BCC Minutes 01/14/2003 RJanuary 14, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 14, 2003
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:
Jim Coletta/Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
January 14, 2003
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
1
January14,2003
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
g
0
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Reverend Vincent Liddle, Church of the Resurrection
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Be
Ge
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
December 2, 2002 - BCC/Land Development Code Comprehensive Rewrite
Workshop
December 3, 2002 - Regular
December 10, 2002 - BCC/Tourist Development Council Workshop
December 11, 2002 - BCC/Land Development Code
December 17, 2002 - Regular
December 20, 2002 - BCC/AUIR Workshop
PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to recognize January 15-19, 2003 as Purple Martin Week.
Proclamation to designate the week of January 12-18, 2003 as "Old Marco
Days". To be accepted by Kris Helland, President of the Marco Island
Historical Society.
2
January14,2003
SERVICE AWARDS
Ce
Proclamation to observe January 20, 2003 as Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
To be accepted by LaVeme Franklin and Irene Williams.
D. SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR 2003.
5. PRESENTATIONS
Ae
Presentation by Waste Management, Inc. of Florida of the Solid Waste
Association of North America Award.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Public Petition Request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss Independent Airport
Authority and Independent Fire Districts.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
This item has been continued from the December 17~ 2002 BCC
Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-02-AR-
2476, Timothy Maloney requesting Conditional Use "7" of the "E" Estates
District for Earthmining on property located on 46th Street NE, Golden Gate
Estates, Unit 45, Tract 119, Section 4, Township 48 South, Range 28 East,
consisting of 6 acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2446,
Anne D'Agostino, representing Mayfield Road Inc., DBA Perkins
Restaurant, requesting an after-the-fact 23-foot variance for the height of a
flagpole from the required 50 feet to 73 feet for property located at 3585
Gateway Lane, further described as Naples Gateway, Phase I, Lot 3, in
Section 7, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-3332,
Vincent A. Cautero, AICP of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc.,
representing Henry Westforth of Westforth Contracting, Inc., requesting
approval of a 1.5-foot variance in the Pelican Bay PUD from the required
1 O-foot side yard setback to 8.5-feet, in order to construct a second story
addition to the existing single-family dwelling on property located at 6962
3
January 14, 2003
Greentree Drive, Pelican Bay Unit 13, Lot 14, Section 4, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ae
This item has been continued from the December 17~ 2002 BCC
Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDA-
2002-AR-2702, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor, P.A., representing
Westbury Properties Inc., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD"
Planned Unit Development for the purpose of amending the Lands End
Preserve PUD by reducing the total number of dwelling units from 786 units
to a maximum of 725 units, adding approximately 6.5 acres of preserve area,
adding a 3.3 acre neighborhood village center facility, and increasing the
maximum height limit of the multi-family dwelling units to a maximum of
75 feet over one level of parking for property located on the West side of
Barefoot Williams Road and North of the Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve in
Sections 4 and 5, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida.
Be
This item has been continued from the December 17~ 2002 BCC
Meeting. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-
01-AR-1749, William L. Hoover of Hoover Planning, representing Mark L.
Lindner, Trustee, requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agricultural and
"PUD" Planned Unit Development to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to
be known as the Mission Hills PUD allowing for commercial uses for
property located at the Northwest Quadrant of the intersection of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) and Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862) in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Ce
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-2965,
Kenneth E. Griffith, of Johnson Engineering, Inc., representing Habitat for
Humanity of Collier County Inc., as partial owner and contract purchaser,
requesting: 1) Rezoning from "A" Agricultural (8+ acres) and from Habitat
Place Planned Unit Development (PUD) (20+ acres) zoning districts to
Charlee Estates PUD to allow a 124 lot, single-family subdivision that will
be designed to accommodate very low income housing units; and 2)
Consideration and approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus
4
January 14, 2003
Agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus
density units (in the amount of 39 units at 1.37 bonus density units per acre)
in the development of the single-family residential dwelling units for low-
income residents. The subject property is located on the Southwest side of
Tamiami Trail East, approximately 3+ miles East of Collier Boulevard (CR
951), in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 28.462+ acres.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Community Character/Smart Growth
Advisory Committee.
B. Appointment of members to the Black Affairs Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of members to the Citizens Advisory Task Force.
D. Appointment of member to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
E. Appointment of member to the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee.
F. Appointment of member to the Collier School Readiness Coalition.
G. Appointment of member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
H. Appointment of members to the Isle of Capri Fire Control District Advisory
Committee.
I. Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee.
J. Discussion regarding several issues relating to Land Development Code.
(Commissioner Halas)
K. Reconsideration of items 8(C) and 8(D) from the December 17, 2002 BCC
meeting regarding the Pelican Marsh PUD, Petitions number DOA-2002-
AR-2567 and PUDA-2002-AR-2566 also known as "The Plaza at Galleria".
(Commissioner Henning.)
5
January 14, 2003
L. Requesting direction to the Productivity Committee to work with the
assistance of the County Manager's Office to do performance audits on
County departments. (Commissioner Henning.)
M. Discussion regarding Audit Report 2002-3 regarding the financial
relationship between Collier County and Kraft Construction.
(Commissioner Henning.)
N. Resolution transmitting comment to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on
proposed Rule, RIN 10-18-AH86 relating to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and Manatees in the State of Florida; expressing concerns on how the
rule may adversely impact Collier County; providing for an effective date.
(Commissioner Coyle)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee simple title interests
and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests required for the
construction of a six-lane section of Golden Gate Parkway between
Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard (Capital Improvement
Element No. 74, Project No. 60027). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $4,179,000.
(Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
B. THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AT 10:00 A.M. Authorize the use of
$164,000 from the Human Services Department to be considered part of a
local match requirement to obtain State and Federal funding to operate a
primary care clinic in the Golden Gate area. (John Dunnuck, Administrator,
Public Services)
C. THIS ITEM TO BE HEARD AT 3:00 P.M. Review the Collier County
Airport Authority Ordinance and provide Staff direction. (Jim Mudd,
County Manager)
D. This item has been deleted.
E. Authorize the County Attorney's Office to prepare and advertise an
amendment to the Livingston Road Beautification Phase II MSTU
Ordinance to exclude Grey Oaks Properties and to delete Grey Oaks
representation on the MSTU Advisory Committee. (Mike Smykowski,
6
January 14, 2003
OMB Director)
F. Adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple title interests
and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests for the construction
of a six-lane section of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Airport Road and
Collier Boulevard (CR-951), (Capital Improvement Element Nos. 24 & 63,
Project No. 63051). Estimated Fiscal Impact: $5,765,600. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3521, Hans Hamann, Carnival Chairman of the
Immokalee Rotary Club, requesting a permit to conduct a carnival on
January 16 through January 19, 2003, on County owned property at the
Immokalee Regional Airport located at 165 Airport Boulevard, Immokalee,
Florida. (Joe Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. This item has been continued from the December 17~ 2002 BCC
Meeting. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the Mediated Settlement Agreement and the Stipulated Final
Judgment incorporating the same terms and conditions as the Mediated
Settlement Agreement relative to the acquisition on Parcel Nos. 114, 115
and 116 in the Lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Centex Homes, a Nevada
General Partnership et al, Case No. 02-1602-CA, (Goodlette-Frank Road
Project #60134).
B. Recommendation that the Board approve a settlement agreement in the case
of Karen Lee v. Domestic Animal Services, Case No. 02-649-CC, and
authorize the Chairman to sign all necessary settlement documents.
C. This item to be heard at 12:00 Noon. Recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners and the County's Labor Negotiating Committee hold
Strategy Session for Collective Bargaining with the Southwest Florida
Professional Firefighters and Paramedics, IAFF LOCAL 1826, in the Shade
pursuant to Section 447.605(1), Fla. Stat.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
7
January 14, 2003
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
A. Discussion regarding Human Relations Ordinance. (Commissioner Halas.)
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) This item has been deleted.
2) Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Riverchase Commons".
3) Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Saturnia Lakes Plat
Three" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
4) Request to approve for recording the Final Plat of "Golden Gate Fire
Station #72".
5) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2001-016 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Victor A. Hansen regarding violation of
Ordinance 91-102 as amended of Sections 2.7.6.1,2.7.6.5 and
2.6.11.2.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
6) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-016 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Kathleen Sadlacek regarding violation of
Ordinance No. 91-102 as amended of Section 3.9.6.9.4 (1, 2 & 3) of
8
danuar~t 14, 2003
Ordinance No. 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development
Code.
7) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-017 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Jeffrey A. Dorini regarding violation of Sections
2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, as amended of the
Collier County Land Development Code.
8) Code Enforcement Lien Resolution approvals.
9) Approval of a request to the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) to extend the County's Grant Agreement for a Florida Small
Cities and Counties Community Development Block Grant that
provided for a portion of the construction of the Manufacturing
Incubator Facility II at the Immokalee Regional Airport Industrial
Park.
10) Approval of the Mortgage and Promissory Note for a one hundred
thirty-eight thousand ($138,000) dollar loan from the State Housing
Initiatives Partnership (S.H.I.P.) Program to the St. Matthews House
of Collier County, Inc.
11) Petition CARNY-2002-AR-3492, Lou Hoegsted, President, Collier
County Fair and Exposition, Inc., requesting a permit to conduct a fair
from January 31 through February 9, 2003, at the Collier County Fair
Grounds on Immokalee Road (CR 846) North Golden Gate Estates.
(Joe Schmitt, CD&ES Administrator.)
12) Approval of one (1) impact fee refund request totaling $3,970.00, as a
rebuild from a house fire.
13) Amendment of the FY-03 budget in the amount of $117,000 to
accomplish the planned activities for the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program.
14) Consideration of a resolution supporting a petition to amend the
boundaries and name of the Fiddler's Creek Community Development
District, pursuant to Section 190.046, Florida Statutes.
9
January 14, 2003
15) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 1998-213 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. EMC Holdings, Inc., regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
16) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 1998-144 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. EMC Holdings, Inc. regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
17) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Cast No. 2002-191 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. EMC Holdings, Inc, regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
18) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2000100019 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Philip Carlton, Jr. regarding violation of
Ordinances No. 99-51 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Approve Change Order No. 3 with Bonness, Inc., in the amount of
$1,390,146.36 for additional construction services to build a bridge at
Lakeland Avenue over the Cocohatchee Canal, Project No. 65041.
2) Approve the piggybacking of a Pasco County Bid to purchase a single
drum vibratory roller in the amount of $68,553.00 for the Road
Maintenance Department.
3) Adopt a Resolution requesting that the Florida Department of
Transportation transfer surplus property located on US-41 to Collier
County via Quitclaim Deed. Fiscal Impact: $15.00.
4) Approve a Declaration setting aside County-Owned Lands for
Immokalee Road Right-of-Way and for Stormwater Retention and
Treatment, West side of the Fairgrounds. Fiscal Impact: $28.50.
5) Award Bid #02-3412 for traffic sign materials to Osburn Associates,
Inc., and Municipal Supply and Sign Company in the estimated
10
January 14, 2003
amount of $100,000.
6) Award category grouping sections of Bid No. 02-3394 "Traffic
Operations Components" to Control Specialists Company, Traffic
Parts, Inc., Temple, Inc., Traffic Products, Inc., and Transportation
Control Systems, Inc., in the estimated amount of $147,000.
7) Approve budget amendments to carry forward funds to reopen a
purchase order in FY-03 that was closed by mistake in FY-02 in the
amount of $41,062.54.
8) Approval of a budget amendment in the amount of $2,317 to add
reimbursable expenses to the McGee and Associates contract for US
41 North Phase II and Davis Boulevard landscaping renovation phase
II.
9) Request the Board to approve purchase of professional services and a
noise barrier system for $97,904 from Noise Control Technologies.
The project is located along the west side of the maintenance
equipment yard and the onsite generator at 4800 Davis Boulevard.
10) Approval a Change Order and a budget amendment to the Immokalee
Triangle Beautification Project #66071 in the amount of $34,514.35
for the removal of existing asphalt and the extension of directional
borings.
11) Award of Bid #02-3430 milling of existing asphalt roadways.
12) Approve supplemental agreement No. 1 for $142,337 for the
construction engineering and inspections services by HDR
Construction Control Corporation to add inspection services for the
construction of the Lakeland Avenue Bridge, Project No. 65041.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve surplus declaration for two beach rakes and approve the sale
of one of the two beach rakes to the manufacturer's representative in
the amount of $5,000.
11
January 14, 2003
2) 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 $18.00 to record the Liens.
3) 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 $18.00 to record the Liens.
4) 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 $30.00 to record the Liens.
5) 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 $46.50 to record the Liens.
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 1996 Solid Waste
Collection and Disposal Services Special Assessments. Fiscal Impact
is $40.50 to record the Liens.
7) Agreement to reimburse the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector for
services rendered for the Price Street-Barefoot Williams Road Water
Municipal Service Benefit Unit.
8) Authorization to execute and record Satisfactions for certain Water
and/or Sewer Impact Fee Payment Agreements. Fiscal Impact is
$88.50 to record the Satisfactions.
9) Approve a Resolution authorizing the submission of a Loan
Application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
12
January 14, 2003
(FDEP) for the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF)
Expansion to 24.1-Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) Maximum Month
Average Daily Flow (MMADF) Liquid Stream; authorizing the Loan
Agreement; establishing Pledged Revenues; designating authorized
representatives; providing assurance; and providing for conflicts,
severability, and effective date, Project 73950, at no cost.
10) Approve Construction Change Order 3, Amendment 3 to an
Engineering Inspection Services Work Order, and funds to prepare
record drawings related to the East US 41 Water Main and Force
Main to Boyne South, in the amount of $43,702. Projects 70862 and
73061.
11) Approve a Budget Amendment to identify the appropriate project
number for the Livingston Road Reclaimed Water Main Project and
transfer $835,000 from Project 73949 to Project 74048.
12) Approve payment in the amount of $28,838 for repair of damage to
East US 41 resulting from a break in to a County Water Main on May
16, 2002, Project 70045.
13) Accept Right-of-Entry documents for the Port-Au-Prince Subdivision
Utility Replacement Project at a cost not to exceed $780.00.
14) Approve a budget amendment and contract modification for the
emergency dredging of Wiggins Pass, not to exceed a total of
$395,000.
15) Reaffirm Staff's prior actions with respect to construction-related
activities for capacity improvements at the North County Water
Reclamation Facility, Project 73077.
16) Provide additional information to the Board related to the award of a
construction contract to Encore Construction Company, for the North
County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) expansion to 24.1
million gallons per day (MGD) maximum month average daily flow
(MMADF) project 73950, in the base bid amount of $24,861,000.
The contract is available for viewing in the County Manager and
Board of County Commissioners' offices.
13
January 14, 2003
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Request to authorize the Chairman to sign a State of Florida
Emergency Management Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund
Matching Grant Application.
2) Authorize the Chairman to sign State of Florida EMS Matching Grant
Applications.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Approval to Award Bid #03-3452 "Purchase and Installation of
Advanced Imaging Oversized Tunnel Capacity X-Ray Inspection
System" to Heimann Systems Corp., in the amount of $39,203.
2) Approve Amendment No. 1, Phase 2 for Architectural Services for the
design of the Courthouse Annex, RFP #00-3173 in the amount of
$435,354.00.
3) Approve an Agreement for Sale and Purchase to provide for the
purchase of approximately 84 acres of mangroves for mitigation
purposes at a cost not to exceed $86,000. (Marco Airport.)
4) Approve Change Order No. three, Work Order BSSW-00-07, in the
amount of $24,000 with Barany, Schmitt, Summers, Weaver and
Partners, Inc. for design services for construction of North Naples
Government Service Center.
5) Authorize conveyance of a utility easement to Florida Power & Light
Company for the installation of underground electric facilities to serve
the Development Services Building expansion and parking garage
project, the cost of which should not exceed $15.00
6) Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3456 "Engineering Analysis and Rate
Testimony for Orangetree Utilities" (estimated dollar amount of
contract $65,000 to $75,0900.
14
January 14, 2003
7) Approve a Change Order in the amount of $78,406.08 for
continuation of Contract #00-3109 "Janitorial Services".
F. COUNTY MANAGER
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence to file for record with action as
directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Accept a Child Dependency Grant-in-Aid of $31,386.62 from the
State of Florida, Justice Administrative Commission and authorize
Chairman to sign the Amendment.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents Larry
Valenti and Consiglio N. Girurastente, for Parcel No. 183 in the
amount of $6,000 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Lazaro
Herrera, et al, Case No. 02-2211-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
2) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents,
Lazaro Herrera and Elizabeth Herrera, and Berto Herrera and Lucia
Herrera, for Parcel No. 184 in the amount of $6,000 in the Lawsuit
styled Collier County v. Lazaro Herrera, et al, Case No. 02-2211-CA
(Immokalee Road Project #60018).
3) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Respondents,
Thomas E. Sams and Patricia A. Sams, for Parcel No. 191 in the
amount of $14,160 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. G JR of
Naples, Inc., et al, Case No. 02-2212-CA (Immokalee Road Project
#60018).
15
January14,2003
4) Authorize the making of an offer of judgment to respondent, Richard
C. Myers, Trustee, for parcel 123 in the amount of $425,000 in the
lawsuit styled COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY F. JANCIGAR, AS
TRUSTEE, ETAL., Case No. 00-0142-CA. Project No. 60111.
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.
A. THIS ITEM IS CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 28~ 2003 BCC
MEETING. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition
AVPLAT2002-AR2704 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County's and
the Public's interest in all of the platted conservation easement located on
Lot 73, according to the plat of"Southport on the Bay Unit One" as recorded
in Plat Book 15, Pages 51 through 53, Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, and to accept a relocation conservation easement over a portion of
said Lot 73, located in Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
B. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-3198,
Beau Keene, PE, of Keene Engineering, representing TEC Builders Inc.,
requesting approval of a 17.9 foot variance in the "E" Estates Zoning
District from the required 75-foot front yard setback to 57.1-feet in order to
construct a single-family dwelling on property located at 4045 33rd Avenue
NE, further described as Tract 31, Golden Gate Estates, Replat 67A Unit
67A, Collier County, Florida.
16
January14,2003
C. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. VA-2002-AR-2389,
Linda B. Berthelsen and Stuart S. McDaniel, requesting variances in the
RSF-3 Zoning District from the required 30 foot front yard setback pursuant
to LDC Sections 2.2.4.4.4. and 2.6.2. to allow: 1) An after-the-fact 5-foot
variance, to 25 feet, for the existing house; and 2) A 5-foot variance, to 25
feet, for a proposed pool and screen enclosure, on property located at 571
Piper Boulevard, further described as Lot 65, Palm River Estates, Unit 1,
Plat Book 3, Page 90 as recorded in Collier County Public Records, Collier
County, Florida, in Section 23, Township 48 South, Range 25 East.
D. Adopt an amendment to Ordinance 99-85 (codified as s. 126-2, Collier
County Code of Laws and Ordinances) implementing the recently enacted
provisions of s. 196.075, Fla. Stat. (Additional Homestead Exemption for
Person 65 and older.)
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
17
January14,2003
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Ladies and gentlemen, would you
stand, please. We're going to start off with the invocation of the
Reverend Vincent Liddle of the Church of Resurrection.
REVEREND LIDDLE: Almighty God, as we gather together this
morning, we take a moment to acknowledge your supremacy. We
thank you for the many opportunities we have to serve you and all
our citizens today.
As we go about our business, we ask especially that you instill in
us your gift of wisdom. May we appreciate and understand all the
complexities of the issues before us, but above all, may we decide
wisely what is in the best interest of all our citizens.
We ask also that you instill in our hearts the gift of your charity,
that while we may have differing opinions, we may treat each other
with patience, with respect, and with dignity.
And finally, when this day is done, may we be able to say that by
our hard work and by your guidance, we have made our community a
better place, a more just place, a more comfortable place for all our
citizens.
Thank you, Lord, amen.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Good morning. I'm glad you-all could
make it here today.
Mr. Mudd, whereabouts on the agenda is the changing of the seat
for the chairperson?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you trying to get rid of it that
quickly?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, I'm just trying to find it on here,
and I want to make sure that I follow the right procedure.
MR. MUDD: Sir, it's item 4-D.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 4-D?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 2
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Then we'll proceed.
Mr. Mudd, is there any changes to the agenda?
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Agenda changes for 14 January, 2003,
add item 10(H), and it's enter into a donation agreement and accept a
perpetual nonexclusive easement for the construction of a sidewalk
along the south side of Pelican Street in the Isles of Capri.
The reason we walked that one on, Commissioner, is we have the
contractor on site doing the sidewalks.
If we didn't get this easement done today, he would go -- he
would xxxxdemobe and then mobe again. It would cost us more, and
so we'll talk about it during the regular agenda, so it's item 10(H).
The next item is item 16(A)12, and that's continued to January
28th, 2003. That's approval of one impact fee refund request totaling
$3,970 as to rebuild from a house fire.
The person had paid the impact fees prior. We're just trying to
make sure that it isn't an embellishment to the house. It's bigger than
it was before when it started, so that's one of the reasons it has
continued to the 28th.
Next item is item 16(B)1. It's continued to January 28th, 2003,
and that's to approve a change order number three with Bonness, Inc.,
in the amount of $1.3 million for additional construction services on
the Lakeland Avenue bridge.
And then item 16(B)12 is a companion item to 16(B)1, and that's
to be continued to the 28th of January, and that was for $142,000,
and that was for the construction, engineering, and inspection
services for that same bridge building on Lakeland Avenue.
Page 3
January 14, 2003
Next item is withdraw item 16(9)(B), and that's a request for the
board to approve a purchase of professional services and a noise
barrier system at the DOT, now county transportation site, at 4800
Davis Boulevard. And that has to do with Soul Source Bidding, and
we need to make sure that we have the proper competition in that
bidding source, so we're going to pull it because we're not totally
convinced of that at this particular time.
And then that's basically the changes.
Now we're going to talk about some notes that we have to about
the agenda.
Item 16(A)14. The resolution was not included in the backup
material, however, all commissioners were provided copies of the
resolution, which is now being considered as part of the consent
agenda item 16(A) 14.
The resolution was included in an agenda packet available for
public view. As such, it is appropriate to leave this item on the
consent agenda. And that had to do with consideration of a
resolution supporting a petition to amend the boundaries and name of
Fiddler's Creek community development district pursuant to section
190.046 of the Florida Statutes.
The next item as far as an agenda note is concerned is item
16(C) 1. This item should read, approve surplus declarations for -- to
beach rakes and approve the sale of one of the two beach rakes to the
manufacturer's representative in the amount of $4,999 rather than
$5,000.
Commissioner, the reason we're doing that is that 5,000 is your
threshold where you have to put it out to auction. This rake has been
a lemon since we bought it, and we basically got the contractor and --
given him enough hate mail about this rake where he's agreed to
purchase it back from us for $4,999, and to take it back, shipping at
no cost to the county. He's going to use that, find out what's wrong
with his rakes that he's been shipping out to the world.
Page 4
January 14, 2003
And so we wouldn't get that amount of money for the rake, and
that's why we dropped the dollar on this particular item.
The next item is item 17(A). This item is being recommended to
be continued to January 28th, 2003, on the BCC meeting. And this
had to do with moving a conservation easement from one side of the
parcel to the other. We had received a letter of-- if I can find that --
Leo? There it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What item are you on, Jim?
MR. MUDD: I'm on 17(A). We had received a letter from Nancy
Payton from the Florida Wildlife Federation basically requesting that
this item be pulled. And her concerns are, if you move a
conservation easement, if you vacate it on one side and create it on
another, we should have due diligence to make sure that the
conservation area that you're moving from and to, that they're equal
to each other, or the one you're moving to is better than the one that
you're vacating, and she had some concerns in that parcel and started
asking some very difficult questions.
Now, we've advertised this correctly and everything, we brought
it to the petitioner's notice, and we're going to continue 17(A). And I
have the letter from Nancy Payton here for the record on that
particular item.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you talking about (A)17 or
17(A)?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 17(A).
MR. MUDD: 17(A). That's summary agenda, 17(A).
And last but not least, I want to make sure that I let the board
know that we do have a couple of time certain items today on the
agenda.
Item 10(B) is to be heard at 10 a.m., item 10(C) is to be heard at 3
p.m., and item 12(C) is to be heard at noon. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
Page 5
January 14, 2003
Mr. Weigel, did you have anything that is of importance at that
point in time?
MR. WEIGEL: No, no further changes. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And we'll start with the commissioners
to see if there's any changes or questions they want to raise.
We'll start with you, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have any --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Do you have anything to report on the
summary agenda as far as disclosures?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On all of the disclosures?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, just on the summary agenda items.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh. No, I don't.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: 17, okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have nothing to add and nothing to
report on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And true for myself, Commissioner
Coletta.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Same for me, nothing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes and no ex parte
communications on the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you. Okay.
Then do I hear a motion at this point in time?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the regular
consent and summary agenda as amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
Page 6
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
January 14, 2003
ADD ITEM 10(H): Enter Into a donation agreement and accept a perpetual, non-
exclusive easement for the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of
Pelican Street in Isle of Capri. (Staff request.)
ITEM 16(A)12 Continued to the January 28, 2003 BCC Meeting: Approval of one
(1) impact fee refund request totaling $3,970 as to rebuild from a house fire. (Staff
request.)
ITEM 16(B)1 Continued to January 28, 2003 BCC Meeting: Approve Change Order
No. 3 with Bonness, Inc., in the amount of $1,390,146.36 for additional
construction services to build a bridge at Lakeland Avenue over the Cocohatchee
Canal, ProJect No. 65041. (Staff request.)
ITEM 16(B)12 Continued to January 28, 2003 BCC Meeting: Approve supplemental
agreement No. 1 for $142,337 for the construction engineering and inspections
services by HDR Construction Control Corporation to add inspection services for
the construction of the Lakeland Avenue Bridge, Project No. 65041. (Staff
request.)
WITHDRAW ITEM 16(B)9: Request the Board to approve purchase of
professional services and a noise barrier system for $97,904 from Noise Control
Technologies. The project is located along the west side of the maintenance
equipment yard and the onsite generator at 4800 Davis Boulevard. (Staff request.)
AGENDA NOTES:
Item 16-A-14: The resolution was not included in the backup material. However,
all Commissioners were provided copies of the resolution, which is now being
considered as part of Consent Agenda Item #16(A)14. The resolution was
included in the agenda package available for public review. As such, it is
appropriate to leave this item on the Consent Agenda.
Item 16(C)1: This item should read: Approve surplus declaration for two beach
rakes and approve the sale of one of the two beach rakes to the manufacturer's
representative in the amount of $4,999 (rather than $5,000).
ITEM 17(A): This item is being recommended to be continued to the January 28,
2003 BCC meeting.
TIME CERTAIN ITEMS:
Item 10B to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 10C to be heard at 3:00 p.m.
Item 12C to be heard at 12:00 Noon
January 14, 2003
Item #2B through Item #2G
DECEMBER 2, 2002 MINUTES FROM THE BCC/LDC
COMPREHENSIVE REWRITE WORKSHOP; REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3, 2002; BCC-TDC
WORKSHOP MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2002; BCC-LDC
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2002; REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 17, 2002; AND THE BCC-AUIR
WORKSHOP MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20, 2002 -
APPROVED AS PRF, SF, NTFD
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the December
2nd, 2002, BCC, LDC, Comprehensive Rewrite Workshop; and the
regular meeting on December 3rd, 2002; December 10th, 2002,
workshop; December 11 th, 2002, BCC, LDC; December 17th regular
meeting; December 20th, board's, AUIR workshop.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion by Commissioner
Henning, a second by Commissioner Coyle.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And service awards, are there any
today?
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
Page 8
January 14, 2003
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE WEEK OF JANUARY
15-19; 2003 AS PIJRPIJE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. And we go on to the
proclamations, and it's my honor to take on the first one.
And if there's -- is there anyone in the audience -- Jerry Glasson,
would you come up front, please, president of the Purple Martin
Society, right? We're glad you're here today, sir. All our fine
feathered friends are here, too. You ever wonder if it's maybe the dry
season or if it's the birds that are taking care of the mosquitos? MR. GLASSEN: It's definitely the birds.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll give them credit. You
can turn around and face the audience.
Whereas, in a very short time, thousands of our very beautiful
feathered friends, the Purple Martins, will return from their winter
home in Brazil; and,
Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to
enable them to nest and rear their young; and,
Whereas, the Florida legislature -- legislation body has designated
Collier County the Purple Martin capital of Florida; and,
Whereas, the Purple Martin Society of Collier County is desirous
of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable
winged creatures by placing said housing on their property; and,
Whereas, during the period of January 19th to the 25th, 2003, the
Purple Martin Society of Collier County will endeavor to alert the
public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the
insect and mosquito population. There's the answer.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners that the week of January 19th to the 25th, 2003, be
designated as Purple Martin Week in Collier County and urge all
Page 9
January 14, 2003
citizens to join with the Purple Martin Society of Collier County to
show their concern for these valuable and friendly winged creatures
and learn to protect and preserve them.
Done and ordered this 14th day of January, 2003, Jim Coletta,
Chairman.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: We have a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Seconded by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
Sir, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Would you like to say a couple words
on behalf of our friends?
MR. GLASSEN: Well, I want to thank you --
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Right up there at the podium.
Oh, I'm sorry. Step back here. We need you back here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A photo opportunity.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You know, it's too bad we didn't have
at least one Purple Martin here right now, but you'll have to do. You
want to turn and face the camera, please.
MR. GLASSON: They haven't returned yet.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay.
MR. GLASSON: Yeah, I'd like to thank you and the
commissioners for--
Page 10
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. We'll have you step right up to
the podium so we can share with the audience.
MR. GLASSON: Jerry Glasson, G-L-A-S-S-O-N.
Well, I'd like to thank you, the chairman, and commissioners for
proclaiming this January 19th the Purple Martin Week.
As a five-year landlord, as we call ourselves, we really enjoy
them, and they do -- they're great predators of the mosquitos and
other flying insects. So everybody should be a part of this and then
we wouldn't have to spray so much, maybe. So I thank you again.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY
1 2-1 8. 2003 AS "OI~D MARCO DAYS"- ADOPTED
Commissioner Fiala, you're next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
Would the representatives from the Marco Island Historical
Society, Bill and Betsy Perdichizzi, and Chris Helen, please come
up. Thank you.
I asked to do this because I was so excited. I'm one of the greatest
fans of the Marco Island Historical Society, so I have to tell you that.
And you can face the audience while I read this for you. I hate to
embarrass you like that.
Whereas, the Marco Island Historical Society is hosting Old
Marco Days, a community event assisted by banks, businesses, civic
organizations and the Chamber of Commerce; and,
Whereas, beginning Sunday, January 12th, the community gathers
to celebrate Old Marco Days, the creation of Collier County 80 years
ago and recreating historical pioneers, the bold and vigorous people
who gave Florida its future; and,
Page 11
January 14, 2003
Whereas, Marco Island is the site of extremely significant historic,
archaeological and anthropological discoveries and a distinctive part
of Florida's early and modem history and the prospective site for the
fourth branch of the Collier County Museum; and,
Whereas, island residents give unselfishly -- and that is absolutely
true, I might tell you -- of their time, energy and expertise in
promoting education and making history come alive for a new
generation; and,
Whereas, this week-long celebration reflects a year-round
commitment to protecting the history and the heritage of the past and
to pave the future with the road of yesterday.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that January 12th through
January 18th, 2003, be designated as Old Marco Days.
Done and ordered this 14th day of January, 2003, Jim Coletta,
chairman.
Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Second.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, seconded by myself,
Commissioner Coletta.
All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Stay here for a picture, and then what
we'll do is have you say a few words. Thank you, thank you, and
thanks for the wonderful speech the other day to the Kiwanis Club.
They loved it.
Page 12
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make sure they get a picture here.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And now we can get your picture.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Face the camera.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All these good things.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: There you go. Thank you.
Please, go ahead and --
MS. PERDICHIZZI: My name is Betsy Perdichizzi, Marco
Island Historical Society.
And we are very thrilled with your proclamation. And we want to
present you just with a little newspaper item that came out just last
week in the Islander.
We had a birthday party for Collier County, the 80th birthday, and
we had such a success, and this kicks off the first fund raising drive
for our new museum. And I just wanted you to have that copy.
And we are hoping that information like this can be put in the
Naples Daily News and go to Naples and across the county,
Everglades City. This is not just a Marco Island event. It's for all the
county. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: If you have any extra, you can put
them on the table out here for any of the audience members to pick
up.
MS. PERDICHIZZI: We will bring some up. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning, you're next.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION OBSERVING JANUARY 20,2003 AS
MARTIN IJlITHER KING, JR. DAY- ADOPTED
Page 13
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, it's my honor to read this
proclamation recognizing the annual event that we have in Collier
County. I'd like to call up -- LaVerne Franklin is not here this
morning. I didn't see her. Irene Williams --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Rufus Watson.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And Rufus Watson,
vice-president of the NAACP. Just come and face the audience, if
you don't mind, please. Thank you.
Whereas, the Congress of the United States of America has
designated the birthday of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King as a
national holiday; and,
Whereas, the President of the United States has signed legislation
authorizing the Reverend Dr. King's birthday, January 20th, as a
national holiday; and,
Whereas, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King received national
and international recognitions for his strive (sic), struggling against
injustice and his leadership on (sic) espousing brotherhood,
self-discipline and nonviolence; and,
Whereas, the Collier County branch of the national association for
advance (sic) of colored people, NAACP, withholding corroborative
(sic) celebrations of Dr. Reverend King's birthday sponsored by the
community activists (sic) and events throughout the month of
January, 2003..
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Commissioners
of Collier County, Florida, that January 20th, 2003, is designated as
the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior's, birthday celebration
in Collier County, Florida, and urges all citizens to remember the
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's outstanding accomplishments by
participating in this commemorative celebration to be held through
the month of January.
Done in this order, 14th day of January, 2002 (sic).
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this
Page 14
January 14, 2003
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning made the
motion. It's been seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
All of those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Face the camera.
And if you'd like to say a couple words, we'd love to hear them.
MS. WILLIAMS: I want to thank the commissioners for being so
generous with us, and I especially want to thank Commissioner
Henning and Coletta. They collaborated together and they were at
our wonderful service on Sunday, and I hope that he (sic) enjoyed it.
And we are going to have a parade downtown on the 20th and
festivities in the park, and we'd like for you-all to come and join us.
The parade is going to be, I hope, much better than last year, because
I worked very hard on it, and I want to thank you again for being so
kind.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
SELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR
2003: COMMISSIONER HENNING ELECTED CHAIRMAN FOR
YEAR 2003 AND COMMISSIONER FIALA ELECTED VICE-
CHAIRMAN FOR YFJAR 2003 - F, IJFJCTFJD
Page 15
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's on the next item. Are we
ready to go to the next item?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No, we were going to skip over the
next item, finish the rest of the agenda, and do it at the end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would prefer to do it now.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: If I may, before we go there,
Commissioner Coyle, I appreciate your enthusiasm. I've got a couple
procedure questions, because the way I remember it, what we did is
that we -- we appointed a new chairperson, at that point in time we
took a small break so that everybody could congratulate the new
chairperson and try to give them enough reason to stay here and not
run out the door, and then we proceeded back with the correct chairs,
people changing their chairs, they go back, and then I am allowed,
graciously allowed by my fellow commissioners, about five minutes
to make some parting comments, and then we -- the new chair goes
and asks for the motion for vice-chair.
Am I correct in the procedure? Anyone remember?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remember it last year is -- we
took a motion and second on the chair, and then after that we took a
motion and second on the vice-chair.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That sounds like an excellent
idea.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By the sitting chairman of 2002,
it would be, in this case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have that same recollection.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. That sounds fine. At that point
in time we'll stop for a short break and proceed, and I have a light on
first by Commissioner Coyle, and then Commissioner Halas would
be next.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to nominate
Page 16
January 14, 2003
Commissioner Henning as the chair. And so that you know where
I'm going, I'd like to also nominate Commissioner Fiala as the
vice-chair. Now, if you want to vote on those separately, that's fine,
but--
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Let's do it separately.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: But we'll entertain both motions. We
have a motion for the chair for Tom Henning and then --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: -- and we have a second from
Commissioner Fiala.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: All those in favor, indicate by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0.
I presume you voted in the affirmative, correct, Commissioner
Henning? Thank you.
Great. Now we're going on to the second part of the motion, and
that was for Commissioner Fiala to be the vice-chair, and I'd be more
than happy to second that motion.
Do I hear any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Hearing none, all those in favor,
indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 17
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: The ayes have it, 5-0. Thank you very
much.
We'll now take a five-minute break. Please come up and
congratulate the new chair and the new vice-chair. (A recess was had.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would you all take your seats,
please.
It would be difficult to continue without recognizing Jim Coletta's
accomplishments over the past year and appreciation by the Board of
Commissioners, so Commissioner Coletta, we have something here
for -- in our grateful appreciation for your outstanding leadership for
the-- 2002, being chairman for the Board of Commissioners.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr.
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There we go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jim, I want to shake your hand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: He needs to push his button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't say congratulations to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may have five minutes,
Chairperson Henning, I'd appreciate it. I've got to push the button. I
was just reminded. Let's see if it works. It works. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to unscrew all the bulbs.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just his.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: First off, my congratulations to
the chair, Commissioner Henning, and the vice-chair, Commissioner
Page 18
January 14, 2003
Fiala. I am looking forward to a wonderful year. I'm sure it's going
to be remarkable.
This past year, I mean, all these accolades that people are
showering upon me aren't my credit. They're the credit of the
commission, the credit of staff, and the credit of all the civic
associations, property owners' associations, the general public.
And I think we've gone a long ways to restoring the credibility of
the commission. It started back the year before, and it's continued
this year. And judging by our -- what do you want to say, not
enemies, but the people that are less than friendly to us and critical,
have seemed to temper their opinion of us to some degree, if that's
any barometer of success.
But I'd like to say to the fellow members of the Board of Collier
County Commissioners, thank you for the privilege and the honor of
being your chair for the past year. I would also like to take this
opportunity to extend a special thank you to our staff of more than
1500, which consistently demonstrated on-the-job dedication and
exhibited a high degree of professionalism while serving our growing
population of more than 265,000 residents, as well as our visitors.
As members of the county team, you can all share in the pride, the
pride I feel, for the many accomplishments of Collier County
Government in 2002.
First, the measure of your dedication to the public can be
measured in the record number of meetings this board and county
staff have participated in throughout the past year. Never in the
history of Collier County has a board met 69 times to reach
resolution on public's business.
Of 52 meetings scheduled during the regular business hours, 13
continued into the evening. Seventeen meetings held in 2002 were
scheduled in the evening.
One of my proudest achievements that this board has approached,
and I was glad to be part of for 2002, is the hiring of a new county
Page 19
January 14, 2003
manager, Jim Mudd, who assumed our top managerial position
effective on the 15th of July, 2002.
From October 2001 to July 2002, he served as the deputy county
manager, and in the previous year, he was the county's public utilities
administrator. Believe me, it's not every year that we have to go
through the process of selecting a county manager. And as great as
Tom Olliff was, I think Jim Mudd, with his special style of
managerial control, is a very big plus to this county and moved us
forward in a very fast fashion.
Within the last year, we also said farewell to outgoing
commissioner, Pam Mac'Kie and Jim Carter and a welcomed
incoming to Commissioner Fred Coyle and Fred (sic) Halas,
respectively.
In 2002 Collier County government laid claim to a number of
achievements in the checkbook concurrency. The board has
aggressive measures to ensure adequate road capacity throughout
Collier County by adopting amendment to the Growth Management
Plan requiring real-time road concurrency for all future
developments. This is what the public has been asking for for a long
time, and we're well onto the roads -- the road to be able to supply
what the public is asking for.
Will it ever be totally perfect or complete? No. It will always be a
work in progress, but it's an effort that's well underway, and it's going
to show positive results.
Transportation in 2002 completed several different projects to
include the construction of 17 miles of roadway, representing about
45 lane miles added to the county road network. Seven of the
projects completed during the last year include the six-laning of
Airport Road from Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt; the four-laning of
Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson
Boulevard. That's a very dear one to me, and I thank you for that;
the four-laning of Immokalee Road from 1-75 to Collier Boulevard;
Page 20
January 14, 2003
the construction of Livingston Road phase two from Golden Gate
Parkway to Pine Ridge; the six-laning of Pine Ridge from Airport to
Logan Boulevard; the intersection and alignment at Radio Road and
Davis Boulevard; and the construction of the 13th Street Bridge in
Golden Gate Estates. So we definitely have been busy. The extra
meetings that we have attended have had positive results.
Highlights of the major Land Development Code changes include
the reduction -- reducing the Planned Unit Development sunshine
time frame from five to three years, developing more stringent
criterias for PUD sunsetting, rewriting the PUD rezone -- zoning
process and procedure and the PUD rezoning district standards,
modifying the Site Development Plan standards submittal
requirements, modifying the proposal and intent of all the
commercial zoning districts, then changing the use of the commercial
districts to be consistent with the purpose and the intent of the district
and rewriting the adequate public facilities ordinance. This is
something that they told us could not be done, and I applaud you for
doing it, and I applaud staff for backing us on this and making it
happen.
Regarding Planned Unit Developments, I reiterate this board was
instrumental in leading the effort to ensure that PUDs were brought
up to current regulations through suggestions and supporting
amendments made to the Land Development Code. Our concern was
to ensure that PUDs were consistently -- construction had not
commenced, were brought to the board for review to ensure they met
the criteria and amended code. Eleven PUDs were identified as
having not the development criteria defined in the LDC.
This board supported a change to the code to require PUDs to
sunset in three years and support stricter regulations with respect to
development criterias that define when a PUD sunsetted.
Regarding green space, the referendum for Collier 2002. The
board in 2002 approved an enabling ordinance to implement a
Page 21
January 14, 2003
conservation land acquisition program after voters approved a quarter
mill for purchase of environmentally insensitive (sic) lands.
In addition, the Florida Department of Cormnunity Affairs
accepted the county's Growth Management Plan amendment relating
to the rural eastern lands. No appeal to the amendment was filed
during the allotted time; therefore, the amendment is in effect in full
force.
The board has transmitted to the state department of community
affairs a Growth Management Plan amendment which restricts and
controls the development in the county's rural fringe area. This
amendment is currently undergoing an administrative review process
with the ultimate outcome to be -- yet to be determined, but I have
very positive feelings that it's going to come down the right way.
Many positive things have happened in tourism in 2002. I am
proud to have played an instrumental role in the building of the
consensus between the Tourist Development Board and the Board of
County Commissioners, which were meeting -- the Tourist
Development Board was meeting -- which is now meeting monthly
ratherly than quarterly. We secured additional funding for
emergency advertising following the terrorist attack of 9/11.
Following three visionary workshops in January, February and
March 2002, we implemented many recommendations of the tourist
industry which included ensuring all funds requested be coordinated
with the TDC prior to presenting to the BCC. This enabled them to
feel more a part to use their expertise to reach final conclusion.
In December 2002 the county created a separate tourism
department and named it by using the established brand name, the
Greater Naples, Marco Island, and Everglades Convention and
Visitor's Bureau.
In community development, staff improved the efficiency of
impact fees review process, reduced the time that it takes to an
average of 48 hours to review, assist and release permits within 99
Page 22
January 14, 2003
percent accuracy. We also streamlined the process for applying for
and receiving a certificate of adequate public facilities, including
maintaining ledgers and reconciling the 32 million escrow account
balance.
Staff also identified, researched, and analyzed the impact fees that
were over and underpaid for numerous seniors' live-in facilities,
completed a Florida counties impact fee study with a comparison of
impact fees in Florida's 67 counties, and coordinated the updated
studies for transportation and park recreational fees.
In total, there were 1,766 new affordable housing units either
approved or built in Collier County in 2002.
The Board of Collier County Commissioners approved a financial
year 2003 total budget of $977.6 million with an emphasis on
construction of roads, parks, and water and waste water facilities to
meet the needs of the growing population. Even though the $13.1
million of general fund dollars were allotted to the road construction
program, the financial year '03 general fund tax levy was millage
neutral, meaning it was the same tax rate as levied in financial year
'02.
At the Naples Landfill, we implemented gas control measures
throughout 2002 that have resulted in odor control in county -- the
county receiving an award October 31st from Solid Waste
Association of North America for landfill gas control.
We installed a secondary larger capacity flair, a secondary
standby blower for flair redundancy, and horizontal landfill gas
collection. No sludge disposal has been allowed at the landfill, and
the clean cover soil is being used and not being scraped.
A monitoring plan continues to be implemented with the
participation of a community odor monitoring panel.
And with that, I appreciate your indulgence. We did accomplish a
lot more. I know we haven't included all the meetings that we've
done on the side with the TDC and everyone and his brother out
Page 23
January 14, 2003
there and the special once that we attended, but this commission has
applied itself in a way that's never been done before. I'm proud of
every one of you, and I'm proud to be a part of it. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION BY WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF
FLORIDA - THE SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATION OF NORTH
AMFRICA AWARD- APPROVFiD AS PRESENTED
Moving right along, we're -- we have one item on presentations
5(A), and it be -- presentation by Waste Management of Florida.
Florida Solid Waste Association of North America has -- we're going
to get an award. Mr. DeLony.
MR. DeLONY: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Jim
DeLony, your public utilities division administrator.
Today, as mentioned by Commissioner Coletta, we celebrate
recognition of the Naples Landfill by the National Solid Waste
Association for North America, and I've got some great folks here I'd
like to ask to come forward as I talk about this award, and we can get
on with it. If we can, if everybody would come forward, please.
George, team, waste management, water control managing people,
come on, come on up. Come up here to the front, if you would,
please.
The landfill has been awarded the association's 2002 gold award
for landfill gas control. Successful management of landfill gas, of
course, we know, is critical to our odor control for our landfill. And
this achievement of leading the nation in the control of landfill gas
was made possible by a superb team; assistant odor panel volunteers,
the county's landfill operator, Waste Management, Incorporated, and
Page 24
January 14, 2003
the county solid waste department.
I would like to thank all of our odor monitoring panel citizen
volunteers for the personal contributions and dedication that was
essentially -- that was absolutely critical to the receipt of the county's
award; Margaret Bauer, Niren Bhaduri, Jerry Currie, Mildred
Haylock, Sarah Jenkins, Emil Kolberg, Darrel and Kay Kluever,
Peter Lilienthal, Marianne Longworth, Jesse Moreno, Cheryle
Newman, Lynn Smith, Jeremy Sterk, Russell and Kaydee Turf--
Tuff.
I'd also like to thank Don Groseclose, who's here with us this
morning, John Wong, and Terry Douglas of Waste Management,
Incorporated, for the responsiveness and effective execution of the
county's contract.
And finally, I'd like to thank all of our solid waste department
staff members today. We have with us George Yilmaz, sitting here
to the back, we have Denise, Denise is here to the back, Jill Brown,
Gary Morocco, and Kevin Dougin.
Commissioners, this is a significant moment for our operation,
and I appreciate the opportunity to present this. The county manager
has the award for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's a beauty.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll just set it right up here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion to accept the
award.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second to accept
the presentation award today.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 25
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for making us look so
good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you very much.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I just want to -- because I had a part
to play in this, and I'm not looking for any credit on this one, but I
have watched this thing go from -- this was the biggest thing -- the
dampers.
This is -- this was the biggest thing that Tom Olliff told me to get
done when I came onboard. He told me the only thing I had to fix
was the odor on the dump. Well, he didn't-- he missed a couple
other things that needed to be fixed. But I will tell you, a lot of hard
work has been done as far as that team, as far as the citizens. And I
talked to Cheryle Newman this morning, and she couldn't be here
because she's taking care of her mom.
But I will tell you -- and I said, Cheryle, you know, just think
about what you did tangibly and intangibly with that citizen group.
And I called them the odor control police, okay? They called them a
panel here, but they were out there, and they were taking readings,
and they were telling us when things smelled or not, and they were
pinpointing where it was coming from.
Not only did that help in finding out where the odors were coming
from, but it also gave us some ammunition, some leverage in
negotiations with waste management to do some things on that
landfill to control that odor. And I thanked her for not only the
tangibles, but the intangibles this morning that that group helped us
Page 26
January 14, 2003
to do.
And I will tell you, they were diligent about it, they were
reporting and they were out there and they were totally involved with
us, and I can't tell you how much I appreciated that.
And I wanted not to -- to move on from this item without thanking
you personally, Mr. Chairman, because you were right there at the
table with them. And I can even go back into the 1995 complaint
logs and' find your name as a private citizen saying that that landfill
was smelling at that time. And I will tell you, through your hard
work and your motivation, that was -- that played a large part in
making this a great success.
And I want to also tell you, that's the best landfill odor control in
the United States. And I want to make sure that it doesn't -- it didn't
come out in the reading that way, but that's the Solid Waste
Association of North America, I mean, the entire continent, you got
the gold award, the highest award for landfill odor control in
America. That's no small feat, and that team deserves a lot of our
thanks and a job well done. Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We really need to recognize the
former utilities director and now county manager, Jim Mudd, for this
accomplishment. This is -- the odor issue at the Naples Landfill has
been going on for years and years and years. Until Jim Mudd came
onboard, working with John Wong at Waste Management of Florida,
we have made some tremendous accomplishments at the Naples
Landfill.
So Jim Mudd, I would hope that you would take this award down
to your office and put it on display for the citizens of Collier County
to see that. And we really appreciate your efforts in the short time
that you have been here to solve this longstanding problem.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, sir.
Page 27
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else?
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. JIM KRAMER
DISCUSSING INDEPENDENT AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND
INDF, PF, NDFNT FIRF, DISTRICTS - DISCI JSSF, D
We're going to move right along then. We have one public
petition, 6(A). Mr. Jim Kramer discussed (sic) the independent
airport authority and independent fire district.
And Mr. Kramer, just to remind you, the public petition is to ask
the Board of Commissioners for certain direction. So we'll be
waiting for your direction. Please proceed.
MR. KRAMER: All right, sir. My name is Jim Kramer.
To meddle or not to meddle, that is the question. Whether 'tis
nobler to exert my right to present to you this public petition or
simply wish you congratulations and a happy new year.
Twice during the last meeting Commissioner Henning wanted to
know of what I would speak today. Would I be elegant -- eloquent or
arrogant. I? There's the rub.
Can a petitioner be critical of the direction the board takes. From
whence he suffer the derision of some members pointed comments.
Statesman Adlai Stevenson has said, do not regard the critics as
questionable patriots.
What were Washington and Jefferson and Adams but profound
critics of the colonial status quo.
With apologies to Bill Shakespeare, let me get to the point.
Many people in and out of Collier County want to know why you
want to meddle in the business of running the independent airport
authority and at the same time do not want to meddle in the affairs of
the independent fire districts.
Page 28
January 14, 2003
Surely you understand that the mission you have as
commissioners is, to quote from your website, the Board of
Commissioners is responsible for the health and safety and welfare of
the citizens of Collier County.
It would seem as though you are ignoring the tragic cast of
characters that have come before us, that is Chief Tobin, J.C. Nutly,
Diane Flag, or the money changers, David Mobley, Philip Elliot,
A.S. Goldman, as well as the Stadium Naples Players, while
attacking the heros, that is the airport authority board.
Your former executive director of the authority writes to us all in
the Naples Daily News. Re: The attempted takeover of the Collier
County Airport Authority of the day-to-day operation of the three
county airports. Where is this notion coming from? Who is behind
this? Is this an attempt to divert attention from some real problem
within the county division?
I, that is, John Drury, can't believe that the county commission
wants to get into the day-to-day operation of the airport. What's
next, a takeover of the Naples Community Hospital?
Airports, like hospitals, operate best under the oversight of the
specialized boards. Does the county commission want to spend all
their valuable time discussing profit margins on the sale of fuel,
rental of cars, catering, rental of hangar space, the operation of the
industrial parks, management of federal aviation grants, extension of
runways, et cetera? I, again, John Drury, don't think so.
Where is the discussion on how the takeover by county
government will save taxpayers money, improve public service,
reduce bureaucracy and improve airport profit? Last time I, Drury,
checked, the airport authority was bringing in $1.4 million in revenue
compared to the $50,000 the county brought in when it ran the
airports.
The airports were worth $1 million when the county ran them
compared to the $15 million they are worth today. Where is the
Page 29
January 14, 2003
detailed cost benefit analysis study on this takeover notion?
Stay the course, Collier County. You have one of the best and
most respected airport boards in the state. Ask anyone in
Tallahassee.
Wow, and you lost this guy to a job that pays 40 grand less a
year? Oops. What happened? Did the authority board grant him a
$300,000 severance package behind closed doors?
You all know you've got a broken system in the way the fire
districts are handled. Independence worked fine when we were a
collection of small and somewhat isolated fishing villages. But
today, with our population growing more than 20,000 dol -- 20,000
residents per year, you need to consider consolidation, sooner than
later.
How long will you toss around this political football? Will it be
like the hearing examiner fiasco or the school board superintendent
search? I think the citizens of Collier County are looking for
leadership. I've got video, if you'd like to see it, of some possible
solutions. Put this on your next agenda and let's talk about it. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. You may be seated. Any
comments from the commissioners?
Mr. Kramer, if you would turn around in the back of the room you
would see an independent fire commissioner, you would see two
chiefs over there.
MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's a proper direction, my
opinion. It's -- they are elected officials, the fire commissioners, and
if you have some direction, that's where you need to go with it. We
thank you for being here today.
Item #7A
Page 30
January 14, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-25, RE PETITION CU-02-AR-3476,
TIMOTHY MALONEY REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE "7"
OF THE "E" ESTATES DISTRICT FOR EARTHMINING ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON 46TM STREET NE, GOLDEN GATE
ESTATFJS_ - ADOPTED
Next item is 7(A). This is petition CU-2000 -- or-20-AR-2476.
Tim Maloney requesting a conditional use seven in Golden Gate
Estates district for earth mining, property that's located on 46th Street
Northeast, Golden Gate Estates, unit 45, tract 19, so on and so forth.
And we have the planner, Fred Reischl, to present this. And anybody
wishing to participate, including public speakers, needs to rise, raise
their right hand to be sworn in.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll go to commissioners for any ex
parte communication.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have none to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Myself, I have none.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing at all, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any public speakers on this
item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: Good morning. Fred Reischl, planning services.
This is effectively a request for an after-the-fact conditional use,
as unusual as that is.
Page 31
January 14, 2003
You can see the location of the site in red. It's in Golden Gate
Estates adjacent to agricultural land.
In -- last year the excavations in Golden Gate Estates became a
conditional use. Mr. Maloney has two lots that he wanted to be --
that he wanted to excavate. He had excavation permits issued on
both of them and started excavation on this one with an existing
excavation permit. The one next door, however, was the one that he
continued to pay his fees on so that he was -- that was the permitted
one. The excavation was started on this.
When Engineering Services found out that he had excavated the
wrong lot, they said, before you can excavate the one that you have
the existing correct permit for, you have to come before the board
and get the conditional use because now there's a conditional use
required within the estate's zoning district for earth mining.
There was one letter that was received in opposition. It's in your
agenda packet. I spoke to the lady and explained. She was opposed
to another earth mining operation in her neighborhood. I explained
to her what Mr. Maloney was required to do on this. She said, that
sounds a lot better, but she still wanted you to see her letter of
opposition. She didn't withdraw it, but she understood the after -- the
treatments after he's done and that there's still going to be a
single-family house on the lot and things like that. So she did
understand all that. And staff recommends approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe I've got my light on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, they're all on. Go ahead,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't mean to go first, but I
appreciate the chance.
I have four questions. What is conditional use seven?
MR. REISCHL: Earth mining.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That was an easy one.
Page 32
January 14, 2003
Page 7(A), staff interpretation of board's intent. Staffhas
previously interpreted-- this is in the bottom, the third paragraph up,
the last two sentences. Staff has previously interpreted that it is the
board's intent not to make excavation conditional use subject to the
specific location criteria in the conditional use subdistrict. By
approval of previous excavation conditional use, the board has
endorsed staffs interpretation. Would you please explain that.
MR. REISCHL: Sure. That's -- in the Golden Gate area master
plan, there are locational criteria for conditional uses, churches,
fraternal organizations, et cetera. This is a conditional use that does
not meet those locational criteria; however, it was staffs
interpretation, and the board has approved the previous conditional
uses for this backing up our interpretation, that this is not a
permanent conditional use, because after the lake is dug, there's
going to be a house there, which is what the intent of the estate's
district is for.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then the next question is,
does this mean that the notice of community meetings are no longer
needed?
MR. REISCHL: No, there was a community meeting for this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That's great.
And the other one was page 17, the application, civic association,
NA, why wasn't the civic association filled in that represents that
area?
MR. REISCHL: We notified them. I think Mr. Maloney did not.
But when we receive the application, we go through and we notify
any applicable association, so they were notified.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Reischl.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned about somebody just
going out there and digging holes in the ground out there and saying
Page 33
January 14, 2003
they're going to put a house up. And, of course, we've got an
infestation of Niles -- of the Niles fever here and mosquitos. And I'm
just concerned that this is just another area, breeding area, for these
mosquitos. And I guess I'm concerned about, what is the end result
that he's going to use this pond for?
MR. REISCHL: The end result is a single-family house and as an
amenity to a single-family house. You will be seeing another one of
these in -- I don't know if the date's been set, but in the future for
Creative Homes where we've had phone calls coming in where the
people are in favor of it because the property values go up. It's
waterfront property.
To answer your mosquito question -- and I'm not an expert on
this, but again, from what I've heard from engineers -- the lake slopes
are constructed and the depths to which they're on, they support fish
life, and the fish, effectively, you know, not eliminate mosquitos, but
ameliorate their effects.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why was this -- why was the
excavation done in the wrong area?
MR. REISCHL: It's-- well--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Human error.
MR. REISCHL: -- I can show you the aerial. There's like not a
whole lot in the area. Mr. Maloney --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, it seems to me that the
person that bought the lots would realize what lot he's supposed to be
digging on.
MR. REISCHL: I agree. Mr. Maloney is here if you want to ask
that question of him.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon?
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Maloney --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions to the planner,
staff planner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
Page 34
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like make a motion for
approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's -- the petitioner is here. We have
to close the public hearing. Does the petitioner wish to give any
testimony to the Board of Commissioners? And I see nobody
standing up, so I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make that motion now, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your motion is approve the
petition?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second on the motion.
Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, I'll call the motion. All
in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas descending on
that vote. The motion passes, 4-1.
Item # 1 OB
THE USE OF $164,000 FROM THE HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF A LOCAL
MATCH REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN STATE AND FEDERAL
Page 35
January 14, 2003
FUND1NG TO OPERATE A PRIMARY CARE CLINIC IN THE
GOI,DEN GATE AREA- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you have a time certain at 10
o'clock --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: -- on item 10(B), which is to authorize the use of
$164,000 from the human services department to be considered part
of a local match requirement to obtain state and federal funding to
operate a primary care clinic in the Golden Gate area. John Dunnuck
will present this item, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck, thank you.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
The item before you is exactly what Mr. Mudd just said, we're
requesting to reallocate $164,000 from the existing social services
budget so we can leverage $800,000 to create a primary care clinic in
the Golden Gate/East Naples area, but a clinic that will serve the
entire community as well.
The board had previously given us permission this past June to
apply for this grant. We're pleased to announce that the state has
awarded us this funding. As a matter of fact, we've been awarded
more funds than any other federally qualified health clinic in the
State of Florida, and we believe it's a very positive program from that
respect.
A couple of the issues that came up in the past June meeting,
honestly, were regarding to the sustainability of this program. It's
important to note that the program has been going on at the federal
level for over 20 years and started in the Reagan administration.
The State of Florida under our governor at this time put it in last
year's budget in support. In essence, what we've seen in trend from
the governor's office is that they support programs that have a local
Page 36
January 14, 2003
match element to them instead of the state just handing down the
funds.
We believe the program will be sustainable. But in the event that
it's not, the nice thing about this agreement and the way it will be
structured is the fact that the county will be making quarterly
payments from that standpoint, so the risk is minimized for those
dollar amounts.
If I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Commissioner Henning.
This is the outgrowth of the Health and Human Service
Committee that was one of the committees that Tom Olliff put
together some time ago and we all took on the obligations of heading
them up to try to save on county staff.
I'm very pleased to report that it's come up with a very novel
approach that maximizes funds that we already spend in our tax
dollars at state and federal level coming back to Collier County. It's
a tremendous advantage to the citizens of Collier County.
This is money that if we don't use here in Collier County to
benefit our own local residents, it will go elsewhere. And I would
like to at this time thank the committee for staying in there and
working on this. I'd like to thank staff for being very supportive
when the committee was doing this work. And I would like to make
it a motion at this time for approval just so we can get a general
consensus of which direction it's going before the speakers come up,
which I understand there is a number of speakers to speak on the
subject.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion and a second
to approve this item, but we're going to continue the discussion.
Any questions, further questions of Mr. Dunnuck?
Page 37
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I do have one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: John, it might be appropriate to
describe the source of the matching funds coming from the county.
These are not additional expenses, as I understand it. They are costs
already budgeted in the human services budget and are merely being
used for matching purposes; is that correct?
MR. DUNNUCK: That's absolutely correct. We currently have
funds that are set aside for pharmaceutical expenses through our
social services department and X-ray. When we have people who
cannot pay, they come in through social services and they have to
meet federally qualified guidelines in order to meet our parameters as
a county.
What we're talking about doing is taking those funds and
reallocating them through the primary care clinic because we
recognize that they will be doing a similar service so that we can take
those patients that we currently serve through social services and
send them to the primary care facility, but then we can leverage
whereas -- opposed to you could have 1200 patients that we'd be
serving, you can serve 5500.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the county's obligation and risk
to support this program would not exceed the $164,000 that is
currently in the human services budget?
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. The risk is, frankly, with the
federally qualified health clinic, and I think we owe Richard Akins, if
the board approves this, a big thanks, because he's the one who
ultimately has to negotiate the deal with the doctor and provide a
contract.
We also have established a lease agreement in the Golden Gate
community that allows us a 30-day out clause, which is a very big
benefit, because in these terms, in the leases I've dealt with in the
past for facilities, that is very unique. So we've had community
Page 38
January 14, 2003
support in this from various different areas in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I believe this is already
covered, that this is a combination of federal and state grants that are
coming into Collier County here. And is it also my understanding
that anybody can use this clinic and it's basically on a sliding scale as
far as the person is -- his ability to pay; is that correct?
MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a couple questions. Collier
Health Services is going to be receiving or giving the health care to
the residents of Collier County in need that we provide or the state
health department provides today; is that correct?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, in this regard, I would say no. I believe
what the health community -- the health committee that's been in the
works for the past three years has identified a need in the community
for primary care services, in essence, to keep people from going to
the emergency rooms, because that's their only alternative.
So this is actually unique and a new service from what we
currently provide in that regard. It is open to everybody, but the
benefit of having Collier Health Services involved in it is the fact that
when we have children per se who may come into this clinic, they
can refer them to their children's clinic that they currently operate.
So we're not duplicating services in that respect.
And in that regard I think, you know, it is unique from what the
health department is servicing and what our social services
department is providing. It's an added benefit to the community.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there's no duplication of services?
MR. DUNNUCK: Well, it's not to say that if the person comes in
and they end up having to give them medicine through the primary
care clinic because they come in and they diagnose them as being
Page 39
January 14, 2003
sick, that, you know, we haven't given pharmaceuticals in the past,
but we also have to have a doctor referral. We don't have any
doctors on staff through our social services department to be able to
do that. It's kind of more of a one-stop shop and it's more efficient in
that respect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do -- so once it's up and running, do
you see the probability of some of the things that we do in the health
department for the clinic to take over?
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. I believe there are partnerships to
be had as we continue to get this operation up and running, and I
believe there are some benefits that we can gather out of the
federally-qualified health clinic designation that would give us more
bang for the buck than what we're currently doing. I think it's one of
those that we need to, you know, walk before we run though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Ms. Filson?
Mr. Halas, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This also is going to take a load off
of the hospitals as far as emergency room, and a lot of people feel
that this is another area of indigent in health care, but the problem is
that these people that end up in the emergency room, it gets tacked
on to everybody else's insurance. So one way or another, you're
going to get -- you're have to -- going to pay for the -- you're going to
have to pay. And this is a better way of controlling the cost.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson, how many speakers do we
have?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Six speakers, okay.
Would you call them up followed by -- the person behind them to
stand behind the present speaker.
And I think that everybody can see just by the comments where
the motion is going to go on that, so if you're in favor of it and want
Page 40
January 14, 2003
to waive, please feel free.
Go ahead and call the first speaker.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Tom Schneider. He will be
followed by Dr. Joan Colfer.
MR. SCHNEIDER: I'll waive my right.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Joan Colfer?
DR. COLFER: I'll waive my right.
MS. FILSON: Ernie Bretzmann?
MR. BRETZMANN: I'll waive my right.
MS. FILSON: Margaret Williams?
MS. WILLIAMS: I'll waive my right.
MS. FILSON: And Clair MacMillan? She will be followed by
Susan Suarez.
MS. MacMILLAN: Good morning. I'm Clair MacMillan,
president of the League of Women Voters of Collier County.
The League of Women Voters of Collier County wishes to
congratulate county staff and Collier Health Services, Inc., on their
successful application for state and federal grants to start a primary
care clinic in the Golden Gate community.
The league supports efforts to provide access to basic care for all
those who need it. We support efforts to Provide a medical home for
individuals in the community who would otherwise use the hospital
emergency rooms or allow their problems to worsen to the point that
they actually become emergencies.
We have confidence in the experience and the expertise of the
people of CHSI to organize and manage primary health services in
this new facility. There is a great need in Collier County for this, and
this is a good place to start.
Accordingly, we encourage the Board of Commissioners to
allocate the local matching funds from the human services budgeted
(sic) as has been requested.
And having spent my good fair share of time in the last two years
Page 41
January 14, 2003
in the emergency room at NCH, I think that it would be a great
service to all citizens if there were someone else -- somewhere else to
go in non-emergent situations. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. You look very healthy, so
the NCH must be doing a fine job.
MS. MacMILLAN: I have a terrible cold.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Susan
Suarez.
MS. SUAREZ: I waive my right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
So we have a motion. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Dunnuck, there is the concern for
the people in need of health services in the Golden Gate area that do
not have motorized transportation. The selection of the present site, I
think it would be appropriate if we could work out those details later
on.
MR. DUNNUCK: Absolutely. I think the benefit of where we
have this facility, where we're looking to sign the lease, it's on the
bus route for the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other comments?
Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the motion. All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
Page 42
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No opposition, so the motion carries
5-0.
Commissioner Coletta, congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Thank you very
much.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2003-26 RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2446, ANNE
D'AGOST1NO, REPRESENTING MAYFIELD ROAD INC., DBA
PERKINS RESTAURANT, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-
FACT 23-FOOT VARIANCE FOR THE HEIGHT OF A
FLAGPOLE FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FEET TO 73 FEET FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3585 GATEWAY LANE - ADOPTED
W/STIPI JI~ATIONS
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to go back to --
MR. MUDD: Brings us to 7(B), Mr. Chairman, and that's a
variance by Anne--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: D'Agostino.
MR. MUDD: -- D'Agostino representing Mayfield Road, Inc.,
d/b/a Perkins Restaurant requesting an after-the-fact 23-foot variance
for the height of her flagpole from the required 50-foot to 73-foot for
the property located at 3585 Gateway Lane, further described as
Naples Gateway, phase one, lot 3, in section 7 township, 49 south,
range 29 (sic) east, Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And anyone wishing to participate in
this discussion, please rise, raise your right hand to be sworn in by
the court reporter.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any disclosures, Commissioner
Halas?
Page 43
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, none at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've spoken to no one, but I have
quite a bit of backup material here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have -- this is -- issue's been
going on for quite a while, read some articles and editorials and
letters to the editor in the Naples Daily News, and I have received
some emails from the past, and those are part of my disclosure, and,
of course, it's all public record except for my reading of the Naples
Daily News.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have received email going back to
April of last year, and I have responded to some email. It's all in the
public record. But I have received no communications recently with
respect to this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I forgot to say that I talked to staff
about this. I'd like to put that on the record. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just asked a few questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala is stating for the
record she has talked to staff on this issue.
I can -- one other thing, this issue -- I think it's very important that
we just received a fax, and I hope that people that come up that are --
speak on this keep the politics aside from this issue. And all we're
asking is for the facts.
With that, Commissioner Coletta, do you have any ex parte
communication on item 7(B), that's Perkins Restaurant with the
variance on the flagpole?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Way, way back when I had a
number of Veterans groups, individuals talk to me it, and it's all part
of my records that we have. If anyone wants to see it, we can supply
it on demand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 44
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only thing I have to say is that I
have discussed this with staff, so that's part of any disclosures. If you
want to consider staff, that's --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fred Reischl again,
planning services.
This is a variance to allow a 73-foot flagpole to remain in its
existing -- at its existing height. The maximum allowable height
according to the land development code for a flagpoles is 50 feet.
This is within a PUD, however, the PUD is silent to flagpole height,
therefore, the LDC is what governs, and that has a maximum of 50
feet.
The location is Pine Ridge Road west of 1-75 on the parcel in the
Naples Gateway PUD. And this aerial was taken, obviously, still
when the restaurant was under construction.
The flagpole in located in that location, which is the location that
was approved in the Site Development Plan. The Site Development
Plan -- the location that it was placed in was the one approved in the
Site Development Plan.
The -- there was no building permit, however, obtained for the
flagpole. Apparently when the inspection was made on the signs for
the restaurant, the county staff member who does the inspections on
the sign also issues sign and flagpole permits, saw the flagpole and
realized he didn't issue a permit for it and notified the contractor that
a building permit was required for the flagpole.
The contractor came in and attempted to pull a building permit. It
was denied because of the height of the flagpole, and he was
instructed to come in for a variance. That's where we stand as of
today.
As you saw in the packet, we received numerous letters of support
from the community and petitions, and I think Mr. D'Agostino had
Page 45
January 14, 2003
some of those in his restaurant too. He can address that. But I
supplied all that I had in your agenda packet.
Staffs recommendation is for denial. It's not in harmony with the
Land Development Code. There's no land-related hardship. It's not
based on safety at this time, because if it were installed with a
building permit, we would have the inspections and the engineering
for the flagpole to make sure that it withstood wind load and other
considerations.
So if this is approved, it will have to obtain an after-the-fact
building permit and inspections will have to be made at that time.
The planning commission recommended approval by vote of 4-3.
The minority opinion was that there was no basis for approval in the
variance criteria. And I'll be happy to answer any questions for you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions from the board?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was reading this, and it's quite a
lengthy process that code enforcement had gone through here. It
seemed to me that the people at the county were trying to convey to
this person that this had to be in compliance and yet they had a --
somewhat of a different attitude about this and caused a lot of grief
for the people who were trying to identify that this was a problem.
Is this the way I read the information from the -- in the packet that
was given us here?
MR. REISCHL: I wasn't directly involved in that portion of it. I
can state Mr. D'Agostino was very cooperative with my section of it.
I know Mike Vignari of the sign permit department is here, Joe
Schmitt, my boss, is here, so if any of those questions need to be
addressed, those people can answer those questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's an indication in the
background material that you have given us that there was an
intentional violation of the code, that it was not a mistake; is that
Page 46
January 14, 2003
true?
MR. REISCHL: That was given to us by Mr. Schmitt. I did read
that. I received that information after the planning commission and
after this executive summary was written. I prefer to have Mr.
Schmitt answer that question. I wasn't involved in that information
gathering. I based my executive summary on the code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Could we get Joe to address
that issue?
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development and environmental services.
Commissioner, as you all know from the fact sheet that I
provided, yes, in fact, we did verify that Perkins -- the corporate
headquarters at Perkins clearly notified Mr. D'Agostino as early as
August 16, 2000, that the 70-foot flagpole was critical to the
approval of this site for a Perkins pancakes restaurant -- Perkins
Restaurant.
In fact, the franchise agreement clearly states that a 70-foot
flagpole would be required for this location because it was an
interstate or near -- located near an interstate.
So at that time -- and it was fairly evident in our research that we
validated and verified that as early as 2000, August 16th, 2000, or
even earlier, Mr. D'Agostino clearly understood that a 70-foot
flagpole was required.
And the issue really is, had he proceeded under the process of
requesting it, I don't think -- there would not have been a problem.
But this became an emotional issue because, frankly, the pole was
erected without a building permit, we believe, and we clearly
understand that, if not Mr. D'Agostino, but the general contractor
clearly understood that a building permit was required to construct
and erect the flagpole and chose not to pursue that avenue, and erect
-- he erected the flagpole without a proper permit.
And just to highlight the sequence, my sign review specialist, Mr.
Page 47
January 14, 2003
Vignari, who was asked to go out based on a request from the
contractor to permit the signage on site -- and flagpoles are under
part of the sign ordinance -- noted that the flagpole had been
constructed without a proper permit. And, of course, that's what --
that's the trigger that led to the sequence of events.
And Mr. Vignari does not issue a notice of violation. Code
enforcement then goes out and issues a notice of violation. So this
was not a hunt to try and at least eliminate the flagpoles in Collier
County. It was just the fact that, as part of the normal permitting
process -- and the permitting process is the avenue that, in effect,
validates that things are constructed in accordance with the local,
state, and federal ordinances and for public health, safety, and
welfare, and noted that the flagpole had not been constructed -- or
was not constructed with a permit, instructed the petitioner that he
had to come in and file for a permit. When he did file for the permit,
of course, we cannot do -- we cannot authorize the permit because it
was in violation of the Land Development Code.
And naturally, if we wish to amend that code, then that would be
the direction for the staff to go back and amend the code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a follow-up question, Mr.
Chairman. This is an important issue in my determination. I had
corresponded with people a year ago indicating that I think the
American flag should be flown as high as possible, but intentional
violations of the county code, I think, are a bit more serious.
But before I reach any conclusions on that -- I'm merely calling
this an alleged intentional violation. Before I reach any conclusions
on that, I want to hear from the petitioner, and I would appreciate it if
the people who come up to address this issue would tell me their
position on that point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions from staff?.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, thank you,
Page 48
January 14, 2003
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have some, but I'll wait till after I
hear the presentation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to make a motion, but
I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So let's hear from the
petitioner, please.
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Hi. I'm John D'Agostino. To my
knowledge, there was no -- we had no idea about the codes. I mean,
we just -- we know that you have to have the flagpole. I really wasn't
aware myself of any of the heights of the flagpole. I just know we
have two other Perkins in Naples, both have flagpoles. The one on
the East Trail has a 70-foot flagpole, I believe. It's the same one that
we erected at Pine Ridge.
I assumed that the builder had obtained his permits. I have no
idea about the permitting process. Well, now I do actually. But at the
time, I mean, we were trying to open a restaurant. And our
contractor, we assumed, had the permits to put up the flagpole at the
time.
So there was no direct intent on our part to violate the law, you
know, or the permitting law, whatever.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You probably know a lot of-- about
running a restaurant, but as far as permitting --
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Yeah. If you want to ask me about turn
times or getting the food out or training cooks or servers, that's
another story, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. And you might have received
something letting you know or your builder know that you were in
violation, but not knowing --
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Right. I -- at the time I assumed that the
Page 49
January 14, 2003
builder was taking care of it. I had been told that he was notified and
he was applying for the permit. Well, I didn't know it was going to
get denied. I didn't know it was in violation, you know, the height,
until after the fact, so that -- you know, whatever happened on the
way there is what happened, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You said you have a couple of other
of these -- other Perkins restaurants? MR. D'AGOSTINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you ran into a situation like this
before?
MR. D'AGOSTINO: No, no. We purchased the restaurants about
five years ago. They were already in existence, and, you know, they
had flagpoles, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do have a couple of
comments.
First of all, I don't know how closely you work with your general
contractor. According to the information, one of the fact sheets I've
received, it says that your general contractor first contracted another
contractor to install the 70-foot pole and he wanted to get the permit
-- I don't know that you ever saw this part of it -- but then when he
wanted to get the permit, that general contractor relieved him of his
duties and hired someone that didn't care about getting the permit.
And although that might not be your knowledge, this is the
information that we've received, and that, to me, is something like a
purpose -- purposely defying the code, you know. And so --
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Yeah, I understand. I mean, I had no idea
about that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And second of all, your sister
mentioned in her letters to us that it was only 62 feet, not 70 feet.
MR. D'AGOSTINO: That was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think you mentioned that a couple
Page 50
January 14, 2003
times. Could you tell me what it really is?
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Myself, no. They said they had engineers
sent to the site and it was 72 feet. And now the contractor had told
us that it wasn't 72, that it was --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: State your name for the record, please.
MS. D'AGOSTINO: My name's Anne D'Agostino. I received a
letter from Perkins from the company that sends us the flagpole, and
that our contractor, using the same information, stated that it was a
70-foot flagpole, and they're required to put it in eight feet into the
ground so that only 62 feet was above ground.
After talking to Perkins further and getting more information on it
just recently, what we understand is it's actually 78 feet, and then
when they erect it and put it into the ground, it should stand 70 feet.
And now I think the county had some -- an engineer out there, and
they're saying it's 73. That's the information that we had at the time
that I stated in the letter.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. REISCHL: Right. I don't think they're disputing that fact. I
mean, we had the county surveyor go out and make --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had some confusion about, you
know, she said that it wasn't, and I just want to know what it was as
we move forward. And I will say that I've seen the flagpole at the --
at the Italian American Club. How tall is that?
MR. REISCHL: That's over hundred feet, I believe. That's
actually a stealth cell tower. It's not a -- it's a cell tower disguised as
a flagpole.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. And so we approved that,
right, or somebody approved that, right?
MR. REISCHL: As a cell tower, yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, as a cell tower and they hung a
flag on it. So, I mean, it isn't like it is unheard of. And I understand,
according to this, that you can't open a restaurant unless you erect a
Page 51
January 14, 2003
70-foot flagpole, your approvement (sic) is, according to this,
approved contingent upon a 70-foot flagpole; is that correct?
MR. D'AGOSTINO: To my knowledge, I think that's correct, but
I--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. D'AGOSTINO: -- know that our North Trail store doesn't
have -- it has a shorter pole. For whatever reason, I don't know.
That's prior to our owning it, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Maybe they changed the rules, I
mean, because that's been there forever.
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Probably.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I just wanted to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that --
MR. MUDD: To answer the question real quick. If you look at --
first of all, the franchise agreement with Perkins, the stores in
general, basically give them a standard guideline for flagpole heights.
If it's within an urban area, it says they recommend 50 feet. If it's a
place that's close to an interstate in a rural area, they recommend 70
feet. But then in their franchise agreement they have a stipulation, a
note, that says, all flagpoles must abide by the local ordinances as far
as height restrictions are concerned.
MR. SCHMITT: And also it's -- in the franchise agreement, it's
clearly stated, it's a key part of their corporate identity. And we're
not the first community to go through this type of issue with the
height of the flagpole associated with Perkins.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the -- in the information that
was presented to staff here, I was a little perplexed in the fact that,
my understanding, that code enforcement had talked to someone in
the family, I think it was your son.
MR. D'AGOSTINO: That was myself.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yourself?.
Page 52
January 14, 2003
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And you basically didn't
think that this was an important issue when code enforcement talked
to you about this issue, that you were out of compliance. MR. D'AGOSTINO: Well, sir--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: They basically informed you that
there was a code and that you needed to get this thing in compliance
and also had to get a --
MR. D'AGOSTINO: Well, there was circumstances involved. It
was a Saturday morning. I had like 60 people standing in my lobby
waiting to get on a wait list, and the gentleman came in and said,
you're in violation of the flagpole code, and it's too high and I said,
well, I'm sorry about that, sir, I'm just trying to run my business.
And maybe I was a little bit sarcastic with him, I apologize for that.
But at the time I was really busy I really -- I really -- I knew -- I
had heard about it, I believe, but I assumed-- it had been taken to the
contractor, and I assumed he was applying for the permit. I don't
know, I think. It's hard to remember exactly the sequence of events.
But, I mean, he's throwing his card on the podium when I'm trying
to take names. I have people waiting in line to get a seat in the
restaurant. I'm just trying to run my business. I really don't know
about the codes, you know. I apologize for that though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Have we heard all of the input from
the staff and from the petitioners? Is it --
MR. SCHMITT: I have no other input, and I don't think Fred
does either. Unless -- do you have any questions of us?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me make a couple of
observations. And I think I'm prepared to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, Mr. Chairman.
Page 53
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: I'm going to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Coyle, continue, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It seems to me that we have a
situation where there was a violation, and the staff is trying to do its
job, in fact, is obligated to do its job. You have no other choice other
than to issue a citation. And in the present circumstances, the
flagpole does not meet the requirements of code. And we're the only
ones who can grant a variance concerning that issue.
I think, particularly with respect to the general contractor, that the
fine for failing to get the flagpole or request a flagpole permit is
entirely appropriate. In fact, I'm not sure it's high enough. You might
want to double the fine for the general contractor.
But there's a more important issue here. I've driven around and
I've seen a lot of flagpoles in our county, and some of them seem to
be quite high. I'm very reluctant to get involved in a situation where
we require this flagpole to be reduced in height and then we've got 15
others we've got to deal with right behind it.
What I would suggest is that we deny the variance, which would
logically mean that the next step is the Code Enforcement Board
where fines could be assessed, but it would be my intent that it not --
or request that it not go to the Code Enforcement Board until such
time as we've had a chance to look at the Land Development Code
and flagpole heights. Maybe 50 feet isn't the right height. I don't
know.
But I do know that we've got to look at our sign ordinance, which
includes flagpole heights. I believe there are adjustments that several
members of the commission would like to see with respect to our
sign ordinance.
So what I would -- to boil all this down, the violation has to be
punished. We have no -- no choice with respect to the fact that it is a
violation. But before we start imposing harsh penalties on flying an
American flag at 70 feet, I would like to take a look at the code itself
Page 54
January 14, 2003
and determine whether or not 50 feet is the appropriate height.
Maybe we ought to move it to 70 feet, I don't know. But let's give it
a chance, let's take a look at it.
That means the D'Agostino family can continue to do what they're
doing and run their restaurant. They don't have to worry about any
serious fines with respect to the flagpole height until we can resolve
the issue about the Land Development Code, and that would be my --
MR. SCHMITT: I think--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that would be my --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I -- I think that we need to look
at -- there's -- I think we need to also look at the fact, this was done
in violation and I think that whoever -- both the family and the
contractor knew they were in violation. And I feel that the way that
this all unraveled, that I believe that they should be assessed fines.
I'm for flying the American flag, but I feel that what's in the Land
Development Code at present time of the flagpoles being 50 feet, I
think that suffice (sic).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I basically agree
with you to a point. One of the things that we have here is, it's called
a variance, and the variance means just what it says. You know, we
do honor the code that's there and we see if there's exceptions to the
rule that would apply, reasonable exceptions.
I agree with you the fact that there seems to be a total disregard to
the code in the way that early on we had some possible difficulties
between staff and the owner of the restaurant. That is always of
concern. But then again, too, that's something that happened then.
Possibly we might want to consider granting the variance and then
having the Code Enforcement Board look back into what the fine
should be to be able to take care of what took place. A variance is
just what it says, you pay 2,000 some dollars, I believe it is, right?
MR. REISCHL: Yes, $2,000.
Page 55
January l4,2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two thousand dollars to be able
to come before this commission for consideration for a variance. It
doesn't mean that the code has changed. Then we come back at some
point in time in the future to get it on the Land Development Code.
It's a long tedious process that's going to draw out for some time. We
can address that issue again at that time.
So as far as the motion to -- for the variance, or not to -- not to
grant the variance, I'll have to vote in the negative on the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There is no motion on the floor. I'm
going to go next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think a Land Development
Code is going to fly. We already heard one commissioner state that
he's not in favor of raising it. I'm not really in favor of it until we
really hear that item.
The Board of Commissioners or the county cannot distinct
between whether it's an American flag or a Perkins flag or, in my
case, a Polish flag. So I understand your feelings, the American flag.
I have the same feelings. We always carry that as high as possible.
But, Commissioner, it's going to be any flag or any symbol that a
flag is on.
Commissioner Halas, you want to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's basically what I was going --
I'm done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I just wanted to address a
couple more things. First of all, I don't like to reward unlawful
behavior either. On the other hand, we do give permission for them
to put the towers up. We give them a variance to put some of these
phone towers up and so forth. And I think that although this was
Page 56
January 14, 2003
carried too -- you know, maybe a little too far on this particular
instance -- and I think they have to come back then.
According to them, they have a 70-foot pole in East Naples also,
they probably have to come back and seek another variance. I don't
see a problem as long as they pay the fines and they pay the variance
fees and so forth, because this is something that their company
requires for them to have to do business. So I don't really see a
problem with granting the variance as long as the fines and so forth
are paid.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. And there is no fines
established. The fine is coming before the Board of Commissioners
and paying the fees. Of course, that is staff--
MR. REISCHL: Well, this is an after-the-fact fee. It's 2,000
instead of 1,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I see. So it's a thousand dollars
that --
MR. REISCHL: It's double after the fact. And I failed to mention
the D'Agostinos requested that that be refunded.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, and that will be part of the
motion.
MR. REISCHL: Part of your decision, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- and there are plenty of other
flagpoles or structures that are over the present code, but I think that
-- we need to keep in mind is, was that there before the code was
adopted.
MR. REISCHL: I believe at one time the code had 80 feet. So if
they were constructed when the code said 80 feet, they could be
legal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And if they don't have a permit,
I'm sure code enforcement will find that out. Entertain a motion at
this time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion that we accept
Page 57
January 14, 2003
the variance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is in your motion -- is that with
the--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With the addition of any fines
that have to be paid, would be contingent upon them paying any fines
that are outstanding or will become outstanding.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that include the request of
refunding an after-a-fact variance fee that the D'Agostino family
paid?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. No, it does not include
refunding anything to the D'Agostino family.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. In your motion, will you
include that the petitioner will seek a satisfied after-the-fact permit?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Of course I would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For both restaurants, don't you think?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Again, this --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're only dealing with one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other restaurant is -- probably has
a permit, I'm guessing, but does not (sic), that's an issue that code
enforcement has to deal with, and this is a different property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I checked on that and it does
not have a permit, but we'll let them deal with that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Shh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion and a second to
approve the after-a-fact variance, not to include the request for the
waiving the fees, and also the petitioner must seek an approve
Page 58
January 14, 2003
after-a-fact permit for the flagpole. Any other further discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just let me -- just so the board
knows, and I want to make sure the D'Agostino family knows. And
John, I can't tell you how many Sundays I've gone to your restaurant,
okay, and talked to you. A good guy. They run a good business.
The -- and I want to make sure you understand when you go for
the building permit, okay, I've got some information that is the flag is
leaning, okay? The flagpole -- the flag. The flagpole is leaning to
one side, so we're going to need the plans that the builder used to put
the flagpole up, okay, to make sure it passes the building code, okay?
I want to make sure -- so it's not a surprise for anybody, okay? If
they put the dippy thing up wrong, John, and it's leaning to the wrong
way, okay, and it's a hazard, a safety hazard, we're going to -- we're
going to -- it might have to come down, okay?
So I just want to make sure -- we're not reinventing the wheel, and
I don't -- and it's not the county trying to be bad guys with the -- with
your family or your business. It's just, we want to make sure that it's
-- if it's going to stay up there, that it's going to be safe for
everybody, okay, and going to stand up to the storms and -- I can't
tell you the times I've been in a bad storm and said, John, what
happened to your flag? You said, it's being repaired, you know. And
I said, well, I miss it.
I will tell you, I frequent their establishment on 41 on Sundays
with my wife after church, and they're very -- they run a very good
business, okay, and it's very professional and it's family run, and my
hat's off to them. They do run a good facility and a good restaurant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
So we have a motion and a second. And I won't state what I just
said prior to the county manager's report.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page .59
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'd like to state why, because I
feel that this flagpole is in violation. It's 23 feet higher than it's
supposed to be, and I feel that there's a point in time when we have to
start addressing after-the-fact variances.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have three for, two against. Go to
our county attorney, David Weigel, and explain--
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. For a variance, a majority of three will
pass a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So it was Commissioner
Coletta, Commissioner Henning, Commissioner Fiala for the
variance; Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle against the
motion. Thank you, thank you.
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next item, which is --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager--
MR. MUDD: Take a break?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- I think we'll take a five-minute
break for our court reporter. And that is five minutes,
Commissioners.
(A recess was taken.)
Item #7C
VA-2002-AR-3332, VINCENT A. CAUTERO, AICP OF
COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC.,
REPRESENTING HENRY WESTFORTH OF WESTFORTH
CONTRACTING, INC., REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A 1.5 -
Page 60
January 14, 2003
FOOT VARIANCE IN THE PELICAN BAY PUD FROM THE
REQUIRED 1 O-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 8.5-FEET, IN
ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO
THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 6962 GREENTREE DRIVE, PELICAN BAY UNIT
13 - DF, NIF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you all take your seats, please.
The next item is 7(C), VA-2002-AR-3332, Vincent A. Cautero of
Coastal Engineering Consultants representing Henry Westforth of
Westforth Contracting, requesting a variance, a 1.5 feet (sic) variance
from the Pelican Bay PUD.
Oh. Would you all rise. Anybody wishing to participate in this
item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to go to
disclosures.
Commissioner Coletta, any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have talked with staff. We'll wait for
the other commissioners to get their disclosures.
State your full name for the record and continue.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Don Schneider with planning services. Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
MR. SCHNEIDER: May I proceed? Thank you.
The petitioner is requesting a before-the-fact variance for 1.5 feet
from the required 1 O-foot side yard setback as required in the Pelican
Bay PUD for a proposed second-story addition to an existing
single-family dwelling.
Page 61
January 14, 2003
The amount of variance requested is for a triangular shaped
section that is 1.5 feet wide at the southwest end, by 11 feet long and
zero feet wide at the southeast terminus. I have a diagram here.
What ends up happening is there is the triangular piece, the very
comer of the house, that comes into the focus of the variance.
This particular home is located at 6962 Greentree Drive, further
described as Pelican Bay, unit 13, lot 14.
The existing single-family dwelling was constructed in 1992 and
is presently developed as a single story, and the applicant wishes to
add a second-story portion.
I'd like to point out in this drawing, this picture. The second-story
portion that they wish to add is in this area of the home over the
garage area, and it's this comer that is the focus of the variance
application.
Because the structure is not parallel to the property line on the
south side, a triangular shaped portion of desired addition will
encroach into the required 1 O-foot side yard setback for a two-story
home.
The addition, as proposed, will cause this shape of encroachment
that measures, again, 1.5 feet wide by 11 feet long.
As we look at Growth Management Plan, the particular
application, based upon the analysis, we conclude that the subject site
is consistent with the future land use element. And again, the land
use, what we're dealing with here, is the Pelican Bay PUD.
The Environmental Advisory Council, which has not heard this --
they don't normally hear variance petitions -- and staff has analyzed
the guidelines associated with the variance request and has
determined that there are not specific conditions or circumstances
that warrant approval of this variance; therefore, staff recommends
denial.
I would like to point out that the planning commission, when they
heard this, voted eight to nothing to deny this particular petition.
Page 62
January 14, 2003
And we have received letters from the Pelican Bay Foundation and
the Pelican Bay Homeowners' Association that are in opposition to
this variance.
So that would conclude my presentation, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we go to Commissioner Halas
-- Commissioner Halas, do you have any ex parte communication on
this item?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do, that's why I pushed my
button, that I did meet with the Pelican Bay Foundation here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As long as you don't push my buttons.
Go ahead. Pelican Bay Foundation. Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I just talked to staff about it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any questions,
comments, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why are -- why is this -- county
staff getting involved in this issue? I would think that this would
have to go before the Pelican Bay Homeowners' Association in
regards to going through the approval process. In my understanding,
it was circumvented through the Pelican Bay PUD; is that correct, or
MR. SCHNEIDER: That's correct, Commissioner Halas. I
believe what's happened here is that the contractor got started on this
job, realized after he got started to organize his job that is there was a
problem in the variance, came to us with the variance application.
And, again, I'd like to say it's before the fact. There's not been any
construction on the site. So at that point --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why didn't he go through Pelican
Bay first? Wouldn't that be the normal course of--
MR. SCHNEIDER: I do not know, actually. And I understand
that, perhaps, he did speak with them, according to what was in the
Page 63
January 14, 2003
application.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No further questions. Let's go to the
petitioner.
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vince Cautero, for
the record, representing the petitioner, who is Mr. Henry Westforth,
and he's here today. He's been sworn in and he may able to answer
some of the questions that were raised by Commissioner Halas.
But I just want to make a presentation to you and go over the
items before you turn to speakers, with your indulgence.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with the staff on the
petition as well as representatives from the Pelican Bay Foundation
and the Pelican Bay Homeowners' Association.
And if I may just touch on Commissioner Halas's question
regarding conversations with representatives from those two
organizations. There was -- there was discussions with
representatives from those organizations, and Mr. Westforth can fill
you in in terms of what his understanding was in terms of the
sequence.
In any event, we have been told by the staff, and we believe
correctly so, that irregardless of which one -- item comes first, the
Board of County Commissioners is the authority that would have to
grant the variance in order for it to proceed even to the Pelican Bay
Foundation and/or the homeowners' association. Without that,
nothing could happen, because the county PUD, as you know, is the
controlling document here.
And as Mr. Schneider has indicated in his presentation in his
report, setback for the first story, seven and a half feet, and the
setback for a second-story building is 10 feet.
And before we conclude the public hearing, I would ask that the
Page 64
January 14, 2003
staff clarify a couple of issues that we have with regard to the setback
for the second stow.
On the visualizer you saw the diagram that was in the staff report
that we provided to Collier County Planning Services with the
petition which identified the various setback lines. The blue line, if
you will, or the dashed line, represents 10 feet from the property line,
the southern property line. And if you'll notice, the solid black line
represents the actual structure that exists today.
And in a moment I just want to show the aerial again. I know
you've seen some pictures a moment ago, but I'd like show an aerial
from the top down.
I'd like you to take note of the fact that setback is approximately
12 and a half feet in the back. It meets the 1 O-foot line as you move
in a westerly direction, and then the area where the 10 feet would not
be met but the first stow setback of seven and a half feet is met by an
additional foot is on the far western end.
This triangular piece, which is blown up in the middle of your
diagram, shows the approximate eight and a quarter square foot area,
which is approximately a one-foot setback that would be needed.
The reason is because of the addition that the homeowners intend to
place on the property.
The addition that they're proposing, just over 800 square feet --
and would be over the garage area, and it's an area that I'm depicting
on this map in front of you that shows the structure. And you also
get a feel from looking at this map the discussion that Mr. Schneider
finished a moment ago that talked about the property line and the
house, and the property is in a trapezoidal fashion, and the property
-- excuse me -- the house boundary is not exactly parallel.
So what we're -- what we're saying here is, it is our firm belief
that we believe that not only this request is a reasonable one, but that
the existing home is causing the hardship, and here's why. We are
not requesting, if this variance were approved, that the building
Page 65
January 14, 2003
envelope be increased. We are asking for the addition to be placed
over the garage directly on top of the structure as it sits now.
And if I may, just one other diagram to place, would be a front
elevation that was prepared by the design group. Mr. Stevenson from
the Weber Design Group is also here that can offer some expert
testimony if the board desires.
This is the front elevation of the house with the addition. The
property owner is not proposing to increase mass, if you will, or the
building envelope with the 800-square-foot addition. It would sit on
the existing envelope.
When it was designed, it was uncovered that, sitting exactly on
top of the structure, it would exceed the 1 O-foot second-story setback
that's contained in the Pelican Bay Foundation documents, as well as
the PUD -- they, of course, match -- by the eight and a quarter square
feet.
So what we are claiming is that that, indeed, is the hardship. And
if the variance is not granted and this plan is implemented with the
front elevation as we proposed, the foundation of the first floor will
have to be altered. And it is our belief that that is aesthetically not
pleasing to the surrounding residents. We don't believe it would be
architecturally sound. The home would look different. And we
believe that that would pose a hardship, if you will, on the
neighborhood rather than a denial of a variance and then a redesign
of the building.
Now, in the staff report they talked about a possible redesign. We
spent a lot of time at the planning commission meeting talking about
that. But it's our belief that that request, if approved, or the variance
request if approved, would allow the building to look very similar to
what the existing building is today, and that the naked eye would not
notice that. And it's only because of the way the first story sits and
the second-story setback being 10 feet, alters it by that eight and a
quarter square feet.
Page 66
January 14, 2003
Shaving a portion of the foundation wall, we believe, is
unreasonable. And that is the reason why the property owner is
coming before you today for the variance request.
I will also point out that in the PUD document, there is a
provision for administrative changes to be made in multi-family areas
if certain lot dimensions cannot be met. This, of course, would not
meet that test. It's a single-family area in group -- or area one of the
Pelican Bay Planned Unit Development, and it's a single-family
development.
But one of the things that we talked about with representatives
from the property owners' association and foundation was setting a
precedent. We don't believe that this would put the foundation, the
property owners or you in a difficult situation with a precedent for
the simple fact that we believe that the variance is de minimis. We
don't believe that there would be an unappealing effect if approved,
rather the contrary. If not approved and the property owner proceeds
with building plans and meets building code and meets all the
setbacks if the variance were not granted, then a structural change
would have to take place to the foundation, which we don't believe
would be appealing.
And third and finally, our response to the argument about setting a
precedent would be, if that were the case, then we wouldn't even
have variance criteria in our code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions for Mr. Cautero?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. We're only talking about 18
inches here; is that correct?
MR. CAUTERO: It's one and a half feet times 11 feet times a
half a foot, for a total of eight and a quarter square feet total, which
forms a triangle, if you will. And we showed that area to the best our
ability by overlaying the setback line with the structure, the line of
Page 67
January 14, 2003
the structure. And as I said earlier, it's not 18 inches, Commissioner.
What we said was that we -- that the structure exceeds the setback
by approximately five feet in the back, would be two and a half feet
if a second story were put on. In the midpoint it meets the setback of
10 feet. And then as you proceed in a westerly direction, it needs the
variance in order to be compliant with the 1 O-foot requirement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My second question is, I understand
staff said that they had received some letters of objection. I didn't
see any in here. But they must have received them after that.
Can you tell me what they referred to, please?
Vince, you don't have to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schneider?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, Commissioner, I'd be happy to. The
letters essentially are in opposition to any change being a variance in
their particular PUD area. And they're not necessarily opposed, to my
knowledge, to a second story perhaps, but they are opposed to any
changes taking place. So that was the thrust of what I gleaned from
the information I received.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Either one of you can answer this
question. Well, I'll have to ask the petitioner on this one. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're not going to change the
footprint of the house, but you're going to change the height of the
house. What are we talking about as far as the height of the house,
the actual finished height of the house from the ground level to the
top? What do you foresee is going to be the height of the house?
MR. CAUTERO: Mr. Westforth can answer that. I cannot. He's
the contractor of record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. CAUTERO: He can come up --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then I'd also like to know, how
Page 68
January 14, 2003
does this fit in with the compatibility and the harmony of the
neighborhood as it stands now.
MR. CAUTERO: We believe that it fits in with the compatibility
and the harmony of the neighborhood now, because we are not
changing the building envelope. It's going directly on top, and
architecturally it will look the same.
Again, if the variance is not granted and if the homeowners wish
to proceed with the addition, they would have to change the plans, of
course. They will have to change the foundation. The garage will
look different. That photograph that Mr. Schneider showed would
change. The foundation wall will have to be altered based on our
understanding of the staff interpretation of the 1 O-foot setback for the
entire structure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other -- the other question I
have for you, how is this going to affect the property owners on
either side as far as, when the height of the house goes up, how is this
going to affect their view of the sky and of shadowing their home?
MR. CAUTERO: The staff report says overshadowed, but we
took exception with that. There's a 21-foot separation from wall to
wall that was measured by several people and verified between the
property owner's home that I'm representing and the neighbors to the
south. We would believe -- we would like to believe that that would
still be sufficient distance and would not cause anything to be
overshadowed. But I cannot tell you with specifics. I'm sorry, but I
cannot answer your question specifically. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cautero, maybe you can answer it
this way is -- the front of the house is facing what direction? MR. CAUTERO: West.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's facing west. And the back of the
house faces?
MR. CAUTERO: East.
Page 69
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is it southeast or northeast? It's just
east?
MR. CAUTERO: East. It's maybe a slight northeast based on the
direction of the property line to the way the home was constructed, as
I was stating earlier.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And then to answer Mr. Halas's
first question by the builder, I believe.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. CAUTERO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: State your name for the record, sir.
MR. WESTFORTH: Good morning. Henry Westforth, Westforth
Contracting, Incorporated.
To answer Mr. Halas's first question regarding the height of the
building, the height would meet the required maximum of 30 feet for
second-floor structures. We will be 30 feet or less, so we will be
compliant with the code.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: From the ground, from the front
elevation --
MR. WESTFORTH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- of the house ground to --
MR. WESTFORTH: Yes, sir. The house was designed to be
compliant for overall height. The only noncompliant area would be
this triangular shape, which, for those of us that are not familiar with
maybe dimension in the plans, I'd like to point out simply that one
and a half feet to 11-foot length is a very diminished area, okay?
Secondly, in your question -- or your question regarding the
overshadowing of the neighborhood property, we pointed out that the
front elevation of the home is facing the west, the rear of the home is
facing the east, the sunrise and sunset, obviously, would be
noneffective to the immediate neighbor on the south side of the
home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, as we go through the phases
Page 70
January 14, 2003
of the year, the -- obviously the sun is going to travel, traverse down
into the southern skies.
MR. WESTFORTH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I'm looking at that aspect also.
MR. WESTFORTH: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or as we go into the summer skies,
that the sun's going to be farther to the north quadrant in the sky.
MR. WESTFORTH: That is correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So I'm just looking at --
MR. WESTFORTH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- both the southern and northern
quadrants of the sky in regards to how it's going to affect the
neighbors on either side.
MR. WESTFORTH: That's correct.
I would like to point out that the neighbor immediately to the
south, the way their orientation of their house is, that these two
garages are butt to butt or back to back, so to speak, so it's not -- it
wouldn't be overshadowing a kitchen, living room or such nature, if
an overshadowing was a role played out in this thing.
Also, with speaking with some of the neighbors in the area, there
are -- directly across the street are all two-story homes. And if the
sun were to set in the west, those homes over there would cause a
larger factor of overshadowing than the subject property.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're saying directly across the
street is already two-story homes? MR. WESTFORTH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this a different subdivision or is
this the same subdivision?
MR. WESTFORTH: It is all units of Pelican Bay, but the homes
across the street are a -- under a different title as --
Page 71
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, this is a different
neighborhood then -- we're addressing then? MR. WESTFORTH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where the other homes are located,
that's a different identity of Pelican Bay; is that correct?
MR. WESTFORTH: Yes, sir, by address.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions?
MR. WESTFORTH: They still fall under the same PUD
requirement though.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions from the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have two speakers,
Richard Laughlin. He will be followed by Maria (sic) Agnoli.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Can we have the other order, if you don't
mind?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. Ma'am?
Both of you were sworn in, ma'am?
MR. AGNOLI: Yes, yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. State your name for the record.
MS. AGNOLI: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's
Marie Agnoli. I'm basically just going to read a statement as to why
-- I'm representing the Pelican Bay Foundation. We are the covenant
-- we are the master homeowners' association responsible for
enforcing all covenants within Pelican Bay.
I'm going to read a statement as to why we feel we do not want to
deviate from our covenants. It is the position of the Pelican Bay
Foundation that no changes or variances be granted that would
modify or in any way alter the governing documents of Pelican Bay.
The PUD which has been approved by Collier County sets forth
minimum standards and restrictions for property. It should not be
modified at the request of individuals without considering the
Page 72
January 14, 2003
long-range effect on owners and their property.
There was some statements that I would like to rebute. The
Barrington Homeowners' Association is very opposed to this
variance. And I have a petition that I would like to make part of the
record with quite a few names and addresses of people that we have
contacted that are opposing this variance. Could I make this part of the record?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You give that to Mr. Weigel.
MS. AGNOLI: Okay. They're making it sound that the only
reason they're coming before you to ask for this variance is because
they have a slight encroachment. The way the Planned Unit
Development reads and our covenants read, that without meeting the
1 O-foot minimum setback, you're not allowed to place a two-story
building, you're not allowed to go to a second story, okay? It's not
just about the slight encroachment. It's about violating our
covenants, it's about violating our PUD.
We have in Pelican Bay, at build-out, we will have over 14,000
residents. I've received numerous phone calls in my office, in our
office, for renovations, exterior alterations. It is very important for
us to follow our covenants, to follow our PUD. If we do not do this,
if I start setting precedence by granting variances, how am I going to
enforce my covenants? How do I choose who do I allow -- who do I
give this variance to and what do I do (sic) not. My covenants, the
Pelican Bay covenants need to be enforced equally to everyone.
I have had to deny other variances for people that wanted to go to
two stories because they did not have the 1 O-foot setback. Okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. AGNOLI: I have one more thing I want to say, if I could,
please. In addition they stated that they do not have to come to the
Pelican Bay Foundation prior to going to the commissioners. I agree
the Board of County Commissioner is certainly the governing board
here.
Page 73
January 14, 2003
They needed -- in our governing documents it states that any
owner that would like to modify our governing documents needs to
petition the Pelican Bay Foundation and present us with plans. We
would then approve or reject, and then they could have gone on to
the next level. It is our feeling that this prospective owner and the
representative circumvented that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas has a question for
you.
MS. AGNOLI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, Marie. I'm a very strong
advocate of homeowners' association governing the way that they
want -- would like to have their neighborhood, and so I understand
your concerns for this, that you feel that once we give this variance,
that we're basically going to open up Pandora's Box, and then,
therefore, you won't have any control, and really that's the basis of
the people in the neighborhood. And like you said, there's -- there is
an avenue for people if they want to change their covenants, that they
have to go through the right procedure.
MS. AGNOLI: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. AGNOLI: Actually, WCI wrote our PUD. It is one of the
most beautiful PUDs I've ever read. If you drive Pelican Bay, you
see how it all fits and it's all beautiful puzzles. So when you start
modifying these piece of puzzles, the PUD is not going to function
effectively.
When you deal with land use design -- I wanted to read this little
except from this design book that -- Architectural Design Review. It
states, location and effect on neighbors. The proposed alteration or
improvement should relate favorable to the planning, landscaping,
topography and existing character of the neighborhood. What we are
dealing (sic) here is the existing character of the neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
Page 74
January 14, 2003
MS. AGNOLI: The primary concerns are preservation of access,
sunlight, ventilation, view and drainage, as well as effect on the
privacy and normal use of neighborhood property.
It is my opinion -- and I have a few years of land use experience
-- that if you grant this variance, you will be altering negatively the
neighborhood-- the neighborhood ambiance that exists in Pelican
Bay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're talking about compatibility
and harmony.
MS. AGNOLI: Compatibility, harmony. It would definitely
impact the sunlight that the surrounding neighborhoods are going to
experience. And I strongly recommend if you could please deny
petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The final speaker is Richard Laughlin.
MR. LAUGHLIN: Good morning. Thank you very much for
giving me these few minutes to talk to you.
My name is Dick Laughlin. I'm president of the Pelican Bay
Property Owners' Association. We have over 3200 members which
are family members, it's 3200 families, and actually our total
membership is probably in excess of 7,000 people.
Now, the property owners' association feels that Pelican Bay is a
planned community. It was laid out according to certain standards.
In some cases the standards are minimal type of standards, but we
feel that if we maintain these standards we'll maintain the value of
the property. And any variation with these standards will have an
effect, both short-term and long-term, with the value of our property.
We can see that if people are allowed to violate the PUD, which is
-- and also they have covenants which are identical to the PUD in
their deeds. If they violate those, it's going to have an adverse effect
on the neighborhood and all of Pelican Bay that result in lowering
our property values. And, of course, lowering the property values
Page 75
January 14, 2003
has an effect on not only the homeowners', but also on the county.
So we would very much appreciate if this board would give this
good consideration and decide to deny the request.
I'd also like to mention, we've had some discussion of the fact that
they can't change the architectural layout. I mean, it's hard for me to
believe that they can't make changes in the architectural layout which
would prevent this 15 percent encroachment into the side yard
requirements. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, Commissioner Fiala has a
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't, just a comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My comment was, I thought it was
real interesting as they brought out-- and I hadn't heard before,
couldn't find it in here -- that the reason they were opposing it was
because this 1 O-foot setback, if followed, then allowed people to
build a second story, but they're trying -- what it does is, by them
building over, it doesn't allow them to build the second story. So it
all -- all of a sudden it cleared up for me because of the public
speakers, thank you. And -- so I would like to make a motion to
deny.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're not done with the
discussion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I will accept your motion once we
close the public hearing.
Commissioner Coletta has a question for last speaker.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do. I'm a little bit confused.
You say you have a procedure set up within your community that,
Page 76
January 14, 2003
through a covenant, where people seek approval for these variances
from you?
MS. AGNOLI: Yes, the way -- the way Pelican Bay Foundation
works is we have a full covenant enforcement department, of which I
happen to be a member of. And WCI has given all architectural
reviews over to the foundation. So any kind of exterior alterations --
not only do we enforce our covenants, but we also do all review for
Pelican Bay and all the pertinent neighborhoods.
We have -- they have to go through -- any exterior alteration has
to come through us, which this would definitely constitute an exterior
alteration. And specifically, even though it doesn't increase square
footage, which obviously we're very leery of that since we have huge
densities within Pelican Bay, they have to come through us.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I understand that. A
couple -- two more questions. One, has the petitioner come before
you with this variance that they're looking for?
MS. AGNOLI: No, sir. They never came before us with this, this
variance.
MR. CAUTERO: That's not true.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me ask the rest of the
questions, and I'm sure you'll have a chance to come back on it.
MS. AGNOLI: The only thing the petitioner did was, the
architect originally contacted my supervisor and asked how the
foundation would look upon this when it came before us. We told
them they did not meet their setbacks.
The way the PUD reads, if you have a seven-and-a-half foot
setback, you're allowed to have a one-story, single-family. If you
have 10 feet, you're allowed to have a two-story home; so therefore,
we told them, you do not meet your setbacks.
They proceeded to design this and they proceeded to, in my
opinion, circumvent the foundation and proceed to go through the
hearing process. We were then notified, really because we -- of the
Page 77
January 14, 2003
posted signage and the calls from their surrounding property owners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But your authority does not
supersede us? It would still have to come back to us for a variance,
is that correct, if you were to okay something?
MS. AGNOLI: My authority does not supersede you, no. What it
does is, because I'm responsible -- rather not me -- but because the
foundation is responsible for enforcing covenants, and it states in our
covenants that any homeowner that wants to initiate -- and I don't
have the section -- a land use of-- change of this type, needs to
petition the foundation. It needs to obtain our approval prior to going
to the next level, and that was never done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In the petition that you supplied
Mr. Weigel, that has actual signed names to it, or is it just a list of
your members?
MS. AGNOLI: No. These are homeowners within the Barrington
Association, which is where this -- which is the neighborhood where
this home is located, not in Pelican Bay Woods, which is the one
they were referencing across the street. Barrington -- and we called
all the surrounding property owners that would be affected by the
granting of this variance, and they stated they would not like for us to
modify our PUD nor our covenants.
In addition, there are letters from homeowners that have expressed
the same concerns. They do not want to see two-story homes in a
single-family, one-level structure. They like the way the ambiance --
they like the green space.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate it. My suggestion
would be is we give the petitioner a chance to have a rebuttal to this,
and that's a suggestion.
MS. AGNOLI: We have met with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. AGNOLI: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cautero?
Page 78
January 14, 2003
MR. WESTFORTH: Yes. I would like to clear up for the record
that there was a process in which I asked the questions to the Pelican
Bay Foundation department.
I again state, being the contractor, I've had a nine-year
relationship with Pelican Bay Foundation, of which I have performed
many numerous duties for private homeowners as well as being
employed by the foundation for contracting work.
I formerly had a relationship with one of the women who was
associated with WCI Communities by the name of Elizabeth Whaley
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We won't go into that.
MR. WESTFORTH: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nothing.
MR. WESTFORTH: I didn't hear you.
But my former relationship with Elizabeth Whaley was that I
presented her with a set of plans and asked for approval. She did a
drive-by to verify that everything was compliant, which I did at this
-- on this particular project.
As of January in the year 2002, a change of hands in Pelican Bay
took place to a gentleman by the name of Bill Walters. Ms. Whaley
said, our change of hands has taken place. You need to take these
plans to Mr. Walters for his review, of which at the time I did. I met
with him personally as well as several conversations on the phone as
well as our design person on this particular project. He indicated to
me, as I knew, that we were nonconforming in this minute comer and
that I would have to seek approval by the governing body prior to
going forward. And in that case, that being Collier County.
I have, in fact, filled out all of the applications for permit, and I
have complied with all requests that have been brough to me, through
my experience as well as any new conversation, to promote growth
of this project. And whether it be that they have an informal process
of approval, I have not been made aware of that. But because of my
Page 79
January 14, 2003
nine-year relationship with the community, I have yet to this day,
filled out a formal application for approval through either WCI or
Pelican Bay Foundation department and I have had, again, numerous
conversations regarding this.
I do believe that in the transition of ownership or the approval
committee of Pelican Bay, in that transition from WCI's to their
present committee, that there may have been an overlap of some sort.
They may have a new application, of which I was not aware of, and
this all transpired in the same beginning months of 2000 in which I
was told to go through with approval by the governing body, which
is Collier County, permitting and building department, which brings
us here to this variance application today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Cautero, do you have anything
further?
MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to add that we
do have great respect for the fact that the homeowners' associations
here and Pelican Bay have opposed it, and I appreciate what Mr.
Halas said. But we respectfully disagree, and I need to state it on the
record that this would disrupt the harmony, compatibility of the
neighborhood. You've received no credible evidence to that effect,
and I just need to state that for the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I don't think there was any attack
on Westforth Contracting. I've heard many a great things on their
remodeling efforts here in Collier County.
Any other questions, comments, before I close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only thing, I'm sorry to see it
come down between neighbors. Obviously there's a dispute here, and
we have to take into consideration the greater need. Too bad they
couldn't have resolved this before they ever arrived here. It's an
expensive lesson, 2,000 some dollars, to file for the variance and
come out on the short end of it. I hope it serves as a lesson that --
you know, take care of your homework at home first before you
Page 80
January 14, 2003
come here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to close the public hearing.
Ms. Filson, there's no other public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion of denial of this
request.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I already motioned. You
already seconded.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: My motion still stands.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I didn't accept it because we
didn't close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But there is a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0 to deny the
variance. Thank you.
Page 81
January 14, 2003
Mr. Ochs, this next item, I feel -- we have a 12 o'clock time
certain, and I think it's going to go after 12. Is there anything that
you would like to deviate and get on the agenda prior to 12 for any --
MR. OCHS: Mr. Chairman, you might want to move to item nine
on the agenda and dispense with some of the board appointments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. We do have quite a few items
that we can get out of the way.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-27 APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE
COMMUNITY CHARACTER/SMART GROWTH ADVISORY
COMMITTEE: ROBERT MURRAY, DWIGHT E. RICHARDSON,
GARY A. DAVIS AND SIISAN W. MCCAMPlqF, IJIJ- ADOPTFD
The first one is 9(A), appointment of members of the community
character smart growth advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move for the four members
that are recommended by the committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second to
approve the applicants listed in the agenda 9(A).
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Page 82
January 14, 2003
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2003-28 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE BLACK AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD: JODI BISOGNO
AND GARRY PIF, RROT- ADOPTF, D
Next item is 9(B), appoint members to the black advisory board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve the two members
who have applied.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second to
approve the two applicants.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-29 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE: RE-APPOINTMENT
OF RUSSELL TUFF AND APPOINTMENT OF FRED THOMAS,
JR. - ADOPTFJD
Next item is appoint members --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Mr. Tuff and
Mr. Thomas.
Page 83
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion to approve Russell Tuff and
Fred Thomas to the citizens of-- advisory task vote -- force.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second on the motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2003-30 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO
THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD: TERESA
MARIE NFJJSON- ADOPTED
Appointments to members of the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Teresa Nelson as
recommended.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And there was --
Commissioner Coyle seconded that. It's appointment of one member,
SO.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 84
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2003-31 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO
THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES MASTER PLAN AD HOC
ADVISORY COMMITTEE: MATT HIJDSON- ADOPTFD
The next one is appointment to the Golden Gate Estates Master
Plan Ad Hoc Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve Matt Hudson.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion and a second to approve Matt
Hudson to fulfill the committee's members.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2003-32 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO
THE COLLIER SCHOOL READINESS COALITION: BARBARA
Page 85
January 14, 2003
MA1NSTER- ADOPTED
Next one is appoint a member to the county -- or I'm sorry --
Collier School Readiness Coalition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I move that --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I move that we vote on Barbara
Mainster.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second to
approve Barbara Minster or Mainster to the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mainster.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to the advisory board.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9G
RESOLUTION 2003-33 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS CORPS.- GERRY
SI JGARMAN - ADOPTED
And appoint a member to the Collier County Citizens Corps.
MS. FILSON: This is actually to confirm the appointment
Page 86
January 14, 2003
recommended by RSVP.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that's item 9(G).
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve Gerry Sugarman
as recommended by RSVP.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second to
approve Gerry Sugarman to the Citizens Corps Advisory Board.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9H
RESOLUTION 2003-34 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE ISLE OF CAPRI FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE: REAPPOINTMENT OF JERILYN NEUHAUS,
AND APPOINTMENT OF BENJAMIN PEARSON AND J. JAY
CAVANAI IGH - ADOPTED
Appoint members to Isle of Capri Fire Control Direct Advisory
Committee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Make a motion to approve the three
candidates that have applied. And with Ms. Neuhaus having already
served two consecutive terms, we need to have that requirement
waived.
Page 87
January 14, 2003
MS. FILSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do I hear a second on the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and second to
approve the three applicants, also waiving the term limits on this --
one of the applicants.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9I
RESOLUTION 2003-35 RE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
EDWARD OLESKY, RONALD BROWN, AND FRANK
DONOHI IF, - ADOPTF, D
Appoint members to parks and rec. advisory board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three members to serve four-year
term that expires December 31 st, 2006.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Excuse my enthusiasm there,
Chair, but I'd like to recommend that we follow the committee's
recommendation for Olesky, Donohue and Brown.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to second that. But may I
make a comment on the record right now, just stepping in? And this
Page 88
January 14, 2003
is just admonishing my District 1 a little bit. There is no one on this
parks and rec. board from District 1, there hasn't been for at least a
year, if not two years. I need to go back to confirm that.
I know that they've applied a couple times in the past. Nobody
applied now. So District 1, we have nobody that's on the parks and
rec. board representing us and haven't had, and that's our own fault
because nobody has applied. And I would beg you, the next time
there's an opening, I would like to see some East Naples or Marco
Island residents sign up to be on this parks and rec. board. Thank
you for letting me make my speech.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you for, Commissioner
Fiala, trying to get some people out there from your district to be on
this advisory board.
There's a motion and a second on this, fill in the parks and rec.
advisory board.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, before we go to the next item,
there's some people out here that didn't -- that didn't hear the fact that
we won't get back to the public hearing items 8(A), (B) or (C) till
after lunch, and they're still waiting around. And I want to make sure
that the direction of the board was clear that those items will be
continued after one o'clock because you have a time certain 12 and
there would be no way to hear any one of those items and do it
within the time that's allotted before 12 o'clock.
Page 89
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is absolutely correct. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thank, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Moving-
Item #9J
DISCUSSION REGARDING SEVERAL ISSUES RELATING TO
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE- WORKSHOP TO BE
SCHEDI II~FD (CONSF, NSI IS)
Next item is 9(J). Commissioner Halas has a request for having
some Land Development Code changes. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to direct staff to look
at some things that I believe need to be addressed on the Land
Development Code. And one of the areas that I have been concerned
over is marine wetlands and submerged land being used for density
along the coastline. And I'd like to see if that can be eliminated from
the building code -- or from the Land Development Codes where we
use that as density.
I also think that we need to address building heights and the real
true building heights, and that is, that the building heights should be
from ground level to the highest point of the building so that we --
when the common citizen and the building industry are talking about
the actual building heights, that we have an understanding of exactly
what the height of the buildings are.
And I think that we need to change that so that if there's -- if
there's garage,s underneath, that's included also in the building height.
So it's from the ground level all the way to the top of the building
height, so maybe we can look at that.
I also would like to see a cap on residential towers of 70 feet.
And if they need to be any higher, then they have to go through a
Page 90
January 14, 2003
variance. But I think county-wide, we need to have a cap on all
building heights of 70 feet.
And some of the other things I'd like to address, if possible, would
be heights of homes. Just a few minutes ago we went through an
exercise here where we were getting involved in two and three-story
homes. There are areas of the county where we have 80-foot lots and
we've got homes that are probably upwards of 50 to 60 feet in the air,
and I think we need to address that as the higher the home goes up,
then the side yard setbacks decrease, or increase -- excuse me --
would increase, so that -- to clarify that, if you have a
seven-and-a-half foot side yard setback, that as the height of the
house goes up -- and that will be determined by staff-- when you get
to a certain level, then the side yard setback will increase from seven
and a half to nine feet or whatever, accordingly.
What we're trying to do is control the height of the home, but yet
leave it up to the builder or the person that wants to build the home,
what they feel is the best conceivable way of building the house to
meet the codes here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think another thing that needs
to be addressed is the CCCL line, that we need to get better definition
of exactly where this line is and what the stipulations are so that we
don't end up encroaching into that particular coastal setback line.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before we give direction, Land
Development Code takes four commissioners to vote for it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I think it's appropriate to go down
for a straw poll to see if we want to make these changes.
I'm going to start out with Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think the intent of the
changes is good. They can get rather complex, and I think it's
absolutely essential that we workshop this. And I would suggest that
Page 91
January 14, 2003
we schedule a workshop. And depending upon the outcome of that
workshop, I would support changes of this type.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's a great suggestion.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, of course, district needs --
District 5 needs a little different than the other four districts. And in
consideration of that, I kind of hope -- I agree with you about the
workshop. I think it's a wonderful idea. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because there's a real need to be
met, especially when you're in the density coastal populated area.
But I hope that when we get to it, we build it in such a way that it
would require the person to come here for conditional use and it
wouldn't be a permitted use, that they would have to jump through
the hoops, wherever it is, but still leaving it open enough so that if
there is a need for it in Immokalee some day -- and it may be. We've
got great visions in place. Or the university is talking about
buildings of certain heights and steeples on their churches. We have
to have something built into that that it will not delay the process to
the point of being redundant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're in favor of the variance type,
but you want to workshop this to discuss it further?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to workshop it very
much. Thank you for asking.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make a brief
comment. I think all of us understand that a single standard for the
entire county is inappropriate, and we have to take into consideration
the needs of-- the varying needs of the communities throughout the
county. But we'll resolve that through the workshop. So I don't want
you to think that I would be willing to try to slap a uniform
restriction on people throughout the county without taking into
Page 92
January 14, 2003
consideration the neighborhoods' needs. But I think we can work
that out during the workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, workshop work
for you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're all in favor of a
workshop, so Mr. Mudd, please schedule that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thursday will be fine.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At night.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nine o'clock.
Item #9K
RECONSIDERATION OF ITEMS 8C AND 8D FROM THE
DECEMBER 17, 2002 BCC MEETING REGARDING THE
PELICAN MARSH PUD, PETITIONS NUMBER DOA-2002-AR-
2567 AND PUDA-2002-AR-2566 ALSO KNOWN AS "THE
PLAZA AT GALLERIA" - TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE
BOARD (CONSFJNSI IS~
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Next item is 9(K). Let's see. Which
one is it? Clarification of the Pelican Marsh PUD asking for
reconsideration.
Commissioners, this is my item. The only reason I want to
reconsider it is to clarify my motion that we made on this item, and
that's with the Galleria. I could either do two things, we could
advertise it and bring it back the next meeting, or I can clarify my
motion. What is -- you want to clarify the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Sure.
Page 93
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's -- the motion was to approve with
the stipulations to meet or exceed the existing landscape, to meet or
exceed the existing accessory structures like architectural
embellishments that are existing today. And if we remove
landscaping from the parking lot, that's not existing. The intent is to
enhance it. So if we remove it and relocate it, it's -- it wasn't my
intent, and that was the intent of my motion. I'm not sure who made
the second on the Galleria item.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd have to look at the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we'll go down the line and listen to
commissioners, if that was their understanding on the motion that
you voted on.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's slightly different than what I
thought we had voted on. I felt that the motion was a good motion
that would make sure that neither party was harmed, that the current
owners would get the same amount of the landscaping, the same
appearance of lushness in their property area that they have now.
I personally would not object to taking a tree from this parking
area and putting it near that parking area. A slight relocation of some
shrubbery to accommodate meeting some necessary parking I
wouldn't object to. But my primary concern was that the same or
better overall landscaping be in existence in that development so that
no one's property values would be harmed.
So I thought it was a good compromise between having a building
sit vacant for years, which isn't going to help anybody's property
values, and making sure that the landscaping was not diminished.
And so I thought it was a good motion. But my interpretation is
slightly different. But it might' be better if there is substantial
disagreement on that, at least from my position, to have it
reconsidered.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And Commissioner, I think we
Page 94
January 14, 2003
are in line. What you did state is for the landscaping to -- if we
remove it, to relocate it in other areas of the parking lot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But what I'm afraid of is the
landscaping being removed and put on the property line around it --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, I see. That wasn't my intent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- taking away from the building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I agree with you on that
point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's how I thought it was too, that
you could move it, but it had to be in that exact perimeter of the
parking area and that perimeter of the construction area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's exactly how I read it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm getting a little bit of mixed
feelings on this whole thing. Possibly we should bring it back. If we
can -- if the rest of this board agrees with what was said. I lost the
intent of what the whole purpose of the whole thing is. I'd almost
have to watch the tape, be able to see what took place to be able to
agree totally with your -- I think that the intent you're bringing up
might be true, but maybe we might want to bring it back and just
bring up to that point in time. We've been totally briefed on the
whole thing, just to be able to deal with that one aspect in a regularly
advertised meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would be happy to bring it back as
well, if that would be your intention. I agree with you, I felt that the
landscaping should remain in the parking lot, whether they move it
from one little area parking lot to another, but it shouldn't be moved
off of there and onto the perimeter, because then you've lost the
Page 95
January 14, 2003
purpose in the landscaping in the parking lot in the first place. And
one of the things I think we all voted on were to protect the people
that already own--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or have -- are renting, leasing
property within that PUD, and that was our intent, to protect them,
protect what they had originally purchased or rented.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Is that sufficient direction to
staff?.
Commissioner Coyle has one more thing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. No. I think that's it. And it
seems to me you've got a majority of the commissioners who think
that's --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the other --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- adequate.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I think the other thing also was
that the developer was to work with the people that are presently
there --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- and to come up with something
that was compatible, suitable with all parties involved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And enforcible, right?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And enforcible, exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd, do you think that's -- do
you have some clarity there on the motion?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Item #9L
Page 96
January 14, 2003
DIRECTION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE TO WORK
WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER'S
OFFICE TO DO PERFORMANCE AUDITS ON COUNTY
DEPARTMENTS -CHAIRMAN TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE
PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE REQUESTING THAT THEY
WORK WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
(CONSF, NSI JS'}
We're going to move on to the next item. Thank you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for bringing it up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for your indulgence.
Item 9(L). This is another one that I put-- asked to put on the
agenda. It's to ask the productivity committee to perform
performance audits on the departments within the county with the
assistance of the county manager in that endeavor.
Commissioners, I think this is one of the charges that the
productivity committee -- it's in compliance with the ordinance of
them. We hear that we're overstaffed. We hear from some of the
departments that we're understaffed. Of course, we can see from
some of the departments that they are really tasked. A citizen's body
with the expertise of what we have in there, I think, is appropriate.
Commissioner Halas has some comments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. My concern is, I think this is
a great thing. But one of the concerns I have is, do we have staff to
spend time on these audits? And I think we should get direction from
maybe the county manager in regards to, does he have the staff
presently to get involved in this along with their daily functions and
duties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commission Coyle?
We'll get that answer.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would be very supportive of
Page 97
January 14, 2003
this. I think it would benefit us all and probably save a substantial
amount of money. I do have a question, I'm sure that the
productivity committee gets involved in certain audits right now.
And my question is, how do they do that without being in
violation of the sunshine law? Can we deal with that? Is there some
way to deal with that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's -- I was told by the county
manager that they have to conform to the sunshine laws. But if I
remember correctly, that they have broken off and has done -- during
the budget timeline, that they broke off and done some investigatives
(sic) for a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. But
we'll get that clarification --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think we need to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- from Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Sorry about that.
You're absolutely right that this committee like nearly all other
committees of the board of county commissioners that report to the
board are subject to the sunshine law. The sunshine law has been
defined by case law and attorney general's opinion to allow for
inquiry, for even subcommittees or individuals of a productivity
committee or other committee to do -- to go out and do investigation
or seek information and bring it back.
The caution that we advise all committees that attempt to do this
is, if one or -- if more than one committee member goes out to do an
investigation, they can-- the individuals can ask questions and
receive information and hear their colleague committee member
asking these questions, but they cannot discuss among themselves
deliberative type of thoughts among themselves, even if they're
bringing it back to the committee in chief later on, unless they do this
in the sunshine, which means that it would have to be conducted with
reasonable notice with access to the public. Probably the public
wouldn't care to access these things for the most part, but that has to
Page 98
January 14, 2003
be recognized, and minutes of any such meeting between two or
more members be taken. That would give them the flexibility to
really talk amongst themselves as they go forward and ask questions
or investigate any particular department.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I just would like to make a
follow on (sic) comment. I think this is a great idea. In order to get
the most out of it, I would ask that the productivity committee
provide us a work plan for the departments that we might wish to
target. I don't know if you feel that you'd like -- we should determine
which departments we would like to direct them to first.
But if you do, it would be good to have a work plan to know
exactly what kind of audits are going to be performed to make sure
that we've got the right skills associated with it. I'm not at all sure
that the productivity committee has all of the skills necessary for a
productivity audit, which would include time and motion studies and
things like that. But I'm confident we can get the skills to do it. And
if we just had some information as to what they could provide with
their own set of skills, we could -- we could see that that gets
supplemented in some other way, if necessary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I think that we accomplish
that through communications of the county manager's office.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that's the appropriate venue for
that.
Commissioner Halas had a question that needs to be answered.
Mr. Mudd, do we have sufficient staff to assist the productivity
committee?
MR. MUDD: We're going to -- we're going to -- I've had lots of
staff ask for some kind of external help, may it be contract or
volunteer, in order to help them determine if there's better ways to do
business.
Page 99
January 14, 2003
The one thing I would-- I would like to correct here is, let's not
call this an audit. I don't want it to get in concert or in conflict with
what the clerk does for financial audits, but let's call it a performance
productivity, appraisal, examination, study, whatever we like to call
it, but let's get away from the audit business so that we don't get the
dollar/cents business in -- at opposite ends with the performance side
of the house.
Yes, they'll get into it a little bit about, here's ways to save money
if you do such and such and such and such or change the way you do
business, but they're not necessarily going to go in there and start
doing the audit or usurp any part of the clerk's function as far as their
annual audits and -- that he does that are internal audits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you for the clarity.
Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I -- just actually a
comment. I know when I first came and took this office and I
learned about the productivity committee, I always thought a
productivity committee evaluated productivity performance in jobs,
and I found that they were more focused toward budget management
or financial management rather than department management, and
that was a surprise to me. But then, you know, I was a newcomer.
I feel, if I were a manager or director of a department, I'd love to
have them come in, because you can't fix it if you don't know what's
broken. And sometimes you've worked in the department so long
that you don't see the forest for the trees. You get some fresh eyes in
there giving you some new insight, and I think we can -- you know,
we always have room for improvement.
At the same time this productivity committee is a volunteer
committee, so I would love to see us ask them if they would like to --
maybe they'd like to add some people who -- to their department who
focus -- or to their committee rather, who focus on productivity
management. I don't know. But I think it's a great idea.
Page 100
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I agree with what you're
all saying. There is a couple things, like Commissioner Fiala
mentioned, do they really want to do it and do they have the time?
One of the -- you're going to have the ability, Commissioner Fiala, to
be able to find this out very shortly, because you are now our
representative for the productivity committee. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I am?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you are. Congratulations.
The vice-chair has, by tradition, assumed that position
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, gang, here I come.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One at a time, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And if I may, the -- some of the
thoughts I wanted to give you is that we asked the productivity
committee at one point, remember, to intercede for us as an oversight
on the airport authority, and they bogged down on that. They
accomplished quite a bit. They -- but you've got to remember,
they're a volunteer committee. They want to make sure they have
something that's doable and workable within their framework, so of
course we have to consult them.
Possibly we might want to grow the productivity committee to
pick up people in the community that have these expertise, if we
don't already have them. I think it's an excellent idea, and I'd like to
see it succeed. And the productivity committee is one of our greatest
assets that I -- I'm very thankful that they're there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Brock? Dwight Brock, for
the record, Clerk of Courts.
MR. BROCK: Commissioner, I'd like to -- this issue and
engaging in looking at performance issues is an issue that Leo Ochs
and your county manager came to us with a short time ago and asked
us at the clerk's office if we had the staff capable of performing those
types of functions. And my organization is not set up, I don't have
Page 101
January 14, 2003
the expertise, I don't have the organizational structure to develop that
type of a program.
As I told Leo, that anything that we can do in terms of providing
financial expertise or any other expertise that we have to assist
whoever it is that they use to do this, that we would do everything
that we could to assist them.
But the clerk's office -- the structure of the clerk's office is
statutory mandate -- just doesn't fit into the mold of what you're
talking about now.
If there's anything that the clerk's office can do to try to help you
facilitate what you're trying to accomplish here, I think both your
county manager and your county staff-- as I understand it, I had an
employee in the meeting where this particular issue was brought up,
in going back to Commissioner Fiala's comment, I think the actual
issue was broached at that meeting, according to one of my
employees, by one of the county commission's staff directors.
So, you know, your people are crying out for help. They're
looking for alternatives to improve the process, and anything that the
clerk's office can do -- we just don't have the capability of doing, and
it goes sort of to Mr. Coyle's comment. You know, you need to
ensure -- this is a very specialized area. You need to ensure that you
have the personnel and the abilities that are incumbent and necessary
to get the job done for it to be productive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if-- it's the wishes -- the wish of
the board to take a look at how well are we performing in each
department. County manager, if we don't have the expertise to ask
the productivity and if they do accept it, then you need to come back
to us with that.
So let me just restate if this is sufficient directions to ask the
chairman to write a letter with assistance of the county manager to
ask the productivity committee to conduct performance --
performancy (sic) in -- within the county manager's departments.
Page 102
January 14, 2003
I've got two nods over here?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've got two here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we're going to move on.
That's -- we don't need a motion on that, just some direction.
So we're going to move on to 9(A) (sic).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We have a time certain at 127
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, but while the Clerk of Court's
here, let me get to this item, and then we'll go to -- we'll go back to
the time certain.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which one is that?
Item #9M
DISCUSSION REGARDING AUDIT REPORT 2002-03 RE THE
FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND KRAFT CONSTRUCTION - COUNTY MANAGER AND
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO CONTINUE WORKING WITH THE
CI.FRK AND HIS STAFF (CONSF. NSIJS)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We are on 9(M).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 9(M), okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And the county manager -- or I'm
sorry, the Clerk of Court, Dwight Brock, gave us an audit report on
the North Naples Library construction constructed by Kraft
Construction. He asked the board of directors to give direction to
staff and the county attorneys to assist him in the collecting of any --
recovering of any funds owed to the taxpayers.
Is everybody in favor of giving that direction to staff and the
county manager?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I thought it was understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just had a question.
Page 103
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just received a report from Kraft
rebutting some of the findings. What I would suggest -- I don't know
if we've had a chance to take a look at it, but I think in all fairness,
we should at least take a look at it, and -- but my feeling is, if the
expense -- the charges made to the county are not substantiated, we
should do everything we need to do to get recovery.
MR. BROCK: And understand, my transmittal letter was not
intended to say to you, let's immediately start marching out and
engage in legal action or any other type of action to try to recover
everything in our audit report. It was more to get direction to staff
and everyone else to begin trying to ensure that we feel comfortable
with our positions, make sure that all of our ducks are lined up, and
try to deal with the issues with Kraft, the clerk's office and the county
staff as one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And we spoke yesterday. And
as you said, Kraft is an outstanding company. It's just that there are
things that need to be discussed a little bit further. And I'm glad that
they've submitted their packet. I'm sure you're taking that into
consideration. I believe that it should go back to staff to continue
these talks and work it out. Okay.
MR. BROCK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We have enough sufficient
direction.
MR. BROCK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And it's my understanding that the
county manager and the county attorney is already working with you,
so I just thought this was --
MR. BROCK: That is a correct statement of fact, that they are
and have been working with us from day one on this, so I thank you
Page 104
January 14, 2003
very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. BROCK: Continue the process.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Item #9N
RESOLUTION 2003-36 RE TRANSMITTING COMMENT TO
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ON PROPOSED RULE,
RIN 10-18-AH86 RELAT1NG TO THE MARINE MAMMAL
PROTECTION ACT AND MANATEES IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA; EXPRESS CONCERNS ON HOW THE RULE MAY
ADVFJRSF, IJY IMPACT COIJJFR COIJNTY- ADOPTF, D
We have a time concern--
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Sir, if we just finish the resolution on N, I
think that's pretty much it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, we have -- thank you.
MS. FILSON: We have speakers on that.
MR. MUDD: We have speakers on that one? How many
speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: One.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we can continue. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, the federal judge
has, in response to a lawsuit concerning manatee protection, made a
decision which could have very disastrous impacts upon the economy
of Southwest Florida, and in fact, other areas of Florida.
Now, this judge has not had any -- really has not looked at all of
the data, has not looked at our manatee protection plan, and this
proposed settlement of a lawsuit is on the verge of implementation by
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and they're not giving consideration to
the effectiveness of local manatee protection plans.
Page 105
January 14, 2003
We have one here, which I understand is deemed to be one of the
best in the entire State of Florida. We have data which indicates that
the manatee population is increasing in this area.
And what I have done is to prepare a resolution going to the Fish
and Wildlife Service and, of course, to Governor Bush who, by the
way, supports opposition to this new rule. And so I would like to
provide this resolution, or get it approved by the Board of County
Commissioners to lend our support to Governor Bush in dealing with
this -- this suit and potential settlement in federal court.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I thoroughly agree with you,
and I think we should all get together and support Governor Bush
and -- because we have to look at this sensibly, and I don't think the
ruling that has come down was really looking at it sensibly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It really wasn't. It's very arbitrary.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our chairman is back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a speaker?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He has something to say.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we do have one speaker, but I believe the
county attorney would like to make a statement.
MR. WEIGEL: That's just that, in regard to the request to the
clerk for the mailing of certified copies of this resolution, for clarity
we're talking about our local, federal, and state legislators. I wanted
to make sure the clerk was aware of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Our speaker is Ewart Butch Morgan.
MR. MORGAN: I have a handout for the commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just give that to Sue. She'll give it to
us. Thank you.
MR. MORGAN: Okay. For the record, my name is Ewart Butch
Morgan, and I'm the president of the Collier County Marine
Industries Association.
Page 106
January 14, 2003
And as Commissioner Coyle explained, we have a problem with a
settlement of the lawsuit with U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the
Manatee Club. And I'm here today basically to ask you for your help
and encourage you to write this letter of concern to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife as well as everybody else that's listed on your packet there.
The impact is a very big concern because the economic impact
will not only affect marine-related businesses, it's property owners
and tourism, waterway users. And in Collier County, that's a loss of
income and revenue to the county, and it could be substantial.
Collier County's done its homework. We have a manatee plan in
effect. We've had it since -- actually we started it in 1994. We got --
we were approved -- a committee was appointed by the Collier
County Commission in '95. We were approved in '96, and we
weren't really in effect until '98 because it took us two years to get
our signs up.
So the process of everything that this county has been through is
coming into effect, and it shows it through our manatee death rate in
this county. In your packet I gave you there it shows the death rate
of the manatees in Collier County. We've had a high of 10. We've
had a low of zero. In the past -- and that's for over 26 years, and the
boats have doubled.
We almost have a flat line in this county, yet we're lumped into
everything from Pasco County south, forty-three percent of the
manatee population. Collier County has unfairly and unduly been
put into this classification. It shows it in the packets there of where
we're at.
Just to give you an example of what can happen, as you know in
Lee County, they shut Cape Coral down. They've put a zero take in
Southwest Florida, and that means if one manatee gets killed, you're
shut down. You're not going to issue any permits.
The addition to the permit process that this is going to create for
the residents and the individuals of this county is substantial.
Page 107
January 14, 2003
The other thing that they're not explaining to us is if we have a
storm here, what are we going to be able to put back? We've got no
answers.
And so with that, I'd say that we would like to let Florida and our
own counties deal with our own problems if we do have them.
And please join our cities and our sister counties and our governor
in writing that letter. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle, I want to thank you for putting this
resolution on the agenda. When I seen it, I was almost jumping up
and down for joy, except I figured I'd hurt myself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Maybe that's what happened.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Do we have a motion on the
resolution?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make a motion to adopt the
resolution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to approve the resolution, and we
will assign a number to that resolution -- and a second by
Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Thank you.
We do -- we are going into closed session for-
Page 108
January 14, 2003
Item #12 C
CLOSED SESSION: BCC AND THE COUNTY'S LABOR
NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE HELD STRATEGY SESSION FOR
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING WITH THE SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS AND
PARAMEDICS, IAFF LOCAL 1826, IN THE SHADE PURSUANT
TO SECTION 447.605(1), FI,A. STAT_
MR. MUDD: Item 12(C).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 12(C).
MR. MUDD: And that is to -- and that's a recommendation that
the Board of County Commissioners and the county's labor
negotiating committee hold strategic session for collective bargaining
with the Southwest Florida Professional Firefighters and Paramedics,
IAFF Local 1826, in the shade, pursuant to section 447.605(1) of the
Florida Statutes.
(BASED ON ACTION BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, A
COURT REPORTER WAS EXCLUDED FROM THIS SESSION.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we are going to also take lunch
after that closed-door session, so -- MR. MUDD: 1:307
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 1:30. I hear 1:15, 1:30?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 1:30.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Reconvene, and I'm going to ask the
vice-chair, Commissioner Fiala, to conduct the proceedings. I have a
little bit of a back problem that -- a chiropractor has aligned it, but he
said the suspension is a little worn, so we're going to go rest that
suspension, and you can reach me via telephone and we'll continue
Page 109
January 14, 2003
on this meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can hook you right up to the
phone?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You can hook me up, because
I'm going to be hooked up.
MR. MUDD: They're going to hook you up vis-a-vis the line and
hold the line open, because some of these items on 8 need four votes.
Am I correct, David?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to go into closed-door
session. Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're back at 1:30. I know I don't
look like Tom Henning, but I'm sitting for Tom Can -- I mean, Tom
Henning -- oh, Tom Cannon is -- Tom Henning, thank you.
Commissioner Henning, has been advised by his doctor to go home.
He's got some back problems, but he is with us.
Commissioner Henning, are you there?
MS. FILSON: I'm doing it right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. He'll be joining us, and he'll
be able to vote from his -- from his bedside.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
Item # 10E
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO PREPARE AND
ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
BEAUTIFICATION PHASE II MSTU ORDINANCE TO
EXCLUDE GREY OAKS PROPERTIES AND TO DELETE GREY
OAKS REPRESENTATION ON THE MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTEF,- APPROVF, D
Page 110
January 14, 2003
MR. MUDD: With your approval, instead of going straight to
8(A), where we stopped on our agenda, if we could do -- because
there's at least 200 people here -- well, maybe I've over simplified it.
Maybe there's only 125, but it looks like 200. They're all here from
Grey Oaks. And they all want to talk about 10(E).
Now, I know they haven't all signed up and I think Mr. Kolflat
is going to represent them as far as the homeowner's association is
concerned, but this -- we request that we do 10(E), then do 10(G),
which is a simple petition to exempt fees for the Immokalee Rotary,
and then start on paragraph 8, and then I'd ask you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8(B)?
MR. MUDD: I'd ask you to go to 8(B) first, seems to be a
relatively simple item, but some of the people that are involved in
presenting that petition have to give testimony in our rural fringe
administrative hearing that's going on, and they've been requested to
come by at by 2:30 in order to do that. So if we could go in that
order and then start with 8(A) and then proceed to finish, it would be
appreciated by folks in this room and by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. We'll move forward.
Our agenda item will now be 10(E) and --
MR. MUDD: That's to authorize the county attorney's office to
prepare and advertise an amendment to the Livingston Road
beautification Phase II MSTU ordinance to exclude Grey Oaks
properties and to delete Grey Oaks representation on the MSTU
advisory committee and to be presented by Mike Smykowski, the
OMB director.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Excuse me. Let me interrupt
you just a moment, Mike.
Commissioner Henning, are you there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. Thank you very
Page 111
January 14, 2003
much.
Okay. We will proceed. We're on Agenda Item No. 10(E).
We're going to take it, 10(E) first, because we have quite a large
audience with us right now discussing the MSTU for Livingston
Road. Then we're going to go to 10(G) next to discuss the
Immokalee carnival. Then we're going to skip back to 8(B). After
8(B), we'll go back to our regular agenda 8(A) and move forward.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Mike.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. For the record, Michael
Smykowski, budget director.
As part of the budget process in following the distribution of
trim notices, there was a lot of concerns raised by Livings --
Livingston Road MSTU property owners relative to the tax levy for
the Livingston Road beautification, Phase II. As a result ,the board
made the policy decision not to levy taxes for the current year, but
ultimately there was some advance funding for decorative street
lighting that would need to be recouped.
Subsequently, December 17th, Mr. Tor Kolflat presented a
public petition to the board requesting the removal of Grey Oaks
from the MSTU. At that point the board direction to staff was to
bring this back as a regular agenda item at the next county
commission meeting. They are prepared to pay for their pro rata
share of expenses incurred for street lighting to date, and have put
money in an escrow account to pay their pro rata share of expenses.
On page two those are outlined in the executive summary amounting
to just short of $135,000.
At this, point we're just seeking county authorization for the
county attorney to prepare and advertise an amendment to the
ordinance which would exclude Grey Oaks property owners from the
MSTU, and obviously would also change the membership of the
MSTU advisory committee as Grey Oaks representation obviously
Page 112
January 14, 2003
would no longer be required.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Do we have any discussion
from the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll be happy to make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a
second. Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. We have four.
MR. MUDD: Of those that are going to speak, is there anyone
-- is there anyone in opposition to the staff recommendation to have
the attorney change the ordinance and exclude Grey Oaks from it?
MS. FILSON: Do you want me to call their names?
MR. MUDD: Yes, and see if they will waive.
MS. FILSON: Bill McCanna.
MR. McCANNA: I'll waive.
MS. FILSON: Tor Kolflat.
MR. KOLFLAT: We'll waive it.
MS. FILSON: John Leach.
MR. LEACH: I'll waive it.
MS. FILSON: Don Hope.
MR. HOPE: I hate to, but I'll waive it.
MS. FILSON: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess this closes the public
forum part or not?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It isn't a public hearing, but, yes,
we've heard from all the speakers.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it would be interesting, if you
would just ask how many people are in the audience from Grey Oaks
that are all in favor of doing this. And don't forget that Mr. Kolflat
put a petition in with 80 percent of the homeowners not wanting to be
part of this MSTU at the last meeting we had on 17 December.
Page 113
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to get a couple of
questions clarified. I'd like to know from the spokesperson of Grey
Oaks, was this the reason -- one of the reasons that you wanted to get
out of this MSTU, was it because of the fact that you really didn't
know how much the taxes -- the assessment was going to be? Was
there talk about anywheres from 2 to 10 mills and if the spokesman
could please --
MR. KOLFLAT: I don't think they wanted a tenth of a mill, or
an iota of a mill.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. KOLFLAT: That was not a point -- the magnitude of the
tax was not an issue at all as far as the judgment to want to be
excluded.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's great. I just wanted
to get that clarified that it wasn't --
MS. FILSON: Can we get your name for the record?
MR. KOLFLAT: Yeah. For the record, my name is Tor
Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just -- because you weren't here
during the budget preparation, what we discovered during budget
preparation in September is that the developer had volunteered all the
homeowners into this MSTU, okay, without the homeowners all
having a say in that process. He admitted that at the podium. And
we're trying to rectify the same.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. I understand, but there was
one e-mail that I did receive and they thought maybe it was in
regards to they didn't really know what the assessment was, but I
understand where this gentleman was coming, so that clarified my
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any other comments or questions
from the commissioners?
Page 114
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: May I interject, please?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could we have one of the residents
of the Grey Oaks to read into the record the exact language that they
went door to door to the residents of what that stated, the petition?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, we can. Mr. Tor Kolflat will
be coming up to the podium and is here.
MR. KOLFLAT: Yes, and for your information, that was also
exactly quoted in the report on December 1 that I gave to all the
commissioners and the county officers, but I can read it here on this
place that I have.
Quote: The undersigned Grey Oaks property owners request
that the Collier County Commission undertake all necessary steps to
exclude Grey Oaks property owners from ordinance 2001-76,
Livingston Road Beautification Phase II MSTU. Close quote. That
was at the top of the petition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh. Commissioner Henning,
did you want to comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, that's great. I just hope that in
the future that we can do something on Livingston Road since it is a
major corridor, north/south corridor into our community. And a lot
of the roads in Collier County are beautified.
So -- and of course, this has nothing to do with the item that
we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, but it does eventually anyway.
And I agree with you. Thank you. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just for my own reference, just
so I can get an idea what the rest of the afternoon looks like, how
many people here are from -- are opposing this MSTU? Will you
raise your hands, please?
Wow, this place is going to be empty.
Page 115
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can we talk you into staying
for a while?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We need company.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's get on with it and let them go
home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I love it when he adds a little bit of
levity.
Okay. Any further comments from the commissioners?
Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed like sign?
(No response.)
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Commissioner, just one more point for the
record, the balance of remaining costs that were incurred will be
recouped through an FY-04 tax levy through the remaining properties
excluding Grey Oaks that remain in the MSTU.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for adding that and we
include that, we all include that, correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Motion to exclude
Grey Oaks.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you all very much for
Page 116
January 14, 2003
coming.
(Applause.)
Item #10G
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2003-02 RE PETITION CARNY-2002-AR-
3521, HANS HAMANN, CARNIVAL CHAIRMAN OF THE
IMMOKALEE ROTARY CLUB, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO
CONDUCT A CARNIVAL ON JANUARY 16 THROUGH
JANUARY 19, 2003, ON COUNTY OWNED PROPERTY AT THE
IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT LOCATED AT 165
AIRPORT BOULEVARD, IMMOKALEE, FLORIDA-
APPROVF~D AND WAIVF, R OF APPIJICATION FF, F, DFJNIFJD
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We move on to 8(G) or
~0(G).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hey, stick around. It's going to
be a great day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Item No. 10(G) we will
move on to.
MR. MUDD: Item number -- ladies and gentlemen, if you
could please exit the room. We're still going to conduct business. So
if you could exit and keep it down, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think they are talking too loud to
hear you.
MR. MUDD: The next item, Madam Chair, is a petition for
CARNY-2002-AR-3521. And it's from Hans Hamann, the carnival
chairman of the Immokalee Rotary Club requesting a permit to
conduct a carnival on January 16th through January 19th, 2003 on
the county owned property at the Immokalee regional airport located
at 165 Airport Boulevard, Immokalee, Florida. And Mr. Schmitt will
be the presenter.
Page 117
January 14, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: Excuse me, commissioners, I was trapped
back there. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's great having company in here,
isn't it? It's too bad we had to let them leave.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tried to convince them to
stay.
MR. SCHMITT: Administrator, community development
environmental services. Basically, this is an application for a
carnival. Staff has no problem with the carnival, nor do we have any
problems with the request for the waiver of the surety bond or the
occupational license. But we -- we object to the waiver of the
application fees. To waive those fees would mean that you would
have find this in-- in-- basically for the good of the general public,
and those fees come out of development services fees. Those are the
fees that are used to pay for the staff's time in processing this
application. I would then have to come to you with a proposal to
take money from the general fund to recoup the Fund 113 or the
community development fees if you find that these fees should be
waived.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning--
oh, you're not Henning, you're Coletta. I'm looking at this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta, that's
fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I did want to speak first
because Immokalee is very important to me and I am member of the
Rotary. I just happened to go this morning. It sounds like I'm
building up a case for the Rotary. Just to the contrary, I am opposed
to us using tax dollars to underwrite permit fees for private
organizations. I am going to donate $50 to the Immokalee Rotary to
help with their costs, because I know if I don't I'll probably be
ostracized forever. But this is something -- just putting it on the
Page 118
January 14, 2003
agenda, there's a cost that probably exceeds what they were looking
for in the permit fee. And somehow we have to come up with a
policy so that we can avoid this.
As you notice, I know I've been bringing this up continuously
when these have come up in the past, and we've been rejecting them
one right after the other. And I recommend that we reject this one
for the same reasons that we rejected them in the past.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second from Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you still got $50 from me,
but you still have to hear from --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will, but first Commissioner
Halas had his --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to -- one of the
questions I was going to ask and maybe you can't answer this, Mr.
Schmitt, this person is going to charge you a fee to get on the
grounds. Is -- this is not a --
MR. SCHMITT: That I -- Commissioner, that I do not know.
All I was dealing with here is basically the application for the permit.
Now, just to clarify, every carnival permit does have to come to the
board for approval. That is a long-standing ordinance. We can look
at that ordinance, but there is a -- they have to come to you for an
approval because it does impact the general public if there's road
closures or any other type of things.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To clarify the motion, I'm for
the carnival, I'm just opposed to the paying of the fee by the
commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The paying of the application fee?
Page 119
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. And I'd like to
clarify that motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And my second would be
modified accordingly with the stipulation that Commissioner Coletta
pay the entire $275 permit fee.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm not going to take that second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we have a speaker -- oh, I'm
sorry. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'm going to make a request, kind of
working on the fly here. Mr. Coletta has indicated that he is a
member of the Rotary which is actually petitioning the board to make
a decision. He has had the opportunity and spoken clearly about his
thoughts about it. So I would request that someone else be a motion
maker and that he exercise his privilege under 286.012 of the
Sunshine law so that to avoid any perceptions of conflict,
notwithstanding that he appears to be opposed from it, that he would
avoid any potential for someone to cast dispersions on his
participation here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll be happy to make the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got to withdraw mine first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then you'll withdraw your
second and you'll begin again?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I'll make the motion that the
application for the carnival be approved, but the request for a waiver
of permit fee applications be denied.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Now we have a motion by
Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas, any --
we have a speaker; is that correct?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am. Duane Wheeler.
MR. WHEELER: Okay. I'm Duane Wheeler for the record.
Page 120
January 14, 2003
This is our fourth event that -- carnival that we have every year.
And what we're -- we don't really make that much money. That's the
reason I'm coming to ask about waivering this fee, is because
sometimes if it's bad weather, like rainy weather and stuff, the fair's
shot. And we have made less than $1,000 sometimes. That's the
reason I've come up.
And let me tell you where the money goes that we do raise. On
a good year we probably make $3,500. It goes to Immokalee -- we
give some to the Immokalee Friendship House, the Senior
Connections of Immokalee, and a graduation party at the end of the
year, when they graduate, that party they have, and Boy Scouts and
other events. And that's the reason, you know, if we could get that
waivered, that would be some more money to go for a project.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Our next speaker?
MS. FILSON: There are no other speakers.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No other speakers? Okay.
MS. FILSON: You need to register.
MR. NORMAN: For the record, my name is John Norman. I'm
a member of the Rotary Club of Immokalee. And I understand
Commissioner Coletta's point about making a standing rule for
exemptions. However, as Mr. Wheeler pointed out and to answer
Mr. Halas' question, does the person that runs it charge a fee to get
in? No, we don't. We charge for the food concession and the rides
and that kind of thing. And no one, as you all know from Rotary,
makes any money out of this kind of thing. The money all goes to
scholarships or it goes to Friendship House or the project graduation
and that, and like. If you do not see fit to waive that, I can certainly
understand it, appreciate Commissioner Coletta's 50 bucks. I see
three more commissioners up there we'd love to hear from.
Fred, I'll tell you what, I'll put 50 in if you will.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. You got it.
Page 121
January 14, 2003
MR. NORMAN: Now, wait a minute. Commission Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll put 25 in.
MR. NORMAN: Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's all I can do as well. I
mean, I just don't want to make it a practice that everybody that looks
for a waiver for a fee then comes to us because --
MR. NORMAN: You'll find it's cheaper to give the waiver, but
-- but we thank you very much, and -- let me go collect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess the point I was making,
John, is that the person -- the carnival, not so much the Rotary Club,
but the person that brought the rides, he was the person that was
charging the fee for getting on the grounds to get involved with the
rides. Am I right or wrong?
MR. NORMAN: He's merely on a commission basis with us.
We get a percentage of the ticket for every ride.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right. I got that
straight.
MR. NORMAN: If there are other concessions there, we would
get money from them.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Any other comments or
questions from our commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The only comment I've got is
the fact because of the perceived conflict of interest, I will abstain
from this vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Are you going to abstain from
giving the money?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Henning, do you have any
comments?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm ready to vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 122
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Wait a minute. Opposed to what?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed to denying the application
fee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was an aye vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, that was an aye vote. So we
just voted, including Commissioner Henning, to approve, as you
motioned, to approve the application, to approve the occupational
license and surety bond, but to deny the application fee from being
waived.
Okay. Very good.
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2003-03 RE PETITION PUDZ-01-AR-1749,
WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING,
REPRESENTING MARK L. LINDNER, TRUSTEE,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICULTURAL AND "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO BE KNOWN AS THE MISSION HILLS PUD ALLOWING
FOR COMMERCIAL USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND VANDERBILT BEACH
ROAD (CR 862)- ADOPTED WITH STIPIH.ATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that takes us to Item 8(B).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did we get the required votes for
that?
Page 123
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We had four.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
MR. MUDD: Item 8(B) needs to be sworn in, Madam Chair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: All persons that are involved in this particular
petition -- you've got to help me here.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And now ex parte?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I spoke with the two
developers and also the attorney on this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very well. Commissioner
Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No disclosures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Disclosures, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I met with the petitioner
on this particular item and of course talked to staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with representatives of
the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I myself have met with
representatives from the petitioner as well as spoken with staff.
MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Ray Bellows with the current planning staff.
The petitioner is requesting a rezone from agriculture and the
Golden Pond PUD to a new PUD to be known as the Mission Hills
PUD.
As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on
the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, and on the west side of
Collier Boulevard. The proposed Mission Hills PUD is intended to
allow for convenient shopping and personal service facilities. They
are limited to a maximum of 200,000 square feet of gross leasable
Page 124
January 14, 2003
floor area.
The subject PUD allows retail uses that are generally consistent
with the C-3 zoning district. Staff has historically interpreted
neighborhood commercial centers such as this to mean uses between
in the C-1 through C-3 zoning districts.
I have a master plan that will show the access points in the
commercial area. The shopping -- the main shopping center area will
consist of approximately 22 acres, while open space and preserve
areas will encompass about 13.7 acres.
The primary access point off of 951 is in the midpoint. There is
also a loop road system that will circle around the subject PUD
which would-- should improve traffic flow at that intersection of 951
and Vanderbilt Beach Road.
The traffic impact statement and transportation department have
reviewed this petition. It is anticipated the project will generate
approximately 6,280 weekday trips, and 142 hour a.m. weekday peak
hour trips. It should be noted that the project trips will not lower the
overall adopted level of service on any project with -- or any county
roadway within the project's rate of development influence.
In addition, staff has determined that -- and that was the reason
for the comprehensive plan is to help reduce the long-term traffic
trip-ins to commercial uses that are similar in nature. Right now,
there is no commercial in a convenient location to residents in the
estates. And it was determined from the traffic review that the trips
heading to this particular facility would be captured. It would not be
extending further east -- or westward on Vanderbilt Beach Road,
reducing traffic on that roadway.
Staff is recommending -- or transportation staff has
recommended that this petition has been found consistent with
Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element.
The growth management plan review, as I indicated, the subject
site was recently part of a growth management plan amendment.
Page 125
January 14, 2003
Since this is outside of an activity center, commercial uses typically
would not be allowed at this location. However, the board approved
the comprehensive plan amendment allowing for these types of
neighborhood commercial uses at this location.
There are several criteria in the comprehensive plan when this
was adopted. This particular rezone to PUD is consistent with that
criteria. So staff is recommending -- or has found this project
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The environmental advisory board heard this petition on
October 16th and they recommended by a seven to zero vote to
approve the project. The Collier County planning commission also
heard this item on November 21 st and by a vote of four to two they
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
petition.
They did make some changes such as the elimination of bowling
alleys and drive-in theaters from the list of permitted uses. The
planning commissioners voting for approval indicated that the project
was consistent with the comprehensive plan and that it would be a
benefit to traffic flow in the area.
The two planning commissioners voting for denial indicated the
project could or would adversely impact traffic flow because of
traffic at this particular location, but it's staff's opinion that we
wanted to reduce the western trips in trying to get the same uses and
found that it would be a benefit for traffic in the area.
I'd be happy to answer any other questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this have anything to do
with the conformity of the Golden Gate master plan, does this fit into
that realm of things?
MR. BELLOWS: No, this is outside of the Golden Gate area
master plan. This is in the regular county growth management plan.
The county has a future land use map that dictates where commercial
uses go, and that was amended as shown here. This is the new
Page 126
January 14, 2003
commercial area that was created and approved by the board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Will this have any effect on traffic
coming in from Golden Gate for people that are shopping?
MR. BELLOWS: I would -- I'm not sure if our transportation
expert is here, but it's my understanding reading the traffic impact
statement that the trips -- would alleviate some trips going into
Golden Gate City from northern estate lots because they would have
convenient shopping at this location. Of course, there is existing
shopping and commercial uses at the intersection of Immokalee Road
and 951. So that's an attracter of trips at that location, but from
Golden Gate City, that would also attract some trips to the east and to
the north instead of going further west.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how about the estates,
Golden Gate Estates?
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely was determined to improve traffic.
The residents in that area don't have convenient shopping. This
would be the western estates. Further out, there's other proposals for
commercial at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard
that was approved, I think, a year and a half ago, but no commercial
has been developed at this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm going on this is,
does -- how does it impact the traffic as we get west of Vander -- or
excuse me, of 951, as we get to the west side of 951, and of the
residents that live in the estates, will this help to cut down on the
amount of trips coming in specifically for shopping?
MR. BELLOWS: Definitely, it will reduce trip-ins.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Henning,
before we go to Commissioner Coyle, do you have any comments or
questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a comment. On looking at this
item, the board of commissioners ought to be thankful that this is on
Page 127
January 14, 2003
our agenda. It will help cutting down trips into the urban area or the
coastal area for shopping needs. There are going to be some uses in
there that I hope that will serve the area and Golden Gate Estates
such doctor's offices, a lot of medical needs and that. So, again, I
think that we should be proud of approving this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner
Henning.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Commissioner Henning is
absolutely correct. This is merely a continuation of the growth
management strategy that we've been pursuing for some time, and
that is to move commercial areas further eastward where they can
service those areas that are growing most rapidly in population, and
to give those people an opportunity to find shopping and jobs closer
to home rather than having to travel all the way into the coastal areas.
And I think this is an excellent example of that kind of targeted
development.
There are those who feel that any kind of development is bad,
but that is not the case. By targeting certain areas such as this with
this kind of development, it actually benefits the entire community.
And with respect to the traffic, we have held this development
to the standards of our concurrency system, and in fact, phased the
development of this to coincide with improvements in the roads so
that -- so that the traffic can be accommodated here.
So I think it's a good project. And I'm willing to proceed with
making a motion to approve it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I'd like to hear from the
other-- other side also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Do you want to move on this
motion or would you like to wait to hear from the petitioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no hesitation about
moving on. And I'll go ahead and be the second.
Page 128
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We've got a motion from
Commissioner Coyle to approve and a second from Commissioner
Coletta.
Now, did we want to hear from the petitioner and then do we
have public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am, we don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No public speakers. And the
petitioner?
MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Just
real briefly. Mr. Mulhere needs to get a couple of small points on the
record. So we'll have him make those points and then we'll --
MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere
with RWA representing the applicant.
Just a couple of real quick items. One, I just wanted to reiterate
again that we did meet with all of the neighbors surrounding the
property on several occasions, and I think you can tell that we've
addressed their concerns. They're not here. They're supporting the
project.
Second thing is that there was question about we had an
architectural rendering that showed the building was very similar to
this architectural rendering, but it did not show our perimeter --
building perimeter landscaping. And that issue came up in a few of
the meetings that we had with people that were concerned about the
project. We revised this obviously to show the required perimeter
landscaping and a perspective from the street as well.
And I did look at the code, and the code specifically requires
100 foot of building perimeter landscaping for every thousand square
feet of leasable floor area. So there will be obviously significant
perimeter building landscaping required by the code which we
obviously will meet or exceed.
Second thing is -- I do have to get one discrepancy between the
master plan and the PUD corrected. Interestingly enough, there is a
Page 129
January 14, 2003
wetland -- MR. MUDD: Okay. Bob, does that help you up there, the
wetland?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, that's better.
Right on the comer of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt, that
area in green, is about a two-acre wetland. It's somewhat impacted
by exotics and it was our intent to mitigate for impacting that
wetland. During the staff review, during the process of the review of
this petition, the board adopted the fringe based amendments which
included wetland standards for the urban area which base -- well, I
have the exact language here, Policy 6.2.4 says: Within the urban
designated area, the county shall rely on wetland jurisdictional
determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable
jurisdictional agency, and where permits issued by jurisdictional
agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within this designated urban
area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to
meet the objectives and protection and conservation of wetlands and
natural functions of wetlands within this area.
Well, what happened was the rural fringe amendments got
challenged. And so we were required by staff to depict that wetland
on our master plan which we did. But staff also concurred that if the
policy is eventually become -- eventually becomes effective, and as
an aside, it has now become effective because the same language was
in the eastern lands growth management plan amendments and those
are now effective. The staff allowed us to put a phrase on the master
plan which indicates that if the urban wetland policies become
effective and if we obtain jurisdictional permits, then we can revise
our boundaries for our preservation areas. So I did need to get that
on the record.
I think that really covers it. The EAC recommended approval.
The planning commission recommended approval. Staff
recommended approval. And as I said, we've met with all of the
Page 130
January 14, 2003
neighbors and we believe that we have a good project here.
One thing that wasn't mentioned I should at least say real
quickly is that you know we're providing a loop road that will have
access to all of our neighboring property owners.
Oh, and I forgot, thank you. The discrepancy that I referenced
was that the PUD indicates that 4.25 acres of native vegetation must
be retained or replanted consistent with the LDC requirements. The
master plan says 4.21 acres. There's a difference of four
one-hundredths of an acre. The correct citation or the correct amount
is 4.21 acres. So we will have to revise the PUD to reflect that minor
discrepancy between the two.
Thank you. Any questions?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. When I talked to the two
gentlemen that are developing that, we talked about heights. Did you
come up with any conclusion on that?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, I apologize. I'm glad you reminded me.
The references to this tower here particularly which was 42 feet
to the midpoint of the roof, and the re -- he -- Commissioner Halas,
in one meeting, and I was not present at that meeting with some of
the other representatives of the applicant, requested that that be
reduced to 40 feet. And we don't see a great deal of difference
between the 42 and 40, but we certainly have no objection to the will
of the board. And if that's the will of the board, we will --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to make sure that it
doesn't blend -- you know, isn't a problem with people living across
the street over there at Vanderbilt Golf Course over there. So, and I
think that would blend in once we get the -- all the landscaping in
and all of other architectural, that kind of hide that whole project
nice.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, do you
have any comments?
Page 131
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Commissioner Halas is
concerned, looking at that architectural embellishment. I know a lot
of other communities, the coastal community, enjoys that and
actually is fitting to the community. So I hope what is predicted on
the drawings that we can keep, but I hope that the motion maker and
the second would include the planning commission's
recommendations and also staff's stipulations into their motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was the stipulation? I'm
sorry. Oh, you mean that they have gotten -- okay. With the
stipulation contained in the PUD document?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Staff has made the recommendations of
the planning commission and those uses have been eliminated from
the PUD document as submitted.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So the motion maker?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Absolutely, we would include
those stipulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And the second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, you can't. I'm the
second. I just reconfirm it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I take it we have no
speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And this closes the public
hearing.
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 132
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Passed 5-0, with
stipulations.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us -- that means there's
going to be no bowling alley and no drive-in theater, and there's a
couple of other ones in there.
Item #8A
ORDINANCE 2003-04 RE PETITION PUDA-2002-AR-A702, D.
WAYNE ARNOLD OF Q. GRADY MINOR, P.A.,
REPRESENTING WESTBURY PROPERTIES INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING
THE LANDS END PRESERVE PUD BY REDUCING THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 786 UNITS TO
A MAXIMUM OF 725 UNITS, ADDING APPROXIMATELY 6.5
ACRES OF PRESERVE AREA, ADDING A 3.3 ACRE
NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE CENTER FACILITY, AND
INCREASING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE
MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS TO A MAXIMUM OF 75
FEET OVER ONE LEVEL OF PARKING FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BAREFOOT WILLIAMS
ROAD AND NORTH OF THE ROOKERY BAY AQUATIC
PRF, SERVF,- ADOPTED WITH STIPIII.ATIONS
That brings us back to our agenda. We're on Item 8(A). Again,
this has to -- the participants have to be sworn in. And this is a
rezone from PUD to PU -- planned unit development for the purpose
of amending the Lands End Preserve PUD.
All participants participating in this particular petition, if you
Page 133
January 14, 2003
could please stand and raise your hand. (Speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And disclosures on behalf of the
commissioners.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I talked to the petitioner a
long, long, long time ago. I talked to people from the Conservancy,
and what's the name of that down there? Rookery Bay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Rookery Bay, uh-huh.
And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have talked to the
representatives of the petitioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I did talk with staff on this item and
also a representative for the Conservancy.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very well. And Commissioner
Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've talked with people from the
Conservancy. I've talked with the petitioner. I've talked with staff.
And I've talked with people from Eagle Creek.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to add Eagle Creek to
mine too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Eagle Creek for all of the
commissioners then.
And myself, I've also spoken with staff, spoken with the
Conservancy, spoken with Rookery Bay, spoken with Eagle Creek,
and spoken with the petitioner. I think I've caught them all. Thank
you. Very good.
Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner is requesting an amendment to
the Lands End PUD, the purpose of which is to reduce the number of
Page 134
January 14, 2003
dwelling units from 786 units to a maximum of 725 units. They're
also adding approximately 6.5 acres of preserve area, and a 3.3 acre
neighborhood village center facility. They're also increasing the
maximum height of the multifamily dwellings to a height of 75 feet
over one level of parking.
As you can see on the visualizer, the Lands End PUD is located
approximately one mile east of Collier Boulevard. It's just south -- or
just west of the Eagle Creek PUD, and approximately a mile and a
half south of U.S. 41.
The petitioner is requesting these changes to reflect current
wetland jurisdictional refinements to the -- as a result of the changes
from South Florida Water Management District and also they're
revising the residential tracts in accordance with those changes.
They're also looking at adding a neighborhood village center.
The traffic impact study for neighborhood village centers will
indicate that the project will retain internal residential traffic, so they
will have on-site commercial uses, so they will not have to be
traveling out on Tower or Barefoot Williams Road to get to similar
type of commercial uses.
The reduction in dwelling units will also serve to reduce traffic
overall if this project was to build out. The increased preserve area is
also a benefit to the area.
The petitioner is also requesting an increase in height. As you
may have noticed in reading the staff report, they were originally a
much larger building height request of approximately 20 stories over
two levels of parking. Staff was opposed to that increase in height.
The petitioner also was working in conjunction with the Rookery
Bay folks and the Conservancy in trying to determine what would be
a compatible building height. They had many negotiations and
meetings along with residents of Eagle Creek to determine what a
compatible building height would be for those projects. The results
of all those meetings was that they propose a building height of 75
Page 135
January 14, 2003
feet over one level of parking.
It should be noted that the PUD currently allows for a 50-foot
tall multifamily building over two levels of parking. So the
difference in height is not all that significant. And staff had
recommended that -- or had agreed to a building height that would be
consistent with the type of activities that would be occurring in
Rookery Bay. And if the Conservancy felt that height was
acceptable, then staff would find that an agreeable height.
As you can see in the growth management plan, this is the future
land use element. The subject site is located in a cross-hatched area
which means it's in the coastal fringe area. The coastal fringe area
allows for density of four units per acre minus one for traffic
congestion zones, so three units per acre. Due to the reduction in
dwelling units, the density is now reduced to 2.76 units per acre, so it
is consistent with the future land use element. The future land use
element also allows for these types of village commercial uses and
it's noted in the staff report consistent with that criteria.
The environmental advisory staff board reviewed this petition.
And they heard that on December 4th, 2002, and they recommended
approval by a 5 to 1 vote with two abstentions. The one member that
voted for denial indicated that 75 feet over one level of parking still
may be obtrusive to the Rookery Bay folks, and felt it was not
appropriate.
The planning commission heard this on December 5th and they
recommended by a 4 to 3 vote, and that's my recollection of the vote.
I've heard something different, but they recommended approval.
And subject to the structures located within 200 feet of the
eastern property line shall be limited to a maximum of 35 feet in
height. They are to revise Section 6.7 of the PUD to reference the
phasing schedule of the roadway improvements to Barefoot Williams
Road, limit the maximum height of accessory structures to 30 feet,
eliminate the high-rise definition from the PUD document, and revise
Page 13 6
January 14, 2003
the wording in describing the height of the gatehouse and walls. And
those changes have been made to this PUD document.
I'll be happy to answer any other questions that you have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any questions from the
commissioners?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't pushed my button.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I found it quite -- that
the fact that the petitioner has gone through the trouble to work with
Rookery Bay and also work with Eagle's Creek to the point that they
have no objection and they're not even here today, as far as I know.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, they are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They are, okay.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, I do have one other change.
Greg Garcia is here with transportation and I think he wants to make
a --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll continue when they are
finished with the staff presentations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll call on you,
Commissioner Henning, as well?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, I do have a question.
MR. GARCIA: I'm sorry. I was up at the attorney's office, I
didn't swear in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We better do that, please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. GARCIA: Good afternoon. The changes to the PUD
language, is there's a duplication of an Item O, if you see that there
was an issue relevant to a traffic signal, it had already been brought
up under Item J. And there's a correction to that. Under Item J,
there's no indication of a fair share, if they trigger the warrant for a
traffic light, they pay for the traffic light. If they have an adjacent
Page 137
January 14, 2003
property owner across the way that possibly impacts that same
signalized intersection at a later date, they can negotiate with them
for shared costs.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you tell me --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where are you at?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're all trying to find O and J.
MR. GARCIA: I'm sorry. In the PU -- transportation element
of the PUD language.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What page is that on?
MR. GARCIA: I don't have a page number, I'm sorry. Six six, I
believe, is what it says in the upper right-hand comer.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: 94, I believe, is six in the upper
right-hand comer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Transportation element?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I think it's page 94 of your agenda
package. Rich Yovanovich, for the record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
MR. GARCIA: That's quite all right. Thank you.
The only portion of O that should have been attached to J was
the specific locations relevant to those traffic lights. So that will be
corrected.
The only other thing that we had -- I guess we agreed to
disagree on in these item is on what the trigger is. The phasing of
this project will be their frontage from their north property line to
Tower Road, and Tower Road out to 951, because that will be the
principal means of ingress and egress to the site. We have agreed
that at the time of the first permanent certificate of occupancy, the
improvements that are indicated in this language will be made which
is basically a 22-foot wide travel way with stabilized paved shoulders
and an eight-foot shared use pedestrian bicycle pathway on one side
of the road which currently is not in existence.
Page 138
January 14, 2003
The area where we agreed to disagree is the second phase would
be from the north property line on Barefoot Williams north to Price,
and Price over to the shopping centers that are on 41. The count
location as part of their monitoring report, we want the count location
on Barefoot Williams and at such time as Barefoot Williams at that
count station indicates 2,000 trips, we want the improvements made
to the north on Barefoot Williams and on Price Street.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And has the petitioner agreed to do
that?
MR. GARCIA: Well, it's -- they agreed to disagree. They
would prefer that the count station be on Price Street. We want the
count station to be on Barefoot Williams.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And why? Can you give me a
reason why?
MR. GARCIA: Well, the reason we want it on Barefoot
Williams is we believe that's going to be more of the trigger of
transportation, because there's some people that are going to take the
back street to the north through what is a private road, but not gated,
to get to 41 and to go west. So we want to see, you know, the counts
conducted there. Price Street may be a much later date as far as
triggering the 2,000 criterion, thereby the improvements.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I think we needed to
hear that. Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Excuse me, sir, could you state your name for
the --
MR. GARCIA: I'm sorry. For the record, Greg Garcia, Collier
County transportation planning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta,
you can finish and then Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll tell you what, I'll wait.
Commissioner Henning, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
Page 139
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. On the executive
summary, it's stating in the fiscal impact, a mere fact that the new
development has been approved will result in a future fiscal impact
on the county public facilities. Can we explain what staff-- what its
meaning is on that item?
MR. BELLOWS: I think that's language that's intended to
address the fact that this amendment will allow for commercial
neighborhood uses along with residential dwelling units that will
have a fiscal impact as they pay their impact fees. We put in
language in there to indicate that we can't come up with an exact
impact fee amount because of the type of dwelling unit may vary.
They still have the ability to build single-family homes. And the size
and number of units is yet to be determined. So we just provided a
best guesstimate based on the information at hand what the fiscal
impacts would be. And they certainly can-- will be used for the
intended purpose of-- from the impact fee ordinance, but -- I hope
I'm answering your question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Bellows, is this going to result in
a negative? Is the county going to have to share some of the costs of
the infrastructure and improvement? MR. BELLOWS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That is a negative?
MR. BELLOWS: That's negative. The county would not be
paying any additional improvements based on the approval of this
petition. Anything that the county is responsible for through its TIP,
traffic impact plan or five-year work plan, would not be impacted by
this petition. The impact fees credited to this project would be no
different than any other project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The neighborhood
commercial center use is just for the -- this PUD or is it going to
generate some trips outside?
MR. BELLOWS: No, the neighborhood PUD is intended to
Page 140
January 14, 2003
serve the residents within the development solely. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Three speakers. Would you like to
listen to the speakers first, Commissioner Coletta, or move on?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MS. FILSON: Anthony Pires. He will be followed by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to let the
petitioner get up there. Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, just the petitioner.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Yovanovich representing the petitioner. Also Wayne
Arnold is with me, Dean Smith is with me to answer any traffic-
related and planning- related questions.
Generally I want to -- and there are a few public speakers, but
they are here to register they have no opposition to the project, and
they will speak for themselves, but I had a little heart attack at first
when there was representatives of Eagle Creek here because I
thought maybe something had changed from basically what we had
told the commissioners.
We have spent a lot time on this project meeting with the people
of Rookery Bay, the Conservancy, and Eagle creek to arrive at a
height of the structures that would be acceptable to everybody. And
originally we proposed a five-tower project. We had done line of
sight studies to show visual impacts. And we spent a lot of time
arriving atthe figure that is in the PUD of 75 feet over one level of
parking per building height. And you will hear from the
representatives of Eagle Creek and the Conservancy that that -- they
do not object to that height.
I think we have done an excellent job of working with our
Page 141
January 14, 2003
neighbors in coming up with a PUD that was responsive to the
neighbors, and is a reduction of what is already permitted for the
property.
Wayne will take you through a few of the planning points and a
few of the changes in the document that we were doing again to
address concerns from Eagle Creek that were raised even today that
we have addressed.
The issue on traffic on the point we agreed to disagree with Mr.
Garcia does not deal with Barefoot Williams Road. We agree that
once we get north of our project, once we trigger 2,000 average daily
trips, we need to improve Barefoot Williams Road. There is no
disagreement there.
The question becomes on Price Street. When we -- we propose
that once we trigger 2,000 trips a day on Price Street, that's when we
improve Price Street. We just want to make sure that we, in fact, do
impact Price Street before we're required to make improvements on a
road that is off site. Once that trigger occurs of 2,000 trips, we will
improve Price Street. So that's -- that's the meter box we're talking
about. It's not the meter box on Barefoot Williams Road. We agree
that once we trigger 2,000 trips on Barefoot Williams Road, we
improve Barefoot Williams Road. We're just requesting that there
also be a box on Price Street to measure the impact on Price Street
before improvements to Price Street are triggered. So that's the point
we agreed to disagree on, is Price Street.
The current PUD provides that once we hit 900 trips, we'll study
Price Street. And we're comfortable going back to that language if
that's what the commission wants, go back to the existing 900 trips,
we study Price Street, and at no later than 2,000 average daily trips,
we improve it. So if the study indicates we need to do it sooner than
2,000 trips, we'll do that. If it doesn't, then we'll do it at 2,000 trips.
So we're committed to making those improvements right when the
appropriate trigger from our project indicates that Price Street needs
Page 142
January 14, 2003
to be improved. So we offer that as a compromise if you will of what
staff is proposing.
At this point, I'll have Wayne Arnold introduce a few of the -- or
address some of the planning points we dealt with, the people at
Eagle Creek with this morning. And then if you have any questions
regarding any issues with our project, the project team is here to
answer those questions. And then I believe there are a few members
of the public that would like to speak and address the issues.
Unless you have any legal issues, I would turn the floor over to
Wayne.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Wayne Arnold, for the
record, representing the applicant.
We had many discussions with Eagle Creek and Rookery Bay
and the Conservancy, as Mr. Yovanovich indicated. And we have
been working with Tony Pires' office, who represents Eagle Creek.
Even as early as today there were some refining language that we've
been working on. And Mr. Pires brought to my attention a concern
in the way that the language is crafted that met transportation's
concems but may not have addressed Eagle Creek's concerns for
Barefoot Williams Road.
Specifically, it was Item Q that talked about at what point those
improvements are made. And I think the point we conceded that we
wouldn't seek 2,000 trips a day on Barefoot William and Tower.
Eagle Creek's concern has been dust associated with construction and
noise of trucks rolling up and down what was an unpaved road. Very
recently, however, the county did go ahead and improve Barefoot
Williams Road by laying an asphalt course on that which I think
addresses Eagle Creek's concern.
I think at this point we'd like to see some language added that
shows that we will have a commitment to go ahead and maintain that
asphalt course that's been laid by the county through our construction
phase. And then, of course, as we develop, we're entirely rebuilding
Page 143
January 14, 2003-,
to county standard that Barefoot Williams Road segment, but I think
the concern was, well, yeah, the road doesn't have to be in place until
you get your first CO. The road now has been paved which
alleviates the dust and noise issue, but we'll agree during construction
to go ahead and maintain that in that condition so that their issue of
noise and dust is controlled through construction phases.
A second issue that was raised was similarly along Barefoot
Williams Road in that Eagle Creek said, gosh, what happens when
you start improving this, you're going to take down vegetation, we're
going to see it, what kind of visual screen do we get, can we get a
landscaped buffer immediately. And I think when we started
discussing that, we decided, I think -- the consensus among all of us,
including Mr. Pires, was that we would agree to maintain a 50-foot
wide strip of vegetation in its state until such time we put in the final
landscape buffer for the project.
They all -- they, meaning Eagle Creek, also raised the question
of what type of buffer material? Well, the buffer hasn't been
designed yet, but what we are willing to commit to is that any code
required canopy tree would be at least 14 feet in height at time of
planting in lieu of the eight and 10 feet requirements that are
currently in your code and that we would commit to 36 high inch
required shrubs at time of planning in lieu of the 24-inch shrubs that
are in the code. And I think you're going to hear them say that that's
satisfactory.
Mr. Pires also pointed out to me this morning that in Section
2.10, paragraph D of your code, there's some language that addresses
general provisions. There was discussion at the planning commission
at which case there was language that was a little bit confusing on
accessory fences and structures. It implied that fences could
somehow be 35 feet in height. It certainty wasn't our intent, and the
language did not get, I don't think, crafted still adequately.
Mr. Pires and I discussed it and we think we just simply need to
Page 144
January 14, 2003
strike reference to principal structure, insert accessory, and reference
the maximum accessory height of 30 feet which otherwise is in the
PUD. And I think we're all comfortable with that.
There's a development table in our residential section, it's a
matrix, that outlines by each residential product type what we need to
do. And we made a commitment to Eagle Creek as we were
negotiating this project that we would not put structures taller than 35
feet within the first 200 feet of Barefoot Williams Road.
Mr. Pires has asked that we simply clarify the footnote we
added. Instead of saying within 200 feet of the Barefoot Williams
Road right-of-way, indicate that it would be within 200 feet of the
western most right-of-way line of Barefoot Williams Road.
Certainly that's a minor clarification that we're happy to make.
I think those address the changes that Mr. Pires and I went over.
I do think again we need to do some wordsmithing on a couple of
those conditions. Right now, I think the document before you, for
instance, in the transportation conditions references the 2,000 trips
for Tower Road and Barefoot Williams Road improvements are
triggered along our property boundary. And in our negotiations with
staff, we had discussed that and conceded that yes, we would make
those Tower Road and Barefoot Williams Road improvements
concurrent with and prior to the first residential CO for the project.
And that needs to be rectified in the text and just to make that record
be known of our intent to do that.
And I think Mr. Yovanovich obviously discussed our other issue
with respect to transportation impacts on Price Street. And I'm here,
Dean Smith is here, and I'm sure you have questions for your county
staff in that respect.
So those were really my issues with respect to clarifying some
of the PUD language we had. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any questions from
commissioners?
Page 145
January 14, 2003
Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you. Let's hear
from our speakers.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Anthony Pires. He will be
followed by Will Kriz. And your final speaker is Nicole Ryan.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, members of the board, Tony
Pires, Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing Eagle Creek
Golf and Country Club and Eagle Creek homeowner's association.
Thank you. I like it also.
And I wanted to say also that we have had the opportunity and
appreciate the opportunity to have spent the time speaking with Mr.
Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold to go over the concerns of Eagle
Creek and the fact that they have addressed them in the fashion that
they have.
We have worked on some language. And I think it's always
helpful to have the language in the record so that we don't have to go
back and forth at some later point in time.
As to Section 6.7(Q) which is the transportation section that
addresses the issue of Eagle Creek to have a roadway surface that's
paved to try to get it dust free or minimize the dust and noise issue,
Wayne and I worked on some language that said that, add this to
Section 6.7(Q): That prior to commencement of any site
development activity as part of any development order or
development permit for on foot site infrastructure. The unpaved
portion of Barefoot Williams Road, which is paved at the present
time, shall be temporarily surfaced with a prime coat cutback asphalt
grade RC-70 meeting the requirements of the Florida Department of
Transportation standards specifications for road and bridge
construction. The prime coat shall be maintained during construction
to ensure stable and dust free conditions.
We talked about this this morning before we found out about
Page 146
January 14, 2003
noon that it had been paved. We didn't know that until today, but
that's acceptable.
And in Section 7 also with regards to the vegetation, Wayne's
correct, the proposed additional language that the developer is to
retain the minimum 50-foot wide strip of existing vegetation along
Barefoot Williams Road frontage until such time that permanent
landscape buffers constructed is acceptable, coupled with the
requirement that the trees that are required be of 14-foot high, canopy
trees and the bushes, shrubs be 36 inches.
And in Section 2.10(D), I think the language we agreed upon
was that it would read, fences and walls which are an integral part of
a gatehouse or a control gate shall be subject to the height limitations
for accessory structures. And he's correct in Footnote 5 in table one
adding the language and clarifying the distance requirement as to
measuring the 200 feet. And based upon that, we have no objection
to the PUD as proposed.
Also one other gracious aspect of the developer, they have
indicated that they will include in their bid specifications for their
exotic removal a component to -- if Eagle Creek decides to take
advantage of it, to utilize their exotic removal contractor for the
exotic removal activities that Eagle Creek needs to engage in on their
portion of Barefoot Williams Road. And I'm available for any
questions. And Mr. Kriz is here also to express his sentiment and
also answer any questions that you all may have.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a
question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question. Obviously, you
were in the discussion with them as far as the building height, so you
people realize that if we go ahead and give them the change in their
PUD to go to 75 feet, what we're really talking about is basically they
are going to be over 100 feet high. We're looking at 103 feet in
height.
Page 147
January 14, 2003
MR. PIRES: My recollection from the planning commission
was that the -- when you do the 75 feet over one level of parking,
that's an 86-foot--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then raising the building and --
MR. PIRES: -- an 86-foot dimension. And that would be over
the FEMA elevation. And that is the dimension by virtue of it being
placed back 200 feet from the westerly right-of-way line of Barefoot
Williams Road. It's a height that's 25 feet higher than is allowable
now, basically up to the setback line along Barefoot Williams Road.
And unless I'm mistaken, we did consider that additional concept of
having 50 feet remain as it currently exists under the PUD, but based
upon all the modifications to the PUD including that particular
concession of the buffer of 200 feet of Barefoot Williams Road being
no higher than 35 feet over one level of parking, the proposed PUD
changes is -- we have no objection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure
that --
MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. And when we had that discussion, it was
very clear and we appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, do you
have any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Will Kriz and he will be
followed by your final speaker, Nicole Ryan.
MR. KRIZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Will
Kriz. That's K-R-I-Z. I'm an officer of the Eagle Creek
Condominium Association.
Since Eagle creek is across Barefoot Williams Road directly
east of Lands End property, we're concerned about how the property
Page 148
January 14, 2003
is to be developed. Had the original proposal to construct five condo
buildings 260 feet in height not been amended, we would be here to
object strongly. Had a subsequent proposal that would have reduced
the building heights about 140 feet not also been amended, we would
still be objecting. But now that the building height has been reduced
to 86 feet, we no longer have an objection provided that the building
height within 200 feet of the westerly right-of-way line of Barefoot
Williams Road is limited to 35 feet as specified in the PUD and as
long as these other language changes that have just been discussed
are set in place.
We wish to acknowledge the effort made by the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida and Rookery Bay in negotiating the reduction in
building heights. We also wish to express our appreciation for the
developer's willingness to consider Eagle Creek's concern. Wayne
Arnold spoke with the homeowner's board members early in the
process. He visited the site. And he also provided line of sight
drawings to show how Eagle Creek would be affected.
While we do not object to the PUD amendment as it has now
presented, we point out that with the exception of transmitter towers,
the condominiums to be built at Lands End will be the tallest
structures between this county administration building and the
buildings to be built at Hammock Bay.
We hope that if this development is approved that it will not
open the door to still taller buildings in the surrounding area. We
think that high rises are inconsistent with the character of the east
Naples, south Naples area.
Without reasonable height limits in the land development code,
the county planning staff seems likely to recommend approval of any
development regardless of the height of the buildings. We hope this
deficiency in the land development code will be addressed soon.
And the workshop it was discussed in this morning's session. It's
certainly a good idea. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Page 149
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a
question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I just want to -- I want to get
the record straight here. When the developer -- when he has a piece
of property and maybe I stand to be corrected here, but when there is
a site set up for heights of buildings, and the developer comes forth
and requests a height increase, he is actually asking the people of
Collier County to increase the height. So when he -- when a
developer says that I'm going to go to 200 feet and then I'm going to
down to 150 feet, that I'm giving you a break, really what he -- what
it should be is that the citizens here of the county are giving this
developer the go ahead to go up to a particular height that he
requests. And I just feel that the citizens of the county ought to
realize that.
MR. KRIZ: Yeah, I understand that's the strategy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Instead of saying, well, I
want to -- I want to build a building at 200 feet, but if I come down to
150 feet down from that, you know, I'm a good guy. MR. KRIZ: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Nicole Ryan.
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole Ryan here
on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
The Conservancy did have significant concerns about this
project when it was proposed for the 260-foot towers. However, we
are not objecting to the 75-foot buildings over one story of parking.
Through our discussions with the developer and with the consultants,
we have sufficient assurances that the 75 feet over one story of
parking are not going to be seen from key spots within Rookery Bay,
that includes our Briggs Nature Center boardwalk, our Briggs Nature
Center boat docks, and also the DEP Rookery Bay facilities.
We also looked at other factors when deciding whether to
oppose or not oppose this project, and that included, first of all, this
Page 150
January 14, 2003
is currently zoned as a PUD with certain densities and allowances
already in place. Also, the petitioner has requested to decrease
density on this property and we believe that because it's adjacent to
Rookery Bay, that is the direction that they need to be going.
Also, this property has been highly impacted and degraded
because of past mining and ag uses. So we looked at all of these
factors when we decided not to oppose the project. At the planning
commission and EAC the question came up of the Conservancy is
adamantly opposed to the Estuary Bay towers project, yet we are not
opposing this project. And that's because Estuary Bay is zoned ag.
It's good quality wetlands. And also the towers there would create a
visual impact. So I just wanted to state that so that there's no
confusion about inconsistency in our position.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And wasn't Estuary Bay
like right in the heart of Rookery Bay?
MS. RYAN: It was right on the border. It was sort of an inn
and holding within, and so, yes, we did have significant concerns
about that.
For the Lands End project, height has been the big issue. And,
while high-rise development may not be an environmental issue in a
lot of cases, I think we have to remember that the citizens of the state
of Florida and the taxpayers have spent over $57 million to preserve
and protect Rookery Bay as a pristine estuary system. And when
people go out there for the nature experience, we don't feel that
condos are appropriate in what we're calling the view shed. Estuary
Bay Towers would have done that. However, we believe that this
project is not going to have that -- that problem. Estero Bay is a
perfect example of what happens when you allow high-rise
development within a preserve, estuarian system. We don't want to
be Estero Bay.
That's why the Conservancy is going to be looking very
carefully on a case-by-case basis at all of these developments that are
Page 151
January 14, 2003
now popping up around Rookery Bay. Earlier today you discussed
having a workshop to deal with height restrictions and what should
be done. Conservancy feels that this is a good idea to look into.
We would also like to discuss with county staff the possibility
of a special overlay district for parcels that are adjacent to Rookery
Bay so that staff can look at what is or isn't appropriate in these
specific parcels, height being just one of the issues. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before you go, I have a question
and so does Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You go first.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I know that
you're not speaking on behalf of Rookery Bay. At the same time
when I had originally talked to Rookery Bay, of course, they had
problems with the height. Now that it's been reduced, would you say
that Rookery Bay is also agreeable to this even though they're not
here?
MS. RYAN: They did not object at EAC and planning
commission. And I would assume that since they're not here, that
means that they're not in opposition.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So as far as -- and I'm glad that
you spoke here today, Nicole, because it's very important that we get
the input of what's going on and if this was going to affect that
preserve area there, especially the bird fly aways or anything of this
nature, and you feel that the height of these buildings will not
constitute any real problem here.
MS. RYAN: No. We did do some research on that and we
could not find anything that really would show that there would be a
concern.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before you go, Commissioner
Henning, do you have any questions for Nicole?
Page 152
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I don't.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
MS. RYAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I had another
comment, and, Greg, before you leave, my greatest concern about
this whole thing now that they have taken the very sensitive
environment-- environmental area there into consideration and really
-- really reduced the impact of this, my greatest concern now is the
traffic in that area. The traffic on 951 and U.S. 41 in that area is
horrendous. And as I come from Marco almost daily, I'm backed
way up now. It takes approximately four lights. And I spoke with
Norm Feder about this as well. And I said, I hate to -- I hate to go
forward with this --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Your time is up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- because -- because of the traffic
impact. He assured me that we'll have other opportunities to look at
this and slow it down if it's going to be too much of an impact on that
area. And that's something I'm going to be strongly watching.
Okay?
MR. GARCIA: That was one of the reasons for the second
phasing rather than three phasing. What we're hoping -- well, not
necessarily hoping. What we're looking at is that this development,
to access that shopping center, is going to probably go Barefoot
Williams to Price and Price over to the shopping center rather than
out 951, up to 41 and around. That's another reason why we don't
want to wait as far as the phasing on -- the improvement they're
making to Price is not the same as what they're making to Barefoot
Williams and Tower because it's far enough away that it was hard for
us to reasonably require of them sidewalk, because how many people
would walk from their development to go to the grocery store?
However, what we've asked of them on this improvement is that
the roadway be 22 feet wide with five-foot bike lanes on each side of
Page 153
January 14, 2003
the road because in likelihood there would be bicyclists. And we
want them to use the alternative modes to get to the grocery store.
We want a roadway in place that they feel safe in using, so that
they're not climbing in the car and going up to, you know, 951, you
know, to 41 rather than Barefoot Williams via Price to get to those
stores.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, in case any
of you haven't had a chance to ride down Price Street, I don't know if
you ever have, but they have urban farms right there on Price Street
with chickens and roosters and cows, and emus and the whole shot.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to move in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's a wonderful area. And so, of
course, I want -- I'm very protective over the people living there. I
realize that there's some -- at least if we can carefully watch over
them.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just, in closing here, I just want
to, I guess, basically direct this to staff, that we want to make sure
that we haven't opened up Pandora's box here, so that the next person
that is going to do some developing out there says, well, we've got a
height now of 75 feet, we want to go up another 25 or 30 feet, and
that we cap on what's going on out here. Since this is a very -- this is
a preserve area and I think we need to make sure that we -- we make
sure that we protect this preserve area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Any further comments from
the commissioners?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner-- Madam Chairman, if I could
just -- I listened to all of these things and I heard that the staff is
agreeing to disagree on the placement of count stations. And I also
heard that the developer had a windfall here because we had
maintained the road and put a hard stand on a road of some 20 foot
by 1.75 miles on Barefoot Williams and Tower that they thought they
Page 154
January 14, 2003
were going to have to pave over. I think I heard that. And so that
was in their plan. And then they said, well, we want to have separate
count stations on Barefoot Williams and Price Street and the reason
-- and the reason they'd like to do that is because they don't think, in
my mind's eye, at least in my opinion, that they're ever going to get
2,000 counts on Price Street, and therefore they'll never have to pave
that three-quarters of a mile by 22 feet with two five-foot bike paths
on either side.
But I would think it would probably be a good thing if we talked
about that and we solve where that count station was going to be
located, because they would have had to pave 1.7 miles that they
don't have to pave right now. So they received something in hard
stand. And I think if we put that count station on Barefoot and we
use that as the delineator to determine if it goes on Price Street or
not, then I think everybody balances out. We get three-quarters of a
mile worth of hard stand after the project's done with bike paths. In
order to do that, they get the benefit of 20 foot of paved road that's
already there for 1.7 miles on Tower and Barefoot Williams. But I'm
going to let Mr. Yovanovich talk about that at the podium.
But I think we can get agreement and we don't have to disagree
on a point before we leave the site.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, as I understand it, Barefoot
Williams Road does not meet county standards. So we'll be having
to rip up the pavement and rebuild the road. The intent was to make
sure we put down something to protect the dust while we were being
in construction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the county has already did
that for you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we're going to end up having to rip
it up and do it over again when we rebuild Barefoot Williams Road
to bring it up to county standards, which we agreed to do before we
Page 15 5
January 14, 2003
had any COs. So we're willing to do that. There's no question about
that. And we're willing to improve Barefoot Williams Road before --
beyond where it was originally, where it stopped beyond our
property line. There is no question about that. We've always been
willing to do that. We've always been willing to do that, and the
question has always been just Price Street.
When we trigger an impact on Price Street, we've always been
willing to make that improvement as well. It's not a -- it's a question
of putting a count down on Price Street to find out if we do trigger
the need for improvements. If we do, we're happy to do that.
The old PUD said at 900 average daily trips, we would study the
issue on Price Street, which we're still willing to live by. And we're
saying at worst case scenario at 2,000 trips, we'll improve it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about 900 trips you improve
Price Street? I mean the county has already --
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just asking -- looking at my traffic
consultant to tell me what that means. 900 trips.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 900 trips and you'll upgrade Price
Street?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll do what-- yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is that part of a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That -- let's make that part of the
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why don't you make a motion?
We don't have one yet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: To finalize, we're changing the 2,000
number we proposed down to 900.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. More speakers. We
can't make a motion yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: There is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well -- but I have to close the
Page 156
January 14, 2003
public hearing if there aren't.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Halas, it's my understanding the
2,000 number that we're proposing is now reduced to 900?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I got you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, are there any more speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Then we close the
public hearing. Now, may I hear a motion or--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would -- before we get to that
point, I would like to know how the staff feels about the traffic count
location and the traffic counts themselves.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're concerned when this project
is all well and done, Price Street is going to be sitting there in the
same condition it's on right now which it's got a thin layer of asphalt
that's deteriorating, okay? And no matter what happens, if we don't
get the stations, the county is going to have to do an outlay to do kind
of what we just did on Barefoot Williams and Tower Road. And
what we're trying to do is leave that area a little bit better. And this
is a good development, okay, it's an upscale development.
We want to make sure that entire area that's around that upscale
development looks like it came from an upscale development. And
all we're trying to do is get something on Price Street better than it is
today. We want to make sure we're assured that it's going to be
better than that.
And all I was saying before is the fact that even though it
doesn't meet county standard and it might have been a single surface
treatment, okay, that was put on Barefoot Williams and Tower Road,
we saved the contractor, the potential contractor on this, some money
because we laid that down and dust control right now as he does
Page 157
January 14, 2003
construction. And they don't normally put a county standard road up
to specs before they start construction, okay? They put something
less than that and then they build into it.
And so what I was just trying to do there is let you know that we
just spent county money, taxpayer's dollars, upgrading that road that
they would have had to done prior to construction. Okay? Let me
finish, Rich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I know.
MR. MUDD: And so I wanted to make sure, in the benefit of
the taxpayer, that -- I want to make sure Price Street, something is
done to it. Okay? And if it's 2,000 counts or 900 counts or
whatever, okay, to bring it up to county standard, that's fine, but what
happens if it doesn't get that? Do I still have this degraded thing
that's about ready to go back into a dirt road type category that we're
going to have to spend county dollars on for taxpayers or is there a
way where we can benefit, hedge our bets a little bit to at least get, at
least as a minimum, even if we don't get the counts, that we get some
20-foot road that's got a -- that's got a hard layer of asphalt on it just
like they would get on Barefoot Williams or Tower right now, the
benefit of the county dollars? Just trying to leverage taxpayer's
dollars a little bit farther and make sure we hedge our bets so that
when we end up, we don't end up with the road in its present state.
MR. GARCIA: Greg Garcia, for the record.
Just to reiterate, the improvement to Price Street is 22 feet.
That's two 11-foot lanes and a five-foot bike lane on each side.
There currently is a 20-foot wide roadway, deteriorating asphalt, no
pathways, no sidewalks. They are going to be impacting Price Road.
To sit there and waylay what improvements need to be made to it is
just putting off that which they are going to be impacting. That's
why we said at 2,000 on Barefoot Williams Road, when they have to
mobilize forces to come out and make that improvement from the
north property line up to Price Street, it doesn't make sense to put off
Page 158
January 14, 2003
that which they ought to be doing right then and there.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Greg, does that mean that -- you
think that 2,000 will hit faster on Barefoot Williams than the 900 on
Price Street?
MR. GARCIA: I believe that when you get up to Price Street, if
I can take it away from the mike for a second. You have where the
roadway splits off. Some of the traffic is going to go up through this
here and they're going to go up to 41 to go west on it. Some is going
to go over to the shopping center. Some is going to be bicycle traffic
which you're never going to get on a count station on Price Street.
They are not taking their car up there possibly, they are using the
alternative modes of transportation. Thereby we're trying to address
the alternative modes of transportation issues. And that's just -- it
comes right down to the health, safety, and welfare of what
potentially are bicyclists going to that shopping center from this
development.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner?
MR. GARCIA: And it also provides an area for pedestrians to
walk if there isn't a -- because there isn't a sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So-- so then, before you leave--
and I'll get to you in just a second, Rich.
So to guide me, what would be the best thing for the people in
that neighborhood? What would you propose, please?
MR. GARCIA: That the count station be on Barefoot Williams
Road north of the project site, you know, north of their development.
And at such time as it triggers 2,000 vehicles per day, that they
make the improvements to Barefoot Williams and to Price Street.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about 900?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, can I put this in
perspective?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think what we're eliciting is the two
Page 159
January 14, 2003
count stations, one on Barefoot Williams Road and one on Price
Street. The petitioner has already agreed to if the count on Price
Street from his project goes up to 900, that they will improve the
road. So, I think we're getting to where transportation wants to be at.
And I'm sure they don't want to do any exaction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I think what Greg was just
saying that he would like to eliminate that 900 count all together on
Price Street and when it's triggered by the 2,000.
Is that what I understood you to just say?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Greg Gar --
MR. GARCIA: Yes, ma'am. And, again, it's because if they are
going to mobilize --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: If you --
MR. GARCIA: -- let's get the second phase done as a second
phase.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two of you were talking at the
same time. I'm sorry, Commissioner Henning, hold just one sec.
Say that again.
MR. GARCIA: Again, we wanted it to be second phase and be
just that. When they come back to finish Barefoot Williams to the
north of their project and Price Street, that it be just that, a second
phase.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all together they're going to do
both when the 2,000 is triggered?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, ma'am. At the permanent count -- at the
count station that's proposed on Barefoot Williams Road.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And knowing a little bit about that
area, on Price Street you have a traffic light right at 41 and Price
Street, am I right --
Page 160
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if you take Barefoot Williams
Road, it swings around by the Hitching Post, and I don't remember a
traffic light being there.
MR. GARCIA: It's a nonsignalized location.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. You're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I would probably -- if I lived in
this new project, I would take the safest route to cross U.S. 41 and
that would be Price Street at the signalized intersection. So I think
we're going to get there anyways, but if another project comes in, I
think where the petitioner is coming from is they don't want to have
to pay for somebody else's impact. And the compromise is, where
Commissioner Halas has stated, was are you willing to go down to
900 count on Price Street. I think that's a great compromise.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, for the record, Rich Yovanovich.
We're -- we're comfortable with the 900. I think the concern
was that staff was saying that we may never trigger 900 on Price
Street and they want the improvements anyway. The concern there
is well, if we're really not the cause of the need for that, why should
our project bear the cost of doing that?
We are willing to take that if out of the equation and say at the
400th unit, whether we trigger 900 or not, we'll improve Price Street.
So we're even -- we're taking care of staff's concern, are we going to
do Price Street. By the end of the project, we're saying at 400 units,
we'll do it. Even if we don't trigger 900.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're talking about 400 liveable
units?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, on our prop -- yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And not 900 traffic count.
Page 161
January 14, 2003
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be the first--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's poss --
MR. YOVANOVICH: The first one.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One or the other?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be the first one to occur.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Either/or?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
MR. GARCIA: Transportation will defer that to the council --
to the commission. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that meets with your
approval?
MR. GARCIA: We believe that that's acceptable, yes. We'll
put it in the PUD language as such.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion,
commissioners?
Commissioner Henning, I can't see your button so I'll call on
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, just put the button near the
receiver a little closer. No further comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If there's no further comment, I
make a motion that we approve this PUD with the language that was
just stated that either/or 400 units or a car count of 900 that the roads
get put in, and that we change the height from 50 feet to 75 feet. Is
that correct?
MR. GARCIA: Over one level of parking, not to exceed --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Over one level of parking.
MR. GARCIA: -- 86 feet about FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what's this?
Page 162
January 14, 2003
MR. GARCIA: Not to exceed -- the planning commission said
not to exceed 86 feet above FEMA.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 86 feet?
MR. GARCIA: Above -- well, that's 75 feet plus one level of
parking totals.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And do you also want to include
the staff's stipulations in your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, yes.
MR. GARCIA: And everything else that Mr. Arnold agreed to
with Eagle Creek also needs to be part of the motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So I hear a motion from
Commissioner Halas, to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion along with the
planning commission's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very well. I have a motion and I
have a second from Commissioner Henning. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just a comment. I think
we're losing sight of one thing that happened here that's fairly
remarkable and we're coming to accept it as the normal course of
events. We have the developers working with every other
contingency out there including the neighbors and the environmental
community to make these things happen. It's not a knock down, drag
out battle. We're dealing with the little particulars at this point in
time.
I can remember in the past when this was always a contentious
thing that came up before us. And I applaud them. You're to be
commended for taking the time to do it, Mr. Yovanovich and Mr.
Arnold, and Mr. Pires, we thank you very much for your part in this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you commented about
that, Commissioner Coletta. Thank you.
All those in favor say, aye.
Page 163
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This has passed 5-0. Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you all.
Item #10C
REVIEWED THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
ORDINANCE AND PROVIDED STAFF DIRECTION- COUNTY
MANAGER TO RESEARCH EFFORT FOR COMPLIANCE ON
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS REGARDING AIRPORT AUTHORITY;
TO OBTAIN UPDATED 10 YEAR PLAN, ANNUAL REPORT,
ANNUAL BUDGET; HIRING OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
SIRPORT AUTHORITY ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER MAY 1, 2003;
CHAIRMAN HENNING DIRECTED BY MOTION TO SEND
LETTER TO AIRPORT AUTHORITY REGARDING DIRECTION
OF TODAY'S BOARD.- APPROVFD
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we go on to 8(C). Oh, we're
time certain, by the way. I'm sorry. And that was a 10 -- 10(C).
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think I can solve that. For the
record, I'm Jim Mudd, the county manager. And I'm going to present
the next item which is 10(C) and that's to review the Collier County
Airport Authority ordinance and also to ask to provide staff direction
from the board. The objective is to get the board of county
commissioner's direction regarding the current airport authority. And
Page 164
January 14, 2003
what I talked about on the 17th of December is the fact that I would
come back to the board and discuss the ordinance, the present
ordinance as it stands, to go over some of the items that are in that
present ordinance, and then to try to get a feeling from the board
where they want the attorney to go as far as changing the ordinance
or changes to the ordinance or if you want the county manager to
work with the airport authority to talk about the different items. And
we'll talk about that today as we go through the process.
Just to bring you up to speed. At the 17 December 2002 board
meeting, the board decided that and directed the chairman to send a
letter to the airport authority recommending that they take no further
action regarding the selection of the executive director until the board
has had the opportunity to review the airport current governing
ordinance.
Collier County government is responsible for the operation of
three airports generally located in Immokalee, Marco Island and
Everglades City. Section 322.08 of Florida statutes which is the
Florida Airport Act of 1945, authorizes Collier County to vest
authority for the construction, enlargement, improvement,
maintenance, equipment, operation, and regulation of the airports,
restricted landing areas, and other air navigation facilities in a officer,
board, or body of the county by ordinance which prescribes the
powers and duties of such officer, board or body.
Ordinance No. 93-36 created and established the Collier County
Airport Authority and prescribed its powers and duties. Ordinance
No. 95-67 repealed Ordinance 93-36 and granted the authority more
freedom and autonomy to carry on its day-to-day activities with
minimal management from the board and from the clerk to the board.
Primarily it removed the authority -- it removed the authority, the
authority's executive director, and the employees of the authority
from under the management of the county manager.
Additionally, it provided for the executive director to be hired
Page 165
January 14, 2003
by an affirmative vote of the membership of the authority.
Previously Ordinance 93-36 provided that the board to appoint the
executive director from at least three qualified candidates submitted
by the authority. The authority's administrative code Policy No. 660
provided that all purchases of supplies, materials, and
nonprofessional services be purchased in accordance with the board
and the County -- County Collier purchasing department's policies
with the exception that the authority and not the board has the final
approval on all actions.
Additionally, the board approval is not required for the authority
to accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans, or enter into
interlocal agreements.
Ordinance No. 99-10 amended Ordinance No. 95-67 to delete
the limitations on the number of times a member of the authority may
be reappointed to the authority. Previously it had stated that it was
only two terms.
Ordinance No. 95-67 was further amended by Ordinance No.
2002-28 which deals primarily with airport security. Collier County
Code Chapter 18, aviation, is attached to this executive summary and
I'll go through some of the paragraphs with you to kind of show you
where -- this summary that I just gave you, where it's located in that
ordinance.
If I could get your attention to page four, which is under article
one in general, and that's Section 18-37(1): The Collier County
Airport Authority is responsible for the operation of three airports.
Notice how it went from the board to the airport authority in this
particular case, because that's what the board had authorized. So the
airport authority is responsible for the operation of three airports, the
Immokalee Regional Airport in Immokalee, the Marco Island
Executive Airport located northeast of Marco Island, and the
Everglades City Airport located in the city of Everglades.
If I could get your attention now to para -- to page five and
Page 166
January 14, 2003
we're under Section 18-39, which is continuance of authority, airport
boundaries. If you'll look at A, it says: The board on June 22nd, '93
by enactment of Collier County Ordinance 93-36 created a
seven-member body designated as Collier Airport Authority.
Okay. The authority under B, the airport is a political
subdivision of Collier County as defined in Section 333-01(9),
Florida Statutes. The authority is also a political subdivision of
Collier County as used in Section 196.199, Florida statutes, regarding
as ad valorem taxation.
One of the reasons I mentioned the political subdivision is they
are -- they have the sunshine laws to deal with too in their particular
event.
Under C, the authority is not a department under Collier County
No. 84-42 as amended. Neither the authority or the authority's
executive director, nor other employees of the authority are under the
management of the county administrator.
I'd like to bring your attention to page six, and then it's under
Section 18-40, governing body membership by appointment, down
about the sixth line, it says: No member shall serve more than two
four-year terms except when the member's initial appointment was
for a term of less than four years.
Under paragraph B, members of the authority may be removed
with or without cause by the majority vote of the membership of the
Board of County Collier commissioners.
Under C, members of the authority shall be residents of Collier
County and must have businesses ability and experience in one or
more fields, which by way of example may include but are not
limited to general business, economic development, aviation, public
affairs, law, finance, accounting, engineering, nature resource
conservation or related fields. There shall be at least one member of
the Authority appointed from Immokalee, Marco Island, and
Everglades City.
Page 167
January 14, 2003
Under paragraph E, the county's purchasing policy and the
county's personal rules and regulations will apply to the authority,
except as provided otherwise in the authority's administrative code as
amended from time to time.
I want to make sure that you understand about the authority's
administrative code amended from time to time. They approve --
they being the airport authority -- approve their administrative code
that they're changing from time to time. And you'll see that as we go
along, you'll talk about the administrative code and it shall change
from time to time. Well, that administrative code doesn't come to
you for approval, they approve it at the airport authority. So there's
some catch 22 language within this ordinance. And I'm not saying
they're using it. I'm just saying it exists and I wanted to bring that to
your attention.
The clerk to the board -- and I'm in paragraph F now of Section
18-40. The clerk to the board shall be -- shall to the extent required
by law serve as the clerk to the authority.
And then I'm going further down in the paragraph: The
authority shall organize its own financial records to facilitate its
day-to-day operation and provide financial records in such form and
in such manner as required by Chapter 218 of Florida statutes.
And then I'm going down to the last sentence: To the extent
allowed by law, the authority may through its administrative code
remove itself from fiscal or other review or approval by the clerk --
by the clerk to the board.
Now I'm in paragraph G: Other departments of the county
including the office of the county administrator may assist the
authority as required by the authority.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's requested.
MR. MUDD: I'm sorry, requested. That's right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me.
MR. MUDD: Good, good catch, ma'am. They have to request
Page 168
January 14, 2003
it.
The authority shall reimburse each prospective department for
the cost of services and materials supplied by the department to the
authority.
Now I'm going to page seven, and I'm under Section 18-42,
powers, function and duties. And I'm not going to -- and I'm not
going to belabor this, but the authority shall be responsible for the
construction, improvement, equipment, development, regulation,
operation, and maintenance of the airports and all related airport
facilities, the day-to-day activities of the authority of the executive
director, and the authority's other employees shall not require prior
approval from the board of county commissioner or the county
administrator.
And then it breaks out under paragraph C: The authority has the
following powers and duties of significance, and there's no paragraph
there that isn't significant, but paragraphs one, two, three, where they
can accept gifts and apply for and use grant, money and loans based
on their authority and not by approval of the board. And it goes on
through page seven, through page nine.
And then it says on Section 18-43: For each fiscal year, the
authority shall prepare a tentative annual budget including revenues
and expenses for the operation of the three airports during the
ensuing fiscal year. The budget shall be transmitted to the county
administrator for the board review and adoption on or before 1 May
or otherwise in accordance with the county's general budget.
Then we move to page ten: By March 15th of each year, the
authority shall submit to the board an annual report of its activities
and operations for the preceding fiscal year including an independent
financial audit.
Under Section 18-44, administrative code, this is what I talked
about when you always get the catch 22 piece. The authority shall
adopt an administrative code that prescribes details regarding the
Page 169
January 14, 2003
powers, duties, and functions of the officers of the authority; the
conduct of business of the authority; the maintenance of the records
and the form of other documents and records of the authority. The
administrative code and the amendments hereto are not subject to the
approval of the board or to the county administrator.
And then it goes on in Section 18-45 describing the executive
director's authorities. And I would bring your attention to page ten.
And it says down at the bottom of the page, and I'll try to keep it in
context of the sentence: The compensation of the executive director
as prescribed in the applicable employment agreement shall be set by
the authority in accordance with the budget approved by the board in
accordance with the county's human resources policies and
procedures except to the extent that those policies and procedures do
not apply to the authority because of the exemptions provided for in
the authority's administrative code.
And then it talks about any -- and transfers of property and
personnel. We basically transferred the property and personnel over
to the airport authority and charged them a -- a fee. I think it's $10 in
this particular ordinance for the -- for rent for the three county
airports.
And that's pretty much the ordinance for the airport authority.
And you can see that it's been changed a number of times. And the
last significant time was in '95 where the board delegated their
authority pretty much in mass to the airport authority except for the
approval of their annual budget and a review of their budget and the
audit at the end of the year. And we're soon to see that budget come
forward for -- for 2004 for the next fiscal cycle that we go through.
That basically is my presentation of the airport authority and the
ordinance so that I could make sure that you are aware of what it says
and what it doesn't say. And pretty much if the county staff is going
to get involved in the airport thing, the airport authority, they either
need to request it or the ordinance needs to change. If you want me
Page 170
January 14, 2003
to take a look and scrub a quarterly report with Mike Smykowski or
you want me to check on that particular instance.
So with that, that's all I have. I'm waiting for your direction as
far as what you want us to do with the airport authority. You might
want us to study it. You might want us to meet with the airport
authority committee to discuss some things where you might want to
bring some more control into the ordinance as far as this board is
concerned. And that's pretty much up to you and I await your
direction.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I believe Dwight Brock is
back there and he would like to speak on this subject as well. Even if
you didn't, come on up.
MR. BROCK: My name is Dwight Brock, I'm the clerk of the
circuit court here in Collier County.
Commissioner Coyle called me yesterday with reference to
some -- obtaining some financial information and bringing it to the
board and sharing it with you today. So in that vein, I will try to give
you the information that we have with regard to this.
If you were here a year or so ago, you may recall and if you
weren't, I'll try to refresh your recollection, there was, in fact, some
questions that we brought forth regarding dealing with monies that
the board was giving them. What was happening was the board was
appropriating sums of money as ad valorem taxes that were being
budgeted by the board as grant matches for specific projects. And
when we got involved in it and began looking at it, we came to the
conclusion that what was transpiring was, even though the board was
approving the money, let's say, for project A, which was a grant
match for project A, the money was actually not being spent, when
you looked at it, for project A. It was being spent for maybe project
B.
The approach that the clerk's office took to that was that you
had appropriated it by project, and therefore it had to be spent by
Page 171
January 14, 2003
project. I think the board came in and through a process of basically
a pooled concept allowed them to simply spend the money wherever
they wanted it in most instances. So they could tap into it and it
would be not allocated by specific project. So there's a tremendous
amount.of flexibility that this authority has that has been given by the
board of county commissioners.
One of the things that concerns the clerk's office is from a
financial statement perspective, a disclosure issue involving, at the
end of this last fiscal year, which ended September the 31st (sic)
based upon an audit of the financial statements, approximately $9.1
million worth of funding that is due the board of county
commissioners from this authority.
Now, if you look at that, that continues to grow every year as
you give them additional monies. And that is reported on our
financial statements as a loan by the county to the airport authority.
One of the issues that we are beginning to have concerns about is a
disclosure issue with regard to that, because we're reporting it as
something we anticipate we're going to get back. So our financial
statements are reporting in our fund balance a balance of $9.1 million
which I am concerned about whether it is a viable debt to the county.
And the reason I say that, if you will look simply at the
operating income of this authority, and going back and looking at the
audited financial statements for 1999 and you pull out the operating,
and I'm only looking at the operating portion, the portion which
would generate money from which they could pay this back, you've
got $1.117 million as operating revenue; personnel costs of 537,000,
operating expenditures of 953,000 or a $373,000 loss.
You put on top of that the interest that they owe on the debt
that's already out there, you're talking about under at the 9.1 that's in
2002, and obviously it was not quite that great in 1999, but at the 2
percent interest rate environment we're presently finding ourself,
you're talking about another $180,000 on top of that. And year 2000,
Page 172
January 14, 2003
without going through the specifics, unless you want me to, we had a
$296,000 loss. Now, this is an annual loss just from operations. In
2001, you had $330,000 loss.
In our unaudited financial statements because we have not
received an opinion on those statements for the year 2002, we're
talking almost $600,000 in loss. So as you can see, that loss is
appearing to get larger and larger.
Now, why is that important to us? Well, one of the things that
anyone that borrows money from Collier County looks at is Collier
County's financial statements. And I'm not trying to suggest to you
that this county is not a very sound county. So don't get me wrong.
But it's getting to the point where we, at the clerk's office, having an
obligation to disclose information to investors are contemplating
having to report in note form or in some other form information that
says this is basically an uncollectible debt, because we don't see any
way in which they could pay it back in the foreseeable future.
Now, we don't have a crystal ball, so we're not looking -- we're
not able to, you know, take into consideration all factors, and I don't
stand up here and try to portray that to you. All I'm sitting here and
looking at is the operating statements of the authority from 1999 to
2002 and I see an uphill loss position. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I just had one, Dwight, and
then Commissioner Halas is next.
And I probably should call on you first, Cormnissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would hate to lose the airport
authority because, you know, we're not in the airport business, and
yet, at the same time we feel that we need better coordination. If the
CFO of the airport authority were to have an office within Mike
Smykowski's office, and if we were able to see the contracts that
came out and kind of washed them through your departments first,
Page 173
January 14, 2003
would that help to maybe even out some of this financial
encumbrance that continues to climb.9
MR. BROCK: You know, I can't answer that, Commissioner. I
don't know the answer to that. That's a question that you'll have to
refer to your county manager's agency.
You know, one of the problems that we're having from the
clerk's perspective deals with the agreement that exists between the
airport authority and the county with regard to the monies that we
give them. I mean, you've got a -- an agreement that says -- let me
see if I can find exact language. It's article five of the agreement
which says as soon as possible at the end of each fiscal year and in
accordance with generally accounting principles applicable to
counties in Florida, the authority shall ascertain its income or loss
status for that fiscal year. The financial status shall be determined by
analysis of all the authority's revenue for the fiscal year including
grants, advances and all income.
I mean, I come up here and I read generally acceptable
accounting principles, and I have revenue defined as grants, advances
and all income. I mean, I'm struggling with the two concepts. They
seem incompatible.
In addition, if I look at that process and what that section is
telling me is if the airport authority gets grant money to build a
capital project, 50 percent of that should come to the board of county
commissioners.
Now, if you were to apply that, I suspect that you have got your
last grant. I suspect that nobody is fixing to give you any more
money to deal with the airport. So, I mean, that's an irrational
provision from my perspective from a financial prospective in this
agreement.
You know, I happen to have had an auditor at the meeting of the
airport authority yesterday. And in the course of the meeting, one of
the airport authority members made the comment that the clerk's
Page 174
January 14, 2003
office wasn't providing them with financial reports. So she came to
me and said that this person was saying this, it looked like they were
trying to pick a fight with the clerk's office because we weren't
providing them with financial reports. And I began to explore that.
And the financial reports that we provide them are on the computer.
It's called a 200 report that's run or 210 report which is run off of the
computer that they have access to run it from. So I have no earthly
idea of what they're talking about, and I suspect neither did the
person that made that comment.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Brock, can you tell us what
airport is the one that's running the high deficit or is it all three of
them together?
MR. BROCK: Well, you know, I don't have it broken out by
individual airports.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just wanted to know. I was
trying to figure out --
MR. BROCK: You know, the one probably that is doing the
best is probably the Marco. I mean, you know, without looking at all
of the detail, and that's the one that's probably the best. But I'm not
running out waiting for that particular airport to go public so ! can
invest in it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We have Commissioner
Coyle and then Commissioner Henning, in case.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Dwight, one of the things I'm
concerned about is to make sure that we don't get into the -- that is,
the board of county commissioners, doesn't get into the situation of
failing to perform our duties or statutory duties. And I know that
there has been some criticism of us in the past, particularly through --
with the TDC and we had to make some provisions where money
was being granted to another agency, but that agency was spending it
with considerable discretion. And I know that we've even gone
Page 175
January 14, 2003
through the process to prohibit the county manager from making
decisions of expenditure. How do you view that situation with the
airport? Are we -- are we performing our duties appropriately with
respect to the disbursement of funds to the airport?
MR. BROCK: The statute that creates the airport authority, you
know, if you look -- it's the same statute that the Naples Airport
Authority operates under. And they're a proprietary fund that
generates revenues for their operation. And in large part ad valorem
tax money is not used there. Whereas, in the scenario here, as
opposed to it being a separate and distinct entity, you're only separate
and distinct in name. You're -- basically all of the money either
comes from grants that you have approved or through ad valorem
money that you have put into that process.
You know, that's -- the way we read the statute, you know, it's
sort of a convoluted methodology of applying the statute. And my
staff and I have a constant struggle with this, but we've not
challenged that. But I mean, you know, it's taxpayer's money of
which you are responsible.
You know, if you look at the county administrator's ordinance,
for example, okay, you've got a conflict that exists between the
county administrator's ordinance and the airport authority ordinance.
You've got a county administrator's ordinance that says that the
county administrator shall be responsible for the administration of all
departments that are responsible to the board and the proper
administration of all affairs under the jurisdiction of the board. And
to that end, the county administrator shall by way of enumeration and
not by way of limitation have the following specific powers and
duties too.
So, you know, you can look at it from the perspective that, you
know, these are monies that belong to the board of county
commissioners. You know, you can put up some straw men between
them, but in reality, they're the board of county commissioner's
Page 176
January 14, 2003
money. They're the taxpayer's money. If it was purely money that
the airport authority was deriving from a source that they were
creating, you know, then I wouldn't be struggling with it all the time.
But, you know, I'm not here to tell you, Commissioner, and I
think I told you this yesterday, you know, I'm not here to tell you
that, you know, I know from a legal standpoint definitively that you
shouldn't be doing it this way. I'm telling you that, you know, my
staff and I are constantly struggling with this. That, you know,
you've got ad valorem taxes that you're setting the millage, you're
collecting, and all of a sudden, you know, by virtue of it being put
through this board, you're no longer making the decision but rather
some appointed body is. That's a call you're going to have to make,
not me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We ought to privatize the airports.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning and then
Commissioner Coletta.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sure that we have public
speakers and I think it's appropriate that we get some of them as soon
as possible.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine. Thank you. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I thank you and I really
do want to go before the public speakers because possibly they could
address some of my concerns.
Mr. Brock, by any chance have you ever done any analysis
which would show the difference of the airport authority itself and
the business incentive that they're running there as far as which one
is the cause of the funds, the deficits? Has there ever been a
breakdown that separated one from the other?
MR. BROCK: Well, all I'm telling -- the entire deficit that I'm
looking at, Commissioner, that I just recited the numbers to you, is a
deficit created by operation, not by capital expenditures.
Page 177
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But what I'm hearing is the
same thing that I've had a problem with for two years. And this is
why I pushed for the -- for the productivity committee to get
involved. There's no buffer between us. We're the ultimate authority
for the airport authority. We are the persons who are responsible.
There is nothing between us. We can't use the county manager. We
can't even go to our own budget people and ask them to take an
analysis of what we've got. It's not authorized.
We're in kind of a quandary in the fact that we're getting the
final numbers. And, frankly, I mean, we can read those things until
we're blue in the face, and I don't really know if we know what we're
seeing. We know that they're going to balance out. We're going to
look great. But you need to have it broken down. And we're getting
our reports back directly from the airport authority. No buffer in
between.
Thank God Mr. Brock has had the time and patience to be able
to work with us to a point, but he's not even looking for the same
issues that we are.
Am I correct?
MR. BROCK: I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're trying to -- you're
looking for misappropriation of funds, where the responsibility being
assigned that hasn't been duly allowed for. You're looking for
reasons other than the profitability angle that we should be looking
at.
MR. BROCK: You know, I'm not looking at the profitability at
all.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. BROCK: All I'm doing is reciting what appears there.
You know, one of the things that I want to be very clear on is, you
know, our relationship in working with the airport authority has been
a very good one. After the issue came about a year and a half ago or
Page 178
January 14, 2003
whenever it was, where we were having problems with them
spending money on projects .that they weren't budgeted for, we began
working closely with them from a financial standpoint. And, you
know, they have-- they have been absolutely wonderful in working
with us in trying to make sure that all of those problems, we had
gotten over them. We were working through it. We understood what
they were doing. They understood what we were doing. But, you
know, the policy decisions ultimately, as it relates to the airport
authority or to any expenditure of ad valorem money, rests right up
here. That's what the people in this community elected you to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're right.
MR. BROCK: I mean, that's one of the statutory definitions of
the powers and duties of the board of county commissioners, to
expend money, not the clerk of courts. They didn't give me that,
thank goodness.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. That's exactly-- you're
just echoing what I just said. And I do appreciate that.
One of the things we've got to think of, what are we getting for
our investment? We've got $8 million, is that what it is, that's on the
books at this point?
MR. MUDD: 9.2.
MR. BROCK: 9.1 as of the end of the year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can look at it two ways.
One, this is either an expense that we get paid back or it's an
investment of something we're going to get back in the future. Now,
in '96, I was down to -- I went down to the airport when they did the
ground breaking for the beginning of the incubator system. And I
assure you, the people that have been working on this airport
authority have been hard working people and they've been trying
very hard.
However, during that period of time, I must admit that I was
very disappointed. We've only secured 100 jobs in all the time that's
Page 179
January 14, 2003
been -- and money that's been expended. The airport itself, I can
understand there's certain benefits to a certain part of the population
in Collier County. In Marco, you have the executive's jets flying in
and out. Everglades City, they have the day hoppers coming in and
using the local restaurant. All good and said. You know, what are
we getting from each one of these things proportionately to what our
investment is.
My biggest concern, when you get right down to it, is the
economic indicators that we're trying to put into place to drive
Immokalee. We've been leaning on the airport for these things to
take place. Now, I'm not saying that they haven't done everything
they could, because they've been right on the edge a couple of times.
And lots of times things didn't happen there because this commission
couldn't step up to the plate quick enough to be able to respond, to be
able to give the incentives to bring the certain industries in.
I'd like to entertain the thought that if we were able to take the
business interest of this and move it into a separate authority under
us, maybe involve the EDC and hire a manager that was just going to
concentrate on this, and set a goal that for such and such year, we'll
have so many jobs. And maybe at the end of 10 years, we'll have
2,000 jobs in that airport.
At this point in time the only industries that are in there are
basically warehouse industries, great big buildings which might have
eight people in it. There is very little benefit to the people in
Immokalee at this point in time. Now, I'm sure there's probably
dreams for the future, but meanwhile those dreams are going to take
more money.
And I feel a little bit disenfranchised with the fact that all of this
has taken place. I get a report once a year that I can't truly break
down and get the true meaning of it, or even offer suggestions on
which direction to go. I think we need to give some serious thought
about what we are going to do with all the elements of this for the
Page 180
January 14, 2003
best of everyone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
MR. BROCK: Commissioners, I don't mean to interrupt your
train of thought here, but, I mean, does anyone else have any
question, any more questions of me? I have another meeting that I
had scheduled. When Commissioner Coyle asked me to come over
and report to you, I cancelled it. So if you don't, I'm going to go
back. I appreciate it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you, Dwight.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have one question of Mr. Brock,
but maybe he can give me a call later on.
MR. BROCK: Sure. Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think there's only a couple of
ways here we ought to look at this plan here, is maybe bring the
airport authority under the county manager. That's one aspect. Or
the other one would be to privatize the airport and see if private
concerns can make this thing operate. Obviously, we're having a
difficult time here. And I think we ought to find out what the
problem is. And if there's an airport or two airports out there that
aren't carrying their load, that we ought to figure out the best way to
cut our losses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: We have one. Steve Price.
MR. PRICE: For the record, my name is Steve Price. I'm
chairman of the board and president, CEO of Florida Community
Bank. We're a locally owned Collier County bank, a half billion
dollar institution in Collier County.
I've been on the airport authority since its inception. I was a
member of the advisory committee of the county in the previous
format until I left that in frustration and came back when the airport
authority was formed.
Page 181
January 14, 2003
I'd like to address a few of the things that Mr. Brock had to say
real quickly because I think I can provide some insight into it. One
of the concerns Mr. Brock had was the fact that we were allocating
funds for matching projects, and then we would use those funds on a
different project. And that is true. That was brought up a year or so
ago when Mr. Brock made a run at the airport authority at that time.
As it turned out, it was understood that we weren't doing
anything improper. But what we were doing was we would get
maybe five projects approved by the county. And they would be
matching funds from the county, and we'd have grant monies to
complete the projects. However, the grant monies will not advance
during the construction phase. The FDOT, FAA, EDC, whoever it is,
will only advance their funds after the project is complete. And that's
true of other things that the county does for grant monies as well.
So what we would do is if project C was scheduled to start in
June and it's now September, we would take the matching funds from
C and complete project A. And then when we got the grant check in
at the completion of that project, we would use it then for the
scheduled start of the next project.
So we weren't actually taking the monies, we were borrowing
them because that was the only way we could complete the project.
When it became a practice that was in question, we came back to the
Collier County board of commissioners and we made a proposal to
them, a way to formally account for that and borrow funds -- excuse
me. My allergies are really killing me. I'm having a hard time
talking. But we -- we addressed that issued with the board of county
commissioners to their satisfaction at that time. And we did set up an
accounting system. But had we not utilized that system of drawing
down matching monies to complete a project and then taking the
grant check from that project to move to the next one, we could have
never completed a project because no one who was advancing grants
would have done so until we had the project complete.
Page 182
January 14, 2003
So there's some effort to make that sound like there was
something sinister going on. However, it was proven that there was
nothing sinister going on. In fact, we came back and said okay, how
do you want us to do it, and we worked out something that met with
the approval of the county manager, the budget people, and also with
Mr. Brock's office.
The other thing that he questioned was this growing debt, the $9
million. Let me give you a little background on why we're there.
Just before this airport authority was started, the Naples airport
authority, which is a totally independent authority, was making a
significant profit. The City of Naples was in need of tax dollars.
And they went to the airport authority and said, you know, you are
our airport authority, you're making money, let's kick some of it back
into the city to fund some taxpayer projects. The FAA stepped up
and said time out, you cannot take money out of an airport. You
can't siphon off profits from an airport and use them for other
purposes.
So when we formed this authority we said, okay, we don't know
if we'll ever be able to pay this money back, that's not the purpose.
It's an investment that the county is making. Part of it they would
have to spend to operate their airports anyway, and part of it is
investment in assets that they -- it's like a reasonable investments.
But let's at least structure this in a way so that if the day ever comes,
after you and I are long gone and our grandchildren are here, that
these airports are making a profit, that the County of Collier is not
faced with the same situation. By calling it a loan, not just calling it
a loan, by making it a loan, letting it accrue interest and it becomes
some astronomical figure, who cares. If someday that allows the
people of Collier County to get that investment back, it makes sense
to do it. Now, do we have to footnote our financial statements?
Probably. So what? You know, believe me, I make multi-million
dollar loans every day, that's what I do for a living. I can tell you
Page 183
January 14, 2003
that a footnote that says I'm carrying this as an asset for this reason is
not a negative. That simply says okay, so I'm going to take that off
the balance sheet, big deal. But we weren't carrying it as a
meaningful asset to begin with.
So by explanation, that's why that loan is there. And to do away
with that would be to rob our children someday of the ability, if these
things ever are profitable, to get their money back.
You know, the question that Commissioner Coletta raised about
the jobs, it's true that we haven't created as many jobs as we would
like. But believe me, we've worked very hard with the EDC, and
going out and recruiting. I've been involved in recruiting. I've flown
people around in my own airplane back when I was flying.
You know, we've worked to bring companies in, but we -- we're
closing a loan right now in Hendry County. The City of Labelle is
putting $500,000 into a company to get them to move to Labelle.
We don't have anything to compete with that. I could have gotten --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Price, I kind of have to ask you
to finish up if you would, please.
MR. PRICE: Okay. Well, the bottom line is that I think we can
address all of these issues. I think they've been taken out of context.
And they are things that can be addressed. This was not working
before there was an airport authority. It is working today. We have
assets that we would have never had, had we not formed the
authority.
I would ask that you use a scalpel and not a machete when you
take a look at this. I would ask that you define what it is you're
trying to accomplish. And then allow Mr. Mudd to sit down maybe
with a committee of the authority or an individual from the authority,
someone from the EDC or, you know, form some group to sit down
and look at how we can accomplish your objectives without gutting
this thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think there are a couple questions
Page 184
January 14, 2003
for you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Mr. Price, you just
mentioned just about the same thing I just said, about the lack of
county participation in a timely fashion. You cited Labelle as an
example and how the small little community of Labelle came up with
a half million dollars to bring in a business. And I think that's the
point I'm trying to make too, is the fact that I don't think the county
has either--just doesn't have enough confidence that they haven't
come across with something. This -- it's a shortfalling not only of the
airport authority, but the county itself that this hasn't happened.
There have been no incentives that have come in your direction as far
as impact fees, as far as special monies, to be able to draw these
businesses down. We've been sort of like a silent partner on the
sideline.
I'm just suggesting to you if the possibility if the County
assumed responsibility for the business part of the whole thing and
had the right kind of management team in place from wherever it was
and an advisory board of capable people such as serve on your
airport authority, we might be able to involve the county in ways that
we never have before to be able to build businesses in Immokalee
and come up with a tax base that would be self-sufficient for the
money we're putting into it. That's purely a suggestion. That's one
of the things that I think we need to consider.
If we continue on the present path with the stares quo, I need to
know what we're going to do to change what we're doing now to be
able to make a difference, not only with the airport authority as it
presently exists, but as far as the county's commitment to that
authority as far as the business interests go at the airport.
MR. PRICE: Well, in the past the board of county
commissioners has not been inclined to address the incentives. I
think we've got a different mind-set possibly today. And there
Page 185
January 14, 2003
actually are some efforts underway to bring something back to the
county involving the EDC and members of the Immokalee
community, the chamber of commerce. You've been involved in
some of this.
And I think that the issue of incentives has to do with the
mind-set of the board of commissioners that's sitting at the time that
we're addressing it. We've not had that advantage in the past. It
doesn't mean we haven't sought that advantage. And I think that the
coordination that's necessary between the air side issues and the
development, the grant writing and those types of things and the
business development, that they run hand and hand and to separate
them would not serve the best interest of that economic development.
And to give you an example, when we thought we were going to
get Sienna (phonetic) Tile and Marble and it looks like that's
probably not to going to happen, because it involved the airport
authority as a whole as opposed to two different units, we went out
and sought and obtained an economic development grant of, I
believe, $1.8 million that would pave a road, a county road, from
Highway 29 down to the industrial park.
At the time that we put in the industrial park initially, we didn't
have all of the funds to do it. And we sought creative ways to do it.
Instead of coming to the county and saying we need an additional
$500,000 grant, we went to Immokalee Water/Sewer, and we worked
with them to utilize a grant they were getting to count as some of our
matching funds for our EDA grant to say that bringing the water and
sewer along the airport was part of a project they had planned for a
loop from Farm Worker Village, but the bottom line was that because
of our combination of air side concerns and development concerns,
we were able to bring all of those things together and we saved the
county a half a million dollars there in doing that by counting some
Farmers Home Administration monies as a match for a grant that we
were getting from economic development.
Page 186
January 14, 2003
So I think that -- that the real issue is does this county
commission want to address economic incentives, but not has the
airport authority been ineffective in doing this in the past, but has the
county commission been ineffective and we now have a county
commission that wants to address it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it's a case of
getting them all to mesh together. MR. PRICE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In simplest of terms, I want to
tell you that what I'm saying here is I don't care how we skin this cat,
it's just that I request -- no, no, I don't request. I demand results in a
reasonable period of time in a fashion that will satisfy me and the rest
of the taxpayers that we're getting our value for the dollars that we
spend.
MR. PRICE: I agree. And I think that anybody who reviewed
the history of the airport authority would see that with the dollars that
we had to work with, that we've done a remarkable job.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, maybe what we need here is
more dialogue between the airport commission and the
commissioners and maybe we need to meet on a quarterly basis so
that we have a -- find out what your business plan is for the year and
what your objectives are for the year and to see how this falls in
place. And I think we also need to get some operational reports to
find out if there is one particular airport that's not pulling its weight.
And that we're -- and why are we putting so much money into that
area? And I really that that's the whole gist of this thing.
MR. PRICE: I agree. And we would like to --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, you're a businessman.
You're a banker, and you got to realize that there's a point in time
when you got to cut your losses, unless you've got a real good
explanation of what's going on. I think what the problem is here,
Page 187
January 14, 2003
neither Dwight Brock nor the county commissioners know exactly
what's going on at the present time.
MR. PRICE: And we would love to meet with you as often as
you'd like. We'd like to meet in combination with the EDC and--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: A workshop or whatever.
MR. PRICE: -- and explore economic development or anything
else, certainly.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you
want to comment on anything?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I think the board of
commissioners past and present have put a lot of money into the
Immokalee airport and have been supportive of a hub out there. And
I'm sure if we take a look at the $9 million, that quite a bit of that
went to Immokalee. So, I don't know what kind of incentives
Commissioner Coletta wants to do, but this commissioner is wanting
to see the airport authority go back to its original goal, and that's
becoming independent from the county commissioners, fiscally
sound and not having to come to the board of commissioners every
year to augment their budget, their capital -- not their capital budget,
but their operation budget.
And, Mr. Price, maybe it would be appropriate for a little bit of
assistance from the county as far as oversight of the day-to-day
operation. What I'm proposing is for the budget department within
the county to oversee the day-to-day operations of it. I think that the
board of commissioners should have say-so in hiring the airport
director. And I think that we need to -- the administration code that
the airport authority works under, we need to take a good look at and
find out, is this in the best interest of the community.
And let me just say that knowing a lot of members on the airport
authority, they are community people. They are community leaders.
I do recognize that. But I would like to get back to the original
schedule for the airport authority to become fiscally independent.
Page 188
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I agree with Commissioner
Henning. But I'd like to preface my comments by saying I really
have no interest in getting involved in trying to run an airport. I don't
have the skills to do that, and I really don't want to go in that
direction. But, I do believe that there are some fundamental
problems that cannot be solved by discussions and frequent meetings.
The issues -- the legal issues of how the board of county
commissioners performs its obligations with respect to taxpayer
money can't be solved by just sitting down and talking more
frequently.
There are some fundamental structural issues that I think we
need to deal with, and Commissioner Henning touched upon several
that I would support. I believe that the airport authority must abide
and all of its employees abide by county personnel policies and
procedures. I believe that all procurement procedures should be
consistent with those of the county. I believe that the board of
county commissioners should have the authority to review and award
contracts. You recommend them, but we review and award them
because that's what we're supposed to do. We had to do that with the
TDC. We had to do it on a number of other occasions.
But beyond that, I too would like to see some light at the end of
the tunnel. And I understand what you're saying, that you're
investing -- we're investing money into some potential benefit in the
future. But to me it's sort of like the Wright brothers saying give me
some government loans for my next space shot. Maybe the time isn't
right yet. And maybe it won't be right for Immokalee for another 15
or 20 years. And the question is do we keep pumping money into
that in order to make sure that when the time is right, that we're ready
to deal with it.
I like the idea of privatization. That gets the government out of
the business and leaves the operation and management up to people
Page 189
January 14, 2003
who are professional aviation management experts. But I would
suggest we ask the county manager to come back to us with some
recommendations about how to deal with those kinds of things.
But there are two key dates here. One is March the 15th when
we're supposed to have an annual report, and May the 1 st when we're
supposed to have a budget from the airport authority. And I believe
that last year, early on, we were promised a new 1 O-year -- 1 O-year
plan. I think I'd like to see one and see where we're going and
whether or not there is ever any chance of recovery of the loan. And
if not, how much will we have to continue to subsidize airport
operations and for how long. Those are the kinds of things I'd like to
see, as well as a forecast of revenue from the proposed operations.
But that's roughly four months max from today, less than that. And
during that period of time, I guess the county manager could be
looking at ways we can solve our legal obligations without us getting
involved in trying to make the management decisions of the airport,
because I'm really not interested in getting involved in it.
So if that requires a motion, I'd make a motion that the county
manager research the effort and find out how we can make sure that
we are in strict compliance with the law concerning the
administration of the monies that we provide to the air authority.
And then in conjunction with the airport authority have for us the
annual budget on March the 5th, and the -- I'm sorry, the annual
report on March the 5th and the budget on May the 1st. And then we
can take a look at the issue of whether or not we want to keep
pouring money into it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If I may.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there a second to that motion
before we move on.9
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to make a -- I
wanted to make a comment that I concur with Commissioner Coyle.
I think that's basically where our -- where ! think we need to go. And
Page 190
January 14, 2003
that is that the combination of the county manager and the legal staff
to come up with the correct wording and everything else, because the
end result is that the county commissioners are accountable for
what's going on out there. And so I think we need to bring together a
closer working relationship, whether it's through going through and
changing the verbiage in some of these loop holes here, and then also
working with the county legal staff and, of course, the airport
authority. But the end result is we're the ones that are holding the
purse strings here and we're the ones that are going to be held
accountable for this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have two points. I'd like to --
I think I hear what you're saying and I believe the word is oversight.
We want the county totally involved as far as our staff in the
oversight reporting to us. Instead of getting a report directly from the
airport authority, let it go through the buffers within our own county
government, through Jim Mudd's office and then come back to us
with recommendations from our staff to be able to see what we're
actually dealing with.
Once again, we take these numbers, these raw numbers and we
try to digest them ourselves. We're at a little bit of a disadvantaged.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's why I said that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And the same thing
with the county attorney.
The other thing is, the most important thing as far as I'm
concerned, is the element of the -- of the incubator, the element of
the inspection station, the industrial park idea, that these ideas not be
lumped together with the airport when we start to look at this, but we
consider it as a separate element. That is the thing that's going to put
meals on the tables in Immokalee and jobs for people in Immokalee
to be able to work on, won't have to drive back and forth. That's
going to make the big difference, to be able to find a way to move
Page 191
January 14, 2003
that forward. And I kind of hope that maybe we can get some
recommendations on that also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, Commissioner Coletta, I've
been kid of just waiting my turn. Boy, I don't like sitting in this seat
too much. You have to preside instead of participate.
Anyway, the confusion has always been on my part, the
difference between the airport, running an airport operation and an
economic development engine that seems -- that's going on here.
And I realize that they feel the economic development engine will
fund this, but, you know, you look at Marco Island airport, Marco
Island airport seems to be pretty self-sufficient all by itself, and
maybe even making a little money. And it isn't engulfed in any
economic development whatsoever. It's running a good little airport
there. And I -- and I -- I credit the airport authority for doing that,
obviously.
Maybe the airport authority ought to be in the airport business.
And if they have an extension that wants to work with -- I know we
had an EDC department at one time. I don't know if we still do or
not. Helene Castletime (phonetic) was there, wasn't she? And
maybe there would be an economic development component here
within the county that would want to work with the airport authority.
But I think that all of the financial aspects of that should be worked
right on through our-- because that's -- that's a whole different -- like
you're talking about roads instead of building a runway. And you're
talking about attracting businesses and encouraging employers and
employees to come in instead of getting people off the runway. So I
-- I seem to feel we're talking about two separate businesses here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that -- we don't even
need a formal motion on this, do we, it's just giving you direction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just give them direction.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What to come back for.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you feel you have that so far?
Page 192
January 14, 2003
MR. MUDD: What I have right now is there are some things
that the airport authority is going to give us, one of which is an
annual report. The other is a budget on 1 May. And with that
budget, hopefully and with prior conversation with Mr. -- with Mr.
Price, they are working up their 1 O-year plan, to update it, because
they -- they didn't follow or they didn't have the last 1 O-year plan up
to date, some things have changed as far as personnel and who pays
for what accounts for medical and dental and things like that, that
change those figures and skewed them a little bit in that report,
because those weren't covered, and then all of a sudden when you do
cover them, it makes them look like they're operational outlays or
more than what they had planned for. And they're coming forward
and working on their 1 O-year plan. Hopefully, I'll get that.
But in a four-month time frame, we need to come back-- at
least what I heard was, come back with a plan that makes sure that
the board fulfills their legal obligations as far as the airport authority
and how it's concerned, to find a way whereby the board can -- can
ask a question of the county manager staff if a certain financial
document is correct or not, and make sure that we don't violate some
ordinance for the airport authority in that process.
And I think that the board's intent is still what's in the -- what's
in the ordinance document. And I want to make sure is if your intent
is not this, then we have got some severe work to do. And I bring
your attention to page five in your packet under this particular item
and it's -- and it's under -- right there on the first quarter of the page.
It's under 12, and it's under-- the first section, 18-37. It is the intent
of this division to grant to the airport authority more freedom and
autonomy to carry on its day-to-day activities with minimal
management from the board and from the clerk to the board, and with
intent to eventually have the authority become independent by
passage of a special act in the Florida legislature.
If that's still our intent to get them so that they're independent,
Page 193
January 14, 2003
then we need to push for that. And we need to push for that in this
long-term plan and that process. If it's not your intent, and your
intent is to -- to -- to --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm going to have to cut you off
because she only has a little piece of paper left. She's almost -- this
is her last one coming up now. I hated to stop you, but she needs to
change paper. As soon as we're finished here, we'll take a fast break
and give her fingers a rest.
(Brief recess taken.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't mean to interrupt you, Jim,
but I wanted to make sure that everything is on the record. Go ahead.
MR. MUDD: So I want to make sure that that's your intent.
And if you want them to be independent and -- and from some of the
comments I heard, you're talking about setting a time frame for that
to happen, instead of letting it go on indefinitely in some kind of a
dependent status, you need to kind of-- we'll work on that in the next
four months and get the airport authority's best guess. And with that
best guess, they might have to divest themselves of a loser in those
terms that just is never going to happen. As you mentioned before,
Marco pretty much sustains itself, might even make some positive
dollars. Immokalee is in the process and we're trying to get it in the
initiative for transportation to improve that. Is Immokalee ever going
to be that engine you want it to be without doubling the size of the
runway? You need to think about that. And if you do double the
size of the runway, that's a significant capital outlay as far as the
board of county commissioners is concerned, and we will need some
significant grant leveraging in order to make that happen. But we
need to make a decision. And I need to have that authority help me,
because they have some aviation expertise there that basically can
tell me, hey, there's no way in heck we're ever going to make a go of
that airport without increasing the size of that runway. And if that's
the bottom line, then we need to make a decision and a plan to either
Page 194
January 14, 2003
do it, not do it, or figure out when we're going to do it. And then say
okay, you got it and you're going to make it self-sufficient within
three years after we expand that runway and start bringing some
dollars in or we're not going to go down this route.
And there's some things that we need -- the board needs to do to
drive it home or -- and I'm not saying they haven't done a good job.
That's not the case at all. I just know that there's -- in conversations
that I've had with commissioners that have been initiated from your
side of the dais to me, some of you are very uncomfortable with the
airport authority and with meting with the airport authority one time
a year in a workshop being introduced to the folks that are on the
board because you don't know them in some cases, and it's a new
experience. And then having them tell you where they're going but
not knowing when those contracts are going to be done. And you
heard a little bit of Dwight's dilemma about grants coming in but
we're paying on another one. All of it is legit because he's gone over
the numbers with everybody and we've changed some of those
procedures. But I think I need to get with the authority, talk to them.
Hopefully, Mr. Price will help me in that regard as we get with
them, figure out what we're going to do in the next four months,
come back to you, make sure your legal obligations are taken care of
and that you're comfortable with the -- with the long-range plan that
they have, get them to answer some hard questions for you like is
Immokalee ever going to be an airport that's going to get planes to fly
in and out except for mosquito control, you know, are we going to do
that, or is it going to be a racetrack, you know, am I going to have the
next Indy 500 there, is that what we want to do, not too sure if that's
what the neighboring landowners want, or do we really need to
double that runway and get it into a size that can bring some
significant air transportation and carriers into the county. Don't
know. I think they need to have some answers for you. I will work
with them to try to bring those back. And I understand 1 May is a
Page 195
January 14, 2003
suspense.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The last item you have to find out is what do you
want them to do about their executive director? Because your last
direction to them on the 17th of December was put it on hold.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Let me give you the
line up here. Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Henning,
Commissioner Halas and then Commissioner Coletta. There we go.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Jim just summarized it very well
for me. I think you're right on target. The issue with respect to
subparagraph 12 on page five will be determined, I think, when we
see that 1 O-year plan and the budget for next year and with the
information that you've gathered between now and then. I think we
will be in a position to decide at that point in time whether, you
know, we keep pouring money into it or look for other alternatives.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I would like to see the
airport authority be independent ASAP. And I think that we can
request from them during the budget process, their request for
operating is to cut that in half. If there is any notion by the board of
commissioners about economic incentives for Immokalee and the
land that we have out there, keep in mind if we're not satisfied with
the membership's involvement with the EDC present, we can take
that -- those resources out there and get that assistance from the EDC.
But if we do anything out there, I'm more in favor of doing a
high-tech industry only to where that -- that incentive would be for
high-tech only.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle -- Halas?
Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I look at it, I think the
airport authority ought to be in the airport business and not into
incubators and racetracks and everything else. I think what they
Page 196
January 14, 2003
need to do is I think they are stretching themselves too much.
They've got too many ideas. And I think maybe what they need to
do is just focus on one aspect of the job.
But I think that Mr. Mudd summed it up beautifully, and I think
that's the direction we need to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I agree with you,
the fact that I think maybe they are a little too diverse to be able to
bring the results that we need. Once again, I'm very concerned about
the business interest. We haven't discussed about hiring a director.
Do we want to deal with that, that we have some say in the thing?
Want to ask them to leave it open? That's something we still have to
decide.
As far as high-tech for Immokalee, I think that we're aiming for
something that's not attainable, that we have to leave it open. The
type of jobs that we need in Immokalee will have to be the kind of
jobs that will fit the level of the people that are going to be working
in there and the training that they have at this point in time. It doesn't
mean that high-tech couldn't fit in at some point. But to limit it just
to high-tech, I think would bring everything to a screeching halt.
But then again too, I think that's something for consideration
when we get down the road, which way that's going to go. We need
to hear back from the people in the know from the EDC with their
suggestions. That's my thoughts on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You asked about hiring a director.
I'll bounce this one off of you, fellow commissioners. And that is,
we're not in the business of hiring directors for all of these
departments, and I think that's what the airport authority is there to
do. They know the applicants. They know who's been working with
them. We don't. We don't know the qualifications. I would just as
soon leave it to the airport authority. If they would like to invite one
of us to sit in, fine, but I don't think we should be making the
Page 197
January 14, 2003
decisions there. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, just one little further
point on that. We still haven't decided which direction we are going
to go on this, if we want to see their 1 O-year plan and everything
else. If they hire a director and lock him in for three to five years or
whatever the contract is, you'll be obligated for it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what we really
have to do before we do that, we had a motion and a second on the
floor. We probably ought to withdraw them because we don't need a
motion anyway. That was determined. Why don't we withdraw
those and -- so that we have -- we can clean that off the board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll withdraw mine.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll withdraw my second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Fine. So we've got that
slate clean.
Okay. Now, to move on then with what we want to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think we've given quite a bit
of instructions to the county manager and we're going to be looking
for something in the way of performance or a promise for
performance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't know what we've
really given him, because we've said --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- we thought they should be
independent, then we thought they -- then we thought maybe there
should be an airport authority and an EDC. And then we thought that
they -- we need to send their financials back in the form of the budget
and their 1 O-year plan. Is that good direction? It sounds to me like
we're bouncing around.
MR. MUDD: We're going to ask some hard questions and we're
going to come back with some options with that -- with the help of
Page 198
January 14, 2003
the airport authority and give you a couple alternatives, A, B, C. It
could be the A-- we could have the as soon as possible plan that
Commissioner Henning talked about. We could have a plan maybe
to divest ourselves of one or two of the airports. Depending on that
scheme of things, we could have a long-range plan that sits there.
But I think-- and we'll work all of those things out.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The thing you really got -- you just can't let the
airport authority hang, though, on the executive director. They have
cut off their time for directors. They have a pool of-- they have a
pool of candidates. And if you're going to tell them to go ahead, I
think Commissioner Coletta brings a good point, you certainly don't
want them to cut a contract with the airport director in a five-year
period of time, and then all of a sudden you say you want to privatize
the thing and you've got a clause in that person's contract that says
oh, by the way, you're going to give me two years salary if you
decide to end it sometime before term. That's not real smart either.
So if they're going to hire and you're going to give them that
opportunity to do so, you basically ask them to wait until we
considered the ordinance was the letter that the chair signed on the
17th of December. You just need to either tell them they are either
going to go after an executive director, but you don't want the
contract to be longer than a year, or you want them to wait until 1
May when you've finally got this thing resolved. You need to give
them something, though, instead ofjust letting them hang out in
limbo. That's not really good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think what we need to do is we
gave staff enough direction here. I'm not sure in what time frame
that we can get some of this preliminary information back. But
before the board of commissioners can make any kind of decision,
Page 199
January 14, 2003
we've got to have some feedback from both the airport committee
and from staff and it doesn't have to be a detailed report but enough
that we can make a decision on and hopefully -- but that's the main
thing we need. We need information at the point -- this point in time
so we can make a decision. And it's got to be a combination of the
airport and of you people.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
Commissioner Henning? (No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. We haven't answered your
question yet. What would we suggest that the airport authority do?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think there are two things
that could happen. We could ask that the airport hold off on hiring
someone until we have a chance to review that 1 O-year plan and the
budget for next year or we could -- or they could proceed with hiring
a person with the understanding that we're not going to step up to the
plate with the money if things go south. And I don't know to what
obligation we do. I don't know if that person is considered to be an
employee -- a Collier County employee or an airport employee.
MR. MUDD: If this for some reason divests in the ordinance, it
basically says -- and I'll -- it says: Transfer of property and
personnel. On page 11, Section 18-47: The county has leased the
authority in consideration of $10 for all three Collier County airports
and all real property improvements, the county has conveyed to the
authority, real property, personnel property related to the three
airports including all personnel property, airport systems, and
equipment and material. Any county employee transferred to the
authority shall remain county employees and be subject to the county
human resources policies and procedures except to the extent those
policies and procedures do not apply with the authority because of
exemptions provided in the county's administrative code. So you got
Page 200
January 14, 2003
them. If you dissolve them, you got all those county employees back
again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This -- no, okay. All right.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I believe, because the airport authority works
for the board of county commissioners, that that director works for
you. And whatever obligations that they make, they do it for you
because you delegated that authority to them. Therefore, you have
an obligation and a responsibility to fulfil that contract.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me cut to the chase. I don't
want another employee right now.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So what you're saying is that you
would prefer to have them wait to hire an airport manager until we
have the budget hearings in May, May 1 ?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May 1 and the 10-year plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 10 plan on March 15th.
So do I hear agreement on the part of the other commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One final note. I would either-
- probably make a motion that you write a letter to the airport
authority or the -- Commissioner Henning write a letter, whoever the
proper person would be, stating these facts that we have so they have
it on record.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I think that's a great idea.
Commissioner Henning, do you agree also?
He must not be there.
MS. FILSON: If you just hit redial and connect, you can get
him back.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So you are making a motion then to
Page 201
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That we direct the chair to
write a letter stating the facts that we discussed here today so that's
it's clearly before them rather than just hearing about it from the
newspaper.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 4-0. Okay. Very good. And we
also have given direction as to not hire right now, this is an
agreement by the commissioners, an executive director, but continue
status quo until the first of May or after. Okay, fine. Just so that we
have that all down in the record.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And get some feedback to find out
which way we're going to go.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Very good. Thank you very
much.
Now, we move back to 8(C).
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2003-05 RE PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-2965,
KENNETH E. GRIFFITH, OF JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC.,
REPRESENTING HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER
COUNTY INC., AS PARTIAL OWNER AND CONTRACT
PURCHASER, REQUESTING: 1) REZONE FROM "A"
AGRICULTURAL AND FROM HABITAT PLACE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (20+ ACRES) ZONING
Page 202
January 14, 2003
DISTRICTS TO CHARLEE ESTATES PUD TO ALLOW A 124
LOT, SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT WILL BE
DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE VERY LOW INCOME
HOUSING UNITS; AND 2) CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL
OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPER TO UTILIZE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS DENSITY UNITS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS FOR LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS.
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF
TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, APPROXIMATELY 3+MILES EAST OF
COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) - ADOPTED; AFFORDABLE
HOIISING DENSITY FIONIIS AGREEMENT- APPROVED
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Take a break?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, we have to take a 1 O-minute
break, I'm sorry, so that they can change out over there. (A recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let's get this meeting going again.
And do we have Commissioner Coletta -- I mean Commissioner
Henning, I know you're here. Okay.
So we are now on to Item 8(C), Habitat for Humanity.
MR. MUDD: All participants must be sworn in on ex parte
disclosures provided by the commission members.
This is the Habitat Place planned unit development zoning
district to go to Charlie Estates PUD.
All people standing -- you're swearing them in, right?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you swear them in? Okay.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Henning, are
you with us?
Page 203
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. So disclosures, let's
start with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have no disclosures.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I met with Sam D'urso and
Pete Banyon (phonetic).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I've spoken with you before,
but I don't think I've ever met with you in particular on this. But I've
been kind of following it, so -- thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The same for me.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Coletta.
I'll remember your name.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't remember if we talked --
no, we didn't. I haven't talked to him about it. I know it, as a matter
of fact.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Thank you. Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. Good afternoon. For the record, I am
Kay Deselem, a principal planner with current planning, and I am
here to present the executive summary, the staff report and all the
documentation that goes along with the petition that's before you,
which is a two-part petition.
One, they are seeking a rezoning from the former Habitat Place,
which was a 20-acre PUD. And they are also adding in an
approximately eight-acre tract that's zoned Ag. All of this will be
going to PUD as one unified project under the name of Charlie
Estates.
The second part of the request is seeking approval of an
affordable housing agreement that would allow for bonus density for
this project.
I have on the visualizer a map that shows you where the site is.
Page 204
January l4,2003
You're on U.S. 41, Tamiami Trail. If you can see it, there is Joseph
Lane right here. And the project's one access will align with Joseph
Lane. You can see there is Paradise Point RV Park on one side. To
the south is Fiddler's Creek. And there's a triangular shaped parcel is
what the subject parcel is. And inside that is a white area, which on
this is not identified. That is the church. It's a church known as The
First Haitian Baptist Mission of Naples.
To further understand where you are, there's an aerial
photograph, you can see the RV park that is developed on one side to
the south. You can see that for the most part, this is an agricultural
use, it has not yet developed. The Fiddler's Creek PUD has this
approved for an unspecified type of residential units.
The site plan is essentially what you have in your packet. We
did get a revision to it yesterday. The revisions that were done are
insignificant as far as what you see. They had addressed some of the
concerns that the staff had raised about showing sidewalks. They
had changed it to show sidewalks on both sides of the internal
roadways. They now show a sidewalk that connects both project
entrances. And they had changed the buffering and the berming,
some of the detail that was requested by staff. But essentially it's the
plan that you have in your packet.
I did give Sue Filson a copy of this amended plan. So what you
have in the PUD that will be signed is the appropriate document.
Staff has recommended approval of this project. All of our
concerns are addressed in the PUD document that is submitted to you
today for approval. We have worked with the applicant,
transportation staff has worked with us, and Cormac Giblin from
housing, we've all worked together.
We have provided you with the PUD document that
incorporates all staff's concerns, and we have the affordable housing
agreement for you to sign that has been signed by the county
attorney, and Mr. Durseau (phonetic) has also signed it.
Page 205
January 14, 2003
We do have a recommendation from the environmental council
of unanimous approval. We have unanimous approval for this project
from the planning commission. However, several neighbors did
speak about this project at the planning commission, and my
understanding is they may be here today, some of them, to speak to
you as well.
As I understand, there was concerns about drainage. I don't
know that they have or have not been addressed adequately. I don't
know exactly who's here to speak.
But you do have the executive summary in front of you, and I
can address any questions that you may have. Other than that, I'll
just keep it brief. The applicant is here to answer any questions you
have, as is Cormac Giblin and transportation Greg Garcia.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't have anybody here on the
commission right now wanting to ask a question.
How about you, Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, no questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, did you want to give us any
comments?
MR. HAGAN: For the record, I'm Chris Hagan with Johnson
Engineering, representing the applicant. We really believe this is
rather straightforward. All the issues have been resolved with staff,
and we're here to answer questions more than anything. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am, we have one public speaker. Robert
Murray.
MR. D'URSO: I'd like to say a couple of words first; is that
okay --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. This is--
MR. D'URSO: -- as the applicant?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this the petitioner?
Page 206
January 14, 2003
MR. D'URSO: We've waited all day, so I want at least my mm.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Let me excuse myself. Did you
need to have anything filled out?
MR. D'URSO: No, we're the applicant.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm asking the county attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: As the applicant, he doesn't have to.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, good. Thank you.
MR. D'URSO: For the record, my name is Dr. Sam D'urso, and
I'm the president of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
For a little bit of history, 25 years ago, almost to the day,
Millard Fuller, the founder of Habitat, and his wife came to
Immokalee, Florida and set the seeds to found this chapter of Habitat
for Humanity. So we're celebrating our 25th anniversary. 10 years
ago almost to the day I first started working for Habitat for
Humanity.
Things have changed dramatically in 25 years, and things have
changed quite dramatically even in the last 10 years. Habitat has now
completed 500 homes in Collier County; approximately 250 in
Immokalee and 250 in East Naples. This project I believe is just
outside of East Naples, but I'm not sure how you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's all in East Naples.
MR. D'URSO: It's all in East Naples, okay. But this project is
about three miles east of 951, so it's out in quite a rural area. And the
previous PUD was approved about a year and a half ago. And what
happened was we were fortunate enough to come across another
eight acres next to this, and that's why we grabbed it. Because it's
very, very hard for us to find any land. But the PUD is still very
similar to the original PUD. And the density is very similar.
The lot sizes will be similar to our other projects. And you've
all seen Victoria Falls where we started about a year ago, and we
have 60 houses done and we'll be completely finished with that
project by September. And that's partly why we need approval, so
Page 207
January 14, 2003
we can get this project going.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When are you starting the one on
Greenway?
MR. D'URSO: That's going to be after this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, after this one?
MR. D'URSO: Yeah, we were actually going to come before
you. We've put another 10 acres under contract next to that piece of
land. And so in about a month or two we're going to come before
you for another rezoning. Plus you probably don't remember, on that
project a restriction was put in that we couldn't build out for two
years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't remember that.
MR. D'URSO: So we're not -- so that's going to fall in place
after this project.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good bless you, Jim.
Any questions from the commissioners? And we have no
speakers, the public hearing--
MS. FILSON: We have one speaker, Robert Murray.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
MR. MURRAY: Good afternoon, Commissioners, good
afternoon, everyone. I am Bob Murray, I'm from the East Naples
civic association, economic development committee. And I'd just like
to comment that I am particularly familiar with the -- with two of Mr.
-- Dr. D'urso's projects. One is Victoria Falls, and the other is the
work that they've done in Naples Manor. And I must compliment
them very highly. Their work is very good, the homes that are being
made available to people who need them are a sure sign of growth
and opportunity.
And I would certainly endorse this project. We do need
affordable homes in Collier County. I would think that single-family
homes are perhaps the best means by which we can help people.
Multiple units are probably going to have to be used, but certainly
Page 208
January 14, 2003
this methodology is really terrific. The families look like they can be
happy. They have a little parcel of land, they have something to
work with. I'm proud of them. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Bob. And I just wanted to
add that now, this will make about 500 all told when Habitat is built
out in East Naples and 500 in Immokalee. And with the new
inclusionary zoning that we're hoping to put in place, this will allow
Habitat to find further land around the rest of the county, and --
which is one of the problems they've had all along, they have no
place to go and no way -- they'd like to build some in the north end
but they have no land there. And this is going to hopefully help them
to find some land or to have some land to build continued Habitat
homes on. Thanks. Little advertisement there.
Okay, any comments from the commissioners?
MS. FILSON: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was going to say, I move to
approve this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I have to close the public
meeting. Excuse me. Keep me straight, Sue Filson.
And with that, I do close the public meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I move that we approve this
PUD for Habitat for Humanity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have a motion by Commissioner
Halas and a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further
discussion?
All of those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 209
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
Passed 5-0.
MS. DESELEM: Do I need to clarify that it's a two-part motion
and I think you need to move on both things? If I'm not --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Yes, you do need to
clarify that. So we've done then what, the first one, Commissioners?
MS. DESELEM: The first one is the rezoning. And the second
one is to accept the affordable housing agreement.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we accept
the zoning requirements there --
MS. DESELEM: Affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- of the zoning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine, I have a motion from
Commissioner Halas to take the second part.
MR. WEIGEL: Could you make the motion clear? I think
we're talking about affordable housing.
MS. DESELEM: Yes, the first part of the petition seeks the
rezoning from PUD and Ag. to PUD. The second one is approval of
the affordable housing density bonus agreement.
MR. MUDD: And ma'am, you did the first one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And that's what I was just
saying is the affordable -- that's exactly what I was saying.
We have a motion to approve the affordable density bonus by
Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 210
January 14, 2003
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Is Commissioner Henning still on the phone?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning voted.
Yes, he voted in the positive. We have a 5-0.
Item #1 lA
KEN THOMPSON REGARDING SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
AND THEIR COOPERATION WITH REGARDS TO A
NEIGHBORHOOD BAR-PRESENTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I'm going to ask if we wait on --
and Norm's going to kill me for this, but I'm going to ask to wait on
10(A), 10(F) and 10(H), because I don't think we have any public out
there that's going to speak on those particular items. And I'd like to
go to the next item and just ask if there's people out there that want to
speak on a particular item.
Do we have anybody that's speaking on 12(A)?
MS. FILSON: One on 12(A), one on 12(B) and two on 11.
MR. MUDD: Okay. So ma'am, I would suggest that we tackle
those first and then they can -- those folks can go home and have
dinner and then we can get back to condemnation with Norm and he
can be mad at me for at least an evening.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good. Do you have an order
in which you -- I would just go 11 and 12.
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, let's do 12(B) first. I think that's rather --
okay, we have--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Very good, 12(B).
MR. MUDD: No, ma'am, we have two speakers for 11, right?
Page 211
January 14, 2003
Let's do public comment real quick.
And we have Ms. Fitz-Gerald and we have Mr. Thompson.
MS. FILSON: The first one is Kenneth Thompson. He will be
followed by Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MR. THOMPSON: My name is Ken Thompson. And I hope
you give me long enough to take care of this, because I ain't coming
back no more.
On I think it was October the 10th, I made a phone call to the
sheriffs department to help me and I got the strangest phone call you
ever seen in your life. It was one of the deputies; he told me he was
going to get him a lawyer and take care of this matter. First I thought
I was talking to somebody else. Then he told me he was going -- I
told him, why don't you just get you a couple of lawyers.
So the next thing I know was on the -- was on the 10th -- the
15th EMS -- I promised I wouldn't say nothing about EMS -- and
sheriff department broke into my house. And I'm up in Fort Myers. I
don't think I've ever had that happen to me before. But I promised I
wouldn't talk about it.
And I have a tape -- I had a tape, but I give it to somebody, and
I'm not going to say who. But I'm just going to forget about it. If
they go ahead and pay the bill, I'm going to be all right about it.
They told me today that they would.
And the biggest thing I'm worried about, I -- this one night out
there, I had a heart attack. And I don't believe I've ever went through
anything like that in my life, over this damn bar -- I mean, over the
bar. Excuse me for saying that. But this bar across that street from
me there has got out of hand.
He went over there not long ago, and all the vegetation along
the road doesn't belong to him, he come up there one Saturday and
had it all cut down.
Well, I asked Mrs. Arnold about it and they told me he was
going to code enforcement board about it. Well, how long does it
Page 212
January 14, 2003
take?
And then on New Year's night, I -- Sergeant Radford come to
my house, and I talked to him about it and he said he would go over
there and calm it down. Well, he went over there. When he left, it
got worse. I mean, 2:00 in the morning.
Now I'm telling you, now I don't need no damn music no 2:00 in
the morning, ma'am. I mean, you could hear it from miles away.
Cussing and swearing. I never heard women can talk like that. You
know, I thought men was mean, but God, some of these women get
drunk and they're the worst people I ever seen in my life.
And Radford went on down the road, and it made me feel so
bad, he had one of the worst wrecks in history, I understand, and he's
in the hospital.
But it just keeps on and on and on. And on Sunday they cannot
have this amplified music. They got these big umbrellas over there,
they sit this big amplified music up there. And they don't play music,
they just aggravate you. You can't sit there, you can't rest.
And I'm supposed to have that andiplastic (sic) done to me
there, going to the heart valves. And I'm thinking about that, because
when I went through the heart stress test, I don't believe I ever went
through anything like that. I just had a hip replacement. Now they're
trying to give me a knee replacement. You know, I got blew out in a
747, the tail section come off of it. Two years and nine months I was
in a coma in Mercy Hospital in San Diego, California. And then four
of my kids got scattered all over the highway here in Naples, 16, 17,
18 and 19. I don't believe anything else can happen to me.
And I think if you would help me with that bar-- I don't care if
he has the bar, but he come to my house bragging, you know, that all
he was going to do was to have just music. And I know Mark Henry
for many years. I know his dad. I used to go to all the sheriffs'
conventions with him.
But this thing has got so out of hand that it's terrible. And I
Page 213
January 14, 2003
understand that you were over there the other day, Mrs. -- Donna
Fiala. You had some people out there, Divine Kay (phonetic) over
there in the field. You were going to dredge the canal or something.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no, somebody was looking
to put up an art --
MR. THOMPSON: I don't know what they were looking to put
up, but that ain't what I heard on the TV. I was sitting there watching
it.
And then you went on down the road a little bit farther and you
talked to the lady in the market down there. I don't know which one
it was. It was one of them Haitian markets or something. It's on TV.
I talked to them out there about it a while ago.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I stopped in a Haitian market and
talked to somebody? I'm not quite sure what you mean. But that's
all right, go ahead, sir.
MR. THOMPSON: No, I know you don't know what you mean.
I'm not talking to you, this lady here was the one that was on TV.
But anyway, it just keeps on and on. And you try to talk to -- I
have been -- and that night I called back the sheriff department and
they told me that -- Lieutenant Nelson and Lieutenant Browning told
me that they (sic) was so many people getting hurt that night on New
Year's night that they didn't have time to take care of music.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'm sure that code
enforcement's working with you and the sheriff's office. I --
MR. THOMPSON: No, ma'am, I've got to tell you about code
enforcement.
Well, they got this thing going, see. You had one bar there, then
you had another bar, then you had the Tipsy Seagull. I never spent
so much money in my life to get that place out of there.
Well, what you will find out is that you got one of your code
enforcers running a limousine out of this bar. And he is the man that
raised the meter. So when you call for the meter, he goes and gets
Page 214
January 14, 2003
the meter and come over, okay, everything is quiet and perfect. So
does the sheriff department, same thing. So we got a forensic meter
reader out there, meter reader, I don't know how you say it, and we
caught him. Collier County Code Enforcement meters was off so
bad, it was pitiful; sheriff's department didn't half register.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Thompson, I have to ask you
to wind up. Your minutes ended a little bit ago.
MR. THOMPSON: Ma'am, I've heard people stand here and
running their mouth so bad a while ago, it was pitiful. I'm not
coming back anymore. Just hold on with me a minute.
But this thing here, you got another one now that's running a
limousine. He's the same guy, works in planning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One more minute, okay, and then
we've got somebody waiting.
MR. THOMPSON: He works in planning, but then he drives a
limousine.
But when you call for something, it will die down. All I need
you to do is to stop this bar, or either just put it out of business.
And then they tried to set my house on fire. I can't get the
Collier County Sheriff Department to give me no -- I picked all the
stuff up and give it to them. They tried to set the house on fire. And
I don't know what all they done to me.
And I don't know what the hell it is in this business over here
that has got me so badmouthed in this town and in this county. I can
walk in this county right here and you won't believe the people that
will badmouth me. Well, you should have thought about that before
you did to me what you did to me and my wife.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. --
MR. THOMPSON: I don't think I've ever went through
anything like it in my life, this zoning thing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Thompson --
MR. THOMPSON: All right, you can have it, but please help
Page 215
January 14, 2003
me with the bar, will you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know what we can do, but
I'll certainly try to help you, and I'm sure your commissioner, who is
Mr. Coyle--
MR. THOMPSON: He don't even know where Bayshore Drive
is, ma'am. He was appointed by the Governor, and I'm yet to hear
him say one word about anything in that thing. And he was running
on an income, then he should have stepped down and let somebody
else run.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let's see what we can do
about it.
MR. THOMPSON: Fred Coyle--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. THOMPSON: -- he's done nothing.
Item 491 lB
MRS. VERA FITZGERALD REGARDING FPL FEEDING OTHER
ARF, AS FROM NAPIJF, S PARK - PRESF, NTF, D
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Ms. Fitz-Gerald? I'm sorry, I'm
trying to keep it within the allotted time. I'm sorry.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I will try to read fast. I've written it out
so that I will get the points without rambling.
I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, property owners of Naples Park. And I'll
start to read.
We have a serious development in Naples Park. Actually, it's a
perpetuation of an ongoing problem, and we need your help. Time is
of the essence here or I would have gone on in the public petition
part.
FPL seems to view -- that is, the Florida Power and Light --
seems to view Naples Park as a very convenient and cheap means of
Page 216
January 14, 2003
feeding electricity to the surrounding neighborhoods. When they
needed to put a feeder line into the newly planned Pelican Marsh,
they simply ran it from Naples Park's grid, but they put the poles
right on the front yard of homeowners in the 800 block of 99th. And
I have those pictures here for you. Of course, as soon as they got to
the highway, they went underground.
WCI should have paid the cost of putting those lines
underground on 99th. They've devalued the 99th properties. We
should have a rule that the neighborhood that benefits should have to
pay the cost of running those lines underground if they go through an
existing neighborhood. That should be a law.
FPL also plopped a new feeder line a while back, it appears, to
go to Pavilion and Beach Walk in the front yards of the homeowners
in the 800 block of 91st. These homes, both 99 and 91st, also have
the Naples Park grid in their back yards.
Putting poles in people's front yards constitutes a hazard, if you
ever have a storm. Ken Pineau is on record stating underground lines
are much more survivable. And I talked to him about this.
In a hurricane, we could be months without electricity, as in
Dade County, if FPL has to rebuild that whole grid that is now strung
above on poles. Some of you may remember the poles blowing
down on Immokalee Road when they were trying to widen it. It took
a long time.
Now, comes now FPL again. They need to put a new feeder
line up for Pelican Bay. This new line seems to be necessary because
of the new towers being built in Pelican Bay, but it's hard to get any
information out of FPL. They don't want to disclose their motives.
And it took me a long time to sort of extract what I could.
But it seems that they're planning to run this line north from
their substation on Goodlette to Vanderbilt Beach Road. Then
they're going to go west along that beautifully landscaped road to
U.S. 41. Above ground poles. Then north along the highway to
Page 217
January 14, 2003
Naples Park on 91st. Then they're going west all along 91 st, giving
those residents on 91st three sets of poles. And then they're going
south again along Vanderbilt Drive to Vanderbilt Beach Road again,
where they're going underground to Pelican Bay.
You can't imagine how mad I am about this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are they putting them in
everybody's front yard?
MS. FITZ-GERALD: No, this time they're not, they're just
putting them across the street so they're going to have to look at
them.
They're going to use this -- they say that they're improving
Naples Park's grid, but of course we don't need our grid improved.
But they're going to use this fractured logic that because Pelican Bay
is pulling off our grid, they're going to have to improve our grid to
feed Pelican Bay.
It's difficult to deal with these people.
The beautiful oaks and other trees along the wall and beach
walk that are finally maturing, softening that wall, they're lovely
trees and the pine is beautiful, as you can see in those pictures. But
FPL will come along and mutilate them, and that's exactly what they
do, to make way for this new feeder line. And the whole plan is an
outrage to Naples Park.
So I'm here to ask you to direct staff, in this case the DOT's
right-of-way permitting department, to not issue this permit to FPL
unless the line goes underground through Naples Park and along
Vanderbilt Drive, as they planned, or plan a line somewhere else less
intrusive to another residential area.
I told them to take the line down Vanderbilt Beach Road, but
they said they already have a line there. So increase that line.
Naples Park is going full speed ahead on their community
character study. FPL is going full speed ahead on their uglification
of our neighborhood.
Page 218
January 14, 2003
I beg you to help us and control this utility company. I would
really like to see an ordinance passed in the next cycle requiring all
new lines and relocated lines such as those being moved along
Goodlette to be put underground. It only makes sense. No more
lines with poles.
And we're in this area that's going to get bashed with a
hurricane. The time has come. But please, please help us today to
avert this, I don't know what word to use, horror, I guess, that's about
to be foisted on our neighborhood.
And guess what, I made it in five minutes. Is there anything you
can do?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know that. Is there anything
we can do, Mr. Feder?
MR. MUDD: While Norman's coming up, Commissioner, Jim
Mudd for the record. I received an e-mail, and Joe Schmitt's crew
had known that Vera's got some issues with FP&L in Naples Park.
And Commissioner Halas brought it to our attention during the
one-on-one's yesterday. We got in contact with a Mr. Merriam,
who's their project developer.
And they don't have a plan right now, Vera, in order to put any
new poles or anything in Naples Park. But I'll let Norman address
the permit issues. But I did a double -- we called FP&L, and got
ahold of their project manager and asked them if there was anything
planned for transmission lines anywhere in Naples Park in the near
future, and the answer we received was no. And the proof is in the
pudding. Are they really going to do it? I don't know.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Well, their representatives are going
around meeting with various homeowners. John Henky, they met
with John Henky at Beach Walk.
We brought this up at a couple of meetings, and yes, they've
been around talking to all the homeowners about putting that line up,
so they certainly have plans. And what is that guy's name that was so
Page 219
January 14, 2003
absolutely arrogant? I can't remember his name. I forgot it. Popped
out of my head. All right.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, to your question, we are required to allow all
utilities to utilize the rights-of-way, the public rights-of-way.
As far as the desirability of underground utilities, I don't have to
go from a personal statement. Yes, I'd love to see it. We've got a
beautiful area down here and the thing that strikes you in every case
is the above ground utilities. It's very, very expensive, though, to put
those underground. I know we're trying to look at a section on
Livingston of the FP&L easement, in trying to get some of those
underground. And the costs that we're looking at are being told that
would be required are extremely high.
But in answer to your question, essentially yes, they have to get
a right-of-way permit to work in our right-of-way. But essentially
we're obliged to let utilities utilize the public rights-of-way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm concerned about is, for
instance, if Naples Park decides to go along with the Dover-Kohl
study, okay, for character revitalization of that area. These people
may have to get involved in an MSTU. And eventually anyplace
that's been developed in the past and people want to get rid of the
unsightly lines, it's going to be up to the people to bury these things.
And so in this case why put the burden on the people? If this
does happen whereby FPL is going to want to run another
transmission line and to service another area where it has to be
underground anyway, I feel that the neighborhoods that they intrude
on, they should put underground. I mean, that's my feeling.
MR. FEDER: I'll ask Bleu Wallace, who deals with utilities,
what our options are, but I'm not sure, since they've got the use of
public rights-of-way, if we can prescribe that it be underground. But
I'll try to give you an answer and I'll speak to Bleu Wallace on that so
Page 220
January 14, 2003
he can give me some further guidance. The only thing I can tell you
is they have the right to utilize the rights-of-way. I'm not sure if we
can require that they be underground as opposed to above ground,
because obviously the cost it is much greater buried. Obviously the
community aspects are far greater, I think, is what I'm seeing and
hearing and I personally agree with as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It would be great if we could
require it.
Would you keep us all in the loop, as well as Vera?
MR. FEDER: I certainly will.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: It just isn't fair to the old neighborhood to
get stomped on like this. It just isn't fair.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, you're singing to the choir.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: I thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Item # 12A
MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT INCORPORATING THE
SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THE MEDIATED
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NOS. 114, 115, AND 116 IN THE
LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. CENTEX HOMES,
A NEVADA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ET AL, CASE NO. 02-
1602-CA, (GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD PROJECT #60134) -
APPROVED
Let's move on to 12(A).
MR. MUDD: This item was continued from the December 17th
BCC meeting. A recommendation that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the mediated settlement agreement and the
Page 221
January 14, 2003
stipulated final judgment incorporating the same terms and
conditions as the mediated settlement agreement, relative to the
acquisitions of parcels No. 114, 115 and 116 in the lawsuit entitled
Collier County versus Centex Homes.
MS. ASHTON: This item was originally on the December 17th
meeting agenda on consent, pulled by Commissioner Fiala, and we
requested a continuance so the property owners' attorney could be
here.
For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney.
The proposed settlement is for the sum of $195,594. I have
previously met with the different -- each of the board members
individually to advise them of the risks in this case. I'll just go
through some key facts for you.
The county's appraisal on this project was $25,700. As we go
forward, I will be recommending -- or asking our appraiser to
consider an alternate methodology, and that will raise our value to
$114,740.
I'll also note on this project that the property owner did indicate,
as part of the mediation they represented to us, that they had paid for
the raw land 50,000 an acre. And I think that that was significant in
their mind as they went forward with the mediation. When you
calculate 50,000 an acre, the sum comes to approximately $171,450.
The property owner's appraiser came up with a value of
$688,900. The county and the property owner differ in three areas:
One is the identification of a parent tract. The second, although not
as significant as the other areas, is the land value per acre. And the
third is the treatment of the FPL easement.
As part of mediation, as you know, the county considers our
risks of exposure should we go forward: We evaluate the strength of
our case; we look at the costs if we were to go forward, because as
the board knows, the county pays for the county's cost, as well as the
property owners' cost in the defense of the action.
Page 222
January l4,2003
The proposed settlement before you, as I said, is $195,594. It
includes -- well, there also are expert fees on top of that, which are
$36,700, which they agreed to reduce from a little over $43,000.
And the attorney's fees are statutory, based on the benefit that he
derived.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Which are also --
MS. ASHTON: Those are a little bit over $50,000.
And transportation staff and me were present in the mediation.
And based on the risks that I've identified with you in our individual
meetings, we're recommending settlement.
And I'm available to ask any questions. I do believe Mr. Stoker
(sic) has wanted to speak as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Who is Mr. Stoker?
MS. ASHTON: I'm sorry, he's the attorney for the property
owner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: For the property --
MS. ASHTON: Owner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Owner?
Please.
MR. SMOLKER: Madam Chairwoman and members of the
board, my name is Dave Smolker. I'm an attorney with the firm of
Bricklemeyer, Smolker and Boldess (phonetic) in Tampa, Florida. I
apologize for my voice. I think I'm a walking Nyquil ad here. And
there's nothing worse than a lawyer that's losing his voice. Some
people say there's nothing better than a lawyer losing his voice. But
nonetheless, I am losing my voice.
We're here -- we represent Centex Homes, and we're here to
support the staffs recommendation. And what I wanted to do was try
to maybe condense for you why this is a reasonable settlement, in our
mind.
First of all, the property that was taken was roughly three acres.
It is the buffer area and frontage of an existing subdivision known as
Page 223
January l4,2003
Autumn Woods. The area consisted of landscaping and sprinklers
and open space that was part of the subdivision.
In this case, the appraisers really did not disagree as to what the
value of the real estate was in its full fee simple value. I think our
appraiser valued it at $175,000 an acre, and the county's appraiser
valued it at $168,750 an acre.
The area of the disagreement was what they referred to as an
encumbrance factor, which is essentially a reduction in that full fee
value should be applied to this roughly three acres of property.
Our appraiser felt there should not be an encumbrance factor
applied, and his rationale was that his comparable sales in that area,
many of them were the actual sales of property that were already
encumbered by that very same FPL easement. So he figured it was
already taken into consideration in his value.
The county's appraiser -- and I don't know him from Adam, I
haven't met him -- but frankly, he indulged in about every
conceivable assumption you could possibly indulge in to come up
with a low figure. And he assigned a 10 percent value to these same
three acres.
So on the one hand we're saying it ought it to be valued at 100
percent of 175,000, and he's valued it at 10 percent of $168,750.
What was significant in my client's mind, in addition to the fact
that he paid 50,000 an acre for it a number of years ago, was the fact
that this very same appraiser on the property immediately next door
to us, which is the church property, valued that, essentially an
identical strip of land encumbered by the identical easement
immediately next to us, at 60 percent of the fee value.
And I'll be honest with you, I had a lot of trouble myself
accepting that he could appraise the church property next to us at 60
percent and the very identical easement area, strip area, at 10 percent
in our case. And so my -- had we gotten exactly the same treatment
from this appraiser, our settlement would have been 300,000, instead
Page 224
January 14, 2003
of 186. The reality was that when you're faced with that kind of low
ball offer, you know, you've got to compromise.
So in our view, we're looking at a settlement here that
effectively was a compromise between 100 percent of the full fee
value of the property and 10 percent. The settlement equates to
about 40 percent of the full fee value. And in our minds I think that
it was negotiated on that basis that, you know, somewhere in
between 100 percent and 10 percent was a reasonable cumbrance
factor to apply. So that's how he got to that settlement amount.
And, you know, I honestly think it's reasonable. And, you
know, I don't believe in trying to intimidate county commissioners. I
learned a long time ago that you can't do that. But you do have risks
and exposures here. I mean, if this case doesn't settle and has to go
to trial, you do have some significant risks, interest and I'm sure your
attorneys have explained to you.
The fact of the matter is this is a fair settlement. I mean, we're
asking for about 30 percent of what our appraiser has -- would testify
to at trial.
And, you know, I think if it goes to trial, I think that the jury's
going to know about -- when that appraiser is sitting up there on the
stand, it's going to be my job to make sure that they know that he had
appraised this thing at 10 percent in our case and at 60 percent in the
case of the property immediately adjacent to us. You know, I've
given up predicting what juries will do. They have goose egged me
and they've given me millions of dollars in trials. I don't predict what
they do, but they do try to be fair, and I do think that they're going to
have a little trouble reconciling the differential treatment by this one
appraiser.
So we would ask that you support the settlement agreement. I
appreciate your patience. I've never been in front of this board
before, but I've been here long enough today to begin to feel like I'm
even actually starting to get to know you. And we'd ask that you
Page 225
January 14, 2003
approve the staffs recommendation.
And I want to add one other thing and that is that I had heard
through the grapevine that you guys had been put on the hot seat
during the transportation impact fee ordinance consideration and that
people were complaining about the fact that there was a $250,000
right-of-way figure that was being assumed in the impact fee
ordinance, or something to that effect. What I did is I said well, let's
look at this settlement and see where it falls within that range. And if
you take the total settlement, in this case, the real estate of 195, the
attorney's fees and the expert's fees, total it all up, divide it by three,
you get 93,000 and change per acre. So it's certainly within the
range of reason. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Was your client -- did your client
get paid for this property once before through FPL when it was an
easement, FPL easement.9
MR. SMOLKER: I do not believe so. I believe they bought the
property after--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who bought the property?
MR. SMOLKER: Centex Homes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bought the property from FPL?
MR. SMOLKER: No, no, I think there was an easement -- the
property was subject to an FPL easement. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. SMOLKER: My understanding is that they bought the
property -- when they bought the property, the easement was already
there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did they realize that they couldn't
use that property for anything else?
MR. SMOLKER: Well, the easement --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, you can't build
houses under it.
Page 226
January 14, 2003
MR. SMOLKER: No. I mean, it's equivalent to essentially a
setback, for all practical purposes. It would be like a setback on your
house. You can't use it, but it's still part of your property and the
property still benefits from the fact that it's part of it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Heidi, did you want to comment on
something?
MS. ASHTON: I was just going to attempt to address the
commissioner's question, and I believe that the easement was created
during the time when the Colliers owned the property, so it's been in
place for some time. It's a 100-foot wide FPL easement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's 100 feet from the road back, is
that what it is?
MS. ASHTON: Yes, it's 100 feet between the existing
right-of-way. There's a 100-foot FPL easement and then there's a
20-foot City of Naples easement as well.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it's property that could never be
used for anything else is what you're saying. Okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do I understand correctly with
the easement in place the property has no value?
MR. SMOLKER: With the easement-- no, I do not believe it
has no value.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you put a house on it?
MR. SMOLKER: No, you can't. You can't put a house on a
setback on any piece of property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I understand that. Because
of the setback, you're unable to build on the property.
MR. SMOLKER: No, we can't put a structure. We can put
landscaping and sprinkler systems and buffers and that sort of thing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, an adjoining
property could use this like a front yard or whatever, or a side yard?
MR. SMOLKER: Yes. And in fact, these areas in subdivisions,
Page 227
January 14, 2003
the entry feature or the presentation of a subdivision to the street is
an extremely important valuable aspect of any subdivision, if you're
familiar with the business, because you've got to get the people in.
So it's not fair to simply look at that and say well, it's just an open
strip and you can't use it for anything, therefore it has no value.
Well, the reality is that that's true of all of the properties along that
same strip of roadway, they're all subject to that same easement.
And when people buy and sell those properties, they don't go and say
well, the property's worth 150,000 an acre, I'm going to deduct out
this easement area. That's just not how the market works. And when
we are valuing land, we're doing it on the basis of--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let me move right to it. What
you're saying is the easement has nothing to do with the value of the
property. The value of the property's been predetermined by the
market itself and by the neighbors' property.
MS. ASHTON: Commissioner Coletta, if I could address that.
Appraisers, in making their appraisals, are subject to appraisal
principles, and they identify highest and best use of the property as
though vacant and also improved, depending on the case. They don't
look at it necessarily in its existing state. It's a hypothetical, and then
look at what uses could be put on that site. So they look at well, we
have a difference of a parent tract issue, but they look at the tract,
they'd assume it vacant, and see what can be done on it. And if it's
restricted by an FPL easement, you can't build a house, no, but you
could hypothetically use it for other things, like water retention, other
things that are acceptable to FPL, because --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MS. ASHTON: -- easements -- you know, the fee owner can
use it in a manner that's not inconsistent with the existing easement
on the property.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's your determination that
this particular offer that's being made is fair?
Page 228
January 14, 2003
MS. ASHTON: When you look at the risks of going forward
and the costs that the county is exposed to, I think you will see if we
were to litigate this case that we would spend more, even if the jury
bought our position, we would spend more to get there than what's
before you today. And unfortunately that's the position that the
county stands in in the State of Florida in condemnation suits.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we still have to pay for the
attorney, no matter what the finding is, so this is what drives the cost
up. We have to pay for the defendant.
MS. ASHTON: It's not just the attorney. The attorney gets paid
on one-third the benefit, but we are paying their experts in defense of
the proceeding, which is done hourly, so the more time they spend,
the higher their fees would be.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more question, and I
probably can make a motion.
Did I hear that property that was similar to this down the street
one way or the. other, that they were reaching something that's
comparable to what we agreed to do with other property owners in
like situations?
MS. ASHTON: There is a -- Mr. Smolker is correct in that the
property next door was valued differently. We have not settled with
that property owner. And it's most likely that he'll be revising his
appraisal to reflect a more realistic approach. He based his appraisal
on a factual issue that is incorrect on the property next door.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hate to be put into the
situation that's going to cost me more. If I dwell on it too long, I
might end up paying more than I originally did and I won't have any
value to show for it.
I'm going to make a motion that we approve this, based upon the
recommendations that are on Page 2, that we approve the expenditure
of funds as stated and approve the attached mediated settlement
agreement and approve the stipulated fund final judgment, which
Page 229
January 14, 2003
incorporates the terms and conditions of the mediated settlement
agreement, and the expert fee to be presented to the court for entry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Coletta
makes the motion and Commissioner Henning seconds that motion.
And as far as discussion goes, Commissioner Henning, did you
have anything to say?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll just have one thing to say
and that is the reason I've been pulling these is because we have an
appraiser that gives us a very, very low ball figure, each one that I've
been pulling, and the -- we pay then to have the property owner
negotiate, and we pay through the nose. We offer the guy 25,000,
we've paid 90,000 in expert fees and attorney's fees, and we're -- and
we're paying an outlandish amount more. And there seems to be
something broken in this system.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know anything at all about
the appraisal business, but there's definitely something wrong when
our lawyers' fees and expert witness fees cost more than what we'd
offered to pay for the land in the first place. Maybe we're not
offering the right amount, maybe it's not a fair amount, maybe we're
aggravating it so that they sue us and get money for property that
they'll never be able to use ever. I just think we're going about this
all wrong, so that's why I brought it forward in the first place.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to see maybe a study made
or a workshop made so we can get some input in regards to -- maybe
we don't have to go that far, maybe all we need to do is get another
appraiser so we have two appraisers from the county so, therefore,
we can strengthen our positions in regards to, you know, are we
making a fair assessment of what their property is worth?
Page 230
January 14, 2003
And I really feel that it's coming to the point where we need to
challenge where -- how much this right-of-way property is costing
us. And I really think that we need to take and put things in
perspective in regards to getting two appraisers -- two appraisals for
the county, and then the opposing side can get their appraiser, and
then we'll find out what's really going to happen here. Because I
can't believe that we have such a large variation in appraisers here.
And I'm hoping that it's not because the county's trying to low ball
somebody, or that the opposing side is trying to take us to the
cleaners.
And I guess where I'm coming from is we need to do something
so that what we can do is drive the point home and come up with a
good airtight case that where the county's going to win and there's
going to be a stop to this infringement of taxpayers' money.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: The only windfall is to the property
owner who could have never used the land anyway. And I just think
we need to reassess how we're evaluating land, assessing land.
Okay, any more discussion?
All those in favor?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed? Aye. 4-1, Donna Fiala
opposing.
MR. SMOLKER: Thank you for your patience.
Item # 12B
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE CASE OF KAREN LEE V.
DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES, CASE NO. 02-649-CC, AND
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ALL NECESSARY SETTLEMENT
Page 231
January 14, 2003
DOCI IMENTS - APPROVED
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And we go on to No. 12(B).
MR. MUDD: It's a recommendation that the board approve a
settlement agreement in the case of Karen Lee versus Domestic
Animal Services, Case No. 02-649-CC, and authorize the Chairman
to sign all necessary settlement documents. It will be presented by --
MS. BELPEDIO: I'm right here. Good evening,
Commissioners, I'm Jennifer Belpedio, I'm an assistant county
attorney.
I'd like to say first that it's a pleasure to be before you. This is
my first time here before the Board of County Commissioners.
Also what is a pleasure is that not only is staff, the county
attorney's office, in agreement for this particular settlement
agreement, but opposing counsel is as well. Hopefully I won't take up
too much time of yours.
I'm not sure if you know too much about dangerous dog
classifications here in the county. It's my understanding that you're
not involved in daily operations of some of these departments. With
that in mind, I'd like to inform you that there is a chapter in the
Florida statutes that allows -- or gives the county the authority to
pursue dangerous dog classifications against owners of dangerous
dogs.
The criteria for a dog to be declared dangerous is listed in 767,
is any dog that has aggressively bitten, attacked or endangered or has
inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private
property. There's also a second prong that states that if the dog has
more than once severely injured or killed a domestic animal while off
the owner's property, it shall be declared dangerous.
And part of the process that we have in Collier County is that
Animal Control will investigate any allegation of a dog bite attack,
endangerment, whatever the case may be. And what they do is they
Page 232
January 14, 2003
will receive affidavits and interview witnesses.
In this particular case, which is the case of Ms. Karen Lee, there
was an incident in Golden Gate Estates where two goats were taken
down by two dogs owned by Ms. Lee. It was determined by the
three-person appeals panel that we have here in Collier County -- that
appeals panel is appointed by John Dunnuck in public services over
there. And there's an opportunity for the dog owner to appeal the
finding of the three-person panel. And that's really where the case is
right now.
There is an appeal pending because two dogs have been
declared dangerous, both dogs owned by Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee's
attorney is also here, Casey Widenmiller. He's from the law firm of
Quarles and Brady. Certainly he's available to answer some
questions. He's taken an appeal and is essentially alleging that this
county hasn't set up an appeals process that's required in Chapter 767
to county court. There was a motion pending at that point.
Our office assessed the risks involved in pursuing the appeal, or
defending the appeal. We had advised staff that although we had a
legally defensible position, it may be best to resolve the case.
The settlement agreement that you have in your materials
essentially requires that these dogs comply with all of the
requirements that a dog who would be declared dangerous require.
And that would mean that if this settlement agreement was approved
by this commission, the two dogs would be required to be
permanently implanted with electronic implantation. Ms. Lee would
be required to advise Animal Control in writing and orally when any
of these dogs are loose, or has bitten a human, sold, given away.
She's also to present a certificate of rabies vaccination. She's to post
signs on her premises that states there's a dangerous dog on the
premises. And typically that's by putting a sign up that shows a head
of a ferocious animal that informs children that can't read that there's
a dog present.
Page 233
January 14, 2003
The difference that would occur if this agreement was signed
and a dog was fully declared dangerous, if the case was pursued and
the appeal dismissed, is that this agreement is for five years. So if
Ms. Lee is able to confine her dog for that period and not have any
further incident after five years, she'd no longer have to present any
additional information to the county. If a dog is declared dangerous,
it would be a permanent declaration and the person would have to
provide the county, you know, until the life of the dog is ceased.
Another difference is Ms. Lee will not be required to walk her
dogs with a muzzle. That is required in the statute. It's my
understanding that her dogs are not people aggressive, not even dog
or other domestic animal aggressive. So the decision was made that
it wasn't necessary that her dogs be muzzled.
And ultimately, if something were to happen and be proved that
her dogs were to bite somebody or bite another animal, then the
terms of the agreement would automatically spring into effect such
that the dog would automatically be declared dangerous and would
be the step closer to being destroyed. Of course it's not that if the
county accuses Ms. Lee of having dogs that have bitten somebody or
an animal that, you know, the dogs be destroyed; there would be
certain statutory requirements for appeals of that process, and that's
what due process provides for.
But if you have any questions. I don't know if I gave you too
much or too little, but--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta has one, and
then I'll call on Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually, I don't have a
question. I've dealt with this dog ordinance. In fact, I probably was
partly responsible for any errors that were written into it. If you
remember the Larry Park situation on Rock Road, that's where it all
got started. I see Mr. Sanchez here. And by the way, sir, thank you
very much for the donation of that horse to that young lady, that was
Page 234
January 14, 2003
a very noble thing to do.
I would like to make a motion that we accept this agreement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I have a motion from --
MS. FILSON: I have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Ready for the speaker?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First I'll just state I have a
motion on the floor from Commissioner Coletta and a second from
Commissioner Coyle. Thank you. We have speakers.
And I didn't know, Commissioner Henning, did you want to ask
any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Vicki Butler.
MS. BUTLER: Hi. For the record, my name is Vicki Butler
and I am speaking on behalf of myself, my husband and our children.
Karen Lee's dogs have visited our goats' pen on five different
occasions, beginning on October 12th, 2000. On that date I arrived
home from picking up our kids from school at about 3:00 p.m. We
heard dogs barking in the back and our goats bleating. The kids and
I, who were nine and six at the time, ran back to find Gracie and
Mercy standing over Jelly, one of our goats. Gracie, the pit bull, was
at her head, her throat had been torn apart. Mercy, the Jack Russell
Terrier, was at Jelly's feet. DAS was called and Jelly was euthanized.
On February 21st, 2001, Gracie and Mercy returned. None of
us were home, but fortunately our neighbors were. They found our
baby sheep we had bought hiding in a 55-gallon drum with Gracie
and Mercy at either end, trying to get at her. Our neighbors chased
the dogs away. Jolly, another goat, had blood on the back of one leg,
but it wasn't serious enough to require a veterinarian's care.
On November 19th, 2001, the dogs came back again. I arrived
Page 235
January 14, 2003
home to hear dogs barking, one of our goats crying. I ran back there
to find Gracie and Mercy. Mercy was chewing on Jolly's back leg as
Gracie was trying to get at her throat. Jolly was butting her with her
horns. I ran back to the house to call DAS and get my camera. By
the time I got back there, Jolly had managed to get up and was lying
in a different area. Gracie and Mercy were now chasing Josephine,
another goat. I yelled at them and they ran away, climbing over the
fence. Jolly was treated by Dr. Oliver at Pinegate Veterinary Center.
He performed surgery on her back right leg. Over 80 stitches were
used, trying to reconnect muscle tissue. Sadly, infection set in and
Jolly was euthanized on November 23rd.
On December 4th, 2001, they returned again. Once again, we
were not home, but our neighbor was. She chased the dogs away by
clapping her hands and yelling. Our neighbor has a small dog and an
18-month-old child. She wanted to make sure the dogs were locked
back up, so she went to Ms. Lee's house. Ms. Lee refused to come to
the door, but her son did. He told our neighbor they our goats were
prey for their dogs and we may as well get used to it. He then closed
the door, leaving Gracie and Mercy loose in the road.
In sheer frustration of the lack of action to take, I wrote a letter
to the editor of the Naples Daily News on December 6th, 2001. I
also contacted Commissioner Coletta and an investigator with the
State Department of Agriculture. I still can't understand how a dog
gets away with this, but that's neither here nor there.
Casey Lee, Ms. Lee's son, wrote a rebuttal letter to the editor,
comparing our situation to Jurassic Park.
Seeing no way to protect our animals, since Ms. Lee could not
keep her dogs from running loose, my husband installed barbed wire
at the top of the fence around the girls' pen. We also bought a llama
from some friends, as we were told they can be very vicious if
attacked.
On September 9th of this past year, we discovered the llama
Page 236
January 14, 2003
dead. It appeared he'd been struck by lightning. The smell was
horrible, so my husband poured lime on him to kill the smells so he
could dig a hole and bury him.
Before he could do this, Gracie and Mercy returned on
September 12th. Our neighbor heard them barking around 4:00 a.m.
He chased them out and went back to bed.
Around 7:30 a.m. I heard them barking and went back there.
They were chewing on the llama's bones, while Josephine and Jingle
hid up front. I kept Gracie and Mercy back there until DAS arrived.
On November 19th, they came back again. I looked out of our
lanai when I heard dogs barking and saw Gracie and Mercy chasing
Josephine and Jingle. I called the dogs by name and they came to
me. I was able to get leashes on both of them and waited for DAS to
arrive.
Now that you have the entire history of these dogs, I will
explain why we're here. These dogs were declared dangerous by a
Collier County review panel in March of 2002. Ms. Lee hired an
attorney, who claims proper procedures were not followed. And
that's why we have the settlement agreement here for your approval.
Quite frankly, we don't care. We've been violated on five
different occasions. And to add insult to injury, we have incurred
over $1,200 in vet bills and other expenses, which Ms. Lee was
ordered to pay by Collier County small claims court. We haven't
seen a dime of it.
And then to add further insult to injury, Ms. Lee E-mailed I
think probably everybody in this room claiming that my husband cut
the chain on her screen door and dognapped Gracie and Mercy.
This settlement -- the bottom line -- okay, the settlement
agreement also stipulates that the citations from September 12th be
waived. To allow that to happen would be a huge injustice to our
family. The dogs were loose and that fact cannot be disputed.
I would point out that since the settlement agreement was begun
Page 237
January 14, 2003
in April of last year, they have returned on two separate occasions.
Thankfully I was home, so there were no further deaths.
She's either unwilling or unable to control her dogs.
My kids still have nightmares. It's very emotional for our
family, as you can tell.
And, you know, bottom line, the statutes, I appreciate your
efforts on them, but they don't help the situation, because the dogs
are allowed to live. Bottom line. So that's all I have to say.
Oh, and I do want to thank, though, the county attorney's office
and Animal Control, John Dunnuck, they've all been extremely
helpful on the situation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, this is a situation that's
totally intolerable. We're kind of locked in with the state statutes,
giving us a certain amount of leeway, but stopping this short. The
problem is that the ordinance we wrote is being challenged. It needs
some more work to be able to make it foolproof.
This particular-- as much as I dislike this settlement agreement
and I think that Ms. Lee's been irresponsible in what she's been doing
with her animals, there's little choice that we have at this point in
time. To take this thing to court and prolong it and lose is not going
to be good stewards with the taxpayers' money.
However, into this agreement, there's all sorts of action that
takes place when it happens. And judging from what I've heard, I
don't know if you can ever expect it not to happen. This has been an
ongoing problem. We've seen it before where dogs were even
removed from the premises and euthanized and the people go right
back out and buy new ones and start the whole process over again.
It's very, very difficult.
I'm sorry about the small claims court. I thought it was a good
idea. I don't know where you go from there with it; I'm not an
attorney. I just wish there was a better answer.
Page 238
January 14, 2003
I realize one thing, though, that passing these ordinances in
itself does not stop this from happening. It's reactive after it happens.
And this is very traumatic. These people feel the same way about
their pets in some cases like they feel about children. They're very
close. It's a family situation.
In fact, they set up a program -- and I don't know if your family
was invited to join it -- with hospice with pet bereavement. And it's
helped quite a few people -- not quite a few, but it's helped some
people get over the trauma situation of what happened in dealing
with it. Because the loss of a pet in many cases is the same as a loss
of any family member.
If you're interested, I can make contact with you on that, if your
children might benefit from it. It may be something you want to look
into.
Meanwhile, I personally would like to be kept abreast of what is
happening on this situation. I don't know, I might come down to
your house and just sit in the back yard with one of my guns and see
how it works. But I wouldn't do that. I'm too responsible an adult to
get caught doing it anyway.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Yes, Commissioner
Henning, did you have something to say?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm ready to vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, I guess we're -- our hands
are tied here, and I feel very bad about the people who lost the goats,
and that I realize that this is a very tragic event.
What really concerns me on this whole deal is there hasn't been
any reports yet of-- and I say yet -- of these dogs attacking a small
child, and that really concerns me. What's to say that this dog, now
that it's in this mode of where it takes down small cattle, is not going
to start attacking humans. And that's what really concerns me.
And I'm hoping that if we agree on this amendment here, that
Page 239
January 14, 2003
the -- something will come out of this to whereby these dogs will
either be -- well, anyway, that it will be taken care of, the matter.
Because I'm very concerned that if it starts getting into children,
that's another matter. I mean, it's bad enough when somebody loses
their pets, but we've heard cases where dogs attacked that woman out
in San Francisco, and you really don't know right now what the --
what this dog will -- how this dog will react in the coming future. So
I'm concerned.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any other comments from the
Commissioners?
All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Passed, 5-0. Thank you.
Item # 10A
RESOLUTION 2003-37 AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION
OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE
PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS
REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-LANE
SECTION OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY BETWEEN
LIVINGSTON ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD.
ESTIMATED FISCAIJ IMPACT: $4,179,000- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us back to
transportation. And we'll start with Item 10(A), with your
Page 240
January 14, 2003
permission, and that's to adopt -- and Norman says he will do this as
briefly as he can, but he has to read some things that are mandatory
into the record.
This is to adopt a resolution authorizing the condemnation of fee
simple title interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement
interests required for the construction of a six-lane section of Golden
Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara
Boulevard.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, my name is Gregg
Strakaluse, director of engineering and construction management
department.
Item No. 10(A) is a condemnation resolution to acquire property
needed to expand the Golden Gate Parkway between Santa Barbara
Boulevard and Livingston Road.
The section of roadway generally between 60th Street
Southwest and 66th Street Southwest is not within the construction
limits of this particular project, because the Florida Department of
Transportation will be expanding that section of roadway to
accommodate for the 1-75 interchange.
The Parkway is currently a four-lane road and is planned to be
expanded to six lanes over the next year to year and a half.
In November of 2000, your board previously approved a 1.2
million dollar design contract for this project. Recently your board
also adopted the updated transportation division's five-year work
program, and most recently your board adopted the county 2003
fiscal year budget that allocates six million dollars for the
construction of this project. Each of these board actions considered
extensive planning data, engineering data and public input that I
would like to note in my presentation here today.
The expansion of the project has been -- of the Parkway has
been identified in long-range transportation planning since 1992. Due
to the existing traffic volumes that reach up to 30,000 vehicle trips
Page 241
January 14, 2003
per day, the existing road fails from a level of service standpoint.
And with the upcoming 1-75 interchange project scheduled in late
2004, the situation will become more hazardous to motorists if
nothing's done.
The improved section of the Parkway requires a minimum width
of 166 feet to a width of about 180 feet at the intersections. The
county currently has a 100-foot right-of-way easement for the
existing roadway. The improved road cross section would include
six travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, a grass median for turn bays.
The right-of-way will also encompass upgraded utilities, including a
natural gas main, water main, sewer main, telephone, electric and
cable services.
In regard to alignment of the corridor, the county is very
restricted by several conditions, most importantly the 1-75 overpass
and future interchange.
The development, including several residential communities
such as Naples Grande, Grey Oaks and several estate homes, are
present along the corridor route. Alternative routes would require
condemning numerous homes and entire lots.
The proposed expansion requires additional right-of-way from
properties along the existing roadway. Where there is developed
property, the designers have attempted to minimize the impacts to
these properties.
Staff will continue to negotiate settlements with property
owners via the gift and purchase resolution that was previously
approved by your board. However, the county, through -- would like
to proceed via this condemnation resolution through the eminent
domain process to construct the project in the best interest and safety
of the public.
Besides alternative routes, staff also considered public safety,
first and foremost. Environmental conditions, including threatened
and endangered species of plants and animals, of which there are
Page 242
January 14, 2003
none, aesthetics, neighborhood character, constructability,
stormwater management and cost.
The South Florida Water Management District has already
permitted this project. In August of last year a public meeting was
held to present the 90 percent plans. The evaluation of alternatives,
along with legal descriptions for the necessary property, are a part of
your package.
In regards to acquisition of right-of-way, whether for this
project or any project in the future, the department has implemented
a policy that does address scrutinizing these appraisals as they come
in. As the department requires appraisals to be done in these
properties, we now challenge the science of these appraisals. We
prepare a report, which is the new part of what we do that scrutinizes
the science and looks for consistency in regards to the corridor.
Based on these materials in my presentation, I'd ask that your
board approve the recommendations as outlined in the executive
summary.
Mr. Chris Wright, a representative from our consulting agency,
is here to assist with any technical questions regarding the project.
That concludes my presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Any questions from the
commissioners?
Commissioner Henning, I can't see your hand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do I hear --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second from Commissioner Coyle.
Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 243
January 14, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That passes 5-0.
Item # 1 OF
RESOLUTION 2003-38 RE CONDEMNATION OF FEE SIMPLE
TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL OR
TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-LANE SECTION OF VANDERBILT
BEACH ROAD BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR-951). ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT:
$5,765~600- ADOPTED
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, that brings us to Item 10(F).
That's adoption of a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee
simple title interests and/or those perpetual or temporary easement
interests required for the construction of a six-lane section of
Vanderbilt Beach Road between Airport Road and Collier Boulevard.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Vanderbilt Beach Road is currently a
two-lane road and is planned to be expanded to six lanes, with the
addition of new utilities as well. In November of 2000, your board
previously approved a 1.4 million design contract. And again, your
board adopted the updated transportation division five-year work
program and the county's 2003 budget that allocates $17 million for
the construction of this particular project.
The expansion of Vanderbilt Beach Road has been identified in
the long-range transportation plan since 1992. Due to existing traffic
volumes, this road also fails from a level of service standpoint. The
improved section of Vanderbilt Beach Road requires a minimum
width of 168 feet to a width of approximately 180 feet at the
Page 244
January 14, 2003
intersections. The county currently has a 60-foot right-of-way.
However, right-of-way commitments have been made by
development communities along the corridor.
The improved road cross section includes six travel lanes, bike
lane, sidewalks, grass median for turn bays. This right-of-way will
also encompass numerous utilities, including water, reclaimed water,
sewer, telephone, electric and cable services.
In regards to alignment of the corridor, the county is restricted
by several conditions, most importantly the 1-75 overpass and the
development communities, including several residential
communities, such as the Vineyards, The Orchards, Island Walk,
Wilshire Lakes and several other estate homes. Alternative
alignments require condemning numerous homes and entire lots.
The proposed expansion requires additional right-of-way from
properties along the existing roadway. Where there is developed
properties, our designers have again looked for ways to minimize
impacts to those properties.
Staff will continue to negotiate settlements with property
owners under the gift and purchase resolution. However, this
condemnation resolution would allow the county to proceed with
eminent domain process, if that becomes necessary to construct the
project in the interest of and the safety of the public.
Besides alternative routes, similar criteria were considered,
along with the Golden Gate Parkway project. Endangered species,
plants and animals, of which there are none on the project.
Discussions with the South Florida Water Management District
indicate that this project is reasonably likely to be permitted.
In June of 2001, a public meeting was held to present design
plans. The evaluation of alternatives, along with legal descriptions,
are again provided in your package. And based on these materials
and my presentation, I'd ask that your board approve the
recommendations outlined in the executive summary.
Page 245
January 14, 2003
Bill Gramer, from CH2MHill, the design consultant, is here to
answer any technical questions. That concludes my presentation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I might have misunderstood you,
Gregg, but did you say that they might take entire homes or entire
lots?
MR. STRAKALUSE: If alternative routes were to be pursued.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But they're not planning on doing
that here, right?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Th6 proposed right-of-way line does not
intersect any residential dwelling.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, that's what I wanted to hear.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Henning, do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A much needed project, and the
sooner we move on this, the better. So I'll make a motion to approve
the recommendation by staff.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning makes a
motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Halas seconds
that. Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This has passed as well.
Item # 1 OH
Page 246
January l4,2003
DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF A
PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE
OF PF, IJlCAN STRF, F,T IN ISIJF, OF CAPRI- APPROVFD
And we're on to 10(H).
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, and that's easements in the Isles of
Capri. And Ed Kant says he's going to be brief. I can't wait.
MR. KANT: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Edward Kant,
transportation --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's good, because I have to go to
the Isles of Capri Civic Association.
MR. KANT: -- operations director.
This will be a first. I promised the manager I'd do it in one
sentence. We need this easement so that we can construct the
sidewalk and save the taxpayers money. Is there any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hear a motion to approve from
Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I think we ought to give
Ed Kant some sort of trophy for doing it in one sentence.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, any
questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, all those in favor, say aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 247
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Passed.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, Ed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Gee, I think that completes our agenda.
MS. FILSON: Discussion.
MR. MUDD: Not quite.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Pardon me?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am, we need to go to 15. 15(A).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah, I just meant all of these
little items here. This is the windup, though, right? Thank you. So
we have everything -- we didn't miss anything on here, right? Staff
and commission. Okay.
Item #15A
DISCUSSION REGARDING HUMAN RELATIONS ORDINANCE
-DISCI ISSED
Very good, 15(A).
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. And this has to do with
Commissioner Halas. He had written a memo to myself and the
County Attorney David Weigel, talking about some other items that
he would like to have considered into the resolution and into the
course of action that we ultimately take as far as the human relations
ordinance. And I pass it over to Cormnissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, after we went through a
lengthy ordeal here in regards to the human rights issue that -- just
Page 248
January 14, 2003
before Christmas, I felt that when this came before the commission
again, that maybe some areas that we ought to really look at here is
that we establish an office via two staff people that are presently
employed with Collier County, whereby they address any issues as
far as discrimination.
And I feel that-- where I'm going on this is that I feel as a
county commissioner in Collier County here, that we ought to take --
establish a zero tolerance for any type of discrimination and,
therefore, if we have two people that are on staff that address these
issues of any type of discrimination, that we direct them to the proper
channels, and that would be to Tallahassee where they have the
lawyers and also the investigators to address these issues. And I
think that therefore, that we as commissioners would then not have to
worry about a redundance of authority, that these issues would be
addressed at Tallahassee. And I believe this is where it should be
done.
But I think what's happened in the past, if there has been any
issues, that people did not really recognize which way to go, and I
think we need to put up a -- set up an educational program, along
with these two staff people, so that everybody in Collier County is
directed and that everybody realizes that we take a stand of zero
tolerance on any type of discrimination.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, any
comments?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that's similar to what I wanted
to do when we were considering the human relations ordinance,
except for education of the community, using an advisory board.
I can accept what Commissioner Halas is proposing. I think that
we have existing staffing in human services to give direction to the
public that they felt they have been discriminated under the Florida
laws and federal law. Again, I'm fine with what he is proposing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Coyle?
Page 249
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I believe one of the real sticking
points about our last discussion concerning discrimination was what
constitutes discrimination. There are federal and state laws
concerning certain types of discrimination, but there's nothing that I
know of that addresses all types of discrimination and protects
everybody. And to ask a couple of county employees to make the
interpretation of whether or not discrimination has occurred in the
absence of specific guidelines is an almost impossible task.
The concept I think is good, but I don't believe that we have
people currently on staff who are sufficiently knowledgeable of all of
the state and federal discrimination laws who could sit down with
someone without doing an in-depth investigation, determine whether
or not discrimination has occurred.
But I do believe the process of communication is important, and
we can do that over the Internet. If people feel they have been
discriminated against, we can list all the agencies that they can direct
their inquiries to. If somebody comes to the county government, it
seems to me we should be able to find somebody who could say well,
you need to talk with this state agency or this federal agency. But I
would like to keep our staff out of the business of trying to determine
if discrimination has occurred. Because I think it's beyond our
abilities. I couldn't do it, I know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that's what I was trying to
say -- and if I directed you wrong -- and that's all there was, is the
staff people would just direct those people, they'd forward them to
the area that they needed to be concerned. That's why they have
lawyers up in Tallahassee that deal with this, investigators. And then
from there they would take it from that point I think is the way I
wanted to put this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The Florida Human Relations
Commission probably would be the first stop for any of them. And I
guess it would be relatively easy for us to post that information on
Page 250
January 14, 2003
the website, maybe even run it on Channel 11 from time to time, who
to contact in the event that you believe you've been subjected to
discrimination, and of course have somebody here at the office if
they're called, maybe at Human Resources, if they're called and a
question is raised, they can refer them to the appropriate people.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, I just want to make sure that you
know what you've directed us to do from before --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: -- okay, because it was before the holidays, and
you don't know what holidays do to everybody and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Things change on a monthly basis.
MR. MUDD: Things change. Well, it's a new year and we
don't know how much of the information we lost.
You told us to come back to you with a resolution about
nondiscrimination in Collier County, and we're working on that. You
told us to inquire if the Hispanic advisory board -- Hispanic affairs
advisory board would like to disband, and to contact the Black
advisory board to see if they would disband, in an effort to
reassemble an advisory board for human relations.
We have done that in the Hispanic advisory -- Hispanic affairs
advisory board's case, and they have said no, they do not want to
disband. And so Ramiro, since he sits on that board --
MR. WEIGEL: Ramiro does not sit on the board, he's just the
staff liaison to the board.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. Thank you, David.
He is asking that particular board to clarify their intent, their
mission statement, their goals for this year, so that we can present
those to the board to see if the board still wants to continue that
particular advisory board for the coming year or not. And that was
part of the thing. Ask the boards if they decide to stay in existence as
advisory boards for this board to please clarify their intent and their
help for this particular board in the coming year.
Page 251
January 14, 2003
So we're doing that as we speak, okay, in those items. And
that's what we've been told to do, and then to come back to you and
report to you and bring back that resolution. And we can incorporate
those things that Commissioner Halas has in his particular memo in
the particular actions that we are working on.
And it is not a chore to put a discrimination hotline on our
website so that folks can get their -- nor provide a card to provide to
every phone operator that we have in Collier County, if they get a
call that somebody claims they can direct them to a different number
to facilitate the connection between the human affairs commission at
Tallahassee or the State of Florida so people can get investigations
on acts that they think are discriminatory in any kind of nature.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could just elaborate in a little
greater length concerning my concept of this thing. I am concerned
that the community is not going to feel that their objectives have
been served unless they have some kind of method of communicating
with us and advising us about the potential problems and about their
beliefs about discrimination. And I think that an advisory board is
important. I think it is important that we consolidate advisory
boards.
I do not like the idea of dividing groups of people into -- along
racial or ethnic backgrounds. I think the best thing we can do for the
community is get everybody working together. If people insist on
separating themselves, we're never going to get to the point of
resolving issues of discrimination because, quite frankly,
discrimination or perception of discrimination is largely the result of
an inability to communicate and understand someone else's position.
And the only way we solve that is to sit down and get people talking
together.
And I would say to you, I think the administrative procedures
we're establishing here are good, I think they'll serve a good purpose,
Page 252
January 14, 2003
but I still believe that we should not let our advisory boards dictate
our policy. We should dictate the policy here and we should set the
advisory boards as we see fit. And I believe that we still should
proceed with forming a single advisory board that would deal with
discrimination and/or any other issues with any group in Collier
County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I hear
everybody, what we're saying. I believe the direction we gave to
staff at the prior meeting when we discussed the whole situation was
adequate, with the addition of-- with the addition of what
Commissioner Halas has come up with, which I believe we already
have been in agreement with also.
But before we try to make any kind of conclusions tonight, this
is 6:00, five after 6:00, I think we ought to let it rest a little while
longer. I personally am opposed to the abandonment of the advisory
board without having a report back from them. And I'm not too
excited about coming up with a board that's just going to deal with
matters of discrimination. But I'd like to leave that at a future
meeting or workshop when this could be brought back.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I've spoken to some people
from the Hispanic advisory board and they've discussed it amongst
themselves as well as at a board meeting, and they all felt -- they
reported back to me and said that they wanted to say they felt that
their goals were in a different direction. They feel this is a great idea
to create another committee or something for people to talk with, but
they felt that their goals and objectives went in a different direction,
much needed direction for their community, and they wanted to stay
intact.
And I believe they have pretty good attendance at their meetings
as well. They seem to be pretty excited about the new members that
they've elected, and so -- and they're looking forward to moving on.
Page 253
January 14, 2003
So I agree, that they do want to stay intact. I think it's -- Commissioner Henning?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I just bring one thing to your
attention. Jim Mudd, the director. I just want you to remember, just
so you understand, you have 54, maybe even more now, okay, 58 or
60 advisory boards. And I hope they're advising you, okay?
Because I'm going to tell you, I haven't seen a whole lot of advice
come through my office vis-a-vis yours a courtesy copy. I just want
to remember, you've got a lot of staff time. And I'll defend the staff
now, be the champion of that shield and sword. Okay, you've a lot of
staff and you pay them a lot of money, and they're going to these
board meetings. And I want to make sure that these boards, these
advisory boards that you've got are actually working for this board.
And if they're not, we really need to think about do we really need
them. Because right now just to have a board for a board sake
because the board -- that sub-board or sub-committee thinks it's a
good idea and they're having some benefit, they need to prove that
they're serving a useful purpose for you. Because it's your board.
And I can't tell you enough, I've seen it, and I've only been here
for two years, and I know, and I don't want to step on anybody's toes
in that particular matter, but I've got to tell you, I haven't seen a
whole lot of boards working for you as commissioner, making your
life easier, bringing the community's ideas forward to you and
making sure that you're on top of the issues, okay?
And I would -- and I don't want to undercut anybody, okay?
When we had that problem in River Park, we had a Black advisory
board, okay, and hopefully they had their finger on the pulse, okay?
And I don't mean to undercut anybody. And now all of a sudden we
have a cry for a human relations advisory board. And I'm just trying
to figure out how is it going to get us to the next level, okay?
And I just want to make sure that we have advisory boards for
this board that are producing a viable product and doing a viable
Page 254
January l4,2003
service for you. And we really need to do that, because we are at the
verge of having more advisory boards for the sake of having boards,
and I'm not too sure they're giving you anything as far as value added
is concerned.
And I guess they'll be mad at me, but the proof is in the
pudding, and I can't wait to see it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to see a list of all of those
advisory boards, by the way. And maybe -- MS. FILSON: I'll get you one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good. Maybe we could all have
one and check to see how many we actually do hear from.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. And an
advisory board, you've got to remember too that this is the one level
that people that want to get involved can get involved with their
government. I do agree that they should be productive and they
should serve a purpose as far as advising us. Some of them are
stellar. I mean, our planning commission that's out there, we couldn't
operate at the mode that we're operating with and handle the load that
we're having if it wasn't for them. The code enforcement board, they
may have some ups and downs occasionally, but hey, I tell you, they
serve a very useful purpose. They stand up to people that have
violated the code and serve the purpose.
Now, I agree with you, and I've taken them to task, the Hispanic
advisory board has fallen a little bit behind. I have seen very little
advice come to them (sic) except a referendum once a year, or a
request for a ref-- a petition for the farm workers. Other than that,
they haven't. I've talked to them a number of times about that. I said
if you can't find a purpose to what you're doing, then maybe you
should disband. And that's what I understand. I suggested they have
a visioning session, a workshop, whatever, and they told me they
were going to be doing that. Let's see if they do that before we get to
Page 255
January l4,2003
the point we take the knife and start cutting.
I am really not excited at all about a discrimination advisory
board out there to come back and try to advise us on discrimination.
We're all in agreement that that's in the eyes of the beholder. I'd
rather leave that for Tallahassee or Washington D.C. to handle than
handle it at a local level and having to listen to the rhetoric that's
going to come from it and will go nowhere. And it's going to be
never ending.
But once again, that's an item that's coming back to us for
consideration, and maybe there'll be some other evidence that will
come at that time that will make me reconsider my thoughts on it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm next on the speaking list, I
think.
I really don't want to take any action to create another board. I
wouldn't support the human relations board if it means it's going to
set up another board. I mean, it's ludicrous. There's no way we
should have 56 or 58 advisory boards here. They don't do that much.
Some of them we can't even name. We don't even know -- I'd
challenge anyone on this board to name more than a dozen boards.
Code enforcement board's not an advisory board, planning
commission is not an advisory board. Those are people who have
specific functions. But advisory boards, just like the county
manager, I wonder what they do except take up a lot of time and
effort.
Now, if somebody wants to get involved in work, I think that's
wonderful. I'd like to encourage them to do it. So let's -- why don't
we do this, why don't we ask and do this on an annual basis, ask
every advisory board to give us a one-year work plan of what it is
they intend to accomplish that year, and then report to us on their
progress. And at the end of that period of time, if we don't think their
progress has been substantial, then we have the option of disbanding
it. Quite frankly, I'd like to see these things sunset every year, and
Page 256
January 14, 2003
just -- the board just phase out, unless we agree to continue it for
another year. Because I just think that 56 and 58 is absolutely
ridiculous, it's a waste of taxpayer money and a waste of our time.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, right now you've got a four-year
review cycle, and you review about 13 or so every year, so that you
get to see all of them every four years. And they're supposed to
come forward to you with that report and lay that out in front of the
board at the podium.
Go ahead, Sue, you can help me a little.
MS. FILSON: And I think it's early in the year, like March.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're going to get something
from 13 of them --
MS. FILSON: I don't know how --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- in March?
MS. FILSON: -- many there are. I have a list, and I can
provide that list to you as well. But they do report to you every four
years.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning, do you
have any comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Every four years?
MS. FILSON: Every four years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. I agree with Commissioner
Coyle. And these 13 that's going to report, if you could direct the
chairman to write them a letter and ask them to give us their work
product for this upcoming year to report on that also, I think that
would be prudent, along with getting a full list to the Board of
Commissioners so we can look at it in detail.
But at this time I think that we beat this issue up quite a bit.
You might want to consider moving on to the county manager's and
county attorney's report.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I just wanted to make sure
we actually got back onto the subject, and that was Commissioner
Page 257
January 14, 2003
Halas's suggestion. Are we saying that we want to come back and
take a look at that? Okay, just so that I clear that up in my own head.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Henning.
David, do you have any comments to make as we come to the
close of our meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: No, nothing that I cafft tell you another time.
Thank you.
Item #15B
WORKSHOP TO BE HELD REGARDING THE SIGN
ORD1NANCF~ ON JANIIARY 29. 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. And Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Oh, I hate having to beat the dead horse to death,
but here we go, one more time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we'd better sit back for this
one.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
In November, right after Commissioner Carter left and
Commissioner Halas was sworn in, we talked about an item at 9(A),
which was a discussion regarding the revision of the sign ordinance
to allow for neon open signs at establishments. Okay? And the
answer was because we didn't have super majority, we were going to
take no action.
Today we talked about flag pole and flag pole heights. And
that's part of the sign ordinance. The new sign ordinance is going to
be in effect, enforceable on 1 February. Now, there's been an
opportunity that came about at Commissioner Fiala's committee on
affordable housing, and it had to do with inclusionary zoning, if I
understand, last night. And that committee asked for a little bit more
time, about 60 to 90 days more --
Page 258
January 14, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sixty days.
MR. MUDD: -- before they report back to this board.
Now, we had a workshop scheduled with this board on the 29th
of January. You also have a board meeting on the 28th of January.
If you want us to go over the sign ordinance one more time so
everybody on this board is comfortable with what was approved in
'99 and that you're going to be held accountable for and get pinged
on on a regular basis as we --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That we weren't here to decide on
originally.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: We have the opportunity to have a workshop.
And I'll bring Joe in here with his sign ordinance folks and we'll go at
that in some detail for you at that workshop. And if you tell us or
direct us -- and I'm not saying we're going to change the ordinance
enforcement date, 1 February is it -- but if you tell us not to enforce
that ordinance until our next meeting, or you want us to change the
ordinance and come back and do that in particular items, then I think
we can accomplish that. But to wait for a workshop sometime in the
spring to talk about that after people have taken things out, taken
poles out or whatever, and then all of a sudden you say okay, it's
okay to put them back up again, you're going to jerk people around,
and I don't think we want to do that.
So I'm going to ask -- and I understand what happened at that
meeting in November, no action because we didn't have super
majority. I'm just going to ask one more time --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Super majority?
MR. MUDD: Yes, in order to make a land development code
change, you need four votes out of this commission. It's just not a
simple majority of three to two. And it died because two
commissioners didn't want to go forward with the neon sign side of
Page 259
January 14, 2003
the house.
I'm asking one more time, do you want us to come back on the
29th to workshop and show you what the new sign ordinance is
going to be and get any final direction from the board as far as that's
done? And if you do, we can fit it in because of the 29th -- we can fit
it in anyway, but the 29th just happened to be opened, and I can put
that in there.
And don't feel like you're committed to a date because it's open,
I need to fill it up. We just won't have one. That's okay, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, it might be --
Commissioner Henning has mentioned repeatedly about evening
signs (sic). That might be an evening sign workshop. An evening
workshop for signs. Because maybe you've got the business owners
who could then come in the evening, as a suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, may I help
you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We had two commissioners that
were defending on -- to change the land development code for the
sign ordinance. If they're not willing to hear the item again, then
probably the proper place to do this is just on our own television
station to -- for that to interview the staff and tell the public what the
new sign ordinance is, so the public can be aware of it. The public
always needs to be refreshed on laws that come up, and this will also
give the commissioners an opportunity to view it also.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I was one of the dissenting
votes. But at the time we were talking specifically about neon signs.
And I am very concerned about the proliferation of neon signs, but
I'm not too disturbed at all by, you know, a simple open or closed
sign. I think we can deal with that, if the staff can enforce that
effectively. And I would be willing to reconsider it.
Page 260
January 14, 2003
My problem is I don't know what was done in 1999 with respect
to this sign ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, me neither.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But yet we're going to be held
responsible for it when it goes into effect in February, as the county
manager has said. And I would like to take a shot at understanding
what is likely to happen to people, and maybe modify the sign
ordinance, because I don't believe that the business of government is
to make it difficult for people to do business, and so I would be
willing to reconsider it.
But beyond that, when it -- whatever the schedule is for
reconsidering it, I think we should give the county manager direction
not to begin enforcing the sign ordinance on the 1st of February;
otherwise, something bad's going to happen.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And Commissioner Coletta?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you can give me that direction at
that workshop on the 29th after you see all the ramifications of that
ordinance and what it does.
And the real effect -- I guess the real hardship, and I don't want
to undermine anybody that has to put in a new commercial
establishment for signage and things like that, but that's the ordinance
that's in effect, and they're going to build and put that sign up
accordingly. What you have are established commercial properties
that have had signs that used to meet our code. And I know we had a
three-year ramp-in period for those folks to convert and stuff like
that, but I will also tell you, not everybody's there.
And I really think it would be prudent if the board would --
because we have a lot of-- there's not a commissioner here that was
here when that sign ordinance was approved, and it would behoove
us if we spent a little bit more time knowing exactly what was going
to happen two days from that workshop so that you knew it, and if
you didn't feel comfortable with it in a particular area you'd say hey,
Page 261
January 14, 2003
wait a minute, we want to adjust, and then we can adjust that
particular ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know I'd sure feel more
comfortable with it.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I'll tell you, when
this came up in '99, I was working with the Chamber of Commerce to
try to see what we could do to modify it to make it work for the
public. I got absolutely nowhere. I got, what do you want to call it,
totally ignored, couldn't get appointments. It was one of those
things. I was very frustrated. I've been very frustrated by the
ordinance that came out. And I would very much welcome -- and
Commissioner Coyle, I really appreciate the fact that you're willing
to look at it with an open mind.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, me too.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm a nice guy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You certainly are. Let's go
home.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just keep telling me, pretty soon I'll
believe it.
Commissioner Henning, any comments?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are we under commissioner
comments?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, not yet. We're still working on
Mr. Mudd's comments. And it looks like we're sending him back to
put this workshop together for us so we all better understand the sign
ordinance. And I didn't know if you had any comments to make on
the sign ordinance before we move on, but you can be the first one to
make commissioner comments.
You have something on sign ordinance?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Hold on, let me just check
Page 262
January 14, 2003
to see if Commissioner Henning had -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: I concur, I can agree to a workshop
on the 29th.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I was just going to ask if the 29th
was going to be soon enough, whatever we came up with in the
workshop, to make any changes or whatever needs to be done. So I
guess where I'm going is do you think we should have the workshop
before the 29th?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'm going to ask David after this
is over, and we're going to spend some time talking about ordinances.
And if David thinks -- I need to talk to legal on this one, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, because I don't think there's
enough time to work--
MR. MUDD: And I'm not too sure a workshop, whenever we
schedule it, is going to give you enough time. I need to find out from
David if you need to have an amendment to the ordinance that says
we will not enforce preexisting on the 28th of January and have it
advertised tomorrow. If that's the case, then I'll get that advertised
and we'll bring it to the board at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Why can't we give you the
guidance right now not to enforce it until we have a workshop to
review it? Is there any reason we can't do that right now?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, the law is in place regardless, effective at
a particular point in time. But it's the law and it's in place and if
there's a policy of nonenforcement, to a certain degree it's not
problematical. There are always those who out in the business world
who claim well, I'm affected adversely if you don't enforce the law.
And so we could have that kind of factor coming into play, too.
But this is a little bit like zoning in progress. We've got
something in progress here. The public is going to be made aware of
it through today's discussion from today's meeting and publications
Page 263
January 14, 2003
and things of that nature. And that will be important for the public
and the interested parties in general.
In regard to a workshop on the 29th or earlier or later, it takes
staff time to prepare for workshops. To do a workshop earlier than
that, we probably wouldn't give you the product that we'd be satisfied
with, and we want you and the public and anyone who attends or
follows it vicariously through other sources to have the best
workshop that they can have. And I think that the benefits of having
it not before the 29th, but the 29th or thereabouts, is probably the
best compromise we can come up with to provide some real
government service, both internally and externally to the affected
public.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, one of my problems is that
the workshop on the 29th is going to give the public two days
advance notice if we decide to not enforce it on the l st; is that not
right?
MR. MUDD: You have been enforcing the law for all new
businesses. You've been doing that since '99.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm talking about the ones that are
currently installed.
MR. MUDD: That are in violation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That are in violation, that's right.
MR. MUDD: And David is basically saying you can give us
direction to not enforce that on those particular businesses until we
have time to change the ordinance. At the end of that workshop, if
you tell us we want to -- we don't want flag poles to be 50 foot, we
want them to be 52 feet and a half, and I'm being a little flippant right
now because it's getting late, but you want it to be a different height,
73 feet, whatever it is.
If that's what you decide, then we'll go about writing that
ordinance, advertising that ordinance and get it to the board as fast as
we can so that we can change that, and that will be the thing that we
Page 264
January 14, 2003
enforce.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm a business owner, I've
got a sign, it is not in compliance. I'm thinking that on February the
1 st I'm going to get cited for this sign if I don't take it down. I'm
going to start taking it down pretty quickly. And then on the 29th I
find out whoops, these guys are going to change this thing. Maybe I
don't have to take my sign down at all.
MR. MUDD: Sir, they're not going to change it until they get
their first warning, okay? I'll be honest with you. I mean, the guy
that's got -- my barber, for instance, okay, and I won't tell you where
my barber is, but I see him every two weeks. Unlike Leo, my hair is
-- but he's got a barber sign, okay, and an open sign and another sign
underneath in neon. And they're rather large. They're almost as big
as this United We Stand poster in the front. And all of them are
combined. He hasn't taken them down, nor is he going to take them
down until the effective date of when people are going to come by
and give him a warning. And I will tell you, our folks won't go in
there and say here's your fine because you didn't do the sign. They're
going to walk in there just like we did parking, you know, five cars in
the driveway. We're going to go in there, we're going to do a sweep,
and we're going to give warnings to everybody and say hey, you're
violating and this is the reason why. And then we're going to give
them time to correct it, and we're going to go back again and that's
when we're going to go in there and say hey, you didn't really listen
to my warning.
So Commissioner, we're not going to go in there with axes and
machetes and hold them to the -- we're going to let them know and
then we're going to try to get them in compliance voluntarily without
having to go through the Code Enforcement Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Let me just refresh my memory. I
know I've got a senior moment, but I thought that on the 19th what
Page 265
January 14, 2003
we were voting on was whether to have an open sign in the window,
a neon sign, and that's what we voted on; am I correct? MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just the neon sign, whether you
could have an open sign, and we said no, we don't want an open sign
in there.
MR. MUDD: That's right. Because you didn't have super
majority. And I just wanted to make sure --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You had to have super majority?
MR. MUDD: In order to do a land development code change,
you have to have four votes. And Commissioner Henning -- and I
have the minutes here from that meeting, Commissioner Henning
very astutely said that you were wasting our time and staffs time if I
don't have four votes on this board. And there were two members of
the board that said I'm not changing the neon sign piece of the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that was Coletta and Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fred Coyle said that you could
call him at his house at any time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: With that, I'll get comments from
commissioners.
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, we'll set that workshop up for the
29th.
MS. FILSON: And is the workshop that's currently scheduled
canceled? Because I haven't been notified.
MR. MUDD: It's postponed. And Commissioner Fiala's going
to tell us when she wants to do that again. I just found out about this
in e-mail and I said, well, we might have an opening there.
MS. FILSON: So we're going to have a sign workshop.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
Page 266
January 14, 2003
Item #15C
CHAIRMAN TO WRITE LETTER TO EDC REGARDING THEIR
RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW THE COUNTY CAN SAVE
MONF. Y RFJGARDING RIGHT-OF-WAYS
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now we'd like to hear comments
from the commissioners. And we'll start with Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
First of all, I want to thank you for assisting me in running the
meeting today. That was very generous of you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also want to thank the -- all the
commissioners for electing me chairman. And what I hope to do is
any way that we can streamline the meeting, I'll bring that forward.
But the way I look at the chairman's seat is he's only a spokesman for
the Board of Commissioners. We work as a team. And that's the way
I consider being a board of commissioner or even a chairman is part
of the team.
So with that, I want to thank you very much for allowing me to
conduct business at a remote location.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And thank you. I hope you're
feeling better. And you're our team leader this year. It's nice to have
you aboard.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say it was a very
fruitful day today. I think it was an exciting day, and I look forward
to working with you as the vice-chair, and I look forward to working
with Commissioner Henning as the chair person.
And Mr. Coletta, I want to thank you very much for the year
that you spent here. And I feel that you brought a lot here to the
Page 267
January 14, 2003
board, and it was wonderful to work with you in the short period of
time that I've been here, and you're a great person.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
And Commissioner Coletta, have any comments?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm just trying to find
something nice to say about Commissioner Halas. And you are also,
Commissioner Halas. And I thank you very much for allowing me to
be your chair for this past year and I enjoyed it. It was a wonderful
experience.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Back in November, I believe it
was, I brought a motion before the board, it was subsequently
approved unanimously by the board, to establish a committee to
review the purchase of right-of-way and find more efficient ways to
get the right-of-way purchases done. And the board authorized that
and I began to work with the county attorney's office, trying to work
out a way that might be done in the -- under the sunshine provisions
with the county sanctioned committee.
And the more I looked at it, the more I realized I wasn't really
comfortable it could be done that way. One of the problems is that in
order to get the skills necessary to evaluate these processes, you're
going to have to have attorneys, you're going to have to have real
estate attorneys, trust attorneys, you're going to have a wide range of
very specific skills of people who in fact might very well be earning
money from doing the things they're recommending to us. You see,
if they recommend certain methods of using trusts or donations and
we adopt that, they might very well establish a trust or handle a
donation in their business. So it creates some difficult constraints.
So I talked with Robin Doyle at the EDC and asked them if they
would be willing to take on a task like this and to assemble the
necessary skills and present them to us as a recommendations from
the EDC, because they have taken a great interest in this process.
Page 268
January 14, 2003
And his answer was yes, they would be delighted to do that.
So what I'm asking the board to do now is to request the
chairman to send a letter to the EDC, formally requesting that they
provide us with some recommendations concerning how we can
reduce the cost of right-of-way.
And by the way, the discussion we had earlier today about why
we're paying so much money for right-of-way, part of it has to do
with state law. And we're going to have to get involved in that,
because believe it or not the state requires that a lawyer be paid a
certain amount of money, whether you go to court or not.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: By us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: By us.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just looking at the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so as I understand it, what
happens is we put in a bid of $100,000, and the -- or our appraisers
establish a value of $100,000, the property owner's appraiser
establishes it at $200,000. That immediately obligates us to pay at,
what is it, David--
MR. WEIGEL: Thirty--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 30 percent of the difference to
the lawyer. Even if we settle the next day, we're hit with 30 percent
of the difference between the appraisals. Really dumb law.
So we won't be able to solve that one here, but maybe we can
formulate some recommendations that our legislative delegation can
deal with.
So if we could just formally request the EDC to give us some
recommendations concerning how we might be able to solve that
problem, I think it would be beneficial to everybody.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'm the last one. Are there any
other comments from anybody? Okay, I'll just be the last one to wind
up then and say good night to all, it was a great meeting.
Tom, get better soon.
Page 269
January 14, 2003
Jim, you were a great leader. Enjoyed working with you. And I
thank you all for the honor of electing me as vice-chair. I truly
appreciate it.
I want to say it's always nice to see Cheryl back at the back of
the room there. And I want to say happy birthday to my daughter for
tomorrow.
Thank you. Good night.
Meeting adjourned.
***** Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item # 16A 1 - DELETED
Item #16A2
RESOLUTION 2003-01 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "RIVERCHASE
COMMONS"- WITH RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE
SF, CI JRITY
Item #16A3
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "SATURNIA LAKES
PLAT THREE", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECI JRlTY
Page 270
January 14, 2003
Item #16A4
RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "GOLDEN GATE FIRE
STATION #72"
Item #16A5
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2001-016 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. VICTOR
A. HANSEN REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE 91-
102, AS AMENDED, OF SECTIONS 2.7.6.1, 2.7.6.5 AND
2.6.11.2.2 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A6
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-016 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
KATHLEEN SADLACEK REGARDING VIOLATION OF
ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED, OF SECTION 3.9.6.9.4
(1, 2 & 3) OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-102 OF THE COLLIER
COl JNTY I~AND DF, VF, I,OPMF, NT CODF,
Item #16A7
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-017 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
JEFFREY A. DORINI REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
2.7.6.1 AND 2.7.6.5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS
Page 271
January 14, 2003
AMENDED, OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVEI,OPMENT CODE
Item #16A8
RESOLUTIONS 2003-02 THROUGH 2003-14 PROVIDING FOR
THE ASSESSMENT OF LIENS FOR THE COST OF THE
APlATEMENT OF Pl IFII.IC NI HSANCES
Item #16A9
REQUEST TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
(DCA) TO EXTEND THE COUNTY'S GRANT AGREEMENT
FOR A FLORIDA SMALL CITIES AND COUNTIES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THAT
PROVIDES FOR A PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE MANUFACTURING INCUBATOR FACILITY II AT THE
IMMOKAIJEE REGIONAl. AIRPORT INDI ISTRIAI~ PARK
Item #16Al0
MORTGAGE AND PROMISSORY NOTE FOR A ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND ($138,000) DOLLAR
LOAN FROM THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP (S.H.I.P.) PROGRAM TO THE ST. MATTHEWS
HOI JSE OF COIJ.IER COl INTY. INC.
Item #16Al 1
CARNIVAL PERMIT 2003-01 TO CONDUCT A FAIR JANUARY
31 ST THROUGH FEBRUARY 9, 2003, AT THE COLLIER
COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS ON IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846)
Page 272
January 14, 2003
NORTH GOI~DEN GATE ESTATES
Item gl 6A12- CONTINUED TO JANUARY 28, 2003
APPROVED ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REFUND TOTALING
$3~970.00: AS A REFIIJII~D FROM A HOIISE FIRE
Item #16A13
FY-03 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $117,000
TO ACCOMPLISH THE PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR THE
CONSERVATION COIJJER I,AND ACOIIISITION PROGRAM
Item #16A14
RESOLUTION 2003-15 TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES AND
NAME OF THE FIDDLER'S CREEK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, PURSUA~NT TO SECTION 190.046,
FIJORIDA STATI ITES
Item #16A15
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 1998-213 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. EMC
HOLDING, INC. REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A16
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
Page 273
January 14, 2003
CASE NO. 1998-144 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. EMC
HOLDING, INC. REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A17
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-191 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. EMC
HOLDINGS, INC. REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 9-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16A18
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2000100019 STYLED BOARD OF COLrNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. PHILIP
CARLTON, JR. REGARDING VIOLATION OF ORDINANCES
NO. 99-51 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE
Item #16B 1 - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 28, 2003
APPROVED CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 WITH BONNESS, INC. IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,390,146.36 FOR ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO BUILD A BRIDGE AT
LAKELAND AVENUE OVER THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL,
PROJECT NC). 65041
Page 274
January 14, 2003
Item #16B2
APPROVED THE PIGGYBACKING OF PASCO COUNTY'S BID;
#02-101F WITH NORTRAX EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A SINGLE DRUM VIBRATORY ROLLER FOR
THFJ ROAD MAINTFNANCE DFJPARTMENT
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2003-16 REQUESTING THAT THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSFER SURPLUS
PROPERTY LOCATED ON US-41 TO COLLIER COUNTY VIA
QIIITCI,AIM DF, FD. FISCAI, IMPACT: $15.00
Item # 16B4
DECLARATION SETTING ASIDE COUNTY-OWNED LANDS
FOR IMMOKALEE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FOR
STORMWATER RETENTION AND TREATMENT. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $28.50/
Item gl 6B5
AWARD BID #02-3412 FOR TRAFFIC SIGN MATERIALS TO
OSBURN ASSOCIATES INC. AND MUNICIPAL SUPPLY AND
SIGN COMPANY IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
,q 100~000.00
Item # 16B6
AWARD CATEGORY GROUPING SECTIONS OF BID NO. 02-
3394 "TRAFFIC OPERATIONS COMPONENTS" TO: CONTROL
Page 275
January 14, 2003
SPECIALISTS COMPANY, TRAFFIC PARTS, INC., TEMPLE,
INC., TRAFFIC PRODUCTS, INC., AND TRANSPORTATION
CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF
$147,000.00
Item gl 6B7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO CARRY FORWARD FUNDS TO
REOPEN A PURCHASE ORDER IN FY-03 THAT WAS CLOSED
Inly MISTAKE IN FY-02 IN THE AMOIJNT OF $41,062.54
Item #16B8
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,317.00 TO
ADD REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES TO THE MCGEE &
ASSOCIATES CONTRACT FOR US-41 NORTH PHASE II AND
DAVIS FIOIIIJEVARD IJANDSCAPING RENOVATION PHASE li
Item gl 6B9 - WITHDRAWN
PURCHASE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND A NOISE
BARRIER SYSTEM FOR $97,904 FROM NOISE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES FOR PROJECT LOCATED ALONG THE
WEST SIDE OF THE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT YARD
AND THE ONSITE GENERATOR AT 4800 DAVIS
1:10111JEVARD
Item # 16B 10
CHANGE ORDER AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE
IMMOKALEE TRIANGLE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT #66071
IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,514.35 FOR THE REMOVAL OF
Page 276
January 14, 2003
EXISTING ASPHALT AND THE EXTENSION OF
DIRECTIONAIJ BORINGS
Item # 16B 11
AWARD BID #02-3430 MILLING OF EXISTING ASPHALT
ROADWAYS TO BETTER ROADS, INC. AS PRIMARY
VNEDOR AND BONNESS, INC. AS THE SECONDARDY
VENDOR FOR THE APPROXIMATE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF
$507000
Item #16B 12 - CONTINUED TO JANUARY 28, 2003
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR $142,337.00 FOR
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTIONS
SERVICES BY HDR CONSTRUCTION CONTROL
CORPORATION TO ADD INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAKELAND AVENUE BRIDGE
(PROJECT NO. 65041 ~
Item # 16C 1
SURPLUS DELCARATION FOR TWO BEACH RAKES AND
APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF ONE OF THE TWO BEACH
RAKES TO THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTATIVE, IN
THE AMOIINT OF $4~999
Item #16C2
RESOLUTION 2003-17 FOR THE SATISFACTION OF LIENS
FOR SOLID WASTE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN
THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS
Page 277
January 14, 2003
ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1992 SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $18.00 TO RECORD THE
I~IF, NS
Item #16C3
RESOLUTION 2003-18 FOR 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 $18.00 TO RECORD THE
I,IENS
Item #16C4
RESOLUTION 2003-19 FOR 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 $30.00 TO RECORD THE
I,IFJNS
Item #16C5
RESOLUTION 2003-20 FOR 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
Page 278
January 14, 2003
ASSESSMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $46.50 TO RECORD THE
IJF, NS
Item #16C6
RESOLUTION 2003-21 FOR 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 $40.50 TO RECORD THE
IJF. NS
Item #16C7
REIMBURSE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND TAX
COLLECTOR FOR SERVICES RENDERED FOR THE PRICE
STREET-BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD WATER MUNICIPAL
SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT (ESTIMATED COST WILL RESULT
IN AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF $100.00 PER BENEFITED
PROPERTY OWNER/
Item #16C8
EXECUTE AND RECORD SATISFACTIONS FOR CERTAIN
WATER AND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEE PAYMENT
AGREEMENTS. FISCAL IMPACT IS $88.50 TO RECORD THE
SATISFACTIONS
Item #16C9
RESOLUTION 2003-22 AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF A
Page 279
January 14, 2003
LOAN APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF)
EXPANSION TO 24.1-MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD)
MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MMADF)
LIQUID STREAM; AUTHORIZE THE LOAN AGREEMENT;
ESTABLISH PLEDGED REVENUES; DESIGNATE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; PROVIDE ASSURANCE;
AND PROVIDE FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND
EFFF. CTIVE DATE. PROJECT 73950_ AT NO COST
Item # 16C 10
CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER 3 TO FLORIDA STATE
UNDERGROUND, INC., AMENDMENT 3 TO AN
ENGINEERING INSPECTION SERVICES WORK ORDER TO
JOHNSON ENGINEERING, INC., AND FUNDS TO PREPARE
RECORD DRAWINGS RELATED TO THE EAST US-41 WATER
MAIN AND FORCE MAIN TO BOYNE SOUTH, IN THE
AMOIINT OF ,q43~702. PROJECTS 70862 AND 73061
Item #16C 11
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE
PROJECT NUMBER FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
RECLAIMED WATER MAIN PROJECT AND TRANSFER
$835~000 FROM PROJECT 73949 TO PROJECT 74048
Item #16C12
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,838 TO APAC OF
FLORIDA, INC. FOR REPAIR OF DAMAGE TO EAST US-41
Page 280
January 14, 2003
RESULTING FROM A BREAK IN A COUNTY WATER MAIN
ON MAY 16, 2002: PROJECT 70045
Item #16C13
RIGHT OF ENTRY DOCUMENTS FOR THE PORT-AU-PRINCE
SUBDIVISION UTILITY REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT A COST
NOT TO EXCEED $780.00
Item #16C14
BUDGET AMENDMENT AND CONTRACT MODIFICATION
WITH LAKE MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION FOR THE
EMERGENCY DREDGING OF WIGGINS PASS, NOT TO
F, XCEED A TOTAI, OF $3957000
Item #16C15
REAFFIRMATION OF STAFF'S PRIOR ACTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES FOR
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECI,AMATION FACIIJTY. PROJECT 73077
Item #16C16
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE BOARD RELATED TO
THE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ENCORE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF) EXPANSION TO
24.1-MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD) MAXIMUM
MONTH AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MMADF) PROJECT 73950,
1N TI-IE lalASE [lid AMOI JNT OF $24~861 ~000
Page 281
January 14, 2003
Item # 16D 1
AUTHORIZATION OF THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN A STATE OF
FLORIDA EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS
AND ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND MATCHING GRANT
APPIJCATION
Item # 16D2
AUTHORIZATION OF THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN STATE OF
FI,ORIDA EMS MATCHING GRANT APPIJICATIONS
Item # 16E 1
AWARD BID #03-3452 "PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
ADVANCED IMAGING OVERSIZED TUNNEL CAPACITY X-
RAY INSPECTION SYSTEM" TO HEIMANN SYSTEMS
CORPORATION IN THE AMOI JNT OF $39,203
Item #16E2
AMENDMENT NO. 1, PHASE 2 FOR ARCHITECTURAL
SERVICES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE COURTHOUSE ANNEX
WITH SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM, RFP # 00-3173 IN THE
AMOI JNT OF $435_354.00
Item #16E3
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE WITH SEAGO
GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF
APPROXIMATELY 84 ACRES OF MANGROVES FOR
Page 282
January 14, 2003
MITIGATION PURPOSES AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
86 ooo (M^ CO AmPORT)
Item #16E4
CHANGE ORDER NO. THREE, WORK ORDER BSSW-00-07, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $24,000.00, WITH BARANY, SCHMITT,
SUMMERS, WEAVER AND PARTNERS, INC. FOR DESIGN
SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NORTH NAPLES
GOVERNMENT SERVICES CF, NTF, R
Item #16E5
CONVEYANCE OF A UTILITY EASEMENT TO FLORIDA
POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO SERVE THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING EXPANSION AND
PARKING GARAGE PROJECT, THE COST OF WHICH
SHOI II,D NOT F, XCFJF, D $15.00
Item # 16E6
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3456
"ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AND RATE TESTIMONY FOR
ORANGETREE UTILITIES" (ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNT
OF CONTRACT ,q65:000 TO ,q75:000)
Item # 16E7
CHANGE ORDER APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $78,406.08
FOR CONTINUATION OF CONTRACT #00-3109 "JANITORIAL
Page 283
January 14, 2003
SERVICES"
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 284
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
January 14, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for November 30, 2002 through December 6, 2002.
Districts:
Minutes:
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for
November 20, 2002.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for
December 11, 2002, Minutes of November 13, 2002.
1-75/Golden Gate Ad Hoc Landscaping Committee - Agenda for
December 11, 2002.
Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for
November 20, 2002; Minutes of October 16, 2002.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Agenda for November
22, 2002.
6. Citizen's Corps Advisory Committee - Agenda for November 21, 2002.
Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council - Notice for Friday Dec.
6, 2002; Minutes of October 23, 2002.
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda for December
9, 2002.
H:Data/Format
January 14, 2003
Item # 16J 1
ACCEPTANCE OF CHILD DEPENDENCY GRANT-IN-AID OF
$31,386.62 FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA, JUSTICE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE AMENDMENT
Item #16K1
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
RESPONDENTS, LARRY VALENTI AND CONSIGLIO N.
GIRURASTENTE, FOR PARCEL NO. 183 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,000 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
LAZARO HERRERA, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2211-CA
(IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018) $1,000 TO BE PAID
INTO THE REGISTRY OF COl IRT
Item # 16K2
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
RESPONDENTS, LAZARO HERRERA AND ELIZABETH
HERRERA, AND BERTO HERRERA AND LUCIA HERRERA,
FOR PARCEL NO. 184 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,000 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. LAZARO
HERRERA, ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2211-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD PROJECT #60018) $1,000 TO BE PAID INTO THE
REGISTRY OF COI~RT
Item #16K3
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
RESPONDENTS, THOMAS E. SAMS AND PATRICIA A. SAMS,
Page 285
January 14, 2003
FOR PARCEL NO. 191 IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,160 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GJR OF NAPLES,
INC., ET AL., CASE NO. 02-2212-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD
PROJECT #60018) $2,360 TO BE PAID INTO THE REGISTRY
OF COl JRT
Item #16K4
AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO
RESPONDENT, RICHARD C. MYERS, TRUSTEE, FOR PARCEL
123 IN THE AMOUNT OF $425,000.00 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY F. JANCIGAR, AS
TRUSTEE, ET AL., CASE NO. 00-0142-CA. PROJECT NO.
60111:~71.200 TO lqF, PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF COIIRT
Item #17A- CONTINUED TO JANUARY 28, 2003
PETITION AVPLAT 2002-AR-2704 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S
INTEREST IN ALL OF THE PLATTED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOT 73, ACCORDING TO THE
PleAT OF "SOl ITHPORT ON THE BAY IINIT ONE"
Item # 17B
RESOLUTION 2003-23 RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-3198, BEAU
KEENE, PE, OF KEENE ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING TEC
BUILDERS, INC., REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A 17.9-FOOT
VARIANCE IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FROM
THE REQUIRED 75-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 57.1-
FEET, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4045 33p'r) AVENUE
Page 286
January l4,2003
NE
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2003-24 RE PETITION VA-2002-AR-2389, L1NDA
B. BERTHELSEN AND STUART S. MCDANIEL, REQUESTING
VARIANCES IN THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT FROM THE
REQUIRED 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK PURSUANT TO
LDC SECTIONS 2.2.4.4.4 AND 2.6.2 TO ALLOW: 1) AN AFTER-
THE-FACT 5-FOOT VARIANCE, TO 25 FEET, FOR THE
EXISTING HOUSE; AND 2) A 5-FOOT VARIANCE, TO 25
FEET, FOR A PROPOSED POOL AND SCREEN ENCLOSURE,
ON PROPERTY IJOCATED AT 571 PIPER FIOIHJEVARD
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2003-02 AMENDING ORDINANCE 99-85
(CODIFIED AT S. 126-2, COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES) IMPLEMENTING THE RECENTLY
ENACTED PROVISIONS OF S. 196.075, FLA. STAT.
(ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR PERSONS 65
AND Ol JDER)
Page 287
January 14, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:35 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL o
ATTESTs..., .
.p:W,.,t.QH:T~E.?BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented ~' or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS, DAWN
MCCONNELL, AND CHERIE NOTTINGHAM
Page 288