BCC Minutes 06/24/2003 R
June 24, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, June 24, 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
Jay Cross, Office of the Clerk of Court
Dwight Brock, Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
;}
AGENDA
June 24, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAJ( 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.
1
June 24,2003
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP 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
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMP AIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. James Silcox, Clinical Pastoral Education Department, Naples Community
Hospital
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of to day's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. May 27, 2003 - Regular
C. June 3, 2003 - Workshop
D. June 3, 2003 - Special
E. June 11, 2003 - Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
Twentv- Year Attendee:
1) Brian Sansone, Wastewater Collections
Twenty-Five Year Attendee:
2
June 24, 2003
2) David Sanchez, Transportation! Road Maintenance
Thirtv- Year Attendee:
3) Robert Costner, Transportation! Road Maintenance
4. PROCLAMATIONS
A. Proclamation to designate the month of November 2003 as Celebrate the
Arts Month in Collier County. To be accepted by William O'Neill,
President of the United Arts Council Board and Elaine Hamilton, Executive
Director of the United Arts Council of Collier County.
B. Proclamation to observe July as Parks and Recreation Month which
recognizes all the benefits derived from quality public and private recreation
and park resources within Collier County. To be accepted by Marla
Ramsey, Director of Collier County Parks and Recreation Department.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation to Representative Mike Davis, chosen by the Florida
Association of Counties as "Freshman of the Year 2003". (Commissioner
Tom Henning)
B. Recommendation to recognize Troy Pirosseno, Tradesworker Craftsman,
Facilities Management Department, as Employee of the Month for June
2003.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
A. Public Petition request by Mr. Kyle Kinney to initiate an agreement for the
transfer of ownership of Oakmont Parkway Extension from the Pelican Bay
Foundation to Collier County.
7. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. CU-2002-AR-2354,
William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development Inc.,
representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church, requesting
3
June 24, 2003
..-.---"..-. -----
Conditional Uses 3 and 4 of the "E" Estates District to add a child care and
pre-school to the existing Faith Community Church, located at 6455 22nd
Avenue NW, further described as part of Tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate
Estates Unit 97.
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Adoption of a Resolution applying the annual mid-cycle year indexing
adjustments to amend the Parks and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee Rate
Schedule, which is Schedule Three of Appendix A of Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances (Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance No. 2001-13, as amended); providing for a delayed
effective date.
B. This item reauires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided bv Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3011,
Dwight H. Nadeau, ofR.W.A., Inc., representing A.R.M. Development,
Corp., of S.W. Florida, Inc., requesting a rezone from "A" Rural Agriculture
to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as "Tuscany Cove" PUD
for a residential development for a maximum of 425 residential dwelling
units generally located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951),
approximately Ih mile south of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Section 26,
Township 48 south, Range 26 east, consisting of 78.07 acres.
C. Board approval of an Ordinance to extend the additional ninth cent local
option fuel tax.
D. Board approval of an Ordinance to extend the additional six-cents local
option fuel tax.
E. Board approval of an Ordinance to extend the additional five-cent local
option fuel tax.
F. This item continued from the June 10~ 2003 BCC Meetin2. An
Ordinance of Collier County, Florida, to protect against hazards from
substandard construction in public right-of-way; providing purpose and
definitions; adoption of Construction Standards Handbook; requiring
permits; requiring removal of offending material from right-of-way;
repealing Ordinance No. 82-91, as amended by Ordinance 89-26, as
amended by Ordinance 93-64; providing rule of construction of this
4
June 24, 2003
ordinance; providing for conflict and severability, providing for penalties;
providing an effective date.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Recommendation to declare a vacancy on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory
Board.
B. Appointment of members to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
C. Appointment of member to the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
D. Item continued from May 27~ 2003 BCC Meetinf! and is further
continued to the July 29~ 2003 BCC Meetinf!. A Resolution to establish
the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee.
E. Appointment of member to the Revenue Commission.
F. Request to approve a resolution extending the term of the Collier County
Health and Human Services Advisory Committee, and extending the term of
members of the Collier County Health and Human Services Advisory
Committee.
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Presentation to the Board of County Commissioners by the Greater Naples
Area Chamber of Commerce and the Solid Waste Management Department
of a twelve-month progress report regarding the suspended ordinance
establishing a mandatory non-residential recycling program within the
Unincorporated Areas of Collier County. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
B. Reject a request by Surfsedge Inc. for reimbursement for the removal of
beach sand in the amount of$3,782.56. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public
Utilities)
C. Obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners to consider the
Hammock Isles Project under provisions Collier County Land Development
Code (LDC), Division 3.15 Regulations for the Issuance ofa Certificate of
Adequate Public Facilities (COA) by determining that the subject
5
June 24, 2003
development was in process prior to the effective date of the Collier County
Land Development Code amendment to Division 3.15, which became
effective February 6, 2003. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator, Community
Development)
D. Adopt a resolution authorizing condemnation of fee simple title interests
and/or those perpetual or temporary easement interests required for the
construction of a six -lane section of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Airport
Road and Collier Boulevard (Capital Improvement Element No. 63, Project
No. 63051). Estimated fiscal impact: $5,765,600. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
E. Approve agreement for the purchase of property for a Public Utilities'
Division Operations Center at a cost not to exceed $8,200,000 (Land,
Buildings and Associated Improvements), Project Numbers 73072 and
70059. (Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
F. Approve the expansion of the previously approved four lane portion of the
Good1ette Frank Road Project, from Center Street to Orange Blossom Drive,
to a six lane project and approve the extended use of the previously
approved contractor and consultants, Ajax Paving Industries, Inc., Johnson
Engineering, Inc., and PBS&J Inc., Project No. 60134. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation Services)
G. Approve Guaranteed Maximum Price (G.M.P.) of$34,402,176 for Contract
No. 98-2829, Amendment #4 to Kraft Construction, Inc., for the
construction of the proposed Naples Jail Addition and Renovation, Parking
Deck and Chiller Plant Expansion. (Skip Camp, Interim Administrator,
Administrative Services)
H. Approve funding for water reliability improvements in the amount of
$3,380,500, Project 70094, 70893, 71011. (Jim DeLony, Administrator,
Public Utilities)
I. Amend Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Metcalf and
Eddy, Inc., for the South County Water Treatment Plant Reserve Osmosis
Expansion, Contract 98-2891, in the amount of $960,295, Project 70054.
(Jim DeLony, Administrator, Public Utilities)
6
June 24, 2003
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1) Recommendation that the Board approve the offsite removal of up to
16,000 cubic yards of excess fill from the public school site for Saba1
Palm Elementary Schoo110cated at 4095 18th Avenue N.E. in Unit 72
of Golden Gate Estates, bounded on the north by 20th Avenue N .E., on
the east by the future site of Middle School "EE", on the south by 18th
Avenue N.E., and on the west by the Faka Union Canal, based upon a
determination that the excavation work is not "Commercial", but will
obtain a "Development" Excavation Permit.
2) Request to accept an alternate security for that subdivision known as
Sierra Meadows, and enter into a new Construction, Maintenance and
Escrow Agreement.
3) Request to approve for recording the final plate of "Valencia Golf and
Country Club, Phase One", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security, and to accept certain off site drainage
easements.
4) Request approval and funding of a new position in the Tourism
Department that is currently a Contract for Services position.
7
June 24, 2003
5) The Board of County Commissioners find that Global Manufacturing
Technology, Inc., is in default under the Participating Party
Agreement (PPA) executed with the County on August 3,1999.
6) Approval of Release of Lien for nuisance abatement recorded as
Resolution No's: 90-550; 90-101; 91-406; 94-252; and 94-198 styled
Board of County Commissioners Collier County, Florida vs. Elizabeth
Chambers.
7) Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No.'s: 2003-004; 2001-018; 2002-009 and 2000-022.
8) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Char1ee Estates",
and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance
Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
9) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Quail West Phase
III, Unit Six", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
Performance Security.
10) Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Bolero at Tiburon,
Pelican Marsh.
11) Authorize Environmental Services Staff to submit a Grant proposal to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for $6,845 (of which
$3,200 will be reimbursable) to fund wetland p1antings and
educational sign at Lake Avalon.
12) Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve terminating
the Collier County Tourism Agreement with Visit Naples, Inc., and
cancel the existing purchase order.
13) Request that the Board of County Commissioners approve a Second
Amendment to the Tourism Agreement with Kelley Swafford and
Roy, Inc., (KSR) for implementation of an FY02103
Emergency/Disaster Relief Marketing Budget Plan of up to $320,000.
8
June 24, 2003
14) Approve a Tourist Development Category "A" Beach Park Facilities
Grant Application in the amount of $40,700.
15) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Arrowhead Reserve
at Lake Trafford - Phase One", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the Performance Security.
16) Establishment of a program to provide assistance to affordable
housing rental developments.
17) A resolution authorizing submission of an application to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for Urban
County Re-Qualification for continued participation in the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal
Years 2004-2006.
18) A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, pertaining to the City of Marco Island's continued
participation in Collier County's Urban County Community
Development Block Grant and Home Programs for Federal Fiscal
Years 2004-2006; and providing an effective date.
19) A resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, pertaining to the City of Naples continued
participation in Collier County's Urban County Community
Development Block Grant and Home Programs for Federal Fiscal
Years 2004-2006; and providing an effective date.
20) Approval of three (3) impact fee reimbursements totaling $11,978.94
due to overpaYment on building permits.
21) Approval of three (3) impact fee reimbursements totaling $9,960.82
due to overpaYment or cancellation of building permits.
22) Approval of Contract 03-3504, in the amount of$72,144, with
Tinda1e-Oliver and Associates, Inc., for consultant services for a
government buildings impact fee study.
9
June 24, 2003 .
23) Approve a Tourism Agreement with the City of Naples for T-Groin
Monitoring, Project 90005, in the amount of $96,954.
24) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
CONSENT ITEM. To approve the authorization of a six-month
extension of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
period from Financial Administration and Housing Department, for
the Stormwater Management and Infrastructure Program in the
Gateway Triang1e/Shadow1awn Neighborhood.
25) To approve a budget amendment transferring $500,000 from
Community Development and Environmental Services Fund 113
Building Permit Reserves to Capital for the refurbishment of the
existing Community Development and Environmental Services
(CDES) Building.
26) Adoption of Resolution 03-_ requesting that Naples Bay be
designed by the South Florida Water Management District as a
Surface Water and Improvement Management (SWIM) Project and be
included in the Swim Program.
27) To approve a budget amendment in the amount of $75,000 from
Reserves to Operating and Capital within the impact fee section of
Community Development and Environmental Services Division.
28) First amendment to Tourism Agreement with Evans-Klages, Inc., for
expanded market research services.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1) Request Board approve a Landscape Installation and Maintenance
Agreement among WCI Communities, Inc., Hammock Bay Owners
Association and Collier County for landscaping along Mainsail Drive.
2) Request Board approval for the Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with American Funding and Service Corporation as Trustee for the
future landscaping and maintenance on Hemingway Place.
3) Approval of the FY2004 Transit Development Plan Update.
10
June 24, 2003
4) Approve an Interagency Agreement between Collier County and the
State of Florida Department of Corrections, Hendry Correctional
Institution, for continued use of inmate labor in road maintenance
activities.
5) Approval Bid #03-3511, Immokalee Road Mowing MSTD Roadway
Grounds Maintenance in the amount of $199,940 to Commercial Land
Maintenance Inc.
6) Approve Contract Amendment No. 01-3216-A01, Contract No. 01-
3216, with Woods Hole Group for the Haldeman Creek Restoration
Project (Project No. 51011) in the amount of $40,329 and approve
funding for Tasks 7 and 8 for $76,374.50.
7) Award Contracts RFP 03-3462 "Fixed Term Professional Planning
Services for Right-of-Way Acquisition" (Estimated dollar amount of
contract not to exceed $500,000 annually per firm).
8) Approve Bid #03-3516, Award of "Devonshire Boulevard Irrigation
Installation" to Hannula Irrigation, Inc., in the amount of$58,689.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES
1) Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3427 "Environmental Engineering,
Remediation and Restoration Services for Collier County".
2) Approve two budget amendments for Public Utilities Engineering
Department project management costs related to the Vanderbilt
Lagoon Restoration Study in the amount of $20,000.
3) Award Contracts 03-3484 "Fixed Term Instrumentation and Controls
Engineering Services" (estimated annual amount $1,000,000) to the
following firms: Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., Q. Grady Minor
and Associates, and McKim and Creed.
4) Award Bid 03-3499R, South County Water Reclamation Facility Belt
Press Walkway modifications, to NR Contractors Inc., in the amount
of $39,500 (to be funded by the Wastewater Operations Budget).
11
June 24,2003
5) Approve the Satisfaction of Lien documents filed against Real
Property for Abatement of Nuisance and direct the Clerk of Courts to
record same in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Fiscal
impact is $96.00 to record the liens.
6) Award Bid #03-3514 to Perkinelmer for the purchase ofa gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometer system in the amount of $74,984.
7) Approve a budget amendment to create a new Public Utilities project
to prepare a 2003 update to the reclaimed water master plan and reuse
rate study in the amount of $49,926.
8) Authorize conveyance of utility easements to Florida Power and Light
Company for the installation of underground electric facilities to serve
the South County Water Reclamation Facility Expansion Project
73949, at an amount not to exceed $50.
9) Approval and execution for Satisfactions of Notice of Claim of lien
for sanitary sewer system impact fee. Fiscal impact is $18.00 to
record the liens.
10) Accept easement for 12-inch potable water line and associated water
facilities executed by Relleum, Inc., regarding the Balmoral PUD.
11) Approve Work Order #UC-054 with Kyle Construction Inc., in the
amount of $210,000.00 for construction of fire and irrigation water
system improvements at Pelican Bay Woods in Pelican Bay, Project
Number 74023.
12) Accept utility and temporary construction easements for construction
of Phase II of the sewer interconnect project to redirect flow between
the North and South County Sewer Systems at a cost not to exceed
$550. (Project No. 73076)
13) Approve a Donation Agreement and accept an amended utility
easement for Phase I Sewer Interconnect Project which redirects flow
between the North and South County Sewer Systems at a cost not to
exceed $500.
12
June 24, 2003
14) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $56,008.40 for
transferring funds from Unincorporated General Fund, Fund Ill, to
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees, Funds 411 and 413, respectively,
to reimburse these funds for consultant services performed for areas
outside of the County Water-Sewer District.
15) Approve Work Order #UC-055 with Kyle Construction Inc., in the
amount of $240,000.00 for construction of fire and irrigation water
system improvements at Oakmont in Pelican Bay, Project Number
74023.
16) Approve a resolution authorizing the submission of a loan application
to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) for the
North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) Expansion to
24.1-Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) Maximum Month Average
Daily Flow (MMADF) Solids Stream; authorizing the Loan
Agreement; establishing Pledged Revenues; designating authorized
Representatives; providing Assurance; and providing for Conflicts,
Severability, and Effective Date, Project 739502, at no cost.
17) Defer a work order amendment, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed
Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone
Management Projects, with Humiston and Moore Engineers for
Hideaway Beach Access Improvements, Project 90511, within
existing Work Order Budget.
18) Approve an Engineering Services Work Order, under Contract #01-
3271, Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone
Management Projects, with Humiston and Moore Engineers for
Hideaway Beach Renourishment Permitting, Project 90502, in the
amount of$103,000.
19) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $131 ,289 and two
work orders, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term Professional
Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects, with
Coastal Planning and Engineering for Sand Search Phase 3 and
Marine Resources Investigation as part of County-Wide Sand Search,
Project 90527, in the total amount of$899,000.
13
June 24,2003
20) Approve Work Order GH-FT-03-05 with Greeley and Hansen, LLP,
to conduct the 2003 updates to the Water and Wastewater Master Plan
and Impact Fee Studies, for the total amount of $221 ,600, Projects
70070 and 73066.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
1) Recommendation to declare Parcel 114 of Golden Gate Estates Unit
35 (Proposed Livingston Woods Neighborhood Park) as surplus
properties, sell and return funds to General Fund.
2) Award Bid No. 03-3486 for the purchase of emergency medications to
Aero Products, Alliance Medical, Biomedical International
Emergency Medical Products, RX EMS, SE Emergency Equipment,
and Sun Belt Medical for the Emergency Medical Services
Department, budgeted funds for these purchases are $65,000.
3) Approve a modification in the amount of$4,600.00 to purchase Order
#4500010298 with Enterprise Rent-A-Car for vehicle rentals for the
Summer Food Service Program.
4) Approve the addition of Screen Printing Unlimited as an additional
vendor to Contract #03-3478 for t-shirts for various Parks and
Recreation Programs.
5) Approve the Donation Agreement from David W. Fisher and Kay J.
Britt, as Successor Trustees of the Harold W. Fisher Trust, for a future
playground in Copeland at a cost not to exceed $2,700.
6) Approve Change Order #5 in the amount of$77,358.75 for additional
design work for North Naples Regional Park, Contract #99-2947.
7) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $50,000 to ensure
continuous funding of the home and community bases Medicaid
Waiver Grant.
8) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $544 to ensure
continuous funding of the Alzheimer's Disease Initiative Grant.
14
June 24, 2003
9) Approve a budget amendment of $2,436 to recognize additional Grant
Revenue in the RSVP Program.
10) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $6,069 to ensure
continuous funding of the Home Care for the Elderly Grant.
11) Approve a budget amendment in the amount of $204,523 to ensure
continuous funding of the Community Care for the Elderly Grant.
12) Authorization to approve an Extension of an Agreement with the
Southeastern Library Network (SOLINET) and permission for the
Chairman to sign agreement.
13) Approval of a Sole Source Service Agreement with Medtronic
Physio-Control for the maintenance and upgrade of Lifepak Monitors
for the Emergency Medical Services Department in the amount of
$33,132.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1) Authorize audit of Financial Management System Configuration
under Contract 98-2794.
2) Approval of the Collier County Government Equal Employment
Opportunity Plan.
3) Report and ratify staff-approved change orders to Board-approved
contracts.
4) Approve and authorize the twenty-year limited We ather- Tightness
Warranty Series 2500,2" Mechanically Seamed Roofing System,
Manufactured by Englert, Inc., as installed, at the Max Hasse
Community Center as expressed in Contract No. 00-3128,
"Construction of the Max Hasse Community Center".
5) Approval of temporary living expenses to James W. DeLony,
Administrator for Public Utilities and authorization of payment.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
15
June 24, 2003
1) Approve Modification #1 to the Continuity of Operations Planning
Grant previously approved by the Board of County Commissioners on
March 11, 2003.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
1) Approve a budget amendment for $105,600 to increase budgeted
revenues and budgeted expenses for the sale and purchase of aviation
fuel at Marco Island Executive Airport.
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
J. 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. A copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, 2nd Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Naples.
2) The Finance and Accounting Department seeks authorization from the
Board of County Commissioners to file the State of Florida Annual
Local Government Financial Report for the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 as
required by Florida Statute 218.32.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Approval of Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release involving
litigation in Collier County v. The Carlisle at Naples~ Ltd.~ Case
No. 03-230-CA in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit.
2) Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the acquisition of
Parcels 113 and 713 in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Faith
Bible Church of Naples, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-2165-CA
16
June 24, 2003
(Immoka1ee Road, Project No. 69101).
3) Item continued from the June 10~ 2003 BCC Meetin2. Approve a
proposed settlement agreement providing for abatement of violation
and compromise of lien in two Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures
entitled Collier County v. Anthony J. Varano, Case No.'s: 99-4226-
CA and 00-3430-CA.
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS
RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF
ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL
OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING
AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF
THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE
HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE SWORN
IN.
A. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-2002-AR-3054,
James E. McDonald or Karen P. Shelton, representing the Trustees of
Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, requesting Conditional Use "2" (Churches
and Houses of Worship) and Conditional Use "4" (Child Care) of the RSF-3
Zoning District. The request is to incorporate an existing single-family
home on Lot 21 into the existing use as a church, and to permit a pre-school
and child care in the church building only. The property to be considered for
the Conditional Use is located at 1225 and 1301 Piper Boulevard on the
north side of Piper Boulevard in Section 24, Township 48 south, Range 25
east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 2.24 acres.
B. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2003-AR-3607,
William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development Inc.,
representing Barton and Wendy McIntyre and Joseph Magdalener,
requesting changes to the existing Nicaea Academy PUD Zoning. The
17
June 24, 2003
proposed changes to the PUD document and master plan will eliminate the
uses of private school and assisted living facility and allow for a maximum
of 580 residential dwelling units. The property to be considered for this
rezone is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard just south of the
Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park), in Section 26, Township 48 south, Range 26
east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 119+ acres.
C. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-2869,
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.,
representing Panther Development, L.P., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to
"PUD" Planned Unit Development having the effect of changing the name
from Ronto Livingston PUD to Tuscany Reserve PUD, showing a change in
ownership, reducing dwelling units from 1380 to 799, reducing density from
2.98 to 1.73 dwelling units per acre, and adding a Village Center Land Use
District; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 2000-04, as
amended, the former Ronto Livingston PUD; for property located west of
Interstate 75 and east of Livingston Road at the Collier-Lee County Line, in
Section 7, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, and Section 12, Township 48
south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 461.29+ acres.
D. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition PUDZ-02-AR-
3161, Mr. Robert Duane of Hole Montes, Inc., representing the Botanical
Gardens Inc requesting a rezone from "C-3" "RSF-3" "RSF-4" "RSF-5"
., ""
"RMF -6", and "PUD" to PUD, Planned Unit Development to be known as
the Naples Botanical Garden PUD consisting of an education center,
conservatory, exhibition gallery, maintenance nursery, pedestrian ways
through various garden areas and a theater for property located on the
southwest comer of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 23,
Township 50 south, Range 25 east, Collier County, Florida.
E. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-2433,
William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc.,
representing David A. Custer ofH.D. Development, LLC, requesting a
rezone from "A" Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as H.D. Development PUD for 104 residential dwelling units for
property located on the north side of Immoka1ee Road approximately 1.25
miles east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 21, Township 48 south, Range 26
18
June 24, 2003
east, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 46.64+ acres.
F. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. SE-03-AR-4038, an
ordinance amending Ordinance 02-26, the Amerisite Rezone to correct a
Scrivener's Error resulting from the unintentional inclusion of an incorrect
legal description in the transmittal copy of the adopted ordinance to the
Department of State for the property located on the east side of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 14, Township 50 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
G. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition SNR-2003-
AR-3868, Kathleen Bailie of Bonness Inc., representing Kathleen Court
Property Owners Association, Inc., requesting a street name change for the
portion of Houchin Street which begins at the intersection of Seward Avenue
and continues south to be named Kathleen Court, a local street located in the
southwest one-quarter of Section 11, Township 49 south, Range 25 east,
Collier County, Florida.
H. Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of
Laws and Ordinances, the same being the Collier County Consolidated
Impact Fee Ordinance, 2001-13, as amended, providing criteria and
guidelines for the reimbursement of impact fees, authorizing the assessment
of a non-refundable "Impact Fee Reimbursement Processing Fee" and
providing clarification for the assessment of impact fees for changes of size
or use.
I. This item has been withdrawn. ADA-03-AR-4050, C. Lane Wood, of
Quarles and Brady, LLP, representing William T. Higgs, Owner of White
Lake Corporate Park PUD, requesting an appeal to Interpretation AR-3202
which was rendered on March 26,2003, regarding PUD development
standards prevailing over regulations of the Collier County Land
Development Code and an interpretation regarding buffering requirements
ofPUD Ordinance 01-59 prevailing over the buffering requirements of
Ordinance 03-03.
J. This item has been continued to the July 29~ 2003 BCC Meetin2. PUDZ-
2002-AR-2841, Richard Woodruff, AICP, of Wilson Miller, Inc., and R.
Bruce Anderson, Esquire, of Young, Van Assenderp, Vamadoe and
19
June 24, 2003
Anderson, P.A., representing U.S. Home Corporation, requesting a rezone
from "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be
known as Heritage Bay DRI/PUD for a maximum of 3,450 residential
dwelling units, 50,000 square feet of office uses, 150,000 square feet of
retail uses, and assisted living facility containing up to 200 units for property
located on the northeast comer of Immoka1ee Road and Collier Boulevard
(CR 951), in Sections 13, 14,23 and 24, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,562 +/- acres. (Companion Item to
DRI-2000-0 1)
K. This item has been continued to the July 29~ 2003 BCC Meetin2. DRI-
2000-01, Richard Woodruff, of Wilson Miller, Inc., representing U.S. Home
Corporation, requesting approval of a development order for the Heritage
Bay Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to allow for a mix of
residential, assisted living facilities, recreational facilities and commercial
and office uses for property located on the northeast comer of Immoka1ee
Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 13,14,23 and
24, Township 48 south, Range 26 east. (Companion Item to PUDZ-2002-
AR-2841)
L. This item reQuires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3512:
D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and
Richard D. Yovanovich of Good1ette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.,
representing TBI/Naples Ltd., requesting a rezone from "PUD" to "PUD"
for a project previously known as Naples Forest Country Club to now be
named Naples Lakes Country Club PUD, to amend the commercial
component of the PUD document to revise the schedule of permitted uses in
the commercial/office designated tract of the PUD, and to reduce the
commercial square footage from 150,000 square feet to a maximum of
110,000 square feet for property located at the NW comer of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) in Section
15, Township 50 south, Range 26 east, consisting of 485.02+ acres.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
20
June 24, 2003
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County to order. Today, June 24th, 2003.
This morning we have James Silcox from Clinical Pastoral
Education Department of Naples Community Hospital that will give
the invocation today. Followed by that would be the Pledge of
Allegiance led by representative staff aide Eric Zichella.
Would you all rise and join me for the invocation and the
pledge.
MR. SILCOX: Let us pray. Almighty God, who has promised
to hear the petitions of those who ask in faith, direct this body in all
its doings with the almost gracious favor that all here may serve
justice and promote the dignity of every human being, guide their
judgment through doubts and uncertainties, grant them wisdom
tempered with compassion, bestow upon them the grace to seek that
which you would have them do, save them from false choices, shed
your light upon the straight path, and bless all who labor upon this
commISSIon.
These things we ask in your name, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY, AND CONSENT AGENDA-
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Good morning to all.
I'd ask the county attorney, do we have any additions,
corrections, deletions to today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No. I think that all
the changes are appropriately noted, and revisions to the record on
the change list that the county manager will direct you through.
Thank you.
Page 2
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County Manager Jim Mudd.
MR. MUDD: Good morning, Commiss -- Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners.
Agenda changes for June 24th, 2003.
The first item is item 6(A), and it's withdrawn, and that was a
public petition request by Mr. Kyle Kinney to initiate an agreement
for the transfer of ownership of Oakmont Parkway Extension from
the Pelican Bay Foundation to Collier County. Again, that item is
withdrawn, and that's at the petitioner's request.
Now there's a new item that's not on your list, and it's item 7(A),
and it's continued. And this is a -- this is CU-2002-AR-2354,
William Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc.,
representing Pastor Roy Shuck of Faith Community Church
requesting conditional use three and four of the "E" Estates district to
add a childcare and preschool to the existing Faith Community
Church located at 6455 22nd Avenue Northwest, further described as
part of tracts 15 and 16, Golden Gate Estates, unit 97. Again, that
item is continued, and it will be till the 29th of July.
The next item is item --
MS. FILSON: On that item, Mr. Chairman, I have six speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to hear that on the 29th
of July or thereafter --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- which has to be readvertised, and
the folks need to be, in the area, notified of the change.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're not going to hear those
speakers at this time.
MR. MUDD: And that continuation was at the petitioner's
request.
Item 1 O( C) should read, obtain direction from the Board of
County Commissioners to consider the Hammock Isles project under
Page 3
June 24, 2003
previous, rather than provisions, Collier County Land Development
code, LDC, Division 3.15, regulations for the issuance of a
Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities, in brackets, COA, by
determining that the subj ect development was in process prior to the
effective date of the Collier County Land Development Code
amendment to Division 3.15, which became effective February 6,
2003, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is 16(A)21, to be read into the record. The fire
impact fees accessed/collected for the Big Corkscrew Island Fire
District should have been the North Naples Fire District. We're just
trying to get the right fire district of this particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's so many of them.
MR. MUDD: There -- there was an administrative error -- there
was an administrative error in the assessment of the fees. The fees
being reimbursed were paid into the wrong fund, thus they will be
reimbursed from the same fund by the building department who has
signature authority on the fire accounts, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is item 16(A)22. The dollar amount in the
recommendation on the executive summary is incorrect and should
read, that the Board of County Commissioners approve the contract
in the amount of $72,144 for the professional consultant services for
preparation of a government building's impact fee study and approve
the necessary budget amendments, and that's at staffs request.
The next item is 16(A)24. This item to be approved by the
Board of County Commissioners as the Community Redevelopment
Agency Board, or CRA. To approve the authorization of a six-month
extension of the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG,
period for the financial administration and housing department for
the Stormwater Management and Infrastructure Program in the
Gateway Triangle/Shadowlawn neighborhood, and that's at staffs
request.
The next item is item 16(C)12. The recommendation should
Page 4
June 24, 2003
read, authorize the chairman to execute donation agreement once
approved by the county attorney, and that's at staff s request.
Item 16( C) 13, like 16( C) 12, the recommendation should read,
authorize the chairman to execute donation agreement once approved
by the county attorney, again, by staffs request.
The next item is item 16(D) 1. The recommendation should
read, staff recommends that the BCC find it to be in the best interest
of the public and declare this parcel surplus property to be sold in
accordance with statute 125.35, Florida Statutes, and the proceeds
returned to the general fund, and that's at staffs request.
Item 17(B) will be continued to the July 29th, 2003, BCC
meeting, and that's PUDZ-2003-AR-3607, and that's William L.
Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc.,
representing Barton and Wendy McIntyre and Joseph Magdalener,
requesting changes to the existing Nicaea Academy PUD zoning.
The proposed change to the PUD development and master plan
will eliminate the uses of private school and assisted living facility
and allow for a maximum of 580 residential dwelling units.
The property to be considered for this rezone is located on the
east side of Collier Boulevard just south of the Crystal Lake PUD, in
brackets, R V park, in section 26, township 48 south, range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida. The property consists of 119 plus acres, and
that's at the petitioner's request.
Item 17(C), to be read into the record. Tuscany Reserve,
non-substantive changes were made to the PUD document for legal
sufficiency, and that's at staffs request.
And then item -- and the last item, thank goodness, is 17(E), to
be read into the record, correction to Table I, which is on page 78,
should indicate rear yards adjacent to Olde Cypress Golf Course
principal structure, 30 feet; accessory structure, 20 feet. Section 6.8,
tract 3, multi-family residential area shall have no access onto
Treeline Drive, and that's at staffs request.
Page 5
June 24, 2003
And the last item on the thing is something we'll talk about
during staff communication.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, it was reported in
the media that the Board of Commissioners will be discussing
Wiggins Pass Marina today. Is that on our agenda?
MR. MUDD: Not the agenda that I have in front of me nor that
has been advertised, no, it isn't, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any additions, deletions,
corrections to today's agenda, and --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, I might say that they're going in
front of the EAC soon, but not the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We have some people to go through first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or any ex parte communication on
today's summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have everything in this
particular file, anybody who wishes to see it, pertaining to any items
on the summary agenda. It's available for public view. And I have
nothing else to change or ask for changes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to,
very briefly, address item 16(A)13. I don't think it's necessary to pull
it, but I would like to ask that the staff agree to add something to it.
16(A) 13 is a request to establish a -- an emergency program for
the tourist development director in the amount of $320,000 to be
used at his discretion whenever an emergency occurs.
While I have great confidence in our tourist development
manager, I think we should not violate our existing process for
emergency approvals of funding. And what I would ask that this --
that the board and the staff do is to require that a decision to
implement and extend those $320,000 be made by the county
Page 6
June 24, 2003
manager under our existing emergency procedures with a ratification
by the Board of County Commissioners at the next regularly
scheduled meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That sounds great.
MR. MUDD: Done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see--
MR. MUDD: Staff has no problem with that, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- agreements all over.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And I have --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have no disclosures on the
summary agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have nothing on the
agenda, but disclosures, 7(A), which has already been withdrawn.
7(B), I had phone calls in regards to it. 7 -- or excuse me, 8(B), I had
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, was that 17(B) or 7(B)?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 7(B) I had phone calls on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on. I've got a few more.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And on 17, the summary agenda,
17(A), I had meetings, correspondence, and phone calls on, and that's
all of the ex parte items.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You've been busy.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
I have some -- yes. I've spoken -- on 17(A) I spoke to a few
Page 7
June 24, 2003
members after their church worship service over at Vanderbilt
Presbyterian Church just about their conditional use childcare. Also
-- now that's Vanderbilt Presbyterian, not the one that we were just
hearing of before.
On 17(D), we're talking about the Botanical Gardens, and I
spoke to a few members of the CRA as I sat in on their meeting to
get their opinions. They were all in favor of and very supportive of.
And that's all for disclosures.
But on 16(B) 1, I just have a question. You know me, I get into
all of these things. 16(B) 1, we're talking about the landscape
installation and maintenance agreement with WCI for Hammock
Bay.
Back on page four, number seven, second sentence, it says,
developer shall have five to remove the improvements. Five what?
Five days? Five months? Five years? I'm not quite sure, so I thought
I would just want that to be on the record. And I'm sorry that I'm
having to give this to you so late. It's not anything crucial. I just felt
that it should be corrected.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to pull that and correct
that? It will only take a few minutes if we just pull it from the
agenda. Why don't we do that, Commissioner, is that okay?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fine with me, sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
I have one ex parte communication on today's summary agenda.
That is 17(E), H.D. Development, I did meet with the petitioner.
I have no changes to today's agenda.
So I'd entertain a motion to approve today's regular, cons --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- consent and the summary as
amended.
Motion by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner
Page 8
June 24, 2003
Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Entertain a mo --
MR. MUDD: For the record, 16(B)1 will become 10(J).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 10(J), great.
Page 9
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
June 24.2003
Withdraw Item 6A: Public Petition request by Mr. Kyle Kinney to initiate an
agreement for the transfer of ownership of Oakmont Parkway Extension from the
Pelican Bay Foundation to Collier County. (Petitioner request.)
Item 10(C) should read: Obtain direction from the Board of County
Commissioners to consider the Hammock Isles Project under previous (rather
than provisions) Collier County land Development Code (lDC), Division 3.15,
Regulations for the Issuance of a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities (COA)
by determining that the subject development was in process prior to the effective
date of the Collier County land Development Code amendment to Division 3.15,
which became effective February 6, 2003. (Staff request.)
ITEM 16(A)21: To be read into the record: The Fire Impact Fees
assessed/collected for Big Corkscrew Island Fire District should have been North
Naples Fire District. There was an administrative error in the assessment of the
fees. The fees being reimbursed were paid into the wrong fund, thus they will be
reimbursed from the same fund by the Building Department who has signature
authority on the fire accounts. (Staff request.)
Item 16(A)22: The dollar amount in the recommendation on the executive
summary is incorrect and should read: "That the Board of County
Commissioners approve a contract in the amount of $72,144 for professional
consultant services for preparation of a Government Buildings Impact Fee study
and approve the necessary budget amendments." (Staff request.)
Item 16(A)24: This item to be approved bv the Board of County Commissioners as
the Community Redevelopment Aaencv Board (CRA). To approve the
authorization of a six-month extension of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) period from Financial Administration and Housing Department, for
the Stormwater Management and Infrastructure Program in the Gateway
Triangle/Shadowlawn Neighborhood. (Staff request.)
Item 16(C)12 the recommendation should read: "authorize the Chairman to
execute Donation agreement, once approved by County Attorney, . .." (Staff
request.)
Item 16(C)13 the recommendation should read: "authorize the Chairman to
execute Donation agreement once approved by County Attorney, . .." (Staff
request.)
Item 16(0)1 recommendation should read: staff recommends that the BCC find it
to be in the best interest of the public and declare this parcel surplus property to
be sold in accordance with s.125.35, Fla. Stat., and the proceeds returned to the
General Fund." (Staff request.)
Page 2
Agenda Changes
June 24, 2003
Item 17(B) continued to the Julv 29. 2003 BCC Meetina: PUDZ-2003-AR-3607.
William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc., representing
Barton and Wendy Mcintyre and Joseph Magdalener, requesting changes to the
existing Nicaea Academy PUD zoning. The proposed changes to the PUD
document and master plan will eliminate the uses of private school and assisted
living facility and allow for a maximum of 580 residential dwelling units. The
property to be considered for this rezone is located on the east side of Collier
Boulevard just south of the Crystal Lake PUD (RV Park), in Section 26, Township
48 south, Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 119+
acres. (Petitioner's request.)
Item 17(C): To be read into the record: Tuscany Reserve - non-substantive
changes were made to the PUD document for legal sufficiency. (Staff request.)
Item 17E: To be read into the record: Correction to Table I, which is on page 78,
should indicate rear yards adjacent to Olde Cypress Golf Course principal
structure: 30 feet; accessory structure: 20 feet. Section 6.8 Tract 3 - Multi-family
residential area shall have no access onto Treeline Drive. (Staff request.)
NOTE: Bring up under Communications: November and December BCC meeting
schedule. Recommending November 18, December 2 and December 16, 2003.
June 24, 2003
Item #2B, Item #2C, Item #2D, and Item #2E
MINUTES OF MAY 27, 2003 REGULAR MEETING; MINUTES
OF JUNE 3, 2003 WORKSHOP MEETING; MINUTES OF JUNE
3,2003 SPECIAL MEETING; AND MINUTES OF JUNE 11,2003
Entertain a motion to accept May 27, '03, regular meeting; June
3rd, '03, workshop; June 3rd, '03, special meeting; June 11th, '03,
workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle to
accept those minutes of the meeting, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Item #3
SERVICE AWARDS: TWENTY-YEAR TO BRIAN SANSONE OF
WASTEWATER COLLECTIONS, TWENTY-FIVE YEAR TO
DA VID SANCHEZ OF TRANSPORTATION/ROAD
MAINTENANCE, AND THIRTY-YEAR TO ROBERT COSTNER
Page 10
June 24, 2003
Today we have service awards from some of our -- recognizing
some of our great employees, and Commissioner Coyle is going to
lead us in that process.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner Coyle, it's indeed an honor. Our
first awardee is a 20- year awardee, and that is to Brian Sansone of
Wastewater Collections.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Brian Sansone.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank you very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Come on, Brian.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you mind if we get a picture?
CAMERA WOMAN: Excuse me, sir. Would you like to get a
picture with all the commissioners?
MR. SANSONE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We'll give you the gavel.
MR. SANSONE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now you've got to give a
10-minute speech.
MR. SANSONE: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Brian.
The next -- the next awardee is a 25-year awardee, and that's
David Sanchez from Transportation Road Maintenance.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations. Thank very
much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow, what service. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
Page 11
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hope the next 25 are as
rewarding.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Turn around and get a picture.
Block the big guy.
(Applause.)
MR. MUDD: The next awardee is a 3D-year awardee, and that's
Robert Costner from Transportation and Road Maintenance.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: A lot of people haven't even lived
here 30 years.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the first 30.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Turn right around and face the
camera, sIr.
(Applause.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF
NOVEMBER 2003 AS CELEBRATE THE ARTS MONTH IN
COLLIER COl.INTY - ADOEIED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The next item is 4(A), and this is a
proclamation recognizing November, '03, as Celebrate the Arts
Month in Collier County. Accepting this is William O'Neill,
president of the Arts Council, and Elaine Hamilton. And
Commissioner Fiala will read the proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. Come on up, yes.
This is, indeed, a pleasure and an honor to be reading this. Of
course, you all know that I have a special place in my heart for the
Page 12
June 24, 2003
arts, so I really love doing this.
This proclamation states: Whereas, the arts and cultural
community of Collier County enriches the lives of all residents and
visitors; and,
Whereas, tourism in Collier County is significantly enhanced by
the area's diverse offerings of art and cultural activities; and,
Whereas, the arts playa key role in the business community and
make a significant contribution to the county's economy; and,
Whereas, members of the arts community play an active role in
area schools, enhancing the students' education; and,
Whereas, there is an expansive arts community in Collier
County with 50 plus arts and cultural organizations, 750 plus
professional artists and musicians, 200 plus art galleries, and
thousands of art lovers; and,
Whereas, the United Arts Council of Collier County is
organizing a series of art and cultural events throughout Collier
County during the month of November, 2003.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that November, 2003, be
Celebrate the Arts Month in Collier County, and we call upon our
citizens to celebrate the arts and culture. We encourage residents and
visitors to support arts and cultural organizations in the county and to
participate in activities scheduled during the celebration.
Done and ordered this 24th day of June, 2003, Board of County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning, chairman.
Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 13
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's so nice. I'm none of those
talented people. I'm the one that buys their stuff.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Would you like to make a little
speech afterwards?
MR. O'NEILL: Ten seconds.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good, anything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Nine, eight, seven.
MR. O'NEILL: I have a lawyer.
Thank you so much. The United Arts Council, as you know, is
the local arts agency charged with promoting and advancing the arts
In our area.
The recent cultural assessment which we accomplished with the
assistance of the county commission under the United Arts Council
auspices show that the arts are a vital and crucial part of our
environment, our education, and our community.
November will be a month-long celebration of the arts designed
to showcase the contribution of all the arts to our community, and we
appreciate the commission approving it and passing this resolution
giving support to that celebration.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, before we move on
to the next proclamation, I'd like to recognize staff -- Collier County
Page 14
June 24, 2003
staff liaison to Congressman Mario Diaz-Ballard, Steve Hart. Steve,
thanks for being here today. Also with us is staff member from
representative Dudley Goodlette, Sarah -- and I don't know Sarah's
last name -- but Sarah, thank you for being here.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ennis.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sarah Ennis, thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION OBSERVING JULY AS PARKS AND
RECREATION MONTH WHICH RECOGNIZES ALL THE
BENEFITS DERIVED FROM QUALITY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
RECREATION AND PARK RESOURCES WITHIN COLLIER
COI.INTV - A nrreIED
Proclamation -- the next proclamation is observing July as parks
and recs month. Today we have parks director -- parks director,
Marla Ramsey, also she has a -- the advisory board to the parks and
rec.
Marla, would you come up, please, along with the advisory
board, and Commissioner Coletta will read this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it's, indeed, an honor.
This is one of the better written proclamations that I've seen in my
term as a commissioner.
Whereas, the use of our parks and participation in recreational
(sic) programs add more balance to life, provide care to latchkey
kids, increase communication skills, build self-esteem, teach vital life
skills, and provide safe places to play; and,
Whereas, the benefits provided by the parks and recreational
( sic) program serve to boost the economy, enhance property values,
attract new businesses, increase tourism, reduce crime, diminish gang
violence, and curb employee absenteeism; and,
Page 15
June 24, 2003
Whereas, the productive use of leisure time builds family units
(sic), strength in neighborhood involvement (sic), offers opportunity
for social interaction, creates a more educated community, develops
creativity and promotes sensitivity to cultural diversity; and,
Whereas our parks and trails ensure ecological beauty, provide
space to enjoy nature, help maintain clean air and water, and preserve
plant and animal wildlife; and,
Whereas, recreational activities build strong bodies, reduce
health care costs, decrease insurance premiums, make people
happier, and help residents live longer; and,
Whereas, recreational (sic), therapeutic recreation and leisure
education are essential to the rehabilitation of individuals who have
become ill or disabled, who have demonstrated antisocial behavior;
and,
Whereas, July 2003 has been designated as Recreational ( sic) --
Recreation and Park Month.
And, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, that July 2003 be observed
as recreational (sic) and park month which recognizes all the benefits
derived from quality public and private recreation and park resources
within Collier County.
Done and ordered this, the 24th day of June, 2003, Tom
Henning, chairman. Thank you.
And I make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 16
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good to see you again, John.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hey, thanks for being here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: See you at Airport Park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You want to say a few words, after
we get a picture.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, you're kind of dwarfed by all
these guys, aren't you, Marla?
MR. REBUS: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, John Rebus
(phonetic), representing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
We thank you very much for this recognition.
And we have a special invitation to put on your calendars for all
you ice cream lovers. July 27th from four to seven p.m., the parks
and recreation is sponsoring the Third Annual Ice Cream Social for
all ages at Sugden Regional Park, free ice cream sundaes for all and
great entertainment. So we would like for all of you to attend.
Thank you again.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5A
PRESENTATION TO REPRESENTATIVE MIKE DAVIS,
CHOSEN BY THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES AS
"
Page 1 7
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fellow colleagues, ladies and
gentlemen, it's an honor today for myself to recognize Florida
Association of Counties Freshman of the Year. Today we have
members of the Florida Association. Would you please join me?
Despite all the challenges the county's faced during the 2003
legislation session, I am proud to say that we are successful on a
number of legislation items that took place in Tallahassee this year;
however, these accomplishments would not have been possible
without a key support of members of our legislation, like
Representative Mike Davis of District 101.
On behalf of the Association of Counties, we are proud to honor
the legislators today who has (sic) demonstrated as a strong
commitment to resolve critical issues affecting counties.
Representative Mike Davis was elected to the Florida House of
Representatives in 2003 in District 101 that serves eastern parts of
Collier County and western part (sic) of Broward County.
Representative Mike Davis has lived in the county for almost 30
years and has donated countless hours to public service in our
community, and as testament to Mr. -- Representative Mike Davis's
experts (sic) experience, Speaker Johnny Bird honored him as his
liaison to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
During the '03 session, Mike Davis has served on several key
committees important to counties and distinguished himself as vice
chair on the subcommittee on environmental regulation.
In additions (sic) to his responsibility, Representative Davis is
also a member of the house local government and Veterans Affairs
Committee and Natural Resources Committee, the Judicial
Committee, and the Selection Committee on Florida economics (sic)
future.
As an example of his commitment to local issues,
Representative Davis has sponsored legislation that would have
provided counties with additional resources effectively addressing
Page 18
June 24, 2003
local and regional transportation needs.
Representative Davis also sought to give counties a more
flexible (sic) in their use of their local gas taxes revenues, allowing
them to use such revenues for nontraditional transportation
improvements such as multi-use pathways, intersection
improvements, and other enhancement development outside the
boundaries of the local comprehensive plan.
Taking (sic) together, these efforts represent a solid example of
local control.
In addition to these efforts, Representative Mike Davis helped to
defeat a proposal that would have expanded the scope of the uses of
the mandated funds under the Health Care Responsibility Act,
specifically appropriated by counties to fund indigent health care,
counties funded many local programs and service with discretionary
dollars to meet the unmet health care needs to our citizens.
Without Representative Davis's unwavering commitment to
preserve counties, ability (sic) to provide these services and many
other essential programs that would jeopardize this year's funding.
Finally, he's drawing his experience as a former planning
commissioner of Collier County. Representative Davis supported
various water resources (sic) issues which include legislation, would
(sic) have required local supply protection to be included in local
comprehensive planning.
And, Commissioners, isn't that what we promised our residents?
He also promoted water conservation and reuse that would have
directed water management districts to modify and improve regional
water supply plans.
Representative Davis's personal beliefs is, less government is
not bad government. His personal belief -- believes that personal
responsibility is good government.
Florida Association of Counties is pleased to recognize
Representative Davis for his dedicated (sic) to improve and maintain
Page 19
June 24, 2003
the quality of life for all residents in the great State of Florida, and
his support for counties during the 2003 legislation session has been
a tremendous blessing for the residents in the State of Florida.
So Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, please assist me in
thanking Representative Mike Davis for his service to the citizens in
Collier County.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Boy, Mike, you make us proud.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Congratulations, Mike. Thanks for
all the hard work.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Well, there goes my award.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We got your award out of here in
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could we get another picture,
please?
Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to say personally
that I've known Mike Davis for a number of years, and there is no
question that he was going to be a key role in Tallahassee, and we're
proud of Mike Davis here in Collier County.
Mike, you want to say a few words?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
As everyone is hurriedly cleaning up my mess up there, I was
going to open by saying that it's so nice to be back home where
instead of -- instead of being called the Honorable Mike Davis or
Representative Mike Davis, and as my wife says, you get the big
head, I'm in a room where it's nice just to be Mike again, and then, of
course, I proceed to spill water all over the dais this morning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: At least it was water. It wasn't
coffee or something. It doesn't stain anything, see?
MR. MUDD: Representative Davis, on a good note is, you
notice how all those towels came out all of a sudden and they were
Page 20
June 24, 2003
everywhere and nobody had to go out to another -- they've done this
before, so I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This happens with increasing
regularity.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Smaller -- smaller water jugs, I
guess.
I just -- briefly, I just wanted to thank the Florida Association of
Counties, Carol Bracy and Eric Poole, that are here. What I didn't
know as a resident from Collier County that I think all five of you
county commissioners know, is what a great organization you have
in Tallahassee and what a wonderful job they do for you-all and how
hard they all work.
If a legislator is proposing legislation that's good for counties,
you've got some troops up there that come to the battle and do a
superb job, and I know you're very proud of them.
I wanted to recognize my staff. It's kind of easy to excel when
you've got really good people working for you and with you.
My legislative secretary, Helene LeComte, and my legislative
assistant, Eric Zichella. I've got the best staff in the freshman class,
too. And I appreciate them both very much.
I wanted to thank the five of you, colleagues certainly, more
importantly friends, friends for some of you for many, many years,
and some more new friends, but certainly friends, and I appreciate
your counsel and your cooperation as we move forward in the
coming legislative session, and thanks to the folks I represent in
District 101 for giving me the opportunity to be in the legislature and
represent them.
And, finally, I'm going to embarrass someone. Since the first of
July, I counted it up, I've been home for four weeks, and your family
makes a great sacrifice for you to serve in the legislature. And with
us today and most -- I think all of you know her, my wife Patricia
who, with her unwavering support of what I'm doing, has been so
Page 21
June 24, 2003
very important to me, and I thank her for that.
(Applause.)
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And anyone that would like to
come down to the first floor, you can visit this lovely picture I was
given today. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Thanks for all your
servIce.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Representative Davis, we will
take those towels that sopped up the water, and we'll recycle that and
use it in our reclaimed water.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Very good, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #5B
RECOGNIZED TROY PIROSSENO, TRADESWORKER
CRAFTSMAN, FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,
AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JUNE 2003 -
RECOGNIZED
Commissioners, it's an honor to recognize an Employee of the
Month. It always is an honor for the chairman to do that. Today we
have Tony (sic) Pirosseno. And Tony --
MR. PIROSSENO: Troy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- would you please come up,
please.
MR. PIROSSENO: Troy.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Troy, thank you.
Troy, sorry about that. Thanks for being here.
. Troy is -- has been a dedicated employee, and time and time
again, Troy has gone above and beyond the call of duty to assist the
Page 22
June 24, 2003
Collier County Government and the staff and the public.
He is a team player. It is necessary to facilitate (sic) -- facility
(sic) management. Troy has branched out into all disciplines needed
to work within the facilities management department.
Troy incentives (sic) and decision-making capabilities are
reflected into all jobs, large or small. He just -- recently he has been
given a project of exotic vegetation removal at the fleet management
facility. This was a large request in conjunction with the natural
resource exotic removal week (sic), not only in performing the work,
but also has established specific tasks to accomplish the work.
He coordinated every aspect of the proj ect setting a timeline to
get the survey to supervising employees. He established a timeline
for proj ects and more than met his goal.
Troy has worked extra hours to ensure that the proj ect was
complete (sic) properly, and this is a typical example of how Troy
works.
In this ( sic) tireless efforts, his true commitment to exceed
expectations that Troy has (sic) stand out in not only in facility (sic)
management department, but also within Collier County government.
And Troy, I want to give you a $150 check so you can sign it
over to your wife, and -- great. And I also wrote you a little personal
note. Let me take that sticky off. And we also want to give you this
plaque, Troy. Thank you.
MR. PIROSSENO: Thank you.
(Applause. )
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you so much, Troy.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's really neat, his
department is here to salute him, and his family is here to watch with
pride.
MR. PIROSSENO: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 23
June 24, 2003
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2003-225 REGARDING APPLYING THE
ANNUAL MID-CYCLE YEAR INDEXING ADJUSTMENTS TO
AMEND THE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
IMPACT FEE RATE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS SCHEDULE
THREE OF APPENDIX A OF CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES (COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE NO.
2001-13, AS AMENDED); PROVIDING FORA DELAYED
MR. MUDD: 8(A).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- moving right along. Skipping
six and seven. Weare at eight. This is an adoption of a resolution
applying an annual mid-year (sic) -- mid-cycle year indexing,
adjusting ( sic) the amendment of the parks and recs facility impact
fee rate schedule, which this schedule has three of apex (sic) A of
chapter seven (sic) of the Collier County code of laws and ordinance.
Collier County consolidated impact fee ordinance number 2001-13,
providing for a delay -- effective delays (sic), and here to lead us into
the charge is?
MS. PATTERSON: Amy Patterson. I'm the impact fee
coordinator from community development. And the--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, the reason we put it on the
agenda for the regular agenda is we're basically doing what you
directed us to do. In every possible case that we can, we're indexing
those impact fees and keeping them -- keeping them up to the rate of
Page 24
June 24, 2003
growth and to the CPI that's going on within our community.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Does our staff have to get anything on the record?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
MS. PATTERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Amy, you did a great
job.
MS. PATTERSON: Oh, Thank you.
Item #8B
PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-3011, DWIGHT H. NADEAU, OF
R.W.A., INC., REPRESENTING A.R.M. DEVELOPMENT,
CORP., OF S.W. FLORIDA, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE
Page 25
June 24, 2003
FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS "TUSCANY COVE" PUD
FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR A MAXIMUM OF
425 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
(CR 951), APPROXIMATELY lit MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (CR 846) - TO BE SENT BACK TO PLANNING
COMMISS.ION
MR. MUDD: The next item, Mr. Chairman, is item 8(B). It's
PUDZ-AR-2002-AUR-3011, Dwight H. Nadeau ofRW A, Inc.,
representing A.R.M. Development, Corp., of Southwest Florida, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from "A" rural agriculture to PUD, planned unit
development, to be known as Tuscany Cove PUD for a residential
development for a maximum of 425 residential dwelling units
generally located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, County Road
951, approximately one quarter mile south of Immokalee Road,
which is County Road 846, in section 26, township 48 south, range
26 east, consisting of 78.07 acres. And this requires the participants
to be sworn in and ex parte disclosures be provided by the
commission members.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All wishing to give public testimony,
please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Disclosures on this item, Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have emails in regards to
this particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I have met with Rich
Y ovanovich and others, and also have received emails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I met with the petitioner and his
Page 26
June 24, 2003
representatives.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have met with representatives of
the petitioner, and I have one email.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Likewise, I've met with the
petitioner, and I've also received emails.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, you're on deck.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich representing the petitioner. With me I have Ronie
(phonetic) Alias, who's representing the contract purchaser, Dwight
Nadeau, the planner on the project, Ted Treesh, the traffic consultant,
Paul Indelia, also representing -- with R W A, representing the
petitioner, and Ken Passerella, if there are any questions regarding
the environmental issues related to the proj ect.
Basically the project is a, roughly, 78-acre parcel of property
located about a quarter of a mile south of the Immokalee
Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. It is on the east side of 951.
Across from the project is Pebblebrook, and south of the project
is Crystal Lake RV Resort. The project is set up to where the project
entrance will align with the existing entrance to Pebblebrook. It also
provides for an interconnect to the future development to the north.
It's undeveloped right now, but it's in the activity center, so we
anticipate that it will be some form of commercial retail
development, so there is interconnection to our property to the north.
The requested density for the project has been, originally, in all
the information you have in analysis, was based upon a 500-unit
project. At the Planning Commission, the petitioner agreed to reduce
the density to 425 units, so the analysis even gets better when you
consider that there's been a reduction in density. That equates to 5.4
units per acre.
The reason we are asking -- we are allowed to request greater
Page 27
June 24, 2003
than four units per acre is because we're in a residential density band,
which is wherever there is an activity center, you can ask for up to a
density bonus of three more units. So the maximum permitted density
for the project would be seven. We're asking for 5.4 units per acre at
this time.
The staff reviewed the petition. The petition was found to be
consistent with all of your goals and objectives of your
comprehensive plan. Your transportation department reviewed our
petition and our traffic analysis and found it consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
We went through our hearing at the Planning Commission, and
one planning commissioner raised the issue of traffic heading south
on County Road 951 as it gets closer to the Vanderbilt Beach Road
intersection. That planning commissioner brought the motion -- it
was Commissioner Mark Strain, brought a motion to approve the
project, but he wanted to delay COs until the improvements on 951
had been completed because he was concerned about traffic heading
south on 951.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, we put our
heads together as to what would be a possible solution to resolve the
issue raised by Commissioner Strain, and that was, how do we stop
traffic from heading south on 951 ?
And we have -- we have designed a -- I call it a porkchop. I
know that's probably not technically a correct engineering phrase, but
we have -- we have designed a porkchop at our proj ect entrance
which would prohibit any turning movements south on 951, because
when the ultimate six -laning occurs, there will not be any permitted
traffic to head south anyways. So we would mirror the condition that
would exist when the improvements were ultimately constructed.
And I believe that was -- the concerns that the planning
commissioner had was, we want to make sure there's no southbound
traffic. So we have -- on the visualizer you will see we have -- we
Page 28
June 24, 2003
have designed our entrance to where there will be a -- that porkchop
that would prohibit southbound traffic movements, we would
construct a decel. lane on 951 to get the traffic entering our project
off the main two lanes so we would not interfere with traffic heading
north, and we will construct an acceleration lane for proj ects -- I
mean for cars leaving our project and heading north, and it would
merge into the existing four lane condition that exists up at the
intersection.
So what we -- what we think we've done -- and I believe there's
concurrence from the planning commissioner who brought the
motion -- that we have addressed his traffic concerns with -- with our
proj ect by doing this porkchop and by providing the acceleration lane
so we will not be affecting the level of service of southbound traffic
on 951.
Just a little bit north of our project it's already four lanes, so we
would have a four-lane condition north of our proj ect in existence at
the time.
So we believe we've gone ahead and addressed that issue as far
as the Planning Commission recommendation as far as dealing with
the traffic concerns.
The remainder of the proj ect -- you've read the staff report,
you've read the analysis, the Planning Commission staff report.
We've -- we've made changes to the PUD to implement the porkchop
solution, I just discussed. We've also reduced the density down to
425 as we had agreed to at the Planning Commission.
We hope at this point we have satisfactorily addressed the traffic
concerns, and I won't get into all the other issues since they didn't
really seem to be issues for the Planning Commission, but I'm
prepared to discuss any other issues you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Yovanovich, I have a question.
Are you prepared, or your client prepared to construct a right-hand
turn lane into the project from Collier Boulevard?
Page 29
June 24, 2003
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, that's part of the solution, would be
to have our decel. lane into our proj ect and an acceleration lane
outside -- out of our proj ect.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What about a left turn lane
in? That would be coming from the -- from the north --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. We can -- we can make sure that
the left turn lane into the project as we're heading south is
constructed as well before any COs are --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And you're going to have an
acceleration lane?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So there won't be any impacts on the
existing traffic on Collier Boulevard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will be able to design this to where
we don't interfere with the existing two lanes that exist at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And I think that's a very big
concern.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- it's my understanding
that the Planning Commission was primarily concerned about traffic
south of this intersection, and certainly your interest, or your
willingness to create a mandatory right turn northbound out of your
property will address that situation.
But I think we have to recognize that there is the possibility and
probability that some of that traffic that turns right and goes north out
of your development could do a U-turn and head south. And south
seems to be the problem at the present time, particularly in view of, I
think, what -- our pending change in our development schedule,
which, of course, you have no control over and shouldn't be impacted
by.
But there are some other ways that we should be able to address
that, and I want to first make sure I understand, this is work force
Page 30
June 24, 2003
housing?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the price points are --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Price points.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- are between 175 on the low side and
250 on the high side.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's not luxury housing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Luxury to some.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I guess that's probably true.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One seventy-five.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So what I would suggest is that we
do a couple things. I would like to see the total density reduced to
375 units, and then phase in the development of the others providing
up to 200 units for the first year, and then phase the units in at 20
units per month thereafter, which gives us about 18 months before
this -- this development will be completely built out.
And by phasing it in, it gets us a little closer to completing, or at
least beginning our road expansion proj ect south of this particular
development.
So would that be acceptable to you, Mr. Y ovanovich? The
alternative, of course, is to remand it to the -- to the Planning
Commission and let them reconsider.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As I understand it, it would be 200 from
-- within from now until basically June of next year?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And then ration us 20 units an acre
thereafter -- I mean, 20 units a month thereafter?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can -- we can agree to that phasing
schedule as well as the reduction in the overall proj ect density to 375.
Did I get that right?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, 375.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As well as -- that, of course, includes the
Page 31
June 24, 2003
porkchop --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The porkchop, the northbound
acceleration lane, the northbound right turn lane into your property,
and a left turn lane coming from the north going into your property,
as Commissioner Henning has suggested.
And I think that -- that achieves some goals for us. It reduces
the density. First of all, it controls the traffic, it makes sure that we
minimize the impact on the southern portion, which is where the
traffic problem really exists, because there is no traffic conflict north
of this project, and I think it pretty much gets at everybody's concern
here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I have some --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coletta down
here had his hand up first.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, well, wait a minute, wait a
minute. Commissioner Coletta had his hand up first. Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate that. And when
you look down this way, you'll notice me occasionally.
If I may, a couple of questions. I'm very concerned over this.
This is a two-lane highway that's severely impacted by what's already
there. We're talking about modifications to a two-lane highway to
accommodate a new development. It's going to put more traffic on
the road regardless of the fact that there's turn lanes, porkchops, or
whatever, and I do have concerns on this. I really do.
I don't know what -- the hurry to go forward on this. I liked the
original proposal where we were going to tie it in with the COso I
really did. We were going to be able to get a control on this thing
finally where we were going to be able to narrow down the scope of
when this was going to happen.
Page 32
June 24, 2003
Why do these people that live there now have to suffer until we
get that six-lane highway in? I'd like to hear from Norm Feders (sic),
to be able to hear from our expert on transportation how this all
comes together, if I may.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I appreciate you
recognIzing me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I always do, Commissioner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Coletta, may I respond
while Norm's coming up?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. And what we've tried to do was,
the concern that was expressed to us was southbound traffic, and
we're trying to eliminate that southbound movement.
Keep in mind that our traffic impact statement showed only 18
percent of our traffic would head south in the beginning. So even if
we were to go -- you take all of that and go north and U-turn, only if
every one of those movements made a U-turn movement, it would be
18 percent of them heading south. I don't believe that a hundred
percent of those traffics that would have gone south will make that
U-turn.
And what we've tried to do is make sure we're really not
impacting the flow of traffic as it exists today or in the future by
doing these turn lane movements to get them off. And also keeping
in mind your transportation staff approved our project without any of
these changes.
So I think we're making it better. And with what Commissioner
Coletta's done -- I'm sorry -- Commissioner Coyle, we've -- he's cut
the density, and basically, he's taking a fourth of the project away.
So it's 25 -- it's that much better now that we're eliminating 125 units.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I guess my question to
you, Mr. Feders (sic), with what they plan to do there, will it improve
Page 33
June 24, 2003
the situation on 951 in that corridor?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
Commissioner, I think we're moving in the right direction. I
think Commissioner Henning's request for modification with a left
turn as well as the right and the accel. lane, additionally, the phasing
will help.
To give you a perspective, the project for six-Ianing should be
under construction beginning of calendar year '05, completed fall or
towards the end of '06, to put a perspective on your phasing issues.
I do want to make sure it's clear that as we get into the
six -laning, the prospects are that they will not have a left turn in.
Most likely a right-in, right-out. I think they're aware of that, and
there was something mentioned, but I just want to make it clear that
if we're requiring them to accommodate on a two-lane roadway
today, the left turn lane, that that not be perceived as structuring that
provision when a median is placed when it goes six lane in the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the answer is that what
they're going to do is going to improve it for everyone on 951 ?
MR. FEDER: No. Obviously, they're going to add traffic. I
think what has been proposed will minimize some of the impact that
they will present on 951.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And -- well, I guess the
question back to you, Mr. Y ovanovich, would be, why is it necessary
__ why would the first proposal that came from the Planning
Commission to tie it into the COs be a bad proposal?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, for obvious reasons it's -- well, for
the most important reason, it's inconsistent with the concurrency
management plan that the county has adopted.
We are not -- the concern of the Planning Commission was
southbound traffic. It wasn't the project, and it was -- it was concern
about having traffic going south. I think what we're proposing is
Page 34
June 24, 2003
consistent with what the Planning Commission wanted. They wanted
to make sure we didn't send traffic south prior to it being
accommodated in the transportation system, and I think we've done
that.
And in response to, you know, Norm's concern about our
thinking we have a right to -- a left turn lane, the PUD document has
been structured to allow the county to make those decisions on
median openings. So if the left turn lane needs to go away, the left
turn lane will go away. So there's really no issue related to that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The reason I brought this up is
the plan -- in my summary it says the Planning Commission voted
5-3 to recommend approval of your PUD to the Board of County
Commissioners with the added condition that no Certificate of
Occupancy be issued till Collier Boulevard is operating at a width of
six lanes.
It didn't interpret anything else from it. I mean, you're free to
interpret what their intent was, but this is what I have in front of me.
Is this something we should send back to the Planning Commission
to get a reinterpretation from them?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's certainly within your prerogative
to send it back. I do know that the motion maker who brought that
motion has corresponded and expressed what his concerns were, and
that the solution that we're suggesting would have resulted in a
different motion, not the motion that he brought, which would have
not been to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We can -- we can guess that it
would be. We do not know that for a fact.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Again, if it's the preference of the
commission that we go back and remand this to have the Planning
Commission hear this consideration, it's certainly within your
prerogative.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For too long now past
Page 35
June 24, 2003
commissions have been rubber stamping these things one right after
the other without due consideration of the infrastructure. That's my
concern, Mr. Y ovanovich.
I can hold the original recommendations of the Planning
Commission, but I cannot agree to this. I know the people in that
area, that if they knew that this was going to happen with another
development going in prior to the road being built, they are going to
be very upset with this commission, and that's why I can't support
anything but the original recommendations of the Planning
Commission.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I respect that, Commissioner
Coletta.
I can tell you that at the Planning Commission there was nobody
there from the neighborhood voicing any objections to the project
with 500 units and no phasing, so I didn't get the sense that the
community was in an uproar about our proj ect. I got the exact
opposite sense, that, you know, since they didn't show up, it was a
non-issue in the area. And I just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I hear you. Also, too, most of
the property owners' associations and civic associations are shut
down for this time of the year. I'm sure that if they're given enough
time, that there would be an outpouring of expressing nonsupport for
it under the current conditions, and that's the reason why -- my
particular stance. Now, the commission, of course, is free to make
up their own minds on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, then
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I have a couple of questions
that I'm concerned about. I'm going to direct this to staff.
As I read through the documentation, they talked about the
additional three units per acre density increase. And I can see if it
was tied directly to an activity center where you had
Page 36
June 24, 2003
interconnectivity, but we're talking about an activity center that's
better than a mile away.
And how do you get bonus -- bonuses for density when the
activity center is more than a mile away? And also that -- who's
going to say that those people are going to use that activity center?
They're going to go all over the county as far as traffic impact goes.
And so, I need to have some clarification here exactly how this
came about. And then I also have another question, whereabouts
would this southbound turn lane be located on 951 ?
MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services.
The activity center is adjacent to this parcel. It's not constructed
yet, but the center is there. The parcel immediately to the north
where the nursery is today, is within an activity center, so that is
eligible for a rezone to commercial. That's -- the density band starts
at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard and
goes one mile out.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the activity center is not there
at the present time?
MR. REISCHL: The underlying land has the activity center, but
it's not constructed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. There's a nursery there at
the present time.
MR. REISCHL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So when is this going to
come onboard?
MR. REISCHL: That's up to the property owner of the nursery.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that's how come we can add
more density into that area because there might be an activity center
there some day?
MR. REISCHL: That's what previous boards through the
growth management plan has directed, that at each activity center
and a mile out in each direction, there's a residential density band.
Page 37
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Something doesn't seem right
here, for some reason. We're trying to decrease density, not increase
density.
MR. LIT SINGER: Mr. Chairman, Stan Litsinger,
comprehensive planning manager, for the record.
Responding somewhat to your issue on -- this is -- on your
future land use map, this is Activity Center Number 3, and we're just
now starting to see that activity.
And in your comprehensive plan, the residential density bonus
band, within one mile of the intersection of your activity centers,
does provide for a bonus of up to three units per acre, as may have
been mentioned previously.
And in this particular case, the petitioner is asking for 1.4 units
per acre in addition to the four units per acre from the rezone.
Now, here again, it's discretionary. It's one of five density
bonuses that are provided for your compo plan. The reason that this
particular bonus was provided within the specifications of your 18, I
believe it is, activity centers, is to actually encourage residential
development within the confluence, if you will, of your activity
center to bring transportation impacts, community activity, and
hopefully mixed use development and pedestrian-friendly and
interconnectivity within the activity center range.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have another question then. We
don't -- we have an activity center that's not there yet because we
have a nursery. How many other PUDs do we have out there that are
going to be located in this general locale that are also going to be
impacted as far as this density increase, as far as future traffic, let's
say, that's going to be generated, let's say, up to the year 2007?
MR. REISCHL: I don't have the exact statistic, but it would be
everything within one mile of the -- that intersection.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, this would lead into, how
are we going to handle this traffic on a two-lane highway?
Page 38
June 24, 2003
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, sir.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I suggest a possible solution that I
think would also address further phasing of the project that hopefully
may help Commissioner Coletta, is -- as staff has already pointed
out, it is a future activity center that triggers the ability to get an
additional up to three units.
If we were to phase this to where we couldn't have our density
bonus until after the activity center is approved -- we've already
provided for the interconnection, that would be a further reduction
and density of one -- about one and a half units an acre, 1.4 units per
acre.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What you're talking about -- what
Commissioner Coletta -- or excuse me -- Commissioner Coyle
recommended, that we --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: He had -- he said bring it down to 375.
What I'm saying, we can add one further phasing step, which would
be, give us the base of four and that we don't get the bonus until the
activity center is there, which would actually bring the project down
to 312 -- it would be 200, then maybe 112, then we would still have
63 units out there until -- unless and until the activity center is built.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then how are we going to address
the traffic issue with the other PUDs that may be out there?
MR. REISCHL: Just if I could correct one of Mr. Y ovanovich's
statements. It's not a future activity center. It is -- it is an activity
center.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry.
MR. REISCHL: It' not constructed, at least in the quadrant, on
the -- on the west -- southwest quadrant of the activity center, the
Publix shopping and the other out parcels are constructed. That was
the first corner of the four quadrants of the activity center to be built.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this is going to be on
Page 39
June 24, 2003
Immokalee Road and 951 where it is heavily impacted right now,
that whole road section of Immokalee Road?
MR. REISCHL: That's where the activity center is, right. All
four quadrants of that intersection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got to know how many more.
Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. You're getting into the
subj ect I was also going to ask about, and that is, you know, I know
that they have the right to have one dwelling unit per acre, which is
78 acres, 78 units. That's -- you have that right now. That's what
you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what you own, right, in that
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Seventy-eight acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, 78 acres at one -- and you
have the ability right now without coming before us to build 78.
MR. REISCHL: It's per five; one dwelling unit per five acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Four acres -- one dwelling -- or
four dwelling units per acre?
MR. REISCHL: Today under agricultural zoning, one dwelling
unit per five acres.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm just reading in my
summary finding, and it says, one dwelling unit per acre. So I'm
sorry, I'm reading erroneously then if -- wrong information provided.
My biggest concern is that -- my biggest concern is these
activity centers. I don't know how they came about being that we
could now load a bunch of traffic into activity centers and break the
back of the roads that are around there, but I think -- I'd like to say
that we need to be addressing this at -- at some, not future point, but
Page 40
June 24, 2003
very quickly. I don't know how wise we are in doing -- in increasing
the density in these activity centers so that then the roads --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let Stan give you a little
background why you have activity centers, okay? And they just did
a Golden Gate Master Plan, and this kind of links to it, where folks
basically said they didn't want to have commercial on every street
corner every time there was an intersection. They wanted to have it
in designated locations.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I understand that. I just don't
understand why we have to pack a bunch of extra dwelling units in
one area around that area. I don't know why -- how do people that
own land around there get the privilege of packing in extra density
because they happen to be located close to an activity center?
But anyway -- and we can talk about that, and I want to do that
soon. But what I'm concerned with also is, what impacts this many
dwelling units are going to have on a road that hasn't been improved
yet, or even when it does become improved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also, the question is, how many
other PUDs are in this vicinity located on this road that are going to
impact this that are going to come before -- to the Planning
Commission or before the county commissioners in the near future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Litsinger?
MR. LITSINGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, relative
to the impact of the PUDs that are in process of -- for instance, you
have Heritage Bay, which you've already approved that rezoning,
and the development order will be coming to you next month which
will impact this intersection.
I would take you back to 1989. The county sensed that we had
a tremendous amount of strip commercial development in the county.
We did a very extensive zoning reevaluation. We did not
down-zone a number of properties that were commercial; however,
the concept of the mixed use activity center evolved as a way to
Page 41
June 24, 2003
focus commercial activity and traffic, yes, sir, to focus commercial
activity and traffic to the major intersections that are identified on
your future land use map with the idea towards the improvement of
the transportation network to accommodate those activities.
Now, I do know -- and Mr. Feder will correct me -- that we do
have the program improvements to both 951 and to Immokalee Road
within the window of our facilities planning perspective and how we
measure impact on facilities when we evaluate PUDs, and this PUD
meets that test.
Here again, the issue is policy . Your current policy is mixed use
activity centers. We have been building on that basis with the
density bonuses. And in most cases, we haven't seen a lot of mixed
use development in these activity centers. Hopefully we will see
more of it in this particular activity center because it is evolving.
But yes, it's policy that's been there for 10 years, and we have
been building, and the county has been evolving with activity relative
to commercial and density of residential in these density bands as
process and policy . You can change that policy, we can amend the
compo plan, but that is what you have before you today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one final question, if I
can.
In that -- maybe Norm Feder can answer this. What is the
projected timeline for widening out 951, and what is the projected
time line for the completion of Immokalee Road? Because we're
going to have a tremendous burden on that intersection of 951 and
Immokalee Road.
MR. FEDER: Yes, sir. For the record, Norman Feder.
First of all, the schedule for 951 from Immokalee down to
Golden Gate Boulevard is to start construction the beginning of the
calendar year 2005, completion by the end of the fall or the end of
2006, as I mentioned previously.
On Immokalee Road, I hope to have a permit very shortly. I
Page 42
June 24, 2003
went on vacation, it was supposed to be back. Didn't answer the
phone yesterday. Hopefully we'll answer the phone today.
So if I have a permit, we'll be moving on the widening of
Immokalee from 951 further out fairly soon. But we do need to
come back. We have some issues relative to 1-75 to 951 to go six
lane on that section of Immokalee that probably should have been
done in the very first place.
So in answer to your question, we've got 951 programmed,
completion the end of 2006. We have the construction set to go very
shortly on about a three-and-a-half-year schedule from 951 on out to
43rd, at least to four, and possibly coming back to this board to go
six at the outset, and then we do not have scheduled at this time
going from four to six on the section from 1-75 to 951.
I will add also to your conversation, and I think Stan is right, the
process that you have today is evolved and is in your Land
Development Code. Those issues are probably going beyond the
exact discussion that -- which expansion on this proj ect.
But I think it is important to note that these activity centers did
very well in eliminating the idea of strip mall development, which is
a lot of what their design was years back. But, unfortunately, what
they didn't do was promote mixed use development, which I think is
the reason for this attribute within one mile.
And so, therefore, you haven't necessarily encouraged what was
the basis maybe for this, but it's in the Land Development Code and
exists there today. And the other thing is, unfortunately what we did
do is we promoted these activity centers at our major intersections,
which is the highest volume, and most -- our capacity level on the
limited arterial system.
Rather than having the Naples Boulevard back frontage and
encouraging that for access to the development at the intersections,
we established within a quarter mile, the open signal situation from
the signalized intersections and those delays.
Page 43
June 24, 2003
So I think we have some issues to look at in our Land
Development Code. I think that's part of what I heard raised today.
But that does exist in our Land Development Code today. And I
hope I've answered your question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner, before I go to
Commissioner Coletta, then Commissioner Coyle, I'd like to say that
the community character plan calls for -- incentivize that mixed use
within the activity centers. So that is -- that is coming forward.
But, you know, folks, we got the rules that we have today under
the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. We just
amended our Land Development Code to remove that three-year
window when that capital improvement, in this case 951, could be
built. We removed that. And what we have -- no, we did not remove
that? Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: DCA didn't approve it yet.
MR. MUDD: The DCA wouldn't let us remove it. We're
bringing it back in the fall after -- Norm's doing the vesting issue
right now. We're coming back with the change in the fall to get real
time concurrency within one year and get back with DCA, but we
had to have this year in order to collect the data for vesting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And if we remember the checkbook
concurrency, that Mr. Feder has informed us a number of times, is
under construction. That's when you come forward.
So, you know, if we don't like the rules, let's change them again.
If we don't like the rules, let's change them again. And if we want
affordable housing in Collier County, what the development is
proposing, then let's provide the tools for affordable housing. If we
don't want affordable housing -- right across the street in
Pebblebrook, the homes are going for 300 and up.
So if we want that, let's encourage it by reducing the density,
okay?
And I think it's -- what we are trying to do is provide that work
Page 44
June 24, 2003
force housing, and -- and if we are have an interconnection to that
future activity center, that will be built.
The activity center -- the commercial is going to be built after
the people are there, and then the commercial service will come
thereafter. Right across the street there's a super Publix or something
like that. It's a great store, so -- I just -- I hope that we try to play by
the rules and be equal to everybody.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, play by the rules, be
equal to everyone, you're absolutely correct. We hear a lot of issues
coming up that have nothing to do with this.
Concurrency is what we're talking about. And if we're going to
say, okay, this is another exception for it, we are no different than
what's been taking place in this county for the last 30 years.
We have to take a firm stand on this. And I'll make a motion at
this point in time that we approve this proj ect with the original
recommendations of the Planning Commission that is subj ect to the
PU (sic) document, to being approved that they -- excuse me. No
Certificate of Occupancy be issued until Collier Boulevard is
operating at a width of six lanes. Then we meet the needs of the
public that's there now, the public that's going to come. What's the
rush?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, we haven't
closed the public hearing yet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you mind if other commissioners
have some input on this, or you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. I'm sure I don't,
Commissioner Henning, and your arrogant attitude is starting to
weigh upon me. I've been ignored several times when I raised my
hand first, and now you're trying to take this opportunity as the chair
to belittle the statements I'm making. I do not appreciate it.
Page 45
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Does anybody want Commissioner
Coletta to go first from now on on all these items here on --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not what I said,
Commissioner Henning, and I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're always being recognized
from the chair.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am not, Commissioner
Henning, and if you watch the tapes, you'll be able to see that I've
been ignored several times during this meeting and other meetings,
too, when my hand was the first one up. And I'll let the matter rest at
that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great. I'm glad.
Commissioner Coyle, would you like to share something?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Thank you very much.
You know, this -- this is an issue about what the law permits.
It's not an issue about what we would like to have.
Now, the staff recommended approval of this proj ect to both the
CCPC, and you're recommending approval to us. Why did you do
that?
MR. REISCHL: It met the criteria established in the Land
Development Code and the Growth Management Plan, which is what
we follow . You have the ultimate interpretation of those, and that's
why we bring it before you. It's not just an administrative process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But in your opinion, did it meet at
__ at the level of 500 units for this development, at the time you
evaluated the traffic study, did you determine that that met the
current requirements?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Transportation services analyzed it, and
you see there's a long list of transportation stipulations in the PUD.
So subj ect to those stipulations, yes, they -- their analysis. showed
that it met the concurrency.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And would reducing it from 500
Page 46
June 24, 2003
to 375 make that better?
MR. REISCHL: Better, traffic?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make it -- yeah, improve the
traffic situation.
MR. REISCHL: Yes, from the 500, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would phasing it make it better?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So my point here is that I think we
would all like to apply the concurrency rules that we agreed upon
some time ago and we submitted to DCA. Unfortunately, those have
not all become law, so we can't legally enforce them.
So what I have tried to do is to find a way through the PUD
negotiation process to get us where we want to be without sitting
here and violating our existing laws.
This is a quasijudicial hearing. We are obligated to follow the
law. And if we don't like the law, we should change it, as
Commissioner Henning has suggested. And I think some important
points have been brought up here today, and I think we should -- we
should concentrate on that. But it is -- it is, in my opinion, it is
patently unfair, and, in fact, I believe illegal to try to apply law which
does not exist and to try to make these decisions on the fly.
There are some good reasons for having the density bonuses in
these activity centers or adjacent to them. And we cannot ever
demand that the commercial part be built before the residential part
because that's not the way these things -- what happens is a
commercial development comes in once the people are there.
And so what we can do is zone these things in a way that
encourages the kind of development we like. And one other -- other
point, I would suggest to you that this is really no different than the
concept that we applied when we said -- when we said that rural
villages were the way to develop things in the eastern part of the
county, because that way we -- we concentrate the density in a
Page 47
June 24, 2003
smaller area, stopping urban sprawl and hopefully encouraging the
development of commercial areas, which then will attract the traffic
and keep the traffic from spreading all over the county.
So bottom line is, I think that we have to apply the law, and if
the law says that this -- this development is not acceptable, then I'll
vote against it. If the law says it is acceptable, I don't have many
choices except to try to negotiate during the PUD process to get it
where I would like for it to be. And so I need -- need somebody to
tell me, legal staff, does this PUD meet the requirements of our
current law?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant
county attorney.
As the PUD is proposed, based on the information that's been
provided to me by planning staff as proposed, it meets the -- it's
consistent with the compo plan and meets legal requirements.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And is that based upon the 500
units for this development? Is that statement based upon the 500
units?
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that original submittal.
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
MS. STUDENT: Based on the information provided me by
staff, it meets the comprehensive plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So here's my bottom line. I would
-- I would rather -- rather approve 375 units than make -- have -- take
the risk of having this thing go back through the CCPC and them get
an approval for 450 or 500 units because it meets the requirements of
the law.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, wait a minute. Let me just
ask this question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Commissioner Coletta, did you have your hand up?
Page 48
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead, whoever's next.
I just want to be recognized in order, Commissioner Henning. That's
all I've --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just wanted to ask Margie the
very same thing. Do they have the right to because of the law, or do
they have the right to ask?
MS. STUDENT: They have the right to ask for--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right, okay.
MS. STUDENT: -- up to that amount.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: So if they ask for -- and it can be less than that
as well, but the compo plan -- the density bonuses are not an absolute.
You can ask for up to that. And if the board were to -- were, not that
you have to, but if the board were to approve it, it would be
consistent with the plan. But the board could also approve something
less than that and be consistent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's negotiable, basically, is what
you're saying?
MS. STUDENT: It's based --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
MS. STUDENT: Yeah, based on public health, safety, welfare
concerns.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. My concern is -- and I'd
like to see this get moved on, because I think that we need to address
affordable housing in this area.
But my big concern -- and I still haven't gotten an answer to that
__ and that is, how many other PUDs out there in this general area
also fall under this same guideline of seven units per acre because of
the additional increase in density bonus that they're given?
And the other thing is, that the transportation didn't address yet,
I don't think, unless I wasn't listening, and that is, where is the
turn-around going to be so that people can make a left-hand turn to
Page 49
June 24, 2003
head south after they leave out of this -- out of the area?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No turn -- Commissioner, they don't
turn south.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but when they turn north,
there's going to be a turn-around to head south and also an
intersection at 951. So where is this turn-around going to be?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two questions, and you want to talk
about other developments in that area that have seven units per acre,
or the density band?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One of them is the apartment over
there, Laurel Lakes. I'm not sure of their density, but it is --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. But it is higher than four
units per acre. I couldn't tell you the Pebblebrook or Ibis Cove or
any of those others.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, are you asking existing
or proposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Proposed.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Proposed, future?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can tell you there are some properties
that might come in, but I can't tell you -- I'm sure they're watching as
to what's happening, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: There's a project known as Outdoor
Resorts, that's within the density band, that could be coming in. And
then there's a project a little bit further south called -- is it -- it's
Bristle Pines is the -- it's not in it?
I'm sorry, not Bristle Pines, I misspoke. That's Nicaea Academy,
Page 50
June 24, 2003
which is on your agenda.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Summit Place -- nope. So there's
just those two that will be -- you know, have to creatively work out
the traffic issues like I think we have.
And I -- again, I -- I want to throw that third phase in there that
we would not get -- the density be increased due to the density band.
If you want to tie that to the completion of 951, that's fine. That
would bring our arch down to 312, like I explained to you, until
everything is completed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then you would have a -- then
we're talking 375 units com --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: After--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At build out.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: At build out, but we would be -- we
would be at the base density of four until completion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
When it goes back to the law, the way it's being described is that
we have no legal ability to be able to refuse this particular
development for whatever -- for the proper reasons, which would be
health, safety, welfare.
Mr. Weigel or Mrs. Student, whoever, would you comment on
that? Do we have the right to be able to require them to follow the
original part -- the original recommendations in the Planning
Commission, that they have the PUD -- the PUD would not be issued
until six-Ianing of951, or would that be an illegal act on our part as
the board?
MS. STUDENT: It's my understanding in talking over the
transportation ramifications with Mr. Feder and Mr. Litsinger, that
that's not an issue with the camp. plan, so -- and that doing the PUD
Page 51
June 24, 2003
rezoning phase -- you know, the other things are negotiable.
I do understand from staff that they have a possible issue -- and
maybe Ms. Murray would want to address that -- concerning tying it
to the Certificate of Occupancy issuance rather than building permit
issuance, and that there may be a better point in time to do that. She
may wish to address that.
But as I said, as I understand from discussing this with staff,
there's no legal impediment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's not illegal?
MR. WEIGEL: If I may, for clarification. The question that
we're addressing right now, Marjorie, is, in effect, is the CCPC
recommendation consistent with the compo plan and the Land
Development Code. And you had mentioned that there is not a
problem, but I want to make sure that the record reflects that you're
addressing the question regarding the CCPC direction and not --
MS. STUDENT: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: -- merely that which has been submitted by the
petitioner --
MS. STUDENT: No. I'm addressing the CCPC question. This
is based on discussions I've had with Mr. Feder and Mr. Litsinger and
our concurrency management system in the compo plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Reischl?
MR. REISCHL: If I can just clarify that. Our concern was that
when you issue a building permit to somebody, we think they have a
reasonable right to expect that if they do everything according to the
building code, meet setbacks, that they should get a Certificate of
Occupancy. We think it may be more appropriate to limit building
permits rather than say, here, you can build this, but you can't move
in until something happens that's not under your control.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I questioned that very language
myself. Since they went in that direction, I was following it.
And I would be -- I would be very agreeable to issuing the
Page 52
June 24, 2003
building permits rather than -- it doesn't make any sense. Why would
you want to tie up the new owner. When the developer's all done, he
sells the prop -- sells it, pre-sells it to the new homeowner. At that
point in time, they're going to have to carry the burden of it while the
developer walks.
MR. REISCHL: They can't move in.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, they can't move in. It
doesn't make any sense. I would tie it with the permits.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. I'd like to hear what Susan
Murray has to say if she's going to -- going to have anything to say
about that. And then let me ask a question, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that okay, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd also like to get an answer from
transportation about the turn-around.
MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon -- or good morning, Susan
Murray, current planning manager.
I think Fred clearly stated what I wanted to say. And our whole
concern is that if you were -- if you decide to make a
recommendation to hold the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
until the land -- the road is six -laned and operational, we have a
concern and would request that maybe that be tailored back to the
building -- the issuance of the building permit and not a CO.
Because the -- as Fred stated, the applicant has an expectation that if
the county's going to issue a building permit, that they're also going
to issue a CO, and we wouldn't be able to fulfill that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would even be agreeable
to having that take place at the time that they start the building of
951. At that point in time, I think the local residents would be able to
see that everything is falling together in one place, that we're not
trying to jump the gun by allowing a development to go in. Even if
it's phased in, it's still going to have an impact.
Page 53
June 24, 2003
We're just talking about a period of time, and that time is the
crucial element. People are going to suffer when -- until that
six-laning's done. Also, too, the road's going to be torn up, it's going
to be quite a mess. The construction taking place in there will be bad
enough.
But we could make that concession, and they would be able to
get a little bit of a jump on it so by the time the road's done, they're
ready to go ahead with their CO of their property. In other words, tie
the building permits into the start of construction to 951.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Joe Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of Community Development,
Environmental Services.
If I could beg the indulgence of the board a minute to bring you
back in perspective. We did pass, this past -- well, past winter, we
passed LDC amendment 3.15 that does exactly that, that you have to
have either -- well, you get capacity verified by the transportation
administrator if there's capacity on 951, at the issuance of local
development order. Local development order being a final
subdivision plat, in this case would be a final plat.
Until that time, until capacity is deemed adequate on 951, and if
it's deemed adequate, then they would be able to draw their building
permits. We already have that system in place, and we're going
through the second phase.
As Mr. Mudd pointed out, we'll be coming back, hopefully in
the fall, with the second phase of the concurrency amendment. So if
we're looking at going back to issuing a building permit, we have a
system in place right now to do that. And I would defer to the
administrator -- transportation administrator if he wants to talk about
capacity on 951.
And it is going fast. We have -- we have competing demands.
Tuscany, we have Nicaea will be coming in, and we also have
Page 54
June 24, 2003
another one going across the street. Commissioner Henning, you
know there's an issue regarding the fire station that's going to be built
along that area of 951 as well.
So if the board wants to fall back, it needs to think about where
we are now with the concurrency amendment that gives us the tools
to do exactly what you're looking to do. I just caution the board that
we're kind of creating legislation here this morning --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
MR. SCHMITT: -- for a specific PUD when, in fact, we already
have the tools and we're trying to lock those tools down even more as
we bring back more of the LDC amendments in the fall.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got it. Amen.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, please, and
then --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think that's exactly the
point, we have a procedure to deal with this. You have made the
determination that this proposal is consistent with that procedure. If
we make a determination that -- that you are not correct, it seems to
me we have to be able to cite the code that you're violating in making
that assessment or the error that you've made in the traffic
assessment. You can't just do it because it doesn't feel right.
So I -- as I 'said before, I am not going to advocate for this, but I
will advocate for a fair application of our rules.
Now, let me tell you why I think it's better to get 375 units now
rather than get 450 units later. That reduction is permanent. Yes, it
would be good to have some relief during the interim by not having
quite so many units there, but you're ultimately going to have 450
under one circumstance, possibly, because they're -- they're entitled
to ask for that amount, and, in fact, the CCPC did approve 450.
So the proposal to give them 450 but hold back on the
permitting doesn't do anything for the ultimate reduction of density,
Page 55
June 24, 2003
but cutting it to 375 provides a permanent ultimate reduction in
density that will benefit us on 951 for the rest of our lives, okay,
because it won't have so much traffic there.
There is a process to evaluate the cumulative effects of all of
these developments on the road. So as each one of these
developments come forward, we're going to throttle that thing down,
and at some point in time you will reach the conclusion where the
next development doesn't meet the traffic cutoff requirements and it
can't be approved according to our established procedures. This
particular development hasn't reached that point yet.
But I would -- the final point I'd like to make is that if we do tie
this to something like not issuing a permit until the road is
completed, let me ask you what happens if we decide we don't want
to build the road, we approve this project with an appropriate date?
Let's suppose we say you can start building on November of'05,
and then let's suppose in November of '05 we say, I'm sorry, we're
not going to start this until November of '07, so now you wait for
November of '07 before you can build.
Now, you've already got your money inv -- invested in the
proj ect, you've got your financing established. That really isn't a
very business-like way for government to work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nope.
COMMISSIONER Coyle: Now, if you -- if we could give them
some time certain and say, you can't do it before such and such a
date, and if we fail to carry out our end of the bargain, then you can
go ahead anyway, but you can't just string people along and keep
changing dates without justification.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I think at this time it's proper
to take a break and give our court reporter an eight-minute break; is
that fine? Thanks. We're in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Board of Commissioners are now in
Page 56
June 24, 2003
sessIon.
Commissioner Fiala had a question, and if we go to Mr.
Y ovanovich first, then Commissioner Fiala, when she comes back,
we'll go to her.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to briefly, you know,
remind the commission that we're still subj ect to whatever changes
you make to your concurrency management statutes, ordinances,
even though we get a PUD approved. So if you do make a change,
we're subject to it, so we're not -- you know, that will be a further
factor in our process.
And just if I -- if it wasn't clear, the -- what Commissioner
Coy Ie had suggested at the 375 and the phasing schedule he
suggested, my client will agree to.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Fiala,
Commissioner Coletta, did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't raised my hand yet.
Thank you for recognizing me though even though I didn't raise it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, you had a
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. You were just saying phased
in would be good for you?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Consistent with what Mr. Coyle said,
yes. That phasing schedule will work -- will be fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Of course, we're all concerned now
with the impact on the -- on the roadways. And, of course, when you
do begin building, there's -- we're not talking about the people who
are living in them, we're talking about all the construction equipment
going in, so that's why --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- this phase-in is terribly
important.
I just wanted to -- we've referred to not affordable housing -- or
Page 57
June 24, 2003
we've referred to affordable, that really doesn't qualify for affordable
housing, so I just wanted to say --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, and it was never --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- anything above 150 doesn't
qualify for work force. I just wanted to mention that.
And you are going to then agree to the reduced number of units
to 375, you say, plus --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- a phased-in -- and this works out
with our transportation department; is that correct?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Are you going to get your
question answered by --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, he -- yeah. Norm was just
coming up. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, we're being
fair in this entire situation.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes, it's consistent with the Land
Development Code and growth management as it exists today.
Again, as was noted, while we made some very significant
revisions, we do still have the provision that if it's in the first three
years of our work program, that that capacity can be utilized in
consideration and concurrency and with the project program to be let.
Second year of the program, that capacity's utilized in evaluation of
this and other proj ects in the area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, will the phase-in that they're
MR. FEDER: That will help us --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- speaking of --
MR. FEDER: That will help us --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- will that work with you?
Page 58
June 24, 2003
MR. FEDER: -- yes. That will help.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That is acceptable to you or --
MR. FEDER: Yes. The reduced -- the reduced density and the
phase-in are definitely an assist as we try to get the facility developed
and online to meet the needs of the area.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Two other things. I think Norm asked
me if I would make the porkchop prior to construction, which we can
do. And I guess what I need to do is, we have five models, our sales
center and our construction trailer that we would like to be able to
have open, CO'd by June, essentially, and have those -- and then
units for actual occupancy would be consistent with the phasing
schedule.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: After the -- phased after that?
MR. yaV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Could I -- I'd just like to make one
point of clarification, Norm, so that the public understands what's
happening here with the concurrency plan.
We prepared a concurrency plan and we said that we didn't want
anything approved unless there was adequate public facilities, that is
roads, water, and sewer available. And we proposed a one-year
construction schedule; in other words, if it wasn't planned within one
year, it didn't get approved.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We sent that to the Department of
Community Affairs in Tallahassee who has to approve any changes
to our Growth Management Plan. They approved most of everything
we sent to them with the exception of that, and they required that we
continue to use the state guidelines of three years. None of us liked
three years. The three years is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.
So what we did at the recommendation of staff to provide us
Page 59
June 24, 2003
interim relief is we moved the collection of impact fees from the
point when you apply for a permit to the point when you have a final
-- a site plan.
MR. FEDER: Final -- yep.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And since the site -- it takes about
three to three and a half years --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fifty percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from a site plan -- yeah, 50
percent of the impact fee. Since it takes about three to three and a
half years to move from a site plan to CO, that gives us three, three
and a half years to build the infrastructure, and we've got part of that
money in our pockets for the entire period of time. So we found a
way to work it out so that we could circumvent the three-year rule.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, that's just a point of
clarification I wanted everybody to understand. We're going now at
this fall cycle to try to justify, again, to DCA why we want the
one-year rule, and we're going to keep fighting on that until it's done.
Now, having said that, I want to make sure that I -- I understand
how this will apply to this proj ect.
As Mr. Y ovanovich has said, he will be -- he will be subject to
all of the provisions of our concurrency plan no matter what we do
here today with respect to the issuance of permits.
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you make a determination
that the adequate public facilities are not available, no matter what
we say here today, he can't pull a permit; is that true?
MR. FEDER: That's correct, but unless the provisions have
changed, we would have to utilize that plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The three -- you would have to
utilize the three-year rule?
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
Page 60
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the point is, you're still using
the law.
MR. FEDER: Correct. And if it changes as we're trying to
pursue a DCA, he'd have to respond to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right.
MR. FEDER: Ifhe's not approved before then.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if we're successful in getting
this thing approved for the one-year -- he becomes subject to the
one-year --
MR. FEDER: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- rule, and he still can't pull a
permit unless he meets those concurrency requirements, no matter
what phasing we -- we agree upon today.
MR. FEDER: He must meet the law in effect at that time --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes.
MR. FEDER: -- that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
Commission Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Feder? Sorry, I should
have spoke a little sooner.
MR. FEDER: Excuse me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just to make sure I understand
something. We're talking about concurrency and when the demands
of it would come up.
Am I correct that this particular item, if we left it alone, if we
were to do nothing, they could still build there according to the law,
they could build one home per five acres? They're not guaranteed
anything past that point until we grant them that permission; is that
correct?
MR. FEDER: You're correct in the sense that PUD is a
rezoning and that is a decision of this board, that's correct.
Page 61
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And we have the
latitude to be able to define what the conditions are. Just as Planning
Commission makes recommendations to us, we also come up with
different ways and we try to -- we bargain on behalf of the people we
represent, the public out there that are driving these roads daily.
We also realize the fact that, you know, eventually there will be
a development in there. We also know that 951 is going to be
six-Ianed. And I think it's admirable that we're coming up with a plan
that it's phasing everything in.
My whole concern is, and Commissioner Coyle met it, was the
fact that we can't give any guarantees the road will be built; however,
we have to give a guarantee to the builder that if the roads are built or
not, he can still build.
I don't see where the public good is being served by that,
number one. Number two, it's going to take a super majority for this
to pass this board. We need four out of five commissioners, and
that's not by just pure guesswork that we put it together like that. It's
because this is a very, very serious issue. It takes a lot of
consideration.
The laws you are bound by, if you find that you're going to
require them to be concurrent before they start, you heard your
county attorney say he can support you. Now, we can redefine the
laws, we can talk about density, we can talk about a whole bunch of
issues. When this gets down to everything, remember one thing, it's
concurrency that we're talking about. And we keep preaching about
concurrency.
Now, we have a checkbook plan out there for the roads that has
got a good start. And, man, I tell you, we've put a lot of work into it,
and we got knocked down by the Community Affairs Department.
We're behind the eightball on it, and we still don't have a plan.
So it's the ultimate responsibility of the elected officials on this
board to be able to come up with a correct way that we're going to
Page 62
June 24, 2003
go. And that's why I have serious concerns about where we're
heading with this. This road is severely impacted now. It's going to
be even more severely impacted. We're talking about a time frame
that we could manage to do that would -- to get these people at the
time the road started construction so that both of them come together
at the same time. That's the only thing I'm suggestion (sic) --
suggesting at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any more discussion before
we close the public hearing?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Close the public hearing. Entertain a
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion that we
approve this project subject to the plans of the Planning Commission,
only instead of Certificate of Occupancy, to be tied into permits, and
that those permits would be issued at the time of the start of
construction of 951.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With the density added of 375?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Also that -- the density at 375 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second that. Discussion?
I'd much rather send this back to the Planning Commission.
They seem to have the ability to clean some stuff up before it comes
to the county commission, and I'm not sure if we're doing the legal
thing by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- on the motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll withdraw my motion and
defer to Commissioner Henning if you'd like to defer it back to the
Planning Commission. I do believe in due process.
Page 63
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mrs. Student, would you chime in
here on that original motion?
MS. STUDENT: Yes, sir. I was just going to say that the
information and opinion that I gave was predicated upon the
developer, or whoever the applicant is, agreeing to that condition.
One of the concerns that I would have if they were not to agree
would be that we were doing a -- sort of de facto moratorium up here
without going through the appropriate processes. And my opinion
was predicated upon the agreement of the applicant or property
owner, so I just wanted to put that on the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That is exactly the point.
We're flying by the seat of our pants here doing these things, and I --
I would like to go ahead and make this motion to remand it back to
the CCPC and get this -- get this issue resolved at that level and then
get their recommendations --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- because -- because they seem to
be somewhat -- well, they don't have the current information now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that for the July Planning
Commission meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The next one, whenever that is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 17th of July.
MR. REISCHL: I believe that's already advertised. Would we
have to readvertise this if interested parties have all been notified of
this hearing?
MR. WEIGEL: If you're talking, Fred, about that there is an
agenda that's already been advertised for it, or this --
MR. REISCHL: The newspaper ads.
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. We would need to -- we would need to
have the advertised -- this one would have to make it into a timely
advertisement for the next meeting.
Page 64
June 24, 2003
If the board so directs, they can direct staff to advertise it for the
next legally available meeting so that it may be the next meeting or it
may be the following meeting of the CCPC, but the direction here
would be that it's potentially the very next meeting of the CCPC. And
the date of that meeting, Fred, if you have that handy.
MR. REISCHL: 17th of July, I believe, has already been
advertised. It would be August 23rd.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. For certainty -- for certainty, we may
wish to ask and, for the record, if Mr. Yovanovich on behalf of
petitioner, has a preference of agenda, if we can meet the July 17th
agenda by an additional advertisement or not, or in a standard
advertisement form for the following planning commission meeting.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's -- I'd rather do this slow and right,
so if we can shoot for the Ju -- I'm sorry, the August Planning
Commission meeting, I think that's probably the safest course.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We've got to change our signs on our
property to -- change the dates, we'll have to do that.
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Y ovanovich.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion on the
motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Page 65
June 24, 2003
Thank you.
Item #8C
ORDINANCE 2003-34 EXTENDING THE ADDITIONAL NINTH
Next item is 8(E), asking the board to approve an ordinance
extending the additional five-cent (sic) local option gas tax.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll second the motion.
Any discussion?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just one point. We've brought this
to the board at least three times prior to talk about this particular
action. We -- you made -- you made -- we brought it to you the first
time, you told us to go back and take a look at it because they were
talking about a 30-year extension. This one is just a 2025 for each
one. Based on that analysis, we came back and told you that, and
then we came back and told you at the last meeting that we were
going to come back and do this, so I just want to make sure, for the
record, you've seen this at least three times and has been noticed at
least three times at prior meetings.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is this the last time you're going to
tell us? I hope.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are we voting on 8(E) or 8(C)?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: C.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As in cat, okay.
I make a motion we approve this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, there's already a motion on the
floor. I did get ahead of myself.
Page 66
June 24, 2003
And Commissioner Coyle, the motion is, approve the ordinance
extending the ninth-cent (sic) local option gas tax.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 8 Charlie.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yep.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Item #8D
ORDINANCE 2003-35 EXTENDING THE ADDITIONAL SIX-
Next one is 8(D), the board approve the ordinance extending the
additional six-cent local option gas tax.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner -- there's a motion by
Commissioner Halas, second Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 67
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Item #8E
ORDINANCE 2003-36 EXTENDING THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-
Next one is 8(E), which -- board approve an ordinance
extending the additional five-cent gas tax option.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you.
Item #8F
ORDINANCE 2003-37 TO PROTECT AGAINST HAZARDS
FROM SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC RIGHT-
OF-WAY; PROVIDING PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS;
Page 68
June 24, 2003
ADOPTION OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS HANDBOOK;
REQUIRING PERMITS; REQUIRING REMOVAL OF
OFFENDING MATERIAL FROM RIGHT-OF-WAY; REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 82-91, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 89-
26, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 93-64; PROVIDING RULE
OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is 8(F), approve an
ordinance of Collier County, Florida, to protect hazardous -- against
hazards from substandard construction in public right-of-way,
approving -- provide definition and adoption of construction
standards handbook; requiring permits; requiring removal of
offending material from the right-of-way, and appealing (sic)
ordinance 82-91, as amended by ordinance 89-26, as amended by
ordinance 93-64; providing rules for construction of ordinance;
providing for conflict and severability; providing for penalties; and
providing for effective dates, and I'm going to step out. I have some
material in my office I'm going to get, but go ahead and start the
discussion.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No--
MR. MUDD: Let me kind of summarize where we've been on
this one as Commissioner Henning goes out so that we won't get --
because he's already been.
This has been before the board twice. First time it was, get a
little bit more stringent upon advertising distances from property
owners for any kind of right-of-way construction that was going to
be done. The staff went back and affixed a 300- foot dimension upon
that.
There were some -- there was some conflicts with utility
Page 69
June 24, 2003
companies about, well, if it's just a day project where they're putting
a line under a road, do you really need to get everybody in a 300-foot
swath all excited because you're going to go in in the morning, fix it,
and you'll be out of there right after lunch, and you've fixed the
problem.
So we had staff go meet with the utility reps. from FP&L and
Teco and Alico Op. in order to do that, and Mitch is going to -- Mr.
Riley's going to give the board the results of that particular -- and
highlight them.
And subsequent that -- to that, the chair had some -- some
concerns about people doing maintenance in the right-of-way. And
we've had staff go take a look at that and draft some language that
would be in addition to what you have in the front of your packet.
That's as much as I know about this particular issue.
Mr. Riley?
MR. RILEY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some public speakers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, do we?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
MS. FILSON: We have two--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We can go ahead and vote on that if
you want. Why don't we call up the public speakers.
MS. FILSON: We have two public speakers. The first one is
Buddy Brunker. He will be followed by Sergio Abreu.
MR. BRUNKER: My name is Buddy Brunker, public affairs
manager with Sprint, and I'm basically going to represent FP&L and
Teco as well as Sprint this morning in order to speed up the process.
We met with Mr. Kant and Mr. Riley, as well as a representative
from the county attorney's office, and have come up with language
that we feel we can support at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Brunker.
Page 70
June 24, 2003
MR. BRUNKER: So we ask that you approve the ordinance.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Sergio -- Sergio Abreu.
MR. ABREU: Waive and support.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. Riley, can you just tell us the changes to the ordinance in
the handbook.
MR. RILEY: Be glad to. Mitch Riley, transportation
operations, for the record.
I have some handout (sic) for you.
That handout is in addition to the revisions that you already
have.
On page two of seven of the ordinance, we've added section
four, as Mr. Mudd mentioned, which takes care of the public
notification for the utility companies. We have broken it down to
three parts.
If the installation is underground, we are going to notify the
adjacent property owners, and if it's overground, up to 45 feet of
height for the poles, they have to notify 100 foot radius, the residents
in that vicinity. And if it goes over 45 feet, then it's 300 feet of
radius. That's basically what we've done for the public notification.
On the handbook itself, the handout that I just gave you, on page
four, we've added item number 11 to the heading that's exemptions
from permit requirements. So now you have item number 11 is lawn
and landscape maintenance, which doesn't require a permit. That's
basically the changes that we have made.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My motion still stands.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 71
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Thank you, Mr. Riley.
MR. RILEY: Thank you.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-226 DECLARING A VACANCY ON THE
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is--
MR. MUDD: 9(A), which is a recommendation to declare a
vacancy on the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 72
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2003-227 RE-APPOINTING SOFIA PAGAN AND
CARLOS AVILES TO SERVE 4 YEAR TERMS ON THE
HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD, EXPIRING ON JUNE
2h, 2007 - A D()EIE])
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Is 9(B), which is appointment of members to the
Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Make a motion we approve the
two committee recommendations, Sofia Pagan and Carlos Aviles.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(C).
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Fiala.
Page 73
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to add,
with Sofia Pagon, or Pagon, or whatever, her -- her address differs in
three different places on here, and I just wanted to mention that you
might -- you know, you might research which of the three is correct.
MS. FILSON: Yes, I have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe she lives at all three. She has
a summer house, winter house, fall house.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could be, could be. That would be
nice. Thank you.
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-228 APPOINTING JON FURY AS THE
FWC'S REPRESENTATIVE TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF
FRANK MORELLO'S TERM (EXPIRING ON APRIL 23, 2006)
ON THE LAKE TRAFFORD RESTORATION TASK FORCE-
AD.OITED
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(C). It's appointment of member to
the Lake Trafford Restoration Task Force.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Weigel, I'm a member of
this task force. I should excuse myself from the vote on this?
MR. WEIGEL: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. I make a
motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coletta,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 74
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Item #9D
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE FIRE AND EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - CONTINUED
FROM THE MAY 27, 2003 BCC MEETING AND IS FURTHER
MR. MUDD: Next item is 9(D). The item is continued from
the May 27th, 2003, BCC meeting and is further continued to July
29th, 2003, BCC meeting.
It's a resolution to establish the fire and emergency medical
service advisory committee. The reason for the continuance, the
second continuance, is to make sure that the fire districts have ample
time to comment upon the ordinance, and a letter was sent out
yesterday to each chair of every fire district asking them for their
comments by the 14th of July so that we'll have those back in time
for the 29th of July board meeting.
Item #9E
RESOLUTION 2003-229 APPOINTING JAMES PETERKA FROM
THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY TO SERVE A TERM ON THE
REVENUE COMMISSION (EXPIRING 18 MONTHS AFTER THE
FIRST MEETING IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT TO THE
Page 75
June 24, 2003
Next item, Commissioner, since this is continued to the 29th, is
9(E), which is an appointment of a member to the Revenue
Commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I nominate -- or I make a motion to
appoint James Peterka to the Airport Authority (sic).
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I want to make -- for the record,
did you say Airport Authority or the Revenue Commission?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I did say -- I'm already on
9(E). We're not there?
MS. FILSON: He's a member --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He was a member of the airport
committee --
MS. FILSON: He's a member of the Airport Authority and he's
going to be representing the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Serve on the Revenue Commission.
I am so sorry. Yes, I'm reading this instead of reading what I'm
supposed to. Thank you. Yes, to the Revenue Commission.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
Page 76
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's a clarification.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah -- no. Mr. Chairman and County
Manager, on 9(D) with the continue -- the continuance, did the board
actually vote on the continuance? I think you brought it to their
attention to be continued, but was there, in fact, a vote of the board?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That was part of the agenda, that it
was continued.
MR. WEIGEL: Approved at the beginning of the meeting?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEIGEL: Oh, fine. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to withdraw your
motion, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I don't think -- only if
you're going to withdraw your second, or whatever.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2003-230 EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND EXTENDING THE TERM OF
MEMBERS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH AND
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next one is request to approve the
resolution to extend the terms of Collier County Health and Human
Services Advisory Committee, extend the terms of the members of
Collier County Health and Human Services Advisory Committee.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So move.
Page 77
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- just have a question first, if I
may. I didn't mean to jump in on you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that's okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I didn't
mean to jump in on you either.
But the second paragraph under consideration, it says on June
25th (sic), which is two days from now, 2003, the board extended the
term for the committee for an additional year, through June 26th of
last year, 2002, and I just thought you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, it doesn't say that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You are good. You are good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I though maybe you might want to
get those right, you know, as far as the dates go.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It should say '02 and then, thereafter
'03.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also have some questions on this
item.
It is to work on the following items, the start-up of primary care
facility. What's that? What's the primary start-up care facility?
MS. FILSON: I believe this is John Dunnuck's issue, and I don't
believe he's in the room.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can probably help with that, if
you'd like.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Primary care facility would be
the clinic that's going to be opened, that is -- that's open in Golden
Gate temporarily now and is going to be moving to its permanent
quarters. And what they're looking to is to be able to monitor its
Page 78
June 24, 2003
success as they go into it over a period of time and offer
recommendations to improve upon it if necessary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What's the other one, funding
issues related to the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Trauma care in Southwest
Florida?
Yeah, now that's an issue that the committee had been out in
front of. And at their suggestions, this commission at one point had
committed $700,000, which since then has gone by the wayside
because they are seeking funds from other directions; however,
Collier County needs to be a player in it. Nothing has been resolved
in this particular thing. Maybe not from a funding issue, but to make
sure that we have our say, because we have a number of residents in
Collier County that depend upon that facility in time of emergency.
And since the picture is less than clear, we -- this committee
feels that they could offer their assistance as needed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So we're looking for additional
funding for the trauma center?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, we're not.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We dedicated 700,000 to it this year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's never been spent. It's in
reserve, from what I understand, probably --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It has been tapped quite a few times.
MR. MUDD: $160,000, I know of right off the top of my head
CHAIRMAN HENNING: One sixty?
MR. MUDD: -- we've pulled, yes, sir. And that came about
about three meetings ago, and Mr. Dunnuck was up here telling you.
So we've been into that pot for 160,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In all reality, we have not been
consulted or asked to come forward with any funding. They're
coming -- they're trying a tax mechanism to go forward; however, I
Page 79
June 24, 2003
might mention that by us stepping up to the plate early on, we put a
lot of things in motion and gave a lot of people serious consideration
over what they were doing. Even though we never spent the money,
it was money that was well dedicated at the time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I -- it appears to me that
this particular resolution is duplicating much of which has already
been done. The primary care facility has been funded and
established.
Now, if we're going to have a committee that is going to
monitor the effectiveness of it, that's one thing. But to conduct a
study to make recommendations regarding the funding of a primary
care facility and a trauma center, I think, is going -- is going over
some ground that has already been plowed.
And the trauma care issue, I understand, has been solved with
the state law. We are obligated to pay for our fair share. And as far
as I know, we're doing that. They are -- they are submitting to us the
cases from Collier County, and we are reimbursing them for those
costs.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what is this -- this advisory
committee going to do for us with respect to that? The last thing we
need is more legislation like was proposed recently in the senate
concerning the way this thing is going to be funded. We've got a
state law. We are paying our share. What is it they're going to do for
us now?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I think it's a question of
just keeping the doors open on the facility. You know, if we could
do it without spending any money, I'd say, God bless America, thank
you very much, but there's still a question of whether this facility is
going to be ongoing, and Collier County needs to be able to react as
far as the committee going to show the fact that we do have an
Page 80
June 24, 2003
interest from this direction and that we're ready to go forward and be
able to report back to this commission as need be.
It's a non-settled issue, and you have no other mechanism here
at this time that's going to be able to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, of course we do. We've got
a board of county commissioners. You know, we allocate funding
for all sorts of things when people request us to do stuff if we think
it's in the best interest of our residents.
And I think that if the Lee County Trauma Center wishes us to
reimburse them for our fair share, we've been agreeable to doing that,
and we've told them that and we, in fact, have been giving them
money. So we've -- we've taken the steps necessary to demonstrate a
willingness to do what is reasonable for the citizens of Collier
County.
I really don't see the need for this Health and Human Services
Advisory Committee the way it has been described right now. I don't
think it's serving the purpose that we're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: May I offer a suggestion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala had her hand up
first.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, forgive me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You can go first if you want.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no. Commissioner
Henning, I don't think this is necessary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I fail to see the humor in what
you're doing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just wondering, we're talking
now about extending the terms for one additional year. And John
Dunnuck is involved in this. Is there a way we could wait for him to
present to us in case there's confusion on our part?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Because all this is is just to
Page 81
June 24, 2003
extend it, that's how I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. It takes the -- there's upsides
and downsides, in my opinion. The upside is we could look at how
government can fund health and human services stuff, and then the
other thing -- the downside of it, it takes staff time away. So I guess
there's pros and cons, but Commissioner Coletta, I'm sure, will give
us the guidance on that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, this is -- if I may interject. This is
one of the horizon committees that the board set up, and each
member decided to chair -- was dedicated to chair a particular
horizon committee. This happens to be the horizon committee that
Commissioner Coletta was on in order to chair in that process.
That committee came forward to staff and said that they needed
another year in order to finish their business that they had for charter,
and the staff tried to put that down in the executive summary.
And I made a statement about 160,000 that was already taken
out of the 700,000. And for clarity purposes, I want to state that
$160,000 was taken out to increase the budget for trauma because we
were paying the claims for HCRA, and we had an increased amount.
So we took the 160 out of the 700 to pay those trauma bills to add to
our budget. So I just wanted to let you know where that came from.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
I just wanted to point out that prior to this committee, there was
two previous health committees that took on the particular goal and
they failed. I mean, they set the groundwork for this committee to
come forward. This committee was very diligent in its efforts to be
able to move forward, mind you, with great opposition out there, and
today we have the benefit of their work out there. They'd like to be
able to continue this to make sure that it's going to be continued in
future years.
Page 82
June 24, 2003
May I suggest that since -- I never expected this to be
challenged. I mean, I never heard of a horizon committee being
challenged as far as their value or net worth. Could we possibly
continue this and give them life until possibly September, one of the
first meetings in September, where we can have the members of the
horizon committee here to be able to tell you exactly what they see
their role to be, and then we can make a decision at that time?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I don't see any reason why
we couldn't just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I can't either, but we
obviously have two commissioners that do not think it's a good idea
to continue a committee that's actually achieved the majority of its
goal in a very short period of time. They'd like to pursue the
follow-up on it, but I'm trying to accommodate the wishes of the total
commISSIon.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me -- let me try to focus on
my concern here. It says that we want to continue this committee
through June 6, 2004, to continue to study and make
recommendations regarding the following, the start-up of a primary
care facility. It's already been started up.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's already in existence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's their word, not--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's what we're operating
from is an executive summary that tells us what they want to do.
Number two, it says, they want to evaluate funding issues
related to the system of trauma care in Southwest Florida. That's
already done. There's a state law that requires us to pay our fair
share. We're already paying our fair share. What are they going to
tell us?
Number three, other priority health and human services needs
Page 83
June 24, 2003
identified by the Board of County Commissioners. I don't know that
we've identified any.
Now, I would submit to you that if we identified some other
health -- other priority health and human service needs identified by
the Board of County Commissioners, then it might be appropriate to
extend the committee.
But as -- what I see here is not adequate reason to have a
committee. So either they haven't updated their work plan or they
don't have any ideas about how they're going to deal with this or they
just want to -- want to find some ways to get us to donate more
money to the trauma center. I don't know what it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's not it, Commissioner
Coy Ie.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, they ought to put it down in
the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is the only committee
that's been relatively successful so far. They've reached its -- part of
its objectives. They would like to be able to continue to make sure
that this particular thing goes forward.
Regrettably staff cut and pasted from a previous agenda into
here. The objectives still remain the same, and it's not to give money
to the trauma center. It's to be able to keep a presence in this whole
thing as far as Collier County goes, to be able to be sitting on top of
the situation to be able to react accordingly, report back to the
commISSIon.
Now, we can belabor this forever. And if it's the will of this
commission to dispose of this particular horizon committee, then so
be it. That's what it's going to be. But I'll tell you now, the day's
going to come where you're going to have to resurrect one and start
all over again, and this one has been successful.
Look at the credentials and the names of the people that are on
it. You go right down the whole list. It's -- Mr. Morton from the
Page 84
June 24, 2003
hospital, you got Epstein from the Cleveland Clinic, Ernie
Bretzmann from the United Way. You go right down the whole
thing, the school board, the Community Foundation, Mental Health
Association. They're all there.
You have something that has been extremely effective and now
you wish to disband it for reasons that are totally unjustified. They're
not costing anything in the way of staff. It's a minimum amount of
staff time. The committee does most of the work themselves. And if
they're going to do anything over and above what it is here, they'll
come back to you for approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm going to -- this is the
last I'm going to say about this.
But I think in addressing -- addressing these issues, we have to
deal with fact. This is not the only committee that has ever produced
anything. All of the horizon committees have done something good.
The Green Space Committee, the Smart Growth Committee, all of
those have done something good.
Secondly, the state law which we operate under that requires us
to reimburse the trauma center is not the result of this committee.
This committee had nothing to do with it, quite frankly, and I don't
see how they're ever going to influence it. It's a state law. Are they
going to change a state law? I haven't asked them to change the state
law.
They've set up a primary care facility, that's fine. They want to
monitor it, then let's put that in their charter and say, you monitor the
effectiveness of the primary care facility.
The problem here is that what they're going to do isn't clearly
spelled out here. And if we're going to have committees, I think we
ought to have a very clear charter, not just set up a bunch of people
and say, go out and do something for a while. We should have a
Page 85
June 24, 2003
very clear charter and we should have an objective. And if they're
willing to set those objectives and set up a work plan, then I'd be real
happy to take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In that case--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- I'd make a motion for
continuance of this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas had --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I guess the statement here, it
says, fiscal impact. There is no direct fiscal impact associated with
this item, and I think that covers it. So we're not making any
commitment here as far as any type of funds.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any fiscal impact on these
horizon committees?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, there is staff that's there, but the
folks that are on the -- the citizens that are on the committee that
make up the committee basically are there as volunteers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is the staff donating their time --
MR. MUDD: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- to be on this committee?
So they're being paid to be --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- assist the committee. Okay.
There's a motion by Commissioner Coletta to postpone this
decision until the next meeting, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whatever would be
appropriate, judging by staff time. I don't want to force it down our
throats --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just a motion to continue?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner --
MS. FILSON: You had one motion on the floor by
Page 86
June 24, 2003
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm going to have to -- I'll --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What was your motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My motion was to approve this.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Well, I'll second that one
and withdraw my other.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Then I withdraw my
motions, and we'll come back -- if the committee's approved, we'll
come back with a clear work plan for your approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you for -- Sue, thank you for
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Halas to approve 9(A) (sic), second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Motion carries, 3-2.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks, Sue.
Item # lOA
PRESENTATION BY THE GREATER NAPLES AREA
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF A TWELVE-MONTH
PROGRESS REPORT REGARDING THE SUSPENDED
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MANDATORY NON-
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING PROGRAM WITHIN THE
Page 87
June 24, 2003
UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY - REPORT
E.RESENIE.D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is present (sic) the Board
of Commissioners of Collier County by the Greater Naples Area
Chamber of Commerce and the Solid Waste Management
Department for a twelfth (sic) month progress report regarding the
suspended ordinance establishing a mandatory business (sic)
recycling program within the unincorporated Collier County.
MR. YILMAZ: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
George Yilmaz, solid waste director.
On March 27th, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners
directed the staff to develop a mandatory nonresidential recycling
ordinance. The department worked to develop the ordinance over a
period of about 14 months.
During that time the department performed a cost benefit
analysis to quantify the financial impact to businesses and discuss the
program with business groups and interested citizens.
On May 28th, 2002, the department presented the ordinance to
the board for adoption. At the time the board voted to postpone
adoption of the ordinance opting instead to allow nonresidential
recycling to continue on a volunteer basis for 18 months, during
which time, at the board's direction, staff was to provide assistance to
the Greater Naples Area Chamber of Commerce in developing a
marketing and outreach plan to promote business recycling.
As a part of the board's direction, staffwas also requested to
present updates every six months, including the following
benchmarks; one, franchise participation rate; two, county recycling
centers utilization rate; and three, nonresidential recycling rate.
The board was presented the first interim progress report on
January 28th, 2003. We are here today to present the second
progress report.
Page 88
June 24, 2003
At this juncture I would like to introduce Mike Reagen,
president of the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce. He will
present the joint progress report before the board.
Following Mr. Reagen, Jim DeLony, our public utilities
administration, will provide closing remarks. With that, I will turn
the presentation over to Mr. Reagen.
MR. REAGEN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Mike Reagen. I'm the president of the Greater Naples Chamber of
Commerce. I want to recognize with me this morning Russell Budd,
who's the chairman of the board, of our chamber. Mr. Budd will not
be speaking, but his presence here indicates the important (sic) of our
positive partnership with the county's recycling effort.
It's a pleasure to be here with you and to share with you the
second of three reports on the increasing business recycling.
As David Weston -- who appeared before you last, our past
chair and who is chairing this effort on the chamber's behalf -- said to
you last time, I want to compliment your staff. I think they're
focused, they're competent, they're working very hard, and we're
enjoying a very -- I believe, very positive series of steps forward on
voluntary recycling. So I want to commend every one of them to
you. They're really quite excellent and we enjoy working with them.
You have in the material that's been presented to you a list of 25
completed and ongoing and eight currently projected outreach
efforts. And I don't want to review all that material with you, but I'd
like to -- just to mention a couple of things that I think are interesting
and exciting.
While you'll see from your staffs June 6th memo to you that the
Solid Waste Department is making a great number of individual site
locations to individual businesses, they're literally going out and
visiting with businesses, working with them on their -- examining
their waste stream and providing them with a number of ideas and
suggestions on how they can more appropriately recycle material, our
Page 89
June 24, 2003
chamber's efforts in this partnership at the moment are centered on
bringing organizations of businesses together. And interestingly, we
found several industries where there's no -- no organized association
to meet with, and so we're trying to facilitate meetings with those
groups of people.
For example, industrial parks. Another example would be the
banking industry. There's a -- many, many banks, but they don't
meet collectively nor have an association with which we can
immediately articulate, but we're working on bringing those people
together to focus. They're all critically large volume producers.
As you're well aware, there's also a very exciting partnership
that's spun out and developed with the Collier Building Industry and
the Immokalee Friendship House, La Casa. That's worthy of note
because it's an illustration of a win-win situation in the private sector.
The Friendship House is reselling, has a shop in Immokalee that
receives and sells used building materials. That diverts significant
material, we believe, from the landfill, provides affordably priced
building material and supports a valuable community service. We
think this is going to grow in the future and is a model for other
activities. David Ellis and his colleagues can give you great detail on
this, with pleasure, I'm sure.
There's lots of other examples, but we want to -- I want to tell
you that the -- that the climate, I think, is increasingly becoming
positive. People are learning more about the necessity and
importance of recycling.
And our challenge, frankly, in the next six months now, having
built a platform, I think, is to begin to move forward to make some
real -- real successes that we can share with you, and we're trying
very hard to do that.
I'd like to make a commitment to you from the chamber about
that. If you'd -- if you'd go to the report that you've received from
staff -- I'll call it executive summary -- you would like -- I'd like you,
Page 90
June 24, 2003
please, to also turn to the -- table one on page three of your agenda
item, which is the nonrecycling -- nonresidential recycling franchise
participation indicator rate.
This is a performance benchmark that was selected because
Waste Management, Incorporated, of Florida is your franchise
hauler, and it was thought that any increase in the percentage of their
clients also contracting for recycling service would be a useful
indicator, and that -- that is correct.
Two problems have arisen with this assumption. First, Waste
Management found an error in the previous submitted data they have
shared with all of us. And the original figures of businesses served
actually reflected business pick-ups in the same billing cycle;
therefore, the numbers that you received were inflated, if you will,
for both businesses served and businesses with recycling.
The -- when the corrected figures for recycling participation
were shared, they flattened that number out. There's a difference of
about six percent, and that's reflected on table one on page two of the
material that you have.
That -- that is something that we appreciate that they noted that
mistake and that it's been fixed, and we now need to move forward.
Secondly, there are at least 25 other recycling haulers serving
Collier County that we're aware of. And it's possible that increased
recycling participation will be with even other haulers that we need
to yet identify.
Therefore, it's very important that you have the best data
possible for an informed decision six months from now. And the
chamber is going to commit to calling and visiting with each one of
those 25 recycling -- other recycling haulers to ask them to
participate in a survey and get data from them of their tonnage that
they are -- that is leaving Collier County that they're handling.
We've already visited and chatted with Shredded Company, and
they've agreed to provide us with this data.
Page 91
June 24, 2003
Our chamber's staff will aggregate the tonnage by month from
these providers to protect any proprietary information in this
competitive environment but still be able to provide you, through
your staff, with the trending data on the business cycle.
So the bottom line is, we think we've made significant progress
in beginning a platform for increased voluntary recycling. Some of
the indices that have been shared with you have been appropriately
adjusted. They're -- they're accurate now, and it's too bad that they
weren't initially accurate, but that was promptly corrected when
people recognized it.
We have associations of other organiza -- organized businesses
with whom we now need to visit. It's a little bit more complicated
than -- reaching them than we had originally anticipated.
Your staff is doing Yilmaz' works in visiting with individual
companies and working with them to help them. There are 25 other
haulers or so. Perhaps there are more, but 25 that we've identified.
As the population and volume grows, the increase is going to
grow of material, obviously. Our hope is that these people will
participate with us in sharing in a confidential manner that we can
aggregate better data for you. We intend to do that individually in
the next six months. And I believe, and we hope, that you're going to
see significant, positive kinds of movements in these members six
months from now.
I want to thank you for the opportunity that we have to try to
demonstrate that the business community wants to recycle, that the
free market system can work well with government. We're doing
that now, very pleased about that. And we're trying very hard to
minimize any future taxpayers' extent that may be needed.
So thank you for your attention and for this report.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Mr. DeLony?
MR. DeLONY: As you can see -- Commissioners, for the
Page 92
June 24, 2003
record, my name is Jim DeLony. I'm the public utilities
administrator.
It's been a great deal of effort between the chamber and from
staff in developing the marketing outreach plan that will promote a
voluntary, nonresidential recycling program that reaches the intent
that is conserving landfill space and being very beneficial to our
business community as well as our county.
However, based on the first progress reports presented to this
board in January and the progress report that has been presented here
today, our indications are that we have not been able to make
significant progress to date.
Mike went through extensive review of what we've done
together, collectively, and where we are and where we're going, and I
agree with his assessment. We've set the platform, and we should see
significant -- I hope, significant movement in the months ahead as we
come into our final report to you six months hence.
I want to assure the board and I want to, again, assure the
chamber that staff is committed to continue to work closely with
them as we go through this next important six months and continue
development of our marketing and outreach plan.
I'd like to outline a couple things that we'll be doing that's
beyond what's in the scope of your executive summary, but we are
going to look at trade marketing, and that will have a common logo
for recycling for businesses. We -- only businesses that do recycle
will be able to have this logo to display in their business.
We're going to coordinate a couple trade shows with the
chamber and have some trade shows booths there with them jointly.
We're going to produce an insert for occupational tax renewal mailer,
place organizational newsletter pieces and articles, continue to
generate articles for publication on successful recycling efforts, in
other words, highlighting the successes that are being done within the
community by businesses, continue our outreach efforts as outlined,
Page 93
June 24, 2003
industrial parks being one of our focus areas, Collier County School
District and the school board being another, and finally, working
with Ave Marie as they bring on that community, ensure that they've
got the solid waste handling, waste reduction program involved in
their site development planning.
So with that, it's an extensive agenda, extensive list of things
that we have done and are going to do, and we will be back in six
months to report to you our progress on your charter to us.
That concludes my briefing other than your questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the Commissioners?
Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Mr. DeLony, I have a
question concerning the data displayed in the tables.
Under the column of calendar year, we have some footnotes
here, 2000 with subscript of three, and 2003 with a subscript of four.
Now, are those cumulative?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, the four is, the four would be --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that four --
MR. DeLONY: -- or will be, but is -- we are at the end of the
year.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, wait a minute.
MR. DeLONY: That's the reason--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That would be five. On that table
one --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that would be five.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So my question is, if I wanted to
find out what the total number of businesses served for 2003 so far
this year, would I add the 3,966 to the 4,015?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. No, sir. It would be the singular
number that you have there. It gives you that number at that
Page 94
June 24, 2003
snapshot.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the footnote four includes more
than just April, May and June?
MR. DeLONY: That's right, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It includes January through June?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I got it. All right. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Basically we understood that
there's 25 other waste hauling companies that are -- that do business
here in Collier County. I guess the best effect of what's really being
taken care of is, what is the overall effect of the landfill? Have you
noticed a significant drop in the amount of recyclables that have been
coming into the landfill?
MR. DeLONY: That's a problematic --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I think --
MR. DeLONY: Thank you for the--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- that would be a good judgment
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- because we don't have all the
data because of other -- all the other companies that do business here
in Collier County.
MR. DeLONY: That's a difficult -- that's a difficult one to
answer in specifics. We can talk to it in a general sense because of
our spotters looking just for that opportunity when something goes in
there that we can pull out, be it maybe construction debris, for
example, concrete, which we're going to pull out and divert anyway.
Somehow it got in -- got to the hill. But it's very problematic, as
those large trucks move in, to see that in evidence there.
Let me -- just let me -- do you have any comments from staff?
Page 95
June 24, 2003
Can you make any comment to this?
Okay. The bottom line, that would be very difficult to do and
even more difficult to report to you in terms of data. We -- when we
selected these three benchmarks, we tried to do it two ways. First of
all, we wanted to have data that was capturable and wasn't going to
cost a lot of money just to capture the data. That's the reason we
selected Waste Management, because that was an easy one to get.
Chamber stepped up and going to look at these other 25.
One of the things, by the way, the staff -- we were directed by
staff, by the board, was not to spend a lot of money in doing this.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, when they dump that dumpster
from a commercial property and it's in their dumpster in the back and
it has bottles and plastics and cardboard, or whatever else they have
in there, and organics if that -- if it's a restaurant or whatever, and it's
in there, that garbage truck comes up, puts its arms in there, lifts it
over the top, over the front cab and dumps it in the back -- and so
they go straight up to the side of the landfill on the open cut, and they
dump the load out. We have no way to measure what's inside that --
what's inside that container.
So we're able to measure, if we have recycling of those 25
companies and they're reporting and we're watching what they're
taking out in recycling, we have a way to figure that out. To figure
out if we're seeing a decrease in the open face of the landfill, very
difficult for us to do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because I felt that if there
was a great effort being put forth to do the recycling, that the
recyclable objects that are going into the landfill, there would be a
significant decrease in the last year or two years that this program has
been going on. I guess it's been going on a year; is that correct?
MR. DeLONY: Yes--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The recycling effort put on--
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
Page 96
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So you haven't seen
anything -- what you're telling me then, you haven't seen a significant
drop in the recyclables that have been coming to the landfill; is that --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, but you also have to understand, we're
not just measuring -- it would be okay if this was just a one piece that
was going into the landfill that you were watching, but you're -- but
you've got to program in there to divert C&D material so it doesn't go
into landfill anymore. You've increased your residential recycling
values. You've taken your sludge and you're hauling it out to another
landfill and/or to a compost pile. You've moved all vegetative waste
out of the landfill, and it's going to that compost facility.
So all of those ingredients, they're saying, yes, there's less things
going into the landfill. So it's hard to measure this particular item.
And I think the one thing that you got from the presentation and one
thing that the chamber is very -- very astute about is the fact that
they've got to do a better job of documenting those industries'
businesses that are actually recycling, not only Waste Management,
but with those other 25 vendors.
Because I will tell you, based on the information you're
provided, it's pretty dismal. It basically says, we have gone nowhere
besides a big educational program. We've done a lot of offering to
businesses to take advantage and we've been told no a lot of times.
And Mr. DeLony has those businesses and those times that they've
gone in to try to introduce this along with the chamber.
And I think the chamber knows they've got a good mission to do
in the next six months to document what really is being recycled
from their customers. Because this -- this report card, you know, if it
was coming home with your kid, you'd be -- you'd be doing a lot of
overnight study with them and helping them to get ready for his next
class.
So I think -- I think it's a -- it's a program in progress, and I
think we've got a lot of data collection to do in the next six months
Page 97
June 24, 2003
before they come back and give you the final report card in
December.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, thank you very much. As I
read that report that you put out to all of us a little bit ago -- and first
of all, I have to say, staff has done a wonderful job --
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- going out there and calling on
these businesses, person to person, actually finding out why
businesses do or don't recycle. And if they don't, why not.
I was interested to note that the major businesses are governed
by their home offices, so they didn't -- they didn't bother to recycle
because the home office didn't tell them that they could. I don't
know how that can be approached, but I figure the chamber can take
that ball and at least run with it.
And secondly, the schools that were directed by their principals
only. I thought that was interesting. Some principals want to recycle
and others didn't care about it. And I thought, there needs to be a
more orchestrated effort on behalf of us working with the school
system to have everybody participating in it, not just at the
convenience of some.
Another thing is, I noticed that many small businesses weren't
interested at all in recycling. They were trying to get the food on the
table for their families and they weren't interested in recycling.
Some that were taking their recyclables home, but others didn't even
know about a landfill. They didn't even really care that it's filling up.
And you know, sometimes they don't have touch with that, which
means we need to do better education for these smaller businesses,
especially those that aren't members of the chamber. I don't know
how you're going to do that. I challenge you with that.
Lastly, as we try and determine how much is being recycled and
how much isn't, if you take a ride by -- not that I ride by the garbage
Page 98
June 24, 2003
areas of restaurants and bars all the time, but if you take a notice,
there's just one dumpster there instead of recycling dumpsters as
well.
So I mean, even if the bar, for instance, throws all of their
bottles into containers and boxes them up, and their cans into
another, they all go into the same recycle bin anyway, and they're
still taken out to the landfill.
Now, I've asked that question a number of times, and one of the
things that I've heard in return is, it costs extra dollars for them to
recycle, and I think that that's a problem. I mean, I can understand
why businesses don't make an extra effort if it's going to cost them
more dollars to save our landfill, and possibly that can be something
addressed as you go into this last six months.
And thank you for letting me say all of that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, and you have every right to,
Commissioner.
The -- Mr. DeLony, I have a question, how do you know when a
truck comes over the scales at the landfill that it comes from
business?
MR. DeLONY: Well, first of all, we're -- we've got a coding
system for every truck that comes in, and know exactly where that
truck comes from.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: We -- either they're already in our -- logged
into our system and actually have a reader, R, we ask them, and they
fill out a trip ticket that tells us exactly where they come from, what
-- who the hauler is that's bringing that material into the landfill.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So is it every truck that has
one of those forks for the dumpsters?
MR. DeLONY: Well, that would be one type of truck, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that how we're counting them?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. We're not counting at the landfill right
Page 99
June 24, 2003
now the trucks coming through. The benchmarks that we're working
on deal with participation -- as outlined -- with participation. We're
not -- we're not being able to -- as Mr. Mudd described, it's very
difficult to manage recyclables at that stage in terms of, you know,
percentages of the load other than what you can spot on maybe a
circumstantial basis.
So what we're looking at and benchmarking is an outline in
what we can capture in terms of accurate and relevant and, I believe,
right on, you know, benchmarking in terms of participation and the
level of capturing the data at our recycling centers. That's where
we're working the data through right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I've heard management say that .50
percent of the waste going into the landfill comes from business, so --
I mean, I guess what I need to do is to sit down with you and --
MR. DeLONY: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- figure out how you're measuring.
And what I hear is, it's up to the chamber to identify the recyclable
companies out there other than our hauler, Waste Management.
MR. DeLONY: They've stepped up to do that, and we're
working with them on that.
I feel confident that, for example, that we have a pretty good
indicator, not the sole indicator, but a pretty good indicator in just
looking at what Waste Management alone is providing us in terms of
participation, because they do represent the majority of the effort in
terms of commercial recycling in Collier County. It's not all of it.
There's 25 -- at least 25 others, according to what Mike said earlier.
But we are just, you know, grabbing good data and using that as
a benchmark. We felt that that was a good one. If the chamber's able
to get more data that can -- that we feel is valid, and I say we
(indicating), then we'll present that as part of the benchmarking as
well.
I'm very comfortable with the benchmark as we provided it to
Page 100
June 24, 2003
you today in terms of where we are. Certainly there can be others,
but these sure, in my view, provide -- and we agree. We have agreed
as a delivery team that these are valid indicators of where we are and
how we're progressing with regard to nonmandatory recycling in
Collier County from a business perspective.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. DeLony, in the previous
business that I had, Waste Management didn't provide any --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- recycling.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I had five, maybe six recyclable
items that, you know, companies would come around and get. One
doesn't fit all. I'm not sure if -- and I have the opportunity to find out
and what the data is. And I appreciate that opportunity.
MR. DeLONY: Sure, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One other question I have, Mr.
DeLony, is that in your benchmarks, what do you look for in your
benchmarks over a five-year period as far as recycling? What are
you trying to -- what are we trying to accomplish here? Are we
trying to get everybody onboard to recycle so that we've got one
hundred percent recycling?
Do you have some type of criteria that you've established where
you think that everyone, whether they're commercial or residential,
where we should be in -- five years from now or three years from
now? Could you --
MR. DeLONY: Sir, the benchmarks that we have in front of
you were set up specifically to measure 18 months of progress for
this effort at direction of board. We -- back in May was a year ago.
Staff came in with a proposal for mandatory recycling for
commercial businesses in Collier County. Board directed us to go
out with the chamber and work through a series, to see if we could
Page 101
June 24, 2003
get volunteer recycling, and we set these benchmarks to measure that
progress and that progress alone.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: In the con -- greater context of our success or
failure to manage recycling or any other aspect of the solid waste
stream in Collier County is going to be how long we've extended the
life of that landfill. That's the true benchmark. That's the true
benchmark is that, what is our landfill capacity vice (sic) our landfill
of need? And that we watch very carefully from a total aggregate
waste stream as opposed to just looking at recyclables.
Throughout the last two years, we have -- we, working with a
lot of folks and the board's direction and approval, have diverted
about 50 percent of what was going in there two years ago, three
years ago. Fifty percent of what would go on that landfill -- I'm
talking total waste stream, recyclables, divertables, putrid garbage,
whatever -- fifty percent no longer goes to the hill, it goes
somewhere else, either to use, recycling, or some other type of
diversion other than putting it in the Naples Landfill.
Now, that's the true benchmark that I look at in terms of success
of this and many other aspects of the solid waste stream management
in Collier County.
Did I answer your question, sir?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You answered the first question,
you answered that one, and I was going to direct a question to the
Chamber of Commerce.
MR. REAGEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What are your goals that you want
to set here for the next six months, that -- when this comes before the
Board of Commissioners?
MR. REAGEN: We want to increase the participation rate, and
we also want to increase that which is diverted to recycling.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And you're also going to
Page 102
June 24, 2003
have current updated data on the other 25 waste haulers that --
MR. REAGEN: That's our goal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- do business here in Collier
County; is that correct?
MR. REAGEN: That's our goal, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So then we can get a better
idea of where we stand as far as preserving our landfill. And I guess
that's where I'm trying to get -- put the whole picture here together--
MR. REAGEN: Bottom line here -- if I may, the whole picture
is to preserve the landfill and extend its life, okay?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. REAGEN: At the same time, the demographics of this
community are growing rapidly, you understand that, so it's a moving
target. We also understand that there are many large producers of
waste material that never -- never goes into the landfill. Coastal
Beverage, Publix, all those people have separate deals where the stuff
is packaged and shipped right out. So it's a very -- it's an ambitious
thing, it's a very complicated thing.
But our goal right now is to get more businesses understanding
the immediate economics, perhaps, and the cost benefit of recycling,
to educate them, try to get large groups of people to participate that
haven't participated before. We get more people participating and
then to have more recyclables not go to the landfill, and trying to
measure that with a moving target in addition to all the other stuff
you're doing. That's the goal.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think a good benefit would be
when you put all together all this information that you get from the
other 25 landfills, is to periodically publish this so that hopefully this
will be a way of encouraging other people to get involved in the
process, and hopefully we can make it more beneficial so that it's not
costing the small businessman a lot of additional funds in order to
recycle.
Page 103
June 24, 2003
So I think we've got a couple of goals here that we need to
establish to make it a lot easier for them and to be not as expensive to
recycle the product.
MR. REAGEN: I would agree with you. The comm -- if I may,
Mr. Chairman, the comments that were made by Commissioner Fiala
and others, are on target. People don't understand. There's a great
deal of education that needs to take place across the community in all
due respect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
MR. REAGEN: And there's -- the individual business person,
it's very, very difficult for them to grasp this and to divert their
attention and money and so on, so it's a big job.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, if we're done talking trash, we
do have a public speaker.
MR. REAGEN: If you have to put it that way, Mr. Chairman,
thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sue?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, we have one speaker, Mr. Bob
Krasowski.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, as he walks up, one item that
Commissioner Fiala didn't get to is the fact that the chamber has done
a significant amount of advertising, and they've got a movie clip, and
they went through that whole thing that I've seen a couple of times on
the net as far as that's concerned, so they've done due diligence and
tried to advertise it and let the business community know what the
program IS.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Bob Krasowski. I'm with the Zero Waste Group, Zero
Waste, Collier County Group.
In reviewing the material that you have in front of you, I think
Page 104
June 24, 2003
the staff and the chamber have been doing a pretty good job.
Certainly they've been addressing issues and components of these
overall issues that are important, but I think in having them do what
they do, that what they're doing, you're kind of limiting what needs to
be done. You're not -- you're not attacking this problem -- issue on
all fronts.
I'm with Zero Waste, Collier County Group, and we've been
involved with this issue since December of 2000, or actually shortly
after that we formed the Zero Waste, Collier County Group.
And I have comments to make in regards to this interim report.
But maybe my first comment is that we ask you to be sure that Zero
Waste, Collier County Group is included in the discussions, in the
process of putting these reports together.
We were invited to a couple of meetings at the chamber
regarding this commercial waste recycling, and it was -- it was good
to go there, but they've already had their position developed and their
point of view and their -- the paper already developed through their
meetings with the county.
Since Mr. DeLony's been here, we haven't had but one meeting
with the county staff, where prior to that, the other public utilities
director -- directors were more open, and I'm not sure exactly why --
why that is happening.
The -- the zero waste workshop, the people that we brought in
for the zero waste workshop, design charrette, have worked on this
issue and these issues and have developed programs for places like
Seattle, Washington; different communities in California; Halifax,
N ova Scotia.
And what the chamber's doing, what you're doing, and the staff
are doing, you're reinventing the wheel. There are many things here
that are not being done correctly as you search for the right thing to
do. And if it's not done right, we're going to wind up with materials
going to the landfill, recyclables that are going there unnecessarily,
Page 105
June 24, 2003
and it's -- we're not going to get the full benefit of what a successful
program might give us.
There's a lot of misinformation still floating around. The id~a
that 50 percent of the material going to the landfill now is
commercial material, that's commercial with multiple residential
mixed in. So you don't even have an accurate number of what the
businesses are generating as far as waste. You have your multiple
family places that have dumpsters. Well, that's included in
commerc ial.
That's right -- yeah, that's right, Commissioner Henning. And--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's what I thought, thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. That isn't how --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You know, a trash expert, you would
know.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah, well, there's all sorts of trash, you
know, so -- being an expert, I don't know if I qualify for all of it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Hey, you don't belong up here,
watch it.
MR. KRASOWSKI: We have also the misconception that there
are 25 businesses that provide recycling service in Collier County.
And there are 24, 25 businesses that provide that service, but only
one or two have a wide array of services. And being that one of them
is the solid waste -- see, like, Waste Management is the garbage
franchiser for Collier County. They are not the recyclable franchiser.
And being that Waste Management has strong influence in the
chamber and that Waste Management has strong influence being on
the board of directors of Keep Collier Beautiful, which is sort of the
chambers of one of their work -- people they work with -- and it's
sort of like, there seems to be a free floating bias if -- indicated if we
don't do something on the part of the county and the staff to
communicate with these other recyclers.
Like Sunshine Recycling, in -- and I'll be running out of time
Page 106
June 24, 2003
here soon. It's too bad. But once again, if I would have had -- if we,
the group, myself representative of our group, would have been
included by Mr. Mudd, Mr. DeLony, Mr. Yilmaz in meetings, we
could have discussed this and worked it out before we got here, so
there are certain things you won't hear that I would have liked to say.
But, you know, way back when, years ago, we brought all of
you the briefing, issue briefing packet from the zero waste people,
grass-roots recycling network, and we brought to you Gary Liss, one
of the maximum diversion strategy consultants that advocates via the
zero waste perspective. And much of what you're doing now is part
of that.
If you don't succeed in diverting all of the recyclables from the
landfill, that's the material that people are using to justify a pyrolysis
facility. If you divert what you can, maximum diversion recyclable,
you could get away without doing a pyrolysis facility. It all boils
down to that. So you back away from that, you don't do a good job,
you don't do an effective job, there you have your pyrolysis facility.
Okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Appreciate your attention.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thanks for the report.
Is it the wish of the board we want to continue on through the
agenda, or you want to take a lunch break at this time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Take a lunch break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Take a lunch break.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take an hour break
and be back at 1:10.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Recess is over, guys.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting of the Board of
Commissioners back in session.
Page 107
June 24, 2003
Item #10B
REJECT A REQUEST BY SURFSEDGE INC. FOR
REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE REMOVAL OF BEACH SAND IN
Next item is --
MR. MUDD: 10(B), reject a request by Surfsedge, Inc., for
reimbursement for the removal of beach sand in the amount of
$3,782.56.
And Mr. DeLony will present this item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the board?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did we finish up voting on the last
one before we broke for lunch?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, you basically voted and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. MUDD: You didn't have to vote on -- it was a
presentation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't have a question. I'll make
a motion that we deny staffs request to deny this and that we approve
the expenditures of $3,000.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle -- there's a
motion on the floor by Commissioner Coy Ie. Is there a second to the
motion? Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're seconding the motion?
Page 108
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So basically what we're doing
is paying Surfsedge 3,782 --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oop. I pull that back. I pull that
second back. I pull that back.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You're pulling your motion
( sic). Is there --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there a second to Commissioner
Coyle's motion? Is there a second to Commissioner Coyle's motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion fails for lack of a second.
I'll make a motion that we accept staffs recommendations.
Is there a second to my motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a second by Commissioner
Halas.
Any discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir, no speakers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 3-1.
Item #10C
DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE HAMMOCK ISLES PROJECT
Page 109
June 24, 2003
UNDER PREVIOUS COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC), DIVISION 3.15 REGULATIONS
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE
PUBLIC FACILITIES (COA) BY DETERMINING THAT THE
SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT WAS IN PROCESS PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT TO DIVISION 3.15,
WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 6, 2003 -
APPROVED FOR STAFF TO APPLY THE PRIOR LDC
EROVISlONS
MR. MUDD: Next item -- next item is 10(C), and that's to
obtain direction from the Board of County Commissioners to
consider the Hammock Isles project under provisions (sic) Collier
County Land Code, LDC, division 3.15 regulations for the issuance
of a Certificate of Adequate Public Facility by determining the
subject development was in the process prior to the effective date of
the Collier County Land Development Code Amendment of division
3.15, which became effective, February 6, 2003.
And I'll remind the board that I made a correction this morning
on the change sheet to item 10(C), and read that into record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Refresh my memory. What was the
correction?
MR. MUDD: It was the second item on the change sheet, and it
was item 10(C) should read, obtain direction from the Board of
County Commis&ioners to consider the Hammock Isles project under
previous rather than provisions, Collier County Land Development
Code, LDC, division 3.15 regulations for the issuance of a Certificate
of Adequate Public Facilities, COA, by determining that the subject
development was in the process prior to the effective date of the
Collier County Land Development Code amendment to division
3.15, which became effective February 6, 2003.
Page 110
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For
the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on. Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Actually, when you finish this item, I'd like to
come back to 10(B) briefly, if you could, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: Administrator of community development,
environmental services.
Commissioners, I won't go through the history. You recall at
the last Board of County Commissioners meeting, Mr. Saudi
approached the board and asked the board to consider at least a
proposal to allow that his proj ect be considered having been in effect
or under review under the provisions of the concurrency amendment
3.15, under the new -- newly passed revised amendments that were
passed effective in February, that a petitioner would have had to have
submitted a final subdivision plat in order to be vested or at least to
be grandfathered under the old rules.
Mr. Saudi submitted his application for the Hammock Isles
project. You have the history in your packet. It started August 21 st
and through the dates, all the way down to February 24th.
And the proposal is that, considering that staff -- the staff
process took time to process us through the review both through the
transportation and through community development, that we are
asking that you consider this proj ect to be considered as being in
process prior to the effective date to the amended provisions of the
LDC, division 3.15, based upon determination, and direct staff that
they apply to prior LDC provisions. So that was our proposal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions by the members of
the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
Page 111
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner -- motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any questions on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Going back to item 10(B). Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the vote was
taken, you noted a vote of 3-1, and Commissioner Fiala was in the
room, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: She wasn't seated.
MR. WEIGEL: Exactly. She was --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't speak up.
MR. WEIGEL: She was close. But in any event, having been
in the room, it's appropriate for her to have a vote recorded for the
record on the 1 O(B) to fulfill the --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. And I'll vote in favor
of the motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay, fine. Thank you. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Moving on to -
Item #10D
Page 112
June 24, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-231 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF
FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR THOSE PERPETUAL
OR TEMPORARY EASEMENT INTERESTS REQUIRED FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-LANE SECTION OF
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD BETWEEN AIRPORT ROAD
AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT NO. 63, PROJECT NO. 63051). ESTIMATED FISCAL
IMP ACT.:.J~, 76~,600 - A DillI.ED
MR. MUDD: 10(D), that's adopt a resolution authorizing
condemnation of fee simple title interest and/or those perpetual or
temporary easement interests required for the construction of six-lane
section of Vanderbilt Beach Road between Airport Road and Collier
Boulevard, which is the capital improvement element number 63,
project number 63051, estimated fiscal impact is five million, seven
hundred and sixty-five dollars -- excuse me -- $5,765,600. And Mr.
Fe -- well, Mr. Strakaluse will present.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, Gregg Strakaluse, for
the record.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Also for the record I would like to
submit the actual legal descriptions that need to be part -- and
become a part of the record.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't have to read them, do
you?
MR. STRAKALUSE: Uh-uh.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You could read that. We should be
out of here in a few hours.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Commissioners, as you recall back in --
January 14th of2003, your board approved the resolution authorizing
staff to acquire property along 92 parcels of Vanderbilt Beach Road
Page 113
June 24, 2003
for the improvement proj ect from a two-lane dangerous road section
to a six-lane improved section.
Since then staff has worked with the community and with the
regulatory agencies to reduce affected parcels from 92 parcels to 73
parcels, and has worked with the community also.
One example of this particular work that's gone on is, oak trees
at the corner of Oaks Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road will not
be taken as a part of this proj ect.
On January 14th, staff presented the details surrounding the
need to acquire additional property for safety, environmental, and
constructibility requirements. By reference, I'm incorporating the
presentation that was previously made as part of that January 14th
meeting into the minutes of this particular meeting.
With your approval today, staff anticipates having the property
permits in place by March of 2004 and beginning construction
shortly thereafter, with substantial completion by 2007.
Based on this info, I'd ask that your board approve the
recommendations outlined in the executive summary.
This concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any
questions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I have two questions.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One, I was curious as to why you
referenced that there were no mobile homes located on the property.
I never saw that before.
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's part of the standard language that's
typically used as part of the description.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine.
Second question is, we're talking about a reduction in the
project's right-of-way needs, but I didn't see anything at all as far as
the support material to tell us how much of a financial reduction that
Page 114
June 24, 2003
this is going to be.
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's a good point. The initial estimate
that's determined for the right-of-way acquisition is essentially a
ballpark estimate done on the latest and greatest records that we
have. We haven't done the appraisals -- we're in the process of doing
the appraisals at this point for those parcels, and the appraisals are
what truly dictates the actual cost of the offers that we'll be making.
The worst case scenario, if we needed to condemn each and
every parcel, we have provided an estimate of what that number is.
There will be a savings in the reduction of the parcels. We've
estimated that preliminarily to be at least $200,000 at this point. But,
again, that's a ballpark estimate and won't actually be known until the
appraisals are done.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala. Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Page 115
June 24, 2003
Item #10E
AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY FOR A
PUBLIC UTILITIES' DIVISION OPERATIONS CENTER AT A
COST NOT TO EXCEED $8,200,000 (LAND, BUILDINGS AND
ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS), PROJECT NUMBERS 73072
AND 700~9 - AffROVED
MR. MUDD: And Commissioner, the next item 10(E), and
that's to approve an agreement for the purchase of property for a
public utilities division operation center at a cost not to exceed
$8,200,000, land, building, and associated improvements, project
numbers 73072 and 70059. And Mr. DeLony will present this
particular item.
MR. DeLONY: For the record, Jim DeLony, public utilities
administrator.
The public utilities division has outgrown its present facilities
that we have located on T ery I Road, South Horseshoe Drive, and
Shirley Street.
After investigating a number of potential centralized sites over
the past three years, the division is recommending today that the
board approve this executive summary, which allows for the
acquisition of two buildings, totaling 84 -- 86,400 square feet on five
acres of property -- property located between Mercantile Avenue and
Progress Avenue in Naples Production Park.
This move will result in a higher level of service to our
customers deriving out of the Cole (sic) location appreciately (sic)
separated functions. We also have efficiencies that we believe will
occur in service delivery, and also because of this more centralized
location, there will be a convenience that will allow a signalized
access to major corridors in all directions in the county.
I have with me today three department heads, or parts of our
Page 116
June 24, 2003
departments, that will describe the operational improvements
expected to result from the approval of this acquisition, and then I
will come back with closing remarks and answer any questions that
you may have.
With that, may we proceed?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anybody have any questions on this
item? I mean, I'm sure your staff has some things to do.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, let me -- let me add some things
real quick before we go to the staff piece.
I've given directions to the staff to get out of rental space in the
next five years. I said, we're wasting money in all the rental space
we're in.
One of the -- one of the other directions that the board is given
and we brought up when we were talking about the sheriffs
expansion to the j ail and the parking garage to the residents in -- on
Palm and on Glades -- on Lakewood in the Glades community is the
fact that we would try to get out of the T ery I Road Water
Distribution Facility that is beyond its appropriate use.
When it was sold way back when and the board accepted, the
public utilities department years ago said that there would be no
more than 12 people operating out of that facility on a daily basis.
Well, there's close to 60 people operating out of there on a daily
basis, and they're moving some heavy equipment back and forth
through -- on that road in this residential community, and I'm not too
sure that's what everybody signed up for.
So one of the -- one of the charters that I gave the public utilities
division is try to find an appropriate place that's zoned appropriately,
zoned correctly, commercial, the way it's supposed to be in an
industrial complex, for that distribution center, and then try to do
some consolidations off of Shirley Street, because he's kind of
outgrowing that facility.
The next piece was the part about getting out of rental space.
Page 11 7
June 24, 2003
And we've got -- there's some frontal property to this facility that has
office space in it. And I basically told Mr. DeLony to get Mr.
Y onkosky and the Department of Revenue for utilities out of South
Horseshoe where it's rental space and get them into this owned
facility as part of this purchase, and this way he can -- he can
consolidate those things and get out of that rental facility and try to
keep within that five-year period of time.
So those were the directions that I gave to the public utilities,
and they're basically coming back with their solution to those
directions.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Couple of questions.
We took the highest assessment or appraisal for this property.
Can you tell me why we elected to do that?
MR. DeLONY: Let me turn it over to Chuck. Let Chuck
explain to you that we actually used a combination of several. But
let him lay that out for you, Mr. Coyle, and I'll come back and
answer your questions behind that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I understand that you liked
the process that was used by, I guess, Anderson and Carr. But how
does that affect the purchase price?
MR. DeLONY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I mean, why couldn't you have
offered something less than 5,900,000 for it?
MR. DeLONY: All right. Chuck?
MR. CARRINGTON: For the record, Chuck Carrington,
manager of real estate services.
We did offer less. But first of all, the seller wouldn't take less.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. CARRINGTON: And as far as the two appraisals, both
appraisers, when they did their evaluation of the property, they all
used the three approaches. But then R&W, when they arrived at final
Page 118
June 24, 2003
value, they didn't use all three approaches and average them, where
Anderson and Carr did.
And we felt that's more appropriate. Even though they're both
acceptable, we felt that's more appropriate, especially for this piece
of property, because this piece of property was an income-producing
property, and so they should have really used all three approaches to
it, and that's why we put more value on that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So you made an initial
offer of how much?
MR. CARRINGTON: Five-five, I believe.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And the owner countered?
MR. CARRINGTON: With five-nine.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: With five-nine?
MR CARRINGTON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And then you had the
appraisal and you decided five-nine was reasonable?
MR. CARRINGTON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, with respect to the
fiscal impact, the only thing that's missing here is some indication of
the cost benefit analysis of moving from rental or leased space to an
owned building that needs to have certain renovations and
improvements in it.
Okay. Can you give me some idea as to the -- the financial
benefit to the taxpayers --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- for this particular decision?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. John?
MR. YONKOSKY: Good afternoon. Commissioners, John
Y onkosky, utility building customer service director.
One of the cost benefit analysis that we went through,
Commissioner Coyle, was we pay $130,000 a year for our rental
space on South Horseshoe, and the lease agreement has a four
Page 119
June 24, 2003
percent annual escalation clause in it. By -- if the board approves
this purchase and we get moved over there, we will save $1,600,000
in rental payments or lease payments over the next 10 years, and
that's a substantial am~unt of money. Because with the lease
payment, you don't really get a significant return. And this will be
$1,638,000 in savings to us.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Over the 10-year period?
MR. YONKOSKY: Over a 10-year period, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that takes into consideration
all costs associated with this move, including the renovation and
other capital improvements associated with it?
MR. YONKOSKY: No. Those are just hard dollars that we
save out of pocket by not making the lease payments over the next 10
years. We're going to take a lot of our furniture with us though.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah. But you're also going
to be putting in substantial improvements in the building. Is that
included in the cost benefit analysis?
MR. YONKOSKY: When you look at it overall, the significant
savings to -- if we were to go out and build a building like this, it
would be significantly higher than what the total cost of this package
IS.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm really only looking at
the current situation and the one you're proposing. I'm only looking
at those two alternatives. Those are the only two al -- those are the
only two alternatives before us, and I'm trying to get a handle on --
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- whether or not this move is
going to cost us more money than if we stayed in the place we're at
right now.
MR. DeLONY: Sir, we've laid it out in the executive summary
to some detail what our estimated costs were if we were to go out and
buy this property, buy a piece of property, develop that property
Page 120
June 24, 2003
from scratch, go through the zoning process and the commercial
development of that property for government purposes.
The estimates that we were working off of were somewhere
between 75 to $100 a square foot just for the building cost alone.
And we're looking at utilizing 86,000 square feet in this property at a
cost of something under $6 million for the property, with the zoning,
with the impact fees paid, with arterial connections both north and
south, east and west.
And I just -- just kind of got to the point, said, I can't do better
than this in terms of location, the as-builts that are there in terms of
their worth in present value if I were to replace that somewhere else,
and the ability to move because of the uniqueness of this property's
location, not just the operations of in-ground services, but customer
service out of leased spaces. I just could not find that combination in
any close to that type of a financial arrangement. And I don't know
that I've answered your questions, but that's the analysis that I went
through in making this recommendation to you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I think -- I think where I'm
coming out on this is that --
MR. MUDD: You didn't -- you didn't get an answer to your
question, first.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I didn't.
MR. MUDD: Because a strict cost benefit analysis was not
done for this particular proj ect. There was some direction from the
board to move out of Teryl Road. There was a plan in utilities to
build a consolidated water collection sewer -- no, excuse me -- sewer
collection, water distribution -- I'll get it right -- facility along with
solid waste in the back of the landfill area on that 360 acres that you
have out there.
What this basically does is it scraps that plan to build the facility
in the back of the landfill? Why? Because we had partners three
years ago where the sheriff and transportation and everybody was
Page 121
June 24, 2003
locked into going to do that. Some things have happened in between.
The sheriff has moved over into the old County Barn facility
because transportation moved into the FDOT facility on Davis
Boulevard. Now, there's some neighbors that will say, I don't know
if that was a good idea or not, and we're working on a noise study
right now in process to try to decrease that to become better
neighbors.
So we've -- we've stopped that project which was going to be in
the tune of about 12 million to $14 million. That's off the board at
this particular juncture.
This was commercial property that was available, and it's zoned
that way. Commercial property isn't getting cheaper in Collier
County. As you know, Commissioner, you and I have talked about
trying to find a site for a particular car company, that they could get
out of a different area, and it's very difficult to find that.
This was an opportunity that had availed itself. So far the
values on property haven't been going down, so even if we decided in
the future that we didn't need this property or didn't want this
property, we will still come out ahead as far as the property values
are concerned.
So when we looked at all of those ingredients together in this
project, we thought it would be a good thing to do, part of the good
neighbor process. We knew it would cost us money to come out of
that Teryl facility. And it availed it to it, at the same time, gave us
some office space in the front where we could get the DOR folks out
and save about a million and a half over a 1 O-year period in rent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm not going to try to
micromanage the decision-making process. But I -- I need to ask two
questions.
Number one, I presume that in carrying out the board's
instructions of getting out of the Teryllocation, that you would not
make a foolish financial decision to do that, okay?
Page 122
June 24, 2003
And number two, I also presume -- and I'd like for you to
reassure me -- that the cost benefits and the service benefits of
making this move outweigh the costs of making the move.
MR. DeLONY: I would not be making a recommendation
counter to that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And that's exactly my recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And so, that's the bottom line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But just so you understand --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- anytime I'm looking at a
financial decision of this magnitude and we're swapping one thing for
something else --
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I really would like to have a
fairly detailed cost benefit analysis on that.
MR. DeLONY : Yes, sir. And we will endeavor to meet that
expectation.
I just want to reiterate what the county manager said earlier, is
that some of these aspects of this decision are not financial. They
deal with location and opportunity to better serve our customers.
Difficult to put a price on that, you know.
We do know financially though, from the standpoint, if we were
going -- we looked at 14 different properties up and down Livingston
Road, east and west of Livingston Road, just about anywhere. This
was the best property available at the best location at the best price
that met the minimum of our needs.
And I say minimum. Minimum today, and it leaves me a little
room for expansion in the future, and that's -- so that's where we
came down on. So I agree, sir, that we do owe you a financial
analysis more to the standard of your expectations, and we will
Page 123
June 24, 2003
endeavor to do that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And parking is adequate for you
for your future needs?
MR. DeLONY: We will have to look carefully at parking as
part of our site development plan process. I have to be careful here
because you-all haven't told me to go spend any money on this thing
yet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: But I've looked at it. There's 95 times four
parking places. Four rows of parking, 95 slots per, that are along the
fence and in between the two buildings, and then there's some on the
hammerheads.
I know -- plus I know that there's a lot of covered base space
within this 86,400 square foot -- these two structures, that we will not
need for interior office space but could provide for covered parking
for critical items of equipment. So from the standpoint of utility of
the site, I'm very confident we can make it work and make it work
very well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I guess basically we're
going to cut to the chase and we're going to say what we're doing is
trying to get an efficient operation, and the consolidation of all these
different groups together under one roof would definitely be a lot
more efficient and be beneficial to the taxpayers in the long run; is
that correct?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. DeLony, how much of the site
would be for future growth of your department?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, and thank you for the opportunity to
answer that question, because that's something that we're going to
Page 124
June 24, 2003
have to address as we finish the site development plan.
We'll have to take a hard look at what is currently -- we're
currently using in terms of square foot, and then add to that what we
assess to be the deficiency or how much -- like Teryl Road's just two
acres, and it's just -- it's well under even serving the current clientele
in terms of space and facilities.
So I've got to put that number together, add it to the space
deficiency, take a look at those two numbers, look at the available,
make that subtraction, and I would believe that difference would
most probably be eligible for impact fees as opposed to totally user
fee funded, so that would be -- that would be that portion of this
facility, which we would reserve for future growth in our utility
systems. That's the methodology we're looking at now.
I haven't been able to make that -- to present it to you today, but
it's certainly something that we will do as we look and we tally the
costs, and we'll bring that back to the board.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Can you give the commissioners an idea on
percentage?
MR. DeLONY: No, not today, I really can't. It's somewhere
between zero and 50, I'm sure, but I don't know if I'm any closer with
that, with regard to my assessment today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there adequate space for your
existing employees?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. You're confident of that?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Could you guess at the possible
expansion of your -- you know, that's great to use impact fees, but I'd
hate to see you having to move out of that facility in another three to
four years because of your growth.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Jim, let me help a little bit.
Page 125
June 24, 2003
Commissioner, if you take a look at this slide, and I think it's a
way to try to start to get -- to add some concreteness to what you're
talking about. If you look at the things that are in yellow right now,
these are facilities within those two buildings that are under lease,
okay, to outside agencies.
So Mr. DeLony knows that he's got these particular spaces that
he can use for his existing -- his existing employees. And over the
next five years, as these leases expire, that will be the future growth.
So I can -- I can, as a rough guess, go in there and start looking --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: About a third.
MR. MUDD: -- at the square footages of that, and I know it's --
and I know it's above zero, but I also know it's not above 50 percent,
and it's one of the things he can look at. But I give that to you
because I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that helps me out --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- county manager.
Commissioner Coletta had a question?
MR. DeLONY: I guess one thing I do want to -- the county
manager did -- that we are getting rental on that space while we're
waiting to use it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Great.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
MS. CHADWELL: If I might interject. I'm sorry. I thought
Mr. DeLony was going to --
MR. DeLONY: I am.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, we're not.
MR. DeLONY: I was going to ask about the super majority.
MS. CHADWELL: Okay. I'm sorry. Ellen Chadwell for the
record.
I'd just like to ask that you incorporate in your motion that the
Page 126
June 24, 2003
purchase of this property, as well as the incidental assumption of the
leases on the property is -- does serve a public purpose and remind
you that because staff is recommending a purchase price that exceeds
the average of the two appraisals, that we will need a super majority,
or an extraordinary vote, which is four of the five votes today.
Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, counselor.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All of our votes are extraordinary.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, you had a
question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it was on the leased
property, but I think it's been fairly well answered.
And one of the things we can do, too, if we for some reason we
can't adequately use a piece of -- part of it, maybe we might be
isolated by leased property from using one end, we could always
come up with a short-term lease to be able to make sure we're turning
the dollars. I'm sure at no point in time will this facility even be
partially empty.
I assume that. That's correct, right?
MR. DeLONY: Sir, I just can't see it happening. We've got--
we're growing significantly in terms of our customer base, we're very
deficient in our current facilities, and I think we've got a good
transition here between here and there with using these leased
properties and the leases we have to wield that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's already a motion on
the floor.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And I'll add--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I seconded it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. And we'll add that verbiage
that you requested, that the county attorney had requested. We'll put
Page 127
June 24, 2003
that in also with the motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And my second.
MS. CHADWELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further discussion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you.
Item #10F
EXP ANSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOUR LANE
PORTION OF THE GOODLETTE FRANK ROAD PROJECT,
FROM CENTER STREET TO ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE, TO A
SIX LANE PROJECT AND APPROVE THE EXTENDED USE OF
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONTRACTOR AND
CONSULTANTS, AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., JOHNSON
ENGINEERING, INC., AND PBS&J INC., PROJECT NO. 60134 -
~OVED
MR. MUDD: The next item is 10(F), Commissioner, and that's
to approve the expansion of the previously approved four-lane
Page 128
June 24, 2003
portion of Goodlette-Frank Road project from Center Street to
Orange Blossom Drive to a six-lane project and approve the extended
use of the previously-approved contractor and consultants Ajax
Paving Industry, Inc., Johnson Eng -- Johnson Engineering, Inc., and
PBS&J, Inc., project number 60134, and Mr. Feder will present this
item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala has a --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mr. Feder, you've done a great job
outlining it for us. I think it's something we need to do, so I make a
motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Fiala makes a motion. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, if I could, one thing I would like
to add to make it clear is, in your approval of proceeding forward on
this, we would then seek to negotiate with each of these three.
Again, we're talking about quantity additions. We've worked that
through with our purchasing and with the clerk's office to make sure
we're comfortable with the contracting provisions.
The change orders would then be appropriately handled either
as a report to you or with their magnitude, come back to you for
approval.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There was a motion by
Commissioner Fiala and second by Commissioner Coletta to accept
staffs recommendations.
So all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 129
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #1 OJ
APPROVING A LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AMONG WCI COMMUNITIES,
INC., HAMMOCK BAY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND
COLLIER COUNTY FOR LANDSCAPING ALONG MAINSAIL
DRIVE (FOR INSTALLATION OF A NEW CURVING
SIDEWALK, LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, ENHANCED
LANDSCAPING, AND IRRIGATION INSTALLATION-
~OVED WT.IH:LHANGES
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, with your -- Mr. Chairman, with
your concurrence, I'd like to do item 10(J).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: It was brought by Commissioner Fiala. It used to
be 16(B) 1, and the issue at hand was five what. It's five working
days.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. MUDD: And it has to do with the WCI landscaping
agreement.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. That's all I needed to
know.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you like to make it a motion?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I'll make a motion to approve
as corrected.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
Page 130
June 24, 2003
Any discussion on the motion?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item # 1 OG
APPROVING GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (G.M.P.) OF
$34,402,176 FOR CONTRACT NO. 98-2829, AMENDMENT #4
TO KRAFT CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE PROPOSED NAPLES JAIL ADDITION AND
RENOV A TION, PARKING DECK AND CHILLER PLANT
~-AE.EROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 10(G), which is
to approve a guaranteed maximum price, GMP, of$34,402,176 for
contract number 98-2829, agreement number four to -- no, excuse me
-- amendment number four to Kraft Construction, Inc., for the
construction of the proposed Naples Jail addition and renovation,
parking deck, and chiller plant expansion.
And Mr. Camp will present this item.
MR. CAMP: Good afternoon. For the record, Skip Camp, your
facilities management director.
The amendment before you is part of the contract you had
Page 131
June 24, 2003
previously approved related to the Naples Jail project. It does two
things. It establishes that the guaranteed maximum price, GMP, of
$34,402,176 incorporates the issues addressed in the clerk's
construction audit.
Staff will return to the board on a consent agenda item when a
design fee is negotiated for the completion of the third floor and
stucco repair.
We also request approval of the labor fee schedule that was
inadvertently left out of the amendment package, which I have a
copy of.
Do you have any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the commissioners?
MR. MUDD: One more -- you went kind of fast. You've
incorporated all of those things that the clerk had found in his
previous audit when he did the library as far as a guaranteed
maximum price contract; is that correct, Mr. Camp?
MR. CAMP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Camp, we're going to be
doing some other expansion on the facility . Would it be an
appropriate time to facilitate the chiller plant addition for other
upcoming capital improvements?
MR. CAMP: Well, actually, that's a good question. We've split
the project, the chiller plant project in two. The first phase is to
accommodate the jail and that's -- will be paid for by impact fees,
and then the second part will be the annex, which will be paid for
differently in a different design. So we've actually split the design,
the chiller plant, to accommodate both projects.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Is that -- both those projects
is what we're looking at today or is that --
MR. CAMP: No, you're --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- something else?
MR. CAMP: Today you're just looking at the jail project--
Page 132
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. CAMP: -- not the annex.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is this going to be cost effective?
MR. CAMP: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What motion? Who made the
motion?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Didn't you make the motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh. We don't have a motion. What
did we vote on then. Geez, what's going on here, folks?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta made a
motion to approve staffs recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Fiala made a
second.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Page 133
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, unanimously.
Item #10H
FUNDING FOR WATER RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $3,380,500, PROJECT 70094,70893,71011 -
~OVED
MR. MUDD: The next item, Commissioner, is item 10(H), and
that's to approve funding for water reliability improvements in the
amount of $3,380,500 for projects 70094, 70893, 71011.
And Mr. Karl Boyer will present.
MR. BOYER: Hello. My name is Karl Boyer. I'm a principal
project manager working with your public utilities engineering
department.
Today I'm here to ask you to approve funding that will
jump-start a proactive, multifaceted program related to assuring that
our water customers will receive consistent and reliable water
servIce.
As some of you may recall, last year at this time we were in a
situation. We came to you with an urgent need. We didn't have
enough well to provide a reliable supply of water. A crisis was
looming, but thanks to the decisive action by the board, we were able
to successfully add six new wells and avert a crisis for this past peak
season.
MR. MUDD: You want to describe that a little bit?
Page 134
June 24, 2003
MR. BOYER: I'll go on to it a little bit further later.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MR. BOYER: Well, the thing is, we don't want to go in a crisis
mode again. That's why I'm here, asking you to fund a program that
will go a long way to keeping us better prepared to meet tomorrow's
challenges before they became a crisis.
I've prepared a brief presentation for you here today . You'll
hear an overview of our long-term plans, a current status report of
where we are today, and details of our proposed near-term reliability
improvement program.
If you wish, I can proceed further with this, if the board wishes.
Okay.
The proposed program consists of a forward looking plan to
acquire new well sites as an extension to our existing well field,
which supplies water to the North County Regional Water Treatment
Plant. We also -- I'll refer to that during our presentation as the north
plant.
The program is proactive because the plan is to acquire new
well sites before we actually need them. The programs also includes
some in-plant renewal and upgrades, the harden (sic) unit processes,
and improve their reliability in advance of peak season, 2004.
The proposed program is consistent with strategic goal number
one, which is to plan for the development and reliable infrastructure
and capital resource management processes in order to meet demand.
The proposed program is consistent with our recent update to
the water master plan. That plan identified the need for $741 million
in capital improvements over the next 20 years.
So first let's take a look at where we are. Again, here's the figure
I showed earlier.
We have two regional water treatment plants which provide
three different unit processes. The south water plant, which is this
top rectangle, is a lime softening plant which is supplied water from
Page 135
June 24, 2003
the lower Tamiami Aquifer.
The north plant is actually two plants in one. What I mean by
that is, that is because the north plant consists of two separate liquid
stream processes. The 12 million gallons a day membrane softening
process is supplied water from the lower Tamiami Aquifer.
The eight MGD reverse osmosis process, also known as the RO
process, is supplied brackish water from the lower Hawthorn
Aquifer.
It's this eight MGD RO process in the lower Hawthorn Aquifer
that is going to be our focus of attention here today.
Currently the well -- RO well field has 16 lower Hawthorn
wells. Eight of them are currently available for continuous duty.
Four wells are out of service because of high salinity; four wells are
unreliable for various reasons.
The north water plant needs at least eight wells to be able to
realize its existing eight MGD capacity. Now, the slide right before
that, I said we have eight wells that can provide continuous duty;
four of them are questionable. So we're right on the margin now as
far as, do we have enough wells to run that plant at full capacity.
We need at least 10 wells to meet the master plan criteria of
having at least 20 percent reliability built into our well field.
Thanks, Jim.
We are currently investigating the causes of the problems with
the four questionable wells. My best guess is that we'll be able to
return the equivalent of two wells in time for next peak season. So
we're -- we should be able to have at least 10 wells available for us
for continuous duty at the start of this next peak season.
Again, that puts us right on the margin. Not a comfortable place
to be in, so our choices are, let's move forward and get some more
well sites, knowing that we've got some questionable wells, or we
can wait and see what happens and then get ourselves maybe in
another crisis situation. I'm here to avert that situation.
Page 136
June 24, 2003
We're also completing some in-plant reliability improvements
that the board had authorized us to do last year, including boosting
RO feed pumps -- that's scheduled for next year -- and boosting
disinfection to comprehend a bypass that was very instrumental in
helping us get through this past season.
We're also completing an in-plant reliability assessment and
predictive maintenance program.
Now I'd like to talk to you in more detail about our near-term
plans. I mentioned that we're -- we have marginal capacity going
into peak season, 2004.
We also have to recognize that we're seeing an increased trend
in salinity in the water supply wells. We've already had four wells
become so saline that they're almost impossible, if not too difficult,
to use. We're seeing that trend continue to the move to the east part
of our well field, and now we have another well that's starting to see
increased salinity.
The proactive approach here is that, again, we're right on the
cusp of whether or not we're going to have a crisis. Let's move
forward thinking that we may lose some more wells in the future,
either due to salinity or mechanical reasons or geohydrologic
formation problems.
The program that we're proposing is multifaceted in that it's
involving engineers, hydrogeologists, and also our real property
folks.
To get a new well field, we need real property. Where are we
going to locate those wells? That's what we're going to -- that's part
of our plan, and I'm ready to present that to you here now.
The reliability improvement program that we're asking you to
fund at this point in time consists of the in-plant reliability
improvements for four hundred five thousand dollars and five
hundred dollars (sic), a saltwater RO feasibility study is in our plan
as well, however, we're not asking you to fund that at this moment.
Page 137
June 24, 2003
That is in the budget for next year. We may be coming forward to
you later to ask you to fund that 150 dollar study (sic) -- $150,000
study.
But it's the last two items that are the big ticket items. The
lower Hawthorn well field extension is about an $8.2 million project
of which we're asking you to jump start that with $2.355 today. That
particular project is consistent with the master plan.
Also we're looking at mid Hawthorn wells. What are mid
Hawthorn wells? It's just the same as a lower Hawthorn well, it's just
not as deep and it will not yield as much water.
By not going as deep, the salinity won't be as -- as severe as the
lower Hawthorn well. But again, the yield will be about half of what
we can get out of the lower Hawthorn well.
Our 2002 master plan update recommended that we investigate
the feasibility of a mid Hawthorn well field, and we are going to do
that. The first phase of that particular program will be, let's see if we
can't punch a couple holes on county-owned property right now and
see what kind of yield we can get out of those.
Based on that, then we'll look at what kind of real property
needs we have associated with the mid Hawthorn well field. That is
about a $6 million project over the next couple years.
Okay, Jim, thanks.
This is a map showing our existing well field along Vanderbilt
Beach Road Extension. The water treatment plant is situated right
here, where I'm pointing my -- lower left corner there, and then it
runs to the east. It's the first few wells running to the east that we're
having the salinity problems with.
Our new wells that we just installed this past year are out here
on the eastern extremity of the system, and they're all producing very
good quality water at a fairly good yield. That's what got us through
the season this past season, having those wells online.
Talking to our hydrogeologists and real property folks, we've
Page 138
June 24, 2003
identified three potential legs to extend the well field so that we can
acquire some more property. We've identified these on the drawing
as phase one, alternate A, phase one, alternate B, and phase one,
alternate C.
Two of the legs are going north toward Immokalee Road. The
other one is going east, out toward Wilson Boulevard.
The proposed plan is to construct some geo -- hydrogeologic
testing wells, we'll do the borings, see what kind of formations we
have down there, and actually pump the holes to see what kind of
yields we can get in terms of quantity and quality.
Those particular holes we're looking at on the extremities of our
proposed alignments with these big circles here. There's one on
Immokalee Road here, one on Immokalee Road up here, another one
on the end of Second Avenue, which is a dead-end road out in the
estates.
The key to this project from a schedule standpoint is that it takes
two and a half years to develop this well field. That's a long time. It
will take longer if we cannot get access to these potential test hole
sites. The test hole sites were intentionally located on property that
we feel we can gain rapid access to.
Immokalee Road, there's a real property acquisition program
going on. We think we can punch a hole within the road
right-of-way. And the Second Avenue, we think also we can stay
within the road easement on a dead-end street without impacting the
area too much.
So we're encouraged by that, that -- these alignments that have
been preselected.
There's nothing that says these are -- findings are fixed. It's
wide open at this point in time. We're just letting you know that our
plan is to evaluate three alignments, perhaps more, with the intent of
securing well sites for four to six wells.
MR. MUDD: Before you take that off, Karl, Commissioners,
Page 139
June 24, 2003
you'll notice this one -- this one proposed monitoring well site that
sits here on Richmond. I've had conversations with the Heritage Bay
folks, and one of the things I've talked about is to work an easement
up their east side for about a mile and a half.
And if you look at their proposed site development plan, they've
got this big colored thing where all the little cul-de-sacs are going to
show up off the lakes and things like that, to talk to them about an
area where we could put a -- lines and some wells in that particular
case as part of their PUD. So I've already opened that dialogue.
And then I would ask Mr. DeLony, in concert with Mr. Schmitt,
to talk about this particular area to the south. And I think we've
probably had some conversations with some folks today about that as
it goes back to the Planning Commission for future deliberation.
And there might be some opportunities to help us with the real estate
aspects of this.
MR. BOYER: Before we take it off there, Jim, I want to show
one more thing, and that is this little space here called phase two.
The county owns a property right in here, which is a future park
site. That's where the well field takes the bend to the north. We're
just hugging the side of the county's property along the park side.
We've identified phase two as a possible place to put one, two,
or three wells, but we're concerned that clustering the wells too close
together is a problem from a hydrogeological standpoint. We don't
want to influence the drawdown of too many wells close together, so
you try to spread them out. Our general guideline is space our wells
about a quarter mile apart.
But in this particular plan we would cluster them too close
together for our hydrogeologist's comfort, so we would ask that you
also include in this proposed funding, an initial study to evaluate
from a hydrogeological modeling standpoint, how many wells could
this alignment actually support. Could it support one or maybe two.
We're going to find out. And if so, we could punch a hole in the
Page 140
June 24, 2003
ground and have it in operation within 18 months, in time for peak
season 2005.
Okay, Jim.
These next slides go into each of the different legs of the well
field with some more detail. With your pleasure, we can go through
those. Mr. Chairman? Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, you have
questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I have -- I have a number of
questions, and maybe we can --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- get to the bottom line on this
thing.
But first I need an assessment of water production versus water
demand, and I don't see that. I see the 32 million gallons of water
production. I don't know what the demand is at that time.
If I recall the last time we went through this, we were peaking at
about 26 to 28 million gallons a day, and that was last year. And
what I need to understand is, if we're talking about 18 months from
now, what is our demand going to be 18 months from now?
MR. BOYER: Paul Mattausch is here, and he can address your
peak-season demands.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. BOYER: He has that experience.
MR. MATTAUSCH: For the record, Paul Mattausch, director
of the water department.
We had -- we experienced a peak day this season of about 30
and a half million gallons in a 24-hour period. We had a maximum
average day month in February of a little bit over 26.7 million
gallons a day. So right now, as far as our capacity, we are -- we are
really pushing capacity.
The south plant RO expansion is scheduled to come online
Page 141
June 24, 2003
before season 2004, so we will have that capacity by season 2004.
That's an additional eight million gallons a day of reverse osmosis
capacity. The -- the critical thing here is making sure that -- that all
of our constructed capacity has the reliability available so that we can
meet peak demands, peak day demands, and in the event of
additional demand that may be placed on the system, which would
include a fire. We just need to -- we just need to make sure that
we're reliable at that point.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. But do we know -- can you
quantify that for me? Can you tell me what is the projected demand
over the next 18 to 24 months, and what is our capacity? And really,
in order to understand it effectively, I need to know the effective
demand on each water plant, north and south, and what is the
capacity of north and south.
And even though you're going to have additional capacity on the
south water plant of eight million gallons a day, are you able to
transfer enough of that northward to service the demand from the
north water plant if it runs short? So those are the kinds of questions
I need to have answered.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, I understand. First of all, let's get -- let's
cut to the first part. We operate a total system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: In other words, where it's made is irrelevant to
the customer and our ability to deliver it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you can deliver it -- you've got
the lines to deliver it, no problem.
MR. DeLONY: We're a totally integrated system. We have one
system.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay.
MR. DeLONY: And got linked -- unlike our sewer system
currently, and we're working hard to get there, but the bottom line is
Page 142
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You don't send it through the
same pipes?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir, we surely do not. Absolutely. And,
you know, it's linked to storage. There's a lot of factors at play here
in terms of our system's ability to meet capacity demands.
Plant capacity. You've talked about the 32 MGD plus the eight
coming online, for a total of 40. That's a plant capacity.
Behind that you've got to have a well field capacity to furnish
the raw water for those plants to produce. It's not a gallon for gallon
transfer. The case of reverse osmosis water, we need -- we only get
three quarters of a gallon for a gallon of raw water, okay? So you've
got to have wells to feed that process, and you have to do that with --
and then lastly, you have to have your system storage right with
regard to management of those storage tanks, they're at the right level
with the right chloride levels, and you've got that -- that system
working. And then Pam Libby's got to make sure the pipes are fixed.
So throughout those four components, we balanced our ability
to deliver demand against our system capacity, not just plant
capacity. So if I've helped you a little bit in understanding how we
manage water, it's not upon a plant basis, but rather on a system
capacity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, I just -- I just need to
get my arms around total demand 18 months from now --
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- projected.
MR. DeLONY: Our peak --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And total water production
capability.
MR. DeLONY: Our peak demand this season on the monthly
basis was 28.6 MGD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: That was our -- of course, you know you've got
Page 143
June 24, 2003
peak day --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. DeLONY: -- peak month. But it was about 28.6, okay?
We can anticipate by experience anywhere from five to seven percent
increase this next season against that peak. There are a lot of factors
that will influence that, the weather, our conservation rates coming
into effect with regard to he who uses the most will pay the most,
okay?
But in the end, about seven percent, five to seven percent, is
what we're looking terms -- in terms of a peak.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we're looking at a little -- right
around 30 million gallons a day as average peak daily demand?
MR. DeLONY: On a monthly basis.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On a monthly basis?
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And our water production
capability right now is around 32 million gallons per day?
MR. DeLONY: You've got to be careful with that, because that
does -- that's total, everything running, nothing breaks. And you've
got to look at a reliability factor -- normally within a system, you
know, component of a system, you look at reliability as if the largest
component was off line.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Okay? And so we look at -- probably, in my
view, we have about 28 MGD reliable. When you take the total
system picture in terms of plant, we should be operating a reliable
number of 28 MGD.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that might not be enough,
even right now?
MR. DeLONY: We are very, very determined to make sure that
south plant comes online so we have that capacity available to us to
produce potable water for Collier County.
Page 144
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Another eight million gallons a
day?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the -- okay. Here's my
problem. We've been -- been drilling wells along Livingston Road
and we've been seeing them increasingly become more saline.
MR. WEIGEL: Vanderbilt.
MR. DeLONY: Vanderbilt.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt
Road.
MR. DeLONY: Vanderbilt Extension.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it appears to be moving from
west to east. And I would suggest to you that we ought to make a
fairly bold move here and assume that it will continue moving from
west to east, consequently we shouldn't drill any more wells there,
that we really ought to go somewhere else and drill some wells. Of
course, drill a test well first to test the hypothesis that we can get
water someplace else.
But I consider it, at least it's my feeling, that drilling more wells
in that particular area is, in the intermediate term, probably wasted
money unless you're -- unless you're moving in the direction of
converting that plant to RO processing capacity. And if you are, how
quickly can you get the skids into that plant --
MR. DeLONY: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- to take that saline water and
process it? How close are we from being able to do that?
MR. DeLONY: Let me make two comments. I'll, first of all,
answer the last one first.
This executive summary has a feasibility study to look at
saltwater RO; in other words, an RO process which will accept
Page 145
June 24, 2003
higher saline water than our current skids do in our north plant, or in
our south plant, for that matter, the new ones.
So we'll look at that and see what that will give us in terms of
costs and benefit and opportunity so we can utilize those high saline
wells without digging any more wells. We're going to take a hard
look at that and see if we can stomp those out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How quickly can -- how quickly
can you determine if that's possible?
MR. BOYER: Well, the study can be done within six months or
so, starting in October. But the long-range plan, to actually
implement a project of that is several years, sir, three to five years.
MR. DeLONY: See? Here's -- and let me answer the second
part, about going other places. You're absolutely on the mark, and
that's the reason that this plant has as a component -- actually the first
component -- is go out and punch those monitoring wells and see if
we can approve or disprove the hypothesis that you suggest that we
have with regard to the deteriorating water quality in this area in
terms of saline.
Can't say that -- that today. I just really can't. When we put
those wells in at Vanderbilt, we were pretty much in a got-to-do-it
basis. We're trying to avoid that now. We got eight wells; we don't
have nine wells. We need eight wells. We're going to bring on two
more. That will give us 10. And we're going to keep our fingers
crossed, but that's not good enough.
As Karl said, we're going to do this monitoring. We'll pick up __
pick the best leg to pursue in terms of real estate and development
from the standpoint of the hydrology that we find, and we'll move on
and come back to the board with that recommendation.
It's broad. We're looking at a leg here, a leg there. Mr. Mudd
showed you another one that actually bends back to the south along
951. That's the kind of work that I think that speaks to you. Let's
don't stick with the same horse on this race. Let's go get a couple
Page 146
June 24, 2003
more. And I think that's -- this strategy allows us to do that, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And one other question I need to
pursue. Your strategy of installing RO capabilities here, you've been
doing it a long time, but we're getting more and more water produced
through the RO process. I think it's a really smart move, and it's a lot
cheaper, as I understand it, to draw this brackish water out of the
lower Hawthorn and treat it than it would be to take sea water in--
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and treat is through -- so it's a
much less expensive process --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So it's a smart thing to do.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The problem is, do you expect that
the saline levels of these particular wells will increase to the point
where you will have to put in far more expensive RO processing
capability?
MR. DeLONY: No, sir. I don't access that at this time. I don't
have the geology nor the hydrogeology to give that to you.
These formations should stay stable in terms of the recharge and
the salinity levels we do. But the testing is going to be very
important. We will not -- we will not put any production wells in
place without adequate testing of the hydrogeology that's in place.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: But again, sir, I've got to tell you, a lot of this is
guesswork, you know, you -- in terms of what you find and what you
find over time as the wells begin to settle in. Mo -- and it's done
without influence. It's just the way Mother Nature's going to treat us
with regard to that aquifer.
And I'm not saying this is some kind of, you know, weird
science here. I'm suggesting to you that it takes a lot of judgment
with regard to how they -- those aquifers perform, and that's the
Page 147
June 24, 2003
reason we're making sure we're going to hire not only the best
consultants, make sure we've got the full focused attention of this
board with regard to any processes that we perceive.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It's just my personal opinion that
since you've already got wells sunk in the ground and assuming they
are, in fact, producing sufficient raw water, it appears to me that we
ought to find a fast way of getting RO processing capabilities in
there.
And I don't understand all the engineering elements of that, but
it seems to me that we could be able to -- we should be able to do
that faster than we could go drill wells somewhere else and bring up
conventional processing capabilities.
MR. DeLONY: Take a look at it and let you know. That's
about the best I can do at this stage of the game.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. It just seems to me that
getting the skids and bringing them in there --
MR. DeLONY: But the cost is ex -- going to be high because
those are new skids. That's a new process and whatever --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand.
MR. DeLONY: That's the weighing of the cost and the benefit
that you spoke to to me earlier.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The only downside is we
don't have any water to drink. And under those circumstances, I'm
willing to pay a little bit more.
MR. DeLONY: I understand exactly. I believe, sir -- and with
candor, that if we're able to pursue this strategy and come back to
you with our recommendations, we'll be okay. If we wait around,
you know, kind of, you know, make hope a method here with regard
to our wells in the north well field and their reliability, I don't -- I
can't make that same assessment for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, if -- ifit begins to look like
we're going to have a problem, we need to know as quickly as
Page 148
June 24, 2003
possible because we need to do something about controlling water
demand.
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we need to do that well in
advance. So I'd encourage you to proceed with that RO evaluation
rapidly.
MR. DeLONY: Thank you, sir. We'll take that guidance and
move forward.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Couple of questions.
I hope I can remember what -- I've been waiting so long here.
The mid Hawthorne well, you said that, first --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, boys, behave.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: First of all, that we were -- the
production level of those were going to be a lot less than the deeper
Hawthorne wells. What are we looking at as far as production of
water in -- percentage-wise compared if we went to a deeper level?
And then also, what is the life expectancy of these new wells if we --
when we go ahead and drill them? Is there any way of putting a life
expectancy on these?
MR. DeLONY: You get a two for one. The mid Hawthorn
wells are about half -- that aquifer will produce, in terms of flow,
about half the flow of a lower Hawthorn well, in terms of that
aquifer's performance. That's what we know right now.
Now, monitoring may give you a better answer with regard to
that, so obviously lower Hawthorn is a more bang for the buck given
the well head. That also has something to do with the -- well, excuse
me, Paul, go ahead. The thing with deficiency . No, I'm okay. All
right. I thought maybe you had something else.
The bottom line is it's two for one. I prefer lower Hawthorn
over mid Hawthorn any day of the week.
Page 149
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do we get on the lower
Hawthorn?
MR. DeLONY: About a million.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: About a million gallons?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: A million per well.
MR. DeLONY: About a million, about a million of raw water.
Now, that's not pro -- that's not finished water. Finished water would
be about 750,000 gallons.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. DeLONY: But a lower -- mid Hawthorn well is about half
the size of that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And what do you
anticipate is the life expectancy of these wells? Do you have any --
MR. DeLONY: Sir, you know, Mother Nature's going to tell
me. We'll -- we monitor the salinity of those on an often basis. We
-- you know, and the performance, we let them rest, though
sometimes they'll come back. We'll treat them with chemicals, we'll
continue to keep them in operation as long as we're able to.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And that's what caught up with us a year ago is
that, you know, we lost six of our wells really within a very, very
short period of time. And not being able to forecast that other than
react to it in terms of drilling the six additional wells.
MR. MUDD: Those six -- and by the way, Commissioner,
those six additional wells that were drilled, okay -- and we were in
the crisis mode in order to do it -- have been in the fully production
mode this entire season and still in fully production mode. We're
only using two of the lOin order to come up with that eight.
So I just want to let you know that those six weren't just sitting
idly by. We had to use them and we're using them right now to help
us get the eight million gallons that we need of finished water RO.
Page 150
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is another hypothetical
question, and I don't know if you have the answer for it. The four
wells that are producing the salinity, high salinity rates, if we take
those out of production, do you feel that in the future we could bring
those back online and they would stabilize to a level to where we
could use that water?
MR. DeLONY: Well, we don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: We have four that are out of production right
now. We've tried to bring them into standards with regard to the
salinity. Not able to do that.
Now, those wells could very well be the four future wells for
this RO skid that Commissioner Coyle was speaking to in terms of
saltwater or more salinity type, going to a different skid or different
process. They could be the wells we use for that.
The four that we have currently that we're rehabbing, as Karl
indicated, we think we'll get production capability of equal to two in
terms of our ability, and that's going to be what we're going into next
season with, would be those two wells --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Last question.
MR. DeLONY: -- or the equivalent of those two wells and the
eight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the salinity rate of a good
well?
MR. DeLONY: Paul?
MR. MATTAUSCH: We currently are averaging around 2,500
milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids in the range of 2,000 to
3,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In laymen's terms, what percent
would that be?
MR. MUDD: Fifteen percent.
MR. MATTAUSCH: It's about 15 percent of the concentration
Page 151
June 24, 2003
of seawater. Okay. The wells that are producing the high salinity are
up in the range of 10 to 11,000 milligrams per liter.
MR. MUDD: Which is what percent?
MR. DeLONY: Fifty percent.
MR. MATTAUSCH: Which is -- yeah, about 45,40 percent.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wow. Thank you very much.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Question. I know that
this is a science that we're learning as we go along and there's a lot of
unknowns.
How about our neighbors to the north where they have heavier
population, and they must be drawing from the same aquifer, are they
experiencing the same problems?
MR. DeLONY: Let's see. Lee County, do you have anything --
feedback from Lee County on that?
MR. MATT AUSCH: Lee County is just -- just beginning to
build reverse osmosis. Cape Coral has been using reverse osmosis.
They've seen some -- some increasing salinity, however, not to the --
not to the percentage that we saw in those wells.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about Charlotte and
Sarasota; has there been anything up in that direction where they
would have a very heavy demand for water?
MR. DeLONY: They use surface water and Tamiami, we're too
shallow --
MR. MATTAUSCH: The majority -- the majority of those
communities are using freshwater and not reverse osmosis.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. MUDD: The thing -- the newest thing that came up is in--
is in Hillsborough County where they put a new -- and it's basically
saltwater right out of the bay there, and they hooked it in with the
power plant, and I forget what they call it, big river or whatever it is,
Page 152
June 24, 2003
okay, in an RO plant, and that's producing a significant amount of
water for Hillsborough County. But they're going directly sea water.
As far as using brackish water from the lower Hawthorn and --
you are pretty much on the cutting edge of that in the State of
Florida. And I will tell you, the problem we're having with salinity
of wells, we've got the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's attention on this one.
Because I will tell you, the future of water supply in the State of
Florida is very dependent upon what we're doing, and they're looking
real hard at that particular issue. Because if you look at our '25
water, plan 2025 that we see from the South Florida Water
Management District, they're looking at this and going -- you know,
they've been very -- and they've been very flexible with us if we had
to take more water out of lower Tamiami, freshwater during high
season or whatnot in order to treat because we're having these
difficulties with our brackish water supply.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, it only makes
sense, with all that we're giving up as far as the Picayune State Forest
and our lands out to the north and the Everglades, the Everglades
restoration is supposed to be restoring water to the ground.
Is there some point in time we might be able to put a well field
in that area and draw the freshwater off that we're restoring, try to
compensate us for our loss?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's a good--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
MR. MUDD: -- question, and I'll carry it forward as an item of
interest.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Because, once again, if you can
get the freshwater, you're going to be able to save a lot of money,
MR. DeLONY: Absolutely. You know, the lower west coast
water plant calls specifically for exploitation of deeper salty aquifers
to meet the demand. And we're on that trace --
Page 153
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But once again--
MR. DeLONY: We're on that trace.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we're paying a price, we're
giving up something, we're entering land in the conservation, we're
going to be able to increase the water storage areas. We're talking
about flooding certain areas. There should be a payback someplace.
Where's this water going?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Miami.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a -- just a simple question. Is
this mid Hawthorn separated from the lower Hawthorn?
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, ma'am. Physically--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. DeLONY: -- two different depths, physically two different
sources of water, physically two different kinds of water in terms of
salinity. So just -- you know, they're just -- one's more deeper than
the other.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. DeLONY: They're more saltier.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MR. DeLONY: And the -- what our plan calls for is we could
put -- we hopefully will be able to, with -- if our plan proves out in
terms of the geotech., that instead of us buying more land, we can
merely put a mid Hawthorn well next to one of our lower Hawthorns
and pump them that way. That's our plan, as Karl outlined, to try to
conserve on space that we'd be using for these wells.
One of the -- you know, one of the longest poles in developing
well fields is the real estate. I mean, just purchasing the real estate,
going through the appraisal process, et cetera, et cetera. If we don't
have existing private rights -- public rights-of-way.
Page 154
June 24, 2003
And so we're looking at the ability to use existing real estate
first because that's our quickest way to deliver on the decisions, we
need to make recommendations for decisions we need to make with
regard to strategy. But real estate really is a long pole in this process
if we don't own the real estate.
So that's the reason Mr. Mudd has been very active in helping us
with some of the upcoming PUDs and asking them to set aside
certain areas for us to look for future well field development, and we
very much appreciate that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think Commissioner Fiala came
up with a very good question in regards to where in the strata we are
in relationship to the well fields and the different stratas of water that
we're getting. And maybe what would be nice the next time we have
this discussion, if you would bring in a training aide to show us
where the Tamiami Aquifer is and all these different aquifers --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- not only for the commissioners,
but I think the people out in TV land there would like to get a picture,
too, of exactly what we're talking about when we talk about water,
since that's a very precious resource.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir. We'll do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Can I ask a question?
I'm sorry. Commissioner Coyle? I can't talk right now. Go
ahead.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
That is a very important point Commissioner Halas just brought
up. And I think we need to let people understand right now that the
reason we're going to the lower Hawthorn is so we don't draw down
the freshwater aquifers. We're taking action to protect the freshwater
aquifers because there are a lot of people who are drawing on those
from their own private wells. We don't want to pump that aquifer
Page 155
June 24, 2003
dry, so we have stopped going into our freshwater aquifers; is that a
correct statement?
MR. DeLONY: That's correct, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We no longer drill wells into the
freshwater aquifers. We go down deep --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- and get that brackish water, and
we are treating it. And that, again, is a smart thing to do because
we're not impacting people's ability to get water out of the freshwater
aquifers, and we're not putting additional stress on the freshwater
aquifers.
Now, the bottom line as I see of all this, we've talked about
some concerns and some potential shortages. I don't want to alarm
anybody, because it appears to me that with a current production
capability of 32 million gallons a day and eight million more coming
on from the south plant hopefully this year, giving us a total of 40
million gallons a day, that gives us plenty of water production
capacity, even for contingencies.
The key is to make sure that plant does, in fact, come on when
we expect it to, and it is already late. And what we need to -- need to
do is monitor that thing on a minute by minute basis to make sure
that it doesn't get any later and take whatever action we need to take
to make sure it comes on on schedule. Because it can't get delayed
any longer, and I think you're going to touch upon that on the next
item.
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir, and I just -- we are late, and -- we're
about seven months behind right now. We're aggressively managing
that proj ect, and we'll -- we can talk about it just because we've got it
on the dais right now. Again, it will come up later in terms of a
contract modification for our design engineer and construction
manager. But the bottom line of it is, we're -- county staff is active.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
Page 156
June 24, 2003
MR. DeLONY: We don't take a breath in public utilities that
we're not wondering, how's the south plant going today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I--
MR. DeLONY: My assessment is that we're going to make it in
time for season, that plant will be up and running. We've got to
commission it, we've got to push it through some testing. We've got
to push the well field through the testing.
You know, focus on plant. Again, I'll just go back and remind
you. Plant capacity's great. Well fields are part of that system. So
you've got to have equal capacity abilities both in treatment and in
production of raw water.
The north plant's good. The north plant's doing exactly what it's
supposed to do and it's performing to the standard. The well field's
not. The well field's on the edge. This is addressing the well field
issue. And that balance between well field -- thank you, Jim (sic) --
well field, plant, distribution, and storage is the bathtub -- moving
that bathtub of water around until it delivers to our customers, is
exactly what you pay me and Paul Mattausch and a lot of other good
folks to take care of. And we're on top of that south plant.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there's anything that the board
needs to do, we need to hear about that quickly --
MR. DeLONY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- with respect to that, okay?
MR. DeLONY: Well, I think what we've given you today, to be
honest with you, Mr. Coyle, will keep me from having to come back
in with an emergency. It's given me the ability to go out and do
examinations and then come back to you with recommendations once
we've done the proper examinations of a strategy at looking at, as we
mentioned, an RO process, use the saltier water, looking at different
legs and different aquifers to provide the raw water to the north plant.
And that's what this program's designed to do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
Page 157
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. DeLony, what is the action we're
being asked to take today and thereafter? What is it going to do with
the rates?
MR. DeLONY: Right now it should -- it won't affect the rates
because we're locked into a rate schedule right now for the next three
years. See, with this year, starting in October, and two years to
follows. So we won't be coming back to a rate study here within the
next three years. Is that -- I got the right number, three? Yeah, three,
right number.
The bottom line of it is, it's going to be -- the rates are going to
be what the rates are as set by the board. If we see those rates going
up, down, or whatever, I have an obligation to come in and ask the
board to take a look at that in terms of not incurring too much debt,
and at the same time, not charging too much for the water.
But we've set a rate schedule which you approved back in
February that accommodates the majority of what we've spoken of
here today. Some cases we're bringing it forward from fiscal year
'04, for example, on the master plan, to an '03.
So in terms of the obligation rates on an annualized basis, I may
peak a little bit more in '03 earlier than maybe I would have done in
'04. But right now our rates are locked, and we're going to stay with
the rates as they are as I know it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you're saying the action that
we're going to take tomorrow -- today and tomorrow is not going to
affect the rates?
MR. DeLONY: Not in the instant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. DeLONY: Not in the instant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But it will over time?
MR. DeLONY: Obviously as things cost what they cost, rates
will have to reflect the costs that we incur.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further questions --
Page 158
June 24, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I'd like to add one more thing to
this presentation, and you have a very good point about rates. If -- if
the well field up on the north plant continues to get saltier, it's going
to cost us more to produce that water.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: The rates will have to increase accordingly in
order to make that drinking water.
The other piece to this is, it could. Mr. DeLony is going out
there with the public utilities division, and he's taking a look at future
prospects of where things could be. It doesn't mean that there's going
to be 14 mid Hawthorn and blankety-blank wells that are going to be
done. He's going to look at the feasibility of those and he's also
going to look at the wells and the wells we have and how they
produce.
What we really want to have happen, we want the wells that we
have in the ground right now to produce as planned, and we want Mr.
Boyer and his engineering team to get those four wells that are right
on the cusp and get at least two of those producing the way they're
supposed to and have the other two set aside so they can rest, and so
that you can take wells off and bring them online so we can always
have eight production wells. That's the best of all possible
alternatives.
What we're seeing as far as the science piece as we're doing
testing is, it's getting saltier. There is a school of thought that CDM
has, which is Camp, Drescher, Mac'Kai, and Mesmer, that basically
says, you really need to turn on those four wells that are bad, and you
need to contain your gradient, your vacuum, in that area so that it
stops it from moving from west to east.
We're looking at that, too, in that process, and that feeds into,
why don't we have a true saltwater skid there in order to use those
four well fields, and in the same breath, contain that movement of
water so that we increase our chances.
Page 159
June 24, 2003
Now, that's the CDM thought right now that's on -- that's on the
table. We're going to look at all of those things in this process. We
are not going to jump into expenditures of eight million and five
million until we take a look at all those particular aspects.
And Mr. DeLony will watch this three million dollar outlay and
only spend those dollars that he needs as he does this examination of
-- of the ground and what's there as far as monitoring wells and
whatnot.
If, for instance, we punch that one up here, this monitoring well
that's on Randall and it turns out well, and I have -- and our
negotiations that we're having right now with Heritage Bay turn out
okay and they basically give us a mile and a half of land going north,
north of Randall across the way -- you heard Mr. Boyer say that it's
about a quarter of a mile per well -- half a mile, you get yourselves
six new wells in there, and if there -- and if the distance is well
enough and we look at the geotech. and it comes out okay, we might
have resolved the issue without having to go through the exploration
and -- of those other areas and save some money in that process. So I
just wanted to put that on the record, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Yeah, I would like to make
a motion, but I'd like to make a comment.
You know, it seems to me that maybe we can't provide water for
Heritage Bay unless we get that --
MR. MUDD: I've had that discussion, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, okay.
And with that, I'll make a motion that we approve your plan to
investigate these --
MR. BOYER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- alternatives.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
Page 160
June 24, 2003
Any discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, all in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
We're going to take a five-minute break for our court reporter.
Thank you.
(A recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats.
Item #101
AMEND PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH METCALF AND EDDY, INC., FOR THE
SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESERVE
OSMOSIS EXPANSION, CONTRACT 98-2891, IN THE
The next item is 10(1), Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, boy.
MR. MUDD: And that's to amend the professional engineering
services agreement with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., for the South County
Water Treatment Plant reverse osmosis expansion contract 98-2891
in the amount of $960,295. This is project number 70054.
Page 161
June 24, 2003
And Mr. DeLony will present this item.
MR. DeLONY: Commissioners, for the record, Jim DeLony,
public utilities administrator.
I'd like to introduce a fairly new team member to brief you on
this executive summary, Mr. Bill Mullin. Mr. Mullin comes to us
with extensive background in public works engineering, and is
serving as our principal project manager within the engineering
department.
So, Bill, if you would, please.
MR. MULLIN: Thank you, Jim. Good afternoon, everyone.
For the record, my name is William Mullin, principal project
manager at the public utilities engineering department.
I'm here today to present item -- agenda item number 10(1) to
amend professional engineering services agreement with Metcalf &
Eddy for the South County Water Treatment Plant reverse osmosis
extension (sic).
You've already heard some of the comments, so I'll try to make
my presentation brief.
This proj ect needed to meet future potable water demands was
first recommended in the 1996 water master plan and in the 2002
water master plan updated recently and approved by the board in
February of2003.
On August 3rd, 1999, the board approved and entered into an
agreement with Metcalf & Eddy to provide design and construction
inspection services for the South County Regional Water Treatment
reverse osmosis expansion proj ect.
Metcalf & Eddy's original contract was in the amount of
$3,920,064. The project, which has been under construction since
July 2001, includes an eight million gallon per day reverse osmosis
facility with capability to be expanded to 20 million gallons per day,
including a new raw water production -- two new raw water
production wells and -- I'm sorry. There's two deep injection wells
Page 162
June 24, 2003
for reverse osmosis brine disposal and 15 raw water wells.
On May 14th, 2002, the board approved amendment one with
Metcalf & Eddy for an additional $231,804 as shown on your
executive summary to provide additional construction management
services for a second deep injection well. You'll see that on your
executive summary.
United Engineering Corporation is the contractor for the eight
MGD RO plants. UEC, change order number one, moved the
original completion date forward by 60 days making UEC's contract
final completion date March 3rd of this year.
However, UEC's most recent schedule has a substantial
completion date of September 8th, 2003, and a final completion date
of October 15th, 2003.
This project is currently seven months behind schedule. Delays
in the project include weather, design modification, unanticipated site
conditions, and regulatory changes. Analysis of each delay claim is
currently under review.
Continued construction inspection by Metcalf & Eddy through
the October completion date is needed to assure continuity and
quality assurance.
On June 12th of2003, staff negotiated with Metcalf & Eddy this
amendment number two in the amount of $960,295 to provide
continued construction inspection for this proj ect through the revised
final completion in October.
M&E has agreed to hold and reserve $251,200 of the $960,295
requested in amendment two for unresolved issues.
Staff is working with UEC and M&E to ensure the plant is
online to meet the 2004 seasonal water demand and recommends
approval of this amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Questions by the commissioners?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion.
Page 163
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So move.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Second -- motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #llA
ANDREW SOLIS AND JOHN SLAUGH REGARDING
TEMPORARY CO UNTIL VARIANCE CAN BE OBTAINED-
STAFF DIRECTED TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM BUILDING
INSPECTIONS AND A CONDITIONAL CO TO BE ISSUED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item, 10(J), we've
already done. We did that with -- in concert right after 10(F).
That brings us to public comments on general topics.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Filson --
MS. FILSON: Sorry. Mr. Chairman, we do have three speakers
under public comment. The first one is Andrew Solis. He will be
followed by John Slaugh. I think I pronounced that wrong.
MR. SOLIS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Andrew Solis.
Page 164
June 24, 2003
I'm here actually on behalf of John Slaugh, the next speaker.
This relates to a single-family home that's being constructed out
in the -- in the Golden Gate Estates on the corner of Golden Gate
Boulevard and First Street Southwest.
My client was issued a building permit, proceeded with
construction. Unfortunately, we found out after the fact that there
was a setback issue related to the side yard along First Street
Southwest.
We've met with staff and tried to resolve the issue, and what
we've agreed to do is go ahead and apply for a variance. It was
something that occurred that was an unfortunate incident. I think it's
just one of those things that happens. It's a nonconforming corner lot,
which under the LDC, is a tough thing to understand.
In any event, the setback at issue is seven and a half feet as
opposed to 15 feet. And what we're requesting, after meeting with
staff and discussing the variance, what we're requesting the board to
do is to authorize the staff to issue a conditional CO once the
structure is constructed pending, obviously, the approval of the
vanance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, is this the same one that
you and I discussed months ago that requests a temporary CO and a
variance because of -- they were told it had the wrong setbacks, or is
this in addition to?
MR. SCHMITT: This is in addition to. We've had nine setback
variances in the estates since 2001, and actually we've had three in
the last six months.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Why?
MR. SCHMITT: This is a -- well, that's a good question. We
review about, a little over 4,000 building plans a year.
This was a plan associated with a nonconforming corner lot that
-- I can go through the entire reasoning if you want to see it, but the
bottom line is, there was an error made by staff on the -- of the
Page 165
June 24, 2003
analysis setback. Part of that was due to the drawings that were
submitted by the contractor, the survey.
And, in fact, my staff errored ( sic) because they actually
approved a setback as shown on this slide, which is -- all that is is the
septic field overlay, which showed a setback here, and it was in error
because that dimension should have been up to this line. But the
bottom line, there was an error.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Schmitt, it sounds to me like you
have a real problem in your department reviewing site plans in
Golden Gate Estates.
MR. SCHMITT : Well, I -- I accept that, sir, and I --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What are we going to do to fix that
problem?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, if I -- you -- it's a problem. But when
you look at statistically, 4,000 or -- 3,000 or over 4,000 building
plans reviewed, and three mistakes, I think that's a pretty --
statistically a pretty good error rate, but it's still an error, and it is still
a problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they're all in Golden Gate
Estates?
MR. SCHMITT: Actually no. There--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: This other one that we know about is
on a corner lot, and it's a nonconforming lot.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct. It's a 30-foot easement, and
then from the easement line, it's supposed to be a 15- foot setback.
Staff errored (sic) and gave the applicant and approved the spot
survey at seven and a half feet which was, in fact, an error.
I think we have a problem in the estates, generally, looking at --
these are the 105-foot lots, corner lots, in the estates. We need to
come back to the board with a proposal on how to deal with these,
because if you take the criteria as it's now written in the Land
Development Code, they're restricted to a smaller envelope for
Page 166
June 24, 2003
construction on the 105-foot lot than they would be on a 75-foot lot,
so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Makes sense.
MR. SCHMITT: -- there is a problem. It's a 10 and a half foot
setback on one side and 15 on the other, and then 30- foot
right-of-way. We need to come back to the board to allow the
builders, in order to build an adequate size home -- and this is a
modest size home in today's standards. And if they complied with the
setback as required, they would have had, I believe, roughly, what,
66 feet you could have built in rather than the 75, or the --
MR. SOLIS: I think it was less than that.
MR. SCHMITT: Less than that.
MR. SOLIS: I think it came to somewhere around 49 --
MR. SLAUGH: It was 49 -- 49 --
MR. SOLIS: Forty-nine and a half feet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
MR. SCHMITT: So the issue here is what staff is -- we met
with the developer and said, we -- I would request your approval and
we could solve this today without bringing it back to the board, that
we, first of all, allow the builder to continue with his project. He is
going to submit for a variance, has to come back to the board for a
variance, but he's got to close it in, get it weathered in, and we
would, with your approval, allow a conditional CO to be issued until
such time as the variance is brought before this -- this commission
and brought for your decision.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, and then
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a problem with this.
Number one is, the people that go out there to survey this property,
these people are licensed.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And they ought to realize what the
Page 167
June 24, 2003
setbacks are, or if they don't know what the setbacks are, then get
with staff. That's number one.
And if the -- if this is continuing to happen, somebody should be
held accountable, and it should be the surveyor or whoever sets ~p
the footprint of where the house is going to set.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, Commissioner, I agree, and --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I mean --
MR. SCHMITT: -- part of the problem was my staff. My staff
approved --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What does your staff tell them?
MR. SCHMITT: My staff approved the setback. We--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Did the staff -- did the staff tell
them what the setback should be? Is that what happened? They told
them they could have a setback of seven and a half feet, or did your
staff tell them that 15 feet?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, they came in with -- this was the
original proposal, and they came in and approved it based --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But this proposal doesn't tell me
anything.
MR. SCHMITT: And it shows right here in the stamp. Side
setback, and then the front setback. The problem is, this has two
fronts, First Street front and, I guess -- if I recall, this is on the
Parkway, right?
MR. SOLIS: It's on Golden Gate Boulevard.
MR. SCHMITT: On the Boulevard.
MR. SOLIS: On the Boulevard and First Street Southwest.
MR. SCHMITT: So the problem here is staff did say, as it's
shown right here, seven and a half and seven and a half and 10 for
the side, so my staff was in error.
We corrected this problem, or we separated those who review
all the setbacks. Steve Fontane now works in back away from the
front counter to review these, but this was one that was approved in
Page 168
June 24, 2003
error. I can't --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And you say there's three or four
more of these out there in --
MR. SCHMITT: No, we've had -- we've had three in the last six
months that you have seen. This is -- this is the fourth one you'll see
now involving the estates on these abnormally dimensioned lots.
MR. MUDD: Since when, 2001 or --
MR. SCHMITT: Well, actually, we've had nine setbacks,
residential setbacks since 2001, and we've had three in the last six
months.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So has this problem been taken
care of so that we realize that if we have a nonconforming lot, that
we'll have to have 15 foot on each side of this -- of the lot for
setbacks?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, if I can correct you. It's 15
foot -- it's a 30- foot easement of 15 foot from the easement, and then
10 and a half on the opposite side. The problem, frankly, is, if we
follow the rules as now written in the Land Development Code, the
envelope to build a home on this 105- foot lot is smaller than they
would have on a standard 75- foot lot where they can have seven and
a half feet on each side, so -- so we need to look at this overall from a
-- from an evaluation standpoint to come back to and you say, what is
it that we need to build on these corner lots, because they are -- this
is, as you well know, some of the last affordable property in the
county to build on, and that's why these are -- these are now
becoming more prominent that we have builders out building on
these lots.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But the problem we run
into is someday if we need to widen the road or to gain additional
right-of-way, that we're going to put these people in a real serious
bind if they go ahead and keep on building the homes in this
particular manner.
Page 169
June 24, 2003
MR. SCHMITT: The home, if the variance -- when it comes
before you, when the variance is going to be presented, it will be
seven and a half feet from the 30- foot setback rather than the 15 feet.
So this dimension actually should be right to the center line of
the road, would be 37 and a half feet, counting the 30 feet -- and it
should have been 15 feet. So it should have been 45 instead of 37
and a half. That was part of the problem.
And then when it came in, the builder, as he's required to do
within 10 days of placing the slab, came in for a spot survey. He
came in with the spot survey, and that's what they presented.
It was noted at that time that it was a seven-and-a-half-foot
setback, brought it to the planning services director. And at that time
the issue was raised with the building director, Mr. Perico, I got
involved and said, no, we can't go any further. The site was red
tagged, and we met with the builder. We said we'd at least allow you
to get the home weathered in or at least close in the home -- because
he's all the way up to the joists now -- and at least allow him to close
the home in.
But what we're here today to talk to you about is allow them to
finish the home until it can -- we can come back to you with a
request for a variance. Because it will probably be September or
October before we go through the public hearings, both with the
Planning Commission and with the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sir, do you represent the
homeowner, or are you representing the builder?
MR. SOLIS: The builder, Your Honor -- I mean--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This gentleman here is the
builder?
MR. SOLIS: He's the builder and his company owns the lot,
and he's building the house to sell. So there is no homeowner at this
point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta has a
Page 170
June 24, 2003
question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Joe, I want to tell you, I personally think your department's
doing a remarkable job, and these things are going to happen,
because we're working with human beings, and there are going to be
an error (sic). Three errors out of thousands is doing pretty good.
But that's not the problem right now. I'm sure that the
mechanisms are being put together to take care of any future errors.
The problem is what we've got here in front of us.
So with that in mind, I'd like to make a motion that we grant
these people a temporary CO. Is that the correct language?
MR. SCHMITT: Well, what -- I'm asking for your approval --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Conditional, conditional.
MR. SCHMITT: -- to allow the staff to continue to perform
building inspections on -- as they're called in by the builder, and then
subsequently we would give a conditional Certificate of Occupancy,
conditional upon them coming back to the Board of County
Commissioners for the variance.
The problem is -- and I've explained it to the builder, that the
risk is certainly his risk, because if you disapprove the variance --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand.
MR. SCHMITT: -- they're faced with a situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But I'd like to make that
motion so we move this thing forward. And when the time does
come that it's going to come before us for the variance, I'm going to
ask that we pay him back the fees there that he paid, the 2,000 --
what, is it 2,200, 2000?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it's whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But we'll deal with that at the
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second that motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But right now my motion is--
Page 171
June 24, 2003
is that we grant him the necessary permits or CO, temporary CO, or
partial CO to be able to continue with the work.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If this house was moved,
can this house be moved and still conform to the -- on the lot? If you
had to move the house --
MR. SOLIS: I don't believe that--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, we'll get together on a
weekend and lift each corner up and --
MR. SOLIS: Yeah. This house is already with the roof trusses
on.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no. I'm talking about if they
had to tear the house down. I had a situation with my house where
they were not in compliance with the setback away from the road,
and the builder took on the responsibility of tearing the house all
down, starting right from scratch and moving it back to where it
belonged.
MR. SLAUGH: For the record, John Slaugh, president of J.J.
Slaugh General Contracting.
Commissioner, no, we could not do that. Weare restricted by
setbacks on the opposite side, the east side of the property, the 10 and
a half feet. And what we did was take advantage of every square
inch that we understood that we were allowed to use on that
particular lot because of the setbacks. So physically, no, we could
not -- we could not build this particular house on that lot with the
current setbacks as they are.
MR. SOLIS: As Mr. Schmitt said, if you take into consideration
all of the setbacks, you end up with a 49- foot lot, buildable area
widthwise, and this house certainly wouldn't fit on that -- in those
dimensions.
Page 172
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's even smaller--
MR. SLAUGH: We are right -- we are right on the line, on the
east property setback line.
MR. SCHMITT: And on a normal lot, the 75-foot lot, you have
about 60 foot. This home is actually 57 feet?
MR. SLAUGH: Correct.
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, 57.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further --
MR. MUDD: The other thing I just want to mention to the
board real quick. And again, there's no dog -- I don't have a dog in
this fight. But what -- he's got 150 feet from Golden Gate Boulevard
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: -- okay, the major arterial out there.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: And you're talking about the difference between
__ right here, which is between 15 feet, it's seven and a half, and he's
got another 30 feet before it turns into First Street Southwest, which
is a side street that his driveway would connect to. Just so that you
have it in your mind's eye.
I mean, if it was seven and a half feet from Golden Gate
Boulevard, you're talking about 30-foot easement, you know, we
built that as a four-lane arterial. And I've heard discussions on this
dais over the last two years that said, that might not have been the
smartest decision we ever made as a board, and it could have been
six lanes -- and I've heard that before, and so I'm not saying anything
new.
So what I would say to you is, that would disturb me if it was
just 30- foot easement, you now have seven and a half foot, and it
might be six lane sometime in the future some 30 years from now
that this guy would be seven and a half feet away from a major
arterial road. I don't think you're going to get much sleep.
Page 173
June 24, 2003
But from -- but from First Street Southwest and having 37 feet
and the chances of that First Street ever becoming bigger than it
really is right now, I'd say there's no expansion plan in our 25-year
plan to take First Street Southwest and expand it.
MR. SCHMITT: Plus it's a dead-end.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let's not hear the variance
today and find out if we have any other questions.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none. You want to say
anything else? We're going to go ahead and approve this.
MR. SLAUGH: No, I'm fine, Commissioner. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saYIng aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
MR. SLAUGH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Motion carries, 4-1,
Commissioner Halas descending (sic).
Item #llB
MATT FINN REGARDING CLAM FARMING AND
AQUACULTURE IN GOODLAND - STAFF DIRECTED TO PUT
IN CLAM FARMING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN
GOODLAND AND LOOK INTO CHOKOLOSKEE AND
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
Page 174
June 24, 2003
MS. FILSON: . Your final speaker is Matt Finn.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Finn.
MR. FINN: Last, but hopefully not least.
Good afternoon, Commissioners. Do you happen to have this
handout? I have extra copies if you don't. Okay.
Matt Finn, chairman of the Aquaculture Task Force. And I'd
like to give you a brief update of the clam aquaculture, and then tell
you something we need a little bit of help with, okay?
From the BCC resolution, you have endorsed clam aquaculture
in the waters of Collier County, established an aquaculture task force,
and directed staff to assist in the process of development. Whether
what I'm asking for today falls into that direction or not, we'll need to
talk about.
In January, Mark Barrigan from Division of Aquaculture gave
us a hit list of steps to proceed on to try to stick to a timetable as we
move towards being able to grow clams commercially. We're pretty
close to staying onto that schedule.
In May we performed a resource assessment of the submerged
lands, and -- in the two desired areas, and found out there were no
conflicts with the natural resources, especially we're looking for
presence or absence of seagrasses and found no seagrasses present.
Consequently the sites have been recommended for the high
density lease areas, growing our clams, by the Division of
Aquaculture staff. And at this point now, the state should be ready to
start the public workshops and begin the lease application process for
the perspective farmers.
It was during this time in May one of the staff was, as we're
looking around, he said, oh, that would be a good place for your
nursery, that would be a good place for your nursery. He's talking
about clam nurseries. Certain land based aquaculture -- that's the
nursery part -- activities are integral to the success of clam farming.
And then I said, well, I better look into this. What kind of
Page 175
June 24, 2003
permits are going to be required, et cetera, et cetera, so that we can
do this just like all the other guys are doing in the rest of the state.
And sort of to my surprise I found that, in Collier County at
least, aquaculture is only permitted on agriculturally-zoned lands.
Okay. And basically, in our -- in the areas that we're looking at for
wanting to do this activity, there are no ago lands. Therefore, a
change in the LDC will be necessary to permit these type of
activities.
I had a brief informational meeting with county staff on the
20th, last week, and we spoke about Goodland as a case study and
found that there was no conflict with the comprehensive plan at least.
So we're start -- you know, at least there's no major conflict there.
And from that, we -- I'm going to ask, you know, if we can get
staff -- direct staff to work on an amendment to the Goodland overlay
to allow these activities.
And what we're talking about is defined by the state as a
minimal impact aquaculture facility on RSFVR property and,
perhaps, something a little bit bigger on commercial lands. You
know, at present, on commercial lands, you still can't do these
aquaculture activities, at present.
That's sort of one step, and that may form a template to look at
two other areas and actually may, in some incorporated areas, may
also be able to use that as a template.
The other areas that I would ask staff assistance for looking at is
at Chokoloskee and Plantation. They're going to need, basically, to
do the same small-scale land-based aquaculture activities there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any questions?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just want to compliment Matt
Finn for being so active on this. He's picked up on this particular
thing and been the -- been working it from one end to the other, he's
put in a considerable amount of time and effort. Of course, the man
Page 176
June 24, 2003
comes well qualified. Not only is he a commercial fisherman, but he
has a degree in -- what is it called there -- aquaculture or --
MR. FINN: Ecology.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. FINN: My main degree was ecology --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And I'd like to see --
MR. FINN: -- marine ecology.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- if we could, as the
commission, direct staff to work with them to move this thing
forward.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think that's a good idea.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's my understanding the local
government can't regulate farming. So are we doing something that
really (sic) don't have to do now? I mean, I agree, what you're
saying, but why don't we take a look at it before we waste a lot of
time creating language.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right to farm.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's just what I -- yeah, it's a right
to farm act, and there's been plenty of statements throughout the
statutes and legislation working that -- yeah. Local government can't
dictate what farmers do. I think that's a great thing.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just going to say, that
would be an excellent opportunity to follow up in one direction, but
also I think if we could leave it open where staff could be looking at
other possibilities --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- might be -- but it's an
excellent idea. I don't know how far it's going to go or -- I don't
think our legal is even prepared to --
MR. MUDD: I just want to -- I just want to make sure that what
we're getting directed to do is to open aquaculture in Goodland,
Page 1 77
June 24, 2003
okay? And right now Goodland is not zoned for agriculture; is that
correct?
MR. FINN: That's right.
MR. MUDD: Okay. And so what you're asking to do is to
direct staff to change the overlay for Goodland so that aquaculture
can be one of the accepted uses in that particular community.
MR. SCHMITT: And also for Chokoloskee and --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Chokoloskee and Immokalee.
Yeah, it's not just for --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, not Immokalee.
MR. FINN: Plantation.
MR. SCHMITT: Plantation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Immokalee's under water, isn't it?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Golden Gate Estates is. Can't we do
it in Golden Gate Estates?
MR. SCHMITT: But also the issue here is, as I understand the
petition, is to direct staff to do it, but from the perspectives of who's
going to pay for the overlay, the services?
We've been through this with the Copeland community when
they asked to amend their overlay, and the issue there was the staff s
time to do the overlay and whether development services' fees would
pay that or would I have to come back and ask for reimbursement
from the general fund to reimburse the development services' fees for
the cost of the LDC amendment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How about an MSTU? It's not that
much money, is it?
MR. SCHMITT: That would be what -- that is exactly what we
recommended with the Goodland overlay, either they come in --
which they finally did come in and propose an amendment to their
overlay, which you'll be seeing as part of the LDC amendment. If
you recall, that was several months ago when we talked about the
signs and some of the other things and -- in Goodland.
Page 178
June 24, 2003
But this issue involves not only the issue that Mr. Mudd said, is
allowing for aquaculture in a non-agriculturally-zoned area, but also
who will pay for the services provided.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I will tell you that a lot of
that water is already zoned agriculture. I don't know about
Goodland, but I do know about Everglades City and Chokoloskee.
Some of that water is already zoned agriculture.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So you need to take a look at what
is zoned agriculture, determine whether or not it is in a location that
serves the needs of the potential clam farmers, and then make some
decision about what you do. But I think it's just -- I think we're just
saying, hey, take an initial look at it, and this is going to be a big
project, come back to us and we'll try to work out funding.
MR. SCHMITT: I think if Captain Finn comes in and lets us
know the sites he's looking at, we can determine what the zoning is.
But I know the one issue here was Goodland itself and the area of
Goodland, which would involve some kind of amendment to the
overlay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Halas, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks. I'm so glad you brought
that out. Who would ever think agriculture would be zoned in the
waters around Goodland --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- but that is a wonderful thing.
Okay.
MR. FINN : We're looking for land-based though. This is all --
MR. SCHMITT: This is a land-based project.
MR. FINN: -- land-based operation, not a water-based
operation that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And it seems to me that we're --
Page 179
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I wanted to get a
clarification on.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hold on, guys. One at a time, boys
and girls.
Commissioner Fiala had the floor.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And what I was going to
say was, it seems to me that something -- where do you think you're
going?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just tell everybody what a
wonderful time I had today, please.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've got to stay for
comments.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, thank you for dropping by.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's why I'm leaving.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll end up talking about you,
you know that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I know that. I'll watch the
television.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think it's -- it seems to me that it
makes sense to have aquaculture right there on an island, and in fact,
on any land that's surrounded on most parts by water. Being that
fishing is going to be their livelihood anyway, I think we need to
work with them, and I'm glad we're going to investigate how much of
it is already listed as agriculture.
But we also have to see what we can do to work with them in
the Goodland overlay. I'm sure that Goodlanders want to work with
them. They're all supportive of him. I just want to see what we can
do to further this.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. That overlay is going to be
coming -- it's almost done and coming to you in the third round of the
LDC amendments, so unless we stop that and try and include this,
that is already -- almost complete in moving forward. This would
Page 180
June 24, 2003
have to be -- this would be a separate initiative.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: How much trouble would that be to
stop it and just add it to it?
MR. SCHMITT: That I don't know. I mean, we -- I'm not even
sure where the area is they're looking at. We would have to negotiate
that.
And, of course, the Goodland overlay was -- is -- was sponsored
and paid for by the residents of Goodland, so they would have to be
the ones -- I'd have to pass that off to the petitioner, and they would
have to be the ones to come back to staff and say, we want to include
this. It's their overlay. They paid for it.
MR. FINN: Can I speak for a second on that? With regard to --
there's two amendments, I guess, in process now.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
MR. FINN: And from speaking with various people from the
GCI, you know, of course they support this. But I don't think they
necessarily want it to slow down that. So this probably may -- you
know, if it has to be a different angle that we have to pursue, you
know. And basically it came down to a money issue, staff time, on
it. And so I'm requesting, you know, that staff assistant.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, that's what I was concerned
about what you were talking about, if this was going to encompass
land strictly in the water or was it going to encompass land onshore.
And I think one of the things we have to make sure of is that all the
residents of Goodland are brought to the -- this is brought to their
attention to realize that they should have a say in this, whether they
go along with this concept or not.
And I think that's part of the issue also, because when you start
looking at a small fishing community, and then you're starting to get
involved in aquaculture here, as long as there's no -- we're not
infringing on other people's rights or their concerns, I think that's
Page 181
June 24, 2003
something else we have to address, too.
MR. FINN: Without a doubt, and I see that as part of the whole
process of the amendment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Matt, I think what it is is that
my fellow commissioners haven't been sitting through all the
meetings where the state is presented with programs all about it, and
it might not -- it might not hurt if maybe you gave them a crash
course on what it is that they're actually raising as far as the clams
itself that are going to be planted and how much space it occupies. I
think their visions are a little different than what is reality.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Maybe we should bring it back as far
as a presentation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it will take him just a few
minutes. It's not that difficult.
MR. FINN: It's extremely simple, okay? Basically all we're
asking for here is something very small behind someone's house
where you don't -- you're not feeding fish, you're not growing fish.
This is just for the tiniest little clams. You pump water up to a
device called a raceway, and it flows down and gradually feeds back
into the canal. It will be a state-permitted facility. It's small scale,
very small, and something behind someone's home.
And it's called minimal impact in that it doesn't pollute the water
at all. No trepidity, no type of nutrient pollution. The raceway is
like a sheet of plywood with some small sides on it, and you just run
your water over it. The clams filter out and clean the water, and the
water goes back into the canal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Can you restate your motion,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, it was -- I think we were
directing staff. What I was doing was, I wanted to see if they could
come back and offer some different possibilities, everything from an
Page 182
June 24, 2003
overlay to -- possibly this might be something that could come under
just aquariums and be considered in that direction because of the
small scale of it.
But I -- until you can get your hands around it and see what it is,
there might be some simple solution where it might be all contained
underneath a small area that would be outside the house and wouldn't
Impose upon anyone.
I know the amount of traffic that's going to take place, it's going
to generate, is going to be extremely minimal.
MR. FINN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's something that, you know,
you put into motion, and then at some point in time you're selling
these small little bags of clams for them to place out into the bay.
What I'd like to do is see staff go back and come back with
some -- work with Mr. Finn and come back with some different
suggestions and ideas and what the cost would be to it. I mean,
without doing a full-blown study to the point that we're extending
tremendous amounts of staff time.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, I can -- I mean, there's nothing
to come back for. It would require an overlay.
As you know well know, we have some residents in Goodland
that are complaining about the storage of the fish traps in back of
people's house. So it's -- it's an issue that would have to be included.
We'd have to change the zoning to allow that activity to take place if
they want to do it right in Goodland.
And it's just a matter of -- of bringing that back and, through a
public hearing, allowing the residents of Goodland to voice their
objection or their support in the drafting up of the ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, you're -- and there's been
a lot of time and energy and effort put into it at this point in time, and
I don't think it would hurt to take it to the next step.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Finn, may I ask a question?
Page 183
June 24, 2003
MR. FINN: Sure.
MR. MUDD: Iftpe -- with the commission's indulgence.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please do.
MR. MUDD: Do you have to be right next to a saltwater
source? Can you -- can you bring it into a tank and then feed the --
feed the clams and then renew it that way, or does it have to have
some nutrients in it so that they can cleanse through? .
MR. FINN: It should be in close association with the water.
MR. MUDD: What I was thinking about, Commissioner
Coletta, you have a package plant in Copeland, okay, that's going to
come off line, it has a tank, holds water, and I was -- you know --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They need saltwater.
MR. MUDD: Not arguing the point, that's why I asked the
question, okay? Because you've got a community that's got a plant
that's sitting there and they're trying to figure out what they're going
to do with it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: They want to raise shrimp.
MR. FINN: That may be -- shrimp may be a better idea, you
know. This has to be right --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
MR. FINN: -- next to the water, and you also want it right
behind a home in case you have a pump break down, you know, you
can -- there to service your tiniest little clams. The operation is not
necessarily going all year. It may be a seasonal thing. We don't
know yet because we haven't started to work with it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The motion is very unclear to me, so
I'm going to withdraw my second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'd like to -- well, I'd
still like to direct staff to be able to come back with something to see
if we could offer something that would meet the needs of the clam
farming industry, as they've been working with us for a long time,
and I'd like to see if they -- if we could get a presentation from staff
Page 184
June 24, 2003
that we could look at different options, be it an overlay, being that
possibly we might be able to make it just a conditional use of some
type.
I don't know what all the different options are, but I'd certainly
like to see us explore it so that we don't have this venture that we've
been working on so long go by the wayside.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Joe, can I offer something?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Instead -- well, I'm saying to Joe.
Instead of the Goodland overlay --
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- why don't we say, clam farming,
conditional use, on their overlay, and then it needs to come back to
the board with a super majority, and you always have the input of the
residents?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That would be -- excellent
point.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I mean, just -- that's within the
overlay, and it won't take any staff time to do that. And it's -- the
second amendments are in the process now. Did it go through
DSAC, the second amendments?
MR. SCHMITT: That's going to be in the third cycle, so they
haven't even see that yet.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: But that's exactly what Commissioner Fiala
recommended and Captain Finn --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is that what you've been saying?
MR. SCHMITT: As Captain Finn mentioned --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did before, and I thought yours
sounded better than mine.
MR. SCHMITT: We -- I certainly would support that. But it's
the residents of Goodland, it's their proposal, it's their overlay.
Page 185
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And when they come through with
the overlay, they're going to tell us whether they like it or not, so
why don't we give direction to put the conditional use in?
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then we're going to hear from the
Goodland residents.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And at that time the Board of
Commissioners can decide whether we're going to include it in the
Goodland overlay.
MR. FINN: I'd be surprised if we didn't have near unanimous
acceptance --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine.
MR. FINN: -- from the community. We already have it from
the board of the Goodland Civic Association.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And I -- I'm trying to -- I know there's still
some issues with -- because the Goodland overlay also includes the
signs and some of the other things that they wanted to change
specifically for Goodland, which I think are going to be a little more
of an uphill battle.
So this may go kind of out with -- the baby out with the bath
water, so to speak. But we can go that route. I mean, let the public --
let the public deal with it. They'll deal with it both through the
Planning Commission and then through the board, and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have four nods to do that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman?
MR. FINN: Can I bug you for one more thing also?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, you had --
Page 186
June 24, 2003
MR. FINN: I also had mentioned Chokoloskee and Plantation,
if you can get staff just to look into what it might take to make that
aquaculture for permitted use.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Permitted use.
MR. FINN: I don't know anything about their zoning right there
or not. Just -- Robert Robinson brought it up to me on the phone
yesterday, so I thought I'd bring it before you.
MR. MUDD: We'll look and see if it's ago zoned.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It sounds like somebody -- pardon
me?
MR. MUDD: We'll look and make -- we'll look at the area and
see what's ago zoned and get it to Mr. Finn. That's not a whole lot of
extra effort to give him that stuff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. All right. Great.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
And thank the commission for not clamming up on me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, boy. I tell you, poor. Mr.--
MR. FINN: If this goes through, I'll be happy as a clam.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Mr. Weigel, do you have
anything?
MR. WEIGEL: No, I don't. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: I'm glad you asked.
Item #15A
BCC MEETING DATES: JULY 29 AND JULY 30 IF
NECESSARY; ONE MEETING ONLY TO BE HELD IN
NOVEMBER ON NOVEMBER 18; DECEMBER MEETINGS TO
Mr. Chairman, first of all, my apologies to the board. You
Page 187
June 24, 2003
received two articles today, okay, to the dais from staff, and you had
no time to review. I put that direction out a couple of times to staff
not to do that. I will continue to make sure that doesn't happen in the
future.
I'd ask the county attorney to help me in that effort, okay,
because sometimes those things show up to the commission and they
have not had a chance to see that item prior to the item on the
agenda, and it's unfair to the board members to do that to you, so my
apologies today. It happened twice, and my blood pressure went up
both times. It really went up when you got that thick packet. And we
will take corrective actions to solve that from not happening again.
Next, 29 meeting July is a two-day meeting, so schedule two
days, 29 and 30, depending on the agenda, because it's in the middle
of vacation. So I've got the two days. I just wanted to remind you.
Next thing in the schedule, I've looked at November. November
is rather an ugly month if you try to have board meetings on the
second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday. The second Tuesday is the
11 th of November, a national holiday, Veteran's Day.
The fourth Tuesday is right dead in the middle of Thanksgiving
week. So what I would like to recommend to the board as a proposal
is that we have one meeting in November on the third Tuesday,
which is the 18th of November, and that we have two meetings in
December, the first Tuesday and the third Tuesday, which is the
second of December and the 16th of December, and it gets it away
from the holidays and the issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you plan -- would you plan
the November meeting to be two days long then?
MR. MUDD: Not necessarily, because we normally, depending
on -- depending on schedule, we normally -- now, this year we did
two meetings in December, but prior to that, we only had one
meeting in December. And so this basically gives us the same
number of meetings that we've normally had.
Page 188
June 24, 2003
I don't see anything big in 18 November, as far as I can see
forward on this thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is everybody okay with that?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anybody oppose it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't see any opposing. Okay.
MR. MUDD: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I would just like to take a
moment to place a special tribute to Rich King. And I'd just say
farewell to my dear friend and the community's dear friend.
I found out this morning that he'll no longer be with us and that
Saturday was the last day he was able to spend with us here on earth,
and my prayers are for Joan and his family and also for the family of
Mr. Pavlic that I read about in the paper, and his daughter.
And so tonight when you go to bed, make sure to say some
special prayers for those families who are grieving now. And that's
all.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's very nice, Commissioner,
thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I have nothing.
Item #15B
RECOGNITION OF COMMISSIONER COLETTA FOR HIS
CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATE PRESENTED AT THE FACC
CONEERENCR
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I got a paper that was just
Page 189
June 24, 2003
passed to me this afternoon, and this is in regards to Commissioner --
County Commissioner Jim Coletta of District 5. It's in regards to
being honored as the first member of the Board of County
Commissioners to receive a commissioner's certificate -- certification
certificate which was presented to him by the State of Florida by
Lieutenant Tony Jennings at the Florida Association of Counties
2003 Annual Conference held June 18th through the 20th in Orlando,
Florida.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Wow.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations to Jim. He
completed 58 credit hours of study which exceeds the certificate --
certification requirement of 30 credit hours of core and elective
courses.
Commissioner Coletta completed the core classes on ethics,
county government roles, responsibility of county government
structure, and authority and financial management.
In addition, he attended the new commissioners' workshop, he
also took a number of elected courses on a variety of topics,
including health and human services, pension reform, hurricane
recovery and mitigation, understanding and implementing cost
allocation plans, finance, administration, rural caucus, growth and
environmental planning, and hurricane preparedness and response
training. He attended a canvassing board workshop and took a class
entitled State Agencies, Friends or Foe.
And I think we should give Commissioner Coletta a hand for
this great accomplishment.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Anything else, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And -- no, I'm glad we're getting
out of here early though. Thank you very much.
Page 190
June 24, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're welcome.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing else. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I just wanted to check in.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good meeting, by the way.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It went so quickly. I would have
never thought we would have been out of here --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, never would have guessed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- before nine o'clock tonight.
Great meeting.
Item #15C
TO DO A PROCLAMATION ENCOURAGING LEMONADE
STANDS THROUGHOUT THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BCC DURING
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The -- two things. One thing, we've
__ the -- Naples has got some national press, in my opinion, it's not
the best of press, and it's issues dealing around lemonade stands.
And I would like to see if the board is willing to pass a resolution
encouraging children to have lemonade stands throughout the
unincorporated area of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And sell Girl Scout cookies, too?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Without getting permits?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Lemonade stands are something -- a
symbol of America's -- Americanism just like a hot dog and apple
pIe.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It sure is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And ma and grandpa and baseball.
Page 191
June 24, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I sure agree with you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you going to -- are you going
to propose that as a resolution? I'll --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel is going to do that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll jump on that bandwagon.
MR. WEIGEL: We'll be happy to put something together. And
I wondered, in terms of decorum and officialdom, if you would want
a proclamation or a resolution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Proclamation.
MR. WEIGEL: And if we were to do so, are you talking about
to be directed to do so today effective from this point forward, or to
come back -- July 29th's a long ways away as far as that goes. And
the news and timing --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we do it now?
MS. FILSON: You have a budget meeting on Friday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. We could do it during the
budget meeting.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I'd like to work with Ms. Filson and put
together a very good proclamation in that regard.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fantastic.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Good suggestion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. Love those little kids selling
lemonade. I try to stop by as much as I can. I don't golf or anything
like that. But you're standing out there -- but I don't do that. They're
not on the water, so -- be nice to see some in the county.
Commissioner Halas -- you already had your time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to follow up on that, I have a
little plaque in my office that said, lemonade, $22.50 a glass. It's not
the cost of lemonade. It's all the permits and regulations and
Page 192
June 24, 2003
everything else, so --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Where did you get that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So you want to stop by my office,
it gives you an idea of what you -- what the little kids run into these
days when they try to sell a glass of lemonade.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've got a neon open sign you
can use.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right. Just one other thing,
happy birthday, Love, and I'll see you shortly. We're adjourned.
*****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and! or adopted: * * * * *
Item #16A1
OFFSITE REMOVAL OF EXCESS FILL FROM THE PUBLIC
SCHOOL SITE FOR SABAL PALM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
LOCATED AT 4095 18TH AVENUE N.E., BASED UPON A
DETERMINA TION THAT THE EXCA VA TION WORK IS NOT
"COMMERCIAL", AND A "DEVELOPMENT" EXCAVATION
Item #16A2
ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATE SECURITY FOR THE
SUBDIVISON KNOWN AS SIERRA MEADOWS AND NEW
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND ESCROW
AGREEMENT TO BE EXECUTED AND EXISTING SECURITY
TIlBRR.ELEA SED
Item #16A3
Page 193
June 24, 2003
FINAL PLAT OF "VALENCIA GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB,
PHASE ONE", WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY, DRAINAGE AND
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AGREEMENTS AND
Item #16A4
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES POSITION IN THE TOURISM
DEPARTMENT TO BE CONVERTED TO A PERMANENT
EIlL.IclIMEYOSIT.ION
Item #16A5
GLOBAL MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, INC., FOUND
TO BE IN DEFAULT UNDER THE PARTICIPATING PARTY
AGREEMENT (PP A) EXECUTED WITH THE COUNTY ON
AUGUST 3,1999, REGARDING A MANUFACTURING
Item #16A6
RELEASE OF LIENS FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT
RECORDED AS RESOLUTION NO'S: 90-550; 90-101; 91-406;
94-252; AND 94-198 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS.
Item #16A7
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
Page 194
June 24, 2003
BOARD CASE NO.'S 2003-004; WALTER M. CRAWFORD, IV;
2001-018; PHILIP A. AND ANNA MARIA MARRONE; 2002-09
AND 2000-022 SHAIlJ)A Vl.S,.lNC
Item #16A8
FINAL PLAT OF "CHARLEE ESTATES", WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND ADDITIONAL
s..IIflILAIIONS
Item #16A9
FINAL PLAT OF QUAIL WEST PHASE III, UNIT SIX, WITH
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT,
PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND ADDITIONAL
s..IIflILAIIONS
Item #16AI0
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
BOLERO AT TIBURON, PELICAN MARSH WITH RELEASE OF
Item #16All
GRANT PROPOSAL TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE TO FUND WETLAND PLANTINGS
Item #16A12
Page 195
June 24, 2003
COLLIER COUNTY TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH VISIT
NAPLES, INC. TO BE TERMINATED AND EXISTING
Item #16A13
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE TOURISM AGREEMENT
WITH KELLEY SWAFFORD AND ROY, INC., FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN FY02/03 EMERGENCY/DISASTER
RELIEF MARKETING BUDGET PLAN OF UP TO $320,000 IF
NEEDED TO INCREASE VISITATION TO COLLIER COUNTY
AFTER AN EMERGENCY, DISASTER OR SERIOUS
SI-,OWDOWN..ill.TIlliRI
Item #16A14
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY "A" BEACH PARK
FACILITIES GRANT APPLICATION FOR CLAM PASS
Item #16A15
FINAL PLAT OF "ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE
TRAFFORD- PHASE ONE", WITH CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Item #16A16
PROGRAM ESTABLISHED TO ASSIST IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING RENTAL
Page 196
June 24, 2003
Item #16A17
RESOLUTION 2003-218 AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION
TO THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) FOR URBAN COUNTY RE-
QUALIFICATION FOR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
EROGRAMEOREISCA LYEARS 2004-2006
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2003-219 PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF
MARCO ISLAND'S CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN
COLLIER COUNTY'S URBAN COUNTY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND HOME PROGRAMS
Item #16A19
RESOLUTION 2003-220 PERTAINING TO THE CITY OF
NAPLES CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN COLLIER
COUNTY'S URBAN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT AND HOME PROGRAMS FOR FEDERAL
EJSCALYEARS 2004-2006
Item #16A20
IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENTS TOTALING $11,978.94 FOR
PERMIT NO. 2002102534, DEERBROOKE, INC; NO.
2002102814, MCGARVEY CUSTOM HOMES AND NO.
2002102668, ATLANTIC GULF CONSTRUCTION DUE TO
Page 197
June 24, 2003
Item #16A21
IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENTS TOTALING $9,960.82 FOR
PERMIT NO. 2002100649, SOUTHERN GULF WEST
CONSTRUCTION; PERMIT NO. 2002102093, CUSTOM CRAFT
HOMES OF NAPLES; INC.; PERMIT NO. 2002023541, RALPH
GODDARD DUE TO OVERPAYMENT FOR BUILDING
ffiRMITS
Item #16A22
CONTRACT 03-3504 FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR
GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IMPACT FEE STUDY - AWARDED
TO TINDALE-OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE
AMO.llNI..OE$ 72, 144
Item #16A23
TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NAPLES FOR T-
GROIN MONITORING NEAR GORDON PASS, PROJECT 90005,
Item #16A24-CRA CONSENT ITEM
SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PERIOD FROM
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND HOUSING
DEPARTMENT FOR THE STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM IN THE GA TEW A Y
Page 198
June 24, 2003
Item #16A25
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING MONIES FROM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES FUND 113, BUILDING PERMIT RESERVES TO
CAPITAL FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF THE EXISTING
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
Item #16A26
RESOLUTION 2003-221 SUPPORTING THE SOUTH FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S DESIGNATION OF
NAPLES BAY AS A SURF ACE WATER AND IMPROVEMENT
Item #16A27
BUDGET AMENDMENT TRANSFERRING MONIES FROM
RESERVES TO OPERATING AND CAPITAL WITHIN THE
IMPACT FEE SECTION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Item #16A28
FIRST AMENDMENT TO TOURISM AGREEMENT WITH
EVANS-KLAGES, INC., FOR EXPANDED MARKET
RESEARCH SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,400
Item #16Bl- Moved To Item #10J
Page 199
June 24, 2003
Item #16B2
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
AMERICAN FUNDING AND SERVICE CORPORATION AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE FUTURE LANDSCAPING AND
Item #16B3
Item #16B4
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY
AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, HENDRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
FOR CONTINUED USE OF INMATE LABOR IN ROAD
MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT A COST OF
Item #16B5
BID #03-3511, IMMOKALEE ROAD MOWING MSTD
ROADWAY GROUNDS MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF
$199,940 AWARDED TO COMMERCIAL LAND
MA.INIENAN.Ca-lC
Item #16B6
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 01-3216-A01, WITH WOODS
HOLE GROUP FOR THE HALDEMAN CREEK RESTORATION
PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 51011) IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,329
Page 200
June 24, 2003
Item #16B7
RFP 03-3462 "FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL PLANNING
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION" AWARDED TO TBE GROUP; RW A
CONSULTING; COASTAL ENGINEERING; GEORGE F.
YOUNG AND Q.GRADY MINOR (NOT TO EXCEED $500,000
Item #16B8
BID #03-3516, DEVONSHIRE BOULEVARD IRRIGATION
INSTALLATION AWARDED TO HANNULA IRRIGATION,
Item #16C1
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3427
"ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, REMEDIATION AND
RESTORATION SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY WITH
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. (PSI);
MACTEC AND METCALF & EDDY; STAFF TO NEGOTIATE
~
Item #16C2
TWO (2) BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PROJECT MANAGEMENT
COSTS RELATED TO THE VANDERBILT LAGOON
RE.SIORAII.illlY
Page 201
June 24, 2003
Item #16C3
03-3484 "FIXED TERM INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT (ESTIMATED
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1 ,000,000) AWARDED TO THE
FOLLOWING FIRMS: CAMP, DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC.; Q.
GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES; AND MCKIM AND
CREED
Item #16C4
BID 03-3499R, SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION
FACILITY BELT PRESS WALKWAY MODIFICATIONS,
AWARDED TO NR CONTRACTORS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT
0E.$39,:)00
Item #16C5
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY
Item # 16C6
BID #03-3514 AWARDED TO PERKINELMER FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS
SPECTROMETER SYSTEM FOR THE POLLUTION CONTROL
DEPARTMENT TO ANALYZE SURFACE/GROUND/WASTE
WATER AND DRINKING WATER IN THE AMOUNT OF
~
Item # 16C7
Page 202
June 24, 2003
WORK ORDER # GH-FT-03-06 UNDER CONTRACT 00-3119
AND BUDGET AMENDMENT CREATING A NEW PUBLIC
UTILITIES PROJECT TO PREPARE A 2003 UPDATE TO THE
RECLAIMED WATER MASTER PLAN AND REUSE RATE
STUDY WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN, L.L.C. IN THE
AMOl1NI..OE.$4 9,926
Item #16C8
CONVEYANCE OF UTILITY EASEMENTS TO FLORIDA
POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACILITIES TO SERVE THE
SOUTH COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
EXPANSION PROJECT 73949, AT AN AMOUNT NOT TO
RXCEED..$:)O.OO
Item #16C9
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR
Item #16C10
ACCEPTANCE OF EASEMENT FOR 12-INCH POTABLE
WATER LINE AND ASSOCIATED WATER FACILITIES
EXECUTED BY RELLEUM, INC., REGARDING THE
BALMORA.LEllD
Item #16C11
WORK ORDER #UC-054 UNDER CONTRACT 02-3345,
Page 203
June 24, 2003
AWARDED TO KYLE CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $210,000.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE AND
IRRIGATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT
PELICAN BAY WOODS IN PELICAN BAY, PROJECT NO.
14023
Item #16C12
DONATION AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY
AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FROM
HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP AND GREY OAKS COUNTRY
CLUB, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II OF THE
SEWER INTERCONNECT PROJECT TO REDIRECT FLOW
BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY SEWER
SYSTEMS AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $550 (PROJECT NO.
73076)
Item #16C13
DONATION AGREEMENT AND AN AMENDED UTILITY
EASEMENT FROM HALST A TT PARTNERSHIP FOR PHASE I
SEWER INTERCONNECT PROJECT WHICH REDIRECTS
FLOW BETWEEN THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNTY SEWER
SYSTEMS AT A COSLNQITIlF,XCEED..$:)OO.OO
Item #16C14
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS
FROM UNINCORPORATED GENERAL FUND, FUND 111, TO
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES, FUNDS 411 AND
413, TO REIMBURSE THESE FUNDS FOR CONSULTANT
SERVICES PERFORMED FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE COUNTY
Page 204
June 24, 2003
Item #16C15
WORK ORDER #UC-055 UNDER 02-3345 WITH KYLE
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $240,000 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE AND IRRIGATION WATER
SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS AT OAKMONT IN PELICAN BAY,
E.ROlECI..N 0 74023
Item #16C16
RESOLUTION 2003-222 AUTHORIZING THE LOAN
APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) FOR THE STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM FOR THE NORTH
COUNTY WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY (NCWRF)
EXPANSION TO 24. I-MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (MGD)
MAXIMUM MONTH AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MMADF)
SOLIDS STREAM
Item #16C17
WORK ORDER AMENDMENT #1 DEFERRED UNDER
CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH HUMISTON AND MOORE
ENGINEERS FOR HIDEAWAY BEACH ACCESS
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 90511, PENDING APPROVAL OF
~Cy
Item #16C18
Page 205
June 24, 2003
WORK ORDER HM-FT-03-02 UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271
FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH
HUMISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS_FOR HIDEAWAY
BEACH RENOURISHMENT PERMITTING, PROJECT 90502, IN
IHE..AMO.I..INI 03,000
Item #16C19
WORK ORDER CPE-FT-03-04 AND CPE-FT-03-05 UNDER
CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED TERM PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PROJECTS, WITH COASTAL PLANNING AND
ENGINEERING FOR SAND SEARCH PHASE 3 AND MARINE
RESOURCES INVESTIGATION RESPECTIVELY, AS PART OF
COUNTY-WIDE SAND SEARCH, PROJECT 90527, IN THE
AMO.llNI..OE..$R 99,000
Item #16C20
WORK ORDER GH-FT-03-05 UNDER CONTRACT 00-3119
WITH GREELEY AND HANSEN, LLP, TO CONDUCT THE 2003
UPDATES TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER
PLAN AND IMPACT FEE STUDIES, FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$~S 70070 AND 73066
Item #16D1
PARCEL 114 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 35, LOCATED
ON SOLL STREET, (PROPOSED LIVINGSTON WOODS
Page 206
June 24, 2003
Item #16D2
BID NO. 03-3486 FOR THE PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY
MEDICATIONS FOR EMS DEP ARTMENT AWARDED TO
AERO PRODUCTS, ALLIANCE MEDICAL, BIOMEDICAL
INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS, RX
EMS, SE EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT, AND SUN BELT
MElli.CAI '
Item #16D3
MODIFICATION OF PURCHASE ORDER #4500010298 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,600.00 WITH ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR FOR
Item #16D4
SCREEN PRINTING UNLIMITED ADDED AS AN ADDITIONAL
VENDOR TO CONTRACT #03-3478 FOR T-SHIRTS FOR
Item #16D5
DONATION AGREEMENT FROM DAVID W. FISHER AND
KAY J. BRITT, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEES OF THE HAROLD
W. FISHER TRUST, FOR A FUTURE PLAYGROUND IN
COPELAND AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $2,700;
OUTSTANDING LOT CLEARING LIENS TO BE WAIVED
Item #16D6
Page 207
June 24, 2003
CHANGE ORDER #5 UNDER CONTRACT #99-2947 WITH
BELLOMO-HERBERT AND CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$77,358.75 FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN WORK FOR NORTH
Item #16D7
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
FUNDING OF THE HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED
Item #16D8
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
FUNDING OF THE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE INITIATIVE
GRANT
Item #16D9
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING ACTUAL GRANT
AWARD AMOUNT ($2,436) PROVIDED TO THE RSVP
PROGRAM THROUGH THE NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
SEJnUCR.SENIQR CORP
Item #16D10
BUDGET AMENDMENT ENSURING CONTINOUS FUNDING
OF THE HOME CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT UNDER
Item #16D11
Page 208
June 24, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT ENSURING CONTINUOUS FUNDING
OF THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GRANT
Item #16D12
AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE SOUTHEASTERN LIBRARY NETWORK (SOLINET) FOR
ON-LINE BIBLIOGRAPHIC CATALOGING INFORMATION
Item #16D13
SOLE SOURCE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH MEDTRONIC
PHYSIO-CONTROL FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND
UPGRADE OF LIFEP AK MONITORS FOR THE EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$33,132
Item #16E1
KPMG PEAT MARWICK TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF THE
EXISTING SAP CONFIGURATION UNDER THE CURRENT
EXTERNAL AUDITOR SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A
NEGOTIATED COST OF $68,000 INCLUDING FEES AND
E.XEENSF,S
Item #16E2
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY PLAN TO BE MAINTAINED ON FILE
Page 209
June 24, 2003
ACCORDING TO THE U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR
Item # 16E3
ACCEPTANCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE ORDER
REPORT AND RATIFICATION ON THE LIST OF CHANGE
Item #16E4
AUTHORIZING THE ENGLERT MANUFACTURERS 20 YEAR
LIMITED WEATHER TIGHTNESS WARRANTY SERIES 2500,
2" MECHANICALLY SEAMED ROOFING SYSTEM AS
INSTALLED AT THE MAX HASSE COMMUNITY CENTER
IlNDER CONIRACLNO. 00-312R
Item #16E5
PAYMENT FOR TEMPORARY LIVING EXPENSES AND
RELOCATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY JAMES W. DELONY
FROM JUNE 17 TO NOVEMBER 17, 2002 AUTHORIZED IN
Item #16F1
MODIFICATION #1 OF GRANT #03-FT-1B-09-21-01-341
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND COLLIER COUNTY
REGARDING THE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLANNING
GRANT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY
Page 210
June 24, 2003
Item #16G1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE BUDGETED
REVENUES AND EXPENSES FOR THE SALE AND PURCHASE
OF AVIATION FUEL AT MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE
AIRE.ORT
Item #16I1
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR
REEERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 211
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
June 24, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
A. Districts:
1. Tuscany Reserve Community District - Minutes of Meeting held on
4/1 0/03
B. Minutes:
1. Pelican Bay Services - Agenda for June 4, 2003, Minutes of May 7, 2003,
Agenda for Wednesday May 7, 2003, Minutes of April 2, 2003.
2. Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for May 12,2003.
3. Collier County Library Advisory Board - Agenda for April 23, 2003,
Minutes of March 26, 2003.
4. Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board Summary - Minutes of April
3,2003. Minutes of May 8, 2003, Agenda for May 8, 2003.
5. Forest Lakes Advisory Committee - Minutes of May 9,2003, May 30,
2003.
6. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Agenda for May 28,
2003.
,;
7. Historical & archaeological Preservation Board - Agenda for May 21,
2003, Minutes of April 16, 2003. Minutes from the Meeting of April 16,
2003
8. Community Character/Smart Growth Committee - Agenda and Minutes, of
May 7,2003 and Agenda and Minutes for May 14,2003. Agenda and
Minutes of April 9, 2003 and Agenda and Minutes of April 23, 2003
9. Development Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for June 4,2003,
Minutes of May 7, 2003.
10. Collier County Citizens Corps Advisory Committee - Minutes, Agenda
for April 17, 2003 of April 17, 2003.
H:Data/F ormat
11. Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for
May 21, 2003, Minutes for April 16, 2003.
12. Citizen's Advisory Task Force - Agenda for May 9, 2003.
13. Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for May 15, 2003;
Minutes of April 17, 2003. Agenda for June 5, 2003, Minutes of May 1,
2003.
14. Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for June
11,2003, Minutes of May 14,2003.
15. Health and Human Services Advisory Committee - Agenda for May 15,
2003, Minutes of January 16,2003.
16. Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Committee - Minutes of April 14,
2003.
17. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Committee-
November 6, 2002.
18. Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board - Minutes of October
2002.
19. Collier County Productivity Committee - Minutes of April 16, 2003.
20. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board-
Minutes of October 21, 2002.
21. Vanderbilt Beach M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee - Agenda for June 2,
2003, Minutes of May 1,2003
C. Other:
,;
1) Guy L. Carlton - Collier County Tax Collector Budget Amendment
H:Data/Format
June 24, 2003
Item #16J1
DETERMINATION THAT THE PURCHASES OF GOODS AND
SERVICES DOCUMENTED IN THE DETAILED REPORT OF
OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS FROM MAY 31, 2003 THROUGH
JUNE 13, 2003 SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
EXPENDITURE OF COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID
Item # 16J2
FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT TO FILE THE
STATE OF FLORIDA ANNUAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002, IN
EXECUTED FORM, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING
ANIlEINANCF,
Item #16K1
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE FOR
ALL CLAIMS RELATING TO CASE NO. 03-230-CA, COLLIER
COUNTY VS. THE CARLISLE AT NAPLES, LTD. REGARDING
Item #16K2
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCELS 113 AND 713 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY VS. FAITH BIBLE CHURCH OF
NAPLES, INC. ET AL., CASE NO. 99-2165-CA (IMMOKALEE
ROAD, PROJECT NO. 69101) STAFF TO DEPOSIT $39,326.00
Page 212
June 24, 2003
Item #16K3
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR ABATEMENT
OF CODE VIOLATIONS AND COMPROMISE OF LIEN
AMOUNTS IN TWO CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN
FORECLOSURES ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V.
ANTHONY J. VARANO, CASE NO. 99-4226-CA AND 00-3430-
CA wIIH..SIINIL.AIIS
Item # 1 7 A
RESOLUTION 2003-223 REGARDING PETITION CU-2002-AR-
3054, JAMES E. MCDONALD OR KAREN P . SHELTON,
REPRESENTING THE TRUSTEES OF VANDERBILT
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE
"2" (CHURCHES AND HOUSES OF WORSHIP) AND
CONDITIONAL USE "4" (CHILD CARE) OF THE RSF-3
ZONING DISTRICT FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH AND THE
USE FOR A PRE-SCHOOL AND CHILD CARE WITHIN THE
EXISTING CHURCH LOCATED AT 1225 AND 1301 PIPER
Item # 17B-Continued To The July 29, 2003 Meeting
PETITION PUDZ-2003-AR-3607, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP
OF HOOVER PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
REPRESENTING BARTON AND WENDY MCINTYRE AND
JOSEPH MAGDALENER, REQUESTING CHANGES TO THE
EXISTING NICAEA ACADEMY PUD ZONING TO ELIMINATE
THE USES OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND A ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY AND ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM OF 580
Page 213
June 24, 2003
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF
Item #17C
ORDINANCE 2003-28 REGARDING PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-
2869, D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR &
ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING PANTHER
DEVELOPMENT, L.P., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD"
TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HAVING THE
EFFECT OF CHANGING THE NAME FROM RONTO
LIVINGSTON PUD TO TUSCANY RESERVE PUD, CHANGING
OWNERSHIP, REDUCING DWELLING UNITS, REDUCING
DENSITY, AND ADDING A VILLAGE CENTER LAND USE
DISTRICT; FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF
INTERSTATE-75 AND EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AT THE
Item #17D
ORDINANCE 2003-29 REGARDING PETITION PUDZ-02-AR-
3161, ROBERT DUANE OF HOLE MONTES, INC.,
REPRESENTING THE BOTANICAL GARDENS INC.,
REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "C-3" "RSF-3" "RSF-4"
, , ,
"RSF-5" "RMF-6" AND "PUD" TO PUD PLANNED UNIT
" ,
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NAPLES
BOTANICAL GARDEN PUD FOR AN EDUCATION CENTER,
CONSERVATORY, EXHIBITION GALLERY, MAINTENANCE
NURSERY, PEDISTRIAN WAYS THROUGH VARIOUS
GARDEN AREAS AND A THEATER FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BA YSHORE DRIVE
Page 214
June 24, 2003
ANrrIHOM ASSONllRlYE
Item #17E
ORDINANCE 2003-30, REGARDING PETITION PUDZ-2002-
2433, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTING DAVID A. CUSTER
OF H.D. DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "A" AGRICULTURE TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS H.D. DEVELOPMENT
PUD FOR 104 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1.25 MILES EAST OF OAKES
BOULEVARD
Item #17F
ORDINANCE 2003-31 REGARDING PETITION SE-AR-4038, AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 02-26, THE
AMERISITE REZONE TO CORRECT A SCRIVENERS ERROR
RESULTING FROM THE UNINTENTIONAL INCLUSION OF
AN INCORRECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THE
TRANSMITTAL COpy OF THE ADOPTED ORDINANCE TO
DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON
Item #17G
RESOLUTION 2003-224 REGARDING PETITION SNR-2003-AR-
3868, KATHLEEN BAILIE OF BONNIESS, INC.,
REPRESENTING KATHLEEN COURT PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., REQUESTING A STREET NAME
Page 215
June 24, 2003
CHANGE FOR THAT PORTION OF HOUCHIN STREET WHICH
BEGINS AT THE INTERSECTION OF SEWARD AVENUE AND
Item #17H
ORDINANCE 2003-32 REGARDING ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 74 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS
AND ORDINANCES; COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED
IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, 2001-13, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR THE
REIMBURSEMENT OF IMP ACT FEES, AUTHORIZING THE
ASSESSMENT OF A NON-REFUNDABLE "IMPACT FEE
REIMBURSEMENT PROCESSING FEE" AND PROVIDING
CLARIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES
Item #17I- Withdrawn
PETITION ADA-03-AR-4050, C. LANE WOOD, OF QUARLES
AND BRADY, LLP, REPRESENTING WILLIAM T. HIGGS,
OWNER OF WHITE LAKE CORPORATE PARK PUD,
REQUESTING AN APPEAL TO INTERPRETATION AR-3202
WHICH WAS RENDERED ON MARCH 26, 2003, REGARDING
PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PREVAILING OVER
REGULATIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE AND INTERPRETATION REGARDING
BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS OF PUD ORDINANCE 01-59
PREVAILING OVER THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS OF
ORllINANC.P 03-0~
Item #17J- Continued To July 29, 2003 Meeting
Page 216
June 24, 2003
PETITION PUDZ-2002-AR-2841, RICHARD WOODRUFF, AICP,
OF WILSON MILLER INC., AND R. BRUCE ANDERSON,
ESQUIRE, OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP, VARNADOE AND
ANDERSON, P.A., REPRESENTING U.S. HOME
CORPORATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL
AGRICUL TURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
TO BE KNOWN AS HERITAGE BAY DRIIPUD LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND
Item #17K- Continued To The July 29, 003 BCC Meeting
PETITION DRI-2000-01, RICHARD WOODRUFF, OF WILSON
MILLER, INC., REPRESENTING U.S HOME CORPORATION,
REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR
THE HERIT AGE BAY DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT (DRI) LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD
Item #17L
ORDINANCE 2003-33 REGARDING PUDZ-2002-AR-3512, D.
WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP, OF Q. GRADY MINOR AND
ASSOCIATES, P.A., AND RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH OF
GOODLETTE, COLEMAN AND JOHNSON, P.A.,
REPRESENTING TBI/NAPLES L TD, REQUESTING A REZONE
FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY
KNOWN AS NAPLES FOREST COUNTRY CLUB TO NOW BE
NAMED NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB PUD, LOCATED
AT THE NW CORNER OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND
Page 217
June 24, 2003
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3 :27 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
TO~i'~an
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
", \,:\ . f;.1i .,'
~-) ~ " .
,,:0 , .. ,"
. '
'h "~"J ~ )..
.04 :'~'., .,' .f.l:Jf', ..~~ I vC-
~_!J toCltli..... s
s 10f\ft__. OIly.
These minutes approved by the Board on
presented v or as corrected
'1-2~~03
, as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 218