BCC Minutes 11/05/2002 RNovember 5, 2002
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, November 5, 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:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
ALSO PRESENT:
James N. Coletta
Tom Henning
James D. Carter, Ph.D.
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County
Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
November 5, 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 THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
1
November 5, 2002
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. Reverend Donald G. Roth, Moorings Presbyterian Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. October 8, 2002 - Regular Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to recognize the efforts of the Sheriff's Basic Pistol and
Firearms Safety Course. To be accepted by Lieutenant Wayne Brown,
Retired Captain Larry Vanston and Sergeant Kevin Richards.
Be
Proclamation recognizing the Professional and Volunteer Firefighters and
their agencies for their beneficial training. To be accepted by Chief Bob
Schank, East Naples Fire Department and Deputy Chief Oily Stolts, North
Naples Fire Department.
Ce
Proclamation recognizing the gratitude and appreciation to the Parks and
Recreation Department. To be accepted by Marla Ramsey, John Veit and
Staff of the Parks and Recreation Department.
5. PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
2
November 5, 2002
Ae
Public Petition request by Jim Kramer regarding information contained in
fax request.
Be
Public Petition request by Angela Robinson to discuss Naples Jaycees 2003
July 4th Festival and Fireworks Display.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
PUDZ-2001-AR-798, Tim Hancock, AICP, of Vanasse Daylor, LLP, and R.
Bruce Anderson of Young, VanAssenderp, Vamadoe and Anderson, P.A.,
representing Baldridge Development, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A"
Rural Agricultural and "A" Rural Agricultural with "ST" Special Treatment
Overlay to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as the Baldridge
PUD for a maximum of 125,000 sq. ft. of retail and general commercial uses
for property located on the Southeast Comer of the Intersection of Pine
Ridge Road (C.R. 896) and Livingston Road, in Section 18, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 16.8 acres.
Bo
RZ-2001-AR-1649, Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing
Craig D. Timmins, Trustee, requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to C-1 for
property located South of Immokalee Road on the East side of Veterans Park
Drive, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Ce
Approval of the "Citizens Corps" Advisory Council Ordinance and
appointment of the eleven (11) voting members of the Council.
De
DOA-2001-AR-1638, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes Inc.,
representing Hardy Development Group Inc., requesting an amendment to
the Pelican Strand DRI for the purpose of reducing the number of dwelling
units from 1,200 to 1,160 and to allow for the option of 120 dwelling units
to be developed within the commercial portion of the DRI in lieu of 140
hotel/motel units for property located at the intersection of Immokalee Road
and 1-75, Pelican Strand Subdivision, in Sections 18 and 19, Township 48
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA-
2001-AR-1639)
3
November 5, 2002
me
PUDZ-2001-AR-1639, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes Inc.,
representing The Strand Ltd., a Florida Limited Parmership, requesting a
rezone from PUD to PUD for the option of 120 residential units in lieu of
140 motel/hotel units for property located at the intersection of Immokalee
Road and 1-75, Pelican Strand Subdivision, in Sections 18 and 19, Township
48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to DOA-
2001-AR-1638)
Fe
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code
of Law and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, to amend the eligibility criteria
for impact fee deferrals for rental dwelling units to include modular homes
and mobile homes in order to facilitate impact fee deferrals totaling
approximately $204,984.12 for a transitional housing facility currently being
developed by the First Assembly of God.
Ge
This item has a Time Certain of 1:00 p.m. Adoption of an Ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, as
amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13, the Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance, by establishing a geographic overlay for the
Immokalee Area and providing for a Component Road Impact Fee Deferral
Program to mitigate the economic effects of increased road impact fee rates.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Appointment of members to the Emergency Medical Services Advisory
Council.
B. Appointment of members to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
Ce
Appointment of members to the Health and Human Services Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Approve Supplemental Agreement No. 4 to the Professional Services
Agreement with CH2MHILL, Inc., in the amount of $98,453, for the design
of Vanderbilt Beach Road from Airport-Pulling Road to Collier Boulevard,
Project No. 63051. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
4
November 5, 2002
Be
Ce
to
Ge
lie
Je
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Acquisition by Gift or Purchase of
Right-of-Way and Stormwater Retention Sites in Fee Simple Title, as well
as Perpetual, Non-Exclusive Road Right-of-Way, Drainage and/or Utility
Easements, and Temporary Driveway Restoration Easements, and
Temporary Construction Easements, which will be required for the
Construction of Roadway, Drainage and Utility Improvements for the
Vanderbilt Beach Road Six-Laning Project from Airport-Pulling Road to
Collier Boulevard (Project No. 63051). Fiscal Impact: $4,088,000.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation)
Review and approve the FY 2003 Work Plan for the County Manager. (Jim
Mudd, County Manager)
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Encore Senior
Village for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Approval for the recording and filing for a Claim of Lien for Aston Gardens
at Pelican Marsh for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Approval for the recording and filing for a Claim of Lien for Arden Courts
at Lely Palms and Manor Care at Lely Palms for unpaid impact fees.
(Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
Approval for the recording and filing for a Claim of Lien for Canterbury
House at The Vineyards for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for The Carlisle for
unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Windsor Court
for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Terracina Grand
for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
5
November 5, 2002
11.
12.
Development)
Ke
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Summer House
Assisted Living, Inc., for unpaid impact Fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
te
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Greenfield
Cormnons for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Me
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Homewood
Residence for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Ne
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Merrill Gardens
for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
Om
Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for Bentley Village
for unpaid impact fees. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
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.
6
November 5, 2002
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution approvals.
2)
Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3209, Reverend Joseph Spinelli, OSA, St.
Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church, requesting a Permit to conduct a
carnival from November 6-10, 2002 on church property located at
2760 52nd Terrace SW, Golden Gate City, FL.
3)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Case No.
2002-002 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier County,
Florida vs. William Seward regarding violation to Ordinance No. 91-
102, Section 3.9.3 and 2.7.6(5) as amended of the Collier County
Land Development Code.
4)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-017 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Andres and Olga Hemandez regarding violation to
Ordinance No. 91-102, Section 3.9.3 as amended of the Collier
County Land Development Code.
5)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-030 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Mini Max Market, Inc., regarding violation of
Sections 2.7.6(1) and (5) of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended of the
Collier County Land Development Code.
6)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-074 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Penelope P. Maroules regarding violation of
Section 6, Paragraph B1 and 2 of Ordinance No. 2000-68 of the
Collier County Noise Ordinance.
7)
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-052 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. John and Sheila Barry regarding violation of
Sections 2.6.20.1.2,2.6.20.1.5,1.5.6 and 2.1.15 of Ordinances No. 91-
102, as amended of the Collier County Land Development Code.
7
November 5, 2002
8)
Recommendation to approve the clearing of Tracts F and G of the of
the Sabal Bay Commercial Plat located at the Southwestern Corner of
US 41 and Thomasson Drive, bounded on three sides by the C.D.C.
PUD (F.K.A. Collier DRI) and on the fourth side by U.S. 41. The
total area to be cleared is 1.88 acres.
9)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Quail West Phase
III, Unit Five".
10)
Approval of a Budget Amendment recognizing additional revenue in
the amount of $683,441 for Fiscal Year '03 and additional revenue in
the amount of $190,548 for Fiscal Year '02 to the State Housing
Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve Work Order for $453,264.80 for Construction Engineering
and Inspections Services by Johnson Engineering, Inc., for Immokalee
Road/I-75 Interchange Improvement Project No. 66042.
2)
Recommendation to award Bid #02-3406 - Annual Contract for
asphalt and related items to Better Roads Inc., Bonness, Inc., and
APAC-Florida Inc., for the approximate annual amount of
$3,000,000.
3)
Approve an Amendment for $108,110 to contract for the construction
engineering and inspections services by KCCS, Inc. for Livingston
Road Phase II (Golden Gate Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road) six-lane
improvements, Project No. 60071.
4) This item has been deleted.
5)
Approve a Budget Amendment and Change Order with Better Roads
Inc., for median modifications on Airport-Pulling Road in the amount
of $20,618.95; Project #60175.
6)
Award Work Order No. WD-015 to Douglas N. Higgins, Inc., for
Lake Kelly Ditch Improvements (Project No. 51801) in the amount of
$264,012.55.
8
November 5, 2002
7)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept an Access Easement
which is required for periodic maintenance of the Golden Gate Main
Canal under the bridge constructed at 13th Street SW (Project No.
60012), Fiscal Impact $20,100.
8)
Recommendation to declare four (4) nuclear testing gauges as surplus
and approve the sale and disposal of each nuclear testing gauge as
described herein (Bid #S02-3423).
9)
Approve a Budget Amendment to establish for the alternative
Transportation Modes Department in the amount of $180,500.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Waive the $500,000 Upper Limit for Contract #02-3359: "Annual
Contract for Telemetry Services" and approve the Work Order to
Dataflow Systems in the amount of $717,160.
2)
Approve funding and authorize the execution of the appropriate
contracts for process and capacity improvements at the North County
Water Reclamation Facility (Project 73251), in the estimated amount
of $529,100.
3)
Authorize conveyance of a utility easement to Florida Power and
Light Company for the installation of underground electric facilities to
serve the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Deep
Injection Wells to be located at the NCWRF Property, the cost of
which should not exceed $30.00.
4)
Approve Staff and Coastal Advisory Committee recommendations to
disapprove a TDC Category "A" Grant Application for the installation
of a Sand Web System (Porous Groins) along one mile of Naples
Beach in the amount of $1,000,000.
5)
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities Administrator and
the Public Utilities Engineering Director to execute Grant
Applications, Permit Applications, Reports and other Documents that
pertain to the construction of Public Utility Improvement Projects in
Collier County.
9
November 5, 2002
6)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1991 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $28.50 to record the liens.
7)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1992 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $24.00 to record the liens.
8)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1993 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $24.00 to record the liens.
9)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1994 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $24.00 to record the liens.
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1995 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $28.50 to record the liens.
11)
Adopt a Resolution approving the Satisfaction of Liens for Solid
Waste Residential Accounts wherein the County has received
payment and said liens are satisfied in full for the 1996 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $46.50 to record the liens.
12)
Approval of Contract S0055 with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) to participate in the Enhanced
Small Quantity Generator Pilot Program and necessary Budget
10
November 5, 2002
Amendment in the amount of $20,000.
I3)
Accept a Utility Easement for Water Mains located within LaPlaya
Golf Club Property, at a cost not to exceed $600.
14)
Approval of a Second Amendment to Lease Agreement with the City
of Naples Airport Authority to extend the lease term for the Naples
Transfer Station Property at a first year annual rent of $36,384.
15)
Approval of a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Carlton
Lakes, LLC, to extend the lease term for an additional eleven months
for a total revenue of $8,400.
16)
Approval and Execution for Satisfaction of Notice of Claim of Lien
for Sanitary Sewer System Impact Fee. Fiscal Impact is $6.00 to
record the lien.
17)
Authorization to execute and record Satisfactions for certain water
and/or sewer impact fee payment agreements. Fiscal impact is $33.00
to record the satisfactions.
18)
Approve the Satisfaction of Lien Documents filed against Real
Property for Abatement and Nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts
to record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Fiscal Impact is $180.00 to record the liens.
19)
Accept a Utility Easement for the construction of a 16-inch Reclaimed
Water Main along the Southerly side of Davis Boulevard for Radio
Road/Davis Boulevard Project No. 74035 at a cost not to exceed
$400.
20)
Approve a Work Order for Phase 2 of Project 90527, County-Wide
Sand Search, in the amount of $89,805.
21)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept a Utility Easement for
the Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements Project at a cost
not to exceed $3,400.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
11
November 5, 2002
1)
Authorization to employ a 4H Program Assistant to provide expanded
learning for students in Immokalee and to accept funds of $23,370
from a private donation.
2)
Approve the Annual 2002 Report of the Collier County Film
Commission.
3)
Approval to secure a First Amendment to License Agreement with
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Services for the continued use of County-Owned office
space at the Collier County Agriculture Center that will net the
County a first year revenue of $13,902.45.
4)
Approve an Inteflocal Agreement for Advanced Life Support Training
between Collier County and the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District.
5)
Authorize two Budget Amendments, the first recognizing Community
Development Block Grant Revenue in the amount of $60,000 for the
Social Services Department to provide prescription medications to
low income residents in Irmnokalee, and the second to reduce the
FY03 Social Services Client Assistance Expenditure Budget and
increase the General Fund (001) Reserve for Contingencies by
$60,000.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
Approval to utilize State Contracts for purchase of furniture and floor
covering over $25,000.
2)
Approval of a Budget Amendment to Fund 516, Property and
Casualty Insurance, to correct a deficit in Claims Expenditures for
FY02.
3)
Approve Staff's short list for Architectural Services for the design of
the new Fleet Facility, RFP #02-3422.
4)
Recommendation to enter into Contract with Rapidigrn, Inc., to
provide Information Technology Services pursuant to the
12
November 5, 2002
implementation and maintenance of SAP Financial Management
System.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report - Budget Amendment #03-
047 for $4,600.00; #03-050 for $24,241; #03-057 for $14,540; and
#03-058 for $5,000.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1)
Resolution opposing a proposed amendment to the Florida
Constitution which would allow the Florida Legislature to propose
amendments to the Miami-Dade County Home Rule Charter.
(Commissioner Coletta)
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
Recommend that the Board of County Commissioners endorse the
United States Department of Justice/Department of Treasury Federal
Equitable Sharing Annual Certification Report.
2)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcels 118B, 818B 1 and 818B3 in the Lawsuit
Entitled Collier County v. John A. Pulling, Jr., Trustee of a Land
Trust Agreement dated January 2, 1991, et al, Livingston Road (Pine
13
November 5, 2002
2)
Ridge Road to Immokalee Road) Project in the amount of $13,671.65.
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Easement
Acquisition of Parcel 705 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v.
Daniel F. Johnston, et al, (Goodlette Frank Road Project) in the
amount of $874.18.
17.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
Ae
VA-2002-AR-2432, Stan Wittemore, representing W. Belden and Georgelle
Bums, requesting a 5-foot rear yard variance from the required 30 feet to 25
feet for property located at 275 Kings Way, further described as Lot 13,
Block G, Foxfire Unit 3, in Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
Be
VA-2002-AR-2445, Douglas R. Eaton, PSM, representing Ben Arledge,
requesting a variance in the Estates "E" Zoning District from the required 75
foot front setback along NE 33rd Avenue (South Boundary), to allow a 30
foot wide front setback for property located at 4175 33rd Avenue NE, further
described as Lot 70, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 67A, Plat Book 9, Page 47 as
recorded in Collier County Public Records, Collier County, Florida in
Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
November 5, 2002
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please take your seats.
Reverend Donald Roth from the Moorings Presbyterian Church
will give the invocation today. Stand, please.
REVEREND ROTH: Let us pray. Almighty God, we are here
today to do the people's business. May we be humbled in the
responsibility given to us as elected officials and citizens. Bless
those who hold office in the government of Collier County, that they
may do their work in a spirit of wisdom, kindness and justice. Help
them use their authority to serve faithfully and to promote the
welfare of all the people. May this meeting be conducted in order
and civility.
We bring this prayer in the name of the God of our mothers and
fathers, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
Item #2A and #2B
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES AND COUNTY
ATTORNEY WEIGEL'S COMMENTS REGARDING AN
EXECUTIVE CLOSED SESSION AT THE NOVEMBER 19, 2002
REGULAR MEETING TO BE INCLUDED AND APPROVAL OF
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 8, 2002 REGULAR MEETING AS
PRF, SF, NTF, D
Page 2
November 5, 2002
We'll start off with Mr. Mudd for changes to the agenda.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, good morning.
The agenda changes for 5 November, 2002. The first item is to
add item 5(A). That's the presentation by the Property Rights Action
Committee of the Klamath Shovel and Bucket from the Sawgrass
Rebellion to the chairman.
The next item is a request by Commissioner Henning to
move item 6(A), which is the public petition request by Mr. Kramer
regarding information that he gave to the county manager vis-a-vis a
fax, to item 11 (A), which is public comment.
Commissioners, I have to -- it's the first time that we've ever
done this particular kind of issue. Mr. Kramer filed a public petition
through the county manager's office. We processed it. It came in in
the right amount of time and days, and I basically replied with a
letter that said he was assigned a spot during public petition. This
would move him from public petition to public comment.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand from Commissioner
Henning's comment and the fact that Mr. Kramer is coming back
every single meeting with the same issues over and over again,
possibly this commission has to address that particular issue as a
separate thing, how we handle multi occasions where people are
going to keep coming back with the same petition.
I, for one, am a little leery to change the established order of
things at this point in the game, although I'd like to leave it open for
this commission for consideration.
How do you feel? Any comments from this commission?
If not, we're going to keep with the present order of things. And
possibly under comments we can direct staff to come back to us with
some alternatives.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, if it's --
I looked at it as the same issues over and over again. It's not wise to
Page 3
November 5, 2002
have our staff spending all that time sitting here waiting for them to
get to their agenda item. It's not a proper way to spend taxpayers
money.
If we're going to revisit the issue over and over again, we should
give the public the opportunity to do so, but not at the taxpayers'
expense.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, it's the taxpayers' expense
whether it's the beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting.
But the only concern I have, Commissioner Henning, is that if we're
able to take away a person's right to public petition us, then we're
taking away one of their fundamental rights.
Possibly this commission should direct staff to come back with
an alternative for the future, how we can deal with it. Today I kind
of hope that the commission will agree that we stay with the present
agenda the way it is in the rules as we have outlined them previously
in other meetings. Mr. Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think
Commissioner Henning has a good point. Perhaps it hasn't been fully
explained to the public that Mr. Kramer is a political candidate and
appears to be using these appearances to try to get publicity. I do not
think that's the appropriate purpose for these kinds of appearances.
We've heard these things before. We have considered them.
And unless the commission has any decisions to make on these
things, I don't know why we need to even hear them at all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree with you to a point, the fact
that this was something that we shouldn't put into policy, but we
should be doing this as a policy matter rather than sitting up here just
prior to the meeting. We're going to obviously take more time to
discuss this than Mr. Kramer's going to demand to have.
But I would like to hear -- I've got two commissioners that are
looking to move this to the end of the meeting. I personally would
Page 4
November 5, 2002
like to keep the established order the way it is. So it's up to you two.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, it is. Well, I'll keep it where
it is so Mr. Kramer can make his point, and you can change your
policy in the future.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I agree with Commissioner
Henning and Commissioner Coyle.
It's -- you know, you keep hearing the same thing over and over,
and especially when it's from a candidate. I mean, certainly, he's
using this as his bully pulpit.
But I have to -- I have to honor your request, Mr. Chairman, and
I will side with you as to keep it where it is, but we certainly need to
have something--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- in place for -- for even repetitive
issues, not only somebody running for office, but repetitive issues
brought forward each time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think this is sufficient direction to
staff so we don't have to bring this back up under comments at the
end, that we'd like to see us address this for future meetings.
MR. MUDD: The next item on our change list is to delete
item 10(L), which is the approval for the recording and filing of a
claim of lien for Greenfield Commons for unpaid impact fees at
staffs request, and that's because the particular claimant had paid his
fees, so we took it off the -- off the agenda.
Delete item -- the next item is delete item 10(M), approval
for recording a filing of claim of liens for the Homewood residence
for unpaid impact fees at staffs request. The board had already acted
upon that and gave staff direction to do the filing at a previous
meeting.
The same is true for the next item, which is delete item
10(O), which is the approval for recording and filing of claim of lien
for the Bentley Village for unpaid impact fees at staffs request.
Page 5
November 5, 2002
The next item on the change list is to add item 10(P), which
is to approve a budget amendment for the dredging contract for
Wiggins Pass Emergency Maintenance Dredging, and that will be
given to you by Mr. DeLony, the administrator for public utilities.
The next item is to move item 16(C)(2) to 10(Q), which is
to approve funding and authorize the execution of appropriate
contracts for process and capacity improvements at the North County
Water Reclamation Facility, and that's at Commissioner Henning's
request.
The next item is to move item 16(C)(5) to 10(R), which is
to adopt a resolution authorizing the public utilities administrator and
public utilities engineering director to execute grant applications,
permit applications, reports and other documents that pertain to the
construction of public utility improvement projects in Collier
County, and that's at the request of Commissioner Henning.
The next item is to move item 16(D)(4) to 10(S), which is
to approve an interlocal agreement for advanced life support training
between Collier County and the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District, and that's at Commissioner Carter's request.
And the last item on the change -- change list is to move
item 16(E)(4) to 10(T), which is a recommendation to enter into a
contract with Rapidigm to provide information technology services
pursuant to the implementation and maintenance of the SAP financial
management system, and that's at the request of Commissioner
Coyle.
That's all we have on the change list for today, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
I'll start off with Commissioner Carter for any changes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have no changes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to add that I, too,
had requested 16(C)(2) and 16(C)(5) to be pulled and put onto the
Page 6
November 5, 2002
regular agenda. I just wanted to make a note of that, please.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I don't necessarily want it
pulled, but I do have one question that I may pull it if I can't get a
satisfactory answer on. 16(G)(4), the SAP financial management
system, work order in excess of $25,000, is that true, it has no cap?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 16(E)(4), it's been pulled.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, it has. Then (G)(4), it's not--
that's the one on the SAP financial management system?
MR. MUDD: 16(E)(4) is SAP, and it's been pulled.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That has been pulled.
MR. MUDD: It's item 10(T).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Then we'll go to Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine.
And with that, do I hear a --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval of the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we take a vote on that,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Thank you.
For the record, at the beginning of the meeting I'd like to make
my formal request pursuant to the government in the sunshine law of
the board for a closed attorney-client executive session to be held at
next board meeting, which would be November 19th, here and in
your chambers.
And I'll be providing to the court reporter for the record a
written notice of that request. Thank you for letting me put that on
the record.
Page 7
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Carter for approval
and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any comments?
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we want to include Mr.
Weigel's comments in your request?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Include Mr. Weigel's comments,
and also I'd like to include approval of the regular minutes from
October 8.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll add that to my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine. Any other comments?
Hearing none, 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.
Page 8
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
November 5, 2002
ADD ITEM 5(A): Presentation by the Property Rights Action Committee (PRAC) of
the Klamath Shovel and Bucket from the Sawgrass Rebellion to Commissioner
Coletta. (Staff request.)
MOVE ITEM 6(A) TO 11(A): Public Petition request by Jim Kramer regarding
information contained in fax request. (Commissioner Henning.)
DELETE ITEM 10(L): Approval for the recording and filing of a claim of Lien for
Greenfield Commons for unpaid impact fees. (Staff request.)
DELETE ITEM 10(M): Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for
Homewood Residence for unpaid impact fees. (Staff request.)
DELETE ITEM 10(O): Approval for the recording and filing of a Claim of Lien for
Bentley Village for unpaid impact fees. (Staff request.)
ADD ITEM 10(P): Approve Budget Amendment and Dredging Contract for
Wiggins Pass Emergency Maintenance Dredging, not to exceed $100,000. (Jim
DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities.)
MOVE ITEM 16(C)2 TO 10(Q): Approve funding and authorize the execution of the
appropriate contracts for process and capacity improvements at the North County
Water Reclamation Facility (Project 73251), in the estimated amount of $529,100.
(Commissioner Henning .)
MOVE ITEM 16(C)5 TO 10(R): Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Public Utilities
Administrator and the Public Utilities Engineering Director to execute Grant
Applications, Permit Applications, Reports and other documents that pertain to
the construction of Public Utility Improvement Projects in Collier County.
(Commissioner Henning.)
MOVE ITEM 16(D)4 TO 10(S): Approve an Interlocal Agreement for Advanced Life
Support Training between Collier County and the North Naples Fire Control and
Rescue District. (Commissioner Carter.)
MOVE ITEM 16(E)4 TO 10(T): Recommendation to enter into contract with
Rapidigm, Inc., to provide Information Technology Services pursuant to the
implementation and maintenance of SAP Financial Management System.
(Commissioner Coyle.)
November 5, 2002
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS OF THE
SHERIFF'S BASIC PISTOL AND FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE-
ADOPTFJD
first.
Moving right on to the proclamations. Mr. Carter you're
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's my pleasure to invite some gentlemen forward this morning
who are responsible for our Collier County Basic Marksmanship Gun
Safety Skills Program. It's a public service, it's a public safety
program.
Will the gentlemen representing that group please come
forward? I know we've got Captain Larry Vaston, retired, we've got
Capital William Smith, who is the -- I'm going to call him the
gunnery officer. He's the guy that runs the range out there, and some
of his associates. All these people are here this morning, and it's my
pleasure to ask them to come up here so you can all get a good look
at them:
You will notice the red shirts and the red caps. That's how,
when you're on the firing range, you know these are the people --
right in front of the cameras, guys. You guys are never bashful in
class. When you had me there, raked me over -- hey, guys, my turn.
You guys are -- these gentlemen are terrific in what they do, and
this is a free course. If you're going to own a weapon, learn how to
use it.
Two things I'll always remember from this course. Number one,
what comes out of the end of that weapon, that pistol, you own it,
you're responsible for it.
Number two, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
So that means if you own a weapon, you better -- if you're going to
Page 9
November 5, 2002
use it, you don't have any room to hesitate.
What they do is train you on what to do and not to do and really
do an excellent job, and I can't thank them enough for how much I
learned, and I would encourage anyone that owns a weapon to go
through this process.
The proclamation reads as follows:
Whereas, in this time of heightened home security awareness of
private ownership of firearms is an all-time high in this country; and
Whereas, since a firearm can be a dangerous tool in unskilled
hands, it is incumbent upon the owners to know how to safely handle
and maintain these weapons before they are brought into the home;
and
Whereas, recognizing a need for citizen training in these
specific skills, the Collier County Sheriffs Office has instituted a
basic pistol and firearms safety course; and
Whereas, this program, under the able direction of Lieutenant
Wayne Brown, Sergeant Kevin Richards, Retired Captain Larry
Vanston, and a cadre of red hat, red shirt range officers teaches
citizens of Collier County the basic marksmanship and gun safety
skills necessary for intelligent firearms and ownership; and
Whereas, this long-standing popular program has imparted these
skills onto hundreds of citizens.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognize the efforts of
the sheriffs basic pistol and firearms safety course supervisors and
instructors in this worthy endeavor, thereby making Collier County a
safer place to work and live.
Done and ordered this 5th day of November, 2002, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Jim Coletta,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
Page 10
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. 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.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They want you to stay for a photo
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Come back up here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You need this, and we need a
photo.
MR. STIESS: I'll be in the middle.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make believe you like each other.
Thank you. Did you want to say a few words?
MR. STIESS: Kevin would like to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Don't fight over the mike.
MR. STIESS: Bill Stiess, chief of operations.
On behalf of Sheriff Hunter, I'd like to thank the commission for
recognizing this fine group of individuals.
I would like to say that I am one of them, but I am not. And
starting'with retired Captain Vanston in 1981, he had the rigorous
duty of introducing me to firearms instruction, and so on.
And the other two gentlemen constantly strive to keep me at a
high level of performance. They're not doing very well. But thank
you very much. And they do do a fine job and they do touch a
number of members of the community. Thank you.
Page 11
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I might add that
all these gentlemen do this on their own time. They are not paid for
what they do. This is off-duty service to the community, and that's a
challenge for all of us who sometimes wonder what could I do. Here
is -- here's a group of gentlemen that I think got a tough job to begin
with and then give all this other time to make it a safer and better
place.
So if you own a weapon, you need to go through their school.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE PROFESSIONAL AND
VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER AND THEIR AGENCIES FOR
THF, IR BF, NFJFICIAIJ TRAINING-ADOPTED
Commissioner Fiala, you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Would the representatives for
the professional and volunteer firefighters step forward, please.
Oh, here's my own fire chief, my East Naples fire chief, Bob
Schank.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The one and only.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He's actually known as Sparks.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Proclamation. Whereas, the
professional and volunteer firefighters throughout the State of Florida
are an extremely valuable asset in providing for the health and safety
of our residents; and
Whereas, there is a continuing need for quality training to
enable public safety providers, particularly those professional and
volunteer firefighters, to maintain their skills; and
Whereas, to satisfy this need the Great Florida Fire School was
Page 12
November 5, 2002
developed to provide this training in a comprehensive and
economical way; and
Whereas, Collier County has the privilege of hosting the Great
Florida Fire School from November 7th through the 10th, 2002; and
Whereas, to fulfill this training need, more than 35 classes have
been scheduled at different venues throughout Collier County; and
Whereas, more than 150 fire service responders from throughout
the State of Florida and neighboring states have enrolled to
participate in this training; and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to express
its gratitude and appreciation to Edison Community College, the
State Fire College, and the Collier County Fire Chief's Association
for hosting and developing this valuable training opportunity and to
sincerely welcome students and guests to Collier County.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, on behalf of the citizens
of Collier County, hereby recognize these dedicated individuals and
agencies for their efforts in providing this beneficial training.
Done and ordered this 5th day of November, 2002.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to approve 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.)
Page 13
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Photo opportunity.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Put this on the station house
wall.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. 250 words or less.
MR. STOLTS: I'll be speaking for Chief Schank today. He's a
little under the weather in the chest.
On behalf of the committee for the Great Florida Fire School, all
the independent fire districts within the county, the two city fire
departments within the county, Collier County EMS, Edison College,
Great Florida Fire School is being presented this year in Collier
County, and again next year.
We sent out the applications, and the firefighters from across the
State of Florida responded. We currently -- I checked the registration
yesterday. We have over 200 firefighters that have signed up for the
Great Florida Fire School. We're anticipating anywhere between
another 25 and 50 before the registration is closed tomorrow
morning.
We're excited. We've put in a lot of hard work and a lot of time.
And we just want to thank the citizens of Collier County and Collier
County itself for helping us host and making this one of the best
Florida .fire schools that we feel has ever taken place in the state.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE GRATITUDE AND
APPRECIATION TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DF, PARTMFNT- ADOPTF, D
Henning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay.
Next is Commissioner
Page 14
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This next proclamation, I
would like to call up Marla Ramsey and John Veit from Parks and
Rec. Marla and John, are you here? John Dunnuck? John Veit?
There he is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't see John Veit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We've got a bunch of
other guys here. That's great. We'll find out who they are in a
minute here. Let me go ahead with this proclamation.
Whereas, all of Collier County remembered with sorrow and the
renewed sense of patriotism in the tragic event of September 11,
2001, and struggled to find a way to properly honor the occasion; and
Whereas, staff of Parks and Recs Department recognized that
the American flag is the most profound symbol of our nation united
(sic) and graphic expiration (sic) of our dearest value, courage,
freedom, and the equality, and conceived of the idea of (sic)
emblazon the flag upon the landscaping of Collier County; and
Whereas, staff of Parks and Recs Department toiled in sunshine
and rain to paint 182 by 400 feet American flag across two soccer
fields at the Veteran's (sic) Community Park; and
Whereas the complete project was a magnificent tribute to the
grave sense of loss and resolve of spirits that attended all American
hearts with regards to September 1 lth attacks.
Now there -- now for (sic), be it proclaimed that the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, gratitude and
appreciation, extend to the Parks and Recs Department and its staff
for creating expressions (sic) of collective sorrow, pride and
patriotism of Collier County one year after terrorism attacks of
September 11,2001.
Done in this order, 5th day of November, 2002. Signed by our
chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
Page 15
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
CommiSsioner Henning and a 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.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Get right in the center, buddy. Right
in the center. There you go.
MR. VEIT: I have a couple of words.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please do, John.
MR. VEIT: What a great honor, and we appreciate this honor
that you've given us.
The flag painting project came to me in a dream on Sunday
night. I suggested it in a staff meeting on Monday morning and
received some encouragement. I passed the idea on to my staff, and
they were enthusiastic.
By Tuesday, there was no way that we couldn't have done it.
What began as an indulgence became a mission, and together we saw
it through.
We chose to paint the flag in remembrance of September 1 lth,
2001, because it symbolizes so much about America. We can see our
past represented in the 13 stripes that stand for the 13 colonies, and
our present is represented in the union of the 50 stars. And anytime
the flag flies unfettered above or heads, it is a shining symbol of the
bright furore of this nation.
(Spanish interpreter interpreted.)
Likewise, the flag's colors symbolize important values to this
nation. White signifying purity and innocence, red, heartiness and
Page 16
November 5, 2002
valor, blue, vigilance, perseverance and justice.
I think the meaning of these colors are especially appropriate
regarding September 1 lth attacks; white for our innocence before
9/11, red for the loss of life, and blue for the justice that will prevail.
(Spanish interpreter interpreted.)
However, while the American flag is a symbol of the greatness
of this country, the flag is not what makes this country great. What
makes this country great is the hard-working, honest and courageous
people. People like the men and women you see here today.
On a personal note, I could not be more proud of these men, and
I am humbled and honored to work side by side with you.
(Applause.)
(Spanish interpreter interpreted.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
John, will you accept this proclamation, please.
Thank you.
MR. VEIT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Possibly you could turn one of these
around so they can get a picture of it on the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's so beautiful.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, lovely.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hang it in a place of honor in my
office. Whoa, that is so lovely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If you can zoom in on that, we'd
really appreciate it. Wonderful work, gentlemen. You've made us
very proud.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to shake your hands, if I
can. Oh, this is so neat. (Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much for these.
John, we're proud of you.
Page 17
November 5, 2002
Item #5A
PROPERTY RIGHTS ACTION COMMITTEE (PRAC) OF THE
KLAMATH SHOVEL AND BUCKET FROM THE SAWGRASS
REBEIJJION TO COMMISSIONER COI~ETTA-PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The next is a presentation to
us by the Property Rights Action Committee of Collier County.
Cindy Kemp is the president, and we have Mark Gurstell (phonetic)
that's here. Would you step up to the podium, please.
MS. CAMP: Good morning. My name is Cindy Kemp, and no
longer the president, but the founder.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The founder.
MR. GURSTELL: And my name is Mark Gurstell.
Eighteen months ago, Property Rights Action Committee was
birthed by the people, people who are presenting this shovel and
bucket from the Sawgrass Rebellion to you.
MS. KEMP: Feeling frustrated, appalled by proposals and plans
that would affect our way of life and left to defend ourselves, we
took on the job of being a watchdog for property rights.
These rights are the basis of all freedoms. For without property,
are we not anything more than just a serf tending the land and having
no rights?
MR. GURSTELL: It's been a struggle to make -- for PRAC to
make inroads since we have no big money backer to fund us, as does
the Nature Conservancy. Our members are not paid professionals,
like Florida Wild Life Federation employees who can spend their
time to attend meetings and planning sessions. Instead, we have
families and we must devote our time to our regular nine-to-five jobs
to pay the mortgages.
And lastly, we have no cheerleaders, such as lawyers,
organizations, and newspapers supporting our issues and concerns.
Page 18
November 5, 2002
But now, 18 months later, since the Sawgrass Rebellion, things have
changed.
MS. KEMP: We have gotten the attention of the nation.
Imagine that. A small band of property owners in Collier County
having the spotlight shined on them. We have been written about in
major dailies, posted and sent around the world on cyberspace, and
what a joy talk radio is to hear caller after caller supporting PRAC
and the Sawgrass Rebellion.
MR. GURSTELL: In July, 2002, representatives from property
right groups across America met in Tennessee at a meeting called
Freedom 21. When the issue of the concerns of South Florida, such
as the TDRs, ROMA (phonetic), reflooding of southern Golden Gate
Estates, Everglades restoration, the flooding of the 8.5 square mile,
and the green space tax were described, it was then decided that a
massive outpouring of support would take place in South Florida.
MS. KEMP: Well, we all know the saga of the permitting
fiasco of the Sawgrass Rebellion, so I will not prolong this
presentation with those details.
However, the Sawgrass Rebellion had to happen. The rest of
the country was staring at Collier County, along with property
owners across this constitutional republic who are ready to come to
our aid and support property rights here.
Farmers, ranchers, loggers, fishermen, Amish, Mennonites,
veterans, and regular families formed three separate convoys to trek
across America, stopping in towns and cities along the way to Naples
to tell their story of how their property, livelihoods, and way of life
were being taken away, and to be welcomed by governors, senators,
and Congressmen, mayors, county commissioner, and fellow
Americans.
MR. GURSTELL: Our big shindig is still in the waiting. So
you see, we have big plans, and the energies and determination of
PRAC will continue.
Page 19
November 5, 2002
So at this time, I would like to thank all the people who helped
to make the Sawgrass Rebellion a reality in Collier County and
present Commissioner Coletta with a genuine Klamath bucket and
shovel.
MS. KEMP: This bucket is a symbol of the holding back of
water for a suckerfish to over 1200 farm families that were destroyed
and resulted in six suicides in Klamath, Oregon.
The decision to turn off the water was later proven false by the
National Academy of Science. It is also symbolic of the thousands of
acres in Darby, Ohio's Amish .and men in knight communities whose
lands were once deeded them as compensation for revolutionary war
soldiers and handed down, generation from generation, but were
taken from them for preservation.
The shovel is symbolic of the road access that was shut off to
recreationalists in Nevada only to be dug out by Americans who
would not allow their Fifth Amendment Rights to be violated.
I know these folks would love to be here to personally present
these gifts to you, but, of course, time and distance will not allow
them. They send their love and admiration for welcoming them to
Naples.
I would also like to thank Jim Mudd for his assistance and
leadership. We look forward to working with you in the future. And
if I have failed to mention any others, please forgive me. It is not
intentional.
I would also like to present each commissioner a packet that I
have prepared with pictures and articles of the Sawgrass Rebellion
and some information that I hope will make you more aware of
PRAC's concerns.
So, you see, we are a united group across the United States of
America, and we will be supporting our fellow Americans
concerning property rights and waiving our "don't tread on me" flags.
Thank you very much.
Page 20
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, this is a time that will befall all
us commissioners at one time or another.
Commission Carter, would you please come up here to the
podium with me.
It's with grateful appreciation to James Carter, Dr. James Carter,
Collier County Commissioner, for serving residents in District 2 and
all citizens of Collier County from 1998 (sic) to 2002.
And I'm going to read you this short quote from Theodore
Roosevelt, which seems to fit the situation perfectly. It is not the
critic that counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man
stumbles or where the door -- the doer of deeds could have done
them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena
whose face is marred by the dust, the sweat, again and again, who
knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion and spends himself in
a worthy cause, who at best knows the triumph of high achievement,
and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so
that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
know neither victory nor defeat.
Commissioner Carter, it's with the greatest of pleasure.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you. I thought this might
be easy.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, my fellow Commissioners, this
management team, employees of Collier County, I want to thank
you. I'm truly touched by your presence this morning, for the
opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to serve.
I would like to, most of all, recognize my spouse, Dr. Jane
Carter, who is right behind me. I want her to stand, because this lady
stood with me in the campaign, she stood with me through office.
Page 21
November 5, 2002
We've been together for 32 years, so really, this award belongs as
much to her as it does to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, how beautiful.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I can truly say it's been a
pleasure to serve. It was passion that pulled me into this job because
I truly believe that those of us who sit in these chairs want to make a
difference. And along the way when you come to this job, you find
out hoTM much you don't know.
And some young ladies standing against this wall are the reason
why commissioners are so successful.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: First of all, I want to recognize
my associate, Trisha McPherson. We started the job together, we
grew together. And I will tell you, without her, I never could have
been as accomplished in what I was trying to do without her. So
Trisha, I thank you very much.
For Ms. Filson, the leader of this fine staff that works with the
Board of County Commissioners, I have to tell you, they make us
proud. They help us get the job done, which is one that is tough.
I've taken great pride in being a county commissioner. And as I
look back, the people asked me, they said, what did you do? And I
looked at -- the first thing we took on is we did a sign ordinance, and
we really stopped visual pollution in this county. And everywhere I
go, I begin to see the benefits from that.
We've got community character that we implemented to
improve what we look like as a county from our streetscaping, to our
signscaping, to the development of communities, to overlays, and
Naples Park will be one that I will always be proud of as they begin
this journey to develop and find out what they're really like as a
community and what they want to look like in the furore.
The growth management plans, to all the stakeholders, to
Page 22
November 5, 2002
everyone that works so hard to give us the rural lands, the rural
fringe, and to get us to the urban infield. And the bottom line is that
we stopped urban sprawl in this county, and we are a model, not only
for Florida, we're going to be a model for the country.
We had a water symposium last year to save water and to save
energy. And this was like an incubator, because between
government and the private sector, we now have a not-for-profit
organization that is expanding and growing and will be a name that
people will recognize in the years to come.
We have plans in place for a road infrastructure and county
utility plans for the next 15 to 20 years, and this board had the
courage not only to approve those, but to pay for them, and that
makes me proud to stand tall with this group.
It's not been easy on this Board of County Commissioners. We
hit rock bottom in about mid 2000. People were ashamed of the
Board of County Commissioners, they were ashamed of government.
It was pretty tough for all of us to walk around this community
without somebody saying and making very derogatory remarks about
us. But the good news is, we have turned it around.
I have worked with nine different commissioners, I have worked
with three county managers, and we are on that road back, because
we started that in the fall of 2000. And we had the county
management, we had Board of County Commissioners, we had
dedicated professional employees, and we can now walk through this
community with our heads held high and say we work for county
government. This is a great place to live and to be.
And what I learned in this process was a great quote from a
book reCently that I read, and it said, the biggest men and women
with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men and
women with the smallest -- with the smallest minds. Think big
anyway.
Stand tall and make tough decisions. Boy does this board do
Page 23
November 5, 2002
this. I've been proud to serve here and do that. And I will tell you,
nine out of 10 times, we'll make the right decisions. And the time
that you don't will you get blistered by it. There's no question about
that. But remember, we can't make all the right ones, but we really
work hard to make them right and do the best that we know how for
this community.
We have formed community alliances, and we have met these
challenging issues by promoting mediation. And you'll soon find
out, as I have found out in politics, who are your false friends and
true enemies. It doesn't take long to figure that one out.
The other thing is, remember that every commissioner, all of us
need to communicate by every means that we can. We have a lot of
tools in that toolbox, and we were elected by you and not the media.
We are answerable to you and not the media. That's our job, and I
know that we will continue to stand tall and do that.
And everyone, I think, needs to remember that a county
commissioner is just like you, lives in the community, drives the
same roads, depends on the same services, shops in the same places.
And like you, it's a person who has chosen public service to help
make Collier County a better place to live.
In the end, we're all trying to survive. We're trying to do the best
that we can with some sort of dignity along the way.
Help each other. Help each other. God bless you. God bless
America.
(Applause.)
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY JIM KRAMER REGARDING FEES FOR
NONCONSENT TOWING AND STORAGE OF VEHICLES-
DISCI ISSF, D
Page 24
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. Now we're at the public
petition part of our agenda.
And Mr. Kramer, you're first.
MR. KRAMER: Sue, could you pass these out.
Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Jim Kramer. I'd
like to talk to you about the enforcement of county regulation 99-38.
That's the fees for nonconsent towing and storage of vehicles
ordinance, particularly sections 6(A) and (B).
After the last meeting I requested three videotapes. One for
10/22, which was the last meeting, one for 3/12 and one for 2/12.
This is what's -- partially what was said during those commission
meetings.
Tom Henning, quote, Mr. Kramer, please, if might have a
moment. I reviewed this last week, last Friday. I contacted the
mayor and told her what we are going to consider. I faxed this
information over to her.
Looking at it and getting some advice from people who are in
the towing business, who thinks cames (sic) out. Yes is -- yes, the
towing people think that you were overcharged. The second thing
that was noticed, that it was in the City of Naples. One of-- well,
Mr. Nagy is on their towing list.
I felt that -- or I feel that in talking with the mayor, she agrees
that the City of Naples, it's in their hands to help you resolve this
issue.
If you take a look at it, I'm sure you didn't call Nagy Towing. It
was the Naples Police Department who did that. And like you say,
they are not on our preferred list. So I think your best opportunity to
have resolution is to go to the city manager's office or the mayor's
office to see if you can get some restitution in this, unquote.
Jim Kramer, quote, I will do that, sir. I was told that the county
ordinances covered the towing business and that three violations,
which I believe have taken place, will get him removed from the
Page 25
November 5, 2002
ability to do business. And so yes, sir, I will contact the city,
although they referred me to you, unquote.
Tom Henning, quote, right. And the mayor has talked to the
city manager and I think they are going to take a look into it, but I
appreciate you bringing this to our attention, unquote. Jim Kramer, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta, thank you, sir, and thank you,
Commissioner Henning, for going the extra mile to research that.
Commissioner Henning, quote, it's my yob (sic).
Chairman Coletta, your yob.
This is from the March meeting.
Jim Kramer, quote, I was there a month ago, gentlemen, on a
towing overcharge. I had gone to the city. They had recommended
that I come to you. I presented the same that I presented to you at the
city.
They now send me back to you with this comment. The
violation of the county ordinance and the violation took place on
county property; therefore, I have to get your code enforcement to
cite these people before the city can do anything about removing
them. That's it.
Chairman Coletta, thank you.
Dr. Carter, Mr. Kramer, I can understand your frustration.
ProbablY government at its worst.
Mr. Olliff, could you speak with the mayor and find out if some
simple thing like this couldn't be resolved without a person running
back and forth between two government bodies taking up a lot of
people's time and get something resolved which I think is rather
simplistic, unquote.
Tom Olliff, quote, I will personally take this one on, Mr.
Chairman, unquote.
Dr. Carter, thank you.
Tom Henning, and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding possibly
Page 26
November 5, 2002
between myself and the city on this issue.
I Was told one thing and obviously --
This is from the last meeting on October 22nd.
Tom Henning, quote, sir, I would recommend that you pay your
bill and move on, unquote.
Jim Kramer, quote, I have paid the bill, sir, unquote.
Tom Henning, okay. What's your last item, unquote.
We have these videotapes queued up if you would like to see
them. You know, what I want is the enforcement of this ordinance.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's it, sir? Has anyone got
something they want to be quoted on?
No, Jim, we hear you. I know it's frustrating as anything to try
to bring resolution to something like this. And I, frankly, don't have
the answer. You're caught between two political entities. Maybe
Mr. Weigel might have something further to add. MR. WEIGEL: A little bit, thank you.
Mr. Kramer knows, and he's been in contact with our office.
Over a period of time our office has worked very closely with Mr.
Danny Schryver, legal county counsel to the sheriff, and we have
with him, with them, prepared some amendments to our current
ordinance which will clarify some of the responsibilities of the
towing companies that are on anybody's list as far as that goes.
And so, whether you work through this public petition or at
another point, our office is prepared at your authorization to advertise
and bring amendments to our towing ordinance back to this board for
consideration.
Now, that's separate and apart from the fact that the county may
or may not have the ability at this point, and I tend to say may not
have the ability, for any refund from the towing company with Mr.
Kramer. But there are some aspects and clarifications that the sheriff
felt, as we approached him, that could be of assistance for future
Page 27
November 5, 2002
administration of this ordinance.
So from that standpoint, if you give us the nod, we'll bring it
back to .you in, probably two meetings away.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to see the
amendments prior to bringing it back.
MR. WEIGEL: That would be great. I will share them with
you. I look forward to do that. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Your persistence, Mr. Kramer, I
think, is going to be paying off shortly.
MR. KRAMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have three more minutes and two more sections to my
public petition, one of which we have decided to drop. It has to do
with the swimming pool ordinances, and we're going to leave this for
a future agenda.
The third one has to do with the recommendation to staff for a
study of the feasibility of the consolidation of the independent fire
districts into a unified county-wide department of fire and emergency
services, parenthesis, based on millage rate differences within PUI --
PUDs and DRIs and the expected growth to buildout.
At the last meeting it was recommended that I take this to the
fire chief's meeting, which I did. I spoke to Fire Chief Schank, and
they agree with me that there is some problem in PUDs such as Grey
Oaks where three quarters of the Grey Oaks PUD is covered by one
fire district, and another fire district with another millage rate covers
the other quarter.
I think that with a unified district we could have better service.
That's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: You're welcome.
Item #6B
Page 28
November 5, 2002
PETITION BY ANGELA ROBINSON TO DISCUSS NAPLES
JAYCEES JULY 4, 2003 FESTIVAL AND FIREWORKS
DISPI.AY-APPROVFJD
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next public petition is by Angela
Robinson.
MS. ROBINSON: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning.
MS. ROBINSON: For the record, I am Angela Robinson,
president for the Great Naples Jaycees. In attendance with me this
morning, I have Matt Campbell, who is a member and regional
director, and we also have a senator, Lisa Douglas, past president and
current first lady for the Florida Jaycees.
I'd like to take a moment and recognize and personally thank
County Manager Mudd for his current support to our organization, to
our haunted house. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
With your continued -- can you hear me? I feel like I'm not in
the mike.
With continued support, I'm proud to announce that Naples
Jaycees are currently the number two chapter in the nation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, wonderful.
(Applause.)
MS. ROBINSON: We will hopefully be number one in the
nation within the next two weeks, and we'll find out in the next two
weeks. That's my goal.
We have a donation to the county government complex, and at
this time, Mr. Coletta, would you please come forward, and, Mr.
Mudd, would you come forward also, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, that's beautiful. Wow. Did
somebody make that?
MS. DOUGLAS: No. These are -- it's a fund-raiser that we do,
and -- so we have them on sale for $52, for anybody that wants to
Page 29
November 5, 2002
purchase one. We thought it would be a great donation to the county
government complex. We've given one to the city already, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We could hang it on a wall or
something.
MS. DOUGLAS: Yes, exactly.
MS. ROBINSON: There's probably still staples in it, too.
With our Jaycee community blanket, we hope this will bring a
touch of Naples to the halls of this government center, and thank you
for your continued support.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
At this time we'd like to direct your attention to the screens for
our sixth annual July 4th festival and fireworks display proposal.
I'm not going to read this word for word, but what are Jaycees?
Jaycees are a leadership training organization. We consist of young
adults from 21 to 39-year-olds, and our focus is community service
in our local area. We have been in Naples for over 40 years.
Past, present and Jaycees in your community, they consist of the
person standing next to you right now or sitting next to you right
now, possibly the person in the grocery store checking out in front of
you, commissioners, senators, firefighters, sheriff's office, restaurant
managers, school teachers, bank execs., and much more.
MR. CAMPBELL: In 1998 the Naples Junior Chamber hosted
the first July 4th festival at Sugden Regional Park.
Th'e Collier County Parks and Recreation were one of many
sponsors, and we appreciate all the support they've given us since
then.
In 1999, we continued the tradition. The event brought over
5,000 people in to celebrate the nation's birthday.
The Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County
Parks and Recreation were listed with over 48 different sponsors.
In 2000, 2001, and 2002 we celebrated in a big way. The event
Page 30
November 5, 2002
brought over 10,000 people to the celebration. The Board of County
Commissioners, the Collier County Parks and Recreation were listed
with over 60 different sponsors.
Over 50,000 people have been exposed to the park because of
the July 4th festival. The Naples Jaycees wishes to exclusively
present the 6th annual Naples Jaycees 4th of July festival and
fireworks display to be held at the Sugden Regional Park on July 4th,
2003.
MS. DOUGLAS: As you can imagine, the 4th of July is a time
to celebrate with our families and our community. And this event
was designed to do that and bring unity to our community, and what
big day best possible than on the 4th of July?
The 4th of July next year falls on a Friday, so we're really
excited about the potential of increasing the participation at the
festival along with showcasing one of the most beautiful parks in
Collier County, Sugden Regional Park.
The plan is to have the festival begin at two p.m., which is a
change from last year. We opened at noon last year. We kind of saw
a delay of people in that two-hour period. And we've looked at that
over the course of the last five years and think that changing it to two
p.m. is probably a better fit for people that want to celebrate inside
the park before we actually open and also to our benefit of not having
40 members out there in the heat of 12 o'clock to two with not very
many patrons.
Again, we will be providing free shuttle service from the Collier
County Government Center with Gulfcoast Skimmers on the lake and
a fireworks display provided by Sunset Fireworks out of St. Louis,
Missouri.
MS. ROBINSON: Activities will consist of carnival rides,
games, we have clowns for face painting, we put our own games
together, jugglers, live entertainment. We have usually about five to
seven bands that come in and play for hour segments, and, of course,
Page 31
November 5, 2002
the Gulfcoast Skimmers, as First Lady Lisa mentioned.
And the fireworks will be hosted over a radio station and -- with
a live remote. They are synchronized to music, and music starts at
nine o'clock. The show generally starts around nine o'clock.
Our goals listed, to hold the July 4th festival and have 10,000
people attend the event, to secure 30,000 in kind from local radio and
television stations, to raise money -- to raise money for an August
back-to-school shopping spree, to raise a total of $50,000 for the
overhead cost of the festival, to raise $30,000 for the fireworks
display, to promote the Naples Junior Chamber of Commerce
Organization and recruit five new members.
You can see here, 1998, '99, 2000, 2001, 2002, 25,000 each.
These were our costs; 1998 started at 40,000; '99, 65 -- I'm rounding
them all off because I know you can read them -- 2000 was 81; 2001,
78; and 2002, 71.
MR. CAMPBELL: At this time we're asking the county
commissioners to waive the following fees: We'd like you to waive
the park rental fee of $800, sign permit fees of $75, and the special
event permit of $75, gold sponsor the event with $25,000. We're
asking for a total of $25,950.
The 2003 proposed budget for the fireworks -- or for the Jaycees
cost is approximately $80,000. With your support, we want to
provide the best fireworks display in the county. We want to support
the community, having an August back-to-school shopping spree for
underprivileged children. We want to say thank to the citizens of
Collier County for their support of the Naples Jaycees and their
projects throughout the year. We want to have more residents
exposed to Sugden Regional Park.
MS. DOUGLAS: The winners of this event are the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County Parks and Recreation, Naples
Jaycees, the community, the children, and the families that
participate at Sugden Regional Park every year.
Page 32
November 5, 2002
MS. ROBINSON: On behalf of our 230 members, I wish to
thank you for your time and your continued support of our Jaycees
community projects.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion that we accept this petition and place it on a regularly
scheduled agenda so that we can make a decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle, a second from Commissioner Henning. Any other comments?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, before you take the vote, just
know that $25,000 is budgeted in the Parks and Recreation budget, so
-- it's fund 111.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm in agreement.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Hearing no-- I see
Commissioner Fiala's finger posed over the button, so I was waiting
to see if she was going to push it.
Hearing no other comments, 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 very much.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask if I could buy one of
those blankets?
Page 33
November 5, 2002
MS. DOUGLAS: Yes. Actually, we have a box that we have
to go pick up today because we've sold as many as we possibly can,
so we keep them in storage, so we'll be picking them up, and I can
bring back one later this afternoon.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd love that, thank you.
MS. DOUGLAS: That would be great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's the price of it, so that the
public --
MS. DOUGLAS: Fifty-two dollars. And the money actually
stays right here in Collier County. That's one of the things that funds
are -- Easter basket and the May -- actually January through May
projects, so we have Easter baskets and some of the other things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And for public television, would you
give your name and telephone number, and say it very slowly.
MS. DOUGLAS: Thanks. Anybody that wants to purchase one
of those or annual Jaycee coupon book can call the Jaycees hot line
at 263-3353 and somebody will return their call.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the price again?
MS. DOUGLAS: The blankets are $52, and our annual coupon
books are $20.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And bring two of them to me.
MS. DOUGLAS: I will.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Taking orders right here.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
Jaycees. I am just so impressed and proud of this group. Two
hundred and sixty members; is that correct?
When I was president of the Waukegan Jaycees more years than
I want to disclose ago, I think we had 60 members. So you are to be
commended for what you're doing for this community. And I am
proud to be here and listen to what you have to say this morning.
(Applause.)
Page 34
November 5, 2002
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
MS. DOUGLAS: We're so are proud too, and I expressed this
personally to Commissioner Carter before the meeting started. But
on behalf of the chapter, and certainly on behalf of the Florida
Jaycees, your leadership has been exemplary, and we are very proud
to say that you're part of our community and led the commission for
the last nine years and making things happen, so we appreciate that,
and we're going to miss you dearly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION REGARDING CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY
OF SOl ITHWEST FIJORIDA-ADOPTED
Before we go on to the rest of the agenda, we have one more
proclamation. Due to an oversight, it didn't get turned in to the
commissioners for previous review. But it's from the Children's
Home Society of Florida, and I'd like to read it to you at this point in
time, read it into the records for the commission's consideration.
Would Roseanne Alberto, Albertio --
MS. ALBERTERIO: Alberterio (phonetic).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- Alberterio please come forward,
and all the members of your group.
Whereas, Children's Home Society of Florida provides effective
solutions to build and support healthy families for Florida children;
Whereas, Children's Home Society of Florida is a not-for-profit
organization and one of Florida's oldest and largest statewide private
social service agencies for children and families at risk of abuse or
neglect;.
Whereas, Children's Home Society of Florida is accredited and
Page 3 5
November 5, 2002
sets the highest standards for service delivery to children and family;
Whereas, Children's Home Society of Florida court program
includes special needs adoption, preadoption foster care homes, child
abuse and substance abuse prevention and intervention,
developmental disabilities and health family services -- healthy
family services;
Whereas, coll -- whereas, Children's Home Society of Florida is
celebrating its centennial year in a legacy of offering responsible,
high-quality service to more than 100,000 children in families
statewide, recognizes -- we recognize the Children's Home Society of
Florida for their ongoing commitments of embracing children and
inspiring lives. Signed this day, Chair, Commissioner James Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion to--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning and a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
Hearing none, 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: Would you like to say a few words?
Oh, we need you up front here for just a moment. And if you could,
for a group photo, group yourself in whatever order you think's
appropriate.
Thank you.
MS. ALBERTERIO: Good morning. Good morning,
Page 36
November 5, 2002
everybody. On behalf of Children's Home Society of Florida,
southwest division, we're honored to be here today.
Children's Home Society has been building families in Florida
for a hundred years this year, so we're very proud of our centennial
year.
We have been building families through adoption for over 30
years in Collier County, and for three years now, we have the healthy
families program in Immokalee, which is a very important, intensive
child abuse prevention program where we're very rooted in the
community. It's a grass-roots social work model.
We are co-located with the health department in Collier County.
We're very proud to be there. I think we're doing very important
work.
Thank you for having us this morning. I really believe that
Children's Home Society, that our staff-- and we speak -- we have
five languages represented here, but I thought that would take too
long if we did this in five languages.
We're very proud. We want you to know more about what we
do. We'd love to show you what we do in Immokalee. Anytime
you're out there, please, we'd love to take you on a home visit and
show you how we really positively impact families in that
community, and are doing true grass-roots child abuse prevention
work.
We're doing everything that we can to prevent serious things
from happening down the road with families, so I think it's an
important service and that we're helping Collier County be a better
place.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Page 37
November 5, 2002
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2002-55 REGARDING PUDZ-2001-AR-798, TIM
HANCOCK, AICP, OF VANASSE DAYLOR, LLP AND R.
BRUCE ANDERSON OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP,
VARNADOE AND ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING
BALDRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL WITH "ST" SPECIAL TREATMENT
OVERLAY TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE BALDRIDGE PUD FOR A MAXIMUM OF
125,000 SQ.FT. OF RETAIL AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL
USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD
(CR896) AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, CONSISTING OF 16.8
ACRES-ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now on to the advertised public
hearings. The first one is 8(A), which is Baldridge Development
requesting a rezone for the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and
Livingston Road. I'm going to ask for all those that wish to
participate to stand at this time to be sworn in.
(The witnesses were sworn in.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
And I'll ask for the commissioners to declare if they have
anything to declare, starting with Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. I have met with the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I -- on this one, too, I met with the
petitioner.
Page 38
November 5, 2002
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing to disclaim.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
-- is this Bob Duane?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Oh, wait a minute. I did meet with
No.
Robert Duane, no? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I met with staff, Commissioner
Coletta.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl,
planning services.
This is a request for a rezone from agricultural and agricultural
with an SD overlay to PUD as you can see on the visualizer, in the
southeast comer of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and
Livingston Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I did -- I did meet with
Brace Anderson. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala just wanted to
clarify for the record that she did meet with Bruce Anderson on this
particular item.
Please continue.
MR. REISCHL: The parcel is 16.8 acres, and it's currently
occupied by a golf driving range. The proposed PUD is for
commercial uses. The maximum of 125,000 square feet of office and
retail uses. Those uses are generally compatible with the C-4 district.
The PUD is consistent with the Growth Management Plan
because of the Livingston/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict,
which was approved by the board, and this PUD was reviewed with
those criteria and has met those criteria.
The Environmental Advisory Council heard this petition and
recommended approval unanimously. The planning commission
Page 39
November 5, 2002
heard this petition. They changed some of the uses, deleted some,
modified some, and had some changes to the transportation section,
which were approved by our transportation services department, and
they recommended approval, 8-0.
County staff, planning services staff recommends approval. Just
to note for the record that since the planning commission heard this,
there were some, I guess, housekeeping changes by myself and the
county attorney to make things legally sufficient, but no substantive
changes to the PUD since the planning commission, and staff
recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We've got Commissioner
Henning with a question first, then Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What are the uses in this PUD?
I was confused by it saying general C-4 uses, and what I seen was
retail uses, so I'm not sure what is allowed.
MR. REISCHL: Well, it's office and retail. They include -- if
you want me to go through the whole list, I can. I can just pick a
few. Service stations, apparel stores, communication, restaurants,
food stores --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that in our agenda packet?
MR. REISCHL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The uses? I didn't -- I'm sorry.
I didn't see them.
MR. REISCHL: That's in the PUD document itself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Behind there, there's a
preserve --
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- on the south side? So the
only thing in this preserve is going to be trees and animals?
MR. REISCHL: It's -- the preserve was at one time larger.
There is a -- in the infill subdistrict there was the opportunity to
connect -- this pink on the map is a possible road to connect with the
Page 40
November 5, 2002
other properties that abut it to the east. That road will not be
constructed unless necessary for the interconnection with the
properties to the east.
Right now the properties to the east -- or the property to the east
is a single-family home and nursery, and there's no need to connect
now. But the preserve is south of that future road, and that road
basically will act as a preserve until such time as it's constructed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So there's no -- because
I seen some information in here, looked like the Brynwood Preserve,
which is to the south that's under construction.
MR. REISCHL: And their preserve abuts the preserve of this
PUD, so the two preserves abut each other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. The traffic study within
the -- with our agenda packet had examples of shopping center, fast
food, banks and pharmacy. The -- we're seeing that it has other uses.
Were those other uses applied to the traffic study?
MR. REISCHL: I'll let transportation speak to that, but I
believe that they go with the most intense uses and do the study
based on the most intense uses.
Mr. Garcia's here to address that.
MR. GARCIA: Good morning. Gregg Garcia, transportation
planning, Collier County.
The trip generation report has certain classifications within it,
and we use the most intense of those classifications. They may not
give a breakdown to the extent of what may be allowed on a
particular PUD and Land Development Code and other books
relevant to those type of various usages.
What they submitted was a shopping center. That's really the
most intense of all of them, with the exception of maybe the
drive-through bank.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Mr. Garcia, while
you're there, the trip generations, do you feel comfortable that the
Page 41
November 5, 2002
percentage that was applied is sufficient?
MR. GARCIA: That which was used was discussed in the
methodology when Don Wolfe was here, and they followed the
directive that they were given at that time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm not sure if that
really answers my question.
MR. GARCIA: Well, based on what their methodology agreed
to, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GARCIA: I'm comfortable with what they provided.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
I felt a great deal of satisfaction that transportation had gone
through this so thoroughly and made sure there was
interconnectivity. I felt also a great deal of satisfaction that the
Environmental Advisory Council and the CCPC, the planning
commission, also studied this thoroughly and came up with the
recommendation for approval.
Is there a downside to this? Is there something that -- I don't see
the downside, so I'd like you to tell me. I read through it and couldn't
find any.
MR. GARCIA: Based on the information that -- provided and
that which was agreed upon, no, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, do we have
speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've still got a couple
commiSsioners here speaking on the subject a little. We'll go to --
we'll go to the speakers.
But do we have any? I guess that's the question.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have two.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Sorry I didn't answer
Page 42
November 5, 2002
that more directly, Commissioner Carter.
Commissioner Fiala, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right. He answered my
question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have some concerns over
Livingston Road. I understood it was supposed to be a limited access
road. All of a sudden I see several cuts going into it. Is this the best
interest of the public?
MR. GARCIA: Well, there was a court order, or an agreement
that was reached relevant to this. It indicated in the language -- it
could be interpreted any number of ways -- as directional into the
site; however, if you look at the current access management policy,
even though it indicates that it's supposed to be controlled on this
particular roadway, it does identify it as a three, and a three does
allow for a full median opening at a quarter mile.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think that's the -- I may be
wrong, but I don't think it's the intent of this commission to have this
road opened up to the point that we're going to have Livingston Road
turn into another Airport.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, I agree. The board took specific action to
establish Livingston Road as well as 951 later as controlled access.
Controlled access is typically access class two, which would say that
you only have directionals a quarter mile fall (sic), which will
probably end up signalized eventually at half mile. This represents a
quarter mile at the southern boundary.
First of all, this is a PUD. At the time of PUD we should not be
establishing access points. As was already pointed out that the
number of uses that could be made of the property, we don't know
what the background tract will be when it gets built. So we don't
know when, we don't know exactly how on the site, we don't know
Page 43
November 5, 2002
exactly what will get built. That's the nature of the PUD decision.
And with that in mind, they should only be conceptual, first of
all, to begin with. Median openings are an issue that get treated at
the time of actual permit. In that case, we will have resolved
probably any issue of discrepancy we have between board's action to
make this controlled access, and the action remains in policy. But I'll
also tell you, the stipulated agreement provided for a directional at
that point, not necessarily the four openings as depicted here on the
PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Feder, would it be possible, do
you think, that the -- probably I should ask the petitioner -- if they
would include that language, that this is not up for consideration
now, this will be made at a later date?
MR. FEDER: I would submit, Mr. Chairman, obviously
anything they want to stipulate to or that the board wants to. But I
will point out that in prior action, the board acknowledged that
PUDs, in fact, are conceptual relative to access connections, and I
think that policy needs to be very, very clear and maintained, at least
in my recommendation to you as a board.
PUD is not the time to set specifically access points, particularly
median openings, and especially along a controlled access facility
such as 'we're trying to do with Livingston and 951.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My comfort level would be greatly
increased if the petitioner was to agree to this and said that he fully
understands it.
MR. FEDER: Mine as well, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle, and
then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My questions relate also to access.
First I think we have a Land Development Code change that we
made earlier this year, which clearly states that these things are
conceptual at this point in the approval process; is that not true?
Page 44
November 5, 2002
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the LDC provisions do clearly
identify this as a conceptual thing. I am -- I am very uneasy,
however, to see specific documents in our packet, because it leaves
the impression that we are including what's -- or we're approving
what's in our packet.
Now, the other point is that I'm not at all sure I feel comfortable
with access points to Livingston Road every quarter of a mile. I
think we should do everything we can to prevent Livingston Road
from becoming another Pine Ridge Road or Airport Road. And in
order to do that, I think it is good at this point in time to plan ahead.
And my question essentially is this, if-- I understand why the
southern access point is being requested, because you don't want to
bisect the protected property and the wetlands in the center. But is
there any reason that, if we're going to grant that second access on
the southern part of the property, that that access could not be
planned for the access to the property to the south of that as it is
developed, rather than approving another cut for that property to the
south as a quarter mile interval, and then another cut? I really do like
the idea of access roads and fewer access points onto the major
highway.
MR. FEDER: Joint driveways, yes. You make a couple of very
good points, Commissioner. First of all, the Land Development
Code change that we requested the board to establish was specifically
because people were coming back to the PUDs and pointing, well,
that looks like it's three quarters of the way down my property, so I'm
supposed to get this access point. And so that action was taken
specifically for just the concern you're raising.
As to the issue of protecting Livingston Road, we agree, that's
why the board took the action, obviously, previously as well, to
establish as a controlled access. Controlled access should be access
class two, not three, and there a quarter mile would allow what was
Page 45
November 5, 2002
in the stipulated settlement, which was a directional in, but not a full
opening, which could possibly in the future become signalized,
which is also written up in this discussion, an assumption of possible
signalization.
The stipulated agreement and the process, in any case, allows, if
it's an operational problem, to close. But once you have a full
median opening, it's a potential future signal.
To the issue of joint driveway access or possibly even further to
frontage road, but definitely to joint access, we need to know if you
can come across that preserve both on this property and the other.
But if there's not an exclusion by all means requiring stub out or
access to abutting properties, interconnection, that is another issue
that's been a big focus of this board for good reason.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I think -- I think we should
get the answers to those questions, okay? It's not necessary, as I see
it right now, that we uphold action on this particular petition today,
but I think one of our conditions should be that -- that this southern
access road -- that appropriate property be preserved for this southern
access road to be used as an access to the southern developments if
the preserve itself does not prohibit that. Now, who owns that preserve?
MR. FEDER: And if I could add to that as well, regardless of
the median treatment, even if it's a right-in, right-out at that point or a
directional in, that that be a provision --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, we need to plan ahead, no
matter what happens with that particular intersection. MR. FEDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who owns that preserve? Is that
part of the PUD?
MR. REISCHL: On the Baldridge PUD, it's -- the portion that's
on the Baldridge PUD is the owner of Baldridge. PUD and the one
to the south now is the developer but will be the homeowners'
Page 46
November 5, 2002
association of Brynwood Preserve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the one to the south,
have they been granted any access points?
MR. REISCHL: I don't know how easy this will be to see. It's
red on green. This is Baldridge to the north. You can see the
preserve along the very bottom of Brynwood, a road, and then lots
below it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's already been platted, huh?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. And if it gives the commission any more
comfort, section 4.6(E) in the PUD says, all median openings and
driveway locations must be in accordance with the Land
Development Code and access management policy as amended.
Median access and control will remain under Collier County's
authority.
The county reserves the right to modify or close all median
openings that have been determined by Collier County staff to have
an adverse effect relevant to operational circulation, safety concerns
or con -- safety conditions or concerns. I think that would --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, the problem, of course, is,
that if there has already been platted and now we decide we want to
run a road through the center of it, it creates substantial difficulties
for the --
MR. REISCHL: For the property to the south.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for the property to the south.
They are -- based upon what I'm seeing here, it would not be possible
to do that; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: Unless the property, Brynwood was replatted,
that's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm not going to ask the
PUD to do that. I think that's -- I think that's something we need to
keep looking at every time we have these. You know, we shouldn't
get into this position without having that interconnectivity between
Page 47
November 5, 2002
properties addressed in advance, because it would have been really
good to have a single opening service both of these things, at least
partially. It appears that we're at the point where we cannot do that.
MR. REISCHL: And that's why the one that we do have some
control over would be the property to the east, which we do have the
access road interconnecting to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think if you take a look at this
diagram -- Jim Mudd, for the record -- you'll notice that it's platted
and it's got a green space in the middle that they're overlooking. But
the road is to the north, where those houses are, with the circle down
here where they can -- where they can mm around. So there prob --
there is an opportunity where you could probably make the
connection. And we'll do some talking -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- where you wouldn't have to go across
somebody's house that's been platted or that lot, but go to their street.
We'll take a look at those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So their road really is at the north
end then?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Okay. We just have to work out the preserve area
here, and how -- and how that would connect. And there's a circle
area down here where they're going to do a turnaround, so we can
take a look at that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank
yoll.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait for public comments
and the petitioner to be on deck.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Fine.
Page 48
November 5, 2002
At.this point in time let's go ahead and hear from the public
comment, and then we'll ask questions of the petitioner.
MS. FILSON: Okay. Frank Craparo, and he will be followed
by John Ebert.
MR. CRAPARO: My name is Frank Craparo, C-R-A-P-A-R-O.
I own the property that is just to the east of this PUD, and I just want
to make sure that my median cut that is still in kind of question with
the county that was a stipulated settlement in my two drives on Pine
Ridge Road will be preserved.
And in my estimation, the median cut would be a lot better off
for me to be on the south end because that median cut's about 300
feet where they have their road from the end of my property. And if
that road goes through, it's going to bisect -- 300 feet south of my
main property's going to kind of end up in limbo. That's something
maybe to be worked out.
And I had some concerns about drainage, which is really not
under the control of the petitioner here. It's under the control of the
water management, but I'd like to bring it up.
They had a Whippoorwill Lane master plan, which I think Mr.
Mudd has copies of, and most of your people, and it pretty well calls
for an above-ground flow way in my area. Right now I think the
Baldridge PUD is going to go into a pipe not go into an
above-ground flow way because there's a big dike diking that whole
section from the Kensington Canal, which we can't drain through, the
Florida Power and Light easement keeps the water in that section and
doesn't go out, and the lake that the county is using for storm water, I
might be corrected, but the last time heard, it was at 11 foot
elevation.
And this property in this area is like 10'4 to 10'6, which is going
to put a flow way, which is going to put six inches of water above
ground in my area if they can -- continue with that elevation and an
above-ground flow way.
Page 49
November 5, 2002
This is an urban area, and for the health and welfare of the
people, I would submit that we get with the water management
people and create a swale which would be more conducive to getting
the water a little bit below ground and control that with a weir before
we let anyone start putting water six inches above ground in the
urban area.
This is not out in Corkscrew where you could actually make a
flow way that would actually be of any environmental use because
the ground is -- all my property's at least two foot below ground or
more right now, and in the summer, no water stood on my property
within a foot of ground for more than five or six days, and then ran
away to the 1-75 D-2 canal, which is held at elevation of 6.3, and the
property is like four foot above the grade of the canal.
So there really is no ecological benefit to trying to store water
above ground. All you're going to do is store water for five or six
days in the major flood season, in September, enough to create a
health hazard of mosquitoes in the area and not really cause any
environmental benefit to anyone.
They need to replan this Whippoorwill Way (sic) flow way --
would help quite a bit. And I'm glad we had -- we're kind of getting
away from the things in the past. And before 2000, a lot of the
commissioners, I think, have urged developers to donate and
otherwise get compensation for things that are needed in the county,
definitely, and I'm glad we raised our impact fees so now we don't
have to go to these developers and beg, extort, or whatever we did in
prior years. We can go and say, look, we have this money and we'll
determine how we'll spend it. We don't need to go to a developer and
say, you have to do this, you have to do that, and who gives the
highest bid gets the zoning or gets the road accesses or whatever.
These impact fees, I think, will go a long way in making it fair
through the board where we can just use the impact fees in the way
they're intended to instead of going to the individual developer and
Page 50
November 5, 2002
trying to get a bid, how much are you going to give the county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is John Ebert.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: He waived, okay.
Then would the petitioner make their presentation, please.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bruce Anderson on behalf of Baldridge Develop
Company.
My client is in agreement with the staff stipulations. I just need
to clarify one item over which there was some last-minute confusion
at the planning commission hearing concerning packaged liquor sales
that came up at the very last minute, and I had to rush to the podium
in order to make the point.
We are talking to a grocery store and a drugstore, either one of
which might have a packaged liquor store owned by it right next
door, separate entrance.
The planning commission approved allowing that if it's
associated with a drugstore or grocery store. We didn't ask for
anything else at the time because, like I said, it came up at the last
minute. My client would like to have the option of, if a mom and
pop wants to open a packaged liquor store in the shopping center,
that they would be able to do that just the same as a large grocery or
drugstore chain, and that is the way the PUD is written that's in your
agenda book, but I simply wanted to clarify that on the record so that
there was not that limitation to some kind of a national chain.
Now, with regards to the -- Commissioner Coletta's question
about the access, we understand and we agree that any of the access
points shown on the PUD master plan are conceptual, however, they
all are subject to the court-ordered stipulation that the county agreed
to when it took property for the widening of Livingston Road and
Pine Ridge Road.
Page 51
November 5, 2002
So, yes, these are conceptual in nature, but they are subject to
the stipulation, and the stipulation allows the county to modify or
remove the Livingston Road median turn bay at some date in the
future based on safety and/or capacity reasons. And I'm reading
directly from the court order.
And I do want to point out that when it comes to trying to be
cooperative and forward thinking on transportation issues, this client
stepped up front and did that. They're committing to construct a loop
road along the south and eastern boundaries of this property in order
to provide motorists in the North Naples fire district with an access
road that will enable them to avoid Pine Ridge Road/Livingston
Road intersection.
Additionally, my client has reserved 60 feet at the southern end
of the project for a potential future county road to parallel Pine Ridge
Road and connect between Livingston Road and Whippoorwill Lane.
And I'll be happy to try to answer any questions that you may
have, and--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any questions of the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner
Carter. We have a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The reservation of the road, the
collector road, is that in lieu of impact fees or is it a purchase, girl or
what?
MR. ANDERSON: The county didn't have any money to buy it
Page 52
November 5, 2002
right now, so we just reserved it out of the goodness of our heart, and
that will be the subject of discussion and negotiation if and when a
road is ever constructed there and you acquire additional
right-of-way east of that to actually provide a real road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, don't you agree
that a PUD is a negotiated item at the time of approval by the Board
of Commissioners?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, let's talk about the
reservation of this potential collector road. Is your client willing to
reserve it in gift if the county so desires to have an interconnection?
MR. ANDERSON: Since this isn't negotiation time, what --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because my next question is
about the mom and pop liquor store, so go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: I'll drink to that.
Yes, my client will -- do you have -- do you not -- do you want
them to foreclose the right to receive impact fee credits?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to know if this easement
is going to be a gift, and we can put timeline stipulations on whether
the county has the desire to construct a collector road in lieu of a gift.
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I heard he's going to give you
the dirt, man. Take it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I haven't heard that though,
Commissioner.
MR. ANDERSON: Well, we'll do that. I was just asking, are
you insisting that we foreclose the right to any kind of impact fee
credits or anything like that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. ANDERSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. ANDERSON: Yeah.
Right.
So it is a gift?
Page 53
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I forgot my question about the
mom and pop.
MR. ANDERSON: You were going to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He'll drink to that, too.
MR. ANDERSON: I had a sense that you were going to add
that as a clarification to the motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you include that in
your motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yes, and also the gifting of
the right-of-way to the county to be used at a future date.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments?
Hearing -- well, I'll close the public hearing, and --
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, go ahead.
MR. REISCHL: What happened to the liquor store?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mom and pop is there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mom and pop are -- live happily
ever after.
And with that, hearing no more comments, 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, and we're
going to take a 1 O-minute break.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #8B
Page 54
November 5, 2002
PETITION RZ-2001-AR-1649, ROBERT L. DUANE, OF HOLE
MONTES, 1NC., REPRESENTING CRAIG D. TIMMINS,
TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO C-1 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD ON
THE EAST SIDE OF VETERANS PARK DRIVE-CONTINUED
1JNTII. AFTER 1 PM
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The next item is 8(B). We need
anyone who wishes to participate in this rezone petition to stand at
this time and be sworn in.
(Witnesses were sworn in.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And now I'm going to ask for
-- any of the commissioners have anything to declare, starting with
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I spoke to Tom Taylor and one
of the planning commissioners on this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I spoke with the representative of
the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I spoke to the petitioner, too, and
one of the representatives of the planning commission.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I also spoke to two people from the
-- that represents the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll get Commissioner
Carter when he comes back into the room. Would you proceed, please.
MR. REISCHL: Sure. Fred Reischl, planning services.
This is a request for a rezone from the RSF-3, single-family
zoning district, to C-4 for an approximately 3.5 acre parcel on
Veterans Park Drive. You can see on the visualizer Immokalee Road
Page 55
November 5, 2002
here, Veterans Park Drive goes south to the park, and this is a parcel
that one of our reviewers, having accurately described with a tape
measure with the tape extending north towards Immokalee Road, and
that tape tapers as it goes north, and the portion that abuts Immokalee
Road is eight linear feet.
The parcel is in between uses here. To the west, on the west
side of Immokalee Road, are commercial and medical PUDs, the
park to the south, and the North Naples fire district fire station also to
the west. To the east are residential uses, with the Stonebridge
Country Club to the south, although that abuts a preserve, what's
called an open space or common space, but it's basically a preserve,
and then single-family houses to the east. And as I said, the parcel
itself is 'zoned currently single family.
The -- one of the tests for a rezone is consistency with the
Growth Management Plan. And in this case, the planning services
staff and the planning commission look at it different ways. Staffs
analysis showed that this technically does meet the provisions of the
office and infill commercial because of that eight feet that abut
Immokalee Road; however, we felt that it didn't meet the intent of the
office, infill commercial and, therefore, our recommendation was
more on a conservative side, and we have a recommendation of
denial.
The planning commission looked at it from a different
perspective, and they said that all the uses that will access off
Veterans Park Drive are nonresidential; fire, park, office and medical
uses. This would be the only residential parcel that has access off
Veterans Park Drive. And they looked at that as, yes, you could
incorporate that, the fact that it technically meets office infill
commercial and plus the fact that conditions in the area had changed
to have the nonresidential PUDs and other zoning districts to the
west.
And the planning commission made those findings and
Page 56
November 5, 2002
recommended approval 8-0. The board also can make those findings
and the board can recommend -- can approve this based on a positive
finding 'on those five findings that are included in your staff report.
One correction that I have to make on the executive summary,
in my recommendation I said it does not meet the office and infill
commercial. It does meet the -- technically does meet it. I left out
the word intent, so it doesn't meet the intent is what I based my
recommendation on. I apologize for that.
There were people that spoke at the planning commission. They
were the residents to the east.
An aerial to show you better the homes in the area. And this is
-- this is Veterans Park Drive, and this is the approximate outline of
the buildable portion of the parcel. As I said, the parcel does extend
north about 700 feet towards Immokalee Road, but this is the
buildable portion. And these are the single-family homes that
basically would back up to the office development.
People spoke in opposition for the fact of, right now they were
expecting residences in their backyard. They had the -- what the
staff considers a reasonable exception to have houses in their
backyard because their property's zoned RSF-3. They don't want this
change to office. I know at least one person's here to speak to that. I
left them do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Before you go any farther, sir,
Commissioner Henning, I believe, has a question.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the Board of Commissioners
finds, in fact, it does meet the intent, what kind of buffering would be
for the residents?
MR. REISCHL: Well, we talked about that. I talked to Mrs.
Jolly, one of the people who will speak, and what the code requires
now would be a wall with landscaping on the outside. And you read
the ordinance, and one of the things that staff put in -- and I believe
Mrs. Jolly agreed. I'll let her speak for herself-- is that they would
Page 57
November 5, 2002
rather have a more intense landscape buffer without having the wall,
but just landscaping. Because I don't know if you've been on-site, but
that's a nice little creek back there. It's really a nice natural area, and
putting a wall right up at the property line would take away some of
the natural beauty of it, so I'll let her answer that for herself, but that's
why we put that as one of the conditions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: One of the planning
commissioners -- or the planning commission's recommendation was
the intent-- the intensity of the property.
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Thank you for reminding me. The
planning commission recommended approval with the stipulation
that the buildings be limited to one story, capped at 18 feet in height,
and that there be a pedestrian access from Bethany Place across to
Veterans Park Drive, so there wouldn't be an automotive connection,
but a pedestrian so they could get to the park by just cutting through
that way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A question concerning the
extensiOn of Bethany. There's not going to be any extension of that
into Veterans Park Drive; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: That was the intent of the people who spoke at
the meeting, and the planning commission was asked that question.
The planning commission did not recommend an interconnect, and
staff does not either.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Is that part of the petition
itself, this prohibition against an interconnect?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. There is a landscape buffer and only the
pedestrian access is in the petition.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And just a little housekeeping
measure that I neglected to mention before we started. We'll be
Page 58
November 5, 2002
breaking for lunch at 11:45, and then we have a time certain at one
o'clock, and that's the Immokalee impact fees, just so that if you want
to arrange your own schedule, if you're out in the audience and have
something you have to take care of, that you know where you stand
today.
Please continue.
MR. REISCHL: The only other thing I wanted to point out was
that this was submitted prior to the requirement for a public
information meeting, however, the petitioner did have, I believe, at
least one public information meeting and presented this petition to
the neighbors.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other-- any questions on the
part of staff?.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Just for the record, Mr.
Chairman, I met with the petitioner for staff. Just a clarification, one,
you have a walking interconnect for access. As I noticed the creek
on the property, it is my understanding the properties that are there
are buffeted (sic) to the creek, the creek is there, and then the
petitioners agreed to another buffer beyond the creek with a natural
landscape vegetation. And this question has to be addressed to the
petitioner, whether they will retain all of the, what I'm going to call
salvageable trees in there. I understand there's some very nice
forestry in there, then that would be retained by the petitioner. Was
any of that discussed at the planning commission? MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. And everybody was in
agreement? I mean, as far as the petition --
MR. REISCHL: Well, as far as the people --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not talking about the
neighbors. I'm talking about the petitioner and the planning
commission.
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
Page 59
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And staff.
MR. REISCHL: Well, staff's recommendation is for denial, but
if the board approves it, yes, we would be in favor of the natural
buffer rather than a wall.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. I think my other question
would be for the petitioners, sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Could we bring the petitioner
up at this time.
How many speakers do we have on this?
MS. FILSON: Seven.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Anderson on behalf of the applicant.
With me today I have Robert Duane, the planner for this project,
the owner of the property, Mr. George Visnich, and the contract
purchasers, Tom Taylor, Craig Timmins, and Chris Allen.
First let me state very clearly, we are in agreement with the
planning commission stipulations. Although the staff report might
make this seem a little complicated, this is really a very
straightforward rezone of a small parcel of residentially-zoned
property that is physically separated from the neighboring residential
property by a tributary of the Cocohatchee River. Both sides of this
tributary are heavily vegetated, as has been discussed, and that's why
nobody wants a wall.
A very important thing to keep in mind is -- and Fred mentioned
this, but I want to hammer this home because this is the most salient
point. This property's only access is off Veterans Park Drive, and
Veterans Park Drive is a nonresidential street. It doesn't serve any
residential uses, only two approved commercial PUDs, the North
Naples fire station and the county's North Naples Community Park.
According to your Parks and Recreation Department, from
October 1 to March, 2002, just under a thousand people a day travel
Page 60
November 5, 2002
to Veterans Park on this road. The park is open until 7 -- until 9 p.m.
-- 10 p.m. seven nights a week.
The North Naples fire district estimated that they have an
average, of 75 emergency vehicles per day that also use that same
road. So clearly this is not a road that anybody would reasonably
want to build a single-family home on.
My client has met at least three times with the residents of
Southwind Estates to try to reach an understanding. I don't believe
one has been -- has been reached. But nonetheless, as a result of
those discussions and at the planning commission hearing, my client
has agreed to several important land use restrictions that would be
incorporated into the rezoning document if it were approved.
One prohibits any possibility of future access from Veterans
Park Drive to Bethany Place, also prohibits parking in the back of the
buildings abutting the creek, but does not preclude parking on the
side or in the front or buildings. It establishes a 48-foot landscape
buffer along the strip of land abutting Veterans Park Drive, but it
would also allow a product -- one project sign in that buffer area
adjacent to Immokalee Road. And it does require beefed-up
additional landscaping alongside the creek in lieu of a wall. And
there is also the stipulation about lighting being shielded and directed
away from abutting residential properties.
We believe that these restrictions help preserve and enhance the
natural line of separation that exists by virtue of the Cocohatchee
River tributary and that it enhances the compatibility of this
low-intensity transitional office use with the surrounding residential
and commercial uses.
I'll be glad to try to answer any questions that you-all may have
now or later, and I would reserve a few moments at the conclusion of
the public testimony to respond to any statements there.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Anderson, Mr. -- Commissioner
Carter's' got a question.
Page 61
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER CARTER: A couple of questions either you
or Mr. Duane may be able to answer for me.
If this was a residential area to be developed, how many homes
could be placed in this parcel, and how much square footage would
that consume in the area? Actually how much would it impact that
overall area versus the commercials that are going to go up?
MR. DUANE: I think the staff report indicated -- Robert Duane
for the record -- that the maximum density afforded this property
would be 14 dwelling units per acre. That would be with a maximum
of eight units per acre for an affordable housing density bonus, so
you would be looking on three and a half acres there, maximum of 40
to 50 potential multi-family units in addition to other housing types
that could be permitted on this property.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So the impact from those
facilities in terms of green space utilization could be greater than the
three commercial buildings?
MR. DUANE: It could be.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It could be.
MR. DUANE: It would depend on how the property was laid
out. But certainly I think one could make an argument that you
could cover as much or more ground with multi-family structures
than you would be with the office buildings that we plan to develop
on the subject property.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Now the height of your office
buildings will be what, sir?
MR. DUANE: Eighteen feet is recommended by the planning
commission in one story. The C-1 district permits a maximum height
of three stories or 35 feet, so we've basically cut that down by two
stories, and--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So you're talking about 18-foot?
MR. DUANE: Eighteen-foot, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. What's the average height
Page 62
November 5, 2002
of a home?
MR. DUANE: In the single-family district, it can be 30 -- up to
3 5 feet in height, but a typical one-story unit is probably comparable
in height to the limitation that the planning commission put on the
proposed office uses on this property.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. Thank you.
MR. DUANE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you call the first speaker up,
please.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The first speaker is Kris
Gomory. And if I could ask the second speaker to come up and stand
onboard, Margie Welch.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Also, I might ask that if you think
the person preceding you made a valid point and covered what you
already wanted to cover, you may wish to waive, but you're more
than welcome to come up and to speak on your behalf. Please continue, sir. Your name, please?
MR. GOMORY: For the record, Kris Gomory, my name is Kris
Gomory, K-R-I-S, G-O-M-O-R-Y. I live at 1920 Bethany Place in
Southwind Estates. I currently am a licensed residential contractor in
Naples and Collier County, and formerly I was external auditor with
Cooper & Lybrand out of the Fort Myers office where I shared the
audits of Collier County, the board, the clerk, the sheriff, the tax
collector, the appraiser, in 1990. I served on the audit staff for two
years.
I come before you today, and I have prepared a, what is a
historical timeline. Formal auditing training came out after the last
planning commission. I went back. I have this report. This report
represents research by me using my former big six audit training. It
historically timelines everything that has occurred with this property
from the beginning.
What has come to light this week that I found is very
Page 63
November 5, 2002
interesting, is that -- and I lay out in the first two timelines, is that
this particular property was originally submitted by the developer as
part of a no development area and part of the master drainage plan.
It was part of the master drainage system, and it was submitted to
South Florida Water Management District. It was submitted -- it was
permitted.
Part of their drainage master plan -- and I provided copies of all
that in your packages for you. The drainage plan is also included in
there. It was permitted as such, and then one month later,
approximately one month later when the plat was put into effect, they
excluded that nondeveloped area that they had already -- and it was
already permitted by Southwest Florida as being undeveloped land.
It's in your package. It's legal record.
And the other thing is, the proposed drainage plan is also in
there, and, again, it clearly shows this portion of this property as part
of the master drainage plan.
The other issue was, is that when the plat was made, they
excluded that particular plat from there, and there is a copy of the
plat in the package that I provided for you so you can see that. That
was approximately April 17th -- or it was April 17th, 1997.
I am just going to -- you have the package, and I don't want to
overextend my time, because I'm already at three minutes and 26
seconds.
What I'd like to do is read the summary that I found, based on
this research, and then make my recommendation as a homeowner.
The evidence found in this report raises serious questions on
whether the subject property was illegally excluded from the
Southwind Estates plat after being included in the South Florida
Water Management District permit drainage system.
In addition, commercial rezoning and subsequent development
at the economic gain of an owner who knowingly purchased RSF-3
property would directly devalue adjacent single-family residence and
Page 64
November 5, 2002
potentially cause uncontrollable flooding and destruction of a native
preserve of the original headwaters of the Cocohatchee River in both
Southwind Estates and Stonebridge Country Club, which this is
weired in and it backs up into Stonebridge Preserve.
That's the summary of this historical timeline, and there's some
other key dates in here that the planning commission really didn't
have as of record. There was many questions, and people looked
around and said, I don't know when this happened or that happened,
so I provided it for you in timeline.
My recormnendation is that the Board of County
Commissioners postpone any ruling with regard to the
above-referenced property and direct staff to investigate the records
set forth in this report and accompanying support documentation.
My hope is that on election day -- is that one vote can make a
difference in this issue.
Now, one of the things I'd like to say quickly is that in reference
to the planning commission vote, eight to nothing, what was
presented here is that eight to nothing is just waived right through,
just smooth sailing. It was -- originally it was six to three, three
members dissenting to this issue. It's not until they discussed a few
of the pertinent issues that they went eight to nothing on that, and I
wanted to make that point also, so I'll be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, I'd just like to make an
observation, Mr. Gomory. It's obvious you spent a lot of time putting
this together. I'd like for you to understand at least my position here
on this. We just got this a short time ago. There's absolutely no
opportunity for us to review this and determine whether or not your
conclusions are based upon competent evidence.
This is a quasijudicial hearing. It's almost impossible for me to
utilize any information in the package you've provided. Obviously
Page 65
November 5, 2002
you've spent a lot of time pulling it together. But just for future
reference, it would be much easier for us if we could receive
information well in advance of our meeting so we can review it.
MR. GOMORY: I appreciate that fact, but I also would note
that the information that we got and the schedule date was the 10th of
-- was next week, and I would have had this information done, but I
just couldn't practically do that. The sign on the road, the
information that we received was that this meeting was going to be
on the 10th, or next week -- or the 12th.
MR. REISCHL: The commission rescheduled the dates from
the second Tuesday to the first Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In November and December, yes,
we did. Because of the holiday schedule, we voted to schedule our
meetings for the first and third Tuesdays in November and
December, so that's probably-- these signs were probably designed
before we voted.
COMMISSIONER Coyle: So the signs weren't changed?
MR. REISCHL: They should have been. I didn't--
MR. GOMORY: No, they weren't. I was there last night, and
they still say the 10th. And I knew bringing this information in now,
which, again, I could just -- you know, just to finish my research up
early this morning on some of these issues, because I do have a job
and mn.a company and am very busy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may. Mr. Weigel, I know that
you just got this also, am I correct?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From what you've just heard the
gentleman state, do we have serious reason for concern here? MR. WEIGEL: One moment, please. Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney. I have not had an opportunity to see the document
that the gentleman presented to you, but I want to remind the
Page 66
November 5, 2002
commission, this is a rezoning action and you're to be guided by the
criteria that appear in the staff report that are taken from the Land
Development Code as to whether or not to grant the rezone.
I don't know that the history of the project necessarily -- or
excuse me -- the property would necessarily have a bearing on this
criteria, because I believe taken in total, the criteria recognized that
there are changing circumstances. And Mr. Reischl may be able to
help me here, but I think one of those criteria is either changing
circumstances that make the -- or necessitate the rezone. MR. REISCHL: Yes.
MS. STUDENT: That's paraphrased.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me -- before you go on to Mr.
Reischl, another question. Is it true that from here, in order -- if we
did approve this, it would still have to go to water management for
approval?
MS. STUDENT: I'm going to have to defer to the petitioner,
because the county typically doesn't get involved in those processes,
but the petitioners do, so I will have to defer to the petitioner on that
matter.
MR. REISCHL: And from staff's point of view, before a
multi-family or commercial site development plan is approved, they
have to have -- because there's wetlands on-site, they would need a
South Florida Water Management District permit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So if there was something afoul of
permitting or possibly prior designation of this as far as a wetland to
water management, they would have to deal with it in their own
department; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Commissioner Fiala, then
we'll --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then Commissioner Henning.
Page 67
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: From your timeline here -- and I'm
sorry that we didn't have time to study and the dates were wrong. I
apologize for that -- but what I wanted to ask you was, did I
understand you to say that originally all of this land -- this part of the
PUD that was -- that was settled on years ago was set aside as a
preserve, is that it, and then they changed that?
MR. GOMORY: They -- correct, that's what I'm saying here.
The record shows, and their terminology -- the preserve is our
terminology that we use nowadays. It clearly states -- and this is the
staffs report from the South Florida Water Management District to
the county engineers. It says that, quote, no development is planned
for the five acres. And I've referenced that and I've included the
report for your review, and I've highlighted -- anything that I've
referenced in here I've highlighted in those associated reports so it's
very easy for you to reference them.
So, yes, that is true that it's clearly designated. And then that
application -- and that's the application process -- went to permitting
on March 15th. And my understanding from reading the permit,
which is also included in your package, is that that -- all the
application documents, including their master drainage plan, once
that permit was approved on that date, became part of all that
documentation. So in essence, this master drainage system, which
included this as non-developed land, was included with the permit.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Anderson, if I can just take
a moment of your time and ask you if, since the Board of
Commissioners did change the meeting dates, did you notify the
residents in the area of the change?
MR. ANDERSON: I personally told them after the planning
commission hearing when we huddled. Also, I'll ask Mr. Reischl to
address whether this was announced at the planning commission
hearing. They're here.
Page 68
November 5, 2002
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Schmitt reminded me -- I didn't remember
at the time -- but, yes, the change was announced at the planning
commission. I did talk to Mrs. Jolly, who will speak. And she's the
only neighbor that I talked to directly after planning commission, but
we did discuss the change of dates.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I felt a little bit
uncomfortable proceeding forward with this, but now that there was
notice, then I feel more comfortable with proceeding.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear
from the other speakers --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- then we can get back to the
others.
MR. GOMORY: May I add one point in reference to what they
said?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, wrap it up, please, sir.
MR. GOMORY: Okay. The one point is that the owner-- the
current owner of this, Mr. George Visnich, purchased this property,
and this was misrepresented at the planning commission. He
purchased this property in 1990. The warranty deeds and so forth are
all in your packages.
The Veterans Road and the Veterans Park was opened in -- June
1 lth, 1987. It's approximately two and a half to three years before
this. So he came down that road, he purchased an RSF-3 property
which, to correct everybody, right now, there can only be one house,
is that correct, from the last meeting we had? Only one house can be
built as it's zoned. They would have to get it replatted and get
rezoning on it. So right now --
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
MR. GOMORY: -- as it-- and it does have access. He
purchased the 40-foot strip from the Bethany Place end so that he
could gain access. He said this in the planning commission. So right
Page 69
November 5, 2002
now, I could take property and I could build a house, one house on
there, and have my own driveway, build a bridge which, per our
discussion with Southwest Florida Water Management, said, there's
zero to none chance in having that ever happen. So that 40-foot strip
that he did purchase back in '90, they said, in reality, you couldn't get
the bridge made. So that -- that's just contradictory to what was just
said, that the only access is from Veterans Park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. GOMORY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
And the next speaker?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Margie Welch. She will be
followed by James Welch.
MS. WELCH: Good morning. My name is Margie Welch, and
I am one of the homeowners that lives directly behind where they're
going to have this property rezoned. And like Kris, myself, we were
not notified that this meeting was going to be bumped up a week.
The letter that I have in all of my documentation was -- I think it was
November the 12th. It was a week from today.
Now, if Mrs. Jolly had a meeting with -- what's your name, Fred
-- I wasn't involved on that. All of the neighbors, we all work, we
don't associate. We got a phone call on Thursday night, I believe it
was, from Terry, saying, do you realize the meeting is Tuesday?
And from Thursday night to last night, like Kris said or to early hours
this morning, we got together, we held a meeting Sunday night at six
o'clock to get together because he had discovered some information
that he was preparing for the 12th.
After Sunday night and him doing all of this work and us
looking at this, we all agreed -- which we called the county, I believe
-- and I'm unsure here, the county or the city -- the planning
commission meeting that we all attended, we had called for the
transmittal or the tape or whatever you get after a meeting so we
Page 70
November 5, 2002
could review what was said, because there were a lot of things said
that were not true. And we wanted to hear from (sic) ourselves if that
backed what we heard.
We were told that because of the budget, I believe -- and Terry
Jolly can, you know, elaborate on this -- there was no transmittal,
there was no tape because of-- there's no money or something,
there's no transcript. So we called somebody to see if anybody had
taped that meeting, that planning meeting, that we attended and we
did. We found somebody that had taped it. We have the tape. We
have Mr. Anderson, we have Mr. Taylor, Who -- and we have the
landowner, George, who stood up here under oath in front of the
planning board and lied. We have a tape. He said he paid 50,000 for
this eight-foot strip of land.
I believe it was Dwight or the chairman on the planning board
went into great detail why a man would buy an eight-foot strip of
land on Veterans Highway to Immokalee Road to his property back
here.
Well, first his answer, he wasn't sure, then the next answer was
for a driveway. But let me bring the dates to you. He purchased the
eight-foot strip February 27th, 1990. And I'm not happy here. I'm a
homeowner, and I'm not happy, but I'm trying to do the best I can.
He purchased the eight-foot strip from Pulling so that he would
have that on Immokalee Road. Now, if you do that to Immokalee
Road, it becomes easier to change residential to commercial.
Now, why in the world would any man in his right mind -- and
he said -- and Mr. Anderson quoted and Mr. Taylor quoted, he paid
$50,000 for this. I went to the land records. He paid $16,360.25 for
the eight-foot. Now, he did that first.
Now, I think you-all are aware of, in 1989, there was a growth
management act to protect homeowners. Then, April, almost three
months later, then he purchased the land that's in question now. So it
is our understanding, and we believe, that this was done so that in the
Page 71
November 5, 2002
future he would have a -- an easier way to come before you and have
it rezoned commercial. Why else would you purchase an eight-foot
piece of land?
So all this information we've gathered up faster because we
thought we had another week. So all we're doing here is
recommending that the county commissioners, based on the planning
meeting, take a look at the tape, watch the tape, watch the answers
they gave, which was false information in many, many cases, and
don't make a decision today.
We're only recommending you postpone your decision today
until you can document this or check on what we are saying. If the
planning meeting had had the right information, would they have
voted-- would they have voted yes?
Fred, who's in the staff, he denied it, then it went before the
planning commission, and there was not all the truth told, and they
voted in favor. And that's all we're recommending. Don't make your
answer today. Postpone it until we can -- you can check these facts.
That's all we're asking for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Welch, he will be
followed by Steve Tillery.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Hi, my name's James Welch, I
live at 1904 Bethany Place. I think you're going to be devaluating
our property if you let this go in. And my wife did tell you the truth,
it's of public records if you check it, and that's really about all I've
got to say.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Steve Tillery, and he will be followed by
Theresa Jolly.
MR. TILLERY: I'm only going to be a few seconds. I'm just
here to support the rest of the people that live in our neighborhood
and to bring awareness to one other point, that Palm River, Pelican
Page 72
November 5, 2002
Marsh, Victoria Park and all of the kids that live in those areas use
that access road via sidewalk on their bikes and on their scooters to
get in and out of park, and rezoning it commercial would kind of
present a security problem and a risk problem, I would think. I just
wanted to bring that to your attention.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank, sir.
MS. FILSON: Theresa Jolly. She will be followed by George
Visnich.
MS. JOLLY: Hello, I'm Theresa Jolly. I live at 1916 Bethany
Place. I live the second house away from the Veterans Park Road.
I had this whole thing prepared, but said a bunch of things here
that I might want to discuss. But basically I really appreciate the
opportunity to come and talk to you, and I don't feel like -- that you
guys could possibly vote the way that we would like you to if you
don't know what we think.
I have two issues that I'm unhappy about here, and I think that
any commercial zoning touching my property line -- my property
line touches theirs. Any commercial zoning, I feel like, is going to
devalue my property.
Last Friday I went to the bank and I was talking to them about
refinancing my house, and this came up about the rezoning, and they
said, well, you better hurry because it's not going to be worth that
next week when you come back if they approve it.
I don't know how true that is, but it's a very concerning thought
that, you know, their property would increase four times and mine
would decrease. I was here first.
And I take offense at something that they said. They did not tell
the truth at the planning commission. I hope you will watch the tape,
and I hope you will look at these dates. Mr. Visnich got up here, as
did his counsel, Mr. Anderson, and they said, he had to buy -- I
mean, the planning commission said, why would you buy eight feet,
you know? I'm sure they were thinking this technical, you know,
Page 73
November 5, 2002
compliance with the growth management act.
They kept saying, why would you buy it? He said, I had to buy
it for a road. I couldn't access my property. I was landlocked. He
said, I had to go to Mr. Pulling. I hope you watch the tape. It's on
here. And he says, you know, at my age, I wouldn't lie. Well, okay.
Anyway, he goes all through. He paid $50,000 for it. Well, we
found out an hour afterwards he paid $16,000 for it. And he goes on
and on and on about how he had to buy it because nothing was there,
he couldn't get to his property. He bought it three years after
Veterans Park Road opened, and they're saying that they have to
have it rezoned to commercial and that they have that right and that
option because it is the only property that fronts out on Veterans Park
Road.
He bought it that way. I mean, I'm sorry, and he's going to
come up here and I'm sure -- and he's old, and I'm sorry that he did.
But you know what? That's how he bought it.
I also bought my property. I went to the county, I asked them,
you know, how is this rezoned? I didn't take anybody's word for it. I
came down here and I asked them, you know, can you show me what
this is zoned? I wanted to make sure, because some people in my
neighborhood, the people that have been there a long time, since it
was first zoned, said it was -- that it was undevelopable, which, come
to find out in the last week -- well, we went through our paperwork
and abstracts. We have the South Water Management thing that said
that very thing.
But when I came to the county, they said, no, it's RSF-3 and
only single-family homes can be built there. And we asked about --
do you think that, you know, they could rezone it? And they said,
that's not a typical expectation for residential. That usually doesn't
happen.
You know we bought -- we built -- you know, we bought, we
built, and we are there.
Page 74
November 5, 2002
Mr. Visnich comes in after the fact, he purchases the property,
it's RSF-3, he thinks, and, you know, it was, supposedly at that time.
Veterans Park Road is there. He knows where his access is, and I'm
sorry for him, but that's the way it goes.
Another thing I'm a little confused about is Mr. Anderson said
that his clients were willing to accept the standing of the planning
commission. And on Friday my husband met with him -- because I
had to work late and I was supposed to meet with him for lunch -- but
he called, he wanted us to pick up some plans. He met with him, and
they said they couldn't do one story, you know. They had to have
two-story, you know, and that they were going to push for two-story.
So I'm a little confused about whether -- which way we're going
here.
The flooding issue, it is a problem. When we bought there, that
-- that was a tributary, and our deed says our property lines touches
the thread of the stream of the Cocohatchee River. Their property
line says the same thing. It touches the other side.
When we moved there, my kids took canoes from behind our
house, went underneath the Veterans Park Road, through the little
area where Fogg's Nursery used to be there, right behind it, and went
underneath Immokalee Road and went to the gulf or went to their
friend's house over in Palm River. Now, since that's been weired, a
stream flows. When we moved there, that flowed, okay?
Now -- and as Kris pointed out at the last meeting, it is a pond.
It does not flow. It's dammed up, it's backed up, and there is green
slime, which you can see when you drive down the Veterans Park
Road. It doesn't move, it doesn't move all year. It only moves at one
point, and that's when it floods up in our yard.
This whole summer the water was like 10 feet from Kris' pool. I
didn't clear the back, so I'm not quite sure where it was, you know,
from my house, because I can't see it. But, you know, flooding for us
is a concern. Flooding, property values. I feel like that, any C-1
Page 75
November 5, 2002
zoning, any commercial zoning that abuts my property is going to
devalue it, and I don't think that's right. I don't think it's right that
you would raise their property value, you know, four times -- the
property across the street from that sold for $3.2 million -- while
mine goes down. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much. Do you have
another --
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is George Visnich, and he will
be followed by your final speaker, Tom Taylor.
MR. VISNICH: My name is George Visnich. I live at 429
Ridge Court, Naples, Florida.
About the land, I bought it from Mr. Pulling, and there was two
choices, build a bridge across that strip or negotiate with Mr. Pulling.
So I checked with contractors, and they gave a huge price, so I went
to Mr. Pulling and we settled it with him.
And so -- I just bought that for my mom. She was in the nursing
home, and we were going to build a double situation there with top
stairs and a bottom with an elevator to put in there.
Well, while the process in -- I got my things all done, had a
survey of it and odds and ends, and she passed away. So that just
knocked everything out of the loophole there.
In the meantime, we communicated. We lived in Coral Gables,
Florida. And then my wife would come there practically every --
every week, check in on things and everything, and then I'd spent
some time in the VA hospital, so that's the way the situation was and
that's why we gave it up, and it's been like that ever since.
And if there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't think there's any questions at
this time, sir, but thank you very much for coming up. MR. VISNICH: Pleasure. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Tom Taylor.
MR. TAYLOR: For the record, my name is Tom Taylor, 481
Page 76
November 5, 2002
Carica Road, Naples, one of the contract purchasers on the property.
One of the things that's disturbing when you come to these
meetings is when someone calls you a liar, and that's concerning to
me because I don't do that.
I would invite anyone to review the tapes. I think the issue that
was brought up and some representation was about Mr. Visnich's
purchase of the eight-foot.
Now, just to clarify what Mr. Visnich said -- and he can speak
for himself, but as you can see, he his difficulties mobility-wise, and
he's fairly elderly and has health problems.
But what he indicated at the time was that he bought the eight
feet, not for purposes of getting eight-foot connected to Immokalee
Road. The requirement for that eight-foot came in the -- in much
later requirements to have connectivity to an arterial roadway for
frontage of commercial property.
What he purchased that property for was because that was a
spite (sic) strip that existed that precluded him having any access to
Veterans Drive. That eight-foot existed, and he had no way to
legally get to it. So he had the property but he had no means to get to
it, or he was in the process of acquiring the basic property, at least.
And I haven't seen the timelines. So what Mr. Gomory has
given you, he hasn't shared with me nor anyone else on our side of
the table, so it's all a shock to us. But he purchased that property. He
bought the spite strip from Mr. Pulling so he had access to Veterans
Drive.
The county subsequently rezoned the properties across the street
for commercial, office, medical use. The county approved
construction of the fire station across the street on the same -- with
the same access to Veterans Drive.
So the summary of that is that he has a piece of property that is
on Veterans Drive with the only residential zoning on it. It's three
and a half acres. We've made, I think, substantial attempts to
Page 77
November 5, 2002
mitigate any of the impacts that the neighbors have -- could
experience as a result of any type of development on that property.
We have the upgraded buffers, the setbacks, the 48-foot
landscape buffer that would remain adjacent to and between Veterans
Drive and Mrs. Welch's property, the eight-foot landscape buffer that
would be upgraded, the prohibition against any kind of vehicular
access connecting Bethany with Veterans Drive, our willingness to
shield any lighting.
And in fact, we even said that we would turn the lights off after
normal working hours of nine o'clock at night being the latest except
for janitorial service and the like. So we've made every attempt to
mitigate any of the questions and concerns.
The issue with the drainage, frankly, without seeing that, it's
hard to speak to it. But I can tell you I've done a lot of applications in
my business, being in the engineering business, that shows an
undeveloped piece of property. You may show that it says
undeveloped, and that means that it's not really part of the application
-- application process. That does not mean that it's a preserve unless
it says preserve.
There is a physical barrier of the creek, meaning that storm
drainage from their side of the creek doesn't travel to our side and our
side doesn't travel to their side because there's a physical barrier with
the creek. Any of the water management issues would have to be
dealt with in a subsequent application process with the water
management district.
So our request is, all we're here for is the zoning. We've
attempted to mitigate all of the issues. I think we've effectively done
that. And I don't know what else they could ask us to do.
We're not dramatically increasing Mr. Visnich's property from
the standpoint of, he purchased that property when there was not --
when there was a Fogg's Nursery across the street, not commercial,
and there is commercial today, as well as the fire station.
Page 78
November 5, 2002
So he has limitations on use of that for residential uses. Yes, I
guess there is a possibility of coming back for some high-density,
multi-family uses, but frankly, I don't think that's to the advantage of
the neighbors either. And limitation of single-story and 18 feet-- and
our layouts are showing that we can build plus or minus maybe
20,000 square feet of commercial space on this property in three
building pads.
Any other questions you have of me, I'll be glad to answer them.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're saying that you can
build affordable housing on this property?
MR. TAYLOR: Well, I believe the staff had indicated in their
staff report that if-- that one possibility would to be come back and
build affordable housing on the property, up to 14 units per acre,
based on the affordable housing density and the density credits that
could be received based on that.
MR. REISCHL: That would also require a rezone. Right now
it's single-family.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm trying to go by
memory, and I know the fire station was built in the '90's, the mid
'90's, I believe.
Commissioner Carter, you could probably share that with me.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My memory rec -- I recall from
my memory bank that that is true, sir, and this whole area has
evolved. It's not anywhere like it was, let's say, 10 years ago. We're
looking at these documents.
Sure, there was different flows. There's different applications,
as the one neighbor said, and we used to canoe down the creek.
Well, all that's gone. That's history.
So you've had this whole infill development in the area, and
that's what brings this to this meeting and to these questions is, what
Page 79
November 5, 2002
do you do with the remaining parcel? But all of the others have
impacted. And those impacts have been calculated by the water
management district. What they would do with this when it goes
there, I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, I'm thinking,
would it even be feasible to have affordable housing right across the
street from a fire station? So it's a matter of the best use of the land,
and I think that's what our decision here is today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. We're at that point now
where we need to break off. And we've got a time certain at one
o'clock, and we'll continue this again after the one o'clock time
certain. Thank you.
(A lunch recess was taken at 11:48 p.m.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, would you
take your seats, please, and we'll proceed.
MR. MUDD: Mikes are on, sir.
Item #8G
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAW AND ORDINANCES, AS AMENDED
BY ORDINANCE 2001-13, THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, BY
ESTABLISHING A GEOGRAPHIC OVERLAY FOR THE
IMMOKALEE AREA AND PROVIDING FOR A COMPONENT
ROAD IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO MITIGATE
THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INCREASED ROAD IMPACT
FEE RATES-DENIED; STAFF TO COME BACK WITH
A l JTFRN A TIVFJ S
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're at our one o'clock time
Page 80
November 5, 2002
certain,.which is item 8(G), concerning the adoption of an ordinance
for Immokalee on the road impact fees. Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development and
environmental services.
Before you today is an ordinance to amend chapter 74 of the
Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance to establish a
geographic overlay in Immokalee and provide for the -- providing for
a component road impact fee deferral fee program for the Immokalee
area.
And I'm just going to kind of go through some history. In 1985,
actually, October 7th, 1985, we implemented the impact fee program
in Collier County.
And as you well know, just this past October 8th, we increased
almost double, or a little over double, the road impact fees for Collier
County. That impact fee increase actually took effect on the first of
November.
But before that, actually we brought to you on July 30th of this
past -- this year, staff first proposed the impact fee increases to you
through the public hearing -- through a public hearing, and during
that hearing you advised us to go back, kind of do our homework,
present a public listening session, and we did that on August 30th,
and then we brought back to you on September 17th during an
impact fee workshop to talk about the road impact fees, but also
some of the mitigating programs to mitigate the social and economic
impacts of the doubling of the road impact fees.
One of those recommendations was a recommendation for you
today, and that includes an impact-- road impact fee deferral
program for all new construction, that's residential, commercial and
industrial, within the Immokalee area. And as I've got it shown here,
that would include in Immokalee, what you see in yellow before you,
Page 81
November 5, 2002
the Immokalee planning community as designated on the Immokalee
future land use map.
So any industrial, commercial or residential building permitted
would be allowed a five-year deferral program, as the ordinance is
currently written, and that's a -- they would enter into a deferral
agreement with the county, and after five years be asked to pay back
those impact fees that have been deferred, and that's the way the
ordinance is currently written.
Let me just kind of highlight so that you understand the kind of
impact fees that have been paid county-wide and in Immokalee, just
again, for the -- for your edification and the folks at home.
And you can see actually over a total of five years, only about
one percent of the impact fees collected in the county, $68,000 for
road impact fees, only about one percent actually came out of the
Immokalee area, so that's what we're talking about.
And just for clarification so we understand waivers, deferrals
and exemptions. What is a waiver? A waiver basically is saying that
it's a permanent forgiveness. Now, we don't have many waivers in
Collier County. Actually one of the waivers we do have is for
affordable housing but actually it's not a waiver. We do not lose the
money because that money is paid by SHIP to pay for the impact
fees.
A deferral actually represents an obligation to pay but not
immediately, and that's what we're talking about here. And I know
there's been some discussion about exemptions. An exemption is
really a forgiveness. No strings attached. That's basically, there is no
finding of impact and, therefore, you're exempt.
The only two exemptions we have right now is if there is an
erection of a building, replace a recently destroyed building or a
building of the same land use. If a similar building goes up, the new
developer is actually exempt because there's already been impact fees
paid for that property. And the other one that's pointed out here is
Page 82
November 5, 2002
public home and residential facilities.
So that's in a nutshell what we're presenting before you today, is
a five-year deferral program. There would be a deed restriction
placed on the need upon closing for a guaranteed payment after five
years.
The program would be null and void or basically would be of--
no longer awarded to any of the potential users or any potential
person who wants to partake. Once we enter into the five-year work
plan under transportation and Mr. Feder identifies in the five-year
transportation plan road improvements in the Immokalee area, then
this program would be no longer in effect, so that's what's before you
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Schmitt--
MR. SCHMITT: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- if I may. I very much would like
this commission to consider an exemption because of circumstances
that are quite different from the norm for Collier County.
We have an area that is economically depressed trying to live
with the rules of the coastal county. Totally inappropriate that they
have to travel a distance of some 15 miles before they'll reach the
first four-laned road, and that's a number of years away before we get
to that point.
They do not have a road on the plans for Immokalee, to connect
Immokalee to the planned roads that we'll be doing on Immokalee
Road around this fairgrounds for a number of years. Until it reaches
five years, it's not vested.
We're trying to control growth in Collier County while in
Immokalee the community is desperate for growth, absolutely
starving for it. Their base to be able to work with has been eroded, it
cannot reach full potential because they're competing with Lee
County where they have an impact fee that's about a third less than
ours, and Hendry County where they have no impact fees.
Page 83
November 5, 2002
So what does this mean for Immokalee? Everybody says we
want to help them out, we want it to work. But because of the
restrictions that we're placing upon them with the impact fees, people
aren't building their houses there, businesses aren't relocated there.
And by deferring it five years, we solve no problems and possibly
compound the situation even worse by the fact that when you set it
off for five years, especially with a single-family home, now that
person's got to find financing at the end of five years to be able to
cover that debt of a deferral, if you went with a deferral. With an
exemption, that debt would be wiped away.
So what are we saying? We're saying that the fact -- Immokalee
should be exempt for the reason that they're not receiving a service,
and they will not receive a service in the near future that justifies
them paying a road impact fee.
We have seven zones for the -- for roads, impact fees, in Collier
County, and two of them are exempt. One of them is Everglades
City and the other one is 29 where they know they're not going to be
building any roads for the very distant future. And so those people
that want to build in those areas are exempt from those fees.
Based upon that, I'd like to make a motion that we substitute the
word deferral to exemption, and that -- and to rewrite that particular
ordinance so that it would fit the needs to be able to allow for the
exemption, once again, with the understanding, at that point in time
that Immokalee is going to be on the receiving end of it, with that
road to be built from the fairgrounds on to Immokalee, at that point
in time, that the money needs to be for buying the right-of-way, that
we would bring Immokalee back in the fold as far as impact fees go.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify then what
you're saying. Everywhere we have deferral would be exemption,
but still leave in the portion where they say that the county would
stop issuing any type of exemption pursuant upon this program, when
the right-of-way phase of the transportation capacity project is
Page 84
November 5, 2002
actually identified in the five-year plan?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. When to start to accumulate the
money for it and we need the money for it. Because if we put it in
the five-year plan, we have no intentions of buying the land for
another three years, it seems like it would be a little bit inappropriate
to start accumulating money.
Immokalee's been paying for years into the pool. Even though
it's a minuscule amount compared to the rest of the county, less than
one percent, they have made contributions, and I want to see that we
have a fair amount of time to be able to get this to make a difference
as far as impact fees go.
Get the people to start looking at Immokalee as a serious,
serious option cost-wise so that possibly we can draw some of the
growth there. Also, too, keep in mind, the amount of money that
we're talking in lost revenues -- and also, too, I'd like to mention,
unjustly charged revenues -- would be so minuscule it wouldn't
matter, but it could make a big difference to the growth in
Immokalee. So that's my motion.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm a little confused on your last
statement, because I thought, Mr. Schmitt, what you're saying is that
you can exempt until -- is that what I understand you to say -- until it
begins to impact in that five-year window.
MR. SCHMITT: The -- and I'll have to defer to Norm Feder as
far as this program, but what -- the way it's currently written and
proposed to you was a deferral for five years. And once a program is
identified by the transportation administrator as into the -- into the
transportation five-year work program, that this program would cease
and desist, and basically anybody that's in the program stays in it
until their five-year anniversary date, then they pay that deferral back
to the county, the deferred impact fees, but there would no longer be
a continued awarding of any deferrals once there is a project
identified in the five-year work plan. What commissioner --
Page 85
November 5, 2002
MR. MUDD: What -- Joe, let me interrupt for a second,
Commissioner. Once -- the way we set -- they way we set up the
language in here is to provide a deferral for five years, knowing that
when a project goes in the capital aspect, i.e., real estate acquisition
or road building in that five-year plan, we would stop all new
entrance into the program. Those people that have got a deferral
period still to -- that needs to still go until it's finally over, may it be
three years or four years, those moneys would come into the coffers
while this project is being built or real estate is being acquired,
therefore, the project would finish and so would the deferral period
for everybody in it, no matter when they came on to the program, the
first year, second year or whatever.
Again, but the program would stop when the first capital
project, either right-of-way or building of the road, would come into
effect.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, basically what we're saying is that the
deferral still identifies a rational nexus, meaning that there is an
impact on the infrastructure and that eventually they would pay for
that impact. What I hear the chairman proposing is an exemption.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That is correct.
MR. SCHMITT: And that exemption basically means we wipe
the slate clean for anybody during that period of time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: During that five-year period. Any
amount of money would be negligible if we didn't put that in place.
It would be the thing to spur the growth in Immokalee and move it
forward.
MR. SCHMITT: And the trigger for ending the program would
be?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would be the time -- and forgive me
if I don't have the exact language -- that we have to accumulate the
fees to buy the right-of-way.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay. That would -- again, Norman, if I'm
Page 86
November 5, 2002
not mistaken -- would be when you enter into the five-year work
plan? Go ahead.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Norman
Feder, transportation administrator.
I think what we had proposed under the deferral and as you're
raising under the exemption is that as soon as we put in a
right-of-way phase or a construction phase into the five-year
program, if that came into the third year or starts with the new fifth
year, as it typically would, at that point we would start then
recollecting the fees in the case of exemption, or in the case of
deferral., you would stop giving any more deferrals, obviously
honoring the five years of what you already had out there previously
in the completion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see this as a two-edged thing. One,
to be able to spur the growth in Immokalee, and two, to be able to --
encourage us to get the road built to Immokalee in a more timely
fashion than we presently have set up. MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I see you, Commissioner Henning.
We're going to get right to you.
At this point in time I'm either going to call the motion failed if I
don't get a second.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to
second your motion for discussion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And I just want to make clarif--
I'm going to have to come back to Norman Feder and make sure that
I clearly understand that you're not going to collect anything if it's --
if we --
MR. FEDER: Exemption.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Eliminate. Help me with the
Page 87
November 5, 2002
word.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Exempt.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Exempt, thank you. If we
exempt.until such a time as you start the plan, the exemption is over
for anybody now coming into the program. Those that are there can
run the course up to the five-year period, you don't collect anything.
My question would be --
MR. FEDER: For clarification, what you have in staff
recommendation is not the term exemption.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I know.
MR. FEDER: It is a deferral for five years.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand that.
MR. FEDER: In fact, if the board took the action -- took the
action today, you would then, for any impact fee, give them an
opportunity in a five-year deferral, at the end of five years they
would pay. You would keep issuing those deferrals until, as it's
recommended, the first either right-of-way phase or construction
phase for a major transportation project, 43rd out to 29 on
Immokalee, the bypass, Lake Trafford, whatever, came into the work
program.
In the case of what's been recommended by the chairman, as I
understand it -- please defer if I'm wrong -- is basically rather than
using the term deferral, you'd use exemption, and if you took action,
you would exempt anyone that comes in, until such time as a
right-of-way or construction phase came into the five-year work
program or a project serving Immokalee. And at the time you would
stop the exemption and start the collection.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: What is the economic impact?
MR. FEDER: The economic impact over the last seven years --
basically, you've acquired about -- just under a million dollars over
the last seven years. One percent of the overall collection is about
850,000 over the seven years, including 2002 right now, that we're
Page 88
November 5, 2002
looking at projected, so you're about one percent.
I will tell you that right now, with 1 lth Street North, which we
have already encumbered, just about 200,000, and with the project
development environment study, which we're advancing from state,
this coming -- in this current fiscal year, between the two of those,
we will be spending about a million dollars, which represents the
seven years collection on those two projects.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And that more or less takes care of
the money that's been collected for all these past years? MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So in other words, it would be a
revenue neutral at that point in time. We'd be looking at future
revenues to cover future projects. But what I'm saying is, because of
the fact we don't have any guarantee when anything's going to
happen, that's why I'm looking for the exemption.
But I don't want to get out of line here. We've got --
Commissioner Henning's very patiently been waiting, Commissioner
Coyle, then commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have several questions. One,
if we go with Commissioner Coletta's recommendations to exempt, if
I build a golf course in that yellow area, would that be exempt from
impact fees?
MR. MUDD: We're only -- right now we're only talking about
road impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right, for the road impact fees.
MR. MUDD: So if it's in -- if it's in that area and it falls under
commercial, residential, it would be -- it would be exempt from
impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So a golf course can be exempt
from those?
MR. SCHMITT: Residential, commercial or industrial. That's
the way it is currently read.
Page 89
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- Immokalee Road from
41 st Street to Immokalee is in the unfunded five-year?
MR. FEDER: It is. Out in the cost feasible, it's in the five-year
where we're advancing the state's project development environment
study. That's about 800,000 1 mentioned to you, that million that
we've got programmed right now. That is slated to be let this year.
As soon as we have an agreement, the state could advance
reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The cost estimate for that
project is?
MR. FEDER: About 800,000.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. FEDER: Eight hundred thousand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What about --
MR. FEDER: The exact, it's eight hundred and thirteen
thousand, two hundred.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What about the
construction of Immokalee?
MR. FEDER: Construction, neither the right-of-way nor the
construction are not (sic) in the five-year program at this time. The
state has not put the design in. Once they put in the design, if the
board so agrees, we'd try to advance that design with payback, but
we don't have that program, nor do we have right-of-way
construction, only the project development environment study, which
we're advancing at this time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If the five-year.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if we're going into the
study, you would imagine we do it within the 1 O-year program,
correct?
MR. FEDER: Correct, I would hope so. We're trying to
encourage the state to continue programming, allowing us to advance
Page 90
November 5, 2002
and get reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do you have any idea what that
cost would be for the construction?
MR. FEDER: It's a very, very high-cost project. I'm talking
probably in the tune -- depending on right-of-way, we're hoping with
major landowners and the like out there, depending what comes out
of the project development environment study, that we may get some
assistance on right-of-way and retention life. But having said that,
just a quick stab, I'm talking about 50 million, 60 million.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So let's say it's a
conservative of $40 million to do the project, can you pull the impact
fees from Golden Gate Estates to pay for those impact fees if we go
MR. FEDER: You can go from an adjacent district technically
to do that. We'd probably use gas tax and impact fees in that area.
But yes, you can pull from an adjacent district if you can show a
benefit to that district. That would be a question on Immokalee
Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What would staff's
recommendations be if we go with Commissioner Coletta's
recommendations to exempt the impact fees in the Immokalee area?
Commissioner Mudd-- or Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, staff's recommendation is to defer
the program for a five-year period of time, and that's what's presented
in the executive summary. Staff's position is we don't waive nor do
we exempt impact fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're not recommending
for us to approve Commissioners Coletta's recommendations?
MR. MUDD: Sir, Commissioner Coletta's recommendation
came to the dais after the executive summary was written, and you
put me at a severe disadvantage, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I think that, like
Page 91
November 5, 2002
Commissioner Coletta stated last meeting, that he depends on staff
for their recommendations, and we should do what staff
recommends.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't recall saying that,
Commissioner Henning.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the staff recommended deferral
for this particular case. Our -- based on our workshop that we had
with you after we had the listening session, our plan was to come
back to the board January, February, in the position paper that Mr.
Schmitt prepared for the board to give us -- us, the county
commissioners -- a series of options for economic development in
February with some footprinted areas that we want to infill or
stimulate, and we would talk about ways to -- based on their input to
ad valorem, exempt some impact fees depending on how much they
brought into the county after they came to the county and they
brought that new business here. We plan to bring that to you in the
February time frame, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, the discussion,
Commissioner, to refresh your memory, was on the Santa Logan
(sic), and it was staff recommendations, and the board did not take
staff recommendations, and there was quite a bit of discussion on
your position of staff's --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- recommendations, and I --
very clearly, it was across the board of, you're going to go with staff
recommendations, so.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You're absolutely correct, but there's
no comparison between the two. We had a study done that cost
millions of dollars to be able to justify a placement of a road, not
impact fees which have to do with the social/economic welfare of a
community.
Actually, I could see where no direction was given to staff to
Page 92
November 5, 2002
come back with a recommendation deferral, but I respect staff's
opinion in coming back with it, and I want them to always be honest
and up front at all times when they do make their recommendations
to the commission. But I'm not taking away from your time,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I'll research the minutes
and print them out for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, that won't be necessary.
They're just two unrelated subjects. But in any case, I stand by what I
did. I think that we did the right thing by Santa Barbara, and I think
that this commission's going to do the right thing for the people of
Immokalee. There's no comparison between the two, and I know that
you wouldn't be using this as a leverage over my head for previous
decisions made. You're too much of a gentleman. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think there's no question that we
need to do something to stimulate development in the Immokalee
area. I believe the staffs recommendation of a deferral is the
appropriate action to take, and I would very much support it.
I believe major departures from our policy of not granting
exemptions must be very carefully weighed because they have
implications that go beyond just the issue that we are considering
today.
There are areas in East Naples that are just as economically
depressed as any in Immokalee. If we start issuing deferrals based
upon that criteria, I think that we get on a very slippery slope, and it
makes it very difficult to decide what we're going to do with them.
Now, the point is that this commission and prior commissions
have, in fact, spent lots of money in Immokalee trying to improve
things, and of course the greatest example is Immokalee Airport. So
there's no indication here that the commission has ignored
Immokalee, but I would -- I would not favor an exemption for impact
Page 93
November 5, 2002
fees here, but I would very much support a deferral, as the staff has
recommended.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commission Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, a few questions.
From what I understood, if the exemption as you had requested
were passed, and then they -- for some reason, economically or
whatever, they decided to start planning that road from 43rd on in six
months, then that exemption would stop anyway, right?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And so it wouldn't help the
Immokalee community at all if-- you know, if that -- I mean, it
would be wonderful to have the road widened faster, but then it
really wouldn't be helping you.
Secondly, if we -- can we -- would it even be possible to, like,
exempt owner-occupied homes to encourage that and, yet, freeze and
defer -- freeze at the present impact fee rates and defer the impact
fees on business and commercial and industrial? Is that something
that can be done?
MR. SCHMITT: I think I would have to defer to the county
attorney, because what we're dealing with here is the problem
identified in the consolidated impact fee ordinance, which identifies
the rational nexus, basically says, we're going to access impact fees
on development that impacts our infrastructure, that creates a burden
on our public facilities.
To' kind of go down the road where you begin to identify -- and
we could do that, we could do that through economic overlays or
other type of instruments to weigh or defer, whatever you want to
call it, if you want to call it deferral or a waiver or exemption. But
what's been written here was a deferral. If it's going to be an
exemption, my only caution is, what is that going to -- are we
opening up Pandora's box --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I don't mean -- like
Page 94
November 5, 2002
businesSes --
MR. SCHMITT: -- from the point of the impact fee ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I think the deferral gives them
five years to start--
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- making their money, and if
we've frozen it at the rate of today -- and I don't know if that's --
that's another part of my question, no, we don't --
MR. SCHMITT: It would be at today's rate, yes. That's the
current impact fee rate that--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Freeze it at today's rate, and then
just deferred for five years?
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that helps the company get into
business, start making money. They need a couple years to begin to
make money, gives the Immokalee Chamber of Commerce and EDC
and others a -- the opportunity to attract business to that area, and
then they start paying afterwards, is that --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and there would be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The only thing I was concerned
with were the -- Commissioner Coletta mentioned something about
owner-occupied homes, and I thought, well, maybe he was trying to
encourage more owner-occupied homes by exempting those. I
realize it would be a bookkeeping nightmare, but I was wondering if
something like that could even be considered where you'd exempt the
owner-occupied homes but not the businesses, just defer.
MR. SCHMITT: Again, I just would only caution that we
would kind of vent that through the county attorney to make sure that
we were not violating our own ordinance. And I know he hasn't had
time, nor his staff, to look at the impacts.
And when you look at Everglades City, of course, there is an
exemption out there because there's absolutely nothing on the
Page 95
November 5, 2002
program out there, nor is there in the very foreseeable future.
Immokalee is different. Though there is nothing now, we know
something is coming soon, maybe five, six or seven years, and that's
the reason why we're saying, yes, moneys will need to be collected
eventually to pay for the impact of growth and development in
Immokalee. But I leave that to you-all to make that determination
whether it's a waiver or a deferral.
MR. FEDER: If I could, just a quick point. I think it's -- I will
defer to the attorney, but I think it's dangerous turf if you start
selectively exempting some groups and not other groups. If you're
looking at the Immokalee area as being only one percent of your
overall collections and, therefore, relatively de minimis, you might
be in a position to be able to support that in general.
If it's a deferral, then you don't have a question. You're
providing an opportunity and you have other programs for that. But I
think if you go selectively -- now, I will point out that we did
establish-- and first of all, to your question, Commissioner, you
asked, the existing rates, and those, of course, are the new rates as of
November 1, just so that's clear.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. FEDER: But you did establish two categories for
homeownership as well for the lower income and smaller homes as
an opportunity. That's not an actual answer, but I'd just remind you of
that as well. And legal may want to advise you, but I think what I've
been told and what I understand, you don't want to take some groups
in and some groups out. That subjects your whole impact fee to
possible challenge.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'd like to hear from the county
attorney first.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner Carter and
Commissioners.
Page 96
November 5, 2002
Well, both Joe Schmitt and Norman Feder are correct in the
sense that we have to be very cautious in the area of deferrals and
exemptions in any event.
Now, historically you may recall we had an exemption for road
impact fees several years ago in our impact fee ordinance for roads
where we exempted the hospital, Naples Community Hospital, based
on findings that it served a government purpose for being there, and
that's the kind of nexus, to use that legal word, that connection that it
was, in fact, designated by findings and by the law as written that, in
fact, it was providing a service that the county at that time recognized
was or should be considered at that time a government service. And
so it could easily withstand challenge. It was never challenged.
But as we go forward, if we look at similar situations throughout
the county, if there are similar situations, whether it's residential,
single-family housing, or the commercial or multi-family areas, East
Naples, Immokalee, other areas of the county, we must treat them --
probably be subject to arguments of equal treatment or it's a denial of
equal protection under the laws, and that's where we would be
advising you that if you want us to come back to you with an
analysis and with a projection of an application in the county, we'll
probably need to do it beyond merely Immokalee so that we can craft
for you 'an ordinance that will withstand contest. Because some
people may feel that, why are they not getting the same benefit, that
is either deferral or exemption that we have here. I think that that
can be done. It requires analysis, and then, kind of, the chips fall
where they may.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, wouldn't it be rational to
be able to have them exempted for the simple fact that they're not
receiving a direct benefit?
MR. WEIGEL: That's -- clearly if we can make that kind of
finding, that there's no benefit, then not only is exemption
appropriate, but it's probably recommended because we wouldn't able
Page 97
November 5, 2002
to defend the exaction of the fee if we cannot show that they're
making the impacts that we're attempting to access them for.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Isn't it true that Everglades City,
who's exempt now, and Immokalee are almost equal distance to a
four-lane highway?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, that may be the case. I really can't
response to those factual --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, what I'm trying to do is just
draw a comparison. I'm sorry, I didn't expect you to respond to it.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's just that what we're doing is,
we're not asking for an exemption because Immokalee is
disadvantaged. We're asking for an exemption because of what we
actually receive.
Now, if you're saying we should pay for benefits we're going to
receive sometime in the future, all fine and good, but there's no
guarantee those benefits are going to come.
There is no road project that you can say is going to happen 'till
it gets to the five-year mark and it's vested. Other than that, it's up
for grabs.
So are we going to be able to feel comfortable charging these
people an impact fee and then -- for something in the future that may
or may not be there? That's the question I think that we're really
looking at.
It has all sorts of side benefits about the spurring on the
economy of Immokalee, giving them a jumpstart in a time when they
could really use it, redirecting growth to that area, helping business
out. We're losing people at the airport -- at the airport right now that
were planning to come in, they've been negotiating with them, have
pulled up stakes and left, and you heard it from own EDC director
when they were here, about the problems in Collier County when it
comes to this.
Page 98
November 5, 2002
In this particular case you can justify it very simply by saying,
what is the benefit received for what we're getting, for what we're
paying for?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think we're straying into very
dangerous territory here when we start trying to base our decisions
on what we as a neighborhood are getting from whatever taxes or
revenue are collected from our area.
I will remind you -- I know what the response is going to be,
that the rich people on the coast can afford it. But I will remind you
that they pay a very large percentage of the cost for Collier County,
and I do not want to get into a debate with those communities about
how much they're getting for their contribution in taxes and impact
fees. Because if we start allocating services based upon what
somebody in a neighborhood pays, we're going to get into real
trouble here.
The point is that it is not all equal. It is not all fair. It's very
much like an insurance policy. Everybody pays in their fair share on
the insurance policy, and then when you-- you have damage of some
kind, then the insurance policy pays out. The same thing is true of
the impact fees.
We should not try to draw lines around what area has a roads
program for building and what areas are not. We all put money into
the pot, and that pot is used to pay for roads.
And I would suggest to you again that there are a lot of people
in my district who never travel on the roads that are being
constructed now. There will probably never be another road
construction project in District 4. But if we start saying that you
should collect fees on the basis of what you're getting for them, then
I think it's a very, very dangerous position to get placed in.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go to the speakers at
this time. How many do you have?
Page 99
November 5, 2002
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have eight speakers. The first
one is Tammie Nemecek. She will be followed by Raymond
Holland.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Before you do that, Mr.
Chairman, I'm going to withdraw my second because I'm not
convinced that that's where I want to go on this, so I think you're
going to have to deal with that prior to getting a --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I understand, Commissioner
Carter. And in that case, the motion for an exemption at this time has
failed.
Please continue.
MS. NEMECEK: Good afternoon. I'm Tammie Nemecek. I'm
the interim executive director for the Economic Development
Council. I'm here today on behalf of the EDC board of directors and
our membership.
The mission of the Economic Development Council of Collier
County is the retention and creation of high-waged jobs for all of
Collier County. Our current programs recognize the unique
challenges of growing and attracting quality companies within the
enterprise zones of Immokalee, in addition to Everglades City.
Through the enterprise zone designation, special criteria have
been established for companies to qualify for local programs such as
fast track regulatory programs and state programs such as the quick
response training and the qualified targeted industry tax refund
program.
As areas such as Immokalee require specific programs to entice
companies to consider relocation or expansion there, the EDC has
worked with the county to provide special services to any business
which will provide additional jobs within the enterprise zone.
The need for these jobs is clearly shown by the unemployment
rate within the community. According to the most recent data,
Immokalee has an unemployment rate of 12.6 percent, compared to
Page 100
November 5, 2002
all of Collier County at 3.6 percent.
While the unemployment rate remains high, Immokalee's work
force grew at a higher percentage rate than the rest of Collier County.
Immokalee grew at 23 percent between 1996 and 2000, faster than
the rate of Collier County at 22 percent.
New companies, new job opportunities and better opportunities
for upper mobility are undeniably needed in the community. Higher
road impact fees which have been implemented seriously impact the
ability of the EDC to attract new business to Immokalee and will
hinder the ability of existing companies in Immokalee to expand.
These impact -- road impact fees certainly offset any services
which we can provide to businesses locating in the enterprise zone.
To allow greater economic opportunity, the road impact fee
exemption should be added to the benefit in the Immokalee area in
addition to the deferral for both work force housing and economic
development projects. The greater cost of locating a business or
residence in Immokalee opposed by the increase, in road impact fees
further detracts from the ability to Immokalee to sustain and grow.
Implementation of a geographic overlay for the Immokalee area
to mitigate road impact fees for both work force housing and
economic development projects will help the EDC and Collier
County in its mission to grow new jobs for the Immokalee
community.
The EDC board of directors and its membership encourage your
approval of the impact fee deferral program and further strongly
recommend you to consider the impact fee exemption as an added
inducement for economic diversification in Immokalee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have two commissioners
who would like to possibly address you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would just like to make a motion
Page 101
November 5, 2002
that we 'approve this ordinance granting the impact fee deferral in
accordance with the staff's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion from
Commissioner Coyle, a second from Commissioner Fiala, to follow
what's on the agenda for staff recommendations, but we will vote on
-- at the end when we finish hearing from everyone. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tammie, before you go away, I
do have a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
MS. NEMECEK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You said the -- it's hard to
create businesses in Immokalee and Everglades City?
MS. NEMECEK: Everglades City is not subject to the road
impact fees, so what we're talking about is the enterprise zones. The
enterprise zone in Immokalee allows us to give special criteria to
companies locating in that enterprise zone, such as -- really we waive
the average wage criteria as well as the target industry list that we
implement for the rest of the urban core, because to us, any job in
Immokalee is a job in Immokalee.
The issue that we find with Immokalee is that we have
incentives. We have a list of probably 15 to 18 opportunities for
companies to locate in that community. And the added cost of the
road impact fees, which have doubled now -- we have a company
located in the urban core which the cost of the impact fees was about
660,000 for Collier County versus about 250,000 for Lee County.
It is an added hindrance to our ability to attract companies to the
Immokalee community when you add on top of that the other
infrastructure issues that we have there as far as work force
development. We need to provide an inducement for companies to
locate in that community over and above the rest of the community.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. You didn't even come
Page 102
November 5, 2002
close to answering my question, but that's okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
I thought she answered it very well.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: There's nothing that I have heard
in this discussion, and the county attorney can correct me, that would
preclude, once you have the deferrals, that if you have a company
that the numbers were to, again, justify coming back and requesting
to the Board of County Commissioners that they become exempt --
what precludes the board from looking at each one of those and
saying, here's an area and it does merit that discussion? Tell me where I'm wrong, Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, nothing -- nothing precludes that
from happening. And in February when we come back to you, we
plan to have a process and a set of policies so that can happen, and it
can -- and it can transpire based on an audit by the tax collector or
whatever, based on ad valorem dollars that are brought into the
community from that company, and there can be some percentage of
exemption to the impact fees that have been deferred. We plan to
bring that back to the board so that we can further stimulate those
areas that need to be stimulated as far as --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So that puts the tools in the
toolbox. We're just a little bit ahead of ourselves here. You're taking
the first step to get what you want, and then you're going to get the
additional tools of the toolbox. I won't be here for that discussion,
but I hope my successor will support those tools.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And it will be a series of overlays, so it
doesn't necessarily mean it will just be Immokalee. It could be -- it
could be Golden Gate City, down Golden Gate Parkway, it could
being be along East Naples along U.S. 41 along that corridor there,
depending on the wishes of the board.
Page 103
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker, please.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Raymond Holland. He will
be followed by Richard Nogay.
MR. HOLLAND: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Good
afternoon. I'm Raymond Holland, the president of Immokalee
Chamber of Commerce, the area president for Florida Community
Bank, I'm the chairman of the ED -- EZDA, the vice-chairman of the
CRA subcommittee, I'm on the board of directors of Senior
Connections of Southwest Florida, I'm on the board of directors of
Goodwill Industries of Southwest Florida, I'm on the board of
directors board of the Collier County fair, involved in the Weed and
Seed, and a few other little things. I only mentioned that so you
know I didn't fall off the tomato truck on the way over here from
Immokalee.
There are a total of 31 -- where'd Coyle go?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He went out with the county
attorney.
MR. HOLLAND: Well, he's the one I really need to talk to.
There are a total of 31 different census tracks in Collier County.
Of thoSe, four are moderate income and two are low income. Of the
four moderate income areas, two are in Immokalee and the other two
are located between Highway 29 and County Road 951 and north of
41.
Buried between 951 and 29 has a median income of $46,000
and $53,000 respectively. The two in Immokalee are $36,000 and
$35,000. Of the two low income areas, one is in Immokalee and the
other is a very tiny area in Naples. We have a little teeny-weeny
map here. I can show it to you. You can't even see it. It's a
teeny-weeny little area right there for Naples.
In Naples the low is $23,000, and in Immokalee, the low is
$22,000. Immokalee has only three census track areas, and of those,
Page 104
November 5, 2002
two are moderate and one is low. Immokalee has no middle or no
upper income census track areas.
Upper ranges from just under 100 to over $200,000 in the
remainder of Collier County. Middle income areas are in the mid 50's
as the low point, up to the 80's and higher. Now, this is all data --
current data that I've gotten from the federal statistics.
Below the poverty line in Immokalee is 57 percent in the low,
36 percent in the one moderate, and 35 percent in the other moderate.
That's below poverty level. As a baseline, the HUD median family
income is $69,800. Clearly, Immokalee cannot afford more impact
fees. That's reason number one for an exemption for impact fees for
Immokalee.
Number two, and probably more important for our discussion
today, is that there are no roads planned for Immokalee, therefore,
there is no impact. There is no reason to collect an impact fee when
there is no impact.
They took if off the thing. I saw a little thing up there a minute
ago talking about, that impact fees are to pay for the impact that's
caused.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Could you put it back on again,
please.
MR. HOLLAND: So there we have it. First off, Immokalee
cannot afford the increase, and even if we could --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, the verbiage right there. There
you go.' Thank you.
MR. HOLLAND: Clearly Immokalee cannot afford an
increase. It's an impoverished area. But if we could afford the
increase, the increase is not warranted, so, therefore, we're asking
that Immokalee be exempted from road impact fees. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Richard Nogay, and he will
be followed by Binny Starling.
Page 105
November 5, 2002
MR. NOGAY: Good afternoon. My name is Dick Nogay, and
I'm president of Jubilation Development Corporation as well as
Harvest for Humanity in Immokalee, a member of the board of
directors of the Immokalee Civic Association, active in the Chamber
of Commerce, Weed and Seed, and a number of other groups in the
Immokalee area.
My wife and I, Florence and I have been there the last six years.
And as most of you know, we are the founders of Jubilation and are
building the new Jubilation affordable housing development, first
traditional neighborhood in all of South Florida.
Over the past several years, we have worked with up to -- about
500 families in Immokalee have come to our doors seeking new
housing, decent housing. Most of that through their inability to be
able to pay mortgages, either income issues or credit issues.
But in every case, we work with these families to secure -- help
them secure mortgages through the mortgage banking community.
So we have substantial ties to Huntington and SunTrust and First
Union, all of the banks in the area that are trying to assist families
purchase a home at an affordable level.
I can tell you in talking to those banks that a deferral on impact
fees will be a deterrent to new residential growth. They will not look
at this as something that they will encourage families to obtain a
mortgage for, because it will be a balloon payment that will be
required five years down the road. At the time these families
probably will maybe even be in less position to be able to pay.
So this is not something they're looking at that would help in
down payment assistance, it would not help them obtain a mortgage.
And if anything, it will act as a deterrent.
So if we're going to be doing something to stimulate growth --
and I think we're all on the same wavelength here. I think the staff
and you folks are trying to look at Immokalee as an area that needs
stimulation, but there's a disconnect between what we'd like to do in
Page 106
November 5, 2002
the way of stimulation and what's actually being done.
Let's not take action that's going to actually reverse the process
that we're all in Immokalee dedicating ourself to achieve. That
process is rebuilding that community. And that build Immokalee
initiative and that build Immokalee committee is part of the task
force group that has been meeting week after week after week in
Immokalee.
So I normally get up here and speak for myself, and I don't like
to be saying I speak for other people, but I can tell you that I don't
know of anyone -- and that's not to say there isn't someone -- that's
for deferral right now. And these are the businessmen, these are the
community leaders, these are the people that are trying to make
Immokalee work and trying to rebuild Immokalee.
A deferral is not only not appropriate as a stimulus, but it
actually runs counter to what we need to do in terms of positive
incentives, build incentives for Immokalee. Those positive
incentives, growth incentives, need to be in the form of exemptions.
An exemption, folks, is a win-win. An exemption wins because
we get growth and we get alternative revenue sources. And no one
on staff-- and I believe it was addressed earlier that we're going to go
down the road now and we're going to do a little bit more evaluation,
and that evaluation needs to look hard at getting the cart -- not
getting the cart before the horse.
If there's nothing there to begin with, then we have nothing to
lose. We're not losing impact fees if we're not going to get any
growth. And what's happened, as you can see from the numbers, that
we haven't had that growth.
So why keep imposing impact fees on a community and
pounding it into the ground all these years when the growth is -- can't
come? So how do we get the growth? Well, we need to provide the
kind of incentives that bring business, not just residential, but
commercial, industrial and retail business, to Immokalee, because
Page 107
November 5, 2002
there are alternative revenue sources that will be stimulate -- that will
offset any loss of impact fees which we wouldn't see anyway if we
don't do something to exempt impact -- road impact fees at this time.
So I would really like to see, if you're not going to do the
exemption, take no action. That's better than the deferral. And ask
your staff to look at alternative source revenues, alternative source
revenues that would act as the substitute for road impact fees. These
source rev -- alternative revenues would be ongoing annual revenues
in the form of taxes, sales taxes and in not -- and incomes in payrolls
that are going into Immokalee workers right now that are fleeing to
Hendry County and Lee County every day.
The majority of those teacher payrolls and a lot of the higher
payrolls in the county are leaving Collier County. We're not getting
the benefit of that.
These are the kind of alternative evaluation resources that we
need to make Immokalee grow, and that-- if we have an exemption,
we've got a win-win, because we get growth and we get alternative
revenues. If we have a deferral, we have a lose-lose. We get no
growth and no impact fee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Benny Starling, and he will
be followed by William McDaniel.
MR. STARLING: My name is Benny Starling. I'm with the
Immokalee Chamber of Commerce. And first of all, I would like to
thank Commissioner Coletta for his kind words and encouragement
that we have for our people in Immokalee, and I do hope that the
other commissioners will reconsider and look at this issue very
carefully.
My little speech is somewhat different from everyone else,
because I do not want to repeat what's been said, but I certainly --
Mr. Nogay, those comments are -- everyone in Immokalee feels the
Page 108
November 5, 2002
same about the comments that Mr. Nogay made.
But I'm just simply here just to tell you that Immokalee is a
unique and different place in our county. We live in a county of the
haves and the have-nots.
And Mr. Henning said something about East Naples. I don't
think you can consider East Naples the same as Immokalee, because
where Naples has 75 percent, roughly, middle to upper income and
25 percent of lower income, Immokalee has 75 percent lower income
and 25 percent middle and upper income. So I think it's -- that is --
would not be a correct evaluation there.
But I would say that what we're concerned about is that we still
have people in Immokalee that are hard-working people. And what I
am afraid is going to happen in the Immokalee area is -- year after
year we have seen large farmers, we have seen many migrant
workers stop coming to Immokalee -- and what's going to happen, it's
going to affect us all, because what is going to happen in this area is
that our migrant workers that we have in Immokalee that work very
hard for their money and everyone knows that -- and I hope to God
that I never have to do the work that they have to do -- but we all
reap the benefits. We love the benefits for what they do for us each
day.
And it's going to come a point in time that if things continue like
that in Immokalee, we're not -- there's not going to be an Immokalee.
There's not going to -- we're not going to be the agricultural capital of
Florida. That's not going to happen.
When we still have children that live in cars with their parents
and we have people that are paying seven and eight hundred dollars a
month for a 10-by-50-foot trailer where there are three or four
families, and eight, nine, ten children living in a trailer, that is a
shame.
And I tell you what, today, reading the ballot, I think it is a
disgrace to our nation, our state and our county that we would have
Page 109
November 5, 2002
something on the amendment, 10, for us to find a place to protect a
pregnant pig and how she was going to live when we have people in
Immokalee living the way they do.
And I appreciate whatever you can do. And we would love for
you to come out to Immokalee. We're proud of Immokalee. We're
proud of all the hard-working people that we have there, but we want
them to have the very best life that we have also. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William McDaniel, and he
will be followed by Fred Thomas.
MR. McDANIEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bill McDaniel. I'm president of a realty company and also
president of Big Island Excavating, a mining company on 846 on the
way to Immokalee.
I come here today -- I serve on the task force, the Immokalee
Road impact fee task force. I was invited to serve on that committee
by Raymond Holland, who spoke ahead of me. And I wanted to
share with you just a couple of thoughts.
From a beneficial standpoint, I really have no economic benefit
or real emotional benefit one way or the other with respect to these
impact fees. But looking at the community of Immokalee, which I
have endeavored to do business in that community, sell real estate in
that community for the past 20 years, the deferral program that staffs
recommending is very counterproductive.
The additional implementation of a fee for a single-family
property owner to have to be paid at a later date when, as Dick said
earlier, they can barely afford what it is that they're getting now, is
going to be prohibitive from a lending standpoint. One of the main
criteria to buy a home is to be able to get a loan. And if the lender's
not interested in financing that or making appropriations for the
payment of that fee that's going to become due in -- five years from
now, it's going to be prohibitive for residential development.
Page 110
November 5, 2002
Commissioner Fiala, you suggested an exemption for residential
single-family homeowners and not for businesses, and I suggest a
thought there with respect to rent revenue generation from the -- and
the disparity between the two communities.
In Immokalee -- and I don't have very, very good statistics. But
in Immokalee your average rents for commercial property are eight,
ten dollars a square foot, where here in Naples, in Collier -- over on
this side, they start at 15, and my goodness, they can go to whatever
you want to pay.
And because of the -- and it's a personal statement -- the
excessive increase in impact fees that have come about in the most
recent past, the revenue generation between the two communities
really doesn't allow for a -- for this type of a program. Deferring
those fees off to a later date isn't necessarily going to spur the
differentiation in the rents received between the two communities.
One other point that hasn't necessarily been made, and it's a
thought for you to consider as well, is the annuity that comes from ad
valorem taxation. The goal here is not to provide any great
advantage for one particular community in relationship to another.
It's a general consensus that Immokalee requires, needs some
assistance in a spurt of growth, and of the avenues there that comes
as an aggregate benefit to the community far in excess of the road
impact fees that we're asking for an exemption on, is the ad valorem
taxation that will come if we allow an opportunity.
Commissioner Henning suggested the building of a golf course
in that area. There could be nothing better happen to that community
than to have a golf course come out there, from an ad valorem
standpoint. Think of the ad valorem taxes that are going to be
derived from a community that was built in that particular area.
To that end, I thank you-all for your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Fred Thomas, and he will be
Page 111
November 5, 2002
followed by Bill Klohn.
MR. THOMAS: What I have here on this screen -- Fred
Thomas, director of the Collier County Health Department. What I
have on the screen is a map of Collier County.
When you-all think of the problems you have on Immokalee
Road and the impaction of it, you-all need to understand where that
impact is coming from.
The fastest growing area in this county of single-family homes
is south of Immokalee Road up by Everglades City, down Everglades
City, DeSoto and what have you, all down this area down in here.
Rapid growth.
If you go on, Mr. Feder, and widen 846 up this way, I guarantee
you in 10 years you're going to have to widen 858 down here,
because that's where the impact is coming from. There's no growth
going above this road up here, and here's where 43rd Street is coming
out.
Now, the reason why I bring that to you is this, first I think you
need to go this way with it, but the impact is not coming from
Immokalee. It's coming from down here. That's number one.
Number two, look at your tax bill. My millage rate is 16.3. The
average millage rate across this county is bout 15.4. The only other
millage rate in the county that's higher than ours is 20 mill cap in the
-- Everglades City. So from a standpoint of what we can afford to
pay, Mr. Coyle, we're paying more than the average citizen across
this county, okay?
Nogay -- Dick Nogay was right, deferrals will hurt us. I know
I'm from New York City, but I've learned what agriculture's known
all along. You plant a seed, you can have a harvest. You-all spent all
that money planting seeds in the Immokalee airport. The Collier
family spent all that money planting seeds in some industrial parks,
and now we don't want to fertilize. Now we don't want to water.
If we're going to gain the annuity, the long-term annuity of a
Page 112
November 5, 2002
higher tax base, we've got to jump start it somewhere. We've got to
bring in that 200-employee company. We've got to encourage people
to buy homes in Immokalee. Does it make sense to pay $15,000 for
a lot in Immokalee and almost $8,000 worth of impact fees when I
can go 10 miles away, 15 miles -- five miles closer to the Wal-Mart
in Lehigh Acres and get a -- less than a thousand dollars for-- couple
thousand dollars for a lot and less than $500 in impact fees, then the
money only circulates in Collier-- in Immokalee like it circulates on
the coast, one time. Employer to the employee and outside the
county. So we lose the sales tax, we lose the gas tax, we lose all that.
We have to -- you planted the seeds, we have to fertilize. We
have to increase the tax base. We're talking about doing that increase
at a time when companies -- communities all over -- across this
country, work very hard to compete for large employees to come.
They work very hard for them.
You know, you've got BMWs being built in South Carolina,
you've got Mercedes being built in Georgia now, because those
towns, not only they don't have impact fees, not only do they build
roads to get to these plants, not only do they go to the technical
schools and say, we want jobs -- training for the employees of these
plants, but they abated taxes.
We're not asking for abatement of taxes. We're only saying,
exempt us from impact fees so we can built up the tax base so we can
be a greater contributor in this area.
We're doing the best we can, but it's very, very difficult, and we
need to understand truly what's impacting this road out here that
you're so much concerned about. And if you're go in and do it this
way, I guarantee you in 10 you're going to have to come back and do
this. Because in order for these people to go east, they've got to go
out this road. In order for them to get out, they've got to come out
this road. I'm just expressing that to you.
Thank you very much.
Page 113
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you
want to continue this discussion? I know you said you had to -- had
a two o'clock--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I called up there. As long as the
judge shows up, they'll have a quorum to be able to count the
absentees. I'm not going to leave this until it's absolutely necessary.
This is the most important thing that I can think of that's come down
in a long time.
Please continue.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Bill Klohn. He will be
followed by Barbara Cacchione.
MR. KLOHN: Good afternoon, my name is Bill Klohn. I am
president of the MDG Capital Corporation. We're the developers of
the new Arrowhead Community in Immokalee.
As you recall in August, you approved our PUD to be the
largest affordable housing community in the history of Collier
County.
I don't want to be redundant and repeat some of the things that
my friends have said. I want to just reiterate very strongly that the
difference between a deferral and an exemption is huge, and ask that
you support the exemption today.
The deferral is a five-year whirling bullet ready to hit the home
buyer in the back of the head, to have a fee due immediately, and as
said earlier, the lenders do not look favorably at a deferral and look
at financing a home purchaser as though the impact fee was in
existence, because of the fact that it would be coming due in five
years.
Please support the exemption. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Barbara Cacchione, and your
final speaker is Tom Ryan.
MS. CACCHIONE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name's Barbara Cacchione with the Empowerment
Page 114
November 5, 2002
Alliance of Southwest Florida, and I represent the Immokalee
community as part of that alliance.
The county, along with the federal government, the state
government, entered into a partnership for the redevelopment of
Immokalee. That partnership started way back in '98, and we're
working strongly towards that.
The rational nexus to treat Immokalee different is very clear. It
is a federally designated enterprise community, one of 35 in the
country. It's a state-designated enterprise zone. It is one of 20
front-porch communities, and it is also looked upon in the county as
being an area that has -- deserves some special attention.
For these reasons, it is very important to bring together the
incentives that will create growth in that area. Having higher impact
fees will not do that in that area. The county has some very
important investments in that area, including the airport authority.
That is an area we'd like to see grow and develop.
The partnerships that are working out there are working and
they're working together to bring resources together to create that
kind of growth. It is a long-term process.
If you will look at the '90 census figures and compare those to
the 2000 census figures, you'll see that progress is being made.
We've reduced our poverty level by six percent in that community,
which is very large. But the one fact remains when you look at why
that area should be treated differently.
I'm just going to give you just a couple statistics. Thirty-four,
thirty-five percent of the families live below the poverty level.
Compare that to Collier County at seven percent.
Per capita income. The per capita income in Immokalee is
$8,500. In Collier County it's 31,000. Those are some very strong
distinctions that you need to create special incentives for that area,
because we want to see the growth, we want to see the development
in that area. It is an area of working families.
Page 115
November 5, 2002
You will find very few cases of people on welfare in that
community, very few. And they do not depend on government
subsidies at all for their existence. They are working families. And I
think those are the reasons that we should look at all the incentives
we can to further that.
One very important statistic, I think, is when you look at also
the household income. The household income is 24,000 in
Immokalee compared with 48 in (sic) the coast. I've done
demographics in Collier County for 20 years, and I can tell you there
is no area in the whole county anywhere that has these kind of
differentiating characteristics in any part of your community.
You could look at education. Seventy-six percent of the
population over the age of 25 doesn't have a high school education.
Are we going to attract high-wage jobs? Probably not. But we are
going to attract jobs that will provide work force skills to the work
force that are there. Higher wages than, perhaps, agriculture pays.
I think another important reason, separate from the fact that we
should be creating incentives for that area, is the fact that the Collier
County MPO has never done a road transportation plan for the
Immokalee community. You have modeled the coastal area. The
Immokalee area was outside of the MPO. It has never been modeled.
There has never been a description of the future road improvements
that are necessary to match that future land use map.
It is something that has been placed in your Immokalee master
plan for quite some time, but it has never been done. So you don't
even really have a good idea of what the road needs are in that
community because they have never been studied to any great
degree.
You're currently modeling the Golden Gate Estates area, but it
has never been done for Immokalee. So to assess an impact fee at
this point in time does seem a bit premature, at least.
And finally, there's one important statistic that I think gives
Page 116
November 5, 2002
consideration for the single-family home ownership. I think
everyone in this room agrees that having a community that has a lot
of home ownership is very important to the stability of that
community. That is something we've been working hard to change.
You will see now five major projects going on in that
community for housing development. That is the most in the 15 years
I have worked in that community, that has been going on. And in
one important statistic from the 2000 census is we have 60 percent of
our current population in renter-occupied housing. We want to move
that to a more permanent, more stable, more vibrant community, and
I think with the help of this board we'll be able to do that in granting
the exemption.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker is Tom Ryan.
MR. RYAN: I'm Tom Ryan, 1905 8th Street South in Naples,
Florida. In my duties with Collier Harvest for the past 10 years, I
spent a fair amount of time in Immokalee. I hear some of the
commissioners comparing Immokalee to other parts of the county.
Folks, Immokalee defies comparison. There is only one Immokalee.
I'm afraid unless the exemption is given at least in the
residential area, some of the critical programs like Habitat for
Humanity, which have done so much good for the poor people in
Immokalee, will be severely crippled, so I urge you, give Immokalee
all the help they can. They really need it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I have found this
public input to be very convincing, and I would like to withdraw my
motion to approve the deferral and, instead, make a motion to
disapprove the recommendation the staff has made and to ask them to
present to us the list of incentives which they're working on so that
Page 117
November 5, 2002
we might able to provide specific incentives to specific developments
or companies that will have the greatest economic impact on
Immokalee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm just --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- going to add right now, my
button was also on because I was going to withdraw my second. I
found the same, the information given to us by all of these people
really helped me to see it in a different light. And so I, too, withdraw
my second. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Is it--
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
But I have made another motion.
Yes, and I'll second that, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're coming to you, Commissioner
Henning. Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, thank you.
There are other areas, like Mr. Mudd has stated--
Commissioner Coyle has stated, there are other areas in Collier
County that might not be exactly like Immokalee but very similar to
the needs, and I hope that you would include in your motion other
areas like that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, absolutely. I think the
toolbox, as Commissioner Carter has termed it, is essential and it can
be used for other neighborhoods in Collier County, and in
coordination with the EDC, because I think that's one of the things
that has been lacking in the process.
Our objective, I think, should be to target those industries and/or
types of development or types of housing that are of most benefit to
the particular community that we're trying to address. And if you
present to us a range of options and incentives, I think that would be
more effective than an impact fee deferral or exemption. So I believe
Page 118
November 5, 2002
that we need that toolbox, and I would suggest that we not proceed
with this particular item until such time as we have that information.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Maybe -- now, so tell me what your motion actually is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It is -- well, let me try to
explain it, and then I'll try to make the motion again.
But I've been convinced that the deferral is not a good idea. I
still feel that the exemption is not a good idea when it's applied on a
blanket basis.
What I would like to do is have the staff come to us with the
recommendations they say they're already working on which will
provide us a complete range of incentives that we can use, which
would include exemption of impact fees, that will target the specific
community with the specific kind of development they think they
need in order to improve the community itself and to create the jobs
so that people get, hopefully, higher paying wages and can afford
better housing. So basically, that's what I'm going to.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let me repeat it back, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Coyle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Coyle, excuse me. Normally these
come from Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But do I understand you--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're going to miss me, boy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We've got to be nice to you,
Commissioner Carter. This is your last meeting. No, on second
thought, we don't have to be nice to you. No, we do. We do
appreciate the fact you're still here.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Fourteen days, thirty-seven
minutes --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, I find it
Page 119
November 5, 2002
heartening to the fact that you want to continue the option open for
exemptions, and if staff could come back and present something that
would make logical sense to the rest of the commission, then
exemptions may be a way that we could go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: An alternative.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As an alternative. One of many
different alternatives?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do you understand the
motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Commissioner Carter made that
suggestion early on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, yes, he did. And how do you
feel about that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I was kind of hoping we could
reach a --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who cares?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I care.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, I tell you. I feel like family
here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's breaking down quickly now,
folks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. I would love to have reached a
conclusion on this today as far as an exemption, but obviously the
commission doesn't feel comfortable with it, and I expect their --
respect their opinions, even though I disagree with them. Respect it
very much, but I appreciate the fact that Commissioner Coyle has left
the door open for consideration to be able to -- obviously staff didn't
come here with the idea of an exemption. That's absolutely true.
And so because of the fact that they didn't come with it, we can't
really explore the possibilities in depth what it would mean.
So if they were to come back at a -- hopefully a future date,
Page 120
November 5, 2002
which would be very close in time to this meeting, I could very much
support your motion, Commissioner Coyle, and I thank you very
much for it.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I just kind of clarify,
because the speakers all certainly point out very -- certainly
heartening statistics, but I want to make sure we understand.
We talked about affordable housing. The existing affordable
housing initiatives are still in place. We still have those programs
and we implement those, so the references to habitat and other
activities, as you well know, this county gives a considerable amount
of money through its community development block grant program
and its SHIP program with that.
But I also want to make sure we understand, impact fees are
based on impact, not on income. That's -- don't get down the slippery
slope of focusing on income because that -- as the county attorney
pointed out, we have to make sure that we are -- the proposal is both
defendable and defensible when challenged by others who want an
exemption, and that's why staff created the proposal today.
And, of course, we talked about needs and we talked about
benefits. This was just one aspect of trying to answer a problem that
is in the Immokalee area and that is trying to kick the can further
down the road when we're talking about impact fees. And we
understand, it is a pretty sharp knife or sword hanging over
someone's head, that five years later they've got a balloon payment
due.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Exactly.
MR. SCHMITT: But we -- when we talked about this during
our impact fee workshop and we talked about it during the public
meeting we had about impact fees and we presented-- I presented to
you the after-action report with several proposals. Mr. Mudd talked
about the economic development piece that we would -- we were
talking about bringing back to you.
Page 121
November 5, 2002
In order to go with an exemption for this area, we would have to
designate in some manner the Immokalee area as some kind of a
development zone or some kind of impact free zone, and that -- I
think that's going to take a little research for us to make sure that we
can do that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I can--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I finish?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let me clarify something,
Joe.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
we'll get right to you.
I'm sorry, Commissioner Carter,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not proposing a blanket
exemption. I'm suggesting exactly what Jim Mudd suggested earlier,
that you're developing a number of incentives, including exemptions,
that could be targeted to specific circumstances, not necessarily to
geographic areas. I would like to do everything we can to create
higher paying jobs in Immokalee. And, quite frankly, the rest of the
problems would pretty much take care of themselves at that point in
time.
So. if we could develop that toolbox, as Commissioner Carter
has aptly termed it, then we could target those kinds of things in
coordination with the EDC and the empowerment alliance and
everybody else who's involved, and achieve the kinds of
improvements that we really want to achieve.
So I didn't wish to leave the impression that I was talking about
exemptions on a blanket basis. I'm talking about targeted
exemptions, okay?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Targeted exemptions sound right in
line, because I mean, I can see Immokalee as a target. Go ahead, Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, I don't know how
Page 122
November 5, 2002
much staff time we've burned on this. MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I am really concerned that we
gave direction that said that this is a phased project, a -- not project --
phased approach. Other people tell me, I don't want anything, rather
than one slice of the bread from the whole loaf.
Well, what's wrong with deferrals while you get the toolbox
ready? I've not heard a good answer to that, not one that satisfies me.
Do I want balloons at the end for people? That may go away with
the toolbox.
But let's take some of the pictures that I saw up here on this
screen. 'You know, if I want to go to a place and speculate that you
might exempt, I'm going to go out there and look for dirt and get a
house, and I'm still going to impact your roads, because I may not
find a job out there, but I sure as heck can live out there.
So I think this is fraught with things that might be
misinterpreted coming out of this board meeting, so I am not going to
support walking away from this. I will support staff's
recommendation because I think deferral is step one. Step two is the
toolbox with all the possibilities and the targets for the entire county.
And at least going out of here you know you have a deferral, what --
if you walk out of here and say I don't want anything, be careful what
you ask for. You might just get it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, you have
something you want to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't have anything to say, no.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So, I mean, that's it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So the motion that we have at this
point in time is to deny this motion for deferral and to direct staff, as
a separate part of the motion, to go back and come back to us with a
number of options that we can use targeted to specific instances that
we can identify and justify?
Page 123
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That was my motion, yeah.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Fiala, it was
your second. Is it still your second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Because we had a lot going on in
here for a while.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know. I had to have it explained
again, but I still stand by my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any final comments?
With that I'll call the motion. All those in favor, indicate by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we have three in favor,
two opposed. The two opposed are Commissioner Carter and
Commissioner Henning, and I thank you very much.
And with that, I have to get over to the elections office to count
absentee ballots.
Commissioner Henning, you're in charge. You get into trouble,
Commissioner Coyle will help you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Be sure to count more for Jeb than
you do anybody else.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I can't do that. Everything's on the
up--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Why, it's not in Broward and
Dade. You know, where's that extra machine? Bump those votes in
Page 124
November 5, 2002
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
on our agenda, Mr. Mudd? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think it's fair to the
petitioner to hear that at this time since we don't have a full board.
don't even see the petitioner here.
Ladies and gentlemen, could you please quiet down. Thank
The previous item that we had
I
yOU.
Item #8B - Discussion continued from earlier in the meeting
PETITION RZ-2001-AR-1649, ROBERT L. DUANE, OF HOLE
MONTES, INC., REPRESENTING CRAIG D. TIMMINS,
TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO C-1 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD ON
THE EAST SIDE OF VETERANS PARK DRIVE-CONTINUED
TO DECEMBER 17, 2002 IN ORDER FOR CORRECTIVE
SIGNAGE TO I:tF. PI.ACED ON THE PROPERTY
MR. MUDD: Sir, the action that we stopped going to -- going
to lunch and then having this time certain at one o'clock was item
8(B), which was a-- which was a public hearing for--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is the petitioner ready to go
forward with this? Okay. Let's move on.
Ms. Filson, do we have any more public speakers on this item?
MS. FILSON: No, we heard them this morning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Any questions from the
petitioner?
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, if I could put a couple of things
on the record from this morning. Just to remind the board, that this is
not a typical rezone. It's a rezone that, when -- if the motion maker
Page 125
November 5, 2002
makes a motion to approve, you're going to have to find it consistent
with the office and infill commercial subdistrict, and there are a few
differences. They're spelled out in your staff report.
But there was a lot of talk this morning about who owned a
parcel and when and all that. The office and infill commercial
requires that you find that the parcels were not created to take
advantage of that OIC subdistrict. And staff research has found that
they were created prior to OIC and they are not created to take
advantage of that OIC subdistrict.
We don't look at who owned it at what time, but the parcels
were there. Anybody can buy and sell on the free market, so we
don't -- we don't look at that aspect of it.
Also, the office and infill commercial says that you -- that the
parcel is not -- does not promote residential use, that commercial use
would be better there. That's one part of the finding you'll make.
The other part will be that the neighbors to the east had a
reasonable expectation that that lot is currently zoned RSF-3, and it's
not the typical ag. rezoning where you're going from ag., where in
the urban area you'll have a reasonable expectation it's going to be
rezone.
It's a tough choice that you're going to have to make. I mean, as
staff we took a conservative approach, and you're going to have to
weigh those findings and make your decision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any questions, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
In the discussion this morning on this item, it was mentioned
that it was advertised for today in the newspaper, but that there was a
problem with signage on the property, which I think had a date of the
10th rather than today's date, which -- or the 12th -- ultimately it was
a different date than today's date, and it may have -- may have had its
beginning based on the fact of prior board dates set well in advance
but had been changed some time ago.
Page 126
November 5, 2002
My recommendation, my advice to you, to the commission, is
that by virtue of that misinformation by signage on the site,
notwithstanding that you've heard the whole discussion this morning,
I would recommend that you continue this for two meetings, that is to
the first meeting in December. That would give 15 days, which we
couldn't achieve at the November 19th meeting, for a corrected sign
to be placed on the premises so that any decision that the board
makes at that subsequent date that I'm recommending would be one
that will not potentially put the county in the non-stakeholder
position of defending a challenge because there's been a mistake of
signage.
Another thing I'll add is that the requirement of signage is really
only to inform of the planning commission hearing. This sign,
having gone beyond the requirement for the planning commissioner,
which was correctly noted on the sign, incorrectly indicated the
board hearing. The people that have spoken to you this morning
have raised that as an issue, nonetheless, they are here.
They also, I think, for the most part, if not entirely, were present
at the planning commission hearing so that they were -- they were, in
fact, aware that it was going to be heard at this meeting here today,
not withstanding that there's a sign on the premises.
But for anyone who may have potentially have standing to
complain in the future based upon relying on the sign on the
premises, I feel that I'd be remiss in telling you that the decision you
make today may make it less problematical than if you were to defer
the decision and continue it to two meetings from today.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions or comments from
board members?
Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have -- I had --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: No, no, I'm not going there.
Page 127
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a question about something
else. Can I ask that still, or is that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can do anything you want.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much.
Can I ask you what side of the creek -- which side -- excuse my
English -- of the creek will the augmented landscaping, vegetation be
planted on? Will it be-- yeah.
MR. REISCHL: It will be on the subject parcel side.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So in other words, the creek will be
still on the property owner's side -- rather on the residential side, and
then the plantings will be behind it so it will give it a good buffer; is
that what you said?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Entertain a motion?
Mr. Anderson?
MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if I might, could I request
that it be to your second meeting in December? Because as things
are presently scheduled, I am to be assisting your attorneys in
defending the rural fringe amendments the first Tuesday in
December.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's nice to have you on our side
for a change, Mr. Anderson.
MR. ANDERSON: I'm always on your side, you just may not
know it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I knew that was coming. I could
have said it with him.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, is there any
problem with that?
MR. WEIGEL: No problem, other than if it's beyond five
weeks, our policy requires readvertisement. By virtue of the fact that
it's petitioner's mistake of signage on the premises, if there is a
Page 128
November 5, 2002
requirement for readvertisement, I would like the record to reflect in
your motion, if you so make, to indicate that it's petitioner's
responsibility to readvertise for the requested second meeting date in
December.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
MR. ANDERSON: And that's fine. I just want to make one --
make sure I understand one thing. We're going to take that sign
down. There's no requirement to post it, so we're going to go ahead
and take it down. We're not going to pay for a new sign since none
was required for this hearing.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So much for
overcommunicating, right, sir?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes. This is a classic case of no good deed
goes unpunished.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion is on the floor. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a motion and a second.
Any more discussion?
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Any opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
MR. WEIGEL: 4-0.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Commissioner Coletta is absent.
4-0. Let the record reflect that
Item #8C
Page 129
November 5, 2002
ORDINANCE 2002-56 ESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS CORPS
ADVISORY COUNCIL-ADOPTED AND RESOLUTION 2002-465
APPOINTING CAROL HOLLE PAHL, DEBORAH HORVATH,
ROBERT ROHLAND, DON PETERSON, ROBERT BURHANS,
NELDA MILLER, TOM KUZNER, JAMES H. ELSON,
RAYMOND CADWALLADER, CHARLES GRAVES AND
WALTER JASKIEWICZ AS MEMBERS OF THE CITIZENS
CORPS ADVISORY COl JNCIIJ-ADOPTF, D
The next item is 8(C), approval of the citizens corps advisory
council 'ordinance and appoint 11 voting members to the council.
MR. VON RINTELN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jim
von Rinteln from the emergency management department.
In September the board directed staff to create a citizens corps
advisory council in support of the president's homeland defense
initiative. The purpose of this council would be, and is, to assure the
coordination of our existing county volunteer and first responder
initiative.
The ordinance before you was carefully coordinated with the
federal guidance given to us which recommended that the council be
made up of the existing leadership of the volunteer entities and first
responder organizations within Collier County.
We also closely coordinated the ordinance with the county
attorney's office to assure that the sunshine laws were taken into
account.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I move for
approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a motion on the floor
and a second.
Ms. Filson, is there any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
Page 130
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you call them up,
please. '
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Don't talk us out of it.
MS. FILSON: Ray Cadwallader.
MR. CADWALLADER: Only if there are any questions.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Susan Craig.
MS. CRAIG: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Bob Schank.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
MS. FILSON: Deborah Horvath.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Waive.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: If you don't want to talk us out
of it, you can waive.
MS. HORVATH: I don't want to talk you out of it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Waive.
MS. HORVATH: Bye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's our final speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. VON RINTELN: If I could, the speakers were here all
morning in support, and I would like to thank them for the help that
they gave staff in putting together the ordinance as you see it and
with their input, as well as Mr. Cadwallader's input in coming up
with the membership and the expert advisors that are in the executive
summary, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And being patient to be here all
afternoon, morning and afternoon, to support this item. And I do
want to 'thank the community for this. This is something that our
president of the United States created, and I'm flattered that we'll be
able to bring this forward in the community.
Any more questions, comments?
Page 131
November 5, 2002
Motion on the floor and a second to approve the citizens corps.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
MR. CADWALLADER: Mr. Chairman, now that you've
passed it, one comment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sir, you'll have to come to the
microphone, and state your name for the record.
MR. CADWALLADER: Ray Cadwallader. One comment is
that this is only the beginning of the work. It took a long, hard one
year to get to this point. But the next three or four years are going to
be even more difficult and more challenging and more complex, so
bear with us as we go down this road. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
Items #8D and #8E
DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2002-03/RESOLUTION 2002-459, RE:
PETITION DOA-2001-AR-1638, AND ORDINANCE 2002-57
REGARDING PUDZ-2001-AR-1639, ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP,
OF HOLE MONTES, INC., REPRESENTING HARDY
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., (THE STRAND LTD.)
REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PELICAN STRAND
DRI FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,200 TO 1,160 AND TO ALLOW
FOR THE OPTION OF 120 DWELLING UNITS TO BE
DEVELOPED WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE
DRI IN LIEU OF 140 HOTEL/MOTEL UNITS FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Page 132
November 5, 2002
AND 1-75, PELICAN STRAND SUBDIVISION-ADOPTED WITH
CHANGES
The next item is 8(D), DOA-2001-AR-1638, Bob Duane from
Hole Montes representing Hardy Development Group requesting to
amend the Pelican Strand DRI.
Anybody that wishes to participate in this discussion, would
raise their right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (The witnesses were sworn.)
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, Fred Reischl, planning
services.
I will present both of the PUD and DRI together, and the county
attorney wanted me to remind you that they require separate votes.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I disclose, Mr. Chairman, that I
did meet with the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, any
disclosures?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I met with the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I also met with the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. And I have met
with nobody.
So you are saying that we're going to take D and E together, but
separate motions?
MR. REISCHL: They're essentially the same item. If that's
your pleasure, I'll be happy to do it for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I see some nods on the
board, so we have no problem with that. Go ahead and continue.
MR. REISCHL: This is a repeal of the old Pelican Strand PUD
and adoption of the new Pelican Strand PUD, essentially a PUD
amendment done that way.
The result will be, if this is approved, a reduction in the total
number of dwelling units from 1,200 to 1,160. Not really a
Page 133
November 5, 2002
significant reduction, but a reduction nonetheless. There would be a
reduction in retail from 16 acres to 12 acres, an increase in the office
use from eight acres to 12 acres.
And the major change would be an additional option for the
developer in the commercial tracts. I'm sorry I didn't show you this
earlier. 1-75, Immokalee Road. In -- if blue shows up there, that blue
is the tract not most affected by the change. The change would be to
add an option for residential dwelling units. Right now it could be
office, retail, or hotel.
The hotel currently could be 140 rooms. The residential would
be a maximum of 120 dwelling units. If this amendment is approved
and the residential option is utilized, then the hotel could not be built,
or vice versa. If they built a hotel, then they could not use a
residential -- the -- I'll start again. If they build a hotel, then they
couldn't use the residential option. So it's an either-or.
Similar to the previous petition, this was submitted prior to the
public information requirement. We did have a public information
meeting voluntarily by the petitioner. And there were attendees.
There was some people that spoke in favor, some people that spoke
in opposition.
The planning commission heard this and recommended approval
by a vote of 6-2. The two opposition votes were mainly because the
developer did not want to state on the record what type of housing
this was going to be. Was it going to be villas? Was it going to be a
more traditional multi-family building. Not necessarily an objection
to the petition, but to the specificity.
And staff is recommending approval of the amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions to staff?.
Petitioner, Mr. Duane?
MR. DUANE: Yes, for the record, Robert Duane. I'll be very
brief.
The proposed changes will reduce the traffic by approximately
Page 134
November 5, 2002
1500 average daily trips per day. And in my opinion, and I believe
the staff shares that view, by broadening the mix of uses in the
activity center, we'll be more consistent with the future land use
element than we are today.
I'm going to modify my proposal today. I think it's an easy
modification for you to accept. We're deleting the hotel and motel
use. That's no longer on the table as a result of my remarks on the
record today.
Also after my meeting with Commissioner Coyle at his behest, I
am also volunteering that the residential component of the project
will not consist of any rental apartments, will only be condominiums
or units owned in fee simple, and there will not be any rental
apartments under unified ownership, and we're volunteering to that --
to that provision.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any questions of the
petitioner?
Any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll close the public hearing.
Anybody want to make a motion?
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll first say -- oh, was that --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll first say, I read all through both
of these and I tried to pick it apart, I tried to find a downside, I tried
to find something wrong with it, and actually I couldn't find anything
wrong with it, and I think the petitioner has modified it to even a
greater extent. I mean, I don't have a problem with it, so I make a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that the DRI?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the PUD.
Page 13 5
November 5, 2002
MR. REISCHL: I believe the DRI has to go first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, the DRI. Okay. So I make a
motion to approve the DRI changes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Based on the -- also including Mr. Duane's
stipulations about owner-occupied hotel/motels out?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that was very important, too,
yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Any questions on the motion or
the petition?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
MOtion carries, 4-0.
MR. DUANE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I make a motion to approve
the PUD with the same stipulations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a motion and a second
on the floor. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
Motion carries 4-0.
Page 136
November 5, 2002
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2002-58 AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAW AND ORDINANCES, AS
AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 2001-13, THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, TO AMEND THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS FOR
RENTAL DWELLING UNITS TO INCLUDE MODULAR HOMES
AND MOBILE HOMES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE IMPACT
FEE DEFERRALS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY $204,984.12
FOR A 'TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FACILITY CURRENTLY
BEING DEVELOPED BY THE FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD-
ADOPTF, D
The next item 8(F), adopting an ordinance amending chapter 74
of the Collier County code and law ordinances as amended in
ordinance 2000-13 (sic) of the Collier County consolidated impact
fees, and this is for the First Assembly of God.
MR. MUDD: It's Reverend Mallory's issue from a previous
board where you directed staff to come back and find ways to try to
help him out of the predicament that he's in as far as some kind of
deferrals for impact fees so that he could pay it back on an
installment-type plan.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Again for
the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development
and environmental services.
And we're talking about impact fees again. This is actually an
amendment to the consolidated impact fee ordinance, and really what
it's going to do is recognize to include modular homes and mobile
homes.
Page 137
November 5, 2002
And this was a result of a meeting, at least a public petition by
Pastor Mallory on September 24th where he came to this board to ask
for a deferral. Actually what he was asking for was an installment
plan for impact fees of $105,000 for eight existing mobile homes.
He has 22 more projected.
In your staff report we noted it was 204,984. I want to correct
the record so you note that that has changed and note that the fee is
now $258,000.
What has happened to change that? Because of this proposal,
we -- after the executive summary was sent, we recognize what we're
doing now is changing the connotation of these modular homes from
commercial to residential. And as a result, it creates different impact
fees for water and sewer because they are individually hooked up on
the sewer and water system through their individual meters, so that
drove up the price. That's already been discussed with Pastor Mallory
and he's comfortable with it. So now we're talking $258,000.
What this ordinance will do is allow us to defer a payment of
those impact fees for a period of five years. And certainly -- Pastor
Mallory is certainly amenable to that.
So that's basically the proposal. It's to amend the ordinance to
allow for both modular and mobile homes. And we think this is a
good thing, because in the past it didn't have that. And really what
we're doing is now providing an opportunity for those type of homes,
as long as they're approved and certified by HUD and the department
of community affairs.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Questions from the board?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think that's where we were
going in the first place, and we probably felt that we were already
including the park model. So I think what we're doing is just a
housekeeping item here, so I move to approve.
MR. SCHMITT: Correction for the record, six years and nine
Page 138
November 5, 2002
months deferral.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Six years and nine months, right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion by
Commissioner Fiala, a second by Commissioner Henning for
approval.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are we going to hear from the
petitioner?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, we certainly are. I though
you'd already done that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I think I'll wait for my
questions until after I hear from the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Great. And would you call up the
petitioners? Not the -- the petitioners.
And have you heard from the speakers yet?
MS. FILSON: We have no speakers, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There are no speakers.
Petitioner, would you come up.
REVEREND MALLORY: I'm David Mallory, pastor, First
Assembly of God. There's been a longstanding issue in this county
with our desire to help those that are less fortunate than we.
This will give us the opportunity to extend ministry to many,
many hurting people, and I just really appreciate your consideration
of it, and I thank God for his guidance here.
We have approval for 30 units, and each one can house
approximately four people, which greatly increases our ability to
minister to the needy. It also enables the county to help enact the
ordinance that is an anti-camping ordinance, and again, will enable
us to extend help further.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Questions?
Page 139
November 5, 2002
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, a comment. I think it's
about time that the media runs this story again, because when I read
it, probably about six years ago, and what you were trying create in
working with the Board of Commissioners at that time, I thought,
wow, what a partnership that we have with a private not-for-profit
organization and what the benefit is for the community, so I hope the
media picks up on this and runs it again. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Reverend Mallory, I think we all
appreciate the work you do for our community, and we think it's a
very wonderful thing that you're doing.
My questions are really -- they relate to the issue of deferral of
impact fees in very much the same way we had an earlier discussion
about exemptions.
What I am concerned about is deferring impact fees at a quarter
of a million dollars to a fairly large balloon payment at the end only
to find out that, perhaps, the fund raising efforts haven't been
sufficient to pay those.
Now, is there any solution to that that would be acceptable to
you, like installment payments over that period of time or a lien on
the property in the event that the impact fees are not paid? I don't
want to find ourselves in a position six years and nine months from
now --
MR. SCHMITT: There will be a lien on his property --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There will be a lien, okay.
MR. SCHMITT: -- for payment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: I also want to note for the record, since our
meeting, we -- Pastor Mallory has agreed to and consented to the
agreements for the CBDG funds of $32,000. And also, with our
assistance and staff's assistance, we, through the state, homeless
Page 140
November 5, 2002
coalition awarded $745,000.
So I think it's been a true partnership, and we moved rather
quickly once Pastor Mallory presented some of the issues in front of
them. And he met with Denny Baker and his staff, and they've done a
great job on this, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, good. So this doesn't create
a financial hardship for you then, you think, asking for a quarter of a
million dollars at the end of five years?
REVEREND MALLORY: No. The hardship is asking for it
today, because then we cannot -- we can't go to the next step of
helping people. So I believe it really sets us up to open the door of
ministry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Okay, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Before you leave, Pastor
Mallory, I think a lot of people aren't really aware of this
anti-camping ordinance and how very important it is to Collier
County. I don't know if that's ever been explained to -- well, it was
years ago in the daily news, just like -- was it you, Commissioner
Henning, that just suggested they do it? Well, maybe it would be
good to be on the record right now, just very briefly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Better yet, why don't we, one
of the commissioners, interview Mr. Mallory in explaining what his
program is all about and all the ancillary benefits to the community.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On channel 11 ?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, or 16.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a great idea. Okay. Thank
yOU.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think it's an excellent idea,
Commissioner Henning. We'll pull you down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's great.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Well, we have to take the
Page 141
November 5, 2002
vote.
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 aye have it, 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2002-460 APPOINTING CHIEF MICHAEL
MURPHY AND CHIEF ROB POTTEIGER TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COUNCIL-
ADOPTED
We now move on now to 9(A), appointment to the emergency
medical service advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Move for approval by Commissioner
Carter, 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: Okay. And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 142
November 5, 2002
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2002-461 RE-APPOINTING STEPHEN
GREENBERG AND KAREN M. ACQUARD TO THE GOLDEN
GATE F. STATF. S I.AND TRIIST COMMITTF. E-ADOPTF. D
Member to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, on this committee, Mr. Stephen
Greenberg has served two terms, so if you wish to reappoint him,
you'll need to waive section 7(B) of ordinance 2001-55.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I make a motion that we approve the
two appointments and waive the -- what do we call it, the resolution,
or the --
MS. FILSON: The ordinance --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ordinance.
MS. FILSON: -- 2001-55, 7(B).
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, 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: And the ayes have it, 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2002-462 APPOINTING KATHERINE TODD
Page 143
November 5, 2002
AND DR. JOAN COLFER TO THE HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE-ADOPTED
Appointment of member to the Health and Human Service
Committee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve the two applicants.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two recommendations or two
applicants?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two applicants.
MS. FILSON: Actually, I received two applications on this one,
and then the committee themselves recommended representation
from the health department, so they're recommending Dr. Colfer be
appointed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me explain of-- my
recommendations for that. And I appreciate Dr. Colfer, but I'm sure
she's entered her good part of this. The whole point of advisory
boards is to bring the community into whatever issue there is of the
advisory board to make recommendations to the board of
commissioners. That's why I made my recommendations for the
applicants.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll be honest with you, you
have some validity in your thought process there, but the committee
has expressed a desire to have Dr. Colfer on there because of the
contributions she made, and we'd like to give her a voting position,
and I hope you would reconsider.
Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Henning. A
second from? Okay, the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The motion fails.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- motion fails, so I make a motion
that we go with the committee recommendations of Katherine Todd
and Dr. Joan Colfer.
Page 144
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a 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 #10A
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CH2MHILL,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,453 FOR THE DESIGN OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD FROM AIRPORT-PULLING
ROAD TO COIJIJIFJR FIOIIIJEVARD-APPROVFD
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Moving on here. County manager
report. Supplement agreement number four.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, item 10(A) is staff's
request to approve -- Gregg Strakaluse, for the record -- staff's
request to approve a supplemental agreement to an existing
consulting contract for professional engineering and design services
on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we have a motion from
CommiSsioner Henning, a second from Commissioner Carter.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to point out that by
Page 145
November 5, 2002
approving this particular provision, agreement, that the staff is saving
the taxpayers of Collier County three hundred to five hundred
thousand dollars; is that correct?
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct, there is a savings. There
is a savings, and if we do this part of the project, we incorporate the
six-lane portion of the project between Logan Boulevard and 951 at
this point in time. With this construction project we would be saving
between three hundred and five hundred thousand dollars in future
costs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's another good example
of staff-- good staff planning. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And doing the job right the first
time, right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, that's right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All right. We have a -- did we vote
on that yet? We haven't yet, have we? Okay. We have a motion --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A motion and a second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and a second. 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.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2002-463 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
STORMWATER RETENTION SITES IN FEE SIMPLE TITLE, AS
WELL AS PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-
Page 146
November 5, 2002
WAY, DRAINAGE AND/OR UTILITY EASEMENTS AND
TEMPORARY DRIVEWAY RESTORATION EASEMENTS FOR
THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD SIX-LANING PROJECT
FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD TO COLLIER BOULEVARD-
ADOPTED
Moving right along to 10(B), resolution for authorizing for
acquisition of right-of-way for Vanderbilt Beach Road.
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct. This is a sister item to
10(A) in which staff is requesting the boards without the gifting
purchase resolution to acquire the property necessary to construct the
six-lane roadway between Airport Road and 951.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We have a motion for
approval from Commissioner Henning, a second from Commissioner
Carter, right?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's fine by me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any discussion?
MS. FILSON: And we have no speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And no speakers. Thank you.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Item #10C
FY 2003 WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER-
APPROVED
Page 147
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So now we're at 10(C).
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How's our court reporter
doing?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, yeah. Let's see, well, 3:00; 1:30
to 3:00, that's an hour and a half. Why don't we -- you're right, Mr.
Henning, we should take a short break, 10 minutes. Thank you for
pointing that out.
(A recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's see. Where we left off
was -- let me go right to the page. What were we on, C?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're on 10(C), which is my
annual work plan for 2003.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this the same as it was in the
previous years?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. I've added things that had to do with land
development codes, growth management plans, changed items that
didn't fit, and made sure that I brought this in -- in line with the
strategy, the strategic objectives and goals that the board had decided
upon in March of this year for this year to make sure that it supported
that, and we're basically aligning every annual plan in the county to
configure to that strategic goals and objectives that were done by the
board in March.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioners, anyone got some
comments on Mr. Mudd's annual work plan?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. Is there anything in here
about attentiveness?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: What's attentiveness?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, I'm here every day.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's attentive all the time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And if you really want to test him,
Page 148
November 5, 2002
try at three o'clock in the morning, sending out an Email, and see the
response come back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Come on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This guy sleeps with the computer
next to his bed waiting for Email to come in. That's for everyone out
in the audience. It's J -- Jim Mudd, colliergov.net, three o'clock in the
morning. Fine.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim doesn't sleep long, but he
sleeps fast.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion -- we're going to
come back, right to you.
We've got a commotion -- a motion -- a motion by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've got some questions.
Jim, you and I talked about some of these yesterday. I don't
think you have any problems with them. One of those was the --
some reference to an improvement in the accounting and budgeting
system, and I know that's going to take a long time. I wouldn't
expect it to be done over the next 12 months, but I would hope that
we could define some achievable goals over the next 12 months that
will move us in the direction of more effective budgeting and
accounting so that we can get through that process without quite so
much difficulty as we have in the past.
And one additional area is a specific reference to coordinating
draft staff positions with the commissioners individually if necessary
so that we all have an opportunity to see what is being drafted before
Page 149
November 5, 2002
it becomes public, and then we're placed in a position of, perhaps,
revising it dramatically or even disapproving it.
I think it would work to the mutual advantage of the
commissioners and the staff if we could work together on drafts like
the impact fees and like the human rights commission before they
wind up in final form. You know, at least we'd have some
opportunity to provide some guidance to the staff, because I think
when they come out all of a sudden without a lot of coordination
with the commission, that we find ourselves in a very difficult
position. It makes us all look a little dumb. And so if we could put a
reference to something like that that would help us improve that staff
coordination, that would be very appreciated.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You also mentioned one other yesterday
in our meeting, and that was to put some end terms on controlling
costs and costs, so we'll get those out to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, exactly.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll amend my motion to
include those comments from Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I amend my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. The only comment I got is,
I'd like to see a little more effort on the end of public relations. I
don't know if you necessarily have to fit it into your work program,
but I do think that we've been lacking in public relations for some
time effectively, especially some of the -- well, like Commissioner
Coyle just me -- some of the items that were sent out to the public,
the notice of rate increases for the utilities or the parking ordinance.
I think they could have been thought out a little bit better, and
hopefully maybe someone in public relations might be able to review
it, and then come to the -- the commissioners might have at least the
option to be able to look at it and see if it would make sense to a
layperson.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 150
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With that, is there any other
comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, public speakers?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Public speakers? Do we have
anyone?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. I have one speaker. I don't see him, but
I don't want to slight him. Bob --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Say the name.
MS. FILSON: -- Krasowski? No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You didn't slight him.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: You're kidding.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. All those in favor, indicate --
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.
Moving on to D, a claim of lien.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the county attorney
and other entities that are here today, I'd like to lead off on this item
and the several items related to it.
Before you are agenda items 10(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J),
(K), (L), and (N), items (M), as in Mary, and (O), as in Oscar, were
deleted at the beginning of the meeting.
And as you are aware, and for clarity for the public, each of the
items have a similar request for the board, and that is the approval for
the recording and filing of a claim of lien for unpaid impact fees.
Now, these all pertain to what are called either adult living
communities, adult congregate living facilities or ACLFs, adult
living facilities, sometimes called ALFs. And I want to answer, how
Page 151
November 5, 2002
did we get here and why we are here now.
We are here today because the board has directed the staff in
concert, working with the clerk and the school board, the school
board counsel, that there was an issue concerning collection of
educational impact fees from these units and others with whom we've
been dealing, and upon the recommendation of all of-- all I've
mentioned, the clerk, the county attorney, the staff, and the support
of the school board and their counsel, we have been -- we, the
county, have been going forward at board direction toward the
collection of these impact fees.
Some impact fees have been collected from some of the entities.
In other cases we've had refusal or no response and -- no final
response, but in many cases we have had significant dialogue with
the entities, their representatives and their legal counsel.
And again, part of the reason that we are here today looking for
further board authorization is merely for staff to follow the ordinance
that's already in place.
There comes a point in time in enforcement in the attempt to
collect where, under our own rules of procedure and process, it's
necessary to file a claim of lien as a predicate, as a requirement prior
to potential litigation, and your approval today will be taken as an
endorsement to litigate as necessary, which I think is not different
than your prior approval in support of the staff discussion on this
very subject.
particularly at issue here is the educational impact fee
ordinance. And again, staff working with the county attorney and the
clerk and the school board counsel have proceeded to this point, and
we can report to you that one facility, Terracina Grand, which is
noted at agenda item 10(J), has, in fact, recently initiated a lawsuit
against the county regarding the county's efforts to collect the
educational impact fee from it.
We've had another offer from the Lely Palms and Manor Care at
Page 152
November 5, 2002
Lely Palms facility, which is listed as item 19(F) on the agenda, an
offer of settlement for a partial payment of dollars claimed due and
owing by the county in regard to the education impact fees owed
there.
That item is not before you today and that item may come
before you in the future in regard to a settlement request by Lely
Palms and Manor Care or any others, but only in a coordinated way,
working with the clerk, and also the ultimate beneficiary of these
funds, which is the school board, and we're working with their
counsel even today.
I want you to know that the question is not solely whether there
never have been school-aged children residing in these residential
facilities, but whether at the time of building permit or even
Certificate of Occupancy approval, that-- and thereafter, that
children could have resided there.
The county has been guided up to this point, not merely by its
own ordinance, but also by case law, rather dynamic case law, which
came out known as the Aberdeen case up in Volusia County about a
year and a half ago. It provided a standard under the facts of that
case which talked in terms of the immutable -- or the inability for a
facility that has been developed, premises that have been developed
with construction, vertical construction, the inability for those
facilities to legally have school-aged children residing there.
And as a standard, it talked in terms of deed restrictions. In all
or nearly all of these various agenda items before you today, the facts
would -- that we have reviewed indicate that at the time of site
development plan approval and building permit approval, and I
believe in nearly all cases, if not all, at Certificate of Occupancy
approval, that, in fact, these facilities had the potential for there to be,
potentially, school-aged children residing there.
Part of the enigma of working through this problem is the fact
that several of these facilities, and they will tell you, some today,
Page 153
November 5, 2002
have, in fact, since then recorded deed restrictions which would
indicate that they cannot, from that point of recording and forward, in
fact, have school-aged children residing in those facilities.
But for the window of time that existed from building permit
and/or Certificate of Occupancy to some point thereafter, some are or
all of these facilities had the potential for there to be an impact on the
county's educational system.
Well, another thing to consider here is, you will hear discussion
saying that because we had no impact and we can prove factually by
affidavits, sworn statements, and by deed restrictions filed later that
during that window period there never were children there, and that
from this point and forward there can be no children, they will say
that there, therefore, should be no impact fee collected.
It's difficult for the county, and particularly in our discussions --
I'll call it academic discussions with the clerk and the school board
through their counsel, it's difficult for the county as the administrator
and collector of these impact fees, as well as all the other county
impact fees, for us alone to say, well, that's -- we think that it's a
question of fairness and that the county alone can say no to the
collection of these fees based on the standard that exists by the
Aberdeen case.
We expect that we will be in court and that we will have further
definition from the court as to -- for Collier County and the rest of
the state if, in fact, these kinds of factual situations that confront
Collier County are, in fact, the same kind of situations that the court
has previously said don't require or prevent the collection of impact
fees.
But we're not there yet, and we probably will have the
assistance of the court to tell us that. In the meantime, applying our
ordinance and the fact that a clerk's audit and our own review
indicates that these fees were not collected, we're going forward in
kind of a soldierly workman-like way toward that collection.
Page 154
November 5, 2002
I'd just further state that the decision of any settlement is not
before you today, although there is the potential that we may bring
something to you in the future. It's -- I'll say at the outset that it's
more problematical for us to attempt to bring to you and recommend
to you a settlement when we're not in litigation, because, again, we
want to treat these conceptual issues in a uniform manner.
And if some person offers 45 percent -- 45 cents on the dollar
and someone offers 70 cents on the dollar, they may be good deals in
the sense that we reduce risk of litigation, but at the same time, it's
easier and typically the county procedure to achieve settlement in
litigation as opposed to prior to litigation. Just to let you have a little
thought on that.
With that, I will mention that one of the speakers for you today
-- and I would ask with your indulgence, would be Mr. Moore, the
school board attorney, to follow me with a brief comment on all of
the items, and then with the assistance of Mr. Mudd we'll go through
each idea individually.
So if I may call Mick Moore, on behalf of the school board.
MR. MUDD: As Mr. Moore comes up, Commissioners, I want
to make sure that you understand, this is just one more step in our
process to try to collect those impact fees. We've given notices, we've
sent a couple of them out to each one of the different ALFs in this
particular case, and we are now looking to file claim of lien, so this is
the next step in that process.
MR. MOORE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Mick Moore, and I'm an attorney with the Collier
County school board attorney's office, and I am here today on behalf
of the school board attorney's office and the school board.
On behalf of the school board, I want to say thank you to the
commission and to county staff and the county attorney's office for
taking steps to enforce the law requiring the payment of educational
impact fees that the county and the staff has determined are due and
Page 155
November 5, 2002
owing.
The school board fully supports your efforts to enforce the law
and collect any outstanding educational impact fees, and these fees
will be used to provide for the education of our children here in
Collier County.
The school board stands ready to provide any data or other
assistance that this board may need or that county staff may need in
order to assist it in collecting these fees.
Again, thank you for taking steps to collect the fees that are due
under the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And at this point, we -- do we have
the petitioner for the first one?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, in fact, there isn't a petitioner. There may
be speakers for several of these items. But these are staff items
before the board, and the board recommendation is very similar-- the
staff recommendation is very similar to the titles that appear you --
appear before you as the individual agenda items, merely looking for
the board approval which is, in essence, a ratification of what our
ordinance already provides in going forward toward enforcement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Thank you. In the Aberdeen
case which you have referred to and gave as guidance pertaining to
the Aberdeen case, is there anything else in the Aberdeen case that
we should consider when we make a decision on leading these
properties?
MR. WEIGEL: Good question. We think not or I'd be telling
you about it. The Aberdeen case -- perhaps someone else will have a
different point of view. But the Aberdeen case wasn't talking about
adult living facilities such as these before you today, but it was
talking about a residential unit.
And it seemed that a crucial point for the court had to do with
Page 156
November 5, 2002
some kind of mechanisms being in place, either by virtue of the
county, the county or city, municipality, whatever the local
government issue, that it would require either a government approval
for school-aged children to come in there, such as a modification to a
zoning Ordinance or PUD, or that there were, in fact, deed restrictions
in place or should have been in place to indicate that there was an
inability for school-aged children to be there.
And part of the analogy is, there are a lot of single-family
homes. Now, obviously these adult facilities take different forms,
but they're often units that are connected but not necessarily so.
There are people in single-family homes who may be not of
childbearing age, what have you, who would purport to say, I have
no children here, I -- this house that's been constructed will have no
impact.
But by virtue of the fact that it is a house and it may have an
impact, whether at any particular point in time there are children
there impacting the school system or people that do or don't have cars
impacting the roads -- it can analogize to almost any impact fee that
we wish to discuss -- the fact is, is that unless there's an impossibility
of an impact, then the impact is a legitimate and legal assessment to
be made against that constructed premises.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if it was an ALF that was
similar to an apartment that had no kitchen to where the facility
provided the meals for the residents, is that a factor in our
deliberation?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it is, and -- let's see. Well, we look to other
factors, too, as to state licensure that would indicate that by being
licensed, it would take a change of license for such facility to have a
-- legally to have school-aged children residing there. So we've
attempted to cover the bases.
And we don't look with a cynical eye at the facts and
information as provided to us. In fact, if there are facts that assist us
Page 157
November 5, 2002
to reach a different conclusion than enforcement, we welcome that,
and these are the mat -- these are the items before you today where
we have not found the facts and compelling instruments or other
indices that would show that, for a period of time at least, there was a
potential that they might have had school-aged children there.
And again, it's a difficult issue because several of these facilities
at this point in time will not have school-aged children, and the
facilities' representatives tell us that they could provide affidavits or
other kinds of information that would state that no child ever lived
there.
It's still a little bit analogous, if not a lot analogous, to any
facility, any residential unit saying, well, I never had any kids in my
house, so why am I paying this impact fee.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, then we'll
come back to you, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I see a lot of suits in the room.
We're burning a thousand plus an hour here, on a good day.
I've got some general questions. Of all the cases in front of us,
how many are solely dealing with the school impact fee?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'll have support staff assist both --
either Jackie or Phil Tindall or Paula.
MS. ROBINSON: Most of the -- yes, I'm sorry. Jacqueline
Hubbard Robinson, assistant county attorney. Good afternoon,
Commissioners.
We have six, according to Paula Fleishman, who's been
handling the numbers for us and doing an excellent job, I might add,
that are solely school impact fees.
The others have school impact fees that are owed, and in some
instances, may even be entitled to refunds because of overpayments.
And I'd like to explain that briefly by saying that when the board
instructed us to go forward and investigate the status of these
Page 158
November 5, 2002
institutions, we looked at all of the impact fees and we found that in
some instances, there had been overpayments, and so we included
those also.
The position of staff, including the clerk, has been that the
overpayments would be an issue that would be decided upon the
payment of the impact fees that are owed to the county.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is that only for schools, or have
we got a mix?
MS. ROBINSON: No, there are no overpayments for schools
that I'm aware of at all. They're overpayments for road impact fees,
primarily because many of these institutions were improperly
characterized as commercial ventures as opposed to residential
ventures.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. Let me ask it again. How
many clean cases do we have here that are only dealing with school
impact fees, six?
MS. ROBINSON: Six, except in our opinion all of the cases are
clean in terms of that issue.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But some of them have -- may
end up in a mixed decision?
MS. ROBINSON: No. Well, legally we don't think so in terms
of whether or not they owe school impact fees. The issues are very
clear and relatively simple, and that is, at the time of the issuance of
the building permit or any other time where it was appropriate to pay
the school impact fees, did they pay it? And the answer in every
single one of these cases is no, they did not pay it.
The second question is, if at the time they were to pay the
impact fees, did they have an exemption, a recognized exemption
under the law, and in our opinion, none of these facilities had a
recognized exemption, not one of them.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So none had a deed restriction at
the point that they came for their permits or impact fees?
Page 159
November 5, 2002
MS. ROBINSON:
COMMISSIONER
MS. ROBINSON:
COMMISSIONER
MS. ROBINSON:
No.
CARTER: Or for COs?
No, none of these did.
CARTER: Okay.
There were -- let's see. Aston Gardens was
primarily the institution that was represented quite ably by Mr.
Yovanovich. And at the time of their last appearance before the
board, the board ruled that if they secured their deed restrictions prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, then the board would
have them exempt. They would be exempt. And in most instances,
that did apply.
However, there are still two buildings in which the Certificate of
Occupancy was issued prior to the recording of the deed restrictions.
And our position is that a retroactive filing, or a filing after the fact,
doesn't put the properties in the position that they should have been
in when the fees were due. It does make them exempt, perhaps, in
the future, but not in the past.
And so I think the issues can be easily summarized with all of
these institutions. They're basically the same. There're different facts
for each one, but essentially the legal issues are pretty much the
same.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. What I was looking for, if
there was a way to deal with the school impact fee issue collectively
across the board from -- just as a quasijudicial person, feeling that
each case that I rule on up here as a commissioner sets a precedent
for the next case that comes in front of us.
And I'm saying, how could I, thumbs up, thumbs down back and
forth without creating more turmoil judicially, because if all these
groups are going to go to court, what is it going to cost us in legal
fees to defend ourselves in this process?
I'm trying to find a clean way to deal with the issue, and maybe
we have to go case by case, but if there was some way to deal with
Page 160
November 5, 2002
this in a broader basis by looking at school impact fees, do we or
don't we, then that relieves that point in the case for all cases. But if
there's mixed issues here on certain cases, then those have to be
heard individually. I'm looking for procedure.
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. Commissioner Carter, if I may speak to
that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes, ma'am.
MS. ROBINSON: Our office has taken the position -- and
David can correct me if I'm incorrect here -- that what is before you
today is a request by staff for you to engage an administrable act of
approval of the filing of the claim of lien.
These matters are on the county manager's agenda. They
originally were on the agenda for consent. We have not requested a
full-blown hearing today, although we are granting -- or the county
manager's granting the property owners the ability to come before
you and state their case.
We're simply asking you to do what you've done in the past,
which is allow us to continue to proceed with the collection effort.
And this is a necessary process under our ordinance in order to
proceed. Thus far, the cost of the litigation hasn't been very much
because most of it, if not all of it, has been handled in house, in our
office.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, that will be the will of the
board in the way you want to proceed. I'm not necessarily
comfortable where we're going, but I will swim through it to find out
-- you know, if we're going to proceed with this, you know, do you
proceed with filing the liens, which leads to coming back to
full-blown hearings, and finally, ups or down into the courtroom, that
causes me some concern.
If there's a way to do that up front and not have to proceed if we
get resolution, that makes sense to me. But I'm not an attorney. I'm
not going to start practicing law here in my last meeting.
Page 161
November 5, 2002
But I think I've sat through enough of these that -- I've heard
some pretty strong arguments on the Aberdeen case, statute of
limitations, and the filing of deed restrictions that raises a lot of
questions in my mind, that if I had to sit here six months from now
and go through this, would it be any different than what I'm going to
hear today?
And counselor, I can't answer that question at this point.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, I'll respond briefly, and that is, whether
there are issues of statute of limitations, those are defenses that are
raised in court.
In regard to deed restrictions, again, the efficacy, the
appropriateness and timeliness of deed restrictions is one which
essentially we have little ability to weigh on the county. We are, in
essence, sort of trustee administrators on behalf of the school board,
and so for the -- it's very difficult for the county to step out alone and
say, we don't believe we should go forward and collect these fees
because of difficulty or cost of litigation, because, in essence, we're
part of the process with the school board, and of course, the clerk's
been watching us very closely and helped us initiate this process in
the first place.
So it's not easy. It's a bit difficult, although interestingly
enough; the facts and the law are going to be probably
straightforward arguments, and I tend to think that the litigation, if
and when it ensues, will not be particularly time-consuming or
extraordinary.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to ask you one more
question, and beg the time I'm taking.
Procedurally, who had the responsibility to initiate this
challenge? Are we the keeper of the impact fees or did we delegate
that to the school board and should the school board be the one that is
proceeding with this versus the Board of County Commissioners?
MR. WEIGEL: That's a very good question. I think that this --
Page 162
November 5, 2002
that this governing body and the school board could enter into an
agreement toward the -- toward that if it wished -- if it wished to
entertain that further.
I really do believe though, up to this point in time, that the
county staff, county attorney office, and the clerk, you know,
recognize that we are enforcing a county ordinance. It happens to be
to the benefit of the school infrastructure, but we have standing, and
in fact, are the ones that have to stand forward on this unless
someone else would step up and go forward on our behalf.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Counselor. That's all
of my questions.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, if I can interject real quick to
make sure that we have some specifics. There was a mention of six.
On the agenda today, you have five ALFs or items that are strictly
school, okay? And they are 10(D), they are 10(H), they are 10(I),
they are 10(J) and 10(N), okay? All of the items -- and there's nine
of them that are still active on this agenda, because (L), (M), and (O)
have been taken off and deleted from the agenda. It totals impact
fees -- and I've got the most recent that was done this morning.
What you have in front of you is $919,217.56 in impact fees that
we're trying to collect. It breaks out to $739,131 for schools,
$102,884 for parks, $32,132.56 for libraries, and $45,070 for roads,
that gives us a total of $919,217.56, and that's what those items
represent in front of you today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Just a point of
clarification.
You had mentioned something about before they filed their
documentation for exemption, they're stating that there had never
been children living in there. I kind of was under the impression that
the building was what was charged the impact fee, not the business.
Page 163
November 5, 2002
So just -- and I'm -- you know, correct me there, but if it's -- if the
impact fee is with regard to the building, building height, building
dimensions and so forth, if, for instance, that business, that ALF goes
bankrupt for one reason or another and then they have to sell that
building to a children's nursery or to a -- you know, to maybe a
private school, then do they charge the impact fee?
MR. WEIGEL: I'll respond to that. The impact fee paid upon
initial construction on undeveloped property is an impact fee that
runs with the land and, therefore, having once been paid, if the uses
don't change to have an additional or higher impact against the
property, whether it's education impact, roads, parks, everything else
of the impact fees, if there's no higher impact with successive
ownership and change of use, then there's never a requirement for
additional impact.
But even with a single-family home, if you add on a bunch of
rooms and convert it to something different than initially provided
for under the terms and measurements that go into determining
impact fees for single-family homes, then an additional impact fee
would be paid at the issuance of the building permit to effectuate that
new change to the premises. And it's no different whether it's a
commercial structure or a residential structure.
So I think where you're looking here is that once paid, then the
property continues to have the ability to have all the impacts that
those payments -- that those impact fee payments were endeavoring
to cover.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But if not paid, then --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I think what happens,
Commissioner, is, if you change the use, you have to go with the new
impact fee. There might have been a base amount paid, but if it's a
higher use, higher impact, you've got to pay the difference.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: But you also mentioned, if not paid. Again, if
Page 164
November 5, 2002
you come in again -- again, as Mr. Carter had said, if they're not paid
and the use -- a new use comes in, then you pay -- you come in and
pay that at that time, the additional fees due.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me see if I can -- I can
understand exactly what you're recommending, David. I mean, not
that it's obscure. I just want to make sure -- MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that I understand.
You're suggesting that all of these issues are a simple matter of
interpreting the ordinance.
MR. WEIGEL: And applying the case law.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And applying the case law.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the decision really is whether
we apply a lien because impact fees have not been paid or not file a
lien.
MR. WEIGEL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the question seems to be
relatively simple under the law, that if you didn't have a deed
restriction at the time of Certificate of Occupancy, at least by that
time --
MR. WEIGEL: Or some other instrument or inability to have
school-aged children residing there. Because there might be some
other instrument or some other restriction in place, such as a license
with the state that prohibits a use including children to reside there.
Any of those elements, if they were present or not present is what
we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then that makes my
question a little more difficult, because what I was trying to
determine is, if you were recommending that we just make the
decisions of whether or not we apply the liens to all of these
Page 165
November 5, 2002
properties because you have advised us they're deficient and then
deal with the justifications that they might have, why these liens
should not be appropriate at some later date, is that what you're
saying to us?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I am. That's a good point, because once
the liens are applied to the property, that will have an effect on the
property owners. Again, whether it's individual owners or a
corporate owner really makes no difference, but the ownership of
record will find that their title is, in fact, affected. One might say
dirtied in the sense that there is a lien against their property.
That may have ramifications with their lending -- with their
lenders who may or may not have agreements with these developer
enterprises, that there should be no liens on their property that have
the equivalent status as tax liens while they are still being financed
and paid for over time.
Now another reason that the lien -- the filing of the claim of lien
on the property records is important and, in fact, necessary is that if
it's not done, there cannot be the following action of initiating a
lawsuit. And in fact, if not done, then issues of statute of limitations
will become even more significant and problematical if we intend to
continue our enforcement and collection efforts.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My only reservation with that
approaCh is that we might be taking action that will create financial
hardships for someone particularly if they -- their lending institution
will not permit a lien against the property, even though they might
have reasonable justification to convince us that we really should
remove the lien. And it puts them at a very difficult position. How
would you recommend we deal with a situation like that?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, another good question, certainly, and that
is that these institutions, these facilities, have known of this issue
now for quite some time. They probably have had an ability to get
their ducks in order one way or another, including with the assistance
Page 166
November 5, 2002
of counsel.
Additionally, there's the possibility that they would be treated,
arguably, no different than a new development that wishes to come
on-line but they don't like the impact fee that they're being charged.
They pay under protest in that circumstance and then argue about it
later.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So there's nothing with respect to
the process you're recommending that would close out anyone's right
to come back to us and say, you should not have placed a lien on our
property and this is why?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't see an ability for them to come
back to you in a nonlitigation status and say to you, no, we want
another.hearing on this of some kind of another. And this -- these
agenda items today are not for an extensive hearing on other issues
other than just looking for your continued support for us to apply the
ordinance.
There is an argument that, based on your prior direction to us,
these -- these claims for lien would just be filed in the normal course
of things. But we're very concerned about working with the affected
public and the affected owners and with the school board and the
clerk so that, in fact, there is another opportunity, call it due process
or extra due process, for affected representatives or the affected
properties to, in fact, make a statement on the record to you today,
that we will advise you now and probably advise you after they make
their statements, that we're really only looking for your continued
endorsement for us to go forward toward the enforcement of these
liens.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, does that process not force
them into litigation as a way of resolving the dispute over the liens?
MR. WEIGEL: It probably does.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that in everyone's best interest?
Would it not be better to try to find some resolution, if a resolution is
Page 167
November 5, 2002
possible, before we get into court?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, we've been working a long time even to
get to this point, and it appears that it may be relatively irresolvable
other than the fact that I think this board would be in a difficult
position to start to accept settlements of money that's ultimately for
the benefit of the school board. It would require a coordinated effort
with the school board if we get into that prelitigation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are the legal fees associated with
defending our position paid for out of school impact fees?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we? Do they come out of ad
valorem property taxes?
MS. ROBINSON: I think we definitely could.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You could?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I think that's an absolute
necessity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Then let's go after it. Somebody
else is paying the legal fees, who cares? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, no.
MS. ROBINSON: I want to make one other point pretty clear,
Commissioners, and that is the ordinance that you voted in, the
consolidated impact fee ordinance, and the ordinance that it replaced,
the former impact fee ordinance, did provide several mechanisms for
the property owners to come forward and attempt to request a full
hearing on these matters and present their cases to you. Only in one
instance -- only in two instances did the property owners do so, so
there were administrative processes that were available that were not
availed by the property owners.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they were notified of this at
that point in time?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. We notified and the impact fee
Page 168
November 5, 2002
coordinator staff notified the property owners several times. In fact,
more times than our ordinance required.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. My final question then is
this, since we have had-- we have provided the affected properties
an opportunity to have a hearing on this in the past, is it your
assessment that those people who have not chosen to come and take
advantage of that hearing process today are people who will accept
only one of two solutions, one is that we drop the impact fee
completely or they're going to take us to court? MS. ROBINSON: That's--
MR. WEIGEL: I suspect that's the case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: We do have one, as I mentioned, Lely Palm and
Manor Care, which has submitted in writing an offer of
approximately $45,000 toward what we believe is an 84,000 and
change outstanding debt. That is not before you today and it would
be inappropriate for us, the county attorney office and manager office
to bring it to you today without working with the outside -- with the
counsel for the school board and probably the school board itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Before we go on to
Commissioner Henning, then Commissioner Carter, at what point are
we going to be ready, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, to move this
up so we start hearing these petitioners and going forward on it? I
think we covered this procedural part of it fairly well. I feel
comfortable I understand it, but let's go down the line here.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Good for you. At some point
in time I would like to hear from the school board's attorney on the
opinion of using school impact fees to litigate this case.
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. And in fact, Mr. Tindall reminded
me that administration for enforcement is provided in the ordinance.
Page 169
November 5, 2002
I just didn't recall it as I was responding to you. So from the county
attorney office and Mr. Tindall on behalf of the county manager's
office, we indicate that it is there. It would be nice if the school
board attorney would recognize that too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It probably won't work, but I
would have suggested they collectively would have had a meeting
with the county attorney under the direction of the Board of County
Commissioners.
As I said, you come to this meeting, you sit down, you work
through this or the next stop is the Board of County Commissioners
and long case presentations, and see if there isn't some resolution.
And we may be beyond that point, we may have to listen to all these
cases this afternoon. I have serious questions in my own mind if
we're not just running down a slippery slope. It is not going to end
up where I think the Board of County Commissioners is going to be
in the future. Your call, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, let's proceed.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sue had a question.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Who has a question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sue, go ahead.
MS. FILSON: We need to change stenographers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You need a break, no problem.
Okay.
MS. FILSON: We're going to switch.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, okay. We'll take a
five-minute break. Don't go too far.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #1 OD
Page 170
November 5, 2002
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR ENCORE SENIOR VILLAGE FOR
IINPAID IMPACT FEF. S-APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: With everyone's permission, why
don't we proceed with the first item, which is Item D. Am I correct?
MR. MUDD: 1 OD, and that's the claim of lien for Encore
Senior Village.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Do we have a presentation to
make from the county's side or does what we already had, that
covered them in blanket?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you've had that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Fine. Then we'll go to the
petitioner that represents them. Is there a petitioner here for Item D?
MR. WEIGEL: They're not a petitioner, but it may be a
representative of the facility.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah, that will work fine.
MS. FILSON: I have no speakers, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No speakers?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then Mr. Chairman, I would like
to make a motion to approve the claim of lien to be filed in the
amount of $49,620.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And I'll second that.
Have a motion from Commissioner Fiala for approval, second
from myself, Commissioner Coletta. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Carter is the
dissenting vote with Commissioner Coyle missing.
Item #10E
Page 171
November 5, 2002
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR ASTON GARDENS AT PELICAN MARSH
FOR IJNPAID IMPACT FEES-APPROVED
The next one is E.
MS. FILSON: This one I have speakers on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Fine Well, why don't we go first
with the petitioner or the representative first, if they're here.
MR. MUDD: 10E is a claim of lien for Aston Gardens at
Pelican Marsh.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker will be Rich Yovanovich, and
he will be followed by Matthew Hoffman.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing Aston Care in this matter.
I want to start out by going back to an earlier discussion the
Commission had on impact fees, and that there is a constitutional test
that applies to charging impact fees, and it was a -- it is a two-prong
test, and this two-prong test has existed since 1976, and it applies to
all impact fees, whether it be for water, sewer, roads or, in this case,
schools.
And the test is as follows. The first is that the local government,
not me, the local government must demonstrate a reasonable
connection or a rational nexus between the need for additional capital
facilities and the growth in population generated by the subdivision.
The burden is on the government to prove there is a need for more
schools as a result of my client's facility.
The second test is that the government must show a reasonable
connection or rational nexus between the expenditures of the funds
collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. So you also
have to .prove that the money you collected from our subdivision was
spent to benefit our project.
I submit to you that Aston Care, and we've had a long
Page 172
November 5, 2002
discussion about this, this is probably the first one that was raised,
has no impact on the school system. It does not generate any
students and clearly the money you're collecting will never go to the
benefit of the residents of Aston Gardens.
Aston Gardens is an adult community. It has always been an
adult community. The buildings in question were permitted in 1998,
the application in 1998, finally approved in 1999 before the
Aberdeen case.
Now, what the county attorney's office hasn't fully explained to
you is that the Aberdeen case doesn't deal with adult congregate
living facilities or adult facilities, because in that case, which is a
Volusia County case, Volusia County already acknowledged in their
impact fee ordinances that those communities don't have an impact,
and they didn't charge those communicates school impact fees.
That case deals with a mobile home park that was a 55 and older
mobile home park, and that mobile home park basically said, we
have no impact, therefore, you can't charge us impact fees.
Aston Gardens is just like the Aberdeen mobile home park.
We've never had the ability to have students live there. There has
always been a contractual prohibition from children coming to visit
for more than two weeks at any one time and three weeks in any
year. That contractual provision has always been in place before
anybody moved in. There was a written prohibition for residents
staying -- from students -- I mean, children actually coming and
becoming permanent residents.
In fact, we met with your staff almost two years ago now to
explain how we operate our facility, and your staff issued a check
refunding both the school and the road impact fees, because they
acknowledged we didn't have an impact. That check was issued on
August 1 st, 2001.
Almost a year later, I get a phone call and I'm invited to a
meeting with your staff, and I'm informed that the County Attorney's
Page 173
November 5, 2002
Office had advised them that they were incorrect, and that we needed
to have a recorded deed restriction in place in order to be exempt.
Well, I submit to you, Commissioners, that that Aberdeen case
does not say that. The Aberdeen case said that in this particular case
where there was a recorded deed restriction you could not charge an
impact fee. It didn't analyze whether there were other means of
getting there to assure that there is no impact on the school system.
We have met with your staff and we had said, I'll tell you what,
we'll record the deed restriction and we did that, so that the staff
could be comfortable regarding school-age children from that point
forward.
We have provided them copies of our contracts that showed you
cannot have children there. We have provided an affidavit on two
separate occasions as to the ages of everybody who has ever lived
there regarding school-aged children, and I will tell you that we have
253 residents, and of those 253 residents, there have been two under
the age of 70. One was 66, and she moved in after the recording of
the deed restriction. The other one was 64, and they moved in before
the recording of the deed restriction.
What this affidavit proves is that we have always enforced our
written, contractual prohibition on children. We provided that
information in reliance upon a letter we received from your staff, and
I want to quote part of what that letter says.
It says, if you can demonstrate that school-aged children have
never resided in the units between the issuance of the certificates of
occupancy and the filing of deed restrictions, we will be pleased to
examine the materials to determine if an exemption should apply.
I have provided that information. I have yet to get a written
response to that information. I'm assuming, since we're here today,
that the county attorney's office, for whatever reason, doesn't accept
that information as enough.
So I differ that there has actually been dialogue. We have
Page 174
November 5, 2002
provided information on request and we don't get a response.
We also wrote to the School Board staff and asked, could you
provide'us a letter, basically saying that no children have ever lived
in Aston Gardens and you've never had students from Aston Gardens
in the school system.
The original response was sure, then we were later contacted
and said, well, we really need that letter to come from Collier
County. I provided that information to county staff, and to my
knowledge is the county attorney's office has yet to ask for
verification that there are any students that have ever resided in
Aston Gardens.
And Commissioners, I want to read to you again from the
Aberdeen case, because I don't know that you have been provided
with all of the information.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may ask you, about how much
longer will you need --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Probably a minute.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
MR. YOVANOVICH: The Aberdeen court, which is the
Florida Supreme Court said -- it talks about the possibility of
students, because what I understood the county attorney's office to
say is that if there was a mere possibility, you have to charge the
impact fees.
The Aberdeen court didn't say that. What the Aberdeen court
said, it says the rational nexus test requires Aberdeen to have more
than a possible or an incidental impact upon the need for schools.
In the final analysis, housing that allows children is the land use
that creates the need for new schools. Our land use is an adult only
community. We don't create the need for schools.
What I'm asking for, Commissioners, at this point is, is that the
Commission look at this, take a step back and say, is there an impact
for the school system. I think the answer clearly is no. There never
Page 175
November 5, 2002
has been an impact to the school system. There never will be an
impact to the school system. There is potentially, possibly a remote
chance, but the Aberdeen case says that's not good enough.
Commissioners, I don't think that the county taxpayers or even
the school impact fee trust account wants to spend the money on this
case as well as the cases you're going to hear from to ultimately find
out that you're wrong, that you don't have an impact. Impact fees can
only be charged if there's an impact. It's different from ad valorem
taxes where you don't have to show the impact.
We respectfully request that the claim of lien not be filed, and in
fact, there is some money that is owed to us. We have paid some
fees under protest before the recording of the certificate of
occupancy. Certificate of occupancy was issued simultaneously with
the recording of the deed restriction, and for whatever reason, we're
not getting any credit or getting that money back.
Matthew Hoffman can get into greater detail on the operations
of Aston Gardens, and if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy
to answer them.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Matthew Hoffman. He's
your final speaker on this particular issue.
MR. HOFFMAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Matthew Hoffman. I'm the vice-president of development for
Aston Care Systems.
Approximately two years ago our company, with the help of
counsel, sought the direction and input of the staff on how we could
address the school impact fee issues. We provided all of the
requested information and the fees that were paid were refunded to
us. As Mr. Yovanovich said, the course went on.
Upon the request and the awareness of the necessity for an
easement, we recorded it to follow the county's request to do that as
well. As Mr. Yovanovich alluded to, from day one, we have had a
leasing contract or an instrument, as the attorney -- county attorney's
Page 176
November 5, 2002
office referenced, that said that no one under the age of 55 could live
in our community, and that was a signed contract that was executed
with every resident in our community.
At the time of permit pulling for all the buildings in question,
when the permit was pulled to build them, at that time we did meet
the current definition of an adult only retirement community, and that
has changed with the new impact ordinance, thus the Aberdeen case.
Per the exact language that you had up on the screen earlier
today about impact fees, is that they must be assessed commensurate
with the burdens upon the public facilities created by the new
development. We've done everything we can, and I think reasonably
demonstrated that our development has no impact, and because it has
no impact, we're requesting that there should be no fee associated
with it.
By applying the lien now, if that were to go forward and that
would be your decision, you are penalizing us for a decision that
you'd like to make later, and so I, you know, ask that you consider
that, and that you not go forward applying the lien to our company,
but that we take the steps necessary to work this out before we reach
that point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Carter,
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I have two questions for you, sir.
MR. HOFFMAN: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One, have you paid all other
impact fees, road impacts, parks, et cetera?
MR. HOFFMAN: We have paid road impact fees. I know that
also with this issue that we paid originally our road impact fees under
the congregate care adult facility, and the county has come back and
said, you shouldn't have been classified that way because you didn't
have the deed restriction in place at the appropriate time, and we
want you to pay the multi-family rate, and our argument on that issue
Page 177
November 5, 2002
is indeed that we're not multi-family, we're adult congregate, and we
paid those fees.
So relative to all other fees, we have paid them. We're not
arguing that we should pay impact fees, and we --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand. The second
question, how much school impact -- school ad valorem fees taxes do
you pay a year?
MR. HOFFMAN: I do not know the answer to that question off
the top of my head, but I can find out for you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Any idea?
MR. HOFFMAN: We have -- I don't know, sir. I don't know
the answer to that question. I apologize.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But you do pay them?
MR. HOFFMAN: Absolutely. We have approximately 260
residents right now living in our community, and when it's full, the
occupancy will be nearly 400 there, people paying taxes in the
county.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Rich, at the time of C.O., is
that when you filed your deed of restriction or was it much after that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It was -- it was -- we -- it was prior to
that, except for it was on all but three of the buildings we were able
to record the deed restriction prior to C.O. On the first three, the
C.O.s occurred before the Aberdeen case came out. So it was
impossible to -- you know, it's easy to be a Monday morning
quarterback, you know.
In 1998, if we all knew that Aberdeen was going to come out
that way, we would have recorded the deed restrictions. Nobody
knew that, including the county, when it adopted its ordinance,
because if the county had thought that the only way to get an
exemption was to have in its ordinance, thou shalt have a recorded
deed restriction, you could have had it in your ordinance and we
Page 178
November 5, 2002
would have done it.
What we're saying is nobody knew about it. We have taken
measures to comply with the Aberdeen decision, and therefore, why
are we trying to collect from a facility that clearly has no impact.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess on this case the
question would be what are we charging them for? Is it the first three
buildings or is it thereafter, or a combination of both?
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner, I think it's just those first three
buildings.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: And the other ones -- this was a phased
development, and the other ones came in later, and they had
documentation at or prior to C.O.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got one question that I'd like to ask.
Would this be something that we -- that would be legally defensible
if we went to court with it? Could we expect to be -- to -- reasonably
expect to win in the end if we were to find that they still owed these
impact fees?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, if the court found that they owed them,
then we've won, but I think that there is a reasonable case to be
made, based in part on the fact that there is not a complete definition
provided by the case law in this regard, and again, the county
attorney doesn't come forward on this alone, but we're working with
the clerk's office as well as the School Board, and we believe that
there's an -- there are some issues here that aren't answered, and
besides which there are, I would say, hundreds of thousands of
dollars of fees for these types of facilities and other facilities, mobile
homes or R.V. parks and stuff, that have been collected.
So to reverse our stand at this point and decide that this is
something not to go forward may potentially put the county in a
position of having to refund or at least be at challenge for fees that
have already been collected over a period of years.
Page 179
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And what is the recommendation
from the clerk's office? Do we have one?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the clerk's been working with us
consistently at this point.
Jim -- thank you. I'm glad you're here.
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good morning. For the
record, Jim Mitchell, the director of finance and accounting. And
Jackie and David are correct, we have been step and step with them
along the way.
The one thing to keep in mind is this is not our fight. This is
definitely an issue that's the Board and also the School Board, but we
feel that we have an interest in it from the standpoint that you had an
ordinanCe in place, the impact of the ordinance, and if there is a
question of whether those impact fees should have been collected, I
think you have to apply a test and see what the law says.
Listening to Dave and also Jackie speak, I think they have a
very good argument there, and I think the only place that it appears
that we're going to be able to solve this is in the courts.
So we're relying on what David and Jackie have to say in this
particular issue.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I got an answer. I'm not too
sure what it was, but I got an answer. So here we are. And I want--
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'm going to make a motion that
we drop the filing of the claim of lien against Aston Gardens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the motion failed because of
the second.
That leaves us one other option.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, I'm not going to make it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll go ahead and make it, that
we follow staff recommendations and file the lien.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second it.
Page 180
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All those in favor-- well, any discussion?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the opposing vote is
Commissioner Carter.
Item #1 OF
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR ARDEN COURTS AT LELY PALMS AND
MANOR CARE AT LELY PALMS FOR UNPAID IMPACT FEES-
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF $45,000, BASED UPON
APPROVAL BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CLERK OF
COURTS; IF NOT APPROVED BY THE ABOVE REFERENCED,
CI,AIM OF IJFN WIIJJ FIFJ FIIJF, D
Okay. Moving on. The next one is --
MR. MUDD: It's 1 OF, and it's the claim of lien on Arden Courts
at Lely Palms and Manor Care at Lely Palms.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, I have three speakers on this
one.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Would you go ahead and call
them forward?
MS. FILSON: Michael Ciccarone. He will be followed by
Mark Broussard.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, sir.
MR. CICCARONE: Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. My name
is Michael Ciccarone. I'm the attorney for the operator of the
facility. We actually lease the ground from another entity. We don't
-- we don't own the property, but we have been assessed an impact
Page 181
November 5, 2002
fee deficiency, which I would like to explain to you and give you
some dates and numbers, because our case is considerably more
complex than the last one.
We're talking about two separate permits that were issued in
1997. One was for the addition to a nursing home, and there appears
to be no dispute that that's a nursing home. The number of beds built
were 20. The owner was assessed for 10. These are undisputed
facts.
The other, which is the more complicated one, is the Arden
Courts facility, which consists of 52 specially licensed ALF units.
This is not merely an ALF. This is an extended Alzheimer's care
facility, licensed as such by the State, and I want to share with you
the numbers that are at issue here.
There is an alleged deficiency of $9,387.04 for parks. This
relates to the 52 unit facility. There is an alleged deficiency for
schools of $43,004.50. This also relates to the 52 unit facility.
There is an alleged $30,056 deficiency for parks associated with
the 52 unit facility. Not shown on your agenda sheet is a purported
overpayment of $3,085.76 relating to the nursing home.
With respect to roads not shown on your agenda sheet is an
offset which reduces the -- it's an offset of $1,768 which reduces the
alleged deficiency to $102. We are the entity which made a $45,000
settlement offer. It's unfortunate that you've been told you can't
consider it, because I think you have to understand that this is not a
free ride for the county. This is not a risk-free matter.
Mr. Yovanovich has already explained the Aberdeen case. I
have to 'point out that the government attorneys are the only attorneys
I've ever talked to who read the Aberdeen case the way they're
reading it, but they're your attorneys, you'll have to make a decision
on whether you care to run the risk.
One of the risks you have to consider is you are now about to
record a lien. You are now about to slander title. That carries with it
Page 182
November 5, 2002
liability. I am professionally obligated to advise my clients, not
merely to defend what we've done, but to counter-claim for damages
which will include all of the fees that they will spend on this case.
So you had better be right.
I'm not going to repeat Yovanovich's arguments. They were
very well done. What he didn't tell you, and the other attorneys
probablY will allude to this, that there's a statute of limitations issue.
We hear about this four years later.9 There are principles called
equitable estoppel. The govemment can't go back ad infinitum,
revisit an issue, say, gee, we made a mistake in good faith, pay us
$90,000, without some consequences.
As we see it -- the reason we made a $45,000 offer is quite
simple. It actually represents more than what we should have been
charged for parks and libraries, but weren't. For some reason, those
fees weren't charged. They should have been charged at the nursing
home rate. I think it's too late to charge them, but we were going to
pay them, plus.
I guarantee you that if you do on this case what you just did on
the last one, that offer is off the table. We go for broke at that point.
All or nothing. And so you need to understand that the advice you're
getting carries with it some risks.
I'm going to have Mark Broussard come up. He runs the
facility, 52 bed facility. He will testify that under the laws of this
state, under their license, it is absolutely legally impossible to have
anybody living there except medically certified persons who have
been diagnosed with dementia, who are under -- please let me finish.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please wrap it up, sir.
MR. CICCARONE: There's a lot of liability here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I need you to wrap it up.
MR. CICCARONE: I'm getting there.
These people have been diagnosed with dementia. They're
under legal guardianship with powers of attorney. It's a locked down
Page 183
November 5, 2002
facility.' They can't leave except in the company of an employee or
relative.
He will testify you cannot get the license before the building is
certified for occupancy.
It's a legal impossibility for us to meet the test that the county
attorney tells us we have to meet under the Aberdeen case, and yet,
just as Mr. Yovanovich said, we have no impact on the schools. We
couldn't if we wanted to. We would lose our license.
Mr. Depew will explain to you how, even if that argument's not
persuasive, your staff is not reading their own ordinance correctly.
What we are is a nursing home.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sir, wrap it up.
MR. CICCARONE: I'm done, sir. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Broussard, and your
final speaker on this issue is David Depew.
MR. BROUSSARD: For the record, it's Mark Broussard, and
I'm the executive director of Arden Courts, 6125 Rattlesnake
Hammock.
Arden Courts is -- basically, I'm going to be testifying to an
affidavit that you already received. It was sent back to you in
January by Pauline Coram (phonetic). You may or may not have that
affidavit with you. If you'd like a copy, I certainly have copies with
me if you would like that.
Arden Courts was built specifically for Alzheimer's and
Alzheimer's related dementia disease. Everything right down to the
commode seat was planned for Alzheimer's. Historically, other than
mid forties, there's never been anyone younger with Alzheimer's
disease. All right.
So there wouldn't be anyone that is a child living there. A
spouse of an Alzheimer's resident could not live in my facility
without a doctor's order that says specifically that they also have
Alzheimer's disease or some related dementia. It could not be.
Page 184
November 5, 2002
Our population is specifically for Alzheimer's residents. No
other person could live there. Children are not allowed in my
facility. According to the state statute code, 58A-5.0181 lA of the
Florida code again, it just does not permit children to live in my
facility. We would allow them to visit, love to have children
interacting with our residents, but they could not live there.
Our facility is a secured facility. Residents have lost their
ability to concentrate, to know where they are, to know what home
is, to know how to tell a green light from a red light and a caution
light. They could not drive. They have lost their license or had it
revoked by a doctor. They're unable to drive a car.
They live in our facility because they're unable to come and go
with safety, so they live there in a secured facility so that they will
know that they are cared for properly. We almost become their mind
for them and provide the safety for them to live a more quality life.
Another point is that our residents, okay, some of them believe
they have homes, but their home is only a figment of their
imagination way back when they were a child. They think they have
a car.
One of my favorite stories is Margaret, who got seven people
together, and I met them in the hall about 5:30 during the sun
downing period, and Margaret was going to take them home, and the
funny thing is it was in her automobile, which was a '57 Chevy, and
it was supposed to be in the parking lot, and Margaret hasn't had an
automobile for ten years, all right, but she was going to take them all
home.
The only way that they do those things is in their minds, and
that is very much confused and very much ill because of the disease
that has got them. They couldn't be taken care of for anything else.
Personally, I don't have to work at all. I do this because of
dementia residents. I do this, not for the big bucks. I work 18 hours
a day because of 52 people that are in my residence. By the way,
Page 185
November 5, 2002
this is a 56 bed facility. I have 52 patients there. So it's a 56-bed
facility, but I could have 56 residents there.
They're all private rooms. No family members could do
anything but visit. The only parking that is there is for family
members, for my employees, and for visitors that visit these residents
in their illnesses.
This could not be anything else but an Alzheimer's under the
Florida code, but also we're -- lease the property that we're on, and
under that Naples Retirement, Inc. leasing agreement, we must be an
Alzheimer's facility. If we decided not to run this Alzheimer's
facility, the only way we could sell it is sell it to someone to run an
Alzheimer's facility. That's the only thing that we could do with it.
So for two reasons, that would never change. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick
question, sir, just for numbers clarification.
The total net that you are being liened for is $77,593.28?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not really. There was some
discrepancy there. On page 10, I brought this up to the County
Manager yesterday. On Page 10 it shows the $79,463, and they
forgot to add in the eighteen oh seven.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: So really, at the end of the day,
pure settlement, we're looking at $34,463.28 is what we would lien
for if-- well, we wouldn't lien for it. We have a choice to lien for the
full amount, members of the Board, as I understand it, or take a
settlement and for 34,463 to go do whatever you need to do.
So just a point. Thank you, sir, for the clarification.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is David Depew.
MR. DEPEW: Thank you, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is David Depew, on behalf of Arden Courts and Manor Care.
I am a planner and I have been asked to take a look at your
impact fee ordinances. I have some degree of experience reviewing
impact fee ordinances throughout the state, and one of the things I
Page 186
November 5, 2002
was asked to do was to analyze the ordinance without trying to put
too fine a point on it, because based on five minutes, I doubt that I
could even start to scratch the surface of the analysis, but let me tell
you there is some serious problems with the impact fee ordinance
that was applied at the time the permits were issued.
Special attention should be focused on the definitional
components of the ordinance. There are definitions for dwelling
units, mobile homes, residential facilities, single family facilities.
There are conspicuous, by its absence, no definitions for multi-family
units, nursing homes or retirement communities.
Correspondence has been received by the applicant at one point
describing this as a retirement community rather than as a nursing or
extended care facility, as described in your land development code.
I also looked at the studies upon which the ordinance is based,
the foundation studies that were undertaken by your consultants, and
I can tell you that the definitions in the ordinance do not correspond
to the definitions that were used in the studies in terms of the way
they're being applied at this point.
The definitions that were used in the studies were from the U.S.
Bureau of Consensus and they equated households with dwelling
units. Their dwelling unit definition does not equate household with
dwelling units, and yet, that is the fundamental basis that the impact
fee calculations were made upon, and that is where the levy is
actually taken from, based on these households.
Even in the instance of the households taken from the census
data, there was a 5 5 percent reduction in the students per household
based on the census data ratios and the actual Collier County data
ratios. Had the ratio included nursing homes, that would have been
reduced even further.
So I would tell you that the basis upon which the impact fee
levy for the school situation in regards to Arden Courts and Manor
Care is being alleged at this point, is not based upon adequate
Page 187
November 5, 2002
information, adequate data and analysis, and as such, I believe it fails
one of the critical tests with regard to the impact fee ordinance.
As I said, I've got a lot more analysis on this, but given the short
amount of time, we simply don't have time to go into it at this point.
Let me simply tell you that it is my professional belief that the
impact fee imposition of the school impact fee and to some extent the
other fees as well, which I haven't gone into, is simply not warranted
based on the data analysis that the impact fee ordinance, which is
being applied in this instance, is based.
I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question from staff on
this item.
Is there a statutes of limitations that applies to this issue?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, there's a statute of limitations that
applies to this type of civil action. The question is, when does the
statute of limitation begin to run, when do you count it. It can be
either four years, which is the general -- I think everyone is in
agreement that it's at least four. Under some circumstances, it may
be five. However, it depends upon when the count occurs. If we
concede it's four, when do you start counting the four years. That's at
issue. That's something that's going to have to be determined by the
court.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the issue would be this
was permitted in '94, correct, March 17th, '94?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. Is that correct? '94 and '97. There are
two different building permits here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What happened in '97?
MS. ROBINSON: The main one, according to our numbers
people, is the 1997 one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And you said it could
be four years or five years, whatever we apply?
Page 188
November 5, 2002
MS. ROBINSON: No. Whatever the court determines based on
the facts that are presented to it.
There's one thing that I need to point out, and that is that the
ordinance that Collier County has, that we are following, has a
unique provision in it. And that provision is that it says that in the
event Collier County staff determines that an impact fee was not paid
at the time it should have been paid, then Collier County has the
ability to send a notice of impact fee statement to the property owner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: And that's the procedure that we have been
using.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Does that supersede any
federal or state constitution?
MS. ROBINSON: No, it's in line with any federal and state
constitutional restrictions that we're aware of. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: So, you know, we're following our own
ordinance, which puts us in the position pretty much of where we are
today.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Silence is deafening.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll make a recommendation then, or at
least a suggestion, and that is, Mr. Ciccarone, the first of the three
speakers on this issue, appeared to reiterate his fact that he had
provided -- they had provided a written offer of settlement.
I again believe that this Board puts itself in a difficult position to
accept a settlement without the approval of the clerk, without the
approval of the School Board, and the School Board attorney,
working with the School Board.
If you wish to entertain the ability for this offer to settle at the
figure provided to come back to you again, based upon approval by
the School Board and the clerk, the School Board attorney, I guess
that's an action that you could take.
Page 189
November 5, 2002
I don't think an offer would have been made if they didn't feel
that there was some risk on their part too.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would entertone -- I would
entertain, Counsel -- County Attorney Weigel's suggestion to this
Board, under those conditions, to see what happens.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So that's a motion?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So that means talking to the School
Board attorney as well as --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: We would accept a $45,000
settlement conditionally on the acceptance and approval by the clerk
of courts and the School Board, then it would become a fact, a
reality.' If it's denied in either one of those two instances, then it fails
and you're right back to where you are today.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Carter, and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion? Any other comments from the county
attorney?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, that would be that if it does fail on behalf
of the School Board or the clerk, that we would have the
authorization to file a claim of lien thereafter, if you wish to include
that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will include that in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And with that, is there any
other cOmments?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make just one statement
just so you know, that $84,000 that we're talking about impact fees,
the school impact fee is 43,000, parks is 30,000, libraries is nine, and
roads is about two. So that $45,000, depending on how it gets laid
out, it will have to be proportional to all of those other ones, and I
Page 190
November 5, 2002
don't think you're going to come off the parks, libraries and roads.
So you're talking about schools getting something probably less than
$5,000.'
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Less their amount overpaid
already, which was forty-eight fifty-three, right?
MR. MUDD: I'm just talking about the amount totally owed at
this juncture, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Any other comments or
questions?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #10G
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR CANTERBURY HOUSE AT THE
VINEYARDS FOR UNPAID IMPACT FEES-STAFF
RECOMMENDATION REJECTED AND CLAIM OF LIEN NOT
TO BE FII,ED-APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD:
at the Vineyards.
MS. FILSON:
Michael Volpe.
Moving on, we're at G now.
MS. FILSON: You have one speaker.
That's the claim of lien on the Canterbury House
We have one speaker on this, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
MS. ROBINSON: On this matter, Your Honor-- sorry.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's okay. I will accept that
demotion.
MS. ROBINSON: On this matter, Commissioners, I would like
Page 191
November 5, 2002
to clarify one point on behalf of the staff, and that is that Mr. Volpe's
client did, in fact, receive a letter later than the other facilities, and
that his time -- 30-day period has not run for him to appeal to the
Board under our ordinance.
However, in order to avail himself of that appeal right under our
ordinance, he has to pay the amount of school impact fees that are
owed. Then he can appeal to the Board. I just want to make that
clear to you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Volpe.
MR. VOLPE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, for the
record, my name is Michael Volpe. I'm with the law firm of Robins,
Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi, and I'm here today representing the
Canterbury House at the Vineyards.
I think early on in the presentation made by your county
attorney, the emphasis was on the similarities of all of these
particular cases, and I think what you've heard so far is there are
similarities, but there are also some differences, and I'd like you to
focus for just a moment on the differences for the Canterbury House
at the Vineyards.
In the first instance, I just want to locate Canterbury House at
the Vineyards. It is in-- within the village square area of the
Vineyards PUD, and I'll come back to that in just a moment.
Commissioner Henning brought up the question of the statute of
limitations, and there was some discussion. There is case law that
indicates and that holds that in this particular instance, the applicable
statute of limitations is four years.
Impact fees are imposed at the time upon a land use and they are
collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. That's
when they are supposed to be paid, at the time of the issuance of a
building permit.
The client that I represent made its application for a building
permit in December of 1993, and the application was for a hospital,
Page 192
November 5, 2002
nursing home and a custodial type of a facility. The building permit
in this instance, Commissioner Henning, was issued on March 17th
of 1994, and the building permit was issued for a hospital, nursing or
custodial facility. Impact fees were paid in March of 1994.
Commencement of construction began, and in January, a letter
was sent by your staff indicating that they had miscalculated the
impact fees for EMS, that it should have been calculated based upon
hospital, nursing and custodial, and therefore, you owe additional
impact fees of approximately $4,000 for EMS. This was in January.
The C.O. for this facility was issued in April of 1995. This
facility has operated since that time, which is some eight or nine
years after the fact. The underlying debt here, if there is an
underlying debt, occurred when it was supposed to have been paid
and was not paid, and your county attorney's argument essentially
says that we could decide at any time that maybe we did something
incorrectly, and the statute of limitations never begins to run.
In order for you to have a lien, you have to have an underlying
debt. What's owed? You're trying to enforce what is owed and
unpaid. So I submit to you there is case law, which I think your
county attorney and his staff will acknowledge, says that there is a
four-year statute of limitations, four-year statute of limitations, and
even if it is five years, has long since elapsed, has expired.
And Mr. Weigel says, you know, this is a defense to be raised in
a lawsuit. I try to keep my clients out of the courtroom, and it is
indisputable, those facts are undisputed as to when this building
permit was issued. That's the issue of the statute of limitations.
The other issue that we have has to do with zoning, and the
zoning classification. Impact fees are imposed on the basis of a land
use. This facility is located, again, in the village area-- square area
of the Vineyards PUD. The only type of uses, zoning that is allowed
in that particular district are institutional type uses; essential services,
churches and other places of worship, including convents,
Page 193
November 5, 2002
monasteries, rest homes, homes for the aged, and the like.
In a little package, which were all public documents that I
delivered to you, and I apologize, this morning, your county attorney
has a footnote in our letter, which says if you can prove to our
satisfaction that you are of a like facility, you're exempt because of
zoning, and Mr. Weigel alluded to the zoning, underlying zoning as
being one of those bases for exempting an organization.
The only way I'm going to be able to convince you that my
interpretation of what this facility is, is consistent with the zoning, is
to ask for an opinion from your zoning director, and I submit to you
that when that building permit was issued back in 1994, someone
made the determination that this was consistent with the zoning, and
so you'll create a conflict if you conclude otherwise that this facility
is inconsistent with the underlying zoning.
And the third -- I'll be just on moment. The third issue, really, is
-- has to do with age. We've got other impacts other than school
impact fees, but you've heard different people talk about the age
restrictions. There is a Florida statute, and there is a provision in the
administrative code that for an adult congregate care facility, it says
that the admission criteria, you have to be 18 years of age and older.
It's 400.041 of the Florida Statute, and the administrative code that's
been promulgated.
So I'm not sure, you know, in terms of the very, very strict
interpretation of the Volusia case, that in this instance this facility, as
long as it maintains its license consistent with the zoning, it cannot,
under any circumstances, admit people under 18 years of age.
The statute of limitations, and in this instance, the land use
classification in terms of how we were classified, what we're
permitted to do, the zoning district and the other has to do for all of
your adult congregate care facilities, that there is a statutory
provision, which I'd like to hear addressed by the county attorney,
and the administrative code as to how you can admit anyone under
Page 194
November 5, 2002
18 years of age to these facilities.
We would ask that you not proceed to file a lien against the
Canterbury House at the Vineyard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
MS. ROBINSON: Would you like me to speak to this?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, please.
MS. ROBINSON: Okay. The PUD that Mr. Volpe is speaking
of is very interesting in that it has a land use designation or an area
designated village square, which really is not in our land
development code. We have -- that PUD has a residential section,
and it has a commercial section. And then it has this village square
section.
Now, it appears from all of the uses that are listed in the village
square that they're commercial uses or institutional uses as he said.
The problem -- one of the problems that we have with it is that an
ACLF or an ALF is by statute a residential use. It's a residential use,
not a commercial use. And the language, and the like, no one seems
to know what that means.
So you have what appears to be an area designated as a village
square, which prohibits residential uses, and yet it has an ALF there,
which we concede it is an ALF, and yes, we understand that an ALF
license, which is a yearly license, as long as they have the license,
they're restricted under that license to people who are under the age
of 18 -- over the age of 18, and even if we assume for purposes of
Mr. Volpe's argument, that no one attends school over the age ever
18, which is -- no, well, let's assume that no one attends the school
who is 18 or over -- or under, then what we have is a situation where
as long as they maintain their license, there won't be anyone there
who is over the age of 18 -- under the age of 18. However,
when they surrender their license, which is renewed on an annual
basis, the question then becomes, what happens to that facility. Can
that facility move into some other use, and our position is until that is
Page 195
November 5, 2002
cleared up in the PUD, that and the like, what does it mean, and how
do you have an ALF in an area that doesn't appear to be zoned
residential, I don't see where there's an exemption that would hold.
So not only could they move into some other use of that
building, but it appears that there may possibly -- that they may be in
violation of their own PUD at this point. MR. VOLPE: May I respond?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to ask you to respond in a
minute or less, okay?
MR. VOLPE: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The Commission may address some
questions to you.
MR. VOLPE: I guess, as it relates to the determination, the
determination was made by your zoning director when the building
permit was issued that this particular facility was within the
applicable zoning. That was the determination that was made back in
1994.
As it relates to 18 years of age and older, that hypothetical, I
think Commissioner Fiala asked that question, is what happens if the
use changes at that particular point in time. Well, what I understood
the discussion was, is that at that particular point it time, if the use is
different and has a greater impact, then you can go back and collect
the impact fees that were not collected at that time.
So that addresses, in my view, this concern that your staff may
have about, okay, well, great, now what happens if they don't renew
their license and it turns to some other use.
But again, the statute of limitations is an issue that really needs
to be addressed. It's either going to be addressed in this venue or
somewhere else. I think, in this particular instance, unlike some of
the others where perhaps they're on the cusp, we're talking about
1994, we're talking about eight years after the fact.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Page 196
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we address the statute of
limitations on this item, or is it the same as the one before?
MR. WEIGEL: No. We can -- we can address that, and part of
the question or argument before a court would be, is it a statute of
limitations based upon a fixed point in time, such as building permit
or C.O., or approval of a PUD, which I would argue is not the time in
regard to impact fees.
But is it -- or is it, as this court sometimes recognize, based on
our ordinance, it would seem to indicate, based upon -- there's a term
of art, it's -- essentially, it's upon coming -- on becoming a known
issue.
Now, there's an attempt in our ordinance to reserve the fact that
if, in fact, through administrative error or mistake of law prior,
earlier, at the time of permit issuance, if there was a failure to collect,
it's a savings clause that attempts to say, if, in fact, it is determined
that, in fact, there should have been a collection and it wasn't made,
this is an attempt to make the county, or ultimately in this case, the
School Board, if we're talking about education impact fees, whole
because at the time of discovery is when that four-year statute of
limitations would purportedly run.
It's an issue that's not determined with certainty yet, but I want
to say -- I do want to comment about part of Mr. Volpe's discussion
there, and the fact that he's indicated that there was apparently
restrictive state licensure in place for a period of years, and
potentially from the get-go here. That was what I was talking about
at the beginning of my discussion generally, and as Ms. Fiala
mentioned earlier, if there's a change in use, and I had opined on that
to her question, that if there is a change in use, then at that point the
impact fee, based on the change and the additional impacts would be
due, and I think that Mr. Volpe is stating the same thing.
This potentially is distinguishable from a point in time after
Page 197
November 5, 2002
issuance of a building permit or the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, where there was a space, a window of time where there
was no either licensing requirement or some other deed restriction or
other document -- documentation in place that would have prevented
the use or the potentiality of use of school-age children being there.
And so I wanted to make that statement on the record here, and I
think that this is something that would need to be looked at a little bit
further.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
I'm going to ask the question I asked earlier. Would this be
legally defensible, you know, reasonably legally defensible if we
were to vote to go forward with the lien.
MR. WEIGEL: I think that -- well, I think my opinion on this
one, the facts will vary from case to case and render the opinion
slightly different case to case, but I think that this is more difficult to
defend, or in other words, more difficult to prosecute successfully,
because we're essentially prosecuting to obtain enforcement of a debt
we claim is owed.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So this one would be more difficult
than the preceding ones.
MR. WEIGEL: Potentially more difficult. You're asking for an
opinion, It's just an opinion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. So that if it's a little more
difficult, then possibly the petitioner might have more cause to give
reason to us that he is right in what he's coming here for. MR. WEIGEL: Potentially, yes.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, I'm going to recommend that
we reject staffs recommendations in this case. MR. WEIGEL: All right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And don't file a lien.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I will second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So we have a motion from
Page 198
November 5, 2002
myself, Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Carter.
Discussion?
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, may I interject?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You sure may.
MR. MUDD: In the Canterbury House, there's a school impact
fee of $43,000. There's a parks impact fee of $30,000, and there's a
library impact fee of $9,000. And so far, we've heard -- we've heard
the school piece, and we've heard about statute of limitations. Is the
Board basically saying they're not going to look at the parks and
library impact fee?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I think the statute of limitation is
universal. Isn't that correct, Mr. Weigel, be it impact fees for schools
or impact fees for parks.
MR. WEIGEL: I think it's a general provision in there. Yes,
staff indicates yes. It's a general provision, so it would apply to all.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I love it when they do this legal
thing, and come out right for a change.
Okay. Any other comments? Start with Commissioner Coyle
and go to Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I -- I feel uneasy about this
entire process, quite frankly. I think many of the people who have
come forward have reasonable arguments to mitigate these payments,
but what we're being asked to do is make legal decisions, and I think
the only place legal decisions can be made with any certainty is in
the court, and so that really puts us in the position of trying to
determine what a court might say if this thing goes to court. And I
don't -- I quite frankly don't think we're qualified to do that, but -- so
I would -- would vote against the motion, not because I don't think
that the petitioner doesn't have some good points, but because those
points would have to be made in a court of law, and probably will no
matter what we say here.
So I'm going to vote against the motion.
Page 199
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine, Commissioner.
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I too. I think that it -- if
we're going to do any of this, they -- they need to be tested by
somebody who can make that judgment, but I guess before we
continue, I would like to hear from the School Board's attorney, and
his opinion or the willingness of the School Board to use school
impact fees to make any test in the courts.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's fine. While he's coming up,
I'd like to make -- interject one point that I'd like to point out. It
doesn't matter if we're talking about school impact fees, ad valorem
tax, impact fees or whatever, it's all taxpayer's money.
My call was based upon what I heard from our county attorney
as far as our ability to win this, and I wasn't going to subject the
taxpayers of this county to any additional expense.
Sir, would you go ahead and whatever comments you'd like to
make would be very much appreciated.
MR. MOORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Commissioner Henning -- Mick Moore, for the record.
My response to you is that I don't have any clear direction from
the School Board on the issue of where money would come from to
fund any of these actions.
It was only for the first time tonight when the issue was raised
by this Board that I had any discussion with the county about this,
and was pointed to a provision in the ordinance, which they have
asserted would provide for payments from any educational impact
fees that were actually collected in any litigation.
Now, I haven't had time to look at that and see if I agree with
that interpretation, and it would be premature and inappropriate for
me to comment on that without having some direction from my
Board.
Let me just say that it is the position of the School Board, and I
Page 200
November 5, 2002
think the county would agree and the county attorney would agree,
that the ordinance very clearly provides that the county is the entity
that needs to undertake collection of these fees, and that the School
Board -- there's no provision in that ordinance requiring the School
Board to collect the fees or to participate in the collection.
So I just wanted to make that issue clear for the record.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you're going to seek out
from the School Board whether they're going to participate
financially and legally in this pursuit to collect the school impact
fees?
MR. MOORE: I will certainly raise the issues that have been
addressed and presented to the public tonight by this Board by
including the issue you've raised about participation.
Again, the county attorney has given me tonight their analysis
of a particular provision which they contend provides for the
payment of expenses to collect these from any fees actually
collected, but again, it is the position of the School Board and our
office, as of right now, that -- and I don't think the county attorney
disagrees with us, that the ordinance which was passed by this Board,
not you -- this current Board, but a former Board, provides for
collection by the county and does not require the School Board to
participate in that collection. Although, as I stated at the beginning
of this meeting, we do support the collection of any educational
impact fees that have been determined to be due and owing.
But with that, I will go back to the Board and if they provide me
further direction to communicate, or if a member of that Board
wishes to come and communicate with you further on this issue, I'm
sure they'll either do that or provide me direction to do so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that would be at the next
meeting of the School Board?
MR. MOORE: I'm not sure, Commissioner Henning, whether
this could be raised at the meeting that's been scheduled for
Page 201
November 5, 2002
Thursday. It depends on whether it could be put on as an agenda
item or whether it would properly need to be noticed for a different
meeting, but I will address it with school staff immediately, and take
steps as they see fit to advise the Board of this Board's position.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MOORE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any other questions?
Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Henning were the dissenting votes.
Moving on to -- before we go on to H, let's take a short break.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Kindly take your seats and we'll
proceed.
Item #1 OH
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR THE CARLISLE FOR UNPAID IMPACT
FEES-APPROVED
We're at item H.
MS FILSON: We have one speaker for item 10H, Mr.
Chairman, Matthew Grabinski.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Grabinski, you're on.
MR. GRABINSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. My name
is Matthew Grabinski, for the record, with the law firm of Garlick,
Stetler and Peeples, here today representing the Carlisle.
To follow up on where we left off, the date from which the four-
Page 202
November 5, 2002
year period of time to file suits ought to be considered to begin is the
date upon which the obligation to pay such impact fee first arose.
Such date should be determined under the applicable provisions of
the then effective ordinance.
That is not my opinion, that is the opinion of your attorneys. In
a memo by Patrick White, assistant county attorney, dated September
17th, 2001, opining, one, that the statute of limitations was four
years, and two, you measure when the obligation arises.
Under the Florida statutes, 95.031, the time within which an
action shall be begun under any statute of limitations runs from the
time the cause of action accrues. Collier County has always taken
the position that impact fees are due, your cause of action arises
when the building permit is issued.
The permit for the Carlisle was issued on July 7th, 1997, almost
five and a half years ago. Since the Carlisle began its operations, the
youngest person to ever reside there was 58, and the average age of
their residents is 84. We have never had an impact, and never will.
we did not have deed restrictions in place when the permit was
pulled, however, we were zoned specifically as a conditional use to
operate our facility. Our zoning would preclude single family or
multi-family.
Last spring, when the county requested everyone to record deed
restrictions, we did. Therefore, we never have had an impact, and
now we can state that we never will, and that's -- that cannot be
disputed by anyone.
Patrick White, your attorney, his memo is supported by case
law. There is one case that applies the four-year rule to the
collection of impact fees, and the court in that case also started
running the clock when the building permits were pulled, not when
the county decided it was time to go and collect on an obligation that
had previously arisen.
So I would like to submit all of this to you for the record.
Page 203
November 5, 2002
Attorney Weigel has indicated that it is an affirmative defense
that would be raised. I am representing to you tonight, on behalf of
our client, that we will raise the statute of limitations if Collier
County tries to take action against us. And according to your
attorneys, and Florida case law, we will win, we will prevail.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, did you
have a question to ask now or did you want to wait?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll wait until Matt finishes up,
and then I have a question for you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sorry to interrupt you.
MR. GRABINSKI: The second reason why I'm asking you to
direct staff to not impose a lien upon our property is that the
collection of the impact fee does not satisfy the constitutional test
specifically enunciated by the Florida Supreme Court in the
Aberdeen case.
There are two hurdles that Collier County needs to get over, and
so far, Collier County has been focussing on the first one, proving an
impact. We can prove through affidavits and occupancy records that
we have never had an actual impact. I think all of the assisted living
facilities and adult care facilities can prove that.
The best argument your attorneys have made is that if we get in
a time machine and go back in time, Collier County can argue that
we may have had a potential for an impact. That's the best they can
do, but today, now that Collier County is trying to collect the fee,
there has never been an impact, and because we have deed
restrictions in place, there never will be one, which brings us to the
second prong of the constitutional test.
If you do not satisfy this prong, the impact fee collection and
expenditure is unconstitutional. The Aberdeen court clearly states in
opinions that I've provided copies -- I provided a copy of the
opinions to all of you. The fee that you collect from my client must
be spent on school facilities to benefit students generated at the
Page 204
November 5, 2002
Carlisle.
The Carlisle has never generated students, and never will. It is
impossible for Collier County to satisfy the second prong of the
constitutional test.
Can I have a minute to wrap up, please?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: As short as possible, please.
MR. GRABINSKI: Several of you individually have assured
me that you would look to your staff for answers on two basic issues,
either of which is dispositive of this. We don't need to go into court.
We want to stay out of court.
One is the statute of limitations. Your county attorneys have
already opined that it's four years. If you file a claim of lien and drag
us into court, you either have to go against the direction and advice
of your county attorneys, or your county attorneys would have to
recant their opinion and admit they were wrong.
If they admit they were wrong, how certain of you and how
much can you depend upon any opinion that the collection of these
fees would pass this constitutional test, a test that they seemingly
time and time again forget to bring up and address.
I implore you to ask them now. They have had a year to think
about it. How can you satisfy the second prong of the test? The
Aberdeen court specifically stated, Volusia County is unable to
satisfy the benefits prong of the dual rational nexus test. Because no
children can live at Aberdeen, impact fees collected at Aberdeen will
not be spent for Aberdeen's benefit, but for the benefit of children
living in other developments.
Impact fees collected from the Carlisle, if collected, will not be
spent for the benefit of children living at the Carlisle.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay, Matt. We thank you very
much. Stay there for just a second. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: First of all, what I heard from
Page 205
November 5, 2002
the county attorney is three things on the statute of limitation; three
years -- or five -- four years, five years, and the impact fee ordinance,
which is saying that it does not have a statute of limitation.
MR. WEIGEL: It's essentially date of discovery.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct. So that is what I
heard from the county attorney, so that's what I'm basing my
decisions on.
The second thing is the conditional use of the Carlisle was that it
-- for assisted living facility.
MR. GRABINSKI: It was for a group care facility, and within
that definition, there is room for an ALF. We were licensed when we
opened .our doors for business as an ALF, and I have previously
provided a copy of that license.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: An ALF is --
MR. GRABINSKI: Assisted living facility.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct, okay. So that could be
a child-assisted living facility.
MR. GRABINSKI: No. As it has previously been explained,
under Florida law, you cannot have children within an assisted living
facility, but zoning aside, you have a four-year statute of limitations.
You've already voted once to not lien a property, a permit for which
was pulled more than four years ago. In this case, the permit was
pulled more than five years ago.
In addition, why lien a property if you cannot enforce that lien.
You cannot enforce that lien if you cannot satisfy both prongs of the
constitutional test.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm basing my decisions on the
input of our staff and county attorneys.
An adult living facility, can a child reside?
MS. ROBINSON: The zoning category that he has referred to
is for group care facility, and that group care facility allows ALFs. It
also allows other group care facilities. Specifically, it allows foster
Page 206
November 5, 2002
homes, foster care facilities, which generally do house children. It's
not -- they do not have a zoning category that restricts the use solely
to an ALF.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. GRABINSKI:
place.
MS. ROBINSON:
MR. GRABINSKI:
But we do have private deed restrictions in
They do now, yes.
And if you collect an impact fee from us,
how will you satisfy the second prong of the constitutional test?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I'm going to limit this debate to that
one question.
MR. WEIGEL: And I'll respond.
Because the facilities would be built, and that's really what's
required, that the money be expended for the purposes that it was
collected, and if it's school impact fees, then the schools will be built
for the impact or potential impact that was there during the gap in
time before deed restrictions were filed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we accept
staffs recommendation on this item.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I'll second your motion and
allow for some discussion at this point.
I have two commissioners missing. Mr. Mudd, would you ask
our commissioners to join us? I know they're listening in there with
the volume turned up. They're probably calling home to tell their
wives they're going to be home in a few minutes and they'll start
dinner when they get there.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: One is on the phone and one's on
the potty.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Nothing like being brief and to the
point.
You're going to be missed.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Good. Put a glutton in there,
Page 207
November 5, 2002
like the coat room in Congress.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's been an interesting day, hasn't it?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It was more fun than a guy
should have.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many more items do we
got?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
quite quick.
We're going to go through them
MS. FILSON: Nine more items. And nine more speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have nine more speakers on this
item?
Okay. We have a motion, Commissioner Coyle, and a second to
accept staffs recommendations and place a lien. We're about ready
to call for a vote. I wanted to get at least four commissioners here,
and I guess I'll settle with that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'll vote twice.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And the ayes have it, with a
negative vote from Commissioner Carter, and Commissioner Fiala is
absent.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Dissenting vote, not negative
vote.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct. I stand corrected.
Item # 10I
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR WINDSOR COURT FOR UNPAID
IMPACT FEES-STAFF RECOMMENDATION REJECTED AND
CI~AIM OF IJIF, N NOT TO PlF, FIIJF, D-APPROVED
Page 208
November 5, 2002
Okay. Let's see. We're at item I.
MR. MUDD: I, and that's the claim on lien on Windsor Court.
MS. FILSON: And you have one speaker on this issue, Mr.
Chairman, Rich Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hello, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioners, good evening, and for
the record, Rich Yovanovich, representing Windsor Court. I'll be
brief and I'll be to the point.
We're identical to former Commissioner Volpe's situation. The
only use permitted on our property under our zoning ordinance is
adult congregate living facility. That is the only permitted use under
the Wilderness PUD for our piece of property.
To do anything else would require a rezone of the property. The
word adult, does not mean children. So our zoning prohibits children
from residing at the premises.
Second, we have a state license for an extended congregate care
facility. The extended congregate care facility statute prohibits
anyone under the age of 18 from living in our facility.
Our facility is equal essentially to a nursing home. What our
facility is, is a bedroom for people who need extended care. There
are no cooking facilities within these units. It is a bedroom. They
sleep in the bedroom and they have their closet they change. They
take their meals in a central dining facility.
As Mr. Weigel said to you early on in his presentation, there are
other methods to be exempt. One is state licensure. We meet that.
A second is zoning limitations. Ordinance number 9643, which
is simply a two-page ordinance tells you what is a permitted use on
this piece of property. It's an adult congregate living facility. We
have no other use.
This is a classic case of the county attorney's office bringing
forth a claim of lien that shouldn't be before you.
In addition, the permit was pulled September 4th, 1996. I have
Page 209
November 5, 2002
also the statute of limitations on my side. This case turns on the fact
that zoning will not allow children to be there, statute licensure will
not allow children to be there, and then the fallback of the statute of
limitations.
The county has got three strikes against it in this particular case.
There is no impact. You will not meet any prong of the
constitutional test in this particular case, and we request that the
Board of County Commissioners do not follow the county attorney's
recommendations to file a claim of lien in this case, and with that, I'd
be happy to provide a copy to the clerk-- I guess the court reporter --
MR. MUDD: Just give it to me.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have some comments to
make?
MS. ROBINSON: Yes. I would like to respond that Ordinance
9643, which Mr. Yovanovich refers to, is an amendment to an earlier
ordinance, which he does not and has not presented to the Board.
The earlier ordinance has, in this parcel nine, many uses.
The amendment says that an adult congregate living facility will
be another -- I mean, it will be an authorized use. It doesn't say it
will be the only use, and it doesn't say that the other uses are no
longer applicable. It simply provides that that use may also be
permitted on that piece of property.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, what the ordinance says, it's
entitled parcel nine, and it says, the 10.6 acre -- 10.69 acre site shown
as parcel nine on Exhibit B representing 4.9 percent of the gross
project area is a separate entity for the land included in the club.
This site is zoned by E.H. Frank, and is not included in the land lease
to the project.
Specific development plans for parcel nine had not yet been
settled upon. It is intended that parcel nine be utilized for uses or
uses which will be fully compatible. It is hereby committed that
prior to development on parcel nine, detailed development shall be
Page 210
November 5, 2002
submitted to the county in accord with the provisions set forth in
Section 24.
The detailed plans were the adult congregate living facilities.
We had no uses of parcel nine until we came to the county and told
you what we were going to do, and that was an adult congregate
living facility.
That's what was permitted by the Board, and that is what was
licensed and again, we believe we are not subject to a claim of lien at
this time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do the Commissioners have any
question of Mr. Yovanovich?
COMMISSIONER CARTER Just for the record, all other
impact fees have been paid on this project.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Just the school impact fee issue. It has
nothing to do with any of the other impact fees. MR. MUDD: Just school for $41,000.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, we thank
you very much.
I guess my question to Mr. Weigel would be, is this one
different than the other ones? Is this one here something that we
could reasonably expect to prevail with?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm-- I've listened to Mr. Yovanovich,
and I'm looking at staff right here. In regard to the Ordinance 9643,
which I think purports to specifically refer to parcel nine, and parcel
nine is the parcel where this development occurred, is that correct,
which is limited to only an aggregate living facility?
MS. ROBINSON: No, it's not.
MR. WEIGEL: Parcel nine?
Please get up and -- for the record, so you can respond, please. I
need to know.
MS. ROBINSON: That's an issue that, I guess, will have to be
determined, but what the language of the ordinance says is that an
Page 211
November 5, 2002
ALF will be a permitted use. It doesn't say an ALF will be the only
permitted use or that it's solely for the use --
MR. WEIGEL: Well, what was the building permit for there?
Was it an ALF or --
MS. ROBINSON: Well, many of these facilities have building
permits for ALFs. The question is whether or not they will continue
to be an ALF. And I'm not sure-- I don't have a copy of the building
permit with me. Perhaps Mr. Yovanovich does.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think part of the question is, if it's an
ALF, aside from that, is there any impossibility for there to be
children, school-aged children residing in the ALF. MS. ROBINSON: Well--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I answer that?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Just one second, Mr. Yovanovich.
We'll come back to you.
Was that question directed to Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. WEIGEL: It's directed to both, really. I'd like to hear the
response, because I want to be able to respond to the Board as best I
can.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I appreciate that. The last one, if I
remember correctly, that we didn't want to proceed with, there, I
guess, were federal government, was -- designated that as an
Alzheimer's facility, and if it was sold, it had to be sold as an
Alzheimer's facility, which severely limited what would happen in
the future.
MR. WEIGEL: Now, Mr. Manalich -- or excuse me, Mr.
Yovanovich, I believe, stated earlier that to have changed from an
ALF would have required a zoning change, a change to the PUD
ordinance.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: And if--
MR. YOVANOVICH: And also, the license would have to be
Page 212
November 5, 2002
changed to allow children to live in the facility.
MR. WEIGEL: And part of the criteria that I discussed early on
at the beginning of these items was the fact that if it is an -- if there is
an element that required governmental approval for there to be a
change in use, I think that that's a very material and important
element in our consideration.
So where I'm going in my thinking here is that if Ordinance 96-
43 specifically addresses parcel nine and parcel nine is the parcel
where this facility was constructed and went into operation, therefore
building permit and C.O. issued, and there's a licensure with the state
as well as a requirement to come before the county for a change in
use, this is helping me, and I look for any further information from
staff to provide an opinion here.
MS. ROBINSON: Unfortunately, I don't have the PUD. I do
have a copy of my notes, which indicate that the PUD referred to by
Mr. Yovanovich does not limit the parcel solely to an ALF.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well then, I'll make a statement here,
and that is that the PUD, meaning ordinance 9643, that's what I need
to know. The PUD, arguably, is the entire ordinance, with its
amendments, but if we have a specific ordinance specifically
affecting parcel nine, and that the original PUD ordinance expressly
removed parcel nine from the general applications of the original
PUD ordinance, then the specific would tend to control, and that
would be Ordinance 96-43, which it sounds to me has a limitation to
the use, and if it has a limitation to only one use, and that -- and Rich,
help me here, and that limitation, by definition, precludes school-
aged children from being there --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It does. It's an adult congregate living
facility.
MR. WEIGEL: As well as licensure with the state which
prevents school-aged children from residing there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct.
Page 213
November $, 2002
MR. WEIGEL: Upon those affirmations of Mr. Yovanovich,
I'm prepared to indicate that I think this is not a case that -- does not
create a case that we would want to pursue in court.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Then I make a motion that we reject
the staff's recommendations for placing a lien.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. And I don't know, before you vote on
the motion -- pardon my interjection here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't even have a second yet.
MR. CARTER: I'll second that.
MR. WEIGEL: The School Board attorney is here. I don't
know if the clerk's office is here, but, you know, I'm having to kind
of work alone here at this point.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I understand, and we're listening,
and I appreciate your honesty on this and the feedback back and
forth.
So'we've got a motion at this point in time for rejection of staffs
recommendations by myself, and we have a second by Commissioner
Carter.
Did the school attorney feel a need to comment on this? I don't
-- I really don't care to have him come up and just repeat what he
already said.
Okay, fine. With that, we've got two people that want to speak,
and I didn't catch the order, but we'll go with Henning first, and then
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Weigel, it almost seems
like we're backing off of collecting these fees, and your statements --
I mean, it's concerning that it could be applicable to the other
previous ones that we already made a decision on, and that concerns
me.
MR. WEIGEL: As well it should, but I don't think it's a valid
concern because, for instance, Mr. Yovanovich previously, as he
appeared with Aston Gardens, we had a situation where it was that
Page 214
November 5, 2002
gap in time that I keep showing you here, and I don't -- I see just
factual distinctions here, and ordinance distinctions here as an
example, that don't pertain to those other ones that we reviewed
upon.
I'd like to think, and I would reaffirm that I believe that the
standard that I'm attempting to apply is the same standard that I
mentioned as I discussed it generally before we got into these, but
we're learning some facts to some degree at the presentation today,
which I~d be remiss not to revise my opinion to you, quite frankly.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have somewhat the same
question. Do all the other adult or assisted living facilities have state
certification or licensing, and if they do, how are -- is that one
different from this one?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the licensing alone certainly wouldn't
give me the reason to make the opinion. That alone will not give me
the opinion to tell you that I think that it doesn't pass muster, but
what I'm learning here is where we've got a couple of criteria in
place, and there's no gap in time and there's been licensure in place
since the initiation of the utilization of the facilities, it helps, but
licensure alone is not the cutting edge criteria in here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I would just like to make a comment
that I appreciate the fact, Mr. Weigel, that you re-evaluate these
situations as more facts come forward. I commend the Board for
asking the hard questions that bring out the facts that we're looking
for to be able to make a final decision.
Any other comments before I call the question?
Hearing none, all those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Okay. 5-0. Thank you.
Item # 10J
Page 215
November 5, 2002
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR TERRACINA GRAND FOR UNPAID
IMPACT FEES-APPROVED
Next one is J.
MR. MUDD: 10J is the filing of claim of lien for Terracina
Grand, and from what I understand earlier, that the lawsuit has
started on this particular case.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I don't want to discuss it in that case.
I make a motion that we go forward with the lien.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by myself,
Commissioner Coletta, and the second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #1 OK
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR SUMMER HOUSE ASSISTED LIVING,
1NC.; FOR 1 INPAID IMPACT FEES-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: The next one is 1 OK, and that's recording a claim
of lien on Summer House Assisted Living, Inc.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker on this,
Mr. James Siesky.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes, sir.
MR. SIESKY: Good evening, Commissioners. Jim Siesky,
representing Summer House.
The case is obviously pretty similar to the others, but we have a
Page 216
November 5, 2002
twist. In my case, my client hasn't paid any impact fees, zero, and
the reason is that they didn't build this facility, they were a purchaser
of the facility in 1998.
The facility was permitted in 1995. The permits were -- the
impact fees were paid at that time. So, of course, we have the same
arguments regarding statute of limitations that some of the other
people have made. Specifically, I endorse the arguments that were
made by Commissioner Volpe.
But this case is different. It's like when you buy your own home
and you find three or four years later that there's an easement right in
the middle of it. That's what we're finding out with these letters that
we've received.
We bought it in 1998. At the time that we bought it, my client
bought it, they wrote to the county and said, what's owed, what are
the taxes that are due, what are the water bills that are due, what are
the utilities, the sewer and waste pick up collection fees. We got two
estoppel letters back. Neither one of them indicated any impact fees
were due.
Obviously, we considered none to be due, and we went ahead
and purchased it. Had we known that there were $100,000 of impact
fees due, the purchase price would have been negotiated significantly
differently.
So. our situation is different in that regard. I've written to Ms.
Robinson and told her about our statute of limitations argument. I've
also told her about the argument that your lien will be ineffective,
and I cited her the authority for that is Florida Statute 675, I think it's
.01, which basically says if you're a subsequent purchaser for value
without notice, a bona fide purchaser, that the subsequent lien cannot
attach to your property. That's our situation.
We are a subsequent purchaser, bona fide purchaser without any
notice of the prior impact fee charges that were due, and therefore,
this lien should not attach to the property, should not attach to our
Page 217
November 5, 2002
property.
If you want to make a claim that these fees are due, you should
go to the prior owner. However, I think you're stymied there with the
statute of limitations.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I got a question on that, if I may. If
you have a permitted use out there, they pay an impact fee for
something, a new permitted use goes in there that's more intense,
would they pay a higher impact fee?
MS. ROBINSON: They should. They should.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. So in this case here, it's really
not a valid argument that, you know, the impact fees, if we were
neglect (sic) in collecting them, it doesn't mean that they're not owed.
MS. ROBINSON: Right. Plus they run with the land under our
ordinance.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the statute that the gentleman
just cited, is that in any way an impediment as far as us carrying this
forward?
MS. ROBINSON: Well, that's an interesting legal argument
that he made. This issue has been researched, and we have
concluded that the statute that he refers to does not apply to
ordinances. It applies to instruments.
MR. SIESKY: If I could ask the Commission, what should this
buyer have done to determine that there were impact fees due in
1998? What should he have done?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My suggestion to you-- I know I
shouldn't be making suggestions, I'm not an attorney, although I
think the court system, if we do find, and it goes through it, and you
have to settle with the county, might be your avenue with the
previous buyer, but you better talk to whoever on that.
You know, we have responsibilities in this world, but we can't
be every place at every time. The amount stays with the building. If
it hasn't been paid, then the new person coming in. The same if it's a
Page 218
November 5, 2002
lien on the property. I don't know if that's a correct analogy or not,
but if you've got a lien on the property, doesn't it stay with the
property if another person buys the property?
MS. ROBINSON: If there's a lien, which is the reason that
we're coming before you today to record, a claim of lien.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: Once the lien is in place, the whole world
has notice of it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But this ordinance of which we
are basing our case, if I'm understanding it, was not in existence.
MS. ROBINSON: No, that particular provision was in the old
ordinance and is in the new ordinance. It's unchanged.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second question, bigger
question. What is the responsibility of government if you send
somebody an estoppel letter, you tell them, they don't owe any more,
they've done their duty, I'm a businessman, I bought a business, I'm a
good citizen, I pay my ad valorem taxes, and four years later, you
come back and you say, you know what, we're screw-ups, and you
owe us money. You know, as a private citizen, I've got to tell you,
this is government at its worst.
MR. SIESKY: Imagine your own home. You bought it, six
years later, the property appraiser says, I made a mistake when I
evaluated the fair market value of your property, you really owe
$10,000 more. That's exactly the situation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The only thing that would be worse
than that is not to make an effort to collect the past due monies.
MS. ROBINSON: That's what our ordinance requires us to do.
MR. WEIGEL:
correct?
MR. SIESKY:
MR. WEIGEL:
I'll make my comment. That was 1995, Jim; is
Yes.
You know, we have inherited some issues over
Page 219
November 5, 2002
time. No question. We're trying to work through these issues.
Ultimately, our ordinance will be on review in the court,
particularly the statute that Mr. Siesky mentions, indicating that liens
are lost .for -- to bona fide without notice subsequent purchasers, and
that will be tested.
We don't know if it will prevail. We just don't know, and quite
frankly, with the difficulties of all of these potential cases, the
question is do we have what would appear to be a facially viable case
to make and I think I've, you know, responded to you with candor
where I believe that our chances or not so good, but in this particular
case, it may lend itself to rather quick resolution if the court
determines that the lien, in fact, could not even be applied.
But on behalf of government, we also to have bring the
arguments that may assist us to the court, and we talk about estoppel.
That's been raised a few times, and I know the Commissioners and
the public hear that in regard to land use matters.
Well, these aren't land use cases. These are -- it does re -- it
does involve the use of land, but we're not deciding the use of land
here, and when we -- there are two concepts, at least, in the courts
concerning estoppel; mistake of law and mistake of fact.
Now, part of the argument to be made on this is if it was a
mistake in fact, possibly shame on us, the county government. If it
was a mistake in law, in application, then there is case law that
indicates that we are not estopped, that is, we are not preventing --
prevented from attempting to rectify an injustice or an incorrect
action that occurred based on mistake of law, and these concepts are
going to be probably discussed in many of these cases as they go
forward, but from that standpoint, we have an argument to be made,
and that's why it's not as simple to say, oops, the statute says bona
fide subsequent purchaser without notice, ipso facto, nothing applies.
It's not.quite that easy.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Based upon that, I would make a --
Page 220
November 5, 2002
I'd like to make a motion that we proceed with the lien on this
particular matter.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have a motion from myself,
Commissioner Coletta, and second from Commissioner Henning.
Any discussion?
All those favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to find out what is
at the end of this tunnel.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's definitely not daylight.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Five out of-- 5-0.
Item # 1 ON
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR MERRILL GARDENS FOR UNPAID
IMPACT FEF, S-APPROVF, D
Move on. N, last one.
Okay.
MR. MUDD: And that is a claim of lien for Merrill Gardens.
MS. FILSON:
John Inglis.
MR. INGLIS:
And Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Mr.
My name is John Inglis, 101 East Kennedy
Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. I represent the property owner, Health
Care REIT, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation. They lease the
property to the Merrill Gardens facility.
I believe my explanation of the facts of this matter will lead the
Board to understand that the staffs recommendation to file a lien is
not appropriate, and as we've seen so far, the facts of each one of
these cases are -- vary widely.
In this particular case, there actually was a deed of restriction
that was recorded on July 2nd, 1997, declaration of restriction of
Southwest Professional Health Park. I have provided a copy of this
Page 221
November 5, 2002
to the county.
On July 15th, after the recording of this restriction, the building
permit for this ALF facility was pulled and the impact fees were
paid. The certificate of occupancy was subsequently issued on
December 16th of 1998. The facility has been licensed through the
State of Florida, Chapter 400, only as an assisted living facility since
the inception, and I have copies of the licenses that have been in
effect all along.
Now, what the recorded restriction says is that the uses of this
property are limited to the permitted uses under the PUD ordinance.
There was a specific ordinance passed by the County Commission in
1996, Ordinance 9681, which was the ordinance for the Southwest
Professional Health Park, a planned unit development.
This ordinance specifically says that all the uses in this
professional health park would be medically related uses. The
property is in close proximity to the North Collier County Hospital,
and it specifically references that these are uses that will be in
support of the hospital.
on this particular parcel, there is a list of 20 permitted uses. In
other words, you can only build in one of these categories, and the
categories are, for example, assisted living facilities, homes for the
aged, Hospices, independent living, nursing homes, on and on and
on.
Now, what county staff, I think, will tell you, is that they have
picked up on this phrase, independent living, and said, well, gee, we
see that, and that means you probably could have an apartment
complex in here that would have children, or have some other type of
multi-family use or other residential development that would have
children.
I submit to the Board that in the context, and this is the order in
which they're listed, assisted living facilities, homes for the aged,
Hospices, independent living, nursing homes, independent living
Page 222
November 5, 2002
means only an elderly care facility where the level of care that would
be provided would not be as intense as a nursing home or other elder
care facility.
So what we have here is we have a recorded declaration of
restrictions in place prior to the issuance of the building permit. We
have land use zoning which limits the use of the property only to all
adult type uses or other non-residential uses.
We have continuous state licensure since the inception of this
project under Chapter 400 of the Florida statutes, which only allows
adult occupancy.
You've heard the statute of limitations argument. The statute of
limitations clearly started when the debt was allegedly due. It's due
at the time that you pay -- you pull your building permit and you
should be paying your impact fees.
It totally undercuts and emasculates the whole concept of the
statute of limitations if you can say, well, see, we'll just move the
starting date to some date in the future. You can't do business that
way. You can't do that kind of business in private business, and I
don't think that you can do it in government business either.
The final element here would be the constitutionality questions,
whether there is a rational nexus.
In conclusion, I think we've basically got five strikes against the
county here; recorded declaration of restrictions, limitation of use
under the zoning PUD, continuous state licensure, statute of
limitations, and the constitutional arguments, and I think in that
context~ I think this case falls in the same situation as many of the
others here have tonight, where the staff has, unfortunately, not
perhaps appreciated the significance of the elements and the factual
elements in making their recommendation.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, sir. Please.
MS. ROBINSON: I would like to make a brief comment, ifI
may, and I have discussed this with counsel for Merrill Gardens,
Page 223
November 5, 2002
either in writing or verbally.
The problem with Merrill Gardens is that the restricted covenant
that was earlier recorded is, as he said it was, it refers back to the
PUD, and if you read the PUD, it says that the -- one of the
enumerated uses on the parcel we are talking about is for independent
living housing. So if we have no -- independent living is not a
facility that's an ALF. It is an independent living facility. It's a
house, it's a condominium. It's anything that a person can
independently live in.
I understand what he is saying his client wanted to do. His
client, however, did not adequately draft the PUD to the extent that it
excluded that use, and I think that under that use, independent
housing, it could be anything. It could certainly be a normal
residential facility, and therefore, it owed the impact fee. MR. INGLIS: May I reply?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead, sir. Wrap it up, though.
MR. INGLIS: With all due respect, this was a PUD that was
enacted for the Southwest Professional Health Park. It's replete in
here with references that these will be health-related, service
provided uses in this PUD.
This was not meant to be in any way multi-family. If multi-
family was permitted, it would say multi-family. If apartments were
permitted, it would say apartments. Overlaying all these views is the
context that this be a part of a professional health park where care
would be provided for the uses that were allowed in the park.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Henning, and a second from Commissioner Fiala to
approve staff's recommendations.
Page 224
November 5, 2002
Discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor, indicate by saying aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the dissenting vote is --
negative vote is Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Coyle is
absent at the moment.
Whatever it's going to take to make you happy, Commissioner
Carter.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's getting late, huh?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, it's not. It's still early. We
started at nine o'clock. It's six o'clock. We only put in like about
eight hours, because we took an hour and a half lunch.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: And you don't have any other
place to go?
Item # 10L-Deleted
CLAIM OF LIEN FOR GREENFIELD COMMONS FOR UNPAID
IMPACT FEES-S150 PENAI,TY WAIVED
MS. ROBINSON: Number L, which was Greenfield Commons,
I know was not officially pulled from the agenda, and since it was
not, I have a small request.
MR. MUDD: Jackie, it was deleted.
MS. ROBINSON: It was deleted?
MR. MUDD: Yes, it was. This morning, in the change order,
10L, 10M and 100.
MS ROBINSON: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And I mentioned that 10L was paid under protest.
MS. ROBINSON: It was paid. The only thing we are asking
for is if the Board would consider waiving the penalties of $150, so
Page 225
November 5, 2002
we could accept the check from them and declare the slate clean.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Motion by myself, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item # 10P
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND DREDGING CONTRACT FOR
WIGGINS PASS EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE DREDGING,
NOT TO EXCEED $100;000-APPROVED
Okay. P, which was added.
MR. MUDD: Which is emergency dredging of Wiggins Pass.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the number on that?
MR. MUDD: That was an add. It's 10P.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 16 what?
MR. MUDD: No, let me state it again. This was an add that
was added to your binder on Friday. It's Item 1 OP. It's under 10, and
it's the last time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's the last item before the ones that
we pulled.
MR. MUDD: We moved forward, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Please proceed.
MR. DELONY: This is a -- for the record, Jim DeLony, public
utilities administrator. This is--
THE COURT REPORTER: Could you repeat your name,
Page 226
November 5, 2002
please?
MR. DELONY: Yes, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator.
Sorry, ma'am.
This is a continuance in our efforts to expedite the reopening of
Wiggins Pass. I was here at the last Board meeting and requested we
get approval of engineering services, which were approved. This is
subsequent to that. We're at -- we're now moving forward to do the
construction that will give us this emergency dredging to go ahead
and reopen the pass, and this is the next action within that.
We just as of today got some information from our consultant.
We'll be processing and looking for three bids, but we are asking you
to allow us to do emergency procurement of this, expedited
procurement of this so we can move on and hopefully get some good
prices, and we'll be able to --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Move for approval.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it.
MR. DELONY: -- just the necessary work we need to do. Just
the necessary work.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion from
Commissioner Carter, a second from Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A fast one, and that was, you said
you were hoping to get some good prices, but don't you already --
you're planning on having some equipment there, and this would
save us a lot of money so you don't have to mobilize that
equipment?
MR. DELONY: Not for this emergency work, ma'am. Later
on, after winter -- after Christmas, we hopefully get a hydraulic
dredge in here. The Corps is going to have one down, coming down
this way to do some work, but this -- I don't believe we can wait till
then.
Now, if we can't get the prices right, and there's some problems,
Page 227
November 5, 2002
because this time of year is difficult, because it's very unpredictable
with regard to seas, and so it's very, you know, problematic as to
what the prices are. We may have to wait, and that's -- but again, we
want to see if we can get it, and get it at a reasonable price, do that
dredging for the navigation as well as the beaches, and then move on.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Any other questions or
comments?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
The ayes have it 5-0.
Item #10Q
FUNDING AND EXECUTION OF THE APPROPRIATE
CONTRACTS FOR PROCESS AND CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENTS AT THE NORTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$529:1 00-APPROVF. D
The next one is Q, which is formerly 16C2.
MR. MUDD: And that has to do with the north sewer plant
aeration.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. DELONY: Commissioners, I have before you some work
which is a part of-- again, Jim DeLony, public utilities administrator
for the record.
This work is part of our ongoing program which will increase
the reliability and the capability of the north wastewater treatment
plant for season 2003. It also will allow us to comply with the
consent order.
I have members of staff here with me to present to you this
project beyond what's in the scope of the executive summary. I can
do that, or I can respond to your questions, whatever --
Page 228
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Why don't we go with the questions
that the commissioners may have. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The question is one of several.
Is this on the old section of the -- this is on the old section of it?
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And there's nothing in here
pertaining to the new section?
MR. DELONY: No, sir, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And in here, it has a
contingency of $133,000 on a project that is estimated at $335,000.
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is this what you're showing on
us, is the contingencies for-- that's part of the 133,0007
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir. Where we are with regard to the
scoping and specifics on this project with regard to the actual
procurement, this is appropriate, or this is a typical contingency we'd
have at this stage of the game, and with regard to laying the money
out and moving forward with it, and that's the reasons you have the
contingencies you have on the contract.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we going -- are you going
to come back to us with some more details on this?
MR. DELONY: I can, sir. It was my intent to get Board
approval to use their annual fixed term contracts and expedite this
process. I can come back to you at the conclusion of the negotiations
and lay those out for you, but I want to proceed as quickly as
possible so I can meet season requirements in February.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I don't want to delay it,
Mr. DeLony. I just -- it seems like it's in an area where I don't feel
comfortable with, with the executive summary and how it was
written, and not having a lot of detail.
So I don't want to slow it down if we're in between weeks, if we
Page 229
November 5, 2002
can just get together, show the numbers or present to the full Board,
if it does fit.
MR. DELONY: Okay, sir. I understand your intent.
Let me just look over my shoulder here. There's not going to be
a problem with that, sir. We will stay in stride with regard to this.
We will keep the pace to get this in line prior to season, and I will
inform the Board every step of the way before we make any
decisions that would be binding, if that's appropriate, but I got your
intent that you do not want to hold this up, but to proceed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Correct.
MR. DELONY: Yes, sir, I understand.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'm going to make a motion
to approve to feed the bugs by providing the air to them with this
item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Item # 1 OR
RESOLUTION 2002-464 AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES ADMINISTRATOR AND THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
ENGINEERING DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE GRANT
APPLICATIONS, PERMIT APPLICATIONS, REPORTS AND
OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT PERTA1N TO THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC UTILITY IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS 1N COIJJIER COIINTY-ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: On to R, which is formerly 16C5.
Page 230
November 5, 2002
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me take this one and try to
make this one go a little bit quicker.
This item, just so you know that we were doing due diligence,
there was a resolution that was passed, it's Resolution Number 2000-
197, that was done on 27 June 2000, that's basically a verbatim of
this item, and the only thing that was really added, and I've provided
the Board members a copy of this earlier, the only thing that was
added here was the fact that public utilities has an engineer director,
and that part was added to this 2000 resolution type issue.
The clerk has some -- some reservations, and I would submit
that the clerk is dead on right now, and I think we need to add this
verbiage to the resolution that says, this resolution is hereby not
intended to confer discretionary authority on anyone other than the
Board of County Commissioners, and staff has no problem with
adding that verbiage to this resolution in order to make sure that that
discretion doesn't get delegated.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So move to approve.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Second.
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker on this.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. First, I want to announce the
motion for approval from Commissioner Henning, and the second
from Fiala, or was it Carter?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was Carter.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: From Commissioner Carter.
Speaker?
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. good
evening, staff. I rise to -- my name is Bob Krasowski, citizen,
Collier County.
I rise to speak to this issue because I'm concerned that if you go
ahead with this resolution, that we might be removing a level of
transparency that is great -- considered by me to be of great value.
Page 231
November 5, 2002
I just want to be sure that the various public utilities directors,
engineers or whomever are required to bring to the agenda here, and
in front of the County Commission, any -- any grant applications or
permit applications. Certainly, any citizen that has an interest in the
goings on in the county benefit greatly when these permit
applications are part of the regular agenda and are brought forward so
that we're aware of them by looking in the paper or checking the web
to see what issues are coming forward.
I wouldn't want to encumber the effort of any of these fine
people here to do their job, but as a citizen, I benefit greatly from
these things having to come in front of you, and then they get
explained that way and we can learn what's going on in the county as
a result of this.
I'd hate to see any efficiency be had at the expense of an open
process. So to the extent that that's relevant to this, I don't know,
maybe -- you know, that's just my question, is --
MR. MUDD: Let me embellish just a little bit, I think, make
sure that we're communicating.
For instance, permits, if I have a water plant or a sewer plant, it
has a permit process that goes on, and that permit sunsets and a new
one must be given. When that happens, it's noticed based on the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulations, and
that's something that comes across and that's routine business.
If we have a well, a water well, they have the same kind of sun-
setting provisions. After a ten-year period of time, the well sunsets
on that permit, and you have to go out and get another permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for that
particular permit and have to abide by those requirements.
Those are things that you've already approved because you told
us to go out and get that well and we've gone through the
construction process, design process, the selection of contractors, and
it goes on for a long side -- so what we're basically saying in this
Page 232
November 5, 2002
particular case, so we don't take away your discretionary, we're not
doing something that's outside of your master plan. We're not doing
anything outside of the contracts that we come forward with the
Board. We're basically talking about routine items.
If you've approved the construction of a particular item and we
can go out and get a grant with no strings attached and no cost share
on the county's part, that director and that administrator will go out
there and try to get that free money, and if there's any strings
attached as far as the county is concerned, they will come back and
ask the Board for permission in order to finalize that particular
agreement for that grant or whatever, and that's what we're -- that's
where Dwight was coming from to make sure that we don't take
away from the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, and
that's why we added that verbiage.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, do you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Only to assure that the
modifications as suggested by the County Manager are included in
the motion and the second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is that agreeable?
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, if I may briefly. Thank
you, Mr. Mudd, for that clarification.
I guess my concern lies with new projects and the --
MR. MUDD: We come back to the Board for that.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Any new project would require initial --
MR. MUDD: Yes.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, thanks.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Appreciate it, Bob.
Any other discussion on that?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Page 233
November 5, 2002
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Great.
Item #1 OS
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT
TRAIN1NG BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NORTH
NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT-
APPROVF~D
The next one is S, which was formerly 16D4.
MR. MUDD: And that's the North Naples EMS agreement with
the North Naples Fire Department.
MR. PAGE: Commissioners, for the record, Jeff Page, your
EMS director.
In 1993, the state had passed legislation which requested that all
non-licensed first responder agencies enter into some type of formal
agreement with a licensed EMS provider to better coordinate the
emergency care received on an emergency scene.
If you will remember, last year was the first time that we were
able to get all nine of the different fire districts on board for that type
of training.
What's unique about this particular agreement is that we're
asking the Board to approve advanced life support training for the
fire districts, in this case, North Naples. The goal is, is to better
utilize all the checkers, if you will, out there.
The last count, I think, I have about 68 firefighters that are
paramedics in the county, and the goal is to utilize those and provide
that training.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Is there any questions by the
Commissioners?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have one speaker.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Call it.
Page 234
November 5, 2002
MS. FILSON: Jim Kramer.
MR. KRAMER: Jim Kramer, for the record.
I could not tell from the agenda item or the executive summary
who was the non-licensed provider and who was the licensed
provider, and basically, that's why I asked for this, so that I could
understand which way it went, and given the, you know, problems
with the North Naples Fire Department, I wanted to be sure -- to be
assured that there would be nothing wrong with it. I mean, there's --
it says no fiscal impact, but--
MR. PAGE: And there is, and we already provide basic life
support training, which is like an EMT type training, but this is more
for the paramedics that they have, and as far as there being any issue
with any of the fire districts, we really haven't had any in quite some
time.
We are working for, and the medical director is behind this,
better utilization of all personnel, because we all need the -- if we
have a major event--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
MR. PAGE: -- we need to do it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion for approval from
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Fiala. Any discussion?
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
(Unanimous vote of ayes.)
Item # 10T
RAPIDIGM, 1NC. CONTRACT PROVIDING INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SAP
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM-APPROVED UP TO A
Page 235
November 5, 2002
MAXIMUM OF $47,000 AND STAFF TO COME BACK 1N
DECEMBER WITH A PROJECT SCHEDULE AND A MORE
SPF. CIFIC FII JDGFJT RF. OI IF. ST
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Now we're coming to the best one of
the day, which is T, 16E4, formerly known as.
MR. MUDD: Which is the new finance SAP.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Camell, purchasing
general services director.
As I mentioned to you at our last Board meeting, our new
financial management system project being implemented using SAP
software is on schedule to go live in December and January, and the
current integrator and the county project team are working right now
to finish preparations on that.
I'm here before you now because, frankly, your project
management team, which would include Jim Mitchell and myself,
feel we need an insurance policy as we come down the closing
stretch here on this project.
Specifically, this is a once in 15 year event for us. It's been 15
years since we've done anything like this, of this type of magnitude
with a financial software package, and we just feel we need to have
all reasonable assurances that the system is, in fact, being properly
configured and tested, and that the people employed by your agency,
by the clerk of courts and supervisor of elections, the three user
agencies, that the people employed in those groups to support the
system are in fact getting sufficient, what we refer to as knowledge
transfer from the consultants as they put the system up and put it into
place, that they in fact will be able to operate the system sufficiently
when the consultant leaves.
So with that, I'm before you today and asking for some
authorization to bring in an independent set of eyes, specifically, a
group named Rapidigm, Inc., which is an established SAP integrator
Page 236
November 5, 2002
known throughout the world.
We have -- we're asking to bring Rapidigm in to look at three
component parts of our project. Specifically, they've already taken a
look at our payroll module, and we'd like them to take a look at our
financial module and our purchasing section as well, and our H.R., so
those three as well, in addition to what they've already done, and
there's two things we want them to look at. We want them to verify
the configurations and the testing that's taking place, and we also
want them to take an assessment of where we are with our project
staff in terms of what they've received, what they've been able to
grasp and how self-sufficient they will be come January.
I will preface it right now by telling you that it is our intent for
the staff to be sufficient to be able to run the system, basic day-to-
day operations. That is a reasonable goal in January.
To be able to do major reconfiguration of the system probably is
not going to be something we're going to be able to do day one, and
so we also have to take a look at that and look at resources to assist
the staff with major configurations that may occur later, but not
necessarily be occurring day one.
So that's the reason for this contract.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: This is -- and you're going to have
the county clerk's office working right with you on this? MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
We're going to come back to you.
All right. Motion for approval by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Here's the reason I pulled
this item. The executive summary says that this is a request for
authority to issue work orders in excess of $25,000. In fact, if the
Page 237
November 5, 2002
information I've been given is correct, there's over-- almost a half
million dollars that will be expended on this effort.
MR. CARNELL: Potentially, potentially. Let me take that
point and address it.
We see Rapidigm being engaged at this point to potentially
provide services on four different tasks. We're only clear and
competent on the first one.
The first task is to have them come in and do what I just
described to you a moment ago, provide an assessment to us of where
we are with regard to a system configuration and with regard to our
personnel in terms of their ability to operate the system.
NOw, that, we anticipate, will cost in the neighborhood of
$47,000. What I would like to do, this was not stated in the
executive summary, so let me clarify. What I would like to do with
the Board's indulgence is, because we are doing this on the fly as we
move towards go live, what I would like to do is I would like to get
the consultant engaged, get them on site to do this work I just
referenced, have them give us a quality assurance report, which is the
deliverable we will get for that $47,000, and then, at that point, they
will identify for us what additional things we may need in the way of
services and support before January 1st, and later on, to be able to
expand our capability on a system.
So what I'd like to propose to the Board is that I come back to
you with a complete package of what we envision needing beyond
the $47,000 in December.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I will put that in my motion.
MR. CARNELL: All right. And the only reason I didn't do that
was -- I even thought about -- the numbers you were talking,
Commissioner Coyle, those are purely starting point numbers. I have
no serious confidence in those numbers beyond the first one right
now until I get that quality assurance report back, and I thought it
was, frankly, a little more irresponsible to put that number out there
Page 238
November 5, 2002
in the executive summary, when it's, frankly, just a little bit of
educated speculation on my part right now, my first guess as to what
this could cost.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A couple more questions.
First of all, of the four specific tasks that you have listed as
potentially requiring an expenditure of up to $500,000, which ones --
which of those tasks was supposed to be performed by our current
contractor?
MR. CARNELL: None, specifically. The current contractor's
responsibility is to help us configure the system so that we can get
the system in operation in terms of a base level of configuration
based on the scope we said we wanted at the time we engaged and
commenced the project.
The activities in there now -- first off, the first task for $47,000
is an independent review of all the work to be sure we have no bugs,
no problems, nothing significant that's going to jump up and bite us
in January.
The remaining tasks pertain to what I said a moment ago,
providing support to the staff beyond January 1 st. The current
integrator's job is responsible -- their responsibility was to get us to a
basic level of functionality and a basic capacity to support that
functionality. They were not contracted with, however, to teach us
how to do massive reconfiguration of the system, which that would
come in step two, actually.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Has the performance of the
existing contractor been satisfactory?
MR. CARNELL: Overall, they have performed in good faith.
We had some difficulty with the consultant during the summer, at
which time they had not, in our opinion, provided sufficient
resources to the project. We addressed that.
The consultant stepped forward and assumed responsibility.
They are performing the balance of their services without any
Page 239
November 5, 2002
additional fees. We are paying expenses to them, because they have
a very strong presence on our site, and the way our contract reads, we
are obligated to provide expenses on a material and time basis, but
with regard to services, they are paying no additional costs -- we are
paying no additional costs for services, and in my opinion, they have
stepped up and corrected the problems that we were having in the
summer.
I think, however, we will confirm that, hopefully, through this
audit that Rapidigm was going to provide us and give us that extra
level of confidence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When we first approved the
expenditure for this project, were the costs for these four functions
that are roughly estimated at $500,000, were those costs included in
the budget estimates for this project? MR. CARNELL: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you have sufficient money in
the existing budget for this project to cover these additional costs?
MR. CARNELL: I do not, based on my projections right now.
I am--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Where do we get this money?
What's your recommendation?
MR. CARNELL: Right now, we have identified the possibility
of drawing from excess tumback money from the constitutional
officer agencies, and the key word there is excess. At this point, the
budget office has identified nearly 1.1 million dollars that's available
above and beyond what's already budgeted and accounted for in the
general county budget in terms of revenue back to the general fund,
and we think we could draw from that to fund those services.
There may be a few other possible operating fund options as
well that could kick in some money, but primarily we're looking at
that source. And again, Commissioner, we're not looking at a
number larger than that. Hopefully, a number smaller.
Page 240
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With respect to the services that
you're anticipating from Rapidigm, have they given you a charge rate
schedule so that you know how much per hour you're going to be
charged based upon the level of employee they provide you?
MR. CARNELL: We're negotiating, as we speak, a lump sum
agreement for that first phase of services, and at this point, I have
made the offer to them that will total approximately $47,000 to cover
all those services in the first phase.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- well, here's my reaction. I
wouldn't approve anything without a fairly clear indication of a
charge rate schedule, and an understanding of how far we're going to
have to go with these other four categories.
It makes me very uneasy approving or providing approval for
authority to issue work orders in excess of $25,000 without any
budget, without any maximum amount, without any estimate for the
project. You know, that's very, very -- that causes me great concern.
I understand that you need it, and you're going to need it pretty
quickly, but I would suggest that a little more time be spent on
producing the budget and the estimate. I don't want to get nit-picked
over the next five or six months and find the $500,000 going to five
million, but I do think that some additional work needs to be done on
the project schedule, the project responsibilities and the cost before I
would feel comfortable voting for it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You made a good point,
Commissioner Coyle. I'm going to withdraw my motion. Anything
that can go from 25,000 to a half million dollars is not my idea of
financial responsibility.
MR. CARNELL: Let me, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's the issue.
MR. CARNELL: Yeah, if I could, let me simplify it for you.
I'd be very comfortable with what you're saying, Commissioner
Coyle. What I would suggest we do, if the Board would give the
Page 241
November 5, 2002
staff authorization to engage the first task, $47,000, because that's
your navigational point for everything else, if you'll give me the
authorization to do that now, I will come back to you in December
with the results of what we've gained from the first task, and then
give you a comprehensive budget and schedule for all other
activities.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you make that in the form of
a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I will make that motion that
we provide you authorization up to a maximum of $47,000 to engage
Rapidigm, and that you will come back in December with a more
specific budget request and project schedule.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I'll second that, and also like to
add that I don't want to ever see another executive summary that's
this open again.
Okay. With that, is there any other comments?
Commissioner Carter, forgive me. I didn't mean to ignore you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I understand this is a joint
project with the department of finance in the clerk's office? MR. CARNELL: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like some input from
Jim Mitchell on this. I'm not against approving the 47,000, but I am
really -- I have a zillion questions in my head on, how did this
contract get developed. And now I've got somebody looking at what
somebody was supposed to do to find out if they did it okay, and then
I've got.four more legs, or whatever legs on this, that says, my cost is
a half million dollars.
So what's the plan? What's this contract all about? I'd like to
get some input from finance on, where are we going with this thing?
MR. MITCHELL: Commissioners, good evening. For the
record, Jim Mitchell again.
Page 242
November 5, 2002
Basically, what we're looking at here with Rapidigm is strictly a
quality assurance program. You have to step back and take a look at
exactly what it is we're trying to do, and we're trying to replace a
system that's been in place in this county since 1987. And we're
looking at this as probably a 15-year transaction.
The total cost that we're looking at right now is 3.3 million
dollars.. It's a total new way of doing business for this county, the
SAP system. A lot of things we're learning as we go in regard to how
the system operates.
What Rapidigm is going to provide us is primarily an
independent set of eyes to look to see what's been done and to not
only make sure that it's done correctly, but to offer any
recommendations that can enhance what has been done to make us
more efficient.
The half million dollars, I mean, that is a number that's -- you're
really reaching up in the sky for that. There's -- we don't know what
that number's going to be. There's an expectation that it won't exceed
the half million dollars, but until we get through this first phase, we
don't know.
The one thing that we do know is that SAP is a very
complicated software package, and it's going to continue to cost us
money as we go forward until we get comfortable with it, until we do
all of the enhancements that the county wants to do with it, to bring
on different functionalities.
Each time we bring on an additional functionality, it's going to
cost us money, but the expectation is it's going to improve our
efficiencies there.
Rapidigm, what we're looking for there is strictly quality
assurance. Put that fresh set of eyes on it, make sure we haven't
missed anything, make sure that there's not enhancements that we
can do in the short term, because keep in mind, we're looking at, not
a January 1 go live, but in reality, it's going to be mid December
Page 243
November 5, 2002
when we go live, because the first thing we're bringing up is payroll,
and the payroll cycle for that starts toward the latter part of
December.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Is the 500,000 in addition to the
projected 3.3 million?
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: But that's also additional services there. I
mean, the 3.3 is -- it's -- the 500, I'm not even sure exactly what that
includes. I mean, that's the kitchen sink. That's if we decide to do
this, this, this, this and this, and there's no expectation at this point
that we're going to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: But each one of those comes
back to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim, do we have any hold back
against the prime contractor?
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How much do we have?
MR. MITCHELL: I think we're currently holding back around
200,00 right now. I mean, it's pure retainage.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But will we continue to hold that
back until we can verify
done satisfactorily?
MR. MITCHELL:
COMMISSIONER
MR. MITCHELL:
COMMISSIONER
MR. MITCHELL:
through Rapidigm what has or has not been
Absolutely.
COYLE: We can do that?
Absolutely.
COYLE: And we will do that?
And that's something that we'll have to also
look at, is if through this process there's a claim that needs to be
addressed against Rapidigm, that's something that we'll have to
Page 244
November 5, 2002
address -- or not against Rapidigm, but against the prime contractor.
That's something that we'll have to address. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: That's not our expectation now. Keep in
mind, what we're really looking at here is quality assurance. This is -
- I think is a very prudent move just to go in there and put a set of
fresh eyes on there to make sure we haven't missed anything.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to make sure that the
term SAP continues to be applied to the accounting program and not
to the County Commissioners.
And so I feel a little uneasy about the way this thing is
progressing, and I've been through a lot of very complex systems
implementations, and I know they're complex, and I know they never
go smoothly, and I know the contractors never do exactly what they
say they're going to do. So I appreciate your problem, but we must
be very, very careful with this, or you can be talking about a million
or a million and a half dollars if things don't go real well here.
MR. MITCHELL: And I hear exactly what you're saying, and
you don't have to go too far up 1-75 and catch 1-4 and head over to
Orlando to see what they've experienced with the SAP software that
they implemented. You know, they ended up spending an additional
four or five million dollars. That's not our intent here. That's what
we're trying to protect against by engaging the services of Rapidigm
for that Q and A.
We want to make sure we haven't missed anything. We want to
make sure the configuration is exactly correct before we even think
about bringing this thing live.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think that's a good move. My
concern is what Rapidigm might find that is going to cost us
substantial additional funds, and if that is the case, I want to be able
to hold back money from the primary contractor.
MR. MITCHELL: Absolutely, absolutely.
Page 245
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Any other comments or questions?
I'll call the question. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's the 47,000 --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: That's correct, Commissioner Coyle,
that you stated.
MR. MUDD: And come back in December with the details.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it 5-0.
Items #1 IA and #1 lB
PI IFIl,lC COMMFNTS ON GF, NF, RAI, TOPICS
Next on the agenda is public comments on general topics.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, you have three public speakers. The
first one is Mr. Kramer. He will be followed by Ken Thompson. I
believe he's gone, so he will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. KRAMER: Name again -- once again for the record is Jim
Kramer.
I want to take this opportunity to represent the public in district
two. Thank Dr. Carter for his service over the past four years. You,
from the podium, were able to do that. We believe that it was
exemplary service for four years and we appreciate it and wanted to
say thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski, and he's your final speaker.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good evening, Commissioners. How you
doing? I'm Bob Krasowski, Zero Waste Collier County Group.
I'm here to update you on the efforts of Zero Waste Collier
County'Group. We've made a lot of progress doing a lot in recent
weeks and months since I've last spoken to you.
What we have been working on is, in particular, is -- with the
Zero Waste Collier County Group's effort to hold a zero waste
Page 246
November 5, 2002
workshop design cherette. What we -- I presented to you before and
discussed with you before is the interest that Zero Waste has to bring
in zero waste experts to this community to evaluate our solid waste
program and to offer a lot of other programs around the country or
the world that fall under that Zero Waste umbrella, how they might
be implemented here.
So for those of you who aren't very enthusiastic about the
visioning of Zero Waste, I'd like to suggest that you consider it in
terms of maximum efficiency. That's what zero waste is. It's
removing waste and being very efficient with the use of resources.
As part of our intended program which initially we had
scheduled for December 5th through 8th, and now we are changing
and rescheduling for the late January, early February, mid February
time frame, we are bringing in a number of people.
The -- what we had expected or hoped to be a presentation by
the county staff resulting from the RFP processes, the extensive RFP
process that we have gone through to date, we expected that to occur
in late October sometime, but that didn't happen, understandably. It's
a very complex process you're going through in evaluating different
options, and but now we understand that that will occur late January
or early February, and once that information is in, we would like to
provide, it to our Ph.D. in economics, our 27 year veteran expert on
solid waste franchise negotiation agreements, and zero waste
implementation, and also a gentleman named Barry Friezen
(phonetic) who runs a zero waste program for Halifax Nova Scotia,
among others we'd like to bring as part of our program, which will be
co-sponsored by the State Department of Environmental Protection.
They're paying for the air fare, the housing and the facilities rental to
accommodate this program, and working with them, they made it
contingent on the involvement of the county, and the county has
agreed, the solid waste department, to present to this group, to
participate, and we hope, and I see my time is kind of coming down
Page 247
November 5, 2002
to the wire, we hope that through this process, through this event
which we invite you all to, and you'll hear more about it, to gain
insight as to other options and applications of zero waste and, you
know, recycling, composting, waste minimization.
And so now, I have the money to bring the people here and the
outline for the whole activity. Now we have to continue with our
conversations with the chamber, which we've had several, and you
know the chamber's interested in the commercial recycling, among
other things.
I've been promised a conversation with the Conservancy after
the election is over. They've been preoccupied with a number of
programs that they're involved in. And then we'd like to talk, again,
with building and contractor people, and other groups.
For zero waste to be effective, for it to work here in Collier
County, it will require, ultimately, the participation of everybody
involved. So it's not something that can be done without everybody's
involvement. So hopefully, this activity will advance our
understanding and contribute to the overall effort and be a part of the
fine effort that's been made up to this point and understand our
options.
I -- this will be the last time I speak to this particular group, and
I would like to thank you for all your encouragement, especially
Commissioner Coletta, for your support, for your critiques of the
various suggestions that we've brought up here.
I appreciate your input, Dr. Carter, and I hope, though you're
stepping away from the dias here, that you'll still be available to
discuss this option -- this whole issue that you've been involved with
in the past.
It would be terrible for us not to have the resources of somebody
as well-'connected in the community as you, and as I had mentioned
in the past, your water symposium was quite a model of what can be
done when the community gets together to study an issue.
Page 248
November 5, 2002
I appreciate your attention now and talking with you, and I'll be
back to you on -- as this thing progresses.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Bob. Thank you very
much.
Item #12A
SENIOR MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION FOR COUNTY
ATTORNEY-DISCI ISSED
And with that, we'll go to the county attomey to see if he has
anything that he wants to add to this meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Very little. I'm pleased to tell you that it's not
necessary to go to the legislative delegation in regard to what we
discussed almost exactly two weeks ago at this time, senior
management retirement classification for the county attorney.
I've been working with the county manager's office, Jean
Merritt, and met with Dwight Brock, and I think we'll be able to
process things administratively in that regard, and I thank you for
your support, and I also want to again mention my thanks for the
assistance and mentoring of Commissioner Carter for the past four
years. It's been a pleasure working with you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Mr. Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I wish I was as short as David
was just then, but he made up for that during the 10 items that we had
to deal with.
Item #15A
REFERENDUM ISSUE FROM MARCO ISLAND REGARDING
THE At:IIIJTY TO DEANNEX STATE ROAD 92-DISCIISSED
Page 249
November 5, 2002
I've received a request from Mike Barbush (phonetic), who is
the president of the Goodland Civic Association, and what Mr.
Barbush is asking for is for the Board to allow the county attorney to
craft language to request Marco Island City for an ordinance leading
to a referendum by Marco voters so that they can de-annex the State
Road 92 alpha area that was talked about before.
Commissioner, in the past we haven't really got into annexation
and de-annexation. We've pretty much been honest brokers in that
process. I understand what Mr. Barbush wants to do, but in my
opinion, and I've talked to staff about it, and David can jump in on
this if he'd like, because it's his time that he's requesting -- I don't
really think we have a dog in this fight, and so David?
MR. WEIGEL: We have no dog in this fight.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I like that-- I like that legal
determination. That's great. I mean, that really hit home. We
understood every word of it.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that constitute sufficient
guidance to staff?.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. rll write Mr. Barbush back and say --
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Tell him we don't have a dog in
this fight.
MR. MUDD: I think I'll do that.
Item #15B
JOE SCHMITT REGARDING A HIGH SCHOOL AT
ORANGETREE DEVELOPMENT; STAFF DIRECTED TO
PROCF, F,D WITH AMENDMENT TO TI-IF, PI ID DOCI IMFNT
The next item I'd like to talk about a little bit is, and Joe Schmitt
Page 250
November 5, 2002
will come up and talk about this some more, the high school in
Orange Tree by the School Board. We have some issues with the
PUD and some other things, but the high school needs to get going in
Orange Tree, or they're going to lose some money as far as the
contractor and his mobilization costs. So Joe?
MR. SCHMITT: Good evening, Commissioners. Again, for the
record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of community development and
environmental services.
This falls in the purview of discretion lies in the hands of the
commissioners. The Orange Tree PUD, the School Board wants to
put in Lewis and Clark High School. We desperately need it. We all
recognize it. The Orange Tree PUD does not allow for that use in the
area they want to put it in. The area's currently zoned agriculture.
We're initiating procedures to change the PUD. In fact, we're
working with Robert Gold, because he also wants to make some
amendments to the PUD. But what I'm here this evening to ask you
is to allow us to allow the School Board to proceed with at least the
clearing and grubbing and initial construction efforts, because the
plan is right now we have a public information meeting scheduled for
the -- November 18th and then the write-up in the amendment
process, the Planning Commission January 2nd. We'll probably have
that to you for final approval, I'm at least forecasting right now, in
the second meeting in January.
So. what I'm asking you is to allow, at least from a discretionary
perspective, allow the school to move forward as we -- I don't have
that authority to do that, and this is the situation. Michael Kirk
(phonetic) is here from the School Board, and basically he can
explain the ramifications that this has in delaying until January.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think we really need
that. I think we can make that decision right here. It's prudent that
we get moving on this.
So, if you need a motion or direction, my direction was -- was to
Page 251
November 5, 2002
proceed forward.
Do you need a motion?
MR. MUDD: I just need some direction. If I can get --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We're all nodding our heads.
MR. SCHMITT: We will come back to you for the amended
PUD, and that'll be back in front of you. What I'm looking for is
your concurrence to allow staff to give the School Board the thumbs
up to move ahead.
MR. MUDD: And Michael, you have a townhall meeting up
there scheduled for when?
MR. KIRK: For the record, my name is Michael Kirk. I'm the
director of facilities planning and construction for Collier County
Public Schools, and we have been working very closely with your
staff to schedule a meeting, an information meeting that's going to be
at Corkscrew Middle School on November the 18th, which will start
at seven o'clock, and to inform the public of what the situation is with
amending the PUD.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much, sir.
Item #15C
MANNING COMMISSION OFFICES OFF-SITE WITH STAFF-
DISCI ISSF, D
MR. MUDD: And my last item, Commissioner, is I've had a
request to talk about manning of commissioners' off site offices off of
campus, and some commissioners on this Board have offices in other
places and sometimes they go to them, may it be Marco or
Immokalee or whatever, about manning that office with county staff
when the commissioner isn't there, and I need to get some guidance
from the Board as far as that's concerned.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No way, Jose. That's my
Page 252
November 5, 2002
guidance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll make a comment. I'm there
every Thursday, and I don't know why I'd need anybody other than --
I mean, I'm there every Thursday. They expect it. I'm never
inundated. Never overloaded. So I wouldn't need staff.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: My own comments, if I may.
Immokalee, and by God, you've seen it today, is certainly a different
situation. About 36 miles removed from this government center. I
make it there quite often, but the problem is, is that it's nothing that's
predictable. With all the requirements I have on me from everything
from the MPO, it's not a fixed schedule where I can show up at any
particular day. I've got two days planned next week. The week after
that, I think there's one day, but it's hit and miss.
There's a tremendous demand in Immokalee for service that we
can't render. This center is way out of reach for them, and I was
looking to see if possibly we might be able to consider some
assistance, at least for Immokalee, because of the situation that
prevails in that community where they would love to have a
government service where they could go to an office that represents
the Commission office to be able to do the normal business that
everyone else can do in this county.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: May I make a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think you maybe ought to
look at Prioritizing your time.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I thank you, Commissioner Henning.
I assure you that my time is extremely prioritized, and I spend many,
many hours at the job. It's a nice way to end a meeting.
Well, I think right at this point in time, there is probably not
enough support on this to go forward.
MR. MUDD: So that's all I have as far as communications is
concemed.
Page 253
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
or brain storm a little bit and --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Maybe we can work out something
I'm always open for suggestions, but
COMMISSIONER CARTER: My brain's dead right now. Try
the next commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA:
Okay. Anything else, Mr. Mudd?
Okay. Commissioner Henning?
Item #15D
AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO TURN DOWN REPEAT
ITEMS IF NECESSARY UNDER PUBLIC PETITIONS AND/OR
Pl JlZlI.IC COMMF. NTS-DISCI ISSFJD
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We had an item on public
petition today, it was the same item that came up during the election
time and time again. I would hope that the Board could give the
county manager direction if it looks like -- unless there's substantial
changes. They do have an opportunity to speak under public
comments.
And Commissioner Coletta, as you can see here, there was only
one administrator when we had public comments. So it is, when we
have public petitions, we have all of the administrators here, so it is a
wasteful production of taxpayers' money.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right. And you can set the new
rules, and it's no problem.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I just wanted to clarify
that because you stated that it is a waste of taxpayers' money when
we have the same item come up over and over, and the only thing
that I want to do is put it under --
Page 254
November 5, 2002
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. If I could just get some direction from
the Board, if I've got a repeat item that's been heard before the Board,
I just need to have a little bit of permission to say no, I'm sorry, we're
not going to listen to your petition, you can come back on public
comments.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I can support that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You've got all the nods here.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: I have no problem. The only
problem I had with today was that at the middle of the game, we
were going to tell the person that already followed the rules that he
was out for five -- for the lousy five minutes he could speak, we were
going tO try to change the rules on him at that moment. No problems
with doing it now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I hope he writes under his
contribution to his campaign, taxpayers' contribution, because that's
what it was all about.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've got something.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. I've got something too. You
go ahead, Commissioner Fiala. You go first.
Item # 15E
WORKFORCE HOUSING PROPOSING LDC AMENDMENT
SPECIAl. CYCI.E-DISCI ISSED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. Thank you.
I first apologize, Commissioners, because I was going to send
this to you via a memo, and instead my husband and I took off for
North Carolina to see his grandbaby, so I want to just bring this up to
you now.
Page 255
November 5, 2002
On behalf of the work force housing committee, and the
progress it has made, I wish to inform you of my desire to request
Board authorization and direction to staff to provide for a land
development code special amendment cycle to amend the code to
provide for inclusionary zoning.
Thank you, David, for this wording. In other words, we're
getting there. We're finally there. We hope to -- we hope to have a
complete package before the end of this year. So I'm asking that -- I
don't know, do I need to bring it up on a special agenda? Do I need
Board approval to do that? I need direction now.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, thank you. I think nods or some kind of
affirmation on the record is all that's necessary. You don't need a
motion and the idea, of course, is that it would come before the
regularly scheduled-- in between the regularly scheduled cycle,
amendment cycles that we have.
One's coming up in December. The next one is in June and
July, and so this will work its way through probably in that February,
March area, and if need be, potentially, the PUD amendment-- well,
that's just a PUD amendment, so that doesn't need to be included --
MR. MUDD: We've got a couple -- we've got another special
cycle that's going on for smart growth and Barbara Cacchione,
basically, presented that to the Board. We'll get this one in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe we can do it at the same
time.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And I'll get with the community
development staff to make sure that we can get that all resolved.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a request. The details of the
inclusionary zoning really haven't been fleshed out, and while I don't
have any problem supporting an effort to begin looking at the land
development code, what I have a problem with is waking up
sometime in January, and here's a completed draft of all the LDC
Page 256
November 5, 2002
amendments that we've never had a chance to discuss or debate.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala's group is going to present to
this Board everything that they basically suggest, and basically get
your buy in before we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to have a workshop so
MR. MUDD: -- put pen to paper.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Fair enough.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we're going to invite people
down from -- who are specialists in this field so they can answer
questions as well.
We want to make sure that you have all the facts before you go
in, because we want a positive response. You can't do that unless we
give you all the facts.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
I'm going to leave the last comment for you, Commissioner
Carter. I just wanted to say --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I wanted to say --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Oh, go ahead, of course.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Through good and through bad, it's
been a pleasure working with you.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And I too want you tell you,
Commissioner Carter, I truly enjoyed working with you, but I don't
think yOu're going to disappear from the scene totally. I've got a
feeling you're going to be --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You better not.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- close by and we'll be able to call
on your golden voice to talk to us in the future ---
COMMISSIONER CARTER: The EIB network.
Page 257
November 5, 2002
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can always come in under
public comment.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Oh, yes, that's right. And if you
think I would sit around here until seven o'clock at night to come in
here under public comment, you need more help than I can share
with you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we'll let you come at the
beginning of the meeting, provided you don't try to do it twice in a
row.
COMMISSIONER CARTER: Okay. The only comments I
have, I don't know if a marathon meeting was a punishment or you
just hated to see me go, but I've thoroughly enjoyed working with
this Board. You're great, and, you know, as General Douglas
MacArthur once said, and I will paraphrase, old commissioners never
die, they just fade away, and that will be my role here, but I will be
close by. So thank you. It's been a pleasure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. With that, we're
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
RESOLUTIONS 2002-444 THROUGH 2002-449 PROVIDING
FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIENS FOR THE COST OF THE
APlATEMENT OF Pl IFII,IC NI IISANCF, S
Item #16A2
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2002-09, RE PETITION CARNY-2002-AR-
3209, REVEREND JOSEPH SPINELLI, OSA, ST. ELIZABETH
Page 258
November 5, 2002
SETON CATHOLIC CHURCH, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A CARNIVAL FROM NOVEMBER 6-10, 2002 ON
CHURCH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2760 52ND TERRACE SW,
GOIJDF, N GATE CITY, FI,
Item # 16A3
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE
NO. 2002-002 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
WILLIAM SEWARD REGARDING VIOLATION TO
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, SECTION 3.9.3 AND 2.7.6(5) AS
AMENDED OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DF, VFJ,OPMF, NT CODE
Item #16A4
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-017 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. ANDRES
AND OLGA HERNANDEZ REGARDING VIOLATION TO
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, SECTION 3.9.3 AS AMENDED OF
THE COIJ,IFR COl JNTY IJAND DF, VF, IJOPMF, NT CODE
Item # 16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-030 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. MINI
MAX MARKET, INC., REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
2.7.6(1) AND (5) OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED
OF THE COIJJER COl JNTY IJAND DEVFJ~OPMFNT CODE
Page 259
November 5, 2002
Item #16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-074 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
PENELOPE P. MAROULES REGARDING VIOLATION OF
SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH B 1 AND 2 OF ORDINANCE NO.
2000-68 OF THE COIJ~IER COIINTY NOISE ORDINANCE
Item #16A7
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-052 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. JOHN
AND SHEILA BARRY REGARDING VIOLATION OF
SECTIONS 2.6.20.1.2,2.6.20.1.5,1.5.6 AND 2.1.15 OF
ORDINANCES NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED OF THE COLLIER
COl INTY I~AND DEVEI~OPMENT CODE
Item # 16A8
ALLOW CLEARING OF TRACTS F AND G, 1.88 ACRES, OF
THE OF THE SABAL BAY COMMERCIAL PLAT LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWESTERN CORNER OF US 41 AND THOMASSON
DRIVE, BOUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY THE C.D.C. PUD
(F.K.A. COLLIER DRI) AND ON THE FOURTH SIDE BY U.S. 41
- WITH STIPI II,ATIONS
Item #16A9
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST PHASE III,
l JNIT FIVE"
Page 260
November 5, 2002
Item gl6A10
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL
REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $683,441 FOR FISCAL YEAR
'03 AND ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$190,548 FOR FISCAL YEAR '02 TO THE STATE HOUSING
INITIATIVE PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM
Item g 16B 1
WORK ORDER FOR $453,264.80 FOR CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS SERVICES BY JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC., FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO_ 66042
Item gl 6B2
AWARD BID g02-3406 - ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT
AND RELATED ITEMS TO BETTER ROADS INC., BONNESS,
INC., AND APAC-FLORIDA INC., FOR THE APPROXIMATE
ANNIIAI, AMOIINT OF $3~000~000
Item gl 6B3
AMENDMENT FOR $108,110 TO CONTRACT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS
SERVICES BY KCCS, INC. FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II
(GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TO PINE RIDGE ROAD) SIX-
I JANE IMPROVEMENTS~ PROJECT NO. 60071
Item gl 6B4-Deleted
Item gl 6B5
Page 261
November 5, 2002
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND CHANGE ORDER WITH
BETTER ROADS INC., FOR MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS ON
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD 1N THE AMOUNT OF $20,618.95;
PROJECT #60175
Item #16B6
AWARD WORK ORDER NO. WD-015 TO DOUGLAS N.
HIGGINS, INC., FOR LAKE KELLY DITCH IMPROVEMENTS
(PROJECT NO. 51801) IN THE AMOI INT OF $264;01 2.55
Item # 16B7
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR PERIODIC MAINTENANCE OF
THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL UNDER THE BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTED AT 13TM STREET SW (PROJECT NO. 60012),
FISCAI, IMPACT $20~100
Item # 16B8
DECLARE FOUR (4) NUCLEAR TESTING GAUGES AS
SURPLUS AND APPROVE THE SALE AND DISPOSAL OF
EACH NUCLEAR TESTING GAUGE AS DESCRIBED HEREIN
(lqlD #S02-3423)
Item #16B9
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH FOR THE
ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES DEPARTMENT
IN THE AMOI
Item # 16C 1
Page 262
November 5, 2002
WAIVE THE $500,000 UPPER LIMIT FOR CONTRACT #02-
3359: "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR TELEMETRY SERVICES"
AND APPROVE THE WORK ORDER TO DATAFLOW
SYSTEMS IN THE AMOIJNT OF $717,160
Item # 16C2 - Moved to Item gl 0Q
Item #16C3
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO SERVE THE
NORTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
(NCWRF) DEEP INJECTION WELLS TO BE LOCATED AT THE
NCWRF PROPERTY, THE COST OF WHICH SHOULD NOT
FJXCF, FD $30.00
Item #16C4
STAFF AND COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISAPPROVE A TDC CATEGORY
"A" GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A
SAND WEB SYSTEM (POROUS GROINS) ALONG ONE MILE
OF NAPI~ES BEACH IN THE AMOI JNT OF $1 ~000~000
Item #16C5 - Moved to Item #10R
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2002-450, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
Page 263
November 5, 2002
FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAl, SERVICES SPECIAIJ ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C7
RESOLUTION 2002-451, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAIJ SERVICES SPECIAIJ ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C8
RESOLUTION 2002-452, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAl. SERVICES SPECIAIJ ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C9
RESOLUTION 2002-453, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1994 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAl. SERVICES SPECIAI~ ASSESSMENTS
Item # 16C 10
RESOLUTION 2002-454, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAl. SERVICES SPECIAl. ASSESSMENTS
Page 264
November 5, 2002
Item # 16C 11
RESOLUTION 2002-455, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SOLID
WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY
HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN
FULL FOR THE 1996 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAI. SF. RVICES SPF. CIAIJ ASSESSMENTS
Item #16C12
CONTRACT S0055 WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO PARTICIPATE
1N THE ENHANCED SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR PILOT
PROGRAM AND NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE
AMOIINT OF $20;000
Item # 16C 13
UTILITY EASEMENT FOR WATER MAINS LOCATED WITHIN
LAPLAYA GOLF CLUB PROPERTY, AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEF, D $600
Item # 16C 14
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY EXTENDING THE
LEASE TERM FOR THE NAPLES TRANSFER STATION
PROPERTY AT A FIRST YEAR ANNIIAL RENT OF $36;384
Item # 16C 15
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
CARLTON LAKES, LLC, EXTENDING THE LEASE TERM FOR
Page 265
November 5, 2002
AN ADDITIONAL ELEVEN MONTHS FOR A TOTAL
REVENI JE OF $87400
Item # 16C 16
SATISFACTION OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE
Item # 16C 17
SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN WATER AND/OR SEWER
IMPA CT FEE PAYMENT AGREEMENTS
Item # 16C 18
SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST
REAIJ PROPERTY FOR ABATEMENT AND Nil IISANCE
Item #16C19
UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 16-
INCH RECLAIMED WATER MAIN ALONG THE SOUTHERLY
SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD FOR RADIO ROAD/DAVIS
BOULEVARD PROJECT NO. 74035 AT A COST NOT TO
EXCEED $400
Item #16C20
WORK ORDER FOR PHASE 2 OF PROJECT 90527, COUNTY-
WIDE SAND SEARCH, IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,805 WITH
COASTAI~ PIJANNING AND F. NGINEER1NG
Item # 16C21
Page 266
November 5, 2002
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND UTILITY EASEMENT FOR
THE GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY
IMPRO.VEMENTS PROJECT AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$3~400- AS C)I ITI,INED 1N THE EXECI ITIVE SI IMMARY
Item # 16D 1
EMPLOY A PART-TIME 4H PROGRAM ASSISTANT TO
PROVIDE EXPANDED LEARNING FOR STUDENTS IN
IMMOKALEE AND ACCEPT FUNDS OF $23,370 FROM A
PRIVATFi DONATION
Item #16D2
ANNUAL 2002 REPORT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY FILM
COMMISSION
Item #16D3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICES FOR THE
CONTINUED USE OF COUNTY-OWNED OFFICE SPACE AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURE CENTER THAT WILL
NET THE COIJNTY A FIRST YEAR REVF. NI IE OF $13~902.45
Item #16D4 - Moved to Item # 1 OS
Item #16D5
TWO BUDGET AMENDMENTS, THE FIRST RECOGNIZING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT REVENUE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 FOR THE SOCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE PRESCRIPTION MEDICATIONS
Page 267
November 5, 2002
TO LOW INCOME RESIDENTS IN IMMOKALEE, AND THE
SECOND TO REDUCE THE FY03 SOCIAL SERVICES CLIENT
ASSISTANCE EXPENDITURE BUDGET AND INCREASE THE
GENERAL FUND (001) RESERVE FOR CONTINGENCIES BY
$60,000
Item # 16E 1
UTILIZE STATE CONTRACTS FOR PURCHASE OF
FIIRNITIIRF, AND FI,OOR COVERING OVFJR $25,000
Item #16E2
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND 516, PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE, TO CORRECT A DEFICIT IN
CI,AIMS EXPENDITI IRES FOR FY02
Item #16E3
STAFF'S SHORT LIST FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR
THE DESIGN OF THE NEW FLEET FACILITY, RFP #02-3422-
DISNEY AND ASSOCIATF, S. HARPER PARTNERS AND PPlS&J
Item # 16E4 - Moved to Item #10T
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT- BUDGET AMENDMENT
#03-047 FOR $4,600.00; #03-050 FOR $24,241; #03-057 FOR
$14,540; AND #03-058 FOR $5,000
Item # 16H 1
Page 268
November 5, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-456 OPPOSING A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION WHICH
WOULD ALLOW THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY HOME RULE
CHARTER. (COMMISSIONER COI,ETTA~
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 269
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
November 5, 2002
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Co
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter
136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for the period:
1. Disbursements from September 28, 2002 through October 4, 2002.
2. Disbursements from October 6, 2002 through October 11, 2002.
3. Disbursements from October 12, 2002 through October 18, 2002.
Districts:
1. Immokalee Water & Sewer District- 2002-2003 Schedule of Regular Meetings
and Copy of Registered Office and Agent; Audited Financial Stmnt for year end
09/01, Management Letter and Response to Management Letter.
2. Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting for
May 13, 2002, Financial Report for May 13, 2002 and Budget FY 2003.
3. Port of the Islands Community District - Minutes of Meeting August 16, 2002
and Financial Report August 16, 2002.
Minutes:
1. Collier County Planning Commission - Minutes of September 19, 2002.
2. Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes of September 30, 2002.
3. Historical & Archaeological Preservation Board_- Agenda for October 16, 2002.
4. Collier County Airport Authority_- Agenda for October 14, 2002, Minutes of
August 27, 2002, Minutes of September 9, 2002.
5. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee_- Minutes of July 31, 2002,
Minutes of August 14, 2002.
6. Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for October 8, 2002,
Minutes of September 10, 2002.
7. Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for October
16, 2002, Minutes of September 18, 2002, Minutes of August 21, 2002.
Item # 16J 1
November 5, 2002
ENDORSE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE/DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY FEDERAL
EQI IITAFII,E SHAR1NG ANNIIAI~ CERTIFICATION REPORT
Item #16J2
DETERMINATION THAT PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC
PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COl INTY FI JNDS TO SATISFY SAID PIIRCHASES
Item #16K1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 118B, 818B 1 AND
818B3 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
JOHN A. PULL1NG, JR., TRUSTEE OF A LAND TRUST
AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 2, 1991, ET AL, LIVINGSTON
ROAD (PINE RIDGE ROAD TO IMMOKALEE ROAD)PROJECT-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $13,671.65 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
EASEMENT ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 705 IN THE LAWSUIT
ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. DANIEL F. JOHNSTON, ETAL,
(GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD PROJECT)- STAFF TO DEPOSIT
THE SI IM OF $874.18 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Page 270
Item #17A
November 5, 2002
RESOLUTION 2002-457, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2432,
STAN WITTEMORE, REPRESENTING W. BELDEN AND
GEORGELLE BURNS, REQUESTING A 5-FOOT REAR YARD
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FEET TO 25 FEET FOR
PROPF. RTY IJOCATF. D AT 275 KINGS WAY
Item # 17B
RESOLUTION 2002-458, RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2445,
DOUGLAS R. EATON, PSM, REPRESENTING BEN ARLEDGE,
REQUESTING A VARIANCE IN THE ESTATES "E" ZONING
DISTRICT FROM THE REQUIRED 75 FOOT FRONT SETBACK
ALONG NE 33P'° AVENUE (SOUTH BOUNDARY), TO ALLOW
A 30 FOOT WIDE FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY
IJOCATFD AT 4175 33va) AVF. NIIFJ NF,
There being no further business for the good of the of the
County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:52 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
JAME~ COLETTA, CHAIRMAN
Page 271
November 5, 2002
ATTE,~ , ~
DW~., [~T~,' 4 ~ "CLERK
~. ~.*-.. ..-'L~~. ?
Ta~¢-~e~pprovea by the Board on
presented ~ ........ ~ or as co~ected
/o~ - ..~ - 6F,. as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING BY: Terri Lewis, RPR and Debra DeLap
Page 272