BCC Minutes 02/11/2003 RFebruary 11, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 11, 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:
Tom Henning
Frank Halas
Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
February 11, 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
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
1
February 11, 2003
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.
e
3e
e
e
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Associate Pastor Roy Fisher, First Baptist Church of Naples
AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. January 14, 2003 - Regular Meeting
SERVICE AWARDS
PROCLAMATIONS
PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Ae
This item continued from the January 28~ 2003 BCC Meeting. Public
Petition request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss Selective Non-Enforcement of
the Collier County Sign Ordinance.
Be
Public Petition request by Mr. Jim O' Shea to discuss a modification of the
license of The Willough at Naples.
Ce
Public Petition request by Dr. Theodore Raia to discuss site plan for Cap
d'Antibes at Waterpark Place in Pelican Bay.
De
Public Petition request by Mrs. Julie Sturdivent to discuss a proposed public
neighborhood park in Livingston Woods.
2
February 11, 2003
go
Public Petition request by Mr. Larry Basik to discuss sign and school bus
shelter in R.O.W. located at 14th Street and Cypress Woods Drive.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
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. RZ-2001-AR-
1649, Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes Inc., representing Craig D.
Timmins, Trustee, requesting a rezone from RSF-3 to C-1 for property
located South of Immokalee Road on the East side of Veterans Park Drive,
in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition No. CP-2000-
6, Growth Management Plan Amendments for the Immokalee Road/Collier
Boulevard Area (Heritage Bay Development of Regional Impact) to
establish the "Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay" for Sections 13,
14, 23, 24, T48S, R26E, Collier County, Florida, by: Amending the Future
Land Use Element and Map Series; amending the Sanitary Sewer Sub-
Element of the Public Facilities Element; amending the Potable Water Sub-
Element of the Public Facilities Element; amending the Water and Sewer
Service Boundary Map of the Public Facilities Element; providing for
severability; and, providing for an effective date. (Adoption Hearing-Dh-
Related Amendment)
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Land Acquisition Committee.
B. Appointment of member to the Collier County Planning Commission.
C. Appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board.
D. Appointment of member to the Workforce Housing Advisory Committee.
3
February 11, 2003
ge
Confirmation of members to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Al*
Adoption of a Resolution opposing discrimination against all citizens of
Collier County. (Debbie Wight, Assistant to the County Manager)
Be
Adoption of Resolutions authorizing the issuance of Collier County, Florida
Gas Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2003 in order to effect such financing and
refinancing; providing certain terms and details of said bonds, including
authorizing a negotiated sale of said bonds; delegating certain authority to
the Chairman for the execution and delivery of a purchase contract;
appointing the Paying Agent and Registrar for said bonds; and providing an
effective date. Copies of the Gas Tax Revenue Bond is on display in the
County Manager's Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon
Turner Building, Naples. (Michael Smykowski, Director, Office of
Management and Budget)
Ce
Approve the "Orangetree Government Service Day" Event and related
Budget Amendment. (Jim Mudd, County Manager)
De
Approve payment of construction cost differential to Florida Power and
Light for underground electrical distribution lines in lieu of overhead power
distribution lines along 91 st Avenue North, not to exceed $60,000. (Joseph
Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development)
me
Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners adopt a Resolution
repealing Resolutions pertaining to Land Acquisition, delay acceptance of
recorded easements for Whippoorwill Lane and clarify Collier County's
position. (Norman Feder, Administrator, Transportation Services)
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ae
Presentation by staff to Board of County Commissioners for its review of a
proposed settlement offer in the Companion Impact Fee Collection Cases of
Collier County v. Nationwide and Nationwide v. Collier Coun _ty.
4
February 11, 2003
13.
Consideration of approval of Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release for
previously unpaid educational, community and regional parks and library
impact fees for Arden Courts at Lely Palms and Manor Care at Lely Palms.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
Ag
Discussion regarding construction of the North County Library and the
expansion of the North County Wastewater Reclamation Facility.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16.
Ae
Potential purchase of two homes on Tropicana Boulevard to create an
entrance to the proposed new high school in Golden Gate City.
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)
2)
3)
Petition AVESMT2002-AR3349 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's Interest in two 30 foot wide parcels of land
conveyed to Collier County by separate instrument for road right-of-
way, utilities and drainage, as recorded in Official Record Book 484,
Page 523 and Page 525, Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
Approval of a specific expenditure for an Affordable Housing
Lenders' Workshop sponsored by the Financial Administration and
Housing Department.
Code Enforcement Lien Resolution Approvals.
5
February 11, 2003
4)
Approve 2003 Tourism Agreement with Naples Botanical Gardens for
Tourist Development Special Museum Grant of $500,000.
5) Approval of one (1) Impact Fee Refund Request totaling $68,220.
6) Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for The Dunes, Phase 1.
7) Final acceptance of Water Utility Facilities for The Dunes, Phase 2-A.
8)
Recommendation to approve the early excavation of the Lake System
at the proposed Arrowhead PUD located in Section 31, Township 46
South, Range 29 East, bounded on the South and West by land zoned
A-MHO, on the East by Carson Road and land zoned A-MHO, and on
the North by Lake Trafford Road and land zoned agricultural.
9)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Island Walk Phase Four".
io)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Indigo Lakes Unit
Six" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
11)
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit Two".
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of "Pelican Marsh Unit Six".
i3)
Request to grant final acceptance
sewer improvements for the final
Twenty".
of the roadway,
plat of "Pelican
drainage, water and
Marsh Unit
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve a Budget Amendment to recognize a developer contribution
in the amount of $7,500.00 for the Wiggins Pass Road Outfall Project
(Project No. 51212).
6
February 11, 2003
2)
Recommendation to award Bid #03-3460 -"Purchase of One (1)
4,000 Gallon Water Truck" to Wallace International Trucks, Inc., in
the amount of $92,900.
3)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept an Access Easement
which is required for periodic maintenance of the Golden Gate Main
Canal under the bridge constructed at 13th Street SW (Project No.
69068). Fiscal Impact: $7,360.
4)
Approve Change Order No. 2 to the Immokalee Road/I-75
Interchange Construction Contract in the amount of $378,114.66
which includes a portion of work to be paid for by Brentwood Land
Partners, LLC. (Project No. 66042A)
5)
Approve a Change Order in the amount of $30,366.70 with Better
Roads, Inc. for median improvements on Pine Ridge Road, Project
No. 60016.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve an Easement Agreement and accept a Utility Easement for
the Golden Gate Wellfield Reliability Improvements Project at a cost
not to exceed $1,500.00.
2)
Approve an Amendment to Work Order SC-02-45 with Surety
Construction Company, for the North County Regional Water
Treatment Plan Noise Abatement, Project 70063, in the amount of
$10,276.69.
3)
Approve a Work Order with Greeley and Hansen LLC to perform an
Inflow and Infiltration Study for the South County Wastewater
Service Area in the amount of $297,880, Project Number 73164.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1)
Acceptance of an additional $66,179 in State Aid to Libraries in
FY03.
7
February 11, 2003
2)
Award of Bid #03-3438 to Golden Gate Nursery and Sod and Leo's
Sod for purchase and delivery of turf at a projected cost of $70,000.
3)
Approval of contract to Sweet, an Ortivus Company, for the purchase
of billing software for the EMS Department in the amount of $25,435.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
To Award RFP 03-3447 "Office Supplies and Office Furniture" at an
estimated annual cost of $350,000.
2)
Approval of the attached Resolution providing for the Acceptance of
Conveyances made in compliance with Development Commitment
Requirements of all Ordinances and Agreements or as an integral part
of Capital Improvement Projects and authorizing the Board of County
Commissioners' Chairman, during the 2003 Calendar Year, to execute
certain documents required in connection therewith.
3)
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, to execute deeds and
agreements for deed to right of interment for the purchase of burial
plots at Lake Trafford Memorial Gardens Cemetery during the 2003
Calendar Year.
4)
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, during the 2003
Calendar Year, to execute agreements, deeds and other documents
required for the sale of GAC Land Trust Property.
5)
Approve the Award of RFP #03-3441, "Air Filtration Services and
Supplies", to Kleen Air Research, for annual air filter services in the
amount of $73,000.
6)
Award Bid #02-3314 for the advertising of Delinquent Real Estate
and Personal Property Taxes at an annual cost of $63,680.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Approval of Budget Amendment Report-Budget Amendment #03-180
for $25,000 to complete several ADA related projects, including the
8
February 11, 2003
2)
installation of a handicap parking area at the Law Library, and new
railings at Development Services and the Marco Island Library.
Approve the Local Government Access Television Policies and
Guidelines.
Go
Ho
Je
Ke
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1) Commissioner Henning request for approval to attend EDC
Installation of Officers Dinner as serving a valid public purpose.
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file with action as directed.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) That the Board of County Commissioners make a determination of
whether the purchases of goods and services documented in the
detailed report of open purchase orders serve a valid public purpose
and authorize the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said
purchases.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
2)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners authorize Chairman
Tom Henning to sign the attached Agreement authorizing the Collier
County Sheriff's Office to have Traffic Control Jurisdiction over
private roads within the Island Walk Subdivision.
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive the
Purchasing Policy, to the extent that is necessary, and ratify and
authorize the Retention of Thomas G. Pelham, Esq., as a consultant or
expert on Land Use Planning Issues in Aquaport v. Collier County,
Case No. 2:01-CV-341-FTM-29DNF, now pending in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and authorize
the Chairman to sign any necessary Retention Documents.
9
February11,2003
17.
3)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners waive the
purchasing policy to the extent it may be necessary and authorize the
County Attorney to hire the Firm of Carlton, Fields pursuant to the
County's continuing with that firm and specifically Attorney's Marti
Chumbler and Donald Hemke to defend the County in an alleged
Class Action Lawsuit for Inverse Condemnation and Invalidation of
Moratorium that is styled Century Development of Collier County,
Inc., et al, v. Jeb Bush, et al, Case No. 03-117-CA-HDH, now pending
in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier
County, Florida, and approve funding and Budget Amendment.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. SHOULD ANY OF THE FOLLOWING
ITEMS BE MOVED TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ALL PARTICIPANTS
MUST BE SWORN IN.
Ae
CU-2002-AR-2836 Craig Smith, Owner and Operator of Naples Progressive
Gymnastics, an existing facility, is seeking approval for Conditional Uses
"19" and "20" of the Agricultural "A" Zoning District for Sports
Instructional Schools and Camps and Sporting and Recreational Camps
property located at 3275 Pine Ridge Road in Section 12, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
10
February 11, 2003
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of
Collier County Conunissioners to order.
We're going to have the invocation given by Associate Pastor
Roy Fisher from First Baptist Church, followed by the invocation
(sic) led by our county manager, Jim Mudd. Would you all rise, please.
MR. FISHER: Let us pray. Our loving eternal Father, we thank
you for this beautiful new day, for the night of rest, and for these
moments when we just pause in your presence.
We know, Lord, today is going to be a busy day and a full day,
and I just pray your guidance upon the county commissioners on
every decision, that, Lord, they would all seek to bring honor and
glory to you.
Thank you for the truth of your word. Thank you for this great
country in which we live and the freedoms that we enjoy.
We pray your blessing upon our president, his cabinet and all in
authority. Lord, in these crucial days in which we're living, we pray
for supernatural wisdom and guidance in every decision that's going
to be made.
So, Lord, we thank you for loving us unconditionally and for
blessing us beyond or deserving, and thank you for the Lord Jesus
Christ who came that we might have light and might have it more
abundantly, and it is in his name that we pray, amen. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amen. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Would you face the flag and do the Pledge of
Allegiance with me.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
Page 2
February 11, 2003
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Greetings, All. We're going to go
through the agenda, and I'm going to ask the county attorney if he
has any additions, deletions or corrections.
MR. WEIGEL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners. No, none from the county attorney today. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you, David Weigel.
County manager, Jim Mudd, do we have any additions,
corrections, deletions?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Agenda changes for 11 February, 2003. Withdraw item 6(A),
which is a public petition request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss
selective nonenforcement of the county code -- the Collier County
sign ordinance. That was at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to continue item 6(C) to March 11, 2003, and
that's public petition request by Dr. Theodore Raia to discuss the site
plan for the Cap d'Antibes at Waterpark Place in Pelican Bay, and
that's at the petitioner's request.
The next item is to move item 10(C) to 9(F), and that's to
approve the Orangetree Government Service Day event and related
budget amendment. That was at Commissioner Henning's request,
and I've talked to Commissioner Coletta about that, and he'll present
that item.
Next item is to move item 10(D) to 9(G), and that's to approve
payment of construction cost differential to the Florida Power and
Light for underground electrical distribution lines in lieu of overhead
power distribution lines along 91 st Avenue North, not to exceed
$60,000. That's -- that move was at Commissioner Henning's
request. And I've talked to Commissioner Halas, and he'll present that
item.
Page 3
February 11, 2003
Next item is to continue item 13(A) to February 25th, the BCC
meeting, and basically that's a discussion regarding the construction
of the North County Library and the expansion of the North County
Wastewater Reclamation Facility, and that was at the clerk's request.
The next item is to move item 16(A)2 to item 10(F), and that's
approval of a specific expenditure for Affordable Housing Lenders'
Workshop sponsored by the Financial Administration and Housing
Department, and that move was at Commissioner Henning's request.
The last item is to move item 16(F)2 to 10(G), and that's to
approve the local government access television policies and
guidelines, and that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
And I have one note for clarification for the record, and this
goes against item 16(A)8. A security bond in the amount of no less
than $25,000 and no greater $125,000 as determined by the staff
depending on the sequence and magnitude of the excavation, and that
has to do with the Arrowhead PUD.
That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Then we'll go gown the line to Commissioner Halas. Do you
have any changes on the agenda today and any disclosures on the
summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. On the summary agenda, no,
I don't have any disclosures.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything on the agenda
you want to change?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I -- other than what was
brought up from the county commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or county manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's early in the morning yet.
No, I have no disclosures on the summary agenda, and I have
Page 4
February 11, 2003
nothing to add or change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I have no changes to the
agenda other than what's already been changed, and I have no
disclosures for the summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle -- Carter --
Coletta. I'm sorry. I'll get it together here shortly. Where's my
coffee?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta has no
changes for the agenda and no -- nothing to declare on the summary
agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion to approve the
agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So -- second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As amended. We have a motion by
Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle, approval of
the agenda.
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.
Page 5
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 11, 2003
WITHDRAW ITEM 6A: Public Petition request by Mr. Jim Kramer to discuss
Selective Non-Enforcement of the Collier County Sign Ordinance. (Petitioner
request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 6C To March 11, 2003 BCC Meeting: Public Petition Request by
Dr. Theodore Raia to discuss site plan for Cap d'Antibes at Waterpark Place in
Pelican Bay. (Petitioner request.)
MOVE ITEM 10C to 9F: Approve the Orangetree Government Service Day" event
and related budget amendment. (Commissioner Henning request.)
MOVE ITEM 10D to 9G: Approve payment of construction cost differential to
Florida Power and Light for underground electrical distribution lines in lieu of
overhead power distribution lines along 91't Avenue North, not to exceed $60,000.
(Commissioner Henning request.)
CONTINUE ITEM 13A to February 25, 2003 BCC Meetinq: Discussion regarding
construction of the North County Library and the expansion of the North County
Wastewater Reclamation Facility. (Clerk's request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(A)2 To 10F: Approval of a specific expenditure for an Affordable
Housing Lenders' Workshop sponsored by the Financial Administration and
Housing Department. (Commissioner Henning request.)
MOVE ITEM 16(F)2 To 10G: Approve the Local Government Access Television
Policies and Guidelines. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
NOTES:
Against 16(A)8 - A security bond in the amount of no less that $25,000 and
no greater than $125,000 as determined by the staff depending on the
sequence and magnitude of excavation.
February 11, 2003
Item #2B
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2003-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Next item is -- no service awards. We're at public petitions.
And the first item is 6(B) --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did we approve 16?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 16(A)?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, January 14th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a motion for the --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- January 14, 2003, regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I make that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
seconded by Commissioner Coyle to approve the regular meeting on
February 14th.
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 #6B
PUBLIC PETITION BY MR. JIM O'SHEA DISCUSSING A
Page 6
February 11, 2003
MODIFICATION OF THE LICENSE OF THE WILLOUGH AT
NAPLES-DISCUSSED AND TO BE BROUGHT BACK AS A
RFJGIIIJAR AGENDA ITFJM
Public petitions. 6(A), public petition by --
MR. MUDD: That was withdrawn, sir, 6(B).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 6(B) was withdrawn?
MR. MUDD: No, 6(A) was, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 6(B), excuse me. I'm going to get
that cup of coffee though.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Here, have a sip of mine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Jim O'Shea.
MR. MUDD: Mr. O'Shea is going to discuss a modification of
the license of The Willough at Naples.
MR. PICCIANO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and County
Commissioners. My name is John Picciano. I'm the chief executive
of The Willough Hospital in Naples, and Mr. O'Shea here is our
executive director.
We have been managing The Willough for about three years.
We have purchased The Willough in November of last year, so it's a
short period of time. And we have experienced a need which I'd like
to share with you.
As you know the geriatric population in our country is living
longer and longer, thanks to the advancement of medicine.
Unfortunately, they experience a tremendous amount of losses,
tremendous amount of depression. Most of these persons are treated
in adult living facilities, nursing homes. We purport that they're not
treated. They are overly medicated. In many cases can't find their
room.
In a psychiatric facility where they can be stabilized, properly
medicated with the newest medications, we're able to then improve
the quality of their life basically, so that's one of the needs we've
Page 7
February 11, 2003
experienced in our community.
Secondarily, as I see a police officer, he knows very well that
mental illness is one of the underlying motivating factors why people
do bad things in our communities. Without treatment, without proper
medication, again, there is persistent rearrests, rap sheets, et cetera,
so this problem continues on.
We believe that in a psychiatric facility, as The Willough is a
psychiatric facility, we'd be able to service this population not only
with expert medical treatments, but also with a good sense of
compassion. Understanding both Mr. O'Shea and myself have been
in this business for over 30 years, so we've seen the ups and downs of
mental health.
We are committed to Naples, to this community. We have
already the certificate of need. We have 42 beds. Our practical
problem is that they are restricted to eating disorders only, which
means we can treat anorexia, bulimia and compulsive overeating,
better known as obesity, which I think the president is now really
zeroing in on a lot of health issues also in our communities and in our
country. So we're there with that. That is not problematic.
The problem is we turn away an inordinate amount of people
who are suffering from major depression, who are suffering from
manic depression. And manic depression is a simple solution. You
take lithium, you stabilize the person, and they're back to reality. It's
not a complicated illness. Not treated properly, it becomes a real
problem.
We also want to treat, obviously, the geriatric population. We
believe they deserve better than to be in an adult living facility
zonked out. I don't think that's good treatment. I think -- I don't want
my parents and I don't think anyone else really wants their parents in
those environments not properly treated, and we purport that that's
not being done.
So with that in mind, we have a practical problem. The state
Page 8
February 11, 2003
needs to help us lift our restrictions so that not only can we treat a
multitude of mental illness, but we also don't have to overload David
Lawrence Center, we don't have to have scenes at Naples
Community Hospital in the emergency room when people come in
and they're distraught and disturbed, et cetera.
So we want to provide that to the community. We're here and
we appreciate the support we hope we can get from the county and
from the commissioners.
And now Jim O'Shea has some of the technical components of
the problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And thanks for the education,
so just summarize -- what is your request?
MR. PICCIANO: Okay. We would like to have the restriction
on eating disorder lifted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What do you want the Board of
Commissions to do?
MR. PICCIANO: We would like the board to support us in that,
basically that the need in this community is for psychiatric treatment
at The Willough Hospital.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. PICCIANO: That's really --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you want it supported by a
letter or'some --
MR. PICCIANO: A letter of support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- so that's that just (sic) of the --
MR. PICCIANO: That's basically what we need.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- request.
Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Who placed that restriction
on your license?
MR. PICCIANO: That was placed -- let me refer to James.
MR. O'SHEA: I guess, being specific, we are seeking to lift the
Page 9
February 11, 2003
restriction --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name?
MR. O'SHEA: My name is James O'Shea. I'm the executive
director at The Willough at Naples.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. O'SHEA: We intend in the next two or three weeks to file
an application with a certificate of need, Agency of Health Care
Administration, to lift the restrictions that currently exist on our 42
licensed inpatient psychiatric beds. The restrictions are too tight.
One, of course, as John mentioned, there's a restriction that we
can only accept the diagnosis of eating disorder into those psychiatric
beds. And secondly, the patient origin that 61 percent of our clients
must come from out of state, 20 percent from outside District 8, and
20 percent within District 8. We believe these restrictions are
burdensome, they impact us from being a community-based facility,
and it -- and thus, we operate far below operating capacity because of
these restrictions.
They were first imposed in 1986 when The Willough sought to
be a hospital. And maybe back in 1986 the realities of the market
may have dictated restrictions on psychiatric beds. But today, with
the closure of state hospitals, with the reduction of psychiatric beds,
there is very few existing psychiatric beds in this district.
We consider -- we should consider this Collier County, Lee
County, and Hendry County as our primary service area. But the
reality is within those -- within that area there are only 11 operating
psychiatric beds which can serve a full range of the mental health
clients. I refer to Naples Community Hospital for those beds.
Where the northern section of District A, which includes
Sarasota, Glades, DeSoto and Charlotte's 115 psychiatric beds. You
can see the distribution is terribly bad. And the consequence is that
people who need psychiatric help either have to travel a long distance
or do not seek treatment and consequences are great.
Page 10
February 11, 2003
So we seek the county's support for our application in the form
of a letter of support which would greatly help us in this process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My understanding is a public
request is only to bring it back in a furore agenda, correct?
Commissioner Coyle, do you have a question?
COMMISSION COYLE: Yeah, that was just my comment. I
am sympathetic to the objective here, but we don't have all of the
facts, and I think bringing it back under a regularly-scheduled agenda
would give us an opportunity to have a public hearing on this before
we commit ourselves one way or the other. MR. O'SHEA: I do -- I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Is this going to be open for
all citizens, or is this going to be basically a private --
MR. O'SHEA: We are a private for-profit facility, but beds will
be open to all citizens. We're even--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you accept --
MR. O'SHEA: -- committed to Baker Acts.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you accept insurance
policies?
MR. PICCIANO: Of course.
MR. O'SHEA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. PICCIANO: And we also accept Medicare.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You accept Medicare?
MR. PICCIANO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. PICCIANO: We are a Medicare-certified facility.
MR. O'SHEA: We are Medicare certified, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Do you do anything as
far as working with the indigent?
Page 11
February 11, 2003
MR. O'SHEA: As a matter of fact, we do have, as part of the
original application of The Willough back in 1986, they pledged,
four percent of their net revenue would be to the indigent who didn't
have care. We've continued to meet that objective. We would
continue in the future, at least four percent of our net revenue would
be devoted to the indigent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would think that would be a
good idea to bring it back. I'm in --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We've got two for, for bringing it
back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're bringing it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. O'SHEA: I have a handout I can hand out as well, which
kind of explains -- CHAIRMAN HENNING:
to bring it back.
You'll have to -- we'll -- we're going
MR. PICCIANO: That would be fine. We appreciate your time
today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. O'SHEA: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we've got some direction to bring
it back.
Item #6D
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MRS. JULIE STURDIVENT
TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
IN LIVINGSTON WOODS-DISCUSSED AND TO BE BROUGHT
BACK AS A REGIJI.AR AGENDA ITEM
Next item is 6(D), public petition by Ms. Julie Sturdivent to
discuss proposed Livingston Wood Park, neighborhood park. Ms.
Page 12
February 11, 2003
Sturdivent? Mr. Mark Sturdivent is here.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers on this issue
in addition to Mr. Sturdivent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have -- I'm sorry?
MS. FILSON: I have two speakers in addition to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. FILSON: -- Mr. Sturdivent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Are they from the neighborhood?
Otherwise --
MS. FILSON: Well, one is Julie Sturdivent and one is Martie
Lesson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. STURDIVENT: I can speak for Julie.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. And then I'm going to go
ahead and grant that.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Sturdivent, thank you for being
here this morning.
MR. STURDIVENT: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and
gentlemen.
My name is Mark Sturdivent. I live at 6411 Sable Ridge Lane.
That's on the comer of Sable Ridge Lane and Soll Street.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today. I've
lived in Naples all my life. I've lived in Livingston Woods for the
past 10 years. I understand I only have a few minutes to present this
to you, so I'll try and be as brief as possible.
It's a wonderful place to live in Livingston Woods. I have two
children. I have an eight-year-old boy and 11-year-old boy.
We all have two and a half to five-acre sites. I own 660 feet that
is directly adjacent to the proposed park area. This 660 feet -- I'm --
being on the end of the street in our neighborhood, there are four
streets that end down at our street and basically where our
Page 13
February 11, 2003
neighborhood is and where this park is proposed.
Being at the end of the street, we have the opportunity to see all
the things that go on in the street from drag racing cars, drag racing
ATVs, parks -- parties that go on down there and broken beer bottles,
all kind of trash that's strewn throughout this area.
We've called the police many times on this issue and try and get
things taken care of and handled, but many times they can't get out
there in time. The only recourse we have is to chase them off of our
private property. If we turn this into a public park, we won't have the
recourse to chase them off the property. It will give them a neutral
place where these people can go.
The property that the park is proposed for is 660 feet of fence
line along 1-75. This fence line is directly adjacent to the exit area
for Pine Ridge exit. It's where the traffic begins to flow into the exit.
People are always jockeying for a position. They're trying to get
back and forth. It's a very dangerous area directly adjacent to the
park.
Along this interstate section, there's been quite a few accidents
where cars have run up to and tumbled into the fence at this area.
Just imagine a park there with our kids and mothers playing in it and
a car comes tumbling through there from the interstate, especially
when we get an additional lane on the interstate. It's not a very safe
place, in my opinion, to place a park.
This whole thing started about three and a half years ago when a
survey was placed in our mailboxes from someone who claims to be
a little girl. I understand her name is Jessica Taylor. She placed a
survey in our boxes. Many people looked at it. It was not an official
notice. It was not mailed by U.S. Mail. It was placed in our
mailboxes. Most of the people, including myself, just kind of tossed
it aside and didn't give it a second thought.
A few months went by and then we received a notification from
the county that the county had purchased the property and was going
Page 14
February 11, 2003
to be building a park there and what kind of park would you like?
We held our first public meeting and there was quite a bit of response
from the residents who now are aware of the project and voiced their
opinion against it. I feel there was so much opposition that at the
time the commission voted not to proceed with the park until they got
further input on it.
Another survey was done that was sent out. The survey did not
have any sort of, I guess I would say, option for no park. It just said,
we're going to build a park. What kind of park do you want, passive,
active? What do you want in it? It didn't give an option in saying,
no, they don't want a park.
Again, quite a time was passed, almost a year, I understand,
before the next survey was sent out. And the next survey actually
said, we're proceeding with the park and we'd like to have your input.
Again, what are we going to put in there? This one, however, did
give the option of, do you want no park.
I understand from Commissioner Henning that he got a majority
of responses that said they wanted a park. Whether it was active or
passive, I'm not sure of, but your records will show that.
In presenting that, we began to go door to door in the
neighborhood and get petitions with a simple question, do you want a
park, yes, or do you want a park, no?
At present, there are 155 homes in the neighborhood on five
streets. We've been door to door to each these homes. We have
responses from 97 homes, 87 of those houses said no; however, many
of the people said, look, I'm a registered voter here, too, and I own
this property as well. I want to vote as well.
We have 131 signatures that say, no, they don't want a park.
We have five signatures that say, yes, they do want a park. It's kind
of a door to door majority, going through door to door and speaking
to our people and the people in the area and finding out just exactly
what we want.
Page 15
February 11, 2003
Now, I grant you, some of these people originally were
surveyed and said, yeah, a park would be nice. Many of these people
also thought it was for the new Livingston Regional Park. A lot of
people didn't understand where this park was going to be and what it
was going to be.
The county has a new green space program, and we feel that this
would be an ideal space for the green space program. It would keep
the woods between us and the interstate. There's quite a bit of
wildlife in the woods from a family of fox to owls to eagles to
ostrich. We've seen them there every day.
Like I said, we have a majority of the park -- or the majority of
people in the neighborhood who don't want to see the park. That's on
our simple petition. I have a copy of it for each you if you'd like and
we would like the opportunity to have this come before the
commission to readdress the issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You want to go ahead and
call the speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. The speaker is Martie Lesson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And why don't we give them five
minutes. Thank you.
MR. STURDIVENT: Thank you.
MS. LESSON: Good morning. Thank you for allowing us to
speak. I do speak on behalf of quite a few people that live in
Livingston Woods. I, myself, live at Bottlebrush Lane.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And your name?
MS. LESSON: My name is Martie Lesson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. LESSON: And I've been a resident there for 15 years.
We've heard the name Jessica Taylor so many times, and what a
nice ring that little name has for many of us. And I'm sure that her
ears have been ringing a lot lately also. She is the initiator of this
wonderful park, and no, she does not live in Livingston Woods
Page 16
February 11, 2003
anymore, however, over 100 children do. Isn't this why so many of
us that were surveyed responded positively to this opportunity?
I have an April 2002 letter that was sent out to many of us in the
neighborhood. It's letterhead of Board of Collier County
Commissioners, signed, our chairman, Mr. Tom Henning. And I just
want to read a couple of excerpts from this.
A neighborhood park is a wonderful addition to any area. It
provides a centralized location to meet your neighbors, spend time
with family and friends and creates activity for adults and children.
Then he adds, I want to ensure the residents of Livingston
Woods we'll utilize the park and that we accommodate your wants
and needs.
As we know, Commissioner Henning has dedicated many hours
towards this park. And up until recently, the neighborhoods thought
that we were going to proceed with it. In fact, the meeting in January
just last month was arranged to primarily form a committee to plan
this park, at which time the petitioner and her husband both signed up
to participate.
Many neighbors that several of us have spoken with in the
meantime have voiced their concerns as to the unclear and improper
manner in which they were approached by the petitioners concerning
the efforts to block the construction of the park.
After realizing that the petitioners' claims were not substantiated
or factual but rather assumed and conjured up, these neighbors
wanted to withdraw their signatures from the petition.
In fact, Marla Ramsey, who is with our parks and recreation
department, told everybody at the January meeting that there is no
proof or statistics to back up claims of increased alcohol, drugs, sex,
child abuse, child molestation or abduction in a community park.
The petitioners mentioned some time back that a lot of us do
have plenty of property for playing. But a neighborhood park is truly
a chance to unify our neighborhood.
Page 17
February 11, 2003
Please allow us this tremendous opportunity to proceed with our
long-awaited neighborhood park and give us a chance to get to know
other families in our area. Since our properties are so big, we don't
know a lot of our neighbors.
Last month after the meeting was over at the community center,
a neighbor that I barely know, I see them in passing, came up to me,
put her hands on my shoulders and she said, you know, it really
doesn't matter to me one way or another if we have this park or not.
Obviously my kids are older. They're grown, they're out of the house,
but, she said, you know what, it seems to me like you've got a good
thing going here. She said, you go for it, honey, and that's exactly
what we're trying to do, to proceed with this. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Oh, Commissioner Fiala
has a question or statement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not a -- yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to find out if I could
-- I don't even know where this is. I'd like to take a ride through
there. If we are going to discuss it at a future time, I'd like to know
how to get there so I can take a ride through the community and look
at it myself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you have my permission to do
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm quite surprised at the turnout
of people who are against this park. I know that we, a couple years
ago, had a park established in our neighborhood, and I find that
people of all ages use the park. It's basically a linear park. And
whether they're young children or senior citizens, everybody uses the
park.
And we haven't really ran into any real serious problems as far
Page 18
February 11, 2003
as drugs and all these other things. There were some concerns in that
area, but the park has been there a couple years and we really haven't
had any real problems.
So I'm really surprised that the people are very -- that much
concerned about it, and I'm not sure what's driving this here.
MS. LESSON: I think we're pretty puzzled, too. As you know,
this project has been trying to get off the ground for almost three
years now. And you're all aware of the surveys that were sent out.
We've had such a positive response. Almost-- like I said, I've
been there for 15 years. I know a lot of people in that neighborhood.
And almost everybody that I spoke with when all of this started were
so excited about it, and that's why we don't know either what
transpired in between this time.
I cannot stress how important this is to our children. Not all of
us can afford a basketball court or a tennis court or even to clear for,
say, a volleyball court, which is not costly in itself other than the
clearing.
And I just think with all of the children that are in this
neighborhood -- there's 30 kids alone just on my street, so there could
be well over 100 children in this neighborhood.
And I think -- I mean, it's going to be a dawn to dusk park. And
granted, we were not assured that the county would come by and
lock up every night, but there's plenty of neighbors that are still going
by, they ride their bikes even after dark, you know, they jog. There's
a lot of people that are still out that could pretty much monitor what's
going on there, and there has been a problem with, I want to assume,
teenagers in the neighborhoods on the weekends. I see many empty
beer cans and alcohol bottles thrown there. I run or walk almost
every day in the neighborhood, but--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. LESSON: -- I don't see where that would be any worse.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great, thank you.
Page 19
February 11, 2003
Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, Mrs. Sturdivent, I thought you
said, signed up.
MS. FILSON: I thought -- he said he was going to speak for his
wife.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
speak?
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. Did Ms. Sturdivent sign up to
Okay, please.
MS. STURDIVENT: Thank you. My name is Julie Sturdivent.
I also live at 6411 Sable Ridge Lane, which is directly across the
street from this property, which is directly along 1-75. That is one of
our big issues, that it is 660 feet of fence line ofi-75 -- is not
centrally located in the neighborhood.
As for parks bringing in undesirables and things happening, in
December there was a six-year-old abducted from the Golden Gate
Park. In 2001, the paper did an article on the park in Naples Manor
with the gangs who had done graffiti all over the house that was put
there. They do become a hangout.
We have gone to neighbors of other neighborhood parks and
asked them. Their first opinion was, yes, I wanted a park. Now I
wish we never would have had it. We checked the trash cans.
They're full of beer bottles. The property right now on 1-75 is full of
beer bottles. It's not going to stop. And putting in a public park
won't stop that. It will allow a sitting place for whoever wants to be
there.
I really feel this is not the proper place to be putting a park. We
all have acreage, as we've all said, from two and a half acres on up.
People have responded they want a volleyball court, a basketball
court, a tennis court. That would completely clear this property. We
would be open to 1-75. Any buffer that was there and is there now
Page 20
February 11, 2003
and is beautiful, full of wildlife, would be taken down.
That is our request, the request of the neighborhood -- these
people that said no, their concern was, I want a green space. I want
this buffer from 1-75, which is going to get larger, to protect our
neighborhood, and-- thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. What's the will of the
board?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think we should bring it back. It's
kind of hard to discuss right now. I will say that -- no, I won't say it
until we bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I -- any time there's interest out
there, there's a difference of opinion, I think that this board has an
obligation to bring it back for reconsideration. I'm pretty perplexed
by the situation. I would think that a park would be a positive
addition to any neighborhood. By all means, if there's residents that
would like to have this discussed, let's do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I didn't have a question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I will add what I was going to say.
Number one, if they didn't want a park, we'd love to have it on Isle of
Capri. And secondly, one of the things we found when I started
getting involved with the parks many years ago, we had a crappy --
sorry about the word -- park in East Naples that -- and there was a lot
of crime. It was right on Thomasson. Lot of, lot of, lot of crime.
And our parks and rec people came in, put lights in there, put
swing sets in there, put baseball fields in there, and what happened
was, it was the least crime area in East Naples that -- the highest rate
of family use in the entire park system, and all because they put a
park in there that families could use instead of having nothing to do
with their time.
Page 21
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Commissioner Fiala.
And I hope you save those thoughts for if we do decide to bring that
back.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm perplexed also. Obviously
there's a lot of concern here, so I'm really not sure what's driving this.
But I feel that we should bring it back, and maybe we should look at,
when it's brought back, look at maybe turning this into a linear park
with green space and they can use it for walking or jogging and not
so much for a basketball court and this other stuff. So yeah, let's
bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And then staff will give a
presentation, so it looks like there's a-- the majority of the board that
wants to bring this back.
I can just say that if we're going to make a decision because of
the threat of crime, then we need to reconsider the parks and rec
program in Collier County.
So, county manager, please put this on a future agenda. Thank
yOU.
Item #6E
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST BY MR. LARRY BASIK TO
DISCUSS SIGN AND SCHOOL BUS SHELTER IN R.O.W.
LOCATED AT 14TM STREET AND CYPRESS WOODS DRIVE-
DISCI ISSED WITH NO ACTION
Next item is 6(E), request by Mr. Larry Basik to discuss a sign
and a school bus shelter in the right-of-way of the 14th Street and
Cypress Woods Drive. Thank you.
Mr. Basik, I just want to tell you your time is running.
MR. BASIK: Okay. It will be short.
Page 22
February 11, 2003
Larry Basik, 2108 Evergreen Lake Court in Naples. I represent
the owner, American Funding and Service Corp., and the developer,
Basik Development of Hemingway Place, which is now under
construction putting in the street, sewer and water for a
23-residential-home community off of Goodlette Road.
Our request is basically to put a -- an arbor bus stop situation for
mostly the kids that would be picked up for school at the entrance of
our community and-- excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody has any cell phones,
beepers, would you turn them on off or buzzer so we can all enjoy
the meeting. Thank you.
MR. BASIK: Both the bus stop trellis arbor and the sign
showing the entrance to Hemingway Place would be located in the
right-of-way, and that's why we're here, because apparently there's an
ordinance against any structures or signs in right-of-ways.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So just to get this
understanding, you want to construct a bus shelter, school bus shelter
in the right-of-way and also install a sign?
And also -- right. I'm sorry.
HENNING: Want me to take care of that?
No, I got it.
HENNING: Okay. Any questions? Wish of the
MR. BASIK:
CHAIRMAN
MR. BASIK:
CHAIRMAN
board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
I think we should bring it back.
I'll second that.
I've got mixed emotions on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't want to bring it back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't wish to bring this back. So it
looks like we got two for and two against and no comment on the
other side.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no, I haven't been asked
Page 23
February 11, 2003
for a comment, but I'm always happy to give one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is there any way to stop you?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not yet. I mean, that day may
come.
To be honest with you, I have mixed emotions on it too. I don't
want to set a precedent of putting signs in the right-of-way. If it was
just a -- for a shelter to be placed off the right-of-way or the far edge
of the right-of-way, that might be a different thing. But a
commercial sign, it's setting a precedent. Isn't this something to be
handled better under a variance? No, it couldn't go under a variance.
It'd have to come to us like this.
MR. BASIK: We started under a variance, and then we were
directed to come to the county commission.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll be honest with you, I really
don't think the present -- the way it's being presented here, that I
would be interested in hearing it again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Well, thanks for confirming
that, so --
MR. BASIK: Can I just comment on a kind of a hardship to the
situation of the entry sign -- is that we have some preserve areas that
we did, and our entrance to our project is actually about 200 feet off
of the comer of the property here. This is where Cypress Woods
tums and comes to 14th, and our project is back here. Actually the
entrance gates are back here.
MS. FILSON: Sir, you need to use the mike there.
MR. BASIK: Okay. The problem is that our entrance is -- we
couldn't put the entrance in the right-of-way, so we had to put it back
in the property location. And so anyone coming in here to either
service, deliver product or visiting would not have any indication of
where that -- where the community is at, and that's why we feel that
we either need it on the side of the right-of-way or in the center of
Page 24
February 11, 2003
the right-of-way. We do have a hardship.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have a street sign there?
MR. BASIK: Right now there's no street sign there, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I would assume that your
homeowners' association should put up a street sign there.
MR. BASIK: Well, I mean, this is our homeowners. These are
existing properties that are here, so this is -- you know, right in here,
I don't recall a street sign available here, but there's nothing to say
that this is Hemingway Place for someone visiting or delivering
product or whatever because we sit all the way back in -- this is all
preserve area and preserve area here.
And actually our gates are back here, so there's no way to know,
you know, that Hemingway Place is there, so that's the reason for the
sign. And then also, this is where the school kids will get picked up,
up here, which is 200 feet away from the entrance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BASIK: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
No further discussion on this, we'll move on to the next item.
Thank you.
MR. BASIK: Has it been voted on?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What we have is a consensus of
three commissioners that do not want to hear this and two that do, so
the majority supersedes the minority, but thanks -- MR. BASIK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for being with us today.
Item #8A
RZ-2001-AR-1649, ROBERT L. DUANE, OF HOLE MONTES
INC., REPRESENTING CRAIG D. TIMMINS, TRUSTEE,
Page 25
February 11, 2003
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO C-1 FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD ON
THE EAST SIDE OF VETERANS PARK DRIVE - MOTION TO
DF. NY WAS APPROVF. D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, next item is a --
RZ-2001-AR-1649, and that's Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes, Inc.,
representing Craig D. Timmins, trustee, requesting a rezone from
RSF-3 to C-1, a property located south of Immokalee Road on the
east side of Veterans Park Drive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if-- I would ask all participants
that wish to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court
reporter. Raise your right hand.
(The witnesses were sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. We have some
disclosure. We had this item on the -- on our agenda before. It was
continued because of advertising. And any additional disclosures
that I have I have in my folder.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They're also in my folder and
available for public view.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with representatives of
the developer as well as residents in the area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have a folder full of emails
and phone calls, I've been out to the property and walked it with the
residents in the area, and I've met with the petitioner and his
representatives.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have met with the petitioner, I
have met with the residents, I have walked the property, I have
Page 26
February 11, 2003
received many correspondence, both email and letters, and there was
-- also been some phone calls on this.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. And also, you were
commissioner elect when this item came before the Board of
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You were in attendance?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I was not in attendance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You were in the audience?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I was not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Since this is a continuing --
this item was heard, so I would ask for some guidance from
Commissioner Halas whether it is needed for a full-blown
presentation by staff and the petitioner, or do you think it's more
appropriate for any new evidence, if there is any new evidence, to
bring it forward today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think I have a fairly good
understanding of the situation both from the petitioner and also from
the residents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So I think it's fair that if we --
from our staff and from the petitioner, if we have any new evidence,
new findings, to please present that, then we will go to public
comments.
So Mr. Varnadoe?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the county going to get up and
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we're going to do it -- the new
procedure is, we're going to ask the petitioner to present their case
and staff will be here to answer any questions on whether it's
conforming with the Growth Management Plan or so on and so forth.
So the request is the petitioner. Mr. Varnadoe, you're up.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman. For
Page 27
February 11, 2003
the record, George Varnadoe, managing partner of the law firm of
Young, van Assenderp, Varnadoe and Anderson. I'm here
substituting today for my partner, Bruce Anderson. I've turned my
phone off, but his power or persuasion, he might cause it to ring to
tell me what I'm doing wrong, so we'll hope not.
Also here today to address the board, Bob Duane, professional
planner, and Julian Stokes, a certified appraiser, and the petitioner is
Craig Timmins and Tom Taylor.
As you stated, the proceeding before went through our
presentation, that is the petitioners, you heard from the public, and it
was continued. So we will not repeat our presentation of that hearing,
I promise you.
One of the real concerns the neighbors expressed at that Board
of County Commissioners hearing, from my review of the transcript,
was the possible devaluation of their property as a result of this
project.
We intuitively felt that was not correct, but we wanted to get
some expert advice on that, so we hired Julian Stokes who has an
MAI and a CRE and is a certified appraiser, and he will speak to that
issue later if you will allow.
He's prepared a written report, which I hope was part of your
packet, a very short report, summarizing his findings, which were,
number one, there would be no devaluation of the adjoining
residential property values as a result of this project.
More interestingly to me -- because I intuitively knew that.
More interestingly to me was that this property was no longer viable
for single-family development, and I'll go into that a little bit further.
And finally, that the only other viable option would be
multi-family, which, in his opinion, as he'll express, would be more
impactive to the neighbors than the proposed project.
One of the benefits of coming into a project like this late, and
probably the only benefit, is that I'm not caught up in the trees. I'm
Page 28
February 11, 2003
able to see the forest that is the big picture. And I'd like to make a
few comments about my observations in that regard, if you'd allow
me.
First this is a true infill property. Development has occurred on
all sides. As with -- and you're going to hear more of these infill
projects as time goes on, as we become more of a grown-up and
built-out community. And as often is with infill properties, the
neighbors are used to looking at a vacant piece a land. This one with
mature vegetation, and they'd like to see it remain that way. That's
not going to happen in all cases, obviously. And this is one of them,
and they have some concerns, and we're here to address all of their
real concerns.
Mr. Duane will speak further about the infill nature of this
property. But as one of the planning commissioners said, and I think
it was Ken Abemathy, although I'm not sure, the day for
single-family uses on this parcel have come and gone.
Now, why would someone make that statement? And they make
that statement because it's changed conditions. Thing have changed
since the 70's when this property was zoned single-family and I'd like
to kind of walk through these just a little bit.
This aerial, perhaps, isn't marked as clearly as it could be. But
we've got Immokalee Road on the north, we've got Veterans Park
Drive coming this way. The parcel in question has a -- abuts
Immokalee Road, comes down, widens out here, and then has this
general configuration.
Changed conditions. Across Veterans Park Drive you've got the
Veterans Park Commons, the commercial PUD, medical office. And
my recollection -- and as I said, I haven't been involved in this file
too much, but my recollection is 40-feet height limitations. They're
building a large building on the comer right here. Very little in way
of buffer or setbacks from the street, as is typical with commercial
development.
Page 29
February 11, 2003
The -- completely south of that and adjacent to this parcel is
another medical PUD, commercial PUD. I understand 35-foot height
limitations in that.
Immediately adjoining that is the fire station in this location.
That has an active, I think, 75-foot tower that all our fire departments
in the area come to train on. It has a public meeting room, which
they advertise. There is a blinking yellow light in this approximate
location here at the access entrance to that, 24 hours a day, and, of
course, you have emergency vehicles coming and going on a 24-hour
basis.
In here we have the North Naples Community Park. You were
just talking about parks earlier. This is a very active, very successful,
from the amount of usage, park. It's got the big -- and I'll use the
wrong terminology, but I'll call it the old-fashioned thing, skating
rink where they do the roller hockey and things of that nature.
I was out there between five and six one afternoon, and I mean,
it's -- things are happening everywhere. You've got a dog park down
here, you've got ball fields here, you've got tennis courts in this area.
It's open seven days a week till 10 o'clock at night, and at night
it's fairly brightly lit. It's a very active park and very successful, and
that's good. It's not a bad thing. But what it has done is make
Veterans Park Drive a non-residential street. There is not a
residence, not one, multi-family, single-family, any kind of family
that accesses off of Veterans Park Drive. And I think that's a very,
very telling comment.
Things have changed, conditions have changed from the day
this was zoned single-family. It just isn't going to support
single-family any longer.
The -- you can't see on this photograph, but I know that most of
you have been on the property or have heard the presentation. There
is a tributary, I guess, of the Cocohatchee River that separates and
forms, actually, a property boundary between this site and the
Page 30
February 11, 2003
residential area to the east.
Heavily vegetated on both sides, as I think everybody has said,
both their side and our side. And obviously, as you've heard before,
the goal is to keep that vegetation so the buildings would not be
viewed or visible from the adjoining residential properties.
So what we need to find is a transitional use, that is a use that
transitions from the institutional uses, the taller, more intensive
medical commercial uses, to the single-family uses.
And I think that Mr. Stokes will tell you very succinctly, but
from my perspective as a practitioner in land use in this county for
longer than I want to admit, you've got to find a use that transitions.
You've got -- over here you've got this, a little more active, over here
you've got single-family. They can go to 35 feet, but most of them, I
think, are sing -- one story, maybe one or two-story buildings in
there. They need to find something to transition, also provide a
buffer for them from the very busy Veterans Park Drive.
I think the project, as proposed, with the -- these constraints that
have been placed upon it, which Mr. Duane will go into in detail -- I
mean, these petitioners have gone as far as, you know, overseeing
and trying to address concerns of the neighbors, reducing the height,
increasing setbacks, no parking in the back, lighting constraints. I
mean, and I'm sure I'm missing some of them, but Mr. Duane will go
through them, to address the concerns of the residents.
There have been four meetings with the neighbors.
Unfortunately -- I think they're here today, some of them are here
today, to speak to this, and they certainly have the right to do that.
But we have tried to reach accommodation, and we have not been
able to.
What's the other alternative? The other alternative is
multi-family. Your staff report said that this property would qualify
for six units an acre, forgetting a density bonus for affordable
housing. Six units an acre. I looked at the RMS-6 districts on this
Page 31
February 11, 2003
property to see what kind of standards you have. RMS-6 allows
three living floors, okay? No height restrictions. Mr. Halas, three
living floors.
So it could be three living floors over one level of parking,
which is a typical configuration you see in condominiums or
apartments. There you're talking 48 feet, perhaps, something of that
nature, to the midpoint of the roof. Certainly more impactive
visually and aesthetically than an 18-foot building, which we have
restricted ourselves to in this proposal.
Second you're going to have -- as Mr. Duane will tell you,
you're going to have more mass, more activity, they're going to want
to put those multi-family buildings where they have views of the
creek. I certainly would if I was going to live there or develop that
property. It's going to be more impactive on the lifestyle.
As one of our staff will be -- remain unnamed -- told me, they
need to be careful what they ask for. The commission turns this
down, the only other viable use is multi-family. It's going to be more
impactive on them. So sometimes you have to step up and do what's
right for the community as a whole and for the property owner that
owns this property also.
Obviously, the Planning Commission agreed with this proposal.
After some discussion of a 30-foot height, which didn't go very far,
and a motion to defeat that was passed, there was a motion to
approve this proposal with the 18-foot height limitation which passed
nine-zip. Unanimously.
As far as the constraints on the property and what we've offered
the residents in the neighborhood, I'd like to ask Mr. Duane just to
remind you of those, but if you'd give us a minute, Mr. Chairman, I'd
like to have Mr. Stokes just very quickly summarize his findings as a
professional appraiser, and then Mr. Duane tell you about the
constraints and the infill nature of this property, and then we'd like a
couple of minutes to obviously rebut or respond to any issues or
Page 32
February 11, 2003
questions that are raised by the residents.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think what we're asking for is
any new information.
MR. VARNADOE: And that's what we're going to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So if Mr. Duane has met with the
residents --
MR. VARNADOE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that might be pertinent in the
decision that we're about to make. Please do so. MR. VARNADOE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Stokes is--
MR. VARNADOE: Obviously he's new information.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: New information, so please continue.
MR. VARNADOE: Any questions before I step down?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the -- as we look at this
whole neighborhood here, what's the big plan for the -- all the way
around this little community? Is the -- along Immokalee Road, is
that all going to be filled in with commercial also? Let me show you
where I'm talking about.
What's the big plan for this area here? Is this all going to be
commercial then surrounding this whole neighborhood?
MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Halas -- and I'll get Bob Duane to go
into more detail. My understanding, that this property outlined in
black right here is the Surrey Place PUD, so that's a preapproved
PUD in place. The uses there are already approved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right. And there's going-- so
there's going to be some additional development in that area?
MR. VARNADOE: I'm going to have to get Mr. Duane to
answer that question for you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: And I'd like, if you will, we'll put that and
remind Mr. Duane, if he -- we'll get Mr. Stokes up, and then we'll go
Page 3 3
February 11, 2003
to Mr. Duane.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. If I may, would you give
me a little more detail on the buffer? Exactly what is it going to look
like ifI was owning one of these four houses that will face your
property; if I looked out my back yard, what would I see?
MR. VARNADOE: Right now what they see is a mass of
vegetation on -- usually on both sides of the creek. Most of them
have kept, as you can see from the photograph, a lot of vegetation
between themselves and the creek. We intend to keep vegetation on
our side on the creek and supplement as necessary, so they're not
going to see anything, except what they see today, and that is
vegetation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, when I look
out -- if I own one of these houses and I was looking out my back
door, I won't see anything different when you get through than I
would see now at present time; is that what you're saying?
MR. VARNADOE: That's our goal, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's your goal. How are you
going to put that down as far as a promise that could be fulfilled?
MR. VARNADOE: I'm going to let the planner deal with that
issue. And -- actually I think that we've taken some photographs
from 20, 25 feet away from the creek, and you just can't even see the
creek. It's very densely vegetated with some very mature vegetation,
both tall trees and some mid-story. I think that in response to the
neighbors, that there was actually a tree survey done to see where the
canopy of those trees were, and they range from 22 to somewhere in
the upper 40's in terms of the canopy of the trees. It's a fairly --
because it's next to a creek, it's fairly densely vegetated.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But you are going to remove a
Page 34
February 11, 2003
large portion of the vegetation to be able to put the building in. Will
-- at that point in time will your vision be able to carry through the
remaining vegetation back to the -- your exist -- the structures you're
planning to put in?
MR. VARNADOE: We are keeping -- staying 25 feet setback,
as I recall -- is that right, Bob -- from the creek. Our property line
actually goes out to the middle of the creek, so that's going to be
some additional buffer. And with the amount of vegetation in there,
we don't think you're going to be able to see the buildings. But as I
said, if we need to supplement that vegetation, we'll do so.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Let me try to rephrase
this in a little different light. Would you be able to give an absolute
guarantee that it would be -- the vegetation would be sufficient so
that the buildings wouldn't be able to be viewed; in other words, the
field of vision when you walk out there and you look will be similar
to what it is now? They won't be seeing an edifice through the
vegetation?
MR. VARNADOE: Let me talk to the people who have been on
site more than once, which I have, while we're having the
presentations, and I'll respond to that after public speakers, if I might.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What is just due south of this
particular property that we're looking at?
MR. VARNADOE: That's a PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, but what's all that
vegetation there?
MR. VARNADOE: That's--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that going to be developed too?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I think the PUD -- that PUD is
pretty much developed, and that you're requ -- you're required to
Page 3 5
February 11, 2003
keep a certain amount of open space on your PUD and native
vegetation. That was the area they decided to keep native vegetation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that -- is that part of the
tributary system also of that Cocohatchee River?
MR. VARNADOE: It meanders on down and basically --
historically, I think that most of the Cocohatchee probably came this
way.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. VARNADOE: With putting the canal in, we changed
nature. So it comes down here -- and I've been on that property,
although it's been 20 years ago, and it goes down and basically -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So it's kind of a wetlands,
highland type area?
MR. VARNADOE: It's not really too much of it wet. Most of
it is upland. There's some upland next to the creek, but then it
rapidly goes into oak and related species, my recollection from 20
plus years ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Stokes?
MR. STOKES: Good morning. My name's Julian Stokes. I'm
an MAI and a CRE. MAI is an advanced level of expertise and
experience in valuation of commercial, industrial, residential and
special use properties, counselor of real estate. It is a professional
membership organization that's basically developed exclusively for
the leading real estate advisors in the nation.
With that said, I've been in town a little over 28, 29 years. I'm
managing director of Integra Realty Resources here in Naples,
Florida.
I was asked to look at the property. The primary purpose was to
determine if there were any impacts with regard to the proposed
change in the land use. Any impacts associated to the adjacent
properties located in Southwind Estates that are located along
Page 36
February 11, 2003
Bethany Drive.
At first I reviewed the C-1 zoning category, which essentially
has provided for commercial, professional and general office district
intended to allow a concentration of office-type buildings that are
most compatible with and located near residential uses.
I also reviewed the development criteria. And based on that
development criteria, I said it was logical to presume that there really
would be an impact on the quality of property values associated with
those properties located in Southwind Estates.
I then reviewed the rezoning request to the C-1 designation
along with the constraints and/or restrictions associated with it. I
think someone else will get into the restrictions. But the bottom line
is that C-1 itself, with the height, the densities, the mass that is
available to that zoning designation, I think it's common sense that,
yes, there could be a potential for diminution in values.
With the restrictions, such as the height restriction, one story not
to exceed 18 feet, the use restrictions that will exclude several of the
typical uses associated with C-l, parking restrictions that won't allow
for -- I think they've gone over a lot of these. In other words, there
will be no parking on the coarse creek side of the development, and
the exclusion of access to Veterans Park Drive to Bethany Place. I
think these are all very important considerations.
In light of that, my opinion is that there will be no diminution in
value, and that with the additional restraints associated with this
specific rezoning request, they will eliminate all conceivable
objections to the zoning.
I further went on to review the current land use, RSF-3. I think
Mr. Varnadoe pointed out several commercial uses surrounding the
property. And I think it's fairly easy to understand that given the
surrounding commercial nature and the uses, that a single-family use
is not an appropriate transitional use. I don't believe it would be
economically viable. I don't think it could be developed as a
Page 37
February 11, 2003
single-family residential subdivision. We're talking three acres.
I do believe that multi-family residential is a potential use that
could be associated with the subject property; however, I think,
again, considering the proper transition from single-family and if, in
fact, the neighborhood of Southwind Estates wants to maintain the
integrity of their quality, the quality of life, their right to quiet
enjoyment, the views, that they would, in my opinion, be cutting
their nose to spite their face not to go along with this particular
rezone given the development restrictions associated with it.
I think when you start to look at two-story, three-story
apartments in that location -- and in all likelihood it could very well
be a rental facility, but I'm not sure, probably condominium, but
nonetheless affordable housing or entry level, to take advantage of
the Veterans Park location, I think that that would be much more
intrusive to their right to quiet enjoyment and -- however, it would be
viable and is approvable.
That's pretty much all I have to say.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any question? No questions. The
board will recognize Mr. Stokes as an expert witness in this petition
in the field of appraising. I've got a nod here. I do. I recognize him
as an expert. Okay. Thank you.
Ready for public speakers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Duane, do you have anything
new to add to this?
MR. DUANE: How could I not say anything today?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we're glad you're here.
MR. DUANE: I do have a few points, and I'll try to wrap them
up as quickly as I can. For the record, my name is Robert Duane.
I'm a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have
a graduate degree in community and regional planning, and I've
Page 38
February 11, 2003
practiced for approximately 30 years both in the public and in the
private sector.
Mr. Halas, you had a question about the Surrey Place PUD. It
comprises approximately 12 acres just north of the subject property.
Two acres allows for a bank and office-related uses, and 10 acres
allows for Surrey Place, which is an assisted living facility.
Did that answer your question about the uses of that property?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What I'm saying is, there'll be
some more development on that PUD?
MR. DUANE: Their second phase, I believe, is still yet to
come, which is an addition above the existing building that was
approved several years ago.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And we're also -- I think
that Mr. Varnadoe also stated that on the west side of Veterans Park
where that green space area is, that's also going to be developed; is
that true?
MR. DUANE: That is correct. The entire frontage along the
west side of Veterans Park Drive is going to be developed with two
commercial Planned Unit Developments.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So basically what we're
saying here then, if I'm right, is that if we have a rezone on this -- we
have a rezone on this, then basically this whole little community is
going to be locked in by total -- it would be encompassed totally by
commercial; is that true?
MR. DUANE: That is correct. There will be no residential
traffic using that street. We've got park, we've got fire station, we've
got two commercial PUDs. Those are going to be the ingress and
egress.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, what I'm-- that's what I'm
getting at. In other words, this whole little community is going to be
surrounded by commercial?
MR. DUANE: That's correct, with the exception of the four
Page 39
February 11, 2003
houses that are located to the north of us.
CHAIRMAN HALAS: Okay. Any further questions?
Commission Coletta, you got your questions answered?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For the moment I do. I'd like to
hear the speakers before I ask any other questions. CHAIRMAN HENNING: I would too.
MR. DUANE: I -- briefly just to touch upon existing
conditions, George summarized those very well. The conditions
have changed around the subject property, there's no question about
that, since the zoning was put in place in -- sometime during the
1970's.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that new since we've been here,
last heard this item?
MR. DUANE: I've avoided going into any of those details. The
conditions have changed. I'll move on to my next point.
The comprehensive plan has also changed. Since 1989, we
adopted the office and infill procedures. Shortly thereafter, we had
incorporated provisions in our comprehensive plan to allow medical
uses within a certain proximity to hospitals. That's a changed
condition since 1989.
Your 1989 plan also encouraged infill development through
increased density bonuses on sites that are less than 10 acres. I think
that's an important consideration. It's one of your smart growth
policies designed to direct development where the existing services
and facilities are available in order to discourage urban sprawl, in
order to encourage more compact growth patterns. So I think your
comprehensive plan recognizes these properties needed to be treated
a little differently to achieve those goals. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mr. Duane, would you -- would
you feel comfortable if you lived in this neighborhood and were
surrounded totally by commercial properties?
Page 40
February 11, 2003
MR. DUANE: I, myself, if your question, would I want --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If you were living in this
neighborhood, yes.
MR. DUANE: -- to develop a single-family home there, I don't
think the site is --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's not his question. Surrey
Place --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm sorry?
MR. DUANE: I'm sorry. Your question again?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: State your question again, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My question is, if you lived in that
neighborhood yourself, you had a residence there, would -- how
would you-- would you feel comfortable being surrounded by all
that commercial property?
MR. DUANE: I understand, if I lived in Surrey Place. Those
are the conditions that exist today. Would I feel uncomfortable
living in Surrey Place? No, I would not.
We have approved commercial PUDs on the other side of the
street, and the character has somewhat changed, has changed of the
subject property.
Moving on to the conditions that we've agreed upon. I'll try to
wrap up here. After meetings we've had, we have limited the height
to one story or 18 feet. We have limited any access to Bethany Place
whatsoever. I think most of you are familiar with the location of
Bethany Place.
We have limited uses in the C-1 district. We've tried to keep it
more or less purely office. We've eliminated any parking to the rear
-- or -- to the rear of any structures, however parking would be
allowed to the front and the side. That was as a result to some
concerns we had about the impact the parking would have on the
proposed development.
We have proposed, and you can see that on the visualizer, a
Page 41
February 11, 2003
48-foot strip of land, 48 foot wide. We have proposed to keep that as
an -- as a buffer along Veterans Park Drive. That is to provide
protection and buffering for lot 15, which is the Welches' property,
which is located immediately to the east of that property.
With regard to buffering, we are making a commitment at this
public hearing that we will substantially vegetate that area in such a
fashion that you will not be able to see the proposed office buildings
that are limited to one story in height on this property. I think that's a
substantial commitment to supplement the existing vegetation in
place so we will not be seen.
We have also agreed to turn lights off in buildings no later than
nine o'clock except for janitorial service and circumstances that may
arise to accommodate work schedules. We've eliminated lighting to
the rear of any structures or proposed to shield them in such a way
that they will not be a detriment to our neighbors.
We have also agreed to place deed restrictions on the property
that would be enforceable by the adjoining property owners. In other
words, it would require their approval for any of the standards that
we are offering today which are going to be incorporated in the
zoning resolution. They will not be able to be changed without the
support of the property owners.
As long as I've done this kind of work, which is for some time,
this is the first time I've ever had a client agree to deed restrictions
just to place a better level of comfort on this project, that what we're
offering today is what you'll get.
Finally, the Planning Commission asked that a sidewalk be
provided from Bethany Place to Veterans Park Drive.
In summary, it's my opinion that with these standards that we're
proposing today, that these uses can be found compatible on the
subject property. I don't believe single-family uses are any longer
viable.
I agree with the conclusions that Mr. Stokes has shared with you
Page 42
February 11, 2003
today, that multi-family uses, whether it be six units per acre with the
density bonus under infill, or whether it go all the way up to 14 units
per acre, which is allowed, with an eight-unit per acre bonus, is going
to have substantially more bulk, height and building coverage than
the proposal we have before you today.
We're proposing approximately 20,000 square feet of office. If
six units per acre, this were to develop into condominiums, we'd
probably be looking something closer to 30,000 square feet of floor
area in two-story structures. If we went to 14 units per acre, you
would have 50,000 feet or more of floor area, more than likely in
three-unit structures.
So I agree with Mr. Stokes's opinion that the development
standards that we've proposed and the limitations on these uses, in
my opinion, is more compatible at this location than would be
multi-family or higher-intensity developments.
My last point has to do with the findings that are incorporated in
your staff report. I have a very detailed memo that was contained in
your package dated September 23rd. I won't go through those five
findings other than, suffice to say, it's my opinion that those findings
can be found to be met by this project, by this board, and that's what
the Planning Commission, when they recommended to you that we
have these limitations placed on the C-1 zoning district, they,
themselves, I can only surmise, felt that we also met these standards,
because it was brought up on a number of occasions during the
hearings that we had to be found in compliance with them.
And I will just reiterate, again, that the Planning Commission
did not find that the -- they found that this use was compatible at this
location. They found that the commercial uses across the street and
the non-residential nature on the traffic was not conducive to
single-family uses at this location. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
Page 43
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. A
question on deed restrictions, if I may, sir. I think that's a unique
approach. I've never quite heard that before, to empower the
residents there, and I would assume that that would stay with the
residents that live on that street, that ability to make a deed restriction
to be able to oversee it. Probably they'd have to form an association
of some type, I don't know. I won't get into that part.
But in order to enforce a deed restriction, what's involved with
that? Is that something that prohibits the commission from ever
changing that in the future?
MR. DUANE: I'm not an attorney, and I would let Mr.
Varnadoe answer that question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. You looked very
comfortable. I didn't want to bother you.
MR. VARNADOE: Not at all, Mr. Coletta. I think it would be
more appropriate to deal with those if we could just probably hear
from the public, and there's going to be a lot of questions, I think, and
I'll deal with all of those at one time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's call up the public
speakers.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have four speakers. The first
one is Kris Gomory. He will be followed by Terri Jolly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And just state your name for the
record when you're ready. You can stay right there if you'd like.
MR. GOMORY: For the record, my name is Kris Gomory. I
live at 1920 Bethany Place in Southwind Estates. My property abuts
the petitioned area.
MR. MUDD: Just tell me how you want to do them and I'll put
them on for you.
MR. GOMORY: I have new information, new information that
I didn't talk about last time, but I'd like to address just a couple points
Page 44
February 11, 2003
about some of the statements that were made earlier. Number one,
regarding the dense vegetation that exists on both sides on the creek,
and the reality of that is, it just does not exist.
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas have been to the
site. We walked along the creek. Although there are some beautiful
natural trees, there's some live oak, there's some old palm trees there,
there's no vegetation on their side other than those large trees. You
can see the stream the whole way, so the dense vegetation is not on
their side on the property, and that's one point I wanted to make.
The other point that I wanted to make is in regards to the report
that you guys were presented. And as a former independent auditor,
I would just urge you to look at this as a report. I read this report, and
this report has almost every detail from every meeting, our
commission meetings and everything that's ever been said, and it's
almost a transcript of every detail for the petitioners that came back,
and that concerns me. I mean, if we're going to recognize somebody
as experts, I think we can have three experts here, and we should
look at some independent assessments of the area and not just every
point that was ever addressed for the petitioner here. So that was just
the other point that I wanted to make.
My new information is very simply something that -- it's very
simple. Do we need more commercial property in North Naples? Do
we need it? Can it stand on its own legs and say, do we need this
property?
Right now there's -- there's a couple articles that were printed in
the paper. This one was done January 19th, 2003. Office space goes
empty. A new report says that with more office projects in the
works, there's a likelihood of vacancies climbing even higher this
year.
And I'll just read some of the summation of this particular
article. Overall, the office market could start to see some
improvement later this year, that is, as long as new construction
Page 45
February 11, 2003
remains in check. Timmins thinks it will be because many
developers have slowed down their projects to allow time for
demands to catch up with supply of office space. I will speculate that
you will not see significant new office development in the
marketplace for several years. This is one report.
Now a more authoritative report. This is the mid-year report
done by C.B. Richard Ellis, this accesses most all of the real estate
vacancies and so forth, and I think you have been given this by Mrs.
Jolly.
This market index report -- I'm just going to address a couple
issues and try to be brief with all this. Regarding vacancies in North
Naples, my understanding is that there's currently approximately a
million square feet of office space in North Naples, and there is --
300,000 is vacant, and this does not include any of the projects that
may be work in progress and haven't even been recorded in that
number.
The vacancy rate in Collier has increased 19 percent. Almost a
10 percent increase over year-end figures. Again this period, Naples
North has the highest vacancy rate, 25.6 percent.
This is the market recap. This is the summary of this -- this
report. In Collier, despite increases in vacancy rates over the last
several quarters, developers are still planning and building office
product. Absorption for the first six months has decreased
dramatically fueling concerns that the absorption of this new existing
space may take four to five years. As in the past, the largest
vacancies continue to be in the North Naples area.
And my new information is just -- besides all the other points, is
that we live with that whole area. I brought some pictures here to
show you all the signs in that corridor. I think one of the things that
Commissioner Halas was asking about the picture was, where is
other space around there -- where is more office space? And there's a
huge amount of space to the west of the current Veterans Park area
Page 46
February 11, 2003
there that they haven't even started construction yet, but it's in the
process.
There's real estate all over, there's commercial real estate all
over that hasn't been developed. So that if we look at it and say,
well, is this good for our community to go ahead and say, well, let's
just make more even though there's a glut of office space in North
Naples. I just don't think that is good to set a precedence and say, let
me change RSF-3 to commercial property.
In closing, I would just urge you to deny the petition for
rezoning based on its own merits and to agree with your staff that
originally you hired to look at this project and they denied the
petition. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Can I look at those
pictures? And I'll leave them-- MR. GOMORY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for you to --
MR. GOMORY: This is the Orion Bank.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks.
Next speaker, please.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Terri Jolly. She will be
follow the by James Welch.
MS. JOLLY: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
My name is Terri Jolly. I live at 1916 Bethany Place, and I'm one of
the two home -- the four homes that backs up to this proposed
rezone. I actually live in the second home off of Veterans Park
Drive.
I appreciate all the time that you've accorded. I know I've taken
up a lot of it. I apologize. I feel like a broken record, you know, at
this point.
But first I'd like to say that nothing that the petitioners has ever
presented to us leads us to believe that they're actually going to build
a one-story office building on that property. We just don't believe it.
Page 47
February 11, 2003
From day one, they told us that they could not make a one-story
building work. They told the Planning Commission they could not
make a one-story building work. The Planning Commission voted
for it anyway. We don't believe it. So in our opinion, this is a rezone
for resale, period.
We're going to ask you to deny it, and I know everybody says,
be careful what you want. This is something that we have thought
about, we have pros and cons with at our house. This is something
we have analyzed very, very, very thoroughly.
We still feel like we have to ask you to deny it, and our reasons
haven't really changed, but they're still that we feel like our property
is going to be devalued. We feel like there's -- on a resale, there's no
way that, if there's C-1 behind our home, that it could be as valuable
as residential to residential, and I think your staff report addresses
that as well. They say generally it's deemed that C-1 adjoining
RSF-3 is less desirable than RSF-3 adjoining RSF-3.
I know this contrasts the, you know, expert testimony that they
have. But I was the same as Kris, when I got that appraisal, I was so
ticked. I read it. It was like deja vu. It was like every word that had
ever come out of their mouth. I was really unhappy with that.
I also agree with the staff that I don't believe that this meets the
actual intent of the growth management act, or plan, however we're
going to term it. The office and infill language states that a site must
abut an arterial or collective artery. They have eight feet that
actually abuts Immokalee Road. It goes down 700 feet until their
main parcel. I mean, they meet it by a technicality only.
And you know what, if they want to build their property on their
eight feet that actually abuts Immokalee Road, I'll withdraw my
objection, you know.
And I know that there's no need -- Kris has gone all through
this. I don't think I need to go through it again, but I did give you the
market reports. That is industry standard. It states that North Naples
Page 48
February 11, 2003
currently has the highest vacancy rate in Lee or Collier County at
24.9 percent, and that's the new report that just came out on the 5th
of February for the year end of 2002.
And they state that-- and this is -- even with -- there's more
projects on line. This is going to increase. Rezone condition number
15. It states, and I quote, whether it's impossible to find other
adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already
permitted for such use. The petitioners answered this question in
their original application for rezone in October of 2001, and their
answer was no. I think we've proven that.
RSF-3. I believe, and your staff report agrees with me, that we
had a reasonable expectation when we purchased that property that
that land would remain RSF-3.
They talk about transition. Transition's been a big issue.
They're going to go from the west side of Veterans Park Drive where
they have -- we've now rezoned things to two and three-stow
buildings to their one-stow building to our homes.
Well, I think a better transition would be that all of the
commercial stayed on the other side of-- on the west side of
Veterans Park Road.
They talk about changing circumstances. That's true, the county
did choose to rezone those properties on the other side of Veterans
Park Road, but they also changed the circumstances of my home.
And you know what? My home was there when they made that
decision.
And they talk about their property being so -- you know, so
different. Our homes -- Mrs. Welch's home abuts Veterans Park
Road. I mean, there's not that big a difference between where their
property is and where ours is.
I think there's some critical, critical differences when they talk
about how that property on the other side of Veterans Park Road, on
the west side, was rezoned in comparison to this. The property on
Page 49
February 11, 2003
the other side of Veterans Park Road was all agricultural. It was not
zoned RSF-3.
Then, nor now, did any of those properties that they've rezoned
or that they're currently building or going to build ever touched
residential property. Not then, not now. Okay? I think that's a huge,
huge critical difference.
And I don't believe that this is unusable property, and I disagree.
That is the most beautiful piece of property. If you walk back there,
I know some of you have, it -- you could build homes back there.
They could berm the front of that. There could be a gate.
And also, I think that there's also another option for the
property, and this has come up since our last meeting. The day that
we were here was voting day, Commissioner Coletta had to leave and
go count votes. But the voters of our county have since passed the
green tax, and they have said that they want green tax. And whether
or not we approve of that or whether we don't, our tax monies are
going to that. That money is there and it's going to be spent on green
space.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Jolly, I have to ask you to wrap
it up, please.
MS. JOLLY: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it said three minutes. I
apologize.
So basically, I think this is the perfect piece of property, it's near
the park. That park houses after-school programs, summer programs,
it has wetlands, it has endangered species. It has all those things that
would make it perfect.
The other thing is if they make decided to make it a nature
preserve with, like, boardwalks, it also has parking at the park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. JOLLY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. -- Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many years have you lived
Page 50
February 11, 2003
in this neighborhood, Mrs. Jolly?
MS. JOLLY: I think about eight and a half.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what's your feeling of
what's happening in your neighborhood as far as all the commercial
that you're being surrounded by?
MS. JOLLY: Well, we moved in there -- the nursing home was
already there when we moved there. But we chose to be close to the
park. I mean, so we wanted to be by the park.
We actually were for the bank building going up on the comer
by our neighborhood because we felt like, that's on Immokalee Road.
It's going to be something commercial at some point. And a bank
was better than a 7-Eleven, you know, or a gas station.
But we just feel like that -- it just keeps happening. And the
other problem is is that we feel like that -- what they're proposing is
not really that bad, but the problem with it is is that we're afraid it's
going to be same thing we saw happen with the nursing home. They
get it in as one story and they give all these conditions and all these
things, and they're not-- they don't do it.
Then a few years later they come back and they come before a
new board and they ask -- you know, they say, we really -- now that
there's three-story buildings down the street, we can't compete, we
need another story, and we just feel like -- that we're just going to be
continually back here and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. JOLLY: --we feel like we're going to end up either way,
you know. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is James Welch. He will be follow
by your final speaker, Marjorie (sic) Welch.
MR. WELCH: You can see this. My name's James Welch,
1904 Bethany Place.
It's kind of hard to hold a woodpecker steady on a camera (sic)
Page 51
February 11, 2003
with a tree (sic).
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've never seen a sideways tree
before.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, when they're falling.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, is that it? Okay.
MR. WELCH: He was busy that day.
Anyway, we have two or three different type woodpeckers that
live in that area. The real tall ones, you know, I don't know what you
call it, but--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pileated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It depends on who you talk to, sir.
MR. WELCH: Sir?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Red-cockaded woodpecker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Some people call them --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Call them pileated woodpecker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- red-headed cockaded
woodpeckers. Some people have other names for them. MR. WELCH: I'll take your word.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I believe all of them live in
District 5, by the way. Go ahead.
MR. WELCH: There is about four or five turtle nests on the
property. There's a picture of one. There is a picture of one of the
turtles.
Okay. And we have the -- again, I'm not an expert on birds.
That's -- we called those the water turkeys when I was growing up.
We have a lot of those. This is a water turtle. It's hard to see him
because they jump off the tree as soon as you get out there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: A water turtle?
MR. WELCH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WELCH: They're about that big around. They live in the
water. They come up on the bank. This is a picture in back of our
Page 52
February 11, 2003
house coming from their property.
Now, as Kris -- we can see practically three quarters of the lot.
It is not grown up as well as everybody says. This is a duck. You
can't see him though because it's too dark. Okay.
We have -- all the people that live in Southwinds have signed a
petition trying to block the development.
If you do -- we ask you not to pass it, but if you do, I'm asking
for an amendment to your resolution to the landscape to get a small
berm on that property with a ficus hedge or gustrom (phonetic) or
something that grows well and put it like a solid line or staggered so
we don't have to see the building. Because from our porch, you will
see everything over there.
And we're asking -- you may not pass it -- around 50 feet from
the bank. Let's see. We were also told that we couldn't put a berm
there because of the drainage. But I worked on a golf course 23
years. You can put drainage in.
Pelican Marsh, north end of the airport, Bonita Bay, they all
have ficus hedges. Right across on Immokalee Road where the
Circle K is, there's about a 25-foot ficus hedge and probably an eight
or 1 O-foot berm.
Mr. Stokes said it would not be livable as far as a house, but he
also said that single -- or multiple family could be built there, which
if you don't want a house there, why would you want condos there
with people living in it? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, your final speaker is Margie
Welch.
MS. WELCH: Hi. My name is Margie Welch. I live at 1904
Bethany Place. And as my husband just spoke, the back of our
home, he gave a picture of what we see when we look out our back
yard.
We are against the C-1 rezone on (sic) many reasons. And I --
Page 53
February 11, 2003
the petitioner is true when he said he has met with us and tried to
work out with us something that would be compatible and be
agreeable with all of us.
And we feel like, as homeowners, we have bent over backwards
by meeting with them, listening to them each time they paint a good
picture with words. But we have asked for the last year and a half,
since they have petitioned this -- I think it's September, 2001 -- show
us a drawing, show us a picture, show us what the buffer would be,
show us how you would block it so we would not see the parking lot.
And each time -- they said at the next meeting they would have a
picture for us. And then at the next meeting, it would be words again
on what they were proposing to do, but it would be too expensive to
do these drawings at this time.
Now, before I get started on the deed restrictions on -- I believe
the attorney mentioned, we were told that if you put these deed
restrictions into this proposal, who would enforce this and how do
these work? This is just a smoke screen. Deed restrictions would not
protect us because who governs these when you are gone, these
county commissioners, or if our property is sold? It would be another
-- it would be another thing for us to governor (sic).
Okay. Number one, a C-1 rezone, the first requirement is the
site must abut to an arterial road. That's number one. The building
site is 750 feet away from Immokalee Road, but there is an eight-foot
strip of land that abuts to Immokalee Road. In the fairness principle,
we feel this property should not be able to piggyback to any previous
approvals by the county commissioners because of this eight-foot
strip. Nothing can be built on the eight-foot strip.
If the subject property had been zoned agricultural, we, the
homeowners, might reasonably expected (sic) the property to be
rezoned in the future. We knew across the way where all the medical
buildings are now that that was all agricultural. And when it came in
and those medical buildings were built, you didn't see any of us here.
Page 54
February 11, 2003
We expected that it would be a rezone.
However, the property directly behind us that the petitioners are
trying to rezone is an RSF-3, creating a reasonable expectation that
the property would be developed by or with a single-family home.
We have been told by the petitioners at all the meetings that if
we were not in favor of this rezone, we could get a low-income
housing on this property. And we know that in order for this to
happen, there would have to be a similar process that they're going
through for a rezone for a low-income housing.
We've also been told by the planning board, the county
commissioners, the petitioners, be careful what we wish for. And in
order -- and we're interpreting this, in order -- if we don't agree with
what they're going to do, be careful what you're going to give us.
Well, a low-income housing, it's not zoned for that yet anyway.
They would have to go through the same process.
We do not feel the eight-foot strip to Immokalee Road meets the
office and infill commercial subdistrict, and it is not compatible or
appropriate for a C-1 rezone.
Now, I have a copy here, which the petitioner gave me, of the
permitted uses under C-1 of what's allowable. Yes, they're going to
make exceptions and they're going to do this. But under a C-1 --
somebody has to enforce these exceptions. You can have accounting
buildings, you can have automobile parking, barber shops, beauty
shops, business services, child day care, churches, group care
facilities, offices for engineering, architectural, surveying services,
health services, a group care facility, health services, individual and
family social services, insurance, legal services, management and
public relations service, miscellaneous, personal service, museums,
art galleries, non-deposit credit institutions, photographic studios,
physical fitness facilities, real estate groups, shoe repair shop, and
any other commercial uses that would meet this comparable.
Then it goes on to say, conditional uses, we could get civic or
Page 55
February 11, 2003
social associations, depository institutions, educational services,
health service, homeless shelters, and it just goes on. This all falls
under C-1, and this is why we are objecting to this.
And lastly, you have a picture up there, and in the PUD rezone
for the Surrey Place nursing home, which was a rezone, the
landscaping requirements on page 5, which you all have a copy of, in
3.9 read, as follows -- by the same people, by Hole Montes, the
Surrey place --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, I have to ask you to wrap it
ape
MS. WELCH: Okay. Just real quick. The language was, the
buffer along Vilsand Avenue shall be installed within 90 days after
zoning approval. The height of the buffer is required to be eight feet
in height by the CO.
As you can see from this picture, you know, eight years -- or 14
years later that's our eight-foot buffer that we have. Now, we were
told by the county commissioners, if we don't have it, to do a
complaint to the code -- the board -- county -- code of enforcement
board, which we did file a complaint. I did some checking. There's
been complaints in the last 14 years. And I was told that when they
get a complaint like this, they go out, they cite them with a notice of
violation, they ride by. As long as they plant a little plant, they go
on. They don't have the manpower to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. WELCH: -- enforce this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. WELCH: So I'm just saying, this is our eight-foot buffer
14 years later.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, it sounds like you
need to take a note on that buffer. MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay. Mr. Varnadoe, want to wrap
Page 56
February 11, 2003
it up for us, please.
MR. VARNADOE: I'll be quick.
Just two or three points. Number one, demand is not an issue
during a rezoning petition. I can put Mr. Spokes up here and he can
tell you why we differ from a lot of this vacancy you see in the area.
The large vacancies, of course, are basically three projects, Galleria,
Fifth/Third Bank, which I think has one tenant at the present time in
that multi-story building, and Creekside, which is offering product
for lease only. That's the Collier's way. They don't sell land. Where
a project that's sold buildings or sold condominiums might be a
completely different story.
I thought the most interesting speaker you had was Mrs. Jolly in
her comments that she doesn't believe we're going to build a
one-story building and she thinks this is kind of the nose under the
tent syndrome where we get permission for a one-story building, then
we come back and ask for more later.
I think that if she really understood the zoning process together
with deed restrictions, this would be the best of all possible worlds.
Because if we get permission to build a one-story building and that's
the zoning and they have deed restrictions that say that's all we can
build, and that's economically feasible, they'll never have anything
there. They'll have exactly what they have today.
So I think that there's a little misunderstanding of what deed
restrictions do. Deed restrictions run with the land in favor of other
property.
So the proposal would be that we would put deed restrictions on
this property as to all these conditions we talked about, uses, height,
setbacks, all of that stuff, it would run in favor of those four lots, so
each and every one of those lots owner -- lot owners, whether it
happens to be Mrs. Jolly today or the Welches or in the future the
Varnadoes or whoever, they would have the right to enforce those
deed restrictions.
Page 57
February 11, 2003
So if somebody wanted to change and do something different
there than what would be allowed, they not only would have to come
back through the zoning process and get whatever board of county
commissioners are sitting in your place, they would also have to get
the permission from each and every one of those lot owners to make
those changes.
So as Mr. Coletta, Chairman -- Commissioner Coletta said, you
know, it does add a new twist to it. It adds double protections for the
residents.
Finally, as far as the vegetation, the Welches are the closest
ones, and where their property is located -- I walked off without my
pointer -- but they're the single-family lot that is on the northwest
comer.
MR. MUDD: They're right here, Commissioners. They're on
this item number 15, and that's the buffer that the petitioner's
proposing to go put in to shield them from --
MR. VARNADOE: Very -- you know, they are the closest to us
and closest to Veterans Park Drive.
And Chairman -- I mean -- sorry, Chairman Henning.
Commissioner Coletta had asked if we would agree to a stipulation
that they would not be able to see this property. And with one -- one
condition we can agree to that, and that is, on their side on the creek
in a lot of instances, they also have vegetation.
If they were to cut down all their vegetation up to the property
line, certainly that makes our task a lot more difficult. But if they are
to leave the existing vegetation in place, we will have -- agree to a
stipulation, condition in the PUD that they will not be able to see the
buildings from their houses.
Now, if they walk back to the creek, dodge around, look around,
I'm not -- you know, I can't guarantee that. But from their buildings,
we can supplement that vegetation. And there is a lot of vegetation.
I mean, a lot of it's mature, some of it's underbrush in some places, a
Page 58
February 11, 2003
lot of vegetation along the creek, as we all know what happens along
creeks.
But if they leave their vegetation in place, we can supplement
and agree to a stipulation that they will not be able to see our
buildings from their property.
And I don't know whether the best solution is what Mr. Welch
asked for, and that is to put a berm and vegetation on top of that. I'm
not a landscape architect. But we can certainly work with them on
what -- the best solution, but we can certainly agree to a stipulation
and talk about where the plantings are going to be. But they can't be
50 feet from our property line, because then we don't have any room
to build. But within that 25-foot landscape setback buffer where
we're not going to have buildings or impervious surface, we certainly
can achieve that goal.
As -- Mrs. Jolly, her last comment, what she said was, if I wrote
it down correctly, what they're proposing is not that bad, but the real
concern here is, that's not what's going to happen. I mean, that's her
concern is that that is not what is going to happen. I think with the
combination of the zoning plus deed restrictions that we are
proposing, we can guarantee any rational person that it won't change
without their consent.
Now, in the future they might decide something else would be
more appropriate, but it would require not only Mrs. Jolly's consent,
the Welches, Mr. Gomory, and whoever the fourth owner of that
property that abuts is. And I don't have the name, and I'm not going
to be able to look at this point in time unless you ask me to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Any questions I might answer from
anyone?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Under section 2.7.2.5 on the
Collier County Land Development Code, it goes into -- I won't read
Page 59
February 11, 2003
the whole thing, but basically it's going under-- part two, it says, the
existing land use pattern, and it gives pro, con, and then the summary
findings. And the summary finding says, the proposed land use is not
consistent with the land use pattern in the area. How do you -- how
do you address that?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I think--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean, this is the summary
findings.
MR. VARNADOE: Summary finding by who, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I assume it's probably by the
county here.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I assume it wasn't by the Planning
Commission, or they wouldn't have recommended approval, sir. It
might have been your staff recommendation, but it wasn't by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission found exactly the
opposite.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's in my packet here of
information that I went through --
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I'm sure that Mr. Bellows may
answer that. But certainly, we do not agree with that finding and
neither did your Planning Commission by a unanimous vote.
I think that a -- and at the time, of course, that the staff report
was written, 30-foot heights in all these constraints weren't placed on
the property. And as Mr. Stokes himself said, you know, our expert
appraiser, is if those weren't in place, he might have some concerns
about the compatibility. But with those in place, he does not have
those concerns and doesn't think that a rational person should have
those concerns.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Now, let me make one more comment,
then I'm going to sit down and let you deliberate. There's been a lot
of-- a lot of issue about, you know, do they meet the --
Page 60
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vamadoe, Commissioner Coyle
has a question.
MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would wait until you finish --
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if you prefer.
But one of the things that's always a little scary to neighbors is
this long list of permitted uses under the zoning category, and
certainly homeless shelters are an item of concern to these people.
Why can't you narrow your desired uses and specify them a little
more clearly so people would have an understanding of really what
you have in mind here. Is that possible?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. And I thought we had done that
by deleting certain uses from the list that is in your -- it is permitted,
and obviously we have not asked for any conditional uses in this
regard.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you waive your right to
ask for any conditional uses in the future with respect to this if it
were rezoned?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, and I think that's probably more
appropriately put in the deed restrictions, because I don't think the
count -- I want to be blunt. I don't think the county can waive its
policy powers in advance of someone asking for it. But in the deed
restrictions, obviously, then that would have them have to agree to
any conditional use before they could be applied for and approved.
We had deleted barber shops, beauty shops, shoe repair, shoe
shine parlors, automo (sic) commercial -- automobile commercial
parking, individual and family special services, social services,
excuse me, which leaves mainly professional offices, and I guess
with the exception of that, also child care services. But, you know, it
leaves room for lawyers offices, accountants, engineers --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can we eliminate lawyers offices?
Page 61
February 11, 2003
I mean, I can understand how a neighborhood would object to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can we eliminate lawyers?
MR. VARNADOE: Let's don't go there, David.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You've answered my question.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got a question about the parking
group (sic). What is the definition of that? I thought that was an
accessory use of the -- you know, lawyer has a car, he needs to park
it in his driveway, and I think he might have a client that has a car.
MR. VARNADOE: What's the question, sir? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You said you're eliminating parking
MR. VARNADOE: In the rear of the buildings adjoining their
properties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. Not the use?
MR. VARNADOE: Not the use, no, sir, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Got ya.
MR. VARNADOE: To be more compatible, just not have the
parking in the rear where you can pull around with lights on, the
noise. That was the intent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Actually I got a question
for the expert witness, Mr. Stokes. If I may have the commission call
him back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. Mr. Stokes, would you please
step up to the podium, please.
MR. STOKES: Yes. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Stokes, there was -- there
was an example given -- quite a few examples given of empty retail
property. I assume that, you know, when that was going on you were
listening to what they were saying.
MR. STOKES: Yes, sir.
Page 62
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you, as an expert
witness, comment on those allegations, you know, that there's no
need for this, that there's no market, then try to restore the trust of
these people and possibly even the commission in what the actual
intent of this is to be?
MR. STOKES: Specifically, I think that they were addressing,
or they put photographs of several properties that are for sale. Is this
what you're asking me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir.
MR. STOKES: Okay. I think what you have to understand --
and we're getting into the area of demand at the present time. A lot
of the properties that they are -- that you saw pictures of, number
one, are higher density investment-oriented properties, such that will
allow first floor retail uses, second floor, third floor, fourth floor
office uses. I don't know if that's pertinent specifically, but I think
that they were -- they were questioning whether there was sufficient
demand for commercial development, office development.
I think what you'll find is the highest vacancies in the North
Naples area among first and, you know, multi-story properties is
among the first floor retail and the second floor medical office
components.
Most vacancy is a result of new space that's come on line, and
it's undergoing its normal lease up phase of development. Current
absorption rates really indicate that a stabilized occupancy is
achievable within the next 18 to 24 months in this particular node of
Collier County.
This would indicate really a positive outlook with regard to the
prospective timeline associated with future development. We're
dealing with a project that's 18 to 24 months. Single-story campus
style office development is primarily a for-sale type property. I think
you've -- we have other examples in the area that you're familiar
with, and it is most attractive to the medical profession. They prefer
Page 63
February 11, 2003
ownership over leasing. And the subject property is ideally suited,
you know, with respect to its proximity to the North Naples area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You bring up an interesting
point, if I could continue. And you might have to answer this, Mr.
Vamadoe.
The property that's going to be built for medical offices or
offices -- and I understand the restrictions on the times and the lights
going off in the building so you can't turn it into a bar or a restaurant.
We made other restrictions on it.
Tell me this. Are these units going to be for sale to individuals
and condo type things, or are they being -- would it be something to
be retained by the owner? Or you have no idea at this time?
MR. VARNADOE: I have no idea at this time. But the deed
restrictions would run with the land, so whoever the owner is would
be bound by the deed restrictions.
And I need to, if I could, Mr. Halas, clarify one thing for Mr.
Henning.
When I was talking about automobile commercial parking, there
is a use in the C-1 district for that, and that's a stand-alone parking
lot. And that was the one I was saying we were deleting in its
entirety.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, Mr. Halas, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a concern about the
residence of the turtles and of the woodpeckers. How much would
we destroy that habitat, or would we work around that?
MR. VARNADOE: We won't work around all the turtles,
because they're on the upland and they're going to have to be
relocated pursuant to your ordinances. And your ordinance says we
can't destroy them even if we get a permit from the state. They have
to be relocated at an appropriate location. That will happen. None of
the woodpeckers that we are talking about are endangered
Page 64
February 11, 2003
woodpeckers.
pileated woodpeckers and other--
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
big one, right?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes.
They aren't red-cockaded woodpeckers. They are red
Pileated woodpeckers, right, the
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Woody Woodpecker.
MR. VARNADOE: Yeah, big and noisy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: Unless you have any questions for me, I'd
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We just have a staff clarification. If
there's no further questions, I'll close the public hearing. But Mr. Bellows, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows, chief
planner for current planning. I'm filling in for Fred Reischl, who was
called away to give testimony at the Belagio trial. I also have David
Weeks of comprehensive planning, and Stan Chrzanowski, our chief
engineer, to answer any specific questions you have on water
management.
Yeah, I would like to make some corrections for the record.
First off, the subject site is currently zoned RSF-3 to allow for a
multi-family project. The property would have to go through another
rezone to allow for that, which the consistency standards would be
applied to the rezone stage, and staff may or may not recommend to
build a multi-family project in this area, so it's not a given that they
could ask for that and receive that use.
Secondly, the list of permitted uses and the other conditions that
the petitioner's requested have as a deed restriction, staff-- the
county doesn't enforce deed restrictions, so it would be my
recommendation that any of those additional criteria that he's talking
about as -- would be incorporated into the ordinance for this C-1
zoning; however, since there are so many of them, it would be my
Page 65
February 11, 2003
recommendation that we would rezone it to a PUD. Through the
PUD zoning we could assure that these additional criteria, time
restrictions, would be enforced by staff and through the county code
enforcements in the PUD document.
The way it is now, rezoning to C-1, we could technically add
some of these things as conditions of approval, but the zoning map
would still show C-1. We do have a flagging mechanism, but it's -- it
would make it more difficult to enforce consistently if we didn't have
the PUD zoning, in my opinion.
Secondly -- or thirdly, the Growth Management Plan would
review criteria. I think it was pretty well discussed today that staff
was not finding that it met the intent of the office and infill, though it
technically met the criteria; therefore, staff had recommended denial.
The Planning Commission heard this, and it was discussed that
the first motion failed for recommendation of denial.
The recommendation of approval was subject to limiting the
height to one story or 18 feet, and the staff is supportive of that, and
that would be much better regulated through a PUD document.
And I have David Weeks here if you have any questions with
that consistency criteria with office use.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I have a question for you. If
we do a PUD on this, we're going to have to bring it back, correct.9
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
Commissioner Coyle.9
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I'd like to address some of the
things that have been brought up here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Should I close the public hearing?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You already did.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I haven't. I just -- if there's any
more questions for Mr. Vamadoe or staff--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay. Go ahead.
Page 66
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any other questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not until after the public hearing
is closed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, okay. I'm going to close the
public hearing. We don't need a vote on that, do we?
yOU.
MR. WEIGEL: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. Commissioner Coyle, thank
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to comment on a couple of
things that have been brought up here. One is with respect to
decisions being made on the basis of demand. We simply can't do
that. If we make decisions based upon whether there's a demand for
commercial or residential or industrial space, then we'll be making
one decision one month, another decision the
demand changed, and these decisions will be
discriminatory, so we really cannot deal with
based upon what the perceived demand is for
development.
next month as the
somewhat arbitrary and
these kinds of decisions
the potential
Who is to say what the potential demand will be two or three or
four years from now? And it might very well be that the petitioner
will not even develop until that point in time.
So I believe that the expectation that we can make a decision
based upon that is a false one.
Now, the more important issue in my opinion is, in trying to
reach a decision with respect to this, I try to put myself in the
position of the residents, because I think one of our primary
obligations is to make sure that we minimize impact upon existing
residential areas.
And if I'm -- if I were sitting in one of those four homes, there
are a couple of things that I would want to make sure of. Whatever
was developed there, I wouldn't want to see it because that's a
beautiful view with all the trees, I wouldn't want to hear it, and I
Page 67
February 11, 2003
wouldn't want my property devalued.
Now, if it were developed as a residential single-family plot --
or plat right now, it would be twice as high as a single-family
development as this proposed commercial. The proposed
commercial is 18 feet. If it were single-family, it would be
dramatically higher. What are we talking about, 30 feet, 35 feet?
MR. DUANE: Thirty-five.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thirty-five feet, so it would be
almost twice as high. If it were developed as a single-family area,
you would have activity there conceivably 24 hours a day. People
would live there all the time. And there's likely to be a lot more
noise.
And if it were developed, again, as single-family and it's under
its current zoning, you wouldn't have the buffer requirements that
we're specifying in this particular request.
So what would happen is that there would be no basis under our
code to insist upon the kinds of buffers that we're insisting upon in
this particular rezone petition.
So again, placing myself in the residents' shoes, I, quite frankly,
would prefer to have an 18-foot tall building there rather than a
bunch of 36-foot tall residences, and I would prefer to have a
commercial area there that has limited hours of operation, and I'd
prefer to have a commercial area there that has a requirement that
they establish a landscape buffer so it cannot be seen.
And the one other issue is the one of property values. And
whether we accept the assessment of the expert witness or not, the
point is that this -- these particular homes are bordered by an assisted
living facility and a bank to the north and northeast. And I cannot
understand how a commercial development at the proposed slot --
spot that is 18 feet high that has limited hours of operation and has
requirements for landscape buffers would impact -- negatively
impact the property values.
Page 68
February 11, 2003
So I would -- I would be willing to proceed with this if we
address some of the concerns of the neighbors. I'd like to make sure
it's not seen, and I'd like to see that incorporated into the approval. I
would like to see the deed restrictions that have been developed.
And one other fast comment about this, under our representative
form of government, nothing is final if we make a decision. There's
absolutely nothing to keep somebody from coming in, another
commission coming in next year or two years from now and
changing that decision. And even if we disapprove that -- this
petition, there's no guarantee that it won't come up again in two years
and be approved. You'll never know what's going to happen there. It
might be a two or three-story building by that time.
The only certainty in my mind is to proceed with what's known
and acceptable but find the way to enforce it and make sure that
nobody changes it on you, and we can't do that because we'll be gone
one of these days and somebody else will make a decision. But you
can do it through deed restrictions, and that's enforceable in the
courts, and that's a more certain way of making sure that you get
what they said they were going to provide.
And with those two stipulations, that we have the deed
restrictions, that we have the buffering requirements so that the
buildings not be seen under existing vegetative conditions, then I
would move for approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You forgot one land use --
other land use, that's parks. It could be a park, but we heard under
public petition earlier--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They don't want parks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that promotes drugs, sex and rock
and roll, so that's probably not an appropriate use on that.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have no doubt that this
developer would do an outstanding job. He's a really -- he's a person
Page 69
February 11, 2003
that I would respect.
Conversely, as I look at the map, I see on that side of the street
everything that's residential. And I just feel that adding a
commercial component in the middle of this residential -- yes, on the
other side on the street it's all commercial, but I think that's a good
divide. The street divides the commercial from the residential. And
I just hate to see commercial creep into that area.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I'm going to go next. I agree.
The problem that I have with -- and I think why we're here is -- part
of the reason is, discuss what is appropriate land uses throughout
Collier County.
I don't see this being multi-family. I wouldn't want to live
across the street from a fire station knowing that there's a light there
and they're going to be coming screaming out of there. You know, I
don't think that's an appropriate use. I know I wouldn't want to buy a
condo there, and I know I wouldn't want to live there or have
somebody else live there. But I think under these conditions, that
commercial is appropriate use.
And Commissioner Halas, I'll let you go next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: When I look at the commercial
property that's around there, whether it's vacant or not, I don't think
that is really the issue. I think the issue here is that this is a
residential -- small residential neighborhood that's been there for a
few years, and I believe that they're feeling that they're being
encroached upon by development as far as resident -- or as far as
commercial goes. And I think the residents there have pretty much
stated their opinion that they're willing to take the chance that it be
left as RSF-3.
And so, therefore, I feel that -- maybe that that's kind of the way
that I'm going to -- direction I'm going in. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it may not even get to RSF-3.
Page 70
February 11, 2003
There may be something else that may come up on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Definitely not parks, we know that,
right?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. This is
one of those difficult ones. We know that if we do nothing today or
we reject the petitioner's plan, that it's only going to come back in
another form at some point in time.
So I would like to make one more proposition to see if this
might be the tie-breaker that would help to carry this through.
The whole secret to this is to try to make the people that live
there whole. I mean, they have enjoyed a natural buffer for years.
That's been part of their expectations, what they were going to have.
We have the petitioner promising to put in a buffer. I hear there is
difficulty, and I appreciate the honesty they're coming across with
the fact that, can it be completely enclosing the area in such a way
you wouldn't be able to view the building? And they're indicating
that that may be difficult. I'm hearing that as clear as anything on it,
that it might be very difficult.
We've never been able to address the berm, because I think the
berm, as far as being for sure, that might be an issue that would be a
problem with water management and could cause this thing to fall
apart for them after they left here.
How about if there was something, like a small, $5,000, that was
given to each one of these four residents to be able to put greenery
also -- not letting the develop off in any way, shape or form from
putting the greenery on their side and putting it in to a point where it
keeps the building reasonably hidden from view.
They also mentioned that the residents had to maintain greenery
on their side. That gave me a little bit of concern.
Now, that greenery's going to grow up in time, it's going to die.
They may have to redo it over to make it match up so that it meets
Page 71
February 11, 2003
the needs, and everybody has the right for individualism, so I
wouldn't recommend that the developer take it on as a personal
project.
But if possibly a $5,000 cash allotment was made to each one of
these four homeowners as a one time payment to pay for the greenery
on their side and the sprinkler system they may wish to put in to be
able to enhance their property and add value to it, that might be
something that would be a little bit more on the fair side.
And I know that's a little bit different approach than we have
taken in the past, but I'd like to give that to you for your
consideration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anybody else want $5,000?
We've got a cable to bury this afternoon. Maybe we can collect some
money there.
You had something, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I just want to clarify
something.
It was my understanding that the petitioner had committed to
making sure this was an opaque buffer, that you weren't going to be
able to see anything through it as it currently stands or as it will stand
when you develop it, with the one caveat that the residents
themselves wouldn't start clearing their property.
MR. VARNADOE: That's correct, sir. And I'm talking about
the native vegetation that is on their property, not what they may
have landscaped.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this is -- this is vegetation that
they have chosen to retain because they want it there, and if it retains
because they want it there, they will not be able to see your building,
and I think that's something we want to make sure of, that nobody
can see that building.
MR. VARNADOE: That's our commitment--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 72
February 11, 2003
MR. VARNADOE: -- that we would supplement the
landscaping as necessary so that, from their houses, they would not
be able to see our buildings with the one proviso, as you said, that
they don't start clearing out to the creek all the native vegetation that
exists today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you have hours of operations
limitations on this commercial tract? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And lighting limitations?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. To diminish any impact
upon-- upon this neighborhood?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This vegetation -- I believe most
of the vegetation is on this -- on the opposite side on the property.
There's --
MR. VARNADOE: I don't know who said that. When I walked
out there, I walked --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, there was vegetation on
both sides of the --
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- on both sides of that creek.
MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So, I mean, there's -- so --
and I think some of the neighbors there have vegetation, and then
some of the neighbors also have an open area right to the creek on
their side, and then on the opposite side is where the vegetation is, on
the -- on what should be on your side on the creek.
MR. VARNADOE: When I walked out there, I don't think any
of them had cleared right up to the creek, no, sir. But the only thing
I'm asking is that whatever -- whatever is there today, native
Page 73
February 11, 2003
vegetation, if they'll leave it, we'll make sure they can't see our
buildings by supplementing the vegetation on our side.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what bothers me is the fact
that south of there we have a preserve, and why -- you know, so
many this -- in a -- I've got a hard time with the preserve at the south,
and then we're going to tear out all of that other area there for C-1.
MR. VARNADOE: We're not tearing that all out, sir. See, I
think that's -- that's the misnomer. If you look at this aerial, you were
asking about the gopher tortoises. The gopher tortoises are not going
to be where there's dense vegetation. They like open, sandy --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. VARNADOE: And if you look at this aerial, what you
have here is a fairly open area, and then when you get down close to
the creek is where you start having the very heavy vegetation, and
we're going to be maintaining some of that, up --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some of that?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, some of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some of that?
MR. VARNADOE: That's right, because you can't use property
without maintain -- without, you know, having some property to
develop.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd for the record. These
little yellow dots on this overlay right here are the tortoise locations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Let's go back to
this landscape buffer one more time. And I'm going to explain why I
think it would be fair that -- if we come up with something with a
compensation for these people -- now, wait a minute. Listen to me
for a moment.
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Coletta, let me tell you right
now, I'm not going to get up here and start buying zoning from the
Page 74
February 11, 2003
neighbors. That's totally inappropriate, and I'm not going to do it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not buying zoning --
MR. VARNADOE: I have told you, and I've told you as clearly
as I can state it, that I will make sure they cannot see the buildings
from their property. Now, that's what you asked me to do an hour
ago, and now I made a commitment to do it, and now you want to go
somewhere else. No, sir. That's as far as I'm going to go.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I appreciate your
candor.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. That's called exaction, I
believe it is.
MR. VARNADOE: No, I don't think -- that goes beyond an
exaction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We're going to wind this up,
and we'll find out what -- the pleasure of the board. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would like to go with staffs
recommendation to deny this motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. We've got a motion and a
second on the floor to deny the petition. Any further questions?
MR. BELLOWS: The county attorney would like me to --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: -- go through the analysis of the
comprehensive plan for the criteria, how the board should make their
findings based on the criteria in the office and infill, so if you mind
(sic), I'll just read it in real quick.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. BELLOWS: The BC (sic) would need to find that the
subject site is appropriate or acceptable for the site to have only eight
Page 75
February 11, 2003
feet of frontage on an arterial road, which is Immokalee Road, and
that the developable portion of the site is 750 feet south of the arterial
road;
Two, the adjacent tract in Surrey Place PUD, which permits
institutional uses, such as an assisted living facility. A nursing home
constituted commercial zoning.
The third one is --
MR. WEIGEL: Just a minute, Ray, and Commissioners. For
your own assistance here, this is on page 12 of the agenda item, in
case you're not turned to it, to follow through, and --
MR. VARNADOE: Commissioners, for the record, I'll stipulate
to this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We've read it all.
MR. VARNADOE: It's on the record, you've got it. I don't
know what the county attorney's up to, but I mean, I'll stipulate that
that's what the --
MR. WEIGEL: I don't accept those kind of remarks. We're
looking to guide the board so they create a record for whatever
decision they intend to make, Mr. Varnadoe, so it's not the county
attorney is up to something.
MR. VARNADOE: Well, I assume you're trying to protect
some lawsuit. That's not what we're here about.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, gentlemen, and thank you
very much.
Mr. Bellows, please continue.
MR. BELLOWS: Despite the previous use of the office and
infill commercial subdistrict for the rezoning of the Veterans Park
Commons PUD (in conjunction with the quarter mile support
medical facilities provision), the subject rezone petition does not
constitute piggyback use of this OIC provision;
Or, the two PUD properties to the west rezoned by the quarter
mile support medical facilities provision, which contain permitted
Page 76
February 11, 2003
uses that include physicians' offices, rehab centers, pharmacies
(mostly C-1 uses, drugstore is a C-2 use) -- constitute commercial
zoning;
And lastly, the proposed commercial uses will be compatible
with the surrounding land uses, both existing and permitted.
Now, if you find that this project is inconsistent with any of
those things, you can recommend denial based on those findings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. And that's what I'm
considering is a part of the motion, the findings, staffs findings.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, thank you. That's exactly
right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have to specify which
finding that we're using to disapprove this?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, we do.
MR. BELLOWS: I would.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would be happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please do.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I say them by number?
MR. BELLOWS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Yes, please.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. First of all, number five I felt
the first one I would consider. The second one I -- was number
Where was it -- was number
was
one, and the third one -- wait a minute.
four. But actually they all apply.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
I'll call the question on the motion.
With no further discussion,
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 77
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a 3-2 motion on this. Mr.
Weigel, is--
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- is that a majority?
MR. WEIGEL: For there to be a rezone, it requires the super
majority vote.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To rezone?
MR. WEIGEL: To rezone, yes. So the motion -- and correct
me if I'm wrong -- the motion that was made was to find the analysis
to show incompatibility and inconsistency based upon these three
enumerated items on the five of the analysis. I believe that is the
motion, to find incapacity inconsistency or to not approve the rezone.
You've effectively not approved the rezone by the vote you have
taken.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Okay. So I'm going to restate
the vote. Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coletta vote to deny the application.
Commissioner Henning and Commissioner Coyle voted no for
the motion that was on the floor. Does that make sense?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's take a 1 O-minute --
seven-minute break for the court reporter to take care of business.
We'll be back in seven minutes. (A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Take your seats, please. Please
recognize the future lieutenant governor, Mr. Goodlette. We
appreciate your public service in Collier County. Thank you for
being here.
Okay. I know that the commissioners are in the back listening --
Page 78
February 11, 2003
are on their way.
Commissioner Fiala, come on and join us.
Mr. Mudd, the next item?
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2003-07 RE: PETITION CP-2000-6, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR THE
IMMOKALEE ROAD/COLLIER BOULEVARD AREA
(HERITAGE BAY DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT)
TO ESTABLISH THE "URBAN-RURAL FRINGE TRANSITION
ZONE OVERLAY" FOR SECTIONS 13, 14, 23, 24, T48S, R26E,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY: AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES; AMENDING THE
SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC
FACILITIES ELEMENT; AMENDING THE POTABLE WATER
SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT;
AMENDING THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE BOUNDARY
MAP OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; AND, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE (ADOPTION HEARING-DRI-RELATED AMENDMENT)-
ADOPTED W/STIPI II.ATIONS
MR. MUDD: Next item is 8(B). This item, even though it says
the participants need to be sworn in, it's a legislative issue, so that
doesn't need to transpire.
This is a petition. It's a Growth Management Plan amendment
for the Immokalee Road/Collier Boulevard area, Heritage Bay
Development of regional impact, to establish the urban rural fringe
transition known -- transition zone overlay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And this is the second
reading of this, correct, Mr. --
Page 79
February 11, 2003
MR. HEATH: Well, you saw -- for the record, Glenn Heath,
comprehensive planning section. You saw this for the transmittal to
DCA, and now it has come back for the adoption hearings.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And same process, we're
going to let the petitioner present their case followed by our staff.
Mr. Vamadoe, thank you for being here this morning.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George
Varnadoe again. Again, substituting for Bruce Anderson,
representing U.S. Home Corporation.
This is part of the continuing process of amending the
comprehensive plan for the Heritage Bay project.
Also here today we have a representative of U.S. Home and a
cadre of engineers, traffic consultants and planners to answer any
questions you might have in their fields of expertise.
As you know, this comp. plan amendment consists -- it concerns
four sections of land north of Immokalee Road and east of 951 if 951
were extended. One section is in the urban area and three sections
are in the rural area.
This amendment was recommended for approval by the Rural
Fringe Assessment Committee, the Planning Commission, and then
this board approved it for transmittal to DCA in September of last
year.
We've been back to the Planning Commission, and they have
recommended this for approval for you today for adoption. The
amendment is no different than what was approved in June as the
rural fringe amendment, which are now mired in administrative
challenge. It's simply a smaller, stricter version of those rural fringe
amendments, but it is consistent with that in its innovative planning
technique called density blending to allow the dens -- some of the
density from the urban area to be spread across the entire property.
I'd like to emphasize that you're not considering a rezoning
today. You're not here on the DRI or the PUD. Those will be
Page 80
February 11, 2003
coming back to you probably in late April or early May of this year.
So we can talk about all the project criteria and any public benefits
that needed to come out of that project to respond to the concerns of
the commissioners.
It went to DCA and they did an ORC report, their objections,
recommendations and comments. They had two objections, one of
which was withdrawn after they got some addition material and
realized what they had in their hands. I'm not going to discuss that
one unless somebody has some questions on that.
The second one had to do with the timing aspect. And basically
the -- as transmitted, the amendment would require the use of TDR
credits for golf courses in the three rural sections.
And their objection was, how can you use the TDR process
when the rural fringe amendments have been challenged and that's
not in effect at the present time? So it was not an objection to what
we were doing, just that, how are you going to implement that.
And we've worked with the county staff, their outside counsel,
Nancy Linnan, and DCA staff to address that. That's contained in
paragraph 9 of your agreement. And what it basically says is that if
we're going to build a golf course that's prior to the TDR program
coming into effect, then we'll put -- we'll give the county financial
guarantees that we will acquire those TDRs when they are in effect,
and we agree to acquire them within 90 days of the TDR program
becoming effective.
The other question was then, well, that's fine, but what if the
county never implements the TDR process? What if they go a
different direction as a result of this administrative challenge? And
everyone thought, in the interest of fairness, that we would put the
money in escrow or financial guarantees, I should say, for three
years, 36 months, if they weren't in place by that time.
Obviously they weren't going to be in place, and so we should
get our money back or our financial guarantee should be released.
Page 81
February 11, 2003
The Planning Commission said, let's extend that to 48 months,
because sometimes the wheels of justice grind slowly, particularly
when government's involved. And we agreed to that, so paragraph 9
has been amended to extend that time period to 48 months. We have
no objection to that.
I think Marjorie Student has added a little bit of qualifying
language into that to make it very clear. It says what it says, and you
have that handout.
And unless there are questions -- there was a thorough
discussion of this at transmittal hearing. I'll be glad to respond to
questions, but that's basically our presentation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. George, could you show me
where the crude lands are in here? I know that you've talked about
protecting those lands. I just wanted to see where they are on --
MR. VARNADOE: Well, there are no crude lands on the
property. When the -- and I think it was, when they made the
decision back in the 90s to -- as to where the boundaries were going
to be, they did not include this land. But it comes right down to our
border. This land here (indicating), then of course, it goes up the
northeast all the way to Corkscrew Swamp. They haven't acquired
all that yet, but they're actually in the process of acquiring that.
We are -- this doesn't have any part of your comp. plan
amendment, but this -- all this area you see in green will be preserved
and be a part of that preservation effort, a continuation of that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So it will be an extension of the
crew land to preserve our future water sources in that area? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to get an
understanding. George, did you say that this is not a DRI?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. I said your DRI will be coming to
Page 82
February 11, 2003
you in late April, early May. We are not considering the DRI today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. In the DRI
process, we'll find out about the impacts to the infrastructure?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. We have done -- as part of the
DRI process, we have to look at impacts to all your infrastructure and
do analyses that are considered by your staff, and then there's a --
also an analysis of whether the impact fees and other taxes generated
by this project offset its impacts on your various infrastructure
systems, and if it does not, we'd have to have a -- come up with a
further mitigation. And that will all be addressed, to answer your
question, yes, during the DRI process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas has another question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what we're here for today then,
could you just make sure that I'm up to speed on what we're -- MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, you--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- trying to accomplish here today
then?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. You're simply having an
amendment to your comprehensive plan -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: -- to allow us to come in and have you
consider the zoning and the DRI at a future date.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you very much. I
assume a lot of that conversation was for my benefit because I've
been a little disruptive on this one subject, and I apologize for the
earlier disruptions of your presentations that you made.
But we're going to deal just with the information within this
packet; is that correct? We're not dealing with Immokalee Road and
Page 83
February 11, 2003
the needs of that? We're not dealing with 951 ? We're only
concerned about forming this water, sewer, utility function for the
area; is that correct? What are we -- what exactly are we trying to
accomplish here today?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, because I thought it was a
DRI.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go that way, rather than
what we're not trying to accomplish. What are we trying to
accomplish?
MR. VARNADOE: You're amending the comp. plan, and if
you look in your staff report, in your agenda, it tells you that what
you're doing is you're forming an overlay to the urban rural fringe
transition zone.
And what you're doing in this is exactly what you did in the
rural fringe, but we're doing it on a very specific basis here, because
-- so we can go forward-- we've been waiting for two years to
proceed with this, and the rural fringe amendments are under
challenge.
And what you're doing is saying, yes, you can density blend,
that is, you can take the density in the urban area and you can use it
throughout the project to avoid environmental impacts. And we got
very specific with the language in here saying, you can't have more
than X units, you can't have more than Y impacts, Z amount of
commercial, you've got to preserve 833 areas shown in green up
here. We got very specific for a comprehensive plan. But all we're
doing is saying, you can come in and apply for that, and that's what
the DRI that's following this by six to eight weeks will do. And, of
course, the DRI/PUD is just a rezoning effort, and it's a DRI because
of the size of it.
But you'll be looking at the project specifics, how many units,
how much impact, what we're going to do for the road system, what
we're going to do for water management, what we're going to do for
Page 84
February 11, 2003
any other public benefits at that point in time, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much, Mr.
Varnadoe, and I'm going to wait until after you finish your
presentation and possibly after staff finishes, then I will have some
questions for you, sir. Thank you.
MR. VARNADOE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: CommiSsioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to follow on this a bit
and make a further clarification, and please correct me if I'm wrong.
What we're really doing here is applying principles which we have
already approved in the rural fringe plan to this particular section of
land as specifying preservation requirements, and one additional
requirement, which is to use TDRs for the golf course which
provides a kick start for our rural fringe plan whenever this challenge
is complete. Am I correct here?
MR. VARNADOE: Boy, I wish I'd have said that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: He's good, isn't he?
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, you're correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can only explain it in legal
terms.
MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You see, I can make sense of it.
MR. VARNADOE: After the last beating up I got, let's just --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So this particular change is
incorporating the requirement that you utilize TDRs for the golf
course section of this development?
MR. VARNADOE: To the extent the golf courses are in the
rural fringe area, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Heath, do you have
anything to add?
MR. HEATH: Yes, I do. Again for the record, Glenn Heath
Page 85
February 11, 2003
with the comprehensive planning section. I need to note several
things. First, outside on the table, there's a sign-up sheet for anyone
who wants to be on the mailing list for some of the documents
associated with both our review and DCAs, and they can sign up for
that, and we'll make sure that they get them.
And there's also an example of your notebook for this that's out
there also for someone to look at.
And I would also, just to, I guess, ascertain. You do have a
copy in your notebook that -- what the original item, and I have done
a handout, and the handout was given to you early during the break.
On the second page of the handout is the changes that were
made by the Planning Commission and by Ms. Student that Mr.
Varnadoe has alluded to, second paragraph, and the county manager
is pointing at them right here.
The Planning Commission recommended that the county take
more time to work out the TDR program before giving the petitioner
his money back. It was 36 months, and now they're recommending
48.
And Ms. Student recommended some language that clarifies
how these paragraphs relate to the rural fringe amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions for our staff?.
Commissioner Coletta, would you continue, please?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much. I do
appreciate the opening.
A question, since we're talking about the population density
that's going to be moving into this area -- that's one of the subject
matters that we are discussing today; am I correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I seen it -- I'm sorry, I seen it in
the agenda that refers to the three percent, that refers to the amount of
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Impact.
Page 86
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- units that are going to be
there, and explaining the fact -- let me read from here, policy 1.1.2 --
and I take this right from our agenda package -- a significant impact
in population is a potential increase in the county-wide population by
less than three percent. When you go over three percent, then it turns
into another situation, which is a question, I wanted to ask what that
would be.
The proposed development has the potential to generate
approximately 7,107 residents. The resulting population increase
would be approximately 2.8 percent based on the 2000 census. That
is what's in the agenda package; is that correct? MR. HEATH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. The 2000 census --
what was the 2000 census? The answer, I'll help you. Two hundred
fifty-one thousand three hundred seventy-seven people at the 2000
census. Three percent of that would equal seven thousand five
hundred forty-one, thirty-six, cannot exceed; is that correct?
MR. VARNADOE: I didn't do the math.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Well, I got the math
here. I'll help you with it. If anyone wants to double-check it,
they're more than welcome to. If we go back to it and we look at the
3,450 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Units.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- residential units and we use
the formula that we use to figure this out, 2.5, which is the average
we use for calculating a house, because these are homes that are
going to be going in there, you'll have two people living in one,
you'll have a large family in another, you come up with 8,625 plus
the 200 ALF units, I'm figuring one for that, I get 8,625, which
exceeds the three percent threshold by 1,084, and would be 3.43
percent of the 2000 census that we are using for the benchmark.
Now, I know this is simple math. Obviously I've done
Page 87
February 11, 2003
something wrong. What have I missed?
MR. VARNADOE: I don't know, but I can get someone to
respond to you. But what I was trying to say earlier is, you are not
approving 3,450 units today. The comp. plan says that's the
maximum that we can apply for you. So I don't know what you're
going to approve when the DRI comes through.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So in other words, this means
absolutely nothing whether it's correct or it isn't correct?
MR. VARNADOE: I think-- when we come in, I want to make
sure that we are very, very accurate, and I appreciate you bringing
that to my attention so I can make sure that our num -- our numbers
are correct or we know why yours may or may not be correct.
But all I'm telling you today is, you're not approving that
number of units.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, but what I'm getting at,
too, is if possibly this is wrong, what else is wrong that's in here as
far as information? When I go through my agenda package, I expect
it to be precise and correct from one end to the other.
And you know, obviously this wouldn't end up in the agenda
package unless it was right. Why is it that simple math is bearing
this out to be incorrect, that we're coming up with numbers that aren't
what we need to come up with? Mr. Heath?
MR. HEATH: There's two aspects to your question. The
population threshold applies to public facilities, and in particular,
public facilities that are considered deficient. We have not identified
any deficient public facilities currently at that location; and therefore,
when we reference these population numbers, there's two factors to
it. If there are deficient facilities and he exceeds the population
significance, then, yes, that would be reason for denial on your part.
But there are no deficient facilities. It's just information that we are
required to include in our review.
Page 88
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But -- I'm sorry. You're doing a
better job at confusing me than --
MR. VARNADOE: Let me ask --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- this attorney.
MR. VARNADOE: Let me answer very directly, Mr. Coletta,
because they just reminded me of something I should have known.
When we go through this process, you have very general data
of, if you looked at the whole county as a whole, what the -- the
average household has as far as a population in that house.
When we went through the process -- of course, U.S. Home has
developed several communities in Southwest Florida. We had a
meeting with the regional planning council and your staff, and we
agreed upon certain methodology, transportation methodology,
affordable housing methodology, hurricane evacuation, whatever the
issue was.
And on this we agreed to use the data from U.S. Home's
products which have a less density than the county average, and
that's why the numbers that you're citing me are different from what
is in your staff report and what's in our report.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And so, in other words, every
project out there uses a different number other than 2.5 for homes; is
that correct?
MR. VARNADOE: No. If they want to use a different one,
they have to justify what they're going to use and --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: --just like when we did Island Walk, we
used Village Walk as an example, and we went through the
transportation study, and we said, we capture an awful lot of those
trips inside the project, so when we did the transportation study for
Island Walk, the staff agreed we would do it on the basis of the trip
generation from Village Walk.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
Page 89
February 11, 2003
MR. VARNADOE: It doesn't make any difference as far as
impact fees. But as far as the amount of traffic that we're putting on
the roads, we were allowed to analyze that based on history and what
we know about various developments. And same thing applied here
as to the number of people that are in an average dwelling in a U.S.
Home project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So then policy 1.1.2 is
either incorrect or incomplete in what's in the agenda package as far
as the explanation goes for the three percent?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. We are below the three percent.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. VARNADOE: We will be below the three percent if you
approve 3,450 units, but that is just a product of the type of customer
or the type of resident that U.S. Home attracts. They don't have --
they don't typically attract the young families with the larger
household.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So you use, for an example,
U.S. Home's in Fort Myers, one of their projects there possibly?
MR. VARNADOE: Well, you -- I don't know -- I know we
have -- we used Naples Heritage here on Davis Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Naples Heritage, and that's all
single-family homes?
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. That's a mixture of single-family
and multi-family, just as this will be. And they have data for both of
their -- all of their product types. So they know that in a multi-family
they have average density of 2.0 or whatever it is, and single-family,
they have an average density of whatever that is, and so that was
what we were allowed to use as a result of being able to prove to
regional planning council and your staff that that was appropriate for
this project.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Vamadoe. I
do appreciate your time.
Page 90
February 11, 2003
MR. VARNADOE: No, I'm happy to respond.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I want to cover a couple of
points here. One is that I have always in the past been opposed to
putting specific density allocations in the comprehensive plan.
I don't think that's the place for it; however, every time I have
raised that issue, staff has assured me that it is absolutely essential
that that be in there, otherwise DCA will not accept it.
I don't agree with that, okay? But if that's what you're telling
me, you're an expert, and if that's what's required, we'll have to do it.
But -- now having said that, the fact that these numbers are in
here means absolutely nothing because the real issue here is
concurrency. It has nothing to do with how many numbers are in
here -- in this document.
We have to determine whether or not anything can be built there
based upon a concurrency determination that will occur either at the
time of site development plan -- and I suspect these won't come
under this particular provision that we've recently implemented -- or
at the time of permit application.
So the time to deal with the density issues are at the time of the
permit application, I believe. And that's when we determine whether
or not we've got the infrastructure in place to accept this particular
development. If we don't, we do the same thing we've done in the
past, which is to require that these things be phased in and that they
cannot be built beyond a certain density within a specified period of
time.
So I think that is the clarification with respect to these numbers
here. The numbers, as I am being told by staff, mean virtually
nothing, except to establish maximum limits.
MR. HEATH: Just to add to what you're saying. When we
review these items, particularly from the comp. plan standpoint, we
have to look at sort of a worst-case scenario.
Page 91
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. HEATH: What is the -- what is the biggest effect that this
project can have, and then we have to kind of work from there. And
is that consistent with what the comprehensive plan says?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But once you do what is
necessary for DCA to accept the comprehensive plan modification,
beyond that, later we determine the concurrency issues, and we've
been very clear about concurrency, that we're not going to permit
construction that outstrips our infrastructure, right?
And that is a determination that we make further down the road,
well beyond this comprehensive plan modification; is that correct?
MR. HEATH: That would be my understanding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question I have for you, if we
approve this today, the Growth Management Plan amendment, for
this to proceed, does that mean that we must agree to approving it at
the DRI?
MR. HEATH: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But we're going to look at all
those impacts again at that time?
MR. HEATH: Yes. In fact, you're going to be looking at them
in much greater detail than we are now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I think that we're all
wanting that detail, and I think that's what -- the kind of hesitance
we're at today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And today isn't the time to get it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And today is not the time. Okay. I
got that.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where did you come up with a
magic number of 3,400 then? Is this based on the size of the land, or
how'd you do this?
Page 92
February 11, 2003
MR. HEATH: That was developed by the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Vamadoe?
MR. HEATH: Based on a combination of what they would be
allowed in -- just from their property in the urban area, what they'd
be allowed in their property in the rural fringe area, and then density
blending.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a little bit of a problem
with this. Somebody could come in with four square miles of
property and say, I'm going to have an impact of 10,000 units, and
then come back when we're going to do the DRI and say, guess what,
I'm only going to have 5,000 units, and looks like -- that he's
eliminating a lot of density. So I'm trying to find out where the
criteria here is for the 3,400 units and how it got established. Do you
see where I'm coming from?
MR. HEATH: I do, and I think that the petitioner could respond
to some of that better than I can.
MR. VARNADOE: The -- yes, sir, Mr. Halas. I'll try to respond
to that.
The answer is that -- the first thing, of course, that is done is an
analysis of two things. Number one, you look at the land, in this case
it's fairly easy, and see what's developable, what's not. In this case
it's fairly black and white. It's either been altered or it has not, and
we've agreed to stay out of everything that's in its natural state.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand.
MR. VARNADOE: Then you look at what kind of
development you want to do and how many units results from that.
Then you troop that against a lot of things, transportation impacts,
other infrastructure impacts, what the -- what the underlying
permissible densities would be. And in this instance, given the urban
area, the activity center, the density ban around the activity center
and the one per five in the rural fringe area -- and Glenn can correct
me -- but it's -- the allowable maximum density would have been
Page 93
February 11, 2003
somewhere around 4,500 units.
So this is not an instance where we came in and said, we want
the max, then we can pull back. After looking at this very carefully,
this was the number that we arrived at that we're going to ask you
for. But what this does today -- you're not approving this number.
This is the max we can ask you for. And you may well say, no --
hopefully you'll say yes, but you may well say no because of A, B,
C,D.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I understand what you're saying,
but are you basing this on, like, four units per acre roughly that --
MR. VARNADOE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: See, that's --
MR. VARNADOE: It's like about -- this density is less than
two units an acre. It's probably 1.8, something of that nature, if you
wanted to look at it from that prospective. It's -- this is 2500 and
some odd acres, and 3,450 units, so it's less than two units an acre.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Yeah. I'm just trying to
figure out -- since we're on this tract -- and I was trying to also
determine just exactly how this number was derived so that it -- I'm
more clearer in my head when I --
MR. VARNADOE: The -- typically -- see, if we had waited
until the rural fringe was in effect and we'd have come in, the rural
fringe would have allowed us to request a much higher density on
this project than we requested.
But because we are doing this in conjunction with a DRI, we
filed a comprehensive plan amendment at the same time as a DRI.
They got disconnected. But in the DRI, you have to be very specific
as to not only the number of units, but the mix of units, because
multi-family units have a different impact on the transportation
network than the single-family.
So in that document, and for those analyses, we are very, very
specific as to the type of unit, when it comes online, and what kind of
Page 94
February 11, 2003
unit it is.
So what has happened is -- and I happen to agree with Mr.
Coyle as a matter of principle, that we should not be putting this
much detail in our comp. plans. But what has happened is the
numbers that we requested in the DRI have found their way into the
comprehensive plan amendment as maximums. Not that you're
approving that, but as the maximum we can apply for.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask one last question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How does staff feel? Do you have
a warm, fuzzy feeling on the presentation, the way this is?
MR. HEATH: I don't have a warm, fuzzy feeling, but I did
make the finding, and it was reviewed by some other staff folks as
well, that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan and certainly
consistent with the rural fringe amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. And just a fast question.
When this -- then after today when this comes back before us, will
the new rules that we've adopted with regard to concurrency and then
have adopted into the LDC, will the new rules in the LDC,
specifically addressing concurrency, be used?
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning.
Yes, ma'am. For the record, you were actually, in this -- in
considering this amendment to your comp. plan or applying your
new rule in the three percent population impact, which is in effect --
so yes, ma'am, you will be applying your new rule in consideration
that you have made a finding of concurrency for the 12-month period
after your December AUIR report. Yes, ma'am, you will be applying
the new rule.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But we're creating new ones that
will address traffic and so forth at a later date. Will those rules then
apply when this comes back before us, or will we still be stuck in the
Page 95
February 11, 2003
past --
MR. LITSINGER: It's a matter of when in the development
review process, certainly through the DRI process. You will have
new thresholds and a much closer scrutiny relative to traffic impacts,
other public facilities impacts, and you will have an opportunity to
make all manner of stipulations in that regard.
And in the future, depending on the content of the DRI
development order, as you will adopt new concurrency rules, or
move into a new phase such as checkbook concurrency, development
approval subsequent to the DRI PUD development order would be
subject to the rules in place at that time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Stan, this process that we're working
through now is very uncomfortable by my colleagues. So if you can
help us later on on these comprehensive amendments and in the
process so that we feel more comfortable, or maybe it's the
information that we're getting -- if you could help us out in the
future, I would appreciate that.
MR. LITSINGER: Certainly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Let me rephrase
Commissioner Coyle's question just a little bit differently. If we
were to exceed the three percent threshold, where would we be?
What would be the difference?
MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger. The application of the three
percent rule, if you would call it that, in either transportation impact
or in gross population impact, at either the rezone or the comp. plan
amendment stage is in the event that we had deficient public
facilities.
Let's say, for instance, that we had a deficient situation relative
to sewer capacity in the north part of the county, then as part of the
Page 96
February 11, 2003
comprehensive plan amendment, there could be a -- or there is
required to be stipulations within the comprehensive plan amendment
to alleviate the deficiency that would only be exacerbated by the
comprehensive plan amendment. But we do not have a finding of
any deficient facilities at this time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So then -- one more time with
this. Then really, that three percent doesn't make any difference at
all in this particular case?
MR. LITSINGER: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It doesn't mean anything
additional or not additional, and it's just put in there for a number
reference?
MR. LITSINGER: It's information purposes for background
statistical reference, but, quite frankly, it has no application from the
standpoint of your LDC at this -- on this day.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I hope my fellow
commissioners are very pleased with the fact I never brought up
County Road 951.
MR. VARNADOE: Until right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You just did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got to agree with County Road
951.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. We're at -- we're at -- I
don't see any further questions, so what's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I make a motion of approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta makes a
motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that, as long as the
stipulations that we've offered are included.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The stipulations from--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do.
Page 97
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Planning Commission?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah.
MR. HEATH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I include that in the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Okay. Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Any opposed?
Motion carries, and the motion was
by Commissioner Coletta, seconded by Commissioner Fiala.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-76 RE: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE LAND ACQUISITION COMMITTEE- TO A 3-YEAR
TERM: ELLIN GOETZ, WAYNE JENKINS, AND WILLIS P.
KRIZ; TO A 2-YEAR TERM: LINDA A. LAWSON, WILLIAM H.
POTEET, JR., AND KATHY PROSSER; TO A 1-YEAR TERM:
JOHN E. CARLSON, MICHAEL J. DELATE, AND MARCO A.
ESP1NAR- ADOPTED
Before we go on a lunch break, I got some lunch break
homework, and this is item 9(A). And before we go on lunch, we're
going to take public speakers on the item. And Commissioner --
Page 98
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, it's just what you were
going to ask for.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I wasn't asking for that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What we're going to do is -- this is a
nine-member board for land acquisition advisory committee. We've
got five commissioners, so what I'm asking is to give us two names
in the different categories that I will give you in just a few minutes.
Those two names -- also I want you to put down whether they -- you
feel that they're -- they should serve a three-year, a two-year or a
one-year on this advisory committee.
If you pick a three-year, your next pick should be a one-year. If
you pick a two-year, your second pick could be a two or a one-year.
So let me read this -- the creation and purpose of the land
acquisition committee appointment and comp -- composure of the
committee should be a nine member (sic) who will be appointed by
and serviced at the pleasure of the Board of Commissioners,
according to ordinance 2055.
Membership of the land acquisition committee shall
compromise -- comprise of a board of a balance of representation in
the interest of Collier County citizens including -- here's the
categories -- environmental and conservation interests in Collier
County. The next one is agriculture and business interests in Collier
County, educational interest in Collier County, general civic and
citizens interest from the -- throughout the county.
Individual members of land acquisition committee shall be
comprised of the knowledge and interest of ecological, conservation
of natural resources, real estate, or land acquisition appraisal, land
appraisal, land management, eco-tourism or environmental
education.
So any questions on how we're going to pick the members of the
committee, Commissioner Coyle?
Page 99
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. You said two -- we'll each
nominate two people for each one of those categories?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. You'll pick two people.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just two people? And name the
categories?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Name the categories.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I presume then, that as we
name them, there will be duplications. And then if we don't select
everyone to fill out the board, we'll do that round again?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll go back until we finalize the
whole committee.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. In other words, we're
only allowed to give one of the categories? Suppose a person has --
feels they're strong in two?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No. Just give the category. Just put
down the category.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: A single category or we put
down multiple categories?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, if you feel that it's
appropriate, they fit in that appropriate -- but the whole thing is, try
to balance out the committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I understand. I understand
exactly.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything?
Page 100
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. I do have. I have some
discussion, and -- if I may. And I respect what you're doing here --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're not trying to guide me on my
decision on the people, are you?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I'm not going to tell you who
to nominate. I would never tell you to do that. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: But what I am concerned with is --
and you know, each one of us has very special people on this long
list that would be very important for this committee, and I think
we've all had calls and emails. I wrote some things out because I was
very concerned about this.
And let me tell you first why I'm concerned about this. A few
years back, the very first blue ribbon committee I ever served on, the
-- I was nominated along with others and somehow became their
chairman very quickly, and for three years this blue ribbon
committee worked on information and referral for the county, and for
three years we never went anyplace. And I had no idea that there
were people onboard that committee that were there for their own
interests. And it never went anyplace. And we owe the taxpayers a
lot more than that.
And so what I'm concerned with is that we create a
comprehensive group that can work together and move forward and
be successful. And the taxpayers, I think, will be rewarded.
And I'm just concerned that each category won't be identified,
because we have many categories here, and that we have a committee
that works together. And let me read what I wrote to you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you. Each one of us
can identify very special people from this very long list who would
Page 101
February 11, 2003
be perfect for this very important committee. We've all had calls,
emails and visits from people who are genuinely interested in serving
our community.
What we must focus on here is creating a committee that will
move forward with a plan rather than mired up in agendas that might
delay or even undermine the goals of this committee, as I just stated
before.
We also must fill each category listed to create a well-balanced
committee in order to be successful. Of course, each of us would like
our districts represented as well. I think that's secondly though.
I think it would be difficult for each one of us to name a couple
people and get the balance we all want. This is my opinion. I also
think we ought to create -- and this is a suggestion -- four alternatives
to fill terms that might become available. And this way these
alternatives could stay up to speed and would be able to step into an
open seat, should it arise, and it seems that they always do.
We've all poured over the list of 53 candidates, studied their
qualifications, and we all have our own ideas. In trying to respect
each of your concerns and wishes and fill each category so we don't
have four real estate people and no one specialing (sic) in water
conservation, what I'm asking for-- I have a list here. I'm sure we all
do, and--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead. Read your list.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to do that. I'd like to name
the people and the category. I have Ed Carlson, which is
conservation. You know, actually, there are two --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, who's the next person?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, let me give you the
categories they fill.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: They're all in here -- that we have, so
-- we have that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Conservation, eco-tourism;
Page 102
February 11, 2003
Michael Delate; ag. and conservation engineer; Ellin Goets,
education, and environmental education; Daniel Jackson, water
conservation and ecology; Wayne Jenkins, civic; Willis Kriz, civic,
land management; Carl Kuehner, business real estate; Kathy Prosser,
conservation and environmental education; and Julian Stokes,
business and appraisal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you very much.
Mr. David Weigel, you had something in the process that we
needed-- need to hear?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I was just going to mention that in
regards to -- if there's a lunch-hour homework project to come back,
that any documents that you create will be public records, and, in
fact, are part of the decision-making process, so it crosses over into
the sunshine aspects of your decision making on this agenda item.
And so that if you create public records during the course of the
lunch hour, or otherwise, in regard to this and they come in to be
tallied or utilized as part of a determination process, a vote or number
of names, number of votes for them, things of that nature, to make
these decisions of this item, that each document submitted by each
commissioner will need to be clearly identified with the
commissioner that writes those -- that writes down that voting
document.
And they are public records if you create them over the course
of the lunch hour and someone wishes to ask you for them, well,
unfortunately, you will ostensibly have to present it even before you
got back to the commission meeting, as far as that goes.
I want to make sure that you're just, you know, very aware of
the sunshine and public record ramifications of working kind of
individually outside and coming back to a decision making later on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So what you're saying is, put
your name on your list?
MR. WEIGEL: If you create a list, put your name on it, because
Page 103
February 11, 2003
it's going to be submitted -- apparently submitted for a review or
discussion under the agenda item after the lunch hour.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And don't work with any of the other
commissioners.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We can't -- we can't take
Commissioner Fiala's list and duplicate it and take notes?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, you can, yeah, you can.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you've come up with a
way to get this thing started, Commissioner Henning, and I endorse
it.
Just for your information, Commissioner Fiala, the list you
named, two of the people that are my first choices are on your list. I
don't think we're into this to pick close friends. We're into --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- it to pick people that are
most capable --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I figured I'd hit somebody from
everybody on here --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're going to do the selection
now before we actually sit down and follow the chairman's
guidelines; is that what we're doing?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, he's just saying that -- no,
no, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, why don't we do it the way
the chairman has suggested, and let's take a break and go to lunch
and come back with our recommendations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Before you make your
recommendations, let's hear from the public speakers, because that
might influence your decision.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That's exactly right.
Page 104
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we'll give the public speakers
three minutes. I still recognize you, Commissioner Halas. And then
let's go to the public speakers --
MS. FILSON: Okay. Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- and the public speakers have three
minutes.
MS. FILSON: -- I only have one public speaker on this issue.
It's Brad Cornell.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
MS. FILSON: Three minutes?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Three minutes.
Commissioner Coyle's hungry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I just think we established a
process, and I think it's a good one that you established, and we
ought to follow it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MR. CORNELL: Is this part of that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. CORNELL: I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here on behalf of
Collier County Audubon Society. I only want to -- I know I shared
some suggestions myself with you, and I still endorse those. But I
wanted to make one other further point, and that was that I'm
concerned about whether people -- some people have applied because
they're very interested in seeing the goals obtained and other folks
have applied, and I'm not so sure that that interest is quite the same,
and I'm thinking of folks who were vehemently opposed to the
program.
And maybe it's just common sense, but I guess I would point to
the rural fringe committee as having had a tough time because of
some folks who didn't believe in the process and basically ended up
being obstructionists on it, and it really didn't accomplish all the
things that it was supposed to.
Page 105
February 11, 2003
And so I would hold that up as a way not to do this, that there
are -- you have some wonderful candidates on that list, and I would
encourage you to look for the people who are very supportive of the
program. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. As I was going through all
the applications, I tried to scrutinize it to make sure that when I came
up with a list, it didn't matter what district they came from. I was
looking at the overall selection as what I felt best -- that would
accomplish the task here in Collier County for all citizens.
So I just wanted to put that in there, that I didn't weigh anything
as far as what district they came from. I looked at the individuals,
what their qualification were, and what their experience was, what
their interests were also.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Very well stated. Any other
discussion? Okay. Start voting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did anybody offer us lunch, by the
way?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what time do you want to come
back?
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: We're going to convene for an hour,
so we will be reconvening at 1:20.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So just before we convene --
leave, you want two names; is that right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, two names.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Before we go to lunch?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And not your own?
(No response.)
(A luncheon recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I call the Board of County
Commissioners' meeting to order. We left off an item on 9(A), that is
Page 106
February 11, 2003
the appointment of members to the land acquisition committee. And
I think Ms. Filson has some results for us?
MS. FILSON: I do, sir. Do you just want me to give you the
who was picked for three years, two years and one year?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, give me the two names. And
do we have somebody that is named twice from the commissioners?
MS. FILSON: Yes, we have two applicants that were named
twice. So that would mean we would need to select one other person.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, okay. Well, either that or--
give us the names, and then we'll proceed on.
MS. FILSON: Okay, for three years I have Willis Kriz,
K-R-I-C (sic), Ellin Goetz, Wayne Jenkins. For two years I have
Linda Lawson, Bill Poteet, Ellin Goetz, Kathy Prosser. For one year
I have Kathy Prosser and Ed Carlson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have the categories?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. Ms. Lawson is environmental; Bill
Poteet is civic; William Kriz is environmental/agricultural and civic;
Kathy Prosser is environmental, ecology and conservation; Kathy
Prosser is environmental, education; Ellin Goetz is environmental,
education; Wayne Jenkins is environmental, conservation; Ed
Carlson is environmental; Ellin Goetz is agriculture/business; Kathy
Prosser, environmental.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we covered all the bases on the
selection that we have here. So we have two names that appeared on
the same list -- or two different lists.
MS. FILSON: Yes, and Ellin Goetz I have down for three years
and one for two years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, who's the other one?
MS. FILSON: And the other one is Kathy Prosser, I have her
down for two years and one year.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, so that would leave us 10,
right? And we just need to choose from -- no, they came down on
Page 107
February 11, 2003
the same list.
MS. FILSON: No, this is nine and you have two of each and if
you take that--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we need one more person.
MS. FILSON: -- two from nine is seven, so you need one more
person. You need to tell me if you want Ellin Goetz to have a
three-year term or the two-year term.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Same list, I thought we -- think we
should give her a three-year. Anybody disagree with that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does it balance out, the
numbers?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, does it balance out?
MS. FILSON: Then you will have Kathy Prosser, who has a
two-year term and a one-year term.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Give her half a year. Just split it in
half.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about two years?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two years?
MS. FILSON: Okay. So then you need to pick two people for
one-year terms.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two people for one-year terms?
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think that we have -- my
perspective on that is it doesn't matter, because after the one year, I'm
going to go with the person that completed that one year, as long as
they were productive on the committee, and go for a continuing
three-year.
MS. FILSON: And a one-year term doesn't even count as a full
term --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. FILSON: -- as far as being reappointed. It has to be 50
percent or more of the current term, which one year isn't.
Page 108
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody have any preference
on the selection of one year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question. Are these just
nominations and we're going to vote on each of these people, or are
these actually the people that are going to be placed on the
committee without further vote?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: As long as we can agree, at least
three of us agree, that's the way it's going to be selected. Unless you
have another process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I was just sort of thinking we
were going to vote on this set of nominations and then have another
set of nominations until we filled out the nine. But whatever
procedure you want to establish.
The only problem is that there's -- some people we're not going
to have a chance to have any input on. For example, if I didn't
nominate them, I won't have any input at all. And maybe that's good,
maybe that's bad. I don't know how you feel about it, but whatever
you want to do, I'll be supportive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just to clarify, you said we needed
one two-year terms yet to fill?
MS. FILSON: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll throw in two names, but then
we can just pass right around.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The two names that were selected
here that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I see. Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
See, I still misunderstood.
MS. FILSON: No, sir, we have William Kriz, Ellin Goetz, and
Wayne Jenkins for three-year terms.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Page 109
February 11, 2003
MS. FILSON: For two-year terms we have Linda Lawson, Bill
Poteet and Kathy Prosser. For a one-year term we have Ed Carlson.
So we need two additional people to serve one-year terms to
complete the nine-member committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: On our list.
MS. FILSON: Um-hum.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask, Sue, would you go
through those slow enough so I can mark them down so I have them
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- identified on my list, and the
number of years that we're suggesting?
MS. FILSON: Okay. For three years --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, three years.
MS. FILSON: -- I have Willis Kriz, K-R-I-Z.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Ellin Goetz.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Wayne Jenkins.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: For two years, I have Linda Lawson.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Bill Poteet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. FILSON: And Kathy Prosser.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, that's two years, right?
MS. FILSON: Uh-huh.
For the one-year term, I have Ed Carlson.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: You have some recommendations,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I do. I would like to
Page 110
February 11, 2003
recommend Michael Delate. I've never met the man, but I'd like to --
for the ag. section. And then also Dan Jackson for water
conservation and ecology.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: For the one-year.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody have a problem with that?
Any
own
comments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
I've got some nominations of my
Oh, okay.
-- that I'd like to see considered.
One is John Sorey, who has been a member of the City of Naples
Planning Advisory Board for a number of years. And Carl Keener,
who has also been a member of that planning advisory board and is a
prominent agriculture and business qualification candidate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have two then. I'd like Marco A.
Espinar, I believe that's how you pronounce his name. And Mimi S.
Wolack.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no new ones. You've
covered all that I had a real sincere interest in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think every name that's been
presented just now was outstanding. Could we create those four
alternate positions so that these people would all get on there?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not on the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I know that isn't, but I'm asking --
you know, we can pass that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's not under consideration today. If
you want to bring it up in a future agenda, I think that's most
appropriate.
Page 111
February 11, 2003
So we had three commissioners with three different -- two
additional names. Commissioner Coletta and I don't have any
preference. So does anybody have a problem with Commissioner
Coletta and I from the names that were given by the other
commissioners and the two other ones have our input?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I wouldn't have a problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You think that's fair, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's fair. I mean, we'd
have to actually go through the applications in front of us again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, what I'm suggesting is
Commissioner Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner Halas
gave us two names each. I don't have a preference. What I'm saying
is you and I from their list --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- each choose one name. You want
me to give you the names?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's get the list and take a few
minutes to review it ourselves. What's the names again? MS. FILSON: You want me to read the names?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'll give you the names that I've
written down. Delate Jackson (sic) was from Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We look alike.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Delate what?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Delate Jackson was from
Commissioner Fiala.
Go ahead and speak for yourself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, go ahead. Was it Daniel
Jackson?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
Page 112
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sorey is --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, John Sorey.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: John Sorey. And Keener.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And Carl Keener, yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Carl Keener was Commissioner
Coyle's. Commissioner Halas was Marco.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
MS. FILSON: Espinar.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Spinar (sic).
Espinar.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Espinar.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Espinar.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And then the second choice for
Commissioner Halas was Mimi Wolack. So I'm going to throw out
there my choice, Michael Delate. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you give me just one
second here, please, while I refer to my notes. Yeah, Marco Espinar?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, that would be a choice with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And everybody can see that
we take our advisory boards very serious.
So we have -- I think we have a committee, ladies and
gentlemen.
MS. FILSON: And those two would be for the remaining
one-year terms?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. So I will entertain a motion
at this time for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and a second by Commissioner Fiala to accept the advisory
committee for the land acquisition. All in favor of the mission sig --
Page 113
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hold it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, and you're doing fine. I just want
to clar -- make sure the record is clear that the process that's gone
forward here, you know, complies with the Sunshine Law and with
the Public Records Law, so I'll explain again what has occurred.
Subsequent to the lunch break, Board of County Commissioners
have independently of each other provided a list of each person's
nominees for this committee, and Ms. Filson has compiled the list
and placed on the record the tally of the compilation of that list.
Each of the documents provided by each of the five commissioners
identifies the commissioner to the notes or the names that they have
-- that they have provided. This is to become part of the public
record of this agenda item of this meeting, and it is subject to review
at any point in time.
It can be understood from the discussion that the board has had
that the names that Ms. Filson mentioned showed up on the lists of a
majority. The names for the three and the two and the one-year
showed up with more than one selection by the commissioners to
come to that ranking. Correct, Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: That's correct.
MR. WEIGEL: And how many -- at least how many
commissioners on the written tally would show up for each of those
positions under three years, two years and one year? At least three
commissioners, as you performed your tally? MS. FILSON: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Again, I'd like for the commission to
restate the three-year nominees of the commission, the two-year and
one-year, and then the Board of County Commissioners take a vote
on that entire group with one vote.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead, Ms. Filson.
MS. FILSON: Three years is Willis Kriz, K-R-I-Z, Ellin Goetz,
Page 114
February 11, 2003
Wayne Jenkins. Two years is Linda Lawson, Bill Poteet, Kathy
Prosser. One year is Ed Carlson, Michael Delate and Marco Espinar.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's included in my motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And in my second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, and that's great for that
clarification.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5-0. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask you when we can bring
up getting alternates so that they start with this group and don't slip
behind?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It would probably be appropriate
under commissioners' correspondence or under commissioners -- at a
furore agenda, commissioners agenda number nine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll bring it up later. Okay,
thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, ready to proceed?
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2003-77 RE: APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
BRADIJEY WIIJI~IAM SCHIFFER - ADOPTED
Page 115
February 11, 2003
Item 9(B) is an appointment of one member to the Collier
County Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I'd like to nominate Bradley
Schiffer. He's an architect and I think that he would bring a lot to the
planning board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor for Mr. Schiffer
to be -- fulfill the remaining term of planning commission. Is there --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-78 RE: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD-
ALBERT DORIA, JR., KATHRYN GODFREY, GERALD J.
LEFEBVRE, AND GEORGE P. PONTE APPOINTED-
ADOPTFD
Next item is 9(C).
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, on this item, George Ponte has served
Page 116
February 11, 2003
two terms, so you'll need to waive that portion of the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: George who?
MS. FILSON: Ponte.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought we were just filling a one
year. Are we confirming somebody?
MS. FILSON: You're -- we're appointing four members to the
three-year terms. This is the planning commission, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, we're on 9(C), the
appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board is to appoint four members to serve three-year terms, expiring
February 14th, 2006.
MS. FILSON: I'm sorry, code enforcement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion that we
take all four candidates to fill the four positions and waive the
limitations on two consecutive terms for George Ponte.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second.
Motion by Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas
on the appointment of four members to the Collier County Code
Enforcement Board.
All in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #9D
Page 117
February 11, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-79 RE: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO
THE WORKFORCE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
VINCENT A. CAI ITF, RO APPOINTED- ADOPTED
Next item -- do you have anything on the next item, Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- appointment of members to the
workforce housing advisory committee. Appointment of one
member to fulfill the remainder of a vacant term. Committee
recommends Vincent Cautero.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, then I'd like to make a motion
that we accept Vincent Cautero, as he's attended every -- just about
every meeting we've had.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coletta to appoint Vincent Cautero to the
workforce housing advisory committee.
All in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2003-80 RE: CONFIRMATION OF MEMBERS TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
Page 118
February 11, 2003
JOHN ARCERI AND BEDFORD BILES APPOINTED-
ADOPTED
Confirmation of members to the Collier County Coastal
Advisory Committee. Appoint two members to represent Marco
Island to fulfill the remaining vacant terms in the coastal advisory
committee.
MS. FILSON: If I may mention one thing on this, Mr.
Chairman. I talked to Mr. Bill Moss of Marco Island, and he had
originally appointed John Arceri until May 22nd, 2003. And I
explained to him we would have to send him a letter of an
appointment, along with a letter of expiration, so he agreed to
appoint him for the remainder of the term plus a full term. That's
why you have 2007 here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you for that
clarification.
Commissioner Fiala, do you have any recommendations for us
today?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I'd like to make a motion that
we accept the Marco Island city manager's recommendation of John
Arceri and Bedford Biles for the position of Collier County Coastal
Advisory Committee.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala for the new members.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta seconded the
motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Page 119
February 11, 2003
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Motion carries 5-0.
Item #9F
"ORANGETREE GOVERNMENT SERVICE DAY" EVENT AND
RF,I,ATF,D BI IDGF, T AMF,NDMF,NT - APPROVED
Next item is 9(F), approval of the Orangetree Services Day
events and related budget amendments. Who has that item?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think I do. And I do
appreciate you giving me a chance to go over this, because this is
something that I think is going to serve the needs of the residents of
the rural part of Collier County who are far removed from downtown
Naples and wouldn't be able to attend our large government fair day
that we have down there that's very well put on. This would be
something of a much smaller direction, and even a little bit more
diverse.
I'm looking for a function we can bring in some government
employees from basic services such as transportation, animal control,
to cite a couple of examples, and also couple that with constitutional
officers being there, having their own tables at the middle school to
be able to set up displays, answer questions. I want to invite such
entities to this service day. It would include the Orangetree Property
Owners Association, the Waterways Property Owners Association,
Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, even the Golden Gate
Property Rights Group, Immokalee Civic, the Golden Gate master
plan, representatives from the committee, to be able to answer
different questions and get ideas from the public. The major
developers that are taking place out there such as in Orangetree,
Page 120
February 11, 2003
Brian Paul to come in and be able to show some of the different ideas
he has. Possibly major pit owners who are having a problem now
with the trucks, that we're going to have to be dealing with very
shortly. Looking also to invite the people from the Collier County
Fair board, which are in the middle of the whole process, and they'll
be able to interject their opinions and some of their future plans,
which they've just came up with a conceptual plan for the
fairgrounds. The 4-H, have them come and outside possibly have a
fundraiser selling hot dogs and hamburgers. Of course our tax
assessor.
Generally covering everything, even the cable TV people,
Orangetree utilities, all these things that people are looking to
interject with. Maybe you want to invite Fish & Game.
The part that the county itself is going to be involved in will be
a small part of it. The school board of course is invited, just so we
don't leave them out of the mix.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I'm glad you
brought this up, something that I thought about in the past. And it's
only right, if we're going to do this to be fair to all the commissioners
is we need, in my opinion, to do two things: The Government Days
is rotated into the commissioners' districts on a yearly basis, or
budget for each and every commissioner in their district to have a
government day. It would only be fair, then we have some people,
folks on Marco Island, if it's hard for people in Orangetree, same
distance would be for the people in Marco Island.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I would never suggest
that we move Government Days we have at the fair out to the middle
of the Estates, because I think the draw we would have would be
minimal compared to what it is in the populated center. This is to
augment it slightly to be able to reach the very rural areas. We're
talking about as far away as Immokalee, which is about almost 40
miles removed from the mall. People from that area, they just don't
Page 121
February 11, 2003
find it convenient. And this is -- compared to our government day,
I'm not too sure, but I think if we compared expenses, we're probably
looking at, oh, five percent of what the total cost would be.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Could I make a motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may, I'd like to make a
motion to approve this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I have a motion to approve the
Orangetree Government Day -- Service Day.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second -- motion on the
floor and a second. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think that this -- I'd like to just
interject here that I think this is a good idea, especially for the people
in Immokalee. And I'm hoping that if we decide to vote on this, and
then voted to vote it in, that the people in Immokalee will use this
and take advantage of this.
This is kind of an unusual deal here, and I realize that
Immokalee is somewhat divorced from the urban area, so I think we
need to make sure that the word gets out and that these people are
sure that we invite them and make sure that they attend.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Question. Where are we going to
get the money?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, that's where I'm asking
for your help. And other than possibly donating out of your pocket,
the second thing for consideration would be to allow it to come out of
our reserves out of the general fund.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, you're not going to take money
out of my pocket. I think you get enough of it. I think government
gets enough out of my pocket.
So what you're asking is take it out of the general fund.
Page 122
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, Commissioner
Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that included in the second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Motion carries 3-2. The opposing commissioners was myself,
Commissioner Henning, and Commissioner Coyle.
Item #9G
APPROVE PAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST
DIFFERENTIAL TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT FOR
UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION LINES IN
LIEU OF OVERHEAD POWER DISTRIBUTION LINES ALONG
91 ST AVENUE NORTH, NOT TO EXCEED $60,000 (JOSEPH
SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
- TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON FEBRUARY 18, 2003 AS
EMFRGF. NCY BCC MEETING- APPROVED
Okay, next item is approval to payment of a construct (sic) a
differential to Florida Power & Light for underground electric
distribution lines in lieu of overhead power lines along 91st Street--
91st Avenue North, not to exceed $60,000.
And Mrs. Fiala (sic), can you tell me how many speakers that
we have?
Page 123
February 11, 2003
MS. FILSON: Six.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have six speakers.
Commissioner Halas, would you like to give us a presentation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Let me give you a little
history on this. I'll make it as quick as possible.
I received a phone call here a couple of weeks ago in regards to
the possibility of power lines being put down 91st Avenue. And at
first I didn't think that this was going to really take place. I got ahold
of staff and staff said that they hadn't had any input in regards to that
from FP&L. So at that point in time what we did is -- and I say we,
the citizens that were concerned about that, they met with me over at
the library. We also had a couple of representatives from FP&L
show up. And at the time they told us that their plans were to put this
line down 91st Street, they were coming out of the substation at
Frank Goodlette (sic), and then they were going to proceed
westbound on Vanderbilt Beach Road. Then when they got to 41,
they were going to head north and then go across U.S. 41 and then
proceed down 91st Avenue. And at that point the line was going to
be above ground and it was going to go all the way down to
Vanderbilt Drive, then head south on Vanderbilt Beach Road again,
approximately directly across from the Ritz-Carlton. The line was
going to go back down underground and then it was going into
Pelican Bay.
This power line is somewheres between 23,000 volts and 30,000
volts. And it basically is not serving the residents at all in the three
communities that it's interfering with and, therefore, we're concerned
that these people are being infringed upon, especially the people in
Naples Park. They've got power lines in their backyard presently and
now they're going to have power lines in their front yard. It's an
easement that is shared by two other communities which are Pavilion
and Beachwalk, along with Naples Park.
We have been in contact with people from FP&L, pleading their
Page 124
February 11, 2003
case -- or our case, that we'd like to have this underground. Of
course FP&L said that they're looking out for shareholder value. It
looks like it will be about around $60,000 to have this put
underground. We feel that this is just the tip of the iceberg, that this
is going to affect other communities, could be in district four, district
one and district three. I'm not sure about district five, there's still
possibly there (sic).
And right now we don't have any real means of containing these
costs, so maybe we'll have to look at eventually changing the LDC
and looking at franchise fees.
But the problem that arises here is that when we initially talked
with the people from FP&L, the statement that they made was that
they were looking at this project to be completed in June and they
were going to start sometime in April or May. When they realized
that the community was getting somewhat upset, they immediately
moved the time line up. They ramped this thing up to the point
where it looks like they're going to start possibly this coming week.
And they want to have this done by the end of March.
So it really puts the residents in a quandary here. They do not
have an MSTU in place. I don't think we could even get it in that
quick. Secondly, there is no MSTU in existence to handle this.
So what we're looking for is number one is -- to address this is
to address this on the land development code later on so that we have
a franchise fee so that other communities such as Golden Gate, East
Naples and other areas don't run into the same problem. And they're
going to run into it. And I feel that what we need to do is see if we
can help the citizens here. We're talking about for roughly 3,000
citizens that it's affecting, and we feel that we need to have some
relief and that we need to also address this issue so that it doesn't
happen again. And that's my case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I'm not sure if we have any
representative from FP&L here, but if no further discussion, maybe
Page 125
February 11, 2003
we should go to the public speakers. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You have a question? Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, for Commissioner Halas. I
notice somebody gave me a map and it looked like this FP&L thing
was going along a major road.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Maybe we could put this on
display.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then all of a sudden it dumps
into this community where it goes above ground until it gets through
the community. Then when it gets back on the major road, it's
underground again. What is the purpose behind -- it's almost like
purposely forcing it into their community. Why did they do that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm not sure if the county manager
would like to get involved in this, but basically is that -- basically
because of the new land development code laws whereby new
communities that are being built, whether it's a PUD or whatever,
that is an assessment that is included in the PUD. The end result is
when the person buys a home or a condo in that area, that is part of
the cost of buying that condo. And this is something that's been on
the books since probably 1977 with the advent of Pelican Bay. Of
course we've got -- the communities that it's affecting are the
communities that have been in this area for many, many years.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we do have a representative
from Florida Power & Light in the back; am I correct, sir? Nobody
jumping on board? Boy, I sure do have some questions for Florida
Power & Light.
MR. MUDD: Let me try to help a little bit. And in no way,
shape or form am I on Florida Power & Light's side, okay? I've done
everything I can to try to twist their arm to do something different.
Florida Power & Light basically run -- they run lines to
customers, may they be transmission lines or just service lines to
Page 126
February 11, 2003
individual residences. In their mode of operation, one that's in the
rates, is to send that particular service above ground. That's the way
they do business. It's above ground. If somebody -- Leo has that
disease that I had yesterday.
If they go below ground, it's basically at the cost of a developer,
a neighborhood or whatever, because they want the lines buried
instead of above ground because they're an eyesore. And the City of
Naples is no different. I've heard the Mayor say a number of times
that she would like to have the lines buried.
And so they're going to bring them above ground. Why do they
go below ground and then above ground and then below ground? It's
basically because somebody has paid them the extra money to bury
them.
In this particular case, to bury the above-ground section down
91st Street, we estimate at around $58,000. We put 60,000 because
it's still an estimate. And FP&L will bury the lines for $58,000. And
we've had those discussions with Mr. Whitten (phonetic), Grover
Whitten, who's their regional representative.
The Commissioner also made some other comments, and I'd like
to get some clarification real quick. And I think this would be better
be handled in a workshop, if we talk about future land development
code changes to say all new power lines will go underground.
I need to let the board know that there was a case that went to
the Supreme Court and it has to do with the City of Lake Mary, I
think it is, against Florida Power Corp. in which the Supreme Court
said you can pass an ordinance that says you will bury lines, but
when you do, the county or municipality, whoever it is, will pay the
difference to that power company for the price of going above
ground to below ground. So just because you pass the law doesn't
mean that you're not going to have to cough up the dollars in order to
do that.
We'll also make -- because nobody on this board was here in
Page 127
February 11, 2003
1999, we came forward to the board and talked about a franchise fee,
and the franchise fee would be against power companies that use our
easements. We have an ordinance right now that says they can use
our easements and we basically say they can use it free.
And in 1999 the board didn't want to take on that franchise fee,
because that franchise fee would basically be a cost that would be
tacked on to everybody's power bill on a monthly basis, and they
didn't want to burden the taxpayers of Collier County with that
particular fee. That fee, three percent, for instance, would bring
anywhere from four to six million dollars into Collier County
annually.
Those monies, if you-- if the board decides to workshop this
and would further decide that they would like to pass an ordinance
that says all future new lines that come into Collier County will be
buried, that franchise fee would give you the ability to have dollars in
a fund that would be able to be paid to that power company to offset
those costs to be in keeping with a Supreme Court decision that was
made two years ago.
That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ms. Filson, will you call up
the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. First speaker is John Hickey. He will
be followed by Vera Fitz-Gerald.
MR. HICKEY: Yes, I'm John Hickey from Beachwalk
Residents Association. And I've talked to most of you on this subject
before.
The first thing I would like to do is call for the people who are
here today that are supporting the burying of the line along 91 st
Avenue to please raise their hands. Thank you, I just wanted the
board to see what support we have here present before you.
Secondly, I'd like to report to you that there have been over
1,200 partially -- that is an estimate, but over 700 signatures have
Page 128
February 11, 2003
gone to Florida Power & Light, and the balance are e-mails and faxes
to Mr. Whitten in Fort Myers, saying that we want that line along
91 st Avenue buried. We have had almost no response from Florida
Power & Light on this subject.
The other point I would like to point out to you is this: The
route of this line which Commissioner Fiala has rightfully
questioned, was developed by Florida Power & Light. It was not
developed by the county, at least to our knowledge. And there has to
be a reason why a for-profit company runs a line circuitously up
Route 41 west on 91st Avenue, down Vanderbilt Drive and back onto
Vanderbilt Beach Drive going west. And the reason for that is cost.
They had a distinct savings from -- for doing that route as opposed to
coming directly west down Vanderbilt Beach Road, where they
presently have power poles and lines.
And when we raised this question directly with them at one of
our sessions, we were told that the cost would be tremendous coming
down Vanderbilt Beach Road directly, because they would have to
disconnect all of the lines on those poles today, pull the poles out, put
new poles in -- and by the way, these are 50-foot poles; what are in
place now are 35-foot poles -- and then reconnect all of the lines.
Obviously the labor cost involved there would be much greater than
digging a hole in the ground, sticking a new pole into it and putting
one line on top of the pole, which is what they intend to do down
91 st Avenue.
The point that I would like to leave with you is this: If Florida
Power & Light saved "X" amount of dollars by going this circuitous
route, then why doesn't the $60,000 come out of those savings to pay
for burying that line?
The other point I want to make and emphasize to you is that
there are no -- and Commissioner Halas did mention this point, I just
want to emphasize that there are no feeder lines coming off of this
transmission line. It is coming from the power station over on
Page 129
February 11, 2003
Goodlette-Frank Road, going north onto Vanderbilt Beach Road,
west on Vanderbilt Beach Road -- underground, I might add -- under
41, where we understand there is a pipe now that was put in place
when 41 was widened, across up on pole again, north on 41 to 91st
Avenue, and then west -- down 91st Avenue to Vanderbilt Drive and
the way I just described. There are no feeder lines off of this. The
power is going west of Vanderbilt Drive. That's where the power
will be used. Beachwalk, Pavilion Club, Naples Park and the other
communities along there do not get the direct benefit of that line, the
power in that line.
I'd also like to thank all of you, especially Commissioner Halas
and County Manager Mudd and Joe Schmitt for their cooperation
with us, their advice. And it's just been a pleasure working with
them on this whole project. And thank you for your considerations.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Vera Fitz-Gerald, and she
will be followed by Tim -- and I think it's G-U-I-N-E-E. Guinee.
MS. FITZ-GERALD: Hi, I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald from Naples
Park. And John Hickey said just about everything I was going to
say, so I'll try not to say it again.
I just want to point out that we are not asking for something
special from Naples Park. We're not asking you to bury the 21 miles
that we already have in our backyards, nor are we asking you to bury
the 800 block where they plopped the poles in the front yards to feed
-- what's the name of that -- Pelican Marsh, nor the lines that they
plopped in the front yards of the people on 91st in the 800 block, the
Pavilion Club. We're just asking you to please help us avoid this
disaster, which as John has pointed out, does not benefit us at all.
They're just coming through there because they see a cheaper way to
go. And this just makes me so angry, and I think you're going to find
this is going to happen in other areas as we develop these
communities, these new PUD's. Others will come forward.
And I really support this idea of having a franchise fee, and I
Page 130
February 11, 2003
know it's going to appear on my electrical bill, but for the whole
community this is going to be a big benefit. We can bury all new
lines and all lines that have been moved. As you all know, we live in
a hurricane prone area, and one of them is going to come through and
we could lose our electricity for five months if we're on the above
ground system.
Now, there was one gentleman out in the hallway who lives in
Beachwalk, and he had to go home, and he worked for a power
company, and he was kind of aware of all these things. And he said
ask FP&L how frequently we get lightning in this area, and he said to
ask them if we're prone to lightning, and if we are, to point out how
much less maintenance is in a lightning prone area, and of course this
is the lightning capital of the world, then it would be -- the
maintenance is going to be considerably lower to FP&L if the lines
are buried.
The one other aspect that people have talked about is the
environmental problems, besides the fact that FP&L are going to
hack those beautiful oaks down, which really upsets me. The other
environmental problem is living under a high power line. They will
tell you that that hasn't been proven. I will say to you, it hasn't been
disproven either. So I personally don't want to live under a
high-powered line.
The big problem is there's going to be a reduction of property
values for those people who have to look at that God-awful line
going down 91 st. It's just not fair.
So that's basically what I have to say. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ken Guinee, and he will be
followed by Robert Ferrante.
MR. GUINEE: Tim Guinee--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Guinee, hold on. Mr. Ferrante,
would you stand behind Mr. Guinee so we don't take up too much
time? Thanks.
Page 131
February 11, 2003
I'm sorry, sir, continue.
MR. GUINEE: Thanks for the opportunity to address this issue.
Back a few years I was in the development business myself and
I had occasion to do business with electric companies. And I found
by experience that there really isn't that kind of difference in this
kind of a job. You know, you don't set 50-foot poles for nothing.
You don't have people climbing up and down them for nothing. And
once the trench is in and the tubes are in, it's there forever.
I'd like to see some cost justification for this 50 or $60,000 that
they're talking about, and I don't think it rightfully belongs to us.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Ferrante, and he will
be followed by John McGuire.
MR. FERRANTE: Yes, my name is Robert Ferrante, and I'm a
resident of the Beachwalk community.
Lot's been said. And I had six points to make, the points have
been made. I will not be redundant. And my last comment and only
comment will be that there seems to be a need for resolution, and it
seems to me that over time there's a possibility of a long-term
franchise fee that you've already discussed. That may or may not
happen. That's your choice. But in the interim, if you could help us
out by dealing with a concept of an MSTU concept that would be --
that would charge the subset of people directly benefitting from this
and forward fund the $60,000, not to exceed, from your budget and
retrieve that back through the MSTU, that would benefit and make
everybody whole, and this problem would disappear. Thank you
very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John McGuire, and he will
be followed by your final speaker, Gordon Smith.
MR. McGUIRE: For the record, my name is John McGuire. I
live in Beachwalk, 803 Reef Point Circle.
Basically I was going to say about the same thing that Bob
Page 132
February 11, 2003
Ferrante said, except that, you know, they'll probably be out there
next week, and time is of the essence. And so what we need is the
help of the commissioners to get the line underground -- furnish the
money, get the line underground and stop the overhead. And you're
the only people that can really do it. We can't do it. And you're the
only people that can assess the community. If it's up to us -- like
Florida Power & Light are saying hey, Beachwalk, you pay for it.
Well, it should be everybody -- the people on the end use that are
using the lines, the power, and everybody around in the community,
if you get 5,000 units, $60,000 is a one-shot deal of about 15, $20
apiece. And that's the thing we're looking for. I appreciate that you
people can't spend $60,000 of the taxpayers' money because you
need it in your own communities and you'd be setting a precedent,
but we do need some help and we need it now. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Final speaker is Gordon Smith.
MR. SMITH: Gordon Smith declines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Smith waives.
I have a legal question, and I think Mr. Patrick White is our only
legal attorney that's not on the telephone.
Is it -- do we have to grant people the right to use the easement
when there is a clearer alternative to use an easement just one block
away? Is it a given that we give them that right?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I asked for legal opinion, because
once I found out that they had the right-of-way permit, I wanted to
deny the right-of-way permit. And I told FP&L that I would do so,
and I didn't -- and I really told them that I was thinking about it. And
I haven't told them one way or the other yet, and I'm still thinking
about. But I asked for legal opinion, if I have that right in order to do
that. And our ordinances clearly state that they can use our
easements, and we would have to find that it violated something in a
safety perspective, and that would require me to say that overhead
power lines are unsafe. And that's a court battle that I chose not to
Page 133
February 11, 2003
and I would advise the board not to go there because that -- that gets
into every power line that's above ground in the United States, okay.9
And I think you'll find that it probably won't stand up in a court of
law. So that was the only alternative that I could see. So therefore,
based on the legal opinion that I received, I couldn't refuse or decline
that -- or revoke that right-of-way permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Did you ask the question, can we
delegate which easement they use? I mean, giving them a right to
use an easement, can't we tell them where they need to go? MR. WEIGEL: I'd like to help.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's pretty good. I'll leave that
comment where it needs to be.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: May I just say that that was
brought up at two meetings, I believe, that I was involved with. We
asked them why they couldn't run that power line right straight down
Vanderbilt Beach road, and we really were not given a real true
meaning of why they couldn't do it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That doesn't answer my question.
MR. MUDD: The answer we got back from that table was -- we
even asked them to double-string on existing poles. And in both
cases, either going down Vanderbilt Beach or double-stringing, the
cost was more than it would be going down 91 st.
And so to answer your question, can we designate them to go to
additional right-of-way? I'd have to run that by the attorneys again,
because I didn't specifically ask that question.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Commission, I think I can
respond. The case that the county manager mentioned was Florida
Power Corporation versus Seminole County and City of Lake Mary,
known as the Lake Mary case. It went before the Supreme Court in
1991. Weighing in were essentially all the heavyweights at that time.
We had Florida Power & Light, Florida Power Corporation, Gulf
Power. We had Amicus Curiae, friends of the corporees (phonetic)
Page 134
February 11, 2003
filed for Tampa Electric. We also had both the counties and the
cities weighing in in this. We had Amicus brief from the Florida
League of Cities and Amicus brief for the Florida Association of
Counties, as well as for the Public Service Commission. It truly was
a battle of jurisdiction and statutory interpretation.
There are a few quotes here which I think will answer the
questions both that Jim has already asked of the local FP&L people,
but also I think be of assistant to the public as well.
And the court mentioned, and I'll make a few quotes here, if I
may, quickly. The highest courts of four other states have also
rejected local governments' attempts to mandate the placing of
underground facilities at utility's expense, just as this court did. They
said -- and they quote two specific statutes; one a gentleman who
spoke just brought to my attention. One of the statutes the court says
this statute does not grant localities, meaning municipalities or
county governments. The statute does not grant localities the power
to mandate the type of system to be used by a utility, or to determine
who should pay for such a system.
And then it goes on to say if there was any doubt that the
legislature did not intend that cities and counties could dictate the
decision of whether public utilities should convert their overhead
systems to underground, this was laid to rest by the enactment of
section 336.04(7)(A), Florida Statutes in 1989. It goes on to say the
Public Service Commission is vested with the authority to require
conversion of distribution lines to underground where, quote,
feasible, closed quote, if the commission finds this to be
cost-effective.
Now, my discussions with our staff and particularly Bleu
Wallace and Tom Palmer of my office, who's been long-time utilities
attorney and formerly worked for the Public Service Commission as
a counsel, has indicated that if Collier County has certain desires or
needs, aesthetic or health and safety and otherwise, quite frankly it's
Page 135
February 11, 2003
a matter that would have to go before the Public Service
Commission. And their thoughts, and I consider them to be well
thought-out thoughts in this regard, is that the Public Service
Commission, at an entity such as FP&L, is looking to rates on a more
aerial or state-wide way, and so that we would have little weight
before the Public Service Commission, but if we had to go forward,
that would be the forum where we went.
It goes on to point out that -- one last thing: We hasten to point
out -- this is the Supreme Court -- that our ruling does not limit the
ability of cities and counties to require developers of new
subdivisions to place their electric power supply facilities
underground.
One last comment apart from this case is that if we were to go
and get back into the franchise fee arrangement, that's a contractual
arrangement with the utility companies. It's a two-party agreement.
FP&L was in fact, after significant difficulty, was about to approve,
in fact indicated they would approve a franchise agreement a few
years ago. It's also possible that if something like that were to be put
into place, that enough of a call it a fee war chest would come
forward, that the county could contemplate -- and again, this would
have to be flushed out in a workshop -- the county could contemplate
not merely the location of new power lines but potentially the
relocation of old power lines underground, if a program were worked
out along that way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I didn't ask about burying the
existing lines somewhere else, I asked about dictating where the line
goes. But maybe Commissioner Coyle can give some assistance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand from what you
just said, David, we don't have the authority to instruct FP&L where
they should put their lines. MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or how. Is that true?
Page 136
February 11, 2003
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do have the authority,
however, to grant rights-of-way. But once rights-of-way have already
been granted, we don't have the authority to tell FP&L how that
right-of-way is to be used; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That is absolutely correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then it seems to me that
the issues are fairly clear cut here. And before I propose a solution,
I'd like to compliment the people who spoke to us today. You were
not repetitive and you were very reasonable, although I know there's
a lot of anger with respect to how you were treated by FP&L. And I
really appreciate your very constructive comments.
There's no way I think this commission can just pay $60,000 to
get this done. It would set a precedent that would cost us tens of
millions of dollars, because every neighborhood in the county would
be wanting to do the same thing. But we can establish an MSTU and
we can do it fast. And if Commissioner Halas's figures are correct,
there are 3,000 people affected by this, that's $20 apiece.
And if we set up an MSTU, and we can set up one, I don't like
to do it without your permission, but we can just decide to set it up.
It's that simple. And then we can assess you at $20 for a year and
then hopefully it will all go away. And I think that seems to be the
only alternative we have. We just can't give you the money, but we
can certainly establish an MSTU, charge you $20 for the first year
and then we recover our investment or our loan for the MSTU and
it's all taken care of. And then we can continue to evaluate the
franchise fee, which I think is a good one.
But we have to understand one thing, that when we do that,
we're increasing taxes for everybody in Collier County. And
everybody in Collier County might not want to spend money on
undergrounding some of the utilities. In fact, some people already
have them undergrounded, and they might object to a countywide tax
Page 137
February 11, 2003
just to get some undergrounding done. But that's a topic for another
discussion.
But it seems to me, and I would make a motion that we proceed
to establish an MSTU as quickly as possible, make a loan of $60,000,
make sure FP&L is aware of that, and get them to start working on
the undergrounding.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion, if the
consideration of the MSTU is for the people who benefit. People
who benefit.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I can't agree with you
more. We have to come to their aid now. And we have -- possibly
next week they may be doing this. You know, obviously they're not
regulated by government or they'd never get it done this quick.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You'd never have any power lines.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, you never would. Maybe
we ought to get them to come to work for us. I'm just kidding on that
part, Mr. Mudd.
One suggestion I've got is the funds, where are they going to
come from? We do have, for a bridging gap, we can borrow the
funds from the cable TV 111 fund, where we charge them about --
Mr. Wallace, would you come up here for just a second?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we could take it out of the 111
account that other utilities like TV --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MR. MUDD: -- things go against. And the first time that we'd
have this paid back, first time it would show up on their tax bills
would be October of 2004, because we've missed the MSTU
deadline, from what I understand. We could go through and get it set
up. It gets noticed after the first of the year this year, and then it
would show up on the subsequent year tax bill that would come in
October, 2004. But David, you've got some details you might want to
Page 138
February 11, 2003
give the board.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, and I think Mr. Smykowski may join me.
The board arguably, and I think the clerk would review this very
closely as well, would have difficulty in making a loan. The county
commission has problems in making loans generally, particularly to
an entity that's not created. Now, the MSTU can be created -- clearly
it's an ordinance, it can be created one of two ways: A regular
advertised hearing, at which could come back in two meetings. It
can even be done by emergency at the next meeting. There is that
statutory power under 1256669 to do so. And county attorney
process has always been-- practice has always been to advertise,
even if it's less than 10 days, so that we give as much dignity to the
public aspects of any board meeting, particularly an emergency
ordinance.
But I would like the record to reflect today that the fact is that
that ordinance is not a done deal. It's something that will come and
be deliberated at that point in time, because that's what Board of
County Commissioners' deliberations are about when they are
lawmaking and in ordinances, their local law, that they will hear the
pros and cons at that particular point in time, that their minds aren't
necessarily absolutely made up, so that it is a meeting when it's held,
even though it's a very purposeful meeting when it's held.
And so if the board advances the $60,000, it would ostensively
be for a repayment from this MSTU. But we cannot absolutely claim
that the MSTU is a done deal right now in regard to that repayment.
And the board, if for some reason the MSTU is created or not
created, the board may still at any point accept donations from the
affected people and can keep a record of those donations and factor
that in to any future MSTU costs that might come through.
But time is of the essence, both in the neighborhood area there,
as well as the board, if they wish to create these legal entities.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 139
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just for clarification, for my
own understanding, when you say the people that benefit -- or the
affected people who would have this MSTU imposed upon them, we
would impose this upon them, are those the people that benefit by
getting the electricity, somewhat like a user fee, or those who benefit
by not having the poles in their yard?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Both, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to bring this up in a
future -- so we'll decide that at that time. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My intent was not to loan money
before an MSTU was formed. I was merely making a proposal that
we do have the authority, if we wish to, to establish an MSTU. And
we can do it on an emergency basis, since I think we can classify this
as an emergency. We have to move quickly. MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And as long as FP&L understands
that we're moving in that direction, rather than preparing to put up
poles, they can start preparing to put them underground, pending the
outcome of the MSTU vote at our meeting in two weeks. And if that
meeting results in an MSTU being created, we can immediately grant
a loan to the MSTU. And so in two weeks, if the MSTU were
approved, it seems to me that this thing could be solved in the next
two weeks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sure the county manager and our
staff will figure out how we're going -- I think they know the intent.
MR. MUDD: I will contact-- Mr. Chairman, I will contact
FP&L and do everything I can to make sure that they don't start
construction before we have the 25th February meeting and you have
an opportunity to discuss the MSTU with the companion exec.
summary that will be there after it to loan the $60,000 to that MSTU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tell them they'll never get another
Page 140
February 11, 2003
right-of-way in the county if they don't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And when my air conditioner goes
out, I'm going to be looking at you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So let's make sure that we got the
clarification out here for the audience. We're looking at three
communities here that are going to be involved in this MSTU, and
that's all the people that are registered voters in that particular area
will probably be assessed somewheres between 15 and $20 apiece,
whatever the general consensus is for the population of these three
communities that are going to step up and pay for the burying of this
power line; is that -- everybody understand this?
And it's going to be like a one-year MSTU; is that my
understanding?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, first thing I'm going to say to you
is there isn't 3,000 owners down 91 st Street through Beachwalk to
that particular case, okay? That's the first thing I'm going to say to
you. And I think you heard a 3,000 figure that one of our speakers
mentioned, and I think they were talking about all of Naples Park.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, so what are we -- who are
we assessing then?
MR. MUDD: Well, that's a good question, Commissioner, who
are we assessing in this particular case?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think we ought to get that
cleared up here.
MR. MUDD: And we heard something about who receives the
benefit. The benefit here is visual benefit, you know, and so some
people in here might say that's not a good idea, but I will tell you
where that power ends or wherever that line ends to wherever it's
going to go to, those folks will say they've already paid their share to
get it buried in their particular neighborhood, based on the price of
Page 141
February 11, 2003
their property. And in that particular case, you will have -- you'll
have half the county chamber filled with the folks that will tell you
no, they don't want to do that.
So I would suggest that we work on visual benefit in this case,
and then we need to define the limits of that particular -- those power
lines and how far they are. So I will have staff go out there, because
these things were going to be 50 foot high. If I recollect correctly in
our meeting that we had with FP&L, they said these are going to be
super tall so that they get over the trees is what they told us. So we'll
take a look at what 50-foot will give us as a visual, and we'll start
taking a look from Beachwalk and we'll also take a look from 91st
Street to figure out what properties that affects, and then we'll --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's Pavilion club.
MR. MUDD: Yeah. And then we'll take a look at that and
that's what--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, no comments from the floor,
please.
We're going to bring this back, so we can hash it out who's the
benefit of it and who needs to pay for it. So I don't think we need a
lot of discussion on that.
But Commissioner Coletta has been waiting patiently to say
something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I almost forgot what I was
going to say.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's all right.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I do remember. You people
can feel very fortunate that you have such a caring commissioner
that's been on top of this. Commissioner Halas has done an excellent
job pursuing getting that -- I assure you that he has the backing of all
us commissioners.
We've got to keep an open mind, Mr. Mudd, of what we're
going to -- this is going to be. Hopefully you'll bring back all the
Page 142
February 11, 2003
alternatives, not just a visual one. Let's keep an open mind until we
get back here to discuss it again.
The unknown factor that I haven't heard discussed is how quick
FP&L's going to be moving on this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Next week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're now to an emergency
thing where they're going to do it one, two, three. What's the shortest
period of time before we could call an emergency meeting to deal
with it?
MR. MUDD: Next Tuesday. You have a workshop.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly we should do that,
announce it right now and make a commitment to be able to handle it
then and get this over with before they put those poles in the ground
and start charging us even more to take them out. MR. MUDD: How does that work?
MR. WEIGEL: That works fine, particularly that you're
creating a record right now that will be reported in the papers and in
the news in regard to doing this. So Tuesday's fine. Reasonable
notice is all that's required under the law for any kind of a meeting,
emergency or otherwise. And we will craft something as a press
release prior to then in any event, to get it out.
And then keeping in mind that a taxing unit is based upon the ad
valorem value, the value of property. So property that's worth a lot
pays more, property that's worth less pays a little less when you use
the taxing mechanism. But we can provide all the alternatives for a
very helpful discussion on that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No other further discussions,
so--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to make a few
comments.
I want to -- on behalf of all the citizens in these three
communities that worked diligently, I want to thank you very, very
Page 143
February 11, 2003
much. And I want to also thank the staff; they spent a lot of time and
hours in trying to figure out the best way that we could address this
serious problem. And I also want to thank my fellow commissioners.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion by
Commissioner Coyle, seconded by myself. All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
County Manager Mudd, I think that you have some sufficient
direction. Package it up, box it up, put a ribbon around it and bring it
back to us.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Item # 10A
RESOLUTION 2003-81 RE: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
OPPOSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CITIZENS OF
COLLIER COUNTY (DEBBIE WIGHT, ASSISTANT TO THE
COl INTY MANAGER) - ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is county manager's part
of the agenda, and item A is to adopt a resolution opposing
discrimination against all citizens of Collier County, presented by?
MS. WIGHT: Debbie Wight--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Deborah Wight.
Page 144
February 11, 2003
MS. WIGHT: -- assistant to the county manager.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Go ahead.
MS. WIGHT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Debbie Wight,
assistant to the county manager.
I am here today to present to you the resolution you requested
opposing unlawful discrimination against all residents of Collier
County.
You the board directed staff to develop an anti-discrimination
resolution as part of a recommendation proposed in a memorandum
by Commissioner Halas that was approved by you at the January
14th meeting.
Before you today for adoption is the resolution which supports
the equal rights and opportunities of all the citizens of Collier
County, opposes unlawful discrimination, and seeks to promote the
civil and human rights of all Collier County residents.
The commissioners agreed that because there are existing
federal and state agencies that handle discrimination issues and
complaints, Collier County government's role would be to serve as a
source for information and referral as a liaison between residents and
those existing agencies.
In approving the recommendation set forth in the Halas memo,
the board also directed staff to establish and administer the
community relations information and referral service that will
provide the public with a source for information, referrals, discussion
and education on matters affecting human relations and civil rights
issues in Collier County.
The community relations information and referral service will
be assigned as a function of existing staff in the communication and
customer relations department. Although preliminary plans include
development and dissemination of informational brochures and
pamphlets, as well as production of public service announcements for
broadcast on Collier County government television Channel 1 1 and
Page 145
February 11, 2003
16.
Okay, the county manager has already provided links on both
the county's internal and external websites to the Florida Commission
on Human Relations website where the public can find telephone
numbers and information regarding discrimination.
The Tallahassee based agency, the Florida Commission on
Human Relations, was established in 1969 to address discrimination
issues, investigate complaints and provide information services.
Partnering with the Florida Commission on Human Relations,
the county manager is co-hosting a public forum the evening of April
29th at the headquarters' library off Airport Road at 2385 Orange
Blossom Drive.
Also, as previously directed by the board, both the Hispanic
Affairs Advisory Board and the Black Affairs Advisory Board have
been asked to consider dissolution in exchange for creation of one
board that would be representing all minorities. Both boards have
responded that they're against disbanding. The county commission
has requested from both the Hispanic and Black Affairs Advisory
boards their respective work plans, including goals and objectives.
The Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board plan is expected this week, the
Black Affairs Advisory Board will submit theirs next month.
Staff recommends that the board adopt this resolution opposing
unlawful discrimination against all the citizens of Collier County,
and endorse the county manager's initiative to implement a
community relations information and referral service. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir, we have seven.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we go to public speakers.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is LaVerne Franklin, and she
will be followed by Gabrielle Gilmore.
Page 146
February 11, 2003
MS. FRANKLIN: Good afternoon. My name's LaVeme
Franklin, I'm the president of NAACP of Collier County.
We recommend that you do not pass this resolution. We feel as
though it's a disservice to our citizens. We have to recommend -- or
we will recommend that we as concerned citizens from across Collier
County are willing to sit down with you, as an arm of the
government, to work out something that would be practical, that
would be beneficial to all our residents, and I think that it's a
disservice because we don't have anything here in Collier County
where our residents can go to that have been discriminated against.
Because if people come to us, the NAACP, and we have had about
15 complaints, various complaints since December, and what they
say to us is where can we go? I have been referring them to the
county. What we say to them, that we don't have the resources here.
They are very frustrated and upset and say to me, well where are we
to go, what can we do? And I tell them there is nothing here in
Collier County to address your needs.
A lot of people say that because there's nothing here in Collier
County that they just give up. And you talk about there's only nine
complaints at the -- at Tallahassee, well, that's one of the reasons.
People don't have the access to go to Fort Myers or to Miami. They
don't have the ability. They come and ask us to interpret different
laws, to direct them. We are volunteers. A few of us are volunteers
trying to do a service for this community. And we think it's your
responsibility to provide that service, not NAACP. Because we don't
have lawyers, we don't have a lot of people who are ready and able to
do. We also have to make referrals. We don't have lawyers.
I think that it's really -- you say to people that you put in place
for laws. I hear that people talk about ordinance for monkeys, for the
alligators and for different things that they want to protect. We say
protect your people. Why should we as individuals have to travel up
to Ft. Myers or Miami to have a service?
Page 147
February 11, 2003
If, for example, someone broke into your home, you have
someone here in Collier County to service you. Sheriff Hunter. So
you think about there's a service here, there's many services that are
provided here for us. Why not this?
You know, our people here, you know, don't deserve that. And
that's why we say to you don't pass this. Why don't we sit down with
a group of concerned citizens who really have a handle on what's
happening here in our county. I don't know who your advisors are,
you know, but you need to take a look at that, too. How versed are
they with the common folk? You know, we do have a class system
here, we do have racism here, we have a lot of problems here. And
they're not going to go away, they're going to develop, you know.
And we say preventive. If we go to the doctor's and we say --
for our x-rays and whatever, to prevent something. Why always be
in the reactive mode? We have to be proactive. And that's why we're
here, as an arm of the government to say to you let's sit down and
work out the differences.
You know, I have to commend your-- Jackie Robinson and
Leo, we worked for over a year to pull it together. Maybe it was not
a perfect thing, but we relied on you, you know, the wisdom of you,
to sift through the problems that was presented to you, instead ofjust
throwing it out and saying, oh, let's start all over again and come up
with a resolution. That's unacceptable.
I think we are here as volunteers to help. You know, you should
utilize the people here to sit down and do a decent ordinance, you
know, that you can truly protect your people here in Collier County.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Gabrielle Gilmore, and she
will be followed by Ann Jacobson.
MS. GILMORE: Gabrielle Gilmore, a resident of Naples and
president of PFFLAG; that stands for parents, families and friends of
lesbians and gays, a parent-based support group for families with gay
Page 148
February 11, 2003
members.
We are against this resolution because we think it is simplistic,
conciliatory, a Bandaid solution, a cop-out. A secretarial clerk
behind a desk could fulfill the same purpose.
Why has the NAACP been so adamant on including sexual
orientation as a class? It's because they know discrimination
firsthand. They know how it cuts to the core and it causes pain. And
they are compassionate to feel the pain among the gay people. Bless
their hearts, they want to help another minority group in distress.
Why do we need a duplication? You say that it's -- there are
agencies at the state and federal level, why do we need it locally?
Well, a good analogy is that we have federal and state law
enforcement, but we still need a local police department.
If the community is serious about addressing discrimination, a
strong local board is necessary. And this is why more and more
cities and communities in Florida and throughout the country are
establishing local anti-discrimination laws and agencies.
I'm beginning to feel that this board does not welcome diversity
in Collier County, but that you would rather wish to keep it restricted
to people in your-- people of your own image and likeness. And it
appears that the only way we can achieve the goals for a tolerant and
diverse society is perhaps in the voting booths. And we will not let
this issue go away, we'll be back again and again, and we will be
resilient. We may lose this battle, but be assured, we will eventually
win the war. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Ann Jacobson, and she will
be followed by Dr. Gail Cash.
MS. JACOBSON: Commissioners, I'm Ann Jacobson, I'm the
chair of the community relations committee of the Jewish Federation
of Collier County, and we recommend that you not pass this
resolution that is before you. We strongly urge the establishment of
a Collier County human relations commission. A local commission
Page 149
February 11, 2003
can be much more flexible, timely and responsive to the needs within
our own community. Being locally based, it would be also more
accountable to the public.
Without follow-up and enforcement, this ordinance that is
proposed by you as a community information and referral source is
meaningless. Discrimination needs to be dealt with locally. We
need to take care of our own anti-discrimination actions, and not pass
the buck to others. It is long overdue that Collier County acts
responsibly and passes an anti-discrimination ordinance that provides
for local follow-up, enforcement, public education, and promotes
public awareness.
And we would be just like LaVerne Franklin stated, very willing
to assist with drafting such an ordinance. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Dr. Gail Cash, and she will
be followed by Raymond Fales. F-A-L-E-S.
DR. CASH: I have -- this is Dr. Gail Cash. I have two
important points to make. If the Collier County Commission is
serious about addressing discrimination, specific groups must be
identified; the very ones that are historically targeted for abuse and
discrimination. And two, a local community based commission is
absolutely necessary.
If you look on the Internet under the topic of human relations
commission, you will see at least 1,020,000 entries. There are
skillions of examples of human relations commissions and human
rights ordinances at the county and city levels. Most enumerate and
define who is protected and how they are protected.
Why do you think that is? Why does our own State of Florida
and why do Federal Justice Department guidelines enumerate who is
protected? It is because without stating who is protected and how,
there is no legal protection. It becomes too vague, noncommittal and
nonenforceable. That is what we really have here, something that
feels good but is useless. The resolution is not directed toward
Page 150
February 11, 2003
anyone. In reality, by eliminating the categories, you protect no one.
It's like having a highway speed sign that says don't drive too fast,
don't drive too slow. It's like sending out a tax bill that says pay your
taxes.
Secondly, to address local issues of discrimination, you must
have a local board. State and federal agencies do not have the
resources to effectively investigate and mediate all the complaints in
a reasonable amount of time. Many cases languish for years. In fact,
the state and federal government encourage local human relations
commissions.
A little booklet published by the United States Department of
Justice in 1998 entitled Guidelines for Effective Human Relations
Commission was created for just that purpose. State and federal
guidelines do not always apply at the local level. For example, they
only apply to companies with 15 or more employees. Local
ordinances can cover groups of five to 15.
Although we have state and federal law enforcement, we still
need our local police, and if I'm sick, I go to my local hospital, not
Tallahassee Memorial.
This is a republican county and one would think that in serving
this county the commissioners would realize that the republican
philosophy is to decentralize government.
I implore you, take this issue out of the hands of far-away
bureaucrats and bring it to the level, local level, where issues can be
dealt with in an effective manner and for the betterment of our
community.
With the presentation of this resolution, we have no human
relation commission and no protective ordinance. We have a feel
good resolution that says whoever you are, if you have been
discriminated against, go someplace else. Go to Tallahassee, go to
Washington D.C., go away, Collier County Commissioners do not
want to deal with you. Most major cities and counties have human
Page 151
February 11, 2003
relations commissions, why not Collier?
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Raymond Fales. Did I
pronounce that right?
MR. FALES: That's right, thank you.
MS. FILSON: And he will be followed by Judith Fales.
MR. FALES: I'm Raymond Fales. I'm a resident of the county.
When the space shuttle launched, the astronauts could look up
and see the heavens. They could look down and see the entire world.
They couldn't look underneath their spacecraft and see the danger.
N.A.S.A. didn't provide them the tools to see the danger, nor a way
to repair it.
You the commissioners are our astronauts. You look up and see
the sunny skies of Florida, you look out and see the richness of
Collier County and its society. You look north and you see only a
handful of discrimination cases from here. You currently don't have
the capability to look underneath our society and to see and hear the
discrimination that we have here.
In proposing a meaningless resolution against discrimination,
you're like N.A.S.A., ignoring danger and providing no way to repair
it.
The creation of a human relations commission would provide us
the tools to look at danger and repair our community.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judith Fales, and she will be
followed by your final speaker, Mark Benson.
MS. FALES: Good afternoon, and thank you for the
opportunity to address you.
I am also against the passage of this resolution. The resolution
pushes our problems out of our community. We know more about
our community and how best to solve its problems than does
Tallahassee and certainly than does the federal government. We can
resolve problems faster locally, given the numbers of complaints
being handled by the EEOC and the state commission.
Page 152
February 11, 2003
The distance and time factor may inhibit people from filing
complaints, unless that is a desired outcome of this resolution. Good
Republicans' -- and it doesn't matter whether we spell that with a
small R or a capital R-- practice is to resolve problems on the local
level. State and federal laws only cover employers with 15 or more
employees. The resolution would not cover employers with smaller
numbers of employees.
And finally, if there is a real issue of duplication of services, as
others have said before me, then we need to look at eliminating local
police, local health agencies and so on. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker is Mark Benson.
MR. BENSON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Following
the public comments on December 17th --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, sir?
MR. BENSON: Mark Benson.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I must apologize to you, because I
thought you were the representative of Florida Power & Light. MR. BENSON: I recognize that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're probably representing
somebody else.
MR. BENSON: No, I'm representing myself.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. BENSON: Following the public comments on December
17th, it became apparent to me that you'd already made up your
minds to abandon the proposed ordinance, even before hearing from
those of us who took the time to address you about the need for a
local human relations commission.
That hearing was simply window dressing, as is this resolution
which you requested the county staff to prepare. It's a way for you to
pose in front of the media and stand up -- that you've stood up against
discrimination, when in actuality you've done more to further it by
ignoring those in this community who have told you over and over
Page 153
February 11, 2003
that there are problems in this paradise.
In the days of Christopher Columbus, many thought the world
was flat. It took people with courage and vision to question that
simple view and discover the truth. As commissioners, you have
done inadequate and flawed research. What I can only conclude is
that this is not only unconscionable incompetence, but trivializing of
a serious situation. To claim that there is very little discrimination in
Collier County due to the small number of complaints filed with the
Florida Commission on Human Relations is deliberate obfuscation.
There has been no procedure in the past to even count the number of
inquiries, and no one would have known where to go in Collier
County to report discrimination anyway.
If the Florida Commission on Human Relations were so
effective, why would so many other cities in Florida create local
human relations commissions? And why would there be a need in so
many other cities and counties around this country? The answer is
the state and federal agencies are too far away and too costly to reach
for the average person who experiences discrimination. They simply
give up in frustration. Which causes me to wonder if that's what you
have in mind now. Instead of seeking a dialogue with those in the
community who have appealed to you for action, you have turned the
other way. You have sought a way to make the human relations
commission work -- the proposed human relations work and fix any
so-called flaws in it. You saw ways to pick it apart so that you
wouldn't have to deal with the issue.
It was interesting to watch you use the same tactics used in the
1960's civil rights struggle to divert attention from the truth by
questioning whether outsiders were so interested -- why they were
interested in this issue.
Local taxpayers and voting citizens of this county asked those
organizations that they belonged to by the hundreds for assistance in
presenting their views. This Commission regularly seeks help from
Page 154
February 11, 2003
some very capable and knowledgeable persons as experts and
consultants on important matters affecting our community, so there's
a double standard in place.
Finally, what is evident to me is that you have no interest in
fostering diversity and understanding other than words in a resolution
which will likely be forgotten in several weeks, as the many
hundreds of resolutions adopted by the Collier County Commission
over the years.
George Wallace, the deceased former Alabama governor, said
his biggest mistake came during the 1963 inauguration as governor
when he stood on a spot at the state capitol and shouted segregation
now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
I quote an interview with him in 1991 where he said I should
never have said it. I had to stand up for segregation or be defeated. I
was for segregation and I was wrong.
Although you weren't out standing on the steps of schools
blocking children from attending, your actions in burying your heads
in the sand to avoid looking at the ugly face of discrimination may
ultimately cause you one day to say I was wrong. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I have a question for you. Do
you have a local discrimination ordinance in your community?
MR. BENSON: I live in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, okay. Don't you represent --
MR. BENSON: Another attempt to discredit me --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, I'm asking --
MR. BENSON: -- because I'm not local. I am local.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I was trying to reflect on
the last time this issue came up. There seems like there was a
gentleman from Miami representing --
MR. BENSON: Alfred Simon (phonetic) from the American
Civil Liberties Union.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And my mistake, and I
Page 155
February 11, 2003
apologize. And there was no intent to -- MR. BENSON: Which is an organization that has hundreds of
members in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. Okay, thank you.
MR. BENSON: And I'm not a member, but I think that there
are many organizations in Collier County that have stood up here and
spoken, just as there have been people that spoke against the human
relations commission that had much smaller numbers than the ACLU
has in this county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No questions? Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we pass this
resolution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor to pass
the resolution. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll give it a second with the
idea that this is something we can build on. Without it, we have
nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not sure -- is that a part of
your motion is you want to pass this ordinance and then build on it
later?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think it was pretty explicit
that I felt that we need to have zero tolerance in this county, and I
believe that there's things now put in place as far as education and
all, so we're going to have people involved in county government
that are going to address these issues. And that's why I felt that
where we are at this point in time that -- and if we find it doesn't
work, then we can bring this back again.
But I feel at this point in time that we're putting the necessary
education and the necessary people in place so that if there is a
concern for the community as far as discrimination, we'll have the
Page 156
February 11, 2003
resources there to direct them, to assist them, to -- in order to get the
necessary help that's needed.
The state, I believe, has six or seven investigators, and they also
have a team of lawyers that can address this issue. So I feel that
we've -- to me, I think this is a step in the right direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does that fit the second's motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could, you just said what I
said. If this isn't complete, we can go back and add to it as the need
is. We can correct it if it falls short. Basically that's exactly what I
was just saying.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Coyle, Commissioner Fiala, no other--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have some comments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I take particular offense to people
who say to me that because I don't agree with you on the form of the
commission that I am somehow racist, homophobic or incompetent.
Sir, your remarks here cost you a vote today. And I think it's
irresponsible for people to take that kind of attitude when they're
trying to find a way to get this community to work more closely
together, which is what we all want to do.
And I also have a disagreement with people who say that you
can't protect everybody unless you name who they are. It's only
when you start trying to name people that you leave people out. It is
just like a speed limit sign. There's no speed limit sign on 1-75 that
says white people can go 80 miles an hour and black people can go
70. It says 75 (sic) miles an hour. So I don't find that the
categorization of people who are eligible for certain rights is essential
in our carrying out our responsibilities.
There is the presumption that this can be done more efficiently
at the local level. And I will raise the same questions I had last time,
where are the definitions of discrimination against all these
Page 157
February 11, 2003
categories of people? Where are they defined in any kind of law?
They are not all defined. And where are the skills of the people
locally here who would make judgments concerning whether
discrimination had occurred? There are no such skills here on the
local level. Am I to presume that you would want to have the
members of your commission be the arbiter of those discrimination
cases? I don't think so.
So there are a lot of unanswered questions here that bother all of
us, and they have nothing to do with incompetence, racism or
homophobia. We are trying to deal with a serious problem. And I
supported an advisory committee that would help us understand more
clearly what actions we needed to take to solidify our community and
to assure that there is an appreciation of everyone's viewpoint. I still
believe that the way to do that is to work together, rather than
dividing ourselves into groups of people who are supposed to have
certain protections.
So with that, I'll conclude. I'm finished. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. There's a motion
and a second to move this resolution. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle was the
dissenting vote. The motion carries 4-1.
Item #1 OB
RESOLUTION 2003-82 AND RESOLUTION 2003-83 RE:
Page 158
February 11, 2003
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA GAS TAX
REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2003 IN ORDER TO EFFECT SUCH
FINANCING AND REFINANCING; PROVIDING CERTAIN
TERMS AND DETAILS OF SAID BONDS, INCLUDING
AUTHORIZING A NEGOTIATED SALE OF SAID BONDS;
DELEGATING CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO THE CHAIRMAN
FOR THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A PURCHASE
CONTRACT; APPOINTING THE PAYING AGENT AND
REGISTRAR FOR SAID BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (MICHAEL SMYKOWSKI, DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET) - RESOLUTION
2003-82 RE AUTHORIZING COLLIER COUNTY'S ROAD
IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995
- ADOPTED; RESOLUTION 2003-83 RE ADOPTION OF THE
SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MATTERS
SIICH AS A NF. GOTIATF. D SAI~F. OF BONDS- ADOPTF. D
Okay, the next item on the agenda is 10(B), adopt a resolution
authorizing issuance of Collier County, Florida gas tax bonds, Series
2003, in order to effect such financing and refinancing, providing
certain terms and details of said bond, including authorization to
negotiate sales bonds and so on and so forth. And the presenter on
this is our Director of Office Management Michael Smykowski.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, Michael Smykowski.
There will be three core components to the presentation today.
There's a lot of information in that executive summary. One, staff is
seeking authority -- or approval of a proposed gas tax revenue bond
Series 2003 to continue the road construction program that is
underway.
The second component to the presentation, we seek board
Page 159
February 11, 2003
authorization for the county attorney to prepare and advertise
ordinances to extend the ninth and six cent gas taxes. And just to be
clear, the -- this would not involve a vote today to actually extend the
gas tax. That is merely authorization for the attorney to prepare the
ordinances and bring those back for future consideration at a board
meeting.
And then finally the third element is to discuss a bond validation
process that would be required as part of the second series of bonds.
The first core component that was the approval of a proposed
gas tax revenue bond, that would finance transportation projects, as
well as refinance a small outstanding piece of debt on a previous
bond issue.
In terms of projects to be financed, this would include projects
recently awarded that were awarded subject ultimately to bond
financing, including the Goodlette Road six-laning from Pine Ridge
Road to Vanderbilt and the Livingston Road Phase III projects.
The gas tax bond before you today for approval does not require
any gas tax extensions. The extensions would be required for the
second future series of bonds. That's an important point that I want
to be very clear about.
The debt service that Mr. Reagan, the financial advisor, will
discuss shortly was structured to coincide with the expiring taxes. In
other words, we frontloaded the debt to coincide with the availability
of the gas taxes, because in the outer years when those gas taxes are
not available, obviously you have less capacity to make principal and
interest payments.
The board has previously endorsed gas tax revenue bonds as the
recommended financing source in the adopted transportation
financing plan, as well as the FY-03 annual update and inventory
report required as part of our annual growth management plan
update.
This will meet our growth management plan commitments
Page 160
February 11, 2003
relative to our category A facilities that are concurrency driven
projects that must meet or exceed level of service standards
established in the growth management plan.
The bond issue itself was recommended by an internal
committee of county staffers, the county finance committee. And
that consists of the clerk's finance director, a senior staff in the
county manager's agency, specifically myself, Mr. Yonkosky and
Tom Wides from the public utilities division, a representative from
the county attorney's office, who was a non-voting member, as well
as Bill Reagan, the county's financial advisor from William R. Huff
and Company.
In terms of underwriters selection, the board approved
underwriters on November 19, 2002. We had received 12 proposals
in response to an RFP. The county desired to group the firms to
make the strongest teams possible, based on the firm's relative
expertise. And we also desired to allocate the county's bond business
among multiple firms, rather than -- in the upcoming three to five
years there will be a number of financings required in the area of
roads, utilities and general government, and obviously we're trying to
spread those financings on a rotating basis between senior managing
underwriters and co-managing underwriters.
For roads, Morgan Stanley was selected as the senior managing
underwriter. On this issue, the co-manager would be A. G. Edwards
and Raymond James. Raymond James was selected for water sewer,
and for general government, it was -- the firm of Bank of America
was selected. So obviously again we are trying to spread the county's
business among multiple firms.
At this point I'd like to turn the presentation over to Bill Reagan,
who is the county's financial advisor, for specifics relative to the
transaction. He'll talk about things such as the credit agency ratings,
current and anticipated market conditions. We'd be seeking your
approval today, but the bond pricing is scheduled tentatively for I
Page 161
February 11, 2003
think it's Wednesday, February 26th. And Bill can also address the
debt service requirements and then Tom Giblin from Nabors and
Giblin, the bond counsel, will then discuss specifics relative to the
bond issue at a home rule powers ordinance that the board will be
requested to adopt on February 25th.
So with that, I'll mm it over to Bill.
MR. REAGAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, I'm Bill Regan, I'm senior vice president with William R.
Huff and Company. We serve as your financial advisors in all your
capital financing borrowings.
Mike took most of my thunder. I think he summarized well.
You have a 200 million dollar transportation bond program before
you, whether it's in three years or four years or five years. That's
been the expectation for some time, as you know. I've met with you
on several occasions and we've discussed various alternatives on the
transportation program.
We're here to discuss the first phase of your bond program
today. New money, as Mike mentioned, is approximately $115
million. The small portion of that is a refunding from your
transaction to approximately 10 years ago that was secured by your
seven cents and nine cents. We choose to refund that. That will
make it a cleaner lien so you'll have all senior lien debt. And also,
there's an economic benefit to you, you'll save approximately
800,000 over the life of the issue. So it has some real benefit to you.
The structure of the bonds, just to give you overview, make it
part of the record very quickly for you, the pledge revenues is your
five cents, your six cents, your seven cent and your nine cent. Now,
the difficult (sic) of this process is, is that all of these have different
maturity times or expiration dates.
Your five cent is there for the life of the issue. We're taking it
out for 20 years, which is 2023. Your six cent expires in 2015, your
seven cent has a life of the issue also, and your nine cent expires in
Page 162
February 11, 2003
2010.
So for us to structure this transaction and prepare it for the
market, we had to have a debt service schedule, which we referred to
as being skewed. You start at 10 million and you end up with
approximately $4 million in your third phase of that financing.
The bonds will have serials, meaning that there'll be serial bonds
throughout the life of the transaction, probably have some term bonds
too. We have gone out for RFP for your insurance. We ended up
with at the lowest bid and the most economic goal cost and also
terms was AMBAC Insurance. There are about four insurance
companies that insure municipal bonds on a national basis. AMBAC
is rated AAA. You will then be assigned a AAA rating.
In our concern about the volatility of gas taxes in today's
market, we also went to all three rating agencies and asked them for a
rating.
Important thing to keep in mind, while all of us sit here in
Collier County -- and I work all through the Southeast, but I happen
to live here in this county -- we're very proud of this county and the
growth of this county and the success and the revenues that come in
this county. But on a national basis, there's a great deal of concern
about gas taxes. We're about ready, possibly, to go to war. That may
affect it. We have Venezuelan problems. So all the rating agencies
and insurers, just so you understand this, had those same questions to
me. While you've enjoyed five and a half percent for the last five
years' increases in your gas taxes, it may not happen for you in the
future.
So to protect ourselves in this capital market with an issue this
size, I asked and we submitted all the documentation to the rating
agencies, and we ended up with what I call acceptable to good
ratings from all the rating agencies. Moody's gave us an A-2. An
A-2 means we're in between the middle category of an A category.
S&P gave us an A, which is their middle, and Fitch gave us A+,
Page 163
February 11, 2003
which is their highest.
Fitch also threw in, because they liked the growth of the county,
also threw in a general obligation rating: The total credit of the
county with no fee or charge of a AA rating.
As in all bond issues -- so you have a good-- and you've also
got attractive premiums on your insurance. Through the assistance of
your Bond Counsel Mr. Giblin, we were able to negotiate some very
good terms. So everything hopefully will put you in place for
marketing that's going to come up in about two to three weeks.
We have a lot of bonds going in the market. You, like many,
many issues around the country right now, especially in this state,
want to get in before something happens. You're not only at
extremely attractive low municipal rates, but you also have things on
the horizon that could possibly hurt your bond issue, especially when
you're talking about a transportation issue that's secured by gas taxes
again.
Generally in municipal terms you have what we refer to as a
debt service reserve fund, which simply means that they want to
reserve a one-year's principal and interest. In this particular case,
because the size of the issue was high, we evaluated either issue in
more depth to give you that $10 million, or do a surety for that thing.
It was more economic for us to pay for a surety up-front, that makes
your issue size smaller.
As Mike said, you went through an underwriting process of-- a
selection process of your underwriters with the team that you
approached. There's always a discussion, whether you approved it
previously or you consider it now.
Why do you do unnegotiated versus competitive, or what is the
difference? In this particular phase, I think I laid out the timing, the
volatility of gas taxes, and also the crowding and the timing of the
market. It's to your advantage, in my opinion, that you would go with
the negotiated transaction. Understand it's not a negotiated
Page 164
February 11, 2003
transaction as some may interpret, that you went down the street and
picked up your local friendly banker. You went through an extensive
RFP process, an extensive review process, and you teamed the best
underwriters. You hired me to tell you whether that bid, when we go
into the market, is an acceptable bid.
I will just say this to you, give a couple -- I know one of the
newer commissioners may not be familiar with me or my firm, but
we hold the largest inventory of municipal bonds in the State of
Florida, which is about $80 million daily. I can tell you, what you
pay me to do is tell you that the yield that you're getting and the
spread that you're getting is fair and reasonable, if not below market
rates.
I think Tom Giblin would like to go over with you a couple of
the resolutions, a couple of the transactions and go through the legal
documents, and all of us are here, available for any questions.
MR. GIBLIN: Good afternoon. For the record, Tom Giblin
with Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson.
There are three legal actions you'll have to take to complete this
transaction; two today and one two weeks from today on the 25th.
The action on the 25th is what we call a home rule ordinance.
This is consistent with what you've done in the past with gas tax
transactions. And basically what it is, it's an ordinance that you enact
which enforces or states what your home rule powers are in terms of
being able to issue debts secured by gas tax revenues. And what it
does is basically give you the same legal standing as you would if a
statute was in place to say you could take this action.
So we highly recommend it, we think to put you in very good
standing legally if you do that. But again, that's an action which is
not taken today, it's being advertised. And two weeks from today we
would ask you to go ahead and enact it.
The two actions for today are the bond resolution, which is in
your agenda package, which is about a 70-page bond resolution.
Page 165
February 11, 2003
That states all the provisions in terms of what you're going -- what
you agreed with the bondholders and, you know, what's going to
secure the bondholders, what gas taxes you're pledging, how you're
going to utilize the gas taxes.
Attached to the bond resolution is a list of the projects pursuant
to which you're going to expend the proceeds on. In other words, we
have a fairly comprehensive laundry list of projects which I think
you've approved in the past as part of your transportation plan. And
you can pick and choose from those projects in terms of what you're
going to expend the proceeds on.
The second resolution, which is behind that, is what we call the
series resolution. And the series resolution basically contains the
terms of the bonds. And what it does, it delegates to the chairman
the ability to go ahead and enter into a purchase contract with your
underwriting team if certain parameters are met.
And the operative section on that is I believe section five, and
what it indicates is that the chairman is authorized to enter into the
purchase contract, as long as the par amount of the bonds does not
exceed $120 million. It also indicates that the underwriting discount
would not exceed .7 percent, that the true interest cost of the bonds
would not be more than five and a half percent. It also indicates the
final maturity cannot be beyond 2023, 20 years out. All those
parameters would have to be met.
And again, these are not to exceed numbers. Odds are you're
not going to issue $120 million in bonds. Odds are your interest
rate's going to be a lot lower than five and a half percent. But again,
we have to lay out parameters in order to authorize the chairman to
go ahead and sign that purchase contract.
The parameters also state that you will be getting a good faith
check from the underwriters in the amount of approximately one
percent of the amount of bond issue.
The resolution also goes on and indicates that the bond
Page 166
February 11, 2003
insurance company is AMBAC, which again Bill has talked about.
States various provisions which they have required in order to insure
the transaction.
It has attached to it the form of the preliminary official
statement. That's your disclosure document. That's what you give
bondholders. That's what they read about Collier County and secures
the bond. That lays out all the facts of the bond issue for them. It has
various other agreements that are specific to this type of transaction
attached to it.
If you adopt these two bond resolutions, you adopt a bond
resolution and the series resolution today, it gets everything kicked
off; it allows us to go ahead and mail to the prospective bondholders
the preliminary official statement; it allows the underwriters to go
ahead and market the bonds; it allows, under the parameters that we
discussed, for the chairman to go ahead and enter into the purchase
contract.
So this really kicks off your financing program. I would
recommend that if you want to go ahead, adopt each resolution
singularly, one at a time, and again, we'll be back with you two
weeks from today and ask you to adopt that home rule ordinance.
If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Any questions from the board?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I had asked that we have
information at this meeting that would give us some idea of what our
total revenue is for-- from the gasoline taxes, with the existing
expiration dates, and I haven't seen that yet. My very, very general
calculations indicate about $200 million from gasoline tax revenues
over the next 20 years, with the existing expiration dates for the
gasoline taxes. And with an estimate of somewhere between four
and what, $10 million it is for anticipated -- yeah, 4.7 to 10.5 million
Page 167
February 11, 2003
for debt service over 20 years, it seems to me that the revenues that
we will be getting from gasoline taxes, based upon their current
expiration dates, far exceeds the estimate of the total debt service
requirement.
And so my question is, why do we want to talk about a 30-year
extension, if in fact my figures are correct, and the existing revenue
from gasoline taxes exceeds the debt service estimate?
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, the extension is really part of
your second phase of the program. The insurance company was sold
and the rating agencies were sold on the current setup. In other
words, the expiration dates of-- as far as they're concerned, the
current expiration dates of your gas tax are in place. They're
assuming that you will not extend anything. So the question of
extension or not extension really deals with what your future needs
are, not the needs of this particular bond issue.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, my problem is I'm
reluctant to make a decision right now that we're going to extend
gasoline taxes 30 years without having a very clear indication of why
we need it and when we're going to start needing it. And I'd feel far
more comfortable about extending gasoline taxes if I could clearly
see what year we're going to need that additional revenue and make
decisions with respect to that, rather than making some 30-year
adjustment at the present time, as it's contained in our executive
summary, which I have to say, I don't think is very well thought out.
And I guess I would feel much more comfortable with some
indication of our cash flow requirements on an annual basis or
perhaps every two years to make it a little bit more simple so that we
could make a reasoned judgment about when do we want to extend
them, if we do want to extend them. And for how long. Is it 30
years or maybe it's 10 or 15 years. I don't know. And I think those
kinds of considerations are an obligation of the board. And I just
can't see how we can make a decision concerning that particular
Page 168
February 11, 2003
issue.
Funding the bonds, of course, we need the money, we've got to
proceed with some bond funding. But if you're telling me that the
second phase of this is going to require an extension, and what we're
really saying in this executive summary is that we are going to
authorize the extension for 30 years, I've got a real problem with that,
okay? And I don't think I've gotten the answers to my questions so
far.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norm Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, first of all, your points are well taken. The first
initial action you're taking today, as was noted, is consistent with the
expiration dates, the sunset dates, of the individual gas taxes that
exist. It's not needed for this item, this approximately 115 million
and that, just over 100 million.
But as you remember, and I'll give the broad information and
then we will be coming back to you, when you consider action
subsequent to this, whether or not to extend the gas tax, as was
previously discussed with this board. Because essentially you had a
overall work program in the next 20 years of about $1.7 billion.
Right now, based on the increase fees in impact fees, in a decision
that the board made to pursue about 257 million in the near term
shortfall in bonding, of which this is a portion, you're at about $1.5
billion, or you reduce that shortfall to about 200 million out in the 20
years.
What this represents, of that 257 million portion of the overall
monies towards the program, is the first increment or over 100
million that's needed in implementation of the five-year program.
As you remember, when we looked at our needs over 20 years,
unfortunately when we first started out, this process was before the
board in another action, we basically had half the revenues we
Page 169
February 11, 2003
needed, and unfortunately half those needs or those needs were in the
first five years. So there is a front loading, and that's why we're
looking at bonds in the first place.
This first one can go forward with the expiration dates or the
sunset dates as provided. The next bond issue, which may be two
years down the road, is when we'll have to look at whether or not we
extend. And bond counsel can probably speak to you as to whether
or not we could proceed if we don't extend those dates. I think it's
required at that time when you go to the next issue, which again
might be two years down the road.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My specific issues -- I don't want
to debate the math and the debt service here, because I don't have the
qualifications or information to do that.
I am focusing on one recommendation that the staff is making,
and that recommendation says that the Board of County
Commissioners authorize the county attorney to prepare and
advertise ordinances to extend the ninth cent and sixth cent local
option gas taxes, and it is mentioned in the executive summary that
that is to be done for 30 years. That is my concern. You take that
particular recommendation out of there, and I don't have any problem
with the issues relating to the bond issue.
MR. FEDER: Understood, Commissioner. The only thing I'll
add to that, and I'll defer it -- I think Jim wanted to add something --
is that essentially what we're trying to do is get ready for the
continuation of that overall 257 million in bonding that we
committed to. That is not an action now. Authorizing that we start
setting up the ordinances to bring it out to get the public debate and
to hold the hearings, and then for the board to either reaffirm the
prior decision or to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going to get us all lynched
and run out of town.
MR. FEDER: I'm not trying to.
Page 170
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What you want to do is get the
data that shows that it's necessary before we start working on the
ordinances to extend it. That's my concern.
MR. FEDER: And that data is in your AUIR and your
long-range plan and the work programs we presented to you
previously, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to see it consolidated in a
single report.
MR. GIBLIN: Commissioner, what may be helpful is perhaps if
I could share with you advice that we gave to the county on this
issue. Is that when we met with staff, we were asked the question of
whether or not the county could extend out, could extend out, the six
cents local option gas tax legally. And we indicated that after doing
some research, that there were some question marks. We felt that
you were in a strong position to do that, if you wanted to, but it
wasn't full-proof, that if you wanted to go that route down the road,
that we would recommend a validation proceeding. And let me just
speak very briefly about what validation is. It's a court proceeding in
which you the county go into circuit court here in Collier County and
ask a judge whether or not you have the wherewithal to issue bonds
secured by certain gas taxes. And we would lay it out, including the
extension, for given projects.
As a court proceeding in which you notice the public, the state
attorney gets involved, and basically the judge will decide yes or no,
you have the ability or you don't have the ability. Taxpayers can
intervene, they can come up and say hey, we don't like this for one
reason or another. If the judge signs the judgment and says you're
validated, then taxpayers or the state attorney have the right to go to
the Florida Supreme Court. That proceeding can take upwards to a
year, sometimes more.
And so what we suggest to the staff is that if you wanted to
proceed with an issue greater than $120 million, that we go through
Page 171
February 11, 2003
this validation process, that what you'd have to do is go through the
following steps: Number one, to get this before a judge, you have to
extend out the gas tax. You have to have something at risk in place
to be able to do that. The second is that you'd have to authorize a
second series of bonds. You don't have to issue it right away, but
you have to have something to put before the judge in terms of
saying these are the issues, we want you to look at them and make a
determination.
So that was the advice that we gave staff in terms of if you want
to extend the six cents, there are some legal issues that we've got to
overcome. And the best way we know to do that is to go into court
and validate it to make sure you're on firm footing. Because once
you're validated, nobody can challenge. You're locked in, this issue
is put to bed. And this is what we thought was really best suited for
the county in terms of not having people challenge us down the road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm shocked. The last thing I want
to do is to do something that looks like it's end run around what the
taxpayers would like to do. And if the taxpayers have the right to
protest something or to file a complaint against it, I think they should
have every right to do so. And I don't think an extension of a 30-year
gas tax should be taken so lightly. And that's what I'm concerned
about.
MR. GIBLIN: But Commissioner, understand validation is that
this is the proceeding in which taxpayers have the right, you give
notice to them and you -- any of them could go into court and say
wait a minute, we have an issue here. Now, if you didn't validate and
people two years or three years or four years down the road can say
wait a minute, yeah, we had the chance to protest, we didn't take
advantage of it, you'd never sell bonds. No bond holder would step
up to the plate and say we're going to buy your bonds if you have a
legal issue out there, you refuse to determine it, and you're telling me
Page 172
February 11, 2003
that taxpayers three or four years down the road can challenge it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute, the bonds that you
want to issue right now are the tax -- or the debt service is met with
the existing revenue from the existing gasoline taxes with the
existing expiration dates?
MR. GIBLIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. Now, let's put that
aside.
Now you're talking about another series of bonds that we expect
to issue in the future and we need to start preparing for that. MR. GIBLIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I suggest to you that the thing we
need to start preparing with is a very clear presentation of why that
extension is necessary and how long the extension should be, rather
than just grabbing 30 years and saying we're going to do it for 30
years. Okay, that's my concern.
And if someone will say to me, I'll go out and get the data and
I'll present it to you well in advance of this second bond issue, then
I'd be really happy, you know, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
That's prudent planning. But I don't have that data yet, I don't --
MR. GIBLIN: And Commissioner, I'm certainly not arguing
with you, because I understand you have to make the policy call of
whether or not this is wise for the county. The advice we gave is only
legally how do you go about this, what is the procedure. Now,
obviously there's a lot of thought you want to give to this and a lot of
actions you may want to take in terms of reviewing the pros and cons
of it, as well as looking at what projects you want to do in the future.
So again, the advice we're giving is that if and when you decide
to pull the trigger on this, this is what we recommend you do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I would prefer that the gun not
be pointed at my head when I pull the trigger, okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Here's what I think is some
Page 173
February 11, 2003
resolution to this, is direct the county attorney to prepare -- advertise
an ordinance to consider extending, and it doesn't look like it's an
automatic we're going to do it or not.
But I agree, knowing the gas taxes that we do collect, the debt
payment that could be done without -- I have questions about
extending it without a need to extend it. So I think it's a valid point
to hey, let's see what it looks like at our next meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I agree. I'd only ask that we
reflect a little bit on what happened to us with impact fees. We went
out and said we were going to do something, and we really haven't
collected all the information necessary to justify what we initially
said we were going to do.
I suggest that the collection of information and the presentation
of that information to the board be the first step, and then if we agree
that it is necessary, we have a workshop to gather public input. Does
that make sense?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So are you saying to not to consider
what we have in front of us today?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I would say we consider and
approve everything except item No. 4 which is to prepare and
advertise ordinances to extend the gas taxes. That's the only thing
I'm suggesting we take out.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then we can do exactly as
you suggest, but gather the information, get the information that
shows us why it's necessary to do it, how long it should be extended,
and when we should make that decision to extend. And then if we
feel it's appropriate, we have a workshop, we get the public input and
we proceed with our discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think our county manager wants to
give us some wisdom.
MR. MUDD: I want you to go back to the AUIR workshop, and
Page 174
February 11, 2003
I made a statement. When you declared transportation sufficient, I
mentioned to you that it was predicated on two bond issues, one of
which you would have to extend the gas taxes into the future in order
to make that bond issue. And that's on the record and I can get you a
copy of that if you would like. But I made sure you knew that
because you made a determination that transportation was sufficient
in your AUIR workshop. And I also told you that that was the most
important workshop -- and I'll put my finger away because it's not
loaded -- that was the most important workshop that you were going
to attend in that year. Because you were going to make some hard
decisions, okay? So I want to make sure, because this isn't new and
this isn't a novel item, because I made sure you knew it at the AUIR,
and I specifically said it for a reason.
Now Commissioner, I think you're absolutely correct, I think we
need to let you know how long those taxes are going to have to be
into being in order to get through that bond issue. We will provide
that information to you during the strategic workshop. I will make
that as part of that so that you have that information so that we can
get on with it in March or whatever to come back to the board for
that item.
And I would suggest for today's approval that the board take out
that item that you think is contentious, because we'll work on that
and get that back to you in the March time frame.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I want to emphasize, you did not
hear me say that I would oppose an extension. You heard me say I
would like the information upon which to base a sound decision.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the two bits of information I
do not have is when should we take action to extend it, and number
two, how long is it necessary to extend it? And those are the two bits
of information that are absolutely critical, in my opinion, to making a
decision about what we do with it.
Page 175
February 11, 2003
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. And bond counsel was trying to help us,
because they know in two years when we're going to need this extra
shot of bonding in order to do our road funding that they didn't want
us to have to tackle that problem at that point, get ourselves
potentially tied up in a court in a lawsuit that lasts two years, and
then we've lost two more years in our road program in that process.
So they're trying to get us ahead of it so that when we need those
dollars, that we'll be in good standing in order to do those bond issues
for Collier County. And we'll get you that information, a strategic
workshop, Commissioner, we'll lay that out for you, how long we
need it, then we'll come back in March with that piece.
But I would suggest that you remove it as part of this action
today, and we'll get back to it in March.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, sounds like some great action
we're taking here.
Any questions before I entertain a motion? None? Any
motions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I make a motion we accept the
staff's recommendation with the exception of recommendation
number three which involves the extension of the gasoline tax
expiration date.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Counsel suggested that we adopt the
resolutions separately. So if I hear your motion correctly,
Commissioner Coyle, it's to adopt or authorize the attachment
proceeding to refund Collier County's road improvement refunding
bond series 1995.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I make that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I second that.
Page 176
February 11, 2003
Okay, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I make a motion to adopt the
supplemental resolution authorizing matters such as the negotiated
sale of the bonds and approve the attachments to the resolution.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion again by Commissioner
Coyle and second by Commissioner Fiala -- or Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We look alike, too.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, we do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're on my right, so -- all in favor
of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I make a motion we approve
the associated budget amendments.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
Page 177
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Opposed?
Motion carries 5-0.
We're going to take a 1 O-minute break.
(Brief recess.)
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2003-84 RE: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION
REPEALING RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO LAND
ACQUISITION, DELAY ACCEPTANCE OF RECORDED
EASEMENTS FOR WHIPPOORWILL LANE AND CLARIFY
COLLIER COUNTY'S POSITION (NORMAN FEDER,
ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES)-
ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, reconvening the Board of
County Commissioners. Everybody take their seat, please.
Next item is -- was formerly 16(A)(2). It is now 10(F),
expenditure for affordable housing lending -- MS. FILSON: 10(E).
MR. MUDD: 10(E). It has to do with Whippoorwill. Staff
requests that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution
repealing resolution pertaining to land acquisition, delay acceptance
of recorded easements for Whippoorwill Lane and clarify Collier
County's position. And this will be presented by Mr. Feder.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Mr. Feder?
Page 178
February 11, 2003
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Some time ago we came to the board and removed one million
that was proposed for us to buy out-parcels for the development of
Whippoorwill. After some discussion with the developer in that area,
it was assessed that they would develop basically a two-lane road,
which is what they need to service the development in that area and
that the county would not be involved.
When that decision was made to take that money out of the
work program and out of your budget, we had not rescinded the prior
action by the board. So that's what you have before you today.
Additionally, in their effort to bring forward as a -- the
developers to bring forward Whippoorwill as a two-lane roadway,
that if developed to county standards would be accepted for operation
and maintenance by the county at that time. They've started
acquiring the easements that would be required. They have most of
those but not all of those in hand.
So while those have been taken in the name of the county and
reported, we're asking that you delay at this time acceptance of those
easements; not reject them, just delay at this time until all of them are
in hand.
The other thing that we're asking you -- advising you is that we
are in the process of trying to work with them to develop possibly an
indemnification insurance. If in fact the permit for development of
that roadway is in the name of the county for the water management
district, that they indemnify the county against any liability or
problems as they go to develop that road or in the acquisition of the
right-of-way. And Jackie Robinson of legal can discuss more of that
aspect.
So essentially you have in front of you, today we're asking you
to pass on I believe it's the first thing three things in the
recommendation. The fourth we're going to try to work with the
Page 179
February 11, 2003
permit becoming in the developer's name rather than the county's.
But without all the right-of-way in hand, if they're going to proceed,
they may need to keep that permit in the county's name. But if they
do that, then we want, as I said, indemnification insurance. And I
can ask legal to speak to you about that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why don't we go ahead and call up
the speakers.
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich, and he'll be followed by Steve
Kempton. And the third one he just informed me isn't here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have two speakers, okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good afternoon, Commissioners, for the
record, Rich Yovanovich.
We have met with Norm and the county manager and Jackie
about how we implement the final piece of the master plan. You've
seen the master plan came forward for development and it called for
utility -- global utility facilities, roadway and drainage issues.
The roadway will install the utilities, install -- construct the road
and also resolve some of the drainage issues in the area. So we are
working with your staff to get all of the right-of-way. We've gotten
basically 15 of the 19 parcels. We are hopeful to have the remaining
four parcels in our hand shortly.
In the meantime, the permit has been issued by the water
management district in the county's name to construct the road. If
we're not able to get that permit assigned over to the development
community, we have agreed to work with Jackie to bring back at
your next meeting an indemnification agreement to indemnify the
county from any and all claims that may relate from our constructing
the road under the county's permit so we can get moving on resolving
these issues in the area.
And with that, I don't know that Steve necessarily has anything
Page 180
February 11, 2003
to add, but we hope you will follow staffs recommendation, and
we'll be back with you in a couple of weeks with the indemnification
agreement.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. And at that time are we going
to have an agreement on just doing the opposite of what we're being
asked today about easement acquisition?
MR. FEDER: Commissioners, on the fourth item everything's
the same. The last item where we're saying that we wanted it, the
permit, in the name of the developer, we may not be able to get that,
and if we cannot get it in the name of the developer, then we will be
coming to you with that agreement stipulating both indemnification
and insurance.
Essentially we are not willing or in a position to take on the
roadway if it is not developed to county standards and if all of the
right-of-way easements are not acquired. So the developer is taking
it on their shoulder to develop and go out and acquire the last of that.
But they want to proceed on the development, since they've got the
permit in hand, of the roadway and the drainage and utilities.
And so this indemnification would allow them, under that
permit under the county's name to do so, take away any liability
issues from the county while they continue to try to acquire all the
easements required. And as they pointed out, they have most of them
in hand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any liabilities that
we're under from the time that they get the insurance policy?
MR. FEDER: No. As a matter of fact, the liability is back to
their first effort in securing the right-of-way. I can let Jackie speak to
that, but we're going to make sure that the county is not in any liable
situation for anything relative to the right-of-way or the construction.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean from this day until they
come forward at the next meeting, are we --
Page 181
February 11, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, Jim Mudd for the record. To
clarify, they're going to back date the liability issue to the first day
they put the first easement in the court under the county's name.
Now, we haven't accepted yet, but just to make sure that we're
covered, they're going to do that.
The next piece I want for clarification is if we can't get the
permit in their name, the permitting agencies normally give the
county, because you have eminent domain powers, they give you a
permit, in some cases when you don't have all the right-of-way.
In this particular case, they're giving you that luxury as the
county.
There's three parcels or so out there that are still contentious,
and that's why it's so important that we have liability insurance here
as far as the -- that Polte is concerned, and that will be your next
speaker, and Steve will talk to you. And the other issue is that we're
held harmless in this entire process until they meet -- the road meets
county standards and we accept it. If and when.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, entertain a motion at this time?
You have any --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, do we have any other
speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, we have one additional speaker. Steve
Kempton.
MR. KEMPTON: Steve Kempton with Polte Homes.
I wanted to take just a minute to thank your staff for working
with us. This road has been under the works since 1999, and we
hope to kick off construction in the next 30 days. It's approximately a
million dollars of right-of-way that will be deeded to the county in an
easement when we're at that point where we have all the easements,
and a little over a million dollars of construction effort.
It's easy -- you hear people call it a developer's road, but
Page 182
February 11, 2003
frankly, there's about 1,500 units of which Polte Homes has about
500 units on the south side of this. And these are all units that will of
course bring impact fees and so forth.
And more importantly, on the northern end of this road there are
drainage issues that were some of the catalysts to create this master
plan, and those drainage issues should be alleviated by the
construction of this road. And all the water is going into our project
at the end, Whippoorwill Woods. So we hope that it is not just
perceived as a developer's road at the end of the day.
With that said, we are definitely willing to take on the liability
through the course of the construction, and we intend to turn it over
to be a county maintained road. Out of 4,000 feet of right-of-way,
we have about 500 feet left to acquire. As Rich said, there's four
parcels, and we feel very confident that we will get those in hand
here very soon. So thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion that we
accept the staffs recommendation concerning this issue.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle made a motion
to accept staff recommendation, and Commissioner Fiala seconded
the motion. Anymore discussion?
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion carries 5-0.
Page 183
February 11, 2003
Item # 1 OF
SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
LENDERS' WORKSHOP SPONSORED BY THE FINANCIAL
ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT-
APPROVED
The next item was formerly 16(A)(2), and now it is 10(F), the
expenditure of affordable housing lending workshop. And I'm going
to make a motion to approve and ask for a second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The reason I pulled this is I think
that we need to give clarification in future examples like this. Folks,
you know, being in the business world when I ever received a benefit
to increase my business, I always had to pay for it. So I hope that's
the direction that we can go in the future.
I want to thank you for, you know, doing the duties what (sic)
you were hired to do and that is to bring more affordable housing in
Collier County. And under certain circumstances that we have in the
county, you're doing a great job, so thank you.
And I don't see anybody jumping up to ask any questions to
that, so I will call the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Sorry to waste your time today.
Page 184
February 11, 2003
Item #10G
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACCESS TELEVISION POLICIES AND
GIIIDEI.INES- APPROVED AS AMENDED
Next item was formerly 16(F)(2), it is now 10(G), approve --
MR. MUDD: It's local government television policies and
guidelines.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle pulled this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I pulled it for two reasons:
One, I think the provision on Page 4, paragraph E-1 that states that
coverage of all board meetings shall be from gavel to gavel, with no
editing? Let me tell you why I think that's a really bad idea. When
we get ready to rebroadcast these board meetings, the viewing public
has to sit there and look at eight, 10, 12 hours worth of tape to get to
the items that they are really interested in. But if we were to take
these tapes and segment them by subject and schedule them for a
specific time and run a schedule, display a schedule on the screen at
the top of every hour that says, for example, at 10:00 we're going to
have nominations for the land conservation committee, that took 45
minutes, we knew exactly how much time it took. So those
scheduled at 10:45 will be something else, one of the -- our other
subjects. So then people can look at the television schedule and they
can determine when the topic they're interested in is going to be
shown, and then they can tune in at that time. It provides for much
better public access to the information for government, and this
particular provision would prohibit us from doing that. And I think
that we need to rethink that, and then we need -- we do need to have
these things broken up. Not the live broadcast, but the rebroadcast.
They must be broken up into subject matter so people can tune in at
the time it's scheduled so that they can watch their particular item of
Page 185
February 11, 2003
interest.
Now, the other concern I had with this procedure was under
Page 7, paragraph J-2, sub-paragraph A, where program sponsors are
permitted and a credit can be given only very briefly during the
opening or closing credits. I have a problem with that. Does that
mean a developer can come on and sponsor a program, like a water
symposium, and say okay, this was sponsored by WCI?
MS. MERRITT: No, sir. I -- Jean Merritt, for the record.
Commissioner Coyle, let me respond to your first concern first,
and that is we are doing exactly that. We -- in our replays -- now, we
do not edit the live broadcast, because we keep those tapes for two
years, and we even keep all the breaks in there and everything. But
in the replay, we take out the breaks, we take out the lunch break, if
that's appropriate, and we also at the beginning of the replay, we put
the times, the approximate times -- what we are working on now --
and we just started doing this, we replay the board meeting at 11:30
on Saturday and 11:30 on Sunday. And we are still struggling on
how to put the name of the topic. Because unless somebody sits there
with an agenda, they're not going to have all the information they
need, so we are planning to put the name of the topic and the number
and the approximate time when it will be shown.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, Jean, I still have a
problem with that, because once you get to live TV broadcast, you
know exactly what time it should be, you know exactly how long
each subject takes. You can take that cut from tape, you can
schedule it precisely at 10:00 in the morning, if that's what you want
to do, and you know it's going to run precisely 48 minutes. And then
you can have a five-minute recess, if you'd like, show some other
public information type things and have -- have this thing, have the
next topic come on at the top of the hour.
It is invaluable for people to be able to look at a schedule and
say that's the topic I'm interested in, I want to be here to watch that,
Page 186
February 11, 2003
and I know it's going to be on at 12:00 or 1:00 in the afternoon, so
I'm going to be here to watch that.
MS. MERRITT: Well, we are planning to do that,
Commissioner. We just started doing this, and we have some work
to do to get exactly what you're talking about. But yes, it is feasible
and yes, we are planning to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, in that case, all I'm saying
to you is this policy would prohibit you from doing it, okay, because
it says it will be shown from gavel to gavel. And I think you need to
revise it or--
MS. MERRITT: We'll be happy to add a sentence or two to
allow that to occur.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. MERRITT: The sentence does, though, refer to the live
broadcasting of the meeting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it doesn't say that.
MS. MERRITT: But we will -- we'll add another sentence
there.
MR. MUDD: And Commissioners, just to make sure we're
perfectly clear on this particular one, and part of the angst that the
staff has got, is when you start getting into editing -- and your piece
that you're talking about is to provide a service to the public to give
them the time that it's aired. What we don't want to have happen in
the future is we don't want to prevent a commissioner or series of
commissioners or somebody from the outside saying I didn't like
what happened there, therefore, I don't want it to be shown, and put
the staff in a position based on policy where that isn't addressed. So
we're basically saying if we can go -- we just don't want to have an
omission of the meeting. We don't mind cutting it for a time, but we
don't want to have to omit a particular item so it's at least not in some
kind of sequence where the meeting transpired.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That clearly is not my intent. You
Page 187
February 11, 2003
know, you provide all of the content with respect to that particular
subject. And I've been harping on this now for about 14 months or
so, and I'm glad that you're beginning to do that.
Now, the other problem is the program sponsor thing. I don't
really know what a program sponsor is.
MS. MERRITT: Well, let me just say that elsewhere in the
policy, it does say that no commercials of any kind or any of that
kind of thing. However, that was put in there to give credits to, for
example, the sponsor of our candidate forum brought by the League
of Women Voters, for example. We also do -- our most watched
show is called Social Security and Other Good Things, and we give
the local Social Security Office -- we say that they have helped
sponsor that, because the manager there is the host of the show. So
those are the kinds of things. We cannot by law do any kind of
commercial endorsements of any sort, and that would be an
endorsement.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I appreciate the
clarification.
Now the other probably most important reason that I pulled this
from the consent agenda was to give the board an opportunity to
provide the guidance to staff to do what I've just been talking about.
I don't think this is something -- although I've been talking to the
staff privately about it, I don't think it's something that should be
done merely because I have asked for it. And I think -- I'd like to ask
the board to render an opinion as to whether or not they want to
proceed with scheduled subject type rebroadcasts of our meetings.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala had a question,
and then we can go to your question of the board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about -- were you questioning
something on Commissioner Coyle's?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
Page 188
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'll wait for mine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just so long as that -- like it was
stated here in the course of the proceedings, that you may have one
particular area, or one particular portion like today we were in the
10(B), and I think it lasted like two and a half hours. And I don't
think you can cut it out to two hours because of the fact that there's
some verbiage in there that may be misconstrued. So I think
everything has got to be put in there. And I think it's going to be a
task on your part to figure out. You have some items that may only
take a half an hour, you have some other items that may take four
hours. So just as long as all the verbiage is left in there so that it
can't be misconstrued, because one thing we don't want to do is
mislead the audience out there. That would do nothing but cause a
lot of problems.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If I could -- can I respond just --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
This is not difficult. This is not difficult at all. The minute that
the county manager or the chairman says now we're going to take up
Item 8(A), you start taping it. I mean, that is, that's where you cut.
You say I'm going to start talking about 8(A). All right, bang, that's
the beginning of your program. And when you take the vote and it's
all over, that's the end of that particular segment, and then you go
right into the next segment. This is not a difficult problem.
And there's not going to be any dialogue cut. All you're doing is
just taking that segment that relates to that subject and you're telling
people, I'm going to televise this at 10:00 in the morning and you can
see it. And it will run until 11:15.
MR. MUDD: This is all doable, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, it's--
MR. MUDD: And the only thing I bring up is since I was the
Page 189
February 11, 2003
county manager and there was an election that just happened, there
was a series of folks that were concerned about a certain broadcast
the League of Women Voters did during a debate. If you remember
correctly, and it hit the newspaper, they wanted me to cut it out of the
TV play, okay, and that wasn't part of our agenda.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. MUDD: And so I will tell you, there are people out there
that might not like something that is said and would like to have it
edited. And we don't want to get into that policy whereby we're
going to take words out or whatever. If it was part of a debate for
political office, it was a League of Women Voters and it was
scheduled, we play it. A board meeting, we're going to do a replay,
we can put in the times, we can do the cuts, we can give people time
to go to the bathroom before the next item. It's all doable. We just
don't want to get into the point in time where we're going to talk
about a business piece of the meeting that was cut.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're not talking about cutting
anything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle -- or Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I knew eventually
I'd get a word in.
I admire your enthusiasm, Commissioner. I really do. I -- all
due respects, I don't see what's broken. We have nothing but positive
accolades about how this -- we're doing with our county channel. I
haven't heard any complaints at all. There's always a way to make it
better. But what we're asking them to do is going to require more
labor, am I correct? More people. How much more of a budget
would you need, a couple hundred thousand dollars maybe, would
that take care of it?
MS. MERRITT: No, but I'd sure love to have that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you like to take it home
with you, do it in your spare time, maybe, all this extra work?
Page 190
February 11, 2003
MS. MERRITT: No, it will take some staff time, because we
will have to time each item and it has to be done in real time, but we
will get it done.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, question, has the phone
been ringing off the hook with complaints about this not being done?
MS. MERRITT: No, but I want to tell you that we had already
started trying to make those broadcasts a little more user friendly.
Only the repeats, of course. Because sometimes the commission
meetings are eight and nine and 10 hours, and it's difficult --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Those are the better ones.
MS. MERRITT: -- when we try to retape a broadcast and our
time is at 11:30 and it goes clear till midnight or so. So there is good
reason I think to edit out all the breaks, edit out some of the other
things. And then we do believe that putting times on that will make
it much easier for the public to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But absolutely without fail, not
one word that's said when this meeting goes between gavels, when
the chairman opens it up until the time he closes it, not one word can
be lost, even if it's a word of profanity. It has to be aired, it has to go
through. Either that or we discontinue the whole thing. I am so
scared that we're going to come to the point eventually where we
start to edit and edit different comments out, edit this out.
MS. MERRITT: We have no intention of doing that at all. And
we never have. We will not do that. The -- this meeting that is
presently being televised is -- it started in the morning and will go
until it is finished. Every single word, every moment that you're on
break is on tape. Because while this is not the official record, it does
lend itself to being -- lend itself to -- that somebody could accuse us
if we don't leave all that in of editing, and we're very, very careful
about that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
Page 191
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I likened Commissioner Coyle's
suggestion and yours also as kind of like a filing cabinet, everything's
under a tab and according to category and time and so you can just
look it up when you please.
But on to my questions. I actually had two questions. The first
one is very simply on Page 7, number G-4-B, and then again in H-1,
you mentioned something about a CDCC, but yet in Page 2 you say
CCDC, but I don't know what either of those initials stand for, or
which one -- maybe there's a misprint on one or the other, so I
thought -- I looked all over, I went through this thing twice, three
times, looking for them. Could you tell me what they are?
MS. MERRITT: Well, you're quite correct, Commissioner. It's
the anacronym (sic) for communication and customer relations
department.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, but we have that also in
another spot where the CCRD is mentioned.
MS. MERRITT: That's correct, the CCDC should be CCRC.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's a little test for you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And then the CDCC also must be
the CCRC --
MS. MERRITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- or CCRD, right?
MS. MERRITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. Okay, good. Well, good.
Now that --
MS. MERRITT: Sorry about that, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- I've gotten that nailed down.
MS. MERRITT: Well, they all start with C.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Then the second question I had,
sorry about that, is can you actually identify -- you made a comment
before, can you actually identify how many people watch which
Page 192
February 11, 2003
programs? Do you have something that actually counts how many
people are looking at a program?
MS. MERRITT: No, we do not. However, in the citizen survey
that is done, we had three or four questions included in the last
survey. We were very pleased, one of the statistics that we saw is that
of those surveyed, 50 percent of those have watched a commission
meeting. And that is a very high number.
A smaller number, but still a respectable number watches our
original programming.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Thank you,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you. And if we get
through this item, maybe we'll get home by midnight.
I agree with Commissioner Coyle's comments, any time that we
can do it better to serve the public I think is great within reason,
budgetary reason, so -- but I know you've got a handle on that, so I'd
entertain a motion on this item.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion to approve by
Commissioner Fiala, second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 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. Thank you very
much for your time.
MS. MERRITT: Thank you.
Page 193
February 11, 2003
Item #1 lA
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS- BOB
KRASOWSKI REGARDING ZERO WASTE WORKSHOP
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Now we're going to the county
attorney's --
MR. MUDD: Public comments.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Public comments.
MS. FILSON: I just this second got one speaker.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's great.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you for being here
today.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Hello, Commissioners. You're welcome.
Thank you for being here. I've been -- I was here earlier, you've been
doing a lot of different interesting things.
Excuse me? Oh, Bob Krasowski. Yeah, excuse me, Bob
Krasowski, Zero Waste, Collier County Group.
Commissioners, I'm here today because I won't be here for your
next meeting. I won't have the opportunity, I'll be out of town; I'll be
up in Orlando at a SWANA convention, Solid Waste Association
North America. Remember them? They gave you an award just a
short time ago for your landfill gas project. Well, I'll be up there,
they're having an organics processing convention on recycling, so I'm
going to check that out. They're even going to have a panal on -- a
discussion on zero waste.
So remember, Collier County's I think the number one county
for zero waste in Florida. And that's a tribute to you folks in our
community, you know?
Page 194
February 11, 2003
So my main reason for being here is to mention that in March,
27th and 28th, we're going to go ahead with our zero waste workshop
design charette for Collier County. I've mentioned this to you before,
and we're bringing in some people from -- professional career people
from California, some economists, the state has helped us out with a
little funding, the county's solid waste department is contributing
information, I'm going to make presentations to these people, and
they're going to make presentations about what zero waste means,
how it might apply here. And the Chamber's going to chip in a little
money to help us and also advertise it. So -- and we're trying to
expand this throughout the community as well.
So I wanted to extend a public invitation to you to participate.
And I know you're busy people, but I expect this to be very well
done, very professional in terms of the presentations by these people.
And I hope that if it is at all possible, that you can attend this
workshop, particularly primarily for that Thursday afternoon, the
27th, because that's when the presentations will be made, and then
there will be discussion periods, questions and answers given and
taken from all of the presenters.
So I'll notify you again, send you an invitation, I'll give you the
location, which we still haven't worked out yet. And, you know, just
wanted to mention that.
I believe on March 11 th, at that meeting, you're going to be
hearing from your solid waste department, your consultants on the
RFP's that you sent out and the information regarding the results of
that and options you'll have there. So it will be timely. March 1 lth
you hear that, you get some information on that. 27th, 28th -- we
tried to do it before the March 11 th date, but that didn't work, the
schedule didn't work out. But it's all going to happen around the
same time.
I've asked Mr. Mudd to be there, you know, and we hope he can
be there. Because like we know, you know, we have to convince
Page 195
February 11, 2003
him, we have to convince you of the value of these programs and to
understand at least our vision and how it might apply.
So I didn't mean to take up too much of your time, but--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thanks for being here. When you
find out the location, would you please let us know so that we can
make our calendar available?
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. But definitely March 27th,
Thursday afternoon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I thought you said the 28th.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, the 28th is a Friday, and that's when
we're going to have -- if you can make that, that's good also. But that
will be a round table discussion in the morning of any interest-- all
interested parties, vendors, service providers, recyclers, secondhand
sales, stores, public. And then on Friday afternoon we're going to do
the design charette where we're going to mix up all these different
ideas and okay, this is collection, what can be done in collection,
what's done in other places; this is recycling, what are the options;
markets for the recycle, what are our markets, how can they be
enhanced, expanded. You know, every aspect we're going to come at
it and then compile a report of suggestions, and that will be provided
to your solid waste department and to you. But first for their review
and then to you for your ultimate decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, good to see you again.
Item #12A
BCC REVIEW OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OFFER IN THE
COMPANION IMPACT FEE COLLECTION CASES OF COLLIER
COUNTY V. NATIONWIDE AND NATIONWIDE V. COLLIER
COUNTY- STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT
HOMEWOOD'S OFFER APPROVED
Page 196
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, no more public speakers, we'll
move on to county attorney's part of the agenda, 12(A). Presentation
by staff for a proposed settlement offer, impact fee collections,
Collier County versus Nationwide. And Ms. Jacqueline Robinson.
MS. ROBINSON: All right, this first matter involves -- I'm
sorry, for the report, my name is Jacqueline Hubbard Robinson,
assistant county attorney.
We have two matters on for your consideration. The first one
involves the Homewood property. And in an effort to attempt to
settle the matter, we have discussed this possible settlement. And it
involves a payment by Homewood of $10,000 in cash and the
forbearance on their claim for a refund for approximately the same
amount, $10,400.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make a motion now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion we
accept the staffs recommendation for rejection of the settlement
offer.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was three.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle's -- pardon me?
MR. WEIGEL: I was talking to her.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Recognizing Commissioner Coyle's
motion for denial, seconded by myself.
Any further discussion? If no further discussion, all in favor of
the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 197
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
Item #12B
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE FOR PREVIOUSLY
UNPAID EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
PARKS AND LIBRARY IMPACT FEES FOR ARDEN COURTS
AT LELY PALMS AND MANOR CARE AT LELY PALMS -
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT- APPROVED
Next item is 12(B), consideration for settlement agreement,
previously unpaid educational -- well, impact fees by Lely Palms and
Manorcare at Lely Palms.
MS. ROBINSON: Yes, we are recommending that we accept
this offer to settle. The -- they owe a number of impact fees, and the
total amount, minus the overpayment, is $79,463.28. The total value
of the settlement would be the $45,000 in cash and the forbearance
on a refund request of $4,853.76, meaning that the total value of the
settlement would be $49,853.76, and we think that's a fair settlement
of this particular case.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd like to make a motion that we
accept the staff's recommendation of acceptance of this settlement
offer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
Page 198
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Commissioner Halas, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, there's times and instances
where we're beating up on people for impact fees. Why are we
negotiating where we're going to end up with only about half of what
is owed here? Can you --
MS. ROBINSON: Well, since it's pending litigation, I really
would not like to discuss all the issues in the case, but I can tell you
that when we ask you to follow our opinion, it's based upon our
analysis of both the pros and the cons of our case and their case.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the problem is there's other
people out there that we hound for $2,000 in impact fees that they
owe us, you know, and we keep hounding them and hounding them
to the point where they have to end up paying it before they get a
CO.
MS. ROBINSON: Oh, I'm not familiar with those situations,
I'm only handling about seven matters that are in litigation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ROBINSON: And none of those involve those small sums,
by the way, they're all fairly substantial.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: With no further discussion on this
item, I'll call the question: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Any opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Halas descending (sic).
Page 199
February 11, 2003
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
Item # 15A
POTENTIAL PURCHASE OF TWO HOMES ON TROPICANA
BOULEVARD TO CREATE AN ENTRANCE TO THE
PROPOSED NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN GOLDEN GATE CITY-
DISCI ISSFJD
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This brings us to staff
communications -- no, okay, I was looking for that item. This item is
MR. MUDD: This is staff communications. And
Commissioner, one of the things that I'd like to talk about today with
the board is there's an opportunity that has presented itself as far as
bettering access to a new school that's going in Golden Gate City.
And we all know that Golden Gate City, the footprint's pretty well
established and has been for a number of years. And when you put
in a new school in a well-established neighborhood, you might not
have the access that you need in order to get to that school.
In this particular case, the school is on the other side of the
canal. In order for folks to get to it, if you're on the northern side, if
this is correct, you have to go all the way out to 951 in order to go
around the canal to go over the bridge in order to come back into
Golden Gate City in order to get to the school. And we think we
have an opportunity in the school -- the school operations folks have
said that if we are able to acquire the real estate and the access, then
they would build a bridge. And I will tell you, the real estate in this
particular case is a lot cheaper than the bridge. And it would benefit
the community. And Norm is going to talk about that. But in this
unique circumstance, this has to do with two, maybe four homes.
And we have talked to the two homes, specifically those
Page 200
February 11, 2003
homeowners, and they are willing to negotiate for us a price for their
house and their lot in this case. So it's not an adverse action, but it
would be probably one of the first ones in Collier County's history
where we've moved a house, moved it, demolished it, in order to
build a road segment. So I thought it would be a good time to get the
board's direction in this particular matter before the staff proceeds
any further.
I will also say to you that before, and in case Norman forgets
this, before we even start to buy the property, we will have an
agreement with the school board and the school staff that they will
build a bridge in order to do this. And Amy's here, she can talk about
it.
MR. FEDER: I think Jim's covered it in pretty good detail. I'll
show you the pictures and just add a little bit to that.
We met with the school board on a number of the new schools
that are moving to accelerate to respond to the demand. In this case
Golden Gate High School, as Jim pointed out, as you see in the
picture, is south of the canal. It is basically restricted from access
from the west by a gated community, as well as a portion ofi-75. It's
restricted from the south by 1-75 limited access. In the north it has a
canal, and the only access to it is off of Access Road 2, as it's called,
over towards 951, just north of the interchange with 1-75 and Davis.
The feeling was that this is a high school, a lot of the folks will
be arriving in their own vehicles to the high school, and we're
basically generating from this demand out of Golden Gate a
requirement that folks come all the way around the circle out of
Golden Gate, onto 951 where we have some major needs, and
essentially try to access the school.
So our thought was what are our options? We had already talked
to the school board previously and do have out of enhancement
funding the prospects of developing a pedestrian walkway on further
down on 32nd to access the school site a little bit further on the east
Page 201
February 11, 2003
side of the school site, south of the canal.
What we're looking at was is there an option to come straight
across. And as you can see here, we're supposed to start at the two
homes directly across from Tropicana. And when we discussed it
with the school board staff, their comment was if you can acquire
those two homes, then we would design and build the bridge and the
access directly to the school, therefore, coming straight out of Golden
Gate City.
We've gotten some correspondence generally to that effect. We
didn't want to pursue that further, nor did we want to get with the
folks in Golden Gate City and discuss the issues further until we
came to the board and restudied what issue is out there.
We have made some preliminary contacts with both of these
property owners. They've expressed some interest, as Jim pointed
out, in trying to negotiate.
With that in mind, we wanted to make you aware of the issue,
make sure this is something of interest to you. Should we get
agreement from the school board that they would design and
construct, should we speak to the community and get their
understanding of the issue and some level of concurrence that this is
something that they too would be interested in. You've got the
picture here of the two homes; and obviously we don't take that
lightly, it's two homes people are living in.
And then the last thing is there's been quite a bit of improvement
in Golden Gate City on Tropicana. The association and others went
out, did some major improvements to that, basically established a
boulevard, a widened roadway, as you can see there, with widened
pathways on the side of it and landscaping down the median. In
reality that serves as an outstanding entryway to the school, but it
also puts the issue in one that the folks in Golden Gate City may be
wanting to look at what the nature of the traffic would be and what
the implication would be for all the work that they've done there on
Page 202
February 11, 2003
Tropicana if we were to acquire the two homes on 32nd and try to
establish that connection to the school.
So I just wanted to make you aware of it, wanted to see not
necessarily obviously any vote but just a feel from the Commission
should we continue to proceed forward, talk to folks in the
community, continue to talk to the school board, and then come back
to you, depending upon the results of those efforts, whether or not to
try and proceed on acquiring these two properties.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. If we could flip
back-- you're done with your presentation-- MR. FEDER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- Mr. Feder? I'm sorry.
Keep on going back. There's one in parallel, the canal. One
more. One more.
MR. FEDER: The one that showed all the homes along it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. If we look all the way to
the right, there's a vacant lot.
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's owned by the school
board?
MR. FEDER: That is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they were going to construct a
pedestrian bridge there. Since -- I don't think you need to do a
pedestrian bridge at that location if there's going to be a bridge.
MR. FEDER: That would be our contention, that you wouldn't.
We try and evaluate whether or not that is something in our
discussion for the school board, either the right-of-way made
available to the county and therefore to the public. Obviously you
wouldn't build the pedestrian bridge, you'd make that a feature of the
vehicle bridge at the same time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. So in the negotiations, is
that something on the table for the county to own that piece --
Page 203
February 11, 2003
MR. FEDER: We feel it is. And obviously the school board
would have to address that as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And there is a real concern
about having a high school across the canal and having a two-lane
boulevard for the main entrance for the high school. Even though
recognizing Collier Boulevard, which is the only road out of Golden
Gate Estates going west, and a lot of people in Golden Gate Estates
utilize that.
MR. FEDER: That's why we say we want to get the community
to look at the issues and the traffic.
At the same time, you would not close off Access Road 2 that
goes over to 951. But this would not require that everybody in
Golden Gate City that's going to be serviced by this high school and
recreational facility that's all to be attached to it would have to go out
to 951, right near the interstate where we have major problems,
including high school drivers, to access the school. So we came back
to tie upstairs, we identified the school building that first came to us
with this site (phonetic).
The other thing I need to add, though, we do have a park, a
lineal park on the south side of the canal, so one thing we'd also have
to talk to the school board is to make sure that any bridge that was
developed in there didn't cut off that park, maybe actually flew over
that little bit of lineal park as well. So that's something that may
actually be very much news to the school board just brought to my
attention recently.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I just want to make sure I
understand something. This vacant lot here to the right of this
picture is -- can be used for a vehicular access across the bridge?
MR. FEDER: You wouldn't have enough width for the one and
the turning radius, but it could be used in combination with another.
It wouldn't be directly across from Tropicana. And that's another
Page 204
February 11, 2003
thing we're evaluating. But in and of itself, a single lot width would
not be sufficient, no. But it is sufficient, obviously, for pedestrian
crossing, which is what was anticipated.
The question is, could we acquire one house on the other side of
that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it looks to me like the road
there to the north is about one lot width. And that looks like a pretty
wide road.
MR. FEDER: This will probably show you a little better. But
yes, it's close. You'd be awful close to the homes on the side of it.
As I said, that's something we're still looking at.
But to give you another feel for it, this shows you the roadway
coming in. You can see the width of that road relative to the lot
width. But we'll look at those.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, that is a possibility,
that rather than buying two houses right there at that intersection, go
over and buy the house beside the vacant lot and you'd buy one house
and only disturb one person.
MR. FEDER: Understood. And then you don't have the direct
access, and that may even be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Might be even better, yeah, that's
right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further questions? We do
have a public speaker. We usually don't take public speakers on staff
communication. Will of the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's up to you. I don't care.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I don't care either.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Doesn't matter to me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Go ahead and call up the speaker,
please.
MS. FILSON: Amy Taylor.
MS. TAYLOR: We want to -- I'm Amy Taylor, from Collier
Page 205
February 11, 2003
County Public Schools. We wanted to express our appreciation of
Norm Feder's fine efforts.
As was explained, our plans and our design for our school
facility, which will be opening up in August of 2004, have provided
for its access off of access number two. Pedestrian -- those that will
be traveling from Golden Gate City that would be walking, we were
able to obtain a transportation enhancement grant for that lot, which
would have connected to the county linear park and would have
connected us to the school.
I want to provide maybe some insight into the alignment, based
on our alignment of our road existing on this -- the site. Coming
straight through and across from Tropicana would align quite well
with what we have as an existing road. The one that's off-- that
would provide for the pedestrian bridge would have connected to the
linear park and then across.
So with that in mind, we hope that we can -- that the staff can
move forward with taking a look at examining those lots that align
right with Tropicana.
Also, we are in support of this direct access to the Golden Gate
High School and have made commitments to work with your
transportation division on the design and construction of the bridge
facility. However, if this is going to be an access road that will
benefit activity center number nine in general, there should be -- we
would consider some cost-sharing aspects of that. If not, if it is going
to be primarily access to the school site and would not provide a, you
know, community activity center number nine overall benefit and
just strictly or limited to primarily access for the school site, then we
would go ahead and move forward with working with the staff in
regard to that payment and construction.
So thank you very much, and I'm available for questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Taylor, we recognize that you
have converted over to working for the school board.
Page 206
February 11, 2003
The consensus of the board members?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll proceed, but we are going to
have some concerns about that Tropicana.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. That's all I have, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #15B
IJPDATE REGARDING VEI.IJAGIO GRAND IJTIGATION
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Well, we have one item that's just
come to our attention, and that is Commissioners, you're aware that
we've been in trial this week with the lawsuit filed against the county
by Vanderbilt Shores Association and other associations, and our
counsel in trial are back and have a report to you about the trial.
Representing the county was attorney Ted Tripp, with the firm
Garvin and Tripp, assisted by Mike Pettit, our senior litigation
attorney from our office.
MR. TRIPP: We have just concluded the trial. The judge has
granted a motion which we filed on behalf of Collier County to
dismiss the plaintiffs' case for failure to establish a prima facie basis
for relief.
Our argument to the court was, and I think that the law supports,
a finding that the Collier County staff interpreted the land
development code in a reasonable fashion in applying the setback
requirements to construction of the 15-unit condominium.
It was our position as a matter of law that plaintiffs were not
able to show that that decision was unreasonable, and the judge has
granted our motion for directed verdict. So the case was concluded
favorably to Collier County without the requirement that we put on
Page 207
February 11, 2003
witnesses or evidence in defense.
I should tell you that part of our strategy and agreement with the
other parties in the litigation was that we were very much trying to
limit the issue in that litigation to the propriety of the permitting of
the 15-unit condominium. As I'm sure you all are aware, there was a
prior incarnation. That developer wished to put a 68 unit hotel on
that property. This board, in reaction to a Chapter 163 consistency
challenge on May 22nd, 2001, made a determination that the site
plan approval and building permit for that application had been
improperly established by the staff and revoked those permits and
improvements.
We are currently in federal court with the developer who is
continuing to seek money damages for the claimed violation of its
Constitutional rights. That matter is set to proceed before Judge
Magison (phonetic), a visiting judge from Minnesota. It is on the
trial docket, commencing February 25th of this year. It is unlikely
that we will be reached until mid March. But we are industriously
preparing to defend the county in that forum as well.
I'd like to be able to guarantee you the same result, but I'm not
in the guaranteeing business, I'm in the reporting business. And the
news for tonight is good. The verdict in the state court is ours and
the litigation has been resolved, at least in this forum, in your favor.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that mean that they -- this
ruling, does that dictate then what they have to do with the building,
whether it be take it down or tear it apart or --
MR. TRIPP: Right. At this point the plaintiffs had asked that
the judge enter an injunction requiring that the building be either
modified or removed. That-- the judgment in favor of Collier
County means that that will not occur.
At this juncture there is no legal requirement that the developer
Page 208
February 11, 2003
modify the building in any way. I understand it's close to being the
recipient of a certificate of occupancy. I think the construction is
virtually complete. And absent further judicial action by somebody,
I think that we will have 15 or more new voters on that property
sometime within the next 30 days. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question, if I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there any possible way that
we could recover our legal costs from the other side?
MR. TRIPP: The action that was brought against you was not
brought under a statute which would allow you to recover your
attorney's fees. That's not true, by the way, in the federal court
action. In federal court there is a specific statute, 42US 1988 that
does allow for an award of attorney's fees.
But in the state court action, the general rule under Florida law
is unless you have a contract action where the contract calls for
attorney's fees, or there is a specific statute that allows the award of
attorney's fees, each party bears their own fees.
Now, we do have the opportunity to recover our costs, but as a
practical matter the costs in this case were if not nonexistent,
certainly very nominal. We had very few costs on behalf of the
county in this matter. I would be surprised if we had $1,000 in costs.
So it was very modest. Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, sir.
MR. TRIPP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, anything else?
MR. WEIGEL: That's it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, commissioners, closing
comments.
Commissioner Coletta?
Page 209
February 11, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's been an interesting day.
The meeting went very smooth. I give you credit for that,
Commissioner Henning.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's teamwork.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I enjoyed working with
you all today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing from me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
Item # 15C
DISCI ISSION REGARDING CONSFJRVATION COIJI~IF, R
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Everybody breathe -- take a deep
breath. First thing, I want to thank you publicly for defending me the
other night at the King's Lake Homeowners Association meeting,
where for some -- where I was never invited and they were pretty
upset about it. And I appreciate you coming to my defense. I have
written a letter to the editor also about that, but --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I hope you can straighten that out
with that community, that little misunderstanding.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I hope that my letter to the
editor did just that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And secondly, I would like to ask
all of you if maybe we could consider adding four or two or however
many you'd like alternates to that land acquisition committee so that
we have somebody sitting in with them in case somebody gets ill or
gets transferred to another area, we can have somebody jumping right
in rather than trying to get up to speed six months down the road.
Page 210
February 11, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's an excellent idea. I
could support that. I'll tell you that the qualified people that were on
that were unbelievable; we went through those resumes. Any way
we can get them involved would be a big plus.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything to add to that, or do you
want to go to comments?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, I don't have anything more to
add to that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
anything on that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On that particular issue?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's one potential
complication, but overall, I think it's a good idea.
The problem is that once you nominate four alternates and let's
suppose a year goes by, there might very well be some exceptionally
qualified people who'd want to serve on that board. Now, are we
going to exclude applicants from submitting applications because
there are alternates, or will the new applicants merely be thrown into
the same pot as the alternates for us to make a decision? And if we
do that, then there really is no need to have alternates at all, because
you're going to have to consider them and weigh them against the
other applicants anyway.
So that's the only complicating factor there. You lock yourself
in to four people and no one else is going to be likely to apply for the
board because they don't stand a chance of getting selected.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Mudd-- County
Manager Mudd, sorry.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I wouldn't want your job to save
my life.
The thing I want to remind the board, remember the timetable
Page 211
February 11, 2003
that we gave you on the 14th of January that was in your packet that
Bill Lorenz provided? It was in the consent agenda, but it basically
said that all of the land for that particular bond issue, even though
we're going to pay for it for 10 years, is going to be done by 2005.
So the majority of the work of that committee is going to be done and
fleshed out by that particular time. And then that committee will go
not in inactive status, but it will be a monitoring committee so that
they can see how it's going to go. So they will meet less frequently
and it will be a lot less work as far as the committee is concerned.
And as you can see, Joe just put them up, but you've got the
referendum and it goes all the way through it. But, you know, you're
doing initial screening of the reports you send out property owners,
interest, meeting, so a majority of identifying those properties is this
year. And then you basically go in and you review the contracts and
things by August, 2004. By about 2005 you're done. I mean, this is
pretty well you own the property and now you're in a maintenance
mode. So I just wanted to make sure that you remembered that so
that it was in your mind as you go through this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So are you saying that we don't
need alternates because of that? I'm just thinking of code
enforcement. Just about three months ago we had a code
enforcement slot available and you nominated Sherry Barnett, right?
And that was good. That was the only opening. And now we just
had four more three months later. And things just happen to people's
lives, to their jobs or whatever. And I just -- you don't have to accept
it, it was just an idea. I just thought it was a good idea for people to
sit in on the committee. I realize they can anytime, but it would be
nice if we had some people standing in the wings in case. Not that
we have to take them but, you know, most likely we might want to
consider them.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, Commissioner, I recognize the
fact that you want to accommodate, and I commend you for that. I
Page 212
February 11, 2003
just don't think it's necessary on this particular issue.
Commissioner Coyle, did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one remark with respect to
developing procedures. One of the people I interviewed, who was an
applicant here for that committee, brought up a very interesting point
and that was -- he was talking about the procedures that are
developed to guide this committee in purchasing land. And there's a
state procedure manual for land acquisition which this person
recommended to us, and it specifies how we go about acquiring the
land and how much we're allowed to pay for the land over and above
the assessed value, if anything at all. And I'm just suggesting, if you
haven't already looked at that, take a look at that when it comes down
to develop the procedures manual so that we have the appropriate
controls over the decisions that are being made.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say again that I want
to thank everybody for helping this neighborhood out. But I also
think we need to look at what we want to do down the road here. Do
we want to pursue the possibility of franchise fees or do we want to
pursue this in the manner that we pursued it this afternoon where
we're in a reactive mode instead of a proactive mode. And I think we
need to give it some thought. And if we feel that we need to address
this issue of franchise fees with the -- in regards to FP&L lines, I
think we need to look at this and maybe sometime or another in the
near future look at this as an addition to our land development codes.
And I'd welcome any comment on this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, my perspective on this is this
summer I had an opportunity to meet with one of my constituents, an
elderly person on a fixed income. Her husband is -- has cancer.
There's many medicines that this poor woman has to buy. And I'm
Page 213
February 11, 2003
afraid of any action that I do to increase her cost of living here in
Collier County is going to affect her life. So I'm not in favor of
going there, of adding more cost onto the consumer or taxpayers or
whatever it is.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think you're pretty close to it,
Commissioner Henning. When it comes right down to it, these are
going to be local situations. You know, it won't happen in
Immokalee, let me put it that way. Not for many years to come.
They just won't be looking to bury the power lines.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have power out there?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They sure do, and it works
great.
The thing is that when we come up to it -- the same thing in the
estates, the rural estates, you're not going to see them burying power
lines there. But their power bill will have this on it forever, and their
benefit would be next to nil. I think the best thing is to work with an
MSTU process so that it benefits the people that are at the receiving
end of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I think we were looking at
the franchise fee, maybe establishing boundaries on this. And it
would be possibly anything from west of-- of 951 that would be
basically an urban area and not a rural area. Realizing that that's
where a lot of this growth is and that's where a lot of the additional
power lines are going to need to be run.
So that was my only concern, and I was looking at -- looking at
the area down at East Naples, because there's going to be a lot of
additional construction down in that area, and there's areas in there
that FP&L is probably going to go in there, and involved in running
additional power lines, so that community is going to be affected.
I think you're going to see that Golden Gate area is going to be
affected also, the west side of Golden Gate, the west side that's on
Page 214
February 11, 2003
951. Eventually when build-off starts happening there, we're going
to incur the same type of problem. And I think what it is is where
you have a redundancy of power lines where you've got a power line
in somebody's backyard and a power line in their front yard and then
if there's a cross street, there's a power line running there with the
addition of FP&L adding some more power lines. And one of the
problems that we ran into was -- and obviously they've got a good
engineering answer why they can't use the same poles and just add
additional wiring to it, okay, whether it's an upper deck or a lower
deck. And so what happens is they say well, we're going to run a
whole new set of power lines.
And so this is what poses this problem and this is what was
generated from this course of action today. Because one of the
people that -- from the audience that got up said they got a
right-of-way right down the middle or right on the side of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, why can't you use those existing poles? And FP&L
says no, we can't use those existing poles. And -- or they'd have to
take them out and put new poles in. Well, it seemed to me why
couldn't -- you know, yeah, it might be a little added cost, but the
bottom line was they didn't even want to address that, they didn't
even want to look at it as far as being a good neighbor.
So their only option that they would give the residents is that
they were going to run this power line down 91st Avenue. They
weren't even going to look at any other options. And so that's what
concerns me, okay, in this issue. And I'm sure that it's going to affect
some other commissioners that are sitting here. And it's going to
come up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If you use it like an MSTU,
I've got no problem with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think this is a problem we
Page 215
February 11, 2003
have to deal with, but, you know, we dealt with this problem today
and we dealt with it fairly well, and I think we can continue to deal
with it on that same basis, on an MSTU basis. I'm concerned about
having blanket tax increases in the county. Even though they're not
large increases, they are tax increases, and I'm a little concerned
about that. Just as has -- we might criticize FP&L for maybe
spending too much money or not being conscious of the dollars that
they get, people have the same opinion of us, and I think we have to
be careful about any tax increases. But I do believe that we can
handle this with an MSTU.
When people are so interested in this issue, then I think they're
willing to pay a little money to solve this problem. And in that way,
we get the people who are most interested in it and who will benefit
most from it to fund the undergrounding.
Now, I would briefly like to make a comment about one of the
things that was said today during the presentation. FPL was being
criticized for not taking the most costly approach. And I think we've
got to be careful about that. You know, it's incredible to me that we
would criticize anybody for trying to take the least costly alternative.
We certainly do that all the time, and I think we should encourage
FPL to take the least costly alternative, and the least costly
alternative apparently is the one that they have right now.
And I think it is a bargain, a real bargain, to get that
undergrounded for $60,000. And I think that we've handled it fairly
well and I think we can continue to do that with the MSTU concept.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you, wholeheartedly,
Commissioner, exactly. But the problem is is that we end up getting
into a reactive mode here, whereby that -- we had to hustle, we had to
jump through hoops, the county manager, myself, we all were
jumping through hoops trying to address this issue. And it was -- and
then the time frame started to shrink on us. And what we did today
we accomplished well, but we may not be as successful the next time
Page 216
February 11, 2003
around, and that's what I'm getting at.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any other
communications under county commissioners' communications?
Let's have the votes down here. You need to drop it.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: May as well quit talking about it
then, right?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Last night at the Golden Gate Area
Civic Association meeting, Dr. Coffer (phonetic) did an excellent job
of presenting the state of the contaminated wells. The Board of
Commissioners is going to hear this in the next meeting. I think that
we're going to have to give them direction. Utility company was
there and piggybacked on some of those issues there. Of course I
think their motive is self-centered, but there might be some
opportunities. But we're going to get that presentation.
But one thing that was shared with me, we have some
opportunities to receive some effluent, some pota -- not potable,
reused water. And I think we can get it for free. In the future there's
(sic) going to have to get some expansion. So we're always talking
about that reuse water and how valuable it is. There's some
opportunities for median landscaping to be irrigated, might be some
opportunities to put it in our system, might be opportunities for the
school. So I'm going to stay on top of that.
And I appreciate county manager's dealing with this issue in
Golden Gate. And I have no further other thing to discuss, so
meeting adjourned.
*****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:
Page 217
February 11, 2003
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2003-65 RE: PETITION AVESMT2002-AR3349
TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S
AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN TWO 30 FOOT WIDE
PARCELS OF LAND CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY,
UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 484, PAGE 523 AND PAGE 525, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COI~IJFR COIJNTY, FI~ORIDA
Item #16A2-Moved to Item #1 OF
Item #16A3
RESOLUTIONS 2003-66 AND 2003-67 PROVIDING FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF LIENS FOR THE COST OF THE
ABATEMENT OF P111qI.lC NI IISANCES
Item #16A4
2003 TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH NAPLES BOTANICAL
GARDENS FOR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL
MIISF. I IM GRANT OF $500,000
Item #16A5
ONE (1) IMPACT FEE REFUND REQUEST TOTALING
$68,220-TO DOLPHIN COVE DEVELOPMENT OF
GOODI.AND, 1NC.
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR THE DUNES, PHASE I-WITH RELEASE OF THE
Page 218
February 11, 2003
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVEI,OPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES
FOR THE DUNES, PHASE 2-A-WITH RELEASE OF THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEFR OR THE DF. VFJ.OPER'S DESIGNATED AGENT
Item # 16A8
THE EARLY EXCAVATION OF THE LAKE SYSTEM AT THE
PROPOSED ARROWHEAD PUD BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH
AND WEST BY LAND ZONED A-MHO, ON THE EAST BY
CARSON ROAD AND LAND ZONED A-MHO, AND ON THE
NORTH BY LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AND LAND ZONED
AGRICULTURAL-A SECURITY BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 MIIST FIF. POSTED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSIIANCE
Item #16A9
RESOLUTION 2003-68 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE
OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND
WALK PHASE FOUR"-WITH RELEASE OF THE
MAINTENANCE SECI JRITY
Item # 16A 10
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES UNIT
SIX" AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY-
Page 219
February 11, 2003
W/STIPULATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE EXECUTIVE
SIIMMARY
Item #16Al 1
RESOLUTION 2003-69 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH IJNIT TWO"
Item #16A12
RESOLUTION 2003-70 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH IJNIT SIX"
Item #16A13
RESOLUTION 2003-71 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN
MARSH IINIT TWF. NTY"
Item # 16B 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE A DEVELOPER
CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,500.00 FOR THE
WIGGINS PASS ROAD OUTFALL PROJECT (PROJECT NO.
51212~
Item #16B2
AWARD BID #03-3460- "PURCHASE OF ONE (1) 4,000
GALLON WATER TRUCK" TO WALLACE
Page 220
INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, INC.
$927900
February 11, 2003
, IN THE AMOUNT OF
Item #16B3
EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND AN ACCESS EASEMENT
WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR PERIODIC MAINTENANCE OF
THE GOLDEN GATE MAIN CANAL UNDER THE BRIDGE
CONSTRUCTED AT 13TM STREET SW (PROJECT NO. 69068)
FISCAl, IMPACT: $77360
Item #16B4
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75
INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $378,114.66 WHICH INCLUDES A PORTION
OF WORK TO BE PAID FOR BY BRENTWOOD LAND
PARTNERS, LLC. (PROJECT NO. 66042A) W/BETTER
ROADS. INC.
Item #16B5
CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,366.70 WITH
BETTER ROADS, INC. FOR MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS ON
PINE RIDGE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60016
Item #16C 1
AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND A UTILITY EASEMENT
FOR THE GOLDEN GATE WELLFIELD RELIABILITY
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED
$1,500.00-W/STIPULATIONS AS OUTLINED IN THE
EXECI ~TIVE SI IMMARY
Item #16C2
Page 221
February 11, 2003
AMENDMENT TO WORK ORDER SC-02-45 WITH SURETY
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLAN NOISE
ABATEMENT, PROJECT 70063, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10_276.69
Item #16C3
WORK ORDER WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC TO
PERFORM AN INFLOW AND INFILTRATION STUDY FOR
THE SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA IN
THE AMOUNT OF $297,880, PROJECT NUMBER 73164-
CONTR ACT #00-3119
Item # 16D 1
AN ADDITIONAL $66,179 IN STATE AID TO LIBRARIES IN
FY03
Item #16D2
AWARD OF BID #03-3438 TO GOLDEN GATE NURSERY
AND SOD AND LEO'S SOD FOR PURCHASE AND
DELIVERY OF TURF AT A PROJECTED COST OF $70,000-
FOR MAINTENANCF. OF PARKS AND FACIIJITIES
Item # 16D3
CONTRACT TO SWEET, AN ORTIVUS COMPANY, FOR THE
PURCHASE OF BILLING SOFTWARE FOR THE EMS
DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,435-PURCHASING
POIJICY SF. CTION V, SIIFISF,CTION C; 2., WAIVED
Item # 16E 1
Page 222
February 11, 2003
AWARD RFP 03-3447 "OFFICE SUPPLIES AND OFFICE
FURNITURE" AT AN ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF
$350~000-TO MARCO OFFICE SIIPPI.Y
Item # 16E2
RESOLUTION 2003.72 PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE
OF CONVEYANCES MADE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT REQUIREMENTS OF ALL
ORDINANCES AND AGREEMENTS OR AS AN INTEGRAL
PART OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND
AUTHORIZING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' CHAIRMAN, DURING THE 2003
CALENDAR YEAR, TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
REQI IIRED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
Item #16E3
RESOLUTION 2003-73 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND
AGREEMENTS FOR DEED TO RIGHT OF INTERMENT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF BURIAL PLOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD
MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DURING THE 2003
CAI.ENDAR YEAR
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 2003-74 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, DURING THE 2003 CALENDAR YEAR,
TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS, DEEDS AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE SALE OF GAC LAND
TRIIST PROPERTY
Page 223
February 11, 2003
Item #16E5
AWARD OF RFP #03-3441, "AIR FILTRATION SERVICES
AND SUPPLIES", TO KLEEN AIR RESEARCH, FOR
ANNUAL AIR FILTER SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF
$73,000
Item #16E6
AWARD BID #02-3314 FOR THE ADVERTISING OF
DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY
TAXES AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $63,680-TO NAPLES
DAIIJY NEWS
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT-BUDGET AMENDMENT
#03-180 FOR $25,000 TO COMPLETE SEVERAL ADA
RELATED PROJECTS, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF
A HANDICAP PARKING AREA AT THE LAW LIBRARY,
AND NEW RAILINGS AT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND
THE MARCO ISIJAND IJPlRARY
Item gl 6F2-Moved to Item # 10G
Item # 16H 1
REQUEST BY COMMISSIONER HENNING TO ATTEND EDC
INSTALLATION OF OFFICERS DINNER AS SERVING A
VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE-ON FEBRUARY 19, 2003, AT
I.API.AYA lalEACH RESORT IN THE AMOIJNT OF $85.00
Item # 1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
Page 224
February 11, 2003
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the
various departments as indicated:
Page 225
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 11, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIREC'II/D:
A. Minutes:
Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for January 15,
2003.
o
Work. force Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes of November 18,
2002, December 2 & 18, 2002.
Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Agenda January 6,
2003.
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Agenda for January 8, 2003.
1-75/Golden Gate Ad Hoc Landscaping Beautification Committee -
Summary of Motions and Minutes for December 11, 2002.
Pelican Bay Advisory Services - Agenda for January 9, 2002; Minutes of
December 9, 2002.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 8, 2003;
Minutes of December 11, 2002.
Environmental Advisory Council -Agenda for January 8, 2003; Minutes
of December 4, 2002.
Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 9, 2003; Minutes of
December 5, 2002.
10.
11.
Collier County Citizens Corp Advisory Committee - Agenda for
December 19, 2002; Minutes of December 19, 2002.
Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board - Minutes for October 7,
2002.
12.
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for January 16, 2003;
Minutes of December 19, 2002.
H:Data/Format
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
20.
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for January 13, 2003;
Minutes of December 19, 2002.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for January 15, 2003;
Minutes of December 18, 2002.
Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for January
22, 2003.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. -Agenda for January 21, 2003;
Minutes of December 17, 2002.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
January 16, 2003; Minutes of December 19, 2002.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee- Agenda for January 14, 2003.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee -
Minutes of December 13, 2002; Agenda for January 24, 2003.
Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force Meeting - Minutes of December
18, 2002; Agenda for January 22, 2003.
.Other:
1) Florida House of Representatives - Mike Davis received Committee
Assignments.
H:Data/Format
February 11, 2003
Item # 16J 1
THAT PURCHASES OF GOODS AND SERVICES
DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF OPEN
PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE
WITH EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY
SAID PIJRCHASES
Item # 16K 1
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO HAVE TRAFFIC CONTROL
JURISDICTION OVER PRIVATE ROADS WITHIN THE
ISI,AND WALK SI IlqDIVISION
Item #16K2
WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY, TO THE EXTENT
THAT IS NECESSARY, AND RATIFY AND AUTHORIZE THE
RETENTION OF THOMAS G. PELHAM, ESQ., AS A
CONSULTANT OR EXPERT ON LAND USE PLANNING
ISSUES IN AQUAPORT V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 2:01-
CV-341-FTM-29DNF, NOW PENDING IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
ANY NF, CF, SSARY RFJTFNTION DOCI JMENTS
Item #16K3
WAIVE THE PURCHASING POLICY TO THE EXTENT IT
MAY BE NECESSARY AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO HIRE THE FIRM OF CARLTON, FIELDS
PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S CONTINUING WITH THAT
FIRM AND SPECIFICALLY ATTORNEY'S MARTI
CHUMBLER AND DONALD HEMKE TO DEFEND THE
Page 226
February 11, 2003
COUNTY IN AN ALLEGED CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FOR
INVERSE CONDEMNATION AND INVALIDATION OF
MORATORIUM THAT IS STYLED CENTURY
DEVELOPMENT OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., ETAL, V. JEB
BUSH, ETAL, CASE NO. 03-117-CA-HDH, NOW PENDING IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND
APPROVE FIJNDING AND FIIIDGET AMENDMENT
Item #17A
RESOLUTION 2003-75 RE: CU-2002-AR-2836 CRAIG SMITH,
OWNER AND OPERATOR OF NAPLES PROGRESSIVE
GYMNASTICS, AN EXISTING FACILITY, IS SEEKING
APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USES "19" AND "20" OF
THE AGRICULTURAL "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR SPORTS
INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOLS AND CAMPS AND SPORT1NG
AND RECREATIONAL CAMPS PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3275 PINE RIDGE ROAD
Page 227
February 11, 2003
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTRO
TOM~
DWI~'E' B~'~CK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented ~ or as co~ected
3-11-0~
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 228