enactment of this on the lower end to maybe a couple of years, that
will allow the first-time buyer to catch up with you, and the second,
consider the price of the property you're dealing with.
It's not sufficient, in my opinion, to deal with the square
footage. I believe that you should consider a -- maybe a multiple of
income as it relates to the property value. But somewhere along the
line, you have to consider the first-time buyer.
When you consider that today some 60-odd percent of the
youngsters have to both work in order to support a family, you have
to target your assistance there. And I see a lot of effort to maintain
an -- affordable housing. I am talking about the next layer up, where
are the youngsters who just got a new job and that are making an
income in the six figures, and at the same time they would like to
join that so-called American Dream. I thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Agoston.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is David Ellis, and he will be
followed by Tom Conrecode.
MR. ELLIS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
David Ellis. I'm with the Collier Building Industry Association. I
wanted to start out by saying thank you for what you've allowed us to
go through in this process. It's been a very difficult process, and
these are very weighty issues for our community.
Any time we have this kind of an effect -- really two important
things. We need to make sure we have proper funding for roads, and
we've looked at this process very hard, and we also need to make
sure that we equitably apply these fees in such a way that we create
the least economic dislocation for those that are affected,
homeowners and businesses.
Page 79
October 8, 2002
And it has been a challenging process. You're staff's been
accessible in the last few months. We've worked hard on these, and
we feel much better about a number of areas of the fees.
I do still have concerns about the right-of-way costs, and we
could probably talk somewhat rhetorically about a long -- that a long
time.
I think Mr. Yovanovich raised some good points, and some
points I'd hope your staff would be able to address as well as -- I
know Mr. Conrecode is going to raise some issues on that as well.
The thing I really want to talk to you about in the few minutes I
have today, as relates to the implementation of it -- of the fees and
how they'll -- they'll be affect -- they will affect people that are in the
process, particularly as relates to those that are in the SDP process,
the site development permit process, a permit process oftentimes now
that can take nine months to a year in Collier County.
If you're in that process, if last January you went and applied for
an SDP and you're not out of that process yet, you're trapped because
you cannot simultaneously submit for a permit where you can then
pay for your fees.
Many businesses who came in with proformas, just as we talked
about, haven't been fortunate enough to get their SDP approval, for
whatever purpo -- delays, for their own purposes or for others, and
now they're trapped. They cannot apply for that fee because they
haven't gotten their building permit or they haven't been freed up
from the SDP process to apply for their building permit.
We need to do something that creates equity for those
businesses in that process. It's a very challenging place for them to
be, and it can oftentimes affect their deals by hundreds and hundreds
of thousands of dollars.
Also, I do compliment the county for looking at the lowest of
the low income folks in our community in terms of how they've
Page 80
October 8, 2002
looked at these fees. I think it's an innovative approach, and yet I
share Mr. Yovanovich's concern, we need to make sure we're
actually helping someone and we're creating a process whereby they
can afford to buy a home and that funding is available for people in
those very low ranges.
I would also encourage you, as we look to the future, that we
make sure that we're looking at targeted industries, that we maybe,
perhaps, create exemptions and those types of things, as well as
addressing a right-of-way acquisition program, an advanced
right-of-way acquisition program that allows us to be proactive in our
approaches in the future to acquiring right-of-way, and we can,
perhaps, avoid some of these high costs.
Commissioners, again, my main concern today is the
implementation time frame. I'd certainly like to see an
implementation for all this to be sometime further.
We've talked about November the 1 st, but if you're asking some
of these guys to get in with their building permits, something like
December 1st or even January 1st might be more appropriate for
them to get those things in.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Tom Conrecode. He will be
followed by Ted (sic) Gates.
MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, Commissioners, and thank
you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Tom Conrecode.
The proposal you have before you today for the road impact
fees is a great improvement over previous work that was done by a
previous consultant.
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do this right and the
opportunity to work so closely with staff to iron out some of the
critical issues on the increases.
Page 81
October 8, 2002
That being said, I'd like to address our main concern with
right-of-way costs. I think they're still dramatically inflated,
resulting in the 10 to 35 percent increase in the end fee that the users
are paying in the fee schedule that you have before you today.
There have been no changed numbers since your public hearing
a few weeks back. I think there would have been some change if
someone would have made an independent and unbiased look at
those numbers and listened to the comments that numerous members
of the public came in and presented relative to those numbers. To
have no change tells me, we don't care what you have to say and that
there wasn't a need to make any change.
There was enough points made that something could have been
looked at independently and recalculated, and there would have been
a change in that number.
I think that as a result of that, that the concerns were simply
noted for the record. And we have before us today what is a
dramatic improvement over previous proposals, but it doesn't really
address the whole problem.
It creates two problems for you; one is, I think your exposure to
a challenge goes up dramatically in the future. Maybe that's not a
concern because, to date, impact fees, when challenged, have always
been settled without going to trial; secondly, by overcharging
anywhere from 10 to 35 percent, it has a very large impact on two
things, the affordability of housing that you've heard other speakers
mention today, and secondly, the impacts and the ability to attract
new businesses or to have new businesses expand within the local
economy.
I would ask that you please have your right-of-way numbers
reviewed independently prior to the adoption of the ordinance.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Todd Gates. He will be
Page 82
October 8, 2002
followed by Karol Montalto.
MR. GATES: Good morning, Commissioners. To be quite
honest, I had not even planned on speaking this morning until I heard
some of the staff summaries from yesterday.
Three items real quick. And with us being cut down to five --
three minutes, I'll speak very quickly on the first two items.
Of course you know, I'm very passionate about affordable
housing. And for every $1,000 that we add to this -- these homes in
the area, we're going to eliminate approximately 311 people. So be
very, very conscious of that. Be very, very careful as -- every time
you add a dollar to a house, you're eliminating home buyers from the
marketplace.
The second issue that's very near and dear to my heart is the
economic diversification of the county. As you know, as the land,
for the most part, the developable land, starts slowing down from a
development standpoint, we need to look at economic diversification.
We've had lots of meetings with EDC, and the number one
concern is the diversification. The number two concern is actually
the work house -- the work force housing. So anything that we do to
impede those two issues is to be, quite frankly, counterproductive for
the community. So we need to make sure that we do have a future
for diversification, number one, and number two, we need to provide
affordable housing.
Be very careful as you add these impact fees, that you're not
chasing businesses away from the community and you're chasing
families away from the community, so be very careful.
The third most important issue that I'm here to talk about, and
that's the reason I'm here, is the implementation of it. I'm very
concerned from a practical standpoint. I'm not a legal expert. I'm
here from a practical standpoint.
I'm at the county many times a day, so I can talk from being in
Page 83
October 8, 2002
the trenches, and I've talked with staff earlier. I'm very concerned
about the grandfathering in. If the gavel falls today and says, you
have to be in by November 1st for a building permit, that's okay. If
the gavel says, you have to pay your impact fees by November 1st,
that's probably okay, too.
But tomorrow morning when I run down with 10 sets of plans to
apply for a building permit that are ready to go, signed, sealed, ready
to go, and the county says, I can't accept them because you've been in
here for six months for site development permit approval, and right
now -- I think they changed it about a year ago -- it used to be a
simultaneous approval process; you apply for a building permit, you
apply for SDP. They changed that for probably good reasons at the
time.
My concern is strictly practical. When I run out tomorrow and I
apply for a building permit and the county says, you can't apply, it's a
double standard. The burden needs to be on the applicant, not the
plan reviewer.
If I miss my date for applying, then shame on me, like Mr.
Carter said. But if I run down with a fully-approved set of plans
waiting to apply for it and the lady at the desk says, go away because
your SDP hasn't been approved yet, that's not my problem.
The site development permit approval process is an issue right
now all in itself, and we can talk about it -- that at length. But my
problem here is the burden, from a county liability perspective. I
think Joe's got 45 SDPs in right now. I can guarantee you if those 45
people have got their building permit ready to be applied for and they
hear that by November 1 st they have to apply for a building permit,
and they run down there and the county says, too bad, you don't have
an SDP ready, that's fundamentally not correct.
So to me, there's two solutions. Either allow me to apply for a
building permit or move the timeline back to the site development
Page 84
October 8, 2002
application. The burden needs to be on the applicant and not the plan
reviewer. You're going to put the plan reviewers in a very, very
difficult situation, because I can guarantee you, if I'm ready to apply
and you won't let me apply and you're going to raise my impact fees,
that's a huge, huge liability problem.
So please take that into consideration, and I'm speaking strictly
from a practical standpoint and not from a legal standpoint, so keep
that in mind.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Karol Montalto, and she
will be followed by Bill Klohn.
MS. MONTALTO: Hi, my name is Karol Montalto, and I'm a
resident of Golden Gate Estates. And I didn't come up to speak about
the impact fees, but I do feel heavily about that, that -- please do
think about the first-time home buyers when you do make these
assessments, because it is difficult for us.
But what I did want to speak about was the green space tax.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That item will be coming up in a
little while, if you could refrain.
MS. MONTALTO: Can I just make one quick statement,
because I have to go to work?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please do, but keep it short.
MS. MONTALTO: I will make it short and sweet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. MONTALTO: To me the money spent on the green space
tax takes land off the tax rolls. If land is off the tax rolls, it's not
producing money. You're still going to need 100 percent of the taxes
to be paid, and if you take land off of that, the remaining people will
have to have their taxes increased to support what needs to be done,
so I think the best use of the land would be private ownership where
we can continue to pay our taxes.
Page 85
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Klohn, and he will be
followed by Larry Basik, who will be your final speaker.
MR. KLOHN: Good morning. Thank you very much.
For the record, my name is Bill Klohn. I am president of MDG
Capital Partners Associates.
As you know, our company is very committed to the affordable
housing needs of our work force here in the county.
I'll be very brief. I would want to mention that I echo the
comments of Mr. Gates and Mr. Ellis and would like to also point out
one more item with respect to the implementation of the impact fee
increase date.
This does not apply to me, so I'm not being self-serving.
Developers do not wait until they get their building permits and their
SDPs to make their land ready for sale. There are many, many
developers out selling as we speak during the process of their SDP
and their building permits.
I know that there are many developers that, after today, will
have to go back to possibly 20 buyers and say, I'm very sorry that I
now have to increase your contract price which you signed three
months ago because of the hike in impact fees.
So please listen carefully and consider the requests of those that
spoke before me with respect to the implementation. I think as well
that it should follow the process of the SDP submittal.
The last point I'd like to make, and I know that staff and
members of the commission have been very receptive to the overlay
of the impact fees not being applied globally to the county and that
there are certain areas in the county which may include southern
Collier County and East Trail and also the Immokalee area.
One of the things that will devastate some of these areas that are
already in blight or trying to make it is the impact fee increase. A
Page 86
October 8, 2002
small example, a 26,000-square-foot strip center with the impact fee
increase will collect rent for a half year to recoup the additional
expense in impact fees. That's based on a $16 rent on Tamiami Trail
North in the coastal areas.
Bring the same impact fee to Immokalee where the rents may
only be $8, and you'll have one year of rent collecting to abate that
excess impact fee.
So I would encourage you to continue to look at the overlay
areas where maybe special considerations or special programs should
be in place so that the viability and the economic growth of these
areas that are truly in need of help are not further penalized by higher
costs for construction.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. Just for your information,
November 5th we will be bringing it back for the commission to talk
about Immokalee and deal with that situation. Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll wait. I'm just getting in the
lineup after the last speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Larry Basik.
MR. BASIK: Larry Basik, represent Basik Development. We
happen to have two SDPs in process. I wasn't going to speak, but
when Commissioner Henning asked his questions on the SDP
process, there's -- I just thought maybe, you know, I -- to reaffirm
Todd Gates' comments, there's situations -- you could be standing
there fulfilled with an SDP situation with the county, but the county
can't issue that SDP till South Florida Water Management finalizes
theirs, and there's a lot of difficulty and new provisions that South
Florida's now addressing, especially we're in the rural fringe area,
and we've got 6-L's Farms practically next to us, Florida Farms,
Page 87
October 8, 2002
Gargiulo across the street. They have tremendous pumping permits
that they use to extract water out of the -- out of the ground for their
crops when there is no rain available, and then they mm around and
pump when they've got too much rain and their crops wash out.
So the situation out there is that these permits -- we have some
lakes that are already dug, and they want you to replenish the water
in those lakes by pumping, and so you have to get these pumping
permits. They're very difficult.
And so here you could have your SDP sitting there, you could
have your permits ready to go, and you could be held up by South
Florida Water Management.
In our case we had South Florida Water Management permits
prior, and we just did a modification, and I think we're probably
seven months into the modification because of these pumping issues
and the problems that -- Fiddler's Creek and some of the other -- Lely
and some of those developments around there that are now maybe
experiencing when we saw water intrusion.
So it's just -- there's a lot of things with this, and to consider,
you know, just a cutoff without considering some of the things, like,
for instance, allowing the SDP to be issued so that you can apply for
your building permit while South Florida is finalizing their end of it,
SO --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Wait. We're coming -- we've got --
we have Commission Carter first, then we'll come right back to you,
Commissioner Henning.
I'm going to close the public portion, unless you had a question
to address to -- you do?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, Mr. Basik. I had a
question about his particular project East Naples. You have applied
Page 88
October 8, 2002
for your site development plan through Collier County; is that
correct?
MR. BASIK: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was that?
MR. BASIK: Well, we had owned the land since '76, we
applied at one time in 1990, received SDPs but did not go forward
with the project, and so these are new SDPs that we've applied for
and have probably been in the system almost a year because of the
South Florida Water Management situation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So do you have an approved
site development plan from Collier County?
MR. BASIK: No, it can't be issued unless you get your South
Florida Water Management. That's part of the process.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see, okay.
MR. BASIK: And you cannot apply for a permit until you've
got your SDP. So you could be sitting there with your -- fulfilled
your SDP, but because South Florida hasn't come to the table and
issued their permit, then it puts the county staff in a position where
they can't issue the SDP. So there are circumstances that have to be
taken into consideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like Joe Schmitt, if he
would step forward and address this issue of SDPs. I think there's
like 45 in the system, and also there's a question about outside
agencies slowing down the process so you can't get it through, and
how he would propose that we deal with that.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, community
development and environmental services administrator.
Commissioner, to answer your question, first, I kind of want to
delineate here on what we're talking about. We had some speakers
Page 89
October 8, 2002
talk about SDPs, site development plans. Those are dealing with
commercial, industrial and institutional-type of developments.
Residential is a little bit different. Those are preliminary
subdivision plats, ESPs, sometimes referred to as SDPs, but it's a
little bit different.
So we've got to be careful when we delineate and decide which
ones we're talking about. But just with that point, let's talk about the
SDP process.
What Mr. Ellis and Mr. Gates and-- asked was to allow for
those who currently have an SDP in for review right now be vested
under the current impact fees.
Let me explain what we used to do. A year ago we used to
allow for concurrent reviews, meaning if you were a developer, you
wanted to come in, you would apply, bring all your supporting
documentation to initiate the SDP approval process, and at the same
time, if, in fact, you had the building designed, you would submit to
the building review and permitting department your plans for
building review, and that was the simultaneous review.
For all intents and purposes, if that application was deemed
complete, you would be -- it would be considered that you have an --
a viable application in for a building permit.
A year ago we stopped that process just because of the kind of
problems we had in the review process. We would go through the
SDP process, and oftentimes problems that were being uncovered in
the review process would necessitate a redesign of buildings. So
what we did is we stopped the concurrent reviews except for
low-income housing economic development. We still have
concurrent reviews. And -- at least quantify a yes. Odd is, in fact,
correct.
As practices dictated, that when there was an income -- an
impact fee change, that a line in the sand was pretty much if you had
Page 90
October 8, 2002
a valid permit, application in process. But now we prohibit you from
applying for a permit until your SDP is approved.
So in order to alleviate that, all I can offer is that if you have
currently, right now, an SDP in review, that prior to the
implementation date, that they be allowed to co -- the developer be
allowed to come in and apply for a building permit.
Now, in order to do that, they -- necessarily they would have to
have their building plans completed. I have no solution for a
developer who does not have their plans prepared and completed to
be submitted for review in the building department.
So, in essence, what are we doing? We're allowing for
concurrent review for anybody that currently has an SDP in for
review. And what does that mean? I've got about 45 -- actually 57
total SDPs in for review right now if I go back all the way to January
1 st, 2001.
And if you look at the chart here, what I'm showing is for retail,
office space and industrial -- and those were the figures when I
looked at the before and after. If everybody comes in right now with
those 57 SDPs -- and again, this was a quick snapshot from yesterday
afternoon-- we could probably show a delta of about $4.6 million in
lost revenue in impact fees if everyone comes in and applies.
But in all sense of fairness, that probably would be the best way
to alleviate this problem, is to allow anybody with a current SDP in
for review, that they be allowed to come in and apply for their
building permit prior to the first of November.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And they would pay their impact
fees at that point?
MR. SCHMITT: They would pay their impact fees at that
point, yes, based on what is currently intended to be built on the site.
One of the other questions was asked for us to move the point of
payment back to SDP approval. We can't do that without amending
Page 91
October 8, 2002
the consolidated impact fee ordinance, and I -- we can't go -- we can't
do that because the point of payment is the permit application or
when -- actually when you pick up your permit. You're vested when
your permit -- you apply for your permit.
But in fact, when that permit is approved, it's good for six
months. You can pick it up -- you can get it approved -- apply for it
on the 31 st of October, have it approved 7 January, and pick it up six
months later and still be covered by the old impact fees. So we're
going to have some folks who are -- will not pay the new impact fees
probably for several months, because the permit is good for six
months.
But the point is, if we want to go back to SDP for payment,
what I have to do is then, when they come in for building review,
assess again that, in fact, what they're going to build is actually what
they said they were going to build back at SDP process, and then
reevaluate to ensure that I collect the proper impact fees. An
example --
MR. MUDD: Joe, let me interrupt here for a second.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, one of the reasons we went, not to
simultaneous reviews and did this in a very sequential manner, is the
fact that the SDPs, if they had a glitch in them, had to be changed.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. MUDD: And if you have your building permits in at the
same time, that means those had to be done. So the staff was doing
work on top of work on top -- and I'm not just saying it's a staff thing,
I'm just saying, sometimes the SDPs don't go the first time around,
and when they change, if you have your building permits in then --
and if there's something in the SDP that causes the building permit to
change, then they've got to -- even though staff reviewed it and said
okay, they have to go back and review it again. They have to go back
Page 92
October 8, 2002
and review it again.
And we found ourselves in a do loop, in an-- almost in an
endless cycle of going back, re -- reviewing, reviewing, reviewing,
and reviewing again. So we made a determination about a year ago
not to do that anymore, to stop it, because it was counterproductive.
If you want to go back there for this time only, we can go do
that, but you also have to understand that you're making a decision
on $4.6 million.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, but I'll tell you something, if
we go back now, I expect you to do it every single time we have an
impact increase. We're never going to get anyplace.
For discussion purposes, I'm going to make a motion that we
approve this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Approve this --
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I ask for clarification?
Approve what I just recommended as far as allowing now for a
simultaneous review? That's an administrative issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I'm talking about the staff
recommendations that are in our executive summary.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. And then continue with the practice
that we currently have, is what you're saying?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That we have in the executive
summary, right.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do I have a second? Okay.
With lack of a second, the motion died.
Now, let's go from there.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, I think
your motion is very worthy. Here's my concern, being a --
Page 93
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I didn't make a motion, sir. I
didn't make a motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You did before, but not this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, you did not.
I am very concerned that when you buy a piece of property as a
businessman to build a building to warehouse your business, what
happens is you need to develop a cost feasible plan, how you're going
to raise the money to pay the mortgage; therefore, I mean, after you
get your plans from your engineer or planner to submit for a site
development plan, you're developing that scheme of how you're
going to pay your mortgage. At that time, whether you submit it or
not is up to you based on whether you're going to do business in this
new building.
So I understand some of the frustrations in what Mr. Schmitt
brought up of, you know, what can we do for these people that are in
the process and-- to make them whole.
My concern is economic development within the county. But
again, I do understand your motion, and I commend you for it, but
there are a lot of businesses that I have talked to, Mr. Basik being one
of them, that wants a -- to have affordable housing in -- down for --
way far in East Naples. And the church is another example of what
could happen if the purchasers cannot raise the money to pay those --
increase in the impact fees and they already have a lot of money
invested into the project. That's my concern.
I am going to make a motion to approve with the amendments of
Mr. Schmitt's recommendation of being able to apply for permits of
site -- SDPs that are in the process today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I just wanted to discuss this
a little bit more before we go into a motion.
Page 94
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Excuse me. Point in order, Mr.
Chair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you have a motion, you have
to deal with that, and it may die for lack of second, and then another
motion can be made, but you have a motion on the floor.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I assumed that Commissioner Fiala
was going to second the motion, but I stand corrected. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there a second?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion by
Commissioner Henning, and a second from Commissioner Coyle.
Now we'll go to Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I, too, am concerned. I -- Mr.
Basik, although he's building something in East Naples, has never
talked to me about that, so I don't know about that one.
But I'm concerned with the business in general, the business
community, because they're going to be hit the hardest of all. And I
am concerned if-- especially if their SDP is in and it's been -- you
know, gone through most of the approval process and then
languishing because of another governmental entity who's just -- you
know, who's maybe behind the eight ball right now and can't catch it
up. I don't think it's fair that they have to then be put into a larger
impact fee bracket, yet, I don't want to see today, after we vote on
this thing, to have everybody run in with their SDP. I don't think that
that's right either.
I think that SDPs that are already in the process and have
counted on what the impact fee was scheduled to be is the way to go.
But I don't think after -- after noon today anybody should be able to
run in and file for an SDP.
Page 95
October 8, 2002
And if that is -- would be incorporated into this, then I would
agree with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I get an understanding of
why it takes so long to get an SDP approval? MR. MUDD: Joe?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just give me a couple of reasons
for the majority of the problem.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's kind of a-- I don't have a short
answer. The long answer is, the process is a laborious process
because of the reviews that are involved.
It could take two or three different times that an applicant comes
back because of rejections, rejections in architectural standards,
rejection in landscaping, utilities issues. Transportation is a big issue.
So the applications come in, they're -- through the standards that are
established through the land development code and criteria that's
establish, and the comments are made and rejections, and then come
back for resubmittals.
The process is laborious from the sense of, the applicant has due
diligence also in trying to ensure that they're complying with the
standards when they apply. So it's not -- it's a process of both sides.
And of course, some of that-- you well understand we've had
shortages on the planning staff, and that's the principal area where the
SDP processes are reviewed. And that's -- when you're dealing with
the horizontal development -- not the vertical construction, but the
horizontal development, it's the planning staff. And I'm still trying to
hire seven more planners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the situation we have, if
I understand it, is that people have submitted their SDPs -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for approval.
Page 96
October 8, 2002
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And in some cases, maybe in most
cases, they have been slowed down primarily because we don't have
the staffing or the manpower to deal with those things on a fast
turnaround basis, is that -- or--
MR. SCHMITT: Or a combination of--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or a combination of others, yeah.
MR. SCHMITT: -- work that's been submitted, and it does not
comply with the standards that are establish and have to be
resubmitted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I understand the problem
now.
With some of the recommended changes in calculations that
have occurred today during public comments, I'm beginning to feel
like I'm being nibbled to death by ducks, and --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're learning my expressions.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I knew I'd heard it somewhere.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We need someone to carry on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But -- yeah, I'll try to maintain the
legacy here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good, that's good.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I think the time is now for us
to make a decision on this thing, and I believe it should be a fair
decision. And if there is any possibility that our failure to turn
around an SDP plan in a timely fashion could cause someone
financial harm, I think we should do everything we can to guard
against that.
So in that respect, I would support Commissioner Henning's
motion, but whichever way this thing goes, I'd like to make one quick
statement -- and this is carrying on your legacy, too, Commissioner
Carter.
Page 97
October 8, 2002
Contrary to the way this whole issue has been reported, we
started out with an impact fee increase of about 224 percent. The
productivity committee reviewed those calculations and found major,
major mathematical errors in those calculations. The staff then
proposed to us 150 percent or so, an increase, and many of us felt
those were not well justified.
So now we have come to an impact fee calculation which I
personally have considerable confidence in. The movement from
224 percent to whatever it is now did not result from pressure from a
development community, it didn't result because the commission
caved in to development demands. The movement resulted from the
fact that the first figures were incorrect, and now we have correct
figures, and that's exactly where we ought to be.
But I still suspect we'll be reading about how the developers
bludgeoned us into submission and made us reduce these impact fees.
But in any event, I support Commission Henning's motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Perhaps minor more information
along this. Two questions. We have 45 that have been in since
January 1, 45 SDPs. For whatever reasons, they have not been able to
exit the system yet to get the permits. I'm pretty comfortable with
dealing with that.
I really don't know about the 12 since July 1. Was that -- you
know, I suspect that is maybe -- maybe more of a, wow, here it
comes, we've got to get this thing moving. I may be wrong on that, I
don't know.
The other side of it is, I'm concerned on an SDP where the
responsibility has not been carried forward by the petitioner to get
the building permit in because of their own -- whatever. I'll be
careful what I say here. But for whatever that matter is -- and I will
use St. Agnes and St. John's as my parieur, so I know that staff did
Page 98
October 8, 2002
everything in the world to move that project by coaching and guiding
and counseling to help them to get there. And what I said earlier is I
totally believe in that case, they ought to have their building permit
in by November 1.
Now, I don't know how many of these other 57 have the same
problem where you had people that didn't do the job. I can't make
that decision because I don't know. But I would rather err on the side
of caution and at least consider the 45 in this effort as an interim
move through this process and, hopefully, in the future, as
Commissioner Coyle is saying, is that we can have the staff, we can
find ways so this does not become an obstacle in all fairness to
everything, to people like Norman Feder, who's done everything in
his power to try to get this thing done and get it done well.
However, there's one other item in here that may lend some
information, and that is on Mr. Schmitt's report on October 3, item
objective number eight, impact fee deferral in regards to economic
development. Now, that gives you an opportunity, even if you
passed everything today, that if that item was taken action on and
speeded up by the board of county commissioners -- it says three to
six months, I would bet you could probably accelerate that, get it
back as an action item in front of this board, and then when was that
was passed, these areas for economic development then would be put
into a deferral program, even though they'd already paid their impact
fees up front. It says now they have another opportunity to
recapture.
So I don't want to lose sight of that, and I don't want the
economic development community to lose sight of that, so whatever
this board decides today, let's keep this in front of us, these
objectives that this board, the sooner they act on it, can alleviate
some of the pressures in key areas that really accelerate and make us
a much more viable community for economic development.
Page 99
October 8, 2002
You know, we shouldn't just be a vacation destination. We
should be a business destination. And we have the CEOs from around
the world that come here that we could get that done. So let's not
lose sight of that. And as a departing board member, I am going to
encourage this board to accelerate getting that back to apply to these
formulas.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, just one point --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Because they pay a lot of our taxes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Absolutely. Now, just in
summary, let me say it real quick -- I've talked too long -- is I can
live with 45 today and -- but I'm not sure about the other 12.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, ifI could just point out for
clarification, just on your comment, that was the workshop items.
The idea that you are talking about were the results of the workshop,
our 17 September workshop, just so the public knows and
understands.
And also, for the July 30th date, the reason I delineated between
-- up to July 30th was that was when we first introduced this item to
the board as far as impact fees, so they understand why July 30th is
the line I drew. So just to clarify those two points.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners Carter, I couldn't
agree with you more. I can see the fairness in the 45, but the rush for
the bank for the last 12 leaves me in doubts. But then again, too,
that's not the motion before us at this point in time. But I agree, I
like that myself.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'm going to clarify my
motion to state that, for the 45 previous to July 31st, because you're
correct, Mr. Coletta, it's a perception on the run to the bank, because
there was full knowledge by the community that the impact fees were
going to be raised, at least to the level, if not more, than what we're
Page 100
October 8, 2002
discussing today. So it's an issue of fairness to the public. So I'm
going to just clarify in my motion to state --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you agree with that -- agree with
that clarification?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other discussion on this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is a second -- who made the
second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. And we're
going to adjourn now for an hour lunch.
(A lunch recess was taken at 12:10 p.m.)
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-424 APPOINTING DAVID ELLIS TO THE
AFFORDARIJE HOI LqlNG COMMITTEE- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Welcome back. Okay, moving right
along, we're at the Board of Collier County Commissioners' part of
Page 101
October 8, 2002
the agenda.
Appointments to the affordable housing commission.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
MS. FILSON: Which one?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: 9(A).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David Ellis.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: David Ellis, affordable housing.
I would have approved the whole section.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Appoint them all.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, we have a motion from
Commissioner Carter to appoint David Ellis to the affordable housing
commission and a second from Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2002-425 APPOINTING ESMERALDA SERRATA
TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE-
ADOPTFJD
(B).
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval, workforce -
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Essie Serrata.
Page 102
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- housing -- yeah, Essie Serrata.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is the workforce housing
advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And that is the committee's
recommendations.
And we have a motion by Commissioner Carter, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-426 APPOINTING THOMAS FRANCHINO
TO THE HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION
BOARD- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Appointment to the -- a member to the historical archeological
preservation board.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We have one application, Mr.
Thomas W. Franchino, and I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Page 103
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2002-427 APPOINTING RON TORP AND
ROBERT SLEBODNIK TO THE LELY GOLF ESTATES
lqFJAI ITIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTF, F. - ADOPTFD
And then we have (D) here, appointment of members to the
Lely Golf Estates beautification advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'd like to nominate
Ron Torp and Robert Slebodnik.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good. I'll second it.
We have a motion by Commissioner Fiala, and a second by
Commissioner Coletta.
Is there any discussion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just one. Bob Slebodnik's
name is spelled wrong there. It's S-L-E instead of S-E-L.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I noticed it too, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I caught that right up front.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What are you laughing for?
Okay, can we have -- I'm sorry, we've got a motion from
Commissioner Fiala and a second from Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Coyle.
Did you say you --
Page 104
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought you seconded it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you did.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I did, you're correct. Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Who's on first?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You better believe it.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2002-428 OPPOSING THE ACQUISITION OF
THE MARCO ISLAND/MARCO SHORES UTILITY SYSTEM BY
THE FI,ORIDA WATER SFRVICF,$ AIITHORITY- ADOPTFJD
Okay, now we're over at resolution opposing the acquisition of
Marco Island/Marco Shores utility system by Florida Water Service
Authority.
Commissioner Fiala, this was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You brought this forward --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and I'm glad you did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is very, very important to
Marco Island; to actually all of the water facilities that are using this.
And as you can see by the resolution, Commissioners, I know
Page 105
October 8, 2002
you've read it all, this is something that we must do to support Marco
Island's efforts.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a motion, Commissioner
Fiala?
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
FIALA:
COYLE:
FIALA:
COYLE:
I make a motion that we approve.
Is that the revised --
Yes, the revised resolution.
Revised resolution, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And submit it -- or send it to -- is it
Milton, or is it -- we're sending it to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Gulf Breeze?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Gulf Breeze.
MR. MUDD: The directions -- Section 2 directions are pretty
explicit. Where do you want me to send it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to do that, yes, to the
Section 2 directions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you do a second, Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I will second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That Chianti at the lunch does it
every time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was with the green bunch at
lunch.
So I make a motion that we approve the revised resolution and
forward it immediately to Gulf Breeze.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. A motion by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any
discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 106
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
here. Thank you.
Opposed?
The ayes have it 5-0.
And thanks, Bill Moss, for being
Item #10G
ROAD IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE - RECONSIDERED TO
BE RECI,ARIFIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, before we go to 10, we really
need to go back to 8(G), which is the road impact fees again, just for
some clarification.
In consultation with the attorney, there are some issues that he
brought to our attention during break that I think we need to talk just
a little bit about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion for reconsideration.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion for reconsideration
from Commissioner Coletta, second from Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 107
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, now, help us through this,
David.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
And as the board finalizes its discussion and decision-making, I
was unclear myself as to what the motion was. And both with Mr.
Schmitt and Mr. Mudd, we'll walk through two or three elements.
First, of course, the ordinance was adopted by a vote of the
board previously, but for reconsideration, you are going to have the
opportunity to revise your vote that was taken before.
So excuse me, I just ate lunch, too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Cheap wine, David.
MR. WEIGEL: A fast sandwich.
But one element of the motion appeared to be regarding a July
31st date as, either call it a cut-off date or a sanctuary date for certain
submittals of SDP's in the process for review by development
services.
I believe there's also a discussion and a material element of the
motion made a distinction between non-residential applications as
opposed to residential applications.
And I believe and recommend the assistance of, both the county
manager's staff and my own, that the distinctions of residential and
non-residential, although taken with the best of thought in mind, may
provide problems in having a rationally defensible distinction, if the
ordinance should come under challenge. And I would suggest that
the board, in reconsidering this -- its motion to adopt, craft a motion
that does not make the distinction between residential and
non-residential, and further, that it does not make a distinction of
applications of site development plans and/or building permit
applications prior to or after July 31 st.
Excuse me, that should be the last clearing.
The effect of having a, call it a clean motion going forward,
Page 108
October 8, 2002
which at this point may well reflect Commissioner Henning's initial
motion, which had a second prior to amendment, would indicate that
those site development plans that have been in the works, whether
starting January of 2002 or later on during this year, and the building
permit applications that are made by those same applicants, will have
the opportunity for the old rate, that is, the current rate, minimally up
to November 1 st and potentially beyond November 1st, if the site
development plan is approved and the building permit application is
submitted prior to November 1st.
I think I've stated it as succinctly as I can. If either Patrick
White, Joe Schmitt or Jim Mudd wish to jump in with any further
suggestion and clarification, I invite that now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It may help, sounds like this is fairly
complex, and Commissioner Henning was the one that made the
original motion, and I'd like to give him the opportunity to make the
revised motion. And possibly he might want to start where he can
build on as he's going along.
Everything you just said -- it gets pretty involved, and I know
you don't want us to miss one step. Would you like to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I'd like some clarification.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would, too. But I think what we
may want to do -- and I'll leave that up to Commissioner Henning.
Would you like the opportunity to redo the motion again,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the intent of the motion
was people that had full knowledge of it is -- of the increased impact
fees, like Commissioner Carter said, that they had full knowledge of
it, and they were moving forward with their SDP.
The people prior to that did not have full knowledge of the
impacts to their project. So I feel very uncomfortable with what I
consider a rush on the bank.
Page 109
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not sure what --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now, wait. Hold it, hold it, slow
down.
Commissioner Coyle, then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me try to condense this. I
think the intent of the motion was to make sure that anyone,
residential or commercial, who had an SDP pending approval prior to
July the 31 st, 2002, could submit a request for permit simultaneously
with the SDP review process. And consequently, they would pay the
existing or old impact fee rate.
Any residential or commercial SDP that was submitted after
July 31 st would not have that same right, and would fall under the
new impact provisions. Did I state that correctly?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe you did. And I think that that is where
we have a bit of the problem. And that is, and particularly for those
SDP's submitted after July 31st, we may find ourselves in essence
creating some retroactivity of new fee application to permits that are
already -- permitting process that's already in the works right now,
and that's what I would want to avoid.
I recall that in Lee County, when Lee County adopted its school
impact fee, that it went to immediate implementation, either the day
of adoption, which is prior to its even being approved -- being
received by the Secretary of State, or certainly no later than when
received by the Secretary of State.
And they had a significant, and still do, a significant lawsuit
concerning the application dates of in that case the initiation of a fee.
In our case it is a modification of a fee. But that's really just a
semantic at that point in time.
So we want to make sure that there is -- that we reduce potential
viable complaints of retroactivity or lack of notice, and at the same
time I think also reduce or eliminate elements of distinction based on
Page 110
October 8, 2002
commercial or noncommercial applications.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, your -- let me do this one
more time then.
The intent of the motion in my second was that anyone who had
an SDP in process prior to July the 31st of this year, whether it's
residential or commercial, could submit a request for a building
permit concurrent with the review of the SDP, and that they could
take advantage of the existing impact fee raise.
Those people who submitted an SDP July 31st or afterwards
already knew that we were reviewing impact fees with a view toward
increasing them fairly dramatically. So a prudent person would have
been able to take that into consideration July 31st and afterward.
So what we're doing is we are -- we're not making a distinction
between residential units or commercial units, we're treating them
both the same. And we're merely providing essentially a
grandfathering clause for those SDP permits -- or SDP's that had
been submitted for review prior to the 31st of July, 2002. Did I say
anything wrong?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Coyle, for the record --
MR. MUDD: The only thing you didn't say was it's only good
until 1 November.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Because on 1 November, if you get a building
permit that comes in after 1 November, they have the new rate. So
they would have to get in their building permit prior to 1 November.
MR. SCHMITT: And for the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator,
community development and environmental services.
The other piece of this was they would have to submit for
building permit, meaning come in with their building plans, and they
would have to be deemed acceptable as building plans. If they are in
fact unacceptable, meaning maybe if they submit them and in
Page 111
October 8, 2002
December they say we would like them modified and change those
plans or do something to them that in effect made it appear as though
they were just submitting plans to get in under the wire, then we
would reject that application as being deemed a complete application,
and they would have to reapply under the new impact fee schedule,
rather than the current schedule.
So what I mean by that is you come in and you submit a
building plan for an SDP that's currently in the pipeline right now,
but it's not really a building. You think you're going to build, you're
just trying to get your nose under -- as they say, the camel's nose
under the tent.
It's got to be a legitimate application; otherwise, it will be
deemed rejected and resubmit under the new proposal.
Now, the issue that the county attorney has brought up and
which we discussed when I went over to talk to him at the time you
were making a proposal was to ensure that there was legitimacy in
establishing that July 31st date -- or July 30th date, whether or not it
was legally defensible and defendable from a standpoint of being
challenged, could we establish that line.
And the legitimacy was that was when we first raised the issue
of impact fees with the Board of County Commissioners. And that's
why we had to have a decision from the county attorney as to
whether or not that was -- could we establish that date as the date of
submittal, or would it have to be the 1st of November.
And if we went to the 1st of November, what I would propose,
that anything from today to the 1st of November, you cannot come in
and have a run on the bank and bring in both the SDP and a building
permit application under a concurrent review. The concurrent review
process would only be for those who already have SDP's currently
approved or currently in for review within community development
and environmental services.
Page 112
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is getting more and more
complex.
What is the recommendation of staff?.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I would defer to the county attorney
first on the delineation of the date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'd like to just take one mom --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, that's all right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You don't want -- okay. I did make
you wait, and I don't--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right, because I was
going to ask the same question as Commissioner Coyle, and I
understood the same thing as Commissioner Coyle. So you're just
speaking my words anyway.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I've tried twice.
MR. SCHMITT: My recommendation was exactly what you've
proposed, Commissioner Coyle, and that was the 30th of July, as to
allow for those who were in the system be grandfathered. And that
was why, when I was discussing, that was my recommendation based
on the chart that I'd made also. But when I approached the county
attorney, I said is this -- can we legitimize establishing the 30th as the
cut-off, and would it be legally defensible if somebody challenged us
and said well, wait a minute, I'm here on the 1 st of August, and gee, I
submitted and nobody ever told me that the 30th of July was the
cut-off date. Would we have to move that cut-off date to actually the
1st of November? And that's where we are right now.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're just arguing over the
cut-off date, not the principle of the motion. MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. And your restatement has
certainly clarified it for me.
And in regard to the grandfathering prior to July 3 ! st, I do not
Page 113
October 8, 2002
think that is problematical. I think Mr. Schmitt has appropriately
phrased the last vestige of issue, and that is in regard to those
applications that are -- of site development plans that are submitted
subsequent to July 30th, 31st, and are before the board right now.
And Joe, again, so it's clear on the record, I believe the situation
that we would have is no different than if someone were just
applying in the normal course of things. For those applicants
subsequent to July -- is it 30th or 31 st?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, 30th was actually the date of our
meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: 30th.
Because Joe is indicating -- Mr. Schmitt was indicating that
there must be a site development plan that's deemed sufficient; that is
a review that staff does immediately upon its submittal. That in no
way is an approval of a site development plan, but it means that it's
sufficient for the review process.
Subsequent to that, during that period of July -- after July 31st
toward November 1 st, contemplated under this ordinance, the
applicant has the ability to separately, not concurrently with the site
development plan submittal, but in the course of review, provide a
building permit application. Having done that, they will, to my
understanding, have the ability for the current fee, not the revised fee
contemplated by this amendment, if it is submitted prior to
November 1 st.
For all those applicants that don't meet those terms, they will
fall into the new fee implementation of November 1st. And that
would be those people that submit site development plans now and
their building permit application comes after November 1st.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Now you understand it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I do, but I have a question,
okay?
Page 114
October 8, 2002
Now, in our interest to be fair to people, are we giving them
relief on the one hand by permitting them to submit a building permit
concurrently with the SDP plan that is in process, but then taking it
away by imposing unreasonable conditions that they should be able
to create complete building plans between now and the 1st of
November?
MR. SCHMITT: No. Commissioner, that has been common
practice for every impact fee increase that we've had, you had to
have a building permit application submitted and deemed complete
for review.
It would be just like when the Florida Building Code was
implemented the 1st of March, the rush on the bank so they could get
the applications in before they had to comply with the new building
code. We had 7,000 permits -- or applications submitted that month.
Now, there is a review time for us to go through the reviews, but
there's been -- I won't say that -- I won't accuse anybody of being
deceptive, but there were submittals that said well, this is what I'm
going to build, and then as we worked our way down the pile, we
might not have got to that one at that time and they say oh, hey, I
want to switch and this is the building I really want to build.
So what we're saying is you can't bait and switch. You've got --
the plans that you submit are in fact the ones that you intend to build.
So that means you have to have a complete design, completed and
ready for building review.
And if you switch and want to say I want to change and it's a
significant change, you will -- you would have to be considered
you'd have to reapply. It would not be deemed a complete
application prior to 1 November.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me try this a different
way. I'm a businessman and I want to build an office.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
Page 115
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I've got the site development
plan and I gave it to you sometime last year. MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we've been going back and
forth and back and forth, and I don't feel that you've been reacting
quickly enough, you think I should have given you answers more
quickly than I should have. And then all of a sudden today you say if
you can have your building plans completed and submitted to me by
-- or submitted to you by November the 1 st, I'll give you relief from
this.
MR. SCHMITT: Two separate processes. You've got the site
development plan, which is the vertical --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
MR. SCHMITT: -- or correction, the horizontal construction.
That's the site development plan.
The building plans, which are the vertical construction, the
physical building itself, you submit that to building review and
permitting for a different review. That's where it goes through the
review process to ensure that it complies with all the local state and
federal building codes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand all that, but --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, is there going to be places for--
let's just pick a church, okay? St. Louis Church is a new church and
it's a big church. It looks more like a cathedral. And it's been in the
site development plan for a long time. And they haven't had either
the money or the forethought to start building -- or start going
through designing their building, okay, for that process. And all of a
sudden you say you need to have it in three weeks.
Might they be short-sheeted at this particular juncture and not
have enough time in order to get their permit? Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's what I'm getting at.
Page 116
October 8, 2002
MR. MUDD: Absolutely. There are going to be instances
where that's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that-- the solution.
MR. SCHMITT: And that would have happened the 1st -- go
back even to the 1st of March when -- the implementation of the new
building codes. Hey, if you didn't finish the design in time and get it
submitted, you lost.
Now, also understand that once the building permit is reviewed
and approved, its life has a half-life of only six months. If you don't
pick it up within six months, it's deemed null and void and you have
to start the process all over again. So this is not something that can
sit and languish for a while. Once it's submitted, it goes through the
approval process, meaning you submit in the middle of December
and it works its way down the queue and you finally get a review the
1st of January and they say come and pick up your building permit,
you have six months to come and pick up the building permit.
When you pick up the permit, that's when you actually part with
the cash and pay your impact fees. But the impact fees are actually
assessed based on the day that you actually apply and the
application's deemed sufficient.
So what the real issue here is, are we including industrial,
commercial and residential all into the resolution and the date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the answer to the first
question is yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the date is July 31st or 30th.
MR. MUDD: July the 30th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: July the 30th.
MR. SCHMITT: Anything prior to July --
MR. MUDD: Let me finish, Joe. Let me have a word in
edgewise, okay?
Page 117
October 8, 2002
And they have to get the permit application in before 1
November. I want to make sure we have that. Because after 1
November, for those SDP's, they will be subject to the new impact
fees. And so I just want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm fine with that.
MR. MUDD: -- make sure. And then we're going back into the
sequential process after that for those other SDP's, where they get
approved before they put in building permits.
Because Commissioner, we're going to be back here in January,
okay, because you have a series of impact fees that are going to be
updated, schools, sheriff, and they all look like they're coming after
the first of the year. We're going to be back at this issue again.
Because school impact fees haven't been updated since '92, from
what I've been told, okay?
So we're going to be back here again talking the same issue
again and we're going to be beating this again. So I also want to
make sure that you're setting a precedent, okay, because we're going
to have to repeat over and over again. And I think Chairman Coletta
got to that a little bit in a previous discussion before lunch. Every
time we do this, we're going to be at the same particular issue again.
MR. SCHMITT: And past practices were that you had to have a
permit in and deemed acceptable in order to get grandfathered.
Now, just to clarify for vesting. There are folks who come in
and pre-pay to get a certificate of adequate public facilities, or a
COA, as we call it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They can't do that anymore.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, you still can until we go to checkbook
concurrency, but--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute. Back in
February we modified that LDC, that requirement.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes, you did. You took out the
Page 118
October 8, 2002
prepayment.
The issue at hand, though, is that right now you get adequate
public facility when you get your building permit and pay your
impact fees.
So what I'm asking, and what is being looked at here, is now
without an approved SDP, we're bringing people in to get their
building permit and pay their fees. Are we now establishing a
vesting without an approved SDP?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, I mean, in answer to that question, we
did that in the past, you came in with a building (sic) and said this is
what I'm going to build, and it was an office building, that's what you
were charged. For some reason the market changed and by the time
you actually went to construction and there was a modification for
that building and half of it was turned into storage space, then you
came in and basically got -- had a reassessment when you drew your
building permit.
But I guess to answer your question --
MR. MUDD: It could happen. What Norman just mentioned
could happen.
MR. SCHMITT: What Norman just mentioned could happen,
yes.
MR. MUDD: Could.
MR. SCHMITT: You come in and you try and get your
application in under the wire, you're assessed based on what you tell
us you're going to build, whatever that may be, residential,
condominiums or, I don't know, whatever they're going to build.
You pay based on what you tell us you're going to build. If in fact
you don't build that and it's something else, we would reassess the
impact fees. But that's something we do.
And Phil, I don't know if you want to follow up on that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before we go to that--
Page 119
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right, I want to hear his
answer. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, what I think-- let's go back
over the bidding one more time. Okay, we're talking about -- we're
talking about residential, commercial, industrial SDP's that were
submitted prior to 30 July will have the ability to have a
simultaneous review of their SDP and their building permit, if the
building permits are submitted before ! November.
The SDP's that were submitted after the 30th of July will not
have the ability to have a simultaneous review and will have to get
their SDP's approved before they submit their building permits,
which has been the way we've done business over the last year.
The building permits have to -- for anybody. Maybe they would
be those SDP's prior to 30 July, or anybody that needs a building
permit, if that building permit gets submitted before 1 November,
they will be under the old road impact fees. Any permit that is
submitted after 1 November will be under the new impact fees.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we still didn't discuss the
issue of concurrency or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: COA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the COA. So'you're also saying
that when they pay their impact fee, they essentially get a COA.
MR. SCHMITT: When they pay their impact fee, they're
paying their -- there's no -- MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, they are.
MR. MUDD: Yes. The answer to that is yes, sir.
MR. SCHMITT: They're paying an impact fee based on what
they tell us they're going to build. I mean, that's normal -- no matter
what you actually come in and tell us what you're going to build, you
Page 120
October 8, 2002
pay based on what your plans are assessed to be and the impact that
they're going to have on the infrastructure within the county.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When does the traffic analysis and
other impact analysis get done?
MR. SCHMITT: The traffic analysis is done prior to when it
comes to the board for rezoning or through other -- any other type of
activity. But as far as --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That has already been done for all
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, for all intents and purposes, that's already
been done.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so that process has already
been determined--
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and they've already met all the
requirements under our existing law--
MR. SCHMITT: Now when it goes through the SDP, we're
really looking at other particulars as far as ingress and egress. And I
don't know, I'll look to Don and Greg from transportation, because --
but that has no impact on assessment of fees.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
As part of the SDP process, that's when we look at a TIS. So
prior to approval of the SDP is when we're reviewing the TIS and
turn lane --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, so let me make sure I can
sort this out.
MR. SCHMITT: There's no impact on impact fees with that
TIS review.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not talking about that issue
right now. I'm talking about certificate of adequacy of public
facilities.
Page 121
October 8, 2002
Now, what I understand you just told me is that since these
things are in the SDP phase, they have already been evaluated from
the standpoint of concurrency.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, they -- they're in the process. They may
have not been evaluated yet, because they're still in the SDP phase.
They haven't been approved. The SDP hasn't been approved yet. I
can't say every one of these 57 have been -- actually gone through
transportation review. They may have gone through transportation
review and had comments and returned.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. So our concern is
essentially this: If we give the people a building permit, we're
essentially giving them a certificate of adequacy of-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- public facility.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But yet we have not determined
the impact on our infrastructure as of that time. Some of them you
probably have, some of them you probably have not.
MR. SCHMITT: But the ones that -- if it wasn't in for some
kind of a review-- well --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me see if I can cut
through this.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, I'm--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, there are some of these
SDP's that the staff has analyzed and they said okay, they meet the
concurrency requirements and they're okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
building permit, you're fine--
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
And for those, if you issue a
-- because you've already
Page 122
October 8, 2002
evaluated the impact on the infrastructure and it's already been
approved.
There are others that are under review that have not had the
concurrency review. Now, under those circumstances, I think it is
wrong to award a certificate of adequacy of public facilities until
such time as that review is completed. But that doesn't mean that
you can't issue a qualified building permit, I don't think, or at least
permit them to exercise this grandfathering situation.
Do you understand what I'm talking about?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Can you divide those
things that way? In other words, you can make the building permit
contingent upon the completion of that portion of the SDP review for
these 45 SDP's. Could you do that?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. But, but, but, and there's always a but. I
hate that. But the problem that you've got is -- and I'm not too sure
their system is that sophisticated to figure out exactly where they're
at as far as the concurrency review is. He knows which ones are over
at transportation still, they know which ones are over at utilities for a
look, and those particular issues, and those are the two big ones that
we've got.
Now, we certainly can be able to figure that out. It's going to be
heck for the 45 that are out there right now during this conversation
knowing that they got it here before the 30th of July but they're not
too sure where it sits as far as the staff is concerned, and they're in
the rush to come up with a building permit application before the 1st
of November.
But we can do that, and we can even notify those folks, which
ones they are, within the next week, in order to get that
accomplished. It can happen, okay.
Page 123
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, just -- I just wanted to make
sure you understand my concern. I think it is unreasonable to
develop a system, even a temporary system such as this, which will
guarantee people the availability of public facilities without having
conducted the concurrency analysis.
MR. SCHMITT: Can I -- because I think there's a
misunderstanding, Commissioner. We -- you apply for your permit,
and that's why I think -- where the confusion is. You apply for the
permit, but your permit is not actually valid until you complete all
the review process --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's exactly what I'm getting at.
MR. SCHMITT: -- both the building permit and the site
development plan. So you're not giving approval to initiate
construction until you're completed with the review process.
So in fact you don't pay your impact fees until you actually
come and pick up the permit. You apply for the permit, it's deemed
sufficient, a sufficient application, it's in prior to the 1st of
November, but you don't actually get assessed the impact fees until
you complete the review process.
All you're locking in is the old rate, not the actual impact fee
cost. If--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this concurrency debate we've
been having for the last 15, 20 minutes is moot then, right?
MR. SCHMITT: That's -- I'm -- I don't know where Norman is.
That's why I'm trying to figure if Norman can explain, because you
really -- you debate the concurrency, but we would reject it if the
transportation infrastructure wasn't out there to support it. You have
to get through the entire review process before you get a valid
building permit.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, with all due respect, let me give a
little bit of clarification, hopefully.
Page 124
October 8, 2002
First of all, in some respects, yes, the concurrency issue may
have been a bit moot, because we give annual certification and AUIR
under our current provisions.
However, and this is where I'm asking the question. Patrick has
expressed some thoughts and maybe I'll defer to him and let you hear
legal advice on this. I was asking the question.
My question is this: In our process, someone who has not yet
had an SDP approved, we're encouraging them to come in with their
building permit application and find it sufficient and pay their fees.
At the time that they get a building permit and pay their fees by our
current process, they get an adequate public facilities certification.
They may take some time before their SDP is approved, some time
before their building permit is approved.
In December we're going through another update of the AUIR.
I'm not recommending holding people up for that, please understand
how I'm saying this, but we could be putting ourselves in a position
where we're then establishing vesting outside of our own process,
which now is an annual process, until we get the changes made of
concurrency management.
Now I'll defer to Patrick if I haven't muddied the waters --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think I understand all that. I just
couldn't understand why we were debating the concurrency issue if
in fact you're going to do it after you've approved everything. But it
seems to me that --
MR. FEDER: If that is true, my question for legal and for the
board to consider in this was only -- it's my understanding, and I'll be
happy to be proven wrong, and maybe that's some of the confusion.
My understanding that when I come in, have a sufficient, found to be
sufficient, building permit application and pay my impact fees, I am
in fact getting my adequate public facilities certification with a
number stamped on my building --
Page 125
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But you haven't paid your impact
fees until after the so-called concurrency review has been completed.
MR. FEDER: If that's the action of the board. I didn't know
that that was the action the board was taking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I thought that's what the
staff was just telling us, that they don't even assess the impact fees
until such time as they do that.
MR. FEDER: That may resolve the matter.
Patrick, is that your understanding?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, have we reached a
decision?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, you pay impact fees when you actually
pick up the permit.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, not when you actually --
MR. SCHMITT: I said that 10 minutes ago, and that's why I
was looking confused with this debate.
And I apologize for when Norman brought it up, but I thought
there was an issue there. But you actually -- you lock in the rates
when you come in before the 1st of November. You go through the
review process. Everything has to be deemed sufficient when you go
through the review process, whether it's transportation, utilities, all
the other aspects.
And then you go -- then once you get a valid SDP approval,
which is actually the permit to start the site work, then you do get a
building permit, that's the building permit to actually start the
construction. Until you draw that building permit and tell us what
you're going to build, we really have no idea what to assess. So that's
when we assess it, assess the fees.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, let me try one more time
then, all right?
I give you a site development plan and we work out the details
Page 126
October 8, 2002
and you find something wrong with it, I correct it, I give it back to
you, you review it, so forth. Then you're going to let me submit a
building -- a permit application.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. With your building plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With my building plans.
And then you're going to review those in this particular case
concurrently, on a parallel track. And you will calculate the impact
fees based upon what I have presented to you as far as building plans
are concerned.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you will not -- I will not get a
guarantee of adequate public facility until such time as the staff has
completed the concurrency review process for my SDP. You're
going to have a traffic analysis, you're going to understand the
water/sewer impact --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and all of those kinds of things
before I get a guarantee of any kind whatsoever.
MR. SCHMITT: For all intents and purposes. But as Norman
said, we don't have a concurrency review for transportation. We
have an AUIR, where we update it once annually.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we do have, under the
current rules, the transportation impact evaluation that -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we perform.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it must fall within those
guidelines, or else it doesn't meet the concurrency requirements.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we know what the constrained
roads are. We know that if we get somebody in who's going to have
Page 127
October 8, 2002
a 30 percent impact on those roads, we know it's not going to make
it. So we are not issuing a concurrency certificate until such time as
we have completed the entire review. Is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's all I wanted to know.
All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Very good, Fred.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, we're back where we were
earlier.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we're not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Everything is okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I forgot my first
question already. But my second question is, they were talking about
submitting your building permit, or your request for building permit.
And I don't have a problem with that, because I figure if they've
filed before July 30th, they know what they're going to be building
on there, and they've been -- you know, they don't wait till they get
their SDP before they start to figure out how to build it and what they
want to do; they've got architects working on that.
But what I am concerned with is submitting a plan that is less
than what they actually want to build. Somebody brought up that
point. And I'm thinking if they want to get that in and then all of a
sudden lo and behold after the 1st of November we find out that
they're going to be building a cathedral rather than a comer church --
or whatever, but just for sake of example -- is there a way then for us
to go back and say from November 1st until now, this building has
expanded three times, so now you have to pay the impact that is now
in place from November 1st on, on that expansion?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, that's what I brought up.
Page 128
October 8, 2002
In fact, if it's a bait and switch, if they want to make a substantial
change to what they actually applied for, let the records reflect that --
let the record reflect that in fact we have the authority to deem that as
not having been a sufficient application and say you now have to
reapply based on the new impact fees. It would be like an
application coming in after the 1st of November.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: So if in fact they want to get something in
under the wire --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just wanted to nail that down,
okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- and it's later deemed unacceptable.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, I have had Jim Mudd take
some notes while all this discussion was going on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only one page?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's only one page, thank God.
But I went to Jim because he's not an attorney and I knew he
could get a condensed out of the point. But I'm sure the attorney will
add a little bit more to it as we go along. And that wasn't meant as an
insult to our county attorney who's been very thorough in the past,
and I'm sure he will be in the future.
So I make this motion to read, and I'm sure we're going to make
some minor corrections to this, if we can agree to it. All SDP's that
have been submitted prior to the 30th of July, '02, will be able to
have a simultaneous review of SDV's (sic) and building permit
applications until 1 November, 2002. These SDP's filed after 30th of
July, 2002 will not be allowed to have a simultaneous review.
Approved staff recommendations on new structure filings
effective 1st of November, 2002.
MR. MUDD: It's the new fee structure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fee structure.
Page 129
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's where we were an hour ago.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's where we were and that's
where we are now. That's the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, now we go back to discussion
so we get into a meets the needs of what has to be there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all we did was add November
1 st to this whole thing, and it's the same motion that we voted on
before, right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
MR. MUDD: No, the motion that you voted on prior to lunch
was only for nonresidential SDP's.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't even remember that.
MR. MUDD: And that was a total of 45 that was on that slide,
okay?
The problem that you have and legal had was they didn't think
that you could do a zoning issue in that process and be fair to
everyone.
Now, there is a total of 20 residential multi-family SDP's out
there. I can't tell you right now which ones came in prior to 30 July
and which ones came in afterwards. And they equate to 2,577
dwelling units.
Now, I will tell you that most of those SDP's were to be built
out over a five- to seven-year period of time. So I doubt very
seriously that in the next three weeks we'll see 2,577 permits come in
on those particular issues.
So you excluded those residential SDP's prior to lunch.
This new resolution that Commissioner Coletta proposed --
Commissioner Coletta read to you basically has residential and
nonresidential SDP's prior to 30 July, 2002 being able to have a
simultaneous review of SDP and building permit until 1 November,
Page 130
October 8, 2002
2002.
Any SDP submitted to community developments, environmental
services on the 31st of July or thereafter would not fall under this
rule and would have to have their SDP approved before they could
submit a building permit. And anybody that submits a building
permit in the next three weeks, until 1 November, 2002, will fall
under the old rate. On 1 November, the new rates will apply.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Mr. Weigel, is there
anything on this that we should be aware that isn't correct?
MR. WEIGEL: I think what you're doing is you're adopting a
resolution with the changes which you have stated and Jim Mudd has
restated here. And the resolution, if voted approval, will be retooled
to reflect all those changes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second Mr. Mudd's motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I already seconded it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But don't forget that Mr. Mudd's
motion was prompted by a certain person that went over there and
started kicking his chair.
We'll start with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you would include into
the motion the first and second sufficient plans for permit. Deemed
sufficient.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's very good, Commissioner
Henning. And I include it in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And in my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments?
Hearing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Page 131
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five ayes. That's it. We did it.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Commissioner Coyle, an hour
ago when you stated it, it was perfectly clear to me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was exactly the same.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It was.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: From then on, it was a downhill
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I might make a suggestion, we've
run into an impasse like this about three or four times over this past
year where we get into a legal issue, and it's back and forth. And it
gets confusing. Maybe at that point in time, if we've got a lunch or
something, we can get staff members and legal together and come up
with a new summary agenda item that we can look at that breaks it
all down for us so it's more concise. Because we went and rehashed
the whole thing over. I think we spent more time reviewing this than
we did originally.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Probably.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I've got all the time in the
world, no problem there.
Item #10A
ORDINANCE REGARDING ACQUISITION OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS TO BE PREPARED
IF NOVEMI:IF, R RF, FERENDIIM PlAIJJOT Ol IESTION PASSF. S
MR. MUDD: Next item is 10(A), Commissioner, and that is the
green space ordinance. And it's for a discussion. It was basically as
a result of a public petition at the last Board of County
Page 132
October 8, 2002
Commissioners' meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Who do we have presenting?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who's making the presentation?
MR. MUDD: Jacqueline? Ms. Robinson is prepared to talk
about the ordinance, Commissioners.
MS. ROBINSON: And also, the Conservation 2000 (sic) group
has a spokesperson here, so I'll let her go forward first, and if you
have any legal questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
MS. GETZ: Good afternoon. I am Ellen Getz. I am here
representing Group Conservation 2002, which is a grass roots
initiative advocating a conservation land-buying program that can
profoundly change the way Collier County looks 25 years from now.
We have come before you today to present a draft ordinance,
which can be the regulating document that would manage a program
such as Conservation Collier, in an effort to show the public today
specifically how the money would be spent, if Conservation Collier
on the ballot referendum on November 5th is approved by the voters.
Again, in the interest of informing the public, we have a website
and -- which is on the screen, for Conservation2002.org, which will
be live after this meeting today.
On that website, the public can find a copy of the draft
ordinance, which is before you today; the actual ballot language that
will appear on November 5th; a list of endorsements; a full list of
contributors; and helpful links, including a very useful editorial in
yesterday's Fort Myers News Press that talks about the draft
ordinance specifically.
The goal of the ordinance is to keep land in a natural state. And
that is the goal of the program. And there are four points that I'd like
to highlight: To protect water resources and supply; to protect
habitat; to provide resource-based recreation; and to protect
community character, the thing that we in Collier County today
Page 133
October 8, 2002
appreciate that contributes so much to the quality of life here.
The draft ordinance that you have before you details the
elements of a Conservation Collier land acquisition program. The
ballot item will authorize the Board of County Commissioners to
issue up to $75 million in bonds to raise money to buy land. It will
do so by levying $25 in taxes for every 100,000 in taxable property
value, or a quarter of a mill increase in ad valorem tax.
Key elements of the draft ordinance include two trust funds to
be set up; one to buy the land with 85 percent of the monies, with 15
percent of the funds set aside for future management and
maintenance.
The ordinance, the draft ordinance, sets up a citizens advisory
committee that would review nominated parcels and recommend
purchases to you, the Board of County Commissioners.
The Board of County Commissioners would appoint a
nine-member committee that would represent a broad range of
community members. That is articulated in the draft ordinance.
The Board of County Commissioners has final decision-making
power on any of the -- or acquisitions that that committee would
recommend to the board.
The draft ordinance also evaluates land under these criteria: For
biological value and habitat type; for accessibility to public; for a
relationship to existing conservation lands; and for importance to
water resources.
The ordinance further goes on to elaborate on the land target
areas which include urban land with native vegetation cover, land
designated for protection in the rural growth plan, undeveloped land
with native vegetation in northern Golden Gate Estates.
The draft organization very clearly states that this is a willing
participant program only.
The actual tax would sense that in 10 years.
Page 134
October 8, 2002
And the program makes Collier County eligible for certain
matching funds from certain state and federal sources for land
acquisition.
The draft ordinance clearly states that public use is an important
element of a program. And it is again public use that is compatible
with the land and with the natural resources that are being protected.
It has been brought to our attention that there is some language
in the draft that pertains to development rights, and it was never the
intent of this to get involved with development rights. And I believe
that today we should have some discussion upon that with you.
Very simply, in conclusion, the best chance -- we believe this
program is the best chance that we have to save the remaining natural
land that is closer to our coastal areas in Collier County, and that
future generations will benefit from preservation today, while the
land opportunities still exist.
And again, in the interest of public information, this is the
address of the website. The issue will be on the November 5th ballot.
It is the last vote on the electronic screen, called Conservation
Collier. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala and
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just had a couple of simple
questions, if I may, and they're more of a housekeeping nature than
anything else.
I'm assuming that this is the way you want to put it on the
Internet, or on your website? Just one little thing: On Page 10A,
Page 14 -- or No. 10-A, Page 14, section nine, number one, there was
just a redundant sentence there and I thought you might want to take
it out. It says, "Shall only be environmentally sensitive land," and
then it says, "Conservation Collier shall only be environmentally
sensitive land." And I thought you might want to --
Page 135
October 8, 2002
MS. ROBINSON: That's a scrivener's error, and we will
remove it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. I mean, you want to
make the most perfect thing, right?
MS. GETZ: Well, that's -- yeah, the purpose of today would be
to flush out everything.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
There was one other thing that I felt was important to mention
and that is in the summary to us, it says if the referendum passes, a
budget amendment will be needed to fund the FY '03 cost of
$67,000.
Now I have checked this. Because all throughout this entire
ordinance it says that you're going to be paying your own expenses,
and yet it says this. So I checked with the county manager already,
but just for matter of public record, I wanted to state that although it
doesn't say in this summary agenda, that then it will be billed back to
Conservation Collier, indeed the $67,000, once it's up and running
and you have the money collected will then be paid back to the
county so taxpayers won't be -- won't even begin to think that they're
being taxed twice for the same thing. So I just wanted to mention
that.
MS. ROBINSON: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning? Excuse
me, he's not here at the moment. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Ms. Getz in speaking mentioned that we'd
have further comment in regard to a couple places of language in the
ordinance.
And to make sure that it's absolutely clear, first I'd like to point
out that this board is not adopting this ordinance today. This is an
ordinance model or draft which ostensively would be advertised and
Page 136
October 8, 2002
heard by the board subsequent to the referendum.
It's before you today based upon the public petition discussion
of a couple meetings ago, and has come back for just further
illumination for the public. And so from that standpoint, to clarify
any question about development rights, I would ask you and anyone
else who is looking at the draft ordinance to turn to Page 9 and 10 of
the draft ordinance, if you care to. I'm going to read from it myself
briefly.
Now, Page 9 carries over from Page 8, which is section six
entitled Creation of the Conservation Collier Acquisition Trust Fund.
That's section six of the draft ordinance. It starts on Page 8.
Now, on Page 9, in what is called paragraph three, that is titled
disbursements from the Conservation Collier acquisition trust fund
shall be made only for the following authorized purposes. And then
it has a listing of letters, sub-paragraphs A through M, of purposes
that the property -- that the disbursements from the fund can be used
for.
And specifically paragraph E at the bottom of Page 9 reads as
follows, for the benefit of those who don't have it before them: "To
acquire and dispose of real and personal property or any interest
therein, when such acquisition is necessary or appropriate to protect
the natural environment, provide public access or public recreational
facilities, preserve wildlife habitat areas, or provide access to
management of acquired lands; to acquire interest in land by means
of land exchanges, and to enter into all alternatives to the acquisition
of fee interest in land, including but not limited to the acquisition of
easements, development rights, life estates, leases, and lease-back
arrangements."
I call your attention to the last main clause of this sub-paragraph
E that I just read, where it starts following the colon, the bottom line
and says, "And to enter into all alternatives," et cetera, et cetera.
Page 137
October 8, 2002
I'm going to make a recommendation for clarification, both with
that which Ms. Getz has said and with my discussions with Brad
Comell, and also Nancy Payton. And I would suggest that this draft
language -- again, it's always just draft language -- where it says,
"and to enter into all alternatives," that the word "all" be removed,
and it read, "and to enter into alternatives to the acquisition of fee
interest and land, including," -- and I would remove the next four
words, "but not limited to." And then continue. "The acquisition of
easements," remove the two words "development rights," and leave
in the rest of that sentence. And so that clause would read, "and to
enter into alternatives to the acquisition of fee interest in land,
including the acquisition of easements, life estates, leases and
lease-back arrangements."
What that does is it shows that the ordinance will walk before it
would run, and if it -- if in the considerations of the operation of the
trust fund it's determined to acquire other than an absolute outright
ownership of land as a fee interest, there will be some altematives.
But no question in regard to the mere purchase of development
rights, and certainly to remove any potential thought or consideration
that this has to do with TDR's, transfer of development rights, or any
other program that exists under separate ordinance.
And so again, this is just a draft and I would suggest that the
board may wish to consider or embrace the revisions that I've
brought to your attention as your thought at this point,
notwithstanding that you would ultimately have all the
decision-making capability at an advertised public hearing for this
ordinance subsequent to a successful referendum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see some nods from the audience
and some nods there, so I don't think that's going to be a problem.
Commission Fiala and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I would like to make a motion
Page 138
October 8, 2002
to direct staff to proceed to prepare the ordinance for adoption for the
November 5th ballot, authorizing the levy of up to .25 of ad valorem
taxes for a period of up to 10 years to acquire environmentally
sensitive lands, with the modification that we've mentioned here to
be included.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, to respond, the ordinance is in
place, serving as a model for the board, the public, interested voters.
And if there is a successful referendum on November 5th, the staff
would be bringing this ordinance back to the board in an advertised
manner for consideration for adoption at that point in time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, our recommendation
here to the board on action for this says that we should direct staff to
proceed to prepare the ordinance for adoption.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. And so in essence we'd be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that's what I'm doing.
MR. WEIGEL: -- we would be making these -- thank you.
We'd be making these revisions, standing at the ready, looking to the
results of November 5th.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'll second your motion,
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make a couple
of observations about this change in language.
It never was the intent of the green space committee -- and
Ellen, you can correct me if you think I'm wrong -- or any member of
the board that this money should be used for the purchase of TDR's
to jump-start the rural fringe program, although that is what has been
alleged and printed in the newspaper. That is absolutely, completely
false, and there's nothing in here either before these changes or after
that would even imply that sort of thing. There's a mention of
Page 139
October 8, 2002
development rights, but that has nothing to do with the TDR
program, a transfer of development. It doesn't say we'll buy TDR's.
That was never the objective. And to allege otherwise is simply
being untruthful. So I think that your effort to clarify that will solve
part of that problem.
But the other I think erroneous allegation that has been made
concerning this is that this program gives the Collier County
commissioners the right to raid other county funds to buy land. Now,
is there anything in this ordinance that provides the right to this board
or anybody else to raid other Collier County funds to purchase land?
MS. ROBINSON: No, there isn't. Not -- that was never the
intent, it's not in the ordinance. And I agree wholeheartedly with
your other analysis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So anyone who really was
interested in understanding what this ordinance did or did not provide
could have asked you or us or the members of the green space
committee and gotten an accurate answer?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. But on the other hand, I think that Mr.
Weigel's suggestion is well taken, because since that was the intent
that this should only relate to land and land purchases and that sort of
thing, that clarifying it is best, because people could look at that and
try and make the argument that development rights included the
TDR's.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, that's a real stretch.
Essentially when you're buying an easement on a property, you're
really buying a development right. MR. WEIGEL: Essentially.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay? And to try to relate that to
TDR's in the rural fringe is disingenuous, to say the least.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think those letters to the
editor are always accurate and written by people who know the facts?
Page 140
October 8, 2002
Sorry, sorry --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that a question or statement?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I withdraw that question.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Were you questioning the whole
editorial page, or were you just questioning the letters to the editor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I clearly have assumed more than
I should have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions or
comments?
Hearing none, Commissioner Fiala's motion, my second to
direct this to go back to staff or to be reworked and brought back to
us at a future date upon the successful passing of the resolution -- or
excuse me, of the referendum.
With that, no questions, all those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The ayes have it, 4-0, with
Commissioner Henning absent at the moment.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2002-429 ESTABLISHING THE SCHEDULE OF
USER FEES FOR GROUND AND AIR AMBULANCE
TRANSPORT AND RELATED SERVICES- ADOPTED WITH
CHANGE REGARDING ONE YFJAR WAIVFR
Page 141
October 8, 2002
Moving on to 10(B).
MS. GETZ: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Ellen. You did a really
good job on this, by the way. Your whole committee. The reason
you -- I'm sorry, I'm just talking --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Did we have a public speaker,
Ms. Filson?
MR. MUDD: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: We had one, but I think she's gone. Bonnie
McKenzie.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the name?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Bonnie McKenzie.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: She thought it was a good idea,
right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I can't speak for her, but she did
have some issues with some of the verbiage. And I think Mayor
McKenzie will have that opportunity prior to coming back to the
board. First of all, it's got to be voted on and it has to be approved by
voters during the referendum, and then she'll have an ample
opportunity to come back again and talk to us, and we'll be glad, as
from staff, to take her comments and try to get them into the
ordinance.
MS. FILSON: I just received another speaker for this issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have already taken a vote and
passed that point, so I don't think it's appropriate. If they want to stay
for comments at the end, then we'll go ahead then and keep it, save it
for that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And as they were walking out, I
was going to be telling them anyway, you've done an outstanding job
putting this thing together, answering the needs of the community
Page 142
October 8, 2002
and taking out all of the things that shouldn't be in this referendum.
You did a heck of a lot better job than we did when I was working on
this committee six years ago, and I just want to say that's why I'm
sure it's going to be successful. It's for the betterment of this entire
community. Thank you. I'm sorry, John.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
What you have before you here is a resolution adopting a new
fee policy for the ambulance transport related services. This is an
update that we've already incorporated into the budget for this year.
It takes into consideration the Medicaid national rates and surveying
of other jurisdictions relating to things such as the airport -- the
helicopter transport from that standpoint.
The benefit of this is that keeping with the board's direction
previously, we're transitioning a little bit more of the fees from being
a strictly ad valorem supported department to using more user fees,
an estimated balance of about $2 million.
Along those lines --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MR. DUNNUCK: There is one issue that I do want to bring up
to you. We have had three separate community events independent
of this that have been waived as far as the EMS ambulance service in
the past.
When the EMSAC board reviewed this, they recommended that
in fact that we deny those waivers in the future and that we remove
that as being a subsidized cost, part of this fee policy. Those include
the county fair, Everglades seafood festival and the football games
that are supported by the school board.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On this we do have a speaker. But go
Page 143
October 8, 2002
ahead, do you have--
MR. DUNNUCK: My only comment would be should the
board wish to follow in that direction and remove those previous
waivers, I'd recommend that we would wait a year to do so and allow
a transition period for those individual events. They've already
programmed in their budgets, and I think it's a little late into the
ballgame to do so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you include that in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And how about your second,
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, would you call the speaker,
please?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, your only speaker is Mr.
Lou Hoegsted.
MR. HOEGSTED: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name
is Lou Hoegsted. I'm president of the Collier County fair board, and
I would just support what John has suggested as far as giving us a
waiver for one year.
But our particular instance, we do have an ambulance located in
a building adjacent to our fairgrounds, so I guess taking that into
consideration, I'm not too sure as -- I know we're required to have
them on-site, but technically, I mean, they're less than a minute
away.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the problem with that, if I
may interrupt, is it wouldn't be a dedicated unit if it was on-site. I
mean, it's close by, but the problem is that ambulance is on call
wherever it wants to go.
When you take and contract for an ambulance to be there, it's a
Page 144
October 8, 2002
dedicated unit that stays there with you for the whole thing.
MR. HOEGSTED: My only statement to that would be that I
think to get our permit, we're required to have that dedicated unit.
And I don't know, I just, if we're required to have it, I don't
understand why we have to pay for it.
But we'll comply with John's request. If we can get a waiver for
a year, then we'll put it in our budget next year. Because we are six
months into our operating budget already.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. Well, that's part of the
motion. So we're secure for this year.
MR. HOEGSTED: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0, Commissioner
Henning absent.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 2002-430 ESTABLISHING AND
IMPLEMENTING BEACH PARKING FEES AND RULES AND
RF, PF, AIJING RESOI,IITION 99-240- ADOPTED
MR. DUNNUCK: The next item I have on the agenda is
another one of mine as well.
Page 145
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What is it?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead and read it.
MR. DUNNUCK: This is strictly a resolution, basically
cleaning up previous language.
This resolution, prior to adoption of our fee policy that the board
adopted in June listed a $3.00 parking fee for visitors to the beach,
not for people who get the free sticker but for people who are visitors
who don't have a sticker.
This resolution basically cleans up that language and removes
that $3.00 fee out of this resolution, because we've already adopted
the fee policy that is the jurisdiction of the fees charged.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for that. I agree with
you, I think the public needs to know --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- what we're voting on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They do. And the two people out
there that sent me E-Mails, you can probably notice today is different
than it was the last meeting. Hopefully it'll continue in the future. If
we slip up again, let us know.
So we have a motion by Commissioner Carter and a second by
Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 4-0.
MR. DUNNUCK: Thank you.
Page 146
October 8, 2002
Item #10E
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR WIGGINS PASS EMERGENCY
MAINTENANCE DREDGING ENGINEERING SERVICES IN
THE AMOIINT OF $10_0130- APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, now, we have one more.
MR. MUDD: 10(E). It has to do with the emergency
engineering services for Wiggins Pass because of the shoaling from
the two hurricanes that passed through the Gulf.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And this is money that comes
from -- that tourist development.
MR. VALLONE: Sir, we're looking at that -- For the record,
Jim Vallone (phonetic), public utilities administrator. Years past
we've always used money from the fund, the tourist tax funds, to
fund this activity. There was another fund which we've made a --
we've become aware of, a Fund 304 Wiggins Pass Dredging Fund,
has a balance of $111,800 in it right now.
We're asking a legal opinion about our ability to access those
funds, and we'll work through that. If we're able to use those funds,
we'll use those. If not, then we'll go back and use our normal tourist
tax funds for this activity.
There's some question to whether or not the Wiggins Pass
Dredging Funds are ade -- or could properly be used for this activity,
because of the nature of how those funds were generated originally.
We'll resolve that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you incorporate that in your
motion, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I sure would.
Page 147
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, so we have that incorporated
in the motion.
Is there anything else that you needed to tell us?
MR. VALLONE: No, sir. We'll--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, any questions?
MR. VALLONE: -- be back-- excuse me, sir, I'm sorry. We
will be back after this, of course, with our recommendations with
what to do with regard to construction or the dredging activities.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, we've got to keep those boats
moving.
All in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #1 IA
MR. KRAMER REQUESTING A DEBATE AGAIN FRANK
HAIJAS
That brings us to public comments on general topics.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about 12(A) and (B)?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm sorry --
MS. FILSON: Well, no, 11 --
MR. MUDD: You're on 11, public comments.
Page 148
October 8, 2002
MS. FILSON: -- public comments first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, really?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, 11, then 12.
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Mr. Chairman, Jim
Kramer.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Forgive me, but what about that one
speaker on that--
MS. FILSON: That was Jim Kramer as well.
MR. KRAMER: A double-header. Double-header.
My name is Jim Kramer. I came to speak to you today in public
comments about our public television station, Channel 11. It will be
coming up under public petition on October 22nd, but because of the
fact that the previous program has run with a certain statement on it
that is incorrect, I think now might be a good time to make a
recommendation to the commission.
Some 66 or so times in the last month I've been referred to as a
write-in candidate. And as Jim Carter knows --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think I'm the write-in
candidate. It's a joke, Jim.
MR. KRAMER: -- that's not true.
And in order to correct that on public television, I would like to
take the opportunity to have a debate between myself and my
opponent, Frank Hollis. And I think the most appropriate host for
that would be Dr. Carter. And --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No way, Jose.
MR. KRAMER: -- I would recommend that you provide a
public service and give this to the community on cable Channel 11.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Question, if I may. What happened
to the League of Women Voters? Normally Collier County
government does not get involved directly in these debates. They
Page 149
October 8, 2002
offer the facilities to the League of Women Voters. Aren't they
having that debate?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: On a serious note, I believe, am I
correct, Mr. Mudd, that one of the groups is promoting a debate?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the best knowledge I have right
now, League of Women Voters is having a debate on -- between Mr.
Kramer and Mr. Hollis and the school board candidates on the 25th
of October. And we're scheduled to carry that on -- the results, the
debate, on Channel 11 a series of times up until the election.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And has the discrepancy been
removed about Mr. Kramer being a write-in candidate? MR. MUDD: Commissioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: They have it on our government
channel that Mr. Kramer is a write-in candidate. Has that been
corrected; do you know?
MR. MUDD: I didn't know it was on there, but if it is, we'll get
it corrected.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If it -- would you check and see if
it's been projected a number of times to the public out there? We
may want to run a retraction several times to make sure that we can
make do for any harm that might have been done. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's my opinion. What's your
opinion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I've never seen it, but I'll take
Mr. Kramer's word for it and have staff investigate.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't imagine why it's on there at
all, quite frankly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Me neither.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, why are we running
Page 150
October 8, 2002
the list of candidates and classifying them as write-in or anything
else? And I don't know of any purpose to be served by that at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: However, if there is, then some
damage may have been done.
MR. MUDD: We'll fix it, and I'll try to retract it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We would just say forget
everything we've ever said about Mr. Kramer.
MR. MUDD: And say that we had a misstatement and that's not
correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we have to make sure that --
you know, he's going to get extra publicity on that. We have to make
sure that we don't slight somebody else in doing that. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Did that
cover it?
MR. KRAMER: Beyond that, the other thing I wanted to talk
about was the conservation green space. What I got up to say was
that this commission, because of its inability to sunset the gasoline
tax, ought to make a stronger statement about your ability in this case
to sunset the quarter mill tax 10 years from now. That's all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We'll take it under
advisement.
And that concludes our public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
Item St 12A
CLOSED ATTORNEY-CLIENT EXECUTIVE SESSION
RELATED TO AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO.
2:01 -CV-341 -FTM-29DNR - APPROVED
Page 151
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
attorney's report. (A).
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
attomey?
Okay, we're up to the county
Any questions of the Collier County
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Pettit is here, if there are any questions in
regard to 12(A), a request to the county attorney for the Board of
County Commissioners to enter into a closed session.
MR. PETTIT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mike Pettit,
assistant county attorney.
The county attorney office --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you need a motion?
MR. PETTIT: We could go to a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, motion to go into a
closed session on October 22nd, 2002, at the regular board meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MR. WEIGEL: Technically all we need to make is a request. If
you wish to approve or make a motion, that's just fine, for the record.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, second from Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
Did you read enough into the record?
MR. PETTIT: I think so. Just a matter of the request.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. This is the private session, so
that we can be made aware of what's taken place in this particular
lawsuit.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 152
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #12B
RESOLUTION 2002-431 AUTHORIZING COMMISSION
DISTRICT NEWSLETTERS, INFORMATIVE NOTICES,
MAILERS OR OTHER INFORMATIONAL SITES OR
TRANSMITTAI.S- ADOPTED
Okay, moving on to (B).
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
12(B), under the county attorney, I brought forward a resolution
for the record authorizing the commission district newsletters,
informative notices, mailers, or as I've stated, or other informational
sites or transmittals. We've had the question that's come to county
attorney office over a period of time in regard to board members'
abilities to communicate with residents and other citizens within their
districts.
In fact, that's not inappropriate in any event, and I know it
occurs through interaction, through telephone and E-Mail
communication, regular correspondence.
Just to set the record clearly straight in case any commissioner
would wish to use a newsletter or something a little more formally
designated for a group, as opposed to initial corres -- individual
correspondence, this resolution goes on record finding a public
purpose and benefit for the commissioners to have communication
and contact and inform persons living in their districts, and would
become just another part of the county policy in regard to outreach
Page 153
October 8, 2002
from the commission.
I mentioned here briefly that my review showed a history in the
past of the commissioners of the board collectively, even from 1990,
formally utilizing newsletters. And this is just a shade difference in
the sense that individual commissioners may have individual issues,
or at least a desire to communicate on their own as opposed to in the
pure collective manner, and this provides for that.
Under fiscal impact, I noted that ostensibly there may be little or
no impact. If mailers are used, the fiscal impact would be
significantly more than using E-Mail or a website.
We did a bit of a survey and we've noted that commissioners in
other counties have in fact individual commissioner websites, as an
example, which can serve as a font for information of all kinds, but
also can act as a clearinghouse for questions and requests through a
different medium than is being used here currently.
I reviewed this in the context of the county manager ordinance,
and if in fact individual commissioners were to work toward the
implementation of newsletters, they would work directly with the
county manager, not with individual staff members. And again, there
may be a requirement, whether you decide to consider today or at
some point in the future, to budget for the -- some of the expenses of
preparing and mailing newsletters, if you were to use that particular
forum.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to go first on this one.
This is something that I've got strong feelings with both ways. There
were some questions brought up when we were trying to reach
residents on the street to try to have a meeting over forming a
property association to get an MSTU going.
Some of the questions were brought forward, but the residents
were being reached through the property appraiser's tax roll. So in
other words, we weren't going to the voter registration roll, which
Page 154
October 8, 2002
indicates that it would be politically motivated why you'd be doing it.
If you're working strictly with the property tax registration roll
here, you're dealing with an entity that's pure at heart, that's got a
good reason. I don't think we could ever justify newsletters to go to
the whole district. I just think it would be an exorbitant expense; it
would be mainly driven by political reasons rather than reasons of
civic pride or civic reasons.
So I've got real concerns over that. I'd like to see something in
the middle grounds through the whole thing, in other words,
authorizing certain things to take place of course at all times, trying
to strive for affordability, as far as what's taking place.
One thing would be like you mentioned, asking -- what I do now
is I ask different individuals when we get together for mass meetings
for their E-Mail addresses, set up a whole database that has their
E-mail address separate, communicate with them on a continuous
basis at no expense to the county.
But something new that may be taking place like 6-L roads now,
we're talking about forming a group there to start looking at MSTU's.
That may require a mailing. I think it would be -- it would not be
correct for me to ask for a mailing list based upon the voters
registration roll, because those people just vote. I think it would have
to be based upon the property tax roll so that we're getting everyone
that's there. Then you've got something that's effective and is serving
a public purpose.
Commissioner Henning's first, then Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know which
commissioner asked the county manager to bring this thing forward,
but I'm very concerned that this is a waste of taxpayers' money. If an
entity wants to tax themselves for a certain improvement, those
entities I think should be responsible for mailing. And if it wants
assistance from the sitting district commissioner, then so be it.
Page 155
October 8, 2002
Also, in working with -- the county manager has plenty of tools
to get whatever information it -- the county manager deems
important to certain people within the county. And, you know, I'm
just afraid that if we open this up, the camel's head is under the tent,
and this could really get out of hand.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, then
Commissioner Fiala. I'm sorry, were you through, Commissioner
Henning? I didn't mean to cut you off.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, then
Commissioner Fiala, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think the ordinance provides an
opportunity at a commissioner's discretion to use whatever means
necessary to communicate with constituents. If it is a major mailing,
it's going to exceed what you have in your budget, it would have to
come to the board for approval, and that would be a situational
decision.
To put it up -- any of your newsletters can be put up on your
website, which communicates to everyone. I would think that would
definitely not be a waste of taxpayers' dollars, as that's not a major
effort to get it on a website. Because it's right here, you know, you
click on and you can get it. I mail newsletters out to every
association every month. That's not an exorbitant cost. They can
print them or not print them in the various newsletters within District
2. That's their choice, that's their call.
I can't tell you how many times people have called or written or
mentioned in public meetings how valuable they thought it was to get
information and an update of what was going on, not only in the
county but in the particular district. So I think it's probably an issue
of discretion.
But the ordinance nowhere says that there's unlimited funds,
Page 156
October 8, 2002
there's nowhere that it says that you can't do it at your discretion.
And I think any tool a commissioner could use to communicate to the
public -- and we talk about it all the time -- we ought to be thinking
about doing it. And a lot of it's electronic. Electronic is not a big
number. So I don't see a problem with it. Because you're going to
get numbers -- as I said, you're going to have to come back to the
board for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think another creative way
of getting the message out -- and I totally agree with everything you
said, Commissioner Carter. All the newsletters from organizations,
not only in our own district but around, you know, like the Naples
Area Chamber of Commerce, they're always asking for news. All
you have to do is write out a column and send it to them and they'll
print it. They're happy to do that. You get your word out and you
don't spend a dime.
The only time I've ever needed to send anything out to a
particular set of constituents was when I was trying to organize a
homeowners association within Naples Manor, and I had no way to
reach these people. I didn't have -- I don't know that they have a
newsletter or any -- obviously they don't have a newsletter. And so
that was a time when I was able to work out through my budget to
send them something. But other than that, there's -- the electronic
media is a marvel and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- it doesn't cost us any money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I agree with you, Commissioner
Fiala, that there are -- and Commissioner Carter. There are times
when this is very warranted, especially when you're reaching out for
the first time. There's just absolutely no way to reach these people.
Rock Road was a perfect example. It took one mailing to the
Page 15 7
October 8, 2002
people on Rock Road and a couple of the adjoining roads to bring
them together. And then every meeting that took place after that was
through either notification by phone through the people that were
involved with it, or they sent out their own newsletters. Now they
have a real nice property association which stands alone and is doing
a wonderful job.
Copeland, the same thing is happening. And now the same
thing I want to do over in the 6-L farm area. But I need to be able to
have that ability to make that one mailing to be able to bring these
people together. After that they're either self-sustaining or they don't
have an enough interest to be able to continue. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I think individual mailings
to people in our districts is cost prohibitive, and now is not the time
to start thinking about incurring those kinds of costs. But as almost
all of you have observed, there are ways to do this.
I think one of the biggest problems we had is misinformation. I
had somebody come to me during lunch and say, "Why don't you
guys reduce the impact fees?" I don't know how people arrive at
these conclusions. But there's a tremendous amount of
misinformation. And I think we've got to take the initiative to solve
that problem, because if we don't, it's not going to get solved.
And we experienced this with the Saw Grass Rebellion, we
experienced it with lots of other things. People are out there in effect
telling lies about what goes on here. And unless we take the
initiative to solve those problems, we're always going to be battling
that issue.
And -- but I think there are ways to do that, and I think we can
do it without spending a lot of money. But I'm glad to know that in
the county attorney's opinion these things would serve a valid public
purpose. I think informing people of the facts and making sure they
Page 15 8
October 8, 2002
know the truth about what goes on in their government is a very, very
important thing for us to do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Clarification on the resolution.
Or maybe the county manager. If we're going to bring this back at a
later date and we need to identify where it is going to -- the funds are
going to come from, whether it's going to be the individual
commissioners' travel fund or what. But it does state in here that,
you know, sending out a newsletter through the U.S. mail is deemed
a valid public purpose. I see it could be a potential rate cost. And,
you know, electronic E-mails, you know, I think our staff time could
develop that. But a website, there is a cost for that, individual
commissioner's website. Somebody has to put it together, unless
we're going to do it ourselves.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We already have one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I think we need to identify
what the potential cost is of this and where the funds are going to
come from.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd, county manager, for
the record.
You have a website right now. If you click on your particular
thing on the county website, your information will come up. If
there's any additional information, a message to your constituents or
taxpayers that you want to reach, you have the ability to put that in in
a form of information or message or anything, and we can configure
that. It's part of the service that we provide as far as the Collier
County website is concerned, and you're part of that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Speaking of the website there, my
daughter sent a message that my name is misspelled in that. MR. MUDD: We fixed it, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. I appreciate
Page 159
October 8, 2002
it.
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Again, I think the ordinance is --
it gives you a lot of latitude. You know the end point where you're
going to get the money. It says that you have a right to do it. It's
your job, if you can justify it, to bring it back to the Board of County
Commissioners if you're going to spend it. I'm not going to try to
write something in here that tells you every little thing you can do or
can't do. I don't see that as a purpose. It's a public -- we're
establishing it as a public purpose for communications. To me that's
all it says. You want to fund it, you better have a very good
argument to bring to this board if you're going to spend a lot of
money to mail it. If you're going to put it on a website, I don't know
anybody that's going to come in here and ask you anything, other
than thank you very much for sharing the information with us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Did you want to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move to approve of the
recommendation (sic) as stated in our books that the board adopt a
resolution finding the preparation and the transmission of
commission district newsletters, informing notices and mailers to be
a valid public purpose and in the public interest.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to second it for discussion
purposes.
My question is, what is the financial limitations on this?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's --
MR. MUDD: Whatever the board approves.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever the board approves.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, we'd have
to come back each time through it.
MR. MUDD: Sure.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah.
Page 160
October 8, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So then in that case, my
second stands as is.
Any other discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the opposition vote is
Commissioner Henning. Thank you.
CONCLI ISION OF IJDC WORKSHOP FROM OCTOFtFR 4. 2002
Let's go to communications here. Mr. Mudd, anything else?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we just wanted to finish up the
workshop. We have about five to 10 minutes to talk about
Immokalee in order to bring the architectural standards piece that we
had at the last workshop on Thursday and we close it out, if I have
your indulgence and patience. And that's all the communication I
have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You've got mine. And that explains
what the map is about Immokalee up there on the screen. Okay.
MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray for the record.
Mr. Chairman, may we take five minutes just to get set up?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do.
While they're setting up, I'm going to call a break, I guess.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, let's go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just have a fast question. Is this
Page 161
October 8, 2002
what we were starting the other day? Are we finishing that one?
MR. BLAIR: I'm going to do a condensed version that's in the
white right there. It's just in the Immokalee overlay. It's in that book
also, it just looks different. Because this was prepared for another
meeting.
For the record, Aaron Blair. This is just a continuation of the
architectural landscape workshop that we had last week. I'm just
going through to bring to your attention of the overlays that already
exist in Immokalee, that some of them deal with the architectural
landscape standards, to help the Immokalee people that say that some
of these standards are too strict. But we have areas within
Immokalee that reduce them or exempt certain buildings from these
standards.
Just -- the overlays that we have are the Jefferson Avenue
commercial overlay. We have the farmers market overlay, we have
the agri-business overland, the State Route 29 commercial overlay,
we have the Main Street overlay, and then we have central business
district, which is just an extension of the Main Street overlay.
The Jefferson Avenue commercial overlay, just some of the
main points, I'll just go through the main points of them. One of
them you can see in the Jefferson Avenue commercial overlay that --
projects that are less than 5,000 square feet have a reduced landscape
buffer. And this overlay, what it did was allowed for greater
commercial depth along State Road 29 to allow for more vibrant
commercial development. It also has a reduced height. Because it's
C-4 zoning, maximum height of 50 feet.
The farmer market overlay, this one and the agri-business
overlay are probably the most beneficial to the agricultural based
sector of Immokalee. The farmer market overlay, what it allows for
are additional uses of wholesale trade, agricultural services, and
agricultural outdoor sales, which benefits the farmer market, which
Page 162
October 8, 2002
has outdoor sales, open air sales.
And also, if they fall under those SIC codes of agricultural
services, wholesale trade or outdoor sales, they're exempt from all
architectural standards, if they're located within this red area. So like
I say, the purpose is for -- you know, allows for truck parking,
displays sales of agricultural uses.
And in the agri-business overlay, which is all this purple, which
is a pretty large area of what's near the industrial area and Airport of
Immokalee, it-- again, the only difference between this and the
farmer market overlay is the outdoor sales, and that's mainly limited
just to the farmer market. So it also has -- you can be related to the
agricultural services and wholesale trade, you're exempt from all
architectural standards, which this is to benefit the packing houses,
mainly.
And then we have the State Route 29 commercial overlay. That
was developed mainly to again allow for greater commercial depth
along 29. It deals with -- again there's a landscape buffer. If you're
less than 5,000 square feet, you have a reduction in your landscape
buffer and things of that nature.
And Main Street, I didn't go into great detail, because there's so
much involved in the Main Street overlay. Again, it's more -- Fifth
Avenue's a bad parallel to put it in, but it's similar in nature. There's
more standards, there's parking reduction standards. So again, it's
something to benefit the people of Immokalee and the business
owners, as well as keep a certain environment to be produced on
Main Street. And that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
MS. VALERA: Good afternoon, commissioners. Carolina
Valera, urban designer planner with urban planning.
The last portion on our presentation of architectural standards of
our county is the activity center number nine overlay district.
Page 163
October 8, 2002
This overlay is the last step of a study that was done because the
Board of County Commissioners amended the growth management
plan to the study at activity center number nine.
You can see, activity center number nine is located in the
intersection of 1-75 and Collier Boulevard.
This overlay has requirements for architecture and landscaping
based on this study that was done for this area.
As far as the architectural standards, it has requirements for
elements that achieve the architectural themes that were developed
during the study.
As far as the landscaping, it has requirements that are above our
minimum code in terms of landscape buffer width and the vegetation
that needs to be placed in the buffers.
This overlay also has some exceptions as far as the applicability
of them. Industrial uses there along 1-75, it is -- you know, it only
applies for the properties that are along 1-75, not beyond that.
So this overlay, the purpose of this overlay is to create a
gateway into Naples with buildings that remind us of how this county
was started, and that along with the landscaping reduces the
massiveness of the buildings and to bring down the scale of the
buildings and projects to more of a human scale. So this is what this
overlay is about.
Here's an example of that -- of an already approved industrial
project in that overlay, and this -- some of the pictures of the
buildings that are before the overlay. Hopefully we'll get something
better.
That's it. Any questions, comments?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What was the cost for the study
or creating the activity center number nine?
MS. VALERA: I'm not sure.
Page 164
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wilson-Miller did a --
MS. VALERA: Yes, Wilson-Miller did the study, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- quite an extensive report --
MS. VALERA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- in detail. So if there's any --
MS. VALERA: This is the study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- any wishes to amend that
making it lesser, maybe we should have the knowledge of what that
study costs.
MR. MUDD: Certainly, we'll get you that -- I'll get you the cost
right after this meeting, and I'll get it to each one of the
commissioners. I just don't have the information right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Good question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We do have a speaker on this
subject.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Rich Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recommend denial.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, Rich Yovanovich has been
hanging around with Bruce too much. And I just want you to listen
to his voice.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, for the record, Rich
Yovanovich.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Finish.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I hope it stays this way, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So do my kids.
I'm going to try to speak, but I don't think it's going to work.
And thank you for the comparison to Bruce.
This is the activity center that I actually wanted to speak on is
the interchange activity center, activity center number nine.
The White Lake Industrial Park is an existing industrial park
Page 165
October 8, 2002
and development has already commenced. There are some existing
buildings with an architectural theme that have been established
along 1-75. That architectural theme complies with the existing
architectural standards, but not the interchange activity center
standards.
What you heard some speakers talk about on Friday, and I had
to leave and could not stay, was wanting to continue the existing
architectural theme, which would require some modification to the
architectural standards in the activity center.
What we are requesting is that the commission direct staff to
work with us to modify the architectural standards and come back to
the commission with some recommended changes. We're not trying
to diminish the architectural standards, we're trying to continue on
with what's there. Right now it's very limited. It's Old Florida or it's
-- Carolina, if you could help me. There's only three types you're
allowed. What we haVe there. Unfortunately, what we have there is
not one of the types.
MS. VALERA: Everglades and rural.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. And as an attorney who's
not trained in architecture, I don't know what any of those three
mean.
So what we're asking is that there be some direction from staff,
since we're talking about architecture overall in the community. We
can now share some experiences we've had with staff in
implementing the master plan, and since you're going to be in that
section of the LDC anyway, we just -- we work with staff to continue
on with the architecture that already exists.
I know Commissioner Coletta has seen the architecture that
exists and I think you saw some pictures on Friday, and I think you
could agree, it's attractive architecture. And keeping in mind, this is
an industrial park and it's a step way above what you would expect
Page 166
October 8, 2002
and something that Collier County can be proud of. And it is not an
open lumber yard that was depicted on the last lines.
With that, I'm going to have to sit down because I don't think I
have much left.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Bruce. Sounds good.
We'll try and ask you some very lengthy questions.
Since you addressed my name, I'm going to go first. I did look
at it. Of course, when it comes to architectural review, I'm probably
the worst person to ever have sitting down, talking about what looks
good. I used to like orange and black.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, you're great at Halloween.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, yeah.
But in any case, the couple of things that come to mind is this is
-- it is a little restrictive, but is it really the community's will to like
to see something like this? It is a gateway going into the community,
but it's also on a road that takes the trucks to the landfill.
I know in Immokalee this architectural review has been very
imposing about what can be built out at the airport. And it got to the
point where I doubt seriously some of these things are going to be
practical at all. It's far removed from everything, it's an isolated
place.
Commissioner Henning, I see his light's on, and I'm sure that
he's been very much involved with this committee and probably has a
better sense for what's taken place down there at the White Lake
Center in that area. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question, and short response, is
how many existing buildings do you have on White Lake Boulevard
or Landfill Road and how many vacant lots are on that road?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know the answer to that question.
I know there are two existing buildings. I know there have been four
or five parcels sold to others who are attempting to continue on with
Page 167
October 8, 2002
that architectural theme. So there's only two that have been
constructed but there are several others that are in the process that
can't continue on with that process.
MR. MUDD: There was a total of 45 planned out there, from
what I remember on Friday, two of which are built, one that's in the
process of being built, and they had a couple more that were for sale.
And that was in the brochure that we got from the speaker.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, 45 along the roadway?
MR. MUDD: Forty-five is in the complete industrial park.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: See, they don't have to conform
to it, what they said. It was just along the roadway, 1-75, and that
was the piece that I was looking for.
And I must remind the board, all the commissioners voted on
activity center number nine, except for Commissioner Coyle, who
replaced the previous commissioner. So we are the ones that adopted
that activity center.
MS. MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Susan Murray,
from current planning. We estimate approximately 15 to 17 lots out
of those 45 fronted on 1-75. So they would be directly affected by
the activity center number nine requirements.
And those three themes are actually adopted in that plan and
adopted in the land development code. And that was actually put
together by a group of the property owners within that activity
center, including the owner of White Lake PUD.
So that was endorsed by them in accordance with the records
that we have when this was developed, and adopted by you all as
well. So it was adopted that way in the LDC, consistent with the
study that was done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 168
October 8, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I -- there are a lot of overlays
being -- not -- there are a few overlays being done presently. Like
one of them is for Bayshore and the triangle. And with that overlay,
the people work a couple of years to put that together, they seek
professional help to do it, they want to get a theme. Like for instance,
Old Florida is what the Bayshore Triangle is going for. For
somebody to then come in and then build something that has
Mediterranean that has nothing to do with Old Florida, then they've
gone completely against what the overlay asks for. And I think that's
what we're trying to do is we're getting the people of the community
involved to create an overlay, comes before the commissioners, we
say we have faith in you, we'll vote this in, and I think we should
stick with it.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, if I may, I don't know
whether or not Mr. Hicks was involved in this or not. I kind of doubt
he would send me here to say he objects to the architecture that was
approved if he supported it in the first place.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it wasn't that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know. What I'm saying is,
there's another theme out there. We're asking if you would consider
that theme as being added to the three that are already approved. I'm
not saying discard the three, we're saying please consider a fourth
and not be limited to just three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then let me ask this question:
How long did it take this committee to arrive at the three and through
what process? I would think that they arrived at that, it's set in stone,
it's voted in, and was it arrived at before these buildings were built,
or did he build them afterwards and it didn't conform to the overlay?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure it was arrived at after, because
he wouldn't have gotten a permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
Page 169
October 8, 2002
MS. MURRAY: Our records indicate that in 1997 the Board of
County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the growth
management plan to develop the interchange master plan study. So
you endorsed the idea in 1997, or the board did at that time. And the
final copy of the study was completed in November of 2000. So
between '97 and 2000, the committee got together and it was with the
owners of property within that area at the time, and they worked with
Wilson-Miller, who was the contract person for the county and
adopted that -- or put together that study which you adopted. So
you're looking at about three years of work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What is the style that you want to
add? Is it the metal shed Renaissance or --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It actually is -- you're doing this on
purpose, aren't you?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's really Kentucky outhouse,
but that's all right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's all completely stuccoed, it has
architectural banding, and it has parapets. It just does not have
mansard roofs. I mean, it's a lot of-- the office buildings you see
around town that don't have mansard roofs, it's the same style.
MS. MURRAY: I'm not sure the style can be defined. I think it
complies with the architectural standards of 2.8, but this study
specifically culled out three very specific styles to -- as Carolina said
to try to recreate what Naples looked like in the past, or Old Florida,
what the styles looked like in the past, and to create the gateway into
Naples, so it's I guess even more important, because that's the first
impression that people get when they come into Naples across
Alligator Alley. And that's what we're trying to recreate, not only
architecture, but landscaping.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me help this along a little bit. Is
Page 170
October 8, 2002
there any interest on the part of this commission to bring it back?
I don't think we're there yet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I need to answer your question;
23 lots to White Lake.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Vacant?
MR. MUDD: That are along that road, there's 23 total, okay,
that would fall into that.
Item #15A
STAFF DIRECTED TO IMPLEMENT AND COLLECT SCHOOL
IMPACT FEES RE HOMEWOOD ESTATE AND BENTLEY
VIIJ,AGF,
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: ***Okay, now I guess we're at the --
is there anything else --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I have nothing else for
communication, but I think David does.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do, thank you.
We have a recommendation to the board addressing the very
hard work that my staff and Joe Schmitt's staff have been doing
toward the implementation collection of school impact fees, with the
purported assisted living facilities. And I turn it over to Jackie
briefly.
MS. ROBINSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. At the last
commission meeting, there were two public petitions, and the -- both
asked basically to be released from the collection process. And there
was no action taken of course by the commission. So I'm just --
Page 171
October 8, 2002
pardon? -- oh, yes, and these were the Homewood Estates and
Bentley Village assisted living facilities.
So I'm coming before you today basically to get a clarification
from you that I should continue on behalf of the staff to pursue our
collection efforts, including -- the next step of course with these two
in particular would be the filing of a claim of lien. And that's
basically why I'm here.
The memorandum that was distributed to you today does not
really contain any new information, but I would like to have this
memorandum part of the record today. And since it's going to be part
of the record, I distributed copies to you.
So I need to have some affirmative indication from you that
staff should continue to pursue the collection efforts against those
two properties, as we are continuing it against other properties,
including permission to go forward to the next step, which would be
the filing of a claim of lien.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala, and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I don't see any reason why we
should stop this effort of collection. As soon as we open this door a
little bit, it's -- the floodgates are going to open, and I feel that we
should stay with it. And I'll make a motion that we continue
collection efforts.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a-- and I'll second your
motion, Commissioner Fiala.
So we have a motion from Commissioner Fiala, second from
myself, Commissioner Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle, I see your light's on.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there some reason that you're
asking for our approval to continue the collection for these two
Page 172
October 8, 2002
specific developments?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, there are a couple of reasons. One is
these were the two that appear before you for public petition. And
during that process, even though they were aware of the nature of a
public petition, if you recall, they did ask you to excuse them from or
release them from the collection process. And of course during a
public petition, you don't really make a ruling one way or the other.
The implication that I felt was that you wanted our office to
come back to you at least to reaffirm that we are to continue, and
that's why it's on the agenda today.
Additionally, these two facilities, as they are well aware of, and
they are receiving or have already received a copy of this
memorandum, we have -- they have made the position that the statute
of limitations runs four years from the date of the application of the
building permit, and at least one of these facilities, that four-year
statute of limitations would run on the 16th of November.
In order for us to keep moving along and get within that window
and not have that argument being made at least for this one, we need
to have that approval today so we can move forward, so it's not
hanging in the air.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not because you have some
doubts about the legality of our position -- MS. ROBINSON: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- you don't have any problems
with that?
MS. ROBINSON: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments? Hearing
none, I'll -- Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And it's just to reconfirm, and
that's the key issue. We're not directing you -- this is not the first
Page 173
October 8, 2002
time that we were heading in this direction, so I just want to make
that clarification for the record.
MS. ROBINSON: That's correct. Thank you, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, I'll call the question. All
those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. That's it from us.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We'll go down the line here for each
commissioner to make their parting comments.
Commissioner Carter?
Item # 15B
DISCUSSION REGARDING WATER QUALITY OF
VANDFRFIII,T FlAY
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I want to thank -- Jim Vallone's
gone, but I want to thank his staff and County Manager Jim Mudd.
We met with a group up in the north yesterday up along the estuary;
that includes Vanderbilt Beach and Bay, Vanderbilt Association,
Pelican Bay.
All I'm going to say to the north communities in that area, to
explore, which has been going on over a year ago, Jim Mudd and I
Page 174
October 8, 2002
had this conversation as a result of a group coming in. And how do
you improve the water quality in Vanderbilt Bay? And is it
connected to the other estuaries? And that would be Pelican Bay
down to Venetian Bay.
What would come out of that meeting is the Corps of Engineers
will -- there will be a process. It will come through to this board.
The Corps of Engineers will fund this study, it won't cost anything
until you get to the point where it says here are the solution sets, and
here's the numbers to do it. And then there's some very particular
amounts surrounding it. The Corps will not exceed $5 million. And
whatever they do, whatever the formulation it is, has to be a
participated process.
So I want to thank you for moving that forward so that
community can get the study. It may take a couple of years before
the Corps gets it done. But the feeling of that group yesterday was
let's take advantage of finding out what our options are to the
situation, and see what the solution sets might be collectively from
one area or embracing all areas, and how that dovetails with what
Pelican Bay has done in their mangrove restoration and their
continued studies.
So thank you, and that's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. And we might mention
the fact that Commissioner Henning was appointed the point person
for dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers. Possibly he might be
willing to pick up where you're leaving this off and carry this to some
sort of successful conclusion.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think staff has everything
under control, from what I sound -- it sounds like. Probably --COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I would suspect the
commissioner, whoever that might be, elected to 2 would want to
Page 175
October 8, 2002
shepherd that committee and take it forward.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: In any case, we all remain available
if needed, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You got it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Personal note. I'd like to
congratulate my husband. He's the proud grandparent of his first
grandson, who was bom last night, 7 pounds, 14 ounces, in North
Carolina. And I've become another grandmother as well. So I'm
taking this opportunity to say congratulations, Honey.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: How lovely.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me
Item # 15C
STAFF DIRECTED TO WORK WITH MOSQUITO CONTROL
TO INCORPORATE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AND
IMMOKAI.EE INTO THF, DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'd like to bring up about
mosquito control. That's an issue, last time when we talked about it
and we authorized for the second year in a row and expanded it to the
Estates emergency spraying. And I'm sure that this commission
doesn't want to keep paying out of general funds for that spraying.
At that time of the meeting we were talking about starting the
process with our staff and working with mosquito control to move
this forward so that we can bring that area under mosquito control in
the very near future, possibly as early as next October 1 st.
Page 176
October 8, 2002
I would like to see if we could direct staff at this time to start
working with mosquito control to bring something back to us.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Carter, what
about Immokalee?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that's included in my
suggestion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Both areas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good idea.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we've--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Got a lot of nods.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- got three, four, five nods.
Fine. That's all I have. If there's nothing else before this
commission, we are adjourned.
***** Commissioner Carter moved, seconded by Commissioner
Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
2003 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH MARCO ISLAND
HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
SPFJCIAI~ MIISEI IM GRANT OF $25:000
Item # 16A2
RESOLUTION 2002-420 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "STONEBRIDGE
UNIT FOUR"- WITH RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SECI JRITY
Page 177
October 8, 2002
Item #16A3
RESOLUTION 2002-421 GRANT1NG FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR "STONEBRIDGE UNIT FIVE"- WITH
RF, I.F, ASF, OF MAINTFNANCE SECIJRITY
Item #16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-198 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item # 16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-199 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-045 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
PATRICK AND ERIN ROSE REGARDING VIOLATION TO
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, SECTIONS 3.9.3 AS AMENDED OF
THE COI,LIFR COl INTY IJAND DEVEI~OPMFNT CODF.
Item # 16A7
Page 178
October 8, 2002
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2000-035 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. I.E.C.
RENTALS, INC. AND IVY JEAN NEBUS REGARDING
VIOLATION TO ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, SECTIONS 1.5.6,
2.1.11, 2.1.15, 2.2.16.2.1, 3.3., AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ORDINANCE
NO. 99-51, SECTIONS 6, 7, 8, 9 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
WEEDS AND I.ITTER ORDINANCE
Item #16A8
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-200 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item # 16A9
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-175 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item # 16A 10
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-181 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
Page 179
October 8, 2002
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODF,
Item #16Al 1
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-182 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A12
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-196 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A13
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-197 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PALM
RIVER ESTATES REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A14
RENEWAL OF TEMPORARY PARKING AND STAGING AREA
EASEMENTS BETWEEN CPOC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
L.L.C., AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR ONE YEAR'S
Page 180
October 8, 2002
CONTINUED USE OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION OF
THE PARKING DECK; AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $537549
Item # 16B 1
WORK ORDER #CT-02-02 TO CHRIS-TEL COMPANY IN THE
AMOUNT OF $51,750.00 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MEDIAN LANDSCAPE PLANTER ON THE I-IAIJDEMAN
CREEK lqRIDGE ON BAYSHORE DRIVE
Item # 16B2
STAFF TO BEGIN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 02-
3398 "PROFESSIONAL DESIGN AND RELATED SERVICES
FOR COLLIER BOULEVARD FROM GOLDEN GATE
BOULEVARD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD", PROJECT NO. 65061 -
WITH CH2MHILL; AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE; AND
BOYI,E ENGINEERING IN THE ORDER OF THEIR RANKING
Item #16B3 -Continued to October 22, 2002
INSURANCE PROCEEDS TO BE UTILIZED TO PURCHASE
TWO RECONDITIONED TRANSIT BUSES AND OTHER
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$91.853
Item # 16C 1
ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITIES
PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH LB/P GROVEWAY, LLC
IN THE AMOI INT OF $223~496.25
Item # 16D 1
Page 181
October 8, 2002
AGREEMENT WITH THE DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF
COLLIER COUNTY FOR TRANSPORTING SCHOOL AGE
SUMMER CAMP PARTICIPANTS AT AN ESTIMATED COST
oF $60,000
Item # 16E 1
BID #02-3410 TO "PURCHASE OF LIMEROCK AND FILL
MATERIALS" FROM HARMON BROTHERS ROCK COMPANY,
INC. - REJF, CTED
Item # 16E2
PROPERTY, CASUALTY AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION
INSURANCE AND RELATED SERVICES FOR FY2003-
AUTHORIZED AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIJMMARY
Item # 1611
COMMISSIONERS' COLETTA AND CARTER, RESPECTIVELY
TO ATTEND FUNCTIONS SERVING A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE- UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY 2002
CAMPAIGN KICKOFF BREAKFAST HELD SEPTEMBER 25,
2002 FOR $20.00 AND 2002 SW FLORIDA BLUE CHIP
COMMUNITY BUSINESS AWARDS BREAKFAST AT HILTON
NAPI,ES TOWERS ON NOVEMlqF, R 7:2002 FOR $1 8_95
Item # 16J 1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
Page 182
October 8, 2002
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 183
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
October 8, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
mo
Co
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for September' 7, 2002 through September 13, 2002.
2. Disbursements for SePtember 14, 2002 through September 20, 2002.
Districts:
o
Collier Soil and Water Conservation District_- Agenda for August 21,
2002, Agenda for June 19, 2002; Agenda for September 18, 2002,
Minutes of August 21, 2002.
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Agenda for Meeting
Dates for FY 2003.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Agenda Minutes of
June 26, 2002 and Unauditied Financial Stmnt.
Immokalee Water & Sewer District - Adopted Budget FY 2002-03.
Heritage Greens Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
May 13, 2002, Audit FY 2001 and Management Ltr.
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
May 13, 2002. Audit FY 2001 and Management Ltr.
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Schedule of
Meetings FY 2003 and District Map.
Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Fire Rescue District - Audited
Finacial Statements and Management Letter.
Fiddlers Creek Community Development District Minutes of July 24,
2002 and Unaudited Financial Statements dated 6/30/02.
Minutes:
H:Data/Format
o
o
11.
12.
13.
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee_- Agenda for
September 18, 2002.
Immokalee BeautificatiOn Advisory Committee_- Agenda for August 21,
2002.
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board -Notice of Meeting and Agenda for
August 29, 2002.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for September 19, 2002,
Minutes of August 1, 2002; Agenda for September 5, 2002, Minutes of
July 18, 2002.
Collie County Citizens Advisory Task Force - Agenda for September 12,
2002.
Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board - Agenda for August 21,
2002.
Historic & Archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for August 21,
2002.
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redev. Advisory Board - Agenda for
September 11, 2002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes of August 19, 2002
Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board- Minutes of March 7, 2002
and April 4, 2002.
Pelican Bay MSTU Advisory Committee - Agenda for September 4,
2002, Minutes of August 7, 2002, Minutes of August 20, 2002.
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes for March 15,
2002, April 5, 2002 and May 9, 2002.
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for September 4, 2002,
Minutes of July 3, 2002.
H:Data,rFormat
October 8, 2002
Item #16K1
DETERMINATION TO BE MADE AS TO WHETHER
PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES IN THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVES A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND
COl JNTY FIINDS TO SATISFY SAID PIJRCHASFJS
Item # 16L 1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 182 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LAZARO HERRERA, ETAL,
CASE NO. 02-2211-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)
- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $700.00 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COIIRT
Item #16L2
BOARD TO PAY THE REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
COSTS INCURRED BY TWO (2) COUNTY EMPLOYEES,
BARRY ERICKSON AND ROBERT WHEELER, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE MARCH 7, 1999 SULFURIC ACID
SPILL AT THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER
TRF. ATMF. NT PliANT - TOTAIJ COST OF $1 17798.20
Item #16L3
AGREED ORDER AWARDING SUPPLEMENTAL
ATTORNEY'S FEES RELATIVE TO EASEMENT
ACQUISITIONS OF PARCELS 170 AND 770 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. FRED R. SUTHERLAND,
INDIVID UALL Y AND D/B/A SUTHERLAND PAINT HORSES, ET
Page 184
October 8, 2002
AL, CASE NO. 01-0756-CA (LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT NO.
60071) IN THE AMOIINT OF $273_00
Item #16L4
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 175B IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. MICHAEL S. COMBS,
ETAL, CASE NO. 02-2315-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT
#60018)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $800.00 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item #16L5
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 210 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. EFRAIN ARCE, ET AL, (IMMOKALEE
PHASE 1 PROJECT)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF
$87200.00 INTO THF, RF, GISTRY OF THE COI~RT
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2002-46 RE: PETITION PUDA-2002-AR-2559,
DWIGHT NADEAU OF RWA INC., REPRESENTING RICHARD
DAVENPORT, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
"HIBISCUS VILLAGE" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND APPROXIMATELY
ONE AND A QUARTER MILES SOIITH OF IMMOKAIJEE
ROAD (CR 846~
Item # 17B
ORDINANCE 2002-47 RE: PETITION PUDZ-01-AR-1331, R.
BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP,
Page 185
October 8, 2002
VARNADOE AND ANDERSON AND WAYNE ARNOLD OF Q.
GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING MARTIN
ADLER, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE ASGM BUSINESS CENTER PUD FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND APPROXIMATELY ONE-HA
MIIJF, SOl ITH OF TAMIAMI TRAIl, (lis 41)
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2002-48 AMENDING ORDINANCE 02-35 TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN SECTION 3.5 -
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE WINDING CYPRESS
PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COIJJIFR
P, Otyt~F, vARD (CR 951)
There being no further business for the good of the of the
County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:38 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
JAMES COLETTA, CHAIRPERSON
Page 186
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented ~// or as corrected .
kk~v~b~
October 8, 2002
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING
BY: Terri Lewis, RPR and Cherie R. Nottingham, RPR
Page 187